{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/2224", "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": 2224, "subject": "GWOT <> LB", "messages": 2, "voices": 2, "first": "2000-05-02T09:48:24+00:00", "last": "2000-05-03T00:12:54+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Andre-Driussi", "address": "mantis at sirius.com" }, "date": "2000-05-02T09:48:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) GWOT <> LB", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Away for three days and I've fallen far behind!\n\nAdam's Questions" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "1. What is the function of the opening section, about Caspar Last? I\ncan actually think of several possible functions: it provides a glimpse\nof our world; it's a prelude to the \"original sin\" of the Otherhood; it\nshows the difficulty of changing the past in a purposeful way; it lures\nthe reader into thinking GWoT will be a typical changing-the-past\nstory. But none of these justify, for me, the size and prominent\nposition of this section." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Those are good functions. I'd also add the \"red herring\" of technical\ndetails (like the severe mass restriction, which on first reading seem to\nmake later Otherhood operations impossible, but no, they've developed an\nadvanced technique which remains vague). But for me, the most important\nfunction is to begin the big American/British dichotomy: Caspar Last is\nAmerican (though you probably wouldn't know it until somebody mentions it\nlater), and Denys is British." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "2. When the old Denys is telling the young Denys (of our world) his\nstory, after describing how he failed to kill Rhodes, he says \"'I am\nsatisfied in my own mind...that it cannot be possible to meet oneself on\na trip into the past or future; that is a lie, invented by the Otherhood\nto forestall its own extinction, which was however inevitable.\"\n(131-32). Why does Denys think propagating the \"lie\" that one can meet\noneself would forestall the Otherhood's extinction? Why does he think\nthe Otherhood's extinction inevitable? And why does the old Denys not\nbelieve his older self dissuaded him from killing Rhodes, when he has\nthe evidence that that is what happened? Does he just not want to admit\nthat his current plight is the result of a considered decision on his\npart, rather than an impulsive act?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Okay, it gets complicated: I'm not sure what you are saying, so I'll\noutline my understanding of the situation. In the text our world seems to\nbe what the Otherhood calls \"Original Situation\"; the world the Otherhood\nis making I call \"CC\" (for the \"Cape-to-Cairo\" railroad which figures so\nstrongly); the world at the end of the text is neither OS nor CC, but a\nthird situation I dub \"C2.\"\n\nSo I take your opening statement as meaning: \"When Denys CC (86 years old)\nis telling Denys C2 (23 years old) in the C2 world, after describing how he\nfailed to kill Rhodes in CC/C2 1893, he says . . . \"\n\nOn to the paradox itself. I hope it resolves cleanly as I've laid it out\nabove: one cannot \"meet oneself\" because of one or more of the following:\none's age difference means that an older version is a different self than a\nyounger version (standard truism about age); the usual time-travel history\neraser thing (meddling with your past self alters both); the\nmultiple-timeline model (such monkeying around causes new worlds to emerge:\nOS became CC, CC became C2; each version of Denys is different enough to be\noutside of \"self\").\n\nThen again, the text facts remain (if Denys CC [86 yo] isn't lying): the\nactual agent of change in CC 1893 (which caused the birth of C2) was a\nphantom lion (which suggests to me that the fairies of CC 2015 did it).\nThis being the case, then it does support the claim that one cannot meet\noneself, not because of any reasons I listed above, but just because that\nis a fact: like a law of physics.\n\nAs to why the Otherhood would want agents to believe that one could meet\noneself, I'm not sure. To keep them focused on the big goal (creation of\nCC world); to keep time travel minimal and by design; etc. It seems that\nthey wouldn't have blown it if they had followed their own rules and had\nnot allowed Denys CC (33 years old) to go from CC 1993 to CC 2015, where he\nsaw the results of the CC worldbuilding project and grew sick of it. Which\nbegan the unravelling.\n\n\nOnward: next stop, \"why I think GWOT is the opposite of LB.\"\n\nLB is a union of Anglo-American fairytale stuff, elements which are quite\ndifferent yet brought together into a seamless whole. A bit ambiguous at\nthe end, but overall a glorious celebration of Fantasy. Ambiguity leaves\nroom for hope and happiness.\n\nGWOT uses science fiction to separate America and Great Britain into two\nhostile camps. The reader is urged to choose between one or the other,\nwith constant goading towards the British side (third paragraph: \"in an\nAmerican sort of voice (for we are all Americans now, aren't we?)\"; a few\npages later, \"The hotel in the capital was as he expected, shoddy-American\nand intermittently refrigerated\" [I wonder how \"American\" that use of\n\"refrigerated\"?). As the plot thickens, to the \"American\" side is added,\non top of Coca-colonization, Big Macs, and all that, a heaping of Nazi\nGermany and the Jewish Holocaust--now which side is the reader going to\nchoose?\n\nWell ha-ha, which ever side you choose, you lose! No ambiguity there.\n\nOften enough in time travel stories there is the \"que sera sera\" sort of\nmoral: Lincoln/JFK must be assassinated, otherwise things will somehow get\nworse; likewise Hitler cannot be assassinated; Captain Kirk must persuade\nDr. McCoy to let the foxy socialist babe die in the 20th century so that\nthe Federation can exist in the future; etc. But as perhaps the only\noriginal thing GWOT brings to the rich subgenre, the ending is anything but\nDoris Day (or Once a Day, or Daily Alice): on first glance, it is \"damned\nif you do, damned if you don't.\"\n\nBut no, it is actually even worse than that! See, in LB, Smoky has ideas,\nbut does nothing (he is passive), and that seems sad; in GWOT, Denys tries\nvery hard, suffers, and changes worlds (he is active), and it is worse. So\na thread which I think runs through much of JC's work: the only thing worse\nthan doing nothing (bad, sad) is doing something (very bad, very sad).\nWhich is like a negative-version of the Tao, or something.\n\nAnyway, GWOT uses sf to destroy fantasy (especially LB), implicate the\nauthors/readers of fantasy (basically worse than Hitler, all of 'em), and\ndestroy sf itself. LB is a wedding of opposites; GWOT is a war, a civil\nwar, and a few genocides.\n\nFinally! Reading GWOT outside of the context of NOVELTY might be as\nslippery/skewed as reading \"`A Story' by John V. Marsch\" outside of 5HC.\n(Or maybe not.)\n\n=mantis=" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2000-05-03T00:12:54+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) GWOT <> LB", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Michael Andre-Driussi wrote:\nAdam's Questions\n1. What is the function of the opening section, about Caspar Last?\n[snip]\n\nThose are good functions. I'd also add the \"red herring\" of technical\ndetails... [snip to avoid repetition] But for me, the most important\nfunction is to begin the big American/British dichotomy: Caspar Last is\nAmerican (though you probably wouldn't know it until somebody mentions it\nlater), and Denys is British." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Those are also good functions, although the American/British dichotomy\nis raised more pointedly in the very next section. I'm still not\nconvinced the section deserves the size and prominence it has." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "2. When the old Denys is telling the young Denys (of our world) his\nstory, after describing how he failed to kill Rhodes, he says \"'I am\nsatisfied in my own mind...that it cannot be possible to meet oneself on\na trip into the past or future; that is a lie, invented by the Otherhood\nto forestall its own extinction, which was however inevitable.\"\n(131-32). Why does Denys think propagating the \"lie\" that one can meet\noneself would forestall the Otherhood's extinction? Why does he think\nthe Otherhood's extinction inevitable? And why does the old Denys not\nbelieve his older self dissuaded him from killing Rhodes, when he has\nthe evidence that that is what happened? Does he just not want to admit\nthat his current plight is the result of a considered decision on his\npart, rather than an impulsive act?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Okay, it gets complicated: I'm not sure what you are saying, so I'll\noutline my understanding of the situation. In the text our world seems to\nbe what the Otherhood calls \"Original Situation\"; the world the Otherhood\nis making I call \"CC\" (for the \"Cape-to-Cairo\" railroad which figures so\nstrongly); the world at the end of the text is neither OS nor CC, but a\nthird situation I dub \"C2.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A technical nit to pick: actually the world at the end of the text is\nOS, or nearly so. As Denys C2 transmits Denys CC's explanation, it\n\"restores\" itself as the Otherhood's interventions fail to take place,\nand Denys CC's presence, which distinguishes C2 from OS, disappears from\nhistory. (135)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So I take your opening statement as meaning: \"When Denys CC (86 years old)\nis telling Denys C2 (23 years old) in the C2 world, after describing how he\nfailed to kill Rhodes in CC/C2 1893, he says . . . \"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On to the paradox itself. I hope it resolves cleanly as I've laid it out\nabove: one cannot \"meet oneself\" because of one or more of the following:\none's age difference means that an older version is a different self than a\nyounger version (standard truism about age); the usual time-travel history\neraser thing (meddling with your past self alters both); the\nmultiple-timeline model (such monkeying around causes new worlds to emerge:\nOS became CC, CC became C2; each version of Denys is different enough to be\noutside of \"self\")." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But Denys CC is denying that it would have been possible for Denys PT\n(as I will call the Denys who did kill Rhodes, became President pro tem,\nand visited the future) to encounter Denys CC in 1893. The reasons\nabove are merely arguments, if such a meeting took place, it should not\nbe called \"meeting oneself.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Then again, the text facts remain (if Denys CC [86 yo] isn't lying): the\nactual agent of change in CC 1893 (which caused the birth of C2) was a\nphantom lion (which suggests to me that the fairies of CC 2015 did it)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "He's not consciously lying, but as he himself suggests (131) the episode\nof the lion is a confabulation on the part of his unconscious. What\nreally happened is what he dreams happened: Denys PT does meet him and\ndissuades him. That seems to me the simplest reading. If the fairies\nof 2015 did it, why did they tell Denys PT he had to do it? (Another\nalternative is that Denys CC has somehow unconsciously absorbed Denys\nPT's knowledge of the consequences of the Otherhood, in the same way\nthat Denys C2 does later; and again confabulated the lion to explain his\nactions to his conscious mind.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "GWOT uses science fiction to separate America and Great Britain into two\nhostile camps. The reader is urged to choose between one or the other,\nwith constant goading towards the British side (third paragraph: \"in an\nAmerican sort of voice (for we are all Americans now, aren't we?)\"; a few\npages later, \"The hotel in the capital was as he expected, shoddy-American\nand intermittently refrigerated\" [I wonder how \"American\" that use of\n\"refrigerated\"?). As the plot thickens, to the \"American\" side is added,\non top of Coca-colonization, Big Macs, and all that, a heaping of Nazi\nGermany and the Jewish Holocaust--now which side is the reader going to\nchoose?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't think the text is so loaded on the British side as all that. I\nnever bought Davenant's sophistry about how it would have been better if\nBritain had helped the South win the Civil War. And the comment \"He\n[Denys] believed implicitly that his Empire did not wipe out populations\nwholesale.\" (56) is surely irony directed at Denys. (Incidentally,\nwhile reviewing this conversation I noticed Davenant's reference to \"the\nnear genocide [in the American South] of the last hundred years.\" (56) \nIs this hyperbole, or does it indicate that in CC, African-Americans in\nthe South in the first half of the 20th century were even worse off than\nin reality? The latter doesn't seem implausible; since the U.S. is\npoorer and weaker in CC, white Southerners might well have had more\nfrustrations to take out on African-Americans.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well ha-ha, which ever side you choose, you lose! No ambiguity there.\n[snip]\nBut no, it is actually even worse than that! See, in LB, Smoky has ideas,\nbut does nothing (he is passive), and that seems sad; in GWOT, Denys tries\nvery hard, suffers, and changes worlds (he is active), and it is worse. So\na thread which I think runs through much of JC's work: the only thing worse\nthan doing nothing (bad, sad) is doing something (very bad, very sad).\nWhich is like a negative-version of the Tao, or something." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "To me it's simply saying that sometimes actions taken with good\nintentions can have bad consequences, a common theme of tragedy (and not\nsomething anyone can reasonably deny)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Anyway, GWOT uses sf to destroy fantasy (especially LB), implicate the\nauthors/readers of fantasy (basically worse than Hitler, all of 'em), and\ndestroy sf itself. LB is a wedding of opposites; GWOT is a war, a civil\nwar, and a few genocides." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm not sure what you mean here. There is, I think, an implicit\ncritique in GWOT of the love of archaic social hierarchies in much\nfantasy (something that has bothered me too). But to say it wants to\ndestroy fantasy seems a considerable exaggeration. And I don't know\nwhat you mean by saying it destroys sf (the time-traveller whose actions\ncancel out time travel is itself an sf trope: see Ward Moore's BRING THE\nJUBILEE, and especially Asimov's THE END OF ETERNITY, whose plot GWOT\nbasically cribs)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Finally! Reading GWOT outside of the context of NOVELTY might be as\nslippery/skewed as reading \"`A Story' by John V. Marsch\" outside of 5HC.\n(Or maybe not.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I might be able to agree or disagree if I had any sense what the context\nwas. It's been a while since I read it, but as I recall I couldn't make\nhead or tail of \"In Blue\" and found the first and last stories slight\n(though the first was rather charming).\n\n--Adam" } ] } ] }