(urth) Father Inire Theory

Lee Berman severiansola at hotmail.com
Sun Dec 5 18:59:04 PST 2010



>Gerry Quinn- There *is* a way to know, or at least to make some determination of likelihood.  
>That is to examine the ways in which these theories are supported or contradicted by the text.
 
Who is the judge on whether the text supports or contradicts a theory? I think the only defensible
answer to this question is: Each of us, for ourselves.
 
>Intuition is not an ability unique to certain inspired readers. Those readers who developed the theories 
>you disdain as "superficial" used their intuition too, but they also attended to the text as a whole.
 
You both misunderstand and misjudge me. When trying to understand people or art I do not use the term
"superficial" to imply disdain. Quite the opposite. To get to the core of an onion we must peel back the 
superficial layers. Does this imply that the outer layers of an onion are somehow inferior to the core area?
Not to me. And I have great respect and reverence for the earlier scholars of Gene Wolfe's work.
 
With regard to "the text as a whole" I guess you are implying that I am either not familiar with or ignoring
the text as I have assembled my theory. This is not the case. I am not as familiar with most of Wolfe's other 
works but when it comes to BotNS I am extremely familiar with the text. I have been reading it 1-2 times a year 
for the past 25 years. It may be that some, like Mantis and Roy, have a more encyclopedic knowledge though I have
offered minor corrections to both (only on BotNS issues). Moreover I keep the text firmly in mind and refer back 
to it all the time as I continue to construct my Father Inire theory.
 
>The point Jeff is making is that anyone with an imagination can come up with a million arbitrary theories, but 
>they are only meaningful once they find support in the text.
 
Again, the question then becomes who is the judge of support by the text? Meaning cannot be found in "the text".
It can only be found within the mind of a human being attempting to interpret the text. Each to his own.
 
My theory is not arbitrary. I'm not making things up out of my head (why would I do that?). It comes from the text, 
from Gene Wolfe interviews and from connections I see to classical mythology, gnostic religions and Judeo-Christian 
scripture. I'm not going to clutter up a post on an internet message board with too many quotations and citations 
but I can provide the textual support I see for any specific portion of the theory you would like to hear about.
 
>But if one takes this view, then all readings are equally valid, and no reading - however absurd - is worth any more 
>than another.
 
If you can explain the objective measure of validity or absurdity of a theory on a work of fiction, please do. I say 
"worth" is solely defined by what a theory means to *you*. If nothing, then nothing. But if my Father Inire theory was 
that he is patterned after Peter Griffin from the Family Guy cartoon would you have paid this much attention to it?
 
 
>Jeff Wilson- One can certainly use intuition as a means of selecting possible answers, but the answer must still 
>logically fit the puzzle given for the exercise to be meaningful.
 
Not necessarily. Sometimes a compelling answer can be intuitive with little logic to support it. I will again offer
Holy Katharine Maid= Catherine as an example. There is no logic to the connection (or perhaps you can explain it with
logic?) but many find it a satisfying conclusion anyway.
 
Different puzzles require different skills to solve. Take a jigsaw puzzle (without the box as a guide). You'd start out
using "logical" methods to solve it...find the outer edge pieces, match similar colored pieces, fit pieces of 
complementary shapes together. But eventually you'd see a pattern form, a partial image of the whole that you are 
creating and a different, intuitive puzzle-solving technique will assert itself, allowing you to correctly place puzzle
pieces even with no adjoining pieces which match.
 
 
An example from this board: Recently James Wynn trotted out his theory that Spring Wind is really Typhon. Some discussion
of winds and storms and Rhea Silvia ensued. I learned some interesting connections I hadn't been aware of. But not
quite enough to connect the legend of a effete mama's boy, Spring Wind, who loved botany and nature but grew up to follow 
in his father's footsteps as a clever general to the tyrannical, arrogant, jaded, powerful, bisexual monster in the story 
named Typhon.
 
But James seems like a very intelligent, well-read guy who is passionate about the work of Gene Wolfe. So I wasn't just
going to just dismiss his theory. Maybe he is seeing something in the jigsaw that I was not yet able to see. In 
continuing discussions, the name of Alexander (the Great) was brought up as a model for Typhon. Bells and lights went off
for me, knowing the story of Alexander, his mother Olympia, his tutor Aristotle, his father King Phillip, his conquests and
his final years of tyranny and debauchery before his premature death. There it is- Spring Wind + Typhon almost to a T.
 
The rise and fall of Alexander's empire established the 300 year gnostic stage upon which Christianity arose. The rise and 
fall of Typhon's empire established the 1000 year stage upon which Severian's ascension was built. Perhaps others are not 
but I feel enlightened and enriched in my understanding of BotNS by this connection. And having respect for a fellow Wolfe 
lover allowed me to attain this enlightenment. Thanks James!
 
 
  		 	   		  


More information about the Urth mailing list