thoughts on Nigel price's response

Jonathan Laidlow · 29 Apr 1999, 16:36 · from urth-v0026.mbox · original

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: "Jonathan Laidlow" <LAIDLOJM at hhs.bham.ac.uk>
Subject: (urth) thoughts on Nigel price's response
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 16:36:41 GMT
Message-ID: <urth-v0026-0060 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0026/0060.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Nigel.
Haven't time to give your comments the thought they deserve just yet,=20
but I do need to clarify my own (and I know I'm right, so there!)

My post was an attempt at a general rebuff to those (like Borski) who=20
try to produce a 'classic realist' interpretation of the Urth cycle=20
where everything coheres and we get a clear picture of everything as=20
if it were a 19th century realist novel. Classic realism is a rather=20
outdated critical concept from the 70s which attempted a rather=20
misguided critique of 19th century novels and attempted to refine the=20
broad idea of 'realism'. Briefly put, Classic realism is texts which=20
attempt in some way to 'capture' the 'essence' of reality in some=20
way, to present an illusion to the reader. Yet texts such as these=20
always in some way undermine themselves. Good example I used in my=20
finals paper - Elizabeth Gaskell's 'Mary Barton' shows at great=20
length the suffering of the industrial poor, yet in a crucial scene=20
where the workers meet the industrialists, the omniscient narrator=20
comments that if only each side could understand the other's position=20
a little, then all could be resolved. They cannot, and tragedy=20
ensues. Gaskell contradicts herself in that despite showing the=20
suffering, she cannot identify the cause of the suffering in any real=20
terms. Of course this is based on a materialist/Marxist reading, and=20
falls down when you consider the market for the book, and the reading=20
audience were all middle class- you don't alienate your readers if=20
you can help it....

Anyway - I object to a 'realist' reading of Wolfe that attempts to=20
decide what kind of android Jonas was, whether the navigator was=20
Kennedy, or whether we can easily locate the position of Christianity=20
in Urth's past. Not because this may not be possible, but that it=20
misses the point. Wolfe surely was not trying to perpetrate 19th=20
century 'illusionism' - to make us enter Sev's world and 'experience=20
it'. The text demands an extra layer of reading beyond the realist=20
level, into the figurative.

Of course Urth has continuity with Earth, but on a fictional level.=20
Let us not make the mistake of viewing this as a viable potential=20
future. Of course Urth has a degree of 'realism'. When Clute calls=20
Wofle a 'modernist' we must remember that they were dismissing the=20
old school of realist and 19th century novel (however misguided that=20
may be) and attempting to forge a better kind of realism. Joyce's=20
'Ulysses' is an attempt to truely capture just one day in Dublin,=20
through a literary style that does not rely on attempting to =20
present the illusion of reality, but by reminding us of it. The true=20
connection between Earth and Urth is in its stories - the story of=20
the silver knight on the moon - the story of a saviour -=20
Frankenstein. Remember that Wolfe doesn't just use stories, he uses=20
genres of stories - like the fantastic Dickens stuff in the beginning=20
of 'Shadow'.

Of course Christianity figures in the texts - but whether it lies in=20
Urth's past or future (remember- Wolfe is translating these texts -=20
where did he get them?) does not matter to me. I like your reverse=20
typology idea - its a fantastic way of describing Wolfe's use of=20
Christian theology. I look forward to forcing you to elaborate.=20

So can fictional worlds not show us valid, important, and 'real'=20
moral choices? Of course they can. I never said that they couldn't.=20
What I object to is the attempt to apply a false version of 'realism'=20
to Wolfe. What critical purpose is achieved by deciding the class of=20
mechanical being Jonas is? Isn't it enough that he is one??=20

I think what it comes down to is a way of reading that recognises the=20
fictional nature of these texts - we are constantly reminded after=20
all that much of the text is about story-telling - but still=20
acknowledges their power and the importance of what they are saying.=20
Of course there should be internal consistency (the fact that there=20
isn't always is a further reminder of the metafictional nature of the=20
texts) but the way that the whole Urth cycle works is that is not=20
'realistic' in that Urth could be recreated from these novels, but=20
the stories told map onto stories that we already know, and present=20
an interesting reconfiguration.

And I still couldn't recognise Severian if I met him on the street.

Thats it - I have to leave work right now and go home

I'm sending this to Nigel and cross-posting to URTH - look forward to=20
you all joining in....

Jonathan

Visit Ultan's Library - A Gene Wolfe web resource
http://members.tripod.co.uk/laidlow/index.htm
Jonathan Laidlow
University of Birmingham, UK

*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/

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