{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4127", "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": 4127, "subject": "Baldanders, Acies Castle & the Citadel", "messages": 5, "voices": 4, "first": "2003-07-29T04:55:19+00:00", "last": "2003-07-29T18:46:23+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andrew Bollen", "address": "abollen at internode.on.net" }, "date": "2003-07-29T04:55:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Baldanders, Acies Castle & the Citadel", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Very tangentially ... One of the things which makes me a gushing GW fan-boy is the realistic depth to his worlds, despite all the fantasy elements. A small example: I see a natural progression from Baldander's castle, to Acies Castle at Thrax, to the Citadel (or maybe all of Nessus). \n\nIn each case, these correspond in purpose to castles historically: not so much to guard against foreign enemies, as to keep a local population in subjugation. (See the afterword to Lictor, talking about Acies; and Jonas' half-finished story presumably about the wall of Nessus in Torturer). \n\nAnd the Diturna-Thrax-Nessus progression also corresponds to the development of power and nobility common in history: a local brigand establishes his power over a district with a rough fortification; in time his rule becomes established over a wider area and rooted in some kind of noble tradition; once empires form, the most successful brigand gets to rule everything, including the now-provincial barons and magnates, who become his legates and satraps.\n\nThe Romans seemed to have a strong sense of this progression, an awareness perhaps that their rulers were really just successful brigands underneath all the trappings. When they were able, they would act mightily against any brigands who sought to establish themselves in a fixed position. Eg: Masada - an entire legion out of a total of only about 25 in the whole empire, plus thousands of auiliaries, against a small band of weak opponents, for many months. \n\nI think this kind of progression was probably explicit in GW's thinking about Urth. Baldanders could have become the new Typhon, with better luck. " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2003-07-29T05:24:41+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Baldanders, Acies Castle & the Citadel", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Baldanders was the Typhon That Could Have Been, this I think is explicitly \nintended.\n\nAll in all, the allegorical element is so strong with Baldanders, Talos, and \nJolenta that my first inclination was to treat Severian as I would a \"real\" \nhistorical author: that is, to say that he invented them to make a point.\n\nAll in all I think we pay too little attention to the fact that Severian is, \namong other things, an author. And despite his disavowals he knows all about \nliterary devices and how to use them properly. And consider this: if Wolfe \ninventing Borges in a novel is inventive, consider how much more so it is to \nhave Severian (a character invented by Wolfe) invent Borges, or Delaney (who \nI have not read and can add nothing to the discussion of his influence).\n\nSo I think it bears some examination. Is the story of Baldanders an allegory \nof Wolfe's, or of Severian's? It would be easy to say that it made no \ndifference, but I suspect that it does.\n\nCivet" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think this kind of progression was probably explicit in GW's thinking \nabout Urth. Baldanders could have become the new Typhon, with better luck.\n\n\n--" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Josh Geller", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2003-07-29T06:26:30+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Baldanders, Acies Castle & the Citadel", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, 2003-07-28 at 22:24, Chris wrote:\nAll in all I think we pay too little attention to the fact that Severian is, \namong other things, an author. And despite his disavowals he knows all about \nliterary devices and how to use them properly. And consider this: if Wolfe \ninventing Borges in a novel is inventive, consider how much more so it is to \nhave Severian (a character invented by Wolfe) invent Borges, or Delaney " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "% e." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " (who \nI have not read and can add nothing to the discussion of his influence)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I really like the way that you think.\n\nThecla's friend asked if the Fish was real, Father Inire told \nher that for an image to exist without something to reflect \nit is an impossibility. Therefore, the Fish would come into \nbeing (I just now noticed that it is a Fish). And at Baldander's \ncastle, Dr. Talos asks Severian if he doesn't realize that \nevents cast their shadow into the past, where they echo and re-echo: \nsee now? The castle, the wise man and the monster? " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So I think it bears some examination. Is the story of Baldanders an allegory \nof Wolfe's, or of Severian's? It would be easy to say that it made no \ndifference, but I suspect that it does." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Very, very nice.\n\nBTW, I myself don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about\nBaldanders standing in for Delany. On this list we find all of the\npuzzles that Gene Wolfe put in his books, all of the puzzles that he\ndidn't put there but are inherent either in the structure of the books\nor of Reality, all of the puzzles that exist only in our minds, and \nprobably one or two that don't have any existence.\n\nIn this connection, I would like to tell y'all a story.\n\nA studious young man, finding himself possessed of unexpected fortune\nand being both enamored of the pursuit of knowledge and relieved of the\nnecessity of supporting himself, attended the finest universities in his\ncountry, but found himself unsatisfied with what was taught.\n\nHe heard of a sage who lived quietly apart with a few kindred souls, who\ngardened and watched the stars, and who were rumored to share a secret\nknowledge. He humbly introduced himself to them and begged the\nphilosopher to know of their secret. The sage replied that while the\nsecret could be learned, it could not be taught and that if he cared to,\nthe young man could live among them and do as they did, and perhaps he\nwould learn the secret.\n\nThat is after all, she added, how we all learned it.\n\nThe young man accepted the offer and started living in the community and\ngardening and watching the stars.\n\nTen years went by.\n\nThe young man learned all that he could from the brethren and felt - and\nhis preceptress agreed - that he was not learning any more. So he went\noff to search the far and hidden parts of the World, promising to return\nwith whatever he could find.\n\nTwenty years went by. The young man returned, and went to greet his old\nmentor. They sat quietly for a while.\n\nThe sage said, did you find what you were looking for?\n\nI think so, the young man replied.\n\nWhat is it, then? his teacher asked.\n\nThe young man gathered his thoughts and said:\n\nOver the ocean,\nThe sun rises;\nClouds gather:\nRain falls.\n\nHis mentor looked at him for a long moment, and shook her head sadly.\nShe said, look at you. Your hair is grey and sparse. You are missing\nsome teeth. I even see a couple of liver spots on your hands. Ten years\nyou studied here, and twenty years elsewhere, and you are no longer\nyoung. Soon you are going to die. This is what you have learned? You are\nindeed a disappointment.\n\nThe no longer young man, shaken, with tears streaming down his cheeks,\nasked his teacher, please. I beg you. Tell me the secret.\n\nShe looked at him and in a voice of passionate intensity said:\n\nOver the ocean,\nThe sun rises;\nClouds gather:\nRain falls.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lisa Schaffer-Doggett", "address": "harlekin at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2003-07-29T07:12:44+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Baldanders, Acies Castle & the Citadel", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Monday, July 28, 2003, at 10:24 PM, Chris wrote:\nBaldanders was the Typhon That Could Have Been, this I think is \nexplicitly intended.\n\nAll in all, the allegorical element is so strong with Baldanders, \nTalos, and Jolenta that my first inclination was to treat Severian as \nI would a \"real\" historical author: that is, to say that he invented \nthem to make a point.\n\nAll in all I think we pay too little attention to the fact that \nSeverian is, among other things, an author. And despite his disavowals \nhe knows all about literary devices and how to use them properly. And \nconsider this: if Wolfe inventing Borges in a novel is inventive, \nconsider how much more so it is to have Severian (a character invented \nby Wolfe) invent Borges, or Delaney (who I have not read and can add \nnothing to the discussion of his influence).\n\nSo I think it bears some examination. Is the story of Baldanders an \nallegory of Wolfe's, or of Severian's? It would be easy to say that it \nmade no difference, but I suspect that it does.\n\nCivet" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Brilliant! I feel however, that you must soon go mad. Perhaps then \nyou will see that Ymar is the first Severian. hahahahahahahah...ahem." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2003-07-29T18:46:23+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Baldanders, Acies Castle & the Citadel", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Josh said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Thecla's friend asked if the Fish was real, Father Inire told\nher that for an image to exist without something to reflect\nit is an impossibility. Therefore, the Fish would come into\nbeing (I just now noticed that it is a Fish)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I always liked that, though it really reminds me something similar I read \naround the same time but cannot remember. I am tempted to say that it was \nsomething from Borges \"Labyrinths\", but I might be thinking that just \nbecause the subject of Borges is fresh." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And at Baldander's\ncastle, Dr. Talos asks Severian if he doesn't realize that\nevents cast their shadow into the past, where they echo and re-echo:\nsee now? The castle, the wise man and the monster?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Particularly interesting, given that Baldanders then slips into the water to \njoin Abaia and the rest; the subsurface \"monsters\" being seen as events from \nthe past (and presents that might-have-been) casting their shadow on the \nfuture." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "BTW, I myself don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about\nBaldanders standing in for Delany. On this list we find all of the\npuzzles that Gene Wolfe put in his books, all of the puzzles that he\ndidn't put there but are inherent either in the structure of the books\nor of Reality, all of the puzzles that exist only in our minds, and\nprobably one or two that don't have any existence." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well said.\n\nOne of the things about Wolfe which I'm curious about is that I would think \nhe *has* to understand the way in which these puzzles multiply, beyond even \nwhat was intended (which is considerable in its own right). Yet in \ninterviews he doesn't come across that way at all; I know it's been \ncommented on before. I guess the general opinion is that he doesn't like to \nbe asked over and over again for simple answers to impossible questions, and \nemploys a sort of \"ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer\" defense.\n\nOn the other hand, it does seem a bit at times like he assumes that the text \nsays nothing more than what he put in it, and that there is a correct \nreading intended which can be deductively arrived at.\n\nIf I had the chance to ask Wolfe one question, I would probably ask him \nabout this rather than anything specific about his stories.\n\n-- Civet" } ] } ] }