(urth) Overthinking/Underthinking "The Fifth Head of Cerberus"

[Gerry Quinn]

On 19/08/2014 14:31, Lee wrote:
>> Gerry Quinn: What do you think of my theory that Mr. Million is an electronic
>> simulation?  Because I thought up that in the same way. It's simply what
>> Wolfe tells us.
> A nice theory! I like it! Interesting that you use the word "simply". Had you
> considered that there might be more to the story? For example that Mr. Million
> might also be the origin of the cloned chain which includes #5 and Maitre?
I think it's highly plausible, since presumably the scanning was done on 
earth, where cloning of this kind is illegal.  I don't think it's 
explicitly stated, though.

> Were you familiar with the theory that the family name is actually "Gene Wolfe"?
> What might that symbolize?
Nothing much - a kind of joke that Wolfe may have inserted elsewhere.

> > Recall the speech of the Old Wise One when he speaks of the two peoples
> > - the ones who "used their hands, when they had hands, only to take
> > food", and the others who "crossed from star to star". "Then if was
> > found that the first heard the songs of the second and sent them out
> > again, greater than before.
> Yes, I think this refers to telepathic Shadow Children (who sometimes have hands)
> and human astronauts whose thoughts are picked up as they travel through space.
That is incompatible with what the Old Wise One says, and with much 
else.  I don't think I need to rehearse why yet again.

>> Maybe so, but the story tells us otherwise.
>
> But, as previously noted, there is no "the" one story. There are multiple stories
> which must be pieced together. I don't think the interweaving is meant to be "simple".

There are stories you have invented, but they don't appear in the text.  
You can argue that the Old Wise One is confused at one point as to which 
of the two peoples in the story is which, but it can be explained in a 
straightforward way.  Or you can argue that he is lying or otherwise 
incorrect, or that neo-Marsch is a better SF writer than he is an 
anthropologist.  But it is simply not the case that a variety of origin 
stories are presented in the text for the reader to choose between.  The 
text tells exactly one story, involving a landing by humans, who were 
imitated by the aborigines, and who devolved into the Shadow Children.  
Right or wrong, that's what we are told.

>
>> You have to assume that Wolfe's characters are completely delusional
>> even when conscious, and that the story is told, like that of Loyal To
>> The Group Of Seventeen, in terms of symbology with no causal attachment
>> to the overt meaning of the text.
> Excellent analogy! If we change "No causal attachment" to "indirect causal attachment".
What would be the point of the story told in the text, if it has neither 
literal nor symbolic significance?  I do not believe Wolfe writes 
stories as exercises in steganography.


>
>> I don't think such symbolism works if it contradicts the text.
> Who wrote the story told by "Loyal To The Group Of 17"? Gene Wolfe right? Perhaps he is revealing his larger literary style in such smaller synecdoche.
I would say it points out that newspeak is ineffective for its intended 
purpose.  (Such an observation might suggest that Wolfe leans toward 
conservatism.)

> Is "Number Five" in any way an unreliable narrator? What is Gene Wolfe saying about
> himself in giving "Number Five" the name of Gene Wolfe?
Nothing, I believe.  It is a little game he plays.

>
>> The problem is, we can easily generate a storm of such symbolism from any text.
>
>> If you accept connections that loose, you will find millions in every direction.

> These are grave literary accusations to make against another human being. I can't speak for Marc but I can personally assure you that I don't find hidden messages about aliens in the instructions on how to assemble a shelving set. Nor do I find secret clues about mythological gods in the ingredient list on my cereal box.
That is precisely why aliens hide their secret messages in such things - 
nobody suspects them!


> On the other hand, I do find hidden references to 1950's McCarthyism in the play The Crucible which is about Salem Witch Hunts even though the name "McCarthy" is never mentioned in the text.
>
> I look at Picasso's Guernica and see cartoon cows and horses and people, yet I think it refers to the 1937 bombing of a Basque town.
>
> Likewise I find reference to Adolph Hitler in the Chaplin film The Great Dictator. In Gulliver's Travel's I find secret references to 18th Century British society, even though Whigs, Tories, Protestants, Catholics and France are not mentioned once in the text.
And none of them correspond to what I am saying.  I was referring to 
'connections' supposed to indicate secrets of the story qua story. You 
do not assume that the witches have a secret book that is actually Das 
Kapital, that Picasso painted Guernico in blood scraped from the walls, 
that the sentences of Lilliputians can be decoded to indicate that they 
are involved in an internal squabble of some tenet of Anglicanism that 
they hope to co-opt Gulliver to solve. You separate the levels of 
significance.

In the same way we can see many echoes of colonialism in _5HOC_, but 
they do not impinge on the question of whether the alien species is 
capable of shapeshifting.

Anyway, a better analogy to the sort of thing I was talking about would 
be if someone developed an overly elaborate theory of Guernica based on 
references to electrical items included in or suggested by the painting, 
and ultimately came up with a theory that the painting secretly refers 
to Nikolai Tesla.

> Am I really to ignore all possible deeper interpretations of artwork because the reference are not found in the main body of the medium? Am I really to accept the words of someone on the internet who tells me that if they don't see something in a work of art then it doesn't exist?
>
> I could. But I think I would be missing a lot. "Art Must Be Taken Only At Face Value" is not a club I care to join. 		
>

"Art means whatever you want it to mean", conversely, is a proposition 
suited only to a club of one.

- Gerry Quinn