(urth) barrington interview

Marc Aramini marcaramini at gmail.com
Tue Oct 7 06:48:19 PDT 2014

And inevitably some readings will be closer to authorial intention, some
further away.  Wolfe knows if his shadow children are parasites and the
relationship, if any, between the Abos and the trees.

No one has ever really talked about my Latro story (probably because it
sucked, I suppose) but there is an intended solution set up by symbolic
patterns (who does a black dog represent? What does a boar signify in
Latro's world? Why is the present day narrator called by  two different
first names?) or  outside information (what does zalmoxis' name mean? Who
boxed a man and thought about shooting him during the Korean War?). There
is an objective explanation. Whether the story works outside of the mystery
is the difference between Wolfe and me.  My story clearly doesn't work, his
do, but I can tell you if your guesses were right or wrong in my work.

Wolfe is human and occasionally makes mistakes, but copy editors are far
more often to blame for reversing his decisions (turning Horn's first
person entrance to a third person one - this infuriated Wolfe when he found
out - his artistic vision requires Horn's "I" at that point in the
narrative of Exodus.)

On Tuesday, October 7, 2014, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:

> >Marc Aramini: Well, Lee, let me give you an example of a misreading.
> Marc, I'm sure there are many examples upon which WE can agree are a
> misreading
> of fiction by someone else.  But the assessment of error remains our
> opinion not scientific
> fact.
> What if there is an "error" (Wolfe's or editor's) in the text such as
> Wolfe's spelling of
> Quadrifrons as Quadrifons? Is the misspelling deliberate on Wolfe's part,
> serving a
> hidden purpose? Or is it just an error?
> What if Wolfe makes an error and a reader makes an assumption based on
> that error.
> Who is actually right, the reader who is in concord with Wolfe within the
> text or the scholar
> who has spotted Wolfe's error?
> There are varying levels of agreement when it comes to fiction. Relatively
> few disagree
> on the meaning of a Stephen King novel. But when an author such as Wolfe
> writes in
> deliberately ambiguous fashion (Shadow Children are degenerate humans/No,
> they are
> native shapeshifters) there is going to be disagreement with no firm way
> to establish
> universal correctness, as your discussions with Gerry Quinn demonstrate.
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net <javascript:;>
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20141007/21a9361d/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the Urth mailing list