(urth) academic commentary

[António Pedro Marques]

Craig Brewer wrote (01-12-2010 20:23):
>>> (To make this relate to Wright, I think he's has every right to read New
>>> Sun *against* the religious meaning many of us might assume Wolfe
>>> intended.
>>
>> I strongly disagree. If we susbtitute reader intent for author intent we're
>> no better off than where we started.
>
> True, but that makes both seem paltry. Ultimately, intention is secondary to
> whatever is in the books. I take it that we have 4+1 books called _The Book of
> the New Sun_. Interviews, conversations, and whatever else is not within those
> covers is interesting but ancillary.
>
> If those the primary texts support his reading, then his reading is valid.
> Reader and author intention have to ultimately be judged against the text. If
> Wolfe meant one thing but achieved another, that other is what we have. His
> intention is then nice or interesting, but unimportant. Otherwise, when I was a
> teenager, I wrote some masterpieces in intention but not execution... :)

Again, I don't think such a complex text can ever support a unique reading. 
What I think counts is the thoroughness of the analyses rather than the results.

I don't know, at least I am able to appreciate differing and even 
contradictory analyses simultaneously, if they are supple enough. I 
seriously doubt I'm a rare case.

And when it comes to some things, there is just no truth value determinable. 
Say Wolfe got the name for Pas from three completely different sources of 
inspiration. One can't say which was *the* source.