Father Inire Theory cont.

Gerry Quinn · 13 Dec 2010, 16:04 · from 2010-December.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: gerryq at indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:04:59 -0000
Subject: (urth) Father Inire Theory cont.
References: <SNT123-W46300820E80EF11AB450CCF120 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <2477B621C8DC4CBCA2F6049D1F75A399@jill>

From: "Lee Berman" <severiansola at hotmail.com>
>>Andrew Mason: While if a work has another literal meaning, distinct from 
>>the surface one,
>>this will _normally_ subvert the surface meaning.  In discovering what 
>>really happens, we
>>discover that we were wrong about what seemed to happen. I now know 
>>(because you have explained)
>>that this is not what you were claiming about Wolfe.
>
> Correct. This should have been clear from the portion of the discussion 
> where I posited that Wolfe
> himself suggests there are seven levels of interpretation to his work. 
> Perhaps we can agree that any
> author who bothered to undercut and subvert his own message seven times 
> over is just being a pain in
> the ass.
>
> The multiple layers support each other they don't undercut. Thus if the 
> superficial text is unclear
> about the origins, motivations or eventual history of a character like 
> Severian or Typhon or Father
> Inire, we can deduce them by studying their legendary model or conflated 
> models,

Yes - the multiple layers should support each other!  When they conflict, it 
likely means that something is wrong with our ideas about one or more of 
them.


>>For instance, when asked who Blood's father was he [Wolfe] said, quite 
>>straighforwardly, 'Patera Pike'
>
> These occasions are nice, perhaps. But so extremely rare that they can't 
> be of much use in your quest to
> determine which Wolfean answer are "right". Moreover the unhappy truth is 
> that Gene Wolfe will be dead
> soon and, as I've heard he kept no notes, that source of determining 
> "rightness" will be forever lost
> to us. I hope you will not fall into the thinking errors of Gerry Quinn 
> who seems to have decided that
> his calculations of "probabiity" and "likelihood" of rightness are general 
> truths and not based on
> personal feelings.

I don't say anything of the sort, as you well know.  I do say that there 
*are* criteria that can be used to gauge the likelihood of rightness of 
different interpretations.  The extent to which different interpretations - 
derived from different levels or the same ones - support or contradict each 
other is a powerful clue in this regard.


>>even if I accept that a work has more than one reading, incompatible but 
>>equally real, this does not
>>mean that I will accept every reading of it.
>
> Nor has anyone suggested you should. We help each other here. Share ideas. 
> But ultimately, despite Gerry's
> screams of denial, our interpretations of Gene Wolfe's work can never be 
> more than our "own personal mythology"
> that each of us have built for ourselves. You can borrow what you like and 
> build what works for you.

You are claiming in essence that all readings are equally valid.  I doubt I 
am the only one to disagree.

- Gerry Quinn

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net