{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/1606", "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": 1606, "subject": "Realism, Thoughts, apologies,", "messages": 2, "voices": 2, "first": "1999-04-30T07:41:27+00:00", "last": "1999-04-30T10:49:58+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jonathan Laidlow", "address": "laidlojm at hhs.bham.ac.uk" }, "date": "1999-04-30T10:49:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Realism, Thoughts, apologies,", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, what a pickle I've obviously got myself in....\n\nFirst - let me apologise for portions of my second post of yesterday, \nwritten in reply to my good friend Nigel. Our discussion got \ninteresting and we decided to carry it over into Urth. Unfortunately \nas I was in a rush I didn't edit it for public consumption but just \nsent on a copy. Whadda mistakada make-a (in best Manuel voice)\n\nI also tend to punctuate like my master and nemesis, Tristram Shandy. \nI apologise again.\n\nSo first off, I must apologise to Robert Borski for taking his name \nin vein and mis-representing him as a 'classic realist'. This came \nfrom a discussion Nigel and I were having where I stated that I \ndisagreed with attempts to forge links between different works by \nWolfe, such as BotNS and Fifth Head of Cerberus, which poor Robert \nhas suggested. My belief is that unless the link is necessary to the \nstory, or stated explicitly in the text, then it does not seem valid \nto me. I prefer thinking that Wolfe has certain thematic conceits \nwhich he reuses, but I'm prepared to wait and see if Blue and Green \nare St Croix and St Anne. So my use of his surname and a sweeping \ngeneralisation was not so much an attack on Robert, but a reminder to \nNigel of our discussion.\n\nNow to Roy. \nI apologise on behalf of academics everywhere - I never intended to \npigeonhole you or tar you with a broad brush. Unfortunately I did, \nand must apologise, as I now realise that you are the originator of \nthe whole Jonas/Sidero/android classification thread. I think what I \nwanted to do was try to draw you to a point and explain to me what \nit adds to our reading of the Urth cycle when we know what kind of \nandroid he is - David's suggestion that he is the tin man is \nfascinating - I just wanted to prompt the discussion onwards a \nlittle.\nSimilarly Potto's comment about Wolfe's 'subtle game of clues' leads \nme to ask, what do the clues about Jonas tell us about the larger \nstory?\n\nNow to classic realism - this was just a bad paragraph attempting to \nexplain to Nigel what I meant when I dismissed the 'realism' of \nBotNS. Let me attempt one more explanation: Wolfe's fiction does not \njust work on a realist level. Of course it does have elements of \nrealism, and of course it is fantastically internally consistent \n(Potto's subtle clues). It also tells a powerful and (I think) \nimportant story which contains many of the Wolfean knots which we all \nlove to unravel.\n\nBut the narrative form is not that of a realist novel. A realist \nnovel, without going into the admittedly hideous academic debates \nwhich I would agree to despise with you, is one which has an \nall-powerful narrating voice outside the action, which makes the \nfictional world seem real, and consistent, and authoritative.\nSev's narrative style does not allow this - we get all of our \nglimpses of Urth through him. We cannot see Urth first-hand, only \nthrough Severian's words. And words are notoriously elusive and \nallusive, as we all well know. Even the Book of the Long Sun, which \nseems to take the realist narrative form all the way through, is \nfinally revealed to be the work of Horn. There is no safe place for \nus to stand back and take a broad view of Urth, for we are constantly \nreliant on Sev. So Wolfe loves unreliable narrators.\n\nMy example from Gaskell was admittedly vague, but it shows another of \nthe flaws of this kind of realist narrative - no narrator can create \na whole world for you - there are always little slips. Clever authors \nnote this and compensate in some way.\n\nNow if often seems that in teasing out the complexities of the Urth \ncycle we lose sight of the big story, the narrative that works on \nmultiple levels - of storytelling and allusion. \n\nSo to conclude - please continue exploring the minutiae of the text, \nbut let me know how it relates to everything else. Surely Jonas' \nuse of human body parts to rebuild himself is a further reflection of \nthe Frankenstein story (in addition to Baldanders).\n\nAs for the religious elements. Well they're there in the text, and \nthey are as difficult to decipher as everything else. If we \nconcentrate on what's there and how it works with religious stories, \nthen surely we can bypass any believers/non-believers arguments.\n\nAnd Ori - your Mohammed thing sounds intriguing. More please!\n\nJonathan\n\n\n\n\nIf we shadows have offended, \n Think but this, and all is mended, \n That you have but slumber'd here \n While these visions did appear. \n And this weak and idle theme, \n No more yielding but a dream, \n Gentles, do not reprehend: \n if you pardon, we will mend: \nVisit Ultan's Library - A Gene Wolfe web resource\nhttp://members.tripod.co.uk/laidlow/index.htm\nJonathan Laidlow\nUniversity of Birmingham, UK" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "1999-04-30T07:41:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re:Realism, Thoughts, apologies,", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Jonathan Laidlow wrote:\nNow to Roy." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I apologise on behalf of academics everywhere - I never intended to\npigeonhole you or tar you with a broad brush. Unfortunately I did,\nand must apologise, as I now realise that you are the originator of\nthe whole Jonas/Sidero/android classification thread. I think what I\nwanted to do was try to draw you to a point and explain to me what\nit adds to our reading of the Urth cycle when we know what kind of\nandroid he is - David's suggestion that he is the tin man is\nfascinating - I just wanted to prompt the discussion onwards a little.\nSimilarly Potto's comment about Wolfe's 'subtle game of clues' leads\nme to ask, what do the clues about Jonas tell us about the larger story?<<\n\n Apology accepted; enough said.\n\n What does the android thread add to the reading of the Urth cycle? Very\nlittle, in and of itself. No more than the Boatman I & II, angels, Holy\nKatharine, the mandragora, Cabalism, florigraphy (I'll be getting to that),\ngenealogies, or a hundred other threads. The threads have to be woven\ntogether to form the tapestry to fully appreciate the beauty of the picture\nthey form. Wolfe's oblique writing style leaves little alternative to\nuntangling the skeins of the myriad mysteries in his works if they are to be\nunderstood and appreciated. I thought that was what this list was all about.\nIf the answers were clear-cut, we wouldn't be here.\n\nRoy" } ] } ] }