(urth) Father Inire Theory

[Gerry Quinn]

From: "Lee Berman" <severiansola at hotmail.com>
>>Why can't Wolfe be read on more than one level?
>>Jeff Wilson- It's one interpretation *per* *level* of the text.
>
> I could accept that as a working principle. But then we have to discuss 
> how many
> levels of understanding there are. Severian is required to recite the 7 
> levels in
> regard to governance. I think the first and last are the same, so let's go 
> for 6.
>
> 1. Gothic space opera
> 2. Religious-theological allegory
> 3. Mythological allusion and analog
> 4. Socio-political allegory (Peter Wright)
> 5. Classic literature references
> 6. Gene Wolfe autobiographical
>
> In my view, a serious reader should try to understand the Sun Series at 
> all six levels
> simultaneously. When understanding at one level has gaps or vague areas it 
> is valid to seek answers
> or gap fillers at the other levels. For example if the gothic space opera 
> doesn't tell us who Severian's
> family members are it is possible we can infer answers from the other 
> levels.

This is a nice conception and I believe it has some validity, but I also see 
some issues with it.

Three quarters of a century ago, no self-respecting critic would have failed 
to add Freudian psychoanalysis to the list.  And they would have produced 
complex and elaborate interpretational structures. Some of it might mirror 
the Severian-incest theories that appear, although the major thrust would 
certainly have involved getting Severian in bed with his mother, rather than 
his sister or his gran.  And I think it's rather clear who his father must 
be.

A chess fanatic might construct an interpretational structure in which 
characters and events are pieces and moves in a chess game.  Logically, 
there must be *some* optimum game most compatible with the text, though to 
find it might involve obscure chains of references.

We could think of others. But to what extent do these interpretations exist 
in the text, rather in in the personal mythologies of its interlocutors?

And to what extent is the text overloaded with compatible meanings in 6, 7, 
or 8 levels?  When you ask that question, doesn't it seem that 6 is already 
far too many levels for the text to support in a strong sense?

Now I can certainly agree that categories 1, 2, 3 and 5 at minimum exist to 
a substantial degree in the text.  But I don't think that 2 and 3 exist in 
such a precise form that they can answer detail questions that belong in the 
realm of 1. Examples of 5 don't really need to have global significance for 
the text at all.  I'm mostly talking about 2 and 3 here.

I think 2 and 3 can be used to add force to events in 1, but I don't think 
they can fill gaps in 1 with regard to concrete events (maybe they could 
fill gaps with regard to motivations etc.)..Where I think some of the 
theories I consider fanciful go wrong is that they try to expand realms 2 
and 3 into a substitutte or alternative for 1.  But since the detail text is 
nearly all 1, the expansions are flimsy and contradictory because they are 
based on stuff that is mostly supplied by the reader, and a different 
reader, or the same reader at a different time, could supply a completely 
different expansion.

I haven't the slightest difficulty with people coming up with 
interpretations based on thin references.. _I_ didn't make a post called 
"Who's Right?", or refer to 'Lupine Gospel'.  But I think when such 
interpretations are proposed as a map for understanding 1, the actual story, 
they should be compared against known points of reference to see whether 
they actually represent an alternative, or merely have some points of 
resemblance.

It may be that a less elaborate theory, pointing out similarities and 
regerences, might map more usefully than a theory that tries to re-tell the 
entire story in its own terms.

- Gerry Quinn








.