(urth) Dionysus

[Gerry Quinn]

From: "Lee Berman" <severiansola at hotmail.com>
>>Gerry Quinn- My purpose is to challenge your theory with logical analysis, 
>>not satire. And what
>>exactly is your problem with the reference?  People are citing with a 
>>straight face everything
>>from Erich von Daniken to Gilligan's Island, and building huge castles of 
>>conjecture about Greek
>>gods not referenced in the text, and nobody bats an eye!

> Heh! good response Gerry. Provides some insight into your thinking. The 
> "people" you mention are
> all me, I'm afraid. I noticed some eyes batting. Didn't you?  I hope you 
> weren't offended by the
> pop culture references. There is both a light-hearted and more serious 
> aspect to them.

Note that I was arguing against a theory postulated by James, not you. 
Again, I wasn't having a dig at you, but yes, you do produce produce 
elaborate theories and justify them largely on the basis of ideas and 
concepts that are not mentioned anywhere in the text.  My issue is with the 
form of argument, not the person.

> If your purpose is to challenge people's theories with logical analysis, 
> it explains a lot. I also get
> the impression you might be skimming the theories, ignoring the things 
> that make sense to you, ignoring
> the things you don't understand and jumping right to the parts for which 
> you can make a clever criticism.
> I would hope that a sincere attempt at analysis would involve actually 
> understanding the theory first.
> Such understanding would involve acknowledging the parts which do make 
> sense to you and asking sincere
> questions about the parts you don't understand. "That was good, James, I 
> can see that". "James, I don't
> quite get this section, could you explain it to me?" These are not the 
> sort of posts I can remember seeing
> from Gerry Quinn.

I'm sorry if I don't provide sufficient encouragement.  I *do* read your 
posts and endeavour to understand what you are getting at.  However I am not 
going to get into a rambling debate about what some obscure god was once 
associated with and how this might link to something different in the text, 
if I can see major issues with what appear to be major planks in the basic 
argument..  For example, I consider the argument: "An alien has been shown 
to be a shapeshifter; Fr. Inire is an alien; Therefore Fr. inire is a 
shapeshifter" to be invalid.  Do you see why?

> An example in regard to my Father Inire theory:
>
>>....building huge castles of conjecture about Greek gods not referenced in 
>>the text.
>
> Before making that statement I would expect you to at least once have 
> asked me, "could you explain
> where in the text that part is referenced?". That's if you really wanted 
> to understand the theory.
> Instead you jump to the conclusion that there is no referencing. My 
> impression of your attitude is that
> if you can't see something on your own, it isn't there.

Okay, where is Dionysius referenced?  That's the one I was thinking of.  It 
seems to me that the strands linking Dionysius to the outsider are very thin 
indeed.

> I will pretend you actually did ask that question about Greek gods and 
> give a thumbnail answer, just for
> fun. I would answer that at the superficial level, Typhon and daughter 
> Scylla are among the most explicitly
> mentioned Greek gods referenced in BotNS, with the understanding that gods 
> and monsters become more difficult
> to distinguish as one goes backward in ancient Greek history. So that is a 
> starting point. Greek mythology
> and genealogy are referenced.

No real reference to gods there IMO.  Of course Wolfe brings in references 
from Greek mythology, but plenty of other mythologies too.  If there 
*weren't* a few Greek mythological references in there somewhere, it would 
be surprising.

> Next I would go to the old Boatman on the Lake of Birds. The visual 
> imagery and association with the dead of
> that character prompted the original members of this board to refer to 
> him, sometimes without qualification, as
> Charon. Could be an incidental association but if  we look into the 
> mythological parentage of Charon we find: >
> Erebus and Night (Nyx). These are both named characters in BotNS. So Greek 
> mythology and genealogy are again
> referenced. A secondary launching point.

If you are satisfied with weak enough connections you can find launching 
points everywhere. I find the above connection extremely weak.

> And so on. I've spent 6 years assembling my Father Inire theory and, of 
> course, I'm not going to put it all here.
> But all my ideas in the theory are referenced from the text just as those 
> two associations are.  I am happy to
> answer any questions about it that people might have. For example, a board 
> member recently asked me how the Erebus
> and Night connection related to Noctua. I consider that a knowledgeable, 
> thoughtful question and I answered in kind.
>
> For me that's how increasing the understanding of Gene Wolfe's work 
> progresses. Sharing ideas and asking questions.
> But if the "logical analysis" process is what works for you I encourage 
> you to continue, by all means.

Do you accept that ideas can be wrong, or at least useful only to those for 
whom they constitute a kind of private mythology?  In the physical sciences 
of course, we can test the predictive value of ideas, which is difficult in 
a literary work.  Nevertheless, surely there must be some winnowing, and 
some applicable criteria for doing it?  I will post more on this in response 
to another post of yours, which comes closer to the root of this issue.

- Gerry Quinn