(urth) Pike's ghost

[Lee Berman]

>Antonio Pedro Marques: I know it's fashionable here now to say that in a Wolfe 
>story there are always explanations of type Y which are meant for the simple minded, 
>with an X kept for those who aim higher. However, I don't see that that's the case.
 
It is not the case. The adjective "fashionable" implies there is some sissy-boy elite
who impose arbitrary levels of nobility to different sorts of explanations. If anyone
has the authority to impose a hierarchy on levels of understanding, it is Gene Wolfe.
And he has made it clear in BotNS, using two different analogies, that there are
different levels of understanding but they are circular not stacked. If the lowest
level is also the highest, there is no hierarchy. No top dog category of theories
which dominate the lower dogs in the hierarchy.
 
I see no reason for those who prefer to focus on "ploughman's" understanding of the text
to feel inferior and attacked by those who focus the more allusory, philosophical 
understandings. This feeling of being attacked seems to lead to a hurt, defensive stance
which contributes to much of the rancor and bile found here.
 
As I've noted in another post, in many cases the philosophical understanding can be easier
to grasp, as it runs in threads through all of Wolfe's work. He doesn't change his
philosophy much from book to book. What does change are the intricate details of the surface
story. Wolfe puts a lot of work into developing these and their associated mysteries. I 
wish this could be recognized by those who reflexively react against allusive and 
philosophical interpretations with the feral defensiveness of a subordinate pack animal.
The perceived inferior status is a self-invention.