(urth) Father Inire Theory

[Gerry Quinn]

From: "Lee Berman" <severiansola at hotmail.com>
>
>>Gerry Quinn- I wonder if my differences with Lee and James are in
>>part due to us looking for puzzle solutions in different places?  They 
>>look
>>for allusions, I look at descriptions and events in the story.
>
> Very insightful! It is such an apt analysis you needn't even qualify it 
> with
> "in part".  The Meyers-Briggs assessment that has been discussed would 
> describe
> you as a Sensory (S) type as opposed to an Intuitive (N) type.

You are making an intuitive leap based on a single fact that, leading to a 
conclusion that is without foundation.  When I tested myself on this once or 
twice some years ago, I came out INTJ (and the J was not all that much 
stronger than the P, by the way; I can't remember how much stronger the N 
was than the S).  But I can see where David's comment about Ps vs. Js can be 
relevant in the context of how much one is inclined to criticise speculative 
theories.

My comment above is not related to personality types, however.  It does 
relate to a different emphasis on where to find understanding of a story by 
Gene Wolfe.  In my opinion some people see a mystery, spot an allusion or 
something that they think might somehow be associated, and then go on to 
build complicated castles of speculation whose relationship with the text 
may be tenuous.  Whereas I think the solution is likely to be there in plain 
description; classical and allusions may be present to give it depth and 
hint at the way, but if something is not present in the narrative, no amount 
of strained analysis of allusion will make it appear.


> One thing- S types, especially males, tend to be focused on non-human nuts 
> and bolts
> type of things and ignore the human side of things. N-types are more 
> likely to be
> aware of the humanity which colors every part of our experience. Thus, 
> Gerry, you are
> so quick to dismiss ideas and concepts you cannot see as "unlikely", 
> blithely unaware
> that you are dismissing a human being and his/her intelligence and hours 
> of involved
> thought and writing.
>
> I know that I am a bit weak on Sensory skills. I don't care much about the 
> height of
> the Wall of Nessus or the distance between Blue and Green. But I respect 
> those who do
> and I defer to them as better experts in solving such puzzles. Perhaps you 
> could be more
> respectful of those who are better at solving the human/word puzzles than 
> you.

I think your post is a good example of what I disapprove of in your 
methology (criticism if your ideas is *not* disapproval of you personally). 
You snatch at one fact (my statement that when analysing Wolfe's stories I 
look to events and description more than allusions), instantly psychoanalyse 
me that basis, and reach a comforting (and patronising) explanation of why I 
can't see the validity of your assertions about the true meaning of BotNS. 
Because, Heaven forfend, it couldn't be that I might actually have a point 
in questioning whether your theories stray too far from what may plausibly 
be supported by the text!

I am not dismissing the work and thought you have put into these matters, 
and perhaps I have been remiss in not making that clear hitherto.  Nor do I 
dispute that insight can come from following such lines of inquiry. At the 
same time I believe that, while literary criticism is not science or 
mathematics, lines of enquiry that seem promising can still - like 
scientific models or mathematical theorems - turn out to be wrong, and the 
only way to find out is to challenge them.  Even if they don't work out they 
may still very often (in all the fields mentioned) yield useful insights 
that will help towards a more complete understanding.  And partial 
validations of this kind are better in my opinion than castles in the air 
that one is not permitted to criticise.

- Gerry Quinn