{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3704", "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": 3704, "subject": "The Blue Urth Theory", "messages": 2, "voices": 2, "first": "2002-12-22T09:33:39+00:00", "last": "2002-12-22T10:45:16+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "ArchD'Ikon Zibethicus", "address": "zibethicus at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2002-12-22T09:33:39+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Blue Urth Theory", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Quoth Mr. Lackey:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Be that as it may, the mass of textual evidence against Blue\nbeing Urth/Ushas overwhelms the theory that it is." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, I myself am an adherent of _neither_ theory. I have an open mind, and \nam open to discussion. Dogmatism troubles me in excessive quantities, \ntho'...and I _have_ called for greater use of textual elements in \ndiscussion, so I'm glad that you _did_ use texts." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Proponents of the Blue=Urth/Ushas theory have also claimed that the\nNeighbors were far-future descendents of the people who repopulated Urth \nafter it became Ushas." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I suggested this as a _possibility_ for the purposes of accounting for all \nthe plot elements in a way satisfactory to the Blue Urth Theory." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Where the Green Man fits into that evolution, I don't know." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, to be fair to Blue Urth Theorists, I have just gone over COC (BTW - is \nthere a list of standard abbrevations?) Ch. III, 'The Showman's Tent', and \nhave been unable to find a statement from the Green Man to the effect that \nhe actually comes from Urth. What he _does_ say is: \"I am a free man, come \nfrom your own future to explore your age.\" (p. 27, Arrow p/back.) He also \nsays that his sun is much brighter, but that he has no idea whether it is \nthe New Sun or not... If I was desperately trying to defend the Blue Urth \nTheory, I could observe that this increase of brightness could be \nattributable to an origin on an entirely different world with a different, \nbrighter sun, rather than the New Sun. We know now that Typhon sent \ncolonisers out on the Whorl; is there any statement anywhere that the Whorl \nwas the _only_ ship sent out? What about other states and empires in the \nwhole, vast history of Urth? Why couldn't the Ascians have forced their own \nsurplus population into space?\n\nAnd, in any case, does the Green Man ever stipulate exactly _where_ in the \nfuture he does come from? And, if not, why couldn't he come from Urth or \nBlue (if the two are different) or wherever, in a period _after_ the time of \nHornSilk?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"I've been thinking about it, and about the City of the Inhumi on Green. \nThose were ruins left by the Neighbors' ancient race; these were left by \nours, I believe--we are as ancient as they, or nearly.\" > (IGJ, 315)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't quite understand how this quote can be used to make a case that \"At \nany rate, the text contradicts the theory that the Neighbors were some \nfuture evolutionary stage of humanity on Blushas.\"\n\nI am not at all convinced that \"the Neighbors were some future evolutionary \nstage of humanity on Blushas\", myself, but I fail to see how that text can \nbe used as evidence against the Theory, if only because this is only the \nconjecture of HornSilkIncanto (HSI). HSI may not be in full possession of \nthe facts, as are many of the characters in Mr. Wolfe's divers works, \nincluding Severian himself.\n\nAs I said in an earlier posting, I believe that Mr. Wolfe places all the \nnecessary elements to an adequate comprehension of his work within the work \nitself, but I don't believe that the conjecture of a character within the \nwork is necessarily adequate evidence in its own right, as his all-too-human \ncharacters are often mistaken or hasty in drawing conclusions, as are we \nall...\n\nI find it more evidential that the Neighbours themselves told Horn (OBW Ch. \n11, 'The Land of Fires' p.271) \"From this whorl we sprang...[t]here are \nrocks and rivers, trees and islands here that have been famous among us for \nmany thousands of years.\" Now if we can only agree on exactly _where_ it \nwas that these words were spoken (if they were)...\n\n->Zx<-\n\n\n" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2002-12-22T10:45:16+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) The Blue Urth Theory", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "IMHO, there is never a problem of not having enough clues; the problem is, \nrather, that the given set of clues can produce a nearly infinite number of \ninternally consistent hypotheses.\n\nThere are two ways of approaching the text, then. The first is to attempt to \ndivine the author's intent. This is virtually impossible without the \nauthor's help, no matter *how* many clues he has provided in the text, \nbecause of the multitude of theories that can be spawned. On the other hand, \nthis is an entertaining enough challenge to be worth doing.\n\nThe second possibility is to, as a reader, come up with a reading of the \ntext that is as aesthetically pleasing (to you) as you can. In this sense we \nare in some way pushing each other to come up with more beautiful \ninterpretations in consistency, form, and symmetry among other things - and \nin this context, what the author *meant* has little if anything to do with \nmatters. One can look for the simplest explanation, but depending on your \ntaste this won't always be the best.\n\nIn either case, I have always found the statement that \"there are enough \nclues\" to be somewhat mocking. Of *course* there are enough clues.\n\nI can't speak for anyone else, but I tend to look at things from the second \nperspective, which lends itself well to tolerance of many different \ninterpretations. My main *personal* reason for not favoring the Blushas \ntheory is that it seems thematically unwieldy, and seems to require a sort \nof deus ex machina to work. Other people may well not share my tastes in \nthis matter, though.\n\nRegards,\n\nChris - wondering if \"Cheese\" is a valid Vironese name." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As I said in an earlier posting, I believe that Mr. Wolfe places all the \nnecessary elements to an adequate comprehension of his work within the work \nitself, but I don't believe that the conjecture of a character within the \nwork is necessarily adequate evidence in its own right, as his \nall-too-human characters are often mistaken or hasty in drawing \nconclusions, as are we all..." } ] } ] }