theories

Sergei SOLOVIEV · 23 Oct 2011, 18:18 · from 2011-October.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: soloviev at irit.fr (Sergei SOLOVIEV)
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 20:18:55 +0200
Subject: (urth) theories
In-Reply-To: <706D79F9-4901-43B6-A636-7881B99925D7 at liftingfaces.com>
References: <4EA432EE.9060907 at irit.fr><DE2C24CA-46ED-4FBE-B42D-E954D86F0BBB at liftingfaces.com><4EA44518.5020506 at irit.fr>	<A730DD87-F844-4E8B-9BD3-EDBC09224901 at liftingfaces.com>	<B87ADAF9C6A647939C4CA51DF59ACB23@Rover>
	<706D79F9-4901-43B6-A636-7881B99925D7 at liftingfaces.com>
Message-ID: <4EA45A8F.5010104 at irit.fr>

Dear Ryan,

I see the flaw in the theory that the boatman is Inire because the
it was suggested before that Inire has some diabolic aspects
(the authors of this theory tried to identify him also with the
"healer" in Vodalus army who drained the boy and indulged
also in "sadopedophilic" practices with him), and it would mean
that Severian has, at least partly, diabolic origin. It is this
theory that reminds me Polyanski and seems not compatible
with the message of Gene Wolfe. It is not
the question, whether the boatman reminds me about Polyanski,
it is the question of the theory that does. And it is not just a 
question of arbitrary decision
(my arbitrariness against yours).

Sergei

Ryan Dunn wrote:
>> I?m sorry if it bothers you that I think there are right approaches 
>> and wrong ones. 
>
> - But who gets to decide which are which, Gerry? Sergio, for instance, 
> doesn't like Inire as boatman because it reminds him more of Roman 
> Polanski than Gene Wolfe. Who is to define and uphold what "Wolfean" 
> means and to what extent? You? Me? Sergio? Most certainly NOT.
>
>
>> But it seems to me that all approaches to understanding Wolfe ? or 
>> any author ? cannot be equally useful.
>
> - Again, who's approach do you endorse besides your own? Who gets to 
> decide what is useful and what is fruitless? You? Me? What if you have 
> it wrong? What if Gene called you up and told you you had it wrong and 
> were reading it wrong and that Agia is a robot and Inire is Fechin? 
> Then what?
>
>
>> I think reading his works as cryptic crossword puzzles and 
>> brainstorming for clues is an approach that is unlikely to be effective.
>
> - I'd say you couldn't be more off base here, Gerry. Sorry. His BotNS 
> series is most DEFINITELY an enigma wrapped inside a mystery, and 
> meant to be studied and analyzed over time. Gene truly expected the 
> reader to infer everything you learned in UotNS within the first four 
> volumes, which means there likely are/were shape shifters in the 
> original volume, and Severian likely had a child with a hierodule.
>
> - As for brainstorming for clues, who is doing that? Asking whether 
> someone things a part of the text is a clue is different from 
> brainstorming unique ones. Sometimes you need some help in parsing a 
> line of thought, or interpreting the substance (or lack thereof) of 
> this occurrence or the other.
>
> - I'm really not personally offended here, just surprised that someone 
> on an Urth discussion list would be so presumptuous as to decree the 
> right and wrong way to read a book.
>
> ...ryan
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

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