(urth) Father Inire Theory cont.

[Craig Brewer]

Is this becoming the same conversation I always have with freshmen in my 
literature classes? I invariably get some form of the complaint: "But it's art! 
You can't tell me that my interpretation is wrong!"

And I invariably respond with some form of: "I can't tell you that you're wrong, 
but I can tell you that you're unconvincing."

My general point is that everyone is, of course, free to respond personally to 
literature however they want to. But once they get to the point of sharing their 
opinions, their personal reactions are only interesting in so far as they can 1) 
communicate them clearly and 2) offer a rationale for those reactions that can 
sustain criticism from someone who disagrees. I don't think you have to go so 
far as assuming the existence of "universal truths" in order to think that #2 
should be a goal when talking to others about lit.

You will also encounter disagreement about what counts as "convincing." But I've 
always found it most useful to think about why my own ideas sound unconvincing 
to others, not because I assume I'm wrong, but because it's made me better at 
convincing them later. (And that's also why I almost always disagree with my 
freshmen...not because they're wrong, but because I want them to get better at 
defending whatever they think about what they read.)

Wolfe, of course, puts this in especially slippery territory. I think I 
mentioned the other week about how difficult it can be to differentiate the 
PUZZLES from INTERPRETATIONS in Wolfe. And one of the (probably inevitable) 
frustrations with talking about him is when others see the solution of a puzzle 
where you see an interpretation. (I have to admit that I feel this almost every 
time someone identifies a religious or mythological allusion/similarity in Wolfe 
which is then used to "unlock" some tentatively related plot point.)

Who was it that mentioned before that we should avoid confusing "is" with 
"resembles"? It seems like that's a constant stumbling block when talking about 
Wolfe's work...but it's also hard to tell when that mistake is actually being 
made.

Sorry to ramble, but I'm seriously trying to avoid grading right now.



----- Original Message ----
From: Gerry Quinn <gerryq at indigo.ie>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Sent: Mon, December 13, 2010 12:57:04 PM
Subject: Re: (urth) Father Inire Theory cont.


From: "Lee Berman" <severiansola at hotmail.com>
>> 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.
> 
>> Gerry Quinn- 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.
> 
> Gerry, your statement above denies then immediately affirms my words. If there 
>are are "criteria that..
> gauge the likelihood of rightness.." which transcend your own opinions then you 
>are arguing that there
> are lupine universal truths.

Which there are.  Some things in Wolfe's stories are ambiguous, others are 
rather certain.  Triskele is a dog, or a dog-shaped aquastor.  It is very 
unlikely that he is a cat.  It is even more certain that he is not an elephant.  
An interpretation that requires Triskele to be an elephant has a high likelihood 
of being wrong.

Of course I could be wrong in thinking this is so certain that it can be 
described as a Lupine universal truth.  Even universal truths can be accessed 
only through human understanding.  But the concept is hardly incredible.

> If you do not believe in universal lupine truths I will recommend a change in 
>wording of your statement to:
> 
> "There are criteria that I use to gauge what feels like the likelihood of 
>rightness to me".
> 
> Phrased that way, I have no problem at all. I think recognizing one's own 
>limitations is admirable and elevating
> one's own opinions to the status of generally acknowledged truth is annoying. 
>That's all I mean to say.

As you can see, I have no need for the words you so thoughtfully offer to place 
in my mouth.  There are demonstrably generally acknowledged truths, and I 
believe there are generally acknowledged means of judging the likelihood of 
purported truths.  There is no need for me to assert that my opinions are in 
line with such truths - I can simply state my opinions and the reasoning behind 
them, and see whether others agree or disagree.  If they disagree, I can 
consider why, and change my opinion if I find the reasons convincing.  Othes can 
do the same.  I make no claims of special insight.  My opinions should be judged 
on their own merit or otherwise.  The same goes for yours.

>> You are claiming in essence that all readings are equally valid.
> 
> No, I am pointing out that not all readings are equally valid to YOU. And I am 
>suggesting there are no ways
> of evaluating ideas that are universally valid. What seems like a good theory 
>to you will seem bad to others
> and what seems bad to you will seem good to others. I have not seen the 
>slightest evidence of any two contributors
> here who evaluate interpretions in lockstep with each other. Have you? Thus, 
>what we have is what you recoil in
> horror from:  collection of private mythologies. Why deny it?

You say: "What seems like a good theory to you will seem bad to others and what 
seems bad to you will seem good to others."

This *is* either the claim  that all readings are equally valid, or the 
near-equivalent claim that the notion  of validity is either meaningless or 
inaccessible to us.

I reject this claim, in either form.  There are better interpretations and worse 
interpretations, and there are ways of telling the difference.

- Gerry Quinn

_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
To post, write urth at urth.net
Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net