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

[Lee]

>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?


Were you familiar with the theory that the family name is actually "Gene Wolfe"?

What might that symbolize?



>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.


>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".


>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".


>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.


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?



>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.


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.


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.