{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/1443", "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": 1443, "subject": "Greetings and a thought", "messages": 5, "voices": 4, "first": "1999-03-19T19:57:50+00:00", "last": "1999-03-21T18:39:06+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Clifford Drane", "address": "dranec at hotmail.com" }, "date": "1999-03-19T19:57:50+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Greetings and a thought", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've been lurking around for the past 3 weeks, enjoying the posts and \nthe archives - so it's about time I introduce myself.\n\nMy name is Cliff Drane, a New Media Developer in Houston. I'm on my \nsecond go-round of TBOTNS (Sev and Agia just entered the Jungle). \nBetween the list archive/postings and the re-read, I'm deep deep deep \ninto these books and their mysteries. In fact, I fear TBOTNS has spoiled \nme - the intellectual stakes have been raised and other books are \nfailing miserably in comparison.\n\nI've recommended the series to a couple of friends, the first of which \nfailed to catch ~90% of the nuances (which I, of course, wanted to talk \nabout) so she's decided to stop midstream and start over. Wish her luck. \n:)\n\nOne topic I did want to touch on is a point made by a literary critic \n(I've forgotten who) about The Lord of the Rings. He was very critical \nof the mythmaking devices Tolkien used, ie. names and places mentioned \nonly once or in passing and in the context of that name/place being \nextraordinarily important to Middle Earth. Tolkien did employ this, and \nother 'superficial' means, quite a bit. I understand the devices, can \ncatch them when they happen, but don't get offended by them. It struck \nme that Wolfe also employed the device in TBOTNS, but for the most part \nthe name/place/thing mentioned actually *is* important or can be \nresearched and debated as to their true meaning, which may have \nsubsequent meanings/relationships, etc. In TBOTNS there seems to be \nsubstance behind the device.\n\nAnyway, I thought I'm glad to be a part of the list and would enjoy any \nadded perspective to the above thought.\n\ncd\nGet Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Clifford Drane", "address": "dranec at hotmail.com" }, "date": "1999-03-19T20:43:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Greetings and a thought", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've been lurking around for the past 3 weeks, enjoying the posts and \nthe archives - so it's about time I introduce myself.\n\nMy name is Cliff Drane, a New Media Developer in Houston. I'm on my \nsecond go-round of TBOTNS (Sev and Agia just entered the Jungle). \nBetween the list archive/postings and the re-read, I'm deep deep deep \ninto these books and their mysteries. In fact, I fear TBOTNS has spoiled \nme - the intellectual stakes have been raised and other books are \nfailing miserably in comparison.\n\nI've recommended the series to a couple of friends, the first of which \nfailed to catch ~90% of the nuances (which I, of course, wanted to talk \nabout) so she's decided to stop midstream and start over. Wish her luck. \n:)\n\nOne topic I did want to touch on is a point made by a literary critic \n(I've forgotten who) about The Lord of the Rings. He was very critical \nof the mythmaking devices Tolkien used, ie. names and places mentioned \nonly once or in passing and in the context of that name/place being \nextraordinarily important to Middle Earth. Tolkien did employ this, and \nother 'superficial' means, quite a bit. I understand the devices, can \ncatch them when they happen, but don't get offended by them. It struck \nme that Wolfe also employed the device in TBOTNS, but for the most part \nthe name/place/thing mentioned actually *is* important or can be \nresearched and debated as to their true meaning, which may have \nsubsequent meanings/relationships, etc. In TBOTNS there seems to be \nsubstance behind the device.\n\nAnyway, I thought I'm glad to be a part of the list and would enjoy any \nadded perspective to the above thought.\n\ncd\nGet Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "m.driussi", "address": "m.driussi at genie.com" }, "date": "1999-03-20T00:27:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Greetings and a thought", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hello and welcome Cliff Drane.\n\nRight, most (all?) of our arguments (, \"discussions\") revolve\naround the appropriate degree of \"reading between different texts\" in\ninterpreting the Urth Cycle as a whole as well as individual\nsentences. From the relatively early (and with hindsight rather\nsimple?) question of \"Who is Dorcas, anyway?\" (which the most\nliteral/least heuristic reader can honestly, truthfully, and with\nfull text support answer: \"Just some girl--no blood relation to\nSeverian\") up to the latest mind-boggling investigation-of-the-day.\n\nAnd some people, full of distrust to begin with, or despairing of the\nway that the text wiggles around with \"creative ambiguity,\" some\npeople, I say, feel that the whole thing is a form of \"torture\" or\nbullying being perpetrated by author (Gene Wolfe) on readers who are\ngullible enough to fall for the joke. \"There is no =there= there\" is\nthe common sort of dismissal among these people (as well as those\nreaders who simply have a blindspot with regard to Wolfe's work); the\nsense being that the text has no real depth, no real substance, it is\nall an illusion created with literary tricks of allusion--\"smoke and\nmirrors,\" if you will.\n\n=mantis=" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Peter Stephenson", "address": "pws at ibmth.df.unipi.it" }, "date": "1999-03-20T16:41:54+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Greetings and a thought", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"Clifford Drane\" wrote:\nOne topic I did want to touch on is a point made by a literary critic \n(I've forgotten who) about The Lord of the Rings. He was very critical \nof the mythmaking devices Tolkien used, ie. names and places mentioned \nonly once or in passing and in the context of that name/place being \nextraordinarily important to Middle Earth.\n\n...\n\nIn TBOTNS there seems to be substance behind the device." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is an interesting point, and it seems to me that the critic in\nquestion has largely got the wrong end of the stick about worldmaking in\nfantastic literature in general --- but I agree that the case of BotNS is\ndifferent from Tolkien, and I'll come to that. I'm building a substantial\ncounterargument on one sentence describing the position at second-hand, and\nI apologise if this seems excessive, but I'd like to put my own views\nanyway so have to run the risk I'm attacking a straw man. Fans of close\nreading can skip this posting altogether.\n\nFirst, is your man... er, person... implying that a key piece of background\nreferred to in an novel always needs to be explained in detail? It seems\nto me that this is a rather heavy restriction on how one treats characters.\nIf the reader is an observer, the characters will always know more; and\nsome of what they say may be both crucial and not fully explained. Not\nonly is this good writing, but actually pretty much inevitable in the way\nmost twentieth century writers (Wolfe, though not necessarily Tolkien in\nthis instance, included) have gone about their business describing a\ncomplex world in which not all information is available.\n\nNow, maybe what I've just said would be conceeded, but your person would\nthen have to draw a distinction between important events on which everybody\nagrees (general background) and those on which there can be doubt (specific\nbackground). This is where I think fantastic literature is intrinsically\ndifferent. There *is* no general background common to the reader and the\ncharacters, and the lack of one is the key feature of this genre of\nwriting. It seems to me the introduction of such a background by\nindirection (`it's been like that since the Great Tea Trolley Disaster of\n'67') can add greatly to the sense of an unknown world, with rules and\nhistories, which we can never know fully, different from ours; and that the\nsense of difference thus created is essential to the way we perceive the\nnew world from a distance; and that, in turn, this perception from a\ndistance is one of the most important features of fantastic writing,\nputting our own everyday world into a wider perspective and hence showing\nthe human condition in a way which mainstream literature is unable to. If\nthat sounds a rather bold claim, that's because it is.\n\nIn a book of this kind, explaining everything --- even apparently vital\nbackground --- is in any case just not on. Some of Tolkien's imitators are\npoor exactly because they tried that, and the result is at once ridiculous\nand immensely dull; it sounds like a biblical list of `X begat Y'. If\nthat's not what we're being asked for, how much history are we expected to\nproduce? You can only decide by context, like so much in writing. (If the\nargument is just about such contexts in Tolkien, my opposition becomes\nrather more muted; I enjoy The Lord of the Rings but I don't think of\nTolkien as a great writer.)\n\nDirectness works better in some forms of `ordinary' SF, and particularly\nnear-future SF, when there is often more in common between the reader and\nthe characters, including more understanding of the way the universe works,\nbut indirection about points of substance is still often necessary.\nSuppose a writer was expected to fill in background of a malevolent alien\nrace whenever its history was alluded to by one of its members (`We must\ndestroy the humans because of the VlaHarGurk, whose history I will now\nrelate' --- this is a caricature, of course); it can largely destroy the\neffect of bringing in an alien culture.\n\nOffhand, unexplained mentions of something vital are very good at creating\na nameless horror, as in Lovecraft: there is a sudden, crushing feeling\nthat everything you thought you knew is missing something that would change\nthe way you thought about it. Furthermore, more general ignorance, as\nagainst indirect reference, is absolutely vital in a lot of SF. Why are\nthese apparently intelligent blob-like things attacking us? You don't\nknow, in this non-existent case, any more than you know why Joseph K. is\nbeing tried. I realise I've failed to draw a proper distinction between\npassing mentions, and repeated mentions which still carry little\ninformation; but a good writer knows the latter can easily become tiresome\nto readers unless, as in Kafka's case, the very existence of the\nsuperficial workings is itself obscuring the inner substance --- think of\nthe Parable of the Gatekeeper in The Trial.\n\nIn a well-crafted world created in this fashion, the occasional piece of\ndirectness can be even more startling. There's a sentence in A Wizard of\nEarthsea which stuck in my head, not quoted exactly: `There is a wall of\nstones at a place along the bourne, and there a man's spirit goes at\ndeath'. This seems a pretty crucial piece of information about the way\nthings work, but if it were accompanied by a complete guide to the\nunderworld (more a London Underground Map than a Book of Coming Forth by\nDay), as the hypothesis is that it should, the effect would be wrecked.\n\nI've been slow coming to Wolfe, and why I agree that his position is\ndifferent from Tolkien: and that is because so much information, of all\nkinds, in all his works, is carried by passing mentions. It is a prime\nsource of his incredible subtlety, and goes far beyond the ordinary\nconfines of fantastic literature. I would go further and say that the\ndistinction between specific and general background is blurred: you don't\nknow what the rules are, but the characters themselves are caught up in a\nstrange world which they can't properly describe, either.\n\nFor example, Severian and the office of the Autarch: the latter is a key\npart of Urth's history, and also a key part of Severian's; both aspects are\nintroduced in the same gradual way, by occasional references which may not\neven be remotely correct.\n\nA more specific example in the Eyeflash Miracles, which I was only reminded\nabout by William H. Ansley's excellent articles: the nameless government in\nNiagara, from which Little Tib's father comes. Do we need to hear `The\ngovernment of the country, now known as the People's Republic of America,\nwas transferred to Niagara in ...'? I strongly suggest not.\n\nSo I beg to oppose.\n\n\n(As Flan O'Brien once put it:-\n\nThe Plain People of Ireland: Another day and no jokes.\nMyself: Yes, curse you.)\n\ncorncrake" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "1999-03-21T18:39:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Greetings and a thought", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "cd,\n Greetings. While I am not in the \"smoke and mirrors\" camp that mantis\ndescribes, it isn't hard to understand why it exists. Most people who read\nat all do so for pleasure, regardless of the genre. Those who enjoy a little\nmeat with their potatoes, something they can get their intellectual 'teeth'\ninto, want to leave the table satisfied, regardless of how tough the 'meat'.\nTake 'who-done-its' or any other sort of 'puzzle' book; when the tale is\ntold the reader must be able to say: \"Ahah\", or \"Damn, I should have seen\nthat!\" or some similar response that elicits satisfaction for a tale well\ntold. But the 'clues' have to have all been there, no matter how subtle,\nelse the reader cries \"foul\". The writer may pull as many rabbits out of\nhats as he chooses, but when he starts pulling hats out of rabbits the\nreader's focus often shifts to the rabbits. Thus this Urth list.\n Other readers--often closet vegetarians--close the book, take off their\nhat, look at it, say: \"Huh? What was that all about?\", and resolve never to\neat rabbit stew again. These are the readers who, as others on this list\nhave lamented, are often resistant to or indifferent to Wolfe's work. They\naren't interested in catching, killing, skinning, and cutting up rabbits.\nEven those who aren't vegetarians at heart find the meat too tough, too much\ngristle. Wolfe invites this reaction with his style of writing, because not\nall of the clues--er, ingredients--are in the recipe.\n Clearly in the Jungle Garden scene, for example, Wolfe had something in\nmind, but what it was is still there, in his mind; it's not in the book,\nhence the speculation. I am not criticizing him for it; I like his work or I\nwouldn't be here and I wouldn't keep re-reading it. But the very qualities I\nand, I suspect, others on this list appreciate in Wolfe's work are the same\nqualities that keep him from commanding a larger audience. I fear that fifty\nor a hundred years from now Wolfe's place, even within the SF&F genre, to\nsay nothing of 'mainstream' fiction, will not be as high as many\nlesser-talented writers. Who reads James Branch Cabell today? Not many, I\nsuspect, and for similar reasons.\n\nRoy" } ] } ] }