(urth) barrington interview

Thu Oct 9 08:14:11 PDT 2014

The Eucharistic (and other theological) imagery is far from merely
ornamental.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Richard Simon <gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Re. 'nothing more': I'm not quibbling about 'Eucharistic elements' *et
> al.* Obviously  there will be cultural references — I mean to our
> culture, not Urth's fictional one — in any work of fiction, and their
> presentation will be informed by the author's views, beliefs, intent, sense
> of humour, etc. I also mentioned subtext earlier. But all this stuff is
> pretty much on the surface, even when you get to relatively dubious
> constructions like *Terminus Est* = cross symbol. They aren't hidden deep
> within the text.
>
> I recall a discussion on the Urth List long ago about the 'language' of
> flowers, initiated by someone who was trying to parse the appearance of a
> flower on the thwarts of the boat Sev was using to make his way up Gyoll
> while he paused to survey some downstream ruins. In my modest opinion (and
> at the risk of upsetting anyone here who might have been a participant in
> that discussion), I would suggest that hiding a serious, significant datum
> relating to the story in the (only partly codified) language of flowers
> seems a bit too obscure even for Gene Wolfe. If there's any meaning there,
> it's likely to be ornamental rather than essential. 'Ornamental' covers a
> lot of ground; do we really need to know who Severian's mother was?
>
>
>   On Tuesday, 7 October 2014, 21:27, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> I'm with Daniel here. "Nothing more" applies only in the sense it would
> apply to Shakespeare or Dickens, who also wrote popular entertainments for
> the ages. The primary distinction to be made here, I suppose, is with
> someone like Joyce or Woolf who writes for a "select" audience.
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen <
> danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree with you up to the 'nothing more', Andrew.  For it is, of course,
> possible for the technical quality you describe to be central and yet also
> for Wolfe's many evocations of philosophical inquiry to be central as
> well.  Like the poetic conceits, he weaves philosophical and theological
> exploration (even exposition I would contend) into the narratives in a way
> consistent with them (always the craftsman, yes), but not merely for
> allusive code-cracking.  Repeated Eucharistic images and instances in Short
> Sun, for example, are not their only to tie up some technical aspect of the
> narrative, but also to evoke something Wolfe takes to be a recalcitrant
> fact of fictional and real worlds:  people are spiritual and they have
> spiritual experiences.  That may not develop or tighten plot, but it
> deepens worldbuilding and 'literary' quality ('literary' in the sense of
> intentionally and centrally exploring, through the writing of fiction,
> longstanding human cultural and philosophical concerns, and not being
> content to merely entertain).  Wolfe is simply not content to merely
> entertain.  He never aims to do less than that, but he does often aim to do
> more.  Whether and to what degree he succeeds is a separate question.
>
> -DOJP
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen <jurisper at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon <gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a direct
> bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that could
> help the reader understand something more about the plot, the characters,
> the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the mechanics of the story
> itself.
>
> Occasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without
> endangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic
> conceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to
> the reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding.
>
> I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any
> relevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters
> present some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think
> they have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at
> that point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some
> extra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of
> popular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author —
> 'great' as in 'for the ages' — but he is not a preacher or a philosophical
> huckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all.
>
>
> Wholehearted agreement!
>
> Also: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations of
> character and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he or
> she act well or badly in the circumstances?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Otto Jack Petersen
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>

-- 
Daniel Otto Jack Petersen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20141009/c23ba6ff/attachment-0003.htm>