<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><BR>> I think Gerry is a good example of a warrior. Notice his
recent invocation <BR>> of metaphor in doing battle against Marc's Green is
Urth concept. Poetic and <BR>> literary interpretation are in his tool kit
when they serve his purpose.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>They always have been. I try to apply the correct tools for a
given task. In both cases the purpose I attempt to serve is understanding
and correctly interpreting Wolfe’s work, which necessarily means challenging
misunderstandings and incorrect interpretations, which can be literal or
literary. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>‘Green is Urth’ is not of course in the books – it is an observation of
Wolfe’s. It seems to me that it has a reasonable metaphorical
interpretation. Humans have failed in Urth, as the Vanished People failed
in Green. Both became to some degree hellholes of predation. On the
other hand I cannot see a reasonable literal interpretation in SF terms.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Elsewhere, though, Wolfe’s characters themselves use metaphors when they
talk about cannibal trees and suchlike, and they dream dreams that are
dreamlike, and not literal statements about reality. I think Marc does not
allow sufficiently for this. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>> But blunt, literal interpretations will be used when he feels they
would are <BR>> the appropriate weapon- seen in the example of insisting
Silent/Silver Silk <BR>> cannot allude to him being an aspect of a
Dionysian-like god, The Outsider, <BR>> unless Silk is shown to have horns
and cloven hoofs.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>We have a blunt, literal interpretation that incontrovertibly works and is
intended. Then we have a proposal to overlay it with an extremely vague
and ambiguous reference based on a few similar syllables. Wolfe is a
competent author. Why would he do that? In particular, why would he
do it that way, which doesn’t really even work – the supposed references are not
gods but fauns, and one was not associated with Dionysus at all. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If Wolfe wanted to indicate that the Outsider has more Dionysian aspects
than one might expect of a god with a Christian heritage, he would do so in a
clearer and less cack-handed fashion. Giving the Outsider some
significant proportion of Dionysus-like attributes would have been a good
start. Why would he play silly puzzle games (and make such ill-designed
puzzles)?<BR> <BR><BR>> How often have I been dragged into pointless
discussions about monkeys when <BR>> the important concept on Urth (and the
Whorl and Blue/Green) is the idea of a <BR>> larger god/being dividing
him/itself into various smaller portions which are <BR>> distributed among
lesser, smaller versions each with a different name or epithet <BR>> which
reflects something about their unique aspect.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If you put forward theories based on monkeys, expect to get challenged on
the subject. And with the possible exceptions of Tzadkiel and the Mother,
I haven’t seen you talking much about anything near the gods as such in this
context. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The theory (which I’ve never seen you propose in that form) seems at least
at first sight to be back to front – the gods are often merging and ascending,
being themselves redeemed, even. It is the false human representation of
them that fragments. <BR><BR>- Gerry Quinn</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>