Conference noted::sf

There's a lengthy interview with Wolfe in the latest Locus, in which he
says this about _There are Doors_ (warning: there might be spoilers in
this); while it doesn't answer the question in .0 directly, it might
provide useful insight into his goals in writing it.

"The [ending] I like best is _There are Doors_.  I wrote exactly the
book I wanted to write, and I think I was touching on things that have
been very little touched on in general in fiction.  The love of the
divine, to start with.  The problems implicit in the real nature of
love.  The difficulty of deciding whether extraordinary events are
real, and what we mean by real.  Everybody says, 'You should have
worked out in more detail what would happen in a society in which males
died after copulation.'  I feel that I did work it out, it's just that
I didn't work it out to their satisfaction.  I wanted to keep it very
much like our society, because one of the things I wanted to deal with
was the Casper Hauser phenomenon -- the people who appear and disappear
tracelessly.  It seems curious.  We seem to have an awful lot of
scientists whos chief concern seems to be pushing these things under the bed."

    Paul,
    
    I find it very difficult to share your need for a "plain text" reading
    of Wolfe's work (or any other for that matter).  Indeed, surely the
    sign of a great work is that it cannot be reduced to one single, simple
    reading.  Furthermore, this only reflects reality: is Saddam a hero or
    villain?  Answer: both, it depends where you stand, who you are.  As
    someone (I think Umberto Eco) said: "a novel is a machine for
    generating interpretations."  For me, the more the better.
    
    My current favourite Wolfeian ambiguity is from "Soldier of Arete", in
    which Latro deduces that the world must be round because he notices
    that the chariot drawing the sun does not slow down as it approaches
    the horizon.  The right answer from wrong premises?  Or is Latro really
    seeing gods?  Answer: both or maybe neither.  It depends on who you
    are.  As far as his culture is concerned, what Latro sees, and his
    deductions are perfectly valid.  From this readers point of view, it
    doesn't matter: it's a wonderful, resonant image of the development of
    ideas, whose ambiguity is central to its effect.
    
    If I have a criticism of Wolfe, it is that the "plain text" reading is
    sometimes a lot less interesting than you thought it would be (Free
    Live Free for example).
    
    - John
                              

    re .2, sun's course
    
    I liked that, but it's not clear that it's proof that Latro is not
    hallucinating: some ancients believed in a round world, after all,
    and it is true that the sun's angular size and angular speed don't
    change as it sets (barring minor atmospheric effects).  But it's
    also information you wouldn't expect Latro to have, and so he has
    gotten knowledge from his visions which the gods would have (if they
    were real). There are other instances of this: either he is very
    observant and thoughtful (which we know to be true, but to what
    degree we don't know), or he is really seeing the gods.
    
    I liked Wolfe's introductions to both, and wish they had been longer
    and more detailed.
    
    The issue of truth and culture is one where I disagree with you: it's
    clear to me that Latro is _not_ typical of his culture, and that his
    visions are unsettling and strange to his contemporaries.  They believe
    that he sees gods, etc., but they themselves don't (without his
    assistence), and don't expect to.  They believe in the gods and ghosts,
    and so don't think him crazy, but he is special.
    
    Unlike .2, I don't think ambiguity is a good thing in itself, and
    don't agree with the Umberto Eco quote: I think too much symbolic
    ambigious froth detracts from a work (Eco is guilty of this, so are
    other "mainstream" authors), as it makes the sub-text of the book
    be "Look at how clever I am!".
    
    What do you think the Cliff notes summary of Free_Live_Free is?
    
    		-John Bishop

    Someone in the "New York Review of SF" said that there's never a first
    reading of a Gene Wolfe book, only the re-reading that you're working
    toward.
    
    I have to admit it usually doesn't seem worth the bother to me, but
    "There Are Doors" is the exception.  I loved that book and am looking
    forward to eventually formulating theories about it.  (: >,)
    
    Ray

    
    I read "The Devil in a Forest" a few years ago.  I have it in my
    "re-read" pile but haven't got to it yet...
    
    Anyone else read this one?
    
    I think he also wrote an SF work called "Operation ARES" - I'll see if
    I've still got it.
    
    David

    I wrote Wolfe and got a reply!
    
    He said that he had not read Julian Jaynes' book _The Origin_of_
    Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind_ until after
    he wrote _Soldier_, and found the book's hypothesis implausible.
    
    He also said "I would have liked to footnote every page."  The
    publisher didn't go along with this, as they felt it would reduce
    the number of sales.
    
    		-John Bishop 

    Has anyone read _Pandora_?
    
    	-John Bishop

    Well, I got _Pandora_by_Holly_Hollander_ from the library
    and read it last night.
    
    It's somewhat a juvenile mystery: the narrator is about 17
    from a rich family near Chicago who is involved in a killing
    and its solution.
    
    The first half of the book is great fun.  I was only a few
    pages in when I realized that Holly Hollander is Wolfe's 
    attempt to surpass Salinger's Holden Caulfield*.  But the
    murder mystery elements take over, and the book ends quite
    quickly, almost suddenly.  As there's more external dialogue,
    we lose the Holly Hollander internal monologue, and that's
    a real loss.
    
    			-John Bishop
    
    * OK, I don't know for sure that's what he was trying to do.
      But it sure sounded like it to me.  Then again, when you've
      read one smart teen-ager commenting on the world, you've read
      them all, right?