Subject: (urth) _Dhalgren_: Scathing Towards Women? and a few ?'s about Sev

From: Jack Redelfs <jackredelfs at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 04:19:29 +0000

Dan'l, I read _Dhalgren_ just a couple of years ago, and I seem to recall
that all or most of the female characters were objectified, scorned and
degraded in one way or another.
I don't remember any outright rape, but that's not requisite for a hateful
attitude towards women.

_Dhalgren_ is supposedly famous for being easy to start, tough to finish,
and I know I almost quit a couple of times. I don't know if I've ever read a
long novel that was so inconsistent. He wrote the first chapter in an
impressive stream-of-consciousness style, only to abandon it entirely
(except for a brief encore at the end), unless you count the bizarre
monologues. I lost track of how many times he'd introduce a few characters
and a new plot, only to abandon everything  and write 50 pages of
pornography, or 50 pages of rambling semi-coherent monologue.
It's a weird book, but not weird-good. I think It may well have been
condemned to obscurity if not for the naughty bits. It's probably one of the
worst novels I ever completed. A 250 page condensed version would likely be
solid, though no _Babel-17_. Maybe "Reader's Digest" could be interested in
the undertaking? *grin*

Dan'l:
> Actually, there are passages where various
> characters deliver homilies. Silk does it a _lot_ in
>LONG SUN.

You're right, of course. His characters do moralize,
as people are wont to do, but I think Wolfe does a
good job of leaving a bit of doubt about who's
acting as the authorial mouthpiece. Sure,
Silk may show a lot of wisdom, but within
definite limits. The mere thought of Hyacinth turns
him into a quivering schoolboy, and his moral center
is defined by devotion to a absurd religion that
worships feuding videogame deities - plus it only
recently quit sacrificing humans, and for the wrong
reason at that.

On an unrelated note, let me throw out a question that
has always intrigued me. Sometimes Severian was able
to heal with the Claw, sometimes not. Did we ever figure
out what criteria determined his success or failure?
Toward the close of _Citadel_, in one of
Wolfe's fuzziest Hallmark moments,
Sev realizes that the claw is just a common thorn,
and that "the power was inside me all along!
I healed Triskele!"

Was the power specific to Sev as the Conciliator,
or just general divine (or Hierogrammatic, if you
want to be SFnal) power accessible to any old
body?

Either way, you'd think that afterwards he would heal
people by simply laying his hands on them or
something. Why didn't he ever do this?

I seem to remember an idea that Sev
dying for the first time in _Shadow Of The Torturer_,
drowning in the Gyoll. Is this theory strongly supported
by the text or is it just wild conjecture? If it's a good
theory, it means Sev was an aquastor throughout. Did "the Claw's" healing
power come from the fact that Sev was an aquastor? Is that the SFnal
justification?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20061022/468f4980/attachment.htm

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:44:35 +0000

Jack having written...

> out what criteria determined his success or failure?

There are theories. I incline to the theory that he could
not heal anyone whose nature was "mixed," like Jonas
(cyborg), probably because that would make them unclean
in the OT sense.

> and that "the power was inside me all along!

I think this is unfair to one of GW's most powerful
moments. "I took off my boots and threw them into
the water, so as not to walk shod upon sacred ground."
He clearly is not having some revalation about _himself_.

> want to be SFnal) power accessible to any old

Have you read _Urth of the New Sun_? It defines rather
clearly where the power actually came from.

> something. Why didn't he ever do this?

Don't know.

> theory, it means Sev was an aquastor throughout. Did "the
> Claw's" healing power come from the fact that Sev was an
> aquastor? Is that the SFnal justification?

Nooooooo......

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant
-----
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer
http://www.danehyoakes.com
Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open
sewer and die.
  - Mel Brooks

---

From: James Crossley <ishmael at drizzle.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:05:18 +0000

> clearly where the power actually came from.

Dan'l's question reminded me of something I've been wanting to ask the list
at large--who, if anyone, besides me finds BotNS more satisfying without the
fifth volume? I prefer the suggestiveness of not knowing all the
explanations provided in _Urth_, and judging by Wolfe's accounts of how he
came to write that last piece, it seems he would have been content to let
the tetralogy stand alone.  I think it's only the perceived demands of the
genre audience that brought _Urth_ into existence; the publishers of
literary fiction are more generally tolerant of open-ended conclusions.
Thoughts?

Delurking,
James

---

From: Allan Anderson <rubel at goosemoon.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:31:17 +0000

I've only read "Urth" once, but I recall not enjoying it as much as the 
BotNS. So I think I'm in your camp. But I'll go take another look!

James Crossley wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:40:04 +0000

James,

I disliked "Urth" at first, for much the same reasons you suggest. I thought
it, well, _unnecessary_.

And perhaps it is unnecessary: but thanks to others on this list (especially
Alga, whose absence in recent times I greatly regret), I reread it and was
far more impressed. It does explain much that the tetralogy proper leaves
only suggested; but it also adds new questions, and indeed seems to
introduce some paradoxes, points that are quite hard to resolve both with
itself and with _tBotNS_.

One possibility, of course, is that _Urth_ isn't written by "the same"
Severian (I will do no more than put it in quotes, so as not to spoil
things for those who have not yet read it) who wrote the _Book_, but
I find that unsatisfactory on a number of levels...

---

From: Bob Miller <bob_bageera at hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 00:34:53 +0000

James,

I loved Urth, but for different reasons than I loved BotNS.  BotNS was 
almost incredibly rich without being boring.  This is more than very 
difficult. BotNS was actionpacked and still gave the sense of being a 
morality fable like Silverlock and <hmmm> Ralph Bakshi's Coonskin?  Urth was 
meeting an old friend I'd thought I'd lost and learning interesting things 
about him/it that I didn't know before.
Some authors--read all these long series making yawns of the past 2 decades 
would still be milking this milieu.  After all, there's an awful lot there 
to millk.

I think, whatever Himself says, that Urth forced itself out of his mind in a 
manner perhaps reminiscent of the birth of Venus, and perhaps for the same 
reason.  To get her off his mind.

Enjoy

_________________________________________________________________
Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your cash with 
Live Search! 
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmtagline