{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4747", "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": 4747, "subject": "_Dhalgren_: Scathing Towards Women? and a few ?'s about Sev", "messages": 6, "voices": 5, "first": "2006-10-23T04:19:29+00:00", "last": "2006-10-24T00:34:53+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<19ee41770610222119i266e956coadfc0914b6b5b651@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Jack Redelfs", "address": "jackredelfs at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-10-23T04:19:29+00:00", "subject": "(urth) _Dhalgren_: Scathing Towards Women? and a few ?'s about Sev", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l, I read _Dhalgren_ just a couple of years ago, and I seem to recall\nthat all or most of the female characters were objectified, scorned and\ndegraded in one way or another.\nI don't remember any outright rape, but that's not requisite for a hateful\nattitude towards women.\n\n_Dhalgren_ is supposedly famous for being easy to start, tough to finish,\nand I know I almost quit a couple of times. I don't know if I've ever read a\nlong novel that was so inconsistent. He wrote the first chapter in an\nimpressive stream-of-consciousness style, only to abandon it entirely\n(except for a brief encore at the end), unless you count the bizarre\nmonologues. I lost track of how many times he'd introduce a few characters\nand a new plot, only to abandon everything and write 50 pages of\npornography, or 50 pages of rambling semi-coherent monologue.\nIt's a weird book, but not weird-good. I think It may well have been\ncondemned to obscurity if not for the naughty bits. It's probably one of the\nworst novels I ever completed. A 250 page condensed version would likely be\nsolid, though no _Babel-17_. Maybe \"Reader's Digest\" could be interested in\nthe undertaking? *grin*\n\nDan'l:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Actually, there are passages where various\ncharacters deliver homilies. Silk does it a _lot_ in\nLONG SUN." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You're right, of course. His characters do moralize,\nas people are wont to do, but I think Wolfe does a\ngood job of leaving a bit of doubt about who's\nacting as the authorial mouthpiece. Sure,\nSilk may show a lot of wisdom, but within\ndefinite limits. The mere thought of Hyacinth turns\nhim into a quivering schoolboy, and his moral center\nis defined by devotion to a absurd religion that\nworships feuding videogame deities - plus it only\nrecently quit sacrificing humans, and for the wrong\nreason at that.\n\nOn an unrelated note, let me throw out a question that\nhas always intrigued me. Sometimes Severian was able\nto heal with the Claw, sometimes not. Did we ever figure\nout what criteria determined his success or failure?\nToward the close of _Citadel_, in one of\nWolfe's fuzziest Hallmark moments,\nSev realizes that the claw is just a common thorn,\nand that \"the power was inside me all along!\nI healed Triskele!\"\n\nWas the power specific to Sev as the Conciliator,\nor just general divine (or Hierogrammatic, if you\nwant to be SFnal) power accessible to any old\nbody?\n\nEither way, you'd think that afterwards he would heal\npeople by simply laying his hands on them or\nsomething. Why didn't he ever do this?\n\nI seem to remember an idea that Sev\ndying for the first time in _Shadow Of The Torturer_,\ndrowning in the Gyoll. Is this theory strongly supported\nby the text or is it just wild conjecture? If it's a good\ntheory, it means Sev was an aquastor throughout. Did \"the Claw's\" healing\npower come from the fact that Sev was an aquastor? Is that the SFnal\njustification?" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370610230944q5edab657nf9eb4277ba005feb@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-10-23T16:44:35+00:00", "subject": "(urth) _Dhalgren_: Scathing Towards Women? and a few ?'s about\n\tSev", "in_reply_to": "<19ee41770610222119i266e956coadfc0914b6b5b651@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Jack having written..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On an unrelated note, let me throw out a question that\nhas always intrigued me. Sometimes Severian was able\nto heal with the Claw, sometimes not. Did we ever figure\nout what criteria determined his success or failure?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There are theories. I incline to the theory that he could\nnot heal anyone whose nature was \"mixed,\" like Jonas\n(cyborg), probably because that would make them unclean\nin the OT sense." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Toward the close of _Citadel_, in one of\nWolfe's fuzziest Hallmark moments,\nSev realizes that the claw is just a common thorn,\nand that \"the power was inside me all along!\nI healed Triskele!\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think this is unfair to one of GW's most powerful\nmoments. \"I took off my boots and threw them into\nthe water, so as not to walk shod upon sacred ground.\"\nHe clearly is not having some revalation about _himself_." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Was the power specific to Sev as the Conciliator,\nor just general divine (or Hierogrammatic, if you\nwant to be SFnal) power accessible to any old\nbody?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Have you read _Urth of the New Sun_? It defines rather\nclearly where the power actually came from." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Either way, you'd think that afterwards he would heal\npeople by simply laying his hands on them or\nsomething. Why didn't he ever do this?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Don't know." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I seem to remember an idea that Sev\ndying for the first time in _Shadow Of The Torturer_,\ndrowning in the Gyoll. Is this theory strongly supported\nby the text or is it just wild conjecture? If it's a good\ntheory, it means Sev was an aquastor throughout. Did \"the\nClaw's\" healing power come from the fact that Sev was an\naquastor? Is that the SFnal justification?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Nooooooo......" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\nhttp://www.danehyoakes.com\nTragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open\nsewer and die.\n - Mel Brooks" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Crossley", "address": "ishmael at drizzle.com" }, "date": "2006-10-23T21:05:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) _Dhalgren_: Scathing Towards Women? and a few ?'s\tabout\n\tSev", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370610230944q5edab657nf9eb4277ba005feb@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 10/23/06 9:44 AM, \"Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\" wrote:\nWas the power specific to Sev as the Conciliator,\nor just general divine (or Hierogrammatic, if you\nwant to be SFnal) power accessible to any old\nbody?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Have you read _Urth of the New Sun_? It defines rather\nclearly where the power actually came from." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l's question reminded me of something I've been wanting to ask the list\nat large--who, if anyone, besides me finds BotNS more satisfying without the\nfifth volume? I prefer the suggestiveness of not knowing all the\nexplanations provided in _Urth_, and judging by Wolfe's accounts of how he\ncame to write that last piece, it seems he would have been content to let\nthe tetralogy stand alone. I think it's only the perceived demands of the\ngenre audience that brought _Urth_ into existence; the publishers of\nliterary fiction are more generally tolerant of open-ended conclusions.\nThoughts?\n\nDelurking,\nJames" } ] }, { "message_id": "<453D34A5.5090105@goosemoon.org>", "from": { "name": "Allan Anderson", "address": "rubel at goosemoon.org" }, "date": "2006-10-23T21:31:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) _Dhalgren_: Scathing Towards Women? and a few ?'s\tabout\n Sev", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've only read \"Urth\" once, but I recall not enjoying it as much as the \nBotNS. So I think I'm in your camp. But I'll go take another look!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "James Crossley wrote:\nOn 10/23/06 9:44 AM, \"Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\" wrote:\n\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Was the power specific to Sev as the Conciliator,\nor just general divine (or Hierogrammatic, if you\nwant to be SFnal) power accessible to any old\nbody?\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Have you read _Urth of the New Sun_? It defines rather\nclearly where the power actually came from.\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l's question reminded me of something I've been wanting to ask the list\nat large--who, if anyone, besides me finds BotNS more satisfying without the\nfifth volume? I prefer the suggestiveness of not knowing all the\nexplanations provided in _Urth_, and judging by Wolfe's accounts of how he\ncame to write that last piece, it seems he would have been content to let\nthe tetralogy stand alone. I think it's only the perceived demands of the\ngenre audience that brought _Urth_ into existence; the publishers of\nliterary fiction are more generally tolerant of open-ended conclusions.\nThoughts?\n\nDelurking,\nJames\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370610231440y35ed7932k4d04353395885fe9@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-10-23T21:40:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) _Dhalgren_: Scathing Towards Women? and a few ?'s about\n\tSev", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "James,\n\nI disliked \"Urth\" at first, for much the same reasons you suggest. I thought\nit, well, _unnecessary_.\n\nAnd perhaps it is unnecessary: but thanks to others on this list (especially\nAlga, whose absence in recent times I greatly regret), I reread it and was\nfar more impressed. It does explain much that the tetralogy proper leaves\nonly suggested; but it also adds new questions, and indeed seems to\nintroduce some paradoxes, points that are quite hard to resolve both with\nitself and with _tBotNS_.\n\nOne possibility, of course, is that _Urth_ isn't written by \"the same\"\nSeverian (I will do no more than put it in quotes, so as not to spoil\nthings for those who have not yet read it) who wrote the _Book_, but\nI find that unsatisfactory on a number of levels..." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\nhttp://www.danehyoakes.com\nTragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open\nsewer and die.\n - Mel Brooks" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Bob Miller", "address": "bob_bageera at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-10-24T00:34:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) _Dhalgren_: Scathing Towards Women? and a few ?'s\n\taboutSev", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370610231440y35ed7932k4d04353395885fe9@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "James,\n\nI disliked \"Urth\" at first, for much the same reasons you suggest. I thought\nit, well, _unnecessary_.\n\nAnd perhaps it is unnecessary: but thanks to others on this list (especially\nAlga, whose absence in recent times I greatly regret), I reread it and was\nfar more impressed. It does explain much that the tetralogy proper leaves\nonly suggested; but it also adds new questions, and indeed seems to\nintroduce some paradoxes, points that are quite hard to resolve both with\nitself and with _tBotNS_.\n\nI loved Urth, but for different reasons than I loved BotNS. BotNS was \nalmost incredibly rich without being boring. This is more than very \ndifficult. BotNS was actionpacked and still gave the sense of being a \nmorality fable like Silverlock and Ralph Bakshi's Coonskin? Urth was \nmeeting an old friend I'd thought I'd lost and learning interesting things \nabout him/it that I didn't know before.\nSome authors--read all these long series making yawns of the past 2 decades \nwould still be milking this milieu. After all, there's an awful lot there \nto millk.\n\nI think, whatever Himself says, that Urth forced itself out of his mind in a \nmanner perhaps reminiscent of the birth of Venus, and perhaps for the same \nreason. To get her off his mind.\n\nEnjoy" } ] } ] }