(urth) Hierogrammates, Briah and Yesod

[Lee Berman]

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.