{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4512", "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": 4512, "subject": "A Knight question", "messages": 10, "voices": 5, "first": "2005-11-02T05:05:46+00:00", "last": "2005-11-13T03:03:42+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<86524CBF-D7F7-4E88-A4C6-7E3AB45CB214@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "transentient", "address": "transentient at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-11-02T05:05:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) A Knight question", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hello, brand new rabid Wolfe fan here (just discovered him last year, \nI've read like 17 of his books since). I've been browsing the \narchives here for a few months and I'd like to say thanks back \nthrough time to all for the enlightening posts over the years.\n\nHere's a quick Knight question I don't think I've seen posted before: \nWhile Grengarm was dying, Able says that he opened his mouth and then \nsomething about \"things which had been hidden were revealed to me.\"\n\nI am assuming that Grengarm showed him a face inside of his mouth, as \nSetr opening his mouth and speaking to Able with Garceg's face. So \nwho was Grengarm's inner face? Did I miss something that was actually \nstated, or was this maybe, something he had forgotten while in \nAelfrice the first time, but would soon forget again anyways, once he \nwas kissed by the Valkyrie?\n\nThanks!" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-11-02T22:26:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) WK psychological cosmology", "in_reply_to": "<86524CBF-D7F7-4E88-A4C6-7E3AB45CB214@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I am pretty sure I am not inventing this idea myself - though I didn't find \nit in a cursory search of the archives - but one semi-obvious way to look at \nthe layered worlds in the Knight is as a sort of map of the human mind, a \nsort of psychological theater. I couldn't tell you where to find it, but I \nam pretty sure that I've read someone, somewhere, present this as a way of \nexplaining certain myths.\n\nIn any event, just looking at the lower realms, you have:\nAelfrice, the level of base desires (as represented by the Aelf)\nMuspel, a subconscious level filled with massive, ancient and frightening \nurges (as represented by the dragons)\nNiflheim, the layer of the id itself (the Most Low God)\n\nIt is more difficult to place the higher realms, especially since I don't \nhave any background in psychology. Mythgarthr seems to a layer corresponding \nto the conscious will or ego. Skai seems a layer populated by our higher \nideals of virtue, and Kleos seems an inherently religious realm. I can't \neven begin to speculate about that.\n\nCertain things become intuitively obvious when you look at the universe of \nthe Knight this way. For instance, the problem with \"worshipping\" in the \nwrong direction - action is led by base desire instead of rationality or the \nhigher impulses. Also, the seeming omnipresence of the mother figure, which \nat least one other poster here has commented on.\n\nAble's relationship with Disiri becomes correlated with erotic or courtly \nlove, which compels him more than any other type of love in his life. Note \nthat there is no question of marriage, offspring, or families when it comes \nto their bond; it is an overly romanticized love, eternal and free of \nconsequence. They wander the gardens of Aelfrice as playmates and eternal \nchildren, in a certain sense. This also puts Able's act at the end of the \nWizard in a different - and I think better - perspective. It is not that he \nis lifting up or redeeming the woman: in my mind there have already been too \nmany stories of \"the good man who steps in and redeems the helplessly base \nwoman\". What he is elevating is his own love from something base and selfish \nto something... well, at least *slightly* higher.\n\nIncorporated as well is a theme of the need for self-restraint that runs all \nthe way through the story, in different ways, from beginning to end. Able \nhas the power to impose his will on the events of the story - it is not a \nquestion of whether he CAN (whether he is Able), it is a question of whether \nhe MAY. And the difference between the questions of \"can\" and \"may\" is \nconstantly being brought up by Able throughout both books.\n\nBut this does bring up some other questions. First of all why does the \nValfather demand that Able not use his power, and yet when Able does break \nhis promise at the end he does so with the Valfather's blessing? Perhaps \nthis is some indication that we cannot tame our baser instincts by force, \nthat the issues must be wrestled with at their own level first. I don't know \nwhether this counts as an adequate answer or not.\n\nAnother question is where the giants (of all levels) fit into this schema. \nIt seems an important fact that they can love, but cannot be loved (and thus \nare fundamentally at odds with each other), but I am at a loss as to what to \nmake of it. Similarly I find it difficult to place Kullili, even though we \nknow quite a bit about her relationship with the Aelf. And, for that matter, \nwhat is Able's nature? He seems to inhabit Skai, Aelfrice, and Mythgarthr \nequally well. Perhaps this is some reflection of the different roles that \nthe knightly ideal has played, from some perspectives being something to \naspire to and yet also (at least for many on this list) something to look \ndown upon. It is interesting that after Able restores Berthold and retires \nto Aelfrice, he sees him again from below; it is Berthold (a more modern \nheroic ideal) and not any knight who slays Schildstarr.\n\nThis post is quite scattered, and much of what's in it will be either \npainfully obvious or staunchly denied, but I wanted to throw some of this \nout there and see if anyone else could help elaborate on it.\n\nRegards,\nChris" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-11-02T22:31:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) A Knight question", "in_reply_to": "<86524CBF-D7F7-4E88-A4C6-7E3AB45CB214@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "When Grengarm opened his mouth, Able saw the faces of his victims - I don't \nthink that there was any specific person's face in Grengarm's mouth that \ncomprises the revelation Able is talking about.\n\nI think that what Able is talking about there is that he had seen Garsecg's \nface in Setr's mouth earlier, and at that moment realized the implications - \nthat if there had been a \"real\" Garsecg at one time, that sea aelf had been \nconsumed and displaced by Setr." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Hello, brand new rabid Wolfe fan here (just discovered him last year,\nI've read like 17 of his books since). I've been browsing the\narchives here for a few months and I'd like to say thanks back\nthrough time to all for the enlightening posts over the years.\n\nHere's a quick Knight question I don't think I've seen posted before:\nWhile Grengarm was dying, Able says that he opened his mouth and then\nsomething about \"things which had been hidden were revealed to me.\"\n\nI am assuming that Grengarm showed him a face inside of his mouth, as\nSetr opening his mouth and speaking to Able with Garceg's face. So\nwho was Grengarm's inner face? Did I miss something that was actually\nstated, or was this maybe, something he had forgotten while in\nAelfrice the first time, but would soon forget again anyways, once he\nwas kissed by the Valkyrie?\n\nThanks!\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<002301c5e027$20a3a8b0$0301a8c0@wdw.disney.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-11-03T03:31:50+00:00", "subject": "(urth) WK psychological cosmology", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Chris said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I am pretty sure I am not inventing this idea myself - though I didn't find\nit in a cursory search of the archives - but one semi-obvious way to look\nat the layered worlds in the Knight is as a sort of map of the human mind,\na sort of psychological theater. I couldn't tell you where to find it, but\nI am pretty sure that I've read someone, somewhere, present this as a\nway of explaining certain myths." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Perhaps, maybe, this was me.\nhere:\nhttp://lists.urth.net/htdig.cgi/urth-urth.net/2005-January/000298.html\nI said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The ambulance? That's Arthur Ormsby being taken to the hospital\nof course! They found him in a coma possibly near death from\nhypothermia in that valley where the Moss Aelf took him.\nPresumably, when he reaches the Most High God, he will awake." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm not convinced one can map the entire story upon a theory of the human\npsyche. Maybe it can be done. I don't know.\n\nBut I think that two things are surely true about this story.\n\n1) The first is that lower worlds represent lower human desires (gods).\nAelfrice is Romantic love. I'm not sure what else. Muspel is lust..for sex\nand power. Nifelheim...I don't know. Physical hunger? The Most Low God is\nanybody's guess. What is the most basic human desire after all other desires\nare stripped away? To continue to live regardless of the consequences?\nMythgarthr is a tough one, I think. The desire to create? For Wolfe of\ncourse this means storytelling, so that would explain why Mythgarthr means\n\"the place where story's are told.\" Skai is the desire for honor. Who knows\nwhat Michael's realm represents, but he tells Able that as a knight, he must\ncommand his lower gods just has *he* causes, by simple will, Valfather to\nbow before him. When Able learns to do that, Disiri transcends her world to\nbecome something more. He can enjoy his relationship with her, in Aelfrice,\nwithout being debilitated by her or being dominated. He can even take her\nwith him to Skai.\n\nUnless, I don't know this list at all. Not a few people will be revolted by\nthis interpretation.\n\n2) The second thing I'm sure of is that Able and his family...his brother\nand his mother...perhaps Ben's girlfriend too have aspects (natures) in all\nof the worlds; multiple aspects probably. (Heck! Perhaps they all are\n*wink*) Valfather and Michael are higher aspects of Able (there is a\nmythological and archeological connection between Odin and St. Michael).\nArnthor is a lower aspect. I wanted Garcecg (Arnthor's dragon brother) and\nSetr to be lower aspects of Able but there is no denying the naming\nconvention. Anyway, if Garsecg is a lower aspect of Able, why doesn't Able\nkill him or rule him? (But what of the Thor/Arnthor connection?) Arnthor is\nwhat Able would become if he did not succeed in dominating his lower gods.\nAble eventually rules Arnthor's house and thus doing what Arnthor failed to\ndo, because Arnthor is the slave of his lusts. Setr and his siblings were\neach \"consumed\" by their lower natures (lust for power and glory) which in\nturn were consuming Arnthor and Morcaine.\n\nI can't defend this interpretation by showing that every event and person\nconforms to it in every way. And don't that is possible because I don't\nthink Wolfe writes that way. But I think these things are true as far as\nthey go.\n\nJ" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Bob Miller", "address": "bob_bageera at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-11-06T02:50:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) A Knight question", "in_reply_to": "<86524CBF-D7F7-4E88-A4C6-7E3AB45CB214@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "An HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: /pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20051105/dfaec8bd/attachment.htm" } ] }, { "message_id": "<24795938.1131257674029.JavaMail.root@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-11-06T06:14:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) A Knight question", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "An HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: /pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20051106/2a2804d3/attachment.htm" } ] }, { "message_id": "<8082541.1131257895525.JavaMail.root@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-11-06T06:18:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) A Knight question", "in_reply_to": "<24795938.1131257674029.JavaMail.root@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Bob,\n\nYou ought to send your posts in Plain Text format. \nThe body of your posts is currently being scrubbed on the online verion." } ] }, { "message_id": "<20051108040746.AZQ9394.fed1rmmtao11.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net>", "from": { "name": "aramini1 at cox.net", "address": "aramini1 at cox.net" }, "date": "2005-11-08T04:08:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) WK psychological cosmology", "in_reply_to": "<002301c5e027$20a3a8b0$0301a8c0@wdw.disney.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I rather liked Chris grafting of a psychological frame for WK - Dante framed the universe as a thing inside God's mind, and this was used by Wolfe in Peace. It also makes, I think, a bit of interesting play on Andrew Bollen's earlier analysis (forgive me if I am incorrect, it was some time ago) of \"the dream [Able's] mother had\" as an explanation for how Mag could both be and not be his mother at the same time. For the realm of dream is a rather special place in our subconscious that actually \"takes over\" our awareness when we pass into slumber (at least, that's how it seems to us). \n\nI'm still not certain that the boy who fights off highjackers is necessarily Able, just as the girl who goes into childbirth is certainly NOT Able. They are just more dwellers in the string of Parka. Able could just as easily be the boy who loses his dog and chokes on a rabbit (although that particular vision accompanies the scene of Toug losing his voice until Arthur/Able retrieves the sword). \n\n\n\nGood job, Chris." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Chris\" \nDate: 2005/11/02 Wed PM 05:26:52 EST\nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nSubject: (urth) WK psychological cosmology\n\nI am pretty sure I am not inventing this idea myself - though I didn't find \nit in a cursory search of the archives - but one semi-obvious way to look at \nthe layered worlds in the Knight is as a sort of map of the human mind, a \nsort of psychological theater. I couldn't tell you where to find it, but I \nam pretty sure that I've read someone, somewhere, present this as a way of \nexplaining certain myths.\n\nIn any event, just looking at the lower realms, you have:\nAelfrice, the level of base desires (as represented by the Aelf)\nMuspel, a subconscious level filled with massive, ancient and frightening \nurges (as represented by the dragons)\nNiflheim, the layer of the id itself (the Most Low God)\n\nIt is more difficult to place the higher realms, especially since I don't \nhave any background in psychology. Mythgarthr seems to a layer corresponding \nto the conscious will or ego. Skai seems a layer populated by our higher \nideals of virtue, and Kleos seems an inherently religious realm. I can't \neven begin to speculate about that.\n\nCertain things become intuitively obvious when you look at the universe of \nthe Knight this way. For instance, the problem with \"worshipping\" in the \nwrong direction - action is led by base desire instead of rationality or the \nhigher impulses. Also, the seeming omnipresence of the mother figure, which \nat least one other poster here has commented on.\n\nAble's relationship with Disiri becomes correlated with erotic or courtly \nlove, which compels him more than any other type of love in his life. Note \nthat there is no question of marriage, offspring, or families when it comes \nto their bond; it is an overly romanticized love, eternal and free of \nconsequence. They wander the gardens of Aelfrice as playmates and eternal \nchildren, in a certain sense. This also puts Able's act at the end of the \nWizard in a different - and I think better - perspective. It is not that he \nis lifting up or redeeming the woman: in my mind there have already been too \nmany stories of \"the good man who steps in and redeems the helplessly base \nwoman\". What he is elevating is his own love from something base and selfish \nto something... well, at least *slightly* higher.\n\nIncorporated as well is a theme of the need for self-restraint that runs all \nthe way through the story, in different ways, from beginning to end. Able \nhas the power to impose his will on the events of the story - it is not a \nquestion of whether he CAN (whether he is Able), it is a question of whether \nhe MAY. And the difference between the questions of \"can\" and \"may\" is \nconstantly being brought up by Able throughout both books.\n\nBut this does bring up some other questions. First of all why does the \nValfather demand that Able not use his power, and yet when Able does break \nhis promise at the end he does so with the Valfather's blessing? Perhaps \nthis is some indication that we cannot tame our baser instincts by force, \nthat the issues must be wrestled with at their own level first. I don't know \nwhether this counts as an adequate answer or not.\n\nAnother question is where the giants (of all levels) fit into this schema. \nIt seems an important fact that they can love, but cannot be loved (and thus \nare fundamentally at odds with each other), but I am at a loss as to what to \nmake of it. Similarly I find it difficult to place Kullili, even though we \nknow quite a bit about her relationship with the Aelf. And, for that matter, \nwhat is Able's nature? He seems to inhabit Skai, Aelfrice, and Mythgarthr \nequally well. Perhaps this is some reflection of the different roles that \nthe knightly ideal has played, from some perspectives being something to \naspire to and yet also (at least for many on this list) something to look \ndown upon. It is interesting that after Able restores Berthold and retires \nto Aelfrice, he sees him again from below; it is Berthold (a more modern \nheroic ideal) and not any knight who slays Schildstarr.\n\nThis post is quite scattered, and much of what's in it will be either \npainfully obvious or staunchly denied, but I wanted to throw some of this \nout there and see if anyone else could help elaborate on it.\n\nRegards,\nChris\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-11-11T23:09:07+00:00", "subject": "(urth) WK psychological cosmology", "in_reply_to": "<20051108040746.AZQ9394.fed1rmmtao11.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I may be imagining things, but I got the impression that the bow string was \nnot full of entire lives, but only certain pieces of the lives of various \npeople. Heroic moments, to be particular. So I don't see any reason to think \nthat Art Ormsby is any one of them, though you might say they're all Able." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm still not certain that the boy who fights off highjackers is \nnecessarily Able, just as the girl who goes into childbirth is certainly \nNOT Able. They are just more dwellers in the string of Parka. Able could \njust as easily be the boy who loses his dog and chokes on a rabbit \n(although that particular vision accompanies the scene of Toug losing his \nvoice until Arthur/Able retrieves the sword).\n\n\n\nGood job, Chris." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From: \"Chris\" \nDate: 2005/11/02 Wed PM 05:26:52 EST\nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nSubject: (urth) WK psychological cosmology\n\nI am pretty sure I am not inventing this idea myself - though I didn't \nfind\nit in a cursory search of the archives - but one semi-obvious way to \nlook at\nthe layered worlds in the Knight is as a sort of map of the human mind, \na\nsort of psychological theater. I couldn't tell you where to find it, but \nI\nam pretty sure that I've read someone, somewhere, present this as a way \nof\nexplaining certain myths.\n\nIn any event, just looking at the lower realms, you have:\nAelfrice, the level of base desires (as represented by the Aelf)\nMuspel, a subconscious level filled with massive, ancient and \nfrightening\nurges (as represented by the dragons)\nNiflheim, the layer of the id itself (the Most Low God)\n\nIt is more difficult to place the higher realms, especially since I \ndon't\nhave any background in psychology. Mythgarthr seems to a layer \ncorresponding\nto the conscious will or ego. Skai seems a layer populated by our higher\nideals of virtue, and Kleos seems an inherently religious realm. I can't\neven begin to speculate about that.\n\nCertain things become intuitively obvious when you look at the universe \nof\nthe Knight this way. For instance, the problem with \"worshipping\" in the\nwrong direction - action is led by base desire instead of rationality or \nthe\nhigher impulses. Also, the seeming omnipresence of the mother figure, \nwhich\nat least one other poster here has commented on.\n\nAble's relationship with Disiri becomes correlated with erotic or \ncourtly\nlove, which compels him more than any other type of love in his life. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Note\nthat there is no question of marriage, offspring, or families when it \ncomes\nto their bond; it is an overly romanticized love, eternal and free of\nconsequence. They wander the gardens of Aelfrice as playmates and \neternal\nchildren, in a certain sense. This also puts Able's act at the end of \nthe\nWizard in a different - and I think better - perspective. It is not that \nhe\nis lifting up or redeeming the woman: in my mind there have already been \ntoo\nmany stories of \"the good man who steps in and redeems the helplessly \nbase\nwoman\". What he is elevating is his own love from something base and \nselfish\nto something... well, at least *slightly* higher." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Incorporated as well is a theme of the need for self-restraint that runs \nall\nthe way through the story, in different ways, from beginning to end. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Able\nhas the power to impose his will on the events of the story - it is not \na\nquestion of whether he CAN (whether he is Able), it is a question of \nwhether\nhe MAY. And the difference between the questions of \"can\" and \"may\" is\nconstantly being brought up by Able throughout both books." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But this does bring up some other questions. First of all why does the\nValfather demand that Able not use his power, and yet when Able does \nbreak\nhis promise at the end he does so with the Valfather's blessing? Perhaps\nthis is some indication that we cannot tame our baser instincts by \nforce,\nthat the issues must be wrestled with at their own level first. I don't \nknow\nwhether this counts as an adequate answer or not.\n\nAnother question is where the giants (of all levels) fit into this \nschema.\nIt seems an important fact that they can love, but cannot be loved (and \nthus\nare fundamentally at odds with each other), but I am at a loss as to \nwhat to\nmake of it. Similarly I find it difficult to place Kullili, even though \nwe\nknow quite a bit about her relationship with the Aelf. And, for that \nmatter,\nwhat is Able's nature? He seems to inhabit Skai, Aelfrice, and \nMythgarthr\nequally well. Perhaps this is some reflection of the different roles \nthat\nthe knightly ideal has played, from some perspectives being something to\naspire to and yet also (at least for many on this list) something to \nlook\ndown upon. It is interesting that after Able restores Berthold and \nretires\nto Aelfrice, he sees him again from below; it is Berthold (a more modern\nheroic ideal) and not any knight who slays Schildstarr.\n\nThis post is quite scattered, and much of what's in it will be either\npainfully obvious or staunchly denied, but I wanted to throw some of \nthis\nout there and see if anyone else could help elaborate on it.\n\nRegards,\nChris\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<000401c5e7fe$dac35130$0301a8c0@wdw.disney.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-11-13T03:03:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) WK psychological cosmology", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Chris said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I may be imagining things, but I got the impression that the bow string was\nnot full of entire lives, but only certain pieces of the lives of various\npeople. Heroic moments, to be particular. So I don't see any reason to\nthink that Art Ormsby is any one of them, though you might say they're\nall Able." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, he get's the string and bow from Parka. Since Parka's name identifies\nher indirectly with the Greek Fates and since that association (and the fact\nthat she also gives Able a stave) identifies her with the Norns, I'd say the\nstring *does* contain all those lives in their entirity.\n\nThe existance of that string, btw, -- containing the story of all those\ndifferent lives -- is the biggest argument IMO against the events of The\nWizard Knight being somehow internal to Arthur Ormsby (as I believe they\nare).\n\nJ" } ] } ] }