barrington interview

Gerry Quinn · 09 Oct 2014, 13:38 · 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: gerry at bindweed.com (Gerry Quinn)
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 14:38:01 +0100
Subject: (urth) barrington interview
In-Reply-To: <1412651538.92302.YahooMailNeo at web171306.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
References: <BLU175-W248DB1B5A985932992FD9CFA50 at phx.gbl>	<CAF1072yG2TfhTTjxCgUDm2MmAd4K3fhbUQ6Ov9yWKTp7EfKWwA at mail.gmail.com>
	<1412651538.92302.YahooMailNeo at web171306.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <54368FB9.1050608 at bindweed.com>


On 07/10/2014 04:12, Richard Simon 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.

In the main I agree with this, as regards the interpretation of names 
and events.

>
> 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.

Perhaps this goes too far, or it could be that I am mistaking what you 
are trying to express.  We are certainly intended to consider many of 
his works in the light of Christianity, or perhaps to consider 
Christianity in the light of his works..  But maybe you are including 
that in the 'mechanics'.

- Gerry Quinn


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20141009/0ffc459e/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