{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3830", "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": 3830, "subject": "New Wolfe online", "messages": 9, "voices": 7, "first": "2003-02-06T23:36:31+00:00", "last": "2003-02-08T05:13:10+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2003-02-06T23:36:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) New Wolfe online", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There's a new (posted yesterday) Wolfe story, \"Castaway,\"=20\non scifi.com:\n\nhttp://www.scifi.com/scifiction/originals/originals_archive/wolfe2/\n\nNo spoilers, but I think it's one of the best (and most\ncomprehensible) Wolfe pieces I've read in a while. It\nmight also offer some ammo for one of the dimensions=20\nof the ongoing (though currently in abeyance) discussion\nof Short Sun...\n\nEnjoy!" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Nigel Price", "address": "nigel.aprice at virgin.net" }, "date": "2003-02-07T00:54:35+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) New Wolfe online", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Blattid wrote..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "There's a new (posted yesterday) Wolfe story,\n\"Castaway,\" on scifi.com:\n\nhttp://www.scifi.com/scifiction/originals/originals_archive/wolfe2/\n\nNo spoilers..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You're right, it is a good story, but there are - inevitably - still things\nthat I'm not sure about. Is it OK if I go ahead and ask a question, provided\nI write...\n\n\tS P O I L E R\n\n...in nice big letters?\n\nOK, here goes.\n\nDon't read this if you're liable to spoil your enjoyment of a good story!\n\n\n\nWhen the narrator asks the castaway..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I said about the woman that had been dirtside\nwith him, was she still alive when we took him\noff, because he'd said how sick she was, and I\nthought he wouldn't go off and leave her." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "...I'm assuming that the woman is the tutelary spirit of the planet, the\ngenius loci, and that there's at least a possibility that the planet may be\nEarth. The woman is sick because the planet is blighted and decayed, and now\nmostly frozen, although once it bore abundant life (birds, trees).\n\nThe fact that the day is shorter by half an hour than it once was\nindicates - what? That the planet's rotation has speeded up? What's the\nsignificance of that?\n\nAnyway, the castaway's answer to the question about whether the woman was\nalive when he left is as follows...." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "\"She was and she wasn't,\" he said. \"There were\nthings inside her, eating the corpse. Does that\ncount?\" I said no, of course not, for it to count\nthey would have to have been part of her. \"They\nwere,\" he said, and that was the real end of it.\nOnly he turned to go, and I wanted to walk with\nhim at least ‘til he got to the lock. Which I did.\nAnd talking to himself I heard him say, \"She had\nbeen so beautiful. Just so damned beautiful.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "So: what are \"things inside her, eating the corpse\"? Worms eat corpses, but\nwhat eats a planet, literally or metaphorically? And what does it mean that\nthe things were \"part of her\"?\n\nAre we to read that the things inside the planet are humans in underground\nshelters, having killed off the planet by waging nuclear war which\nprecipitated a nuclear winter? The humans are part of the ecosystem or\n\"Gaia\" model and therefore \"part of\" the woman?\n\nOr am I being too literal? Is it just that the planet is decayed because its\nerstwhile inhabitants \"fell\" and therefore ensured that their whole\nenvironment was \"damned\"? The woman was, after all, specifically described\nas \"damned beautiful\"? The planet might therefore be considered to contain\nthe seeds of her own destruction or some such?\n\nI'm still not sure and would value suggestions!\n\nNigel" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Robert Davis", "address": "robmail1 at cox.net" }, "date": "2003-02-07T11:45:34+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) New Wolfe online", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At 07:54 PM 2/6/2003, you wrote:\nAre we to read that the things inside the planet are humans in underground\nshelters, having killed off the planet by waging nuclear war which\nprecipitated a nuclear winter? The humans are part of the ecosystem or\n\"Gaia\" model and therefore \"part of\" the woman?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Old, buried nuclear waste products would be my guess." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Charles Reed", "address": "cmreed at link.com" }, "date": "2003-02-07T15:23:22+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) New Wolfe online", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hello everyone. I read \"Castaway\" a couple of times and thought I'd \noffer up some thoughts, and try a stab at answering some of Nigel's \nquestions. First, some observations:\n\nI'm not sure why, but this story reminded me a little bit of \"The Rime \nof Ancient Mariner\" by Coleridge. Maybe \"reminded\" is too strong a \nword. Rather, I heard faint echoes of the poem in the story. Did \nanybody else hear similar echoes? \n\nFor example, the mariner in the poem was doomed to repeat his tale as a \nwarning to others, while the narrator of the story feels compelled to \ntell his story about the castaway so that he can stop thinking about \nhim. That is, both tale-tellers suffer from a compulsion to tell their \ntale (as do all tale-tellers, I suppose).\n\nAlso, in the poem there was that bit about the mariner holding the \nwedding guest with his hand, then with his eye, which sort-of echoes the \npart in the story about the castaway grabbing the narrator's wrist \"like \na vice\" when he gave that little speech about how they could have \"saved \nher\" if they had wanted to. Which, in turn, kind-of echoes the idea of \nhow the mariner could have saved the albatross (by not shooting it) if \nhe had wanted to. That's kind-of reaching, I know.\n\nBut there's also another echo. Compare the poem: \"The many men, so \nbeautiful! / And they all dead did lie: / And a thousand thousand slimy \nthings / Lived on ; and so did I./ . . . . /The very deep did rot : O \nChrist ! / That ever this should be! / Yea, slimy things did crawl with \nlegs / Upon the slimy sea.\" It's the image of something dead (the \nbecalmed sea) being consumed from within, as in the story: \". . . was \nshe still alive when we took him off, because he'd said how sick she \nwas, and I thought he wouldn't go off and leave her. /// He sort of \nsmiled. I never had seen a smile like that before, and I don't ever want \nto see another one. \"She was and she wasn't,\" he said. \"There were \nthings inside her, eating the corpse. Does that count?\" /// I said no, \nof course not, for it to count they would have to have been part of her. \n/// \"They were,\" he said, and that was the real end of it.\"\n\nAnd, of course, there's the obvious similarity between the mariner and \nthe castaway being the only beings left alive aboard a doomed \nship/planet and having to deal with the various ghosts and spirits being \ncalled forth.\n\nWell, so much for that. Now let me try the questions: Nigel asked:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The fact that the day is shorter by half an hour than it once was\nindicates - what? That the planet's rotation has speeded up? What's the\nsignificance of that?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "According to an article on www.faqs.org (the astronomy archive), \"Prior \nto forming a planetary nebula, a low-mass star (i.e., one with a mass \nsimilar to that of the Sun) forms a red giant. Planets close to the star \nare engulfed in the expanding star, spiral inside it, and are destroyed. \nIn our own solar system, Mercury and Venus are doomed. . . . When a star \nenters the red giant phase, the rate at which it loses mass can \naccelerate. The mass of a star determines how far a planet orbits from \nit. Thus, as the Sun loses mass, the orbits of the other planets will \nexpand. The orbit of Mars will almost certainly expand faster than the \nSun does, thus Mars will probably not suffer the same fate as Mercury \nand Venus. It is currently an open question as to whether the Earth will \nsurvive or be engulfed.\"\n\nSo the answer to the question is that the Earth in the story (assuming \nthat it is Earth) is spiraling into the sun along with Mercury and \nVenus, therefore speeding up its rotation." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So: what are \"things inside her, eating the corpse\"? Worms eat \ncorpses, but\nwhat eats a planet, literally or metaphorically? And what does it \nmean that\nthe things were \"part of her\"?\n\nAre we to read that the things inside the planet are humans in \nunderground\nshelters, having killed off the planet by waging nuclear war which\nprecipitated a nuclear winter? The humans are part of the ecosystem or\n\"Gaia\" model and therefore \"part of\" the woman?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think the Coleridge stuff I talked about earlier addresses these \nquestions. I don't see any evidence to conclude that there are humans \nliving \"inside her\" or that the planet is experiencing a \"nuclear winter.\"\n\nTwo questions of my own:\n\n1) The castaway says, \"We could have saved her. Earlier. We could have \nmade her young again. We could have taken her away. We could have done \nit. Nothing stopping us.\" But later on he says, \"But it was all over for \nher, and she knew it. We never wanted to help her. We never wanted to \nsave her, and now we couldn't if we wanted to. It's too late. Too late \n...\" So. How could she have been saved? How much earlier is he \ntalking about? Is he talking about a future Earth (or Urth) where the \nNew Sun doesn't come, and is the New Sun the way she could have been saved?\n\n2) Who was the real castaway, the man or the planet?\n\nCharles\n\nP.S. Does anybody know how to get back on the mailing list? I put it \non holiday mode about three months ago, and now can't seem to turn it \noff, even though I've followed all the directions in the \"Complete \nInstructions\" and have even tried re-subscribing. All to no effect. \n Any ideas?" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "cilluff1 at optonline.net", "address": "cilluff1 at optonline.net" }, "date": "2003-02-07T16:10:48+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) New Wolfe online", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Charles Reed wrote:\n\n<<1) The castaway says, \"We could have saved her. Earlier. We could have \nmade her young again. We could have taken her away. We could have done \nit. Nothing stopping us.\" But later on he says, \"But it was all over for \nher, and she knew it. We never wanted to help her. We never wanted to \nsave her, and now we couldn't if we wanted to. It's too late. Too late \n...\" So. How could she have been saved? How much earlier is he \ntalking about? Is he talking about a future Earth (or Urth) where the \nNew Sun doesn't come, and is the New Sun the way she could have been\nsaved?>>\n\nAlthough of course there's always the temptation to try to place any Wolfe\nwork in an Urth context (and I also wondered if this was Urth, although I\nthought that if this was Urth it was post New Sun, that we had repeated the\ncycle, although I do like your \"alternate history\" theory), I finally\nthought that this was a (mostly) straight-forward allegory about treating\nGaia, Mother Earth, properly. We could have saved her by acting with more\nforethought instead of repeating the tragedy of the commons on a global\nscale. \n\nAs for the \"underground humans\" issue, I do actually read that snippet as\nsuggesting that it is indeed humans or post-humans (shades of Morlocks)\nliving underground, devouring the mother we killed even after she is dead. \nMostly I feel this because that quote seemed to have a connotation of\nblame, that those living underground, cast as maggots, were blameworthy for\nher death, which would pretty much have to be humans unless Pierre Boulle\nwas right and monkeys take over the planet.\n\n- Shell" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andrew Bollen", "address": "abollen at internode.on.net" }, "date": "2003-02-07T16:41:18+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) New Wolfe online", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Shell wrote:\n\nAlthough of course there's always the temptation to try to place any Wolfe\nwork in an Urth context (and I also wondered if this was Urth, although I\nthought that if this was Urth it was post New Sun, that we had repeated the\ncycle, although I do like your \"alternate history\" theory), I finally\nthought that this was a (mostly) straight-forward allegory about treating\nGaia, Mother Earth, properly. We could have saved her by acting with more\nforethought instead of repeating the tragedy of the commons on a global\nscale.\n\n----------------------------------------------------\n\nI agree. At least on a first reading, it's very straightforward.\n\nAs for \"We could have taken her with us\" etc, I think it obviously means\n\"taken her to the stars\", speaking of humanity in general. They left her\nbehind, so they end up with sterile white ships, no trees, no birds etc." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "sheila miguez", "address": "albizia at feafaroth.org" }, "date": "2003-02-07T16:54:00+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) New Wolfe online", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- Andrew Bollen wrote:\nAs for \"We could have taken her with us\" etc, I think it obviously\nmeans\n\"taken her to the stars\", speaking of humanity in general. They\nleft her\nbehind, so they end up with sterile white ships, no trees, no birds\netc." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree with this.\n\nBut I think another possibility for the worms inside\nof her are technologically constructed black holes\nor some sort of other exotic matter that humans may have\nused during their technological advancement. Perhaps as\na temporary means to deal with the Red Giant stage of the sun\nuntil they could leave.\n\nA carelessness about the fate of the earth. And she is left\nwith cosmic strings revolving around inside her. (Though\nI know cosmic strings are not an accepted object -- perhaps\nsomething similar.)\n\nAnd it would fit with what you say here -- the user fits the\ntechnology rather than the technology fitting the user. The\nships are designed for the convenience of their upkeep rather\nthan to benefit the life of the occupants.\n\nThe earth was manipulated and discarded for the benefit of\nthe technology rather than gardened in a sustainable way for the\nbenefit of all.\n\n\nSPOILER for another book\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWas it _Earth_ by David Brin where cosmic strings fall into the\ncore of the earth?\n\nmimosa" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2003-02-07T17:26:18+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) New Wolfe online", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Okay, I was hoping people would wait a day or two and let\none-and-all get read \"Castaway\" before the spoilage should\nbegin ... but since it has, some thinks from the blattidaean\nmicrocranium.\n\n1. I think that, yes, there is a thematic link (but not \"in \nthe same universe\" or even \"in an alternate version of the \nsame universe,\" except in the very broad sence that all\ndistant-future skiffy consitutes \"alternate versions\" of\n_our_ universe) to the Lupiverse, the Briah cycle, etc.\n\nSpecifically: I perceive a resonance between the \"woman\" \nand the Mother ... not necessarily that they are the same \nkind or order of being, but the Mother's people (Scylla, \netc.) seem to be a kind of mockery (as in \"trolls are a \nmockery of the Ents\") of the \"woman\" and her kind (if she \nhas one).\n\nThematically, then, it seems that this is about the \n_right_ relationship to the Earth-goddess.\n\n\n2. I have the distinct impression that the narrator's \npeople live (almost?) entirely on their ships, that one\nof the things that puzzles or amazes him about the castaway \nis that he actually _lived_ \"dirtside\" for twenty-seven \nyears or so. Consider, for example, the first two sentences:\n\n We picked him up on some dead world nobody ever \n goes to. We did it because we had a field problem \n that required a lot of tests, and that stuff is \n easier if you can just dodge in and out of the \n ship without worrying about the airlocks and how \n much air you're dumping every time you go outside.\n\nThis sounds to me like a ship that doesn't land very often;\nand, of course, the narrator doesn't know what trees or\nbirds are. And common metaphors have been transmogrified\nto speak of life on ships rather than worlds:\n\n I said was it as good for you as it was for her, \n and did you feel the ship jump? \n\n\n3. Yes, the Earth (I'm reasonably certain she/it is the \nEarth) is badly poisoned. \n\n \"...There's still a few plants. They're not good, \n but you can eat them if you boil them long enough \n and keep changing the water.\" \n\nSo polluted, in fact, that evolution can't keep up:\n\n \"She's old,\" he said. \"Old and ugly, and she can't \n think any more. She tries to think of new things, \n but nothing comes. Nothing works now...\"\n\nSo, yes, at one level at least it's an eco-fable. \n\n \"We could have saved her...\"\n\n \"We never wanted to help her. We never wanted to \n save her, and now we couldn't if we wanted to...\"\n\n\n4. The big question in my mind is: to whom is the \ncastaway speaking when he says \"I love you\" again and \nagain? The woman (who is not present, and is dead in\nany case)? The narrator? The entire human race? And ...\nis it him speaking, or is it the woman, who put \"part \nof herself into [the castaway's] brain? \n\n(Then, too, a \"part\" of her surviving in the castaway\nwould explain why the whiteness of the ship \"never\nsucked the color out of him.\")\n\n\n5. As to the \"things inside her, eating the corpse\" \nthat were \"part of her...\" notice that the castaway\n_smiles_ as he talks about it. A very strange smile\n\n I never had seen a smile like that before, \n and I don't ever want to see another one.\n\nNow, what kind of smile is that? Superior? No; the\nnarrator probably sees superior smiles a dozen times\na day from the officers. I think it's a smile of\nradical love ... and if, as I suspect, a \"part\" of \nthe \"woman\" still lives in the castaway, then his(?) \n\"I love you\" seems to me to represent a signal of an\nextraordinary forgiveness, the mother forgiving the\nchild who has been the cause of her death.\n\n\nJust my tuppence worth ..." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andrew Bollen", "address": "abollen at internode.on.net" }, "date": "2003-02-08T05:13:10+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) New Wolfe online", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Mimosa wrote:\n\n\nThe earth was manipulated and discarded for the benefit of\nthe technology rather than gardened in a sustainable way for the\nbenefit of all.\n\n---------------------------------\n\nSort of interesting to compare with a Brown Book eco story that Severian\ntells in UOTNS: \"The Town that Forgot Fauna\". Settlers heavy an old woman\n(Fauna - a Gaea figure, presumably) out of her land; she acquiesces on\ncondition the new town does her honors; over time the town forgets her; the\nland fails, and so does the town; the woman returns to make a garden again.\n\n\"Castaway\" seems like the end result of that playing out over & over again,\nso she has nothing left with which to remake the garden. Alternatively, the\nresult of finding a way of doing without her." } ] } ] }