(urth) barrington interview

[Marc Aramini]

Well, Lee, let me give you an example of a misreading.  In "Look at the
Evidence", Clute mentions a theme anthology of British literature in which
the editors note collections of this type's scarcity. They then say that
hopefully this scarcity will become a thing of the past.  Clute misreads
this as indicating that somewhere during the construction of the anthology,
the editors wearied of it and hoped that no more anthologies like it would
be produced, though in fact they were saying the exact opposite - they
wanted the scarcity to vanish, not "the scarcity" as a replacement
appositive for the concept of anthologies like it.   Even intelligent men
misread on occasion, as I did during one of my explications of "When I was
ming the merciless" - when I was corrected, I saw that obviously the
objective words meant something else and readily admitted it.  I have been
wrong, but when I am, I acknowledge it.

Not all opinions are valid, not all explications work.  Have you ever had
to grade literary analysis papers?  I have, and some people are right,
others are just plain wrong.  Hamlet's father is not an alien because the
text doesn't support that interpretation, no matter how you argue it.  Some
explications rely on the text and explain features of it, other's don't.
 "The Changeling" is a prime example - James Jordan's exegesis of faith and
works was interesting, but it just wasn't in the text.  What was? an
indication of exactly when the ageless child appeared, which could be
corroborated by external reference to the birth date of a little known
actor and the etymology of the word oaf, which described that actors most
famous role (objective facts which Wolfe expects us to know in order to
figure out what happened in the story).  I don't just "say so", it can be
verified and explain mysteries in the text (like why our narrator isn't in
that fourth grade picture and how he is old enough at the supposed age of
15 to be in the military).

Wolfe's symbolism has a HUGE impact on plot interpretation (especially in
new sun - Sev nearly drowning but being saved from the water at the start,
the water conflated over and over with death and resurrection (Dorcas
submerged)/ the flooding of genesis, the play eschatology and genesis,
typhon as satan talking about how water brings renewed life, ad nauseum -
the future was clearly going to be a deluge - we didn't need Urth of the
New Sun to tell us that).

Not all interpretations are valid, and I never bought into the death of the
author's intentions. Sloppy stuff.  The best explication fits every detail
for a text or explains inconsistencies thematically.

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:

> >Rick Norwood: Also, I find Wolfe enjoyable on a first read.  The depths
> are fun to probe,
>
> >but the surface is fun, too.  Thus I do not see Wolfe as a puzzle game,
> where unless you
>
> >solve the boss puzzle you lose.  Rather as many layered fiction, with
> something extra for
>
> >those who read the classics.
>
>
>
> Thanks Rick. I agree and I suspect most here agree. I think our
> discussions are skewed toward
>
>  the more difficult puzzles and away from the superficially enjoyable
> aspects of Wolfe's work
>
> just because there is more to discuss. "Severian met a giant.." or "Sir
> Able fought a dragon.."
>
> "..wasn't that cool?"  "Yeah, it was". What more can be said than that?
> Perhaps a sad truth of
>
> human discourse is that disagreement is often a more compelling subject
> than agreement.
>
>
>
> >Marc Aramini: Whoever explains the most narrative events and patterns
> without resorting to
>
> >misprision is right.  Some people are better at logic puzzles than
> others....There is plenty of
>
> >evidence. Some readings are right.  Some are often consistently wrong. We
> don't need Wolfe's
>
> >consent, though at times it would be nice.
>
>
>
> Marc you say this without acknowledgement that the terms "misprision",
> "better", "logic",
>
> "evidence", "right" and "wrong" are all subjective judgments, especially
> in regard to fiction.
>
> How do you know something is evidence? How do you know someone is right or
> wrong or
>
> misunderstanding the text? The answer is, invariably, because you say so.
> This ends up being
>
> a fancy way of saying "I'm right". After all, are you prepared to say that
> any of your own current
>
> theories are wrong? It would be absurd for you to say that. And just as
> absurd for anyone else
>
> to say it about their own theories. You may think others are wrong, just
> as you always think
>
> you are right. Such thoughts don't make it universally so.
>
>
>
> There is no scientific method for understanding fiction for the same
> reason there is no scientific
>
> method for belief in God. The concept of a Creator and the presence of
> Intelligent Design
>
> tosses out scientific method. Take Occam's Razor. It doesn't apply to
> fiction or God because the
>
> author/Creator may well have decided that the most complex explanation is
> the right one. Take
>
> statistics. A penny doesn't have a 50/50 chance of heads or tails in
> fiction. A fictional penny has
>
> only the 100% chance of falling however the author writes it as falling.
> Throw out experimentation
>
> and repeatability etc. They don't work on fiction.
>
>
>
> It is tempting to put the author in the role of Creator in this analogy
> but it should be noted that
>
> fiction exists in the minds of all involved parties. Thus, each reader
> becomes a Creator also, as
>
> soon as a fictional mental image is created in each mind.
>
>
>
> Perhaps there are those who have such pure utter faith in their own
> judgment of a work of fiction
>
>  that they are willing to claim all others are wrong. But just like
> personal religious faith, it is rather
>
> unrealistic to actually expect all others to share the minutiae of what
> you personally believe in.
>
>
>
> >Richard Simon: My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's
> 'puzzles' have a direct bearing on
>
> >the story.
>
>
>
> I agree.
>
>
>
> >I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any
> relevance outside the frame of the
>
> >story.
>
>
>
> I disagree. While I agree that Wolfe's puzzles and symbolism almost always
> bear on the storyline, I think
>
> they sometimes have multiple levels of meaning which can extend outside
> the story.
>
>
>
> Perhaps the classic example is Wolfe's own admission that the name of the
> main members of Number 5's
>
> family in 5HoC is "Gene Wolfe". I don't think he really means to imply
> that he, personally, is in the story.
>
>
>
> Similarly, Andre-Driussi has spent significant research showing that the
> events of BotNS seem to parallel
>
> the life of Gene Wolfe. And I think the family dynamics of Horn's family
> in Short Sun are too similar to
>
> Wolfe family dynamics to dismiss them as purely and entirely fictional.
>
>
>
> As I recently quoted from the Larry McCaffrey interview, Gene Wolfe notes
> that BotNS serves as a way of
>
> expressing  the ramifications of his own personal religious beliefs. It
> isn't just a rippingly good yarn.
>
> At least not to Gene Wolfe. There are real world personal elements to it.
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20141006/46580d37/attachment-0002.htm>