<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div><span></span></div><div>David Duffy wrote:</div><div> </div><div> Because he is a tricksy Modernist. Joyce had to put the chapter headings <br>back in _Ulysses_, otherwise it was too hard, he was told. Similarly - in <br>a response to Clute? I can't remember where it was published - Wolfe <br>unpacked a ridiculous number of references in one scene from _The Citadel <br>of the Autarch_. Of course, he may have been making them up on the spot, <br>which would be even worse ;)<br><br>Cheers, David Duffy.<br></div><div>Perhaps my question was a bit obtuse - I know why he is tricky well enough. Yet when I have encountered reviews or analysis, especially outside the wolfe wiki and the urth list, there are generally three strains: banal observations like "this could be South America we are
talking about" that never go any further, the position that in fact there are no truths or patterns to get to the bottom of in Wolfe, and by far the worst, just assuming that published criticism (and here I point the finger at Clute, Borski, and others - is "right" or even somehow textually plausible just because it was published - Cues as poo, the golden hue of relationship, the autarch as Severian's mother, Kennedy as navigator - that and more - disconcerting.)</div></div></body></html>