{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4500", "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": 4500, "subject": "New Wolfe story: The Gunner's Mate (timothy fletcher)", "messages": 62, "voices": 15, "first": "2005-10-16T07:37:41+00:00", "last": "2005-12-03T21:00:15+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Kip T", "address": "kiptanner at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-10-16T07:37:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) New Wolfe story: The Gunner's Mate (timothy fletcher)", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I was a little disappointed with the story. I thought it was good, but not Wolfe-good, with evolving characters and discovered worlds, like 'Golden City Far' or 'The Tree is my Hat' or a few dozen others. If there was more to the story, hidden references or whatever, I missed it. I guessed the ending early and kept reading hoping I was wrong. I wasn't.\n\n It is a fine ghost story, but a merely good story from the master is somewhat dissapointing." } ] }, { "message_id": "<20051017151853.59693.qmail@web52905.mail.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Matt Sab", "address": "mbs808 at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2005-10-17T15:18:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Marcus v. Franzen = Unexpected Wolfe sighting", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In this month's Harper's magazine, Ben Marcus rips\ninto Jonathan Franzen in \"Why Experimental Fiction\nThreatens to Destroy Publishing, Jonathan Franzen, and\nLife as We Know It.\"\n\nThe Valve's discussion of the essay has an unexpected\nGene Wolfe appearance:\n\nI read very little poetry by design and constitution. \nI lack the patience required to work through poetry if\nit lacks the puzzling qualities I value in writers\nlike Joyce. (I mean \"puzzling\" literally there, as in\n\"like a puzzle\" which I’m enjoined to put back\ntogether. Hence my love/hate relationship with Gene\nWolfe.)\n\n\nFull text here:\n\nhttp://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/aggresively_masturbatory_fiction_or_two_authors_enter_only_ben_marcus_may_l/\n\n\n\n\t\t" } ] }, { "message_id": "<7083514.1129944940768.JavaMail.root@elwamui-ovcar.atl.sa.earthlink.net>", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-10-22T01:35:40+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Marcus v. Franzen = Unexpected Wolfe sighting", "in_reply_to": "<20051017151853.59693.qmail@web52905.mail.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "On the personal blog of the person who wrote that post, there are two other posts on Wolfe:\n\nhttp://acephalous.typepad.com/acephalous/2005/09/on_terrible_neo.html\n\nand\n\nhttp://acephalous.typepad.com/acephalous/2005/09/rich_on_wolfe.html\n\nBoth are followed by contentious discussions (the latter of which I participated in).\n\n--Adam\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Matt Sab \nSent: Oct 17, 2005 9:18 AM\nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSubject: (urth) Marcus v. Franzen = Unexpected Wolfe sighting\n\n\nIn this month's Harper's magazine, Ben Marcus rips\ninto Jonathan Franzen in \"Why Experimental Fiction\nThreatens to Destroy Publishing, Jonathan Franzen, and\nLife as We Know It.\"\n\nThe Valve's discussion of the essay has an unexpected\nGene Wolfe appearance:\n\nI read very little poetry by design and constitution. \nI lack the patience required to work through poetry if\nit lacks the puzzling qualities I value in writers\nlike Joyce. (I mean \"puzzling\" literally there, as in\n\"like a puzzle\" which I’m enjoined to put back\ntogether. Hence my love/hate relationship with Gene\nWolfe.)\n\n\nFull text here:\n\nhttp://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/aggresively_masturbatory_fiction_or_two_authors_enter_only_ben_marcus_may_l/\n\n\n\n\t\t" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-10-22T03:10:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Marcus v. Franzen = Unexpected Wolfe sighting", "in_reply_to": "<7083514.1129944940768.JavaMail.root@elwamui-ovcar.atl.sa.earthlink.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I can barely stand to read half of these posts. And the most cretinous ones \n(if that is a word, and if I am using it correctly) don't seem worth \nresponding to, because they reflect opinions held by people so certain of \ntheir own infallible faculty of interpretation that they are impervious to \ncorrection.\n\nAs far as your own posts, Adam, I have my own problems with The Knight but \nthe ones you immediately bring up are not among them. The fact that Able is \nso clearly portrayed as a punk or a creep is not a coincidence, and \nindicates that Wolfe intends to give us this impression. So I don't think \nWolfe intends to portray Able as, or have us think of Able as \"the \nbees-knees\". Other characters in the novel clearly do, however, and part of \nthe (overwrought) point is to lead one to examine just why that is.\n\nI am not sure how to make the connection explicit, but I can't help thinking \nof my reaction when I first read Homer: something about the idolization of \nAchilles just didn't connect. Attempting to understand this leads to a kind \nof understanding of the ancient Greeks, and of people in general." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On the personal blog of the person who wrote that post, there are two other \nposts on Wolfe:\n\nhttp://acephalous.typepad.com/acephalous/2005/09/on_terrible_neo.html\n\nand\n\nhttp://acephalous.typepad.com/acephalous/2005/09/rich_on_wolfe.html\n\nBoth are followed by contentious discussions (the latter of which I \nparticipated in).\n\n--Adam\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Matt Sab \nSent: Oct 17, 2005 9:18 AM\nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSubject: (urth) Marcus v. Franzen = Unexpected Wolfe sighting\n\n\nIn this month's Harper's magazine, Ben Marcus rips\ninto Jonathan Franzen in \"Why Experimental Fiction\nThreatens to Destroy Publishing, Jonathan Franzen, and\nLife as We Know It.\"\n\nThe Valve's discussion of the essay has an unexpected\nGene Wolfe appearance:\n\nI read very little poetry by design and constitution.\nI lack the patience required to work through poetry if\nit lacks the puzzling qualities I value in writers\nlike Joyce. (I mean \"puzzling\" literally there, as in\n\"like a puzzle\" which I’m enjoined to put back\ntogether. Hence my love/hate relationship with Gene\nWolfe.)\n\n\nFull text here:\n\nhttp://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/aggresively_masturbatory_fiction_or_two_authors_enter_only_ben_marcus_may_l/\n\n\n\n\n__________________________________\nStart your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!\nhttp://www.yahoo.com/r/hs\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Seth Lombardi", "address": "sethlombardi at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-10-23T21:02:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Marcus v. Franzen = Unexpected Wolfe sighting", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As far as your own posts, Adam, I have my own problems with The Knight but \nthe ones you immediately bring up are not among them. The fact that Able is \nso clearly portrayed as a punk or a creep is not a coincidence, and \nindicates that Wolfe intends to give us this impression. So I don't think \nWolfe intends to portray Able as, or have us think of Able as \"the \nbees-knees\". Other characters in the novel clearly do, however, and part of \nthe (overwrought) point is to lead one to examine just why that is." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I also felt Able was portrayed purposefully as having serious problems: \nafter all, he ends the book living in a world bellow human, with his \nsub-human semi-imaginary girlfriend. In some way I took Able's limitations \nas being a commentary on the limited (to Wolfe) heights of pagan, \npre-Christian heroics and morality, and in the same sense simple human \nlimitations and mixed motivations for doing good and winning the girl.\n\nAs for Rich's comments in the blog: I wouldn't go as far as to resort to \nname-calling but he seems to be falling into the trap of deconstructing \nsexual \"weaknesses\" out of the text, images and subtext that very well be \nthere... but fail, for me, to somehow shame me out of enjoying a work.\n\nseth\n*****************************\nSeth Lombardi\nsethlombardi at hotmail.com\nhttp://sethlombardi.blogspot.com/\nAIM: melombardi\n\"Two faces are alike; neither is funny by itself, but side by side their \nlikeness makes us laugh\" -Pascal" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Yves Meynard", "address": "meynard at videotron.ca" }, "date": "2005-10-24T03:55:49+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Marcus v. Franzen = Unexpected Wolfe sighting", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Chris says:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I can barely stand to read half of these posts. And the most \ncretinous ones\n(if that is a word, and if I am using it correctly) don't seem worth\nresponding to, because they reflect opinions held by people so \ncertain of\ntheir own infallible faculty of interpretation that they are \nimpervious to\ncorrection." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It's a real word, but you're only technically correct if their \nauthors suffer from severe thyroid defiency.\n\nAnd yes, debating feels utterly pointless here -- though I do welcome \nAdam's contributions. Now, Rich Puchalsky says:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The basic conceit of the books is taken from Yves Meynard's _The \nBook of Knights_ (a much better book)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The first part of this statement is factually incorrect as far as I \nknow, since Wolfe had already begun work on _The Wizard Knight_ long \nbefore he ever read TBoK. Then again, there are some clear parallels \n-- I am ill-suited to judge those objectively. And I did not ask \nWolfe to tell me what exactly he had taken from my book, so I'm not \nsure how much of influence TBoK was. I've actually channeled Wolfe \nbefore, publishing a story set in a starship with a linear sun, with \nstrong religious themes, shortly before _Nightside the Long Sun_ \nappeared. Make of that what you will.\n\nAs regards the second part of the statement, I shall keep silent.\n\nOff to wash my studded codpiece,\n\n\n\nYves Meynard" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Bob Miller", "address": "bob_bageera at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-10-24T08:57:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Marcus v. Franzen = Unexpected Wolfe sighting", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "An HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: /pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20051024/d141ecc9/attachment.html" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2005-10-25T20:56:35+00:00", "subject": "(urth)Marcus v. Franzen = Unexpected Wolfe sighting", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Seth Lombardi writes: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In some way I took Able's limitations \nas being a commentary on the limited (to Wolfe) heights of pagan, \npre-Christian heroics and morality. . . ." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nWhat you say makes sense, but what of the men and women in Midgarthyr who \nshow unqualified heroism: especially Idunn? Is she also so flawed, and the \nValfather's blessing on her also a joke? \n\nI note that the pre-Christians also saw their gods as sometimes buffoons. \nIt seems to be Thor/ Thunnor's main role." } ] }, { "message_id": "<10510252131.AA03905@slack.com>", "from": { "name": "David DiGiacomo", "address": "david at slack.com" }, "date": "2005-10-25T21:31:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Marcus v. Franzen = Unexpected Wolfe sighting", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Seth Lombardi writes: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "In some way I took Able's limitations \nas being a commentary on the limited (to Wolfe) heights of pagan, \npre-Christian heroics and morality. . . ." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What you say makes sense, but what of the men and women in Midgarthyr who \nshow unqualified heroism: especially Idunn? Is she also so flawed, and the \nValfather's blessing on her also a joke? " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Idnn was an opportunist who cared only about becoming queen.\nThe frost giant women who followed her died for nothing, as did\nGarvaon.\n\nSo yes, that part of the story does support Seth Lombardi's theory.\nIdnn was virtuous by the standards of the Valfather, but not by those of\nthe higher worlds." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-10-26T02:55:48+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Marcus v. Franzen = Unexpected Wolfe sighting", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yves said:\nI said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "cretinous ones\nIt's a real word, but you're only technically correct if their\nauthors suffer from severe thyroid defiency." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I can't decide whether that's a really good or a really terrible joke. \nEither way, admirable." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "sure how much of influence TBoK was. I've actually channeled Wolfe\nbefore, publishing a story set in a starship with a linear sun, with\nstrong religious themes, shortly before _Nightside the Long Sun_\nappeared. Make of that what you will." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I am interested, where might I find a copy of that story?\n\nChris" } ] }, { "message_id": "<001e01c5d9da$76a17d80$0301a8c0@wdw.disney.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-10-26T03:07:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Marcus v. Franzen = Unexpected Wolfe sighting", "in_reply_to": "<10510252131.AA03905@slack.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Idnn was an opportunist who cared only about becoming queen.\nThe frost giant women who followed her died for nothing, as did\nGarvaon." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm simply appalled at this interpretation. As I recall, all she wanted\nnothing more than to get out of it. After the marriage took place she chose\nto do her duty. (Think of it as Jesus asking for \"the cup to pass him\") That\nwas why Valfather honored her. Because knighthood is more than jousting and\nfighting.\n\nThe frost giants did not do their duty by their queen. Honor was not in\ntheir nature. The frost giant women did. Garvaon did not do his duty either\nand dishonored himself; he knew it and sought a way to regain his honor.\n\nI don't think Idunn could have shown anymore honor than she did in\nMythgathr. She would have to ascend to Skai to do that.\n\n(BTW, I appreciate Wolfe's desire to show that redemption is possible ala\nthe case of Garvaon--not something apparent in Arthurian tales or Samari\ncodes--but I'm not sure I believed it as he presented it.)\n\nJ" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-10-26T03:30:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Marcus v. Franzen = Unexpected Wolfe sighting", "in_reply_to": "<10510252131.AA03905@slack.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It's been a while since we've had a discussion/debate going here, so I'll \nrummage through the closet for my pointy stick and have a go at starting \nsomething:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Seth Lombardi writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "In some way I took Able's limitations\nas being a commentary on the limited (to Wolfe) heights of pagan,\npre-Christian heroics and morality. . . ." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "What you say makes sense, but what of the men and women in Midgarthyr who\nshow unqualified heroism: especially Idunn? Is she also so flawed, and \nthe\nValfather's blessing on her also a joke?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't agree with David's assessment (in almost any regard), but Idnn is \ncertainly human. She attempts to manipulate Able to get out of her duty, and \narguably attempts the same thing with Svon and even Garvaon. As a stronger \nstatement, it was my impression that Garvaon's state of mind going into \nUtgard might well have been because she tried to get him to help her run \noff; his presumed refusal tore him up and led to his self-destructive state \nof mind once they actually got to Utgard.\n\nThat said I think that if we come out of the book condemning its characters \nfor their failings then we've missed the point, and we've failed to look \nclosely enough at ourselves.\n\nDavid said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Idnn was an opportunist who cared only about becoming queen." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This seems fairly absurd to me. Beel wanted her to be queen, and she did \nfeel a strong sense of duty to her father. But every indication was that she \nwas frightened of what was going to happen, and was really hoping for a way \nto avoid it. A significant portion of The Knight makes no sense at all if \nyou assume she \"cared only about becoming queen\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The frost giant women who followed her died for nothing," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Can you back this up? I would think that all this would depend on what the \nfrost giant women hoped to accomplish by putting their lives on the line, \nand they have very little actual voice in the novels.\n\nI'll take a crack at it myself, though perhaps others can do better. Through \nmost of the novel the giant women are nowhere to be found. They are bigger \nand stronger than the men, and yet they are absolutely absent from the \npolitical landscape and pretty much have no say in matters. [Might there be \na little bit of a message here?] Their rallying to the queen and fighting \nagainst the men was a sharp and defining act of *autonomy*. I don't see how \ntheir involvement can be seen as a failure from any angle." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "as did Garvaon." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What *did* Garvaon die for, again? By a knight's standards there's not too \nmany better ways to die. His name will live on in legend, and even those who \nknew him at the time were so moved that they stopped their flight and built \nan enormous monument to him.\n\nBut in general, what do knights die for? I am reminded of young Able \ndescribing Berthold to Ravd. Berthold fought to protect his village, and \nGerda. Ravd replied that while Berthold was certainly brave and noble and an \namazing man, because of these reasons he had for fighting he was no knight. \nTo be a knight, apparently, is not to fight for such reasons. The pursuit of \nhonor, as it's portrayed here, seems damn near senseless - yet of course, \nyou can't help but feel it and understand in some sense.\n\nI do think that the younger Berthold is meant as a contrast to the knightly \nideal. And we are thus led to be a bit more conscious of the fact that from \nour own (modern) subjective perspective, our heroes are more like Berthold \nthan Ravd or Garvaon or Able. And also that we know a little less about the \nknightly ideal than we unreflectively assume we do.\n\n-- Chris (Civet), brandishing pointy stick" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Bob Miller", "address": "bob_bageera at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-10-26T14:08:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "An HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: /pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20051026/5910f763/attachment.htm" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2005-10-26T19:21:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Bob Miller writes: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I think your post is beautiful, Chris. I also think I have had to \ncoalesce? codify? some of my own thoughts because of what I perceived were >>inconsequential criticisms others have made.(Able was a punk, Idnn was >>selfishly selfserving) There was a knight like Ravd, or like I think Able is on the path to becoming.y. [...]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I think Idnn was as admirable a 16 year old as we'll ever see. And so did Able. \"And then I wished I were not mounted that I might kneel to her\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\n\nFine information, Bob. \n\n\nI think the real problem some suffer in understanding Abel and Idunn and \nother imperfect people is that we have no modern analog of what a Knight is \nsupposed to be. What function do Knights serve? How do their rights and \nduties interact with those of ordinary people??? \n\nSome seem to believe that a Knight is simply a high status individual with \nthe right to push other individuals around. \n\nAs I have posted before, a Knight is really better understood as something \nlike white blood cell in a body, fighting off attacks on the nation in a \nvery selfless way and rewarded for this by a complex of rights and honors \nthat (taken alone) seem reasonless. \n\nHence the strong prohibitions and severe tests put in the way of any one who \nwould attempt to gain the honor and rewards of a Knight without earning \nthem. \n\nA Knight's values are not those of an ordinary person: but then reputation \nand manners are the means by which human beings enforce behavioural \nstandards on each other, and a leucocyte's program of behaviour is not that \nof an ordinary body cell. \n\n \n\nThe Giantesses' hatred for their menfolk has its root in Norse legend, but I \ncan't easily speculate on any deeper meaning. " } ] }, { "message_id": "<001201c5dac6$f1c61ec0$6a3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2005-10-27T07:20:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 10-24-05 Bob Miller wrote:\nIn his failings, I find Able's personal growth, emotionally and \"morally\",\nto be one of the better thingies about the novel.He does start off as a\nrather confused and not particularly admirable person. However, for one it\nis apparent that he is showing us his \"bad\" side in a number of different\nscenes. I would rather say though that it is his human side. That he\naspires, and others have faith in him, to betterment (greatness?) and others\nsee the value there even through his flaws. In Christianity this is called\ngrace.<<" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Though I come from the opposite end of the religious spectrum, I quite agree\nwith you, at least about that last statement. Something akin to grace is the\nonly way to account for the literal overnight transformation of a gangly,\nignorant American teenage boy into a he-man comic-book superhero who fancied\nhimself a knight. Why did he fancy himself a knight? Because he *believed*\nhe was a knight. He had done absolutely nothing to earn his spurs. Unless\nyou count screwing a fairy queen." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "And on 10-26-05 Bob Miller wrote:\nI have two points here. ONe is that there is more to honor than fighting." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It required obedience. And looking at Sir Woddet and his actions to keep\nAble from fighting Marder, it required forethought and initiative. The\nother is that Wolfe's characters, as Chris noted, grow. The punk who\noffered to kill the boy Toug for Disiri's pleasure is a far distance from\nthe knight who refused to go with her when she offered everything he had\ndreamed of (her body and company) in order to join a starving army.<<\n\nBut he was the same knight who, even in middle age after his sojourn in Skai\n(carousing, drinking and fighting; no finer venue for honing knightly ideals\nof chivalry and honor), upbraided the stable hands in Utgard for not taking\nbetter care of the horses. It takes a lot of damn gall to ride into Utgard\nin the middle of the night on a flying unicorn, roust out the stable hands\nand threaten them with bodily harm for not performing their slave labors to\nhis satisfaction. Those stable hands were human men who had been captured,\nenslaved and blinded by the giants. Those ungrateful, lazy bastards. But\nAble put them in their place. He was able to do so because he was bigger and\nstronger and more Able than they. Might makes right." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "hartshorn wrote:\nI think the real problem some suffer in understanding Abel and Idunn and\nother imperfect people is that we have no modern analog of what a Knight is\nsupposed to be. What function do Knights serve? How do their rights and\nduties interact with those of ordinary people???\n\nSome seem to believe that a Knight is simply a high status individual with\nthe right to push other individuals around.\n\nAs I have posted before, a Knight is really better understood as something\nlike white blood cell in a body, fighting off attacks on the nation in a\nvery selfless way and rewarded for this by a complex of rights and honors\nthat (taken alone) seem reasonless." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From the very first day that Able woke up in his big body, he started\npushing people around in an entirely selfish way, beginning with Toug's\nfamily, at a time when he wasn't even a nominal knight. The ship captain,\ninnkeepers, jailers and almost everyone he crossed paths with who was a\nknight's *social inferior* he treated like crap, throughout both books." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Otoh, in the presence of those in the social pecking order commonly regarded\nas a knight's 'betters', he behaved like a boot-licking lackey. That those\nwho were his 'betters' had achieved their positions by force of arms,\nwealth, marriage or accidents of birth, rather than the merits of\nfill-in-the-blank ideals, didn't matter. My Lord, may he always be right,\nbut my Lord, right or wrong." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Hence the strong prohibitions and severe tests put in the way of any one\nwho\nwould attempt to gain the honor and rewards of a Knight without earning\nthem." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "As I said before, Able *didn't* earn them. He was appointed a knight by the\naction and whim of his fairy lover." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "A Knight's values are not those of an ordinary person: but then reputation\nand manners are the means by which human beings enforce behavioural\nstandards on each other, and a leucocyte's program of behaviour is not that\nof an ordinary body cell." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I would make another analogy, that of a knight as an American Old West\n'hired gun' or a Mafia goon. Codes of honor are involved there too, but that\ndoesn't make them right or good.\n\nSpeaking of those \"behavioral standards\", it might be useful to those new to\nthis List if you re-posted a link to that Wolfe Tolkien essay you bought a\nfew years ago. The piece might afford some insight into Wolfe's views of\nsocial structure in Days of Yore and in TWK, particularly the first two\nparagraphs.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2005-10-27T07:55:07+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<001201c5dac6$f1c61ec0$6a3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Roy C. Lackey writes: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Hence the strong prohibitions and severe tests put in the way of any one\nwho\nwould attempt to gain the honor and rewards of a Knight without earning\nthem." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As I said before, Able *didn't* earn them. He was appointed a knight by the\naction and whim of his fairy lover. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nClimbing down to Niflheim and fighting the dragons counts as \"nothing???\" \n\n\nAble is a knight not a saint " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Speaking of those \"behavioral standards\", it might be useful to those new to\nthis List if you re-posted a link to that Wolfe Tolkien essay you bought a\nfew years ago. The piece might afford some insight into Wolfe's views of\nsocial structure in Days of Yore and in TWK, particularly the first two\nparagraphs." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nHere 'tis http://home.clara.net/andywrobertson/wolfemountains.html \n\n\nIn fact here is the whole thing. \n\n\t\nThe Best Introduction to the Mountains\nby Gene Wolfe \n\n \n\nThere is one very real sense in which the Dark Ages were the brightest of \ntimes, and it is this: that they were times of defined and definite duties \nand freedoms. The king might rule badly, but everyone agreed as to what good \nrule was. Not only every earl and baron but every carl and churl knew what \nan ideal king would say and do. The peasant might behave badly; but the \npeasant did not expect praise for it, even his own praise. These assertions \ncan be quibbled over endlessly, of course; there are always exceptional \npersons and exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless they represent a broad \ntruth about Christianized barbarian society as a whole, and arguments that \nfocus on exceptions provide a picture that is fundamentally false, even when \nthe instances on which they are based are real and honestly presented. At a \ntime when few others knew this, and very few others understood its \nimplications, J. R. R. Tolkien both knew and understood, and was able to \nexpress that understanding in art, and in time in great art. \n\nThat, I believe, was what drew me to him so strongly when I first \nencountered The Lord of the Rings. As a child I had been taught a code of \nconduct: I was to be courteous and considerate, and most courteous and most \nconsiderate of those less strong than I -- of girls and women, and of old \npeople especially. Less educated men might hold inferior positions, but that \ndid not mean that they themselves were inferior; they might be (and often \nwould be) wiser, braver, and more honest than I was. They were entitled to \nrespect, and were to be thanked when they befriended me, even in minor \nmatters. Legitimate authority was to be obeyed without shirking and without \nquestion. Mere strength (the corrupt coercion Washington calls power and \nChicago clout) was to be defied. It might be better to be a slave than to \ndie, but it was better to die than to be a slave who acquiesced in his own \nslavery. Above all, I was to be honest with everyone. Debts were to be paid, \nand my word was to be as good as I could make it. \n\nWith that preparation I entered the Mills of Mordor, where courtesy is \nweakness, honesty is foolishness, and cruelty is entertainment. \n\nI was living in a club for men, a place much like a YMCA. I was thoroughly \nwretched in half a dozen ways (much more so than I had ever been in college \nor the Army), but for the first time in my life I had enough money to \nsubscribe to magazines and even buy books in hardcover. Planet Stories, \nThrilling Wonder Stories, Weird Tales, and Famous Fantastic Mysteries -- \npulps I had read as a boy while hiding behind the candy counter in the \nRichmond Pharmacy -- were gone; but Astounding Stories lingered as a \ndigest-size magazine a bit less costly than most paperback books. There was \nalso The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, put out by the same company \nthat had published Curtains for the Copper and other Mercury Mysteries that \nmy mother and I had devoured. I subscribed to both, and to any other \nmagazines dealing with science fiction or fantasy that could locate. \n\nHere I must do someone (quite likely the late Anthony Boucher) a grave \ninjustice. I no longer recall who wrote the review I read in Fantasy & \nScience Fiction. It was a glowing review, and I would quote at length from \nit if I could. It convinced me then and there that I must read The Lord of \nthe Rings. In those days (the middle 1950s, if you can conceive of a period \nso remote) the magazine offered books for sale -- one might write enclosing \na cheque, and receive the book one had ordered by mail. Accustomed as you \nare to ordering from Amazon.com, you will deride so primitive a system; but \nyou have never been a friendless young man in a strange city far from home. \nNow that you have enjoyed yourself, please keep in mind that the big-box \nstores we are accustomed to did not exist. There was no cavernous Barnes & \nNoble stocking a thousand titles under Science Fiction and Fantasy, no \ntwo-tiered Borders rejoicing in a friendly coffee shop and a dozen helpful \nclerks. There were (if the city was large and one was lucky) one or two \nold-line book shops downtown; they carried bestsellers, classics like Anna \nKarenina, cookbooks, and books of local interest, with a smattering of other \nthings, mostly humour and books about dogs. The city in which I was living \nalso boasted a glorious used-book store, five floors and a cellar, in which \none might find the most amazing things; but these things did not include \nscience fiction or much fantasy -- the few who were fortunate enough to own \nthose books kept them. There may have been speciality shops already in New \nYork; there very probably were. But if there were, they could not have \nspecialized in fantasy or science fiction. Or in horror, for that matter. It \nwas a surprise, a distinct departure from the usual publishing practices, \nwhenever any such book appeared. \n\nAn example may make the reason clear. In 1939, August Derleth and Donald \nWandrei had published twelve hundred copies of H. P. Lovecraft's The \nOutsider and Others, at their own expense. Fanzines had publicized their \neffort widely and with enthusiasm; but selling those twelve hundred books, \nwhich cost three dollars and fifty cents before publication and five dollars \nafter, took four years. \n\nThe copy of The Fellowship of the Ring that I received from Fantasy & \nScience Fiction lies on my desk as I write. It is, I suppose, the first \nAmerican edition; it was issued in 1956 (the year in which I bought it) by \nthe Houghton Mifflin Company of Boston. It is gold-stamped, and is bound in \ncloth the colour of slightly faded denim. Its elegant dust jacket vanished \nlong ago, though I still recall it. Its back board holds a much-folded map \nof Middle-earth, sixteen inches on a side, showing among other places the \nShire, the Lost Realm of Arnor, Mirkwood, the Brown Lands, Rohan, and \nGondor. On its half-title there is now a quotation from Thoreau that I \ninscribed in blue ink many years ago. I give it because its presence on that \nslightly yellowed page should convey to you more of what this book meant to \nme in those days than anything that I might write in my little essay \npossibly could. \n\n Our fabled shores none ever reach,\n No mariner has found our beach,\n Scarcely our mirage is seen,\n And Neighbouring waves of floating green,\n Yet still the oldest charts contain\n Some dotted outline of our main. \n\nYou are not likely to believe me when I say that I still remember vividly, \nalmost 50 years later, how strictly I disciplined myself with that book, \nforcing myself to read no more than a single chapter each evening. The \ncatch, my out, the stratagem by which I escaped the bonds of my own law, was \nthat I could read that chapter as many times as I wished; and that I could \nalso return to the chapter I had read the night before, if I chose. There \nwere evenings on which I reread the entire book up the point -- The Council \nof Elrond, let us say -- at which I had forced myself to stop. \n\nNaturally I had sent for The Two Towers as soon as I could. Eventually it \ncame, bound and typeset as beautifully as The Fellowship of the Ring, with \nthe same map (I confess that I had hoped for something new) in its back. \nJust as I inscribed that quotation from Thoreau in Fellowship, I put one \nfrom Conrad Aiken on the half-title page of Two Towers: \n\n There was an island in the sea\n That out of immortal chaos reared\n Towers of topaz, trees of pearl\n For maidens adored and warriors feared. \n\n Long ago it sunk in the sea;\n And now, a thousand fathoms deep,\n Sea worms above it whirl their lamps,\n Crabs on the pale mosaic creep. \n\nBy the time I received Two Towers, I had learned my lesson -- I ordered The \nReturn of the King at once. That, too, is on my desk. With one other thing, \nits back holds a delightfully detailed map of Rohan, Gondor, and Mordor. The \nquotation I inscribed on its half-title is from Robert E. Howard. You have \nmy leave to quarrel with me, but I think it the finest of the three, indeed \none of the finest things have ever read. \n\n Into the west, unknown of man,\n Ships have sailed since the world began.\n Read, if you dare, what Skelos wrote,\n With dead hands fumbling his silken coat;\n And follow the ships through the wind-blown wrack--\n Follow the ships that come not back. \n\nIf you remember the end of this last volume, how Frodo rides to the Grey \nHavens in the long Firth of Lune and boards the white ship, never to be seen \nagain in Middle-earth, you will understand why I chose that particular \nquotation and why I treasure it (and the book which holds it) even today. \nBut there is one thing more. \n\nYou see, ten years later I wrote J. R. R. Tolkien a fan letter. He answered \nit, and I tipped his answer into the back with the map. The body of his \nletter is typewritten (I would judge on an electric typewriter) but the \nfootnote is in script. I would like to express my appreciation to Douglas A. \nAnderson, who is familiar with Tolkien's hand and has very kindly corrected \nmy missreadings of it. \n\n \n\n 7th November 1966 \n\n Dear Mr Wolfe, \n\n Thank you very much for your letter. The etymology of words and names in \nmy story has two sides: (1) their etymology within the story; and (2) the \nsources from which I, as an author, derive them. I expect you mean the \nlatter. Orc I derived from Anglo-Saxon, a word meaning demon, usually \nsupposed to be derived from the Latin Orcus -- Hell. But I doubt this, \nthough the matter is too involved to set out here. Warg is simple. It is an \nold word for wolf, which also had the sense of an outlaw or hunted criminal. \nThis is its usual sense in surviving texts.* I adopted the word, which had a \ngood sound for the meaning, as a name for this particular brand of demonic \nwolf in the story. \n\n Yours sincerely, \n\n J. R. R. Tolkien \n\n\n *O.E. wearg\n O. High German warg--\n O. Norse varg-r (also = \"wolf\", espec. of legendary kind) \n\n \n\nSurely I need not tell you that I read and reread these books. I married in \nNovember of that wonder-filled 1956; and Rosemary and I read them to each \nother, most often while driving. A note in The Return of the King indicates \nthat my older son Roy and I read them together, reading the final page on \nApril 20, 1967. (Roy was born in 1958.) Eventually I feared that I would \nread my Houghton Mifflin hardcovers to pieces and bought paperbacks, putting \nthe hardcovers away in the old, glass-fronted bookcase where they will stand \nagain when I have completed this tribute to their author. \n\nYet in a sense, it is complete now. I have shown you, I hope, what these \nbooks have meant to me. If you find echoes of them in my own books and \nstories (and particularly in The Wizard Knight, with which I have struggled \nfor the past year) you will not have discomfited me -- I am proud of them. \nTerry Brooks has often been disparaged for imitating Tolkien, particularly \nby those reviewers who find his books inferior to Tolkien's own. I can say \nonly that I wish there were more imitators -- we need them -- and that all \nimitations of so great an original must necessarily be inferior. \n\nWhat, then, did Tolkien do? And how did he come to do it? The second \nquestion can be more easily answered than the first. He was a philologist \n(Greek philo-logos, a lover of words), and he had somehow escaped the modern \ncast of mind that makes us glory in ignorance and regard our forebears, who \nsomehow muddled along without washing machines and air conditioning, with \ncontempt. I have quoted a great deal already. I hope that you will permit me \nthis one, too: \n\n ... The stupid, strong \n\n Unteachable monsters are certain to be victorious at last, \n\n And every man of decent blood is on the losing side. \n\n Take as your model... \n\n ...Him who as the death spear entered into his vitals \n\n Made critical comments on its workmanship and aim. \n\n Are these the Pagans you spoke of? Know your betters and crouch, dogs; \n\n You that have Vichy-water in your veins and worship the event, \n\n Your goddess History (whom your fathers called the strumpet Fortune). \n\nThe author is Tolkien's close friend, C. S. \"Jack\" Lewis. \n\nIt is said with some truth that there is no progress without loss; and it is \nalways said, by those who wish to destroy good things, that progress \nrequires it. No great insight or experience of the world is necessary to see \nthat such people really care nothing for progress. They wish to destroy for \ntheir profit, and they, being clever, try to persuade us that progress and \nchange are synonymous. \n\nThey are not; and it is not just my own belief but a well-established \nscientific fact that most change is for the worse: any change increases \nentropy (unavailable energy). Therefore, any change that produces no net \npositive good is invariably harmful. Progress, then, does not consist of \ndestroying good things in the mere hope that the things that will replace \nthem will be better (they will not be) but in retaining good things while \nadding more. Here is a practical illustration. This paper is good and the \nforest is good as well. If the manufacture of this paper results in the \ndestruction of the forest, the result will be a net loss. That is mere \nchange; we have changed the forest into paper, a change that may benefit \nsome clever men who own a paper mill but hurts the mass of Earth's people. \nIf, on the other hand, we manufacture the paper without destroying the \nforest (harvesting mature trees and planting new ones) we all benefit. We \nengineers will tell you that there has been an increase in entropy just the \nsame; but it is an increase that would take place anyway, and so does us no \nadded harm. It is also a much smaller increase than would result from the \ndestruction of the forest. \n\nI have approached this scientifically because Tolkien's own approach was \nhistorical, and it is a mark of truth that the same truth can be approached \nby many roads. Philology led him to the study of the largely illiterate \nsocieties of Northern Europe between the fall of Rome and the beginning of \nthe true Middle Ages (roughly AD 400 to 1000). There he found a quality -- \nlet us call it Folk Law -- that has almost disappeared from his world and \nours. It is the neighbour-love and settled customary goodness of the Shire. \nFrodo is \"rich\" in comparison to Sam, though no dragon would call Frodo \nrich; Sam is poor in comparison to Frodo, though Sam is far richer than \nGollum, who has been devoured by the tyranny and corruption of the One Ring. \nFrodo does not despise Sam for his poverty, he employs him; and Sam does not \ndetest Frodo for his wealth, but is grateful for the job. Most central of \nall, the difference in their positions does not prevent their friendship. \nAnd in the end, poor Sam rises in the estimation of the Shire because of his \nassociation with Frodo, and rich Frodo sacrifices himself for the good of \nall the Sams. \n\nA different illustration is found among the elves of Lorien, in their love \nof beauty and their love of nature. They are Sylvan Elves (East Elves) but \nthe rulers they choose to obey are Eldar (West Elves). They choose to be \nruled by people better than themselves, in other words, exactly as we choose \nto be ruled by people worse. Most clearly of all it is shown in their will \nto preserve the wisdom of the First Age. \n\nEarlier I asked what Tolkien did and how he came to do it; we have reached \nthe point at which the first question can be answered. He uncovered a \nforgotten wisdom among the barbarian tribes who had proved (against all \nexpectation) strong enough to overpower the glorious civilizations of Greece \nand Rome; and he had not only uncovered but understood it. He understood \nthat their strength -- the irresistible strength that had smashed the \nlegions -- had been the product of that wisdom, which has now been ebbing \naway bit by bit for a thousand years. \n\nHaving learned that, he created in Middle-earth a means of displaying it in \nthe clearest and most favourable possible light. Its reintroduction would be \nsmall -- just three books among the overwhelming flood of books published \nevery year -- but as large as he could make it; and he was very conscious \n(no man has been more conscious of it than he) that an entire forest might \nspring from a handful of seed. What he did, then, was to plant in my \nconsciousness and yours the truth that society need not be as we see it \naround us. \n\nSam Rayburn, a politician of vast experience, once said that all legislation \nis special-interest legislation. Of our nation, and of the 20th century, \nthat is unquestionably true; but it need not be. We have -- but do not need \n -- a pestilent swarm of exceedingly clever persons who call themselves \npublic servants when everything about them and us proclaims that they are in \nfact our masters. They make laws (and regulations and judicial decisions \nthat have the force of laws) faster and more assiduously than any factory in \nthe world makes chains; and they lay them on us. \n\nIt need not be so. We might have a society in which the laws were few and \njust, simple, permanent, and familiar to everyone -- a society in which \neveryone stood shoulder-to-shoulder because everyone lived by the same \nchangeless rules, and everyone knew what those rules were. When we had it, \nwe would also have a society in which the lack of wealth was not reason for \nresentment but a spur to ambition, and in which wealth was not a cause for \nself-indulgence but a call to service. We had it once, and some time in this \nthird millennium we shall have it again; and if we forget to thank John \nRonald Reuel Tolkien for it when we get it, we will already have begun the \nslow and not always unpleasant return to Mordor. Freedom, love of neighbour, \nand personal responsibility are steep slopes; he could not climb them for us \n -- we must do that ourselves. But he has shown us the road and the reward. \n\nCopyright — Gene Wolfe, 2001 \n\n\nnote added by Andy Robertson \n\nThis essay was offered by Mr Wolfe to the anthology \"Meditations on \nMiddle-Earth\", edited by Karen Haber, but was rejected. We published it in \nINTERZONE magazine in December 2001. \n\nI thought it would bear furthur distribution, and contacted Mr Wolfe, who \nallowed me to purchase the right to post it on this site. \n\nIf you should wish to contact Mr Wolfe, please use his agent: " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Bob Miller", "address": "bob_bageera at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-11-01T03:12:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<001201c5dac6$f1c61ec0$6a3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "An HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: /pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20051031/cac0b9d8/attachment.html" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "mfstraight at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-11-22T22:26:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<001201c5dac6$f1c61ec0$6a3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm glad to see some discussion and actual argument about Wizard\nKnight, even if it's taken me a while to get to it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 10/27/05, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nBut he was the same knight who, even in middle age after his sojourn in Skai\n(carousing, drinking and fighting; no finer venue for honing knightly ideals\nof chivalry and honor), upbraided the stable hands in Utgard for not taking\nbetter care of the horses. It takes a lot of damn gall to ride into Utgard\nin the middle of the night on a flying unicorn, roust out the stable hands\nand threaten them with bodily harm for not performing their slave labors to\nhis satisfaction. Those stable hands were human men who had been captured,\nenslaved and blinded by the giants. Those ungrateful, lazy bastards. But\nAble put them in their place. He was able to do so because he was bigger and\nstronger and more Able than they. Might makes right." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I disagree. Able's might doesn't make him right or wrong. It gives\nhim the power to enforce what he thinks is right, but if he's wrong,\nthen he's wrong no matter how strong he is. And in this case, I think\nhe is right, at least in his judgment, if not in the severity of his\nactions.\n\nIt's sad that the stable hands are slaves and blind, but does that\nmean they are no longer moral agents, no longer capable of being right\nor wrong? Were they not wrong to neglect the animals?\n\nSure, I would probably have behaved as bad or worse in their place and\ncomplained that my behavior should be excused because of all I had\nsuffered (I do that now, with much less justification than they). \nBut I would be wrong, and deserve a reprimand at least, if not the\nbeating Able gave them.\n\n-- Rostrum" } ] }, { "message_id": "<000c01c5f004$927e18c0$453ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2005-11-23T08:04:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Rostrum quoted and wrote:\nOn 10/27/05, Roy C. Lackey wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But he was the same knight who, even in middle age after his sojourn in\nSkai\n(carousing, drinking and fighting; no finer venue for honing knightly\nideals\nof chivalry and honor), upbraided the stable hands in Utgard for not\ntaking\nbetter care of the horses. It takes a lot of damn gall to ride into\nUtgard\nin the middle of the night on a flying unicorn, roust out the stable\nhands\nand threaten them with bodily harm for not performing their slave labors\nto\nhis satisfaction. Those stable hands were human men who had been\ncaptured,\nenslaved and blinded by the giants. Those ungrateful, lazy bastards. But\nAble put them in their place. He was able to do so because he was bigger\nand\nstronger and more Able than they. Might makes right." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I disagree. Able's might doesn't make him right or wrong. It gives\nhim the power to enforce what he thinks is right, but if he's wrong,\nthen he's wrong no matter how strong he is. And in this case, I think\nhe is right, at least in his judgment, if not in the severity of his\nactions." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ah, but that flies in the face of the very basis of the concept of \"trial by\ncombat\" in all its variations. From Lancelot's defense of Guinevere to all\nthose childish, petulant, indefensible defenses against all comers of that\nmountain pass by Able in TWK, the underlying assumption is that might does,\nin fact, make right." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"As it existed in the medi??val laws of western Europe, it was typically\nexplained as a judicium Dei, the judgment of God. In theory, the trial so\nconducted would yield a just result because God would strengthen the arm of\nthe combatant who was in the right.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It's sad that the stable hands are slaves and blind, but does that\nmean they are no longer moral agents, no longer capable of being right\nor wrong? Were they not wrong to neglect the animals?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Look at the second paragraph of that Tolkien essay again. Like Wolfe, I grew\nup in Texas in a time when the code of conduct espoused there was nothing\nexceptional; it was the norm. It's part of the reason I detest Able.\nSubstitute stables and brown-eyed horses with lavatories and dirty toilet\nbowls and the issue of moral accountability falls away. Sure, horses need\nfood and water to survive, but no one has a *right* to force another to do\nit. Someone thought the pyramids of Egypt should be built, but the slaves\nwho did the work acquiesced only because they had no choice. I prefer a\nclean toilet, too, but I don't have the *right* to force my wife to clean it\njust because I'm bigger than she is. In fact, it is precisely *because* I am\nbigger and stronger than she that I *may not* force her to do it. I suspect\nthat Wolfe would feel the same way, and I can't imagine Silk treating other\npeople, particularly those less able than he, the way that Able consistently\ntreated those whose social position ranked below a knight's.\n\nIt's difficult to reconcile Wolfe's statements about personal conduct in\nthat essay with his apparent endorsement of a stratified society in the same\nessay. That Able is often portrayed as a lout in TWK is no accident. That he\nis supposed to be a Hero, also, is no accident. It just doesn't work for me.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1536065C-0A8F-4E43-9CEA-196B5C9B0DFF@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "transentient", "address": "transentient at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-11-23T16:06:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<000c01c5f004$927e18c0$453ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hi! Just some thoughts..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ah, but that flies in the face of the very basis of the concept of \n\"trial by\ncombat\" in all its variations. From Lancelot's defense of Guinevere \nto all\nthose childish, petulant, indefensible defenses against all comers \nof that\nmountain pass by Able in TWK, the underlying assumption is that \nmight does,\nin fact, make right." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I felt like the upbraiding of the stablehands was a \"Severian moment.\"\n\nIn general, I think Wolfe's idea of a True Hero as expressed by Able \nis of one who does, in fact, use might to make right." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Look at the second paragraph of that Tolkien essay again. Like \nWolfe, I grew\nup in Texas in a time when the code of conduct espoused there was \nnothing\nexceptional; it was the norm. It's part of the reason I detest Able.\nSubstitute stables and brown-eyed horses with lavatories and dirty \ntoilet\nbowls and the issue of moral accountability falls away. Sure, \nhorses need\nfood and water to survive, but no one has a *right* to force \nanother to do\nit. Someone thought the pyramids of Egypt should be built, but the \nslaves\nwho did the work acquiesced only because they had no choice. I \nprefer a\nclean toilet, too, but I don't have the *right* to force my wife to \nclean it\njust because I'm bigger than she is. In fact, it is precisely \n*because* I am\nbigger and stronger than she that I *may not* force her to do it. I \nsuspect\nthat Wolfe would feel the same way, and I can't imagine Silk \ntreating other\npeople, particularly those less able than he, the way that Able \nconsistently\ntreated those whose social position ranked below a knight's." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I will need to track down this essay and read it. But in general, I \nthink there is a big difference between the horses and toilets; in \nthis case the horses are living creatures which need to be defended. \nIn truth, they are also symbols of nobility/gentility and the class \nof people who would always be above the blind slaves. By firmly \nreprimanding the stablehands Able is defending both the hapless \nbeasts and the extended feudal society he is a part of.\n\nI definately agree that TWK contains a defence of, or apology for, \neuropean feudalism. The idea is certainly that might is the only \nthing that can make right...while there is no guarantee, as Arnthor \ndemonstrates, of a benevolent leadership under such a system. In TWK, \nparticipation in the feudal society is the only avenue towards really \nbeing a human that is available - the other routes we have been shown \nare the clearly stated inhumanness of the Ousterlings or the life in \ndarkness of the slaves of the giants.\n\nThe job of stablehand was forced on the slaves in Utgard, but had \nthey lived down south, and had that been their station, it would have \nbeen a good job to have. I have a hard time seeing Able as being \ncruel for lambasting the slaves for their poor performance of their \nduties; it was like a \"get ahold of yourselves, you are still men,\" \nkind of slap to the face - a firm reminder that they were sliding \naway from their humanity by their own choice. He is a redeemer of \nsorts in this respect: he gives the slaves an opportunity to regain \ntheir humanity by doing a human job to the requirements of a human lord.\n\nHaving said all of that, you are certainly entitled to detest Able, \nthough I think he is a sight nicer than Severian and more of a man of \naction, as required by his time and place, than Silk. I think that \nAble is a really good depiction of the kind of man who brought \nwestern civilization from the fall of Rome to the Rennaisance. I \ndon't think it a good or easy fight, and if we'd had a lot more men \nlike Able maybe we'd be having this dicussion via email in the 1400's \nor so.\n\n-Cliff" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2005-11-23T17:15:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<1536065C-0A8F-4E43-9CEA-196B5C9B0DFF@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "transentient writes: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I will need to track down this essay and read it. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nhttp://home.clara.net/andywrobertson/wolfemountains.html " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think that \nAble is a really good depiction of the kind of man who brought \nwestern civilization from the fall of Rome to the Rennaisance. I \ndon't think it a good or easy fight, and if we'd had a lot more men \nlike Able maybe we'd be having this dicussion via email in the 1400's \nor so. \n\n-Cliff " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nYup. " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-11-23T19:48:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<000c01c5f004$927e18c0$453ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I disagree. Able's might doesn't make him right or wrong. It gives\nhim the power to enforce what he thinks is right, but if he's wrong,\nthen he's wrong no matter how strong he is. And in this case, I think\nhe is right, at least in his judgment, if not in the severity of his\nactions." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ah, but that flies in the face of the very basis of the concept of \"trial \nby\ncombat\" in all its variations. From Lancelot's defense of Guinevere to all\nthose childish, petulant, indefensible defenses against all comers of that\nmountain pass by Able in TWK, the underlying assumption is that might does,\nin fact, make right." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I would also add that this does not seem to be an unconditional rule, there \nseem to be explicit and deliberate conditions based on social status. This \nis another aspect of the general observation that has already been made \nabout the oddness of the behavior of certain characters that seems to be \nrelated to their expected social role (see: Idnn, etc.)\n\nIn Able's case, this seems to dictate that when people present him with an \nopposing attitude, some (those of high birth or station) are to be reasoned \nwith and others are to be met with force. If I'm reading it correctly, this \nisn't quite the simple \"might makes right\" of the schoolyard bully (though \nit may well be related). There are times when it might be easier to cajole a \nchurl into compliance rather than forcing them (and thereby gaining their \nenmity); but to do so would mean not being regarded as a knight, because \nknights are by definition above this and *demand* loyalty and obedience \nwithout question. Able's treatment of those in a lower station is, I think, \nmeant to be problematic: Able could be a better *person* by being a worse \n*knight*.\n\nI say this not because it makes Able any more appealing of a character, but \nbecause I think it makes deeper sense of Able's modes of interaction with \nvarious characters." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "It's sad that the stable hands are slaves and blind, but does that\nmean they are no longer moral agents, no longer capable of being right\nor wrong? Were they not wrong to neglect the animals?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "They were certainly wrong to neglect the animals. The fact that they were \nmistreated - and that they were *forced* against their own will into a \nsituation where the animals were helplessly dependent on them - does not \nnegate the fact that those animals *did* need caring for and they *could* \nhave done so if they had chosen to. This isn't that uncommon of a vice: \npeople who are treated badly have a tendency to treat others badly in turn. \nThis is a chain of abuse that eats away at the character of each person on \ndown the line. (Now this is starting to sound like an essay on my place of \nemployment).\n\nAble wanted the animals to be treated better, which is good. Able may have \neven wanted the stable hands to be better people, people who aren't so \ndesensitized that they don't care about the suffering of those under their \ncare - and this too would be good. But Able's adherence to his social role \nis locked in; he certainly isn't going to come in and beg the stablehands, \nor bribe them, or give them a moral speech, as we might be inclined to. His \nway of dealing with the situation is what we consider to be bad.\n\nWhat gives one pause for thought is that his way of dealing with the \nsituation may in fact have been effective in a situation in which a more \nmodern way of doing things would not. It seems unlikely that the stablehands \nwould have responded to fine words and sentiments." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Look at the second paragraph of that Tolkien essay again. Like Wolfe, I \ngrew\nup in Texas in a time when the code of conduct espoused there was nothing\nexceptional; it was the norm. It's part of the reason I detest Able.\nSubstitute stables and brown-eyed horses with lavatories and dirty toilet\nbowls and the issue of moral accountability falls away." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Moral accountability is precisely what you shouldn't remove here; Able did \nnot come in and upbraid the floor-sweeping or toilet-cleaning slaves. The \nstablehands did not merely fail to clean toilet bowls, and the treatment of \nthe horses was not at that point a hypothetical question. The animals *were* \nmistreated, and in bad shape." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sure, horses need food and water to survive, but no one has a *right* to \nforce another to do\nit." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm not entirely sure how to interpret this. I agree that they shouldn't \nhave been placed in that situation. On the other hand choosing to let the \nanimals suffer rather than taking care of them is inhumane, and I think that \neven a modern society would judge and/or punish them for that." } ] }, { "message_id": "<000c01c5f0cd$e578fa80$ad3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2005-11-24T08:05:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I wrote:\nThat Able is often portrayed as a lout in TWK is no accident. That he\nis supposed to be a Hero, also, is no accident. It just doesn't work for\nme.<<" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "People seem to be too hung up on the poor horses. That wasn't my point.\nLet's forget the horses and take another example of Able's unconscionable\nbehavior, one that Wolfe spent far more time on." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From the moment that Able set foot on the _Western Trader_, he started\npushing people around and generally behaving in an extremely obnoxious\nmanner. He barged into the captain's cabin, making unreasonable demands and\ndictating terms. When the captain objected and ordered him off the ship,\nAble resorted to brute force. He and Pouk defeated the captain and mate and\nappropriated the cabin. Able had no right, even had he been a knight, to do\nwhat he did. He undermined the legitimate authority of the ship's half-owner\ncaptain. He did what he did because he wanted to and was brute enough to get\naway with it. He was a bully and a thug." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "After the ship sailed, it was attacked. He acquitted himself well against\nthe attackers (self-preservation is a great motivator) and was wounded. The\ncaptain took back command of his ship. When Able was well enough he, along\nwith his magic hound, attempted to take control of the ship again by\nintimidating the captain. When the captain dared to resist, he was killed\nand his body thrown overboard. Able cleaned up the crime scene and appointed\nthe mate as the new captain, thus ensuring the new captain's future\ncooperation. Able had no authority to do any such thing. His treatment of\nthe captain was entirely self-serving, criminal, unknightly and\ndishonorable.\n\nSurely a man deserves at least as much consideration as a horse. Would\nanyone care to defend Able's treatment of the captain?\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-11-24T09:47:50+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<000c01c5f0cd$e578fa80$ad3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Roy said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Would anyone care to defend Able's treatment of the captain?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Is that what I was up to there, defending Able? If so I will have to step \nback and re-evaluate, because I didn't think I was defending anyone \n(including Able) from anything aside from questionable analogies." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "transentient", "address": "transentient at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-11-24T16:44:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<000c01c5f0cd$e578fa80$ad3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Nov 24 2005, at 3:05 AM, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nAfter the ship sailed, it was attacked. He acquitted himself well \nagainst\nthe attackers (self-preservation is a great motivator) and was \nwounded. The\ncaptain took back command of his ship. When Able was well enough \nhe, along\nwith his magic hound, attempted to take control of the ship again by\nintimidating the captain. When the captain dared to resist, he was \nkilled\nand his body thrown overboard. Able cleaned up the crime scene and \nappointed\nthe mate as the new captain, thus ensuring the new captain's future\ncooperation. Able had no authority to do any such thing. His \ntreatment of\nthe captain was entirely self-serving, criminal, unknightly and\ndishonorable.\n\nSurely a man deserves at least as much consideration as a horse. Would\nanyone care to defend Able's treatment of the captain?\n\n-Roy" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "True, he essentially murdered the captain and stole his boat. Someone \ncould probably argue that the line was still blurry there, that the \ncaptain could have gotten out of it with his life and his ship, or \nthat the environment Able stepped into when he first set foot onboard \nthe _Western Trader_ was suitably cutthroat that if he had not taken \nsuch measures to demand respect immediately, he would have been taken \nadvantage of and possibly killed himself. I don't think so myself, \nbut i do think the idea is that Able's aspirations towards Knighthood \nwould have never gotten started if he hadn't conducted himself in \nsuch a manner. If you despise this idea you are well entitled to.\n\nWhat I think is the main thing is that Able was not yet a knight at \nall - this was early in his development and he still had lots to \nlearn. I find that to be an interesting take on the heroic paradigm. \nInstead of a hero who grows in power and wisdom while having an \nunshakable moral center from inception to apotheosis, which I think \nof as fairly typical in fantasy (anybody reading David Zindell's \nbooks? Danlo / Valashu comes to mind), Able has no moral center at \nthe beginning of the story, or through most of the first book. I \nthink when you are assesing Able's character you really have to take \ninto account whether you are looking at him pre- or post-Skai.\n\nHe also kind of reminds of Cu Chullain, who was a nasty individual \nwho did great things for small reasons." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "mfstraight at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-11-24T21:35:48+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<000c01c5f004$927e18c0$453ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 11/23/05, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nI disagree. Able's might doesn't make him right or wrong. It gives\nhim the power to enforce what he thinks is right, but if he's wrong,\nthen he's wrong no matter how strong he is.\n\nAh, but that flies in the face of the very basis of the concept of \"trial by\ncombat\" in all its variations. From Lancelot's defense of Guinevere to all\nthose childish, petulant, indefensible defenses against all comers of that\nmountain pass by Able in TWK, the underlying assumption is that might does,\nin fact, make right." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't think Able thinks, at this point in the story, that being\nstrong makes any opinion he has automatically right. I think he\nbelieves he is morally right and therefore has the right/obligation to\nuse his strength to enforce what he thinks is right." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"As it existed in the medi?val laws of western Europe, it was typically\nexplained as a judicium Dei, the judgment of God. In theory, the trial so\nconducted would yield a just result because God would strengthen the arm of\nthe combatant who was in the right.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "So Able lives in a society where it is assumed that someone who is\nmorally right will be vindicated in battle.\n\nWe, the readers, may disagree. We may believe that sometimes those\nwho are morally right lose the battle.\n\nBut I don't see what that has to do with how we judge Able's actions. \nIn the case of standing up for the horses, I think he was right. In\nthe case of murdering the captain and stealing his ship, I think he\nwas wrong. In neither case is my opinion based on whether he had the\nstrength to enforce his vision of right and wrong." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I prefer a\nclean toilet, too, but I don't have the *right* to force my wife to clean it\njust because I'm bigger than she is. In fact, it is precisely *because* I am\nbigger and stronger than she that I *may not* force her to do it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If you were divorced and your wife were neglecting your children, you\nwould have the right and the duty to force her to take care of the\nchildren (or relinquish custody of them), regardless of which of you\nis bigger or stronger.\n\nBecause of the way our society is structured, \"force\" would mean\nlawsuits, to begin with. But it would also mean the threat of guns,\nviolence, and prison if she were to ignore the lawsuits.\n\nIn Able's society, he didn't have lawsuits. As a knight, he had the\nduty to enforce the law, in this case making sure that those who had\nthe legal obligation to care for the horses did so." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "mfstraight at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-11-24T22:02:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<1536065C-0A8F-4E43-9CEA-196B5C9B0DFF@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "On 11/23/05, transentient wrote" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I definately agree that TWK contains a defence of, or apology for,\neuropean feudalism." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think this is an oversimplification that lies at the heart of my\ndisagreement with many of those who dislike the Wizard Knight (and\nalso the guy linked to earlier who think Wolfe is fetishizing torture\nin Urth).\n\nWolfe presents us with a different society, a society that has morals\nand values that differ from ours. And I think we are encouraged to\nsee that there are some things about this society that are admirable,\nand some which are not. I do think there are times where Wolfe wants\nthe reader to question his own values, to reconsider whether this or\nthat aspect of Mythgarthr that we might initially reject as bad might\nnot have some worth after all, but I wouldn't equate that as an\napology for european feudalism\n\nWithin this framework, we have Able. Sometmes he is \"good\" by the\nvalues of his society, sometimes he is \"good\" by the values of ours. \nSometimes he is both and sometimes he is neither.\n\nI most disagree with the idea that we are supposed to wholly approve\nof or wholly disapprove of Able and his society and his behavior. \nWhat a boring book that would be.\n\nAnd I don't think that Wolfe giving Severian a cool outfit means he's\ntrying to trick us into approving of torture. Just the opposite. \nSometimes, in real life, the bad guys have the coolest outfits. And\nit's an important skill to be able to say, yes, the outfits look good,\nbut the actions of the people wearing them are still evil." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "mfstraight at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-11-24T22:33:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<000c01c5f0cd$e578fa80$ad3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 11/24/05, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nWould\nanyone care to defend Able's treatment of the captain?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In the first part of the first book, there is a lot of stuff Able does\nthat I think is morally wrong and do not defend. But I think much of\nit makes sense for the character, and I so I don't see these episodes\nas a failing of the book.\n\n1. The way Able treats Touk and his family right after he gets\nembiggened. He acts here in ways that our society would consider\nbullying. From Able's point of view this is at most a day or two\nafter he was there with Ravd, who was pretty harsh in interrogating\nthe villagers. So it's quite possible he's trying to act like he\nthought Ravd was acting. Also, he's what, 14 years old? I have no\ntrouble believing a 14-yr-old who was suddenly as strong as Able would\nbehave like a jerk and a bully, especially at first.\n\n2. Able's treatment of the captain. Able is a 14(?) yr old boy and a\nmodern American. Living with the poor in the countryside would be\npretty rough for a kid like that - dirty, uncomfortable, etc. But the\nconditions on a sailing ship would be far worse. The captain's cabin\nwas probably the only place on the ship that seemed at all habitable\nto Able.\n\nThat doesn't excuse the way he started making unreasonable demands. \nBut again, I think at this point he's trying to get people to accept\nhim as a knight by acting like one -- except at this point his main\nidea of a knight is a big strong guy who lords it over peasants. And\nI think things escalated out of Able's control, to the point where he\nthought he had to kill the Captain or be killed. I think he was\nwrong, that he should have found a different way to resolve the\nsituation. But I thought the characterization made sense and made for\ninteresting reading." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-11-25T00:33:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Might as well refer back to the chapter in question. On p. 127 of the trade, \nAble asks after his possessions after he's regained consciousness:\n\nPouk coughed. \"Speakin' of Cap'n... As we was, sir, 'cause he's prob'ly got \n'em. Speakin' o' him, I've learnt what he's plannin', sir. He told Mate, an' \nMate told Second, and Njors heard him an' told me. When we get to port, sir, \nhe'll pay off the crew and let 'em go ashore. He thinks everybody'll go, \nonly I won't, sir. Him an' Mate'll come down here to do for you then, only \nI'll be with you.\"\n\n[Note that the reason he's talking about the captain getting the crew out of \nthe way is that the captain wanted to kill him while he was unconscious, and \nthe crew wouldn't let him.]\n\nOn p. 128-9 of the trade the actual confrontation plays out. Able is \nsitting, on account of his wound.\n\n\"I want my bow and I want my money. Somebody told me you had them, but he \nwas too scared of you to come in here and get them for me. So I'm here to \nget them myself. You've got the sword, which is yours, and you'll have some \nmoney of your own. Go get it, and give me mine. All I want is what belongs \nto me. Give it to me, with my bow, the case, and my quiver, and you can go \naway without fighting.\"\n\nHe shook his head.\n\n\"I didn't think you would. All right, here's my last offer. Gylf and I will \ngo out on deck. Before the next watch, you clear out of this cabin, leaving \nall my stuff - money, bowcase, armor, and so forth - where I can find it. \nTwenty-two gold ceptres, most of them new and all real gold, plus my other \nstuff. Will you do that?\"\n\nHe stood up and Gylf growled. I was afraid he was going to grow into the \nblack thing that had killed the outlaws, and I told him not to.\n\n\"You'll return my ship and its cargo to me when we reach port?\"\n\n\"Sure,\" I said. \"But I don't want them in the first place. I don't--\"\n\nHe was grabbing his sword...\n\n*****\n\nMind you, the situation with the ship and his way of dealing with the \ncaptain was bad from the very beginning. And you can certainly say that it \nwas this handling of things from the outset that created this mess. But the \nway Roy portrayed the killing of the captain is clearly off the mark, and \nhis interpretation colored by his dislike for Able. The captain, at this \npoint, had determined to murder Able regardless; in this confrontation he \ndecided to take a chance that Able's wound, the fact that he was seated, and \nthe element of surprise would give him just enough advantage to kill Able, \nand he almost succeeded.\n\nThe key points at which to criticize and/or examine Able are:\n* His treatment of the captain (and others) from the very moment he set foot \non the ship.\n* His decision to dispose of the body, which was self-serving and untruthful \nin a way that is difficult to explain. To wit, why does he feel the need to \nget rid of the body when everyone on the ship will surely know what has \nhappened in general, if not in exact detail?\n\nWhat does not help is to portray the captain as the innocent victim of a \ncold-blooded assassination." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 11/24/05, Roy C. Lackey wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Would\nanyone care to defend Able's treatment of the captain?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In the first part of the first book, there is a lot of stuff Able does\nthat I think is morally wrong and do not defend. But I think much of\nit makes sense for the character, and I so I don't see these episodes\nas a failing of the book.\n\n1. The way Able treats Touk and his family right after he gets\nembiggened. He acts here in ways that our society would consider\nbullying. From Able's point of view this is at most a day or two\nafter he was there with Ravd, who was pretty harsh in interrogating\nthe villagers. So it's quite possible he's trying to act like he\nthought Ravd was acting. Also, he's what, 14 years old? I have no\ntrouble believing a 14-yr-old who was suddenly as strong as Able would\nbehave like a jerk and a bully, especially at first.\n\n2. Able's treatment of the captain. Able is a 14(?) yr old boy and a\nmodern American. Living with the poor in the countryside would be\npretty rough for a kid like that - dirty, uncomfortable, etc. But the\nconditions on a sailing ship would be far worse. The captain's cabin\nwas probably the only place on the ship that seemed at all habitable\nto Able.\n\nThat doesn't excuse the way he started making unreasonable demands.\nBut again, I think at this point he's trying to get people to accept\nhim as a knight by acting like one -- except at this point his main\nidea of a knight is a big strong guy who lords it over peasants. And\nI think things escalated out of Able's control, to the point where he\nthought he had to kill the Captain or be killed. I think he was\nwrong, that he should have found a different way to resolve the\nsituation. But I thought the characterization made sense and made for\ninteresting reading.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<0AC02E0C-0A73-4E85-902F-41DF006810BA@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "transentient", "address": "transentient at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-11-25T01:36:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Nov 24 2005, at 5:02 PM, Michael Straight wrote:\nOn 11/23/05, transentient wrote\nI definately agree that TWK contains a defence of, or apology for,\neuropean feudalism.\n\nI think this is an oversimplification that lies at the heart of my\ndisagreement with many of those who dislike the Wizard Knight (and\nalso the guy linked to earlier who think Wolfe is fetishizing torture\nin Urth).\n\nWolfe presents us with a different society, a society that has morals\nand values that differ from ours. And I think we are encouraged to\nsee that there are some things about this society that are admirable,\nand some which are not. I do think there are times where Wolfe wants\nthe reader to question his own values, to reconsider whether this or\nthat aspect of Mythgarthr that we might initially reject as bad might\nnot have some worth after all, but I wouldn't equate that as an\napology for european feudalism\n\nWithin this framework, we have Able. Sometmes he is \"good\" by the\nvalues of his society, sometimes he is \"good\" by the values of ours.\nSometimes he is both and sometimes he is neither.\nevil." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It isn't just a \"different society,\" though, it is very definately a \npre-medieval western european society. I am not saying that is _all_ \nit is by any means; Wolfe definately gets into some serious proto- \nmythology and uses it to examine itself and other such fascinating \npuzzles. But if you ignore the definate references to Christianized \ngermanic, celtic, and norse culture, I think you are missing the main \nthrust of the book." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And I don't think that Wolfe giving Severian a cool outfit means he's\ntrying to trick us into approving of torture. Just the opposite.\nSometimes, in real life, the bad guys have the coolest outfits. And\nit's an important skill to be able to say, yes, the outfits look good,\nbut the actions of the people wearing them are still" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think it is interesting that you bring up Severian, because if you \ncompare Able to Severian he really is pretty saintly. Horn, too. " } ] }, { "message_id": "<200511250324.jAP3OwNm014077@mailserver2.hushmail.com>", "from": { "name": "thalassocrat at nym.hush.com", "address": "thalassocrat at nym.hush.com" }, "date": "2005-11-25T03:24:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<0AC02E0C-0A73-4E85-902F-41DF006810BA@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 14:33:58 -0800 Michael Straight \n wrote:\n\nThat doesn't excuse the way he started making unreasonable \ndemands. \nBut again, I think at this point he's trying to get people to \naccept\nhim as a knight by acting like one -- except at this point his \nmain\nidea of a knight is a big strong guy who lords it over peasants. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And\nI think things escalated out of Able's control, to the point where " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "he\nthought he had to kill the Captain or be killed. I think he was\nwrong, that he should have found a different way to resolve the\nsituation. But I thought the characterization made sense and made " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "for\ninteresting reading." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think it has to be remembered that Art's absolute goal is to get \nDisiri. To do that, he (thinks he) needs to get honor & \nrecognition. Becoming a knight is the only way he can see of doing \nthis, and the only way of becoming a knight is to actually be one. \n\nIn this society, the knightly virtues are entirely military. We are \nnot in a 14th century chanson; we are in the world of Roland or, of \ncourse, Norse epic - or really, any of the societies throughout \nhistory where military virtues have dominated. It could be ancient \nGreece or Rome, where the doctrine that \"the strong take from the \nweak\" was generally seen as right and just. It could be the real \nmedieval Europe.\n\nIn such a society, place depends on strength, and to gain or retain \nplace, you must retaliate immediately against slight by those \nbeneath you. \n\nA slight includes failure to pay deference. Those beneath you \ninclude anybody who isn't either a noble or a warrior. A merchant \ncaptain is on the same base level as a peasant. If these people do \nnot pay deference to you, you're not a knight. Art's treatment of \nToug's family, the ship captain, the others are all absolutely \nconsistent with the society and Art's aspirations within it.\n\nI think Wolfe does this exceptionally well. Of course, he intends a \ncritique of these kinds of society. They promote courage and a \ncertain kind of loyalty, which are good things, but not enough. \n\nOne missing component is the downwards-obligation, the miles as \nprotector of the weak, rather than persecutor. Theoretically, this \nwas the modification to the warrior-ethic introduced by churchmen \nin medieval times - the idealized conception of \"knighthood\", which \nof course bore little resemblance to reality. \n\nBy the end of the story, Art has indeed introduced such a notion: \nwitness his pathetic programmed plea to Arnthor from the Aelf. The \nrulers of the kingdom stand accused of not attending to their \ndownwards obligations, to both the Aelf and their own \"base\" \ncitizenry. \n\nBy implication, the accusation extends upwards, to the Overcyn. In \nthe end, Art is an Overcyn, and he goes against the apparent wishes \nof the Valfather to actually use his powers for the benefit of \nhumans. Nowhere else (I think) is there any suggestion that the \nOvercyn have done this in the past. \n\nI am sure we are supposed to see Art's action as signalling a new \norder of things in which the downwards obligations are recognized, \nblessed by the true God.\n\nAnd as always with Wolfe, the *really* important thing is Love. \nCombined with even crude Courage, even crude Love will transcend \nits base roots. What saves Art from being *just* an overgrown lout \nis his love for Disiri. The great mystery of Wolfe's universes is \nthis love of the higher for the lower - SilkHorn's love for shabby \nOreb, Art's for stick-figure Disiri, by implication God's for us. \n\nThe downwards-obligation necessary for a just social order is just \none aspect of this. Without it, with Courage alone, we are in the \nworld of the Wizard Knight.\n\nAs to whether Wolfe himself thinks that this warrior-ethic-plus-\nobligations is an ideal political & social ethos: IMO, probably. He \nsure isn't a fan of democratic capitalism, for example. Personally, \nI think it sucks, to the extent I can take it seriously. But so \nwhat? I think Wolfe does extraordinarily well in telling the story, \nand his warrior-ethos world is for me exquisitely real, in the \nimportant things. " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2005-11-25T08:02:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<200511250324.jAP3OwNm014077@mailserver2.hushmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "By implication, the accusation extends upwards, to the Overcyn. In \nthe end, Art is an Overcyn, and he goes against the apparent wishes \nof the Valfather to actually use his powers for the benefit of \nhumans. Nowhere else (I think) is there any suggestion that the \nOvercyn have done this in the past. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is a good post, and you diagram Art's development well, but you are \nwrong if you think the pattern of pagan society did not include obligation \ndown as well as up. The feudal oath is about this obligation, and pagan \npre-christian society depended on it. As Art rises to Knight he gets plenty \nof education in these values from his seniors. \n\nOTOH Art (as a low-status man trying to fight his way up) certainly shows \nlittle of these values to start with. \n\nThe Overcyn are an ideal pattern for humanity - among other things - and are \nalso the fathers and guides of humanity. They don't waste their powers on \ntrivial things because they are not omnipotent - far from it, they are busy \nfighting Jotuns who are much more powerful than them - and their real hope \nis to raise up new warriors from men to the status of Overcyn in order to \naid them. \n\nValhalla isn't a lollipop reward for virtue: Mythgarthr is a proto-Overcyn \ntraining camp. That's why they don't \"use their powers to aid humanity.\" \n\n \n\nhartshorn " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "mfstraight at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-11-25T23:56:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<000c01c5f004$927e18c0$453ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 11/23/05, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nAh, but that flies in the face of the very basis of the concept of \"trial by\ncombat\" in all its variations. From Lancelot's defense of Guinevere to all\nthose childish, petulant, indefensible defenses against all comers of that\nmountain pass by Able in TWK, the underlying assumption is that might does,\nin fact, make right." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There is this one case where we see what I might call \"might makes\nright\" where Able goes to defend the pass and challenge all comers.\n\nAble plans to guard a pass and challenge any knight who seeks to\ncross, the winner keeping the loser's armor, horse, and weapons. In\nthis sense, right makes might because a man who could challenge a\nknight this way and defeat him was a better fighter, more fit to wear\nthe armor and carry the weapons. And in that society, the primary\nvalue of a knight is that he be skilled in combat.\n\nSo in that narrow sense, the mightier man has the right to the armor\nand weapons of the other. But only because a knight's armor and\nweapons are not simply his personal property, but property he wields\non behalf of the whole society. And if another man can better defend\nsociety with them, he must relinquish them to that other man.\n\nMy impression is that Able's plan is seen in Mythgarthian society as\nsomething like a violin player in an orchestra challenging the\nfirst-chair for his seat. He is seeking to deprive the musician of\nhis place and livelihood (and possibly his instrument -- in some\norchestras the first chair gets to play a rare masterpiece owned by\nthe orchestra or its patrons). But the musician's plight takes a back\nseat to the need for the orchestra to have the best possible\nmusicians. In the orchestra, \"skill makes right.\"\n\n-- Rostrum" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "mfstraight at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-11-26T00:00:50+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<200511250324.jAP3OwNm014077@mailserver2.hushmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 11/24/05, thalassocrat at nym.hush.com wrote:\nAs to whether Wolfe himself thinks that this warrior-ethic-plus-\nobligations is an ideal political & social ethos: IMO, probably. He\nsure isn't a fan of democratic capitalism, for example. Personally,\nI think it sucks, to the extent I can take it seriously. But so\nwhat? I think Wolfe does extraordinarily well in telling the story,\nand his warrior-ethos world is for me exquisitely real, in the\nimportant things." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Again with the black/white, either/or. Boring!\n\nI think Wolfe finds some things about the\nwarrior-ethic-plus-obligations admirable. I imagine there are in\ndemocratic capitalism things that he would acknowledge as good. Is\nthere nothing at all in the society Wolfe depicts that you find\nattractive?" } ] }, { "message_id": "<000a01c5f265$ec069440$933ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2005-11-26T08:46:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Chris wrote:\nMight as well refer back to the chapter in question. On p. 127 of the\ntrade,\nAble asks after his possessions after he's regained consciousness:\n\nPouk coughed. \"Speakin' of Cap'n... As we was, sir, 'cause he's prob'ly got\n'em. Speakin' o' him, I've learnt what he's plannin', sir. He told Mate,\nan'\nMate told Second, and Njors heard him an' told me. When we get to port,\nsir,\nhe'll pay off the crew and let 'em go ashore. He thinks everybody'll go,\nonly I won't, sir. Him an' Mate'll come down here to do for you then, only\nI'll be with you.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The text immediately continues:\n \"I said no. 'I won't wait for them. How long before we get to port?'\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "[Note that the reason he's talking about the captain getting the crew out\nof\nthe way is that the captain wanted to kill him while he was unconscious,\nand\nthe crew wouldn't let him.]" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Note that Able said that he wouldn't wait because he was determined to\nimplement the more common perversion of the Golden Rule: \"Do unto others\nbefore they do unto you.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On p. 128-9 of the trade the actual confrontation plays out. Able is\nsitting, on account of his wound." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The pagination of the trade seems to correspond with the hardback.\n\nJust before the section of text Chris quoted below is this:\n\"I told Gylf to let him [the captain] see him then, and he did. He had been\nlying in a corner where it was dark and he came up out of there like brown\nsmoke but all solid and snarling.\n \"'I can kill you if I want to,' I told the captain. 'I beat you before,\nand I can beat you again. Gylf could kill you, too, and you won't stand the\nghost of a chance against both of us.'\"\n\nThe captain had barred the door behind himself when he entered the cabin. He\nwas alone with Able and Gylf. Able knew that the captain would not accept\nthe terms he then offered --he said so -- which were the same terms that he\nhad dictated before; the captain must knuckle under and leave Able in the\ncaptain's cabin. He also had no doubts about the winner of a fight against\nthe captain. He said so. Both versions of the terms he demanded amounted to\nthe same thing." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"I want my bow and I want my money. Somebody told me you had them, but he\nwas too scared of you to come in here and get them for me. So I'm here to\nget them myself. You've got the sword, which is yours, and you'll have some\nmoney of your own. Go get it, and give me mine. All I want is what belongs\nto me. Give it to me, with my bow, the case, and my quiver, and you can go\naway without fighting.\"\n\nHe shook his head.\n\n\"I didn't think you would. All right, here's my last offer. Gylf and I will\ngo out on deck. Before the next watch, you clear out of this cabin, leaving\nall my stuff - money, bowcase, armor, and so forth - where I can find it.\nTwenty-two gold ceptres, most of them new and all real gold, plus my other\nstuff. Will you do that?\"\n\nHe stood up and Gylf growled. I was afraid he was going to grow into the\nblack thing that had killed the outlaws, and I told him not to." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "BTW, Able didn't want Gylf to turn into that big \"black thing\" because *he*\nwas afraid of it. It wasn't out of concern for the captain or any sense of\nfair play." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"You'll return my ship and its cargo to me when we reach port?\"\n\n\"Sure,\" I said. \"But I don't want them in the first place. I don't--\"\n\nHe was grabbing his sword...\n\n*****\n\nMind you, the situation with the ship and his way of dealing with the\ncaptain was bad from the very beginning. And you can certainly say that it\nwas this handling of things from the outset that created this mess. But the\nway Roy portrayed the killing of the captain is clearly off the mark, and\nhis interpretation colored by his dislike for Able. The captain, at this\npoint, had determined to murder Able regardless; in this confrontation he\ndecided to take a chance that Able's wound, the fact that he was seated,\nand\nthe element of surprise would give him just enough advantage to kill Able,\nand he almost succeeded.\n\nThe key points at which to criticize and/or examine Able are:\n* His treatment of the captain (and others) from the very moment he set\nfoot\non the ship.\n* His decision to dispose of the body, which was self-serving and\nuntruthful\nin a way that is difficult to explain. To wit, why does he feel the need to\nget rid of the body when everyone on the ship will surely know what has\nhappened in general, if not in exact detail?\n\nWhat does not help is to portray the captain as the innocent victim of a\ncold-blooded assassination." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The captain may not have had a reserved seat in the church choir, but he was\ndefinitely a victim of naked, unprovoked aggression on the occasion of his\nfirst encounter with Able. It was Able who initiated physical hostilities in\nthat first meeting, after the captain ordered him off his ship. If you want\nto say that the captain's display of a sword to punctuate his order made\nAble feel threatened and therefore justified in using force to gain the\nadvantage, then you must grant the captain the same consideration in the\nsecond encounter. That's what Able was doing when he called up Gylf;\npunctuating his demands with a show of force.\n\nThe captain had two choices -- submit or fight. He had been forced to\nsubmit, on pain of death, the first time. He was within his rights, as\nship's captain, to execute Able for his crimes -- and Able's actions *were*\ncriminal -- after fate allowed him to regain command of his ship. He was\nwithin his rights, as a man, to retaliate against the man who had harmed\nhim. What the captain may have been guilty of is failing to recognize the\nhopelessness of his position in the second altercation. Or maybe he did\nrecognize it but chose to fight anyway. After all, he had already lost face\nand authority as captain, so much so that the crew felt emboldened to\nthreaten mutiny when he wanted to kill Able. To lose his authority a second\ntime would have ruined him.\n\nIt may not have been a \"cold-blooded assassination\", but Able knew the\nlikely outcome when he took over the captain's cabin the second time. We've\nall seen this scene played out a hundred times in old Westerns: The\ngunslinger comes into town, picks a fight with a local -- knowing full well\nthat the local doesn't stand a chance against him -- and kills him. As the\ngun smoke clears, he tells the sheriff, \"It was a fair fight. Ask anybody.\nThey all saw it. He even drew first. It was self-defense.\"\n\nThat's one way to look at it. Call it whatever you like, but the captain's\ndeath is on Able's hands, if not his conscience. And if I were St. Peter,\nkeepin' score, he ain't gettin' into Heaven. \n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<002101c5f30e$cd3e21a0$6500a8c0@wdw.disney.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-11-27T04:55:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<000a01c5f265$ec069440$933ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The captain may not have had a reserved seat in the church choir,\nbut he was definitely a victim of naked, unprovoked aggression on\nthe occasion of his first encounter with Able." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes. But something very significant has happened since then. If Arthur\nOrmsby's account is to be believed, then he--by his initiative and actions-- \nsaved the entire ship, its crew, *and* the captain. Had the captain had his\nway, Able would not have been on that ship and it would have been lost and\nthe captain would have been toast (not merely a metaphor considering that he\nwould have been someone's breakfast). There is simply no getting around the\nvery objective determination that the captain *owed* Able his ship and his\nlife. While Able had done nothing to prove that he deserved the captain's\ncabin when he came on the ship, he definitely had earned it by the time the\ncaptain attempted to kill him AND ROB HIM.\n\nTo assert, \"Well, Able saved his own life too\" would have been\nreprehensible ingratitude by anyone actually on that ship.\n\nAble didn't murder the captain either. It was self-defense and Able did\neverything he could to warn the captain off such an engagement. The captain\nattempted to sucker-hit Able and the result was a fight that ended in the\ncaptain's death.\n\nAble is a complex character, but the captain is not. His treatment of Able\nafter the sea battle was villainish and everyone on the ship recognized it\nas such.\n\nAs for Able's treatment of the livery hands, I don't see any possibility for\nreconciliation on this question. Some see a parent using corporal punishment\non their child as \"bullying\" and others see invaluable instruction. There's\nno way one side is going to convince the other, but is it seems probability\non which side Wolfe would fall.\n\nAs for the \"might makes right\" rule, didn't TH White already argue on the\nlogic for \"trial by arms\" in \"The Once and Future King\"? King Arthur says\n(paraphrasing) \"How else should we settle such disputes? By arguing the\nfacts? Then whoever is the better debater will always win. How is that\nfair?\"\n\nOf course, we see this in our modern \"civilized\" judiciary all the time.\nThose who can afford the best arguers can get away with practically\nanything.\n\nPart of the problem with the story, is that Wolfe has presented a world in\nwhich it is not self-evident that the Overcyns intervene in trials by arms,\nand people don't seem to expect them too. This muddles the primary purpose\nof the practice I think. Ancient people seemed to believe that God (or the\ngods) expressed their judgment through trial by arms...that God gives\nstrength to the Right and that the along with their physical strength, God\nhas given them to strength of character to choose rightly. But not always:\nIn \"The Song of Roland\" (written in the 9th or 10th century), the villain\nGanelon has the best swordsman in France serve as his champion and loses\nanyway...even though a council of judges has determined that he was in the\nright. But the champion is defeated, because, the implication is, God had\njudged against him.\n\nJ" } ] }, { "message_id": "<000e01c5f32b$997a4e80$323ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2005-11-27T08:21:32+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<002101c5f30e$cd3e21a0$6500a8c0@wdw.disney.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Rostrum wrote:\nThere is this one case where we see what I might call \"might makes\nright\" where Able goes to defend the pass and challenge all comers." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The title of Chapter 32 of WIZARD is, \"Trial By Arms\". From page 386, Able\nspeaking first:\n*********************\n \"You have to let me do this, Your Majesty. I've worn your favor in the\nlists. I'm your champion.\"\n \"Oh, Lady! Dear Lady of Skai! It's . . .\"\n \"Ordained?\" I suggested.\n Gaynor's eyes brimmed with tears. \"It's for me, too. So the king will\nsee that -- that I'm not what he thinks. The Valfather will give the victory\nto the right, won't he?\"\n \"That's what people believe, I know. It may be true.\"\n*********************\n\nThere is more, including the specific mention of \"Trial by Combat\", but\nthat's enough to prove my point. The queen's honor had been impugned; Able\nsaid he would vindicate her by winning the fight. He did, and Morcaine\nacknowledged the queen's innocence. (391)\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-11-27T10:28:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<000a01c5f265$ec069440$933ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Roy said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Note that Able said that he wouldn't wait because he was determined to\nimplement the more common perversion of the Golden Rule: \"Do unto others\nbefore they do unto you.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I can see why you'd think this, but on the other hand if that was his \nintention it's hard to explain why he goes so far out of his way to warn the \ncaptain off from fighting him. It would have been prudent, in that case, to \nlet the dog stay hidden - he would still be able to claim \"self defense\" \nafterward. So what is the purpose of the things he says in the passage you \nquoted below - to ease his own conscience later? I will grant that some \nsurface plausibility, but really anyone who can plan and manipulate someone \ninto getting themselves killed in self defense is probably beyond such \nrationalizations." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Just before the section of text Chris quoted below is this:\n\"I told Gylf to let him [the captain] see him then, and he did. He had been\nlying in a corner where it was dark and he came up out of there like brown\nsmoke but all solid and snarling.\n \"'I can kill you if I want to,' I told the captain. 'I beat you \nbefore,\nand I can beat you again. Gylf could kill you, too, and you won't stand the\nghost of a chance against both of us.'\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Roy said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The captain had barred the door behind himself when he entered the cabin. \nHe\nwas alone with Able and Gylf. Able knew that the captain would not accept\nthe terms he then offered --he said so -- which were the same terms that he\nhad dictated before; the captain must knuckle under and leave Able in the\ncaptain's cabin. He also had no doubts about the winner of a fight against\nthe captain. He said so. Both versions of the terms he demanded amounted to\nthe same thing." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No, there is a difference between the sets of terms. In the first instance, \nit ends up being clear to everyone on board that the captain knuckled under \nand gave back the cabin (and the possessions he had stolen) when confronted. \nIn the second instance, the captain is left with some ability to play it off \nas having reached an agreement. The hope appears to have been that the \ncaptain would take the opportunity to save face rather than fight a battle \nhe couldn't win; Able obviously misjudged how personally the captain took \nit, and the fact that perhaps he (and his dog) looked a little weaker than \nthey really were.\n\nYou might suspect that Able deliberately feigned that weakness to lure the \ncaptain into making such a move. I think there might be something to that, \nactually. It seems rather elaborate but the reasoning might be that if the \ncaptain were really bound and determined to attempt to kill him, he would \ntake the opportunity there (and not some other time when Able might be taken \nunawares)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "He stood up and Gylf growled. I was afraid he was going to grow into the\nblack thing that had killed the outlaws, and I told him not to." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "BTW, Able didn't want Gylf to turn into that big \"black thing\" because *he*\nwas afraid of it. It wasn't out of concern for the captain or any sense of\nfair play." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree, and further, Able didn't seem to think Gylf *needed* to be the big \nblack thing.\n\nReturning to the problem of why the body needed to be disposed of so \nparticularly, could it have something to do with the wounds inflicted by \nGylf? I can't remember, at that point, if Able had resigned himself to the \nrest of the crew knowing much about the dog." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The captain may not have had a reserved seat in the church choir, but he \nwas\ndefinitely a victim of naked, unprovoked aggression on the occasion of his\nfirst encounter with Able. It was Able who initiated physical hostilities \nin\nthat first meeting, after the captain ordered him off his ship. If you want\nto say that the captain's display of a sword to punctuate his order made\nAble feel threatened and therefore justified in using force to gain the\nadvantage, then you must grant the captain the same consideration in the\nsecond encounter. That's what Able was doing when he called up Gylf;\npunctuating his demands with a show of force." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I pretty much agree up to the last sentence. It seems that Able wanted all \nthe cards out on the table. If there was a show of force, it was strictly \nfor the benefit of the captain - and he would have been better served, \nultimately, if he'd taken more account of it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The captain had two choices -- submit or fight. He had been forced to\nsubmit, on pain of death, the first time. He was within his rights, as\nship's captain, to execute Able for his crimes -- and Able's actions *were*\ncriminal -- after fate allowed him to regain command of his ship." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually, I don't know about this. The captain would be considered one of \nthe merchant class, miles below any type of aristocracy. I suspect that in \nthe medieval order of things even the lowest, landless knight would consider \nthe captain little more than a skilled peasant, even on his own ship. The \ncaptain would be within his rights to execute the members of his crew, but \nthen they're even lower on the social scale.\n\nBut that raises the question of whether Able would count as a legitimate \nknight in that society, even though Disiri did knight him. Knights from \nother countries still count as knights even when they're not on ground ruled \nby their own sovreign, but this situation is less clear." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "He was within his rights, as a man, to retaliate against the man who had \nharmed\nhim." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "He was bullied and humiliated, which makes it within his rights as a man to \nsteal and attempt to murder? Sorry, there isn't much about the captain's \nattempted payback that is at all manly, or within his rights as far as I am \nconcerned." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What the captain may have been guilty of is failing to recognize the\nhopelessness of his position in the second altercation." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Failing to recognize his inability to beat Able, by itself, would have \ncaused him no difficulty. What the captain may have been guilty of is \nattempted murder." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That's one way to look at it. Call it whatever you like, but the captain's\ndeath is on Able's hands, if not his conscience. And if I were St. Peter,\nkeepin' score, he ain't gettin' into Heaven. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A death is on your hands to some extent even in an undisputed case of self \ndefense." } ] }, { "message_id": "<005f01c5f360$de445f80$6500a8c0@wdw.disney.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-11-27T14:43:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<000e01c5f32b$997a4e80$323ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Part of the problem with the story, is that Wolfe has presented a\nworld in which it is not self-evident that the Overcyns intervene in\ntrials by arms, and people don't seem to expect them too." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Roy quoted:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The title of Chapter 32 of WIZARD is, \"Trial By Arms\".\nFrom page 386, Able speaking first:\n*********************\nGaynor's eyes brimmed with tears. \"It's for me, too. So the king will\nsee that -- that I'm not what he thinks. The Valfather will give the\nvictory to the right, won't he?\"\n\"That's what people believe, I know. It may be true.\"\n*********************" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ah! I take it back. Trial By Arms in Wolfe's world is in agreement with the\nunderstanding of people in the \"Dark Ages\".\n\nJ" } ] }, { "message_id": "<001301c5f3f8$ef0d6a80$6a3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2005-11-28T08:51:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<005f01c5f360$de445f80$6500a8c0@wdw.disney.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Chris quoted me and wrote:\nThe captain had two choices -- submit or fight. He had been forced to\nsubmit, on pain of death, the first time. He was within his rights, as\nship's captain, to execute Able for his crimes -- and Able's actions\n*were*\ncriminal -- after fate allowed him to regain command of his ship." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Actually, I don't know about this. The captain would be considered one of\nthe merchant class, miles below any type of aristocracy. I suspect that in\nthe medieval order of things even the lowest, landless knight would\nconsider\nthe captain little more than a skilled peasant, even on his own ship. The\ncaptain would be within his rights to execute the members of his crew, but\nthen they're even lower on the social scale.\n\nBut that raises the question of whether Able would count as a legitimate\nknight in that society, even though Disiri did knight him. Knights from\nother countries still count as knights even when they're not on ground\nruled\nby their own sovreign, but this situation is less clear." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The captain did not believe that Able was a knight, and said so. (K, 109)\nAble retorted, \"You'd be smart to act as if you had [heard of him].\" That is\na not very subtle threat. The captain was not impressed, and made his own\nterms: \"Otherwise, I'd teach you, Sir Able of the Shy Fart, how the\nauthority of a captain is to be obeyed.\"\n\nThe captain had no reason to believe that Able was a knight; he sported none\nof a knight's trappings. Able's ego, at that point, took center stage. From\nthis point on, the dispute was not about the conditions of passage to\nForcetti. The captain had wounded Able's fragile, boyish ego. He had the\ntemerity to answer threat with insult, something Able's pride couldn't\nhandle. Earlier that same day, Pouk had asked. \"You a fightin' man, sir? You\nlook it.\"\n '\"I'm a knight,' I said; I always said that, because I knew I could\nnever get people to believe me unless I believed it myself. 'I'm Sir Able of\nthe High Heart.'\" (102)\n\nAble was a knight at this point only in his own mind, and by the whim of the\ndubious authority of a lesser being. Hardly anyone he met in the first book\nbelieved he was a knight. His lack of knowledge of things knightly led him\nfrom one difficulty to another. His ignorance almost got Pouk killed. He was\nwilling to sacrifice almost anything or anyone to have his way, and what he\nwanted most, after Disiri, was to be a knight.\n\nRight after boarding the docked ship, Able started feeling seasick. He\nthought he was going to puke and was afraid that people would see and make\nfun of him. He couldn't bear the thought, so was prepared to salvage his ego\nby turning on his new-found friend, who had been nothing but obsequiously\nhelpful. \"I knew I might throw up any minute, and I swore that I would make\nPouk clean it up if I did.\" \"And kill him if he would not do it.\" (K, 107)\nThat's raw, unvarnished ego, to even consider killing a man because *he*\nmight not want to clean up *your* puke. That was Able's mindset when he saw\nthe captain, minutes later.\n\nWhen Able later spoke of the sea battle with the Osterlings to Garsecg, the\nlatter said:\n***********************\n\"When a knight is on a ship, that ship flies his pennant from its foremast.\nDid yours do that?\"\n I shook my head. \"I don't have one, and I didn't know about it anyway.\nMaybe that's why the captain didn't think I was a real knight.\"\n \"In most cases, the Osterlings will not attack such a ship.\" (K, 163)\n************************\n\nClearly, had the captain believed Able to actually be a knight, he might\nhave saved face with the crew by acknowledging the fact. The loss of his\ncabin could be written off as the deference due a knight by a sea captain,\nif such deference was in fact the social norm. Further, the whole damn\nbattle with the Osterlings would probably never have happened had Able been\na real knight, complete with pennant. Even without the pennant, had the\ncaptain believed Able to be a real knight, an impromptu one could have been\ncontrived from cloth to keep away the Osterlings. That didn't happen because\nthe captain didn't have any reason to believe Able was a knight. Even though\nAble was ignorant about pennant flying, you can bet the captain wasn't. He\nhad nothing to lose by taking on a civil paying passenger, particularly a\nknight, and an advantage to be gained in the form of cheap insurance against\nan attack. Provided Able was a knight.\n\nAble's behavior made any such accommodation impossible. The captain just\nwasn't the sort of man to cower in the face of bullying, and Able wasn't\ngrown up enough to do anything but throw his weight around.\n\nAs for the charge of theft; so far as I am aware, Able's valuables never\nleft the captain's cabin after he put them there himself -- at least not\nuntil Kerl disposed of them much later. Their fight wasn't about money.\n\nI won't attempt to defend the captain's desire to kill Able, either at sea\nor in port." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "He was bullied and humiliated, which makes it within his rights as a man to\nsteal and attempt to murder? Sorry, there isn't much about the captain's\nattempted payback that is at all manly, or within his rights as far as I am\nconcerned." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I feel the same way about Able's repeated attempts to force others to\nmassage his ego. At least he had the excuse of being immature in KNIGHT.\nIt's harder to excuse his behavior in WIZARD. Was he not morally responsible\nfor the death of the gaoler in the dungeon? Sure, it was Org who actually\nkilled and ate him, but he could have stopped him by calling out. He chose\nnot to. (W, 401) Of course, since he was a god, this could be written off as\ndivine whim.\n\nI don't think anyone has tried to argue that Able didn't behave like a lout,\nparticularly in KNIGHT. I have acknowledged that Wolfe chose to portray him\nthat way deliberately. And I think we all agree that Wolfe intended he be\nseen as a Hero. As others have pointed out, real knights in regimented\nfeudal societies weren't necessarily nice guys, certainly not the beloved\nfigures of Arthurian romance. But Able's story is not really about knights,\nit's about Heroes. And, as Wolfe *always* does when he retells some story,\nhe mixes things all up and turns them inside out. Adding Norse mythology and\nthe realm of fairy to the mixture further muddles the picture.\n\nIt's natural for people on this list, almost by definition, to be favorably\ninclined toward Wolfe's fiction. It's understandable that there wasn't a lot\nof discussion here when KNIGHT came out; we had only half the story, and it\nwas anything but straightforward. But it's been about a year since WIZARD\nwas released, and there *still* hasn't been a lot of discussion about TWK.\nWhy not? There was plenty of discussion as each volume of LONG SUN and SHORT\nSUN came out. What's different about TWK? Is it that people don't like it?\nDon't understand it?\n\nI wish some of those people who wrote those wonderful blurbs on the covers\nwould write some down-to-earth articles explaining exactly what they found\n\"important and wonderful\" about TWK.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "mfstraight at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-11-29T21:17:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<000e01c5f32b$997a4e80$323ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 11/27/05, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nThere is more, including the specific mention of \"Trial by Combat\", but\nthat's enough to prove my point." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I feel like you've forgotten what your point was.\n\nThe point I thought I was arguing with was, \"Able is a jerk because he\nbelieves might makes right.\"\n\nThe examples you gave:\n\n1. The stable hands - I think there's been pretty convincing argument\nthat Able was right to insist that they take care of the horses.\n\n2. The pass - I'm not sure if you understood my point. I'm arguing\nthat his stand at the pass is a way of proving he is a better fighter\nand for that reason more worthy of wielding his opponent's weapons and\narmor.\n\nNow you've got this other example:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 11/27/05, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\n [ABLE:] \"You have to let me do this, Your Majesty. I've worn your favor in the\nlists. I'm your champion.\"\n \"Oh, Lady! Dear Lady of Skai! It's . . .\"\n \"Ordained?\" I suggested.\n Gaynor's eyes brimmed with tears. \"It's for me, too. So the king will\nsee that -- that I'm not what he thinks. The Valfather will give the victory\nto the right, won't he?\"\n \"That's what people believe, I know. It may be true.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Here, Able acknowledges that this society believes that victory in\ncombat would somehow prove the Lady's innocence, but he doesn't seem\nconvinced of it himself. \"It may be true\" -- Able knows the Valfather\ncould/might give victory to the right, but that seems to me a long way\naway from some kind of self-righteous certainty that victory in battle\nproves that he is right.\n\nAble is convinced of the Lady's innocence and is willing to fight for\nher, knowing that his victory will be seen by others as vindicating\nher. Are you arguing that, had he lost, Able would have reconsidered\nand thought, \"Maybe the Lady is an adulteress after all?\"\n\n-- Rostrum" } ] }, { "message_id": "<001801c5f59f$5c3ec570$0301a8c0@wdw.disney.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-11-30T11:15:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<001301c5f3f8$ef0d6a80$6a3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It's understandable that there wasn't a lot\nof discussion here when KNIGHT came out; we had only half the story, and it\nwas anything but straightforward. But it's been about a year since WIZARD\nwas released, and there *still* hasn't been a lot of discussion about TWK.\nWhy not? There was plenty of discussion as each volume of LONG SUN and\nSHORT SUN came out. What's different about TWK? Is it that people don't\nlike it?\nDon't understand it?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"Don't understand it\" is a given. Not \"don't like it\", I think. But it is a\nfact that TWK is \"more of the same\" from Wolfe:\n1) An intricate,well written story with lots of intriguing characters\n2) A mysterious complex central character that is, for some undefined\nreason, destined to conquer all comers and rise to a predetermined glorious\nfate (it is unlikely Able would have been beaten in hand-to-hand combat with\nanyone at that remote pass even before he went to Skai: \"the sea\" would have\n\"risen\" within him and he'd have wiped out all comers); when I say\n\"destined\", I mean it much more strongly than would be applied to, say,\nConan the Barbarian.\n\nWe've come to expect this from Wolfe.\n\nSecondly, I don't think most people are troubled by Able's \"loutish\"\nbehavior because a) they view complex, troubled heroes as EXPECTED from\nWolfe and they don't see him as *as* loutish as Roy does. Why accept the\nRajan's and Latro's actions (let alone Severian) and suddenly have a problem\nwith Able? All are \"heroes.\"\n\n********\n\nBut I want to return to the problem of Wolfe fighting against his own\nesteemed reputation. TWK is far and away better and more original than 99%\nof fantasy fiction. Yet...\n\nImagine if Tolkien were a professional fiction writer and was handed the\nplots of \"The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant\" or \"The Sword of Shanara\" or\n\"Harry Potter & the Philosopher's Stone\" to write. The stories would still\nbe much better than what was actually written, I've no doubt, but they would\nstill be dwarfed by \"The Lord of the Rings\" because (among other reasons),\nthat one came first.\n\nI think Tor Publishing recognized this when they were creating buzz about\nthe book. They were claiming this was Wolfe's first entry into juvenalia\n(and thus something \"new\" from Wolfe). That was simply not true.This is not\na book \"for kids\". This book is not going to end up in any Middle School\nlibrary, any more than any of the Sun cycle novels are, or the Latro\nstories-- much less than FIFTH HEAD.\n\nAll this was equally true about SHORT SUN (that it was more of the same from\nWolfe), but, like NEW SUN, the plot was confused enough that there was a lot\nmore required discussion and debate about what was going on. And it in\nreality it was the second half of LONG SUN so people discussed it because\nthey liked that novel.\n\nReaders THINK they understand (basically) what is going on in TWK, so they\ndon't get into discussing it. There's that \"Mag\" mystery and the mystery of\n\"where\" Able's world resides relative to Arthur's world, but not *much*\nafter that. Also, fewer people know the Norse myths or the \"knight\" epics,\nso they feel incompetent to take on the thematic clues in the novel. And I\nthink many people have become resigned (which they had not regarding NEW SUN\nwhen this list started) to the fact that some Wolfe mysteries will never be\nresolved--so why wrestle with it as much?\n\nConsequently, while Wolfe will likely continue to produce novels that are\nread by other fiction writers, I don't think Wolfe *can* break out popularly\nwith another novel until he produces something like \"The Silmarillion of the\nNew Sun\". Having Wolfe EXPLAIN something...that would be new. But that might\n*spoil* the books for people who have been crazy about them up 'til now-- \npeople cannot possibly like Wolfe's explanation as much as their private\ntheories of what is going on.\n\nI could be wrong about this. After all, there's not as much discussion of\nLATRO as I think it deserves either.\n\nJ" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-11-30T23:45:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<001301c5f3f8$ef0d6a80$6a3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Generally speaking I agree with the negative assessment of Able centering on \nhis actions when he first met the captain. But treating the subjects in the \norder they appear here, there are some open questions.\n\nRoy said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The captain did not believe that Able was a knight, and said so. (K, 109)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The first obvious question is WAS Able a knight, regardless of whether the \ncaptain (or anyone else) recognized him as such? I think this is a \ncontentious issue. A natural response would be that what a person *is* \ndoesn't depend on how the random person on the street sees them; on the \nother hand it's quite clear that Able, at the very least, seems to believe \nat that point that being recognized as a knight is a (if not THE) key \ncomponent to *being* a knight.\n\nIf you ultimately decide that Able was a knight at that point, then the \ncaptain's authority over him is null, and the captain is guilty of \nimpertinence. Regardless of the truth of the matter, that seems to be the \nposition that Able is coming from.\n\nBut I think we can speculate further about the captain that from his \nperspective it *did not matter* whether Able was \"really\" a knight or not. \nHe would have treated a \"legitimate\" knight who happened to be down on his \nluck just the same, because his concern is not with a knight's virtue but \nwith his power - and a knight without retainers or holdings or a powerful \nbenefactor is, to him, just another man. The captain, I believe, establishes \nhimself as a man who respects only power and force; I don't use this as a \nrationale for force to actually be used against him, but it certainly does \npresent Able with a clear and limited set of options." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The captain had no reason to believe that Able was a knight; he sported \nnone\nof a knight's trappings. Able's ego, at that point, took center stage. From\nthis point on, the dispute was not about the conditions of passage to\nForcetti. The captain had wounded Able's fragile, boyish ego." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If Able believed - *truly* believed - that he was a knight, then there would \nbe more than just an issue of his ego. The captain would be intolerably out \nof line from the perspective of a knight.\n\nBut... the other passage you quoted really calls into question whether \nthat's what he really believed, or if he simply knew at some level that this \nwould be reaction that was expected of him if he truly believed what he \nclaimed. While things blur a little bit in matters of belief, I think we \nboth agree that there's more than a little of the latter in Able.\n\nThis (perhaps deliberately) raises the moral question of why the former \nshould supposedly be justified while the latter is not." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Right after boarding the docked ship, Able started feeling seasick. He\nthought he was going to puke and was afraid that people would see and make\nfun of him. He couldn't bear the thought, so was prepared to salvage his \nego\nby turning on his new-found friend, who had been nothing but obsequiously\nhelpful. \"I knew I might throw up any minute, and I swore that I would make\nPouk clean it up if I did.\" \"And kill him if he would not do it.\" (K, 107)\nThat's raw, unvarnished ego, to even consider killing a man because *he*\nmight not want to clean up *your* puke. That was Able's mindset when he saw\nthe captain, minutes later." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not to disagree with you - because if anything I evaluated this bit as being \na little worse than just having a big ego - but this scene strikes me as \nespecially strange every time I see it. Able is recording this long after \nthe fact, and he sees fit to report it, but does not express any evaluation \nof why he deems it important. Here we expect some kind of expression of \nshame... or an explanation... or *something*.\n\nAnd it's not just a need to report his mindset of the time, because he often \nleaves us very much in the dark about his mindset or motivations in various \nscenes. One is tempted to conclude that an older able reports this thought \nbecause he is ashamed of it, because it humbles him. Such a conclusion is \nalmost obvious, but if so then there is something interesting about his \nmeans of expressing it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I feel the same way about Able's repeated attempts to force others to\nmassage his ego. At least he had the excuse of being immature in KNIGHT.\nIt's harder to excuse his behavior in WIZARD. Was he not morally \nresponsible\nfor the death of the gaoler in the dungeon? Sure, it was Org who actually\nkilled and ate him, but he could have stopped him by calling out. He chose\nnot to. (W, 401) Of course, since he was a god, this could be written off \nas\ndivine whim." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I wouldn't want to write it off in those terms in any event. And you again \nhave pointed to something that seems interesting - recall that Able has had \na run-in with another gaoler before, with somewhat similar results. There \nseems to be almost no indication that Able thinks that gaolers, as a species \nof sorts, are fit to live at all. Regardless of what you think of his \ntreatment of the stablehands, this is not an attitude he expresses toward \npeasants or servants or slaves. It's not clear to me whether this hatred \ncomes from something particular about Able, or whether it's supposed to be \nattributed to some kind of knight/gaoler antithetical relationship.\n\nPerhaps it's in part a statement about how jails can corrupt one's humanity." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't think anyone has tried to argue that Able didn't behave like a \nlout,\nparticularly in KNIGHT. I have acknowledged that Wolfe chose to portray him\nthat way deliberately. And I think we all agree that Wolfe intended he be\nseen as a Hero." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But as in many of Wolfe's stories there's another question. Did *Able* \nchoose to portray himself as a lout, or did it just come through naturally? \nDid Wolfe intend that he be seen as a hero, or did Able, or did both of \nthem?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As others have pointed out, real knights in regimented\nfeudal societies weren't necessarily nice guys, certainly not the beloved\nfigures of Arthurian romance. But Able's story is not really about knights,\nit's about Heroes. And, as Wolfe *always* does when he retells some story,\nhe mixes things all up and turns them inside out. Adding Norse mythology \nand\nthe realm of fairy to the mixture further muddles the picture." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yet I don't think it's even remotely possible to understand some aspects of \nthe story without making the social context an integral part - by comparing \nhow we interpret the actions of the characters with how they would interpret \ntheir own actions. In that sense it is \"about knights\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It's natural for people on this list, almost by definition, to be favorably\ninclined toward Wolfe's fiction. It's understandable that there wasn't a \nlot\nof discussion here when KNIGHT came out; we had only half the story, and it\nwas anything but straightforward. But it's been about a year since WIZARD\nwas released, and there *still* hasn't been a lot of discussion about TWK.\nWhy not? There was plenty of discussion as each volume of LONG SUN and \nSHORT\nSUN came out. What's different about TWK? Is it that people don't like it?\nDon't understand it?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Speaking for myself, I actually waited until the Wizard came out before \nreading the Knight, partly because I don't like to wait for the sequel and \npartly because I knew if I read them too far apart, I would probably have \neven more difficulty with the Wizard when it did come out.\n\nIn any event I suspect that some on the list haven't read the series yet, \nand may even have been put off reading it at all by the apparent lukewarm \nreception from those who have read it. It's hard to praise these books to \nthe stars, obviously. But I've found them to be thought-provoking in a way \nthat's similar to the \"Soldier\" series, over time. And there are characters \nin the story that I liked rather a lot... more unequivocally so than in most \nof Wolfe's books. Too bad one of them isn't Able." } ] }, { "message_id": "<000c01c5f61d$5cf5bc20$0301a8c0@wdw.disney.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-12-01T02:17:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Chris said:\nThe first obvious question is WAS Able a knight, regardless of whether the\ncaptain (or anyone else) recognized him as such? I think this is a\ncontentious issue." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think it is an objective certitude that Able was a knight. While people\nthought he was crazy when he told them that Disiri, the Queen of the Moss\nElves, had knighted him, no seemed to doubt he would certainly be a knight\n*had it been true*. Granted, a knight of Aelfrice was properly lower than\nthe most menial slave in Mythgarthr, but no one in Mythgarthr seems to\nrealized that.\n\nAnother point: Able first arrived in Mythgarthr from Aelfrice (it is so\nhinted) after having died. If we assume he achieved the honor of rising to\nMythgarthr as some kind of \"sacrifice\" by the Aelfs...achieving the honor in\na comparative manner in which he got to Skai, then perhaps he really *was* a\nknight all along.\n\nSo why does Able sometimes talk as though knighthood is \"something to be\ngrasped\"? Presumably, because although he knows he is a knight\nintellectually, he doesn't *feel* that he is one on the inside...he feels\nthe need to earn it..to *make* it true. So he must do what is necessary on\n*his* part to make it \"real\".\nIsn't this like the Catholic concept of *justifying* the grace of God?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But... the other passage you quoted [that he would make Pouk clean\nhis vomit and kill him if he didn't] really calls into question whether\nthat's what he really believed" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This struck me as an outburst made by an immature person to an \"employee\"\nwho he knows be a truely dependable friend. He's lashing out because he's\nsick and embarrassed and he knows he can lash out like that because the\nemployee is a loyal friend. It's not right, but I know people who never grow\nout of that behavior.\n\nSpeaking of which, Pouk never seems to take Able's words to heart. He\ncontinuously affirms that he is willing to work for Able for nothing. In\nfact, he only takes payment (when Able has it) as a token of his employment.\n\nIt is interesting that you compare TWK to the Latro books. Pouk seems to see\nsomething in Able that Able does not. That reminds me of the gods' reaction\nto Latro." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "There seems to be almost no indication that Able thinks that gaolers,\nas a species of sorts, are fit to live at all." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, in the case of the gaoler in question, he intended to starve Able to\ndeath in prison. I didn't get the idea Able was the first person he had\ntreated accordingly. Does mean he deserved death? I don't know. But Able\ndidn't kill him. Did the gaoler deserve to have Able lift a finger to save\nhis life?\nAble seems to have treated his replacements better.\nHowever, I recall a former convict saying the following about prison guards:\n\"Prison guards are the lowest form of life. The convicts are in prison\nagainst their will. Prison guards are the only people in prison who chose to\nbe in prison. They are the only people on earth who *would* choose to be in\nprison.\"\n\nI don't know if Wolfe has heard the same thing. But I think the point of the\nprison was that Able, by virtue of who he was, *naturally* became the lord\nand master of where they put him. Put him in Hel and he would end up running\nthe place.\n\nJ" } ] }, { "message_id": "<002001c5f61e$9e035f00$883ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2005-12-01T02:26:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<000c01c5f61d$5cf5bc20$0301a8c0@wdw.disney.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Rostrum wrote:\nOn 11/27/05, Roy C. Lackey wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "There is more, including the specific mention of \"Trial by Combat\", but\nthat's enough to prove my point." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I feel like you've forgotten what your point was." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "My point, above, was to establish that \"Trial by Combat\" was, indeed,\nincorporated into TWK. See below." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The point I thought I was arguing with was, \"Able is a jerk because he\nbelieves might makes right.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't know whether or not Able believed in the doctrine of might makes\nright. He is a jerk because he repeatedly used his superior might to push\nweaker people around in pursuance of his own ends, both petty and . . .\n'heroic'. I have cited various examples of the petty -- and I haven't\nexhausted the list. Did he believe it was wrong to bully people? Apparently\nnot. How did he rationalize his behavior, even to himself -- if he thought\nabout it at all? By what \"right\" did he push people around? By his strong\nright hand." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The examples you gave:\n\n1. The stable hands - I think there's been pretty convincing argument\nthat Able was right to insist that they take care of the horses.\n\n2. The pass - I'm not sure if you understood my point. I'm arguing\nthat his stand at the pass is a way of proving he is a better fighter\nand for that reason more worthy of wielding his opponent's weapons and\narmor." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Able had no need or use for his opponent's weapons and armor when he made\nhis stands. He already had a magic sword, gilded armor and a one-horned\nsteed from Skai." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Now you've got this other example:\n\nOn 11/27/05, Roy C. Lackey wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": " [ABLE:] \"You have to let me do this, Your Majesty. I've worn your\nfavor in the\nlists. I'm your champion.\"\n \"Oh, Lady! Dear Lady of Skai! It's . . .\"\n \"Ordained?\" I suggested.\n Gaynor's eyes brimmed with tears. \"It's for me, too. So the king will\nsee that -- that I'm not what he thinks. The Valfather will give the\nvictory\nto the right, won't he?\"\n \"That's what people believe, I know. It may be true.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Here, Able acknowledges that this society believes that victory in\ncombat would somehow prove the Lady's innocence, but he doesn't seem\nconvinced of it himself. \"It may be true\" -- Able knows the Valfather\ncould/might give victory to the right, but that seems to me a long way\naway from some kind of self-righteous certainty that victory in battle\nproves that he is right." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"Ordained\" was Able's suggestion. In context, I don't see how it can be\ninterpreted as other than predestination." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Able is convinced of the Lady's innocence and is willing to fight for\nher, knowing that his victory will be seen by others as vindicating\nher. Are you arguing that, had he lost, Able would have reconsidered\nand thought, \"Maybe the Lady is an adulteress after all?\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Uh, no. First of all, Able didn't believe he could be beaten by anyone, and\nhe was right; there was no doubt about the outcome. He was a Hero, not just\na knight. Second, Gaynor's \"innocence\" wasn't really at issue. The\nprecipitating spat between her and Morcaine was a sham, a plan concocted by\nEarl Marshal Escan, with the complicity of both women (who each had\ndivergent agenda but were in agreement on this one issue), to get Able an\naudience with Arnthor so he could deliver his Aelf message.\n\nGaynor was still a virgin, btw, and Morcaine would get her jollies no matter\nwho won the combat.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "transentient", "address": "transentient at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-12-01T03:16:29+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<002001c5f61e$9e035f00$883ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Nov 30 2005, at 9:26 PM, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\n\nUh, no. First of all, Able didn't believe he could be beaten by \nanyone, and\nhe was right; there was no doubt about the outcome. He was a Hero, \nnot just\na knight. Second, Gaynor's \"innocence\" wasn't really at issue. The\nprecipitating spat between her and Morcaine was a sham, a plan \nconcocted by\nEarl Marshal Escan, with the complicity of both women (who each had\ndivergent agenda but were in agreement on this one issue), to get \nAble an\naudience with Arnthor so he could deliver his Aelf message." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "So what do you think about Org, and their relationship? Org beat Able \nsoundly, but then Uri, Baki, and Gylf jumped in. Rather than running \naway, which might have been fine, Org put his neck under Able's boot. \nPerhaps this was because they had made a deal before wrestling. \nDespite the fact that Org was intrinsically evil and irredeemable was \nreinforced throughout the story, he demonstrated a definite loyalty \nto Able, and even extended that loyalty to whoever Able told him to. \nTo the point of being really hungry at times. Also, even in the \ndungeon, when Org was apparently very big, and there was no little \nindication that Uri, Baki, or Gylf would jump in if he wanted to, he \ncontinued to serve Able. What do you think of Org's example of \nloyalty and honor?\n\nAlso, Able was defeated other times. Once in the pass, there was a \nsimilar turnaround where the Knight who had defeated him (the Knight \nof the Lions, was it?) made the decision to become the defeated once \nAble's friends - this time, the dead former weilders of Eterne - \nshowed themselves. " } ] }, { "message_id": "<0948E357-72E7-4E47-97B8-9953FBDDD727@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "transentient", "address": "transentient at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-12-01T03:53:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<000c01c5f61d$5cf5bc20$0301a8c0@wdw.disney.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But... the other passage you quoted [that he would make Pouk clean\nhis vomit and kill him if he didn't] really calls into question \nwhether\nthat's what he really believed" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This struck me as an outburst made by an immature person to an \n\"employee\"\nwho he knows be a truely dependable friend. He's lashing out \nbecause he's\nsick and embarrassed and he knows he can lash out like that because \nthe\nemployee is a loyal friend. It's not right, but I know people who \nnever grow\nout of that behavior.\n\nSpeaking of which, Pouk never seems to take Able's words to heart. He\ncontinuously affirms that he is willing to work for Able for \nnothing. In\nfact, he only takes payment (when Able has it) as a token of his \nemployment.\n\nIt is interesting that you compare TWK to the Latro books. Pouk \nseems to see\nsomething in Able that Able does not. That reminds me of the gods' \nreaction\nto Latro." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The passage about killing Pouk reminded me of Latro writing about - \nack, lent my copy to my dad - \"killing the man with the wooden leg.\" \nHe said something like \"I vow to kill him as soon as I get the \nchance\" with a disturbing, casual bluntness. Latro, of course, was \ncharmed by a sorcerer. Thinking about this passage in comparison to \nLatro brings to mind the fact that Able was under a geas also. \nGranted, by the end of _Wizard_ he has seen Disiri while wearing the \nhelm and he knows she is just a bunch of mud and reeds, but that \ndoesn't change his feelings for her, so we know he was honestly and \nwillfully in love with her. (Which we know from the very beginning \nactually, since Parka says that is how it is going to be.)\n\nBut still, Able goes through the story with a clouded mind - he \ndoesn't remember what happened to him in Aelfrice before he awoke in \nParka's cave. He is an idiot-savant carrying a message from the Aelfs \nto the king of the \"true\" humans. And in the middle of the story, he \nspends 20 years with even more of his memory taken away.\n\nWhen he first boards the _Western Trader_ he is a 6th grade kid who \nwas suddenly put into an overgrown adult's body, seduced by a girl \nwho had been his best friend for years of his life that been taken \nfrom him, then told he has a big and nebulous task he has to \naccomplish. Which is maybe a parable for adolescence in general, but \nI am not trying to argue that. What I am trying to say is that maybe \nAble's heroism is a journey and he had a rough start.\n\nI mean, at the end, he breaks an oath to the Valfather and it seems \nto be for the right reasons. The Valfather seems to be, if not proud, \nat least accepting of him." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "David Duffy", "address": "david.duffy at qimr.edu.au" }, "date": "2005-12-01T08:01:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<002001c5f61e$9e035f00$883ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\n\nI don't know whether or not Able believed in the doctrine of might makes\nright. He is a jerk because he repeatedly used his superior might to push\nweaker people around in pursuance of his own ends, both petty and . . .\n'heroic'. I have cited various examples of the petty -- and I haven't\nexhausted the list. Did he believe it was wrong to bully people? Apparently\nnot. How did he rationalize his behavior, even to himself -- if he thought\nabout it at all? By what \"right\" did he push people around? By his strong\nright hand." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think he acts *exactly* as a knight \"should\" act in all these examples.\nThat is, men who *openly* carry weapons push around the lower orders, and\ndefend their honour to the death over the slightest infraction. Peasants\nbearing arms would be immediately executed in many cultures. That the\ncaptain doesn't believe Able a knight is sufficient grounds (in this\nmodel) to immediately and literally beat him into submission -- and to\nkill him if he fails to submit. Force majeure is the lone knight's only\nsource of authority. Furthermore, they may have affectionate relations\nwith particular servants/household members, but they must never forget the\ngap (\"familiarity breeds contempt\").\n\nThe non-Christian knightly code we see is reminiscent of Bushido (although\nthere is no textual evidence of a direct link), and, having just finished\nreading Perez-Reverte's \"Captain Alatriste\", machismo (he comments only\nthe Spanish would duel about not getting a good view at the theatre).\nSome people approve of Heinlein's quip about politeness when the code\nduello is in operation.\n\nWolfe has a rather jaundiced view of human nature in general and of\nthe power relations in past and present societies. He always has power\ncoming from the barrel of a gun, which is relevant to the tone of his\nrecent short stories eg disarming of the US populace appears in a couple\nin the last collection.\n\nDavid Duffy." } ] }, { "message_id": "<001601c5f655$2764d5e0$ec3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2005-12-01T08:56:35+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Cliff wrote:\nSo what do you think about Org, and their relationship? Org beat Able\nsoundly, but then Uri, Baki, and Gylf jumped in. Rather than running\naway, which might have been fine, Org put his neck under Able's boot.\nPerhaps this was because they had made a deal before wrestling.\nDespite the fact that Org was intrinsically evil and irredeemable was\nreinforced throughout the story, he demonstrated a definite loyalty\nto Able, and even extended that loyalty to whoever Able told him to.\nTo the point of being really hungry at times. Also, even in the\ndungeon, when Org was apparently very big, and there was no little\nindication that Uri, Baki, or Gylf would jump in if he wanted to, he\ncontinued to serve Able. What do you think of Org's example of\nloyalty and honor?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Able lost a wrestling match with an ogre, not a real fight; he elected to\nuse no weapons. I don't know why Org wanted to stay around Able, unless he\nwas feeling grateful for Able having forced Gylf off him. He was certainly\nloyal, but I think the concept of honor was beyond his capacity.\n\nSomeone mentioned Pouk; I don't understand Pouk at all. It's hard for me to\nconceive of someone so servile. I don't see what he gets out of it. He seems\nto me akin to those people who become ecstatic when they come near a\ncelebrity, like those teenage girls who used to scream and faint at a\nBeatles concert. The embodiment of hero worship, I guess." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Also, Able was defeated other times. Once in the pass, there was a\nsimilar turnaround where the Knight who had defeated him (the Knight\nof the Lions, was it?) made the decision to become the defeated once\nAble's friends - this time, the dead former weilders of Eterne -\nshowed themselves." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Leort had a brief advantage, or so he thought, but Able wasn't defeated. He\nwas *trying* to lose so he could be free of his vow to defend the pass. (W,\n101) He wanted to go looking for Disiri.\n\nTwo things I don't understand about that scene. One is the point of the\nGreen Knight story, with Able in the role of Gawain. The other is why Leort\nwas so rude to Gerda; it seemed out of character.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2005-12-01T09:00:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<001601c5f655$2764d5e0$ec3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Roy C. Lackey writes: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Two things I don't understand about that scene. One is the point of the\nGreen Knight story, with Able in the role of Gawain." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Abel was the Green Knight, IIRC. Gawain gets let off with a nick on the \nneck because he behaves honorably even though the supernatural scales are \nweighed against him." } ] }, { "message_id": "<002b01c5f658$170fe600$ec3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2005-12-01T09:17:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "hartshorn quoted and wrote:\nTwo things I don't understand about that scene. One is the point of the\nGreen Knight story, with Able in the role of Gawain." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Abel was the Green Knight, IIRC. Gawain gets let off with a nick on the\nneck because he behaves honorably even though the supernatural scales are\nweighed against him." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Able's original shield was plain green. He doesn't actually use the\ndesignation \"Green Knight\" when he relates his little story to Leort, but\nthat's clearly the story. And Able doesn't get off with a nick -- according\nto him, his head was cut off and bounced across the floor. Able stood up,\npicked up his head, and tucked it under his arm. (W, 98)\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2005-12-01T11:04:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<002b01c5f658$170fe600$ec3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Roy C. Lackey writes: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Able's original shield was plain green. He doesn't actually use the\ndesignation \"Green Knight\" when he relates his little story to Leort, but\nthat's clearly the story. And Able doesn't get off with a nick -- according\nto him, his head was cut off and bounced across the floor. Able stood up,\npicked up his head, and tucked it under his arm. (W, 98)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nAbel was THE GREEN KNIGHT - the guy who turned up at Camelot and challenged \nArthur's knights to the Beheading Game \n\nGawain was the knight who took up the challenge and lopped off Abel's head. \n\nAbel picks up his head and requires Gawain to come to THe Green Chapel in a \nyear's time and get a return blow. \n\nBut when Gawain does - after some boudoir comedy with what was probably \nMorcaine - Gawain only gets a nick on the neck \n\n\nhttp://alliteration.net/gawain1.htm " } ] }, { "message_id": "<005601c5f67f$2e550350$0301a8c0@wdw.disney.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-12-01T13:57:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So what do you think about Org, and their relationship?\nOrg beat Able soundly" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That's an excellent point. Org *did* beat Able in hand-to-hand combat. I'm\ntrying to imagine *why*. Able beat the giants, so it isn't because Org had\nno soul. Org beat Able by picking him up and throwing him. It reminds me of\nAntaios who could not be beaten in wrestling as long as his feet touched the\nground. So Herakles picked him up and threw him.\n\nJ" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-12-01T18:56:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<002001c5f61e$9e035f00$883ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hold up just a second here. I've seen this claim, and claims like it, \nmultiple times - \"Able was a god and couldn't be beaten by anyone\", etc. \nIt's not true. Able is beaten fair and square in WIZARD, one on one, by the \nchampion of the foreign army. There is no indication that he was throwing \nthat fight, as he did with the Leopard Knight earlier." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Uh, no. First of all, Able didn't believe he could be beaten by anyone, and\nhe was right; there was no doubt about the outcome. He was a Hero, not just\na knight. Second, Gaynor's \"innocence\" wasn't really at issue. The\nprecipitating spat between her and Morcaine was a sham, a plan concocted by\nEarl Marshal Escan, with the complicity of both women (who each had\ndivergent agenda but were in agreement on this one issue), to get Able an\naudience with Arnthor so he could deliver his Aelf message.\n\nGaynor was still a virgin, btw, and Morcaine would get her jollies no \nmatter\nwho won the combat.\n\n-Roy\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<000801c5f6b3$40d7f1c0$f53ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2005-12-01T20:10:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "hartshorn wrote:\nAbel was THE GREEN KNIGHT - the guy who turned up at Camelot and\nchallenged\nArthur's knights to the Beheading Game\n\nGawain was the knight who took up the challenge and lopped off Abel's head." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You are, of course, quite right. And I was staring right at the title of the\nstory and didn't realize the obvious.\n\nBut what was Able's point in telling Leort the story? And how did Able get\nfrom Valhalla to Camelot, if that's the path he took? And if that wasn't the\npath, when was Able ever in Camelot? It's not related in TWK. If he was some\nsort of Eternal Champion, why was he so ignorant about everything knightly\nat the beginning of his career in Mythgarthr?\n\nAnd how does that possibility color questions about his parentage? To say\nnothing of brother Ben.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2005-12-01T20:57:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<000801c5f6b3$40d7f1c0$f53ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Roy C. Lackey writes: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And how did Able get\nfrom Valhalla to Camelot, if that's the path he took? And if that wasn't the\npath, when was Able ever in Camelot? It's not related in TWK. If he was some\nsort of Eternal Champion, why was he so ignorant about everything knightly\nat the beginning of his career in Mythgarthr? \n\nAnd how does that possibility color questions about his parentage? To say\nnothing of brother Ben." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nAll good questions. Abel's stint as TGK, in my opinion, took place while \nhe was in Skai - between THE KNIGHT and THE WIZARD. \n\nI suspect it was just one of those tasks the Valfather put his assembled \nvaliant ones to - an attempt to uplift Gawain into the status of Overcyn. \n\nWhether it's meant to have happened in some Mythgarthyr analog of Camelot or \nwhether it happened in Midgard (our world / \"America,\") which also lies \nunder Skai, I do not know. \n\nSure sounds like Abel, though \n\n \n\nhis body as brawny as any can be,\nso bull-necked, big-thighed, bulky and square,\nso long-legged, large-limbed, looming so tall\nI can hardly tell if he were half troll,\nor merely as large as living man can be --\na handsome one too; as hearty a hulk as ever rode horse.\nHis back and chest were broad as a barrel,\nbut he slimmed at the waist, with a slender stomach,\nand his face was well formed, with features sharp\nand clean -- \n\n\nhartshorn " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "transentient", "address": "transentient at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-12-01T22:46:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Dec 1 2005, at 1:56 PM, Chris wrote:\nHold up just a second here. I've seen this claim, and claims like it,\nmultiple times - \"Able was a god and couldn't be beaten by anyone\", \netc.\nIt's not true. Able is beaten fair and square in WIZARD, one on \none, by the\nchampion of the foreign army. There is no indication that he was \nthrowing\nthat fight, as he did with the Leopard Knight earlier." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You're right! And that foreign army went on to join Able in his \ncause, which completes the trifecta of opponents who beat Able, only \nto end up joining him." } ] }, { "message_id": "<002a01c5f6f5$573b9470$0301a8c0@wdw.disney.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-12-02T04:03:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<000801c5f6b3$40d7f1c0$f53ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But what was Able's point in telling Leort the story? And how did Able get\nfrom Valhalla to Camelot, if that's the path he took?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree with hartshorn that this occurred in Skai in \"the Age of Legends\"\n(to borrow a \"Time Bandits\" term).\n\nWhat was the point? Well, that depends to some degree on what Wolfe thinks\nthe *meaning* of the Green Knight story is. It was intended to waive Leort\noff from taking his horse and Eterne as Able was warning him against, right?\nBut as is often the case with Wolfe's heroes, the truth is useless because\nit is never credible.\n\nPerhaps the story only \"meant\" that Able was an Overcyn and should be\nheeded...or that unless Leort is capable of having his head removed and\nstill keeping an appointment the following year, anything he gets from Able\nwill be more than he can handle.\n\nJ" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-12-02T09:41:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<002b01c5f658$170fe600$ec3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, the Green Knight (Able) gets his head cut clean off by Gawain - but by \nsupernatural power laughs it off and walks away. The deal was that he would \nbe able to deliver the same blow to Gawain a year later.\n\nI don't know what the connection is with Leort, unless the idea is to remind \nhim, when he had the advantage over Able, that he might not always have that \nadvantage." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Able's original shield was plain green. He doesn't actually use the\ndesignation \"Green Knight\" when he relates his little story to Leort, but\nthat's clearly the story. And Able doesn't get off with a nick -- according\nto him, his head was cut off and bounced across the floor. Able stood up,\npicked up his head, and tucked it under his arm. (W, 98)\n\n-Roy\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<000c01c5f833$622d8ca0$f23ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2005-12-03T17:59:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've about exhausted this topic, but wanted to make one more observation.\n\nAble, while still a stripling, didn't like the way he was treated by Svon.\nThe clash of personalities lead to their fighting, though Svon, as a\nknight's squire, must have ranked further up the social ladder than a\nhomeless peasant. Just a day or so later Able was made big by Disiri. His\nclothes would no longer fit him, so he went, naked, to the village. The\nelder Toug laughed at him and was knocked down, and Able began lording it\nover people. I wonder if Wolfe was consciously fleshing out a metaphor\nhere -- showing that Able was literally \"too big for his britches\".\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<006401c5f847$0e42c330$0301a8c0@wdw.disney.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-12-03T20:20:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<000c01c5f833$622d8ca0$f23ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Able, while still a stripling, didn't like the way he was treated by Svon.\nThe clash of personalities lead to their fighting, though Svon, as a\nknight's squire, must have ranked further up the social ladder than a\nhomeless peasant. Just a day or so later Able was made big by Disiri. His\nclothes would no longer fit him, so he went, naked, to the village. The\nelder Toug laughed at him and was knocked down, and Able began lording it\nover people. I wonder if Wolfe was consciously fleshing out a metaphor\nhere -- showing that Able was literally \"too big for his britches\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, Able never took much off of anybody even before. He beat up Svon and\nalso beat up some boy robbers (was that Toug?).\n\nJ" } ] }, { "message_id": "<9C4ACC16-B3DC-4CC8-A846-55FA516F7B4D@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "transentient", "address": "transentient at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-12-03T21:00:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Honor", "in_reply_to": "<006401c5f847$0e42c330$0301a8c0@wdw.disney.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I was musing over this thread yesterday while parked in traffic. It \nseems to me that one ulterior motive Wolfe has in his writing is to \nshake the readers' sensibilities up a bit. It comes across as \ncrotchety sometimes - like in the essay on Tolkein that came up in \nthis thread two weeks ago, when he reminds the reader that once in \nthe distant, antique 1950's, you had to mail-order your sf form the \npublisher, because there were no - gasp - amazon.coms or B&N. What I \nthink he really wants to do is to see people realize that maybe their \nworldviews, and *in particular* their morale frameworks, are not \nabsolute, and that in other worlds and other times, different \nsensibilities hold.\n\nFor example, the foreward to _Soldier in the Mist_, where he points \nout that slavery in ancient Greece was the humane, enlightened thing \nto do with conquered peoples, the only other real option being \nslavery. Severian becomes Autarch and disbands the Torturer's Guild, \nand says a piece about the Torturers being all good men, who happen \nto have a bad job.\n\nIt may be that these different worldviews are objectively harsher or \nless just than the worldview of we early 21st century English- \nliterate. But not because the people in these other worlds of Wolfe's \nare primitive and barbaric and unenlightened, but just because the \nsituation for them is different. Generally, (I think even in the \nrelentlessly grim society of Nessus) Wolfe portrays people as always \ndoiing the very best they can to do right." } ] } ] }