Digest urth.v022.n042

The Urth list — 2 messages, 2 voices, 12 Feb 1999
https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/1368

Kieran Mullen12 Feb 1999, 12:14original
3 quoted lines
Right, there is no proof that Sev1 failed. But I think there is a sense of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"--and since Sev2 has been opitimized, then it stands to reason that Sev1 was flawed.
Then again: the influences on Sev2 come from both camps, New Sun and Entropy Gang. So the tampering/tempting isn't one-sided. Leading us back to the belief that Sev1 didn't fail; that his success at the Test is what triggered the Entropy Gang to start messing with his past; and to counter this the New Sun people began giving little assists in his past. All of which escalation produced a new, improved Severian.
=mantis=
I get the exact opposite feeling. After all, they could have gone back and rearranged time/history for any failed autarch. I think Sev1 succeeded. Then, since he is the one who will be the New Sun, they went back and "optimized" things. One could appeal to the old time travel adage about how major points of history can't be changed, but minor things can. (Or perhaps can and can't might be replaced by should and shouldn't.) Kieran Mullen
Michael Straight17 Feb 1999, 13:11original

↳ follows, by subject match Kieran Mullen

2 quoted lines
On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Kieran Mullen wrote: I get the exact opposite feeling. After all, they could have gone back and rearranged time/history for any failed autarch. I think Sev1 succeeded. Then, since he is the one who will be the New Sun, they went back and "optimized" things.
Presumably some Autarchs would have been easier to optimize than others. Maybe Sev1 only just barely failed. -Rostrum

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.