{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/1891", "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": 1891, "subject": "Fairy Tale logic", "messages": 8, "voices": 5, "first": "1999-10-30T23:32:07+00:00", "last": "1999-11-02T02:06:11+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Nicholas Gevers", "address": "vermoulian at yahoo.com" }, "date": "1999-10-30T23:32:07+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Fairy Tale logic", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "As a follow-up to my posting of a few days ago on\nwhether \"The Brown Book\" can be seen as in some way\nsynonymous with THE BOOK OF THE NEW SUN itself: I\ndidn't mean that the two Books are identical; I was\nsuggesting that they are akin. In other words, Wolfe\nintends us to understand that the structure and logic\nof Severian's narrative are in important respects\nsimilar to those of an anthology of folk tales, fairy\ntales, myths, and legends: TBOTNS is episodic, and\neach episode is a tale, or representative of a tale,\nin its own right.\n\nTo illustrate this: many Lupines feel that, as a work\nof SF, NEW SUN must be subject to scientific\nexplanation at every stage. This can be a very\nproductive approach, as when calculations of the size\nand effect of solar sails help explain the crucial\neclipse in THE URTH OF THE NEW SUN. But elsewhere,\nWolfe's conceptual logic is implicitly magical, as in\nthe intuitive symbolic construction of a fairy tale.\nOne may see the grafting of Typhon's head to Piaton's\nbody as scientifically plausible; but viewed closely,\nthe two-headed Typhon must be an uncomfortable\narrangement for the Typhon head, which is presumably\nsituated on one of Piaton's shoulders. When the Piaton\nhead is removed, as Typhon's surgeons plan, the\nmonocephalic being left over will be lopsided on top,\nwhether he wears a shirt to cover the scar or not...\nSo Typhon is a mythic construct rather than a\nplausibly scientific one. Sev's encounter with him is\nthe tale of the bearding of an ogre in its den.\n\nAnother example: Inire's recounting (through Domnina,\nthrough Thecla, through Sev) of the mechanics of\nInire's mirrors. How accountable to physics is his\nexplanation? It sounds like magic under a veneer of\npseudo-scientific doubletalk. Again, the logic of a\nfairy tale holds, with a wizard preserving the secrecy\nof his craft through misdirection.\n\n\n=====" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "straight at email.unc.edu" }, "date": "1999-11-01T12:09:44+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Fairy Tale logic", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, [iso-8859-1] Nicholas Gevers wrote:\nTo illustrate this: many Lupines feel that, as a work\nof SF, NEW SUN must be subject to scientific\nexplanation at every stage. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "[...]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But elsewhere,\nWolfe's conceptual logic is implicitly magical, as in\nthe intuitive symbolic construction of a fairy tale." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree. I think this is one of Wolfe's tricks with TBOTNS. On the\nsurface it looks like swords and magic fantasy. As you read more\ncarefully, you're led to believe that there's a \"scientific\" explanation\nfor everything, but I think ultimately there's too much that can't be\nexplained that way: the relationship among Severian, the fountain, and the\nclaw, the nature of the Undines (and Baldanders, maybe), Severian's\ndreams, as well as the things you mention (the mirrors, Typhon's weird\ntwo-headed scheme). \n\nIf TBOTN were straightforward fantasy, the various unexplaned wonders\ncould be dismissed as part of the genre, but by tricking us into reading\nthe book as science fiction, the wonders are more striking, perhaps even\nquestioning the adequacy of materialistic explanations for everything in\nour world.\n\n-Rostrum" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Fusch", "address": "dfusch at hotmail.com" }, "date": "1999-11-01T20:20:36+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Fairy Tale logic", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "(snip)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "but by tricking us into reading\nthe book as science fiction, the wonders are more striking, perhaps even \nquestioning the adequacy of materialistic explanations for everything in \nour world.\n\n-Rostrum" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well said! I agree.\n\nDaniel" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Andre-Driussi", "address": "mantis at sirius.com" }, "date": "1999-11-01T15:24:21+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Fairy Tale logic", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Nick Gevers wrote:\nTo illustrate this: many Lupines feel that, as a work\nof SF, NEW SUN must be subject to scientific\nexplanation at every stage. This can be a very\nproductive approach, as when calculations of the size\nand effect of solar sails help explain the crucial\neclipse in THE URTH OF THE NEW SUN. But elsewhere,\nWolfe's conceptual logic is implicitly magical, as in\nthe intuitive symbolic construction of a fairy tale.\nOne may see the grafting of Typhon's head to Piaton's\nbody as scientifically plausible; but viewed closely,\nthe two-headed Typhon must be an uncomfortable\narrangement for the Typhon head, which is presumably\nsituated on one of Piaton's shoulders. When the Piaton\nhead is removed, as Typhon's surgeons plan, the\nmonocephalic being left over will be lopsided on top,\nwhether he wears a shirt to cover the scar or not...\nSo Typhon is a mythic construct rather than a\nplausibly scientific one. Sev's encounter with him is\nthe tale of the bearding of an ogre in its den." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Now, as one reader who is obviously guilty of at least some of this\n\"scientism,\" folks might think that I would be in disagreement with Nick's\npost--but I'm not, and I suspect that Nick knew that beforehand. I agree\nwith nearly all of it, and the Typhon/Piaton example is an excellent\nexample, as I'll further comment upon in a bit.\n\nThen again, not to be reflexively jerking my leg here, but I really think\nTBOTNS was initially received/perceived/awarded as a =fantasy= work; to\nread it as \"science fantasy\" is the first step of evolution (which seems\nvalidated by comparisons to THE DYING EARTH as an icon of science fantasy);\nto read it as \"pure\" sf is a further step (or perhaps misstep) of evolution.\n\nIt might seem far-fetched right now, but honestly, in my experience it has\nbeen a great deal of =work= over a decade to convince people that there\nreally was some sort of sfnal element to TBOTNS that makes it categorically\ndifferent from, say, THE LORD OF THE RINGS. One small example: all the\nmisdirections given in the text with regard to the age of the solar system\n(and thus the historical setting), especially the issue of a \"dying sun,\"\nleads many sf readers to raise arguments regarding stellar evolution (\"it\nwill eat up the inner planets as it swells\"; \"it will be in billions of\nyears, not millions\"; etc.).\n\n(Those who grasped on their own reading that there is a black hole eating\nat the Old Sun seem to have been a special minority of bright, careful\nreaders, who quietly kept it to themselves. But everybody here already\nknew that about themselves! )\n\nSo it may be the case that some have gone \"too far\" in using a science\nfictional reading of Severian's Narrative, but it is within a context of\nearlier readings that were completely blind to sf elements. It is a valid\ntool, but it does not have universal application throughout the text--yet\noften the only way to tell if a sf rationale works for a given detail is to\nactually try it out." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Another example: Inire's recounting (through Domnina,\nthrough Thecla, through Sev) of the mechanics of\nInire's mirrors. How accountable to physics is his\nexplanation? It sounds like magic under a veneer of\npseudo-scientific doubletalk. Again, the logic of a\nfairy tale holds, with a wizard preserving the secrecy\nof his craft through misdirection." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not to give Nick a hard time, but this is not a good example: since the\nvast majority of even diamond hard sf uses some form of ftl, and all that\nis explained with \"pseudo-scientific doubletalk\" of one kind or another.\nWithin the sf genre, transportation devices are traditionally immune to\nsuch scrutiny (and weapons are, too); this by itself does not cause all\ngenre sf--with--ftl to crumble into genre \"fantasy.\"\n\nAh, but the Typhon/Piaton case! I find it excellent because 1) I've never\nbeen overjoyed with any of the sfnal interpretations, and 2) I've always\nbeen strongly aware of its magical iconography.\n\n\"Magical,\" yes, but most specifically it is \"alchemical.\"\n\nIf you pick up a modern book on alchemy, chances are it will have some of\nthose great old woodcuts regarding the stages of The Great Work: which is\n\"turning lead into gold\" for the laity. Red Lion, Green Dragon, Black\nRaven, Virgin Milk--all sorts of wild stuff. Anyway, in the midst of all\nthis Chemical Wedding, there appears a potent symbol: a two-headed being,\nusually a big muscular creature with a king's head and a queen's head (both\ncrowned, iirc). Mind you, this is an =allegorical= representation of some\nfunky chemical process --it isn't meant to be some sort of Frankenstein's\nmonster that literally appears.\n\nBut this double-header is =not= the end-product: it is not the\nphilosopher's stone. It is only a stage along the way. So, true to form,\nit must be \"killed\" so that the next mode can emerge--this woodcut shows\nthe critter being put to bed in a tomb.\n\nTHUS, in addition to the Satan's Temptation of Christ elements in the\nscenes with Typhon and Severian, I have reason to believe that there is an\neven stronger thread of alchemical thought and tradition represented: one\nthat links up with other keystones of the text to form an adamantine chain.\n\nI strongly suspect that Damien Broderick knows exactly what I'm talking\nabout. (I also know that alga is rolling her eyes at all this!)\n\n=mantis=\n\nP.S. I could've sworn that Jim Jordan wrote something about \"The Seraph\nfrom Its Sepulcher,\" at sometime or another, on this list. But I've\nsearched using the Incredible Search Engine and have found no such thing.\nI recently re-read this story and was wondering what Nutria and/or anybody\nelse had to say on it--that's why I was searching.\n\n=m=" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jim Henley", "address": "jlhenley at erols.com" }, "date": "1999-11-01T20:14:17+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Fairy Tale logic", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: urth-errors at lists.best.com [mailto:urth-errors at lists.best.com]On\nBehalf Of Michael Andre-Driussi\n\nNow, as one reader who is obviously guilty of at least some of this\n\"scientism,\" folks might think that I would be in disagreement\nwith Nick's\npost--but I'm not, and I suspect that Nick knew that beforehand. I agree\nwith nearly all of it, and the Typhon/Piaton example is an excellent\nexample, as I'll further comment upon in a bit." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I tend to read BOTNS in an SF context until I absolutely can't. But what\nstrikes me is how Wolfe communicates that the scientific habit of mind has\npretty much disappeared from Urth itself. The idea of verifying facts about\nthe world through controlled repetition seems alien to just about everyone\nwith the _possible_ exception of Fr Inire, and he's a bug-eyed space\nmonster . . .\n\nEven simple classification seems somewhat negligent. Sev tells us he fills\nthe unused vincula tunnels with \"a mixture of sand, loose stone, lime etc\"\nbut never bothers to name the compound.\n\nBest,\n\n\nJim\n ******************************************\n\"There will always be Costello/\n a little larceny Bacharach,\n in everyone\" \"My Thief\"" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Fusch", "address": "dfusch at hotmail.com" }, "date": "1999-11-02T01:53:11+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Fairy Tale logic", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "OK, Jim,\n\nI have to disagree with this:\n\n(snip)\n\"The idea of verifying facts about\nthe world through controlled repetition seems alien to just about everyone\nwith the _possible_ exception of Fr Inire, and he's a bug-eyed space\nmonster . . .\"\n\nThe Scientific Method has NOT disappeared from Urth; it is simply that \norganized (academic) sciene has disappeared. And of course the good old \n\"manifest destiny conquer the stars\" drive toward technological achievement \nseems to be missing--that's Vodalus' complaint, after all.\n\nWhat we see in Urth are the solitary scientists, the lone natural \nphilosophers who experiment privately, without involving themselves with \nagencies or universities. Baldanders is one example--he is obviously a \ntinkerer, an experimenter--of the darkest kind. He performs experiments on \nhis captives in order to gain scientific knowledge.\n\nAnother rather sinister scientist appears near the end of The Citadel of the \nAutarch, while Severian is a captive of Vodalus.' Severian meets a man who \nhypothesizes that organic material exists to feed light, and he tests his \nhypotheses (or so Severian suspects) by repeatedly burning human children.\n\nFurther, we might argue that the Scientific Method was well-known, at least, \nin Typhon's time. The Typhon/Piaton project was attempted after much \nexperimentation.\n\nNor is classification or biology absent--it is simply that Severian does not \nknow much about classification. But remember the Botanic Gardens. The \ncurators there had the plants well classified, I would say.\n\nAnyway, I submit to you that the Scientific Method is still very present in \nthe world of Urth. The thing that is missing is an organized group of \nscientists. There are no grants, there are no associations, and there \ndoesn't seem to be much teamwork (with the possible exception of the \nbotanists). Instead you have scattered, isolated scientists pursuing their \nseparate paths.\n\nThat's all I had to say--\n\nDaniel" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Fusch", "address": "dfusch at hotmail.com" }, "date": "1999-11-02T02:06:11+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Fairy Tale logic", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hello, Michael.\n\n(snip)\n\"So it may be the case that some have gone \"too far\" in using a science \nfictional reading of Severian's Narrative, but it is within a context of \nearlier readings that were completely blind to sf elements. It is a valid \ntool, but it does not have universal application throughout the text--yet \noften the only way to tell if a sf rationale works for a given detail is to \nactually try it out.\"\n\nIn the words of Tevye the dairyman (from \"Fiddler on the Roof\") -- \"You are \nalso right.\"\n\nI wonder about your comments on an alchemical interpretation of Typhon, \nhowever. Typhon is connected both to the temptation of Christ in the \nwilderness and to classical mythology--and these connections seem to me far \nclearer and more useful than a connection to an alchemical symbol.\n\nHere are my objections:\n\nFirst--Piaton is not a woman.\n\nSecond--The two-headed man is a symbol all over the place--not just in \nalchemy.\n\nThird--What does Typhon have to do with alchemy? Unless you're trying to \ndraw a vague connection to the \"dark arts\" in attempting to \"make\" a \nman--via Mary Shelley, etc.... But that leaps back to necromancy, not \nalchemy.\n\nFourth--If Typhon is related to an alchemical symbol--then just what does \nthat mean? Is it a statement about alchemy? Is it a statement about Typhon's \nscience or society? What relevance does it have?\n\nAnyway, I'm skeptical.\n\n(By the way, thought I'd mention--I enjoyed your book! And, incidentally, \nanother definition for Erebus--in Roman mythology, Erebus is the hell into \nwhich Jupiter cast the Titans who aided Saturn in attempting to overthrow \nhim. And the Titans were giants, in one sense. Seems relevant, so I thought \nI'd mention it.)\n\nDaniel" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jim Henley", "address": "jlhenley at erols.com" }, "date": "1999-11-01T21:35:25+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Fairy Tale logic", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: urth-errors at lists.best.com [mailto:urth-errors at lists.best.com]On\nBehalf Of Daniel Fusch\n\nOK, Jim,\n\nI have to disagree with this:\n\nThe Scientific Method has NOT disappeared from Urth; it is simply that\norganized (academic) sciene has disappeared." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Daniel, I yield to your superior evidence. Indeed, I roll on my back and\nstretch my neck before you, making piteous mewling sounds.\n\nBTW, are there any \"good scientists\" in the saga?\n\nBest,\n\n\nJim\n *****************************************\n\"All God's children got a little bit of soul\n but not that much . . . \"\n -- Graham Parker, \"Obsessed with Aretha\"" } ] } ] }