(urth) interview questions

[Dan'l Danehy-Oakes]

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Gerry Quinn <gerryq at indigo.ie> wrote:

> We also have Word of God on the issue:
> "I decided to present the Sandwalker story as a legend or story that Marsch
> had uncovered, rather than as straight reportage, because I wanted to keep
> all three stories set in roughly the same time frame—the "present" of the
> opening novella. Since the period in which the Sandwalker scene was—in terms
> of the "present" found in the rest of the book—taking place in the distant
> past of the planet, it made more sense to say, "Here's a legend that has
> survived from that period" rather than simply jumping into the past and
> presenting it directly."
> < http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/interviews/wolfe46interview.htm >
>
> If I am interpreting that correctly, there's nothing unreliable there
> personal to VRT/Marsch, and really no indication of anything
> unreliable except in terms of characters presented within it, as would be
> the case if it were presented directly, which is an option Wolfe avoided
> only for stylistic reasons.

I disagree: as soon as he puts the story in the mouth (or pen) of
VRT/M, we must ask why VRT/M is telling the story, and to whom. It
doesn't look like a formal anthropological paper, or even an
anthropological presentation of a legend, so what is it and why is it
and who is it for?

Wolfe is too careful a writer (imo) to simply make such a "stylistic"
decision and _not_ consider its "meaning." (Insert standard lecture
about the dubious distinction between style and content.)

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes