(urth) theories

[Ryan Dunn]

> I’m sorry if it bothers you that I think there are right approaches and wrong ones.

- But who gets to decide which are which, Gerry? Sergio, for instance, doesn't like Inire as boatman because it reminds him more of Roman Polanski than Gene Wolfe. Who is to define and uphold what "Wolfean" means and to what extent? You? Me? Sergio? Most certainly NOT.


> But it seems to me that all approaches to understanding Wolfe – or any author – cannot be equally useful.

- Again, who's approach do you endorse besides your own? Who gets to decide what is useful and what is fruitless? You? Me? What if you have it wrong? What if Gene called you up and told you you had it wrong and were reading it wrong and that Agia is a robot and Inire is Fechin? Then what?


> I think reading his works as cryptic crossword puzzles and brainstorming for clues is an approach that is unlikely to be effective.

- I'd say you couldn't be more off base here, Gerry. Sorry. His BotNS series is most DEFINITELY an enigma wrapped inside a mystery, and meant to be studied and analyzed over time. Gene truly expected the reader to infer everything you learned in UotNS within the first four volumes, which means there likely are/were shape shifters in the original volume, and Severian likely had a child with a hierodule.

- As for brainstorming for clues, who is doing that? Asking whether someone things a part of the text is a clue is different from brainstorming unique ones. Sometimes you need some help in parsing a line of thought, or interpreting the substance (or lack thereof) of this occurrence or the other.

- I'm really not personally offended here, just surprised that someone on an Urth discussion list would be so presumptuous as to decree the right and wrong way to read a book.

...ryan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111023/edb32a99/attachment-0003.htm>