{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/122", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 122, "subject": "Westwind (Spoilers)", "messages": 3, "voices": 2, "first": "1997-07-25T14:10:37+00:00", "last": "1997-10-10T14:50:11+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "straight at email.unc.edu" }, "date": "1997-07-25T14:10:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Westwind (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Since the whorl list has been fairly quiet, I decided I could subscribe to\nthe urth list without drowning, and thought I'd say \"Hi\" with some\ncomments about the short story \"Westwind.\" Spoilers Ho! Fore! \n\nI can't remember which anthology I read this in, but I read Wolfe's\nintroduction first (where he makes a few comments about each of the\nstories) trusting him not to spoil any of the stories, but I think he\ntruly ruined this one for me. \n\nThe story is wonderfully ambiguous about whether the ruler (I forget what\nhe's called in the story) is a benevolent God-like figure who loves and\nsecretly carries on a personal relationship with all his subjects (or at\nleast all of the \"good\" ones), or a dictator using computer technology and\ntrickery as a form of social control (convincing subjects who live in\npoverty - in contrast to the beauty seen when he addresses them all on the\nbig screen - that they have an exclusive, secret relationship with the\nruler so that they won't want to oppose him).\n\nI've wondered if the story isn't something of a Rorschach test revealing\nthe readers own predispositions, whether people who do not believe in a\nbenevolent God are more likely to interpret the story as sinister (or\nmaybe most sf readers would interpret it as sinister since the \"benevolent\nruler turns out to be nasty dictator\" is such a common idea in sf). \n\nAnyone want to chime in on how you interpreted the story and whether you\nthink that reveals anything about yourself? I'll never know what my\ninitial reaction would have been because in the introduction, Wolfe says\nthat the story is about God and so I interpreted it in a positive light\nand didn't notice the possible sinister aspects until later.\n\nBut there's more to discuss here than first reactions. Can the story be\nread in a positive light? Even if he hasn't outright lied to people, the\nleader seems to have mislead many of them (all of them?) into thinking\nthey are each the only Westwind. Is everyone Westwind or just those who\nvoiced support for the leader? (Do you get to be Westwind because you\nsupport him, or do you support him because you're Westwind?) Can the\nleader be human or must he either be a multi-tasking computer or divine\n(I'm thinking of the fact that he seems able to talk to all the Westwinds\nat the same time)? \n\n-Rostrum" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Scott Dalrymple", "address": "scottd at wycol.com" }, "date": "1997-07-25T15:44:27+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Westwind (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The story is wonderfully ambiguous about whether the ruler (I forget what\nhe's called in the story) is a benevolent God-like figure who loves and\nsecretly carries on a personal relationship with all his subjects (or at\nleast all of the \"good\" ones), or a dictator using computer technology and\ntrickery as a form of social control (convincing subjects who live in\npoverty - in contrast to the beauty seen when he addresses them all on the\nbig screen - that they have an exclusive, secret relationship with the\nruler so that they won't want to oppose him).\n\nI've wondered if the story isn't something of a Rorschach test revealing\nthe readers own predispositions, whether people who do not believe in a\nbenevolent God are more likely to interpret the story as sinister (or\nmaybe most sf readers would interpret it as sinister since the \"benevolent\nruler turns out to be nasty dictator\" is such a common idea in sf). " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I haven't re-read \"Westwind\" in awhile, but I remember it well. I don't\nrecall feeling anything sinister. I actually see the story as quite\npoignant and spiritual. The main character thinks he is the only eyes of\nhis god, and it makes him feel special; when he overhears another \"special\"\nmessenger at the end of the story, he/we realize that it isn't quite so,\nand that perhaps everyone has such a personal relationship with god/God. I\ndon't see this as sinister, but poignant. I think it a lovely story, one\nof Wolfe's best. It didn't surprise me at all when I read somewhere that\nWolfe himself thinks it one of his best, along with \"A Solar Labrynth.\"\n\nSpeaking of that story, does anyone else have copies of the audiotapes of\nWolfe reading it and \"Dr. Death & Other Stories\"? There's also a tape of\nan interview. They're both quite fun; Wolfe reads his stories as no one\nelse could.\n\nScott Dalrymple" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "straight at email.unc.edu" }, "date": "1997-10-10T14:50:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Westwind (spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Jim Jordan wrote at the end of a post about Holly\nHunter: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\tLemme reiterate that some allegories are specific and some are very vague.\nIn Wolfe, \"Westwind\" is pretty specific, while \"The Man in the Pepper Mill\"\nis pretty vague." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm inclined to disagree with you about Westwind. I've seen your list of\na=x, b=y, c=z for that story, but I don't think an allegorical reading,\nwhere each element of the story represents a specific thing or concept in\nthe real world, is the best one. \n\nI think the most interesting way of reading the story is to consider the\nstory and the situation it presents as a whole and how it compares to\nreal life epistomological uncertainty and Christian faith.\n\nIf you are not thinking about God or Christian faith when you read the\nstory, it may come across as a typical (almost sf-cliche) \"Blade\nRunner-type\" scenario. The setting is a tavern/hotel in the future, but\nit's just as poor, dirty and grungy as some of the worst that can be found\nin cities today. Meanwhile on the big TV screen, the commoners get a\nmessage from the Leader who lives in comparative beauty and luxury. He\ntries to sound benevolent, but the commoners see through the politician's\nhappy-talk and are more intersted in the game.\n\nThen it gets interesting. Some of the commoners seem quite devoted to\nthis Leader, even though they live in a world of poverty and\nsuffering, the woman recently preyed upon by someone. We soon find the\nreason for the young man's loyalty, he is secretly \"Westwind,\" a friend\nand spy for the Leader. \n\nHowever, in a surprise ending, we find that the blind girl and the owner\nof the tavern *also* think they are \"Westwind\" and have same kind of\ncommunication link with the Leader. Obviously, the Leader is using some\nkind of computer technology to simultaneously pretend to talk with many\npeople at once. Or maybe the Leader is himself just a digitized computer\npersonality. Thus, people of goodwill are co-opted away from any thoughts\nof overthrowing the government and improving their lot because each thinks\nhe or she has a special, unique link with the Leader. A perfect sf-method\nof social control.\n\nOr is it? True in many sf stories the leaders in charge who live in\nluxury are the bad guys, but maybe this Leader is different. Maybe he\nreally does love each of those people. Maybe he's more than human, and\ngenuinely able to converse with many people at once. But if he's so good\nand powerful, why are his people living like this?\n\nNow, I have to admit that this isn't the way I initially read the story,\nbecause in the anthology I read, Wolfe introduced it by saying it was\nabout God, so I started out assuming the Leader was good and only\nafterwards saw the other, more sinister interpretation. But I think it's\nfruitful to compare the story as a whole and the different thoughts and\nemotions it raises to the different perspectives people have of trying to\nreconcile the ideas of a good, loving God who has a personal relationship\nwith each of his people, with the suffering people experience. \n\nIf you have faith that the Leader really is good, in spite of appearances,\nthen the portrayal of the intimate, personal relationship, of speaking\ntogether privately before bedtime, is very moving. If you don't, then the\nwhole thing is revolting. Obviously, Wolfe chooses the first way of\nlooking at things (and so do I), but nothing about the story forces you to\ninterpret it that way, which is part of why I think it is so great.\n\n-Rostrum" } ] } ] }