(urth) Who's Right?

[Lee Berman]

>Gerry Quinn: I mentioned monkeys, but I also pointed out what I consider to be the flaw in your five main reasons for 
>believing in the Inire theory.
 
I read your response with anticipation and interest, but at the end found myself asking, "so where was the flaw?".
Sorry. Our thinking may be too diffrent to communicate effectively on some things.

 
>On the other hand, isn't something of the sort intrinsic to the structure of *any* novel featuring a main character?

No. Most novels do not have characters who stop mid-sentence and correct themselves in a manner suggesting they have 
forgotten their scripted lines, as Paleamon and Rudesind do. This, Severian's unreliability as a narrator and
and other auctorial tricks suggest there are multiple levels of reader deception at work here to be unraveled.
 
 
>And if I question theories in which two and two do not make four, I suppose 
>it is only because I am a mathematician.
 
I can't say for sure whether that is a strength or weakness in understanding Gene Wolfe's
stories. I think there is a level at which they can be read as straightforward, easily understandable
tales. But for me there is another level for which a mathematical, logical approach is as effective
as trying to calculate the number of pillars in this figure http://www.mrbartonmaths.com/images/Optical%20Illusions/legs.jpg
 
I guess an example might be the conclusion many reach that the maid playing Holy Katharine is
Severian's mother, Catherine. What sense does that make? Unrelated characters, differently spelled names,
and one isn't even the person's real name. Upon what can one make the connection? Hair color? 
Two insignificant bits of information plus another two should not add up to a hugely important conclusion 
with a value of 50.  But for many readers they do. And Gene Wolfe shows over and over that he can make some 
of us do it. And others not. The question remains:
 
Who's Right?