Subject: (urth) silver glass

From: aramini1 at cox.net <aramini1 at cox.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:47:55 +0000

Hmmm - here is my attempt to provide textual evidence. This is chapter 18 of Return to the whorl, the first couple of pages (I have the SFBC edition with me, so the page numbers are off).

They fix Pigs eye.  "The room had darkened as he spoke, the lights on the ceiling fading to mere specks of gold; he looked at the glass and saw the nurse manipulating a control."

After the first break in the chapter:
"When the nurses glass had faded to silver-gray, Pig ventured, "Yer gang ter stay wit'me, bucky?""

And then, later: "Something in Pig's face had changed.  He said, "And in the third, Horn?'
'Patera!' 
Oreb whistled shrilly.
'I would be a positive danger to you,' Pig said. 'Strength and a stout heart are hazardous qualities where they cannot prevail.'
'Yes.' He wiped his eyes.
Naked and subtly altered, the face was still Pig's; Silk's well-remembered voice issued from its lips. 'Still, you would take me if you could.'
'Yes. Yes. I would.  If we reached New Viron, I would not have failed.  Or even if you reached it alone.'
'You do not wish to fail.' Pig's big hand tightened on his.

He said, 'I would give my life not to fail,' and meant it.
'You already have.'"

There is a monitor in the lander that blurs around the mouth, and calls the passenger Silk.

So here is my idea: Silver Silk in Pig, identified as Patera by Silk's Body, speaks to Horn in this passage and calls him Horn.  He then realizes that Horn has given up his corporeal body to salvage Silk, and that Horn wants to take the Silk in Pig back with him.  Would Silver Silk abandon the persona of Horn, or would he go back to Blue with him, after he realizes that "[Horn] would take [Silk] if he could."

Marc Aramini

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:04:59 +0000

Well, this is enough to make it plausible certainly. I am not convinced - partly
because of the timing problems that have already been discussed, but those
can probably be overcome - but mostly because I don't think it fits very well
for Silk _not_ to have been present in the Narrator from the moment the Horn
persona took over, for him to simply have vanished.

But I could easily be wrong.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:47:50 -0500, aramini1 at cox.net <aramini1 at cox.net> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
> 

-- 
www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer
Freedom has no barcode.
     --J.G. Ballard

---

From: James Wynn <thewynns at earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 06:59:21 +0000

>[The Narrator] said, 'I would give my life not to fail,' and meant it.
>'You already have.'"
>
>So here is my idea: Silver Silk in Pig, identified as Patera
>by Silk's Body, speaks to Horn in this passage and calls
>him Horn.  He then realizes that Horn has given up his
>corporeal body to salvage Silk, and that Horn wants to
>take the Silk in Pig back with him.  Would Silver Silk
>abandon the persona of Horn, or would he go back to
>Blue with him, after he realizes that "[Horn] would take
>[Silk] if he could."

Note: I will refer to the protagonist of the Short Sun as "the Narrator"
even though he is not the writer in this case.

This is textual support to be sure but I am still influenced by the "Psyche
vs Soul" discussion we had recently. However...

First of all, it seems that Silver Silk is saying he will not go. Secondly,
it seems that Silver Silk recognized -- even though the Narrator did not -- 
that Horn "already had"  on all counts: He *had died* and he *had not
failed*. It is already determined (whether Silver Silk possesses the
Narrator or not) that Horn will succeed in taking Silk to Blue. He will take
Silk's body and all his memories (the Narrator makes several errors in
memory while on the Whorl that prove he still retains Silk's memories as
well as Horn's). Since his special powers of leadership are genetic, that
part of Silk will be taken to Blue as well. Silver Silk is "merely" Silk's
psyche and is no obvious improvement over the "Silk psyche" already present
in the Narrator -- in fact, Silver Silk will lack the experience of running
Viron so he might not even be as good.

So Silk went to Blue as surely as Horn brought him back. Horn and Silk's
psyche's are present in the Narrator (of course, I believe there is a third
entity as well...a soul...and Silver Silk as a purely informational entity
cannot fill that role).

~ Crush

---

From: StoneOx17 at aol.com <stoneox17 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:45:51 +0000

Marc <aramini1 at cox.net> writes:

> Hmmm - here is my attempt to provide textual 
> evidence. This is chapter 18 of Return to 
> the whorl, the first couple of pages (I have 
> the SFBC edition with me, so the page numbers 
> are off).

> They fix Pigs eye.  "The room had darkened as 
> he spoke, the lights on the ceiling fading to 
> mere specks of gold; he looked at the glass 
> and saw the nurse manipulating a control."

> "When the nurses glass had faded to 
> silver-gray, Pig ventured, "Yer gang ter 
> stay wit'me, bucky?""

> And then, later: "Something in Pig's face had 
> changed.  He said, "And in the third, Horn?'
> 'Patera!'
> Oreb whistled shrilly.
> 'I would be a positive danger to you,' Pig said. 
> 'Strength and a stout heart are hazardous 
> qualities where they cannot prevail.'
> Naked and subtly altered, the face was 
> still Pig's; Silk's well-remembered voice 
> issued from its lips. 'Still, you would take 
> me if you could.'
> 'Yes. Yes. I would.  If we reached New Viron, 
> I would not have failed.  Or even if you 
> reached it alone.'

> There is a monitor in the lander that blurs 
> around the mouth, and calls the passenger Silk.

> So here is my idea: Silver Silk in Pig, 
> identified as Patera by Silk's Body, speaks 
> to Horn in this passage and calls him Horn.  
> He then realizes that Horn has given up his 
> corporeal body to salvage Silk, and that Horn 
> wants to take the Silk in Pig back with him. 
>   Would Silver Silk abandon the persona of Horn,
> or would he go back to Blue with him, after he 
> realizes that "[Horn] would take [Silk] if he 
> could."

Pretty convincing.  Especially when combined 
with the fact that the neighbors said something
to the effect (I don't have my copy here ... in
fact, I believe I've given it away, so I may 
have to buy another one to reread it with this
revelation in mind) that Horn was being put into
a man's body whose spirit was dying.  So let me
recapitulate, and maybe change things around a
little.  So what you're saying is that when 
Horn reached the Whorl (in Silk's former body), 
Silk's was already dead.  But a part of Silk's 
psyche had been uploaded and incorporated into 
Pas, and another part had been subsequently 
downloaded to Pig, who was blinded.  When Pig 
gets his new eye, the part of Silk in Pig is 
uploaded into Mainframe, and knows that Horn
is looking for Silk, so downloads back into
Horn-in-Silk's-body, maybe revitalizing a part
of Silk's psyche that somehow remained there.  

The only question I have left is: if the Silk
in Horn's body is Silver Silk, and not the 
near-dead psyche of Silk, why did it take 
three books for the narrator to realize that 
he was really Silk? 

-- 
Stone Ox (Peter)

---

From: Chris <rasputin_ at hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:00:17 +0000

I more or less agree, but now that you've got my interest piqued can you 
give an example? I don't remember seeing any occasions that made it drop 
dead certain to me that he had Silk's memories, but then it has been a 
little while.

Crush said:
>well as Horn's).

---

From: James Wynn <thewynns at earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:33:14 +0000

>dead certain to me that he had Silk's memories, but then it has been a

Oh that's a fine thing. I can't remember a mistake at this moment but I
remember NOTING them as I read RTTW. Also, I don't have my books with me. A
cursory search in Amazon's book search does offer this, however, although it
is not an error and it is not unequivocal:

Narrator talking to the godling (who refers to him as "holy one"):
"It was as if there were shooting stars in his hands, like the stars at the
bottom of the grave to which Silk and Hyacinth had driven Orpine's body in a
dream he recalled with uncanny clarity."
RTTW 138

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:42:07 +0000

There is no doubt that the Narrator, right from _OBW_ on, has memories
of Silk's life and occasionally slips and says things as if he were Silk rather
than Horn: thus referring to his wife as "Hyacinth," for example.

---

From: James Wynn <thewynns at earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:04:30 +0000

>than Horn: thus referring to his wife as "Hyacinth," for example.

That is true but the entire series was written after the Narrator returns to
Blue and therefore after he separates from Pig. So the only errors and
references that can "count" are those from RTTW describing events on the
Whorl and only those that are dialog by the Narrator or that refer directly
to his state of mind at the time.

That's why asking for specific instances is so tough. But I *am* convinced
they are there (and the quote I gave is proof enough for me).

~ Crush

---

From: aramini1 at cox.net <aramini1 at cox.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:22:03 +0000

The big, huge problem with getting specific instances of Silk in the third person "HE" of RTTW whorl scenes is that they weren't written by a witness - they are 3rd person - and why is that?  Unfortunately, any writing of Silk into the narrator can easily be relegated to the discretion of the editors - making it impossible to PROVE his [psychic] identity one way or the other. 

Why does the story start where it does?  Is this because Silver Silk is Horn's impetus for writing?  Is it just a matter of convenience?  Or is it because he wants to find who he is through the process of writing his story, now that he has been commingled with Silk?

Marc

---

From: Chris <rasputin_ at hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:22:10 +0000

What makes it quite tricky is that any supposed slips that we can catch are 
for events that we've already seen described in BotLS - authored by Nettle 
and *Horn*. All we know about Silk's life, even, is what Horn has had 
described to him, what he has interpolated/imagined, or downright made up to 
fill in gaps. I have never been able to fully dismiss the possibility that 
Silk is largely a fictional character invented by Horn (to give hope to the 
inhabitants of Blue, or for whatever reason).

Not that I'm advocating this as the most likely theory or anything. Just 
that our knowledge of the "real Silk" has to keep Horn's part in BotLS in 
mind.

---

From: James Wynn <thewynns at earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:52:21 +0000

Marc says
> The big, huge problem with getting specific instances of Silk in the third
>person "HE" of RTTW whorl scenes is that they weren't written by a witness
>- they are 3rd person - and why is that?  Unfortunately, any writing of
Silk
>into the narrator can easily be relegated to the discretion of the
editors -
>making it impossible to PROVE his [psychic] identity one way or the other.

Yes. But then we have to suppose what is the motive of Hide and Co. in
putting little hints of confusion about the Narrator's identity into his
statements and references to his state of mind --unless the Narrator told
them it happened. At some point you have to say that Wolfe tells stories
from "a distance" simply because he likes to (either with a narrator who
does know how alien his own nature is, or has a such a short term memory
that he can't verify that he wrote the document, or who is insane, or who is
someone that really could only barely know the protagonist). Not because
there is some sort of secret literary clue to be provide in him doing so. If
I can't trust the veracity of the narrator even when there is no reason not
to, how am I supposed to figure anything out anyway?

Chris points out that we can't prove that Silk is anything but a creation of
Horn's. Why not Nettle as well? We also can't prove that Latro -- even if we
were to interrogate him -- wrote most of the Soldier stories. He can't
verify it. I'm not going down that road, but it is one that Wolfe has
offered to us.

>Why does the story start where it does?  Is this because Silver Silk is
>Horn's impetus for writing?  Is it just a matter of convenience?  Or is it
>because he wants to find who he is through the process of writing his
story,
>now that he has been commingled with Silk?

Most likely because he didn't have an opportunity to write until he became
"sultan" on Blue. Anyway, it is Horn who has more of a proven penchant for
writing than Silk did.

~ Crush

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:51:16 +0000

I'd said I wouldn't rehearse my objections to the Silk-to-Pig-to-Horn
scenario, but other people have raised the issue, here are some of my
reasons for believing that Silk's memories and personality are present in
the Narrator throughout his stay on the Whorl.

1. An old post of mine from the Whorl list, when the topic was first
thrashed out, from 2/14/01:

on 2/13/01 8:05 PM, Kevin J. Maroney at kmaroney at ungames.com wrote:

> To me, the giveaway that there's a huge amount of Silk in "the protagonist"
> from the moment that Horn moves into his body is the amount of minutiae
> that he displays about the religion of Pas and the Children while on the
> _Whorl_. 

Indeed; and not only his knowledge, but the sententiousness with which he
dispenses it.

> I know the conversation about "what do you call it when you read the future
> from the flight of birds?" is with Pig, and I believe he does a full
> exegesis of an excerpt from the Chrasmological Writings before the scene
> Michael discusses. The Chrasmomancy in particular strikes me as being
> unmistakably Silk; in fact, while reading the novel I felt it was somewhat
> out of character for Horn to be so Silkian. I should know better.....
> 
> Anyway, refresh my memory. Does the protagonist indulge in Chrasmomancy
> before he gives his eye to Pig? If so, I'd say that's strong evidence that
> he's largely Silk from the moment they merge.

He does, in Chapter 12, with Olivine, an exegesis that takes several pages.
Very Silkian.

There are additianal signs of Silk's presence in "Horn" on the Whorl.  For
one thing, there is his strong visceral reaction to the knife he finds at
his feet (13-14).  I don't see how to explain this, other than that he
unconsciously remembers this knife injuring him.  For another, almost as
soon as "Horn" appears on Whorl, he is thinking about Hyacinth and of how
much he wanted her and how much better things would have been if he had
gotten her (this motif recurs later, though I can't find the place at the
moment).

2. From another post of mine from the Whorl list, from 2/16/01, on his
behavior in and around Blood's mansion:

He first tells Pig he wants to enter the mansion alone, with no explanation
(118, 119).  When Pig insists on coming with him, he deceives him so as to
be able to go in alone (121).  Once inside, he gets "a sort of itch" to find
Hyacinth's bedroom, although he tells himself it's foolish.  He decides to
try to return to Hound, hoping to blunder into Hyacinth's bedroom on the
way.  And he does eventually find himself, by chance, in Hyacinth's dressing
chamber; although he's never been there before, he "knew with absolute
certainty" that that's what it is (134-35).  From this evidence "Horn" is
just as fixated upon Hyacinth as the Silk-possessed Pig is, though better
able to rationalize it.

3. The Narrator on the Whorl knows that he's in someone else's body, and he
knows that everyone he meets thinks he's Silk. Yet he never makes, or even
considers, the obvious conclusion that he's in Silk's body. I don't see any
good explanation for this, apart from the influence of Silk's personality
denying its own identity.

4. Is it really likely that Silk-in-Pig would possess Horn and let himself
be taken to Blue? Silk-in-Pig had told Horn that he wanted to return to
Mainframe to be reunited with Kypris, iirc. Would he then immediately embark
upon another exile from Kypris, with only a very uncertain hope of return?
Marc presented it as an act of self-sacrifice for Horn's sake; but, for all
the talk about Silk's saintliness, he put his personal feelings for Hyacinth
above his duty. I see no evidence that Silk-in-Pig would be any different.

As to Marc's questioning of the reliability of the third-person sections: to
be sure, from the point of view of realism it's rather implausible that the
Narrator's conversations with his family could have contained the
moment-to-moment detail of the Narrator's thoughts that we find in the the
"editors'" narrative. But I don't see that the book gains anything by
treating these sections as unreliable. Unlike in 5HC or PEACE, the
"editors'" reliability or lack of it isn't one of the things the book is
about. If we're going to say anything about the Narrator's time on the
Whorl, we have to assume that the accounts of it are reliable.

--Adam

---

From: James Wynn <thewynns at earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:53:55 +0000

>If we're going to say anything about the Narrator's time on the

Nice analysis, Adam.

One other thing, if the accounts of Silk's psyche being present in the
Narrator are in doubt due to Hide&co's authorship, then all the alleged
textual clues that Silver Silk entered Silk's body are equally in doubt. It
is not fair to accept the third person authors' account as valid for the
references for the theory you like, and then reject every clue to the
contrary based on their unreliability.

~ Crush

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:48:49 +0000

> contrary based on their unreliability.

Right: in the end, we have the text we have and no guarantee of anything
behind it.

I said something of this sort long ago, but let me elaborate:

I think that Wolfe has deliberately set up textual problems analogous 
to those facing interpreters of the New Testament. 

Specifically, I see a clear analogy between the LS and the 
Gospels - a detailed account by someone who, it turns out, 
wasn't actually there for most of the events narrated. Horn's
"defense" at the end reminds me quite a bit of the first couple
of verses of Luke, in fact.

And then ... the journeys of a man who's imbued with Silk's
spirit? Whose writings have made Silk a godlike hero figure
to many peoples? Gadzooks, could this be an analogy to
the Acts of the Apostles and Especially Saul Who Is Called
Paul Except At The Beginning?

--Dan'l

---

From: Chris <rasputin_ at hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:09:34 +0000

Well, I did mention Nettle parenthetically, I just didn't feel like 
repeating "Horn and/or Nettle" throughout. But the more I think about it 
this line of thinking isn't just gratuitous and almost can't be accidental, 
either.

The most suggestive thing that immediately occurs to me is that, in Long Sun 
and even more so in his travels on Blue in BotSS, one of the primary devices 
or M.O.'s associated with Silk is the way he can deceive the bad guy by 
suggestion, without actually lying; the person talking to him ends up 
inferring, from Silk's silence on a given subject, from his utterance of 
statements that can be taken in more than one way, or even from his outright 
denial, the very conclusion Silk refuses to lead them to directly. The 
particular aspect where Silk reinforces their suspicion by denying that it 
is true is striking. Now, during the portion of the books purportedly 
narrated by Silkhorn, does he ever actually claim to be Silk? And how is it 
that we come to that conclusion anyway, despite his repeated denials in the 
text that he is Silk (so much so that we come up with explanations in which 
his denial that he is Silk somehow makes it *more* plausible that he 
actually is Silk)? Is the reader exempt from being tricked in the same way 
characters in the book are?

Now, irrespective of Silk's actual existence, we have to accept as a fact 
that the author of BotSS is aware of this device/strategy of... what can you 
call it, leading someone to deceive themselves? If the author didn't have a 
good grasp/mastery of the device themselves, they wouldn't be able to 
portray someone else doing it so vividly and insightfully. So the author of 
the books is ultimately as capable of this kind of deception as Silk is.

There are potentially good motives for such a deception: the book's 
hypothetical audience are the people of Blue, who are in desperate need of 
hope and of a particular message. A real person who is *present*, as the 
source of such a message, has the problem of being able to be killed, 
humiliated, discredited - one of the reasons, incidentally, that I felt so 
strongly that it was unavoidable for Silk to leave at the end of BotSS. 
Silk, present only as he is presented in the books, is an unimpeachable 
source if you believe in him (and, clearly, we all find the portrayal 
convincing enough that we think there was a real Silk). But "if Silk wasn't 
real, we would have to invent him."

There are a lot of textual passages that suggest a real Silk, but 
unfortunately most of them aren't helpful for this particular purpose. The 
passages that are most of interest are the ones that could be verified or 
denied by a character (who is not the author/editor) that could be heard by 
the presumed audience (the people of Blue). This suggests to me that what 
may be the best place in the text to look is Silkhorn's final encounter with 
Remora. That scene certainly suggests that Silkhorn is really Silk, but the 
question is, on close reading, does it tell us this unequivocally? I'm going 
to check this passage tonight; it would be nice if it settled this nagging 
doubt, but I have a feeling that it is going to (deliberately) leave just 
enough ambiguity...

---

From: James Wynn <thewynns at earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:06:07 +0000

>repeating "Horn and/or Nettle" throughout.

Ah! So you did. But I could extend this to every character in the story, not
just Nettle. But then, from this post (I think) I see you are getting at
something else.

>Now, during the portion of the books purportedly
>narrated by Silkhorn, does he ever actually claim to be Silk?

No, he doesn't. Not even when he comes to terms with "himself" through
Remora's counsel. Everywhere else he adamantly denies it.

I'm not sure I understand your point, but I'm going to take a crack at this
anyway.

>And how is it
>actually is Silk)?

Well, for one thing, Mint and Bison are quite convinced he is. Hound says
he's seen pictures of Silk and that he is certain he is. They are certain he
is Silk because he looks like him, which suggests there was a Silk to look
like. This is the part written by Hide&co. but I suppose the conversations
could be made up as well.  Then again, Mint and Bison's description of how
Silk left the Caldeship does not seem designed to make him look heroic.

But then, all these characters could be all made up I suppose...they really
*are* all made up of course, so if they were made IN the narration as well,
how could we tell?

Remora on Blue certainly remembers a Silk. So does Marrow. And Scleroderma
wrote an alternate book about him.

>Is the reader exempt from being tricked in the same way

Well, Civet, you know what I think on this. I believe he is not Silk. I
believe he is "Horn", but not the Horn he tells Hide that he is.
I also believe he *is* Silk and Horn, but in an entirely different sense.

>may be the best place in the text to look is Silkhorn's final encounter
>with Remora. That scene certainly suggests that Silkhorn is really Silk,
>but the question is, on close reading, does it tell us this unequivocally?
>I'm going to check this passage tonight; it would be nice if it settled
>this nagging doubt, but I have a feeling that it is going to (deliberately)
>leave just enough ambiguity...

See, here's why I'm not sure I'm getting your point exactly. If we accept
the Narrator's telling of Remora and how he came to Lizard to talk enlist
Horn in a mission to get Silk, then isn't it clear that Silk is a real
person?

~ Crush

---

From: Chris <rasputin_ at hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 02:35:16 +0000

>*are* all made up of course, so if they were made IN the narration as well,

Well, much of this is for the sake of argument, although I do think the 
statement "if Silk didn't really exist, we would have to invent him" does 
have a certain truth to it, regardless - it is in a way this phrase that 
makes me take seriously the possibility that, within the context of the 
story, he was invented. (Or that, thematically, it doesn't *matter* whether 
he was invented, but this will take more explanation on my part so I'll 
leave that question for later).

Since this story is sort of a letter wrapped in multiple envelopes, I am 
first removing Wolfe (and us, in a way) from the equation temporarily - so 
the author we are concerned with is the fictional author (Horn, Silk, 
Nettle, anyone else), and the audience is the collected population of Blue 
who have access to the books. (I know even this can be approached more 
radically, but in this conjecture we're already stretched so far that this 
would just be gratuitous).

As far as the audience of Blue is concerned, there are characters that can't 
be entirely made up because, presumably, someone would know some of them (or 
know someone who knew some of them, etc), and some events that would be 
matters of public record. Relatively few of these would be characters from 
BotLS, but there would be some. Of these Remora seems particularly important 
to me because he is in a position to confirm or deny to anyone who asks him 
whether or not some of the events of BotLS really happened. This already 
makes the possibility of Silk being *wholly* fictional unlikely, unless 
there is some reasonable motivation that could lead him to play along with 
such a fiction. In any event most, if not all, of the rest of the characters 
on Blue who have a similar ability to confirm or deny are dead or have no 
interaction with the narrator at the time of RttW.

>I also believe he *is* Silk and Horn, but in an entirely different sense.

I don't know the exact specifics of what you think about Silkhorn, but I 
know that I agree with you on the general points of it.

As far as purely textual analysis goes, I think it safe to assume that the 
narrator who returns is not the same physical body that left; there are a 
multitude of people available to the assumed audience who could verify, so 
deception on this point wouldn't work for the author. For mostly thematic 
reasons I believe that he is Horn, and for the same thematic reasons I agree 
that he *is* Silk in at least one sense, and possibly more than one. I think 
that in an important way the point of BotSS is about "being Silk", not just 
for Horn but for everyone on Blue, and the point is developed 
microcosmically (is that a word?) in Horn, and macrocosmically in the events 
that unfold around him.

>Horn in a mission to get Silk, then isn't it clear that Silk is a real

Well, this was one of the things that nagged at me even when I was reading 
the book, because I sort of wondered about Horn as an author before I even 
started BotSS. And this led to a disturbingly plausible interpretation of 
the mission.

Remora wasn't the only one to come to Lizard; he came with the most powerful 
people in the town, and he seems to have been only a reluctant partner. We 
know that there was no love lost between them and Horn, and I got the 
impression that they also didn't like the influence of his book. Given their 
somewhat dubious moral standing (regardless of their power), it would have 
probably been futile for one of them to try to defuse or discredit the 
BotLS, which clearly appealed to people. So it occured to me at the time 
that it would be a convenient way to get rid of Horn without having his 
blood on their hands to go to him and say "So, if your messiah-figure is 
real, why don't you go bring him back for us? Here's a ticket on the next 
ship out." Horn is placed in a position where he can refuse, discrediting 
himself to some extent and lessening the power of his book, or go off on the 
mission. Once gone, he could die or otherwise not come back (a winning 
situation for them), come back empty-handed (again lessening the power of 
the book and losing favor himself), or come back with someone. Even if that 
someone were Silk, a real Silk would be far preferable to them than a 
literary Silk because a real Silk could be killed, framed up and smeared, 
humiliated, or otherwise ruined and made an example of.

And it seems to me that Horn's exposition of his reasons for going are meant 
to put his reader off the cynical consideration of why he really had little 
choice but to leave. But regardless, it does seem like the powers that be 
really didn't expect to see him return.

---

From: Andrew Bollen <abollen at internode.on.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 05:59:18 +0000

Could have missed it, but haven't noticed anyone giving the place name 
definition of "Ormsby" courtesy of google: "Village of the Worm/Dragon". 
(The real Ormsby in northern England is apparently more likely to have been 
founded by a Viking named Orm, ie Dragon, apparently a common enough name 
for Vikings.)

"Art Ormsby" then translates to "Art from Dragonville". Griffonford sounds 
pretty much like Dragonville in Mag's little passage in the Room of Lost 
Loves - with only Black Bethold and a couple of others resisting Setr & 
Grengarm. If that's a connection we're supposed to draw, I find it more 
confusing than anything. If Art's surname is Ormsby, then it's probably also 
his father's. I think we know that his mother or some version of her went to 
Griffonford from America, but are we also to suppose that his father (or 
some version of him) went *from* Griffonford *to* America?

You never know with Wolfe whether you're loading too much on to little 
things, or not enough.

Unrelated, but I've also missed any mention of Michael as the commander of 
the host of God in the First Battle and/or the Last Battle. In the second, 
he slays the Great Worm Satan. He's clearly an appropriate patron for Art.

---

From: Andrew Bollen <abollen at internode.on.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 07:23:27 +0000

I forogt to mention Setr also. Apparently "r" is an Old Norse masculine case 
ending. I vaguely recall somebody associating Setr with some figure from 
Norse mythology, but it seem to me that we also have Typhon/Set once again 
as the figure of a tyrant with ambitions to conquer heaven.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Bollen" <abollen at internode.on.net>
To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 12:28 AM
Subject: (urth) Ormsby, Michael

> (The real Ormsby in northern England is apparently more likely to have 
> been founded by a Viking named Orm, ie Dragon, apparently a common enough 
> name for Vikings.)
>
> confusing than anything. If Art's surname is Ormsby, then it's probably 
> also his father's. I think we know that his mother or some version of her 
> went to Griffonford from America, but are we also to suppose that his 
> father (or some version of him) went *from* Griffonford *to* America?
>

---

From: James Wynn <thewynns at earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:19:09 +0000

>as the figure of a tyrant with ambitions to conquer heaven.

Actually, I haven't been able to identify any mythological connection to
"setr". It's Scandinavian for a fisherman's hut or a farm house. I can't
understand the significance unless Wolfe is connecting the term "homestead"
with it's synonym "steading" and from there "one who stands in the place of
another".

I think Arnthor as much like Typhon as Setr except that Setr does have a
"second head" so to speak in the form of Garsecg.

~ Crush

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 10:26:58 +0000

Surely SETR = SURTUR the primaeval fire giant??? 

>>Norse mythology

---

From: James Wynn <thewynns at earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:19:18 +0000

> Surely SETR = SURTUR the primeval fire giant???

Here's the thing about that. Wolfe likes to be precise about his spellings.
The name of the Whorl goddess is Sphigx, not Sphinx. Sphigx is the literal
transcription of the name from Greek. "Arnthor" is a Scandinavian version of
Arthur. Valfather is an actual title for Odin. This seems to be a pattern to
me. Wolfe *likes* using *actual* names that are close to the original. Look
at names like Garsecg and Garvaon...very precise.

There's a lot to recommend Surtur or Surt or Srtr as a reference to our boy
from Muspel, I admit. But there's also a lot that jars with Setr. Surtur
isn't JUST a "primeval" fire giant: he remakes the world after Ragnarok, and
that doesn't sound like Setr. But my main question is if Wolfe meant Surtur,
why didn't he just USE that name? And why Setr of all things? Even if Wolfe
had in mind Surtur in mind as well, is this the PRIMARY reason for his
choice of name?

~ Crush

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 12:39:32 +0000

Well the exact meaning of "setr" is "dairy-pasture" according to the Viking 
Answers Lady (whom it might be well to bookmark). 

http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/ 

> Surtur isn't JUST a "primeval" fire giant: he remakes the world 
> after Ragnarok,

Pish tosh.  Mere Christian interpolation that.  Ragnarok is the end. 

And Surtur doesn't remake the world (I don't know where you heard that), he 
burns it all up. 

Also Muspelheim is traditionally Surtur's realm, one of the Nine Worlds 

***First of worlds was Muspellheim, in the Southern regions. It is bright 
and hot. That place is aflame, and burning and it is impassable to those who 
are not native to it. There is one called Surt who is stationed there at the 
frontier to defend that land. He has a flaming sword and at the end of the 
world he will go and wage war and burn the whole world with fire*** 

(Prose Edda) 

Still, I suspect Wolfe may be trying to smuggle in something else.   What??? 

and

---

From: maru dubshinki <marudubshinki at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:48:44 +0000

*Maru pounces!
You my friend, just made a big mistake.
Ragnarok is most definitely NOT the end.
That doens't hold water; both because of the cyclical
elements and numerology in Norse paganism, and because that contradicts 
directly what is said in the Elder/Poetic Edda.
In the Larrington translation, we read in 'The Seeress' Prophecy' that 
after the great battle, after Surt 'high flame plays against heaven 
itself' v57, the seeress continues:
	'She sees, coming up a second time,
	Earth from the ocean, eternally green;
	the waterfall plunges, an eagle soars over it,
	hunting fish on the mountain. v59
and most importantly;
	'The Aesir meet on Idavoll
	and they converse about the mighty Earth-girdler,
	and they remember there the great events
	and the ancient runes of the Mighty One. v60
after that they refind their old hnefatafl game pieces, Baldr will 
return from Hel. 'do you understand yet, or what more?' v63
   More interesting, the part that leads to the 'christian 
interpolation' you revile is v65:
	'Then the powerful, mighty one, he who rules over
	everything,
	will come from above, to the judgementplace of the gods.
I personally think it is Odin but...
And, should you persist in your error of seeing the Norse as inhabiting 
an Eschatological religious framework, check the last, final verse out, 
the one which really clinches the case for cyclicalness.
v66
	There comes the dark dragon flying
	the shining serpent, up from Dark-of-moon Hills
	Nidhogg flies over the plains, in his wings
	he carries corpses; now she must sink down.
Even after ragnarok, evil continues.
You should be more careful what you say.
~Maru

Andy Robertson wrote:
> Well the exact meaning of "setr" is "dairy-pasture" according to the 
> Viking Answers Lady (whom it might be well to bookmark).
>> Surtur isn't JUST a "primeval" fire giant: he remakes the world after 
>> Ragnarok,
> 
> 
> And Surtur doesn't remake the world (I don't know where you heard that), 
> he burns it all up.
> ***First of worlds was Muspellheim, in the Southern regions. It is 
> bright and hot. That place is aflame, and burning and it is impassable 
> to those who are not native to it. There is one called Surt who is 
> stationed there at the frontier to defend that land. He has a flaming 
> sword and at the end of the world he will go and wage war and burn the 
> whole world with fire***
> (Prose Edda)
> 
> 
>

---

From: James Wynn <thewynns at earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:01:47 +0000

Hartshorn (seeming a bit cranky this afternoon) says:

>Answers Lady

With apologies to the Viking Answer Lady, here are the results of a quick
Google:
http://www.10callicvol.com/centre/callicvol/
"In addition the Old Norse 'saetr' ('setr') means a shieling or steading and
appears in Lewis as 'Shader', in for example 'Cuidhsiadar', cattlefold
shieling or farm."

http://www.northvegr.org/zoega/h247.php
A Concise Dictionary of Old Icelandic:
konungs-atsetr, n. king's residence;
-setr, n. royal residence

http://www.northvegr.org/zoega/h095.php
A Concise Dictionary of Old Icelandic:
There's also a seeming use of the word as a verb meaning "to change
something". But I don't find it directly referred to anywhere.

By the way, Northvegr.org is definitely worth bookmarking.

>Pish tosh.  Mere Christian interpolation that.  Ragnarok is the end.

Did Hartshorn just pish-tosh me?

>>From the Prose Edda:
http://www.northvegr.org/lore/prose2/016.php
Vidar or Vitharr or Vithar or Withr (etc.) is the son of Odin is but one of
the Aesir that survive Ragnarok. He kills Fenrir by pulling apart his jaws
and rules in the place of his father. He wears an iron-toed shoe to
facilitate ass-kicking.

And Vidar isn't the only one to survive:
http://www.northvegr.org/lore/prose2/017.php
"Then said Ganglere: Do any gods live then? Is there any earth or heaven?
Har answered: The earth rises again from the sea, and is green and fair. The
fields unsown produce their harvests. Vidar and Vale live. Neither the sea
nor Surt's fire has harmed them, and they dwell on the plains of Ida, where
Asgard was before. Thither come also the sons of Thor, Mode and Magne, and
they have Mjolner. Then come Balder and Hoder from Hel. They all sit
together and talk about the things that happened aforetime,---about the
Midgard-serpent and the Fenris-wolf. They find in the grass those golden
tables which the asas once had."

The last two humans are Lif and Lifthraser, and they repopulate the world.

http://www.northvegr.org/lore/poems/000_07.php
In Vafthr., 50-51, Odin asks: 'Which of the Asir shall rule over the
possessions of the gods when Surt's flame shall be extinguished?' And the
giant answers: V?thar and V?li shall occupy the dwelling of the gods when
Surt's flame shall be quenched.'

Incidentally, Vidar's twin brother also survives as do Thor's sons who
reclaim his hammer.

>And Surtur doesn't remake the world (I don't know where you heard that), he

That's true. He also slays Frey at Ragnarok. I cannot remember my source on
Surtur as a Maker god who remakes things when the Earth rises again from the
sea. I don't have access to my books so I can't check it. It is possible
that it is not universally accepted, but I don't think it is so obscure that
Wolfe would be unaware of it.

>Also Muspelheim is traditionally Surtur's realm, one of the Nine Worlds

Right

>Still, I suspect Wolfe may be trying to smuggle in something else.

Yes. What, indeed.

~ Crush

---

From: James Wynn <thewynns at earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:57:18 +0000

>>I cannot remember my source on
>>Surtur as a Maker god who remakes things
>>when the Earth rises again from the sea.

	>will come from above, to the judgement place of the gods.

Remembering something....

Finn Magussen said I think that Sutur was that "powerful, mighty one, he who
rules over everything" who would reveal himself after Ragnarok.

~ Crush

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:09:36 +0000

> Hartshorn (seeming a bit cranky this afternoon) says:

I certainly didn't mean to be angry: I was trying to make a joke.   Gotta 
work on that.  I just like the Viking Answers Lady. :-) 

> The last two humans are Lif and Lifthraser, and they repopulate the world.

I know that the restoration of the world after Ragnarok is part of the 
Eddas: I happen to believe, however, that it is a late Christian 
interpolation. 

Maybe I am allowing my own religious beliefs to obtrude too plainly here:  I 
am an Odinist and I take this seriously, not as old stories but as a 
primitive but accurate cosmology, one where the forces of good are 
authentically outgunned and the world really ends.  I don't believe in 
repeated big bangs or in a reversal of the laws of Themodynamics.

>>Still, I suspect Wolfe may be trying to smuggle in something else.

The "world" Wolfe creates is very like the Norse universe, with its Overcyns 
(what genuine word is that BTW?)  The Norse universe also has nine realms, 
and some of them correspond pretty well by name and nature to the levels of 
Wolfe's world and some do not. 

The ones that correspond well are in the middle.  For example I have never 
seen a better description of the gods and what they are meant to be than I 
read in Wolfe's words about the Valfather, the Lady, and the other Overcyns. 
But the bits at the top and bottom of Wolfe's world are from other 
belief-structures and frankly they don't make as much sense in a Norse 
framework (no reason why they should, it's only a book). 

According to Wolfe's own explanations the Giants are the cast-offs from 
Kleos, and their genisis in the realm of Skai was formed by the death of 
Ymir.   So Setr is not a giant in this sense since he is in Muspel and is 
therefore of the residue of the residue of the residue of Skai - many layers 
of derivation below that.   Maybe the spelling of Setr is just meant as 
acknowledgment of this.   If it's more than that and a hint towards "Set" I 
have no suggestions.

---

From: James Wynn <thewynns at earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:01:11 +0000

>Eddas: I happen to believe, however, that it is a late Christian

Hm. I'm not sure how this story makes Norse paganism more palatable to
Christianity or vice versa. Well, maybe that part about the true god
revealing himself, but nothing in the others. The world resets and continues
much as it did before. That's hardly the Christian worldview.

>Overcyns (what genuine word is that BTW?)

Good question. I think *maybe* I know, but don't know how to put it without
seeming to contradict myself.

I think it is a derivation of "eormcn-cyn" which means "superhuman" or "huge
one". This is not a contradiction of Wolfe's M.O. because he is not changing
one obscure word for another. He is only translating one of part of the word
because to convey the sense better and, anyway, how would English readers
pronounce "eormcn"? But he's not *just changing* the word.
http://penguin.pearson.swarthmore.edu/~scrist1/scanned_books/html/oi_cleasbyvigfusson/b0328.html

>Kleos, and their genesis in the realm of Skai was formed by the death of
>Ymir.

But IIRC the Norse worlds develop backwards from the way Wolfe's does. In
other words, Middle Earth is formed from the fires of Muspelheim (thus
Surturs indirect role, at least, in its creation).

~ Crush

---

From: mournings glory <mourningsglory at hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:00:09 +0000

>"Art Ormsby" then translates to "Art from Dragonville".

At the end of _The Knight_ Able (since this is the only name we know him by) 
hears "a wind [soughing] among the treetops, chanting a thousand names. 
Among them, both of mine." But how does Ormsby (since Arthur must be the 
other name) fit in with Walewein, Wace, Vortigern, Kyot, Yvain, Gottfried, 
Eilhart, Palamedes, Duach, Tristan, Albrecht, and Caradoc? Is there anywhere 
in Arthurian literature a character named Ormsby? (This seems suggested by 
the pedigree/provenance of the listed names.) And who or what is actually 
chanting these various names? Surely, we're not meant to believe it's really 
the wind--unless it's the susurrus of Parka's bowstring.

msg

---

From: Dan Rabin <wolfe-lists at danrabin.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:10:33 +0000

Perhaps "both of mine" refers to "Arthur" and "Able" rather than 
"Arthur" and "Ormsby".

   -- Dan Rabin

>
>At the end of _The Knight_ Able (since this is the only name we know 
>him by) hears "a wind [soughing] among the treetops, chanting a 
>thousand names. Among them, both of mine." But how does Ormsby 
>(since Arthur must be the other name) fit in with Walewein, Wace, 
>Vortigern, Kyot, Yvain, Gottfried, Eilhart, Palamedes, Duach, 
>Tristan, Albrecht, and Caradoc? Is there anywhere in Arthurian 
>literature a character named Ormsby? (This seems suggested by the 
>pedigree/provenance of the listed names.) And who or what is 
>actually chanting these various names? Surely, we're not meant to 
>believe it's really the wind--unless it's the susurrus of Parka's 
>bowstring.
>
>msg

---

From: Andrew Bollen <abollen at internode.on.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:26:08 +0000

> Eilhart, Palamedes, Duach, Tristan, Albrecht, and Caradoc? Is there 
> anywhere in Arthurian literature a character named Ormsby? (This seems 
> suggested by the pedigree/provenance of the listed names.) And who or what 
> is actually chanting these various names? Surely, we're not meant to 

My guess is that by "both of mine" he means "both my name here, and my name 
in America". So Arthur and Able.

Doesn't somebody somewhere compare the voice of the Valfather to the wind in 
the trees? Maybe Idnn when she meets him?

---

From: mournings glory <mourningsglory at hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:29:03 +0000

>in America". So Arthur and Able.

But we already know the narrator's being called Able, so why conceal it? And 
how does "Able" connect with the other names mentioned, which all seem to be 
somehow associated with Arthuriana? As the brilliant Mr Arimani has earlier 
noted, the name Arthur is deducible from various clues (he's also right, I 
believe, about the structure of _The Wizard Knight_ being circular, which is 
why _The Wizard_ [ note its placement in the overall series title] should 
almost be read first). What I'm trying to ascertain is if the name Ormsby is 
similarly deducible, and if so, how.

Also, was anyone else bothered by Gary Wolfe's boneheaded revelation of 
Able's real name in the first paragraph of his Locus review? Gene Wolfe 
thought it important enough not to reveal it until the very last two words 
of the series, so obviously he did not want it disclosed any earlier; and 
yet this is exactly what Dr. Wolfe does. A pox on all reviewers who fail to 
provide spoiler warnings!

I have a couple of weeks before I mail in my Hugo nominations, but wonder 
how the WorldCon administrators will treat Wolfe's latest two books: as 
separate novels or a single book. Anybody out there know?

msg

*Otium sine litteris mors est.*

---

From: Andrew Bollen <abollen at internode.on.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 04:20:57 +0000

Mounrings Glory writes:
>
> But we already know the narrator's being called Able, so why conceal it? 
> And how does "Able" connect with the other names mentioned, which all seem 
> to be somehow associated with Arthuriana?

As to the first question, Art's not concealing anything. He's writing to 
Ben, remember, who knows both names.

As to th second - dunno!

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:43:01 +0000

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 00:28:59 +1030, Andrew Bollen
> definition of "Ormsby" courtesy of google: "Village of the Worm/Dragon".

Well, I pointed out a while back that "Ormsby" can be read as "of the
Dragon," i.e., Pendragon.

--Dan'l