barrington interview

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 07 Oct 2014, 15:57 · from 2014-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: danldo at gmail.com (Dan'l Danehy-Oakes)
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 08:57:34 -0700
Subject: (urth) barrington interview
In-Reply-To: <CAGB0RZ5vfgxQ_iwq=Y7f0j-qMLXgB+9wG=wV62xuqp7Y+2qu5Q at mail.gmail.com>
References: <BLU175-W248DB1B5A985932992FD9CFA50 at phx.gbl>
	<CAF1072yG2TfhTTjxCgUDm2MmAd4K3fhbUQ6Ov9yWKTp7EfKWwA at mail.gmail.com>
	<1412651538.92302.YahooMailNeo at web171306.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
	<CAHXB04VgvisOiu535Z61nWdD7PqPY-KdEbmy69T=TfOmqkLy3w at mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGB0RZ5vfgxQ_iwq=Y7f0j-qMLXgB+9wG=wV62xuqp7Y+2qu5Q at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJ8=rthqdzF7KeFpx=TAc5UZyZELYCrnK7cobTJRZNDSbS3ajQ at mail.gmail.com>

I'm with Daniel here. "Nothing more" applies only in the sense it would
apply to Shakespeare or Dickens, who also wrote popular entertainments for
the ages. The primary distinction to be made here, I suppose, is with
someone like Joyce or Woolf who writes for a "select" audience.

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen <
danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with you up to the 'nothing more', Andrew.  For it is, of course,
> possible for the technical quality you describe to be central and yet also
> for Wolfe's many evocations of philosophical inquiry to be central as
> well.  Like the poetic conceits, he weaves philosophical and theological
> exploration (even exposition I would contend) into the narratives in a way
> consistent with them (always the craftsman, yes), but not merely for
> allusive code-cracking.  Repeated Eucharistic images and instances in Short
> Sun, for example, are not their only to tie up some technical aspect of the
> narrative, but also to evoke something Wolfe takes to be a recalcitrant
> fact of fictional and real worlds:  people are spiritual and they have
> spiritual experiences.  That may not develop or tighten plot, but it
> deepens worldbuilding and 'literary' quality ('literary' in the sense of
> intentionally and centrally exploring, through the writing of fiction,
> longstanding human cultural and philosophical concerns, and not being
> content to merely entertain).  Wolfe is simply not content to merely
> entertain.  He never aims to do less than that, but he does often aim to do
> more.  Whether and to what degree he succeeds is a separate question.
>
> -DOJP
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen <jurisper at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon <gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a
>>> direct bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that
>>> could help the reader understand something more about the plot, the
>>> characters, the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the
>>> mechanics of the story itself.
>>>
>>> Occasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without
>>> endangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic
>>> conceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to
>>> the reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding.
>>>
>>> I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any
>>> relevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters
>>> present some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think
>>> they have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at
>>> that point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some
>>> extra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of
>>> popular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ?
>>> 'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical
>>> huckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all.
>>>
>>>
>> Wholehearted agreement!
>>
>> Also: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations
>> of character and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he
>> or she act well or badly in the circumstances?
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Urth Mailing List
>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Otto Jack Petersen
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>



-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20141007/c624a3e4/attachment-0001.htm>

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