(urth) theories

[Dan'l Danehy-Oakes]

H'mmmm. OK, I think I see where you're coming from. It doesn't, as you
say, work for me, but I can at least see why it does for you.

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Dan'l Danehy-Oakes- Well, Lee, you have never explained it to my satisfaction either. I
>>simply do not see what the interpretive benefit of this theory (finding Inire everywhere)
>>is, or how to reconcile it with the plain face value of, e.g., the death of Dorcas's
>>husband. There is no textual reason to believe that Inire can "pinch off" subroutines like
>>Tzad, and even if I take it as a given, I don't see the value of Dorcas's husband being Inire.
>>Can you clarify this so that a dummy like me can understand it?
>
> Hm. I'm not sure I could summarize 7 years of contributions in a meaningful way in one post.
> But as a request from a long-time (longer than me), insightful, pleasant and respectful member
> of this forum I will try.
>
> First, I don't see Inire as "everywhere". That is just a derisive attribution given by those
> hater-types who hope to undercut the theory with a quick reductio ad absurdum quip. There must
> be hundreds of characters in BotNS. Of those I find less than a dozen possible Father Inire
> appearances. Why is that such an outrageous possibility in a work of Fantasy/SF?
>
> second, Dorcas' husband as a potential candidate seems to be very problematic for many.
> Because he is dead? He does look dead. Perhaps he is, perhaps he isn't. Doesn't matter.
> Why should it, if the various appearances of Inire are accomplished with multiple bodies?
>
> You think there is no textual reason to believe Inire might be a pinched off version of a
> larger being? What is the textual reason for showing us that process clearly with Tzadkiel?
> In my reading of Wolfe, we are shown certain things clearly so that we may understand that
> they are happening not-so-clearly in other parts of the story.
>
> Regarding the value of the Father Inire story to solving mysteries, I suppose we would have
> to agree on what is a mystery. I would say the majority of criticism of the theory boils down
> to people saying, "That's not a mystery. That's nothing".
>
> Which is fine, for them. I happen to find a great deal of mystery in this book which is not
> explainable by a mundane shrug of the shoulder. Of course, Father Inire encompasses a large
> portion of these mysteries. Severian too. Too much to summarize here.
>
> Dorcas might be a little more manageable. I find her past to be mysterious in ways not explained
> simply by her resurrection nor even her status as Severian's grandmother. Why does she consider
> herself to be a hateful spectre?  What is the meaning of her dream in which her baby turns into
> a lump of filth? Why are the memories of her sitting in a window so important? Why does she have
> vampiric dreams? Why would she feel corrupted and soiled just because she was a shopkeeper wife?
>
> I can't even deal with all that here. Let me just focus on the window memory as an example. If we
> accept that Dorcas' husband is Inire and we accept that Fechin is Inire, that mystery is solved.
> The old person in Casdoe's cabin tells a story about Fechin's romantic meeting with a beautiful
> young woman who sits in a window. I think she is Dorcas.
>
> Multiply that connection by 20 or 30 times and you get the rationale for why I find the Father
> Inire theory helpful. It takes weird loose ends like that all through the story and ties them
> together. If it doesn't work for others, I understand. But it works for me and I'll answer
> questions about it to (almost) all those who ask.
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>



-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes