(urth) interview questions

[Lee Berman]

>Marc Aramini: Lee, I don't think Roy is a skeptic.  His encyclopedic knowledge of every 
>Gene Wolfe text reminds me way more of a biblical fundamentalist.  He knows his Wolfe, 
>he just doesn't allow any ambiguity or contradiction, and any such ambiguity is refutation.  
>Roy knows these books inside and out with an admirable capaciousnes I could only hope to emulate 
>... but his quotes are always so black and white, and these narrators are SO fallible in Wolfe.
 
Marc, I have the utmost respect for Roy and his lupine knowledge. I call him a "skeptic" because
of the more recent years of his contribution here, which is to jump in only when there is a chance
to undercut a theory. In the older days, Roy had his own theories he contributed. I think perhaps
criticism of one's theories stings a little and some people have decided which side of that sting
they prefer to be on.
 
As you suggest, unreliable narrators are a trap for text evidence detectives. I'll use my recent
example of Aunt Jeannine who firmly asserts that Dr. Veil has hung 50 pounds of theory on nothing
in hypothesizing that abos have replaced humans. Then we find Aunt Jeannine IS Dr. Veil. How much
more unreliable can one be than that? And all that was just in 5HoC the novella.
 
You'd have to be a super-hyper genius or something to conclude that Veil's hypothesis is actually
correct from the information Wolfe gives us in 5HoC the novella. All we get is that Number Five is 
able to scare off Dr. Marsch by calling him an abo. Who the hell could figure that out, especially
as we are distracted by the clone/Mr Million story. Wolfe had to write the full novel before we could
figure it out, and even then, only toward the end.
 
I liken it to a jigsaw puzzle. WOlfe throws all the pieces into the text and we are supposed to find
them and sort them into a picture. BUT he also throws in contradictory evidence. Basically these are 
puzzle pieces that don't fit into the big picture. Wolfe ALSO expect us to identify these as false
evidence and discard them (like Aunt Jeannine's 50 pounds). This is where the skeptics are fooled 
over and over again. They hold onto the false pieces, ignoring the big picture, and using the fake 
evidence to discredit the big picture.
 
These false leads can be identified because they never lead to a big picture. They are orphans out
there by themselves, treasured only by certain people to undercut the theories of others. I guess maybe an 
example would be the focus on the planet around Fishes Mouth in the constellation Pisces. Some point to 
there being "one surviving planet". Some to the red sun status mentioned. What is the point of that? 
To prove that Fomalhaut is a meaningless throwaway reference that Wolfe tossed in for fun? Fish. FISH! 
Look at all the fish; they are everywhere. Don't throw away the fish picture. Throw away the fake pieces.
They lead nowhere. 
 
 
FWIW, I can imagine Gene Wolfe deciding to write this way after a career surrounded by engineers who,
tried to assemble their God and Jesus (or deny the existence of God) using the nuts and bolts evidence of 
the physical world, oblivious to the need for a spiritual leap of faith to see the big picture. (God, like
Wolfe, throws us some false evidence, like fossils, to prove to the naive materialist that God does not exist)