(urth) academic commentary

[DAVID STOCKHOFF]

I agree that text #3 is more grounded in intuition than texts #1 and #2. It is certainly fair for a critic to leave it open, even if I personally see it (more or less as I have said) as counting all the trees and never acknowledging the forest. If a critic sees his task as one of cataloguing, then that's enough. Better than pages of windy speculation.
I also concur that BOTNS is full of plain statements of fact, both from Severian and from his characters. The trick is not just to reveal the deception but also to distinguish the bald truth from the bald lies. We can ask, IF X is lying, what is the deception, and why? If the question cannot be plausibly answered, maybe the statement is simply true, or at least sincere. (I recall Thecla voicing very sensible concerns about the Increate; these do not suggest to me that Wolfe or even Thecla is an atheist---merely rational.)
Another possible angle is one I would not expect Wright to use, and that is to ask, IF the Increate/divine is "present" in BOTNS, where is he/it? Perhaps this is backwards, but again: once we have counted and catalogued the trees, isn't it time to talk about forests?
I should shut up now and go read the book. It sounds promising on a basic interpretive level.

--- On Tue, 11/30/10, Craig Brewer <cnbrewer at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Craig Brewer <cnbrewer at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: (urth) academic commentary
To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2010, 11:48 AM

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."



      
_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
To post, write urth at urth.net
Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20101130/43aff76c/attachment-0004.htm>