(urth) Theories

[Andrew Mason]

Ryan Dunn wrote:

>> There are especially many theories trying to declare that different personages are
>> identical.
>
> Well if people weren't always appearing masked, in disguise, or spying on Severian, then I'd see where you are coming from.
>
> Wolfe's works most definitely ARE puzzles to be solved. He hides things in plain sight and assumes his readers will try to solve the mysteries he lays out. BotNS couldn't be a better example of this type of story.

No one is disputing that Wolfe's works _contain_ puzzles to be solved.
 Sometimes, as various remarks by him make clear, this is because he
overestimates our intelligence and expects various things to be
obvious to us when they are not. Other times he does actually seem to
be hiding things as a challenge. I think, for instance, that we are
probably meant to be able to trace more of Severian's family tree than
we have so far successfully done, and to work out the names of some of
the conspicuously unnamed characters

On the other hand, there are things that are initially mysterious but
are actually solved quite openly by the end. I think much of the
mystery of Inire is of this sort. He is tracking and guiding Severian,
secretly at first. But we know he is cahoots with the Autarch; we know
what end the Autarch is working towards (because he tells us); we know
what prompted the Autarch to start doing so - the visit of 'Paeon' on
the night of Severian's visit to the House Azure; and given that
Paeon's relationship to the Autarch resembles that of Malrubius to
Severian, it's reasonable to think that he is an aquastor and has been
sent by the Hierogrammates. So by the end, we have a fair idea of what
is happening. To be sure, this does not explain everything about Inire
- for instance, why he is called 'Father'. (I do find the idea that he
is an avatar of the author attractive as an answer to this.) But the
air of total mystery that surrounds him is easy to exaggerate, I
think.

What I think worries Gerry and Sergei, and me, is the thought (which
people may not be intending to imply, but is the sense that I often
get from some theories) that the _entire_ story is a puzzle; that
everything is below the surface, and a straightforward reading will
just give us no idea of what is going on. This is worrying, because it
seems to imply that 99.9% of readers of Wolfe's works have no idea
what they are about. Moreover, it suggests that those of us who think
that quite a large part of the story is visible on the surface are
reading in an inadequate way; I have more than once seen the
suggestion that we are treating it as a 'ripping yarn'; whereas I
think that the visible stories often have real depth, which  theories
of hidden meaning sometimes detract from.

For instance, I think that a major theme of _Long Sun_ is God's
revelation of himself to a world from which he has long been hidden.
The basic point is made clear on the first page (though not absolutely
clear at first, of course, since it takes time to work out who the
Outsider is). Silk was already special, which is why the Outsider
chose him rather than any of the other augurs in Viron, but his
super-duper-specialness comes from the Outsider; and I think theories
that attempt to explain his significance in some other way often play
down this dimension of the work.


> I'm more concerned by naysayers who dare to presume that either 1) they know the material so well that those who still theorize have nothing valuable to offer; or (worse) 2) they believe they have figured it all out and anyone who offers a new line of thought is somehow beneath their literary prowess.

But I don't think anyone is objecting to all new theories. The
objection is to specific theories, and the way they relate to the
evidence.

>