(urth) academic commentary
Craig Brewer
cnbrewer at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 30 08:48:05 PST 2010
Just on Wright's "unwillingness" to discuss a theological standpoint: after
reading the book, I think he just honestly believes that BotNS is a book about
deception, primarily about how religious notions can be manipulative. I don't
think he's particularly unwilling to see a deeper dimension. I think he just
straightforwardly disagrees that the book, as written, contains that deeper
message.
He can certainly be wrong. But I doubt that he's deliberately ignoring things in
New Sun that suggest something deeper. I just think he would disagree that they
are actually signs of "real" divinity.
And, to be honest, I think that's a valid reading of New Sun. It seems possible
to me to make a hard and fast textual "proof" that the Hierodules are
manipulating Severian's experiences throughout most of the text. I'm NOT sure
that you can make a hard and fast textual "proof" that the Increate is also
behind what the Hierodules are doing. (I would gladly be proven wrong on that
point, however.)
Now, I actually think the latter is the case, but it's a looser interpretation
that's probably heavily influenced by what I assume to be Wolfe's intentions.
Going strictly by what the text says, it does seem to me possible (although
disappointing) that Wright's thesis is correct. Perhaps that's because the
theological dimension requires a different attitude toward interpretation than
simply finding passages that essentially say "and here the Increate was guiding
the Hierodules' hands." Perhaps it requires a broader sense of interpretation
that involves a lot more speculation and a willingness to allow hints and
suggestions to stand as "evidence" of a reading. But given the limits that
Wright sets himself for interpretation, I think he's on solid ground.
Like I said before, things change when we get to Long Sun. There, the *real*
supernatural seems much more apparent than in NS. But with Severian, there's the
suggestion that everything supernatural could actually have another explanation.
(Granted, Urth of the New Sun complicates this with its different style of
narration.) In Long Sun and Short Sun, though, we seem to be playing by somewhat
different rules, at least in terms of how the narrative decides to show us
what's happening. In New Sun, however, Severian's filter and the growing
awareness of what the Hierodules are up to makes it much more difficult to
determine what is ultimately "alien manipulation" and what is ultimately
"divine."
So in the end, I think that Wright's interpretation is valid. I don't personally
agree with it, but I'm not entirely confident that I could make my case on his
terms. If the standard you set for yourself when reading is that everything the
author says is suspect and most likely a potential deception (this is largely
Wright's methodology), then making a positive case for real divinity in New Sun
becomes incredibly difficult. I just wonder if that's the best way to approach
Wolfe since, along with the puzzles and the hints and the misleading
characterizations, there's also a lot of sincerity and straightforward
integrity. Determining when you have which attitude, though, is often more a
matter of judgment and even faith (in the author? in something else?) rather
than solid textual "proof."
More information about the Urth
mailing list