(urth) theories

[Ryan Dunn]

>  Do we think about Dorcas’s story, or just ignore it because of all the loose ends that fall into place when her husband is Inire?  Loose ends like... just what, exactly?
> As for Inire as the old boatman, I really don’t understand why people take such ideas seriously.  Can somebody explain how they understand Dorcas’ character and story in this picture?  Married to a rich and powerful alien, running a small shop selling lace or something I think, going back to find him in the slums of Nessus after being resurrected – and *finding* him.  Oh yes, and he’s still running the secret service from the House Absolute all the time, even after dying in Dorcas’s arms in the slums of Nessus.  Does Dorcas mention anything about an alien lover?  And wouldn’t she have married a young man, even if he is old now?  Why couldn’t he save her?  Yet the fact of him being old and wizened seems to be one of the supposed signifiers of his identity (like that’s rare or something).  I guess he made himself look young that one time?

Gerry, I have no problem with your beliefs and opinions. In fact, I have a harder time believing Inire is the boatman. That mystery is revealed in the text when Severian realizes Dorcas is his grandmother. You have to wonder, however, why he just so happens to resurrect his grandmother in the Botanical Garden, though, and what that means elsewhere, right? Those are the sorts of things I wouldn't say are counter-productive.


> So tell me.  Where’s all this ‘Inire is the boatman stuff’ getting us?

I am/was using it simply as an example on why your dismissiveness of those who reach (or in your case over-reach) to find answers in the text is not fair to those with a valid interest in pursuing them. You are welcome to not subscribe, but your own words (if they were your words Sergei were quoting were what bothered me...

"I think you (and some others) greatly misunderstand the nature of Wolfe’s books. You seem to think of them as some sort of puzzle in which a hidden underlying story, cloned from some ancient myth or other, is disguised as a science fiction story."

How do you know the nature of Wolfe's books and others do not? I know you said you "think" meaning it is your opinion, but why are you so sure of yourself to presume that Wolfe does not in fact love writing new parables from old material. Do you not think that he borrowed HEAVILY from Norse mythology for his Wizard Knight duology? Does he not readily admit he does this and enjoys it? That doesn't mean you cannot find your own voice or your own story, but if Wolfe wasn't intentionally trying to remix Greek fiction with his Latro series, I'll eat my shoe.

You went on to say...

"The object (you think) is to peel away the extraneous matter and locate the crossword clues to the true story you think is lurking underneath. You clutch at every possible classical reference because with those there’s always some way to play six degrees of Kevin Bacon towards whatever scheme you are trying to impose on the story."

Not sure why you are adverse to finding the source material of Wolfe's prose in order to help demystify some of the less than clear imagery he evokes and portrays in his books. I think it is completely fine. I don't know nearly as much about referenced text, and I agree that Wolfe would be wiser than to REQUIRE his reader to have read other material to solve his own riddles, but it can't hurt to have this knowledge and attempt to put it to use.

You finished with...

"Why would Wolfe engage in a complicated, arbitrary, pointless scheme such as this? He is writing his own stories."

Why would he engage in a complicated scheme? What makes it arbitrary or pointless? If I have a suspicion that Severian's life is one big play, meaning it is a foregone conclusion and other forces are at work to make it happen just so, does that mean Wolfe has taken pointless and arbitrary steps to give me metaphors, imagery, stories within stories, and a very small cast of characters considering the scope and breadth of Severian's journey?

I'm sorry, but I just think that your presumption that somehow someone is reading it wrong is off-putting. I don't think maniacal fanatical irrelevant theories that have nothing to do with anything are productive, but maybe part of our role as a collective here is to hear someone's point of view, encourage their line of thinking, or constructively shoot it down without passing judgement on the reader who is positing their point of view.

My assertion of UotNS is as you put it, that we are supposed to infer the main themes. I did not mean that we should have known that he would meet Gunnie, or meet someone named Apheta, or that Zak would be Tzak, etc.

But shapeshifting is a big part of the UotNS arc, which makes me wonder whether that isn't something we should have been more aware/mindful of in the original text. And he mates with an alien, which I think is important enough an act that we might have suspected something in the first four volumes.

Just my opinion, of course.

Your final note:

"Indeed, the line “I think you couldn’t be more off base here, Gerry” would seem no less of such a decree than anything I have said."

Fair enough, my words were strong, and I apologize. You aren't off base but I think your opinion of how someone should read or interpret text goes too far.

...ryan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111023/7b8b6692/attachment-0004.htm>