{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/1231", "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": 1231, "subject": "Jaynes and Wolfe", "messages": 7, "voices": 6, "first": "1998-10-28T09:38:16+00:00", "last": "1998-11-02T19:45:53+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Alice Turner", "address": "al at interport.net" }, "date": "1998-10-29T19:46:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Jaynes and Wolfe", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think Mothman is really onto something here. Jaynes's book was published\nin 1979 in the US and caused the most tremendous furor--it was a real\nwhoop-de-do. -Soldier of the Mist- was published in 1986. It seems to me\nabsolutely impossible that Wolfe, in researching these books, should not\nhave read it. And I do think that he borrowed what was useful to him from\nJaynes's thesis, not only for the Soldier books but for the relationship\nbetween \"gods\" and men in BOTLS too--almost directly for the former. BOTLS\n(which I admire more structurally with each contemplation--especially since\nI don't think Wolfe was strong with structure up to that point) could be\nread as Wolfe's attempt to integrate Jaynes with his (Wolfe's) new knowledge\nof computers.\n\nBTW, I don't posit that Wolfe actually *bought* the Jaynes thesis, which has\nbeen pretty thoroughly scientifically pooh-poohed, but that it was awfully\nuseful to him as a novelist. Similarly, Martin Bernays's -Black Athena-,\nwhich sent historians and archaeologists into fits of sarcasm and frothing\nat the mouth, might be very useful to a writer like Crowley in his Aegypt\nseries.\n\nHere, picked almost randomly, are a couple of paragraphs from Jaynes:\n\n\"The characters of the Iliad do not sit down and think out what to do. they\nhave no conscious minds such as we say we have, and certainly no\nintrospections. It is impossible for us with our subjectivity to appreciate\nwhat it was like. When Agamemnon, king of men, robs Achilles of his\nmistress, it is a god that grabs Achilles by his yellow hair and warns him\nnot to strike Agamemnon. It is a god who then rises out of the gray sea and\nconsoles him in his tears of wrath on the beach by his black ships, a god\nwho whispers low to Helen to sweep her heart with homesick longing, a god\nwho hides Paris in a mist in front of the attacking Menelaus, a god who\ntells Glaucus to take bronze for gold, a god who leads he armies into\nbattle, who speaks to each soldier at the turning points, who debates and\ntells Hector what he must do, who urges the soldiers on by casting them in\nspells or drawing mists over their visual fields. It is the gods who start\nquarrels among men that really cause the wars and then plan its\nstrategy...In fact the gods take the place of consciousness.\"\n\n\"Who were these gods that pushed men about like robots and sang epics\nthrough their lips? They were voices whose speech and directions could be\nheard as directly by the Iliadic heroes as voices are heard by certain\nepileptic and schizophrenic patients, or just as Joan of Arc heard her\nvoices. The gods were organizations of the central nervous system and can be\nregarded as personae in the sense of poignant consistencies through time,\namalgams of parental or admonitory images...The gods are what we now call\nhallucinations. Usually they are only seen and heard by the particular\nheroes they are speaking to....\"\n\nEtc. There's much more to it, on how crowds behave, for instance. Hey, kidz,\nthere's an academic thesis for one of you in this! Note that Jaynsean\nmaterial is entirely absent in everything Wolfe wrote prior to the Soldier\nbooks, and informs everything he has written since.\n\nInteresting, for instance, Silk's blind faith in his Outsider, Mint's bowing\nto the will of the god. Contrast with Hamlet's caution re the authenticity\nof the Ghost--which he actually saw. Hamlet is a modern man, Silk and Mint\nand Latro are archaic. (In my opinion, Wolfe is much, much better with the\narchaic than when he attempts to be modern, but that, O Best Beloved, is\nanother story.) And Latro's and Auk's head wounds.\n\nThanks, Mothman, this was fun.\n\n-alga" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Alex David Groce", "address": "adgroce at eos.ncsu.edu" }, "date": "1998-10-29T20:41:48+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Jaynes and Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "alga said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Subject: (urth) Jaynes and Wolfe\nI think Mothman is really onto something here. Jaynes's book was published\nin 1979 in the US and caused the most tremendous furor--it was a real\nwhoop-de-do. -Soldier of the Mist- was published in 1986. It seems to me\nabsolutely impossible that Wolfe, in researching these books, should not\nhave read it. And I do think that he borrowed what was useful to him from\nJaynes's thesis, not only for the Soldier books but for the relationship\nbetween \"gods\" and men in BOTLS too--almost directly for the former. BOTLS\n(which I admire more structurally with each contemplation--especially since\nI don't think Wolfe was strong with structure up to that point) could be\nread as Wolfe's attempt to integrate Jaynes with his (Wolfe's) new knowledge\nof computers." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think this is a very likely history--especially as Jaynes' hypothesis would\nhave fit in well with Wolfe's suspicions voiced here and there about the \"real\nexistence\" of the gods--it wouldn't fit precisely, but it would be an excellent\nmodel to keep in mind in portraying fictionally the ancient world as Wolfe\n(maybe) sees it. How much new knowledge of computers is involved in Long Sun,\nI'm not sure--it seems given Wolfe's general subtle but accurate technical\ndetail, he'd have known most of the concepts involved in BOTLS for a long time.\nMainframes, memory, & personality downloading are pretty old ideas... &\nactually Sillhoutte has some nice computer bits in it (the Overmonitor acts\nlike an old, cranky operating system, or an Infocom game...)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "BTW, I don't posit that Wolfe actually *bought* the Jaynes thesis, which has\nbeen pretty thoroughly scientifically pooh-poohed, but that it was awfully\nuseful to him as a novelist. Similarly, Martin Bernays's -Black Athena-,\nwhich sent historians and archaeologists into fits of sarcasm and frothing\nat the mouth, might be very useful to a writer like Crowley in his Aegypt\nseries.\n\nHere, picked almost randomly, are a couple of paragraphs from Jaynes:\n\n\"The characters of the Iliad do not sit down and think out what to do. they\nhave no conscious minds such as we say we have, and certainly no\nintrospections. It is impossible for us with our subjectivity to appreciate\nwhat it was like. When Agamemnon, king of men, robs Achilles of his\nmistress, it is a god that grabs Achilles by his yellow hair and warns him\nnot to strike Agamemnon. It is a god who then rises out of the gray sea and\nconsoles him in his tears of wrath on the beach by his black ships, a god\nwho whispers low to Helen to sweep her heart with homesick longing, a god\nwho hides Paris in a mist in front of the attacking Menelaus, a god who\ntells Glaucus to take bronze for gold, a god who leads he armies into\nbattle, who speaks to each soldier at the turning points, who debates and\ntells Hector what he must do, who urges the soldiers on by casting them in\nspells or drawing mists over their visual fields. It is the gods who start\nquarrels among men that really cause the wars and then plan its\nstrategy...In fact the gods take the place of consciousness.\"\n\n\"Who were these gods that pushed men about like robots and sang epics\nthrough their lips? They were voices whose speech and directions could be\nheard as directly by the Iliadic heroes as voices are heard by certain\nepileptic and schizophrenic patients, or just as Joan of Arc heard her\nvoices. The gods were organizations of the central nervous system and can be\nregarded as personae in the sense of poignant consistencies through time,\namalgams of parental or admonitory images...The gods are what we now call\nhallucinations. Usually they are only seen and heard by the particular\nheroes they are speaking to....\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Definitely sounds like the Soldier books, although I do think Wolfe wants us to\nat least two-thirds of the way buy into accepting that these deities are real.\nNot just seem real, but are--similarly, although Wolfe doesn't \"cheat\" by\nhaving the Hand of God nuke the bad guys or something (a la King), the Outsider\nis plainly meant to be God, in the sense of the real God showing up as a\n\"character\" in fiction." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Etc. There's much more to it, on how crowds behave, for instance. Hey, kidz,\nthere's an academic thesis for one of you in this! Note that Jaynsean\nmaterial is entirely absent in everything Wolfe wrote prior to the Soldier\nbooks, and informs everything he has written since.\n\nInteresting, for instance, Silk's blind faith in his Outsider, Mint's bowing\nto the will of the god. Contrast with Hamlet's caution re the authenticity\nof the Ghost--which he actually saw. Hamlet is a modern man, Silk and Mint\nand Latro are archaic. (In my opinion, Wolfe is much, much better with the\narchaic than when he attempts to be modern, but that, O Best Beloved, is\nanother story.) And Latro's and Auk's head wounds.\n\nThanks, Mothman, this was fun." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Agreed. I'll have to hunt down Jaynes--I half read part of it some time ago,\nlooking something up, but never actually finished it. As to Wolfe,\narchaic/modern, I'd agree but note that the \"archaic\" in Wolfe's sense isn't\nexactly lacking from the \"modern\" world. Chesterton's old statement that\nassigning times and places to ideas is unwise; in the end that particular kinds\nof thought are more popular at particular times and places says more about\nthose times & places than the ideas... And Wolfe's \"Hamlet\"ism comes in that\nhe (usually) provides the reader an \"out\"--a way to say it wasn't a ghost at\nall... Latro's & Auk's wounds, Dr. Crane's hypothesis, etc. It's clear which\n\"side\" Wolfe is on, but he doesn't force that interpretation on the reader. So\nthe Jaynes idea is the Dr. Crane hypothesis to explain everyone who sees a god\nin Soldier...\n\tProbably why Wolfe's easier to digest that somebody like Lewis or\nChesterton for those who disagree with the theology, etc." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "\"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.\" - John 8:32\n--\nAlex David Groce (adgroce at eos.ncsu.edu)\nSenior (Computer Science/Multidisciplinary Studies in Technology & Fiction)\n'98-99 NCSU AITP Student Chapter President\n608 Charleston Road, Apt. 1E (919)-233-7366\nhttp://www4.ncsu.edu/~adgroce" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "CRCulver", "address": "crculver at aol.com" }, "date": "1998-10-30T01:49:47+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Jaynes and Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Alga wrote:\n\n\nBut Wolfe has said that the Outsider is \"a spiritual god,\" which to me means\nthe Outsider is the Pancreator.\n\n\n\n\nI should mention that there is another book inspired by Jaynes' book, though\nvery different from Gene Wolfe. It is Neal Stephenson's _Snow Crash_, which is\na hilarious sort of cross between a cyberpunk novel and a satire of that\ngenre. It would be interesting reading for Wolfe fans with time on their\nhands, 'cause you can compare what Stephenson did to Wolfe's interpretation.\n\n\n\n\nMy acquaintances in the mental sciences (psychology, psycholinguistics,\npsychaitry) have informed me that the book is 90% crap, but that's in\naccordance with Sturgeon's Law. When I read the book, I enjoyed its\nentertaining qualities, and didn't believe a word of it. Still, Jaynes was\nProfessor of Psychology at Princeton, so he's no crackpot.\n\n\n\n\nY'know, I was reading _Hamlet_ the other day, and I found a strong influence\non Wolfe in it, and now I've totally forgotten it. Hopefully it'll come again.\nI think I've yet to post the (rather obvious, to me) link to _Macbeth_ in\nSotT.\n\nChristopher R. Culver \nhttp://members.aol.com/crculver/index.html\n------------------------------------------------" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Kieran Cleary", "address": "kierannwn at tinet.ie" }, "date": "1998-10-28T09:38:16+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Jaynes and Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Alga wrote:\nSimilarly, Martin Bernays's -Black Athena-," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "which sent historians and archaeologists into fits of sarcasm and frothing\nat the mouth, might be very useful to a writer like Crowley in his Aegypt\nseries.<\n\nIf I'm allowed a wee tangent, what's the news on Crowley, anyone? Given that\nLove&Sleep wasn't even published in the UK, and that it's probably out of\nprint already, I have this fear that the Aegypt sequence won't get\ncompleted. Anyone got any pointers to recent intervews or other hopeful\nnews?\n\nKieran C.\n\nNorth West Labs\nFinisklin Industrial Estate\nSligo\nRepublic of Ireland\n\nTel. +353 71 69441\nFax. +353 71 69451\nemail: kierannwn at tinet.ie" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "straight at email.unc.edu" }, "date": "1998-10-30T08:56:10+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Jaynes and Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, 29 Oct 1998 CRCulver at aol.com wrote:\nAlga wrote:\n\n\nBut Wolfe has said that the Outsider is \"a spiritual god,\" which to me means\nthe Outsider is the Pancreator." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There's a big difference between Wolfe telling us that he personally\ninterprets the Outsider as a real \"spiritual god\" and the narrative\nforcing that conclusion upon us. One of the best things about many of\nWolfe's stories is that it's possible to read them with purely\nmaterialistic presuppositions or with Wolfe's religious ones. It's very\ngentlemanly of him.\n\nIn contrast, try reading C.S. Lewis's Space Trilogy and explaining the\nevents materialistically.\n\n-Rostrum" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "straight at email.unc.edu" }, "date": "1998-10-30T09:14:01+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Jaynes and Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, Alice Turner wrote:\n\"The characters of the Iliad do not sit down and think out what to do. they\nhave no conscious minds such as we say we have, and certainly no\nintrospections.... " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "[...]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "...The gods are what we now call\nhallucinations. Usually they are only seen and heard by the particular\nheroes they are speaking to....\"\n\nEtc. There's much more to it, on how crowds behave, for instance. Hey, kidz,\nthere's an academic thesis for one of you in this! Note that Jaynsean\nmaterial is entirely absent in everything Wolfe wrote prior to the Soldier\nbooks, and informs everything he has written since.\n\nInteresting, for instance, Silk's blind faith in his Outsider, Mint's bowing\nto the will of the god. Contrast with Hamlet's caution re the authenticity\nof the Ghost--which he actually saw. Hamlet is a modern man, Silk and Mint\nand Latro are archaic. (In my opinion, Wolfe is much, much better with the\narchaic than when he attempts to be modern, but that, O Best Beloved, is\nanother story.) And Latro's and Auk's head wounds." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm missing something here. How exactly do you see Wolfe being influenced\nby Jaynes as opposed to the Iliad itself? Are you saying he gets the\nidea that theophonies might be hallucinations from Jaynes? Surely Jaynes\nwasn't the first to suggest that. Are you disagreeing with the earlier\nposts noting that the gods do not act for Latro or Silk as the kind of\nproto-consciousness Jaynes describes? \n\nAre you just saying that archaic people believed in gods but modern people\nare more skeptical? (I'm not sure even that much is true.)\n\n-Rostrum" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Kevin J. Maroney", "address": "kmaroney at crossover.com" }, "date": "1998-11-02T19:45:53+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Jaynes and Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "At 07:46 PM 10/29/98 -0500, alga quoted Julian Jaynes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"The characters of the Iliad do not sit down and think out what to do. they\nhave no conscious minds such as we say we have, and certainly no\nintrospections.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "By complete coincidence, I just happened to be reading part of _The Iliad_\nonly a couple of weeks back--I'd never read it before; quite\ninteresting--and I can say that this is, as a categorical statement, false.\nThe death of Hector provides a clear example of introspection: (From Samuel\nButler's translation, Book XXII)\n\n \"Alas,\" said he to himself in the heaviness of his heart, \"if I go\nwithin the gates, Polydamas will be the first to heap reproach upon\nme, for it was he that urged me to lead the Trojans back to the city\non that awful night when Achilles again came forth against us. I would\nnot listen, but it would have been indeed better if I had done so. Now\nthat my folly has destroyed the host, I dare not look Trojan men and\nTrojan women in the face, lest a worse man should say, 'Hector has\nruined us by his self-confidence.' Surely it would be better for me to\nreturn after having fought Achilles and slain him, or to die\ngloriously here before the city. What, again, if were to lay down my\nshield and helmet, lean my spear against the wall and go straight up\nto noble Achilles? What if I were to promise to give up Helen, who was\nthe fountainhead of all this war, and all the treasure that Alexandrus\nbrought with him in his ships to Troy, aye, and to let the Achaeans\ndivide the half of everything that the city contains among themselves?\nI might make the Trojans, by the mouths of their princes, take a\nsolemn oath that they would hide nothing, but would divide into two\nshares all that is within the city- but why argue with myself in\nthis way? Were I to go up to him he would show me no kind of mercy; he\nwould kill me then and there as easily as though I were a woman,\nwhen I had off my armour. There is no parleying with him from some\nrock or oak tree as young men and maidens prattle with one another.\nBetter fight him at once, and learn to which of us Jove will vouchsafe\nvictory.\"\n Thus did he stand and ponder....\n\nAnd it's not a God who put this dilemma into Hector's heart; quite the\ncontrary, Apollo cautioned Hector not to stand and fight Achilles, as did\nhis parents. But he stands stupidly awaiting Achilles, torn between honor,\ncowardice, pride, and good sense: as modern a scene as one is likely to see. " }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": " Kevin Maroney | Crossover Technologies \n kmaroney at crossover.com | (212) 777-1190" } ] } ] }