{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/1906", "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": 1906, "subject": "Digest urth.v028.n073", "messages": 3, "voices": 3, "first": "1999-11-03T00:17:02+00:00", "last": "1999-11-03T12:41:18+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "David Duffy", "address": "davidd at qimr.edu.au" }, "date": "1999-11-03T00:17:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Digest urth.v028.n073", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "VDOn Tue, 2 Nov 1999 urth-errors at lists.best.com wrote:\n\n-------------- BEGIN urth.v028.n073 --------------\n\n 001 - =?iso-8859-1?q?Nicholas=2 - Inire's \"Mirrors\"\n 002 - \"Roy C. Lackey\" \nSubject: Inire's \"Mirrors\"\nDate: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:02:42 -0800 (PST)\nMIME-Version: 1.0\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1\nContent-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n\nI'm glad to see that my \"Fairy Tale Logic\" posting\nended our dry patch; I'm also gratified that mantis\nagrees with me in part, a rare event. But to take up\nthe cudgel again: I still contend that Inire's\ndescription of the working of his mirrors is\nintentional gibberish on Wolfe's part, to the extent\nthat he wishes it to be read as gibberish, in contrast\nwith all the intended-to-be-plausible explanations of\nFTL technology in SF. An ideas-driven writer like Poul\nAnderson or Isaac Asimov desires his FTL conception to\nbe believed, to be given the benefit of a very large\ndoubt; but for a style-driven writer like Jack Vance\nor Wolfe, an FTL-exposition is a CONCEIT, a rhetorical\ncontrivance, serving a metaphorical or humorous\npurpose. Inire's mirrors should be interrogated on\nthat basis. \n\nIncidentally, in defense of mantis' view of Typhon as\nalchemical symbol: the point of alchemy for many was\nthe conversion of their base flesh into perfect matter\nblessed with immortality. Typhon's aim in usurping\nPiaton's body is also extended life.\n\n\n=====\n\n__________________________________________________\nDo You Yahoo!?\nBid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com\n\n\n--------------- MESSAGE urth.v028.n073.2 ---------------\n\nFrom: \"Roy C. Lackey\" \nSubject: Re: Inire's \"Mirrors\"\nDate: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 02:10:11 -0600\nMIME-Version: 1.0\nContent-Type: text/plain;\n\tcharset=\"iso-8859-1\"\nContent-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit\n\nNicholas Gevers wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I'm glad to see that my \"Fairy Tale Logic\" posting\nended our dry patch; I'm also gratified that mantis\nagrees with me in part, a rare event. But to take up\nthe cudgel again: I still contend that Inire's\ndescription of the working of his mirrors is\nintentional gibberish on Wolfe's part, to the extent\nthat he wishes it to be read as gibberish, in contrast\nwith all the intended-to-be-plausible explanations of\nFTL technology in SF. An ideas-driven writer like Poul\nAnderson or Isaac Asimov desires his FTL conception to\nbe believed, to be given the benefit of a very large\ndoubt; but for a style-driven writer like Jack Vance\nor Wolfe, an FTL-exposition is a CONCEIT, a rhetorical\ncontrivance, serving a metaphorical or humorous\npurpose. Inire's mirrors should be interrogated on that basis. <<" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " To say nothing of the \"white fountain\". I would like to see the\nscientific explanation for the mating of a man and a larval \"angel\"\nproducing an extra-universal remedy for a black hole in a dying sun.\n\nRoy\n\n\n\n\n--------------- MESSAGE urth.v028.n073.3 ---------------\n\nFrom: Patri10629 at aol.com\nSubject: Re: the superb level of discourse here\nDate: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 04:32:47 EST\nMIME-Version: 1.0\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=\"us-ascii\"\nContent-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit\n\n\nIn a message dated 11/2/99 12:43:53 AM, Mitchell Bailey writes:\n\n<< As you probably can tell, I'm not a literature scholar. I'll have to\nparaphrase Sev's line on this subject: if I sometimes manage to seem a\npeer of the esteemed contributors to this list, or at least one whose\ncompany does not shame them (perplexes? annoys?) it is to a significant\nextent due to that erudition to which I've been exposed here. >>\n\nNo, I couldn't tell, and, yes, I know *exactly* what you mean. If ever there \nwas a forum which enhanced and increased my pleasure with Wolfe's work, why \nhumbling me, this is it. What a privilege it is to eavesdrop. Hats off to \nyou, mates.\n\nLove Mr Ansley's Oz reference.\n\nA sidenote: Responding to my constant complaint that parades are not \norganized in response to, and full-page New York Times reviews are not \ndevoted to each new Wolfe book, (and a national holiday not declared \nspecifically for a masterwork like ON BLUE'S WATERS), a friend replied: \"With \nthose godawful covers they slap on his books they're scaring off anybody with \nhalf a brain who doesn't already know he's great.\" Comments?\n\nActually the cover of OBW is sort of Wolfe in a nutshell--the siren's one \ngrotesque feature is hidden from view, the animal's leg's too. What? What's a \nfew limbs between friends?\n\nI must say again: We are not all lit crit/ sci fi (uh-oh I said the naughty \nword)/intellectual giants (I mean besides Mantis and Alga), nerds and \nnerdettes obsessed with minutia (I'll forgive the geographers for the \nmoment). \"Minutia.\" Hey! Maybe That could be my name! (sorry) Is Wolfe so \nwrenchingly good? So demanding? Am I naive and alone in thinking that his \nart is ultimately accessible?\n\nbest,\n\nPatrick O'Leary\n\n\n\n--------------- MESSAGE urth.v028.n073.4 ---------------\n\nFrom: \"Alice Turner\" \nSubject: Fairy Tale alchemy\nDate: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:04:40 -0500\nMIME-Version: 1.0\nContent-Type: text/plain;\n\tcharset=\"iso-8859-1\"\nContent-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit\n\nMantis remarked, in discussion of fantasy v. SF:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "\"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\n(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\nchain.\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!)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, no. Actually I agree---how not. The Gothic elements refer directly\nback to alchemy, most specifically in Baldanders's castle by the lake with\nhis \"experiments\" aided by \"elementals\" from the air and his great\nfamiliar/catamite/clone (and the whole parody, almost Pythoneque, in which\nBaldanders is both Frankenstein and creature, with Dr. Talos as a \"beard\").\nAlso much later when we find the homunculus/mandragora at the Citadel. But,\nas I have said before, these are almost certainly filtered from the direct\nGothic tradition (mostly English) by Wolfe's reading of Goethe's Faust, Part\nII (the one people don't read so much), which is a weirdly hallucinogenic\n\"take\" on the Gothic/alchemical novel with its castles and laboratories and\n\"philosopher's stones\" and transmutations.\n\nTyphon too appears in this general air of the Gothic.\n\nAnd mantis, I don't roll my eyes at your allusions, they start to roll when\nyou seize them (the allusions, not the eyes) with your mandibles and\nbrutally worry them into virtuality.\n\n-alga\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n--------------- MESSAGE urth.v028.n073.5 ---------------\n\nFrom: Alex David Groce \nSubject: Re: (urth) Re: the superb level of discourse here\nDate: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 10:21:00 -0500\nIn-Reply-To: Your message of \"Tue, 02 Nov 1999 04:32:47 EST.\"\n <199911020934.BAA25639 at lists1.best.com>\n\nPatrick--\n\nWell, part of my point in the whole modernism debate was that, because he\navoids their techniques, Wolfe is at the least pretty darn accessible for\na modernist. While I like that kind of thing, I understand the people who \nthrow ULYSSES and THE SOUND AND THE FURY down and never pick them back up.\n\nThe main thing with Wolfe is, you DO have to pay attention. Which some readers\naren't very keen on. FREE LIVE FREE and those darned morning glories catches\na lot of people sleeping (although if you don't figure out what's going on\nbefore \"all is revealed\" anyway you are not paying attention on a much bigger\nlevel).\n\nI'm really not a fan of the OBW cover. On the other hand, the Long Sun covers\nwere OK, if nothing spectacularly good. But they all look like *gasp* Science\nFiction Book Covers, which is honest advertising but not too good for getting\nrandom non-SF people who would enjoy Wolfe to read him.\n\n\n\"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.\" John 8:32\n--\nAlex David Groce (agroce+ at cs.cmu.edu)\nPh.D. Student, Carnegie Mellon University - Computer Science Department\n8112 Wean Hall (412)-268-3066\nhttp://www.cs.cmu.edu/~agroce\n\n\n--------------- MESSAGE urth.v028.n073.6 ---------------\n\nFrom: \"Greene, Carlton\" \nSubject: Technology as Magic and Metaphor (long)\nDate: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:38:03 -0500\nMIME-Version: 1.0\nContent-Type: text/plain;\n\tcharset=\"iso-8859-1\"\n\nNicholas Gevers wrote:\n\n >>I'm glad to see that my \"Fairy Tale Logic\" posting ended our dry patch;\nI'm also gratified that mantis agrees with me in part, a rare event. But to\ntake up the cudgel again: I still contend that Inire's description of the\nworking of his mirrors is intentional gibberish on Wolfe's part, to the\nextent that he wishes it to be read as gibberish, in contrast with all the\nintended-to-be-plausible explanations of FTL technology in SF. An\nideas-driven writer like Poul Anderson or Isaac Asimov desires his FTL\nconception to be believed, to be given the benefit of a very large doubt;\nbut for a style-driven writer like Jack Vance or Wolfe, an FTL-exposition is\na CONCEIT, a rhetorical contrivance, serving a metaphorical or humorous\npurpose. Inire's mirrors should be interrogated on that basis. << \n\nRoy wrote:\n\n<>\n\nTwo points. First, I see no reason to give the boot to \"scientism.\"\nSecond, and more importantly, \"scientism\" and technology-as-metaphor are not\nmutually exclusive, but rather mutually enhancing.\n\nWolfe's explanations of technology are often mysterious and incomplete, but\nWolfe's resort to complete, detailed explanations for certain technologies\nimplies that even the really strange examples have some explanation to them\nthat has not been made entirely clear to the reader. I agree that the\nexplanation of Inire's mirrors reads like sleight of hand, but wasn't it\nsupposed to be a simplistic explanation of a very complicated technology\ngiven to a child? (Maybe I've forgottent the context in which the speech was\ndelivered). As to Typhon and his grafted head, its important to remember\nthat the pieces of humanity's scientific knowledge that have survived the\naeons are weird and patchy throughout the books -- maybe a head graft was\nthe most rational means at Typhon's disposal to achieve his goals. We know\nvery little about the operation itself or the medical knowledge available in\nTyphon's time. It boots us little to say that the operation makes no sense\nbecause of what we know about medical science in the 20th century -- many\nof the technologies described in the TBOTNS assume capabilities (and\nlimitations) which we can neither verify or reject based on current science.\nInstead, we take from Wolfe's attempt to provide or hint at some scientific\nexplanation for these phenomenon the *flavor* that these are miracles of\ntechnology rather than magic. In sum, the fact that many of the\nexplanations of particular technologies are shadowy, unclear, or apparently\nparadoxical given current scientific understanding does not mean that we as\nreaders are not intended to, and should not, understand that some rational\nexplanation lies lurking in the background. I think we are.\n\nMore importantly, maintaining the idea that some scientific explanation for\nthese phenomenon exists strengthens, rather than weakens, the power of these\ntechnologies as metaphors. If it were clear that items like Typhon's two\nheads and apheta's quasar-producing, larval lust were meant simply as pure,\nfluffy fanstasy, existing only as a metaphorical allusion, their power as\nsymbols would be less. Instead, the idea that they are simultaneously\nscientifically explainable events and spiritual metaphors with real power\ncreates a sense of destiny and religious meaning in our physical universe.\nIn TBOTNS every action, object, and interaction reveals some significant\ntruth about the Increate. Sev's discovery of a thorn on a (Pacific!) beach,\nwhich is at once biological matter, a relic of real physical power, and a\nrevelation of the divine nature of physical existence, is an example of this\nprinciple.\n\nOne last point: Given the above, it is interesting to note that the\ntechnology of the heirogrammates, a technology infused with love and divine\ngrace, is more obviously metaphorical and more difficult to explain\nscientifically as physical technology, as Roy points out. My take on this:\nthe closer we get to the divine, the more we understand that the physical\nuniverse does in fact exist, but is intended as a functioning, scientific\nmetaphor for certain underlying principles, a particularly graceful way of\nrevealing spiritual truths. The heirogrammates pull the curtain aside on\nthis methodology in a way that we are not exposed to normally, explicitly\nfusing technology and metaphor. In contrast, the sturdiest scientific\nexplanations in the books are given for items in the hands of the \"godless\"\nexploiters of scientific knowledge -- Baldanders and Typhon. I always\nunderstood this to mean that this was the sin makind was being punished for\n-- the exploitation and achievement of god-like scientific power without the\nconcommittant moral and spiritual development -- without the principle of\nlove or grace or what have you. Mankind is being punished for selling off\nits emotions in furtherance of blind ambition.\n\nI apologize if I am rambling here, but if I am, it is because I have been\ninspired by the exceptional quality of the discussion on this list, and I am\ncertainly grateful for the opportunity to contribute.\n\nC/\n\n\n--------------- MESSAGE urth.v028.n073.7 ---------------\n\nFrom: Dan Parmenter \nSubject: Botanical Garden Curator\nDate: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:52:22 -0800\n\nIsn't Father Inire, the old BEM himself at least one of the curators\nof the Botanical Garden? Damn, I don't have the text here.\n\nD\n\n\n\n--------------- MESSAGE urth.v028.n073.8 ---------------\n\nFrom: \"Daniel Fusch\" \nSubject: Re: (urth) Re: the superb level of discourse here\nDate: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 11:09:51 PST\nMIME-Version: 1.0\nContent-Type: text/plain; format=flowed\n\nHello, Patrick!\n\nI also am enjoying this forum.\n\nAbout the covers...I couldn't agree more. When I read The Book of the New \nSun in paperback, I kept thinking, \"What horrible cover art!\" Especially on \nBooks II and III. Oh, I suppose the art isn't that bad...it's just \nincredibly cliche. It has \"sword and sorcery/Conan/pulp fiction\" written all \nover it, to use a cliche. No self-respecting lit professor would have books \nwith those covers on his/her bookshelf!\n\nThe Tor/Orb editions (the two-volume edition, I mean) of The Book of the New \nSun is a little better--the books are well put together, the covers look \nrespectable, and they chose the two best samples of the cover art, at least. \nMy advice--give THOSE editions to your friends.\n\nPatrick--I don't think you are either naive or alone in thinking Wolfe's \nwork ultimately accessible. I can only speak for the Urth cycle and for a \nfew of his short stories, myself (still have to read 5HC and Dr.Death as \nsoon as I get the chance--the time, that is), but I find his work very \naccessible. Severian's narrative voice--like, say, Ishmael's voice in Moby \nDick--draws the reader right in.\n\n(On the other hand, not every one finds Moby Dick accessible.)\n\nI'm not certain why some people \"don't get\" Wolfe's work. Is it the science \nfiction element?\n\nAnyway, that's all I had to say.\n\n--Daniel\n\n______________________________________________________\nGet Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com\n\n\n--------------- MESSAGE urth.v028.n073.9 ---------------\n\nFrom: \"Daniel Fusch\" \nSubject: Re: (urth) Fairy Tale alchemy\nDate: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 11:14:14 PST\nMIME-Version: 1.0\nContent-Type: text/plain; format=flowed\n\nalga and mantis,\n\nI concede the point. You're right--I hadn't looked that carefully at the \nsequence at Baldanders' castle. The connection to Faust is definitely \nthere--with the Homunculus, after all.\n\nI suppose I hadn't really connected alchemy with the Gothic tradition \nbefore--maybe \"Frankenstein\" is the meeting point, then.\n\nSo...if Typhon is--in one sense--an alchemical allusion, what is the \nsignificance of the allusion? Is Typhon representative of a desire to \nperfect the human form (by defeating death)?\n\n--Daniel\n\n______________________________________________________\nGet Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com\n\n\n--------------- MESSAGE urth.v028.n073.10 ---------------\n\nFrom: =?iso-8859-1?q?Nicholas=20Gevers?= \nSubject: Science and Miracles\nDate: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:34:11 -0800 (PST)\nMIME-Version: 1.0\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1\nContent-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n\nI agree with other parties to our debate that the\never-present possibility of scientific explanations\nfor events enriches NEW SUN, lending it rigour,\nspeculative depth, and metaphorical power. But as LONG\nSUN makes clear, it is sometimes the possibility of a\nmiraculous explanation that is the most effective\nliterary device in Wolfe's work. I think that Wolfe at\ntimes intentionally misleads his readers into byways\nof scientific explication, in effect challenging them\nto see the wood for the trees, the Word for the World;\nwhen they fail to find secular explanations, or\ncontrive ones that are trivial and unsatisfactory,\nthey must perforce acknowledge the supremacy of the\nmiraculous. \n\nAnother point: a miraculous explanation for a textual\nincident doesn't entail capitulation to the\nintellectually slack fluffiness of genre Fantasy\nplotting. Wolfe intends us to understand supernatural\nevents as ultimately purposeful Divine interventions\nor concessions, not as the random conjurings of elves\nand wizards.\n\n\n=====\n\n__________________________________________________\nDo You Yahoo!?\nBid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com\n\n\n--------------- END urth.v028.n073 ---------------" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Steve Taylor", "address": "steve at afs.net.au" }, "date": "1999-11-03T04:45:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Digest urth.v028.n073", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Patri10629 at aol.com wrote:\nA sidenote: Responding to my constant complaint that parades are not \norganized in response to, and full-page New York Times reviews are not \ndevoted to each new Wolfe book, (and a national holiday not declared \nspecifically for a masterwork like ON BLUE'S WATERS), a friend replied: \"With \nthose godawful covers they slap on his books they're scaring off anybody with \nhalf a brain who doesn't already know he's great.\" Comments?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Heartily seconded. I avoided _Book of the New Sun_ for years because I\ndidn't want to read the sort of B-grade fantasy that would bear titles\nlike _The Shadow of the Torturer_. Then I read Michael Moorcocks\nextremely opinionated and slightly bonkers book of essays on fantasy\n(can't think of the title) and was sufficiently impressed by the chapter\non _BOTNS_ to give it a try. After that, all was lost...\n\nIt wasn't actually the covers that scared me away, as being a lifelong\nreader of SF/F I'm used to being caught reading books with clumsy,\njuvenile or embarrasing covers. (Though just this week I found a\nparticularly horrid copy of _There Are Doors_ with a quite obnoxious Wet\nT-Shirt Contest/\"look at my nipples\" cover.)\n\nTangentially: Can anyone point me to any online writing on _There Are\nDoors_? No specific comments or questions on my part yet, but I'd like\nto see what others may have said.\n\n\n\n Steve" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Alex David Groce", "address": "alex_groce at gs246.sp.cs.cmu.edu" }, "date": "1999-11-03T12:41:18+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Re: Digest urth.v028.n073", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I believe there are some way back in the Urth archives. I know I asked \nsomething or other, but I can't remember what. I think long ago Alga used\n_There Are Doors_ in her \"three kinds of women in Gene Wolfe stories\" comments.\n\n\n\"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.\" John 8:32" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Alex David Groce (agroce+ at cs.cmu.edu)\nPh.D. Student, Carnegie Mellon University - Computer Science Department\n8112 Wean Hall (412)-268-3066\nhttp://www.cs.cmu.edu/~agroce" } ] } ] }