Subject: Re: (urth) living dolls

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 19:23:55 +0000

IMHO the real root is the nursery/toy/steadfast tin solder  vibe seen well
in "The War Beneath The Tree".

As I reflect, it seems to me that all Wolfe's artificial people- from the
chems of the Long Sun, through the adult-sized puppets of  <story whose name
I forget>, through Mr Million and the Horars (note name of tank), are, more
than anything else, to be understood as walking *toys*.

Gods' toys, maybe.  But essentially toys.

Hence their sexual impotence.

Toys have nothing between their legs, and neither do robots, however
"superior" they may be in other ways.

In the Long Sun books this is hypostatised into the difficulty the Chems
have in reproducing, by their non-sexual, but plausible, means.

There is no reason why they should have this difficulty - it could be
arranged otherwise - but they must have it, because they are toys, and toys
do not have babies.

And also this is the key to their personal characteristics and the odd
limitations of the way Wolfe uses them.

Stop thinking of them as robots.

They are dolls!   Big grown-up dolls!,

Nurse and housemaid dolls for the female chems, soldier dolls for the male
ones.

    hartshorn

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Wynn" <crushtv at HotPOP.com>
To: <urth at urth.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 7:43 PM

>
> The Tin Woodman may have been an *inspiration* to Wolfe's images of
> synthetic people, but can the connection be drawn any more tightly?
>
> -- Crush

--

---

From: Michael Andre-Driussi <mantis at siriusfiction.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 19:55:46 +0000

>than anything else, to be understood as walking *toys*.

The story whose name he fogot might be:

"The Toy Theater" (most likely)
"It's Very Clean" (less likely)

Name of tank, noted: Pinocchio.

=mantis=

--

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 20:49:34 +0000

--- Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk> wrote:
> Nurse and housemaid dolls for the female chems, soldier dolls for the
> male ones.

I think you're right that this is how their creators think of them.
I don't think Severian and Silk think of them as toys at all.

As for how we should think of them, I think you're right that in some
artistic sense they're connected with various fictional toys you and
others have mentioned.  But I think we're supposed to see them as
equivalent to humans (and Neighbors), just as we're supposed to see
the human characters as humans and not, though Severian remarks people
often do, see them as clients.

You can certainly add Dr. Talos to your list, by the way.  What about
the homunculus in _Citadel_?  Or the aquastors and Hierodules?

-- 
Jerry Friedman

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

--

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 00:47:50 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Friedman" <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
> I think you're right that this is how their creators think of them.

Wolfe is their creator, of course . . . . ..

> often do, see them as clients.

Yes.   When I read Wolfe, sometimes I feel I am in there, rendered into
something  . . . . . .  not a doll, but a human character, but yet as much
part of his world as if I was written by him

> the homunculus in _Citadel_?  Or the aquastors and Hierodules?

It's complex.   The gods see these dolls, as dolls only.  But how does God
see us?

Where is the division between toy, doll, robot, domestic animal,
underperson, child, created being, and beloved and redeemed Child, to be
drawn?

So Wolfe tells us - and Smith, too, in his way.

    hartshorn

--