(urth) Father Inire Theory cont.

[Gerry Quinn]

From: "Lee Berman" <severiansola at hotmail.com>
>>Andrew Mason: While if a work has another literal meaning, distinct from 
>>the surface one,
>>this will _normally_ subvert the surface meaning.  In discovering what 
>>really happens, we
>>discover that we were wrong about what seemed to happen. I now know 
>>(because you have explained)
>>that this is not what you were claiming about Wolfe.
>
> Correct. This should have been clear from the portion of the discussion 
> where I posited that Wolfe
> himself suggests there are seven levels of interpretation to his work. 
> Perhaps we can agree that any
> author who bothered to undercut and subvert his own message seven times 
> over is just being a pain in
> the ass.
>
> The multiple layers support each other they don't undercut. Thus if the 
> superficial text is unclear
> about the origins, motivations or eventual history of a character like 
> Severian or Typhon or Father
> Inire, we can deduce them by studying their legendary model or conflated 
> models,

Yes - the multiple layers should support each other!  When they conflict, it 
likely means that something is wrong with our ideas about one or more of 
them.


>>For instance, when asked who Blood's father was he [Wolfe] said, quite 
>>straighforwardly, 'Patera Pike'
>
> These occasions are nice, perhaps. But so extremely rare that they can't 
> be of much use in your quest to
> determine which Wolfean answer are "right". Moreover the unhappy truth is 
> that Gene Wolfe will be dead
> soon and, as I've heard he kept no notes, that source of determining 
> "rightness" will be forever lost
> to us. I hope you will not fall into the thinking errors of Gerry Quinn 
> who seems to have decided that
> his calculations of "probabiity" and "likelihood" of rightness are general 
> truths and not based on
> personal feelings.

I don't say anything of the sort, as you well know.  I do say that there 
*are* criteria that can be used to gauge the likelihood of rightness of 
different interpretations.  The extent to which different interpretations - 
derived from different levels or the same ones - support or contradict each 
other is a powerful clue in this regard.


>>even if I accept that a work has more than one reading, incompatible but 
>>equally real, this does not
>>mean that I will accept every reading of it.
>
> Nor has anyone suggested you should. We help each other here. Share ideas. 
> But ultimately, despite Gerry's
> screams of denial, our interpretations of Gene Wolfe's work can never be 
> more than our "own personal mythology"
> that each of us have built for ourselves. You can borrow what you like and 
> build what works for you.

You are claiming in essence that all readings are equally valid.  I doubt I 
am the only one to disagree.

- Gerry Quinn