{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4098", "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": 4098, "subject": "Malrubius' ghost", "messages": 10, "voices": 6, "first": "2003-07-18T05:16:54+00:00", "last": "2003-07-23T01:32:53+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "maa32", "address": "maa32 at dana.ucc.nau.edu" }, "date": "2003-07-18T05:16:54+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Malrubius' ghost", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Just one more thing that I forgot in our recent discussion of whether or not \nSilk could pass for Malrubius in the astral travel scenes of Return to the \nWhorl:\n\nin the comments for The Book of the Short Sun when it was released for the \nSFBC in one volume, Wolfe said a little bit about it, urging readers to accept \nthe astral travel and perhaps to discover the secret of \"Malrubius' ghost\". I \nobviously threw that catalog away a long time ago, but someone else should \nremember it as well. I say this is further reason to think that Silk in \nastral form certainly resembles Malrubius, and that the evidence is not \ncircumstantial.\n\nMarc Aramini" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2003-07-18T06:09:35+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Malrubius' ghost", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Interesting quote, and goes along with something I'd wondered myself.\n\nBut looking at it from the flip side, do you think it might be possible \nthat, when Severian refers to the ghost of Malrubius, he's actually using a \nsort of euphemism? To be more direct, perhaps it was Silk astral travelling \nagain, and since Severian had opted not to explain Silk in the first place \nhe filled in a name to substitute in the ghost sequences?\n\nCivet" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Just one more thing that I forgot in our recent discussion of whether or \nnot\nSilk could pass for Malrubius in the astral travel scenes of Return to the\nWhorl:\n\nin the comments for The Book of the Short Sun when it was released for the\nSFBC in one volume, Wolfe said a little bit about it, urging readers to \naccept\nthe astral travel and perhaps to discover the secret of \"Malrubius' ghost\". \n I\nobviously threw that catalog away a long time ago, but someone else should\nremember it as well. I say this is further reason to think that Silk in\nastral form certainly resembles Malrubius, and that the evidence is not\ncircumstantial.\n\nMarc Aramini\n\n\n\n--" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "katbarx at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2003-07-18T15:58:26+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Malrubius' ghost", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But looking at it from the flip side, do you think it might be possible \nthat, when Severian refers to the ghost of Malrubius, he's actually using a \nsort of euphemism? To be more direct, perhaps it was Silk astral travelling \nagain, and since Severian had opted not to explain Silk in the first place \nhe filled in a name to substitute in the ghost sequences?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Nah. Much more likely that Wolfe hadn't invented Silk yet then.\n\nMeaning that Wolfe had something clealry in mind when he created\nthe ghost of Malrubius, which was NOT the Narrator, or Silk, or\nanything to do with the Long and Short Sun books. When dealing\nwith tBotNS, I think it's appropriate to (mostly) ignore the L/S books\nand seek for answers based on what's given there.\n\nNot to say that Wolfe can't retrofit. The business about the gate\nis a perfect example: he took something that had no explanation\n(and indeed needed none) in the NS, and allowed the events of SS\nto intertwine with it so as to provide one. But to take something\nthat was important in NS, and retcon it to change its meaning,\nwould be bad art; it would damage NS in the context of the larger\nmetatext.\n\nMalrubius' ghost is explained by the Hieros as an aquastor generated\nby the ship from Sev's memories. I then see four possibilities:\n\n1. This is in fact the case.\n2. The Hieros lied to Sev.\n3. Sev lied about what the Hieros said.\n4. Wolfe commits bad art.\n\nI reject the fourth.\n\nThe second and third are possibilities, but I would want to see some\nintratextual evidence for either, some reason to think that someone is\nlying in this particular case.\n\nAnd I'll stick with the first pending such evidence." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Andre-Driussi", "address": "mantis at siriusfiction.com" }, "date": "2003-07-18T16:46:31+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Malrubius' ghost", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Civet wrote:\nBut looking at it from the flip side, do you think it might be possible\nthat, when Severian refers to the ghost of Malrubius, he's actually using a\nsort of euphemism?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I can go along with this, because I think you are saying that Severian saw\na ghost-like Silk (as shown in BOTSS) and later in TBOTNS saw a ghost which\nhe reported as being that of Malrubius, while still later this ghost was\nmade somewhat ambiguous as a machine projection based upon his own thoughts\n(basically giving the ghost the form of a wise person Severian had met in\nreal life, in order to deliver just-in-time wisdom).\n\nYour point being that Severian's \"alteration\" is merely saying that the\nghost was \"Malrubius\" rather than the who-knows-where-he's-from Silk. An\neditorial decision on Severian's part to avoid cluttering the manuscript\nwith a character who would require a whole book (or four or seven) to\nhimself.\n\nAnd it is interesting in the way that \"Silk as the model for the ghost\"\nexplains the connection between Triskele and the ghost as one of a temporal\nassociation, which was impossible previously because Malrubius died long\nbefore Triskele appeared. (In BOTNS, Triskele seems to stand for beasts\nand Malrubius for wisdom, two entities who never met in life but were\nworking together as ghosts.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "To be more direct, perhaps it was Silk astral travelling\nagain, and since Severian had opted not to explain Silk in the first place\nhe filled in a name to substitute in the ghost sequences?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"Ghost of Malrubius\" already has two \"fuzzies\" in BOTNS: is it a real\n\"natural\" ghost, or is it a computer generated ghost? (Or sometimes\none/sometimes the other?) To this we can add a third fuzzy: That it wasn't\nreally =based on= Malrubius at all, but on the weird ghostly guy Silk.\nThis third fuzzy collapses the \"real ghost\" probability wave to zero,\nleaving all the ghostly visitations of \"Malrubius\" as 100%\ncomputer-generated.\n\nBut to say that the ghostly visits in BOTNS are really further,\nundocumented astral projections of Silk, rather than a computer-generated\nghost based on Silk, no, this causes too much trouble, I think.\n\n=mantis=" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2003-07-18T18:57:38+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Malrubius' ghost", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree, in light of the points brought up by several people today, that \nMalrubius' ghost literally being Silk in astral form is too problematic to \nhold on to in that form. Mantis is correct in his guess as to why I thought \nof the idea in the first place. In addition, it was always disconcerting to \nme that the explanation of Malrubius as the ghost was that he was chosen out \nof Severian's memory as a figure of wisdom and possibly a \npseudo-father-figure, whereas the \"real\" Malrubius in earlier segments is \nnever described with quite enough affection to really justify his having \nthis kind of importance to Sev. (My god, what an awful sentence). Master \nPalaemon seems a more sympathetic character, and accounts of Malrubius \nsuffer a bit by comparison. So, this always struck a false chord with me but \nat the time I was reading BotNS I was unable to resolve it. These alternate \nexplanations appeal to me because they explain what I perceive as an awkward \npoint of the text.\n\nOn the other hand, I don't know whether this explanation fits with the \nstatement of Wolfe's that Marc originally brought up re: Silk's astral \ntravel and the mystery of Malrubius' ghost. I wish I had the context of that \nquote, actually.\n\nCivet" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Mantis wrote:\nCivet wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But looking at it from the flip side, do you think it might be possible\nthat, when Severian refers to the ghost of Malrubius, he's actually using \na\nsort of euphemism?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I can go along with this, because I think you are saying that Severian saw\na ghost-like Silk (as shown in BOTSS) and later in TBOTNS saw a ghost which\nhe reported as being that of Malrubius, while still later this ghost was\nmade somewhat ambiguous as a machine projection based upon his own thoughts\n(basically giving the ghost the form of a wise person Severian had met in\nreal life, in order to deliver just-in-time wisdom).\n\nYour point being that Severian's \"alteration\" is merely saying that the\nghost was \"Malrubius\" rather than the who-knows-where-he's-from Silk. An\neditorial decision on Severian's part to avoid cluttering the manuscript\nwith a character who would require a whole book (or four or seven) to\nhimself." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Andre-Driussi", "address": "mantis at siriusfiction.com" }, "date": "2003-07-18T19:36:37+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Malrubius' ghost", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Civet wrote:\nIn addition, it was always disconcerting to\nme that the explanation of Malrubius as the ghost was that he was chosen out\nof Severian's memory as a figure of wisdom and possibly a\npseudo-father-figure, whereas the \"real\" Malrubius in earlier segments is\nnever described with quite enough affection to really justify his having\nthis kind of importance to Sev. (My god, what an awful sentence). Master\nPalaemon seems a more sympathetic character, and accounts of Malrubius\nsuffer a bit by comparison. So, this always struck a false chord with me but\nat the time I was reading BotNS I was unable to resolve it. These alternate\nexplanations appeal to me because they explain what I perceive as an awkward\npoint of the text." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Now hang on, there: the unalterable reason why Malrubius was chosen over\nPalaemon is the fact that Malrubius is already dead, in the timeframe, and\na logical candidate for a ghost is needed. Palaemon is not even a\ncandidate.\n\nThe ghost is to Severian as a fairy godfather is to a hero.\n\nNot to defend the old \"Malrubius is the basis of the ghost\" line, but\nstill, there was a certain poignancy in the notion that a person who wasn't\nso influential when alive would be a source of wisdom after his death.\nThat magical thinking wish that unknown ancestors would give us hints about\nthe silly world around us: the more prosaic understanding about how the\ndead communicate to us through their words and actions in the past, whether\nwe lived through that timeframe and did not perceive their wisdom at the\ntime, or whether we were born long afterward.\n\nAnother thing is this: the closer in one gets toward Severian's core, the\nmore silent he becomes. We know next to nothing about Valeria, yet he says\nhe has written too much! So in this light it would make perfect sense that\nMalrubius was important enough to have little written about him.\n\n=mantis=" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2003-07-18T21:42:18+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Malrubius' ghost", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Palaemon would have been used in its \nplace. I suppose what I'm saying is that one's affection for a \"favorite\" \ntends to be at the expense of that favorite's peers, and you can be more \nindifferent to the \"2nd best teacher\" than to a particularly interesting \nstranger. Not stating that as a rule, but it's true often enough and I had \nthought (perhaps incorrectly) that I had picked up some genuine indifference \non Sev's part toward Malrubius (the living one that is).\n\nThe last paragraph is definitely an interesting thought. Although, with \nValeria, you can somehow see her importance to him through his omissions \neven at the beginning; I did not notice anything similar with Malrubius, but \nthat could just be a failure of my reading. But in general, your statement \nabout Sev's silence about things close to his core brings some comparisons \nto mind. You have Valeria, who you find out very little about. Then there is \nThecla, who you hear a good deal about, though Severian seems most \ncomfortable speaking of generalities and is very grudging when it comes to \ndetails. And just to set the opposite end of the scale you have Agia, who \nSev is very open about nearly from the beginning- does he wax poetic about \nher from his very first description, or is that an error in my memory? You \ncould throw Dorcas into the mix as well. Where do each of these people stand \nin relation to his core?\n\nBut this is a discussion unto itself." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Now hang on, there: the unalterable reason why Malrubius was chosen over\nPalaemon is the fact that Malrubius is already dead, in the timeframe, and\na logical candidate for a ghost is needed. Palaemon is not even a\ncandidate.\n\nThe ghost is to Severian as a fairy godfather is to a hero.\n\nNot to defend the old \"Malrubius is the basis of the ghost\" line, but\nstill, there was a certain poignancy in the notion that a person who wasn't\nso influential when alive would be a source of wisdom after his death.\nThat magical thinking wish that unknown ancestors would give us hints about\nthe silly world around us: the more prosaic understanding about how the\ndead communicate to us through their words and actions in the past, whether\nwe lived through that timeframe and did not perceive their wisdom at the\ntime, or whether we were born long afterward.\n\nAnother thing is this: the closer in one gets toward Severian's core, the\nmore silent he becomes. We know next to nothing about Valeria, yet he says\nhe has written too much! So in this light it would make perfect sense that\nMalrubius was important enough to have little written about him.\n\n=mantis=\n\n\n\n--" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lisa Schaffer-Doggett", "address": "harlekin at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2003-07-20T00:59:34+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Malrubius' ghost", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 08:58 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Malrubius' ghost is explained by the Hieros as an aquastor generated\nby the ship from Sev's memories. I then see four possibilities:\n\n1. This is in fact the case.\n2. The Hieros lied to Sev.\n3. Sev lied about what the Hieros said.\n4. Wolfe commits bad art.\n\nI reject the fourth.\n\nThe second and third are possibilities, but I would want to see some\nintratextual evidence for either, some reason to think that someone is\nlying in this particular case.\n\nAnd I'll stick with the first pending such evidence." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Don pops up. (whack him! quick!)\n\nI see no reason to doubt your conclusion since Silk/Malrubius appears \nto Sev before the aquastor. Besides, if Silk can travel through time \nas well as space (and in an expanding universe wouldn't time travel \nnecessarily involve motion?) it is possible that he is Malrubius in \nactuality. Even if this isn't the case, I see no real contradiction." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2003-07-22T05:18:22+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Malrubius' ghost", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Don, replying to Dan'l's sound post wrote:\nI see no reason to doubt your conclusion since Silk/Malrubius appears\nto Sev before the aquastor. Besides, if Silk can travel through time\nas well as space (and in an expanding universe wouldn't time travel\nnecessarily involve motion?) it is possible that he is Malrubius in\nactuality. Even if this isn't the case, I see no real contradiction." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "As Dan'l also wrote in that post:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Nah. Much more likely that Wolfe hadn't invented Silk yet then." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree. Malrubius could not be Silk in actuality. Malrubius may have been\nsome sort of mentor to Sev, but that's not saying much; Hitler also liked\ndogs. Malrubius was a Master in a guild that hurt and maimed and killed\npeople for a living. Silk was much nearer the opposite end of the moral\nspectrum. He could never have done those things to people; it's just not his\nnature. Hell, he thought he had sinned when he \"killed\" a talus, a stupid\n_machine_ that was trying to kill him.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lisa Schaffer-Doggett", "address": "harlekin at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2003-07-23T01:32:53+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Malrubius' ghost", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Monday, July 21, 2003, at 10:18 PM, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nDon, replying to Dan'l's sound post wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I see no reason to doubt your conclusion since Silk/Malrubius appears\nto Sev before the aquastor. Besides, if Silk can travel through time\nas well as space (and in an expanding universe wouldn't time travel\nnecessarily involve motion?) it is possible that he is Malrubius in\nactuality. Even if this isn't the case, I see no real contradiction." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As Dan'l also wrote in that post:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Nah. Much more likely that Wolfe hadn't invented Silk yet then." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I agree. Malrubius could not be Silk in actuality. Malrubius may have \nbeen\nsome sort of mentor to Sev, but that's not saying much; Hitler also \nliked\ndogs. Malrubius was a Master in a guild that hurt and maimed and killed\npeople for a living. Silk was much nearer the opposite end of the moral\nspectrum. He could never have done those things to people; it's just \nnot his\nnature. Hell, he thought he had sinned when he \"killed\" a talus, a \nstupid\n_machine_ that was trying to kill him." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "To be honest, I don't particularly like the idea of Silk even \nresembling Malrubius. That suggestion was more one of those from my \nbrain to the keyboard kind of things. My only real point was that I \ndon't think Wolfe intended the aquastor Malrubius to be Silk, \nretrofitted or not, and that Silk's appearance as Malrubius in RttW is \nnot at odds with this since it predates the appearance of the aquastor. \n It doesn't matter really whether the aquastor is the memory of \nSilk/Malrubius or the actual Malrubius.\n\nRegards,\nDon" } ] } ] }