<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=severiansola@hotmail.com
href="mailto:severiansola@hotmail.com">Lee Berman</A> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV><BR>>Gerry Quinn: </DIV>
<DIV>> > How do you determine the right way to read Wolfe? <BR>>
>I would tend to go by results, i.e. consistent interpretations that <BR>>
>make sense in terms of ALL the text, and not just mysterious snippets
<BR>> >interpreted in exotic ways.<BR> <BR>> I think this is a
good post Gerry, which reveals a lot. The funny thing<BR>> is that I would
say it is your analysis of Wolfe seems to consist of snippets<BR>>
interpreted in an exotic way. That exotic way being that you are almost<BR>>
totally devoted to writing posts which lecture us on what the story is NOT,
with<BR>> only passing lip service to what the story actually IS. And a
collection of NOTS<BR>> doesn't seem like a way to construct a consistent
interpretation to me.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I don’t see where you get that from. In the last few posts, for
example, I’ve posted on what I think the reference to Dionysus means, what I
think is the significance of Severian’s spectrum of lovers; I’ve posted my
interpretation of the nature of Baldanders, and my interpretation of the short
story Suzanne Delage. Those are positive interpretations. You may
not find them sufficiently bizarre or hermetic for your tastes, but I believe
they are consistent with what Wolfe wrote. And I believe they do not
require fantastic suppositions for which there is little evidence, or flat-out
contradictions of the text. Not requiring such things is, to my mind, an
essential part of a good theory.</DIV>
<DIV><BR> <BR>> I see others, as well as myself, attempting to find a
cohesive interpretive<BR>> structure to understand Wolfe.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What do you mean by the word “cohesive”? Does it include the quality
of being compatible with the text? </DIV>
<DIV><BR> <BR>> Doing this via building a model composed of "not this"
and "not that"<BR>> ideas is pretty exotic and strange to me and explains
some of the <BR>> difficulties in communication. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It would be strange, if that were what I were doing. But it’s
not. I propose theories in the ordinary way. And I challenge
theories – my own and others – in the ordinary way too, by looking for elements
in the text that contradict them or are explained better by other
theories. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> It adds weight to the already weighty<BR>> suggestion by Marc
Aramini that agreeing to disagree may be the best<BR>> solution. As I've
suggested before, if you tried a more postive approach which <BR>> eschews
mentioning the "nots" and emphasizes what you think the story "is" might
<BR>> allow for a more fulfilling discussion of your
ideas. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Are you suggesting that I should refrain from pointing out problems I
observe in theories that are proposed here?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- Gerry Quinn</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>