(urth) Hierogrammates, Briah and Yesod

[David Stockhoff]

Lee

Interestingly enough, I both agree and disagree with the below. I don't 
think Wolfe has disdain for his readers at all. I think he has strong 
ideas that coalesce and recur in his work, and he tries to tell stories 
about these things as simply as he can, with as much narrative skill as 
he can. He believes the world is a deceptive, dangerous, complicated, 
and morally ambiguous place filled with good people, and it shows.

I think he sees that too much information can kill a story, so he leaks 
it or puts it in the background. Sometimes this means stuff just doesn't 
get fully worked out, or a world is assumed to operate by laws we should 
already know (like how Greek gods work, or how Faerie is immune to 
time). Often, his stories are narrated in first person, which means that 
the principle "don't tell, show" becomes even more important. His 
narrators are smart for a reason, but even his dullards can tell true, 
insightful stories that are effective because the stories are sound. The 
backgrounds only make the story possible.

But I don't trust him either, because he's left me hanging too many times.

Anyway, I certainly look for themes and parallel treatments, and for 
similar ways of handling similar situations. One of the first things I 
noticed is that he repeats the phrase "I nodded to show I understood," 
where a lesser writer would have written unnecessary dialog. Severian is 
not the only character who says this.

Lee Berman wrote:
> David Stockhoff-
>
>   
>> I understand that you think the Hiero makers are our homologues, but there's no real
>> reason to think that. It's just one possibility Wolfe doesn't really address. In fact, 
>> it's based on what I'd say is an excellent example of a naive reading.
>>     
>
> --
>  
>   
>> Imagine a ghost story that ends, "The ghost was ... MYSELF!"
>> Now imagine one that ends, "The ghost was ... some guy I never met! Over there ... somewhere."
>> Which one does Wolfe pick, over and over?
>>     
>
> David, for me this nicely sums up what might be the best way to read and interpret Wolfe. Maybe 
> I would change one thing, which is to take the onus off the naive reader and put it onto the 
> author. Perhaps, given the thousands of years of history of Western literature, readers have the 
> right to expect they can trust their authors (at least mostly)?
>  
> That's the flipside of naivete- trust. And I suspect that you, David, like me, don't trust Gene
> Wolfe further than we can throw him. This is an important difference which creates different 
> interpretations. I detect that Gene wolfe (interviews answers to the contrary aside) has a real
> streak of disdain for his readers. I actually think there is a conflict set up between reader and
> writer and, unlike some authors, Gene wolfe really doesn't want us ever to fully win.
>  
> I say disdain because we are treated like dogs. That's what people do with dogs and a ball. They
> say, "here's the ball, doggie" then misdirect the poor creature, "over here, no here, no, here" and 
> the poor dog's nose gets distracted in the feinted new direction over and over again. Perhaps
> Wolfe is trying to tell his readers to not get distracted like a dog. The bastard.
>  
> Perhaps that's what happens when a really intelligent, well-read thoughtful guy spends half his
> life in the army and a potato chip factory with obnoxious, know-it-all officers, engineers and 
> administrators? ;- ). Of course, naturally I wouldn't be here if I didn't love his writing the
> way it is.
>  
> In seriousness, I think if you read Wolfe trusting that the answers will be laid out for you
> in the text you will get one sort of interpretation. If you read with mistrust and on the lookout 
> for relentless misdirection, you will get another. Perhaps he is so brilliant he can consciously
> write for both sorts of readers, simultaneously. I don't know.
>  
> I think Wolfe slips up once. There is an interview where he seems to inadvertantly blurt out 
> that yes, in VRT, Dr Marsch was killed and replaced by a Ste. Anne abo. (BTW, is there any hint that 
> the abos eat their duplicated victims? I remember Shadow Children having sharp teeth... It would fit
> nicely with Inhumi and other similar themes).
>  
> Anyway, we are given hints that Dr. Marsch is replaced then given a dozen reasons to doubt it. If wolfe's
> interview slip-up was on purpose then I appreciate it. One tiny bone of fairness, thrown to his readers.
>  
> With it, I think we can use David's ghost story principle to figure out the mysteries of many of Wolfe's 
> other stories. The secret is identifying repetition. Not only within stories but across his work. The 
> mystery of Shadow Children helps us understand the mystery of Inhumi. The mystery of Latro's world helps 
> us understand the mythological subplots of BotNS. Etc. 		 	   		  
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 100812-1, 08/12/2010
> Tested on: 8/12/2010 7:19:56 PM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2010 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
>
>