(urth) academic commentary

Mon Nov 29 08:13:49 PST 2010

Well argued, Craig.

Yes, I think Wolfe is deep enough as a Catholic and an author to be able 
to weave into his narratives all sorts of apparently contradictory 
principles. I could begin with the reader's---at least the naive 
reader's---necessary movement from "Narration is truth" to "Narration is 
lies" and ultimately to "Narration that is lies is also truth, maybe 
even a better truth."

Replace "narration" with "belief," and consider that Wolfe had a long 
path of conversion to Catholicism, and you have your 3 texts as well as 
a motivation for Wolfe to "create" such a long and complicated tale.

Thanks for the Wright summary. It does seem odd that he did all this 
work but could not make the final leap.

On 11/29/2010 10:55 AM, Craig Brewer wrote:
> To be fair, I don't think Wright's central thesis is that BotNS is atheistic. Or
> rather, that's certainly where he ends up, but I don't think he's primarily
> giving a theological (or a-theological) reading.
>
> Instead, he's concerned with how Wolfe uses intertextuality (both with other
> actual books and you might say "internal" intertextual) to create the experience
> of creating and confounding reader expectations. That's something we all know,
> and what ultimately makes his book not all that controversial, I'd think. We all
> know that reading Wolfe with an eye to a kind of "second text" that lies
> underneath the apparent story is standard operating procedure for a Wolfe book.
> Wright just tries to lay out a sort of general methodology for doing that with
> Wolfe.
>
> That said, his primary example is that BotNS *appears* to be a story of Severian
> living out a kind of spiritual Christ-figure story. But, as Lee said, Wright
> then shows how there's the second text of the "aliens who play Severian and
> humanity like a fiddle." That's the atheistic view. And it's certainly there as
> a possibility, one that has been mentioned many times, and, I think, most close
> readers of BotNS accept this Wolfe presents this as one possible, even if
> incomplete, explanation of the larger story a number of times in the story. It
> also seems like a step one has to go through when interpreting the text.
>
> The problem, as I see it, is that Wright pretty much stops there. Many people,
> and Wolfe included, I would think, want to say that there's yet a third "text"
> which is the story of how the Hierodules are still carrying out a divine plan,
> even if they think they're just manipulating everything else. That's the idea
> we've hashed out so often in this list where "evil" turns out to be used for
> "good," etc. Ultimately, I think that Wright's sense of how Wolfe manipulates a
> reader's expectations with stories-within-stories still fits this
> interpretation.
>
> In other words, Wright is ultimately giving a methodological reading of Wolfe.
> And it's one that I think a majority of readers would agree with. But his
> primary interpretive example just doesn't go far enough, even on his own terms.
>
> This is particularly problematic when he gets to Long Sun. It seems to me that
> Long Sun makes it patently clear from the beginning that what we're going to see
> is how true revelation, Silk's vision, has to be understood through a "fallen"
> mythology. That seems to be the entire stated point of Long Sun, especially
> given the relative directness of the first chapter compared to the opening of
> BotNS. But Wright largely ignores this and, instead, focuses on how Pas has
> created a false religion. That entire part of his book just seemed clumsy to me
> as if he was blatantly ignoring aspects of other books that would complicate
> what came before.
>
> I'm also a bit mystified about why Wright took the angle he did when Wolfe has
> been so straightforward about his own religious beliefs. Wright just never
> addresses it. Granted, not every book that Wolfe writes has to be completely
> consistent with his own beliefs. One can make stuff up and lie in fiction, after
> all. But, if I recall correctly, Wright never even addresses why Wolfe, a
> believer, might have written a book that, according to Wright, is all about how
> beliefs are ultimately lies.
>
> Anyway...I learned a lot from Wright's book, even if I found it incredibly
> frustrating at times. Like I said, I think he's good as far as he goes, but he's
> only finished half of the job. He needs to go further and ask himself how his
> own interpretation could itself still be an "artifice" (his term) used to
> deceive the reader and make him think and read even more closely.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Lee Berman<severiansola at hotmail.com>
> To: urth at lists.urth.net
> Sent: Mon, November 29, 2010 6:16:44 AM
> Subject: (urth) academic commentary
>
>
>
>> Jeff WIlson- He effectively says the "evil does the work of the Increate, too"
>> meme
>>
>> was planted by the Yesodis?
> Yeah, that's my gathering. I think Wright analyzes BotNS from an atheistic
> perspective.
> So there is no truly higher spiritual power involved. Just some highly advanced
> aliens
> who play Severian and humanity like a fiddle.
>
> Jane I think I remember which short paragraph it was in which "the relationship
> &  balance
>
> of power between Tzadkiel and Severian are both subverted - turned upon their
> heads
>
> indeed". Is it where Tzadkiel confesses to being an acolyte to Severian in a
> different
> universe or something like that?
>
> Sort of similar to the reversal we see where Barbatus and Famulimus, so tall and
> beautiful
>
> and from a giant spaceship, take a knee and bow before scruffy Severian.
>
> My impression is that Wright interprets BotNS from an atheist point of view
> because he is,
> himself a devout atheist and perhaps unwilling to acknowledge spirituality in
> the work of
> an author he so admires, despite awareness of Wolfe's religious leanings.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 101129-0, 11/29/2010
> Tested on: 11/29/2010 10:55:27 AM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2010 AVAST Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
>

---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 101129-0, 11/29/2010
Tested on: 11/29/2010 11:13:49 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2010 AVAST Software.
http://www.avast.com