{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3616", "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": 3616, "subject": "Quetzal On Urth? (responding to Charles' arguments)", "messages": 4, "voices": 4, "first": "2002-11-26T16:43:29+00:00", "last": "2002-11-27T01:32:49+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at hotpop.com" }, "date": "2002-11-26T16:43:29+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Quetzal On Urth? (responding to Charles' arguments)", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Charles Reed posted:\nLast week, Crush posited the following:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "... even if Typhon did not know the target\nplanets were full of blood-sucking monsters\n(and I never imagined he did) it does not mean\nhe wasn't manipulated by Quetzal on Urth. And\nbased on Quetzal's statements in LS3:1 (Slaves\nof Scylla) that still seems probable to me." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " I guess the idea of Quetzal being on board the Whorl from the beginning\nbugs me more than it should. There are other theories floating around\nthat I don't agree with but that I can stomach because they at least\nseem to be within the realm of possibility because their positions can\nbe argued from the *text*. Examples of such theories include the Blue =\nUshas theory, and the theory that it was Severian who appeared to Horn\nin the pit.\n\nBut the Quetzal-on-board-from-the-beginning theory is different.\n\nI see how the text doesn't refute such a possibility -- and I've looked\nfor something to refute it with -- but that's not the same thing as\nsupport.\n\nCrush responds to Charles:\nOk. Two points...no...three.\n\nFirst, when did we out-law ranting on this list?\n\nSecond, I assert that my arguments -- that Quetzal was on Urth and\nmanipulated Typhon to start the Whorl project -- is textually supported.\nQuetzal is *clearly* (clear to me anyway) identifying himself with the cobra\nin the A-man/Wo-man story (the story is in the Chrasmological Writings btw).\nHe could not have enticed A-man and Wo-man into his tree from Green (as far\nas I can see). Therefore he had to be on Urth. This is textual evidence.\n\nI've no reason to believe (yet) there was a colony of inhumi on Urth or any\nmore than one. I have thematic reasons to doubt there was.\n\nFurthermore, if, as Wolfe said, Typhon did not know about the inhumi, then\nneither he nor his scientists had ever been to Green. This seems reasonable\nfrom the way the Plan played out. So he sent this massive project to a star\nsystem without reconnaissance - no recon by mirrors nor by the sort of ship\nSeverian rode in. That's faith, man. What reason did he have to believe\nthere were inhabitable planets there? My explanation is that he was assured\nthat there were hospitable planets by Quetzal. That's not textual evidence,\nbut it's not extra-textual either. It's just making sense of the narrative.\nPerfectly fair.\n\nThird, I wish to defend the tact of analyzing literature from extra-textual\nclues. You have pointed out that we frequently base theories on Wolfe's\nworks on extra-textual clues (Catholicism, etc.). Frequently, entire\ntheories are dispensed with by saying \"Wolfe wouldn't do that.\" That is not\nunreasonable as far as that goes. Furthermore...\n\n--- If an extra-textual source is found to so closely relate to the\nnarrative that it could not coincidental,\n--- And if a character is found **standing in the very place of a entity of\nthat extra-textual narrative*,\n--- And if someone says, \"Even though I wouldn't have said this otherwise,\nthis character is clearly a type of this extra-textual entity...\n\nWell that is NOT reading off the text. That's reading FROM the text.\n\nFOR EXAMPLE, does Silk see events from the life of Jesus Christ during his\nenlightenment? I'd say yes. I think most people would say yes. But the only\nway you would know that is if you were *extra-textually* familiar with the\nevents of the life of Christ. Based (partially) on this, many say that the\nOutsider is God. Yet, Jesus Christ is NOT mentioned in the text. If someone\nwere not familiar with the details of the life of Christ, and not aware that\nWolfe is a Christian, it would NOT be self-evident to that person that Jesus\nis referred to. Yet, it still would be TEXTUALLY self-evident. There are\nother equally obvious references to someone that arrives at the text with\ncertain background knowledge. To those that do not have that background\nknowledge, the most likely initial response will be, \"Wolfe is simply not\nthat clever. No one is that clever.\" This is the thought that goes through\nmy mind all the time when reading the LS/SS cycle.\n\nAnd that's what I've got to say about that.\n\nStill ranting,\nCrush" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Charles Reed", "address": "cmreed at link.com" }, "date": "2002-11-26T22:10:49+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Quetzal On Urth? (responding to Charles' arguments)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I like this back-and-forth stuff. It helps me to think better. This is \nkind-of long, so let's go:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "James Wynn wrote:\nOk. Two points...no...three.\n\nFirst, when did we out-law ranting on this list?\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Point taken. From now on I'll feel free to rant away. :-)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Second, I assert that my arguments -- that Quetzal was on Urth and\nmanipulated Typhon to start the Whorl project -- is textually supported.\nQuetzal is *clearly* (clear to me anyway) identifying himself with the cobra\nin the A-man/Wo-man story (the story is in the Chrasmological Writings btw).\nHe could not have enticed A-man and Wo-man into his tree from Green (as far\nas I can see). Therefore he had to be on Urth. This is textual evidence." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, I don't see it that way, though I'll grant that this is a matter \nof interpretation. Quetzal identifies himself with the cobra in the \nsense that he's trying to lure A-man and Wo-man from the garden (the \nWhorl) up into his tree (Green) by doing everything possible to carry \nout the Plan of Pas. My interpretation differs from yours in that you \nsee Urth, rather than the Whorl, as \"the garden.\" Each interpretation's \nvalidity depends on the point of view. Yours is valid if Quetzal was on \nUrth, which I do not believe him to have been." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I've no reason to believe (yet) there was a colony of inhumi on Urth or any\nmore than one. I have thematic reasons to doubt there was.\n\nFurthermore, if, as Wolfe said, Typhon did not know about the inhumi, then\nneither he nor his scientists had ever been to Green. This seems reasonable\nfrom the way the Plan played out. So he sent this massive project to a star\nsystem without reconnaissance - no recon by mirrors nor by the sort of ship\nSeverian rode in. That's faith, man. What reason did he have to believe\nthere were inhabitable planets there? My explanation is that he was assured\nthat there were hospitable planets by Quetzal. That's not textual evidence,\nbut it's not extra-textual either. It's just making sense of the narrative.\nPerfectly fair." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, it's fair, but I don't see what other supporting evidence there is. \n I also think there are other explanations that make far more sense. \n Two of which are as follows:\n\n(1) There are apparently lots of \"aliens\" on Urth in Severian's time \nand I would presume that there were lots of aliens on Urth during \nTyphon's time as well, and perhaps even other humans from other systems \nthat aren't under the \"space-travel quarantine\" that Urth is under. \n Typhon no doubt would have ways of gathering information he wanted \n(such as star charts of other inhabitable systems) from such \ninterstellar travelers. No need at all for Quetzal to show up on Urth.\n\n(2) There is already a tenuous connection between Blue and Urth (as \ndifferent planets) in the form of Abaia, Scylla, and the other giant \n(and not so giant) underwater creatures. In SotT, Severian remarks that \nAbaia was \"carried [to Urth] from the farther shores of the universe in \nanteglacial days.\" And in RttW, the Greater Scylla of Urth teaches \nHorn/Silk how to communicate with the Mother of Blue. Some might see \nthis as evidence that Urth=Blue, but I don't, due to (among other \nthings) the comment about Abaia coming to Urth from somewhere else. \n That is, I see it as evidence that the Greater Scylla's race was \nbrought to Urth from another planet -- perhaps from Blue but not \nnecessarily. This means that Typhon could have learned of the \nBlue/Green system from these sea creatures. I think there are other \nimplications here too, which I haven't really thought out very well, \nregarding Typhon's relationship with these beings. In any case, this is \nanother explanation (supportable strictly by the text) in which there \nis no need to have Quetzal show up on Urth.\n\nExplanation #1 has the advantage of being the easiest and the most \nlogical. It has the disadvantage of being a little boring.\n\nExplanation #2 has the advantage of being quite provocative in its \nimplications without calling for the need for something extremely \nfar-fetched, such as Quetzal being on Urth. It has disadvantage of not \nadhering to Occam's Razor, but I don't consider that such a severe \ndisadvantage.\n\nOf course, the two explanations could be combined. Typhon could have \nlearned from \"other aliens\" where the giant sea creatures originally \ncame from, and sent his starcrosser to that place once he confirmed its \nhabitability." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Third, I wish to defend the tact of analyzing literature from extra-textual\nclues. You have pointed out that we frequently base theories on Wolfe's\nworks on extra-textual clues (Catholicism, etc.). Frequently, entire\ntheories are dispensed with by saying \"Wolfe wouldn't do that.\" " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I wasn't attacking such tactics; I was merely stating that my first \npreference is to argue from the text itself. It feels like \"cheating\" \nto do otherwise.\n\nBut as far as basing/dispensing theories on the \"Wolfe wouldn't do that\" \nargument -- I think this is extremely dangerous. Just this week, there \nwas an exchange in which Don Doggett stated, \"I cannot believe that \nWolfe would have his main character commit incest, knowingly or \nunknowingly, and especially without any good reason\" and outlined a \ntheory for why he didn't think Dorcas was Severian's grandmother. Marc \nAramani then replied, in what I thought was really good argument which \nsummarized the various sexual relationships in the NS books, that it was \nin fact essential to his interpretation that Dorcas be Severian's \ngrandmother. \"Wolfe wouldn't do that\" is simply a bad way to argue a point.\n\nWolfe is a Roman Catholic, and that can be used to a certain degree -- \nbut ONLY to a certain degree -- in interpreting what his characters \nwould or would not do." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That is not unreasonable as far as that goes. Furthermore...\n\n--- If an extra-textual source is found to so closely relate to the\nnarrative that it could not coincidental,\n--- And if a character is found **standing in the very place of a entity of\nthat extra-textual narrative*,\n--- And if someone says, \"Even though I wouldn't have said this otherwise,\nthis character is clearly a type of this extra-textual entity...\n\nWell that is NOT reading off the text. That's reading FROM the text." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Consider this. Severian is a Christian figure. He died and was brought \nback to life. He turned water into wine. He healed the sick with a \ntouch of his hand. He raised the dead. These are definitely \nnon-superficial similarities. But was Severian's story a retelling of \nthe Christ story? No. Clearly no. Severian is not Christ. Just \nbecause there are similarities -- even non-superficial similarities -- \ndoes not meant that Wolfe is writing an allegory in which everything \nstands for something else in an already-told story. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "FOR EXAMPLE, does Silk see events from the life of Jesus Christ during his\nenlightenment? I'd say yes. I think most people would say yes. But the only\nway you would know that is if you were *extra-textually* familiar with the\nevents of the life of Christ." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You're correct, and that's why strict \"formalism\" ultimately fails in \ninterpreting literature. It is, however, the starting point for \ninterpreting literature." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Based (partially) on this, many say that the\nOutsider is God. Yet, Jesus Christ is NOT mentioned in the text." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It is, however, stated in the \"Gods, Persons, and Animals Mentioned in \nthe Text\" of EXODUS that the Outsider is the \"god of gods.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If someone\nwere not familiar with the details of the life of Christ, and not aware that\nWolfe is a Christian, it would NOT be self-evident to that person that Jesus\nis referred to." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That's true, and it's also not necessary to the understanding of the \nstory. There are images seen in the Silk's enlightenment that might not \nbe understood by a Christian-ignorant person. Heck, there are scenes of \nhis enlightenment that I don't necessarily understand. That's all \nright, though. Allusion *enhances* the work and provides the reader \nwith perhaps a greater depth of understanding, but if the reader MUST \nunderstand the allusions in order to understand the story, then the \nstory isn't really a story -- it's an allegory. That's not what the \nNS/LS/SS books are, though. At least, that's not how I see them. Even \nif a person knew absolutely nothing about the life of Jesus, it would \nstill be (grasping for adverbs) munificently clear FROM THE TEXT that \nSilk views the Outsider as the only god worthy of being worshiped, and \nthat's the important part." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yet, it still would be TEXTUALLY self-evident. There are\nother equally obvious references to someone that arrives at the text with\ncertain background knowledge. To those that do not have that background\nknowledge, the most likely initial response will be, \"Wolfe is simply not\nthat clever. No one is that clever.\" This is the thought that goes through\nmy mind all the time when reading the LS/SS cycle.\n\nAnd that's what I've got to say about that.\n\nStill ranting,\nCrush" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Here's the problem that I have with some of your ideas. You seem to \nthink that just because the LS/SS story bears some non-superficial \nresemblance to certain Greek myths, the entire LS/SS story has to be a \nstrict re-telling of those myths. I think that's false. The myths can \nenhance, illuminate, and even explicate the story to some degree but you \ncannot insist that the story has to be viewed through the lens of the \nmyths. To do so, I think, is to sell the story short -- to rob it of \nits natural power and turn it into a game in which you wind up \ninterpreting the story to fit the myth, rather than working to interpret \nthe story on its on grounds first and then seeing how the myth might \nfurther illuminate it. \n\n\nWell. That's it for now. Keep ranting, Crush. I'm looking forward to \nyour response, because even if I don't agree you, you make me think.\n\nCharles" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2002-11-26T22:24:53+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Quetzal On Urth? (responding to Charles' arguments)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A few teensy points." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Charles Reed wrote:\n[...] as far as basing/dispensing theories on the \"Wolfe \nwouldn't do that\" argument -- I think this is extremely\ndangerous [...]\nWolfe is a Roman Catholic, and that can be used to a certain \ndegree -- but ONLY to a certain degree -- in interpreting \nwhat his characters would or would not do." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually, this statement makes almost the same error that \nled to \"Wolfe wouldn't have his protagonist commit incest.\" \n\nIn fact, Mr Wolfe's religion serves as a clue, not to what he \nmight have his characters do, but to what it would mean if he \ndid -- more generally, to how he constructs meaning through \nthe various bits of his texts: settings, situations, characters, \nactions, even style, etc." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Earlier, Crush wrote:\nBased (partially) on this, many say that the\nOutsider is God. Yet, Jesus Christ is NOT mentioned in the text." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I beg to differ. None of the \"Sun\" texts, so far as I can \nrecall, mentions the name of Jesus Christ is not. However, \nSilk mentions a man \"both possessed and enlightened by the\nOutsider\" who winds up crucified." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jeff Veyera", "address": "teflon93 at cox.net" }, "date": "2002-11-27T01:32:49+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Quetzal On Urth? (responding to Charles' arguments)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": ": Second, I assert that my arguments -- that Quetzal was on Urth and\nmanipulated Typhon to start the Whorl project -- is textually supported.\nQuetzal is *clearly* (clear to me anyway) identifying himself with the cobra\nin the A-man/Wo-man story (the story is in the Chrasmological Writings btw).\nHe could not have enticed A-man and Wo-man into his tree from Green (as far\nas I can see). Therefore he had to be on Urth. This is textual evidence.:\n\nSure, it's in the text, but we're arguing meaning, not existence. Could it\nnot be that Quetzal mentioned it because he felt like the snake in Viron,\nluring the Vironese to the tree (Green) so that they could be fed upon?\nThis seems to be less of a leap than Quetzal as the mastermind of the Whorl.\n\n:Furthermore, if, as Wolfe said, Typhon did not know about the inhumi, then\nneither he nor his scientists had ever been to Green. This seems reasonable\nfrom the way the Plan played out. So he sent this massive project to a star\nsystem without reconnaissance - no recon by mirrors nor by the sort of ship\nSeverian rode in. That's faith, man. What reason did he have to believe\nthere were inhabitable planets there? My explanation is that he was assured\nthat there were hospitable planets by Quetzal. That's not textual evidence,\nbut it's not extra-textual either. It's just making sense of the narrative.\nPerfectly fair.:\n\nAgain, Occam's Razor applies. There WAS an earlier interstellar empire, was\nthere not? Could Typhon have learned of Blue and Green from his\nexcavations? I seem to recall a reference to the mines of Saltus containing\na vast amount of artifacts from the earlier civilization---might a star map\nbe one of them?\n\nNo ranting, just wondering.\n\nTeflon" } ] } ] }