# BSG Spoiler *The Urth list — 359 messages, 44 voices, 25 Jan 2009* > 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. --- ### Stuart Hamm *25 Jan 2009, 15:59* No peeking witz I hate to post a BSG message here, but I'm not such a geek as to post rantings on random BSG websites.... ...am I???? Anyway, you know that Ellen isn't the final Cylon. Since "Earth" turned out to be home to a different breed of Cylon where they aged, she is just an aged 6. And the final Cylon is.... All misleading arrows point to Starbucks ps...How did I miss that the Whorl was orbiting B&G for 40 years and why did it take so long for them to leave???? ~S~ ???? Mobile — (415) 786-3624 ???? Skype? stuart.hamm myspace.com/stuhamm ? ??? stuarthamm.net --- ### James Wynn *25 Jan 2009, 16:42 · in reply to Stuart Hamm* > All misleading arrows point to Starbucks Pick me up a frapacino while you're there. Personally, I've always suspected that Adama healed up way too fast when Athena shot him. J --- ### Fred Kiesche *16 Mar 2009, 16:12 · in reply to James Wynn* That show jumped the shark at least a season ago. "They have a plan..." Nah, Ron Moore was just making it up as he went along. F.P. Kiesche III "Ah Mr. Gibbon, another damned, fat, square book. Always, scribble, scribble, scribble, eh?" (The Duke of Gloucester, on being presented with Volume 2 of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.) Blogging at The Lensman's Children and TexasBestGrok! --- On Sun, 1/25/09, James Wynn wrote: > From: James Wynn > Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler > To: hammstu at sbcglobal.net, "The Urth Mailing List" > Date: Sunday, January 25, 2009, 11:42 AM > All misleading arrows point to Starbucks Pick me up a frapacino while you're there. Personally, I've always suspected that Adama healed up way too fast when Athena shot him. J ?_______________________________________________ --- ### Son of Witz *16 Mar 2009, 22:29 · follows Fred Kiesche* I think the BSG story arc was planned. we'll see. this season is kinda hurting though. in other tangental news, (seems to fit as well here as anywhere) Watchmen was pretty fracking awesome. The film kept the basic message and tone of the book, IMO. For Listers who haven't read it, Watchmen is interesting as literature, because, like Wolfe, Moore is masterful at making his major theme resonate in the basic plot, in all the subtext, and in each character in microcosm. An incredible look at how our attempts to use violence in the name of peace and justice disfigure our humanity. I suppose I'm writing about it here because I couldn't help but think about New Sun during it. As some may have noted, I'm working on illustrations for BotNS (my own motivation, not commissioned) so the notion of adaptation and illustration was on my mind. I kept thinking, during the obtuse scene on mars, how much this thing was an illustration, thinking how odd and cumbersome a work to put to screen, all the while thinking, why am I even trying to illustrate BotNS? what perverse desire is there to add illustrations to something already perfect? Also, I hope no one ever tries to make a New Sun movie in 2.75 hours. How strange and confusing it would be. Like Watchmen has all the trappings of Super Hero comic, New Sun has all the trappings of Sword and Sworcery novel, yet neither are truly examples of the forms they seem to take on, and are instead quite strange beasts. The marketing of both is misleading. ~witz > -----Original Message----- > From: Fred Kiesche [mailto:recursive_loop at yahoo.com] > Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 09:12 AM > To: 'The Urth Mailing List' > Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler > > That show jumped the shark at least a season ago. "They have a plan..." Nah, Ron Moore was just making it up as he went along. > > > F.P. Kiesche III > "Ah Mr. Gibbon, another damned, fat, square book. Always, scribble, scribble, scribble, eh?" (The Duke of Gloucester, on being presented with Volume 2 of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.) Blogging at The Lensman's Children and TexasBestGrok! > > --- On Sun, 1/25/09, James Wynn wrote: > > From: James Wynn > Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler --- ### brunians at brunians.org *16 Mar 2009, 22:59 · in reply to Son of Witz* > Watchmen was pretty fracking awesome. > The film kept the basic message and tone of the book, IMO. > For Listers who haven't read it, Watchmen is interesting as literature, > because, like Wolfe, Moore is masterful at making his major theme resonate > in the basic plot, in all the subtext, and in each character in microcosm. > An incredible look at how our attempts to use violence in the name of > peace and justice disfigure our humanity. Or yet another anarchist whining about how he doesn't like reality cause it's got nasty bits. He's not just one ordinary bator, you know. Imagine no more clothing We never wear a stitch Imagine no possessions It's easy if you're rich -- John Lennon, sorta. . --- ### Son of Witz *16 Mar 2009, 23:08 · follows brunians at brunians.org* > -----Original Message----- > From: brunians at brunians.org [mailto:brunians at brunians.org] > Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 03:59 PM > To: 'The Urth Mailing List' > Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler >> Watchmen was pretty fracking awesome. >> The film kept the basic message and tone of the book, IMO. >> For Listers who haven't read it, Watchmen is interesting as literature, >> because, like Wolfe, Moore is masterful at making his major theme resonate >> in the basic plot, in all the subtext, and in each character in microcosm. >> An incredible look at how our attempts to use violence in the name of >> peace and justice disfigure our humanity. > Or yet another anarchist whining about how he doesn't like reality cause > it's got nasty bits. > > He's not just one ordinary bator, you know. > > > Imagine no more clothing > We never wear a stitch > Imagine no possessions > It's easy if you're rich > > -- John Lennon, sorta. That seems to be a remarkably common critique of Alan Moore. to my ears, it sounds something like "Another social critique that doesn't offer a alternative solution! Now you got me all depressed and didn't offer no sunshine, wah..." ~witz --- ### brunians at brunians.org *17 Mar 2009, 00:10 · in reply to Son of Witz* >>> Watchmen was ... >>> An incredible look at how our attempts to use violence in the name of >>> peace and justice disfigure our humanity. >> Or yet another anarchist whining about how he doesn't like reality cause >> it's got nasty bits. >> He's not just one ordinary bator, you know. >> Imagine no more clothing >> We never wear a stitch >> Imagine no possessions >> It's easy if you're rich >> -- John Lennon, sorta. > That seems to be a remarkably common critique of Alan Moore. > to my ears, it sounds something like "Another social critique that doesn't > offer a alternative solution! Now you got me all depressed and didn't > offer no sunshine, wah..." Tough. The World is a certain way. Some problems don't have solutions. The sooner you accept that, the more useful you will be in solving the problems that do have solutions. . --- ### Son of Witz *17 Mar 2009, 01:30 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > On Mar 16, 2009, at 5:10 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >>>> Watchmen was ... >>>> An incredible look at how our attempts to use violence in the >>>> name of >>>> peace and justice disfigure our humanity. >>> Or yet another anarchist whining about how he doesn't like reality >>> cause >>> it's got nasty bits. >>> He's not just one ordinary bator, you know. >>> Imagine no more clothing >>> We never wear a stitch >>> Imagine no possessions >>> It's easy if you're rich >>> -- John Lennon, sorta. >> That seems to be a remarkably common critique of Alan Moore. >> to my ears, it sounds something like "Another social critique that >> doesn't >> offer a alternative solution! Now you got me all depressed and didn't >> offer no sunshine, wah..." > Tough. The World is a certain way. Some problems don't have > solutions. The > sooner you accept that, the more useful you will be in solving the > problems that do have solutions. wow. thanks for the hot tip. is kneejerk politics the only lens to observe Alan Moore's work with? --- ### Adam Thornton *17 Mar 2009, 02:05 · in reply to Son of Witz* > On Mar 16, 2009, at 8:30 PM, Son of Witz wrote: > > wow. thanks for the hot tip. > is kneejerk politics the only lens to observe Alan Moore's work with? "Silk Spectre" sounds sort of like "Seawrack" if you're even drunker. Adam --- ### Chris P *17 Mar 2009, 02:19 · in reply to Adam Thornton* > From: adam at io.com > To: urth at lists.urth.net > Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:05:26 -0500 > Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler > > > On Mar 16, 2009, at 8:30 PM, Son of Witz wrote: >> wow. thanks for the hot tip. >> is kneejerk politics the only lens to observe Alan Moore's work with? > "Silk Spectre" sounds sort of like "Seawrack" if you're even drunker. > > Adam C. Everett Koop sounds a little bit like it... You'll get even drunker just trying to get that image out of your head. --- ### brunians at brunians.org *17 Mar 2009, 03:48 · in reply to Adam Thornton* Hold on. Isn't kneejerk politics Moore's main lens? How is it unfair to turn the man's instrument on himself? . > On Mar 16, 2009, at 8:30 PM, Son of Witz wrote: >> wow. thanks for the hot tip. >> is kneejerk politics the only lens to observe Alan Moore's work with? > "Silk Spectre" sounds sort of like "Seawrack" if you're even drunker. > > Adam_______________________________________________ --- ### Chris P *17 Mar 2009, 04:20 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* Politics appears in Moore's work, though I have never detected any particular political thesis he's forwarding or an outright agenda. Wolfe is more overtly political. ``` "When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means that the sun is about to set." -- Lin Yutang ``` > Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:48:55 -0400 > From: brunians at brunians.org > To: urth at lists.urth.net > Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler > > Hold on. Isn't kneejerk politics Moore's main lens? How is it unfair to > turn the man's instrument on himself? > > > > > . >> On Mar 16, 2009, at 8:30 PM, Son of Witz wrote: >>> wow. thanks for the hot tip. >>> is kneejerk politics the only lens to observe Alan Moore's work with? >> "Silk Spectre" sounds sort of like "Seawrack" if you're even drunker. >> >> Adam_______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *17 Mar 2009, 05:06 · in reply to Chris P* Alan Moore is or is not the author of 'From Hell' and 'V for Vendetta'? Yes indeed Gene Wolfe's work is overtly political. I find it interesting that politics is almost never discussed on this list. I would welcome a discussion of the politics of Wolfe's work. . > Politics appears in Moore's work, though I have never detected any > particular political thesis he's forwarding or an outright agenda. > > Wolfe is more overtly political. > > -- > "When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means that the sun is about > to set." -- Lin Yutang >> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:48:55 -0400 >> From: brunians at brunians.org >> To: urth at lists.urth.net >> Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler >> >> Hold on. Isn't kneejerk politics Moore's main lens? How is it unfair to >> turn the man's instrument on himself? >> >> >> >> >> . >>> On Mar 16, 2009, at 8:30 PM, Son of Witz wrote: >>>> wow. thanks for the hot tip. >>>> is kneejerk politics the only lens to observe Alan Moore's work with? >>> "Silk Spectre" sounds sort of like "Seawrack" if you're even drunker. >>> >>> Adam_______________________________________________ --- ### Son of Witz *17 Mar 2009, 05:46 · in reply to Fred Kiesche* > On Mar 16, 2009, at 9:12 AM, Fred Kiesche wrote: > That show jumped the shark at least a season ago. "They have a > plan..." Nah, Ron Moore was just making it up as he went along. Dang, watching this "Last Frakking Special" I think you're right. they didn't know where they were going. --- ### Son of Witz *17 Mar 2009, 06:26 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > On Mar 16, 2009, at 10:06 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: > Alan Moore is or is not the author of 'From Hell' and 'V for > Vendetta'? > > Yes indeed Gene Wolfe's work is overtly political. I find it > interesting > that politics is almost never discussed on this list. I would > welcome a > discussion of the politics of Wolfe's work. "V for Vendetta" is much more politically charged than Watchmen, in that "V for Vendetta" is making a case for anarchism, and distinctly critiquing the Thatcher era as fascist. Sure, Watchmen questions American power, but it's hardly just about that, and it's not making a case for any political system. It's asking questions, not giving pat political answers. > On Mar 16, 2009, at 5:10 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: > Tough. The World is a certain way. Some problems don't have > solutions. The > sooner you accept that, the more useful you will be in solving the > problems that do have solutions. So, we shouldn't write stories about problems that don't have solutions? Is that what you're saying? Surely there's been plenty of great stories about death, war, loss, and many other REAL problems that people face. I don't find anything "Whiney or anarchist" about Watchmen's message. I see an author giving us a profound meditation on how our attempts to use power and violence to protect and bring peace often disfigure humanity, as well as it's parallel question of who monitors those judges and keeps them in check. That's NOT to say that the book is saying "Don't fight" or, "No one should have the power", or any other trite pacifist sort of statement. It's a profound question; What gives someone the right to set themselves up as judge, jury and executioner? This certainly applies to the vigilantes in the story, but also applies to a government run amok, exemplified by a Nixon character who has stayed in office for 5 terms. In most examples in the book, they all go too far and lose there humanity. The Dr. Manhattan character is especially loaded in this respect, because he is, symbolically and literally, a product of The Bomb. Bombing Hiroshima, I believe, did some strange things to our psyche. I might go so far as to say we were psychologically disfigured, but I'll leave that to Alan Moore to do. But, you know, who judges between such scales? What did Oppenheimer say, "I am become Death." Anyway, Moore asks those questions with Watchmen, and one of it's strengths is that it doesn't give an answer. He doesn't try to set up some idealistic example of an alternative. He doesn't moralize and say it's "wrong", he just explores the topic, masterfully, through the small and large parts of the story. His theme resonates throughout the work, in just about every pore. I've encountered few writers who have done it so well. Wolfe is another. Sorry if I seem pitched. I've seen a few politicized comments that struck me as completely off base in regards to Watchmen. an interesting one was "OH NO, ANOTHER REPUBLICAN HATING MOVIE" . Wow, what a facile, knee jerk mis-read! By all means, pick apart "V for Vendetta" on political grounds, but Watchmen is operating at a philosophical level that is relevant to any political persuasion. They're human questions of how concepts like Revenge and War and the Power-to-destroy-ourselves affects our psyche and the world around us. ~witz --- ### Jeff Wilson *17 Mar 2009, 06:37 · in reply to Son of Witz* > Son of Witz wrote: > On Mar 16, 2009, at 10:06 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> Alan Moore is or is not the author of 'From Hell' and 'V for Vendetta'? >> >> Yes indeed Gene Wolfe's work is overtly political. I find it interesting >> that politics is almost never discussed on this list. I would welcome a >> discussion of the politics of Wolfe's work. > "V for Vendetta" is much more politically charged than Watchmen, in that > "V for Vendetta" is making a case for anarchism I wouldn't go quite that far; V wants to get rid of *that* government, not all government. VFV's more of a militia promotion to me. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### Stuart Hamm *17 Mar 2009, 06:47 · in reply to Son of Witz* I agree...too bad Still fun though... Hey Mike...I get the show 3 hours early and am having a few peeps over....waddya think? Gotta clear it witht eh Mrs first...hehehe Gime a holler \ ~S~ ???? Mobile — (415) 786-3624 ???? Skype? stuart.hamm myspace.com/stuhamm ? ??? stuarthamm.net --- On Mon, 3/16/09, Son of Witz wrote: From: Son of Witz Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler To: "The Urth Mailing List" Date: Monday, March 16, 2009, 10:46 PM > On Mar 16, 2009, at 9:12 AM, Fred Kiesche wrote: > That show jumped the shark at least a season ago. "They have a > plan..." Nah, Ron Moore was just making it up as he went along. Dang, watching this "Last Frakking Special" I think you're right. they didn't know where they were going. --- ### Allan Anderson *17 Mar 2009, 06:54 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* > On Mar 16, 2009, at 11:37 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote: > Son of Witz wrote: >> On Mar 16, 2009, at 10:06 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >>> Alan Moore is or is not the author of 'From Hell' and 'V for >>> Vendetta'? >>> >>> Yes indeed Gene Wolfe's work is overtly political. I find it >>> interesting >>> that politics is almost never discussed on this list. I would >>> welcome a >>> discussion of the politics of Wolfe's work. >> "V for Vendetta" is much more politically charged than Watchmen, in >> that "V for Vendetta" is making a case for anarchism > I wouldn't go quite that far; V wants to get rid of *that* > government, not all government. VFV's more of a militia promotion to > me. I think the sequence where V **SPOILERS!** breaks down Evey with all the mindgames isn't just about opposing the British Fascism of the comic's alternate future, but about personal liberation from the cul- de-sacs society can push you down. He's trying to awaken her to an anarchistic taste of freedom. There are different sides to that anarchy, as are shown at the end when Evey says something about her mentor being the V of destruction, while she would be the one of rebuilding. As with a lot of Moore's stuff, though, V's a disturbing and messed up figure! I very much doubt that Moore wrote V or Rorschach with the hope that people would come away from a reading thinking, "wow, I wanna be like those people". They are the ones who dare to do what we dare not, but they're also insane, more like a maverick bomb than way of life. What do you mean about the militias? I'm not sure I get that. > On Mar 16, 2009, at 3:29 PM, Son of Witz wrote: > Also, I hope no one ever tries to make a New Sun movie in 2.75 > hours. How strange and confusing it would be. Like Watchmen has all > the trappings of Super Hero comic, New Sun has all the trappings of > Sword and Sworcery novel, yet neither are truly examples of the > forms they seem to take on, and are instead quite strange beasts. > The marketing of both is misleading. Hey, that's an interesting comparison -- both take a pulpy container and fill it with something more than we expect. What's the purpose of this choice? Love of the genre? A chance to divert the charge these settings and characters carry? A ready audience to be corrupted? n.p. Zappa, "Pick Me, I'm Clean" --- ### Jeff Wilson *17 Mar 2009, 10:11 · in reply to Allan Anderson* > Allan Anderson wrote: > What do you mean about the militias? I'm not sure I get that. The entire "a government should be afraid of its people" idea, where the people should be armed and ready to take back control of their country when the government oversteps its bounds and becomes a burden more than a benefit. Our current militia movement takes justification in the @nd Amendment to the US constitution as statements of the founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson: * I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. o Letter to James Madison (January 30, 1787); referring to Shays' Rebellion Lipscomb & Bergh ed. 6:65 * God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. Letter to William Stevens Smith (November 13, 1787), quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### brunians at brunians.org *17 Mar 2009, 10:36 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* This is a good opportunity to start the discussion that I have been wanting to have. A prominent feature of Wolfe's politics, which appears time and time again in his stories is his strong approval of the 2nd Amendment of the United States constitution, which recognizes the inherent right of the people to keep and bear arms, and his strong disapproval of the disarmement of the citizenry. Wolfe's readers are a diverse, and an international bunch, and I for one am curious to hear the views of the various literate and intelligent readers who frequent this list upon this subject, here in the early 21st century, some 90 years into the international disarm-the-citizens campaign that began after WWI. . > Allan Anderson wrote: >> What do you mean about the militias? I'm not sure I get that. > The entire "a government should be afraid of its people" idea, where the > people should be armed and ready to take back control of their country > when the government oversteps its bounds and becomes a burden more than > a benefit. > Our current militia movement takes justification in the @nd Amendment to > the US constitution as statements of the founding fathers like Thomas > Jefferson: > * I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good > thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. > o Letter to James Madison (January 30, 1787); referring to > Shays' Rebellion Lipscomb & Bergh ed. 6:65 > > * God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a > rebellion.... What country before ever existed a century and half > without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if > their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve > the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them > right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost > in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to > time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. > Letter to William Stevens Smith (November 13, 1787), quoted in Padover's > Jefferson On Democracy > > -- > Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com > < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Adam Thornton *17 Mar 2009, 13:45 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > On Mar 17, 2009, at 5:36 AM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: > > Wolfe's readers are a diverse, and an international bunch, and I for > one > am curious to hear the views of the various literate and intelligent > readers who frequent this list upon this subject, here in the early > 21st > century, some 90 years into the international disarm-the-citizens > campaign > that began after WWI. I myself am pretty much a Second Amendment fundamentalist. Guns are extraordinarily useful tools for putting holes in things a long way away. Like all powerful tools, they can cause great and unintended harm if misused or used carelessly. Making the tool unavailable to responsible adults is not the solution to that problem. There's something about power and responsibility and werearachnids to be said here. Adam --- ### John Watkins *17 Mar 2009, 14:24 · in reply to Adam Thornton* I guess I'm a moderate conservative or libertarian on the issue. I think the Second Amendment creates an individual right and that that individual right clearly isn't meant to cover every conceivable form of weapon. The proper balancing of those two might vary from state to state (or within metropolitan areas) depending on the needs of the populace, but always within those obvious boundaries. Besides, banning handguns, a common proposal, doesn't seem workable to me. We banned drugs, and that hasn't worked out too well. > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Adam Thornton wrote: > > On Mar 17, 2009, at 5:36 AM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: > > > Wolfe's readers are a diverse, and an international bunch, and I for one > am curious to hear the views of the various literate and intelligent > readers who frequent this list upon this subject, here in the early 21st > century, some 90 years into the international disarm-the-citizens campaign > that began after WWI. > > > I myself am pretty much a Second Amendment fundamentalist. Guns are > extraordinarily useful tools for putting holes in things a long way away. > Like all powerful tools, they can cause great and unintended harm if > misused or used carelessly. Making the tool unavailable to responsible > adults is not the solution to that problem. There's something about power > and responsibility and werearachnids to be said here. > > Adam > > _______________________________________________ --- ### James Wynn *17 Mar 2009, 15:02 · in reply to John Watkins* > I guess I'm a moderate conservative or libertarian on the issue. > I think the Second Amendment creates an individual right and > that that individual right clearly isn't meant to cover every > conceivable form of weapon. I would argue that the intent was self-evidently for it to cover every conceivable type of weapon. The constant constitutional crisis the US finds itself in --not just for an armed populace but for school and religion issues and for medical procedures and out-of-control spending-- can be traced to the Supreme Court decisions in the 30s? obliterating the Enumerated Powers clause. Originally, the limitations on the regulation of arms only applied to the Federal government as did issues of free speech and the establishment of religion. Many towns in the Old West had total gun bans, just as some states had established churches supported with tax dollars. Since the Bill of Rights is now understood to be irrevocable by states and municipalities, we have unresolvable paradoxes. Many of our political discussions --including abortion and marijuana (medical and recreational)-- could be resolved with local and state elections if the USSC would merely dust of the Enumerated Powers and say that the Federal government doesn't have the right to do or regulate anything not explicitly declared in the US Constitution. But that would take away from the power of the Supreme Court, and Senators on the Judicial Committee would lose the opportunity to expose themselves on TV whenever there is a SC opening. J --- ### John Watkins *17 Mar 2009, 15:12 · in reply to James Wynn* James, we don't disagree. In my ideal (MacIntyrian, Tolkienesque, whatever) world, we'd be people of the city-state. As it sits in today's political balance, however, with all the compromises of history that have led us to this point (including the cases you refer to and the Fourteenth Amendment), I think that DC v. Heller was just about on-target. > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:02 AM, James Wynn wrote: > > I would argue that the intent was self-evidently for it to cover every > conceivable type of weapon. > The constant constitutional crisis the US finds itself in --not just for an > armed populace but for school and religion issues and for medical procedures > and out-of-control spending-- can be traced to the Supreme Court decisions > in the 30s? obliterating the Enumerated Powers clause. Originally, the > limitations on the regulation of arms only applied to the Federal government > as did issues of free speech and the establishment of religion. Many towns > in the Old West had total gun bans, just as some states had > established churches supported with tax dollars. Since the Bill of Rights is > now understood to be irrevocable by states and municipalities, we have > unresolvable paradoxes. Many of our political discussions --including > abortion and marijuana (medical and recreational)-- could be resolved with > local and state elections if the USSC would merely dust of the Enumerated > Powers and say that the Federal government doesn't have the right to do > or regulate anything not explicitly declared in the US Constitution. But > that would take away from the power of the Supreme Court, and Senators on > the Judicial Committee would lose the opportunity to expose themselves on TV > whenever there is a SC opening. > > J > > _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *17 Mar 2009, 15:20 · in reply to James Wynn* >> I guess I'm a moderate conservative or libertarian on the issue. >> I think the Second Amendment creates an individual right and >> that that individual right clearly isn't meant to cover every >> conceivable form of weapon. > I would argue that the intent was self-evidently for it to cover every > conceivable type of weapon. Indeed, the most powerful weapons available in the eighteenth century were warships, many of which were privately owned, as was much artillery in the sense of crew-served weapons. The intent of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to more readily defend themselves against the government, when this becomes necessary, as it inevitably does. . --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *17 Mar 2009, 15:25 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 8:20 AM, wrote: > The intent of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to more > readily defend themselves against the government, when this becomes > necessary, as it inevitably does. This is a common myth. In fact, the Second Amendment is the only one of the Ten that clearly states its purpose -- which is that a well-ordered militia is essential for "security" of the state. In other words, it isn't about opposing the government; it's about having the ability to repel invaders on the spur of the moment. I myself am deeply conflicted about the Second Amendment. It seems clear to me that the free access to guns we have now is causing a huge wave of homicides. But, while I have no desire to own a gun myself, I insist on the *right* to own one. ******** Meanwhile, this is becoming less and less about Wolfe's politics and more and more a discussion of our politics. Does anyone have any strong sense of where Wolfe stands on the tarriff issue? ``` Dan'l Danehy-Oakes ``` --- ### James Wynn *17 Mar 2009, 15:26 · in reply to John Watkins* > James, we don't disagree. > As it sits in today's political balance, however, with all the compromises > of history that have led us to this point > (including the cases you refer to and the Fourteenth Amendment), > I think that DC v. Heller was just about on-target. Not to nit-pick, John, but the 14th amendment was an actual amendment to the constitution. It explicitly altered the rights of the states to make laws in very limited areas. It was possibly the last time we resolved a constitutional crisis "by the rules" (at the national level at least). J --- ### John Watkins *17 Mar 2009, 15:30 · in reply to James Wynn* I'm well-acquainted with the Fourteenth Amendment, trust me. It's still a historical compromise that promoted a strong central government over the states. Most people, including myself, would agree, I think, that it was necessary and I agree with you that it is distinguishable from later expansions of federal power. > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:26 AM, James Wynn wrote: > >James, we don't disagree. > >As it sits in today's political balance, however, with all the > compromises > of history that have led us to this point > (including the cases you refer to and the Fourteenth Amendment), > >I think that DC v. Heller was just about on-target. > > Not to nit-pick, John, but the 14th amendment was an actual amendment to > the constitution. It explicitly altered the rights of the states to make > laws in very limited areas. It was possibly the last time we resolved a > constitutional crisis "by the rules" (at the national level at least). > > J > > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Craig Brewer *17 Mar 2009, 15:31 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* One more non-Wolfe point. I agree with Dan'l about the correct reading of the 2nd Amendment and always have. But even if it were for us to defend ourselves from the government, it has always seemed odd to me to apply that argument in an age when the weapons available to a massive governmental body aren't available to private individuals. I mean, even if we all bonded together in a big militia with big automatic weapons, would we stand a chance against an air force, a navy with its increasingly sophisticated robotic drone technology, chemical/bio/nuclear weapons, etc. It's one thing to want a high powered gun in your home. But it seems ludicrous to me to argue about its use in defending yourself against a 21st century military machine. ----- Original Message ---- From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes To: The Urth Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 10:25:22 AM Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 8:20 AM, wrote: > The intent of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to more > readily defend themselves against the government, when this becomes > necessary, as it inevitably does. This is a common myth. In fact, the Second Amendment is the only one of the Ten that clearly states its purpose -- which is that a well-ordered militia is essential for "security" of the state. In other words, it isn't about opposing the government; it's about having the ability to repel invaders on the spur of the moment. I myself am deeply conflicted about the Second Amendment. It seems clear to me that the free access to guns we have now is causing a huge wave of homicides. But, while I have no desire to own a gun myself, I insist on the *right* to own one. ******** Meanwhile, this is becoming less and less about Wolfe's politics and more and more a discussion of our politics. Does anyone have any strong sense of where Wolfe stands on the tarriff issue? ``` Dan'l Danehy-Oakes ``` --- ### James Wynn *17 Mar 2009, 15:46 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* > This is a common myth. In fact, the Second Amendment is the only one > of the Ten that clearly states its purpose -- which is that a well-ordered > militia is essential for "security" of the state. I find this to be the biggest straw-man in the whole debate on the 2nd Amendment. The amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The first part ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State") is a dependent, informing or justifying clause. The _independent_ clause which carries the mandate and provides the chosen solution to the problem posed by first clause is not a bit ambiguous: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." No doubt, there are some heated arguments behind that defensive justification. Furthermore, the amendment grants this "right" to "the people." To read this amendment as pro-regulators like to would mean that the first amendment "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" would only apply to the right of state governments to assemble and to make official statements to the Federal government. > In other words, it isn't about > opposing the government; it's about having the ability to repel invaders > on the spur of the moment. I could dredge up quotes from the Founders refuting this, but I'm sure you seen them before. J --- ### Allan Anderson *17 Mar 2009, 15:58 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > On Mar 17, 2009, at 3:36 AM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: > A prominent feature of Wolfe's politics, which appears time and time > again > in his stories is his strong approval of the 2nd Amendment of the > United > States constitution, which recognizes the inherent right of the > people to > keep and bear arms, and his strong disapproval of the disarmement of > the > citizenry. I'm surely not as familiar with Wolfe's work as some of the rest of you. But I'm having trouble coming up with examples from Wolfe's stories which relate directly or indirectly to the 2nd Amendment or to the inherent virtues of weapon ownership. There are certainly many times when, in the course of the adventure story, that the hero wishes he had a weapon or is glad that she is armed. Certainly Severian would not be the same character without Terminus Est, nor Able without his skills as a warrior. But just as often I see weapons as negative or incomplete solutions, such as the welding tool in "The Death of Doctor Island", which gives only the illusion of dominance. The "useful tool" goes to people's heads and becomes a trap which distracts from a larger power (Severian's healing ability, Able's magic Valhalla powers, Dr. Island's ability to dominate minds.) Perhaps there's a common thread of power and the honest assessment of what you can do when others have power over you. There's certainly a lot of weapon-based power differentials (Vodalus has the gun, the others have axes.) But when I see the strong contrast in the New Sun of some people having energy weapons and others having blades, I don't think Wolfe is saying, "See, what a better world it would be if everyone had energy weapons." I see interesting ideas about the inevitable imbalances of personal power, and how it takes more than superior firepower to find a solution. Where is Wolfe stressing the importance of personal weaponry as a necessary step to being able to address these larger problems? Where does he talk about disarmament? (Maybe this is a Long Sun thing I will see when I read those?) Maybe you folks will be able to say, Allan, you've forgotten this bit, you've misinterpreted this bit, you haven't read this bit. For instance, I remember something (a bit fuzzily) from The Wizard Knight about Berthold and some villagers standing up to some bandits. I also remember something about armed peasants being hopelessly outclassed by professional armsmen. Sorry, I'd have to go search a bit to get something more concrete here. What I see more of is just the conventions of adventure-story plot: the hero, to differentiate him from the rest, sometimes has to take bold steps! --- ### Fred Kiesche *17 Mar 2009, 16:11 · in reply to Son of Witz* Missed "The Last Frakking Special", if that was the name. Maybe it'll be on the DVD's when they are released. Amazon is already listing "Season 4.5". F.P. Kiesche III "Ah Mr. Gibbon, another damned, fat, square book. Always, scribble, scribble, scribble, eh?" (The Duke of Gloucester, on being presented with Volume 2 of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.) Blogging at The Lensman's Children and TexasBestGrok! --- On Tue, 3/17/09, Son of Witz wrote: From: Son of Witz Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler To: "The Urth Mailing List" Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2009, 1:46 AM > On Mar 16, 2009, at 9:12 AM, Fred Kiesche wrote: > That show jumped the shark at least a season ago. "They have a > plan..." Nah, Ron Moore was just making it up as he went along. Dang, watching this "Last Frakking Special" I think you're right. they didn't know where they were going. --- ### don doggett *17 Mar 2009, 16:25 · in reply to Allan Anderson* Doggerel www.don-doggett.blogspot.com --- On Tue, 3/17/09, Allan Anderson wrote: From: Allan Anderson Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe To: "The Urth Mailing List" Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2009, 8:58 AM I'm surely not as familiar with Wolfe's work as some of the rest of you. But I'm having trouble coming up with examples from Wolfe's stories which relate directly or indirectly to the 2nd Amendment or to the inherent virtues of weapon ownership. Well, the most striking example I can think of is in On Blue's Waters, where it is strongly implied, if not explicitly stated, that Horn's possession of a slug gun is one of the things that has kept him from being forced into slavery on New Viron. As for the Second Amendment and my thoughts on gun ownership, the wording of the amendment seems loose enough to admit some sort of gun control. However, gun control has repeatedly proven ineffective in a nation that is one of the world's leading arms manufacturers. It doesn't stop gun crimes and it infringes on the rights of individuals capable of making responsible decisions. In that vein, I'm also against seat belt laws and mandatory helmet laws (except for minors). Don --- ### Allan Anderson *17 Mar 2009, 16:30 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* Ah, very interesting. I guess I could see that. Are those quotes stashed in V for Vendetta someplace, or are you saying that they apply and illustrate its points? I still find the themes of personal liberation more affecting and central, but I guess I'd be foolish to ignore the specific depicted political implications. And finally, to attempt to reconnect with the Battlestar bit: "Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." > On Mar 17, 2009, at 3:11 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote: > Allan Anderson wrote: >> What do you mean about the militias? I'm not sure I get that. > The entire "a government should be afraid of its people" idea, where > the people should be armed and ready to take back control of their > country when the government oversteps its bounds and becomes a > burden more than a benefit. > Our current militia movement takes justification in the @nd > Amendment to the US constitution as statements of the founding > fathers like Thomas Jefferson: > * I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good > thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the > physical. > o Letter to James Madison (January 30, 1787); referring to > Shays' Rebellion Lipscomb & Bergh ed. 6:65 > > * God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a > rebellion.... What country before ever existed a century and half > without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if > their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people > preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is > to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify > a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be > refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. > It is its natural manure. > Letter to William Stevens Smith (November 13, 1787), quoted in > Padover's Jefferson On Democracy > > -- > Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com > < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > > _______________________________________________ --- ### James Wynn *17 Mar 2009, 16:31 · in reply to Allan Anderson* > I'm having trouble coming up with examples from Wolfe's stories which > relate directly or indirectly to the 2nd Amendment or to the inherent > virtues of weapon ownership. [snip] > (Maybe this is a Long Sun thing I will see when I read those?) This is positively so. I don't want offers spoilers, so I'll just say meet here after you read Exodus from the Long Sun. J --- ### Son of Witz *17 Mar 2009, 16:38 · follows Fred Kiesche* > -----Original Message----- > From: Stuart Hamm [mailto:hammstu at sbcglobal.net]? > Hey Mike...I get the show 3 hours early and am having a few peeps over....waddya think? > Gotta clear it witht eh Mrs first...hehehe > > Gime a holler > \ > ~S~ ha. thanks Stu. I'd have to clear it with teh Mrs, too. I can't leave her high and dry, we've watched this whole thing together. Very few pop-culture things we've thoroughly geeked out on together. And besides, someone is gonna have to be the heavy and tell our son that he's gonna have to wait til Sat morning for the season finale of Clone Wars, which is also on at 9pm fri. oh yeah, you were saying you missed me stirring shit up on the list. I make one comment about Watchmen and there's activity all of a sudden. I don't even try to stir the shit and it gets stirred. guess i got that anti-midas touch. ~witz --- ### Son of Witz *17 Mar 2009, 16:50 · follows Son of Witz* > -----Original Message----- > From: Fred Kiesche [mailto:recursive_loop at yahoo.com] > Missed "The Last Frakking Special", if that was the name. Maybe it'll be on the DVD's when they are released. Amazon is already listing "Season 4.5". You know, I was disappointed at the fact that Katie Sackhoff came across like a bimbo. Dang. What a wilter. --- ### Fred Kiesche *17 Mar 2009, 16:57 · in reply to Son of Witz* Ummm...it appears from the last comment that you may have wanted to send this off-list... F.P. Kiesche III "Ah Mr. Gibbon, another damned, fat, square book. Always, scribble, scribble, scribble, eh?" (The Duke of Gloucester, on being presented with Volume 2 of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.) Blogging at The Lensman's Children and TexasBestGrok! --- On Tue, 3/17/09, Son of Witz wrote: > From: Son of Witz > Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler > To: "The Urth Mailing List" > Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2009, 12:38 PM > -----Original Message----- > From: Stuart Hamm [mailto:hammstu at sbcglobal.net]? > Hey Mike...I get the show 3 hours early and am having a few peeps > over....waddya think? > Gotta clear it witht eh Mrs first...hehehe > > Gime a holler > \ > ~S~ ha. thanks Stu. I'd have to clear it with teh Mrs, too. I can't leave her high and dry, we've watched this whole thing together. Very few pop-culture things we've thoroughly geeked out on together. And besides, someone is gonna have to be the heavy and tell our son that he's gonna have to wait til Sat morning for the season finale of Clone Wars, which is also on at 9pm fri. oh yeah, you were saying you missed me stirring shit up on the list. I make one comment about Watchmen and there's activity all of a sudden. I don't even try to stir the shit and it gets stirred. guess i got that anti-midas touch. ~witz --- ### Stuart Hamm *17 Mar 2009, 16:57 · in reply to Son of Witz* Most of them seemed to be revealed as self absorbed LA actors...which they are MM sure looked goooooooooooooood “Skype?” stuart.hamm myspace.com/stuhamm ? ??? stuarthamm.net --- On Tue, 3/17/09, Son of Witz wrote: > From: Son of Witz > Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler > To: "The Urth Mailing List" > Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2009, 9:50 AM > -----Original Message----- > From: Fred Kiesche [mailto:recursive_loop at yahoo.com] > Missed "The Last Frakking Special", if that was the name. Maybe > it'll be on the DVD's when they are released. Amazon is already listing > "Season 4.5". You know, I was disappointed at the fact that Katie Sackhoff came across like a bimbo. Dang. What a wilter. --- ### Pedro Pereira *17 Mar 2009, 17:03 · in reply to don doggett* > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:25:49 -0700 > From: kingwukong at yahoo.com > To: urth at lists.urth.net > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe > > > > > Doggerel > > www.don-doggett.blogspot.com > > --- On Tue, 3/17/09, Allan Anderson wrote: > From: Allan Anderson > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe > To: "The Urth Mailing List" > Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2009, 8:58 AM > > > > I'm surely not as familiar with Wolfe's work as some of the rest of > you. But I'm having trouble coming up with examples from Wolfe's stories > which relate directly or indirectly to the 2nd Amendment or to the inherent > virtues of weapon ownership. > > > Well, the most striking example I can think of is in On Blue's Waters, where it is strongly implied, if not explicitly stated, that Horn's possession of a slug gun is one of the things that has kept him from being forced into slavery on New Viron. > > As for the Second Amendment and my thoughts on gun ownership, the wording of the amendment seems loose enough to admit some sort of gun control. However, gun control has repeatedly proven ineffective in a nation that is one of the world's leading arms manufacturers. It doesn't stop gun crimes and it infringes on the rights of individuals capable of making responsible decisions. In that vein, I'm also against seat belt laws and mandatory helmet laws (except for minors). > > Don Well, beying an european, I'm going to abstain from commenting on the particulars of your constitution and on your (US) views of this matter. After all, the "Wild West" is too fresh on your mind and culture and it's probably normal that these matters raise certain "passions" among US citizens. Although I don't remember the books by heart, I frankly don't see much (from what I remember) in Wolfe's books to say without a doubt that he is a "defender" of the view that every citizen has the right to have guns. The world of Short Sun is a savage one (inhumi, cities attacking other cities, enslavement, etc) and it's normal that people would be using weapons for personal protection, and hence the particular book excerpt you gave us. On the same token if I was writting a fiction book on the Roman conquest of, say, Gaul I could certainly say that it was good that my heroe's Celtic tribe had weapons to defend itself from the Romans and that would not imply that as a 21th century european I defend the free use of weapons by everyone. Just my two cents. Pedro --- ### brunians at brunians.org *17 Mar 2009, 17:03 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 8:20 AM, wrote: >> The intent of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to more >> readily defend themselves against the government, when this becomes >> necessary, as it inevitably does. > This is a common myth. This is a Big Lie, that you are repeating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie The debate recorded in 'The Federalist Papers' and 'The Anti-Federalist Papers', and usage of the term militia at the time clearly show the opposite of what you say. This lie has been refuted time and time again, but like the proper Big Lie that it is, continues to be repeated. http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1266 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution > In fact, the Second Amendment is the only one > of the Ten that clearly states its purpose -- which is that a well-ordered > militia is essential for "security" of the state. In other words, it isn't > about opposing the government; it's about having the ability to repel > invaders on the spur of the moment. Secondarily. Its primary purpose is as I have stated, as my sources reflect. I note that you do not confute me, you merely state that I am wrong. For shame, Dan'l. Please do provide any evidence you might have to support your position. > I myself am deeply conflicted about the Second Amendment. It seems > clear to me that the free access to guns we have now is causing a > huge wave of homicides. Why? Because there have been many prominent and lurid stories in the news media? > But, while I have no desire to own a gun > myself, I insist on the *right* to own one. What exactly does this mean? If you chose to exercise you right - let us assume that you needed to, that there were scary people after your family and the police had already informed you that there was nothng that you could do - how hard would it be for you do to arm yourself without going out onto the black market? > Meanwhile, this is becoming less and less about Wolfe's politics and > more and more a discussion of our politics. Does anyone have any > strong sense of where Wolfe stands on the tarriff issue? He doesn't mention that prominently in almost every story. I would imagine that it is less important to him than the right to keep and bear arms and the right to be secure in the possession of one's property, both of which get mentioned frequently. . --- ### brunians at brunians.org *17 Mar 2009, 17:08 · in reply to Allan Anderson* You are surely not as familiar with Wolfe's work as many of us, to the extent that you are saying silly, obviously wrong things. I'd advise you to go read the parts you haven't read and then come back: you can revive the discussion if it is not still going on. . > On Mar 17, 2009, at 3:36 AM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> A prominent feature of Wolfe's politics, which appears time and time >> again >> in his stories is his strong approval of the 2nd Amendment of the >> United >> States constitution, which recognizes the inherent right of the >> people to >> keep and bear arms, and his strong disapproval of the disarmement of >> the >> citizenry. > I'm surely not as familiar with Wolfe's work as some of the rest of > you. But I'm having trouble coming up with examples from Wolfe's > stories which relate directly or indirectly to the 2nd Amendment or to > the inherent virtues of weapon ownership. > > There are certainly many times when, in the course of the adventure > story, that the hero wishes he had a weapon or is glad that she is > armed. Certainly Severian would not be the same character without > Terminus Est, nor Able without his skills as a warrior. But just as > often I see weapons as negative or incomplete solutions, such as the > welding tool in "The Death of Doctor Island", which gives only the > illusion of dominance. The "useful tool" goes to people's heads and > becomes a trap which distracts from a larger power (Severian's healing > ability, Able's magic Valhalla powers, Dr. Island's ability to > dominate minds.) > > Perhaps there's a common thread of power and the honest assessment of > what you can do when others have power over you. There's certainly a > lot of weapon-based power differentials (Vodalus has the gun, the > others have axes.) But when I see the strong contrast in the New Sun > of some people having energy weapons and others having blades, I don't > think Wolfe is saying, "See, what a better world it would be if > everyone had energy weapons." I see interesting ideas about the > inevitable imbalances of personal power, and how it takes more than > superior firepower to find a solution. Where is Wolfe stressing the > importance of personal weaponry as a necessary step to being able to > address these larger problems? Where does he talk about disarmament? > (Maybe this is a Long Sun thing I will see when I read those?) > > Maybe you folks will be able to say, Allan, you've forgotten this bit, > you've misinterpreted this bit, you haven't read this bit. For > instance, I remember something (a bit fuzzily) from The Wizard Knight > about Berthold and some villagers standing up to some bandits. I also > remember something about armed peasants being hopelessly outclassed by > professional armsmen. Sorry, I'd have to go search a bit to get > something more concrete here. > > What I see more of is just the conventions of adventure-story plot: > the hero, to differentiate him from the rest, sometimes has to take > bold steps! > _______________________________________________ --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *17 Mar 2009, 17:13 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:03 AM, wrote: > This is a Big Lie, that you are repeating. I'm familiar with the concept of the Big Lie. The Bush administration used it often enough. > The debate recorded in 'The Federalist Papers' and 'The Anti-Federalist > Papers', and usage of the term militia at the time clearly show the > opposite of what you say. This lie has been refuted time and time again, > but like the proper Big Lie that it is, continues to be repeated. I'm not talking about anything but what the Amendment says. It gives a purpose. The given puropse is "the security of the State." How it came to be there is another question, but has no legal bearing on the question of what the Amendment says and means. > I note that you do not confute me, you merely state that I am wrong. For > shame, Dan'l. Please do provide any evidence you might have to support > your position. My evidence is the Amendment itself. Why do you suppose that *no* other Amendment in the Bill of Rights has a clause justifying its presence? Or any evidence *in the Amendment itself* that confutes what the Amendment clearly says about its purpose? The debates that led to its adoption are all well and good; but what was actually adopted is very clear. Note that I do not make the false argument that the RKBA is a corporate rather than an individual right. It is clear that the right is granted to "the people" rather than a corporate body. >> I myself am deeply conflicted about the Second Amendment. It seems >> clear to me that the free access to guns we have now is causing a >> huge wave of homicides. > Why? Because there have been many prominent and lurid stories in the news > media? No. Because the homicide rate in this country is utterly out of hand. >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?But, while I have no desire to own a gun >> myself, I insist on the *right* to own one. > What exactly does this mean? The same kind of thing it might mean if I said that, while I do not choose to join in public protest marches, I insist on the *right* to do so. That I do not choose to exercise certain rights for myself does not mean that I regard them as less important, or that I will not defend those rights for those who do choose to exercise them. > If you chose to exercise you right - let us > assume that you needed to, that there were scary people after your family > and the police had already informed you that there was nothng that you > could do - how hard would it be for you do to arm yourself without going > out onto the black market? I'm not interested in making imaginary suppositions. I don't live in a thriller. >> Meanwhile, this is becoming less and less about Wolfe's politics and >> more and more a discussion of our politics. Does anyone have any >> strong sense of where Wolfe stands on the tarriff issue? > He doesn't mention that prominently in almost every story. I would imagine > that it is less important to him than the right to keep and bear arms and > the right to be secure in the possession of one's property, both of which > get mentioned frequently. "The terriff issue" was facetious; my point is that surely the topic of Wolfe's politics is not exhausted by his opinion on the RKBA? ``` Dan'l Danehy-Oakes ``` --- ### James Wynn *17 Mar 2009, 17:15 · in reply to Pedro Pereira* > Well, beying an european, I'm going to abstain from commenting > on the particulars of your constitution and on your (US) views > of this matter. After all, the "Wild West" is too fresh on your mind and > culture and it's probably normal that these matters raise certain > "passions" among US citizens. This is such a quaint, European view of Americans. It's so cute! :-) --- ### Mo Holkar / UKG *17 Mar 2009, 17:16 · in reply to Pedro Pereira* > At 17:03 17/03/2009, Pedro wrote: > Although I don't remember the books by heart, I frankly don't see > much (from what I remember) in Wolfe's books to say without a doubt > that he is a "defender" of the view that every citizen has the right > to have guns. The world of Short Sun is a savage one (inhumi, cities > attacking other cities, enslavement, etc) and it's normal that > people would be using weapons for personal protection, and hence the > particular book excerpt you gave us. On the same token if I was > writting a fiction book on the Roman conquest of, say, Gaul I could > certainly say that it was good that my heroe's Celtic tribe had > weapons to defend itself from the Romans and that would not imply > that as a 21th century european I defend the free use of weapons by everyone. Also, it seems to me it's self-evidently unwise to try and deduce Wolfe's own political opinions based on what he presents in his fiction. I don't think you have to be a frenzied post-modernist to accept that people may often write stories from viewpoints different to those they hold themselves. We have plenty of interview material with Wolfe where he talks fairly openly about some of his beliefs, so I don't think that adducing arguments along the lines of "X hero-like character is shown doing Y, therefore Wolfe must support it" is likely to be very worthwhile. best wishes, Mo # ~ # ~ # WolfeWiki: http://www.wolfewiki.com/pmwiki/ --- ### Pedro Pereira *17 Mar 2009, 17:17 · in reply to James Wynn* ---------------------------------------- > From: crushtv at gmail.com > To: urth at lists.urth.net > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:15:56 -0500 > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe >> Well, beying an european, I'm going to abstain from commenting >> on the particulars of your constitution and on your (US) views >> of this matter. After all, the "Wild West" is too fresh on your mind and >> culture and it's probably normal that these matters raise certain >> "passions" among US citizens. > This is such a quaint, European view of Americans. It's so cute! > :-) Hum? I was in no way picking on you. Did it come up as such? If yes, than I appologise. I'm not a native english speaker. --- ### Son of Witz *17 Mar 2009, 17:18 · follows Pedro Pereira* Thought I was getting off topic with Alan Moore... I guess Silk's act of giving away slug-guns to his militia rings in light of the Second Amendment, though I'd have to agree with (I think it was Alan) that the stories I've read deal more with a power imbalance due to weapons technology access, but hardly make a case for getting better weapons to the people. I'm also reminded of the Citadel. Typhon built it because he was afraid of his people, right? I forget where that is mentioned. The ruler had to barricade himself in. Personally, 2nd amendment is tough for me. I'm against guns in general. They're for putting holes in people, and I'm generally against putting holes in people, but I do believe that we need to hold our government in check. It's a tough paradox. Prohibition of anything has rarely worked in this country, and, as someone else pointed out, in the 21st century, some handguns are not going to do a whit of good against A US Government gone amok. There has been so much groundwork laid as to what to do with civil disobedience. Oliver North did a lot of work with that in the NSA. They've got plans for detention camps, and many reports that they actually exist. I'll tell you, during the depths of the W years, I was pretty convinced with every new act of treachery — sorry, I'll use their preferred explanation: "incompetence" — that with every new act of gross incompetence that they were almost egging a revolt on. Yet nothing happened. But if there was a revolt, they would quash it so fast and could declare Martial Law, and then our second amendment rights would mean exactly squat. Where does that leave us? Better to act through diplomacy and laws, I suppose. And now we're back to Watchmen, because that leads me to the question of what we would become if we actually did revolt against our government. This question is not a statement of my opinion, it's an open question. > From supporting an armed insurrection, isn't the next step condoning terrorism? I mean, if we have the right to overthrow our government, and our government takes our guns, what do we have but molotov cocktails and such? Wouldn't we then be insurgents or terrorists? And now that I've come full circle with tangents, I've got another stemming from this? Do any of you have kids totally into the new Star Wars I-III and Clone Wars? It troubles me. The inversion of which side the "good guys" are on is interesting, if problematic. My son LOVES those clone troopers. But those troopers were our bad guys (if you grew up with the old SW). There were ads for SW video games that said "You're Boba Fett, hunting the galaxy's most vile insurgents". Wait a minute! Boba Fett was a "bad guy". The "insurgents" were "The Rebel Alliance". As an adult, I appreciate the political nuance, but, cheesy as it is, my heart breaks a little bit watching little kids side with the Republic/Empire. ~Sonofwitz > -----Original Message----- > From: brunians at brunians.org [mailto:brunians at brunians.org] > Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 03:36 AM > To: 'The Urth Mailing List' > Subject: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe > > This is a good opportunity to start the discussion that I have been > wanting to have. > > A prominent feature of Wolfe's politics, which appears time and time again > in his stories is his strong approval of the 2nd Amendment of the United > States constitution, which recognizes the inherent right of the people to > keep and bear arms, and his strong disapproval of the disarmement of the > citizenry. > > Wolfe's readers are a diverse, and an international bunch, and I for one > am curious to hear the views of the various literate and intelligent > readers who frequent this list upon this subject, here in the early 21st > century, some 90 years into the international disarm-the-citizens campaign > that began after WWI. > > > > > . >> Allan Anderson wrote: >>> What do you mean about the militias? I'm not sure I get that. >> The entire "a government should be afraid of its people" idea, where the >> people should be armed and ready to take back control of their country >> when the government oversteps its bounds and becomes a burden more than >> a benefit. >> Our current militia movement takes justification in the @nd Amendment to >> the US constitution as statements of the founding fathers like Thomas >> Jefferson: >> * I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good >> thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. >> o Letter to James Madison (January 30, 1787); referring to >> Shays' Rebellion Lipscomb & Bergh ed. 6:65 >> >> * God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a >> rebellion.... What country before ever existed a century and half >> without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if >> their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve >> the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them >> right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost >> in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to >> time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. >> Letter to William Stevens Smith (November 13, 1787), quoted in Padover's >> Jefferson On Democracy >> >> -- >> Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com >> < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > >> _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *17 Mar 2009, 17:18 · in reply to Pedro Pereira* Pedro writes: > Well, beying an european, I'm going to abstain from commenting on the > particulars of your constitution and on your (US) views of this matter. > After all, the "Wild West" is too fresh on your mind and culture and it's > probably normal that these matters raise certain "passions" among US > citizens. Perhaps you would like to comment on the process of disarmament as it has taken place in Europe: of course you are aware that a hundred years ago anyone with sufficient funds could purchase a firearm in most European countries with a minimum of fuss, and that currently legal use of firearms is restricted to the employees of the various governments. How did it get to be that way? Why did it it get to be that way? What was the process by which it got to be that way? . --- ### Pedro Pereira *17 Mar 2009, 17:20 · in reply to Mo Holkar / UKG* ---------------------------------------- > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:16:31 +0000 > To: urth at lists.urth.net > From: lists at ukg.co.uk > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe > > At 17:03 17/03/2009, Pedro wrote: >> Although I don't remember the books by heart, I frankly don't see >> much (from what I remember) in Wolfe's books to say without a doubt >> that he is a "defender" of the view that every citizen has the right >> to have guns. The world of Short Sun is a savage one (inhumi, cities >> attacking other cities, enslavement, etc) and it's normal that >> people would be using weapons for personal protection, and hence the >> particular book excerpt you gave us. On the same token if I was >> writting a fiction book on the Roman conquest of, say, Gaul I could >> certainly say that it was good that my heroe's Celtic tribe had >> weapons to defend itself from the Romans and that would not imply >> that as a 21th century european I defend the free use of weapons by everyone. > Also, it seems to me it's self-evidently unwise to try and deduce > Wolfe's own political opinions based on what he presents in his > fiction. I don't think you have to be a frenzied post-modernist to > accept that people may often write stories from viewpoints different > to those they hold themselves. > > We have plenty of interview material with Wolfe where he talks fairly > openly about some of his beliefs, so I don't think that adducing > arguments along the lines of "X hero-like character is shown doing Y, > therefore Wolfe must support it" is likely to be very worthwhile. > > best wishes, > > Mo Yes, thats precisely my view on this discussion. The examples given so far from the books are, in my opinion, both weak and irrelevant to be used to ascertain Wolfe's real world political views. --- ### Adam Thornton *17 Mar 2009, 17:21 · in reply to Mo Holkar / UKG* > On Mar 17, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Mo Holkar / UKG wrote: > We have plenty of interview material with Wolfe where he talks > fairly openly about some of his beliefs, so I don't think that > adducing arguments along the lines of "X hero-like character is > shown doing Y, therefore Wolfe must support it" is likely to be very > worthwhile. Awwww. I was going to get all excited that Gene Wolfe says it's cool to torture people to impress the ladies. Gotcher Two Apricots right here.... Adam --- ### James Wynn *17 Mar 2009, 17:27 · in reply to Pedro Pereira* >>> Well, beying an european, I'm going to abstain from commenting >>> on the particulars of your constitution and on your (US) views >>> of this matter. After all, the "Wild West" is too fresh on your mind and >>> culture and it's probably normal that these matters raise certain >>> "passions" among US citizens. >> This is such a quaint, European view of Americans. It's so cute! >> :-) > Hum? I was in no way picking on you. > Did it come up as such? If yes, than I appologise. > I'm not a native english speaker. Absolutely no offense taken. And no derogatory response intended (no serious one anyway). It's just your comment had so many European charming preconceptions about Americans. Imagine if the some neighborhood kid assumed you were a member of Hell's Angels because you wear a leather jacket when you ride your motorcycle. It's like that. J --- ### Pedro Pereira *17 Mar 2009, 17:39 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* ---------------------------------------- > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:18:50 -0400 > From: brunians at brunians.org > To: urth at lists.urth.net > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe > > Pedro writes: >> Well, beying an european, I'm going to abstain from commenting on the >> particulars of your constitution and on your (US) views of this matter. >> After all, the "Wild West" is too fresh on your mind and culture and it's >> probably normal that these matters raise certain "passions" among US >> citizens. > Perhaps you would like to comment on the process of disarmament as it has > taken place in Europe: of course you are aware that a hundred years ago > anyone with sufficient funds could purchase a firearm in most European > countries with a minimum of fuss, and that currently legal use of firearms > is restricted to the employees of the various governments. How did it get > to be that way? Why did it it get to be that way? What was the process by > which it got to be that way? I don't know. It's not a topic I ever researched. What I can say is that for us this question is pretty much mute. We don't have the discussions you have regarding this matter. It's something that is widely accepted. When I comment on the "Wild West" thing I mean that the state of affairs on the US in the 19th century was quite a different one from Europe. The world portrayed on Short Sun has more similarities to 19th US than Europe (generaly speaking of course). Some things you mentioned: "a hundred years ago anyone with sufficient funds could purchase a firearm in most European countries with a minimum of fuss" There were some "unspoken" rules, I beleive. For the most part only the wealthy, the "gentleman", would have firearms without drawing attention from autorities. A "nobody" with a weapon would only get it randomly confiscated by autorities no matter if he actually bought it or not. It wasn't exactely the same situation as in the US, were pretty much everyone could use one. I may be wrong though, so maybe someone here can elaborate on this topic. Anyway, the "Wild West" is too imbeded, it seems to me, on the minds of the Americans. That's normal. Plus, there's the constitution. The conquest of the vast and wild frontier, frontier life, and the inerent dangers of such a setting, all this was pretty different from the european experience in the 19th century. I think this is something, together with your constitution, that is still pretty much alive in your minds. It generates passions regarding the whole "guns or no guns" issues that are completely alien to europeans. If I'm wrong please correct me. --- ### Son of Witz *17 Mar 2009, 17:40 · follows Pedro Pereira* while we're getting all serious about the second amendment, steer yourself to youtube and check my man Weird Al's song, Trigger Happy, one of his best originals. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMNWK3i8IV4 great stuff. video is just some fan made accompaniment. (ok, I'll admit it. I'm a serious geek for Weird Al) ~witz --- ### Pedro Pereira *17 Mar 2009, 17:41 · in reply to James Wynn* ---------------------------------------- > From: crushtv at gmail.com > To: urth at lists.urth.net > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:27:30 -0500 > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe >>>> Well, beying an european, I'm going to abstain from commenting >>>> on the particulars of your constitution and on your (US) views >>>> of this matter. After all, the "Wild West" is too fresh on your mind and >>>> culture and it's probably normal that these matters raise certain >>>> "passions" among US citizens. >>> This is such a quaint, European view of Americans. It's so cute! >>> :-) >> Hum? I was in no way picking on you. >> Did it come up as such? If yes, than I appologise. >> I'm not a native english speaker. > Absolutely no offense taken. And no derogatory response intended (no serious > one anyway). It's just your comment had so many European charming > preconceptions about Americans. Imagine if the some neighborhood kid assumed > you were a member of Hell's Angels because you wear a leather jacket when > you ride your motorcycle. It's like that. LOL. Point taken. Anyway, I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. --- ### Son of Witz *17 Mar 2009, 17:43 · follows Pedro Pereira* > Anyway, the "Wild West" is too imbeded, it seems to me, on the minds of the Americans. That's normal. Plus, there's the constitution. The conquest of the vast and wild frontier, frontier life, and the inerent dangers of such a setting, all this was pretty different from the european experience in the 19th century. I think this is something, together with your constitution, that is still pretty much alive in your minds. It generates passions regarding the whole "guns or no guns" issues that are completely alien to europeans. That's how I took your post, and I thought it was an interesting insight. I didn't take it as a dis on Americans. Of course, not all of our families were even here during the wild west, but it's suffused into the culture, for sure. ~witz --- ### Pedro Pereira *17 Mar 2009, 17:45 · in reply to Son of Witz* ---------------------------------------- > From: sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org > To: urth at lists.urth.net > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:43:25 +0000 > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe >> Anyway, the "Wild West" is too imbeded, it seems to me, on the minds of the Americans. That's normal. Plus, there's the constitution. The conquest of the vast and wild frontier, frontier life, and the inerent dangers of such a setting, all this was pretty different from the european experience in the 19th century. I think this is something, together with your constitution, that is still pretty much alive in your minds. It generates passions regarding the whole "guns or no guns" issues that are completely alien to europeans. > That's how I took your post, and I thought it was an interesting insight. I didn't take it as a dis on Americans. Of course, not all of our families were even here during the wild west, but it's suffused into the culture, for sure. > > ~witz Good that someone got what I was trying to say. Of course, if my views are "correct" or not is something else entirely and only you can answer (and enlighten me) in the process. --- ### Son of Witz *17 Mar 2009, 17:49 · follows Stuart Hamm* > Ummm...it appears from the last comment that you may have wanted to send this off-list... nah. but maybe I should have. I've been accused of stirring the shit here before. probably won't be the last time. ~witz --- ### Allan Anderson *17 Mar 2009, 18:43 · follows Pedro Pereira* On Tue Mar 17 9:31 , crushtv at gmail.com sent: >> I'm having trouble coming up with examples from Wolfe's stories which relate >> directly or indirectly to the 2nd Amendment or to the inherent virtues of weapon >> ownership. [snip] >> (Maybe this is a Long Sun thing I will see when I read those?) > This is positively so. I don't want offers spoilers, so I'll just say meet here > after you read Exodus from the Long Sun. Okay, thank you James. I'll look for that when I get there. On Tue Mar 17 10:08 , brunians at brunians.org sent: > You are surely not as familiar with Wolfe's work as many of us, to the > extent that you are saying silly, obviously wrong things. I'd advise you > to go read the parts you haven't read and then come back: you can revive > the discussion if it is not still going on. I tried to bring up specific references to the text, which I think is the best starting place to discuss someone's work. If you think I'm wrong, can you return the favor? The setting of an enclosed colony ship and what happens after it lands do seem rife with consequences of personal arms and disarmament. But you've said "prominently in almost every story," and I don't see that. If you'd rather just talk about gun politics with little reference to Gene Wolfe's writing, maybe you should say so. > . >> On Mar 17, 2009, at 3:36 AM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >>> A prominent feature of Wolfe's politics, which appears time and time >>> again >>> in his stories is his strong approval of the 2nd Amendment of the >>> United >>> States constitution, which recognizes the inherent right of the >>> people to >>> keep and bear arms, and his strong disapproval of the disarmement of >>> the >>> citizenry. >> I'm surely not as familiar with Wolfe's work as some of the rest of >> you. But I'm having trouble coming up with examples from Wolfe's >> stories which relate directly or indirectly to the 2nd Amendment or to >> the inherent virtues of weapon ownership. >> >> There are certainly many times when, in the course of the adventure >> story, that the hero wishes he had a weapon or is glad that she is >> armed. Certainly Severian would not be the same character without >> Terminus Est, nor Able without his skills as a warrior. But just as >> often I see weapons as negative or incomplete solutions, such as the >> welding tool in "The Death of Doctor Island", which gives only the >> illusion of dominance. The "useful tool" goes to people's heads and >> becomes a trap which distracts from a larger power (Severian's healing >> ability, Able's magic Valhalla powers, Dr. Island's ability to >> dominate minds.) >> >> Perhaps there's a common thread of power and the honest assessment of >> what you can do when others have power over you. There's certainly a >> lot of weapon-based power differentials (Vodalus has the gun, the >> others have axes.) But when I see the strong contrast in the New Sun >> of some people having energy weapons and others having blades, I don't >> think Wolfe is saying, "See, what a better world it would be if >> everyone had energy weapons." I see interesting ideas about the >> inevitable imbalances of personal power, and how it takes more than >> superior firepower to find a solution. Where is Wolfe stressing the >> importance of personal weaponry as a necessary step to being able to >> address these larger problems? Where does he talk about disarmament? >> (Maybe this is a Long Sun thing I will see when I read those?) >> >> Maybe you folks will be able to say, Allan, you've forgotten this bit, >> you've misinterpreted this bit, you haven't read this bit. For >> instance, I remember something (a bit fuzzily) from The Wizard Knight >> about Berthold and some villagers standing up to some bandits. I also >> remember something about armed peasants being hopelessly outclassed by >> professional armsmen. Sorry, I'd have to go search a bit to get >> something more concrete here. >> >> What I see more of is just the conventions of adventure-story plot: >> the hero, to differentiate him from the rest, sometimes has to take >> bold steps! >> _______________________________________________ --- ### Chris P *17 Mar 2009, 18:48 · in reply to Son of Witz* > Thought I was getting off topic with Alan Moore... > > I guess Silk's act of giving away slug-guns to his militia rings in light of the Second Amendment, though I'd have to agree with (I think it was Alan) that the stories I've read deal more with a power imbalance due to weapons technology access, but hardly make a case for getting better weapons to the people. > Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net I don't have any kind of problem with this sort of example, and there are plenty of them in Wolfe's work. He has a belief, and he doesn't argue it to me (as the reader) or even necessarily try to persuade me; he portrays a situation in which that belief is relevant, and if the writing is well done the truth (or lack thereof) shows through on its own. Thing is, I think the same when it comes to Moore. What I would expect, though, given brunians other comments is that he would complain about Wolfe being a whiny, bitter anarchist who doesn't like powerful governments because they've got bad parts in them. It's a tough world, after all. --- ### Steven *17 Mar 2009, 22:17 · in reply to John Watkins* > On Mar 17, 2009, at 10:24 AM, John Watkins wrote: > The proper balancing of those two might vary from state to state > (or within metropolitan areas) depending on the needs of the > populace, but always within those obvious boundaries. I'm with you on this. Not too many folk realize that most small towns in the 'wild west', the ones all those tv shows were modeled on, required the temporary confiscation of weaponry upon entering the city limits. You got your guns back when you rode on out. Steven Bowen http://bowenfinearts.com/ --- ### Stuart Hamm *18 Mar 2009, 00:11 · in reply to Son of Witz* Remind me to tell about when I auditiomed for Wierd Al sometime... ???? Mobile — (415) 786-3624 ???? Skype? stuart.hamm myspace.com/stuhamm ? ??? stuarthamm.net --- On Tue, 3/17/09, Son of Witz wrote: From: Son of Witz Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe To: "The Urth Mailing List" Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2009, 10:40 AM while we're getting all serious about the second amendment, steer yourself to youtube and check my man Weird Al's song, Trigger Happy, one of his best originals. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMNWK3i8IV4 great stuff. video is just some fan made accompaniment. (ok, I'll admit it. I'm a serious geek for Weird Al) ~witz --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 00:22 · in reply to Pedro Pereira* >>> Well, beying an european, I'm going to abstain from commenting on the >>> particulars of your constitution and on your (US) views of this matter. >>> After all, the "Wild West" is too fresh on your mind and culture and >>> it's probably normal that these matters raise certain "passions" >>> among US citizens. >> Perhaps you would like to comment on the process of disarmament as it >> has taken place in Europe: of course you are aware that a hundred years >> ago anyone with sufficient funds could purchase a firearm in most >> European countries with a minimum of fuss, and that currently legal use >> of firearms is restricted to the employees of the various governments. >> How did it get to be that way? >> Why did it it get to be that way? >> What was the process by which it got to be that way? > I don't know. It's not a topic I ever researched. I'm sort of amazed that you didn't learn about it in school. > What I can say is that > for us this question is pretty much mute. We don't have the discussions > you have regarding this matter. It's something that is widely accepted. Considering the historical frequency with which European governments tend to massacre the citizenry, domestic and foreign or portions thereof, I don't know if I would feel so blase about it as you folks mostly do seem to. > When I comment on the "Wild West" thing I mean that the state of affairs > on the US in the 19th century was quite a different one from Europe. The > world portrayed on Short Sun has more similarities to 19th US than Europe > (generaly speaking of course). Sure. I don't think it is all that relevant, but sure. > Some things you mentioned: > "a hundred years ago > anyone with sufficient funds could purchase a firearm in most European > countries with a minimum of fuss" > There were some "unspoken" rules, I beleive. For the most part only the > wealthy, the "gentleman", would have firearms without drawing attention > from autorities. A "nobody" with a weapon would only get it randomly > confiscated by autorities no matter if he actually bought it or not. It > wasn't exactely the same situation as in the US, were pretty much everyone > could use one. I may be wrong though, so maybe someone here can elaborate > on this topic. It depends on the country, in some places it was as you describe. In most places it was not. The thing is that decent weapons were sort of pricey, and most poor people were poor. When the working classes started to be able to afford decent weapons is when there started to be, for some reason, a movement for gun control. > Anyway, the "Wild West" is too imbeded, it seems to me, on the minds of > the Americans. That's normal. Plus, there's the constitution. The conquest > of the vast and wild frontier, frontier life, and the inerent dangers of > such a setting, all this was pretty different from the european experience > in the 19th century. I think this is something, together with your > constitution, that is still pretty much alive in your minds. It generates > passions regarding the whole "guns or no guns" issues that are completely > alien to europeans. > If I'm wrong please correct me. I believe you are mistaken, though I think honestly mistaken. . --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 00:31 · in reply to Allan Anderson* > But you've said > "prominently in almost every story," and I don't see that. My apologies: Wolfe's pro-gun bias is so clear to me that I did not anticipate that so many people would question its existence. I will admit that 'featured prominently in almost every story' is an exagerration: 'it is a recurring theme' is more accurate. I find that I need to go through my GW short-story collections and pick out some examples. I should do this this evening. . --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 00:37 · in reply to Chris P* > What I would expect, though, given brunians other comments is that he > would complain about Wolfe being a whiny, bitter anarchist who doesn't > like powerful governments because they've got bad parts in them. No, Wolfe is a well-spoken and calm anarchist who accepts the existence of reality and tries to work within the contraints given. > It's a tough world, after all. Something that Korean War veterans are inherently better equipped to understand than English hippies. In my opinion, anyway. Your mileage may vary. I should say that I enjoy Moore's work. I don't want y'all to get the wrong impression. . --- ### Jeff Wilson *18 Mar 2009, 00:44 · in reply to Craig Brewer* > Craig Brewer wrote: > One more non-Wolfe point. I agree with Dan'l about the correct reading of the 2nd Amendment and always have. > > But even if it were for us to defend ourselves from the government, > it has always seemed odd to me to apply that argument in an age when > the weapons available to a massive governmental body aren't available > to private individuals. I mean, even if we all bonded together in a > big militia with big automatic weapons, would we stand a chance > against an air force, a navy with its increasingly sophisticated > robotic drone technology, chemical/bio/nuclear weapons, etc. Probably not, but there's no danger of a united militia, and equally little danger of the armed forces uniting behind a commander in chief who would advocate nuking or anthraxing American soil. They might get away with gassing under martial law, but there's no practical way to defend all arms of the federal government from anyone who might take up arms against them. The combined armed forces can't prevent popular militias from doing away with most of the federal marshals, BATF, DEA, FBI, and other offensive federal assets in the field. There's also the question of how to pay to keep the armed forces in supply and un-sabotaged during a civil war. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### Jeff Wilson *18 Mar 2009, 00:45 · in reply to James Wynn* >> James Wynn wrote: >> In other words, it isn't about >> opposing the government; it's about having the ability to repel invaders >> on the spur of the moment. > I could dredge up quotes from the Founders refuting this, but I'm sure > you seen them before. I know he has, because I just posted some. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 00:48 · in reply to Steven* > On Mar 17, 2009, at 10:24 AM, John Watkins wrote: >> The proper balancing of those two might vary from state to state >> (or within metropolitan areas) depending on the needs of the >> populace, but always within those obvious boundaries. > I'm with you on this. Not too many folk realize that most small > towns in the 'wild west', the ones all those tv shows were modeled > on, required the temporary confiscation of weaponry upon entering the > city limits. You got your guns back when you rode on out. Cite. I know of one instance where this happened, in Tombstone AZ, where it was pretty blatantly enforced against one of the factions vying for control of the town, and was directly tied to an huge surge in the murder rate. What other examples do you have? I don't necessarily dispute that there were some, but I'd like to see some evidence. Clint Eastwood gives an interesting example of a town with gun control in his great movie 'The Unforgiven', which really everyone should see. If you have not seen it, run don't walk. . --- ### Jeff Wilson *18 Mar 2009, 00:50 · in reply to Allan Anderson* > Allan Anderson wrote: > Ah, very interesting. I guess I could see that. Are those quotes stashed > in V for Vendetta someplace, or are you saying that they apply and > illustrate its points? They apply and illustrate. V and the American Founding Fathers both wanted to empower the governed to restrain and overthrow it as necessary, not to remove it for all time. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 00:53 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* > James Wynn wrote: >>> In other words, it isn't about >>> opposing the government; it's about having the ability to repel >>> invaders on the spur of the moment. >> I could dredge up quotes from the Founders refuting this, but I'm sure >> you seen them before. > I know he has, because I just posted some. I did too, but he showed no sign of having read them. . --- ### don doggett *18 Mar 2009, 02:05 · in reply to Son of Witz* As someone who lives in the Wild West, I gotta say it ain't all it's cracked up to be. They say an armed society is a polite society, but mostly it's just a belligerently overconfident society. Don Doggerel www.don-doggett.blogspot.com > --- On Tue, 3/17/09, Son of Witz wrote: > From: Son of Witz > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe > To: "The Urth Mailing List" > Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2009, 10:43 AM > Anyway, the "Wild West" is too imbeded, it > seems to me, on the minds of the Americans. That's > normal. Plus, there's the constitution. The conquest of > the vast and wild frontier, frontier life, and the inerent > dangers of such a setting, all this was pretty different > from the european experience in the 19th century. I think > this is something, together with your constitution, that is > still pretty much alive in your minds. It generates passions > regarding the whole "guns or no guns" issues that > are completely alien to europeans. > > > That's how I took your post, and I thought it was an > interesting insight. I didn't take it as a dis on > Americans. Of course, not all of our families were even > here during the wild west, but it's suffused into the > culture, for sure. > > ~witz > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Steven *18 Mar 2009, 02:09 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* You ask me to cite and I don't have the facts at my command. It seems to me I read a book within the past decade or so that sought to refute another book's anti-gun re-write of history that claimed the use of firearms in Revolutionary America had been vastly magnified and mythologized in the popular culture. And there was some mention of the 19th century west as well. But I can't give you author or title, sorry. Maybe someone else's memory is jogged? Re Wolfe's personal opinions as reflected in his work: I think it's clear enough that the man is very conservatively minded, more so as he's gotten older. The crack in Pirate Freedom about the Catholic pedophilia scandal being inflated from more 'understandable' adolescent-centered incidents struck me as a blot on that text as a whole though. And a personal affront to my sensibilities, though I sympathize with his politics in general. >> On Mar 17, 2009, at 8:48 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> >> On Mar 17, 2009, at 10:24 AM, John Watkins wrote: >>> The proper balancing of those two might vary from state to state >>> (or within metropolitan areas) depending on the needs of the >>> populace, but always within those obvious boundaries. >> I'm with you on this. Not too many folk realize that most small >> towns in the 'wild west', the ones all those tv shows were modeled >> on, required the temporary confiscation of weaponry upon entering the >> city limits. You got your guns back when you rode on out. > Cite. I know of one instance where this happened, in Tombstone AZ, > where > it was pretty blatantly enforced against one of the factions vying for > control of the town, and was directly tied to an huge surge in the > murder > rate. What other examples do you have? I don't necessarily dispute > that > there were some, but I'd like to see some evidence. > > Clint Eastwood gives an interesting example of a town with gun > control in > his great movie 'The Unforgiven', which really everyone should see. > If you > have not seen it, run don't walk. > > > > > . > > > > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Craig Brewer *18 Mar 2009, 02:24 · in reply to don doggett* > Don Doggett wrote: > As someone who lives in the Wild West, I gotta say it ain't all it's > cracked up to be. They say an armed society is a polite society, but > mostly it's just a > belligerently overconfident society. In general, I'd agree, at least on the idea that you should look at the reasons a society values guns rather than the guns themselves. But I think that's actually our problem when talking about guns: we exaggerate their meaning. I’ll admit that I’m not personally a big fan of guns. That said, I don’t think that the mere presence of a weapon itself makes you more inclined to use them. I mean, I could grab a lethal knife from just about any building or house I wander in to, but, even in my angriest moments, I’ve never felt inclined to. What interests me more is the culture that has grown up (in America, I suppose I should say) around the gun debate. It seems that we’ve been forced to take sides as if we’re for arming every able-bodied citizen to protect us from the unwashed masses or that we have to be labeled na ve pacifists who blind themselves to potential dangers. What bothers me most is that we live in a culture that either demonizes or romanticizes guns both of which are equally dangerous in my view. The pro-gun side thinks that too much rides on our ability to have any kind of gun we want, and so they’re pushed into unreasonable positions of claiming that semi-automatic weapons are in fact for sport. Of course you can use them that way, but that’s not their intent. Furthermore, they end up tacking on a rhetoric of both personal and political freedom to a personal weapon that quickly becomes hyperbolic. In much of the reasoning, a sincere worry that easy access to powerful weapons could lead to quicker violence becomes a sign of anti-liberty, which of course is ridiculous. But on the other side, you get the anti-gun freaks who refuse to recognize that it’s not the tool but the sociological and psychological conditions that lead to violence. Guns become a distraction from the real causes of violence like poverty or urban living conditions. So the principled pacifists end up wasting a lot of breath trying to solve a problem with the wrong tools. Guns have become symbols of other issues which, in the process, makes it harder to adequately deal with their own very real and powerful nature as dangerous but also useful tools. We end up choosing sides on the issue based on rhetoric and symbolism instead of taking a more practical stance towards it. And if we do try to be practical, we’re often accused *by both sides* of not understanding the true depth of the problem as a challenge to a fundamental right (to liberty or safety). But, as I said before, either choice is hyperbole. ----- Original Message ---- From: don doggett To: The Urth Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 9:05:00 PM Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe As someone who lives in the Wild West, I gotta say it ain't all it's cracked up to be. They say an armed society is a polite society, but mostly it's just a belligerently overconfident society. Don Doggerel www.don-doggett.blogspot.com > --- On Tue, 3/17/09, Son of Witz wrote: > From: Son of Witz > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe > To: "The Urth Mailing List" > Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2009, 10:43 AM > Anyway, the "Wild West" is too imbeded, it > seems to me, on the minds of the Americans. That's > normal. Plus, there's the constitution. The conquest of > the vast and wild frontier, frontier life, and the inerent > dangers of such a setting, all this was pretty different > from the european experience in the 19th century. I think > this is something, together with your constitution, that is > still pretty much alive in your minds. It generates passions > regarding the whole "guns or no guns" issues that > are completely alien to europeans. > > > That's how I took your post, and I thought it was an > interesting insight. I didn't take it as a dis on > Americans. Of course, not all of our families were even > here during the wild west, but it's suffused into the > culture, for sure. > > ~witz > > > _______________________________________________ > Urth Mailing List > To post, write urth at urth.net > Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net --- ### David Duffy *18 Mar 2009, 02:29 · in reply to Steven* > On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Steven wrote: > Re Wolfe's personal opinions as reflected in his work: I think it's clear > enough that the man is very conservatively minded, more so as he's gotten > older. The crack in Pirate Freedom about the Catholic pedophilia scandal > being inflated from more 'understandable' adolescent-centered incidents > struck me as a blot on that text as a whole though. And a personal affront > to my sensibilities, though I sympathize with his politics in general. Well, given that the remark is made by a maximally "bad priest", I suspect we might take it with a grain of salt as representing GW's POV. But all his worlds seem singularly lacking in civic virtues, as opposed to individual virtue. Cheers, David Duffy. --- ### Chris P *18 Mar 2009, 02:47 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* It's certainly safe to say that it appears in a large number of them, and the times it comes up in the longer works generally give a pretty unambiguous picture. Although interestingly he passes over it rather lightly in BotNS. The Autarch strictly controls what weaponry is available to the citizenry, and for pretty direct reasons. Severian is fairly unconcerned by it, though - perhaps in part because he is the Autarch at the time they're being written. ``` "When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means that the sun is about to set." -- Lin Yutang ``` > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:31:10 -0400 > From: brunians at brunians.org > To: rubel at goosemoon.org > CC: urth at lists.urth.net > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe >> But you've said >> "prominently in almost every story," and I don't see that. > My apologies: Wolfe's pro-gun bias is so clear to me that I did not > anticipate that so many people would question its existence. I will admit > that 'featured prominently in almost every story' is an exagerration: 'it > is a recurring theme' is more accurate. > > I find that I need to go through my GW short-story collections and pick > out some examples. I should do this this evening. > > > . > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Craig Brewer *18 Mar 2009, 02:57 · in reply to Chris P* It seems like Silk is a good place to get at this. Here's a man who's horrified at the thought of doing any kind of wrong. And yet he readily and willingly uses and even trains with the most powerful weapons he can get his hands on (or at least the most sufficient for his purposes) when it becomes necessary for a more important purpose. Silk's is a position I'd like to think Wolfe has: weapons *themselves* are neither good nor bad. They can be horrible when used irresponsibly, and Silk is at times horrified by the azoth even when he loves it for being Hyacinth's. But they can also be necessary and even thoroughly good. Look at the male chem soldiers, for example, who are weapons-become-"human." Like people, they're good when they do good and evil when they do evil. I don't get the sense that Wolfe addresses the legal question directly, as if he's intentionally put some commentary on the 2nd Amendment in his work. Rather, like most of his moral pronouncemets, there's always a difficulty in figuring out how a categorical Good, which is present, gets manifested in a fallen, complicated world. (On my reading, at least.) The legality of dangerous weapons would be just another place to see the difficulty of aligning a moral imperative with practical measures, which seems to me one of Wolfe's ongoing concerns. ________________________________ From: Chris P To: urth at lists.urth.net Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 9:47:36 PM Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe It's certainly safe to say that it appears in a large number of them, and the times it comes up in the longer works generally give a pretty unambiguous picture. Although interestingly he passes over it rather lightly in BotNS. The Autarch strictly controls what weaponry is available to the citizenry, and for pretty direct reasons. Severian is fairly unconcerned by it, though - perhaps in part because he is the Autarch at the time they're being written. ``` "When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means that the sun is about to set." -- Lin Yutang ``` > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:31:10 -0400 > From: brunians at brunians.org > To: rubel at goosemoon.org > CC: urth at lists.urth.net > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe >> But you've said >> "prominently in almost every story," and I don't see that. > My apologies: Wolfe's pro-gun bias is so clear to me that I did not > anticipate that so many people would question its existence. I will admit > that 'featured prominently in almost every story' is an exagerration: 'it > is a recurring theme' is more accurate. > > I find that I need to go through my GW short-story collections and pick > out some examples. I should do this this evening. > > > . > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Pedro Pereira *18 Mar 2009, 03:00 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* ---------------------------------------- > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:22:23 -0400 > From: brunians at brunians.org > To: urth at lists.urth.net > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe >>>> Well, beying an european, I'm going to abstain from commenting on the >>>> particulars of your constitution and on your (US) views of this matter. >>>> After all, the "Wild West" is too fresh on your mind and culture and >>>> it's probably normal that these matters raise certain "passions" >>>> among US citizens. >>> Perhaps you would like to comment on the process of disarmament as it >>> has taken place in Europe: of course you are aware that a hundred years >>> ago anyone with sufficient funds could purchase a firearm in most >>> European countries with a minimum of fuss, and that currently legal use >>> of firearms is restricted to the employees of the various governments. >>> How did it get to be that way? >>> Why did it it get to be that way? >>> What was the process by which it got to be that way? >> I don't know. It's not a topic I ever researched. > I'm sort of amazed that you didn't learn about it in school. As I stated before, there was no clear, "general disarmament" in Western and Northern Europe like you seem to imply. If it was, and you seem convinced of it, please enlighten me. As I said before: "There were some "unspoken" rules, I beleive. For the most part only the wealthy, the "gentleman", would have firearms without drawing attention from autorities. A "nobody" with a weapon would only get it randomly confiscated by autorities no matter if he actually bought it or not. It wasn't exactely the same situation as in the US, were pretty much everyone could use one. I may be wrong though, so maybe someone here can elaborate on this topic" >> What I can say is that >> for us this question is pretty much mute. We don't have the discussions >> you have regarding this matter. It's something that is widely accepted. > Considering the historical frequency with which European governments tend > to massacre the citizenry, domestic and foreign or portions thereof, I > don't know if I would feel so blase about it as you folks mostly do seem > to. You are refering to what, when and where exactely? Anyway, having weapons at home woudn't solve the issue. At any point that we "folks" decided to mount an armed resistance there never seemed to be a particular difficulty in getting the weapons for it, so I think it's a mute point. Perhaps you believe that if those citizens were armed by default things would have gone diferently. >> When I comment on the "Wild West" thing I mean that the state of affairs >> on the US in the 19th century was quite a different one from Europe. The >> world portrayed on Short Sun has more similarities to 19th US than Europe >> (generaly speaking of course). > Sure. I don't think it is all that relevant, but sure. I was refering to the opinion that Gene Wolfe is a supporter of the "guns for everyone" position just by basing oneself in SS. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but the setting of SS almost demands it. I dont see necessarily a political stance in SS by Wolfe in this matter. I may be wrong, but I think the evidence is not that clear. For me it's irrelevant what his position is anyway, except as a curiosity. >> "a hundred years ago >> anyone with sufficient funds could purchase a firearm in most European >> countries with a minimum of fuss" >> There were some "unspoken" rules, I beleive. For the most part only the >> wealthy, the "gentleman", would have firearms without drawing attention >> from autorities. A "nobody" with a weapon would only get it randomly >> confiscated by autorities no matter if he actually bought it or not. It >> wasn't exactely the same situation as in the US, were pretty much everyone >> could use one. I may be wrong though, so maybe someone here can elaborate >> on this topic. > It depends on the country, in some places it was as you describe. In most > places it was not. In what "most places" it was not? The thing is that decent weapons were sort of pricey, > and most poor people were poor. When the working classes started to be > able to afford decent weapons is when there started to be, for some > reason, a movement for gun control. And what reason for gun control was that? You should know, you learned it in school, while I didn't. >> Anyway, the "Wild West" is too imbeded, it seems to me, on the minds of >> the Americans. That's normal. Plus, there's the constitution. The conquest >> of the vast and wild frontier, frontier life, and the inerent dangers of >> such a setting, all this was pretty different from the european experience >> in the 19th century. I think this is something, together with your >> constitution, that is still pretty much alive in your minds. It generates >> passions regarding the whole "guns or no guns" issues that are completely >> alien to europeans. >> If I'm wrong please correct me. > I believe you are mistaken, though I think honestly mistaken. At least one US member of this list agreed that I could have a point here. You, another US citizen, disagree. It seems to me that beying mistaken in this case is a matter of personal opinion, so maybe there's validity to what I said after all. Pax --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 03:16 · in reply to don doggett* Dunno, here in the Hayfork Valley people are heavily armed, and reasonably polite. Even the hippies are heavily armed and measurably less noxious than hippies tend to be. What there is, here, is strikingly little serious crime. We had a murder two years ago: some tweaker beat his wife to death with a shotgun, so I guess it was a gun-related murder. The last one before that was thirty years ago. . > As someone who lives in the Wild West, I gotta say it ain't all it's > cracked up to be. They say an armed society is a polite society, but > mostly it's just a belligerently overconfident society. > > Don > > Doggerel > www.don-doggett.blogspot.com > > > --- On Tue, 3/17/09, Son of Witz wrote: >> From: Son of Witz >> Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe >> To: "The Urth Mailing List" >> Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2009, 10:43 AM >> Anyway, the "Wild West" is too imbeded, it >> seems to me, on the minds of the Americans. That's >> normal. Plus, there's the constitution. The conquest of >> the vast and wild frontier, frontier life, and the inerent >> dangers of such a setting, all this was pretty different >> from the european experience in the 19th century. I think >> this is something, together with your constitution, that is >> still pretty much alive in your minds. It generates passions >> regarding the whole "guns or no guns" issues that >> are completely alien to europeans. >> >> >> That's how I took your post, and I thought it was an >> interesting insight. I didn't take it as a dis on >> Americans. Of course, not all of our families were even >> here during the wild west, but it's suffused into the >> culture, for sure. >> >> ~witz >> >> >> _______________________________________________ --- ### Pedro Pereira *18 Mar 2009, 03:21 · in reply to Craig Brewer* ________________________________ > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:57:12 -0700 > From: cnbrewer at yahoo.com > To: urth at lists.urth.net > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe > > > > It seems like Silk is a good place to get at this. Here's a man who's horrified at the thought of doing any kind of wrong. And yet he readily and willingly uses and even trains with the most powerful weapons he can get his hands on (or at least the most sufficient for his purposes) when it becomes necessary for a more important purpose. > > Silk's is a position I'd like to think Wolfe has: weapons *themselves* are neither good nor bad. They can be horrible when used irresponsibly, and Silk is at times horrified by the azoth even when he loves it for being Hyacinth's. But they can also be necessary and even thoroughly good. Look at the male chem soldiers, for example, who are weapons-become-"human." Like people, they're good when they do good and evil when they do evil. I can write a book about a tribsman who doesn't want to do "any kind of wrong". He's "job" as the son of a chieftain means he has to train with weapons. One day his tribe is attacked and he has to defend himself and kill a few guys in the process. Does that make me a defender of the free use of weapons by the citizens? Wolfe my or may not be a defender of this political position, but taking into account the setting of his books, I don't see how these examples can be so clearly indicative of a real world political stance to everyone. --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 03:23 · in reply to Steven* What did he say about pedophilia exactly again? That well-raised boys wouldn't put up with that kind of crap, they'd kick and fight and you couldn't actually rape them quitely? I thought it was sort of a normal reaction from someone who was forcibly raped twice in his boyhood, then no more. You don't think kids should be trained to fight when someone tries to molest them? Hell, I think kids should be taught how to make and use improvised weapons on people who try to molest them, besides thinking that they should be trained from an early age in the proper handling of firearms. . > You ask me to cite and I don't have the facts at my command. It > seems to me I read a book within the past decade or so that sought to > refute another book's anti-gun re-write of history that claimed the > use of firearms in Revolutionary America had been vastly magnified > and mythologized in the popular culture. And there was some mention > of the 19th century west as well. But I can't give you author or > title, sorry. Maybe someone else's memory is jogged? > > Re Wolfe's personal opinions as reflected in his work: I think it's > clear enough that the man is very conservatively minded, more so as > he's gotten older. The crack in Pirate Freedom about the Catholic > pedophilia scandal being inflated from more 'understandable' > adolescent-centered incidents struck me as a blot on that text as a > whole though. And a personal affront to my sensibilities, though I > sympathize with his politics in general. > > > On Mar 17, 2009, at 8:48 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >>> On Mar 17, 2009, at 10:24 AM, John Watkins wrote: >>>> The proper balancing of those two might vary from state to state >>>> (or within metropolitan areas) depending on the needs of the >>>> populace, but always within those obvious boundaries. >>> I'm with you on this. Not too many folk realize that most small >>> towns in the 'wild west', the ones all those tv shows were modeled >>> on, required the temporary confiscation of weaponry upon entering the >>> city limits. You got your guns back when you rode on out. >> Cite. I know of one instance where this happened, in Tombstone AZ, >> where >> it was pretty blatantly enforced against one of the factions vying for >> control of the town, and was directly tied to an huge surge in the >> murder >> rate. What other examples do you have? I don't necessarily dispute >> that >> there were some, but I'd like to see some evidence. >> >> Clint Eastwood gives an interesting example of a town with gun >> control in >> his great movie 'The Unforgiven', which really everyone should see. >> If you >> have not seen it, run don't walk. >> >> >> >> >> . >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 03:40 · in reply to Craig Brewer* Craig Brewer writes: > What interests me ... is the culture that has grown up (in > America, I suppose I should say) around the gun debate. It seems that > we???ve been forced to take sides as if we???re for arming every > able-bodied citizen to protect us from the unwashed masses I am as fervent a supporter of the right to arm oneself as anyone, and I thought we were armed to protect ourselves from the government. Where do you get this unwashed masses bit? It is the disarmers who fear the consequences of armed unwashed masses, especially when they are non-white. > or that we have to be labeled na??ve > pacifists who blind themselves to potential dangers. Rather, people who have been well-programmed or (more kindly) who have not yet shaken off their programming. Your further representations of what people on each side of the argument 'believe' seems to me to be somewhat inaccurate and reflective, in parts, of a high level of ignorance: semi-automatic weapons are in fact used for sport, both for hunting and for target shooting: http://hunting.about.com/od/toppicks/tp/tp_auto_rifles.htm Also I really do think that sublimated racism and a coordinated and decades long media campaign has more to do with anti-gun attitudes than anything else. . --- ### Craig Brewer *18 Mar 2009, 03:50 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* Brunians, You personally may want guns to protect you from the government, but it's much more commonly argued that self-defense or home/property defense is why we should have guns. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, I'm just saying that gun lobby usually seems to push that idea in their vocal and public arguments more than that we have to fear an evil government. That said, I agree about your point of the inherent racism in some of the anti-gun lobby. But that's just another example of my point that the gun argument is usually an excuse to argue about other "hidden" issues. As for this: Your further representations of what people on each side of the argument 'believe' seems to me to be somewhat inaccurate and reflective, in parts, of a high level of ignorance: semi-automatic weapons are in fact used for sport, both for hunting and for target shooting: http://hunting.about.com/od/toppicks/tp/tp_auto_rifles.htm I'm not ignorant, thanks. I belong to the NRA, even though I'm not a fan of guns. (It's a family thing...complicated.) My family is full of hunters, and I've shot semi-automatics for "sport" with them. I've never read about a single animal that *required* a semi-automatic to take it down. It may make it easier, but using sport to justify a military-grade weapon is another one of those backwards arguments. I still think it's a sham and an excuse to have big toys. Just because someone can rationalize something doesn't make it rational. If you want to have access to military-style weapons, then make the "protect myself from the government" argument. Don't hide behind sport. ----- Original Message ---- From: "brunians at brunians.org" To: The Urth Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 10:40:49 PM Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe Craig Brewer writes: > What interests me ... is the culture that has grown up (in > America, I suppose I should say) around the gun debate. It seems that > we???ve been forced to take sides as if we???re for arming every > able-bodied citizen to protect us from the unwashed masses I am as fervent a supporter of the right to arm oneself as anyone, and I thought we were armed to protect ourselves from the government. Where do you get this unwashed masses bit? It is the disarmers who fear the consequences of armed unwashed masses, especially when they are non-white. > or that we have to be labeled na??ve > pacifists who blind themselves to potential dangers. Rather, people who have been well-programmed or (more kindly) who have not yet shaken off their programming. Your further representations of what people on each side of the argument 'believe' seems to me to be somewhat inaccurate and reflective, in parts, of a high level of ignorance: semi-automatic weapons are in fact used for sport, both for hunting and for target shooting: http://hunting.about.com/od/toppicks/tp/tp_auto_rifles.htm Also I really do think that sublimated racism and a coordinated and decades long media campaign has more to do with anti-gun attitudes than anything else. . --- ### Jerry Friedman *18 Mar 2009, 03:57 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > --- On Tue, 3/17/09, brunians at brunians.org wrote: > From: brunians at brunians.org > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe > To: "The Urth Mailing List" > Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2009, 9:23 PM > What did he say about pedophilia exactly again? That > well-raised boys > wouldn't put up with that kind of crap, they'd kick > and fight and you > couldn't actually rape them quitely? That's how I remember it. Not that the problem had been exaggerated. > I thought it was sort of a normal > reaction from someone who was forcibly raped twice in his > boyhood, then no more. Me too. > You don't think kids should be trained to fight when > someone tries to molest them? ... I do, but I'm not a Christian. As the statement came from a Catholic priest, it surprised me greatly. Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount that you shouldn't resist evil (Matt. 5:39). I take it I missed an interesting discussion on whether Wolfe presented Chris as a relatively decent fallen human being trying to deal with near-impossible circumstances, or as a "half-human monster" who, once he leaves the monastery, becomes horrifyingly evil and stays that way despite working as a priest. I also take it that the jokes about the rest of Matt. 5:39 have been made to the extent necessary. Jerry Friedman --- ### Chris P *18 Mar 2009, 04:04 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* That argument can only really hold water when it comes to the U.S., though, and there has been disarmament in a number of other countries that I think would be difficult to attribute to racism. It surprises me that nobody has brought up the urban/rural divide on the gun issue. I think there are definite, pragmatic reasons why city-dwellers all over seem to be in favor of gun control in greater proportions than their rural counterparts. And personally I don't think it would be unreasonable to accommodate both parties by limiting those who can carry firearms in dense urban areas while leaving the rural areas alone. ``` "When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means that the sun is about to set." -- Lin Yutang ``` > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:40:49 -0400 > From: brunians at brunians.org > To: urth at lists.urth.net > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe > > Craig Brewer writes: >> What interests me ... is the culture that has grown up (in >> America, I suppose I should say) around the gun debate. It seems that >> we???ve been forced to take sides as if we???re for arming every >> able-bodied citizen to protect us from the unwashed masses > I am as fervent a supporter of the right to arm oneself as anyone, and I > thought we were armed to protect ourselves from the government. Where do > you get this unwashed masses bit? It is the disarmers who fear the > consequences of armed unwashed masses, especially when they are non-white. >> or that we have to be labeled na??ve >> pacifists who blind themselves to potential dangers. > Rather, people who have been well-programmed or (more kindly) who have not > yet shaken off their programming. > > Your further representations of what people on each side of the argument > 'believe' seems to me to be somewhat inaccurate and reflective, in parts, > of a high level of ignorance: semi-automatic weapons are in fact used for > sport, both for hunting and for target shooting: > > http://hunting.about.com/od/toppicks/tp/tp_auto_rifles.htm > > Also I really do think that sublimated racism and a coordinated and > decades long media campaign has more to do with anti-gun attitudes than > anything else. > > > > > . > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Son of Witz *18 Mar 2009, 04:34 · in reply to Chris P* > On Mar 17, 2009, at 9:04 PM, Chris P wrote: > It surprises me that nobody has brought up the urban/rural divide on > the gun issue. I think there are definite, pragmatic reasons why > city-dwellers all over seem to be in favor of gun control in greater > proportions than their rural counterparts. And personally I don't > think it would be unreasonable to accommodate both parties by > limiting those who can carry firearms in dense urban areas while > leaving the rural areas alone. Now we're onto something. I live in San Francisco, near Bayview (a "ghetto"), right up the street from where the Bologna family was famously massacred over a minor traffic inconvenience. I hear gunshots weekly. 3 blocks from my work, downtown SF, I heard someone get shot to death a couple months ago. (heard the shots, then looked to see everyone screaming over the dead man). Guns are a big problem in this city. I HIGHLY doubt the gunshots I hear so often have "good" reasons, intentions or outcomes. There are a lot of stupid, angry assholes ready to pop, and they're over-armed. (Hell, a chick on the bus pulled out her mace and threatened me because I suggested that spitting sunflower seeds everywhere was pretty gross.) People are stupid and angry, easily offended, and too easily armed. But if I lived in a rural area, I don't suppose I'd have any real objections to guns. & I'm definitely with Brewer when it comes to the rationalization for semi-automatic weapons. As a complete aside, it's quite interesting to talk about this stuff with y'all. It's too easy to end up in an echo chamber, especially when you live in SF. It's hard to even find self-proclaimed conservatives here. I'm pretty damn liberal, but living in SF long enough will make you gag at some of the thoughtless knee-jerk (not to mention arrogant) liberal attitudes. Enough, at least, to be MORE than willing to engage with conservatives and others who are NOT full of thoughtless pre-packaged attitudes; a nice change from the type of loud mouth stupid conservatives I've met in "real life" and within my own family. (hopefully you read that right, I'm not calling anyone here stupid conservatives, the stupid ones are in my own family, and ones who yelled at me for carrying a sign protesting a bullshit invasion. "they'll be dancing in the streets" is how the prepackaged meme went) ~witz --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 04:56 · in reply to Craig Brewer* > Brunians, > > You personally may want guns to protect you from the government, Not just that: it was the stated intent of the amendment from the beginning. > but it's > much more commonly argued that self-defense or home/property defense is > why we should have guns. These are additional reasons, and good ones. But they are not the primary reason why the amendment was considered necessary before the constitution could be ratified. > I'm not saying that's right or wrong, I'm just > saying that gun lobby Which gun lobby? There are three that I know of. > usually seems to push that idea in their vocal and > public arguments more than that we have to fear an evil government. Google: gun ownership defense tyranny There are really a lot of people, I'd guess the majority of gun-owners, who grasp this. I imagine that these vocal and public arguments are addressed to the people on the fence. > As for this: > Your further representations of what people on each side of the argument > 'believe' seems to me to be somewhat inaccurate and reflective, in parts, > of a high level of ignorance: semi-automatic weapons are in fact used for > sport, both for hunting and for target shooting: > http://hunting.about.com/od/toppicks/tp/tp_auto_rifles.htm > I'm not ignorant, thanks. I belong to the NRA, I don't. The NRA are compromisers. And anyway, whether or not the NRA makes the argument that guns are there as a defense against tyranny, the fact of the matter is that that is why they are there, which makes their compromising with the disarmers even mor egregious. The reason one uses a semi-automatic weapon for hunting, if I recall correctly (I don't hunt) is that you don't have to take it away from your eye to bring up the second shot, and so if you merely wound the animal, you have a better chance of a second shot kill, which saves the animal much suffering and you much time and trouble. . --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 05:01 · in reply to Jerry Friedman* >> You don't think kids should be trained to fight when >> someone tries to molest them? > ... > I do, but I'm not a Christian. You think that Christians think that? > As the statement came from > a Catholic priest, it surprised me greatly. Jesus says in > the Sermon on the Mount that you shouldn't resist evil > (Matt. 5:39). He says 'turn the other cheek', that is, one time. He doesn't say keep on turning again and again like some kind of bobbly-head critter on the dashboard. Love your enemies - that way they don't even suspect you right up until when you fuck up their day. . --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 05:10 · in reply to Chris P* > That argument can only really hold water when it comes to the U.S., > though, and there has been disarmament in a number of other countries that > I think would be difficult to attribute to racism. But easy to attribute to Fear Of The Lower Orders, or the Southerners (in Italy). > It surprises me that nobody has brought up the urban/rural divide on the > gun issue. I think there are definite, pragmatic reasons why city-dwellers > all over seem to be in favor of gun control in greater proportions than > their rural counterparts. No there aren't. Washington DC has 400,000 people. Tucson AZ has 400,000 people. Tucson AZ has, like, twenty, thirty murders a year. There is a thriving drug trade in both cities, a minority majority in both cities, and Tucson has also *huge* amounts of illegal humans coming through as well as guys who will come up the fifty miles from Mexico to steal cars to order. > And personally I don't think it would be > unreasonable to accommodate both parties by limiting those who can carry > firearms in dense urban areas while leaving the rural areas alone. This would make sense if the murder rate in Tucson was higher than it is in DC. I don't see anything wrong with requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon, as long as the issuing authority cannot refuse to issue save for cause. I note that in Tucson there is no concept of legal concealed carry except for cops (or there didn't use to be): your weapon must be exposed to public view. When I drove the taxi there, I would put a clip-on sheath into my left pants pocket (southpaw) and leave a half-inch of the grip poking out to satisfy the legal requirement. . --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 05:11 · in reply to Son of Witz* > I live in San Francisco, near Bayview (a "ghetto"), right up the > street from where the Bologna family was famously massacred over a > minor traffic inconvenience. > I hear gunshots weekly. 3 blocks from my work, downtown SF, I heard > someone get shot to death a couple months ago. (heard the shots, then > looked to see everyone screaming over the dead man). Guns are a big > problem in this city. I HIGHLY doubt the gunshots I hear so often > have "good" reasons, intentions or outcomes. But how can this be? It is basically illegal to own a weapon in San Francisco. How old are you, man? . --- ### Chris P *18 Mar 2009, 06:25 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* >> That argument can only really hold water when it comes to the U.S., >> though, and there has been disarmament in a number of other countries that >> I think would be difficult to attribute to racism. > But easy to attribute to Fear Of The Lower Orders, or the Southerners (in > Italy). I have no problem believing that some people favor gun control for fear of the "lower orders", or for racial reasons. But I do not buy into this as a general explanation of the entire phenomena; I do not see massive support for gun control in the Deep South, for example. And for every person that doesn't like guns because they're afraid of poor people, there's another who *owns* a gun (or five) due to fear of poor people and will fight for their right to keep it. I am not a gun control activist, but I am not emotionally invested in thinking that people on either side of the issue take the stance they do due to ignorance, fear or just generally being Bad People. >> It surprises me that nobody has brought up the urban/rural divide on the >> gun issue. I think there are definite, pragmatic reasons why city-dwellers >> all over seem to be in favor of gun control in greater proportions than >> their rural counterparts. > No there aren't. Washington DC has 400,000 people. Tucson AZ has 400,000 > people. Tucson AZ has, like, twenty, thirty murders a year. There is a > thriving drug trade in both cities, a minority majority in both cities, > and Tucson has also *huge* amounts of illegal humans coming through as > well as guys who will come up the fifty miles from Mexico to steal cars to > order. I am not at all certain what your point is with this passage. >> And personally I don't think it would be >> unreasonable to accommodate both parties by limiting those who can carry >> firearms in dense urban areas while leaving the rural areas alone. > This would make sense if the murder rate in Tucson was higher than it is > in DC. Tucson and Washington DC have similar populations, but Tucson sprawls out over three times the area of DC. Population density is kind of an important part of the point I was making. I can't tell if your point was to elaborate on the similarity of the areas or the differences, and I cannot tell why the relative murder rate in Tucson and DC has anything to do with it. I never said that gun ownership was the sole factor determining the rate of violent crime. > I don't see anything wrong with requiring a permit to carry a concealed > weapon, as long as the issuing authority cannot refuse to issue save for > cause. I note that in Tucson there is no concept of legal concealed carry > except for cops (or there didn't use to be): your weapon must be exposed > to public view. When I drove the taxi there, I would put a clip-on sheath > into my left pants pocket (southpaw) and leave a half-inch of the grip > poking out to satisfy the legal requirement. Well that is not horribly different from what I said. --- ### don doggett *18 Mar 2009, 06:25 · in reply to Son of Witz* Doggerel www.don-doggett.blogspot.com > --- On Tue, 3/17/09, Son of Witz wrote: > I hear gunshots weekly. 3 blocks from my work, downtown SF, > I heard someone get shot to death a couple months ago. > (heard the shots, then looked to see everyone screaming over > the dead man). Guns are a big problem in this city. I > HIGHLY doubt the gunshots I hear so often have > "good" reasons, intentions or outcomes. > There are a lot of stupid, angry assholes ready to pop, and > they're over-armed. (Hell, a chick on the bus pulled > out her mace and threatened me because I suggested that > spitting sunflower seeds everywhere was pretty gross.) > People are stupid and angry, easily offended, and too easily > armed. But how many of these people are LEGALLY armed? That's my problem with gun control- most of the people committing gun crimes obtained the guns illegally in the first place, the main exception being domestic violence cases. Don --- ### don doggett *18 Mar 2009, 06:37 · in reply to Chris P* Doggerel www.don-doggett.blogspot.com > --- On Tue, 3/17/09, Chris P wrote: > > I have no problem believing that some people favor gun > control for fear of the "lower orders", or for > racial reasons. But I do not buy into this as a general > explanation of the entire phenomena; I do not see massive > support for gun control in the Deep South, for example. Up until recently (within the last 30 - 40 years), the Deep South and the South in general would have been considered poor as a region, thanks largely to the lingering effects of Reconstruction. We definitely fell into the "lower orders" that people would have been happy to disarm. Don --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 06:46 · in reply to Chris P* > I am not a gun control activist, but I am not emotionally invested in > thinking that people on either side of the issue take the stance they do > due to ignorance, fear or just generally being Bad People. There has to be some degree of ignorance of history for people to even think it is a good idea. Also we swim in a sea of propaganda, or most of us do. It is amazing, really, how good the propaganda is, especially for those who consume TV as required. >>> It surprises me that nobody has brought up the urban/rural divide on >>> the >>> gun issue. I think there are definite, pragmatic reasons why >>> city-dwellers >>> all over seem to be in favor of gun control in greater proportions >>> than >>> their rural counterparts. >> No there aren't. Washington DC has 400,000 people. Tucson AZ has 400,000 >> people. Tucson AZ has, like, twenty, thirty murders a year. There is a >> thriving drug trade in both cities, a minority majority in both cities, >> and Tucson has also *huge* amounts of illegal humans coming through as >> well as guys who will come up the fifty miles from Mexico to steal cars >> to order. > I am not at all certain what your point is with this passage. I had thought that the high number of murders in Washington DC was well known. Apparently not. There were 181 in 2007: an improvement over the early 90's. Most of these murders were committed with firearms. The question is, how can this be? Guns are illegal in DC. How can there be any crimes committed with guns at all if guns are illegal there? Please address this question. >>> And personally I don't think it would >>> be >>> unreasonable to accommodate both parties by limiting those who can >>> carry >>> firearms in dense urban areas while leaving the rural areas alone. >> This would make sense if the murder rate in Tucson was higher than it is >> in DC. > Tucson and Washington DC have similar populations, but Tucson sprawls out > over three times the area of DC. Population density is kind of an > important part of the point I was making. So you think it is because people are all crowded together? I think it is because you have disarmed the honest ones. People in Switzerland are very heavily armed, and I believe that their cities are pretty densely populated. Hardly any crime there at all. . --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 06:48 · in reply to don doggett* > Doggerel > www.don-doggett.blogspot.com >> I hear gunshots weekly. 3 blocks from my work, downtown SF, >> I heard someone get shot to death a couple months ago. >> (heard the shots, then looked to see everyone screaming over >> the dead man). Guns are a big problem in this city. I >> HIGHLY doubt the gunshots I hear so often have >> "good" reasons, intentions or outcomes. >> There are a lot of stupid, angry assholes ready to pop, and >> they're over-armed. (Hell, a chick on the bus pulled >> out her mace and threatened me because I suggested that >> spitting sunflower seeds everywhere was pretty gross.) >> People are stupid and angry, easily offended, and too easily >> armed. > But how many of these people are LEGALLY armed? None of them are: it has been illegal for a civilian to own a firearm in SF for some time now. . --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 06:51 · in reply to don doggett* >> I have no problem believing that some people favor gun >> control for fear of the "lower orders", or for >> racial reasons. But I do not buy into this as a general >> explanation of the entire phenomena; I do not see massive >> support for gun control in the Deep South, for example. > Up until recently (within the last 30 - 40 years), the Deep South and the > South in general would have been considered poor as a region, thanks > largely to the lingering effects of Reconstruction. We definitely fell > into the "lower orders" that people would have been happy to disarm. No doubt. And still: rednecks are subject to more racial stereotypes than negros. The South shall rise again. The West has yet to rise. . --- ### Chris P *18 Mar 2009, 07:47 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* Apparently this is an emotional subject for you. So, snark on then. >>> No there aren't. Washington DC has 400,000 people. Tucson AZ has 400,000 >>> people. Tucson AZ has, like, twenty, thirty murders a year. There is a >>> thriving drug trade in both cities, a minority majority in both cities, >>> and Tucson has also *huge* amounts of illegal humans coming through as >>> well as guys who will come up the fifty miles from Mexico to steal cars >>> to order. >> I am not at all certain what your point is with this passage. > I had thought that the high number of murders in Washington DC was well > known. Apparently not. There were 181 in 2007: an improvement over the > early 90's. That would be highly, extraordinarily pertinent and a very intelligent point to make if I had made the claim that cities with gun control laws had no crime or murders. Since I didn't, naturally I should have assumed that this was what you were getting at. > Most of these murders were committed with firearms. You mean when you make a law, that doesn't immediately alter the laws of nature to make that law impossible to violate? I never, ever would have guessed. That must be part of the arcane mysteries that Bruno taught you. > The question is, how can this be? Guns are illegal in DC. How can there be > any crimes committed with guns at all if guns are illegal there? > > Please address this question. See above. I can be as flippant and condescending as you. Or wait, maybe I can't. I haven't insinuated you're an uneducated mouth-breather for daring to semi-disagree with me yet. Or made you the straw man for all the beliefs I disagree with. >>>> And personally I don't think it would >>>> be >>>> unreasonable to accommodate both parties by limiting those who can >>>> carry >>>> firearms in dense urban areas while leaving the rural areas alone. >>> This would make sense if the murder rate in Tucson was higher than it is >>> in DC. >> Tucson and Washington DC have similar populations, but Tucson sprawls out >> over three times the area of DC. Population density is kind of an >> important part of the point I was making. > So you think it is because people are all crowded together? I think it is > because you have disarmed the honest ones. I checked to see which people were honest when I personally went out on my magical faery dragon and disarmed them all. > People in Switzerland are very heavily armed, and I believe that their > cities are pretty densely populated. Hardly any crime there at all. And the only difference between Switzerland and Washington DC is the existence of guns there, obviously. --- ### Jeff Wilson *18 Mar 2009, 07:54 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* > Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:03 AM, wrote: >> This is a Big Lie, that you are repeating. > I'm familiar with the concept of the Big Lie. The Bush administration > used it often enough. >> The debate recorded in 'The Federalist Papers' and 'The Anti-Federalist >> Papers', and usage of the term militia at the time clearly show the >> opposite of what you say. This lie has been refuted time and time again, >> but like the proper Big Lie that it is, continues to be repeated. > I'm not talking about anything but what the Amendment says. It gives > a purpose. The given puropse is "the security of the State." How it > came to be there is another question, but has no legal bearing on the > question of what the Amendment says and means. That's "the security of a free state", please, which is materially very different. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### Jeff Wilson *18 Mar 2009, 07:56 · in reply to James Wynn* >> James Wynn wrote: >> Well, beying an european, I'm going to abstain from commenting >> on the particulars of your constitution and on your (US) views of this >> matter. After all, the "Wild West" is too fresh on your mind and >> culture and it's probably normal that these matters raise certain >> "passions" among US citizens. > This is such a quaint, European view of Americans. It's so cute! They can't help it, the failure of Versailles being too fresh on their minds. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### Jeff Wilson *18 Mar 2009, 08:06 · in reply to Son of Witz* > Son of Witz wrote: > But if there was a revolt, they would quash it so fast and could > declare Martial Law, and then our second amendment rights would mean > exactly squat. That's exactly what the right is for, to have guns accumulated ahead of time. The tyrant can declare it taken away, but he can't enforce it universally. Who will conduct the billions of building searches to find everywhere that hundreds of millions of firearms and trillions of rounds of ammunition might be hidden? ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### Jeff Wilson *18 Mar 2009, 08:13 · in reply to don doggett* > don doggett wrote: > As someone who lives in the Wild West, I gotta say it ain't all it's > cracked up to be. They say an armed society is a polite society, but > mostly it's just a belligerently overconfident society. Oh yes, armed = polite is bullshit, just look at Sierra Leone. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 08:14 · in reply to Chris P* > Apparently this is an emotional subject for you. So, snark on then. I am unaware of having made any particular display of emotion: in fact, I have been quite calm and dispassionate all evening. I have found that when someone, out of the blue, starts talking about the person they are talking to's emotional state, it is not that person's emotional state that they are actually talking about. Fortunately, you are not my only interlocutor, and any points I have wanted to make with you have been made. I do wish you a calm rest of the evening, and on into tomorrow. . --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 08:18 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* > Son of Witz wrote: >> But if there was a revolt, they would quash it so fast and could >> declare Martial Law, and then our second amendment rights would mean >> exactly squat. > That's exactly what the right is for, to have guns accumulated ahead of > time. The tyrant can declare it taken away, but he can't enforce it > universally. Who will conduct the billions of building searches to find > everywhere that hundreds of millions of firearms and trillions of rounds > of ammunition might be hidden? They are trying to teach helplessness to his generation. Why prepare to fight if you've already lost ahead of time? Just do what they say. . --- ### Tim Walters *18 Mar 2009, 08:19 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > brunians at brunians.org wrote: > None of them are: it has been illegal for a civilian to own a firearm in > SF for some time now. And yet, we have a (slightly) lower murder rate than Tucson: http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=San+Francisco&state=CA http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Tucson&state=AZ > People in Switzerland are very heavily armed Less than half the per capita gun ownership of the U.S. > Hardly any crime there at all. Their murder rate is almost three times that of Italy, which has a much lower gun ownership rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_countries_by_gun_ownership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate My understanding is there isn't much correlation in either direction between gun ownership rates and murder rates. But I'm open to actual evidence (as opposed to cherry-picked examples). By the way: do you support private ownership of nuclear weapons? If not, how do you reconcile that with your constitutional views, and how do you justify drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable weapons in one place rather than another? (These are not rhetorical questions. I'm curious. And for what it's worth, I lean against gun control, albeit rather tepidly.) ``` Tim Walters | The Doubtful Palace | http://doubtfulpalace.com ``` --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 08:23 · in reply to Tim Walters* Ah yes, I was wondering how long it would take someone to trot this one out. . > brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> None of them are: it has been illegal for a civilian to own a firearm in >> SF for some time now. > And yet, we have a (slightly) lower murder rate than Tucson: > > http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=San+Francisco&state=CA > http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Tucson&state=AZ > > > People in Switzerland are very heavily armed > > Less than half the per capita gun ownership of the U.S. > > > Hardly any crime there at all. > > Their murder rate is almost three times that of Italy, which has a much > lower gun ownership rate. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_countries_by_gun_ownership > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate > > My understanding is there isn't much correlation in either direction > between gun ownership rates and murder rates. But I'm open to actual > evidence (as opposed to cherry-picked examples). > > By the way: do you support private ownership of nuclear weapons? If not, > how do you reconcile that with your constitutional views, and how do > you justify drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable weapons > in one place rather than another? (These are not rhetorical questions. > I'm curious. And for what it's worth, I lean against gun control, albeit > rather tepidly.) > > -- > > Tim Walters | The Doubtful Palace | http://doubtfulpalace.com > _______________________________________________ --- ### Lane Haygood *18 Mar 2009, 08:28 · in reply to Tim Walters* Most criminologists will tell you that economic factors have more to do with the prevalence of violent crime than do things like gun ownership. The most common causes of intentional homicide (in the vulgar, murder) are things that relate to relatively uncommon events: high emotions, difficult situations, and organized crime. The sort of crime that gun ownership is thought to prevent (where the criminal rationally considers that there is a greater risk to his or her own life because of the victim's chance of owning a gun) isn't murder at all. Gun ownership might protect the home in case of burglary, or prevent an assault or domestic assault, but not murder. For example, along the border we're experiencing a rash of Mexican drug cartel-related killings. These murders go on knowing full well that the other party is going to be armed, usually heavily so, with the expectation that there will be a good chance of a firefight. That doesn't deter the killers, because their motive is one that outweighs (for them) the risk of death. If people really wanted to reduce homicides and other violent crimes, they'd focus more on removing the motives people have for these things: profit through black market, sudden rages and passions, and assorted economic/social problems. -L. > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Tim Walters wrote: > brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> None of them are: it has been illegal for a civilian to own a firearm in >> SF for some time now. > And yet, we have a (slightly) lower murder rate than Tucson: > > http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=San+Francisco&state=CA > http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Tucson&state=AZ >> People in Switzerland are very heavily armed > Less than half the per capita gun ownership of the U.S. >> Hardly any crime there at all. > Their murder rate is almost three times that of Italy, which has a much > lower gun ownership rate. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_countries_by_gun_ownership > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate > > My understanding is there isn't much correlation in either direction between > gun ownership rates and murder rates. But I'm open to actual evidence (as > opposed to cherry-picked examples). > > By the way: do you support private ownership of nuclear weapons? If not, > “how do you reconcile that with your constitutional views, and how do you > justify drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable weapons in one > place rather than another” (These are not rhetorical questions. I'm curious. > And for what it's worth, I lean against gun control, albeit rather tepidly.) > > -- > > Tim Walters | The Doubtful Palace | http://doubtfulpalace.com > _______________________________________________ --- ### Tim Walters *18 Mar 2009, 08:29 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > brunians at brunians.org wrote: > Ah yes, I was wondering how long it would take someone to trot this one out. So you don't have any evidence, then. Glad we got that straight. ``` Tim Walters | The Doubtful Palace | http://doubtfulpalace.com ``` --- ### Jeff Wilson *18 Mar 2009, 08:32 · in reply to Tim Walters* > Tim Walters wrote: > brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> None of them are: it has been illegal for a civilian to own a firearm in >> SF for some time now. > And yet, we have a (slightly) lower murder rate than Tucson: > > http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=San+Francisco&state=CA > http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Tucson&state=AZ > > > People in Switzerland are very heavily armed > > Less than half the per capita gun ownership of the U.S. However, 60% of Swiss men aged 18-34 keep rifles and other firearms belonging to the army at home as part of their conscripted and reserve military service. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### Tim Walters *18 Mar 2009, 08:35 · in reply to Lane Haygood* > Lane Haygood wrote: > The sort of > crime that gun ownership is thought to prevent (where the criminal > rationally considers that there is a greater risk to his or her own > life because of the victim's chance of owning a gun) isn't murder at > all. [and a bunch of other stuff that I agree with, and which > explains > quite well why I'm tepidly anti-gun-control] Quite so. But brunians' claim was that gun ownership reduces murder rates. ``` Tim Walters | The Doubtful Palace | http://doubtfulpalace.com ``` --- ### Tim Walters *18 Mar 2009, 08:37 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* > Jeff Wilson wrote: > However, 60% of Swiss men aged 18-34 keep rifles and other firearms > belonging to the army at home as part of their conscripted and reserve > military service. Is there any reason to think that isn't included in the ownership figure? ``` Tim Walters | The Doubtful Palace | http://doubtfulpalace.com ``` --- ### Lane Haygood *18 Mar 2009, 08:41 · in reply to Tim Walters* I know. My point is that ownership or non-ownership doesn't affect violent crime rates. This is one of the rare occasions where I think both sides of the American gun control debate are off-base. Preventing access to guns will likely stop firearm-killings from happening, but I don't think it'd have a significant affect on the overall violent crime rate. If you walk home and catch your significant other with another person, and you happen to grab a kitchen knife before you get your gun, it doesn't matter. Murder is murder whether you do it with a gun or not. So pointing to countries with low gun ownership rates and low murder rates is pointing out a correlation but what is not likely a causal relation. If you look at other factors, I'm going to bet that you find the countries with the lowest per capita murder rates have a high general standard of living, significant federal support programs, a well-balanced population, plenty of jobs and a relatively low-stress living environment. I'm also willing to bet that no significant organized crime goes on in these countries/areas. Gun ownership (or the lack thereof) is a non-issue. -L. > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 3:35 AM, Tim Walters wrote: > Lane Haygood wrote: >> The sort of >> crime that gun ownership is thought to prevent (where the criminal >> rationally considers that there is a greater risk to his or her own >> life because of the victim's chance of owning a gun) isn't murder at >> all. [and a bunch of other stuff that I agree with, and which explains ?> >> quite well why I'm tepidly anti-gun-control] > Quite so. But brunians' claim was that gun ownership reduces murder rates. > > -- > > Tim Walters | The Doubtful Palace | http://doubtfulpalace.com > _______________________________________________ --- ### Chris P *18 Mar 2009, 08:44 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* No, you can get by on passive-aggressive insinuations. If you don't recognize it in your own tone I don't know what to tell you. I just decided you weren't worth any more effort than you were putting into it. >> Apparently this is an emotional subject for you. So, snark on then. > I am unaware of having made any particular display of emotion: in fact, I > have been quite calm and dispassionate all evening. > > I have found that when someone, out of the blue, starts talking about the > person they are talking to's emotional state, it is not that person's > emotional state that they are actually talking about. > > Fortunately, you are not my only interlocutor, and any points I have > wanted to make with you have been made. > > I do wish you a calm rest of the evening, and on into tomorrow. > > > > . > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Tim Walters *18 Mar 2009, 08:51 · in reply to Lane Haygood* > Lane Haygood wrote: > So pointing to countries with low gun ownership rates and low murder > rates is pointing out a correlation but what is not likely a causal > relation. Maybe I should have made "My understanding is there isn't much correlation in either direction between gun ownership rates and murder rates." my first sentence instead of putting it after the demonstration of counter-cherry-picking. ``` Tim Walters | The Doubtful Palace | http://doubtfulpalace.com ``` --- ### Lane Haygood *18 Mar 2009, 09:22 · in reply to Tim Walters* That's what you get for expecting me to read every line of an e-mail at 4:30 in the morning. I am consummately lazy. -L. > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 3:51 AM, Tim Walters wrote: > Lane Haygood wrote: >> So pointing to countries with low gun ownership rates and low murder >> rates is pointing out a correlation but what is not likely a causal >> relation. > Maybe I should have made "My understanding is there isn't much correlation > in either direction between gun ownership rates and murder rates." my first > sentence instead of putting it after the demonstration of > counter-cherry-picking. > > -- > > Tim Walters | The Doubtful Palace | http://doubtfulpalace.com > _______________________________________________ --- ### Jeff Wilson *18 Mar 2009, 10:26 · in reply to Tim Walters* > Tim Walters wrote: > Jeff Wilson wrote: >> However, 60% of Swiss men aged 18-34 keep rifles and other firearms >> belonging to the army at home as part of their conscripted and reserve >> military service. > Is there any reason to think that isn't included in the ownership figure? You can find a well-sourced report on the Swiss' gun-keeping habits here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland In short, there are about 420,000 state-owned weapons at home, 320,000 pistols and rifles retired from military service with automatic fire disabled, and a minimum of hundreds of thousands of other semi-auto firearms in a nation 7.7 million. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### Bob Miller *18 Mar 2009, 11:01 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > So you think it is because people are all crowded together? I think it is > because you have disarmed the honest ones. > > People in Switzerland are very heavily armed, and I believe that their > cities are pretty densely populated. Hardly any crime there at all. An orful lotta emotion heah. Seems lahk muh man Jamie Michener commented in his book The Drifters that homocide rates very strongly tend to be inversely related to the homogeneity of thuh society. I never found the journal article he cited, but the prima facie rationale behind it still seems to me to make sense. I don't think it's a "one explanation fits all" cases situation, of course. Violence,an extreme for of discourtesy, seems to come from the breaking down of mores with the concomitant geographical area. One of the factors of this breaking down is the heterogeneity of the local populace. Having said that I am a gunowner and I do deliberately not show this off, i.e., I doubt any of my neighbors know I have one. This is due to the "attractive nuisance" factor. I don't want to be targeted as a preferred target for burglary due to possessing something a 24 to 44 yr old body with a 14 yr old intellect and a 3 yr old emotional development can put on his "cover radar". > . > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Jeff Wilson *18 Mar 2009, 11:11 · in reply to Bob Miller* > Bob Miller wrote: > I don't want to be targeted as a > preferred target for burglary due to possessing something a 24 to 44 yr > old body with a 14 yr old intellect and a 3 yr old emotional development > can put on his "cover radar". What? ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 12:19 · in reply to Tim Walters* Sorry Doubtful Tim, the one I was wondering how long it would take someone to trot out was the 'do you think that nuclear weapons should be legal?' The answer too that is, mostly to shut you up (they aren't incredibly useful weapons) I am willing to allow an exception to the general rule as long as it is understood as a single exception. And I expect to be able to use nuclear *explosives* for my various off-planet construction projects. The bit about the murder rate in SF being about the same as the crime rate in Tucson really did catch me by surprise. I will say that I would still rather drive a cab in Tucson than in SF. . > brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> Ah yes, I was wondering how long it would take someone to trot this one >> out. > So you don't have any evidence, then. Glad we got that straight. > > -- > > Tim Walters | The Doubtful Palace | http://doubtfulpalace.com > _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 12:21 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* > Tim Walters wrote: >> brunians at brunians.org wrote: >>> None of them are: it has been illegal for a civilian to own a firearm >>> in SF for some time now. >> And yet, we have a (slightly) lower murder rate than Tucson: >> http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=San+Francisco&state=CA >> http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Tucson&state=AZ >> > People in Switzerland are very heavily armed >> Less than half the per capita gun ownership of the U.S. > However, 60% of Swiss men aged 18-34 keep rifles and other firearms > belonging to the army at home as part of their conscripted and reserve > military service. Those 'other firearms' include fully automatic weapons and crew-served artillery, Doubtful Tim. . --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 12:23 · in reply to Tim Walters* What, you mean I made another mistake? My God, say it isn't so. . > Lane Haygood wrote: > > > The sort of > > crime that gun ownership is thought to prevent (where the criminal > > rationally considers that there is a greater risk to his or her own > > life because of the victim's chance of owning a gun) isn't murder at > > all. [and a bunch of other stuff that I agree with, and which > explains > quite well why I'm tepidly anti-gun-control] > > Quite so. But brunians' claim was that gun ownership reduces murder rates. > > -- > > Tim Walters | The Doubtful Palace | http://doubtfulpalace.com > _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 12:24 · in reply to Tim Walters* > Jeff Wilson wrote: >> However, 60% of Swiss men aged 18-34 keep rifles and other firearms >> belonging to the army at home as part of their conscripted and reserve >> military service. > Is there any reason to think that isn't included in the ownership figure? Well yes, Prim Tim. They are not privately owned. They are owned by the government, issued to the individual serviceman and taken up again when he ends his service. . --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 12:29 · in reply to Chris P* > No, you can get by on passive-aggressive insinuations. I am sorry, you are misusing the term 'passive aggressive'. It does not mean what you think it means. > From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive-aggressive_behavior: ___ Passive-aggressive behavior is passive, sometimes obstructionist resistance to following through with expectations in interpersonal or occupational situations. It can manifest itself as learned helplessness, procrastination, stubbornness, resentment, sullenness, or deliberate/repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible. --- I am so very glad that I could be of service in helping to correct ypur misuse of this term of art. . --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 12:32 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* > Bob Miller wrote: >> I don't want to be targeted as a >> preferred target for burglary due to possessing something a 24 to 44 yr >> old body with a 14 yr old intellect and a 3 yr old emotional development >> can put on his "cover radar". > What? Indeed. Are you trying to talk gangsta? I don't think it is quite like that. . --- ### Son of Witz *18 Mar 2009, 13:43 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > On Mar 17, 2009, at 10:11 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> I live in San Francisco, near Bayview (a "ghetto"), right up the >> street from where the Bologna family was famously massacred over a >> minor traffic inconvenience. >> I hear gunshots weekly. 3 blocks from my work, downtown SF, I heard >> someone get shot to death a couple months ago. (heard the shots, then >> looked to see everyone screaming over the dead man). Guns are a big >> problem in this city. I HIGHLY doubt the gunshots I hear so often >> have "good" reasons, intentions or outcomes. > But how can this be? It is basically illegal to own a weapon in San > Francisco. > > How old are you, man? I'm 34. why? and legal, illegal. meh. it's obviously pretty easy for people to get guns if they want one. --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 13:46 · in reply to Son of Witz* >> But how can this be? It is basically illegal to own a weapon in San >> Francisco. >> How old are you, man? > I'm 34. why? That's a surprise. > and legal, illegal. meh. it's obviously pretty easy for people to get > guns if they want one. So why do you want to pass laws against them? It would be terribly inconvenient for me and a lot of other people. You don't like me or something? You got beef? I owe you money? If you acknowledge that the laws are meaningless, why insist upon having them? . --- ### Son of Witz *18 Mar 2009, 13:48 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* >> On Mar 18, 2009, at 1:18 AM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> Son of Witz wrote: >>> But if there was a revolt, they would quash it so fast and could >>> declare Martial Law, and then our second amendment rights would mean >>> exactly squat. >> That's exactly what the right is for, to have guns accumulated >> ahead of >> time. The tyrant can declare it taken away, but he can't enforce it >> universally. Who will conduct the billions of building searches to >> find >> everywhere that hundreds of millions of firearms and trillions of >> rounds >> of ammunition might be hidden? > They are trying to teach helplessness to his generation. Why prepare > to > fight if you've already lost ahead of time? Just do what they say. ok, now I see why you asked? how old do you think I am? many of my close peers have always favored a revolution. I'm NOT, by arguing that we should do nothing. I'm saying an armed revolt would be pretty easily quashed. --- ### Son of Witz *18 Mar 2009, 13:52 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > On Mar 18, 2009, at 6:46 AM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >>> But how can this be? It is basically illegal to own a weapon in San >>> Francisco. >>> How old are you, man? >> I'm 34. why? > That's a surprise. >> and legal, illegal. meh. it's obviously pretty easy for people to get >> guns if they want one. > So why do you want to pass laws against them? It would be terribly > inconvenient for me and a lot of other people. You don't like me or > something? You got beef? I owe you money? > > If you acknowledge that the laws are meaningless, why insist upon > having > them? Woah. I didn't say I wanted to pass laws. I only said I was conflicted about the issue, and that my younger pre- programmed bias for gun control has slowly eroded. I don't know what the proper thing to do is, which is probably why I'm not in politics, or involved with the issue at all, other than an occasional discussion that helps me sort this stuff out. how old did you think I was? do I come off like some whippersnapper? and YOWZA! 84 posts between signing off last night and logging in this morning. ~witz --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 13:57 · in reply to Son of Witz* > On Mar 18, 2009, at 1:18 AM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >>> Son of Witz wrote: >>>> But if there was a revolt, they would quash it so fast and could >>>> declare Martial Law, and then our second amendment rights would mean >>>> exactly squat. >>> That's exactly what the right is for, to have guns accumulated >>> ahead of >>> time. The tyrant can declare it taken away, but he can't enforce it >>> universally. Who will conduct the billions of building searches to >>> find >>> everywhere that hundreds of millions of firearms and trillions of >>> rounds >>> of ammunition might be hidden? >> They are trying to teach helplessness to his generation. Why prepare >> to >> fight if you've already lost ahead of time? Just do what they say. > ok, now I see why you asked? > how old do you think I am? I would have said, maybe, twenty-five. > many of my close peers have always favored a revolution. No surprise there. > I'm NOT, by arguing that we should do nothing. I'm saying an armed > revolt would be pretty easily quashed. Really? What is your evidence for this? How many armed revolts have been 'quashed' in the past hundred years or so? The Russian one? No, the Bolsheviks took over Russia for seventy years. The German one? No, the Nazis took over Germany and gave us all a pretty good run for our money. OK, technically the Nazis used the democratic process to take power. How about the Chinese one? Chinese government still in power I see. Maybe the Vietnamese one? Perhaps the Yugoslavs? No again! They took over Yugoslavia, gosh darn it, for a good fifty years! . --- ### Son of Witz *18 Mar 2009, 13:57 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* >> On Mar 18, 2009, at 1:14 AM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> >> Apparently this is an emotional subject for you. So, snark on then. > I am unaware of having made any particular display of emotion: in > fact, I > have been quite calm and dispassionate all evening. > > I have found that when someone, out of the blue, starts talking > about the > person they are talking to's emotional state, it is not that person's > emotional state that they are actually talking about. > > Fortunately, you are not my only interlocutor, and any points I have > wanted to make with you have been made. > > I do wish you a calm rest of the evening, and on into tomorrow. You have been calm. it's your short quips that seem snarky. when you back them up with elaboration they're not so snarky. just saying, one whippersnapper to another. ~witz --- ### Son of Witz *18 Mar 2009, 13:59 · in reply to Son of Witz* > On Mar 18, 2009, at 6:52 AM, Son of Witz wrote: > > and YOWZA! 84 posts between signing off last night and logging in > this morning. oops. less by half. I had a 40 odd msgs still marked unread in my home inbox. --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 14:01 · in reply to Son of Witz* > On Mar 18, 2009, at 1:14 AM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >>> Apparently this is an emotional subject for you. So, snark on then. >>> I am unaware of having made any particular display of emotion: in >>> fact, I have been quite calm and dispassionate all evening. >> I have found that when someone, out of the blue, starts talking >> about the person they are talking to's emotional state, it is not that >> person's emotional state that they are actually talking about. >> Fortunately, you are not my only interlocutor, and any points I have >> wanted to make with you have been made. >> I do wish you a calm rest of the evening, and on into tomorrow. > You have been calm. Thank you. I have been making good progress these last few years. > it's your short quips that seem snarky. when you back them up with > elaboration they're not so snarky. > just saying, one whippersnapper to another. 52 next Walpurgisnacht, Fidel. Put it back in your pants. . --- ### Fred Kiesche *18 Mar 2009, 14:11 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* Well, I just stepped outside and checked. Nope, no full moon. F.P. Kiesche III "Ah Mr. Gibbon, another damned, fat, square book. Always, scribble, scribble, scribble, eh?" (The Duke of Gloucester, on being presented with Volume 2 of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.) Blogging at The Lensman's Children and TexasBestGrok! --- ### Son of Witz *18 Mar 2009, 14:16 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > On Mar 18, 2009, at 7:01 AM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> You have been calm. > Thank you. I have been making good progress these last few years. >> it's your short quips that seem snarky. when you back them up with >> elaboration they're not so snarky. >> just saying, one whippersnapper to another. > 52 next Walpurgisnacht, Fidel. Put it back in your pants. my gatt? it's tucked safely in my belt. which is around my knees of course. I too thought you were younger, FWIW. --- ### Son of Witz *18 Mar 2009, 14:24 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > I would have said, maybe, twenty-five. >> many of my close peers have always favored a revolution. > No surprise there. >> I'm NOT, by arguing that we should do nothing. I'm saying an armed >> revolt would be pretty easily quashed. > Really? What is your evidence for this? I just think it would. and all the talk I've heard about detention camps for domestic dissidents and such. > How many armed revolts have been 'quashed' in the past hundred years > or > so? The Russian one? No, the Bolsheviks took over Russia for seventy > years. The German one? No, the Nazis took over Germany and gave us > all a > pretty good run for our money. > > OK, technically the Nazis used the democratic process to take power. > How > about the Chinese one? Chinese government still in power I see. > Maybe the > Vietnamese one? > > Perhaps the Yugoslavs? No again! They took over Yugoslavia, gosh > darn it, > for a good fifty years! uh, cause for hope? --- ### Gwern Branwen *18 Mar 2009, 14:36 · in reply to Son of Witz* If I may, it is threads like these that make me wish Urth had a 'List Sniper' along the lines of SL4's List Sniper: someone empowered to official declare a thread dead, and to enforce it by moderation & bans. In this case, the thread has degenerated into boring and poorly-done discussions of a dozen topics in politics & ethics & sociology which have nothing to do with Gene Wolfe, and can only exasperate or embitter people. ``` gwern ``` --- ### David Stockhoff *18 Mar 2009, 14:45 · follows Gwern Branwen* So let me get this straight, Brunians. You're saying anti-gun sentiment is racist? > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:40:49 -0400 (EDT) > From: brunians at brunians.org > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe > To: "The Urth Mailing List" > Message-ID: <11723.67.142.130.31.1237347649.squirrel at brunians.org> > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 > > > ------------------------------- > > Also I really do think that sublimated racism and a coordinated and > decades long media campaign has more to do with anti-gun attitudes than > anything else. > > > > ------------------------------ --- ### Tim Walters *18 Mar 2009, 15:00 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* > Jeff Wilson wrote: > Tim Walters wrote: >> Is there any reason to think that isn't included in the ownership figure? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland "In some 2001 statistics, it is noted that there are about 420,000 assault rifles stored at private homes, mostly SIG 550 types. Additionally, there are some 320,000 assault rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small arms classified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million." The high figure is lower than the rate from my original link, so clearly these weapons were, in fact, included. ``` Tim Walters | The Doubtful Palace | http://doubtfulpalace.com ``` --- ### David Stockhoff *18 Mar 2009, 15:05 · follows Tim Walters* Brunians--- Some corrections. (1) Tucson is majority white (2/3), or was in 2000 when the total population was still less than 500,000. Both cities are under 600,000. (2) You seem to be assuming that Hispanics and Blacks are culturally identical minorities. That's demonstrably false. The analogy fails, whatever it was supposed to mean in the first place. (3) Tucson is 600 square miles. DC is 61. Therefore, the density is very different. Tucson is not even urban by DC or even East Coast standards. DC is 10 times as dense and has 6 times as many murders. Therefore, your assumptions are false and do not support your argument. If anything, they undermine your argument, since DC is 10 times as dense but has only 6 times as many murders. I spent 17 years in DC. I'd hate to live in Tucson if it was jammed into 60 square miles. > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 01:10:01 -0400 (EDT) > From: brunians at brunians.org > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe --- ### David Stockhoff *18 Mar 2009, 15:12 · follows David Stockhoff* Don--- That's false. The South was always poor. Before the Civil War, it had 1/3 of the nation's wealth and 2/3 of the nation's rich. Don't blame Reconstruction---er, I mean, that big war they started and lost. And those figures also tell you something about how the lower orders are defined and used. The Southern landowners armed the poor whites and sent them into combat to protect their plantations. Poor white Southerners are the lower orders that "people" are happy to ARM. Not disarm. > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:37:26 -0700 (PDT) > From: don doggett > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe > To: The Urth Mailing List > Message-ID: <217673.50742.qm at web32401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > > Doggerel > www.don-doggett.blogspot.com > > > Up until recently (within the last 30 - 40 years), the Deep South and the South in general would have been considered poor as a region, thanks largely to the lingering effects of Reconstruction. We definitely fell into the "lower orders" that people would have been happy to disarm. > > Don > > > > > ------------------------------ --- ### David Stockhoff *18 Mar 2009, 15:24 · follows David Stockhoff* I generally agree with you. But it is known that guns make IMPERSONAL killing easier and therefore, under the right conditions (the conditions being of greater importance) more common across the same situations. You'll have fewer gratuitous shootings of mugging victims after they have handed over their wallets, for example. So it is a factor. And there's also the matter of accidental deaths, of course, but that is also affected by gun experience. Which experience has generally been lost in the US with the demise of farming. > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:41:20 -0500 > From: Lane Haygood > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe > To: The Urth Mailing List > Message-ID: > <272706220903180141h5353283fmb40a74269faabbc0 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I know. My point is that ownership or non-ownership doesn't affect > violent crime rates. This is one of the rare occasions where I think > both sides of the American gun control debate are off-base. > Preventing access to guns will likely stop firearm-killings from > happening, but I don't think it'd have a significant affect on the > overall violent crime rate. If you walk home and catch your > significant other with another person, and you happen to grab a > kitchen knife before you get your gun, it doesn't matter. Murder is > murder whether you do it with a gun or not. > > So pointing to countries with low gun ownership rates and low murder > rates is pointing out a correlation but what is not likely a causal > relation. If you look at other factors, I'm going to bet that you > find the countries with the lowest per capita murder rates have a high > general standard of living, significant federal support programs, a > well-balanced population, plenty of jobs and a relatively low-stress > living environment. I'm also willing to bet that no significant > organized crime goes on in these countries/areas. Gun ownership (or > the lack thereof) is a non-issue. > > -L. --- ### John Watkins *18 Mar 2009, 15:30 · in reply to David Stockhoff* > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:24 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: > I generally agree with you. But it is known that guns make IMPERSONAL > killing easier and therefore, under the right conditions (the conditions > being of greater importance) more common across the same situations. > You'll have fewer gratuitous shootings of mugging victims after they have > handed over their wallets, for example. So it is a factor. While I don't doubt that guns can make killing more impersonal, I'm not so sure that your example is well-chosen. Point-blank gun killings, like gratuitious killings of mugging victims, are probably not especially impersonall. Having talked to people who've killed with guns at point blank range (soldiers), it's my impression that the experience is pretty harrowing. Then again, I expect a soldier is typically using something a little bit more destructive than the typical mugger, so I might be wrong. > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:41:20 -0500 > From: Lane Haygood > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe > To: The Urth Mailing List > Message-ID: > <272706220903180141h5353283fmb40a74269faabbc0 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I know. My point is that ownership or non-ownership doesn't affect > violent crime rates. This is one of the rare occasions where I think > both sides of the American gun control debate are off-base. > Preventing access to guns will likely stop firearm-killings from > happening, but I don't think it'd have a significant affect on the > overall violent crime rate. If you walk home and catch your > significant other with another person, and you happen to grab a > kitchen knife before you get your gun, it doesn't matter. Murder is > murder whether you do it with a gun or not. > > So pointing to countries with low gun ownership rates and low murder > rates is pointing out a correlation but what is not likely a causal > relation. If you look at other factors, I'm going to bet that you > find the countries with the lowest per capita murder rates have a high > general standard of living, significant federal support programs, a > well-balanced population, plenty of jobs and a relatively low-stress > living environment. I'm also willing to bet that no significant > organized crime goes on in these countries/areas. Gun ownership (or > the lack thereof) is a non-issue. > > -L. > > > > --- > avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 090317-0, 03/17/2009 > Tested on: 3/18/2009 11:24:26 AM > > avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > http://www.avast.com > > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Adam Thornton *18 Mar 2009, 16:01 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > On Mar 18, 2009, at 1:51 AM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: > > The South shall rise again. > The West has yet to rise. The East is Red. Adam --- ### Adam Thornton *18 Mar 2009, 16:03 · in reply to Tim Walters* > On Mar 18, 2009, at 3:19 AM, Tim Walters wrote: > By the way: do you support private ownership of nuclear weapons? Yes. Adam --- ### David Stockhoff *18 Mar 2009, 16:06 · follows Adam Thornton* Well, very few criminal shootings are from a distance or with a rifle (same thing). So it's always going to be point-blank shootings (of strangers or not) vs stabbings or beatings (of strangers or not). Stabbings are usually motivated by rage, because you get the victim's blood all over you. You can casually shoot the storekeeper because he looked at you funny, or shoot him in a panic because you lost your nerve. I'd like to actually mention a Gene Wolfe story. The Ziggurat from Strange Travelers always seemed to me to contain a healthy chunk of Wolfean psychology/politics. The protagonist hunts, lives alone, harbors some anger against women, and has to deal with aliens killing his son. If anyone has a point to prove about Wolfe and guns, look there. > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:30:17 -0400 > From: John Watkins > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe > To: The Urth Mailing List > Message-ID: > <93d4039f0903180830v56189c7fga2a36a216a22a3d2 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:24 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: >> I generally agree with you. But it is known that guns make IMPERSONAL >> killing easier and therefore, under the right conditions (the conditions >> being of greater importance) more common across the same situations. >> You'll have fewer gratuitous shootings of mugging victims after they have >> handed over their wallets, for example. So it is a factor. > > While I don't doubt that guns can make killing more impersonal, I'm not so > sure that your example is well-chosen. Point-blank gun killings, like > gratuitious killings of mugging victims, are probably not especially > impersonall. Having talked to people who've killed with guns at point blank > range (soldiers), it's my impression that the experience is pretty > harrowing. > > Then again, I expect a soldier is typically using something a little bit > more destructive than the typical mugger, so I might be wrong. >> ------------------------------ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 16:09 · in reply to Gwern Branwen* > If I may, it is threads like these that make me wish Urth had a 'List > Sniper' along the lines of SL4's List Sniper: someone empowered to > official declare a thread dead, and to enforce it by moderation & > bans. The world is divided into two sorts of people: those who like to manage the affairs of others and those who do not. > In this case, the thread has degenerated into boring and poorly-done > discussions of a dozen topics in politics & ethics & sociology which > have nothing to do with Gene Wolfe, and can only exasperate or > embitter people. In your opinion. In mine it has been a reasonably good natured discussion of a difficult subject which happens to be important to Wolfe and an important theme in his writing. If you feel exasperated or embittered, may I recommend that you undertake the practice described in Epictetus 'Handbook': http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html is not the best translation, but it will get you started. It has really helped me. . --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *18 Mar 2009, 16:11 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* You know, If I wanted to have a lengthy discussion of RKBA politics, there are lists I could go to for that. Can we get back to Wolfe please? ``` Dan'l Danehy-Oakes ``` --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 16:11 · in reply to David Stockhoff* Indeed, at the core of it, that is a very large part of it. Not necessarily racist: classist or regionalist or what have you. It's about disarming the portion of the citizenry which you fear. What word is missing from this well-known phrase: 'Saturday Night Special'? . > So let me get this straight, Brunians. You're saying anti-gun sentiment is > racist? > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:40:49 -0400 (EDT) > From: brunians at brunians.org > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe > To: "The Urth Mailing List" > Message-ID: <11723.67.142.130.31.1237347649.squirrel at brunians.org> > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 > > > ------------------------------- > > Also I really do think that sublimated racism and a coordinated and > decades long media campaign has more to do with anti-gun attitudes than > anything else. > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > --- > avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 090317-0, 03/17/2009 > Tested on: 3/18/2009 10:45:56 AM > avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > http://www.avast.com > > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Matthew King *18 Mar 2009, 16:13 · in reply to Gwern Branwen* > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote: > If I may, it is threads like these that make me wish Urth had a 'List > Sniper' along the lines of SL4's List Sniper: someone empowered to > official declare a thread dead, and to enforce it by moderation & > bans. The list does have moderators. This particular one thinks that the cost of killing this particular thread is prohibitive. --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 16:15 · in reply to Adam Thornton* > On Mar 18, 2009, at 1:51 AM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> The South shall rise again. >> The West has yet to rise. > The East is Red. No doubt about that. Sort of a pity in a way. . --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 16:19 · in reply to David Stockhoff* Or that one with the near-future woods bum who needs a new hunting rifle and goes on a reality show that puts tv cameras in his head and a $100,000, which the Feds want, of course. He has a bit of a head start and has to find his black market weapons dealer and get back away to the woods with the cops after him. I think that one is pretty explicit. I love the very last bit: classic Wolfe. . > Well, very few criminal shootings are from a distance or with a rifle > (same thing). So it's always going to be point-blank shootings (of > strangers or not) vs stabbings or beatings (of strangers or not). > Stabbings are usually motivated by rage, because you get the victim's > blood all over you. You can casually shoot the storekeeper because he > looked at you funny, or shoot him in a panic because you lost your nerve. > > I'd like to actually mention a Gene Wolfe story. The Ziggurat from Strange > Travelers always seemed to me to contain a healthy chunk of Wolfean > psychology/politics. The protagonist hunts, lives alone, harbors some > anger against women, and has to deal with aliens killing his son. If > anyone has a point to prove about Wolfe and guns, look there. > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:30:17 -0400 > From: John Watkins > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe > To: The Urth Mailing List > Message-ID: > <93d4039f0903180830v56189c7fga2a36a216a22a3d2 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:24 AM, David Stockhoff > wrote: >>> I generally agree with you. But it is known that guns make IMPERSONAL >>> killing easier and therefore, under the right conditions (the >>> conditions >>> being of greater importance) more common across the same situations. >>> You'll have fewer gratuitous shootings of mugging victims after they >>> have >>> handed over their wallets, for example. So it is a factor. > While I don't doubt that guns can make killing more impersonal, I'm not so > sure that your example is well-chosen. Point-blank gun killings, like > gratuitious killings of mugging victims, are probably not especially > impersonall. Having talked to people who've killed with guns at point > blank > range (soldiers), it's my impression that the experience is pretty > harrowing. > > Then again, I expect a soldier is typically using something a little bit > more destructive than the typical mugger, so I might be wrong. >>> ------------------------------ > --- > avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 090317-0, 03/17/2009 > Tested on: 3/18/2009 12:06:25 PM > avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > http://www.avast.com > > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Craig Brewer *18 Mar 2009, 16:22 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* I've got a friend who's been on the fence about reading New Sun for a few years. No amount of talk from me will get him to start it. Can anyone point to an easily accessible review that seems to do a nice job of enticing someone to get into it? This guy's patient, so length is no problem. In fact, I'd probably give him Clute's stuff from Stokes if I still had my copy. --- ### Tim Walters *18 Mar 2009, 16:27 · in reply to Adam Thornton* > Adam Thornton wrote: > On Mar 18, 2009, at 3:19 AM, Tim Walters wrote: >> By the way: do you support private ownership of nuclear weapons? > Yes. See, that wasn't so hard. ``` Tim Walters | The Doubtful Palace | http://doubtfulpalace.com ``` --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 16:28 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* This is Wolfe, Dan'l, like it or not. . > If I wanted to have a lengthy discussion of RKBA politics, there are > lists I could > go to for that. Can we get back to Wolfe please? > > -- > Dan'l Danehy-Oakes > _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 16:36 · in reply to Tim Walters* They are not incredibly useful weapons. They are very useful for off-planet construction projects. I can make you a device, for a couple of thousand dollars, that should yield as much as a tactical nuke (say, 1000 tons of TNT). Maybe ten thousand dollars. You use gasoline and liquid oxygen and a little bit of dynamite. You don't even really need the LOX, but then the mechanism is more complicated. Here is a brief discussion of this fascinating class of modern weapons: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/fae.htm . > Adam Thornton wrote: >> On Mar 18, 2009, at 3:19 AM, Tim Walters wrote: >>> By the way: do you support private ownership of nuclear weapons? >> Yes. > See, that wasn't so hard. > > -- > > Tim Walters | The Doubtful Palace | http://doubtfulpalace.com > _______________________________________________ --- ### Son of Witz *18 Mar 2009, 16:45 · follows brunians at brunians.org* > -----Original Message----- > From: brunians at brunians.org [mailto:brunians at brunians.org] > I recommend that you undertake the practice described in Epictetus > 'Handbook': http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html is not the > best translation, but it will get you started. It has really helped me. I disagreed so much with the first paragraph's foundations that I didn't bother with the rest. And I see no reason to kill the thread. Not like there was anything going on here for a couple of weeks. Just ignore the thread if you don't care to read it. On a msg board I visit daily, I ignore 98% of the crap. I do figure that we'll all fail to convince each other of anything though. :( ~witz --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 16:54 · in reply to Son of Witz* >> -----Original Message----- >> From: brunians at brunians.org [mailto:brunians at brunians.org] >> I recommend that you undertake the practice described in Epictetus >> 'Handbook': http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html is not the >> best translation, but it will get you started. It has really helped me. > I disagreed so much with the first paragraph's foundations that I didn't > bother with the rest. Remarkable, though I suppose not unsurprising. Ah well, were you able to accept it you might find it useful. As it is I suppose you will have to go through life having bad emotions in response to external stimuli. > And I see no reason to kill the thread. There isn't, really. Just some people like to feel that they have control over things that are external to them. > Not like there was anything going > on here for a couple of weeks. > Just ignore the thread if you don't care > to read it. On a msg board I visit daily, I ignore 98% of the crap. Excellent advice. > I do figure that we'll all fail to convince each other of anything though. > :( Oh, I have accomplished what I set out to accomplish. Now I am just watching things work themselves out. Would you believe it, I have this guy insulting me in private email over it? He's no longer even trying to make a point: he is just calling me names. Quite amusing. . --- ### Craig Brewer *18 Mar 2009, 16:56 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* There isn't, really. Just some people like to feel that they have control over things that are external to them. Thus, guns. Couldn't resist... --- ### David Stockhoff *18 Mar 2009, 16:58 · follows Craig Brewer* Yes, that's a good one. Remind me how it ends ... > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:19:50 -0400 (EDT) > From: brunians at brunians.org > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe > To: "The Urth Mailing List" > Message-ID: <13907.67.142.130.35.1237393190.squirrel at brunians.org> > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 > > Or that one with the near-future woods bum who needs a new hunting rifle > and goes on a reality show that puts tv cameras in his head and a > $100,000, which the Feds want, of course. He has a bit of a head start and > has to find his black market weapons dealer and get back away to the woods > with the cops after him. > > I think that one is pretty explicit. I love the very last bit: classic Wolfe. > > > > . >> Well, very few criminal shootings are from a distance or with a rifle >> (same thing). So it's always going to be point-blank shootings (of >> strangers or not) vs stabbings or beatings (of strangers or not). >> Stabbings are usually motivated by rage, because you get the victim's >> blood all over you. You can casually shoot the storekeeper because he >> looked at you funny, or shoot him in a panic because you lost your nerve. >> >> I'd like to actually mention a Gene Wolfe story. The Ziggurat from Strange >> Travelers always seemed to me to contain a healthy chunk of Wolfean >> psychology/politics. The protagonist hunts, lives alone, harbors some >> anger against women, and has to deal with aliens killing his son. If >> anyone has a point to prove about Wolfe and guns, look there. >> >> ------------------------------ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 17:01 · in reply to Craig Brewer* It's sort of funny, but it doesn't really hold up. You see, guns do give you a measure of control over things that are external to you. Not very fine control, true. > There isn't, really. Just some people like to feel that they have control > over things that are external to them. > Thus, guns. > > Couldn't resist... > > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 17:01 · in reply to David Stockhoff* It's not a happy ending. That wouldn't be appropriate. It is a glorious ending. . > Yes, that's a good one. Remind me how it ends ... > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:19:50 -0400 (EDT) > From: brunians at brunians.org > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe > To: "The Urth Mailing List" > Message-ID: <13907.67.142.130.35.1237393190.squirrel at brunians.org> > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 > > Or that one with the near-future woods bum who needs a new hunting rifle > and goes on a reality show that puts tv cameras in his head and a > $100,000, which the Feds want, of course. He has a bit of a head start and > has to find his black market weapons dealer and get back away to the woods > with the cops after him. > > I think that one is pretty explicit. I love the very last bit: classic > Wolfe. > > > > . >>> Well, very few criminal shootings are from a distance or with a rifle >>> (same thing). So it's always going to be point-blank shootings (of >>> strangers or not) vs stabbings or beatings (of strangers or not). >>> Stabbings are usually motivated by rage, because you get the victim's >>> blood all over you. You can casually shoot the storekeeper because he >>> looked at you funny, or shoot him in a panic because you lost your >>> nerve. >>> >>> I'd like to actually mention a Gene Wolfe story. The Ziggurat from >>> Strange >>> Travelers always seemed to me to contain a healthy chunk of Wolfean >>> psychology/politics. The protagonist hunts, lives alone, harbors some >>> anger against women, and has to deal with aliens killing his son. If >>> anyone has a point to prove about Wolfe and guns, look there. >>> >>> ------------------------------ > --- > avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 090317-0, 03/17/2009 > Tested on: 3/18/2009 12:58:51 PM > avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > http://www.avast.com > > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### David Stockhoff *18 Mar 2009, 17:03 · follows brunians at brunians.org* And arrogant as well. Good on you, Josh. You have succeeded in stirring the pot, which was your goal. That says something about your emotional development, I think. Oh, and please stop emailing me. Your attentions are not desired. > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:54:23 -0400 (EDT) > From: brunians at brunians.org > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe > To: "The Urth Mailing List" > Message-ID: <5523.67.142.130.35.1237395263.squirrel at brunians.org> > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 > > > > > Remarkable, though I suppose not unsurprising. > > Ah well, were you able to accept it you might find it useful. As it is I > suppose you will have to go through life having bad emotions in response > to external stimuli. > > ------------------------------------------------------ >> I do figure that we'll all fail to convince each other of anything though. >> :( > > > Oh, I have accomplished what I set out to accomplish. Now I am just > watching things work themselves out. > > Would you believe it, I have this guy insulting me in private email over > it? He's no longer even trying to make a point: he is just calling me > names. Quite amusing. > > > > > . > > > > > ------------------------------ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 17:03 · in reply to David Stockhoff* > And arrogant as well. Good on you, Josh. You have succeeded in stirring > the pot, which was your goal. That says something about your emotional > development, I think. > > Oh, and please stop emailing me. Your attentions are not desired. > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:54:23 -0400 (EDT) > From: brunians at brunians.org > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe > To: "The Urth Mailing List" > Message-ID: <5523.67.142.130.35.1237395263.squirrel at brunians.org> > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 > > > > > Remarkable, though I suppose not unsurprising. > > Ah well, were you able to accept it you might find it useful. As it is I > suppose you will have to go through life having bad emotions in response > to external stimuli. > > ------------------------------------------------------ >>> I do figure that we'll all fail to convince each other of anything >>> though. >>> :( > Oh, I have accomplished what I set out to accomplish. Now I am just > watching things work themselves out. > > Would you believe it, I have this guy insulting me in private email over > it? He's no longer even trying to make a point: he is just calling me > names. Quite amusing. > > > > > . > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > --- > avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 090317-0, 03/17/2009 > Tested on: 3/18/2009 1:03:12 PM > avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > http://www.avast.com > > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 17:05 · in reply to David Stockhoff* Oh I am certainly arrogant. One out of how-many-I-forget is not too bad. Some things are under your control, and some things are not. Whether or not I mail you is not under your control. Whether or not you respond to me letters is, however. Have a blessed day, Josh . > And arrogant as well. Good on you, Josh. You have succeeded in stirring > the pot, which was your goal. That says something about your emotional > development, I think. > > Oh, and please stop emailing me. Your attentions are not desired. > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:54:23 -0400 (EDT) > From: brunians at brunians.org > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe > To: "The Urth Mailing List" > Message-ID: <5523.67.142.130.35.1237395263.squirrel at brunians.org> > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 > > > > > Remarkable, though I suppose not unsurprising. > > Ah well, were you able to accept it you might find it useful. As it is I > suppose you will have to go through life having bad emotions in response > to external stimuli. > > ------------------------------------------------------ >>> I do figure that we'll all fail to convince each other of anything >>> though. >>> :( > Oh, I have accomplished what I set out to accomplish. Now I am just > watching things work themselves out. > > Would you believe it, I have this guy insulting me in private email over > it? He's no longer even trying to make a point: he is just calling me > names. Quite amusing. > > > > > . > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > --- > avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 090317-0, 03/17/2009 > Tested on: 3/18/2009 1:03:12 PM > avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > http://www.avast.com > > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### John Watkins *18 Mar 2009, 17:08 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* This thread is now officially unbecoming. > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 1:05 PM, wrote: > Oh I am certainly arrogant. One out of how-many-I-forget is not too bad. > > Some things are under your control, and some things are not. Whether or > not I mail you is not under your control. Whether or not you respond to me > letters is, however. > > Have a blessed day, > > Josh > > > . >> And arrogant as well. Good on you, Josh. You have succeeded in stirring >> the pot, which was your goal. That says something about your emotional >> development, I think. >> >> Oh, and please stop emailing me. Your attentions are not desired. >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 11 >> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:54:23 -0400 (EDT) >> From: brunians at brunians.org >> Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe >> To: "The Urth Mailing List" >> Message-ID: <5523.67.142.130.35.1237395263.squirrel at brunians.org> >> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 >> >> >> >> >> Remarkable, though I suppose not unsurprising. >> >> Ah well, were you able to accept it you might find it useful. As it is I >> suppose you will have to go through life having bad emotions in response >> to external stimuli. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> I do figure that we'll all fail to convince each other of anything >>>> though. >>>> :( >> Oh, I have accomplished what I set out to accomplish. Now I am just >> watching things work themselves out. >> >> Would you believe it, I have this guy insulting me in private email over >> it? He's no longer even trying to make a point: he is just calling me >> names. Quite amusing. >> >> >> >> >> . >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> >> --- >> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. >> Virus Database (VPS): 090317-0, 03/17/2009 >> Tested on: 3/18/2009 1:03:12 PM >> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. >> http://www.avast.com >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ --- ### James Wynn *18 Mar 2009, 17:18 · in reply to Craig Brewer* > I've got a friend who's been on the fence about reading New Sun for a few > years. > No amount of talk from me will get him to start it. > Can anyone point to an easily accessible review that seems to do a nice job > of > enticing someone to get into it? I don't think that sort of thing can be forced. The guy who turned me on to Wolfe started NS four times before gritting his teeth and pushing through it. After I read it, I was convinced that Wolfe was not a very good story-teller but a phenomenal creator of worlds. It was only after reading "The Fifth Head of Cerberus" that I suddenly "got" Wolfe and decided he was probably the best Sci-Fi writer period (that's exactly what I told people). I recommend you offer your friend FHoC or Peace or Soldier of the Mist or Strange Travellers or Endangered Species. Eventually, he'll find his way to TBotNS on his own. J --- ### Son of Witz *18 Mar 2009, 17:36 · follows John Watkins* > -----Original Message----- > From: brunians at brunians.org [mailto:brunians at brunians.org] > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 09:54 AM > To: 'The Urth Mailing List' > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: brunians at brunians.org [mailto:brunians at brunians.org] >>> I recommend that you undertake the practice described in Epictetus >>> 'Handbook': http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html is not the >>> best translation, but it will get you started. It has really helped me. >> I disagreed so much with the first paragraph's foundations that I didn't >> bother with the rest. > Remarkable, though I suppose not unsurprising. > > Ah well, were you able to accept it you might find it useful. As it is I > suppose you will have to go through life having bad emotions in response > to external stimuli. No, actually I don't have a problem with that. I'm quite aware that I can't control external things. I just dont' agree with the can control / can't control items he listed. I'd switch categories on some of them. --- ### Jerry Friedman *18 Mar 2009, 17:41 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* --- On Tue, 3/17/09, brunians at brunians.org wrote: Brunians: > >> You don't think kids should be trained to fight > when > someone tries to molest them? >> ... Jerry: > > I do, but I'm not a Christian. Brunians: > You think that Christians think that? I don't think I implied that. Whether I did or not, what I had in mind was that as I'm a non-Christian, my opinion on this point is irrelevant to understanding /Pirate Freedom/, a book with an explicitly Christian background. As it happens, I know a few Christians (Mennonites) who believe in non-resistance in general, or say they do, and a number of Christians who clearly don't. Obviously, Wolfe has some of his Christian characters believe that children shouldn't fight even to defend themselves against molestation. However, /Pirate Freedom/ takes place in the future or in an alternate universe, and I don't know whether he's basing those characters on real priests. >> As the statement came from >> a Catholic priest, it surprised me greatly. Jesus >> says in >> the Sermon on the Mount that you shouldn't resist >> evil (Matt. 5:39). > He says 'turn the other cheek', that is, one time. > He doesn't say keep on > turning again and again like some kind of bobbly-head > critter on the dashboard. ... 38 “You have heard that it was said, ?An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” 39 But I tell you not to resist an evildoer. On the contrary, whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well. (Matt. 5, International Standard Version, chosen more or less at random.) Jesus said not to resist an evildoer, period. Not to accept evil the first time and resist it the second. We're free to disagree with what he said, and I do, but my question is what Wolfe thinks. However, I learn (finally) that Father Chris's comments are consistent with the Catholic Church's doctrine, at least as of 1912. "While differing among themselves on some of the more subtle and less practical points comprised in this topic, our moralists may be said to be unanimous on the main principles and their application regarding the right of self-defense. [skip "Defense of life and person" and "Defense of property"] "Honor "Since it is lawful to take life in the legitimate defense of one's material goods, it is evidently also lawful to do so in defense of chastity which is a good of a much higher order." [The paragraph goes on to say it's not lawful to kill in defense of honor or reputation.] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13691a.htm I don't know how Aquinas and others reconciled that with Jesus's teachings, but apparently they did. So this makes me give less credence to the theory that Chris is supposed to be an evil character, as suggested at http://community.livejournal.com/theinferior4/199336.html Jerry Friedman --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 17:44 · in reply to James Wynn* Best living writer in the American dialect of English. McCarthy and Crowley can be said to be in his class. . >> I've got a friend who's been on the fence about reading New Sun for a >> few >> years. >> No amount of talk from me will get him to start it. >> Can anyone point to an easily accessible review that seems to do a nice >> job >> of >> enticing someone to get into it? > I don't think that sort of thing can be forced. The guy who turned me on > to > Wolfe started NS four times before gritting his teeth and pushing through > it. After I read it, I was convinced that Wolfe was not a very good > story-teller but a phenomenal creator of worlds. It was only after reading > "The Fifth Head of Cerberus" that I suddenly "got" Wolfe and decided he > was > probably the best Sci-Fi writer period (that's exactly what I told > people). > I recommend you offer your friend FHoC or Peace or Soldier of the Mist or > Strange Travellers or Endangered Species. Eventually, he'll find his way > to > TBotNS on his own. > > J > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *18 Mar 2009, 17:49 · in reply to Jerry Friedman* > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Jerry Friedman > wrote: > I don't know how Aquinas and others reconciled that with > Jesus's teachings, but apparently they did. It is lawful to use violence to protect one's goods and chastity. Jesus never said it wasn't. However, Jesus called men to a higher standard than the Law: He called them to moral perfection, and that means not resisting the evildoer. ``` Dan'l Danehy-Oakes ``` --- ### John Watkins *18 Mar 2009, 17:49 · in reply to Jerry Friedman* Jerry, My understanding is that, to a 1st century Jew, the teaching about turning the other cheek when slapped wouldn't be a teaching about self-defense at all--the slap wasn't a threat of physical injury so much as it was a profound insult. A more equivalent saying today would be that if someone spits in your face, don't strike him, but wipe it off and offer your face again. Clearly it isn't difficult to differentiate between retributive punishement ("eye for an eye") and self-defense. Our law does it all the time. > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote: > > --- On Tue, 3/17/09, brunians at brunians.org wrote: > Brunians: > >> You don't think kids should be trained to fight > when > someone tries to molest them? >>> ... > Jerry: > > I do, but I'm not a Christian. > > Brunians: > You think that Christians think that? > > I don't think I implied that. Whether I did or not, what > I had in mind was that as I'm a non-Christian, my opinion > on this point is irrelevant to understanding /Pirate > Freedom/, a book with an explicitly Christian background. > > As it happens, I know a few Christians (Mennonites) who > believe in non-resistance in general, or say they do, and > a number of Christians who clearly don't. > > Obviously, Wolfe has some of his Christian characters > believe that children shouldn't fight even to defend > themselves against molestation. However, /Pirate Freedom/ > takes place in the future or in an alternate universe, and > I don't know whether he's basing those characters on real > priests. >>> As the statement came from >>> a Catholic priest, it surprised me greatly. Jesus >>> says in >>> the Sermon on the Mount that you shouldn't resist >>> evil (Matt. 5:39). >> He says 'turn the other cheek', that is, one time. >> He doesn't say keep on >> turning again and again like some kind of bobbly-head >> critter on the dashboard. > ... > > 38 “You have heard that it was said, ?An eye for an eye and a tooth for a > tooth.” 39 But I tell you not to resist an evildoer. On the contrary, > whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well. > > (Matt. 5, International Standard Version, chosen more or less > at random.) > > Jesus said not to resist an evildoer, period. Not to accept > evil the first time and resist it the second. We're free to > disagree with what he said, and I do, but my question is what > Wolfe thinks. > > However, I learn (finally) that Father Chris's comments are > consistent with the Catholic Church's doctrine, at least > as of 1912. > > "While differing among themselves on some of the more > subtle and less practical points comprised in this topic, > our moralists may be said to be unanimous on the main > principles and their application regarding the right of > self-defense. > > [skip "Defense of life and person" and "Defense of property"] > > "Honor > > "Since it is lawful to take life in the legitimate defense > of one's material goods, it is evidently also lawful to do > so in defense of chastity which is a good of a much higher > order." > > [The paragraph goes on to say it's not lawful to kill in > defense of honor or reputation.] > > http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13691a.htm > > I don't know how Aquinas and others reconciled that with > Jesus's teachings, but apparently they did. So this makes > me give less credence to the theory that Chris is > supposed to be an evil character, as suggested at > > http://community.livejournal.com/theinferior4/199336.html > > Jerry Friedman > > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 17:55 · in reply to Son of Witz* >>>> I recommend that you undertake the practice described in Epictetus >>>> 'Handbook': http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html is not the >>>> best translation, but it will get you started. It has really helped me. >>> I disagreed so much with the first paragraph's foundations that I >>> didn't bother with the rest. >> Remarkable, though I suppose not unsurprising. >> Ah well, were you able to accept it you might find it useful. As it is I >> suppose you will have to go through life having bad emotions in response >> to external stimuli. > No, actually I don't have a problem with that. I'm quite aware that I > can't control external things. I just dont' agree with the can control / > can't control items he listed. I'd switch categories on some of them. As I say, Mrs Carter's translation is not the best. I'd be happy to discuss this with you, off-list if you prefer, if you'd like to go into some detail.... . --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 17:59 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Jerry Friedman > wrote: >> I don't know how Aquinas and others reconciled that with >> Jesus's teachings, but apparently they did. > It is lawful to use violence to protect one's goods and chastity. Jesus > never said it wasn't. However, Jesus called men to a higher standard > than the Law: He called them to moral perfection, and that means not > resisting the evildoer. I prefer my interpretation: turn one cheek one time, then do what needs to be done to the bastard, and may God have mercy on his soul. . --- ### don doggett *18 Mar 2009, 18:03 · follows brunians at brunians.org* He doesn't want dumbass kids and or gangbangers breaking into his house and stealing his guns. Doggerel www.don-doggett.blogspot.com > --- On Wed, 3/18/09, Jeff Wilson wrote: > What? --- ### Chris P *18 Mar 2009, 18:09 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* Thanks for your help, although I think you're forgetting that conversation has its own set of expectations and responsibilities from all participating parties in order to make the coversation informative (or anything better than a waste of time). I've largely just been holding up a mirror - you are quite uncooperative conversationally, for reasons I shouldn't have to spell out, and then you get indignant about the communication breakdown which you yourself caused. Of course there's nothing YOU can do about all that, because you can't help it if your conversations go awry, right? It's just the hippies and the bad people. > Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:29:16 -0400 > From: brunians at brunians.org > To: urth at lists.urth.net > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe >> No, you can get by on passive-aggressive insinuations. > I am sorry, you are misusing the term 'passive aggressive'. It does not > mean what you think it means. >> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive-aggressive_behavior: > ___ > Passive-aggressive behavior is passive, sometimes obstructionist > resistance to following through with expectations in interpersonal or > occupational situations. It can manifest itself as learned helplessness, > procrastination, stubbornness, resentment, sullenness, or > deliberate/repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is > (often explicitly) responsible. > --- > > I am so very glad that I could be of service in helping to correct ypur > misuse of this term of art. > > > > . > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Adam Thornton *18 Mar 2009, 18:12 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > On Mar 18, 2009, at 12:44 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: > Best living writer in the American dialect of English. McCarthy and > Crowley can be said to be in his class. Don't forget Pynchon! Adam --- ### Chris P *18 Mar 2009, 18:13 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* >>> But how can this be? It is basically illegal to own a weapon in San >>> Francisco. >>> How old are you, man? >> I'm 34. why? > That's a surprise. >> and legal, illegal. meh. it's obviously pretty easy for people to get >> guns if they want one. > So why do you want to pass laws against them? It would be terribly > inconvenient for me and a lot of other people. You don't like me or > something? You got beef? I owe you money? > > If you acknowledge that the laws are meaningless, why insist upon having > them? > > > > . The existence of a law (in the sense of a law of ours, not a law of nature) does not prohibit the possibility of a thing, it introduces the expectation of certain consequences if its violation should be caught. Glad I could help you clear up this ambiguity with a very difficult to understand word. --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 18:17 · in reply to don doggett* > He doesn't want dumbass kids and or gangbangers breaking into his house > and stealing his guns. Of course criminals, by definition, aren't very bright, but why would one choose to break into a house where one knew that the residents were armed? Even if you went with overwhelming force, you have to assume that at least one or two of you are going to die. If they go when he is not there, I guess I am assuming that he stores his weapons properly when he is not home. So what do the kiddies do if they are not professional safecrackers (there are almost none of these around anymore)? Bring a forklift and a flatbed trailer? I suppose that if you are in one of those states that make you store the guns in one safe and the bullets in another and so on they might figure they can get in before you can arm yourself. Dummy you for following the stupid law. Everyone I have ever known who has been home invaded knew that it was likely to happen, and really had no one to blame but themselves if they weren't carrying when it did happen. Most gang members are into selling dope, not burglarizing. There's some mafia types who do hijacking and such. These are high-end criminals, though it would be an exagerration in many cases to call them intelligent. . --- ### James Crossley *18 Mar 2009, 18:19 · in reply to Adam Thornton* > On Mar 18, 2009, at 12:44 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> Best living writer in the American dialect of English. McCarthy and >> Crowley can be said to be in his class. >> >> Inviting the question as to the best living writer in other English dialects, >> which is a much more interesting conversation than more gun talk . . . >> >> James --- ### Son of Witz *18 Mar 2009, 18:19 · follows James Crossley* > Don't forget Pynchon! I've been needing the push to actually get past pg 300 of Gravity's Rainbow. tried three times, never got further. is there a reason to care within all that psychedelic listing of detail? I love the way Burroughs will ramble on a jag, he's always entertaining or perverse. With Pynchon I kept wondering why I should even care. hurm... ~witz --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 18:25 · in reply to Chris P* I believe that the conversation has broken down because one of the participants was having bad emotions which interfered with his or her clear thought and caused him or her to act in various dysfunctional ways. In the post appended below your interesting paragraph, I was merely correcting your mistaken usage of a term of art. I appreciated it, when I was thus corrected. Once again, I do wish you the very best. . > Thanks for your help, although I think you're forgetting that conversation > has its own set of expectations and responsibilities from all > participating parties in order to make the coversation informative (or > anything better than a waste of time). I've largely just been holding up a > mirror - you are quite uncooperative conversationally, for reasons I > shouldn't have to spell out, and then you get indignant about the > communication breakdown which you yourself caused. Of course there's > nothing YOU can do about all that, because you can't help it if your > conversations go awry, right? It's just the hippies and the bad people. >> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:29:16 -0400 >> From: brunians at brunians.org >> To: urth at lists.urth.net >> Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe >>> No, you can get by on passive-aggressive insinuations. >> I am sorry, you are misusing the term 'passive aggressive'. It does not >> mean what you think it means. >>> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive-aggressive_behavior: >> ___ >> Passive-aggressive behavior is passive, sometimes obstructionist >> resistance to following through with expectations in interpersonal or >> occupational situations. It can manifest itself as learned helplessness, >> procrastination, stubbornness, resentment, sullenness, or >> deliberate/repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one >> is >> (often explicitly) responsible. >> --- >> >> I am so very glad that I could be of service in helping to correct ypur >> misuse of this term of art. >> >> >> >> . >> >> >> _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 18:26 · in reply to Adam Thornton* > On Mar 18, 2009, at 12:44 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> Best living writer in the American dialect of English. McCarthy and >> Crowley can be said to be in his class. > Don't forget Pynchon! Believe me, I did not forget Pynchon. . --- ### Fred Kiesche *18 Mar 2009, 18:34 · in reply to Craig Brewer* How dare you post an actual Wolfe question to this list! But anyway, I'm interested in such a pointer as well, for various friends who are in the same situation. F.P. Kiesche III "Ah Mr. Gibbon, another damned, fat, square book. Always, scribble, scribble, scribble, eh?" (The Duke of Gloucester, on being presented with Volume 2 of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.) Blogging at The Lensman's Children and TexasBestGrok! --- On Wed, 3/18/09, Craig Brewer wrote: From: Craig Brewer Subject: (urth) An Actual Wolfe Question To: "The Urth Mailing List" Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2009, 12:22 PM I've got a friend who's been on the fence about reading New Sun for a few years. No amount of talk from me will get him to start it. Can anyone point to an easily accessible review that seems to do a nice job of enticing someone to get into it? This guy's patient, so length is no problem. In fact, I'd probably give him Clute's stuff from Stokes if I still had my copy. --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 18:37 · in reply to Son of Witz* There's these pre-adolescent girl scat S&M scenes which some people might find erotic. Not that I want to hang around any of those people. . >> Don't forget Pynchon! > I've been needing the push to actually get past pg 300 of Gravity's > Rainbow. > tried three times, never got further. > is there a reason to care within all that psychedelic listing of detail? > I love the way Burroughs will ramble on a jag, he's always entertaining or > perverse. With Pynchon I kept wondering why I should even care. > hurm... > ~witz > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Adam Thornton *18 Mar 2009, 18:37 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > On Mar 18, 2009, at 1:17 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: > Of course criminals, by definition, aren't very bright, Bernie Madoff always struck me as a rather smart man. Adam --- ### Adam Thornton *18 Mar 2009, 18:38 · in reply to Son of Witz* > On Mar 18, 2009, at 1:19 PM, Son of Witz wrote: >> Don't forget Pynchon! > I've been needing the push to actually get past pg 300 of Gravity's > Rainbow. > tried three times, never got further. > is there a reason to care within all that psychedelic listing of > detail? > I love the way Burroughs will ramble on a jag, he's always > entertaining or perverse. With Pynchon I kept wondering why I should > even care. > hurm... I find there's a reason to care. YMMV. Adam --- ### Adam Thornton *18 Mar 2009, 18:39 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > On Mar 18, 2009, at 1:37 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: > > There's these pre-adolescent girl scat S&M scenes which some people > might > find erotic. Not that I want to hang around any of those people. To be fair, the pedophilia and the scat S&M scenes are actually two DIFFERENT ones. Not, I suppose, that I'm doing a good job of selling _GR_. Adam --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 18:46 · in reply to Adam Thornton* > On Mar 18, 2009, at 1:17 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> Of course criminals, by definition, aren't very bright, > Bernie Madoff always struck me as a rather smart man. Use of past tense noted. He wasn't smart enough not to get involved in a Ponzi scheme. I liked him deciding to be a good Jew about it and come clean. If he hadn't, you know, they'd have put him in white collar prison and we would be hearing about the sad accident that happened to him one day. Now he gets to go to real prison with the blackamoors and be a tough Jew, the brothers will get a kick out of it. He will give them financial advice, and I bet you it will be some better than the financial advice he has been giving out up until this point. He plays his cards right he should do some pretty reasonable time, as these things go. . --- ### Son of Witz *18 Mar 2009, 18:46 · follows Adam Thornton* > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Thornton [mailto:adam at io.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 11:39 AM > To: 'The Urth Mailing List' > Subject: Re: (urth) An Actual Wolfe Question > > > On Mar 18, 2009, at 1:37 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> There's these pre-adolescent girl scat S&M scenes which some people >> might >> find erotic. Not that I want to hang around any of those people. > To be fair, the pedophilia and the scat S&M scenes are actually two > DIFFERENT ones. > > Not, I suppose, that I'm doing a good job of selling _GR_. > > Adam haha. yeah, I was unclear if the pre-adolescent scat s&m was a pro or con. extreme perversion in lit: I like it in Burroughs, I like it in Bataille, but I've seen no reason to read De Sade. ~witz --- ### Son of Witz *18 Mar 2009, 18:49 · follows brunians at brunians.org* > -----Original Message----- > From: brunians at brunians.org [mailto:brunians at brunians.org] > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 11:46 AM > To: 'The Urth Mailing List' > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe >> On Mar 18, 2009, at 1:17 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >>> Of course criminals, by definition, aren't very bright, >> Bernie Madoff always struck me as a rather smart man. > Use of past tense noted. > > He wasn't smart enough not to get involved in a Ponzi scheme. He's said he knew what he was doing and he knew that "this day would come", so I guess the only stupid thing, in terms of his own benefit, was to not die or go into hiding before that day came. What an asshole. --- ### Adam Thornton *18 Mar 2009, 18:50 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* >> On Mar 18, 2009, at 1:46 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> >> Bernie Madoff always struck me as a rather smart man. > Use of past tense noted. > > He wasn't smart enough not to get involved in a Ponzi scheme. The decades of the Good Life might be worth the last few years on the inside. It's at least plausible that it's a rational trade. Was he dumb? That's for him to say. Or, hey, take the "late" Ken Lay. I mean, even if he actually *is* dead: a bunch of years being really really rich. And then, at worst, an early exit. How tragic. At best, he's drinking margaritas on a beach someplace tropical, laughing at all the rest of us. Adam --- ### Stuart Hamm *18 Mar 2009, 18:53 · in reply to Fred Kiesche* if (typeof YAHOO == "undefined") { var YAHOO = {}; } YAHOO.Shortcuts = YAHOO.Shortcuts || {}; YAHOO.Shortcuts.hasSensitiveText = true; YAHOO.Shortcuts.sensitivityType = ["sensitive_news_terms", "adult"]; YAHOO.Shortcuts.doUlt = false; YAHOO.Shortcuts.location = "us"; YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_id = 0; YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_type = ""; YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_title = "Re: (urth) An Actual Wolfe Question"; YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_publish_date = ""; YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_author = "hammstu at sbcglobal.net"; YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_url = ""; YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_tags = ""; YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_language = "english"; YAHOO.Shortcuts.annotationSet = { "lw_1237402387_0": { "text": "myspace.com/stuhamm", "extended": 0, "startchar": 697, "endchar": 715, "start": 697, "end": 715, "extendedFrom": "", "predictedCategory": "", "predictionProbability": "0", "weight": 1, "relScore": 0, "type": ["shortcuts:/us/place/virtual/web_site"], "category": ["IDENTIFIER"], "wikiId": "", "relatedWikiIds": [], "relatedEntities": [], "showOnClick": [], "context": "the \u0022Dr Death...\u0022 book got me hooked ~S~ Skype stuart.hamm myspace.com/stuhamm stuarthamm.net --- On Wed, 3/18/09, Fred Kiesche \u003crecursive_loop at yahoo.com\u003e wrote: From: Fred", "metaData": { "visible": "true" } }, "lw_1237402387_1": { "text": "stuarthamm.net", "extended": 0, "startchar": 893, "endchar": 906, "start": 893, "end": 906, "extendedFrom": "", "predictedCategory": "", "predictionProbability": "0", "weight": 1, "relScore": 0, "type": ["shortcuts:/us/place/virtual/web_site"], "category": ["IDENTIFIER"], "wikiId": "", "relatedWikiIds": [], "relatedEntities": [], "showOnClick": [], "context": "Dr Death...\u0022 book got me hooked ~S~ Skype stuart.hamm myspace.com/stuhamm stuarthamm.net --- On Wed, 3/18/09, Fred Kiesche \u003crecursive_loop at yahoo.com\u003e wrote: From: Fred Kiesche", "metaData": { "visible": "true" } }, "lw_1237402387_2": { "text": "recursive_loop at yahoo.com", "extended": 0, "startchar": 997, "endchar": 1020, "start": 997, "end": 1020, "extendedFrom": "", "predictedCategory": "", "predictionProbability": "0", "weight": 1, "relScore": 0, "type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/identifier/email_address"], "category": ["IDENTIFIER"], "wikiId": "", "relatedWikiIds": [], "relatedEntities": [], "showOnClick": [], "context": "S~ Skype stuart.hamm myspace.com/stuhamm stuarthamm.net --- On Wed, 3/18/09, Fred Kiesche \u003crecursive_loop at yahoo.com\u003e wrote: From: Fred Kiesche \u003crecursive_loop at yahoo.com\u003e Subject: Re: (urth) An Actual", "metaData": { "visible": "true" } }, "lw_1237402387_3": { "text": "urth at lists.urth.net", "extended": 0, "startchar": 1281, "endchar": 1299, "start": 1281, "end": 1299, "extendedFrom": "", "predictedCategory": "", "predictionProbability": "0", "weight": 1, "relScore": 0, "type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/identifier/email_address"], "category": ["IDENTIFIER"], "wikiId": "", "relatedWikiIds": [], "relatedEntities": [], "showOnClick": [], "context": "urth) An Actual Wolfe Question To: \u0022The Urth Mailing List\u0022 \u003curth at lists.urth.net\u003e Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2009, 11:34 AM How dare you", "metaData": { "visible": "true" } }, "lw_1237402387_4": { "text": "Duke of Gloucester", "extended": 0, "startchar": 1818, "endchar": 1835, "start": 1818, "end": 1835, "extendedFrom": "", "predictedCategory": "", "predictionProbability": "0", "weight": 0.231708, "relScore": 1.35958, "type": ["shortcuts:/us/tag/other/wiki"], "category": ["WIKI"], "wikiId": "Duke_of_Gloucester", "relatedWikiIds": [], "relatedEntities": [], "showOnClick": [], "context": "damned, fat, square book. Always, scribble, scribble, scribble, eh?\u0022 (The Duke of Gloucester, on being presented with Volume 2 of The Decline and", "metaData": { "visible": "false" } }, "lw_1237402387_5": { "text": "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", "extended": 0, "startchar": 1906, "endchar": 1945, "start": 1906, "end": 1945, "extendedFrom": "Roman Empire", "predictedCategory": "", "predictionProbability": "0", "weight": 0.3453, "relScore": 4.08661, "type": ["shortcuts:/concept"], "category": ["CONCEPT"], "wikiId": "The_History_of_the_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire", "relatedWikiIds": [], "relatedEntities": [], "showOnClick": [], "context": "Duke of Gloucester, on being presented with Volume 2 of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.) Blogging at The Lensman\u0027s Children and TexasBestGrok! --- On Wed, 3/18/09", "metaData": { "visible": "true" } }, "lw_1237402387_6": { "text": "The Lensman\u0027s Children", "extended": 0, "startchar": 2052, "endchar": 2077, "start": 2052, "end": 2077, "extendedFrom": "", "predictedCategory": "", "predictionProbability": "0", "weight": 1, "relScore": 0, "type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/identifier/hyperlink/http"], "category": ["IDENTIFIER"], "wikiId": "", "relatedWikiIds": [], "relatedEntities": [], "showOnClick": [], "context": "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.) Blogging at The Lensman\u0027s Children and TexasBestGrok! --- On Wed, 3/18/09, Craig Brewer \u003ccnbrewer at yahoo.com\u003e wrote: From", "metaData": { "linkHref": "http://theeternalgoldenbraid.blogspot.com/", "linkProtocol": "http", "linkRel": "nofollow", "linkTarget": "_blank", "visible": "true" } }, "lw_1237402387_7": { "text": "TexasBestGrok", "extended": 0, "startchar": 2156, "endchar": 2168, "start": 2156, "end": 2168, "extendedFrom": "", "predictedCategory": "", "predictionProbability": "0", "weight": 1, "relScore": 0, "type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/identifier/hyperlink/http"], "category": ["IDENTIFIER"], "wikiId": "", "relatedWikiIds": [], "relatedEntities": [], "showOnClick": [], "context": "of the Roman Empire.) Blogging at The Lensman\u0027s Children and TexasBestGrok! --- On Wed, 3/18/09, Craig Brewer \u003ccnbrewer at yahoo.com\u003e wrote: From: Craig Brewer", "metaData": { "linkHref": "http://texasbestgrok.mu.nu/", "linkProtocol": "http", "linkRel": "nofollow", "linkTarget": "_blank", "visible": "true" } }, "lw_1237402387_8": { "text": "Craig Brewer", "extended": 0, "startchar": 2212, "endchar": 2223, "start": 2212, "end": 2223, "extendedFrom": "", "predictedCategory": "", "predictionProbability": "0", "weight": 0.359763, "relScore": 2.76063, "type": ["shortcuts:/us/tag/other/entity_db/person", "shortcuts:/us/tag/other/wiki"], "category": ["WIKI"], "wikiId": "Craig_Brewer", "relatedWikiIds": [], "relatedEntities": [], "showOnClick": [], "context": "Blogging at The Lensman\u0027s Children and TexasBestGrok! --- On Wed, 3/18/09, Craig Brewer \u003ccnbrewer at yahoo.com\u003e wrote: From: Craig Brewer \u003ccnbrewer at yahoo.com\u003e Subject: (urth) An Actual", "metaData": { "visible": "true" } }, "lw_1237402387_9": { "text": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com", "extended": 0, "startchar": 2232, "endchar": 2249, "start": 2232, "end": 2249, "extendedFrom": "", "predictedCategory": "", "predictionProbability": "0", "weight": 1, "relScore": 0, "type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/identifier/email_address"], "category": ["IDENTIFIER"], "wikiId": "", "relatedWikiIds": [], "relatedEntities": [], "showOnClick": [], "context": "The Lensman\u0027s Children and TexasBestGrok! --- On Wed, 3/18/09, Craig Brewer \u003ccnbrewer at yahoo.com\u003e wrote: From: Craig Brewer \u003ccnbrewer at yahoo.com\u003e Subject: (urth) An Actual Wolfe", "metaData": { "visible": "true" } }, "lw_1237402387_10": { "text": "urth at urth.net", "extended": 0, "startchar": 3063, "endchar": 3075, "start": 3063, "end": 3075, "extendedFrom": "", "predictedCategory": "", "predictionProbability": "0", "weight": 1, "relScore": 0, "type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/identifier/email_address"], "category": ["IDENTIFIER"], "wikiId": "", "relatedWikiIds": [], "relatedEntities": [], "showOnClick": [], "context": "still had my copy. _______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net _______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information", "metaData": { "visible": "true" } }, "lw_1237402387_11": { "text": "http://www.urth.net", "extended": 0, "startchar": 3103, "endchar": 3121, "start": 3103, "end": 3121, "extendedFrom": "", "predictedCategory": "", "predictionProbability": "0", "weight": 1, "relScore": 0, "type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/identifier/URL"], "category": ["IDENTIFIER"], "wikiId": "", "relatedWikiIds": [], "relatedEntities": [], "showOnClick": [], "context": "my copy. _______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net _______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net", "metaData": { "visible": "true" } } }; YAHOO.Shortcuts.headerID = "4dda2828b34e534fd773cd969c053e3b"; I think the first and last stories in "Strange Travelers"..."B Jam". takes some work to figure out what's going on...and "Ain't we..." twists thinks all around. That and the "Dr Death..." book got me hooked ~S~ ???? Mobile — (415) 786-3624 ???? Skype? stuart.hamm myspace.com/stuhamm ? ??? stuarthamm.net --- On Wed, 3/18/09, Fred Kiesche wrote: From: Fred Kiesche Subject: Re: (urth) An Actual Wolfe Question To: "The Urth Mailing List" Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2009, 11:34 AM How dare you post an actual Wolfe question to this list! But anyway, I'm interested in such a pointer as well, for various friends who are in the same situation. F.P. Kiesche III "Ah Mr. Gibbon, another damned, fat, square book. Always, scribble, scribble, scribble, eh?" (The Duke of Gloucester, on being presented with Volume 2 of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.) Blogging at The Lensman's Children and TexasBestGrok! --- On Wed, 3/18/09, Craig Brewer wrote: From: Craig Brewer Subject: (urth) An Actual Wolfe Question To: "The Urth Mailing List" Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2009, 12:22 PM I've got a friend who's been on the fence about reading New Sun for a few years. No amount of talk from me will get him to start it. Can anyone point to an easily accessible review that seems to do a nice job of enticing someone to get into it? This guy's patient, so length is no problem. In fact, I'd probably give him Clute's stuff from Stokes if I still had my copy. --- ### Cliff Judge *18 Mar 2009, 18:56 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* I'm going to chime in late, well after the thread has outlived its usefulness, and share that I believe the Amendment was intended to keep arms among the citizenry to enable guerilla warfare against a tyrannical domestic government, or a foreign one. I find that the argument that "the government has far better weapons therefore it is moot" is automatic and rhetorical. I wish people who raised that argument would be honest that they make an assumption that the only possible scenario is one where the erstwhile evil government has total control of all of its armed forces. But more than anything I dislike the gun ownership movement in the US for maintaining that the Amendment actual provides the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense of self and home against individual crime. If you own weapons, and the lives of your family are threatened, by all means shoot first and live with the legal and moral consequences. But do not insist that you have the inherent right to own a gun to protect yourself against home invasions. This is not provided for by the Amendment. > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 5:36 AM, wrote: > This is a good opportunity to start the discussion that I have been > wanting to have. > > A prominent feature of Wolfe's politics, which appears time and time again > in his stories is his strong approval of the 2nd Amendment of the United > States constitution, which recognizes the inherent right of the people to > keep and bear arms, and his strong disapproval of the disarmement of the > citizenry. > > Wolfe's readers are a diverse, and an international bunch, and I for one > am curious to hear the views of the various literate and intelligent > readers who frequent this list upon this subject, here in the early 21st > century, some 90 years into the international disarm-the-citizens campaign > that began after WWI. > > > > > . >> Allan Anderson wrote: >>> What do you mean about the militias? I'm not sure I get that. >> The entire "a government should be afraid of its people" idea, where the >> people should be armed and ready to take back control of their country >> when the government oversteps its bounds and becomes a burden more than >> a benefit. >> Our current militia movement takes justification in the @nd Amendment to >> the US constitution as statements of the founding fathers like Thomas >> Jefferson: >> * I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good >> thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. >> o Letter to James Madison (January 30, 1787); referring to >> Shays' Rebellion Lipscomb & Bergh ed. 6:65 >> >> * God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a >> rebellion.... What country before ever existed a century and half >> without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if >> their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve >> the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them >> right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost >> in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to >> time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. >> Letter to William Stevens Smith (November 13, 1787), quoted in Padover's >> Jefferson On Democracy >> >> -- >> Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com >> < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > >> _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 19:04 · in reply to Adam Thornton* All that occurs is according to the Will of God. God is merciful, compassionate. . > On Mar 18, 2009, at 1:46 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >>> Bernie Madoff always struck me as a rather smart man. >> Use of past tense noted. >> >> He wasn't smart enough not to get involved in a Ponzi scheme. > The decades of the Good Life might be worth the last few years on the > inside. It's at least plausible that it's a rational trade. Was he > dumb? That's for him to say. > > Or, hey, take the "late" Ken Lay. I mean, even if he actually *is* > dead: a bunch of years being really really rich. And then, at worst, > an early exit. How tragic. At best, he's drinking margaritas on a > beach someplace tropical, laughing at all the rest of us. > > Adam_______________________________________________ --- ### Matthew Keeley *18 Mar 2009, 19:30 · in reply to Son of Witz* > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Son of Witz wrote: >> Don't forget Pynchon! > I've been needing the push to actually get past pg 300 of Gravity's Rainbow. > tried three times, never got further. > is there a reason to care within all that psychedelic listing of detail? > I love the way Burroughs will ramble on a jag, he's always entertaining or perverse. With Pynchon I kept wondering why I should even care. > hurm... > ~witz I haven't read GR; the only Pynchon books I've read are The Crying of Lot 49 and Against the Day (which is actually a lot longer than GR). I think you might enjoy Lot 49 - it's less than two hundred pages, there's not nearly as much detail, and there are several scenes that made me laugh out loud. There's also one scene in Against the Day that had me laughing for about five minutes on end, though it was a variation on one of Pynchon's kinky sex scenes, so YMMV. I think people who have read AtD may know the scene I refer to? -Matt --- ### Matthew Keeley *18 Mar 2009, 19:35 · in reply to Son of Witz* > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Son of Witz > wrote: > > As a complete aside, it's quite interesting to talk about this stuff with > y'all. ?It's too easy to end up in an echo chamber, especially when you live > in SF. ?It's hard to even find self-proclaimed conservatives here. ?I'm > pretty damn liberal, but living in SF long enough will make you gag at some > of the thoughtless knee-jerk (not to mention arrogant) liberal attitudes. > > ~witz I was in SF a few weeks back and, though I expected it to be very liberal, I was surprised by some of the goings-on I heard about. The trip I was on visited Alcatraz. Great, and interesting from a historical perspective. Only later did I read about the plan - THAT ACTUALLY MADE THE CITY BALLOT - to tear down the prison and replace it with a peace center. Only 72% of people in the city voted against it. http://www.globalpeacefoundation.org/AlcatrazConversion.html -Matt, too much of a historian to countenance demolishing historic sites --- ### Adam Thornton *18 Mar 2009, 19:41 · in reply to Matthew Keeley* > On Mar 18, 2009, at 2:30 PM, Matthew Keeley wrote: > There's also one scene in Against the Day that had me laughing for > about five minutes on end, though it was a variation on one of > Pynchon's kinky sex scenes, so YMMV. I think people who have read AtD > may know the scene I refer to? There were several funny kinky sex scenes in AtD. I know which one I would pick. Adam --- ### Matthew Keeley *18 Mar 2009, 19:46 · in reply to Adam Thornton* > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Adam Thornton wrote: > > There were several funny kinky sex scenes in AtD. ?I know which one I would > pick. > > Adam (SPOILER ALERT OF SORTS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The one with the dog? "Reader, she bit him." -Matt --- ### Jerry Friedman *18 Mar 2009, 20:21 · in reply to John Watkins* > --- On Wed, 3/18/09, John Watkins wrote: > Jerry, > > My understanding is that, to a 1st century Jew, the > teaching about turning > the other cheek when slapped wouldn't be a teaching > about self-defense at > all--the slap wasn't a threat of physical injury so > much as it was a profound insult. I'd say that's still true. > A more equivalent saying today would be > that if someone > spits in your face, don't strike him, but wipe it off > and offer your face again. > > Clearly it isn't difficult to differentiate between > retributive punishement > ("eye for an eye") and self-defense. Our law > does it all the time. I'd have thought the key statement was not to resist evildoers, which would not be limited to the examples about turning the other cheek, giving your cloak along with your shirt, and walking the second mile. But thanks to you and others who explained how this passage doesn't have to be taken as forbidding self-defense. Jerry Friedman --- ### Tim Walters *18 Mar 2009, 20:54 · in reply to Matthew Keeley* > Only later did I read about the plan - THAT > ACTUALLY MADE THE CITY BALLOT - to tear down the prison and replace it > with a peace center. Only 72% of people in the city voted against it. The text of the proposition was: "Shall it be City policy that the City should explore and facilitate the acquisition of Alcatraz Island from the United States Government to transform it into a Global Peace Center?" In other words, it wouldn't have done squat, even if by some miracle it had passed. I'm not sure if that makes it more or less ridiculous. ``` Tim Walters | http://doubtfulpalace.com ``` --- ### Son of Witz *18 Mar 2009, 21:07 · follows Tim Walters* > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Walters [mailto:walters at doubtfulpalace.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 01:54 PM > To: 'The Urth Mailing List' > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe >> Only later did I read about the plan - THAT >> ACTUALLY MADE THE CITY BALLOT - to tear down the prison and replace it >> with a peace center. Only 72% of people in the city voted against it. > The text of the proposition was: > > "Shall it be City policy that the City should explore and facilitate the > acquisition of Alcatraz Island from the United States Government to > transform it into a Global Peace Center?" > > In other words, it wouldn't have done squat, even if by some miracle it > had passed. > > I'm not sure if that makes it more or less ridiculous. > > -- > Tim Walters | http://doubtfulpalace.com Yeah, I voted against it. Alcatraz brings in lots of morbid curiosity tourist dollars. Who the hell is gonna take a ferry out to a Global Peace Center. I mean, WTF is that anyway? I think most people just thought it would accomplish absolutely nothing. there was another one I voted against, naming our waste processing plant after GW Bush. I wouldn't give him the honor. ~witz --- ### Adam Thornton *18 Mar 2009, 21:30 · in reply to Matthew Keeley* > On Mar 18, 2009, at 2:46 PM, Matthew Keeley wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Adam Thornton wrote: >> There were several funny kinky sex scenes in AtD. I know which one >> I would >> pick. >> >> Adam > (SPOILER ALERT OF SORTS) > > The one with the dog? "Reader, she bit him." That actually wasn't the one I was thinking of. There sure is a lot of transgressive sex in AtD. Even for Pynchon. Adam --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 21:38 · in reply to Tim Walters* It's like Berkeley being a nuclear free zone. No nuclear reactors in Berkeley! Except for the two or three they got at the various physics schools at the University.... . >> Only later did I read about the plan - THAT >> ACTUALLY MADE THE CITY BALLOT - to tear down the prison and replace it >> with a peace center. Only 72% of people in the city voted against it. > The text of the proposition was: > > "Shall it be City policy that the City should explore and facilitate the > acquisition of Alcatraz Island from the United States Government to > transform it into a Global Peace Center?" > > In other words, it wouldn't have done squat, even if by some miracle it > had passed. > > I'm not sure if that makes it more or less ridiculous. > > -- > Tim Walters | http://doubtfulpalace.com > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *18 Mar 2009, 21:42 · in reply to Son of Witz* > Yeah, I voted against it. Alcatraz brings in lots of morbid curiosity > tourist dollars. Who the hell is gonna take a ferry out to a Global Peace > Center. I mean, WTF is that anyway? > I think most people just thought it would accomplish absolutely nothing. > there was another one I voted against, naming our waste processing plant > after GW Bush. I wouldn't give him the honor. Besides, you are going to have to save something for Obama, when the Afghan war is entering its tenth year there, a little bit down the line there. Remember, this is a guy whose hero is Abe Lincoln. Some things about the Lincoln administration might give pause. . --- ### Tim Walters *18 Mar 2009, 22:23 · in reply to James Crossley* >>> Inviting the question as to the best living writer in other English >>> dialects, >>> which is a much more interesting conversation than more gun talk . . . No way have I read enough Scots lit to have an opinion on who's "best", but I really like Alasdair Gray and James Kelman in the Scottish and Extremely Scottish divisions, respectively. I'll qualify the Kelman recommendation with the caveat that I've only read one of his books (_Greyhound For Breakfast_). On the American side, I think Kelly Link is doing work that ranks with Wolfe's best. ``` Tim Walters | http://doubtfulpalace.com ``` --- ### Jeff Wilson *19 Mar 2009, 11:52 · in reply to Tim Walters* > Tim Walters wrote: > Jeff Wilson wrote: >> Tim Walters wrote: >>> Is there any reason to think that isn't included in the ownership >>> figure? >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland > "In some 2001 statistics, it is noted that there are about 420,000 > assault rifles stored at private homes, mostly SIG 550 types. > Additionally, there are some 320,000 assault rifles and military pistols > exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire > weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In > addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small > arms classified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private > homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million." > > The high figure is lower than the rate from my original link, so clearly > these weapons were, in fact, included. then "Less than half the per capita gun ownership of the U.S." can't be true ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### Jeff Wilson *19 Mar 2009, 11:59 · in reply to Gwern Branwen* > Gwern Branwen wrote: > If I may, it is threads like these that make me wish Urth had a 'List > Sniper' along the lines of SL4's List Sniper: someone empowered to > official declare a thread dead, and to enforce it by moderation & > bans. > > In this case, the thread has degenerated into boring and poorly-done > discussions of a dozen topics in politics & ethics & sociology which > have nothing to do with Gene Wolfe, and can only exasperate or > embitter people. Nobody's being forced to read any of this, my dear. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### brunians at brunians.org *19 Mar 2009, 12:04 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* There's another aspect of Gene Wolfe's politics which is mentioned prominently in many of his stories, and that is his intense distrust of government. I assume that this is less controversial than his support of an armed citizenry. I am still a bit nonplussed that anyone would question that still, but no matter. I am well known to be an extremely ignorant person, knowing almost nothing (and trying hard to un-learn that little bit). I'd like to solicit a discussion of this particular aspect of his work. The last one was quite lively, and some people did get their feelings hurt. Well, literary discussion is a tough business, and not meant for the faint of heart. I hope that this discussion can be equally lively, but perhaps less fraught with emotional trauma for some of the participants. . --- ### Jeff Wilson *19 Mar 2009, 12:18 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* > Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Jerry Friedman > wrote: >> I don't know how Aquinas and others reconciled that with >> Jesus's teachings, but apparently they did. > It is lawful to use violence to protect one's goods and chastity. Jesus > never said it wasn't. However, Jesus called men to a higher standard > than the Law: He called them to moral perfection, and that means not > resisting the evildoer. I'm not sure that follows. It might be a fine literal distinction below the level of resolution of the translation, but "not resisting" and "not restraining" are different concepts morally. "not restraining the evildoer" implies don't presume to judge the rightness of other people's business, leave enforcement of man's law to Caesar and the other temporal authorities. I believe "resisting the evildoer" in the sense of protecting yourself and your dependents against other people is scripturally supported by turning the other cheek to avoid a retribution spiral, and by the millstone verse that overtly says extreme measures are preferable to submission when protecting your children. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### Jeff Wilson *19 Mar 2009, 12:24 · in reply to Adam Thornton* > Adam Thornton wrote: > > On Mar 18, 2009, at 1:17 PM, brunians at brunians.org > wrote: >> Of course criminals, by definition, aren't very bright, > Bernie Madoff always struck me as a rather smart man. Confessing on camera wasn't terribly advancing of his self-interest. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### Jeff Wilson *19 Mar 2009, 12:57 · in reply to Cliff Judge* > Cliff Judge wrote: > > I'm going to chime in late, well after the thread has outlived its > usefulness, and share that I believe the Amendment was intended to keep > arms among the citizenry to enable guerilla warfare against a tyrannical > domestic government, or a foreign one. Thank you! > I find that the argument that "the government has far better weapons > therefore it is moot" is automatic and rhetorical. I wish people who > raised that argument would be honest that they make an assumption that > the only possible scenario is one where the erstwhile evil government > has total control of all of its armed forces. Again, super! > But more than anything I dislike the gun ownership movement in the US > for maintaining that the Amendment actual provides the right to keep and > bear arms for personal defense of self and home against individual > crime. If you own weapons, and the lives of your family are threatened, > by all means shoot first and live with the legal and moral consequences. > But do not insist that you have the inherent right to own a gun to > protect yourself against home invasions. This is not provided for by the > Amendment. Not by the 2nd Amendment alone, but the Fourth Amendment extends the "free state" to include security in one's property and body. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### Jeff Wilson *19 Mar 2009, 13:00 · in reply to Matthew Keeley* > Matthew Keeley wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Son of Witz > wrote: >> As a complete aside, it's quite interesting to talk about this stuff with >> y'all. It's too easy to end up in an echo chamber, especially when you live >> in SF. It's hard to even find self-proclaimed conservatives here. I'm >> pretty damn liberal, but living in SF long enough will make you gag at some >> of the thoughtless knee-jerk (not to mention arrogant) liberal attitudes. >> >> ~witz > I was in SF a few weeks back and, though I expected it to be very > liberal, I was surprised by some of the goings-on I heard about. The > trip I was on visited Alcatraz. Great, and interesting from a > historical perspective. Only later did I read about the plan - THAT > ACTUALLY MADE THE CITY BALLOT - to tear down the prison and replace it > with a peace center. Only 72% of people in the city voted against it. 72% of people in the city, or 72% of people who voted? ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### David Stockhoff *19 Mar 2009, 14:18 · follows Jeff Wilson* Uh-huh. Anyway, there is certainly much evidence for that position. What I find interesting is that his distrust of government is not ideological. That is, though in "Trust" he has dirty hippies revolting in a new civil war, he places little faith in the megacorporations who are trying to "preserve" the US. Of course, the US they are trying to preserve seems hardly worth preserving. It's already been privatized beyond recognition. On the other hand, in The Eyeflash Miracles, he posits creepy totalitarianism involving universal retinal IDs and truly evil government agents. Whether it's totalitarian or fascist (not clear), the government clearly doesn't care about people. The person that the state IDs does not define or limit the true individual, who still has access to the divine. In Free Live Free, the government seems more benevolent. > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:04:16 -0400 (EDT) > From: brunians at brunians.org > Subject: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe > To: "The Urth Mailing List" > Message-ID: <8974.67.142.130.34.1237464256.squirrel at brunians.org> > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 > > There's another aspect of Gene Wolfe's politics which is mentioned > prominently in many of his stories, and that is his intense distrust of > government. I assume that this is less controversial than his support of > an armed citizenry. I am still a bit nonplussed that anyone would question > that still, but no matter. I am well known to be an extremely ignorant > person, knowing almost nothing (and trying hard to un-learn that little > bit). > > I'd like to solicit a discussion of this particular aspect of his work. > The last one was quite lively, and some people did get their feelings > hurt. Well, literary discussion is a tough business, and not meant for the > faint of heart. I hope that this discussion can be equally lively, but > perhaps less fraught with emotional trauma for some of the participants. --- ### Craig Brewer *19 Mar 2009, 14:22 · in reply to David Stockhoff* I'd agree with this non-ideological position. After all, Severian chooses monarchy as the highest form of government. Sure, that's got religious overtones, but he's also a savior-monarch himself. Typhon is another monarch who's "bad." So it's a non-ideological position on monarchy, just says that it needs to be the right person. That would suggest that it's not really distrust of government, just distrust of the wrong forms of government. Silk, as well, is both Calde and a failure at it. Horn, too, gives us a number of very ambiguous reflections on the need for and dangers of good governing in the fragile communities on Blue. ----- Original Message ---- From: David Stockhoff To: urth at lists.urth.net Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 9:18:29 AM Subject: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe Uh-huh. Anyway, there is certainly much evidence for that position. What I find interesting is that his distrust of government is not ideological. That is, though in "Trust" he has dirty hippies revolting in a new civil war, he places little faith in the megacorporations who are trying to "preserve" the US. Of course, the US they are trying to preserve seems hardly worth preserving. It's already been privatized beyond recognition. On the other hand, in The Eyeflash Miracles, he posits creepy totalitarianism involving universal retinal IDs and truly evil government agents. Whether it's totalitarian or fascist (not clear), the government clearly doesn't care about people. The person that the state IDs does not define or limit the true individual, who still has access to the divine. In Free Live Free, the government seems more benevolent. > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:04:16 -0400 (EDT) > From: brunians at brunians.org > Subject: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe --- ### David Stockhoff *19 Mar 2009, 14:53 · follows Craig Brewer* Naturally, a system of government that relies on the good character of the ruler is plainly not a good system. But democracy is no better in this respect. Monarchy is also more dramatic, of course, and lends itself to certain treatments. But a good monarchy may be better than a bad democracy, at least in the short term. In the long run, I disagree, because a healthy democracy has healthy institutions that stay healthy, thus diffusing power and preventing the worst abuses. I'm not sure Wolfe would disagree with that, but he is certainly skeptical, as he should be. We all should be. And even kings' power had limits anyway---true feudal monarchies tend to be very decentralized. > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:22:42 -0700 (PDT) > From: Craig Brewer > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe --- ### Matthew Groves *19 Mar 2009, 15:30 · in reply to David Stockhoff* I've been puzzling over this passage in Claw, Jonas and Severian are in the Antechamber and Jonas is wigging out. I don't know the history Jonas is talking about, and I wonder if it sheds any light on Wolfe's views on monarchy and democracy. "Hereditary rulers and hereditary subordinates, and all sorts of strange officials. Lancers with long, white mustaches." For an instant the ghost of his old humorous smile appeared. "The White Knight is sliding down the poker. He balances very badly, as the King's notebook told him." [...] "None of it began so." There was a sudden intensity in his quavering voice. "Severian, the king was elected at the Marchfield. Counts were appointed by the kings. That was what they called the dark ages. A baron was only a freeman of Lombardy." [...] "It became ingrained. It all endured too long." As I walked toward the crowd, I heard him say, "The people didn't know." --- ### Tim Walters *19 Mar 2009, 15:37 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* > Jeff Wilson wrote: > then "Less than half the per capita gun ownership of the U.S." can't be > true Guns per capita, U.S.: 0.9 (my original link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_countries_by_gun_ownership) Guns per capita, Switzerland, including Army guns in private homes: 0.4 (high figure from your link) Guns per capita, Switzerland, presumably including Army guns in private homes: 0.46 (from my original link again--slightly more than half, my bad) What part of this can't be true? Maybe you're thinking of "gun owners per capita" rather than "guns per capita"? The former would also be interesting info, but I don't know if anyone's measured it, and I don't have time to look right now. ``` Tim Walters | The Doubtful Palace | http://doubtfulpalace.com ``` --- ### David Stockhoff *19 Mar 2009, 16:06 · follows Tim Walters* I will never get any work done today, with all these interesting topics! He's referring to the empire of Charlemagne, the Holy Roman. The Frankish aristocracy assembled every year at Marchfield (not sure where that is, probably Germany) to approve rulings and such. The line about "the people" is odd. But clearly the system became a parody of itself, one might say. Everyone in the system gained power until, in England, the King's butler basically became the Lord Chamberlain. (Literally. If I have it right.) Thus, barons originated as free farmers. > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:30:18 -0500 > From: Matthew Groves > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe > To: The Urth Mailing List > Message-ID: > <39ed084f0903190830h5ed94268i1b702c32084dfc65 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I've been puzzling over this passage in Claw, Jonas and Severian are > in the Antechamber and Jonas is wigging out. I don't know the history > Jonas is talking about, and I wonder if it sheds any light on Wolfe's > views on monarchy and democracy. > > "Hereditary rulers and hereditary subordinates, and all sorts of > strange officials. Lancers with long, white mustaches." For an instant > the ghost of his old humorous smile appeared. "The White Knight is > sliding down the poker. He balances very badly, as the King's notebook > told him." > [...] "None of it began so." There was a sudden intensity in his > quavering voice. "Severian, the king was elected at the Marchfield. > Counts were appointed by the kings. That was what they called the dark > ages. A baron was only a freeman of Lombardy." > [...] > "It became ingrained. It all endured too long." As I walked toward the > crowd, I heard him say, "The people didn't know." > > > ------------------------------ --- ### Son of Witz *19 Mar 2009, 16:18 · follows David Stockhoff* > -----Original Message----- > From: David Stockhoff [mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net] > I will never get any work done today, with all these interesting topics! seconded. I better log the hell off and get this database I'm building finished. --- ### Chris P *19 Mar 2009, 18:18 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > There's another aspect of Gene Wolfe's politics which is mentioned > prominently in many of his stories, and that is his intense distrust of > government. I assume that this is less controversial than his support of > an armed citizenry. I am still a bit nonplussed that anyone would question > that still, but no matter. I am well known to be an extremely ignorant > person, knowing almost nothing (and trying hard to un-learn that little > bit). > > I'd like to solicit a discussion of this particular aspect of his work. > The last one was quite lively, and some people did get their feelings > hurt. Well, literary discussion is a tough business, and not meant for the > faint of heart. I hope that this discussion can be equally lively, but > perhaps less fraught with emotional trauma for some of the participants. Relax. I attributed an emotional reaction to you not as a form of projection but because you seem unable to discuss some topics in a cooperative, rational way. If I think you're resorting to counter-productive rhetorical shenanigans in an attempt to "win" a discussion that can have no winner, then I will poke fun at you. What I don't do turn it into an ongoing war after it's over. Wolfe's distrust of government I also take to be a given, as much as his position on guns. My main interest in this particular line, though, is the way it seems to change a bit (as it did with guns) when you look at BotNS. In BotNS it seems like the reader is asked to just take some things as necessary. This could either be an indication that the Autarchy as a state is a special case in this story, or it could simply be Severian's point of view that in this case overshadows Wolfe's. --- ### Jerry Friedman *19 Mar 2009, 19:15 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > --- On Thu, 3/19/09, brunians at brunians.org wrote: > There's another aspect of Gene Wolfe's politics > which is mentioned > prominently in many of his stories, and that is his intense > distrust of government. ... > I'd like to solicit a discussion of this particular > aspect of his work. ... I haven't seen any mention yet of "The Best Introduction to the Mountains", where Wolfe says the code of conduct he learned in his childhood included, "Legitimate authority was to be obeyed without shirking and without question. Mere strength (the corrupt coercion Washington calls /power/ and Chicago /clout/) was to be defied." So maybe another way of saying he distrusts government would be that he thinks most government is mere strength, but he thinks good government can exist and he'd be happy to trust an example of it. http://home.clara.net/andywrobertson/wolfemountains.html Jerry Friedman --- ### John Watkins *19 Mar 2009, 19:20 · in reply to Jerry Friedman* Agreed...but this is in the context of a discussion of Tolkien's work. Tolkien veers between a benign anarchism (The Shire) and divinely-appointed or at least divinely-sanctioned kings. It seems then that "good government" is holy or ideal government--government by the best (in the sense of "most moral") people. > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote: > > --- On Thu, 3/19/09, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> There's another aspect of Gene Wolfe's politics >> which is mentioned >> prominently in many of his stories, and that is his intense >> distrust of government. > ... >> I'd like to solicit a discussion of this particular >> aspect of his work. > ... > > I haven't seen any mention yet of "The Best Introduction to > the Mountains", where Wolfe says the code of conduct he > learned in his childhood included, "Legitimate authority > was to be obeyed without shirking and without question. > Mere strength (the corrupt coercion Washington calls > /power/ and Chicago /clout/) was to be defied." So maybe > another way of saying he distrusts government would be that > he thinks most government is mere strength, but he thinks > good government can exist and he'd be happy to trust an > example of it. > > http://home.clara.net/andywrobertson/wolfemountains.html > > Jerry Friedman > > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *19 Mar 2009, 19:27 · in reply to John Watkins* > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:20 PM, John Watkins wrote: > Agreed...but this is in the context of a discussion of Tolkien's work. > Tolkien veers between a benign anarchism (The Shire) and divinely-appointed > or at least divinely-sanctioned kings. It seems then that "good government" > is holy or ideal government--government by the best (in the sense of "most > moral") people. However, the point is made at least once (by Aragorn), and so Gene "I hate it when they repeat things" Wolfe is bound to have noticed, that the "benign anarchism" of the Shire is permitted to exist only because of the labors of the Rangers, i.e., the King and his followers. Tolkien doesn't really "veer," he's definitely in the "divinely-appointed King" camp. ``` Dan'l Danehy-Oakes ``` --- ### Jeffrey Brent McBeth *19 Mar 2009, 19:40 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:27:43PM -0700, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:20 PM, John Watkins wrote: >> Agreed...but this is in the context of a discussion of Tolkien's work. >> Tolkien veers between a benign anarchism (The Shire) and divinely-appointed >> or at least divinely-sanctioned kings. It seems then that "good government" >> is holy or ideal government--government by the best (in the sense of "most >> moral") people. > However, the point is made at least once (by Aragorn), and so Gene "I hate > it when they repeat things" Wolfe is bound to have noticed, that the "benign > anarchism" of the Shire is permitted to exist only because of the labors of > the Rangers, i.e., the King and his followers. Tolkien doesn't really "veer," > he's definitely in the "divinely-appointed King" camp. Of the three major races in Tolkien (Man, Elves, Dwarves), only the Men have the semblance of a divinely-appointed king. The elves appear to be a meritocracy, and only in, one occasion can I think of, do the elvish choices coincide with those most liked by the gods. The dwarves claim to be hereditary from the original 7 dwarves, and seem to be largely ignored by any except Aule, which seems to be the god that the bad guys in LOTR come from (Saruman, Sauron) Jeff ``` ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them." -- Mark Twain ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ``` --- ### John Watkins *19 Mar 2009, 19:47 · in reply to Jeffrey Brent McBeth* > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Jeffrey Brent McBeth wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:27:43PM -0700, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:20 PM, John Watkins >> wrote: >>> Agreed...but this is in the context of a discussion of Tolkien's work. >>> Tolkien veers between a benign anarchism (The Shire) and >>> divinely-appointed >>> or at least divinely-sanctioned kings. It seems then that "good >>> government" >>> is holy or ideal government--government by the best (in the sense of >>> "most >>> moral") people. >> However, the point is made at least once (by Aragorn), and so Gene "I >> hate >> it when they repeat things" Wolfe is bound to have noticed, that the >> "benign >> anarchism" of the Shire is permitted to exist only because of the labors >> of >> the Rangers, i.e., the King and his followers. Tolkien doesn't really >> "veer," >> he's definitely in the "divinely-appointed King" camp. > Of the three major races in Tolkien (Man, Elves, Dwarves), only the > Men have the semblance of a divinely-appointed king. I'm sorry, that's just not true. The Dwarves have Durin, a direct creation of Aule who they believe to reincarnate every several generations. Whether or not it's true, it reflects a privileging and longing for divine authority over at least the most significant branche of Dwarves. Likewise the Elves have a variety of government structures at different times, but the one that Tolkien holds up as the ideal is the government of the Vanyar--indeed, Ingwe is the High King of all the elves in theory if not in fact and he receives his authority directly from the Valar. > The elves appear to be a meritocracy, and only in, one occasion can I > think of, do the elvish choices coincide with those most liked by the > gods. > > The dwarves claim to be hereditary from the original 7 dwarves, and > seem to be largely ignored by any except Aule, which seems to be the > god that the bad guys in LOTR come from (Saruman, Sauron) > > Jeff > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over > the man who cannot read them." > -- Mark Twain > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFJwp+vXazNjIaibJERAp4kAKCUhxGLeK5XkCdMWsRBrcg3YLVdGwCaA+ra > tC/y/mBmah+MQgJrlJ99igk= > =JFuX > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *19 Mar 2009, 19:54 · in reply to Jeffrey Brent McBeth* > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Jeffrey Brent McBeth > wrote: > Of the three major races in Tolkien (Man, Elves, Dwarves), only the > Men have the semblance of a divinely-appointed king. > > The elves appear to be a meritocracy, and only in, one occasion can I > think of, do the elvish choices coincide with those most liked by the > gods. In what way are the Elves a meritocracy? The Silmarillion, and for that matter the massive "History of Middle-earth," are silent on how the three original Elven-Kings were chosen from those who awakened at Cuivienen, and all the kings who followed are their descendants in one direct line or another. > The dwarves claim to be hereditary from the original 7 dwarves, and > seem to be largely ignored by any except Aule, which seems to be the > god that the bad guys in LOTR come from (Saruman, Sauron) Again, there are seven original Dwarves who are created directly by Aule and ensouled by Eru; their descendants become the kings of the Dwarves in later days. Sounds like a divinely-chosen lot to me. It's interesting, by the way, that there are three original Elf-kings, three Elf-rings, seven original Dwarf-kings, and seven Dwarf-rings. This implies that there are originally nine Kings or clans of Men, but by the time Men came out of the East they didn't talk about their past. ``` Dan'l Danehy-Oakes ``` --- ### Jerry Friedman *20 Mar 2009, 04:04 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* > --- On Thu, 3/19/09, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:20 PM, John Watkins > wrote: >> Agreed...but this is in the context of a discussion of >> Tolkien's work. Well, I think Wolfe would have said the same thing about his early training in any other context. >> Tolkien veers between a benign anarchism (The Shire) >> and divinely-appointed >> or at least divinely-sanctioned kings. It seems then >> that "good government" >> is holy or ideal government--government by the best >> (in the sense of "most moral") people. I am by no means sure that "best" means "most moral" (though it would be a big part of it for me). In line also with what people have been saying about false gods being a way to the true one, Wolfe seems to emphasize some other concept of "better", and the importance of regarding one's betters with respect if not reverence. In TBotLS, Silk reveres the false gods of the Whorl, though most or all are incomparably inferior to him morally, and if I'm reading it right, Wolfe sees this as a good thing, maybe because it makes him capable of reverence for the Outsider. Likewise in /The Knight/, Able kneels to Michael, but in /The Wizard/ he says Michael is good as a good blade is good (Chapter 23), not morally good. To get back to government, this seems parallel to me to the idea of respect for one's betters, such as divinely appointed kings--and they're appointed by heredity, not merit, even in Middle-Earth. (Aragorn is a coincidence of ancestry and merit, fortunate but not fortuitous.) I think it's clear in the history of Gondor that rebelling against even a bad king is bad. Even Paladin Took is "the right Thain" for no reason but ancestry. And Sam treats Frodo with deference if not painful obsequiousness even in Mordor, when Frodo isn't his employer and Sam has borne the Ring. I think this is similar to the obedience to legitimate authority that Wolfe was brought up with. His heroes are very reluctant to rebel against authority, though they sometimes do. Wolfe didn't say "admirable authority"; he said "legitimate", a word used for properly descended monarchs. > However, the point is made at least once (by Aragorn), and > so Gene "I hate > it when they repeat things" Wolfe is bound to have > noticed, that the "benign > anarchism" of the Shire is permitted to exist only > because of the labors of > the Rangers, i.e., the King and his followers. Tolkien > doesn't really "veer," > he's definitely in the "divinely-appointed King" camp. Though Aragorn makes the Shire free of his kingdom, taking on responsibility without authority.) If that's such a reward, why doesn't he confer it on the provinces of Gondor that fought so bravely?) If Wolfe noticed that, maybe he also noticed one of the few things we learn about the governance of the Shire, namely that the farmers between Stock and Rushey acknowledged the authority of the Master of Brandy Hall (Book 1, Ch. 5)--because he's the Master, apparently, not because he's wise or impartial. This is not quite anarchism, by the way. And authority in what? Did he arbitrate their disputes? What happened when someone who accepted his authority had a dispute with someone who accepted that of the Mayor or the Thain? Also not anarchism: the hobbits seem to like complicated formality in their contracts and such, which suggests complicated laws. This would be quite different from the "few and just" laws that "The Best Introduction to the Mountains" promises us. But one of the odd features of that essay is how little overlap there is between the societies of Northern Europe between AD 400 and 1000 as he describes them, the "Free" societies of LotR, and his utopian future for us. Jerry Friedman --- ### Jeff Wilson *20 Mar 2009, 04:45 · in reply to Tim Walters* > Tim Walters wrote: > Jeff Wilson wrote: >> then "Less than half the per capita gun ownership of the U.S." can't >> be true > Guns per capita, U.S.: 0.9 (my original link, > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_countries_by_gun_ownership) > > Guns per capita, Switzerland, including Army guns in private homes: 0.4 > (high figure from your link) > > Guns per capita, Switzerland, presumably including Army guns in private > homes: 0.46 (from my original link again--slightly more than half, my bad) > > What part of this can't be true? > > Maybe you're thinking of "gun owners per capita" rather than "guns per > capita"? The former would also be interesting info, but I don't know if > anyone's measured it, and I don't have time to look right now. I think that may be it. A better metric might be "percentage of people with access to firearms", counting everyone in a household with at least one firearm available, even if it belongs to the Swiss Army or the city PD. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### Jeff Wilson *21 Mar 2009, 01:02 · in reply to Matthew Groves* > Matthew Groves wrote: > I've been puzzling over this passage in Claw, Jonas and Severian are > in the Antechamber and Jonas is wigging out. I don't know the history > Jonas is talking about, and I wonder if it sheds any light on Wolfe's > views on monarchy and democracy. > > "Hereditary rulers and hereditary subordinates, and all sorts of > strange officials. Lancers with long, white mustaches." For an instant > the ghost of his old humorous smile appeared. "The White Knight is > sliding down the poker. He balances very badly, as the King's notebook > told him." The last bit references Lewis Carroll's _Through the Looking Glass_, which could be taken as a criticism of class society. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### Adam Thornton *21 Mar 2009, 02:17 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* > On Mar 20, 2009, at 8:02 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote: > Matthew Groves wrote: >> I've been puzzling over this passage in Claw, Jonas and Severian are >> in the Antechamber and Jonas is wigging out. I don't know the >> history >> Jonas is talking about, and I wonder if it sheds any light on Wolfe's >> views on monarchy and democracy. >> "Hereditary rulers and hereditary subordinates, and all sorts of >> strange officials. Lancers with long, white mustaches." For an >> instant >> the ghost of his old humorous smile appeared. "The White Knight is >> sliding down the poker. He balances very badly, as the King's >> notebook >> told him." > The last bit references Lewis Carroll's _Through the Looking Glass_, > which could be taken as a criticism of class society. Or of, you know, strange magic to do with traveling through mirrors. Adam --- ### David Stockhoff *21 Mar 2009, 02:38 · follows Adam Thornton* Chapter 1 of Through the Looking Glass. According to Peter Wright, there's a "reference" in that chapter to BotNS, but he doesn't say what it is. I assume it's simply the matter of Alice's travel through mirrors. The King's notebook wrote this because Alice was holding the pencil and for some reason wished to make this observation. She's watching chessmen in the fireplace on the other side of the mirror. > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:02:55 -0500 > From: Jeff Wilson > Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe > To: The Urth Mailing List > Message-ID: <49C43CBF.10003 at io.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Matthew Groves wrote: >> I've been puzzling over this passage in Claw, Jonas and Severian are >> in the Antechamber and Jonas is wigging out. I don't know the history >> Jonas is talking about, and I wonder if it sheds any light on Wolfe's >> views on monarchy and democracy. >> >> "Hereditary rulers and hereditary subordinates, and all sorts of >> strange officials. Lancers with long, white mustaches." For an instant >> the ghost of his old humorous smile appeared. "The White Knight is >> sliding down the poker. He balances very badly, as the King's notebook >> told him." > > > The last bit references Lewis Carroll's _Through the Looking Glass_, > which could be taken as a criticism of class society. > > -- Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > > ------------------------------ --- ### Jeff Wilson *21 Mar 2009, 06:07 · in reply to Adam Thornton* > Adam Thornton wrote: > > On Mar 20, 2009, at 8:02 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote: >> Matthew Groves wrote: >>> I've been puzzling over this passage in Claw, Jonas and Severian are >>> in the Antechamber and Jonas is wigging out. I don't know the history >>> Jonas is talking about, and I wonder if it sheds any light on Wolfe's >>> views on monarchy and democracy. >>> "Hereditary rulers and hereditary subordinates, and all sorts of >>> strange officials. Lancers with long, white mustaches." For an instant >>> the ghost of his old humorous smile appeared. "The White Knight is >>> sliding down the poker. He balances very badly, as the King's notebook >>> told him." >> The last bit references Lewis Carroll's _Through the Looking Glass_, >> which could be taken as a criticism of class society. > Or of, you know, strange magic to do with traveling through mirrors. that's kind of hard to politicize tho ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### James Wynn *21 Mar 2009, 14:42 · in reply to Son of Witz* > Witz: You know, I was disappointed at the fact that > Katie Sackhoff came across like a bimbo. Dang. What a wilter. > Stuart Hamm: Most of them seemed to be revealed > as self absorbed LA actors Well, Witz. They didn't really explain any of the big mysteries here except one: "Did the writers have any idea what were the answers to the puzzles and weirdo-visions they've been posing over the last 4 years?" "no" (Also it's 3 hours were padded with at least an hour and a half of self-indulgent "Grey's Anatomy" gunk. My wife said "What happened to Starbuck? All they've got here is Katie Sackhoff".) J. --- ### Son of Witz *21 Mar 2009, 15:32 · in reply to James Wynn* > On Mar 21, 2009, at 7:42 AM, James Wynn wrote: > > Well, Witz. > > They didn't really explain any of the big mysteries here except one: > > "Did the writers have any idea what were the answers to the puzzles > and weirdo-visions they've > been posing over the last 4 years?" > > "no" > > (Also it's 3 hours were padded with at least an hour and a half of > self-indulgent "Grey's Anatomy" gunk. My wife said "What happened to > Starbuck? All they've got here is Katie Sackhoff".) > > J. Wow. I'm not sure I could disagree more. [complete spoilitude follows] my big questions were answered, and most threads were resolved, even if pat TV answers weren't given. Maybe Wolfe has conditioned me to get less confirmation. the biggest unresolved issue, to me is "they have a plan" well, what was it. the thing ended up exactly where I'd been hoping and suspecting, a merger of the biological beings, a new humanity, a separation from centurions, a new Home on Earth, a clean slate. So, whatever the plan was, even if it was demonic, it's fruit was what I'd hoped for, and as the story seems to indicate, as God intended. hmm. where have I seen that before. SF Quasi-Angelic eugenics plan for bettering humanity and an apocatastasis for humanity, and cyclical iterations of Earth, and cyclical iterations of humanity creating beings that think they're better who put humanity through the crucible? Gods plans working through flawed and evil beings? Survivors of a ship landing on a new earth and going native? It all seems VERY New Sun to me. Starbuck is an angelic eidolon of sorts. What else could she be? It begs the question of who resurrects and how? but I'm okay with the delicious ambiguity there. this is as resolved as I need it to be. my wife disagrees. The "big reveal" was her disappearance. Wouldn't angel wings or dialogue have been cheesy? My wife would want me to hedge that with the questions of why she had that role, why she had that song? I'm okay with it. There was enough early prophesy with her finding the arrow, with her as the angelic masthead for Adama's boat. "Harbinger of Doom" is problematic. But again, as we've argued on the list, an clean slate reset is often seen as doom, even though it's a rebirth. Astral 6 & Astral Gaius as angelic guides. One of my biggest questions was Why Baltar? You knew he had a higher destiny all along. leave it to our most morally and ethically confused fence-straddler to be able to voice the call for peace when it really frakking mattered. being called a fence straddler all my life, I can REALLY relate to this. My other biggest question was where Our Earth and Our Humanity fit in. Great answers in that dept. Operah house has been going on since what, season 2? people kept saying they'd dropped the ball. I beg to differ. A good example of the fact that they did know where they were going. I think there is enough on display to see that they knew who it would end. it was all the threads beginning to end that they wove together as they went. oh, also I loved all the Caprica story arc resolutions, especially Roslin. She'd had enough frivolous fun, sleeping with her student. She decides to commit to a campaign "All the way to the end". Boomer promising Adama that she'd pay back the favor when it really mattered. Ellen just wants to be with Saul, no matter where or how destitute. Oh. Lee and Starbuck on the table. brother: "Somethings broken..." Cavil's cop out was even ok, if a little easy. He went against all of his petty issues and made a truce in the name of his peoples survival. He doesn't seem to want to stay around to see it, or see it fall apart. but he killed himself instead of killing the truce. funny bit with Gaelin going north. wonder if his strain evolves into the Gaelic peoples... Pure gold. I don't suppose I could have been happier with it. I laughed my ass off at how perfect it all was. manaically cackling in fact. so much fun. thanks again Jordon Flato for turning me onto Gene Wolfe and Battlestar Gallactica. I owe you two. maybe three when I crack that Gurdjieff book you gifted me. spectacularly frakking awesome. ~witz --- ### James Wynn *21 Mar 2009, 20:56 · in reply to Son of Witz* Here there be spoilers. > my big questions were answered, and most threads were resolved, even if > pat TV answers weren't given. Maybe Wolfe has conditioned me to get less > confirmation. The thing about the unresolved questions in Wolfe's stories is that even though he does not always leave a decent trail of breadcrumbs that someone can answer all his riddles beyond any doubt, I still believe he knows what they are when he writes them. I am not convinced (and very much doubt) that the writers of BSG had these particular resolutions to the visions in mind when they wrote them or any resolution at all. I think they decided at the end to have a final showdown in the C&C room and so formed it to vaguely fit the visions. The question left open was "Why did this need a vision?" It didn't. If God could arrange a race on far-away planet have DNA compatible with the colonists, then He didn't need that song and dance to get Hera to the Bridge. It was a big build-up for very little pay-off. The resolutions that worked--like arriving at Earth in the distant past (or distant future)-- were the ones that one might have guessed were inevitable (as you implied). No surprise there, really. The moralizing at the end from astral Baltar and Six made me wretch. I think they painted themselves into a serious corner with Baltar. Every possible clue suggested he was a Cylon being manipulated by some big Cylon-in-the-Sky but the writers seemed to say "That's too obvious, lets just say God is doing it." With Starbuck, I don't think they could decide *what* to do with her. They labeled her the "Harbinger of Doom" hoping to deliver on that promise later. They didn't. If anyone fits that shoe, it is Hera, who led to the Doom of the recalcitrant Cylons. Wolfe has no problem with involving the Increate or Outsider in his stories, but in all cases He works his plans through rational events, and, when he acts directly (ala Outsider), Wolfe makes him a character in the story who can explain Himself and His motives. There's none of that in BSG, because, I presume, they find the idea of a rational, "actual" God to be a little quaint. So when they tell a story where such a Person exists, he ends up cartoony and quaint. For a believer in such a God (a God who is *actually* there), I think the presentation BSG God ("whether it is God or gods blah blah blah God is force of nature") is a rather contemptible thing, reflecting the condescension felt by the writers toward such a belief. If agnostics do stuff like this, they need to be as deft as Arthur C. Clark or else avoid it entirely. Ultimately, for the writers, God is just some mystical crap that lets them throw pixie dust in the audience's eyes to build intrigue and then, later, weasel out the corners into which they've painted themselves. It's the worst sort of Deus ex Machina. You liked the Caprica flashbacks. I didn't. So I won't pick at them for being put in there at all. But they did not move the current narrative forward or add anything to it. The first hour, moved the story forward barely at all. Whatever advancement occurred would have been part of the first 10 minutes of a good, tight, engaging episode which is what one expects from a finale. I felt truly offended by it, as though I'd paid a dollar to see a unicorn and only saw a goat with a baseball bat tied to his head. A good series will often have episodes like that as transitional points to provide exposition for an up-coming episode. Obviously, that wasn't the intent in this case. Wolfe might go on for a couple pages about the symbolism of a coin, but it does mean something to his over-all theme. It is in itself a clue. I will pick on one of the flashbacks, I guess. The scene with Apollo and Starbuck did not make either of them look very good. Obviously Apollo's brother made a mistake leaving his fianc? alone with liquor and a spare penis. Hmm...Roslin came off looking like a pretty cold cookie as well. She could have at least put $50 in the guy's pocket. Its not like Wolfe's protagonists always behave so admirably either, but when Sev takes advantage of the passed out Jolenta, no one imagines it to be a meaningful step in his personal development. As for the issues of making peace, well, they *did* have their big (and quite expected) show-down battle with the Cylons where they totally wipe out their enemies so they can go forward with "a clean slate". That is a logical step to my thinking, but it is not exactly what seemed to be promised. J. --- ### Jeff Wilson *21 Mar 2009, 22:38 · in reply to Son of Witz* > Son of Witz wrote: > [complete spoilitude follows] > > my big questions were answered, and most threads were resolved, even if > pat TV answers weren't given. Maybe Wolfe has conditioned me to get less > confirmation. > the biggest unresolved issue, to me is "they have a plan" well, what > was it. > > the thing ended up exactly where I'd been hoping and suspecting, a > merger of the biological beings, a new humanity, a separation from > centurions, a new Home on Earth, a clean slate. So, whatever the plan > was, even if it was demonic, it's fruit was what I'd hoped for, and as > the story seems to indicate, as God intended. > > hmm. where have I seen that before. SF Quasi-Angelic eugenics plan for > bettering humanity and an apocatastasis for humanity, and cyclical > iterations of Earth, and cyclical iterations of humanity creating beings > that think they're better who put humanity through the crucible? Gods > plans working through flawed and evil beings? Survivors of a ship > landing on a new earth and going native? > It all seems VERY New Sun to me. > > Starbuck is an angelic eidolon of sorts. What else could she be? It > begs the question of who resurrects and how? but I'm okay with the > delicious ambiguity there. The exceptional thing is that it happened at least _twice_; there was no way for the "first" Starbuck's corpse and wreckage to have gotten from the gas giant to Earth. I think this also hints that the the disappeared Starbuck *went* somewhere instead of dissipated. Unfortunately, she is not shown in the epilogue. > this is as resolved as I need it to be. my wife disagrees. The "big > reveal" was her disappearance. Wouldn't angel wings or dialogue have > been cheesy? > My wife would want me to hedge that with the questions of why she had > that role, why she had that song? I'm okay with it. There was enough > early prophesy with her finding the arrow, with her as the angelic > masthead for Adama's boat. "Harbinger of Doom" is problematic. But > again, as we've argued on the list, an clean slate reset is often seen > as doom, even though it's a rebirth. Harbinger of _death_. Which could refer to he prowess as a warrior, or that anyone she shacks up with end up untimely dead? > Operah house has been going on since what, season 2? people kept saying > they'd dropped the ball. I beg to differ. A good example of the fact > that they did know where they were going. I think there is enough on > display to see that they knew who it would end. it was all the threads > beginning to end that they wove together as they went. You made a typo there, that "who" was better known than "what" - but the real murkiness was what the Cylon's plot could possibly be - and we still really don't have a good idea of what rational plan "John" could have had that would have attracted the participation of the less insane skinjobs. > Cavil's cop out was even ok, if a little easy. He went against all of > his petty issues and made a truce in the name of his peoples survival. > He doesn't seem to want to stay around to see it, or see it fall apart. > but he killed himself instead of killing the truce. Did we watch the same show? The truce with Cavil's people ended before he killed himself. > funny bit with Gaelin going north. > wonder if his strain evolves into the Gaelic peoples... a lone, sterile cylon skinjob on an island with no people? ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### Jeremy Francis *22 Mar 2009, 04:10 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* I rarely weigh in on anything on this list but may I share my disgust with that ending. It was essentially two hours of "Oh, shit, I've backed myself into a corner. How do I get out?" This leads to some of the more absurd elements of the episode - the first of which was when Cavil consented to some sort of treaty based on Gaius' "I see angels!" statement, followed by Lee's "Atavism for all, enjoy copulating with the mud-smeared natives; alternatively, contract diseases we'll have no hope of curing," head angel Kara (who could still fly a Viper and could be seen by all), the shoe-horned opera "explanation", and the dancing robot montage. Not to mention so many people being willing to die to save one half-Cylon little girl. Might I say that the "God" in the BSG universe is pretty stupid - so, you can send new people, who fly real (apparently) Vipers, and the best means of getting humanity to where they're going is to have Kara remember the coordinates when she's standing right in front of the FTL console? "God did it" or "magic did it" out of nowhere is considered a lazy explanation for a reason. Though, to be honest, I found "Time to split up, with few supplies, and not even try to create a civilisation" even more ridiculous. I can imagine the fleet members: "I'm a mechanic. What the hell do I know about being a hunter-gatherer? Is it too late to side with Gaeta?" Aspiring TV writers: this is why you plan what you're going to write, at least in general detail, at the start of your series. See: Carnivale, Babylon 5, or even Deep Space 9 (which, while not as good as the others, was fairly cogent). I've thought since they found the "real" Earth that there was no convincing way to end this series, and I was right. At least we got Cavil blowing his brains out, Baltar's "I know a bit about farming", and Roslin's death, which were all very effective/awesome scenes. Oh, silly Adama, you can't marry a corpse. -----Original Message----- From: urth-bounces at lists.urth.net [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Jeff Wilson Sent: Sunday, 22 March 2009 7:39 AM To: The Urth Mailing List Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler > Son of Witz wrote: > [complete spoilitude follows] > > my big questions were answered, and most threads were resolved, even if > pat TV answers weren't given. Maybe Wolfe has conditioned me to get less > confirmation. > the biggest unresolved issue, to me is "they have a plan" well, what > was it. > > the thing ended up exactly where I'd been hoping and suspecting, a > merger of the biological beings, a new humanity, a separation from > centurions, a new Home on Earth, a clean slate. So, whatever the plan > was, even if it was demonic, it's fruit was what I'd hoped for, and as > the story seems to indicate, as God intended. > > hmm. where have I seen that before. SF Quasi-Angelic eugenics plan for > bettering humanity and an apocatastasis for humanity, and cyclical > iterations of Earth, and cyclical iterations of humanity creating beings > that think they're better who put humanity through the crucible? Gods > plans working through flawed and evil beings? Survivors of a ship > landing on a new earth and going native? > It all seems VERY New Sun to me. > > Starbuck is an angelic eidolon of sorts. What else could she be? It > begs the question of who resurrects and how? but I'm okay with the > delicious ambiguity there. The exceptional thing is that it happened at least _twice_; there was no way for the "first" Starbuck's corpse and wreckage to have gotten from the gas giant to Earth. I think this also hints that the the disappeared Starbuck *went* somewhere instead of dissipated. Unfortunately, she is not shown in the epilogue. > this is as resolved as I need it to be. my wife disagrees. The "big > reveal" was her disappearance. Wouldn't angel wings or dialogue have > been cheesy? > My wife would want me to hedge that with the questions of why she had > that role, why she had that song? I'm okay with it. There was enough > early prophesy with her finding the arrow, with her as the angelic > masthead for Adama's boat. "Harbinger of Doom" is problematic. But > again, as we've argued on the list, an clean slate reset is often seen > as doom, even though it's a rebirth. Harbinger of _death_. Which could refer to he prowess as a warrior, or that anyone she shacks up with end up untimely dead? > Operah house has been going on since what, season 2? people kept saying > they'd dropped the ball. I beg to differ. A good example of the fact > that they did know where they were going. I think there is enough on > display to see that they knew who it would end. it was all the threads > beginning to end that they wove together as they went. You made a typo there, that "who" was better known than "what" - but the real murkiness was what the Cylon's plot could possibly be - and we still really don't have a good idea of what rational plan "John" could have had that would have attracted the participation of the less insane skinjobs. > Cavil's cop out was even ok, if a little easy. He went against all of > his petty issues and made a truce in the name of his peoples survival. > He doesn't seem to want to stay around to see it, or see it fall apart. > but he killed himself instead of killing the truce. Did we watch the same show? The truce with Cavil's people ended before he killed himself. > funny bit with Gaelin going north. > wonder if his strain evolves into the Gaelic peoples... a lone, sterile cylon skinjob on an island with no people? ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### Son of Witz *22 Mar 2009, 04:28 · in reply to Jeremy Francis* haha. you and Wynn are both totally right. I still enjoyed the hell out of it. I suppose I didn't have such expectations. and well, I was also a little drinky when I watched it, so maybe that colored my vision. my basic expectation of the thing all along was that it would suck. I don't watch much tv, and had expectations of stuff like Star Gate and Star Trek (which I can't bear to watch) when I came to this thing. So, that the show even went into any of that sort of territory was pretty damn awesome to me. so, expecting shit, and getting, say platinum, if not gold, is a good run I think. I guess to you sci fi buffs it's a fallen promise or something. I'm curious to know what this next revers POV thing will be. Will we get the plan? >> Cavil's cop out was even ok, if a little easy. He went against all >> of his petty issues and made a truce in the name of his peoples >> survival. He doesn't seem to want to stay around to see it, or see >> it fall apart. but he killed himself instead of killing the truce. > Did we watch the same show? The truce with Cavil's people ended > before he killed himself. oh yeah, I wasn't clear on that. I thought that the war was still over and the fighting was contained to CIC after Gaelin killed (?) ~witz > On Mar 21, 2009, at 9:10 PM, Jeremy Francis wrote: > I rarely weigh in on anything on this list but may I share my > disgust with > that ending. It was essentially two hours of "Oh, shit, I've backed > myself > into a corner. How do I get out?" This leads to some of the more > absurd > elements of the episode - the first of which was when Cavil > consented to > some sort of treaty based on Gaius' "I see angels!" statement, > followed by > Lee's "Atavism for all, enjoy copulating with the mud-smeared natives; > alternatively, contract diseases we'll have no hope of curing," head > angel > Kara (who could still fly a Viper and could be seen by all), the > shoe-horned > opera "explanation", and the dancing robot montage. Not to mention > so many > people being willing to die to save one half-Cylon little girl. > Might I say > that the "God" in the BSG universe is pretty stupid - so, you can > send new > people, who fly real (apparently) Vipers, and the best means of > getting > humanity to where they're going is to have Kara remember the > coordinates > when she's standing right in front of the FTL console? > > "God did it" or "magic did it" out of nowhere is considered a lazy > explanation for a reason. Though, to be honest, I found "Time to > split up, > with few supplies, and not even try to create a civilisation" even > more > ridiculous. I can imagine the fleet members: "I'm a mechanic. What > the > hell do I know about being a hunter-gatherer? Is it too late to > side with > Gaeta?" > Aspiring TV writers: this is why you plan what you're going to > write, at > least in general detail, at the start of your series. See: Carnivale, > Babylon 5, or even Deep Space 9 (which, while not as good as the > others, was > fairly cogent). I've thought since they found the "real" Earth that > there > was no convincing way to end this series, and I was right. > > At least we got Cavil blowing his brains out, Baltar's "I know a bit > about > farming", and Roslin's death, which were all very effective/awesome > scenes. > Oh, silly Adama, you can't marry a corpse. > > -----Original Message----- > From: urth-bounces at lists.urth.net [mailto:urth- > bounces at lists.urth.net] On > Behalf Of Jeff Wilson > Sent: Sunday, 22 March 2009 7:39 AM > To: The Urth Mailing List > Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler > > Son of Witz wrote: >> [complete spoilitude follows] >> >> my big questions were answered, and most threads were resolved, >> even if >> pat TV answers weren't given. Maybe Wolfe has conditioned me to get >> less >> confirmation. >> the biggest unresolved issue, to me is "they have a plan" well, what >> was it. >> >> the thing ended up exactly where I'd been hoping and suspecting, a >> merger of the biological beings, a new humanity, a separation from >> centurions, a new Home on Earth, a clean slate. So, whatever the >> plan >> was, even if it was demonic, it's fruit was what I'd hoped for, and >> as >> the story seems to indicate, as God intended. >> >> hmm. where have I seen that before. SF Quasi-Angelic eugenics plan >> for >> bettering humanity and an apocatastasis for humanity, and cyclical >> iterations of Earth, and cyclical iterations of humanity creating >> beings >> that think they're better who put humanity through the crucible? >> Gods >> plans working through flawed and evil beings? Survivors of a ship >> landing on a new earth and going native? >> It all seems VERY New Sun to me. >> >> Starbuck is an angelic eidolon of sorts. What else could she be? It >> begs the question of who resurrects and how? but I'm okay with the >> delicious ambiguity there. > The exceptional thing is that it happened at least _twice_; there > was no > way for the "first" Starbuck's corpse and wreckage to have gotten from > the gas giant to Earth. I think this also hints that the the > disappeared > Starbuck *went* somewhere instead of dissipated. Unfortunately, she is > not shown in the epilogue. >> this is as resolved as I need it to be. my wife disagrees. The "big >> reveal" was her disappearance. Wouldn't angel wings or dialogue >> have >> been cheesy? >> My wife would want me to hedge that with the questions of why she had >> that role, why she had that song? I'm okay with it. There was enough >> early prophesy with her finding the arrow, with her as the angelic >> masthead for Adama's boat. "Harbinger of Doom" is problematic. But >> again, as we've argued on the list, an clean slate reset is often >> seen >> as doom, even though it's a rebirth. > Harbinger of _death_. Which could refer to he prowess as a warrior, > or > that anyone she shacks up with end up untimely dead? >> Operah house has been going on since what, season 2? people kept >> saying >> they'd dropped the ball. I beg to differ. A good example of the >> fact >> that they did know where they were going. I think there is enough on >> display to see that they knew who it would end. it was all the >> threads >> beginning to end that they wove together as they went. > You made a typo there, that "who" was better known than "what" - but > the > real murkiness was what the Cylon's plot could possibly be - and we > still really don't have a good idea of what rational plan "John" could > have had that would have attracted the participation of the less > insane > skinjobs. >> Cavil's cop out was even ok, if a little easy. He went against all of >> his petty issues and made a truce in the name of his peoples >> survival. >> He doesn't seem to want to stay around to see it, or see it fall >> apart. >> but he killed himself instead of killing the truce. > Did we watch the same show? The truce with Cavil's people ended before > he killed himself. >> funny bit with Gaelin going north. >> wonder if his strain evolves into the Gaelic peoples... > a lone, sterile cylon skinjob on an island with no people? > > -- > Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com > < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Jeff Wilson *22 Mar 2009, 05:24 · in reply to Jeremy Francis* > Jeremy Francis wrote: > I rarely weigh in on anything on this list but may I share my disgust with > that ending. It was essentially two hours of "Oh, shit, I've backed myself > into a corner. How do I get out?" This leads to some of the more absurd > elements of the episode - the first of which was when Cavil consented to > some sort of treaty based on Gaius' "I see angels!" statement I don't see a problem with cult leader Baltaar manipulating Cavil's similar religious beliefs. > followed by > Lee's "Atavism for all, enjoy copulating with the mud-smeared natives; > alternatively, contract diseases we'll have no hope of curing," He mentions giving the best part of themselves, and we know they are already limited by existing medical supplies, so I don't think there's much of a choice as far as accepting diseases are concerned. > head angel > Kara (who could still fly a Viper and could be seen by all), the shoe-horned > opera "explanation", and the dancing robot montage. Not to mention so many > people being willing to die to save one half-Cylon little girl. Might I say > that the "God" in the BSG universe is pretty stupid - so, you can send new > people, who fly real (apparently) Vipers, and the best means of getting > humanity to where they're going is to have Kara remember the coordinates > when she's standing right in front of the FTL console? Kara needed to be physical and "real" enough to guide the fleet, the FLT coordinates were more of the same. Hera's purpose was to unite the races. The volunteers doubtless had many motivations, but the mission to save Hera was also guaranteed to indulge any wishes to kill lots and lots of Cylons. > "God did it" or "magic did it" out of nowhere is considered a lazy > explanation for a reason. Though, to be honest, I found "Time to split up, > with few supplies, and not even try to create a civilisation" even more > ridiculous. I can imagine the fleet members: "I'm a mechanic. What the > hell do I know about being a hunter-gatherer? Is it too late to side with > Gaeta?" Everyone (except the Cylons) had already had experience with roughing it from the settlement of New Caprica. > At least we got Cavil blowing his brains out, Baltar's "I know a bit about > farming", and Roslin's death, which were all very effective/awesome scenes. > Oh, silly Adama, you can't marry a corpse. ? They were married shortly before the mutiny. The cabin and garden thing was a recap of their plans from during the settlement of New Caprica. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### Jeff Wilson *22 Mar 2009, 07:13 · in reply to Son of Witz* > Son of Witz wrote: > my basic expectation of the thing all along was that it would suck. I > don't watch much tv, and had expectations of stuff like Star Gate and > Star Trek (which I can't bear to watch) when I came to this thing. SG-1 actually has some depth to it, but I agree there is sometimes a lot off dross to pan through to find it. > So, that the show even went into any of that sort of territory was > pretty damn awesome to me. so, expecting shit, and getting, say > platinum, if not gold, is a good run I think. > I guess to you sci fi buffs it's a fallen promise or something. Oh absolutely! I didn't watch the first couple of seasons because the promotion seemed to emphasize a T&A "charlie's angels in space" look - it turned out to be much deeper than that. > I'm curious to know what this next revers POV thing will be. Will we get > the plan? it's subtitled "the Plan" so we damn well better! ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### Jeremy Francis *22 Mar 2009, 07:32 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* Cavil was pretty irreligious. "I want to SMELL dark matter! Screw you, mum!" I'm also pretty sure forming a settlement would have been far more efficient than splitting up. Specialisation of labour, economies of scale, and all that. There is a wide gulf between having to rough it in a Dark Age era settlement and being a hunter-gatherer, and I doubt they would have slipped that far in terms of technology had they set up a city. And as to their marriage, I was just being facetious. I found that to be a really touching character moment. I thought the finale had many good character moments, but the plot was weak. -----Original Message----- From: urth-bounces at lists.urth.net [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Jeff Wilson Sent: Sunday, 22 March 2009 2:24 PM To: The Urth Mailing List Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler > Jeremy Francis wrote: > I rarely weigh in on anything on this list but may I share my disgust with > that ending. It was essentially two hours of "Oh, shit, I've backed > myself > into a corner. How do I get out?" This leads to some of the more absurd > elements of the episode - the first of which was when Cavil consented to > some sort of treaty based on Gaius' "I see angels!" statement I don't see a problem with cult leader Baltaar manipulating Cavil's similar religious beliefs. > followed by > Lee's "Atavism for all, enjoy copulating with the mud-smeared natives; > alternatively, contract diseases we'll have no hope of curing," He mentions giving the best part of themselves, and we know they are already limited by existing medical supplies, so I don't think there's much of a choice as far as accepting diseases are concerned. > head angel > Kara (who could still fly a Viper and could be seen by all), the > shoe-horned > opera "explanation", and the dancing robot montage. Not to mention so > many > people being willing to die to save one half-Cylon little girl. Might I > say > that the "God" in the BSG universe is pretty stupid - so, you can send new > people, who fly real (apparently) Vipers, and the best means of getting > humanity to where they're going is to have Kara remember the coordinates > when she's standing right in front of the FTL console? Kara needed to be physical and "real" enough to guide the fleet, the FLT coordinates were more of the same. Hera's purpose was to unite the races. The volunteers doubtless had many motivations, but the mission to save Hera was also guaranteed to indulge any wishes to kill lots and lots of Cylons. > "God did it" or "magic did it" out of nowhere is considered a lazy > explanation for a reason. Though, to be honest, I found "Time to split > up, > with few supplies, and not even try to create a civilisation" even more > ridiculous. I can imagine the fleet members: "I'm a mechanic. What the > hell do I know about being a hunter-gatherer? Is it too late to side with > Gaeta?" Everyone (except the Cylons) had already had experience with roughing it from the settlement of New Caprica. > At least we got Cavil blowing his brains out, Baltar's "I know a bit about > farming", and Roslin's death, which were all very effective/awesome > scenes. > Oh, silly Adama, you can't marry a corpse. ? They were married shortly before the mutiny. The cabin and garden thing was a recap of their plans from during the settlement of New Caprica. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### Jeff Wilson *22 Mar 2009, 08:18 · in reply to Jeremy Francis* > Jeremy Francis wrote: > Cavil was pretty irreligious. "I want to SMELL dark matter! Screw you, > mum!" He had numerous scenes justifying his decisions on religious grounds to the other models. Even if he was cynically manipulating *their* beliefs, that doesn't mean he can't have second thoughts when he is forced to question why things keep going wrong despite his superior forces and intellect. Not to mention he had Baltaar under continuous supervision for as long as a year and there must have been a few "talking to angels" moments on record, possibly including some traces of the few times Angel Six would move him or an object physically. > I'm also pretty sure forming a settlement would have been far more efficient > than splitting up. Specialisation of labour, economies of scale, and all > that. There is a wide gulf between having to rough it in a Dark Age era > settlement and being a hunter-gatherer, and I doubt they would have slipped > that far in terms of technology had they set up a city. If they pick out the best garden spots from around the world, they can have fairly pleasant living with minimal effort, and be safe from any single natural disaster or political upheaval. I think ditching all the ships into sun was a mistake, as many of them were capable of landing and serving as wonderful shelters, but maybe Lee was able to talk them out of keeping anything worth fighting over - and after 5-6 years of war, an offer of "exchange hellholes like the Tyllium refinery ship for Hawaii" would be easy to sell by the man who got Baltaar acquitted. > And as to their marriage, I was just being facetious. I found that to be a > really touching character moment. I thought the finale had many good > character moments, but the plot was weak. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### Jeremy Francis *22 Mar 2009, 08:53 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* I think you underestimate the hardship of a subsistence lifestyle, no matter the fertility of the area you reside in and cultivate. I doubt they had any seed onboard, wild strains tend to be very difficult to cultivate successfully; spreading over the globe they would also be insuring that there would be no skills sharing so that successful farmers could teach the unsuccessful... Their physical capital would have been non-existent, I might add. Enjoy trying to build a farm with naught but your hands and a few basic supplies. Basically, I'm pretty sure a death sentence was decreed on most of the survivors by going the route they did. Even short of that, it would be a miserable, short existence. This is all assuming one of the local diseases, which the survivors would have had no immunity to, doesn't kill you off. -----Original Message----- From: urth-bounces at lists.urth.net [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Jeff Wilson Sent: Sunday, 22 March 2009 5:18 PM To: The Urth Mailing List Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler > Jeremy Francis wrote: > Cavil was pretty irreligious. "I want to SMELL dark matter! Screw you, > mum!" He had numerous scenes justifying his decisions on religious grounds to the other models. Even if he was cynically manipulating *their* beliefs, that doesn't mean he can't have second thoughts when he is forced to question why things keep going wrong despite his superior forces and intellect. Not to mention he had Baltaar under continuous supervision for as long as a year and there must have been a few "talking to angels" moments on record, possibly including some traces of the few times Angel Six would move him or an object physically. > I'm also pretty sure forming a settlement would have been far more > efficient > than splitting up. Specialisation of labour, economies of scale, and all > that. There is a wide gulf between having to rough it in a Dark Age era > settlement and being a hunter-gatherer, and I doubt they would have > slipped > that far in terms of technology had they set up a city. If they pick out the best garden spots from around the world, they can have fairly pleasant living with minimal effort, and be safe from any single natural disaster or political upheaval. I think ditching all the ships into sun was a mistake, as many of them were capable of landing and serving as wonderful shelters, but maybe Lee was able to talk them out of keeping anything worth fighting over - and after 5-6 years of war, an offer of "exchange hellholes like the Tyllium refinery ship for Hawaii" would be easy to sell by the man who got Baltaar acquitted. > And as to their marriage, I was just being facetious. I found that to be > a > really touching character moment. I thought the finale had many good > character moments, but the plot was weak. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### Jeff Wilson *22 Mar 2009, 09:40 · in reply to Jeremy Francis* > Jeremy Francis wrote: > I think you underestimate the hardship of a subsistence lifestyle, no matter > the fertility of the area you reside in and cultivate. I doubt they had any > seed onboard, wild strains tend to be very difficult to cultivate > successfully; spreading over the globe they would also be insuring that > there would be no skills sharing so that successful farmers could teach the > unsuccessful... These concerns and the rest in your post are already addressed by their survival on the relatively barren New Caprica - If they were making a go of it there, they'll have a much easier time of it with plentiful game and if they find out they are spread too thin, they can use the remaining Raptors to regroup. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### Jeremy Francis *22 Mar 2009, 10:14 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* I doubt they'll have an easier time of it. Again, I think you underestimate the power of a centralised population, and overestimate how plentiful sustenance will be. They will have a HARDER time of it on Earth than they did on New Caprica, and New Caprica forced privation on the populace. Obviously, also, they DON'T congregate, since they're meant to fit into our history, and a civilised city-state at that point in time would have jumped humanity forward many, many years. This is all part of why I think the finale is ridiculous, by the way. It's just a huge stretch by the writers. I liked the series, I liked the character arc conclusions (except for Anders' and Kara's [not their relationship, I mean them]), but the plot conclusion I found mind-bogglingly stupid. -----Original Message----- From: urth-bounces at lists.urth.net [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Jeff Wilson Sent: Sunday, 22 March 2009 6:41 PM To: The Urth Mailing List Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler > Jeremy Francis wrote: > I think you underestimate the hardship of a subsistence lifestyle, no > matter > the fertility of the area you reside in and cultivate. I doubt they had > any > seed onboard, wild strains tend to be very difficult to cultivate > successfully; spreading over the globe they would also be insuring that > there would be no skills sharing so that successful farmers could teach > the > unsuccessful... These concerns and the rest in your post are already addressed by their survival on the relatively barren New Caprica - If they were making a go of it there, they'll have a much easier time of it with plentiful game and if they find out they are spread too thin, they can use the remaining Raptors to regroup. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### Jeff Wilson *22 Mar 2009, 10:23 · in reply to Jeremy Francis* > Jeremy Francis wrote: > I doubt they'll have an easier time of it. Again, I think you underestimate > the power of a centralised population, and overestimate how plentiful > sustenance will be. They will have a HARDER time of it on Earth than they > did on New Caprica, and New Caprica forced privation on the populace. I agree that it would be easier all in one place, network effects and all that, and if they were serious about natural disasters they'd have landed a couple of ships to use for shelters and/or emergency evacuation. But it's not fair to say the ending is logistically dumb when the ubiquitous cigarettes and good grooming would imply they had entire ships full of cigarettes and hair-care products along for the ride all along. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### Chris P *22 Mar 2009, 10:27 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* > Jeremy Francis wrote: >> I doubt they'll have an easier time of it. Again, I think you underestimate >> the power of a centralised population, and overestimate how plentiful >> sustenance will be. They will have a HARDER time of it on Earth than they >> did on New Caprica, and New Caprica forced privation on the populace. > I agree that it would be easier all in one place, network effects and > all that, and if they were serious about natural disasters they'd have > landed a couple of ships to use for shelters and/or emergency > evacuation. But it's not fair to say the ending is logistically dumb > when the ubiquitous cigarettes and good grooming would imply they had > entire ships full of cigarettes and hair-care products along for the > ride all along. Given that Wolfe was writing all this, I think we need to consider more complex interpretations. --- ### Jeremy Francis *22 Mar 2009, 10:32 · in reply to Chris P* The head angels were actually inter-dimensional insects? But of course! From: urth-bounces at lists.urth.net [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Chris P > Sent: Sunday, 22 March 2009 7:28 PM > To: urth at lists.urth.net > Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler > Jeremy Francis wrote: >> I doubt they'll have an easier time of it. Again, I think you >> underestimate >> the power of a centralised population, and overestimate how plentiful >> sustenance will be. They will have a HARDER time of it on Earth than >> they >> did on New Caprica, and New Caprica forced privation on the populace. > I agree that it would be easier all in one place, network effects and > all that, and if they were serious about natural disasters they'd have > landed a couple of ships to use for shelters and/or emergency > evacuation. But it's not fair to say the ending is logistically dumb > when the ubiquitous cigarettes and good grooming would imply they had > entire ships full of cigarettes and hair-care products along for the > ride all along. Given that Wolfe was writing all this, I think we need to consider more complex interpretations. _____ Get quick access to your favorite MSN content with Internet Explorer 8. Download FREE now! --- ### John Watkins *22 Mar 2009, 15:08 · in reply to Jeremy Francis* I watched it last night with some friends and just want to say on record that I loved it from beginning to almost the very very end when the robot dance montage started. But even that was a forgivable indulgence. I agree with Jeff's take on Cavil's motives in his last scenes. While expressly an atheist character, who, like Baltar, manipulated the beliefs of others, I thought that he convincingly had a moment of doubt there with Gaius talking to him. But that doesn't really matter, as the offer of resurrection technology is what convinced him anyway. The suicide made sense--he was probably about to die anyway and his life was, in his own mind, worthless without Hera, so he ended it on his own terms. Of course, I wanted worse things for him because I hated him, but in a way committing suicide over one's metaphysical despair is as bad as it gets. I think there's still some mystery about Starbuck. Unlike the angels, she wasn't aware of her nature until the end, and it's got to be more complex than just "eidolon." That only explains her corpse and disappearance, not her knowledge of the song. As for Harbinger of Death status, there's any number of plausible meanings to it--one of which is just that she's a harbinger sent from the realm of the dead. > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Jeremy Francis wrote: > The head angels were actually inter-dimensional insects? But of course! > > > > *From:* urth-bounces at lists.urth.net [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] *On > Behalf Of *Chris P > *Sent:* Sunday, 22 March 2009 7:28 PM > *To:* urth at lists.urth.net > *Subject:* Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler >> Jeremy Francis wrote: >>> I doubt they'll have an easier time of it. Again, I think you >>> underestimate >>> the power of a centralised population, and overestimate how plentiful >>> sustenance will be. They will have a HARDER time of it on Earth than >>> they >>> did on New Caprica, and New Caprica forced privation on the populace. >> I agree that it would be easier all in one place, network effects and >> all that, and if they were serious about natural disasters they'd have >> landed a couple of ships to use for shelters and/or emergency >> evacuation. But it's not fair to say the ending is logistically dumb >> when the ubiquitous cigarettes and good grooming would imply they had >> entire ships full of cigarettes and hair-care products along for the >> ride all along. > Given that Wolfe was writing all this, I think we need to consider more > complex interpretations. > ------------------------------ > > Get quick access to your favorite MSN content with Internet Explorer 8. Download > FREE now! > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Jeremy Francis *22 Mar 2009, 16:21 · in reply to John Watkins* The suicide is not what I have a problem with. I actually found that quite funny and awesome, and pretty in character given how he's acted. Dean Stockwell played him extraordinarily well. I think looking for explanations for a lot of the narrative problems is fruitless. RDM is not Gene Wolfe. Nor is he Daniel Knauf, or Alan Moore, or even J. Michael Straczysnki , to draw together a few different superlative writers from varying mediums. The explanation for why things don't make sense is easy: he didn't think things through at the beginning of the series, and thus we have the quagmire of dead-end plotlines and weird plot changes. Easy example: the Temple of the Five. For those thinking of a knee jerk reaction: no, I enjoyed the series! There is enough cool stuff in there to keep me satisfied. However, a lot of the explanations feel forced. The fact our "Earth" and the 13th tribe had no connection, for example. It is far more simplistic to simply ascribe the failings of the narrative to writer oversight. Searching for explanations that are tenuous reeks of fanboy activities, at least in this context (definitely not so with respect to subtle writers where you're meant to draw these connections). It's still an enjoyable series. And I'll admit I wanted a futuristic Earth to blow those uppity Colonials out of space. From: urth-bounces at lists.urth.net [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of John Watkins Sent: Monday, 23 March 2009 12:09 AM To: The Urth Mailing List Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler I watched it last night with some friends and just want to say on record that I loved it from beginning to almost the very very end when the robot dance montage started. But even that was a forgivable indulgence. I agree with Jeff's take on Cavil's motives in his last scenes. While expressly an atheist character, who, like Baltar, manipulated the beliefs of others, I thought that he convincingly had a moment of doubt there with Gaius talking to him. But that doesn't really matter, as the offer of resurrection technology is what convinced him anyway. The suicide made sense--he was probably about to die anyway and his life was, in his own mind, worthless without Hera, so he ended it on his own terms. Of course, I wanted worse things for him because I hated him, but in a way committing suicide over one's metaphysical despair is as bad as it gets. I think there's still some mystery about Starbuck. Unlike the angels, she wasn't aware of her nature until the end, and it's got to be more complex than just "eidolon." That only explains her corpse and disappearance, not her knowledge of the song. As for Harbinger of Death status, there's any number of plausible meanings to it--one of which is just that she's a harbinger sent from the realm of the dead. On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Jeremy Francis wrote: The head angels were actually inter-dimensional insects? But of course! From: urth-bounces at lists.urth.net [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Chris P > Sent: Sunday, 22 March 2009 7:28 PM > To: urth at lists.urth.net > Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler > Jeremy Francis wrote: >> I doubt they'll have an easier time of it. Again, I think you >> underestimate >> the power of a centralised population, and overestimate how plentiful >> sustenance will be. They will have a HARDER time of it on Earth than >> they >> did on New Caprica, and New Caprica forced privation on the populace. > I agree that it would be easier all in one place, network effects and > all that, and if they were serious about natural disasters they'd have > landed a couple of ships to use for shelters and/or emergency > evacuation. But it's not fair to say the ending is logistically dumb > when the ubiquitous cigarettes and good grooming would imply they had > entire ships full of cigarettes and hair-care products along for the > ride all along. Given that Wolfe was writing all this, I think we need to consider more complex interpretations. _____ Get quick access to your favorite MSN content with Internet Explorer 8. Download FREE now! --- ### James Wynn *22 Mar 2009, 21:37 · in reply to Jeremy Francis* > I think you underestimate the hardship of a subsistence lifestyle, no > matter > the fertility of the area you reside in and cultivate. Of course they would not last a month as farmers. They would have to beg their way into the indigenous tribes and learn to be hunter gatherers in order to survive. Anyone who wants to understand how impossible it would be for 99.999% of Americans and Western Europeans to go back only 150 years and start a farm in Kansas should read the first couple Laura Engles Wilder books. Those people spent their entire lives learning to subsistence farm and that was with steel plows and tools. However, having the colonists interbreed with pre-historic humans is the only thing about this ending that I didn't mind. It's TVish and hokey but it works thematically. You'd have to be at least in your 40s to remember the "Chariots of the Gods" documentary movie that so influenced the original BSG. But the ending works at that level. J. --- ### Stuart Hamm *22 Mar 2009, 22:13 · in reply to James Wynn* The History Channel just aired a 2 hour "Ancient Astronauts" speical with Erich Von Daniken that was pretty interesting.... Skype? stuart.hamm myspace.com/stuhamm ? ??? stuarthamm.net --- On Sun, 3/22/09, James Wynn wrote: > From: James Wynn > Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler > To: "The Urth Mailing List" > Date: Sunday, March 22, 2009, 2:37 PM > I think you underestimate the hardship of a subsistence lifestyle, no > matter > the fertility of the area you reside in and cultivate. Of course they would not last a month as farmers. They would have to beg their way into the indigenous tribes and learn to be hunter gatherers in order to survive. Anyone who wants to understand how impossible it would be for 99.999% of Americans and Western Europeans to go back only 150 years and start a farm in Kansas should read the first couple Laura Engles Wilder books. Those people spent their entire lives learning to subsistence farm and that was with steel plows and tools. However, having the colonists interbreed with pre-historic humans is the only thing about this ending that I didn't mind. It's TVish and hokey but it works thematically. You'd have to be at least in your 40s to remember the "Chariots of the Gods" documentary movie that so influenced the original BSG. But the ending works at that level. J. --- ### James Wynn *22 Mar 2009, 22:26 · in reply to James Wynn* > I think you underestimate the hardship of a subsistence > lifestyle, no matter the fertility of the area you reside in and cultivate. Incidentally, the SS Wolfe does a capital job of illustrating how complex successful sustainable farming is. J. --- ### Jeff Wilson *23 Mar 2009, 01:19 · in reply to James Wynn* >> James Wynn wrote: >> I think you underestimate the hardship of a subsistence lifestyle, no >> matter >> the fertility of the area you reside in and cultivate. > Of course they would not last a month as farmers. They would have to beg > their way into the indigenous tribes and learn to be hunter gatherers in > order to survive. Anyone who wants to understand how impossible it would > be for 99.999% of Americans and Western Europeans to go back only 150 > years and start a farm in Kansas should read the first couple Laura > Engles Wilder books. Those people spent their entire lives learning to > subsistence farm and that was with steel plows and tools. The Ingalls did not have their choice of the entire underpopulated world to settle in. The Colonials could have settled in places like Hawaii, where living was so easy that historically the white exploiters could not attract native laborers for any length of time. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### James Wynn *23 Mar 2009, 02:45 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* > The Ingalls did not have their choice of the entire underpopulated world to > settle in. ?The Colonials could have settled in places like Hawaii, where > living was so easy that historically the white exploiters could not attract > native laborers for any length of time. Even in places like Hawaii or the Amazon rain forests, making a living is apparently a very specialized trick. Lots of people stranded in the Amazon have perished unnaturally--probably all of those who did not manage to find a rope out of there. Have you seen the TV show 'Survivor'? Sometimes the constants have a lot of experience as hunters and in outdoor activities, but no one seems to make it through a month without losing a noticeable amount of weight even with an initial supply of starchy staples. But if any colonists settled in Hawaii, as far as I could tell from the map, that was not the sort of places they focused on as a rule. They settled in _populated_ places like Africa, the eastern Asia, and the Middle East: in other words, they settled in regions where evidence of early man has been found. However, to the eye of people with the right skills, these were seen as fertile areas. Kansas and Minnesota were seen as a bountifully fertile lands. Prerepublic Texas was invariably described that way although the undeveloped state would look like only a wilderness to me. But as I said, while unrealistic, the colonists' method of settlement was the only part of the conclusion that I didn't mind at all. It made perfect sense to me. They could have provided some exposition to explain better how it would work successfully, and they could have better rationalized the existence of humanity on an unknown planet. But considering the mess that was the rest of the episode... J. --- ### Jeff Wilson *23 Mar 2009, 08:05 · in reply to James Wynn* > James Wynn wrote: > But if any colonists settled in Hawaii, as far as I could tell from > the map, that was not the sort of places they focused on as a rule. > They settled in _populated_ places like Africa, the eastern Asia, and > the Middle East: in other words, they settled in regions where > evidence of early man has been found. However, to the eye of people > with the right skills, these were seen as fertile areas. Kansas and > Minnesota were seen as a bountifully fertile lands. Prerepublic Texas > was invariably described that way although the undeveloped state would > look like only a wilderness to me. I live in Texas, and it is indeed rich land, but it is still miserably cold her during the winter despite only snowing one or two days. I can't imagine preferring Minnesota over here given a choice in the 19th century, and I can't imagine preferring here over Hawaii in the same *informed* conditions. The chief reason for the colonists to choose inhabited areas is that habitation demonstrates the area is habitable even by people in that primitive, language-less state. Hm, that's a question - how does Baltaar have a background in palaeoanthropology, when the Colonies had no prehistory? ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### don doggett *23 Mar 2009, 08:35 · follows Jeff Wilson* Doggerel www.don-doggett.blogspot.com --- On Sun, 3/22/09, Jeff Wilson wrote: ? The Colonials could > have settled in places like Hawaii, where living was so easy > that historically the white exploiters could not attract > native laborers for any length of time. Why work when you can surf, brah? Seriously. I can hardly wait to see season 4, but I'm holding out for the last DVD set. I've found the show works a lot better as a drama when I watch two or three eps back to back and plow through a season in a week or so. Don --- ### Craig Brewer *23 Mar 2009, 12:48 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* On the whole subsistence/survival issue: Can I suggest that we're all thinking in the wrong way about this. I never saw BSG as anything resembling "hard" sf, so the question of the final move's realism is moot to me. (Besides, of course they fail: our own history didn't have some kind of magical leap in new technology from tribal to space-faring. Whatever Baltar "knows about farming" obviously doesn't last.) Rather, it seems to me that the purpose of "going tribal" was largely metaphorical and suited the general moralizing tone of that final add on: even when they all start over and go native instead of trying to rebuild as they were, they start to create the same patterns they'd made before. So all of Lee's optimism is shown to be seriously questionable in the end. Even the "unsoiled" natives end up creating machines again in the end. The only potential nod to the actual implausibility to me seemed to be when Adama says something about how none of their home worlds had as much wildlife as Earth. So maybe that was to suggest that they were used to a more difficult prospect of farming/hunting? I doubt it, really, but whatever. I just don't feel it necessary to start wondering about the viability of starting a subsistence lifestyle in a story where angels-are-robots-are-angels and dead people come back (and disappear) with no exaplanation and robots-that-look-like-people (and who wear fashionable clothes but live on gritty space rocks) end up mating with people to save both species. ----- Original Message ---- From: Jeff Wilson To: The Urth Mailing List Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 8:19:25 PM Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler >> James Wynn wrote: >> I think you underestimate the hardship of a subsistence lifestyle, no matter >> the fertility of the area you reside in and cultivate. > Of course they would not last a month as farmers. They would have to beg their way into the indigenous tribes and learn to be hunter gatherers in order to survive. Anyone who wants to understand how impossible it would be for 99.999% of Americans and Western Europeans to go back only 150 years and start a farm in Kansas should read the first couple Laura Engles Wilder books. Those people spent their entire lives learning to subsistence farm and that was with steel plows and tools. The Ingalls did not have their choice of the entire underpopulated world to settle in. The Colonials could have settled in places like Hawaii, where living was so easy that historically the white exploiters could not attract native laborers for any length of time. -- Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > --- ### Son of Witz *23 Mar 2009, 17:04 · follows Craig Brewer* This "Ancient Astronauts" sort of idea is one of the best aspects of the endings. all the cultural reports of knowledge being handed down from the gods... funny. OF course they had to get rid of the ships. there's none in our archeological record. (not that they would care when deciding...) couple things: A few of the responses about how hard subsistence farming is, along with the tone of some of the responses regarding primtive humans, makes it much more clearer to me why Kara was the Harbinger Of Doom. This sort of ending is a doom for many people. Just as many people read the Urth/Ushas rebirth as a horrible tragedy, many would see this the same. Yeah, it would be really hard to live like that, but the point is that they're going native. If this story had one basic msg (along with it's many subthemes) it's that our technology destroys us or alienates us from our humanity. Moore's answer is sort of comically simple. Throw it all away and go native. I really took the ending as a sort of lark twist ending. The whole show had been so serious, juggling one double edged sword after another. They just used the classic tongue in cheek twist ending tone to give us our final double edged sword as a sort of lighthearted joke. It ties in very well thematically, if a little hard to swallow that everyone would go along with it. also: some grumbling over the fact that they spread out rather than forming a society. I'm sure that in the 40,000 left, some spread, some stayed together. Re: Adama choosing to live where Roslin died. It's LITERALLY perfect. He took the prophesy absolutely to the letter. "The dying leader will guide them to their new home" Adama went with her all the way to the point where she died, and that was his new home. not one step further, not one step back. They dying leader was dying all along, but she only really died then. so, a perfectly literal enactment of the prophesy. also: some grumbling about Hera being useless in light of interbreeding with Natives. Nah. She was just the evidence and symbol of hope that showed them the possibility and brought them together. There's nothing particular about her genetics that is overridden by the native opportunity. Just a symbol and catalyst. ~Witz > The History Channel just aired a 2 hour "Ancient Astronauts" speical with Erich Von Daniken that was pretty interesting.... > > > Skype? stuart.hamm > myspace.com/stuhamm > ? ??? stuarthamm.net > > > --- On Sun, 3/22/09, James Wynn wrote: > > From: James Wynn > Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler --- ### Jordon Flato *23 Mar 2009, 17:39 · in reply to Son of Witz* I took the Harbinger of Doom thing to be the fact that she led them to the first Blasted Earth. That was pretty doomish, and she was responsible for that, too. > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Son of Witz wrote: > This "Ancient Astronauts" sort of idea is one of the best aspects of the > endings. all the cultural reports of knowledge being handed down from the > gods... funny. OF course they had to get rid of the ships. there's none in > our archeological record. (not that they would care when deciding...) > > couple things: > A few of the responses about how hard subsistence farming is, along with > the tone of some of the responses regarding primtive humans, makes it much > more clearer to me why Kara was the Harbinger Of Doom. This sort of ending > is a doom for many people. Just as many people read the Urth/Ushas rebirth > as a horrible tragedy, many would see this the same. > Yeah, it would be really hard to live like that, but the point is that > they're going native. > > If this story had one basic msg (along with it's many subthemes) it's that > our technology destroys us or alienates us from our humanity. Moore's > answer is sort of comically simple. Throw it all away and go native. I > really took the ending as a sort of lark twist ending. The whole show had > been so serious, juggling one double edged sword after another. They just > used the classic tongue in cheek twist ending tone to give us our final > double edged sword as a sort of lighthearted joke. It ties in very well > thematically, if a little hard to swallow that everyone would go along with > it. > > also: some grumbling over the fact that they spread out rather than forming > a society. I'm sure that in the 40,000 left, some spread, some stayed > together. > > Re: Adama choosing to live where Roslin died. It's LITERALLY perfect. He > took the prophesy absolutely to the letter. "The dying leader will guide > them to their new home" Adama went with her all the way to the point where > she died, and that was his new home. not one step further, not one step > back. They dying leader was dying all along, but she only really died then. > so, a perfectly literal enactment of the prophesy. > > also: some grumbling about Hera being useless in light of interbreeding > with Natives. Nah. She was just the evidence and symbol of hope that showed > them the possibility and brought them together. There's nothing particular > about her genetics that is overridden by the native opportunity. Just a > symbol and catalyst. > > ~Witz >> The History Channel just aired a 2 hour "Ancient Astronauts" speical with >> Erich Von Daniken that was pretty interesting.... >> >> >> Skype stuart.hamm >> myspace.com/stuhamm >> stuarthamm.net >> >> >> --- On Sun, 3/22/09, James Wynn wrote: >> >> From: James Wynn >> Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler --- ### Son of Witz *23 Mar 2009, 18:21 · follows Jordon Flato* yeah, but they kept up with after that. Anders repeated it once he got jacked in and all oracular. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jordon Flato [mailto:jordonflato at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 10:39 AM > To: 'The Urth Mailing List' > Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler > > I took the Harbinger of Doom thing to be the fact that she led them to the > first Blasted Earth. That was pretty doomish, and she was responsible for > that, too. > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Son of Witz wrote: >> This "Ancient Astronauts" sort of idea is one of the best aspects of the >> endings. all the cultural reports of knowledge being handed down from the >> gods... funny. OF course they had to get rid of the ships. there's none in >> our archeological record. (not that they would care when deciding...) >> >> couple things: >> A few of the responses about how hard subsistence farming is, along with >> the tone of some of the responses regarding primtive humans, makes it much >> more clearer to me why Kara was the Harbinger Of Doom. This sort of ending >> is a doom for many people. Just as many people read the Urth/Ushas rebirth >> as a horrible tragedy, many would see this the same. >> Yeah, it would be really hard to live like that, but the point is that >> they're going native. >> >> If this story had one basic msg (along with it's many subthemes) it's that >> our technology destroys us or alienates us from our humanity. Moore's >> answer is sort of comically simple. Throw it all away and go native. I >> really took the ending as a sort of lark twist ending. The whole show had >> been so serious, juggling one double edged sword after another. They just >> used the classic tongue in cheek twist ending tone to give us our final >> double edged sword as a sort of lighthearted joke. It ties in very well >> thematically, if a little hard to swallow that everyone would go along with >> it. >> >> also: some grumbling over the fact that they spread out rather than forming >> a society. I'm sure that in the 40,000 left, some spread, some stayed >> together. >> >> Re: Adama choosing to live where Roslin died. It's LITERALLY perfect. He >> took the prophesy absolutely to the letter. "The dying leader will guide >> them to their new home" Adama went with her all the way to the point where >> she died, and that was his new home. not one step further, not one step >> back. They dying leader was dying all along, but she only really died then. >> so, a perfectly literal enactment of the prophesy. >> >> also: some grumbling about Hera being useless in light of interbreeding >> with Natives. Nah. She was just the evidence and symbol of hope that showed >> them the possibility and brought them together. There's nothing particular >> about her genetics that is overridden by the native opportunity. Just a >> symbol and catalyst. >> >> ~Witz >>> The History Channel just aired a 2 hour "Ancient Astronauts" speical with >>> Erich Von Daniken that was pretty interesting.... >>> >>> >>> Skype stuart.hamm >>> myspace.com/stuhamm >>> stuarthamm.net >>> >>> >>> --- On Sun, 3/22/09, James Wynn wrote: >>> >>> From: James Wynn >>> Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler --- ### Thomas Bitterman *23 Mar 2009, 18:53 · in reply to James Wynn* > On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 4:56 PM, James Wynn wrote: > Here there be spoilers. > > I am not convinced (and very much doubt) that the writers of BSG had these > particular resolutions to the visions in mind when they wrote them or any > resolution at all. They have been clear (in specials, interviews, etc.) that they made up a lot of things as they went along. Whether that is a plus or minus is a matter of taste. I think they decided at the end to have a final showdown in the C&C room and > so formed it to vaguely fit the visions. The question left open was "Why did > this need a vision?" It didn't. If God could arrange a race on far-away > planet have DNA compatible with the colonists, then He didn't need that song > and dance to get Hera to the Bridge. It was a big build-up for very little > pay-off. That is always a problem when God is a character - "Why doesn't He just do X?", where X would save everybody a lot of trouble. > Wolfe has no problem with involving the Increate or Outsider in his > stories, but in all cases He works his plans through rational events, Maybe I've missed some things, but my impression has been that Wolfe refers to the Increate some, hints at His involvement a whole lot, but rarely has Him as an actual character. Even those who claim to carry out His will are (in general) just guessing. > and, when he acts directly (ala Outsider), Wolfe makes him a character in > the story who can explain Himself and His motives. Again, I may have forgotten a scene or two. Did the Outsider have a page or two of exposition where He explained why they were all in this giant rock traveling to a planet of vampire-plants while worshiping a two-headed nutcase? Wolfe is a great writer, but even he is not up to explaining why God does what He does. > There's none of that in BSG, because, I presume, they find the idea of a > rational, "actual" God to be a little quaint. So when they tell a story > where such a Person exists, he ends up cartoony and quaint. The God of BSG is more like the Increate than the Outsider. Even the angels can only guess at what He wants. The theodicy is simply "We don't know why it's that way". If this seems cartoony then whole areas of religion, particularly mysticism, must also seem cartoony. > Roslin came off looking like a pretty cold cookie as well. She could have > at least put $50 in the guy's pocket. Its not like Wolfe's protagonists > always behave so admirably either, but when Sev takes advantage of the > passed out Jolenta, no one imagines it to be a meaningful step in his > personal development. Why give him $50? It was consensual sex between adults, not a financial transaction. She asked him to leave shortly afterwards (and one can speculate on why - my bet is that she realized that she had used having sex with a younger man as a form of self-affirmation (after a recent depression), and decided that he deserved better than to be used as an object, so sent him away before a real relationship could develop), but the point is that this is how things happen to real people sometimes. In BSG people have (and don't have) sex for all sorts of human reasons, and have all sorts of human reactions. In Wolfe people apparently have sex to show what bad people they are, and suffer for it later. J. Enamel --- ### James Wynn *23 Mar 2009, 19:26 · in reply to Thomas Bitterman* > Again, I may have forgotten a scene or two. > Did the Outsider have a page or two of exposition where > He explained why they were all in this giant rock traveling > to a planet of vampire-plants while worshiping a > two-headed nutcase? In the LS the Outsider is an actual character who goes on quite a bit about his relationship to the Whorl gods and his intentions. That's what I was referring to. He's almost as much a character as Aslan in, say, "The Horse and His Boy" while manipulating the narrative less. He doesn't explain Pas because he didn't invent Pas. He doesn't explain everything, because no character ever does. The Increate is not a character in NS, and if he performs miracles, I'm not aware of it. > The God of BSG is more like the Increate than the Outsider. > Even the angels can only guess at what He wants. But He's much more inclined to perform miracles without much explanation for why He's doing them...except that He likes cliff-hangers. That's very handy for lazy serial writers. > If this seems cartoony then whole areas of religion, > particularly mysticism, must also seem cartoony. Not at all. The BSG god is a god as a-term-for-we-know-not-what. It can quite literally mean whatever you want it to mean. It is an idea of God that denies rationality. Baltar makes that quite clear. And despite all the sermons by Baltar that we have heard over the last 2 years, I challenge you to tell me what his followers believed about Him. Christian mystics acknowledge that there is a lot about God that we don't understand, but you can understand aspects of God they describe. That's alright with me. It is a frequent presentation of God in movies. The problem is when such a god becomes the primary mover of the narrative...which he did in BSG. > Why give him $50? It was consensual sex between adults, > not a financial transaction. She asked him to leave shortly afterwards I believe what she said was "You can show yourself out" meaning "It's time for you to go _now_ and I mean _right_ now." Leno once asked Charlie Sheen why he utilizes prostitutes when he could self-evidently get it for free. He responded "I don't pay them for sex. I pay them to go home." If you're a big enough jerk, you don't even have to pay for that. She couldn't have even gone out for breakfast with the guy? Reverse the gender and you can see that such a scene (ala in "Iron Man") could not be written except to degrade the character being sent home. > In BSG people have (and don't have) sex for all sorts of > human reasons, and have all sorts of human reactions. > In Wolfe people apparently have sex to show what bad > people they are, and suffer for it later. That's ridiculous. Do you really intend to compare the writing of BSG to Wolfe in favor of BSG? Incidentally, I thought the one other use of sex in the Caprica arc that I have not addressed yet--a strip club-- was nothing but exploitive. J --- ### John Watkins *23 Mar 2009, 19:42 · in reply to James Wynn* > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 3:26 PM, James Wynn wrote: > Not at all. The BSG god is a god as a-term-for-we-know-not-what. It can > quite literally mean whatever you want it to mean. It is an idea of God that > denies rationality. Baltar makes that quite clear. And despite all the > sermons by Baltar that we have heard over the last 2 years, I challenge you > to tell me what his followers believed about Him. Christian mystics > acknowledge that there is a lot about God that we don't understand, but you > can understand aspects of God they describe. > > That's alright with me. It is a frequent presentation of God in movies. The > problem is when such a god becomes the primary mover of the > narrative...which he did in BSG. I never thought the viewer of BSG was supposed to take Baltar's mysticism the least bit seriously. He was as phony as they come and the fact that he never spouted a coherent philosophy reflected that. Only his statements on the "angels" he saw were heartfelt. The fact that his confused, post-atheist ramblings struck a chord with Cavil had as much to do with Cavil's own weird relationship with religion than with the legitimacy of Baltar's point. Note that convicted atheist Bill Adama didn't seem to have a major change of heart due to anything Baltar said. > I believe what she said was "You can show yourself out" meaning "It's time > for you to go _now_ and I mean _right_ now." Leno once asked Charlie Sheen > why he utilizes prostitutes when he could self-evidently get it for free. He > responded "I don't pay them for sex. I pay them to go home." If you're a big > enough jerk, you don't even have to pay for that. She couldn't have even > gone out for breakfast with the guy? Reverse the gender and you can see that > such a scene (ala in "Iron Man") could not be written except to degrade the > character being sent home. Or to show some of Roslin's ability to be cold, ruthless, or just flat-out unsympathetic. I bought it for her character all the way. > In BSG people have (and don't have) sex for all sorts of > human reasons, and have all sorts of human reactions. >> In Wolfe people apparently have sex to show what bad >> people they are, and suffer for it later. > That's ridiculous. Do you really intend to compare the writing of BSG to > Wolfe in favor of BSG? Incidentally, I thought the one other use of sex in > the Caprica arc that I have not addressed yet--a strip club-- was nothing > but exploitive. Ehh. I thought the scene was tame in a show for adults and I thought that it fit the Ellen/Saul relationship, which otherwise didn't get a lot of focus in the finale. --- ### Son of Witz *23 Mar 2009, 19:42 · follows John Watkins* I just want to point out that when I compared BSG to New Sun, it was not Moore to Wolfe, but "Some Themes & Plot in BSG" to "Some Themes & Plot in BotNS" This thing does not have the subtlety of Wolfe. no one would or should expect that from a tv show. ~Witz > -----Original Message----- > From: James Wynn [mailto:crushtv at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 12:26 PM > To: 'The Urth Mailing List' > Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler vs Wolfe >> Again, I may have forgotten a scene or two. >> Did the Outsider have a page or two of exposition where >> He explained why they were all in this giant rock traveling >> to a planet of vampire-plants while worshiping a >> two-headed nutcase? > In the LS the Outsider is an actual character who goes on quite a bit about > his relationship to the Whorl gods and his intentions. That's what I was > referring to. He's almost as much a character as Aslan in, say, "The Horse > and His Boy" while manipulating the narrative less. He doesn't explain Pas > because he didn't invent Pas. He doesn't explain everything, because no > character ever does. The Increate is not a character in NS, and if he > performs miracles, I'm not aware of it. >> The God of BSG is more like the Increate than the Outsider. >> Even the angels can only guess at what He wants. > But He's much more inclined to perform miracles without much explanation for > why He's doing them...except that He likes cliff-hangers. That's very handy > for lazy serial writers. >> If this seems cartoony then whole areas of religion, >> particularly mysticism, must also seem cartoony. > Not at all. The BSG god is a god as a-term-for-we-know-not-what. It can > quite literally mean whatever you want it to mean. It is an idea of God that > denies rationality. Baltar makes that quite clear. And despite all the > sermons by Baltar that we have heard over the last 2 years, I challenge you > to tell me what his followers believed about Him. Christian mystics > acknowledge that there is a lot about God that we don't understand, but you > can understand aspects of God they describe. > > That's alright with me. It is a frequent presentation of God in movies. The > problem is when such a god becomes the primary mover of the > narrative...which he did in BSG. >> Why give him $50? It was consensual sex between adults, >> not a financial transaction. She asked him to leave shortly afterwards > I believe what she said was "You can show yourself out" meaning "It's time > for you to go _now_ and I mean _right_ now." Leno once asked Charlie Sheen > why he utilizes prostitutes when he could self-evidently get it for free. He > responded "I don't pay them for sex. I pay them to go home." If you're a big > enough jerk, you don't even have to pay for that. She couldn't have even > gone out for breakfast with the guy? Reverse the gender and you can see that > such a scene (ala in "Iron Man") could not be written except to degrade the > character being sent home. >> In BSG people have (and don't have) sex for all sorts of >> human reasons, and have all sorts of human reactions. >> In Wolfe people apparently have sex to show what bad >> people they are, and suffer for it later. > That's ridiculous. Do you really intend to compare the writing of BSG to > Wolfe in favor of BSG? Incidentally, I thought the one other use of sex in > the Caprica arc that I have not addressed yet--a strip club-- was nothing > but exploitive. > > J > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Thomas Bitterman *23 Mar 2009, 22:40 · in reply to James Wynn* > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 3:26 PM, James Wynn wrote: > The God of BSG is more like the Increate than the Outsider. >> Even the angels can only guess at what He wants. > But He's much more inclined to perform miracles without much explanation > for why He's doing them...except that He likes cliff-hangers. That's very > handy for lazy serial writers. Miraculous events happen in both BSG and UotNS. In neither case is an explanation given. "It's the power of the New Sun" is not much of an explanation - sometimes things work, and sometimes they don't. It may be (certainly is) that Wolfe is better at using miracles in a story. That doesn't mean the BSG writers find God to be quaint (or are attempting to write a quaint, cartoony God), just that they are not as successful in addressing miracles as Wolfe is. If this seems cartoony then whole areas of religion, >> particularly mysticism, must also seem cartoony. > Not at all. The BSG god is a god as a-term-for-we-know-not-what. It can > quite literally mean whatever you want it to mean. It is an idea of God that > denies rationality. Baltar makes that quite clear. And despite all the > sermons by Baltar that we have heard over the last 2 years, I challenge you > to tell me what his followers believed about Him. The BSG god is viewed differently by different people in the fleet. The vast majority are like Cargo - polytheists. Baltar, despite talking to an angel quite a bit, has no knowledge others lack. Nor is he meant as a spokesperson for the author(s). > That's alright with me. It is a frequent presentation of God in movies. The > problem is when such a god becomes the primary mover of the > narrative...which he did in BSG. I think this is the heart of the matter. IMHO, the primary mover of both BSG and UotNS is not the transcendent, but people's beliefs about the transcendent. In both cases people are in bad shape and yearn for a prophesized salvation. In both cases miraculous events happen, but could always just be advanced technology. In neither case does anything transcendent break though and show people the score - they have to decide what to make of things on their own. Aside from the writing quality, if the God of BSG seems cartoony compared to the Increate that is because people in BSG had cartoony ideas about God. That may result from different opinions the writers have about religion, but religion != God. > Why give him $50? It was consensual sex between adults, > not a financial transaction. She asked him to leave shortly afterwards > I believe what she said was "You can show yourself out" meaning "It's time > for you to go _now_ and I mean _right_ now." IIRC, she said a few things to get him to leave, including asking and suggesting he show himself out. There is no requirement, even in terms of the BSG story, to think that she acted as anything but a gaint jerk in this scene. However, I think it is easy/correct to interpret her as doing the right thing as best she could, and the fact that this scene can be interpreted this way is evidence that the BSG writers were better at portraying sexual relations than Wolfe has been. > Leno once asked Charlie Sheen why he utilizes prostitutes when he could > self-evidently get it for free. He responded "I don't pay them for sex. I > pay them to go home." If you're a big enough jerk, you don't even have to > pay for that. What's your point? It did not start as prostitution, did not end as prostitution, and was not prostitution at any time in between. > She couldn't have even gone out for breakfast with the guy? No. While looking at herself in the mirror (cue self-reflection) she realized that what she had done/was doing was the wrong thing. Entering into a relationship with a younger man based primarily on physical attraction would ruin her in the end. What she needed was meaningful work and a relationship with an equal. So what to do? The problem is, this cute guy is laying there in that soft, warm bed. She knows if she gets back in, she'll never get out again. So she makes it quick, and kind of harsh. The best way to end this, the one with the least suffering, is to do it quickly. Is it a downer for him? Sure. But better than the alternative. This was how it played to me when I saw it. > Reverse the gender and you can see that such a scene (ala in "Iron Man") > could not be written except to degrade the character being sent home. a) Reversing genders in sexual politics almost never leads to symmetry. b) The rewrite is not that hard in this case. Harrison Ford wakes up in the middle of the night, ex-student(s) nearby. He looks in the mirror and realizes he's too old for this crap. He calls the CIA and gets another Nazi-fighting job, then herds the ex-student(s) out of his room with some lame excuse about keeping tenure. > In BSG people have (and don't have) sex for all sorts of > human reasons, and have all sorts of human reactions. >> In Wolfe people apparently have sex to show what bad >> people they are, and suffer for it later. > That's ridiculous. Do you really intend to compare the writing of BSG to > Wolfe in favor of BSG? Yup. In the case of male-female sexual relationships, BSG beats the pants off of Wolfe. The motivations of the people involved and the effects the relationships have on them in BSG are more interesting and realistic than what Wolfe has shown. > Incidentally, I thought the one other use of sex in the Caprica arc that I > have not addressed yet--a strip club-- was nothing but exploitive. This reply is already too long, but don't forget Baltar. > J Enamel --- ### Son of Witz *23 Mar 2009, 23:27 · follows Son of Witz* there's some interesting stuff in this article: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2009/03/battlestar-galactica-daybreak-finale-moore-mcdonnell-olmos.html --- ### Jeff Wilson *24 Mar 2009, 02:24 · in reply to Son of Witz* > I just want to point out that when I compared BSG to New Sun, it was not > Moore to Wolfe, but "Some Themes & Plot in BSG" to "Some Themes & Plot in > BotNS" > This thing does not have the subtlety of Wolfe. no one would or should > expect that from a tv show. They might not expect it, but something like it is to be found in LEXX of all places. Behind the farce is something very close to Wolfean themes on sex and religion and political power. --- ### James Wynn *24 Mar 2009, 14:10 · in reply to Thomas Bitterman* > Enamel: In BSG people have (and don't have) sex for > all sorts of human reasons, and have all sorts of > human reactions. In Wolfe people apparently have > sex to show what bad people they are, and suffer for it later. > Wynn: That's ridiculous. Do you really intend to compare the > writing of BSG to Wolfe in favor of BSG? > Enamel: Yup. In the case of male-female sexual relationships, > BSG beats the pants off of Wolfe. The motivations of the > people involved and the effects the relationships have on > them in BSG are more interesting and realistic than what > Wolfe has shown. Wolfe doesn't typically set his scenes in "naturalistic" settings so I think you are comparing things that don't map. For example, while the sexual relationship between the characters in "Counting Cats In Zanzibar" is realistic, the setting is bizarrely unconventional. But your original statement that "In Wolfe people apparently have sex to show what bad people they are, and suffer for it later" is simply not based on...well, anything that I can see.. You are essentially ascribing to Wolfe the stated opinions of Incus. That's just nonsense. I started to list all the instances of Wolfe characters who are having sex with each other but it started to get silly. Some people in Wolfe stories have sex and it ends badly, but not because of the sex unless it was rape (and not always then). Certainly, no one's sexual relationship in BSG ended well except for Baltar and Six's. If I were to ascribe a moral to sex in BSG it would be "sex invariability causes people to act treacherously or cruelly." We like what we like. I wouldn't spend 2 minutes watching "Grey's Anatomy" or similar dramas regardless of how interesting (to some) or realistic the relationships are. Not my cup 'o tea. That's what the flashbacks in the finale reminded me of. They certainly didn't move forward or explain anything in the current narrative. > [regarding the sexual scenes in BSG finale] > This reply is already too long, but don't forget Baltar. Did Baltar even have sex in the final episode? If not (and I'm thinking not) it a first. Certainly, Baltar and Six's relationship was hardly less realistic than Wolfe's and, in general, its purpose was titilation. J. --- ### Jeff Wilson *24 Mar 2009, 20:11 · in reply to James Wynn* > James Wynn wrote: > no one's sexual relationship in > BSG ended well except for Baltar and Six's. > > If I were to ascribe a moral to sex in BSG it would be "sex > invariability causes people to act treacherously or cruelly." There were at least three healthy physical relationships in BSG, all between married couples: Athena/Helo, Bill/Laura, and Galen/Callie. As for Ellen/Saul - well, as long as they stayed together they were fine, their problem was not having enough sex to suit Ellen. > Did Baltar even have sex in the final episode? If not (and I'm thinking > not) it a first. Certainly, Baltar and Six's relationship was hardly > less realistic than Wolfe's and, in general, its purpose was titilation. IIRC Baltaar failed to have sex in most of the episodes with Pegasus Six and IIRC during the mutiny. The rest of the time would be about half and half - of course, half of 73 episodes is still a lot of sex for one farm boy. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > ``` --- ### John Watkins *24 Mar 2009, 20:18 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote: > James Wynn wrote: >> no one's sexual relationship in BSG ended well except for Baltar and >> Six's. >> >> If I were to ascribe a moral to sex in BSG it would be "sex invariability >> causes people to act treacherously or cruelly." > There were at least three healthy physical relationships in BSG, all > between married couples: Athena/Helo, Bill/Laura, and Galen/Callie. As for > Ellen/Saul - well, as long as they stayed together they were fine, their > problem was not having enough sex to suit Ellen. I agree with your general point, but Galen/Callie was *not *a healthy relationship. Galen/Boomer was for as long as it lasted despite being illicit and therefore covert. Also, unless I missed something in the webisodes, isn't the relationship with Hoshi about the only think Gaeta has going for him toward the end? > Did Baltar even have sex in the final episode? If not (and I'm thinking > not) it a first. Certainly, Baltar and Six's relationship was hardly less > realistic than Wolfe's and, in general, its purpose was titilation. > IIRC Baltaar failed to have sex in most of the episodes with Pegasus Six > and IIRC during the mutiny. The rest of the time would be about half and > half - of course, half of 73 episodes is still a lot of sex for one farm > boy. > > > -- > Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com > < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### John Smith *24 Mar 2009, 20:32 · in reply to Son of Witz* >> In the LS the Outsider is an actual character who goes >> on quite a bit about >> his relationship to the Whorl gods and his intentions. > That's what I was > referring to. He's almost as much a character as > Aslan in, say, "The Horse > and His Boy" while manipulating the narrative > less. He doesn't explain Pas > because he didn't invent Pas. > Can you supply some text references? I don't remember any of this. Best wishes, Jack --- ### John Watkins *24 Mar 2009, 20:34 · in reply to John Smith* Where Thelx Holds Up a Mirror, or whatever that chapter's called. > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:32 PM, John Smith wrote: >>> In the LS the Outsider is an actual character who goes >>> on quite a bit about >>> his relationship to the Whorl gods and his intentions. >> That's what I was >> referring to. He's almost as much a character as >> Aslan in, say, "The Horse >> and His Boy" while manipulating the narrative >> less. He doesn't explain Pas >> because he didn't invent Pas. > > Can you supply some text references? I don't remember any of this. > > Best wishes, > > Jack > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Thomas Bitterman *24 Mar 2009, 20:51 · in reply to James Wynn* > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:10 AM, James Wynn wrote: > Enamel: In BSG people have (and don't have) sex for > all sorts of human reasons, and have all sorts of > human reactions. In Wolfe people apparently have > sex to show what bad people they are, and suffer for it later. > Wynn: That's ridiculous. Do you really intend to compare the > writing of BSG to Wolfe in favor of BSG? > Enamel: Yup. In the case of male-female sexual relationships, > BSG beats the pants off of Wolfe. The motivations of the > people involved and the effects the relationships have on > them in BSG are more interesting and realistic than what > Wolfe has shown. > Wolfe doesn't typically set his scenes in "naturalistic" settings so I > think you are comparing things that don't map. BSG is hardly naturalistic. Sci-fi (even the pulp sci-fi Wolfe uses for his own ends) is still about people, what happens to them, and how they deal with it. > For example, while the sexual relationship between the characters in > "Counting Cats In Zanzibar" is realistic, the setting is bizarrely > unconventional. Short stories should be left aside. The sort of character-development-through-a-sexual-relationship I'm referring to takes more time than a typical short story has. > But your original statement that "In Wolfe people apparently have sex to > show what bad people they are, and suffer for it later" is simply not based > on...well, anything that I can see.. Severian/Jolenta - Sev as date-rapist Silk/Hyacinth - Silk loves unworthy woman, kills self over it Baldanders/little boy - homosexual child molestation Severian/Dorcas - it's his grandmother! Able/Dsiri - romantic love points in the wrong direction, and he is less for having it There are Doors - have sex and die Latro - he may have sex, but can never really have a relationship Horn/Seawrack - she's a giant prawn! There may be a pattern here. > You are essentially ascribing to Wolfe the stated opinions of Incus. St. Paul. And I'm not ascribing them to Wolfe, just describing what I see in his work. > That's just nonsense. I started to list all the instances of Wolfe > characters who are having sex with each other but it started to get silly. Wolfe portrays characters that have sex. That sex is not always destructive. Major characters in Wolfe novels, when they have "on air" sex, have sex that is destructive and degrading, and the relationships it occurs in is one of exploitation. Said another way, Wolfe never seems to portray a healthy, sexual relationship, one in which his characters grow or benefit from each other. Not untroubled, not happy-ever-after. Just healthy. > Some people in Wolfe stories have sex and it ends badly, but not because of > the sex unless it was rape (and not always then). Certainly, no one's sexual > relationship in BSG ended well except for Baltar and Six's. In the end everyone is dead. But for other good relationships: Adama/Roslin Athena/Helo Saul/Ellen Tigh - troubled, but ultimately happy, an interesting contrast to Silk/Hyacinth There were some destructive ("bad") relationships, too. That happens. Wolfe knows that. He just seems uninterested in portraying any good ones. > If I were to ascribe a moral to sex in BSG it would be "sex invariability > causes people to act treacherously or cruelly." You've confused Wolfe and BSG. > We like what we like. I wouldn't spend 2 minutes watching "Grey's Anatomy" > or similar dramas regardless of how interesting (to some) or realistic the > relationships are. Not my cup 'o tea. That's what the flashbacks in the > finale reminded me of. They certainly didn't move forward or explain > anything in the current narrative. We agree - soap operas don't interest me, either. > [regarding the sexual scenes in BSG finale] >> This reply is already too long, but don't forget Baltar. > Did Baltar even have sex in the final episode? If not (and I'm thinking > not) it a first. Certainly, Baltar and Six's relationship was hardly less > realistic than Wolfe's and, in general, its purpose was titilation. Baltar starts out as very much as if Wolfe had written him. His relationships are based solely on the sex that his money and fame can get him. In the end he grows a lot through his relationship(s). He is a better man for them. Which Wolfean protagonist can say the same? Sev? Silk? Latro? > J. Enamel --- ### John Watkins *24 Mar 2009, 21:00 · in reply to Thomas Bitterman* > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Thomas Bitterman wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:10 AM, James Wynn wrote: >> Enamel: In BSG people have (and don't have) sex for >> But your original statement that "In Wolfe people apparently have sex to >> show what bad people they are, and suffer for it later" is simply not based >> on...well, anything that I can see.. > Severian/Jolenta - Sev as date-rapist > Silk/Hyacinth - Silk loves unworthy woman, kills self over it > Baldanders/little boy - homosexual child molestation > Severian/Dorcas - it's his grandmother! > Able/Dsiri - romantic love points in the wrong direction, and he is less > for having it > There are Doors - have sex and die > Latro - he may have sex, but can never really have a relationship > Horn/Seawrack - she's a giant prawn! > > There may be a pattern here. That's not how I read Silk/Hyacinth, Severian/Dorcas, Able/Dsiri or There Are Doors (although to be honest I have no clue what was going on in that one. Silk makes a Christlike action chasing after Hyacinth instead of going to the lander, and Able's relationship with Dsiri is redeemed and transfigured by his gift of blood. The idea of a male priestly or godly figure sacrificing himself for a less worthy female figure may be misogynist in the sense that Wolfe is repeatedly chosing it to symbolize the relationship between Christ and humanity when other symbols are available, but it's hard to say that it's an attack on sexual love--it's actual a recognition of a not-especially-controversial traditional understanding of erotic love as a prefiguration or "gateway drug" for the love of the divine. And yes, I certainly think that Severian is a better man for his love for Dorcas, and Able is transparently a better man for his love for Dsiri (even if a love for the Most High God would have made him a better man still.) Silk wound up shattered by his relationship with Hyacinth, of course, but again, the Good Sheperd pursuing the wayward sheep rather than going with his flock is not foolish or in error--he's clearly doing the right thing by Wolfe's lights. >> You are essentially ascribing to Wolfe the stated opinions of Incus. > St. Paul. And I'm not ascribing them to Wolfe, just describing what I see > in his work. >> That's just nonsense. I started to list all the instances of Wolfe >> characters who are having sex with each other but it started to get silly. > Wolfe portrays characters that have sex. That sex is not always > destructive. Major characters in Wolfe novels, when they have "on air" sex, > have sex that is destructive and degrading, and the relationships it occurs > in is one of exploitation. Said another way, Wolfe never seems to portray a > healthy, sexual relationship, one in which his characters grow or benefit > from each other. Not untroubled, not happy-ever-after. Just healthy. >> Some people in Wolfe stories have sex and it ends badly, but not because >> of the sex unless it was rape (and not always then). Certainly, no one's >> sexual relationship in BSG ended well except for Baltar and Six's. > In the end everyone is dead. But for other good relationships: > Adama/Roslin > Athena/Helo > Saul/Ellen Tigh - troubled, but ultimately happy, an interesting contrast > to Silk/Hyacinth > > There were some destructive ("bad") relationships, too. That happens. > Wolfe knows that. He just seems uninterested in portraying any good ones. >> If I were to ascribe a moral to sex in BSG it would be "sex invariability >> causes people to act treacherously or cruelly." > You've confused Wolfe and BSG. >> We like what we like. I wouldn't spend 2 minutes watching "Grey's Anatomy" >> or similar dramas regardless of how interesting (to some) or realistic the >> relationships are. Not my cup 'o tea. That's what the flashbacks in the >> finale reminded me of. They certainly didn't move forward or explain >> anything in the current narrative. > We agree - soap operas don't interest me, either. >> [regarding the sexual scenes in BSG finale] >>> This reply is already too long, but don't forget Baltar. >> Did Baltar even have sex in the final episode? If not (and I'm thinking >> not) it a first. Certainly, Baltar and Six's relationship was hardly less >> realistic than Wolfe's and, in general, its purpose was titilation. > Baltar starts out as very much as if Wolfe had written him. His > relationships are based solely on the sex that his money and fame can get > him. In the end he grows a lot through his relationship(s). He is a better > man for them. Which Wolfean protagonist can say the same? Sev? Silk? > Latro? >> J. > Enamel > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Chris P *24 Mar 2009, 21:51 · in reply to Thomas Bitterman* On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:10 AM, James Wynn wrote: Enamel: In BSG people have (and don't have) sex for all sorts of human reasons, and have all sorts of human reactions. In Wolfe people apparently have sex to show what bad people they are, and suffer for it later. Wynn: That's ridiculous. Do you really intend to compare the writing of BSG to Wolfe in favor of BSG? Enamel: Yup. In the case of male-female sexual relationships, BSG beats the pants off of Wolfe. The motivations of the people involved and the effects the relationships have on them in BSG are more interesting and realistic than what Wolfe has shown. Wolfe doesn't typically set his scenes in "naturalistic" settings so I think you are comparing things that don't map. TB: BSG is hardly naturalistic. Sci-fi (even the pulp sci-fi Wolfe uses for his own ends) is still about people, what happens to them, and how they deal with it. *** This sort of evades the point. Of course these are fantastic settings. It is the characters themselves that are more ordinary, and have more ordinary motivations, than the Wolfean characters you're trying to compare them to. And the more "ordinary" characters that Wolfe writes about are generally in the short stories, which you for some reason are explicitly excluding from comparison. Even amongst the characters you do bring up, Latro for example at BEST provides no support for your main contention, and may show the exact opposite. --- ### James Wynn *25 Mar 2009, 16:22 · in reply to Thomas Bitterman* > Enamel: > Baltar starts out as very much as if Wolfe had written him. > His relationships are based solely on the sex that his money > and fame can get him. In the end he grows a lot through > his relationship(s). He is a better man for them. I find no support for this. If he grows, I don't see it occurring through his sexual relationships. Possibly, he has (if he has) through other events and by managing to focus less on sex. One of the advantages of Wolfe's character development over that in BSG is that he is quite overt in portraying the limits of potential character development through mere sexual encounters. It's the difference between the perspective of a middle-aged and older man and a bunch of Hollywood twenty-somethings. > Enamel: > Which Wolfean protagonist can say the same? Sev? Silk? Latro? Arguably all of them and more. Redemption through _love_ is a major common theme of Wolfe's works. >> wynn: >> For example, while the sexual relationship between >> the characters in "Counting Cats In Zanzibar" is realistic, >> the setting is bizarrely unconventional. > Enamel: > Short stories should be left aside. > The sort of character-development-through-a-sexual-relationship > I'm referring to takes more time than a typical short story has. This makes no sense to me. The story arcs in the finale required far less "character-development-through-a-sexual-relationship" than just about any of Wolfe's short stories. >> wynn: >> But your original statement that "In Wolfe people apparently have sex to >> show what bad people they are, >>and suffer for it later" is simply not >> based on...well, anything that I can see. > Enamel: > [snip] > There were some destructive ("bad") relationships, too. > That happens. Wolfe knows that. > He just seems uninterested in portraying any good ones. > [snip] > Severian/Jolenta - Sev as date-rapist Once again, this *does* seem intended to show to show Sev in a bad light. As opposed to the neutral light (at worst) shown on Starbuck's and Roslin's seedy sexual adventures. > Enamel: > Silk/Hyacinth - Silk loves unworthy woman, kills self over it Errr...no. He kills himself when she *dies*. After she meets Silk, she only has sex with other people out of loyalty to him--to protect or aid him. Compare this to Ellen Tigh who commits adultery as often as she can out of boredom or manipulative cruelty--she is from beginning to end a manipulative, cruel person for whom sex is rarely anything but some kind of poison...including for Saul (as Adama attests early on). > Enamel: > Baldanders/little boy - homosexual child molestation Perhaps this is going on. Perhaps not. > Enamel: > Able/Dsiri - romantic love points in the wrong direction, and he is less > for having it You're just trying to stir things up right? You don't really intend to defend this position, right? It is so off track, I can't imagine where to begin in order to correct you. You should put a tag after this. People might think you really have no ability to appreciate what's going on in a Wolfe story. > Enamel: > There are Doors - have sex and die In TAD sex is truly an existential event and it requires far more sexual development than the drunken encounters that so typically occur in BSG. > Enamel: > Latro - he may have sex, but can never really have a relationship When his love is killed, Latro mourns over her long after he has even remembered why he's mourning. Talk about your character-development-through-sexual-relationship. > Enamel: > Horn/Seawrack - she's a giant prawn! And yet sex with toasters doesn't bother you! > Enamel: > Severian/Dorcas - it's his grandmother! Come, come. Now you really are just being argumentative. :-) >> wynn: >> You are essentially ascribing to Wolfe the stated opinions of Incus. > Enamel: > St. Paul. And I'm not ascribing them to Wolfe, just describing what I see > in his work. Well, that shows an appalling lack of sensitivity when reading Wolfe...or St. Paul. That's just sad. > Enamel: > Said another way, Wolfe never seems to portray a > healthy, sexual relationship, one in which his characters > grow or benefit from each other. Not untroubled, > not happy-ever-after. Just healthy. Abel and Disiri? Silk and Hy were together almost alone for 20 years after they were married until she died. There's no evidence that she was anything but faithful after they left the Mainframe. What's the unhealthy part? Horn has some problems with his oldest child, but his 20 year relationship with Nettle seems to be one of devotion although they are neither perfect people and even though *gasp* they began their sexual relationship is horny teenagers. And then he died... Then Horn's relationship with Seawrack is convoluted but *she* definitely grows from it, right? > Enamel: > In the end everyone is dead. But for other good relationships: > Adama/Roslin There is actually very little sex in this relationship since Roslin is sick through most of it. If Wolfe did this, you would probably argue it proves what a prude he is. > Enamel: > Athena/Helo This is a relationship engineered deliberately and deceitfully by the Cylons in order to get a baby out of Helo. Sharon is actually pre-programmed to have her fall in love more easily. This relationship was one of those on my mind when I said that in BSG sex only occurs out of treachery or cruelty. Granted, things turn out sort-of-okay in the end, but this is accomplished by the BSG writers devoting surprisingly little time to either of these characters working through the obvious baggage. > Enamel: > Saul/Ellen Tigh - troubled, but ultimately happy, an interesting contrast > to Silk/Hyacinth The contrast with Silk and Hy is unfavorable to Saul and Ellen. I understand why the BSG writers did this. They wanted them to be the template for Zeus and Hera after they settle on Earth. But this hardly buttresses your core argument. It is impossible to say whether the Tigh's relationship ever ends up happy. Since they are Zeus and Hera, I'd say not. It's true that Ellen did not have an opportunity to do something evil during the finale. I presume she will within days after settling on Earth. >> wynn: >> If I were to ascribe a moral to sex in BSG it would be >> "sex invariability causes people to act treacherously or cruelly." > You've confused Wolfe and BSG. I stand by my statement. >> wynn: >> We like what we like. I wouldn't spend 2 minutes watching >> "Grey's Anatomy" or similar dramas regardless of how >> interesting (to some) or realistic the relationships are. >> Not my cup 'o tea. That's what the flashbacks in the finale >> reminded me of. They certainly didn't move forward or >> explain anything in the current narrative. > Enamel: > We agree - soap operas don't interest me, either. Well, what are we arguing about here? Half (at least) of the BSG finale was soap-opera. J. --- ### Thomas Bitterman *25 Mar 2009, 16:51 · in reply to John Watkins* > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 5:00 PM, John Watkins wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Thomas Bitterman wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:10 AM, James Wynn wrote: >>> Enamel: In BSG people have (and don't have) sex for >>> But your original statement that "In Wolfe people apparently have sex >>> to show what bad people they are, and suffer for it later" is simply not >>> based on...well, anything that I can see.. >> Severian/Jolenta - Sev as date-rapist >> Silk/Hyacinth - Silk loves unworthy woman, kills self over it >> Baldanders/little boy - homosexual child molestation >> Severian/Dorcas - it's his grandmother! >> Able/Dsiri - romantic love points in the wrong direction, and he is less >> for having it >> There are Doors - have sex and die >> Latro - he may have sex, but can never really have a relationship >> Horn/Seawrack - she's a giant prawn! >> >> There may be a pattern here. > That's not how I read Silk/Hyacinth, Severian/Dorcas, Able/Dsiri or There > Are Doors (although to be honest I have no clue what was going on in that > one. I must admit I felt that way through large chunks of Long/Short Sun. > Silk makes a Christlike action chasing after Hyacinth instead of going to > the lander, Silk/Hyacinth is Hosea/Gomer retold. I think the desire to retell this story outweighed any consideration of characterization. > and Able's relationship with Dsiri is redeemed and transfigured by his gift > of blood. Thereby implying that this relationship needed to be redeemed and transfigured. In a "standard" chivalric story the romantic/courtly love of a woman transforms and refines the brutish warrior into the gentlemanly knight. Wolfe inverts this idea - his hero is in a base relationship with a base creature. The only hope comes from a one-sided act of charity. This is not a complex relationship - it is Dsiri sleeping with Able to get citizenship. > The idea of a male priestly or godly figure sacrificing himself for a less > worthy female figure may be misogynist in the sense that Wolfe is repeatedly > chosing it to symbolize the relationship between Christ and humanity when > other symbols are available, Very nearly my point. Wolfe always seems to choose to portray romantic relationships that are unhealthy, destructive or otherwise just awful. He is capable of deep, interesting character development in so many other areas but romantic entanglements leave his characters flat. Enamel --- ### John Watkins *25 Mar 2009, 17:02 · in reply to Thomas Bitterman* > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Thomas Bitterman wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 5:00 PM, John Watkins wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Thomas Bitterman wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:10 AM, James Wynn wrote: >>>> Enamel: In BSG people have (and don't have) sex for >>>> But your original statement that "In Wolfe people apparently have sex >>>> to show what bad people they are, and suffer for it later" is simply not >>>> based on...well, anything that I can see.. >>> Severian/Jolenta - Sev as date-rapist >>> Silk/Hyacinth - Silk loves unworthy woman, kills self over it >>> Baldanders/little boy - homosexual child molestation >>> Severian/Dorcas - it's his grandmother! >>> Able/Dsiri - romantic love points in the wrong direction, and he is less >>> for having it >>> There are Doors - have sex and die >>> Latro - he may have sex, but can never really have a relationship >>> Horn/Seawrack - she's a giant prawn! >>> >>> There may be a pattern here. >> That's not how I read Silk/Hyacinth, Severian/Dorcas, Able/Dsiri or There >> Are Doors (although to be honest I have no clue what was going on in that >> one. > I must admit I felt that way through large chunks of Long/Short Sun. >> Silk makes a Christlike action chasing after Hyacinth instead of going >> to the lander, > Silk/Hyacinth is Hosea/Gomer retold. I think the desire to retell this > story outweighed any consideration of characterization. >> and Able's relationship with Dsiri is redeemed and transfigured by his >> gift of blood. > Thereby implying that this relationship needed to be redeemed and > transfigured. In a "standard" chivalric story the romantic/courtly love of > a woman transforms and refines the brutish warrior into the gentlemanly > knight. Wolfe inverts this idea - his hero is in a base relationship with a > base creature. The only hope comes from a one-sided act of charity. This > is not a complex relationship - it is Dsiri sleeping with Able to get > citizenship. Well, Wolfe is a Christian, so I think he thinks that most human things need to be redeemed and transfigured. I don't think Wolfe inverts the idea at all--Able's love for Dsiri *does *refine him into a better knight. > The idea of a male priestly or godly figure sacrificing himself for a > less worthy female figure may be misogynist in the sense that Wolfe is > repeatedly chosing it to symbolize the relationship between Christ and > humanity when other symbols are available, > Very nearly my point. Wolfe always seems to choose to portray romantic > relationships that are unhealthy, destructive or otherwise just awful. He > is capable of deep, interesting character development in so many other areas > but romantic entanglements leave his characters flat. > > Enamel > > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Thomas Bitterman *25 Mar 2009, 22:22 · in reply to Chris P* > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Chris P wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:10 AM, James Wynn wrote: > > Enamel: In BSG people have (and don't have) sex for > all sorts of human reasons, and have all sorts of > human reactions. In Wolfe people apparently have > sex to show what bad people they are, and suffer for it later. > > > Wynn: That's ridiculous. Do you really intend to compare the > writing of BSG to Wolfe in favor of BSG? > > > Enamel: Yup. In the case of male-female sexual relationships, > BSG beats the pants off of Wolfe. The motivations of the > people involved and the effects the relationships have on > them in BSG are more interesting and realistic than what > Wolfe has shown. > > > Wolfe doesn't typically set his scenes in "naturalistic" settings so I > think you are comparing things that don't map. > > > TB: BSG is hardly naturalistic. Sci-fi (even the pulp sci-fi Wolfe uses > for his own ends) is still about people, what happens to them, and how they > deal with it. > *** > > This sort of evades the point. Of course these are fantastic settings. It > is the characters themselves that are more ordinary, and have more ordinary > motivations, than the Wolfean characters you're trying to compare them to. I'm not sure what you mean by "ordinary motivations". Both universes around the usual needs: eat, sleep, and not get killed by space robots. > And the more "ordinary" characters that Wolfe writes about are generally in > the short stories, which you for some reason are explicitly excluding from > comparison. I excluded the short stories because I wanted to compare the way BSG has handled relationships as they evolved over the course of a 4+ season show to the way Wolfe does. The sort of depth I think the BSG writers gave some of their characters' romantic relationships takes time to develop. Time that short stories don't generally have. So best to stick near an apples to apples comparison. If you want to compare say, a romantic relationship in one particular Wolfe short story to, say, the Baltar-Six relationship solely as it is portrayed in the final episode, that's different. > Even amongst the characters you do bring up, Latro for example at BEST > provides no support for your main contention, and may show the exact > opposite. I'm not sure what my main point is taken as, but let me try to restate it with less hyperbole (and in brief): Extramarital sex in Wolfe's longer works is bad. The characters doing it are bad for doing it (and are often bad in other senses). They will pay for it at some point. The relationship itself will be poorly portrayed and unhealthy. My reasoning: Some rules seem to apply to a lot of Wolfe's fiction: - Sex outside of marriage is a bad thing. - A character is bad insofar as they do bad things, and they will pay, or at least not profit. - The reader is not supposed to empathise with characters who do bad things, in the context of the bad thing. The following situations are common in a lot of Wolfe's fiction: - Most characters, while "on-screen", are single. - Some have sex/enter into romantic relationships, from time to time. Put the rules and the situations together, and you get: - Some characters act badly. - They will pay, or at least not profit. The plot will see to this. - The relationship must be written in such a way that the reader is not tempted to sympathise/empathise/relate to the characters. Exceptions: - Sex that is condoned by society can be considered morally neutral (at best). The society is stained by association, though. - Sex between people who are engaged and later get married is ok. IIRC, Horn fits into here. - Apheta. What was going on there, anyway? The BSG writers did not start with the same rules and so were free to write (IMHO) deeper, more realistic romantic relationships. Enamel --- ### Thomas Bitterman *27 Mar 2009, 18:05 · in reply to James Wynn* > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:22 PM, James Wynn wrote: > Enamel: >> Baltar starts out as very much as if Wolfe had written him. >> His relationships are based solely on the sex that his money >> and fame can get him. In the end he grows a lot through >> his relationship(s). He is a better man for them. > I find no support for this. If he grows, I don't see it occurring through > his sexual relationships. Possibly, he has (if he has) through other events > and by managing to focus less on sex. His attitude toward sex changes as his character changes. Why he changes (and if that change is growth) is a matter for interpretation, and would need an entire thread to itself. One of the advantages of Wolfe's character development over that in BSG is > that he is quite overt in portraying the limits of potential character > development through mere sexual encounters. It's the difference between the > perspective of a middle-aged and older man and a bunch of Hollywood > twenty-somethings. I think this might be an important cause of the difference. I would replace "advantages" with "differences", though. > Enamel: >> Which Wolfean protagonist can say the same? Sev? Silk? Latro? > Arguably all of them and more. Redemption through _love_ is a major common > theme of Wolfe's works. What sort of love? Love of something higher, sure. Romantic love of someone else, not so much. Who is the great love of Severian's life, through whom he finds the strength to undergo his trials? Heck, when does Severian ever just sit down with a girl and watch the sunrise while they talk? Wolfe may not be a young man, but his heroes often are, and that's what young people do. Enamel: >> Short stories should be left aside. >> The sort of character-development-through-a-sexual-relationship >> I'm referring to takes more time than a typical short story has. > This makes no sense to me. The story arcs in the finale required far less > "character-development-through-a-sexual-relationship" than just about any of > Wolfe's short stories. I am referring to character development through the series. wynn: >>> But your original statement that "In Wolfe people apparently have sex to >>> show what bad people they are, >>and suffer for it later" is simply not >>> based on...well, anything that I can see. > Enamel: >> [snip] >> There were some destructive ("bad") relationships, too. >> That happens. Wolfe knows that. >> He just seems uninterested in portraying any good ones. >> [snip] >> Severian/Jolenta - Sev as date-rapist > Once again, this *does* seem intended to show to show Sev in a bad light. > As opposed to the neutral light (at worst) shown on Starbuck's and Roslin's > seedy sexual adventures. I have given my (non-seedy) interpretation of the Roslin episode in the finale. But I am referring to the series as a whole - these characters engage in sex and have relationships as complicated, realistic people for complicated, realistic reasons and experience a variety of outcomes, some good, some bad, some other. > Enamel: >> Silk/Hyacinth - Silk loves unworthy woman, kills self over it > Errr...no. He kills himself when she *dies*. I stand corrected. Not a real growth experience, still. > After she meets Silk, she only has sex with other people out of loyalty to > him--to protect or aid him. Compare this to Ellen Tigh who commits adultery > as often as she can out of boredom or manipulative cruelty--she is from > beginning to end a manipulative, cruel person for whom sex is rarely > anything but some kind of poison...including for Saul (as Adama attests > early on). The Hyacinth/Ellen analogy is closer than that - Ellen has sex with Cavil on New Caprica in order to try and save Saul. Enamel: >> Able/Dsiri - romantic love points in the wrong direction, and he is less >> for having it > You're just trying to stir things up right? You don't really intend to > defend this position, right? It is so off track, I can't imagine where to > begin in order to correct you. You should put a tag after this. > People might think you really have no ability to appreciate what's going on > in a Wolfe story. They may think that already. In any case, my (current) theory in short: Able is a 14-year-old in an 18-year-old's body. He's horny as hell and starts getting it regularly from a hot older chick (who has magical enchantment powers to boot). He ends up becoming her champion, having adventures and slaying dragons and all the good stuff that happens in tales of chivalry. In the end, though, it was all a sham. She is an onotologically inferior being and he would have been better off skipping the whole thing and loving The Most High directly. Enamel: >> There are Doors - have sex and die > In TAD sex is truly an existential event and it requires far more sexual > development than the drunken encounters that so typically occur in BSG. By sexual development do you mean being dragged into the back of a parade float? > Enamel: >> Latro - he may have sex, but can never really have a relationship > When his love is killed, Latro mourns over her long after he has even > remembered why he's mourning. Talk about your > character-development-through-sexual-relationship. Not knowing why one is mourning is not character development. It's just weird. It's not even clear whether one can mourn for no reason. One could be depressed, but to mourn would seem to imply mourning something or someone. > Enamel: >> Horn/Seawrack - she's a giant prawn! > And yet sex with toasters doesn't bother you! No one has sex with toasters. The skinjobs are arguably human - there is evidence of interbreeding with humans. They bear a lot of resemblence to Jonas. wynn: >>> You are essentially ascribing to Wolfe the stated opinions of Incus. > Enamel: >> St. Paul. And I'm not ascribing them to Wolfe, just describing what I see >> in his work. > Well, that shows an appalling lack of sensitivity when reading Wolfe...or > St. Paul. That's just sad. If interpreting St. Paul as anti-sex is insensitive, at least I'm in good (and extensive) company. St. Augustine is in the lineup next if you want to pitch around Paul. Enamel: >> Said another way, Wolfe never seems to portray a >> healthy, sexual relationship, one in which his characters >> grow or benefit from each other. Not untroubled, >> not happy-ever-after. Just healthy. > Abel and Disiri? See above. > Silk and Hy were together almost alone for 20 years after they were married > until she died. There's no evidence that she was anything but faithful after > they left the Mainframe. What's the unhealthy part? There's no evidence of _anything_ for that 20 years that I can recall. Saying "they had a good relationship" and actually showing it are two different things. > Horn has some problems with his oldest child, but his 20 year relationship > with Nettle seems to be one of devotion although they are neither perfect > people and even though *gasp* they began their sexual relationship is horny > teenagers. I though Horn and his son was a well-drawn relationship. They met each other face-to-face, both got to talk a lot and do some exposition, both got some action in, they turn out to be more-or-less-equals (Horn is a father on Green last I remember), they each come to conclusions about the other reflective of their characters and some shared experience. Compare to Horn's wife. On Short Sun she gets very few lines. Horn writes some touching letters to her, says he misses her, but it's a monologue. The horny teenagers part was the best part. > And then he died... Did he die? I don't know what was going on their, and I don't think anybody else (except maybe Wolfe) really does, either. See recent posts on this list. Enamel: >> In the end everyone is dead. But for other good relationships: >> Adama/Roslin > There is actually very little sex in this relationship since Roslin is sick > through most of it. If Wolfe did this, you would probably argue it proves > what a prude he is. If Wolfe did this, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Enamel: >> Athena/Helo > This is a relationship engineered deliberately and deceitfully by the > Cylons in order to get a baby out of Helo. Sharon is actually pre-programmed > to have her fall in love more easily. This relationship was one of those on > my mind when I said that in BSG sex only occurs out of treachery or cruelty. "Only" is too strong a word. The Cylons (especially at the beginning) are the bad guys. Of course they use sex as a weapon. > Granted, things turn out sort-of-okay in the end, but this is accomplished > by the BSG writers devoting surprisingly little time to either of these > characters working through the obvious baggage. The whole thing struck me as very Wolfe-like. She acted like she loved him for so long that in the end she did. Enamel: >> Saul/Ellen Tigh - troubled, but ultimately happy, an interesting contrast >> to Silk/Hyacinth > The contrast with Silk and Hy is unfavorable to Saul and Ellen. > I understand why the BSG writers did this. They wanted them to be the > template for Zeus and Hera after they settle on Earth. I would think Hera would be the template for Hera. > But this hardly buttresses your core argument. > It is impossible to say whether the Tigh's relationship ever ends up happy. > Since they are Zeus and Hera, I'd say not. It's true that Ellen did not have > an opportunity to do something evil during the finale. I presume she will > within days after settling on Earth. It was said in the series "All Ellen ever wanted was to be with Saul". If one accepts this, then huge swathes of her bad behavior gain meaning as a cry for him to pay attention to her instead of the bottle and the ship. Now that they only have each other, maybe that is all over. But, again, open for interpretation. > wynn: >>> If I were to ascribe a moral to sex in BSG it would be >>> "sex invariability causes people to act treacherously or cruelly." > You've confused Wolfe and BSG. > I stand by my statement. "Invariably" is too strong. I cannot remember a time where Anders acted treacherously or cruelly (to a fellow BSG fleet member) due to his relationship with Starbuck. > wynn: >>> We like what we like. I wouldn't spend 2 minutes watching >>> "Grey's Anatomy" or similar dramas regardless of how >>> interesting (to some) or realistic the relationships are. >>> Not my cup 'o tea. That's what the flashbacks in the finale >>> reminded me of. They certainly didn't move forward or >>> explain anything in the current narrative. > Enamel: >> We agree - soap operas don't interest me, either. > Well, what are we arguing about here? Half (at least) of the BSG finale was > soap-opera. The series, as a whole, tackled so many of the same issues as Wolfe does - what does it mean to be a person? what is a good religion? is history just a big cycle? - that the difference in the way relationships are portrayed really struck me. Usually I read Wolfe so I can wonder "If Latro keeps forgetting things, what happens to his personal identity? How brave can he be if he can't really imagine any long-term effects of his actions?". J. Enamel --- ### Mark Millman *27 Mar 2009, 19:56 · in reply to Thomas Bitterman* Dear Enamel, > On Friday 27 March 2009, you wrote: > What sort of love? Love of some- > thing higher, sure. Romantic love > of someone else, not so much. I think most readers would agree that often--not invariably, but much more often than not--romantic love is the starting point from which Wolfe's protagonists advance (as he would probably have it) to loving higher things. In some cases, it seems to accelerate their spiritual development. In others, I'd argue that the romantic love begins it, and that the advancement to higher things might not have happened at all without the protagonist's having fallen in love. [on Sharon's relationship with Helo] > The whole thing struck me as very > Wolfe-like. She acted like she > loved him for so long that in the > end she did. And I'd say that it's equally characteristic of Wolfe to make lesser good things pave the way for similar but greater good things. Best, Mark Millman (Nacre) --- ### James Wynn *27 Mar 2009, 20:24 · in reply to Thomas Bitterman* >> wynn: Redemption through _love_ is a major common theme of Wolfe's works. > enamel: What sort of love? Love of something higher, sure. > Romantic love of someone else, not so much. Disiri? Lara Morgan? Nettle? Hyacinth? Also, in a Wolfe novel, romantic love is an Earthly sacrament for the love of Something Higher. It's actually a far more developed view of love than that presented in soap-operas like the arcs in the BSG finale. Oops! I see Mark Millman explained this better than I could. > enamel: Who is the great love of Severian's life, through whom he finds the > strength to undergo his trials? Heck, when does Severian ever just sit > down with a girl and watch the sunrise while they talk? Wolfe may not be a > young man, but his heroes often are, and that's what young people do. Well, Severian-the-narrator (as with the Narrator of the Short Sun) is not a "person" in the conventional sense. The Great Love of Severian of course is Thecla, and they spend a lot of time in Thecla's cell (an interesting twist on your sunrise scene). It is the genius of Wolfe that Thecla is also the narrator of NS. It is also why NS might be impossible to "dramatize" on film or TV. It is also important to remember that we think of Severian as the Protagonist, but even more so, he is "merely" the Narrator. The story is not so much about him as the people he encounters -- Severian merely provides the POV. This is to a greater or lesser extant the case of Wolfe's other first-person novels as well. So the question is not whether Sev experiences "realistic" romance and how he is changed by it, but regarding those who love him. > enamel: [snip]But I am referring to the series as a whole - these > characters engage in sex and have relationships as complicated, realistic > people for complicated, realistic reasons and experience a variety of > outcomes, some good, some bad, some other. Well, nothing could be more complicated than a Wolfe romance. >> wynn: After she meets Silk, she only has sex with other people out of >> loyalty to him--to protect or aid him. Compare this to Ellen Tigh who >> commits adultery as often as she can out of boredom or manipulative >> cruelty--she is from beginning to end a manipulative, cruel person for >> whom sex is rarely anything but some kind of poison...including for Saul >> (as Adama attests early on). > enamel: The Hyacinth/Ellen analogy is closer than that - Ellen has sex with > Cavil on New Caprica in order to try and save Saul. Well, that shows Ellen's growth through misery, but not through romance. When she is resurrected and returns to Galactica, it is almost immediately clear how little she has changed. >> wynn: You're just trying to stir things up right? You don't really intend >> to defend this position, right? It is so off track, I can't imagine where >> to begin in order to correct you. You should put a tag after >> this. People might think you really have no ability to appreciate what's >> going on in a Wolfe story. I apologize for the tone in this response. Looking back I think it was very much uncalled-for. > enamel: They may think that already. In any case, my (current) theory in > short: Able is a 14-year-old in an 18-year-old's body. He's horny as hell > and starts getting it regularly from a hot older chick (who has magical > enchantment powers to boot). Actually, he doesn't "get it" from her, until the end of the novel when she is human. He hopes that he will, but in the meantime he sublimates his sexual worship of Disiri into something harder (denying himself of both an edged weapon and the advances of all non-Disiri women and the horny Fire Aelf). Also, Able thinks of himself as a 14-year-old, but he has spent years in Aelfrice as Disiri's playmate. He's been "dialed back" to the age and memory of when he was taken by the Moss Aelf between the time The Knight starts and when he is "grown" by Disiri. He ends up becoming her champion, having adventures and slaying dragons and all the good stuff that happens in tales of chivalry. In the end, though, it was all a sham. She is an onotologically inferior being and he would have been better off skipping the whole thing and loving The Most High directly. No, no, no. Wolfe's point is that Abel's method truly Loving Disiri --rather than finding her available and appealing-- was a stand-in for loving the Most High God of which he stills knows almost nothing of at the end of double novel. It ultimately led him to Skye as a great hero. Wolfe's perspective certainly does jibe with a lot of things C.S. Lewis wrote and illustrated in 'The Last Battle', 'The Great Divorce', and 'The Four Loves'. But once again, there are two sides to this romance. You cannot ignore Disiri's motivations in loving Able (which we find she does although she has a strange way of showing it in her initial scene). Disiri loves Able because she recognizes that he is Higher than she. Her love is certainly properly directed, right? To say that Able was wrong in loving Disiri is to say that Christ was wrong in loving mankind. It's much more involved than you are portraying. >>> enamel: There are Doors - have sex and die >> wynn: In TAD sex is truly an existential event and it requires far more >> sexual development than the drunken encounters that so typically occur in >> BSG. > enamel: By sexual development do you mean being dragged into the > back of a parade float? Green doesn't know what the woman in the parade float expected of him, nor the implications of that agreement, and she doesn't know he is not aware of that. It would have been a very existential moment for a man who actually accepted her offer in fact. In our world we have parades. In the Lara Morgan world they do too, but they mean much more. We aren't told exactly what the total meaning is, but clearly a parade could mean a lot to some men in that world. In the hospital, there is a scene where a man is begging a woman for sex. He wants their love to truly mean something and she feels that he's only asking for the end of their relationship. It's really a fascinating experiment on the concepts pushed by Robert Graves in The White Goddess. >>> enamel: Latro - he may have sex, but can never really have a relationship >> wynn: When his love is killed, Latro mourns over her long after he has >> even remembered why he's mourning. Talk about your >> character-development-through-sexual-relationship. > enamel: Not knowing why one is mourning is not character development. It's > just weird. It's not even clear whether one can mourn for no reason. One > could be depressed, but to mourn would seem to imply mourning something or > someone. Well, you are merely rejecting Wolfe's premise. That's fine. But you can't reject the premise and then ascribe some other meaning to his narrative. Wolfe is arguing that we are more than our memories. That Love itself is more than what we remember about it. That is hardly evidence of an "unhealthy" relationship, or as you stated here No Relationship At All. >>> enamel: Horn/Seawrack - she's a giant prawn! >> wynn: And yet sex with toasters doesn't bother you! > enamel: No one has sex with toasters. The skinjobs are arguably > human - there is evidence of interbreeding with humans. > They bear a lot of resemblence to Jonas. Granted. But the same is true for Seawrack. However, Gaelin doesn't see it that way in the end, and he helped design the skinjobs. He says that the Sharons are "all the same because we made them all the same". He laments that after 2000 years he still can't remember that. There's a case to be made that he is wrong, that the Sharons in particular *can be* something more. But you can't deny the authority of his claim. > enamel: If interpreting St. Paul as anti-sex is insensitive, at least I'm > in good (and extensive) company. St. Augustine is in the lineup next if > you want to pitch around Paul. I confess, that I feel genuine pity for those who have honestly approached Paul's writings without understanding them. However, I don't think they are in the majority of Paul's critics. I recommend to a re-reading of Paul, and Augustine too for that matter. Granted the starting point of Augustine's worldview on sex and marriage --founded as they are on Roman mores-- are unrelatable to modern Western/Christianized eyes; however, it was Augustine who prayed, "Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet." > enamel: Said another way, Wolfe never seems to portray a > healthy, sexual relationship, one in which his characters > grow or benefit from each other. Not untroubled, not happy-ever-after. Just healthy. Adama/Roslin >> There is actually very little sex in this relationship since Roslin is >> sick through most of it. If Wolfe did this, you would probably argue >> it proves what a prude he is. > If Wolfe did this, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Frankly, I found the consummation of Roslin and Adama's feelings to totally bleed-out anything interesting in them as characters. Roslin becomes totally passive and Adama turns into a wilting daisy. But, I repeat: This is not much of a sexual relationship. Athena/Helo >> wynn: This is a relationship engineered deliberately and deceitfully by >> the Cylons in order to get a baby out of Helo. Sharon is actually >> pre-programmed to have her fall in love more easily. This relationship was >> one of those on my mind when I said that in BSG sex only occurs out of >> treachery or cruelty. > enamel: "Only" is too strong a word. The Cylons (especially at the > beginning) are the bad guys. Of course they use sex as a weapon. Ah! Then you admit at least that my assessment is not far off the point? >> wynn: Granted, things turn out sort-of-okay in the end, but this is >> accomplished by the BSG writers devoting surprisingly little time to >> either of these characters working through the obvious baggage. > enamel: The whole thing struck me as very Wolfe-like. She acted like she > loved him for so long that in the end she did. Well if it is Wolfe-like, why are we having this conversation? For all the problems I had with it, this is the most tried and resilient relationship in the series. Saul/Ellen Tigh: > enamel: It was said in the series "All Ellen ever wanted was to be with > Saul". If one accepts this, then huge swathes of her bad behavior gain > meaning as a cry for him to pay attention to her instead of the bottle and > the ship. Now that they only have each other, maybe that is all over. > But, again, open for interpretation. It was during her time closely confined with Saul on Galactica that she had affairs with both Baltar and Zarek. >> wynn: If I were to ascribe a moral to sex in BSG it would be "sex >> invariability causes people to act treacherously or cruelly." > enamel: "Invariably" is too strong. I cannot remember a time where Anders > acted treacherously or cruelly (to a fellow BSG fleet member) due to his > relationship with Starbuck. I suppose "invariably" is too strong. But every BSG sexual relationship (with the exception of Roslin/Adama which is barely a sexual relationship at all) *involves* treachery or cruelty. So comparing it with Wolfe and saying BSG portrays is at ease portraying "healthy" sexual relationships and Wolfe only uses it to show people as bad, just doesn't wash at any level. Anders is a chronic victim in his relationship with Starbuck. Starbuck's two other long-term relationships involve almost cheating with the guy's brother and daily rape by a cylon in a pseudo-marriage relationship. She takes Anders on as a rebound from Apollo. She openly carries a torch for Apollo until she dies while finding Earth. It is only the re-constructed Starbuck that begrudgingly begins to accept Anders as more than a foil for Apollo. Even then, their relationship never rises beyond good friends. >> wynn: Well, what are we arguing about here? Half (at least) of the BSG >> finale was soap-opera. > enamel: The series, as a whole, tackled so many of the same issues as Wolfe > does - what does it mean to be a person? what is a good religion? is > history just a big cycle? - that the difference in the way relationships > are portrayed really struck me. Okay, I'll buy that BSG tackles many of the same themes as Wolfe. But BSG did not tackle these themes with the consistency and plotting we expect from Wolfe. The romance arcs in the finale (especially) IMO were the opposite of a reason to recommend the series. The episodes that focused on the romances in general (the Boomer/Athena relationships were a glaring exception) tended to make me use the fast-forward button on my DDR (I'm thinking of Starbuck and Roslin/Adama right now). But this is beside the point. To look at Able and Disiri cuddling down in Aelfrice at the end of The Wizard Knight (as one example) or the whole of Wolfe's writing and say that " In Wolfe, people apparently have sex to show what bad people they are, and suffer for it later," is just totally off the board. J. --- ### James Wynn *27 Mar 2009, 20:29 · follows James Wynn* Of course, the following quotation is Enamel's although it looks like it is mine: > He ends up becoming her champion, having adventures and slaying dragons > and all the good stuff that happens in tales of chivalry. In the end, > though, > it was all a sham. She is an onotologically inferior being and he would > have been better off skipping the whole thing and loving The Most High > directly. -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "James Wynn" >>> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 3:24 PM >>> To: "The Urth Mailing List" >>> Subject: Re: (urth) BSG Spoiler vs Wolfe >>> wynn: Redemption through _love_ is a major common theme of Wolfe's works. >> enamel: What sort of love? Love of something higher, sure. >> Romantic love of someone else, not so much. > Disiri? Lara Morgan? Nettle? Hyacinth? > Also, in a Wolfe novel, romantic love is an Earthly sacrament for the love > of Something Higher. It's actually a far more developed view of love than > that presented in soap-operas like the arcs in the BSG finale. > > Oops! I see Mark Millman explained this better than I could. >> enamel: Who is the great love of Severian's life, through whom he finds >> the >> strength to undergo his trials? Heck, when does Severian ever just sit >> down with a girl and watch the sunrise while they talk? Wolfe may not be >> a >> young man, but his heroes often are, and that's what young people do. > Well, Severian-the-narrator (as with the Narrator of the Short Sun) is not > a > "person" in the conventional sense. The Great Love of Severian of course > is > Thecla, and they spend a lot of time in Thecla's cell (an interesting > twist > on your sunrise scene). It is the genius of Wolfe that Thecla is also the > narrator of NS. It is also why NS might be impossible to "dramatize" on > film > or TV. It is also important to remember that we think of Severian as the > Protagonist, but even more so, he is "merely" the Narrator. The story is > not > so much about him as the people he encounters -- Severian merely provides > the POV. This is to a greater or lesser extant the case of Wolfe's other > first-person novels as well. So the question is not whether Sev > experiences > "realistic" romance and how he is changed by it, but regarding those who > love him. >> enamel: [snip]But I am referring to the series as a whole - these >> characters engage in sex and have relationships as complicated, realistic >> people for complicated, realistic reasons and experience a variety of >> outcomes, some good, some bad, some other. > Well, nothing could be more complicated than a Wolfe romance. >>> wynn: After she meets Silk, she only has sex with other people out of >>> loyalty to him--to protect or aid him. Compare this to Ellen Tigh who >>> commits adultery as often as she can out of boredom or manipulative >>> cruelty--she is from beginning to end a manipulative, cruel person for >>> whom sex is rarely anything but some kind of poison...including for Saul >>> (as Adama attests early on). >> enamel: The Hyacinth/Ellen analogy is closer than that - Ellen has sex >> with >> Cavil on New Caprica in order to try and save Saul. > Well, that shows Ellen's growth through misery, but not through romance. > When she is resurrected and returns to Galactica, it is almost immediately > clear how little she has changed. >>> wynn: You're just trying to stir things up right? You don't really intend >>> to defend this position, right? It is so off track, I can't imagine where >>> to begin in order to correct you. You should put a tag after >>> this. People might think you really have no ability to appreciate what's >>> going on in a Wolfe story. > I apologize for the tone in this response. Looking back I think it was > very much uncalled-for. >> enamel: They may think that already. In any case, my (current) theory in >> short: Able is a 14-year-old in an 18-year-old's body. He's horny as >> hell >> and starts getting it regularly from a hot older chick (who has magical >> enchantment powers to boot). > Actually, he doesn't "get it" from her, until the end of the novel when > she > is human. He hopes that he will, but in the meantime he sublimates his > sexual worship of Disiri into something harder (denying himself of both an > edged weapon and the advances of all non-Disiri women and the horny Fire > Aelf). Also, Able thinks of himself as a 14-year-old, but he has spent > years in Aelfrice as Disiri's playmate. He's been "dialed back" to the age > and memory of when he was taken by the Moss Aelf between the time The > Knight > starts and when he is "grown" by Disiri. > > He ends up becoming her champion, having adventures and slaying dragons > and > all the good stuff that happens in tales of chivalry. In the end, though, > it was all a sham. She is an onotologically inferior being and he would > have been better off skipping the whole thing and loving The Most High > directly. > > No, no, no. Wolfe's point is that Abel's method truly Loving > Disiri --rather > than finding her available and appealing-- was a stand-in for loving the > Most High God of which he stills knows almost nothing of at the end of > double novel. It ultimately led him to Skye as a great hero. Wolfe's > perspective certainly does jibe with a lot of things C.S. Lewis wrote and > illustrated in 'The Last Battle', 'The Great Divorce', and 'The Four > Loves'. > > But once again, there are two sides to this romance. You cannot ignore > Disiri's motivations in loving Able (which we find she does although she > has > a strange way of showing it in her initial scene). Disiri loves Able > because she recognizes that he is Higher than she. Her love is certainly > properly directed, right? To say that Able was wrong in loving Disiri is > to > say that Christ was wrong in loving mankind. It's much more involved than > you are portraying. >>>> enamel: There are Doors - have sex and die >>> wynn: In TAD sex is truly an existential event and it requires far more >>> sexual development than the drunken encounters that so typically occur in >>> BSG. >> enamel: By sexual development do you mean being dragged into the >> back of a parade float? > Green doesn't know what the woman in the parade float expected of him, nor > the implications of that agreement, and she doesn't know he is not aware > of > that. It would have been a very existential moment for a man who actually > accepted her offer in fact. In our world we have parades. In the Lara > Morgan > world they do too, but they mean much more. We aren't told exactly what > the > total meaning is, but clearly a parade could mean a lot to some men in > that > world. In the hospital, there is a scene where a man is begging a woman > for > sex. He wants their love to truly mean something and she feels that he's > only asking for the end of their relationship. It's really a fascinating > experiment on the concepts pushed by Robert Graves in The White Goddess. >>>> enamel: Latro - he may have sex, but can never really have a >>>> relationship >>> wynn: When his love is killed, Latro mourns over her long after he has >>> even remembered why he's mourning. Talk about your >>> character-development-through-sexual-relationship. >> enamel: Not knowing why one is mourning is not character development. >> It's >> just weird. It's not even clear whether one can mourn for no reason. One >> could be depressed, but to mourn would seem to imply mourning something or >> someone. > Well, you are merely rejecting Wolfe's premise. That's fine. But you can't > reject the premise and then ascribe some other meaning to his narrative. > Wolfe is arguing that we are more than our memories. That Love itself is > more than what we remember about it. That is hardly evidence of an > "unhealthy" relationship, or as you stated here No Relationship At All. >>>> enamel: Horn/Seawrack - she's a giant prawn! >>> wynn: And yet sex with toasters doesn't bother you! >> enamel: No one has sex with toasters. The skinjobs are arguably >> human - there is evidence of interbreeding with humans. >> They bear a lot of resemblence to Jonas. > Granted. But the same is true for Seawrack. However, Gaelin doesn't see it > that way in the end, and he helped design the skinjobs. He says that the > Sharons are "all the same because we made them all the same". He laments > that after 2000 years he still can't remember that. There's a case to be > made that he is wrong, that the Sharons in particular *can be* something > more. But you can't deny the authority of his claim. >> enamel: If interpreting St. Paul as anti-sex is insensitive, at least I'm >> in good (and extensive) company. St. Augustine is in the lineup next if >> you want to pitch around Paul. > I confess, that I feel genuine pity for those who have honestly approached > Paul's writings without understanding them. However, I don't think they > are > in the majority of Paul's critics. I recommend to a re-reading of Paul, > and > Augustine too for that matter. Granted the starting point of Augustine's > worldview on sex and marriage --founded as they are on Roman mores-- are > unrelatable to modern Western/Christianized eyes; however, it was > Augustine > who prayed, "Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet." >> enamel: Said another way, Wolfe never seems to portray a >> healthy, sexual relationship, one in which his characters >> grow or benefit from each other. Not untroubled, >> not happy-ever-after. Just healthy. > Adama/Roslin > There is actually very little sex in this relationship since Roslin is > sick through most of it. If Wolfe did this, you would probably argue > it proves what a prude he is. >> If Wolfe did this, we wouldn't be having this conversation. > Frankly, I found the consummation of Roslin and Adama's feelings to > totally > bleed-out anything interesting in them as characters. Roslin becomes > totally > passive and Adama turns into a wilting daisy. But, I repeat: This is not > much of a sexual relationship. > > Athena/Helo > wynn: This is a relationship engineered deliberately and deceitfully by > the Cylons in order to get a baby out of Helo. Sharon is actually > pre-programmed to have her fall in love more easily. This relationship > was > one of those on my mind when I said that in BSG sex only occurs out of > treachery or cruelty. >> enamel: "Only" is too strong a word. The Cylons (especially at the >> beginning) are the bad guys. Of course they use sex as a weapon. > Ah! Then you admit at least that my assessment is not far off the point? >>> wynn: Granted, things turn out sort-of-okay in the end, but this is >>> accomplished by the BSG writers devoting surprisingly little time to >>> either of these characters working through the obvious baggage. >> enamel: The whole thing struck me as very Wolfe-like. She acted like she >> loved him for so long that in the end she did. > Well if it is Wolfe-like, why are we having this conversation? > For all the problems I had with it, this is the most tried and > resilient relationship in the series. > > Saul/Ellen Tigh: >> enamel: It was said in the series "All Ellen ever wanted was to be with >> Saul". If one accepts this, then huge swathes of her bad behavior gain >> meaning as a cry for him to pay attention to her instead of the bottle and >> the ship. Now that they only have each other, maybe that is all over. >> But, again, open for interpretation. > It was during her time closely confined with Saul on Galactica that she > had > affairs with both Baltar and Zarek. >>> wynn: If I were to ascribe a moral to sex in BSG it would be "sex >>> invariability causes people to act treacherously or cruelly." >> enamel: "Invariably" is too strong. I cannot remember a time where Anders >> acted treacherously or cruelly (to a fellow BSG fleet member) due to his >> relationship with Starbuck. > I suppose "invariably" is too strong. But every BSG sexual relationship > (with the exception of Roslin/Adama which is barely a sexual relationship > at all) *involves* treachery or cruelty. So comparing it with Wolfe and > saying BSG portrays is at ease portraying "healthy" sexual relationships > and Wolfe only uses it to show people as bad, just doesn't wash at any > level. > > Anders is a chronic victim in his relationship with Starbuck. Starbuck's > two other long-term relationships involve almost cheating with the guy's > brother and daily rape by a cylon in a pseudo-marriage relationship. She > takes Anders on as a rebound from Apollo. She openly carries a torch for > Apollo until she dies while finding Earth. It is only the re-constructed > Starbuck that begrudgingly begins to accept Anders as more than a foil for > Apollo. Even then, their relationship never rises beyond good friends. >>> wynn: Well, what are we arguing about here? Half (at least) of the BSG >>> finale was soap-opera. >> enamel: The series, as a whole, tackled so many of the same issues as >> Wolfe >> does - what does it mean to be a person? what is a good religion? is >> history just a big cycle? - that the difference in the way relationships >> are portrayed really struck me. > Okay, I'll buy that BSG tackles many of the same themes as Wolfe. But BSG > did not tackle these themes with the consistency and plotting we expect > from Wolfe. The romance arcs in the finale (especially) IMO were the > opposite of a reason to recommend the series. The episodes that focused on > the romances in general (the Boomer/Athena relationships were a glaring > exception) tended to make me use the fast-forward button on my DDR (I'm > thinking of Starbuck and Roslin/Adama right now). > > But this is beside the point. To look at Able and Disiri cuddling down in > Aelfrice at the end of The Wizard Knight (as one example) or the whole of > Wolfe's writing and say that " In Wolfe, people apparently have sex to > show > what bad people they are, and suffer for it later," is just totally off > the board. > > J. --- ### Mark Millman *27 Mar 2009, 23:28 · in reply to James Wynn* Dear Mr. Wynn, Thank you for your very kind comment. > On Friday 27 March 2009, you wrote: > No, no, no. Wolfe's point is that > Abel's method truly Loving Disiri -- > rather than finding her available > and appealing-- was a stand-in for > loving the Most High God of which > he stills knows almost nothing of > at the end of double novel. It ulti- > mately led him to Skye as a great > hero. “Wolfe's perspective certainly > does jibe with a lot of things C.S. > Lewis wrote and illustrated in 'The > Last Battle', 'The Great Divorce', > and 'The Four Loves'. > > But once again, there are two sides > to this romance. You cannot ignore > Disiri's motivations in loving Able > (which we find she does although > she has a strange way of showing > it in her initial scene). ?Disiri loves > Able because she recognizes that > he is Higher than she. Her love is > certainly properly directed, right” > To say that Able was wrong in loving > Disiri is to say that Christ was wrong > in loving mankind. ?It's much more > involved than you are portraying. Yes, exactly. This is a case in which both of the romantic partners experience spiritual growth through the relationship--Disiri in particular in a very literalized way. This is very well said. Best, Mark Millman --- ### Thomas Bitterman *04 Apr 2009, 00:04 · in reply to James Wynn* > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 4:24 PM, James Wynn wrote: > wynn: Redemption through _love_ is a major common theme of Wolfe's works. > enamel: What sort of love? Love of something higher, sure. >> Romantic love of someone else, not so much. > Disiri? Lara Morgan? Nettle? Hyacinth? Dsiri and Lara are both goddesses from another dimension, and fall in love with someone of a higher category. Their boyfriends are facing their love the wrong way - they should be loving up. Nettle and Hyacinth are more-or-less equals, and have the vast majority of their relationships off screen. None of them are protagonists, or get a lot of internal development. Also, in a Wolfe novel, romantic love is an Earthly sacrament for the love > of Something Higher. It's actually a far more developed view of love than > that presented in soap-operas like the arcs in the BSG finale. Three words: mating with giants. Oops! I see Mark Millman explained this better than I could. > enamel: Who is the great love of Severian's life, through whom he finds > the > strength to undergo his trials? Heck, when does Severian ever just sit > down with a girl and watch the sunrise while they talk? Wolfe may not be > a > young man, but his heroes often are, and that's what young people do. > Well, Severian-the-narrator (as with the Narrator of the Short Sun) is not > a > "person" in the conventional sense. The Great Love of Severian of course is > Thecla, and they spend a lot of time in Thecla's cell (an interesting twist > on your sunrise scene). It is the genius of Wolfe that Thecla is also the > narrator of NS. It is also why NS might be impossible to "dramatize" on > film > or TV. It is also important to remember that we think of Severian as the > Protagonist, but even more so, he is "merely" the Narrator. The story is > not > so much about him as the people he encounters -- Severian merely provides > the POV. This is to a greater or lesser extant the case of Wolfe's other > first-person novels as well. So the question is not whether Sev experiences > "realistic" romance and how he is changed by it, but regarding those who > love him. I agree that Severian not somebody to look for as a model for romantic love. Well, nothing could be more complicated than a Wolfe romance. A Wolfe plot? :-) > enamel: They may think that already. In any case, my (current) theory in > short: Able is a 14-year-old in an 18-year-old's body. He's horny as > hell > and starts getting it regularly from a hot older chick (who has magical > enchantment powers to boot). > Actually, he doesn't "get it" from her, until the end of the novel when she > is human. In _The Knight_, he ends chapter 7 kissing her and begins chapter 8 lying on the grass with no clothes on. I went with the obvious. It is a little less obvious a few paragraphs up, but is hinted at there, too. > He hopes that he will, but in the meantime he sublimates his > sexual worship of Disiri into something harder (denying himself of both an > edged weapon and the advances of all non-Disiri women and the horny Fire > Aelf). Also, Able thinks of himself as a 14-year-old, but he has spent > years in Aelfrice as Disiri's playmate. He's been "dialed back" to the age > and memory of when he was taken by the Moss Aelf between the time The > Knight > starts and when he is "grown" by Disiri. It's not clear how much choice he has in the matter. Dsiri boasts near the end of chapter 7 that men she has kissed cannot leave until she sends them away. I think he is trying to remain faithful, and is being helped in this by that spell. He sure acts spell-bound. > No, no, no. Wolfe's point is that Abel's method truly Loving Disiri > --rather > than finding her available and appealing-- was a stand-in for loving the > Most High God of which he stills knows almost nothing of at the end of > double novel. It ultimately led him to Skye as a great hero. Wolfe's > perspective certainly does jibe with a lot of things C.S. Lewis wrote and > illustrated in 'The Last Battle', 'The Great Divorce', and 'The Four > Loves'. If it were a stand-in, why not have him love a human woman, or one better than him? But once again, there are two sides to this romance. You cannot ignore > Disiri's motivations in loving Able (which we find she does although she > has > a strange way of showing it in her initial scene). Disiri loves Able > because she recognizes that he is Higher than she. Her love is certainly > properly directed, right? Yes. And the ontological distance between her and Able renders her love for Able suspect at best (IMHO). Their differing levels in the heirarchy simply preclude the sort of relationship that people have with each other. That, and the whole being under a spell thing. > To say that Able was wrong in loving Disiri is to > say that Christ was wrong in loving mankind. It's much more involved than > you are portraying. a) Christ is God and is categorically immune to charges of wrongdoing b) Christ came because the Father sent Him. Able is acting on his own. enamel: There are Doors - have sex and die > wynn: In TAD sex is truly an existential event and it requires far more > sexual development than the drunken encounters that so typically occur in > BSG. > enamel: By sexual development do you mean being dragged into the > back of a parade float? > Green doesn't know what the woman in the parade float expected of him, nor > the implications of that agreement, and she doesn't know he is not aware of > that. It would have been a very existential moment for a man who actually > accepted her offer in fact. Yes, but not one that _requires_ more development. enamel: Latro - he may have sex, but can never really have a relationship > wynn: When his love is killed, Latro mourns over her long after he has > even remembered why he's mourning. Talk about your > character-development-through-sexual-relationship. > enamel: Not knowing why one is mourning is not character development. >> It's >> just weird. It's not even clear whether one can mourn for no reason. One >> could be depressed, but to mourn would seem to imply mourning something or >> someone. > Well, you are merely rejecting Wolfe's premise. That's fine. But you can't > reject the premise and then ascribe some other meaning to his narrative. Darn. I though the author was dead. Wolfe is arguing that we are more than our memories. That Love itself is > more than what we remember about it. That is hardly evidence of an > "unhealthy" relationship, or as you stated here No Relationship At All. Wolfe is going to have to do a lot more arguing before the idea that you can love somebody you don't know is very convincing. human - there is evidence of interbreeding with humans. >> They bear a lot of resemblence to Jonas. > Granted. But the same is true for Seawrack. However, Gaelin doesn't see it > that way in the end, and he helped design the skinjobs. He says that the > Sharons are "all the same because we made them all the same". He laments > that after 2000 years he still can't remember that. There's a case to be > made that he is wrong, that the Sharons in particular *can be* something > more. But you can't deny the authority of his claim. Galen (like Latro, a little) has little/no memory of 2000 years ago. If he recovered that he might feel differently. His authority in this matter is not much greater than any other normal person's. > enamel: If interpreting St. Paul as anti-sex is insensitive, at least I'm > in good (and extensive) company. St. Augustine is in the lineup next if > you want to pitch around Paul. > I confess, that I feel genuine pity for those who have honestly approached > Paul's writings without understanding them. However, I don't think they are > in the majority of Paul's critics. I recommend to a re-reading of Paul, > and > Augustine too for that matter. Granted the starting point of Augustine's > worldview on sex and marriage --founded as they are on Roman mores-- are > unrelatable to modern Western/Christianized eyes; however, it was Augustine > who prayed, "Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet." Given that Paul is not around to comment, how do you know who has genuinely understood his writings and who hasn't? He seems pretty clear. Augustine was mocking/repenting of his former attitude. > Athena/Helo >> wynn: This is a relationship engineered deliberately and deceitfully by >> the Cylons in order to get a baby out of Helo. Sharon is actually >> pre-programmed to have her fall in love more easily. This relationship >> was >> one of those on my mind when I said that in BSG sex only occurs out of >> treachery or cruelty. > enamel: "Only" is too strong a word. The Cylons (especially at the > beginning) are the bad guys. Of course they use sex as a weapon. > Ah! Then you admit at least that my assessment is not far off the point? Yes. Characters in BSG often act treacherously or cruelly, and sometimes they act that way sexually. They also act other ways and act those ways sexually, also. Saul/Ellen Tigh: >> enamel: It was said in the series "All Ellen ever wanted was to be with >> Saul". If one accepts this, then huge swathes of her bad behavior gain >> meaning as a cry for him to pay attention to her instead of the bottle and >> the ship. Now that they only have each other, maybe that is all over. >> But, again, open for interpretation. > It was during her time closely confined with Saul on Galactica that she had > affairs with both Baltar and Zarek. She has two rivals - the ship/Adama, and the bottle. Saul is on the ship. IIRC, he has started drinking again, also. > wynn: If I were to ascribe a moral to sex in BSG it would be "sex > invariability causes people to act treacherously or cruelly." > enamel: "Invariably" is too strong. I cannot remember a time where Anders > acted treacherously or cruelly (to a fellow BSG fleet member) due to his > relationship with Starbuck. > I suppose "invariably" is too strong. But every BSG sexual relationship > (with the exception of Roslin/Adama which is barely a sexual relationship at > all) *involves* treachery or cruelty. So comparing it with Wolfe and > saying BSG portrays is at ease portraying "healthy" sexual relationships and > Wolfe only uses it to show people as bad, just doesn't wash at any level. BSG has some healthy sexual relationships. They need not all be. Wolfe has so many bad ones that it takes some serious interpretive work to make any out as good. Even his throwaway relationships are bad - see near the end of chapter 9 in _The Knight_, where Able sees a man being cuckolded. That's just gratuitous. Okay, I'll buy that BSG tackles many of the same themes as Wolfe. But BSG > did not tackle these themes with the consistency and plotting we expect from > Wolfe. Agreed. > The romance arcs in the finale (especially) IMO were the opposite of a > reason to recommend the series. One could say the same for Wolfe. > J. Enamel --- ### Gwern Branwen *02 Jul 2010, 11:50 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* >>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:20 AM, wrote: >>> I guess I'm a moderate conservative or libertarian on the issue. >>> I think the Second Amendment creates an individual right and >>> that that individual right clearly isn't meant to cover every >>> conceivable form of weapon. >> I would argue that the intent was self-evidently for it to cover every >> conceivable type of weapon. > Indeed, the most powerful weapons available in the eighteenth century were > warships, many of which were privately owned, as was much artillery in the > sense of crew-served weapons. > > The intent of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to more > readily defend themselves against the government, when this becomes > necessary, as it inevitably does. I don't think that this is what the founders thought, but I'd bet good money this is what Gene thinks. I've read through most of _Starwater Strains_ now, and my initial belief has hardened: Gene's writings are definitely getting more political. In his older works like _Peace_ or _Book of the New Sun_ (pre-90s), I didn't notice anything political, or at least, contemporary. But in stuff from the last 2 decades? My suspicion has become certainty. The stories in SS though are absolutely littered with libertarian/conservative plots or asides. Some stories do nothing but push such ideas. "Viewpoint", for example, has a dystopian government which claims to own all money and which suppresses all weaponry, the better to oppress its citizenry; the protagonist, who is a heroic moral wilderness survivalist fellow, spends most of the story trying to get a weapon. His great victory is to murder a government agent. "Has Anyone Seen Junie Moon?", when it's not trying to channel Lafferty, ends with best wishes for a rebellion that will kill 'the big important gangs with suits and guns' (the government). "The Fat Magician" ends with a rant about totalitarian governments. Another story seems to implies that the government is responsible for taking away everything interesting and handing over power to machines and rules ("Petting Zoo"), while in "The Dog of the Drops", the government seems to engineer the extinction of dogs because dogs don't pay taxes and don't love the government but their owners. (I'm speculating a little with this one because the dialect is so hard to read.) And so on. I haven't even finished, but it's all far more blatant than _An Evil Guest_. ``` gwern ``` --- ### brunians at brunians.org *02 Jul 2010, 12:59 · in reply to Gwern Branwen* It is what the framers thought. If you don't believe me you should read the Federalist and the anti-Federalist. Or just, you know, continue to believe what you prefer to believe. . > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:20 AM, wrote: >>>> I guess I'm a moderate conservative or libertarian on the issue. >>>> I think the Second Amendment creates an individual right and >>>> that that individual right clearly isn't meant to cover every >>>> conceivable form of weapon. >>> I would argue that the intent was self-evidently for it to cover every >>> conceivable type of weapon. >> Indeed, the most powerful weapons available in the eighteenth century >> were >> warships, many of which were privately owned, as was much artillery in >> the >> sense of crew-served weapons. >> >> The intent of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to more >> readily defend themselves against the government, when this becomes >> necessary, as it inevitably does. > I don't think that this is what the founders thought, but I'd bet good > money this is what Gene thinks. > > I've read through most of _Starwater Strains_ now, and my initial > belief has hardened: Gene's writings are definitely getting more > political. In his older works like _Peace_ or _Book of the New Sun_ > (pre-90s), I didn't notice anything political, or at least, > contemporary. But in stuff from the last 2 decades? My suspicion has > become certainty. > > The stories in SS though are absolutely littered with > libertarian/conservative plots or asides. Some stories do nothing but > push such ideas. "Viewpoint", for example, has a dystopian government > which claims to own all money and which suppresses all weaponry, the > better to oppress its citizenry; the protagonist, who is a heroic > moral wilderness survivalist fellow, spends most of the story trying > to get a weapon. His great victory is to murder a government agent. > "Has Anyone Seen Junie Moon?", when it's not trying to channel > Lafferty, ends with best wishes for a rebellion that will kill 'the > big important gangs with suits and guns' (the government). "The Fat > Magician" ends with a rant about totalitarian governments. Another > story seems to implies that the government is responsible for taking > away everything interesting and handing over power to machines and > rules ("Petting Zoo"), while in "The Dog of the Drops", the government > seems to engineer the extinction of dogs because dogs don't pay taxes > and don't love the government but their owners. (I'm speculating a > little with this one because the dialect is so hard to read.) And so > on. > > I haven't even finished, but it's all far more blatant than _An Evil > Guest_. > > -- > gwern > _______________________________________________ --- ### Jack Smith *02 Jul 2010, 13:38 · in reply to Gwern Branwen* > I've read through most of _Starwater Strains_ now, and my initial > belief has hardened: Gene's writings are definitely getting more > political. In his older works like _Peace_ or _Book of the New Sun_ > (pre-90s), I didn't notice anything political, or at least, > contemporary. But in stuff from the last 2 decades? My suspicion has > become certainty. > > The stories in SS though are absolutely littered with > libertarian/conservative plots or asides. Some stories do nothing but > push such ideas. "Viewpoint", for example, has a dystopian government > which claims to own all money and which suppresses all weaponry, the > better to oppress its citizenry; the protagonist, who is a heroic > moral wilderness survivalist fellow, spends most of the story trying > to get a weapon. His great victory is to murder a government agent. > > -- > gwern > _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *02 Jul 2010, 13:49 · in reply to Jack Smith* He has always been like this. He's not much like Heinlein in a lot of things. But the very basics, yes. . >> I've read through most of _Starwater Strains_ now, and my initial >> belief has hardened: Gene's writings are definitely getting more >> political. In his older works like _Peace_ or _Book of the New Sun_ >> (pre-90s), I didn't notice anything political, or at least, >> contemporary. But in stuff from the last 2 decades? My suspicion has >> become certainty. >> >> The stories in SS though are absolutely littered with >> libertarian/conservative plots or asides. Some stories do nothing but >> push such ideas. "Viewpoint", for example, has a dystopian government >> which claims to own all money and which suppresses all weaponry, the >> better to oppress its citizenry; the protagonist, who is a heroic >> moral wilderness survivalist fellow, spends most of the story trying >> to get a weapon. His great victory is to murder a government agent. >> >> -- >> gwern >> _______________________________________________ --- ### David Stockhoff *02 Jul 2010, 14:01 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* I'm not sure why this isn't enough: The intent of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to defend themselves. And that's all I'm going to say. > brunians at brunians.org wrote: > It is what the framers thought. > > If you don't believe me you should read the Federalist and the > anti-Federalist. > > Or just, you know, continue to believe what you prefer to believe. > > . > > > >> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:20 AM, wrote: >> >>>>> I guess I'm a moderate conservative or libertarian on the issue. >>>>> I think the Second Amendment creates an individual right and >>>>> that that individual right clearly isn't meant to cover every >>>>> conceivable form of weapon. >>>>> >>>> I would argue that the intent was self-evidently for it to cover every >>>> conceivable type of weapon. >>>> >>> Indeed, the most powerful weapons available in the eighteenth century >>> were >>> warships, many of which were privately owned, as was much artillery in >>> the >>> sense of crew-served weapons. >>> >>> The intent of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to more >>> readily defend themselves against the government, when this becomes >>> necessary, as it inevitably does. >>> --- ### John Watkins *02 Jul 2010, 14:04 · in reply to David Stockhoff* I'm not sure what this really has to do with Wolfe. (And I know I've had my digressions too.) > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:01 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: > I'm not sure why this isn't enough: > > The intent of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to defend > themselves. > > > And that's all I'm going to say. > > > > > brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> It is what the framers thought. >> >> If you don't believe me you should read the Federalist and the >> anti-Federalist. >> >> Or just, you know, continue to believe what you prefer to believe. >> >> . >>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:20 AM, wrote: >>>> I guess I'm a moderate conservative or libertarian on the issue. >>>>>> I think the Second Amendment creates an individual right and >>>>>> that that individual right clearly isn't meant to cover every >>>>>> conceivable form of weapon. >>>>> I would argue that the intent was self-evidently for it to cover every >>>>> conceivable type of weapon. >>>> Indeed, the most powerful weapons available in the eighteenth century >>>> were >>>> warships, many of which were privately owned, as was much artillery in >>>> the >>>> sense of crew-served weapons. >>>> >>>> The intent of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to more >>>> readily defend themselves against the government, when this becomes >>>> necessary, as it inevitably does. >>> _______________________________________________ --- ### David Stockhoff *02 Jul 2010, 14:06 · in reply to John Watkins* I support the right of the Guild to fire its guns each year on Catherine's Day. > John Watkins wrote: > I'm not sure what this really has to do with Wolfe. (And I know I've > had my digressions too.) > > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:01 AM, David Stockhoff > > wrote: > > I'm not sure why this isn't enough: > > The intent of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to > defend themselves. > > > And that's all I'm going to say. > > > > > brunians at brunians.org wrote: > > It is what the framers thought. > > If you don't believe me you should read the Federalist and the > anti-Federalist. > > Or just, you know, continue to believe what you prefer to believe. > > . > > > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:20 AM, > wrote: > > > I guess I'm a moderate conservative or > libertarian on the issue. > I think the Second Amendment creates an > individual right and > that that individual right clearly isn't meant > to cover every > conceivable form of weapon. > > > I would argue that the intent was self-evidently > for it to cover every > conceivable type of weapon. > > > Indeed, the most powerful weapons available in the > eighteenth century > were > warships, many of which were privately owned, as was > much artillery in > the > sense of crew-served weapons. > > The intent of the second amendment is to allow the > citizenry to more > readily defend themselves against the government, when > this becomes > necessary, as it inevitably does. > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *02 Jul 2010, 14:10 · in reply to David Stockhoff* You could say more. . > I'm not sure why this isn't enough: > > The intent of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to defend > themselves. > > > And that's all I'm going to say. > > > > brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> It is what the framers thought. >> >> If you don't believe me you should read the Federalist and the >> anti-Federalist. >> >> Or just, you know, continue to believe what you prefer to believe. >> >> . >>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:20 AM, wrote: >>>>>> I guess I'm a moderate conservative or libertarian on the issue. >>>>>> I think the Second Amendment creates an individual right and >>>>>> that that individual right clearly isn't meant to cover every >>>>>> conceivable form of weapon. >>>>> I would argue that the intent was self-evidently for it to cover >>>>> every >>>>> conceivable type of weapon. >>>> Indeed, the most powerful weapons available in the eighteenth century >>>> were >>>> warships, many of which were privately owned, as was much artillery in >>>> the >>>> sense of crew-served weapons. >>>> >>>> The intent of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to more >>>> readily defend themselves against the government, when this becomes >>>> necessary, as it inevitably does. > _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *02 Jul 2010, 14:11 · in reply to John Watkins* You're not? . > I'm not sure what this really has to do with Wolfe. (And I know I've had > my > digressions too.) > > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:01 AM, David Stockhoff > wrote: >> I'm not sure why this isn't enough: >> >> The intent of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to defend >> themselves. >> >> >> And that's all I'm going to say. >> >> >> >> >> brunians at brunians.org wrote: >>> It is what the framers thought. >>> >>> If you don't believe me you should read the Federalist and the >>> anti-Federalist. >>> >>> Or just, you know, continue to believe what you prefer to believe. >>> >>> . >>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:20 AM, wrote: >>>>> I guess I'm a moderate conservative or libertarian on the issue. >>>>>>> I think the Second Amendment creates an individual right and >>>>>>> that that individual right clearly isn't meant to cover every >>>>>>> conceivable form of weapon. >>>>>> I would argue that the intent was self-evidently for it to cover >>>>>> every >>>>>> conceivable type of weapon. >>>>> Indeed, the most powerful weapons available in the eighteenth century >>>>> were >>>>> warships, many of which were privately owned, as was much artillery >>>>> in >>>>> the >>>>> sense of crew-served weapons. >>>>> >>>>> The intent of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to more >>>>> readily defend themselves against the government, when this becomes >>>>> necessary, as it inevitably does. >>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### Sunanda *02 Jul 2010, 14:19 · follows brunians at brunians.org* > I've read through most of _Starwater Strains_ now, and my > initialbelief has hardened: > Gene's writings are definitely getting more > political. In his older works like _Peace_ or _Book of the New Sun_ > (pre-90s), I didn't notice anything political, or at least, > contemporary. But in stuff from the last 2 decades? My suspicion has > become certainty. Have you read _Operation Ares_? Perhaps an outlier, but definitely political. Sunanda --- ### brunians at brunians.org *02 Jul 2010, 15:24 · in reply to David Stockhoff* St Barbara pray for us. . > I support the right of the Guild to fire its guns each year on > Catherine's Day. > > John Watkins wrote: >> I'm not sure what this really has to do with Wolfe. (And I know I've >> had my digressions too.) >> >> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:01 AM, David Stockhoff >> > wrote: >> >> I'm not sure why this isn't enough: >> >> The intent of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to >> defend themselves. >> >> >> And that's all I'm going to say. >> >> >> >> >> brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> >> It is what the framers thought. >> >> If you don't believe me you should read the Federalist and the >> anti-Federalist. >> >> Or just, you know, continue to believe what you prefer to >> believe. >> >> . >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:20 AM, > > wrote: >> >> >> I guess I'm a moderate conservative or >> libertarian on the issue. >> I think the Second Amendment creates an >> individual right and >> that that individual right clearly isn't meant >> to cover every >> conceivable form of weapon. >> >> >> I would argue that the intent was self-evidently >> for it to cover every >> conceivable type of weapon. >> >> >> Indeed, the most powerful weapons available in the >> eighteenth century >> were >> warships, many of which were privately owned, as was >> much artillery in >> the >> sense of crew-served weapons. >> >> The intent of the second amendment is to allow the >> citizenry to more >> readily defend themselves against the government, when >> this becomes >> necessary, as it inevitably does. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ --- ### James Wynn *02 Jul 2010, 15:24 · in reply to Gwern Branwen* This is an ingenious method to kill a zombie thread ("Appearance of Inire"): reintroduce an old zombie thread that has already resurrected itself 3 times previously to flush it away. Presumably, the list has built up enough antibodies to fight off "The Politics of Gene Wolfe" in short order and then both zombie threads are gone. We shall call this the Zombie Colonic. u+16b9 > On 7/2/2010 6:50 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:20 AM, wrote: > >>>> I guess I'm a moderate conservative or libertarian on the issue. >>>> I think the Second Amendment creates an individual right and >>>> that that individual right clearly isn't meant to cover every >>>> conceivable form of weapon. >>>> >>> I would argue that the intent was self-evidently for it to cover every >>> conceivable type of weapon. >>> >> Indeed, the most powerful weapons available in the eighteenth century were >> warships, many of which were privately owned, as was much artillery in the >> sense of crew-served weapons. >> >> The intent of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to more >> readily defend themselves against the government, when this becomes >> necessary, as it inevitably does. >> > I don't think that this is what the founders thought, but I'd bet good > money this is what Gene thinks. > > I've read through most of _Starwater Strains_ now, and my initial > belief has hardened: Gene's writings are definitely getting more > political. In his older works like _Peace_ or _Book of the New Sun_ > (pre-90s), I didn't notice anything political, or at least, > contemporary. But in stuff from the last 2 decades? My suspicion has > become certainty. > > The stories in SS though are absolutely littered with > libertarian/conservative plots or asides. Some stories do nothing but > push such ideas. "Viewpoint", for example, has a dystopian government > which claims to own all money and which suppresses all weaponry, the > better to oppress its citizenry; the protagonist, who is a heroic > moral wilderness survivalist fellow, spends most of the story trying > to get a weapon. His great victory is to murder a government agent. > "Has Anyone Seen Junie Moon?", when it's not trying to channel > Lafferty, ends with best wishes for a rebellion that will kill 'the > big important gangs with suits and guns' (the government). "The Fat > Magician" ends with a rant about totalitarian governments. Another > story seems to implies that the government is responsible for taking > away everything interesting and handing over power to machines and > rules ("Petting Zoo"), while in "The Dog of the Drops", the government > seems to engineer the extinction of dogs because dogs don't pay taxes > and don't love the government but their owners. (I'm speculating a > little with this one because the dialect is so hard to read.) And so > on. > > I haven't even finished, but it's all far more blatant than _An Evil Guest_. > > --- ### James Wynn *02 Jul 2010, 16:35 · in reply to Sunanda* >> I've read through most of _Starwater Strains_ now, and my >> initialbelief has hardened: >> Gene's writings are definitely getting more >> political. In his older works like _Peace_ or _Book of the New Sun_ >> (pre-90s), I didn't notice anything political, or at least, >> contemporary. But in stuff from the last 2 decades? My suspicion has >> become certainty. > Have you read _Operation Ares_? Perhaps an outlier, but definitely > political. Not an outlier, I think. "The Devil in a Forest" is fine unflattering deconstruction of Robin Hood as a hero who "robs the rich to give to the poor". For the most part, however, the examples given from "Starwater Strains" are seeing what one expects to see. You don't have to be a conservative/libertarian to imagine a dystopian government (ex. George Orwell). You don't need to be a Tea Partyer to wish well a revolution that will bring down the "big important gangs with suits and guns". That sounds like the communist/anarchist G-20 protesters in Toronto. u+16b9 --- ### David Stockhoff *02 Jul 2010, 16:43 · in reply to James Wynn* Exactly my thought. Dystopian government is an old SF theme. Depicting evil government agents says nothing about your beliefs. >>> James Wynn wrote: >>> I've read through most of _Starwater Strains_ now, and my >>> initialbelief has hardened: >>> Gene's writings are definitely getting more >>> political. In his older works like _Peace_ or _Book of the New Sun_ >>> (pre-90s), I didn't notice anything political, or at least, >>> contemporary. But in stuff from the last 2 decades? My suspicion has >>> become certainty. >> Have you read _Operation Ares_? Perhaps an outlier, but definitely >> political. > Not an outlier, I think. "The Devil in a Forest" is fine unflattering > deconstruction of Robin Hood as a hero who "robs the rich to give to > the poor". > > For the most part, however, the examples given from "Starwater > Strains" are seeing what one expects to see. You don't have to be a > conservative/libertarian to imagine a dystopian government (ex. George > Orwell). You don't need to be a Tea Partyer to wish well a revolution > that will bring down the "big important gangs with suits and guns". > That sounds like the communist/anarchist G-20 protesters in Toronto. > > u+16b9 > _______________________________________________ --- ### James Wynn *02 Jul 2010, 17:06 · in reply to David Stockhoff* And what would one say if Wolfe wrote a novel about a heroic CIA agent? Or a heroic FBI agent hunting the hippie minions of the Storm King? That he's a big Nanny Statist? > On 7/2/2010 11:43 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: > Exactly my thought. Dystopian government is an old SF theme. Depicting > evil government agents says nothing about your beliefs. > > James Wynn wrote: >>>> I've read through most of _Starwater Strains_ now, and my >>>> initialbelief has hardened: >>>> Gene's writings are definitely getting more >>>> political. In his older works like _Peace_ or _Book of the New Sun_ >>>> (pre-90s), I didn't notice anything political, or at least, >>>> contemporary. But in stuff from the last 2 decades? My suspicion has >>>> become certainty. >>> Have you read _Operation Ares_? Perhaps an outlier, but definitely >>> political. >> Not an outlier, I think. "The Devil in a Forest" is fine unflattering >> deconstruction of Robin Hood as a hero who "robs the rich to give to >> the poor". >> >> For the most part, however, the examples given from "Starwater >> Strains" are seeing what one expects to see. You don't have to be a >> conservative/libertarian to imagine a dystopian government (ex. >> George Orwell). You don't need to be a Tea Partyer to wish well a >> revolution that will bring down the "big important gangs with suits >> and guns". That sounds like the communist/anarchist G-20 protesters >> in Toronto. >> >> u+16b9 >> _______________________________________________ --- ### Lee Berman *02 Jul 2010, 17:38 · follows James Wynn* >>> The intent of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to more >>> readily defend themselves against the government, when this becomes >>> necessary, as it inevitably does. There is a classic A.E. Van Vogt story called The Weapon Shop which addresses this issue using that interpretation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weapon_Shop Great pulp SF story. I loved it. And didn't Gene Wolfe mention Van Vogt in Fifth Head of Cerberus? I bet he has read that story. Anyway, the wording of the Second Amendment is- > "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, > the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." To me this wording suggests an interpretation counter to the standard Libertarian view which seems to focus on the word "free" and ignores the other 26 words. Bearing arms would seem to be meant for the defense of the state not to attack the state or defend against it. A "well regulated militia" sounds like a state organized function to me not some sort of individual defense against the state or lawless brigands or wild animals. --- ### David Stockhoff *02 Jul 2010, 17:43 · in reply to Lee Berman* Or to defend the State state vs the Federal state, at most. > Lee Berman wrote: > >>>> The intent of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to more >>>> readily defend themselves against the government, when this becomes >>>> necessary, as it inevitably does. >>>> > > There is a classic A.E. Van Vogt story called The Weapon Shop which addresses > this issue using that interpretation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weapon_Shop > Great pulp SF story. I loved it. > > And didn't Gene Wolfe mention Van Vogt in Fifth Head of Cerberus? I bet he has > read that story. > > Anyway, the wording of the Second Amendment is- > > >> "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, >> the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." >> > > To me this wording suggests an interpretation counter to the standard > Libertarian view which seems to focus on the word "free" and ignores the other > 26 words. Bearing arms would seem to be meant for the defense of the state not > to attack the state or defend against it. A "well regulated militia" sounds like > a state organized function to me not some sort of individual defense against > the state or lawless brigands or wild animals. > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1 > _______________________________________________ --- ### James Wynn *02 Jul 2010, 17:51 · in reply to Lee Berman* > Anyway, the wording of the Second Amendment is- > > >>> "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, >>> the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." > To me this wording suggests an interpretation counter to the standard > Libertarian view which seems to focus on the word "free" and ignores the other > 26 words. Bearing arms would seem to be meant for the defense of the state not > to attack the state or defend against it. A "well regulated militia" sounds like > a state organized function to me not some sort of individual defense against > the state or lawless brigands or wild animals. An illuminating reading. And since the amendment addresses "the right of the People", we get a deeper understanding of this text: "Congress shall make no law [snip] abridging [snip] the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Obviously these Rights of the People refer merely to the rights of state legislatures to assemble in session and for them to petition the Federal government . u+169b --- ### Jeff Wilson *02 Jul 2010, 18:02 · in reply to Lee Berman* > On 7/2/2010 12:38 PM, Lee Berman wrote: > Anyway, the wording of the Second Amendment is- >> "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, >> the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." > To me this wording suggests an interpretation counter to the standard > Libertarian view which seems to focus on the word "free" and ignores the other > 26 words. Bearing arms would seem to be meant for the defense of the state not > to attack the state or defend against it. A "well regulated militia" sounds like > a state organized function to me not some sort of individual defense against > the state or lawless brigands or wild animals. At the time "well regulated" meant kept in proper working order, like a clock that kept accurate time and chimed at regular intervals. Militia referred to the armed, able-bodied male populace rather than a particular organization. Drills and deployment were arranged at the state and local levels out of practicality. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com IEEE Student Chapter Blog at < http://ieeetamut.org > ``` --- ### Jack Smith *02 Jul 2010, 18:30 · in reply to Lee Berman* Whatever views we readers may hold regarding the 2nd amendment, it appears that our author likes to arm his characters. 1. Severian openly carries his sword on Urth. Dr Talos carries a concealed one. 2. Silk, the best man on the Whorl, uses many weapons. 3. In the ancient world, Latro and his companions are armed. 4. Guns frequently appear in Wolfe's contemporary American settings, like *Castleview *and F*ree Live Free.* * * *Of course, weapons may just be used for dramatic effect. However, our author seems to believe that weapons can be used for good as well as evil. No blanket condemnation of lethal force and lethal instruments.* * * * * * * * * *\\ * > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Lee Berman wrote: >>>> The intent of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to more >>>> readily defend themselves against the government, when this becomes >>>> necessary, as it inevitably does. > There is a classic A.E. Van Vogt story called The Weapon Shop which > addresses > this issue using that interpretation. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weapon_Shop > Great pulp SF story. I loved it. > > And didn't Gene Wolfe mention Van Vogt in Fifth Head of Cerberus? I bet he > has > read that story. > > Anyway, the wording of the Second Amendment is- >> "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, >> the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." > To me this wording suggests an interpretation counter to the standard > Libertarian view which seems to focus on the word "free" and ignores the > other > 26 words. Bearing arms would seem to be meant for the defense of the state > not > to attack the state or defend against it. A "well regulated militia" sounds > like > a state organized function to me not some sort of individual defense > against > the state or lawless brigands or wild animals. > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your > inbox. > > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1 > _______________________________________________ --- ### adam at io.com *02 Jul 2010, 18:30 · in reply to James Wynn* > On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 10:24:38 -0500, James Wynn wrote: > We shall call this > the Zombie Colonic. WORST. COCKTAIL. EVAR. Adam --- ### David Stockhoff *02 Jul 2010, 18:44 · in reply to Jack Smith* Absolutely. Nor any blanket condemnation of city governments who try to keep violent crime down by banning deadly weapons too small to use to any military effect even in the 18th century. But definitely a depiction of the world as a rough, violent, chaotic place few would want to live in without an armed guard, where the strong routinely oppress the weak, without arms necessarily even appearing as a primary means of achieving said oppression, aside from the uhlans on the high road and the electric whips of the armigers. > Jack Smith wrote: > Whatever views we readers may hold regarding the 2nd amendment, it > appears that our author likes to arm his characters. > > 1. Severian openly carries his sword on Urth. Dr Talos carries a > concealed one. > 2. Silk, the best man on the Whorl, uses many weapons. > 3. In the ancient world, Latro and his companions are armed. > 4. Guns frequently appear in Wolfe's contemporary American settings, > like /Castleview /and F/ree Live Free./ > / > / > /Of course, weapons may just be used for dramatic effect. However, > our author seems to believe that weapons can be used for good as well > as evil. No blanket condemnation of lethal force and lethal > instruments./ > / > / > / > / > / > / > / > / > /\\ > / > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Lee Berman > wrote: > > > > >>> The intent of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry > to more > >>> readily defend themselves against the government, when this > becomes > >>> necessary, as it inevitably does. > > There is a classic A.E. Van Vogt story called The Weapon Shop > which addresses > this issue using that interpretation. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weapon_Shop > Great pulp SF story. I loved it. > > And didn't Gene Wolfe mention Van Vogt in Fifth Head of Cerberus? > I bet he has > read that story. > > Anyway, the wording of the Second Amendment is- > > >"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a > free State, > >the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be > infringed." > > To me this wording suggests an interpretation counter to the standard > Libertarian view which seems to focus on the word "free" and > ignores the other > 26 words. Bearing arms would seem to be meant for the defense of > the state not > to attack the state or defend against it. A "well regulated > militia" sounds like > a state organized function to me not some sort of individual > defense against > the state or lawless brigands or wild animals. > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from > your inbox. > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1 > _______________________________________________ --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *02 Jul 2010, 19:02 · in reply to Jack Smith* > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Jack Smith wrote: > 4. ?Guns frequently appear in Wolfe's contemporary American settings, like > Castleview and Free Live Free. ...not to mention very prominently in _The Sorcerer's House_. > Of course, weapons may just be used for dramatic effect. — However, our > author seems to believe that weapons can be used for good as well as evil. > No blanket condemnation of lethal force and lethal instruments. Weapons as such are morally neutral objects. It is their use that is morally fraught. As the saying goes, "Gods don't kill people; religious fanatics kill people." ``` Dan'l Danehy-Oakes ``` --- ### Dave Lebling *02 Jul 2010, 19:09 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* > As the saying goes, "Gods don't kill people; > religious fanatics kill people." The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah beg to differ. -- Dave > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Jack Smith > wrote: >> 4. Guns frequently appear in Wolfe's contemporary American settings, >> like >> Castleview and Free Live Free. > ...not to mention very prominently in _The Sorcerer's House_. >> Of course, weapons may just be used for dramatic effect. However, our >> author seems to believe that weapons can be used for good as well as >> evil. >> No blanket condemnation of lethal force and lethal instruments. > Weapons as such are morally neutral objects. It is their use that is > morally fraught. As the saying goes, "Gods don't kill people; > religious fanatics kill people." > > -- > Dan'l Danehy-Oakes > _______________________________________________ --- ### David Stockhoff *02 Jul 2010, 19:19 · in reply to Dave Lebling* I thought they were killed by Yesodis with energy blasters. > Dave Lebling wrote: > > As the saying goes, "Gods don't kill people; > religious fanatics kill people." > > > The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah beg to differ. > > -- Dave > > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes > wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Jack Smith > > wrote: > > > 4. Guns frequently appear in Wolfe's contemporary American > settings, like > > Castleview and Free Live Free. > > ...not to mention very prominently in _The Sorcerer's House_. > > > > Of course, weapons may just be used for dramatic effect. > However, our > > author seems to believe that weapons can be used for good as > well as evil. > > No blanket condemnation of lethal force and lethal instruments. > > Weapons as such are morally neutral objects. It is their use that is > morally fraught. As the saying goes, "Gods don't kill people; > religious fanatics kill people." > > -- > Dan'l Danehy-Oakes > _______________________________________________ --- ### Rebecca Bushong-Taylor *03 Jul 2010, 06:18 · in reply to Jack Smith* "Of course, weapons may just be used for dramatic effect. However, our author seems to believe that weapons can be used for good as well as evil. No blanket condemnation of lethal force and lethal instruments." I believe this is true. Gene has told me that when they were younger, he and Rosemary would regularly practice throwing knives, in part as a way to keep the kids respectfully in line. He strongly encouraged me to take it up. I'm less sure about his thoughts regarding other forms of weaponry.... Rebecca > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Jack Smith wrote: > Whatever views we readers may hold regarding the 2nd amendment, it appears > that our author likes to arm his characters. > > 1. Severian openly carries his sword on Urth. Dr Talos carries a > concealed one. > 2. Silk, the best man on the Whorl, uses many weapons. > 3. In the ancient world, Latro and his companions are armed. > 4. Guns frequently appear in Wolfe's contemporary American settings, like > *Castleview *and F*ree Live Free.* > * > * > *Of course, weapons may just be used for dramatic effect. However, our > author seems to believe that weapons can be used for good as well as evil. > No blanket condemnation of lethal force and lethal instruments.* > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > *\\ > * > > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Lee Berman wrote: >>>>> The intent of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to more >>>>> readily defend themselves against the government, when this becomes >>>>> necessary, as it inevitably does. >> There is a classic A.E. Van Vogt story called The Weapon Shop which >> addresses >> this issue using that interpretation. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weapon_Shop >> Great pulp SF story. I loved it. >> >> And didn't Gene Wolfe mention Van Vogt in Fifth Head of Cerberus? I bet he >> has >> read that story. >> >> Anyway, the wording of the Second Amendment is- >>> "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free >>> State, >>> the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." >> To me this wording suggests an interpretation counter to the standard >> Libertarian view which seems to focus on the word "free" and ignores the >> other >> 26 words. Bearing arms would seem to be meant for the defense of the state >> not >> to attack the state or defend against it. A "well regulated militia" >> sounds like >> a state organized function to me not some sort of individual defense >> against >> the state or lawless brigands or wild animals. >> _________________________________________________________________ >> Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your >> inbox. >> >> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1 >> _______________________________________________ --- ### Gerry Quinn *03 Jul 2010, 15:17 · in reply to David Stockhoff* > From: "David Stockhoff" > Exactly my thought. Dystopian government is an old SF theme. Depicting > evil government agents says nothing about your beliefs. And you might favour givoing arms to the populace in Viron without necessarily approving of it under all circumstances everywhere. - Gerry Quinn --- ### Matthew Keeley *03 Jul 2010, 15:51 · in reply to Rebecca Bushong-Taylor* Great anecdote, and it rather explains the essay on the proper use of throwing knives in Castle of Days... -Matt > On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Rebecca Bushong-Taylor > wrote: > > I believe this is true. Gene has told me that when they were younger, he > and Rosemary would regularly practice throwing knives, in part as a way to > keep the kids respectfully in line. He strongly encouraged me to take it > up. > > I'm less sure about his thoughts regarding other forms of weaponry.... > > > Rebecca --- ### Marc Aramini *03 Jul 2010, 16:59 · follows Matthew Keeley* Of course Wolfe as an exmilitary man at the end of his seventh decade is going to have an affinity for weapons. My father, now seventy and an ex marine, always had a gun in the house, took me shooting as a child, taught me boxing, and completely embraced the martial culture as necessary to protect the people that you love. I was always taught if someone came in the house kill them and put a weapon in their hand and if they almost get out the door drag them back in. He doesn't go anywhere without his gun and has a concealed weapon permit. I imagine Wolfe is more devout than my father, but my mother is a devout catholic and also exmilitary and weapons are normal, just a part of every day life. What is surprising about someone who fought in Korea recognizing that weapons are necessary in life when someone else may hurt you? > On Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 12:02 PM PDT Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Jack Smith wrote: >> 4. ?Guns frequently appear in Wolfe's contemporary American settings, like >> Castleview and Free Live Free. > ...not to mention very prominently in _The Sorcerer's House_. >> Of course, weapons may just be used for dramatic effect. — However, our >> author seems to believe that weapons can be used for good as well as evil. >> No blanket condemnation of lethal force and lethal instruments. > Weapons as such are morally neutral objects. It is their use that is > morally fraught. As the saying goes, "Gods don't kill people; > religious fanatics kill people." > > -- > Dan'l Danehy-Oakes > _______________________________________________ --- ### Gerry Quinn *03 Jul 2010, 17:44 · in reply to Rebecca Bushong-Taylor* "Ya know the other thing about throwing knives, kid?" "I dunno, what?" "It's _deniable_" - Gerry Quinn From: Rebecca Bushong-Taylor I believe this is true. Gene has told me that when they were younger, he and Rosemary would regularly practice throwing knives, in part as a way to keep the kids respectfully in line. He strongly encouraged me to take it up. --- ### Jerry Friedman *03 Jul 2010, 20:49 · in reply to Marc Aramini* > From: Marc Aramini > Of course Wolfe as an exmilitary man at the end of his seventh decade is going to have an affinity for > weapons. It's not "of course". Ex-military people have all kinds of different feelings. > My father, now seventy and an ex marine, always had a gun in the house, took me shooting as a > child, taught me boxing, and completely embraced the martial > culture as necessary to protect the people that you love. I was always taught if someone came in the house > kill them and put a weapon in their hand and if they almost get out the door drag them back in. He doesn't go > anywhere without his gun and has a concealed weapon permit. > > I imagine Wolfe is more devout than my father, but my mother is a devout catholic and also exmilitary and > weapons are normal, just a part of every day life. What is surprising about someone who fought in Korea > recognizing that weapons are necessary in life when someone else may hurt you? I agree that nothing is surprising about it. But the opposite happens too. Kurt Vonnegut fought in Germany, and he wrote "Report on the Barnhouse Effect", in which all weapons in the world are destroyed and the result is a better world (as I recall). I feel sure that a great many ex-military men in Britain are quite happy with their country's ban on handguns for civilians and even most of the police. No doubt Wolfe thinks that weapons in themselves are morally neutral, as Dan'l says, but he seems to attach more importance to them than a lot of writers do. In addition to the examples people have mentioned, "The Peace Spy" shows nuclear weapons as protecting the world from war. That silly story whose name escapes me, about the knight and the princess and the creepy guy from the future, suggests that violence (not weapons, I realize) is essential for human survival. And Gwern is telling us that a story in /Starwater Strains/, which I haven't read, depicts a future tyranny as disarming the public. Lots of people have written dystopias without ever mentioning laws on weapon ownership. I'm not going to get into a debate on the correct reading of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but I think it's possible that Wolfe is participating in the decades-old debate on American gun-ownership laws. His apparent view isn't unusual or surprising, but I think it's worth our discussion. Jerry Friedman --- ### John Watkins *03 Jul 2010, 21:02 · in reply to Jerry Friedman* > On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote: > I'm not going to get into a debate on the correct reading of the Second > Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but I think it's possible that Wolfe is > participating in the decades-old debate on American gun-ownership laws. His > apparent view isn't unusual or surprising, but I think it's worth our > discussion. > > Jerry Friedman To the extent that Gene Wolfe expresses sympathy with the view of the majority of Americans as to gun ownership, I agree that there's very little "unusual" or "surprising" about that. > _______________________________________________ --- ### Gerry Quinn *03 Jul 2010, 21:30 · in reply to Jerry Friedman* ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Friedman" > No doubt Wolfe thinks that weapons in themselves are morally neutral, as > Dan'l says, but he seems to attach more importance to them than a lot of > writers do. In addition to the examples people have mentioned, "The Peace > Spy" shows nuclear weapons as protecting the world from war. Yeah, but not from _fear_. - Gerry Quinn --- ### David Stockhoff *03 Jul 2010, 21:34 · in reply to John Watkins* What view is that, exactly? > John Watkins wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Jerry Friedman > > wrote: > > I'm not going to get into a debate on the correct reading of the > Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but I think it's > possible that Wolfe is participating in the decades-old debate on > American gun-ownership laws. His apparent view isn't unusual or > surprising, but I think it's worth our discussion. > > Jerry Friedman > > > To the extent that Gene Wolfe expresses sympathy with the view of the > majority of Americans as to gun ownership, I agree that there's very > little "unusual" or "surprising" about that. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### John Watkins *03 Jul 2010, 21:38 · in reply to David Stockhoff* That the right of the citizenry to possess weapons should be relatively unencumbered. > On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 5:34 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: > What view is that, exactly? > > John Watkins wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Jerry Friedman > jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>> wrote: >> >> I'm not going to get into a debate on the correct reading of the >> Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but I think it's >> possible that Wolfe is participating in the decades-old debate on >> American gun-ownership laws. His apparent view isn't unusual or >> surprising, but I think it's worth our discussion. >> >> Jerry Friedman >> >> To the extent that Gene Wolfe expresses sympathy with the view of the >> majority of Americans as to gun ownership, I agree that there's very little >> "unusual" or "surprising" about that. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Urth Mailing List >> To post, write urth at urth.net >> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ --- ### Jeff Wilson *03 Jul 2010, 23:04 · in reply to Jerry Friedman* > On 7/3/2010 3:49 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote: > From: Marc Aramini >> Of course Wolfe as an exmilitary man at the end of his seventh decade is going to have an affinity for >> weapons. Eighth. While Wolfe was at one time a proto-millitary man in that he was a cadet at Texas A&M, he apparently found the jingoism and casual sadism sucked more than being a draftee. > It's not "of course". Ex-military people have all kinds of different feelings. Ditto former Marine and short story writer essay, Andre Dubus. His fictional "The Intruder" and nonfictional "Why I Gave Up My Guns" detail his ambivalent feelings about weapons. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com IEEE Student Chapter Blog at < http://ieeetamut.org > ``` --- ### Milton Jackson *04 Jul 2010, 00:06 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* That would be a legitimate interpretation of the Second Amendment, Lee, except for two things: 1) The Founders who wrote it that way didn't interpret it that way. I'd imagine they would know since they wrote the thing. 2) The Bill of Rights was placed in the Constitution for the purpose of protecting the people's liberties against the encroachments of the government. It's hard to imagine how people who had just spent seven years fighting a war largely with weapons they themselves owned would suddenly say, "Well, you know, the government alone has the power to own weapons now. You guys who have your own weapons need to hand them over." There's simply a logical disconnect there. A deconstruction of the 2nd Amendment's words--to my mind at least--indicates it says exactly what the Founders meant it to say. A well-regulated militia is necessary in the United States; hence, we have the various branches of the armed forces. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed. In other words, people are allowed to own weapons. The 4th and 14th Amendments modify this and other rights from being absolute by saying the government has the right to deprive individual citizens of rights like life, liberty, and property after due process of law. Nonetheless, viewed in terms of its wording, the context it was written under, and the intent and interpretation of the Founders themselves, it seems quite clear to me the 2nd Amendment is intended to protect the right to own weapons of the populace fully as much as the 1st Amendment protects the right to speech, press, peaceable assembly, and religion and the 5th Amendment protects the right to avoid self-incrimination. All other rights laid forth in the Bill of Rights are intended to protect individuals' rights. There's no reason to believe the 2nd Amendment espouses anything different. > On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote: > On 7/3/2010 3:49 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote: >> From: Marc Aramini >> >> >> Of course Wolfe as an exmilitary man at the end of his seventh decade is >> going to have an affinity for >> weapons. > Eighth. While Wolfe was at one time a proto-millitary man in that he was a > cadet at Texas A&M, he apparently found the jingoism and casual sadism > sucked more than being a draftee. > > > It's not "of course". Ex-military people have all kinds of different > feelings. > Ditto former Marine and short story writer essay, Andre Dubus. His > fictional "The Intruder" and nonfictional "Why I Gave Up My Guns" detail his > ambivalent feelings about weapons. > > > -- > Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com > IEEE Student Chapter Blog at > < http://ieeetamut.org > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Jerry Friedman *04 Jul 2010, 00:33 · in reply to John Watkins* > From: John Watkins : > On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 5:34 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: >> John Watkins wrote: >>> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote: >>>> I'm not going to get into a debate on the correct reading of the >>>> Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but I think it's >>>> possible that Wolfe is participating in the decades-old debate on >>>> American gun-ownership laws. His apparent view isn't unusual or >>>> surprising, but I think it's worth our discussion. >>>>> To the extent that Gene Wolfe expresses sympathy with the view of the majority of >>>>> Americans as to gun ownership, I agree that there's very little "unusual" or "surprising" >>>>> about that. >>>> >>>> What view is that, exactly? >>> That the right of the citizenry to possess weapons should be relatively >>> unencumbered. >> Here's an opinion poll from 2008. >> >> http://www.gallup.com/poll/108394/americans-agreement-supreme-court-gun-rights.aspx >> >> I suspect Wolfe was in the 11% who thought gun laws should be less strict than they were in 2008. >> >> Jerry Friedman can't figure out how to get rid of those vertical lines. --- ### David Stockhoff *04 Jul 2010, 03:04 · in reply to John Watkins* Yes, that's not at all surprising. And indeed they are relatively unencumbered. > John Watkins wrote: > That the right of the citizenry to possess weapons should be > relatively unencumbered. > > On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 5:34 PM, David Stockhoff > > wrote: > > What view is that, exactly? > > John Watkins wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Jerry Friedman > > >> wrote: > > I'm not going to get into a debate on the correct reading > of the > Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but I think it's > possible that Wolfe is participating in the decades-old > debate on > American gun-ownership laws. His apparent view isn't > unusual or > surprising, but I think it's worth our discussion. > > Jerry Friedman > > To the extent that Gene Wolfe expresses sympathy with the > view of the majority of Americans as to gun ownership, I > agree that there's very little "unusual" or "surprising" about > that. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Urth Mailing List > To post, write urth at urth.net > > > Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### David Stockhoff *04 Jul 2010, 03:30 · in reply to Jerry Friedman* Of course that's rather a silly question to ask people in a survey: are guns A-OK, or should only the army and police have them---even pistols, that favorite weapon of well-regulated militias? It is useless in determining whether people actually think the state must allow citizens to carry concealed handguns into nightclubs or onto trains, planes, and taxis or into supermarkets, schools, churches, and libraries in gun-crime-plagued cities far from their own homes. One may as well ask: should people be required to educate themselves before they earn the privilege of voting, or should the government assign votes to each citizen? Furthermore, I am quite sure a similar majority of Americans believe that handguns are good for self-defense. I'm all for self-defense and (registered) gun ownership, but the two have little to do with one another. > Jerry Friedman wrote: > *From:* John Watkins : >> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 5:34 PM, David Stockhoff >> > wrote: >>> John Watkins wrote: >>>> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote: > >>>> I'm not going to get into a debate on the correct > reading of the > >>>>Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but I think it's > >>>> possible that Wolfe is participating in the decades-old > debate on > >>>> American gun-ownership laws. His apparent view isn't > unusual or > >>>> surprising, but I think it's worth our discussion. > > >>> To the extent that Gene Wolfe expresses sympathy with the > view of the majority of > >>> Americans as to gun ownership, I agree that there's very > little "unusual" or "surprising" > >>> about that. > > >> What view is that, exactly? > > > That the right of the citizenry to possess weapons should be > relatively unencumbered. > > Here's an opinion poll from 2008. > > http://www.gallup.com/poll/108394/americans-agreement-supreme-court-gun-rights.aspx > > I suspect Wolfe was in the 11% who thought gun laws should be > less strict than they were in 2008. > > Jerry Friedman can't figure out how to get rid of those > vertical lines. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Lee Berman *04 Jul 2010, 03:55 · follows David Stockhoff* > That would be a legitimate interpretation of the Second Amendment, Lee, > except for two things: > 1) The Founders who wrote it that way didn't interpret it that way. I'd > imagine they would know since they wrote the thing. > 2) The Bill of Rights was placed in the Constitution for the purpose of > protecting the people's liberties against the encroachments of the > government. Those are reasonable arguments. I have nothing against them. It just appears to me that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to allow regulated militias to function. This has little to do with how the Second Amendment is usually invoked today. Why didn't the Founding Fathers mention self-defense, hunting and defense from fascist governments in that amendment? Why only militias? And are there now legal militias which rely on self-owned weapons? In all militias I know of,you must use a government owned weapon, yes? A militia armed solely with self-owned weapons would tend to get the Ruby Ridge/Waco treatment, I think. I have never felt a need for personal ownership of guns so I'm sure that fact biases my opinion of the Second Amendment, just as those who enjoy the ownership of guns would be similarly biased in the opposite direction. It is an interesting topic but not one I will waste more of this board's space on. I can only invoke A.E. Van Vogt so many times ;-). --- ### Jeff Wilson *04 Jul 2010, 07:29 · in reply to Lee Berman* > On 7/3/2010 10:55 PM, Lee Berman wrote: > > Why didn't the Founding Fathers mention self-defense, hunting > and defense from fascist governments in that amendment? "to secure a free State" covers defending against fascism. Self-defense and hunting would be matters reserved for the states, or more local units still. > Why only militias? And > are there now legal militias which rely on self-owned weapons? Yes, starting will all serious historical re-enactment clubs. It's not just a Civil War or Revolutionary War thing, there are guys who drill with period Russian and German uniforms, personal weaponry, and tactical formations, and wargame house-to-house fighting from the Battle of Stalingrad. among other places. They own their own weapons or borrow a friend's extras, which are typically functional. Even the SCA is considered a millita by the FBI due to the "heavy weapons" activities that include training people to fight in massed formations, albeit with sticks and shields and the occasional volley of arrows or simulated fiery bombard. > A militia armed solely > with self-owned weapons would tend to get the Ruby Ridge/Waco treatment, I think. That is a problem, but the Justice Department settled with the Ruby Ridge survivors in the millions and the FBI sniper was twice indicted for homicide. The Waco incident was horrendouslyt convoluted and total flame bait, so I'll just give you that. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com IEEE Student Chapter Blog at < http://ieeetamut.org > ``` --- ### David Stockhoff *04 Jul 2010, 11:48 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* Of course fascism hadn't been invented yet. Nor had lynching and armed race riots. But I agree that the 2A did not have individual self-defense against muggers and burglars in mind, any more than it was intended to secure only the state's right to defend itself. It addresses the right of the People. Not persons. Not states. > Jeff Wilson wrote: > On 7/3/2010 10:55 PM, Lee Berman wrote: >> Why didn't the Founding Fathers mention self-defense, hunting >> and defense from fascist governments in that amendment? > "to secure a free State" covers defending against fascism. > Self-defense and hunting would be matters reserved for the states, or > more local units still. --- ### Jeff Wilson *04 Jul 2010, 13:02 · in reply to David Stockhoff* > On 7/4/2010 6:48 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: > Of course fascism hadn't been invented yet. Nor had lynching and armed > race riots. I'm not sure how much of this is humor or rhetoric. > But I agree that the 2A did not have individual self-defense against > muggers and burglars in mind, any more than it was intended to secure > only the state's right to defend itself. It addresses the right of the > People. Not persons. Not states. I'm not sure how you distinguish between persons and People. The 4th amendment, introduced at the same time on the same piece of paper, uses the identical wording "the right of the people". Does this mean that persons, houses, papers, and effects are also held under government regulation as a collective rather than an individual right? Of course, in the idiom of the time, "person" had a much stronger connotation than today of the individual's objective physical presence, their physical body and the artifacts and space immediately proximate to it. This would make it a poorer term of reference for establishing abstract, inalienable rights that endure even if the "person" had business physically far afield. I'm pretty sure that Wolfe would agree that the People is made of individuals, and while a state can be a sovereign person and not their subjects, a literally democratic state is made of individual persons. Given his prodigious, endlessly elaborate convolutions of notional languages and expressions historic and posthistoric, one can expect him to be more than sufficiently informed to take the Constitution as it was intended to be read in its time, as a document of its time. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com IEEE Student Chapter Blog at < http://ieeetamut.org > ``` --- ### David Stockhoff *04 Jul 2010, 13:39 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* Below. > Jeff Wilson wrote: > On 7/4/2010 6:48 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: >> Of course fascism hadn't been invented yet. Nor had lynching and armed >> race riots. > I'm not sure how much of this is humor or rhetoric. Neither. Just the facts. >> But I agree that the 2A did not have individual self-defense against >> muggers and burglars in mind, any more than it was intended to secure >> only the state's right to defend itself. It addresses the right of the >> People. Not persons. Not states. > I'm not sure how you distinguish between persons and People. The 4th > amendment, introduced at the same time on the same piece of paper, > uses the identical wording "the right of the people". Does this mean > that persons, houses, papers, and effects are also held under > government regulation as a collective rather than an individual right? > Of course, in the idiom of the time, "person" had a much stronger > connotation than today of the individual's objective physical > presence, their physical body and the artifacts and space immediately > proximate to it. This would make it a poorer term of reference for > establishing abstract, inalienable rights that endure even if the > "person" had business physically far afield. I agree that it is a tricky question and one central to any serious debate about the 2A. But the People plainly are thought to defend themselves with an organized militia based on universal individual long-gun ownership, because that's what a militia is. (I suppose a militia armed with pistols could be effective if mounted, but hardly otherwise. And such could keep order against minor disruptions, just as cops with .38s can. But there is probably no precedent for an all-handgun militia, because generally handguns have been more controlled than rifles. With good reason.) Any reading regarding individuals acting outside of an organized group, or regarding either pistols or machine guns, or defense against muggers and burglars, has to connect with this basic idea or fail to ground itself in the 2A. Thus, it's hard to see how it spells out my right to carry a concealed pocket revolver in a club at 2:00 AM in a city whose residents fear handguns enough to collectively decide to ban them, let alone my right to have several machine gun nests positioned around my house. But it certainly lets me defend my property on my own as I see fit, and that's where I think most Americans do overwhelmingly agree. It's just too bad that handguns kill more handgun owners and their children than they do burglars. Although one could argue that absent any police force or guard at all, either of these "rights" may suddenly become useful. And that's what SF is good for---exploring such situations. Zombies, for example. Don't take that argument to the SC, though. > I'm pretty sure that Wolfe would agree that the People is made of > individuals, and while a state can be a sovereign person and not their > subjects, a literally democratic state is made of individual persons. > Given his prodigious, endlessly elaborate convolutions of notional > languages and expressions historic and posthistoric, one can expect > him to be more than sufficiently informed to take the Constitution as > it was intended to be read in its time, as a document of its time. Sure. See above. --- ### Jeff Wilson *04 Jul 2010, 16:57 · in reply to David Stockhoff* > On 7/4/2010 8:39 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: > Below. > > Jeff Wilson wrote: >> On 7/4/2010 6:48 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: >>> Of course fascism hadn't been invented yet. Nor had lynching and armed >>> race riots. >> I'm not sure how much of this is humor or rhetoric. > Neither. Just the facts. I'd agree on texbook fascism then, but lynching and armed race violence go back to biblical times. There was also no shortage of mob justice and score-settling under the pretext of political differences before during and after the Revolutionary War. > Although one could argue that absent any police force or guard at all, > either of these "rights" may suddenly become useful. And that's what SF > is good for---exploring such situations. Zombies, for example. Don't > take that argument to the SC, though. That's just what they did not have; there was nothing like the modern, full-time municipal police force for the great majority of people then. The context is different today, thank god, but one still cannot count on immediate police response in general, chiefly because they have finite resources, to make demands on their time is easy, convenient, and subsidized, and there are signficant legal, financial, and political consequences to the police for responding and acting in way later judged improper, but essentially none for their failure to respond in a timely fashion or all. To maintain thread relevance, this is the sort of lamentable systems failure from perverse incentives so many of Wolfe's characters remark upon. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com IEEE Student Chapter Blog at < http://ieeetamut.org > ``` --- ### David Stockhoff *04 Jul 2010, 18:52 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* Half the history of the human race is the history of mob violence. But American race violence worsened through the turn of the 20th century. That's not to say it wasn't an issue earlier. Protecting your town against attackers from another town, as happened in the most notorious riots, would certainly call for a militia, but in the late 1700s, Indian "raids" were probably more on peoples' minds. The towns had watches; the 2A was probably not primarily meant to support them. > Jeff Wilson wrote: > On 7/4/2010 8:39 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: >> Below. >> >> Jeff Wilson wrote: >>> On 7/4/2010 6:48 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: >>>> Of course fascism hadn't been invented yet. Nor had lynching and armed >>>> race riots. >>> I'm not sure how much of this is humor or rhetoric. >> Neither. Just the facts. > I'd agree on texbook fascism then, but lynching and armed race > violence go back to biblical times. There was also no shortage of mob > justice and score-settling under the pretext of political differences > before during and after the Revolutionary War. >> Although one could argue that absent any police force or guard at all, >> either of these "rights" may suddenly become useful. And that's what SF >> is good for---exploring such situations. Zombies, for example. Don't >> take that argument to the SC, though. > That's just what they did not have; there was nothing like the modern, > full-time municipal police force for the great majority of people > then. The context is different today, thank god, but one still cannot > count on immediate police response in general, chiefly because they > have finite resources, to make demands on their time is easy, > convenient, and subsidized, and there are signficant legal, financial, > and political consequences to the police for responding and acting in > way later judged improper, but essentially none for their failure to > respond in a timely fashion or all. > > To maintain thread relevance, this is the sort of lamentable systems > failure from perverse incentives so many of Wolfe's characters remark > upon. --- ### brunians at brunians.org *06 Jul 2010, 21:51 · in reply to David Stockhoff* Have none of you read the Federalist and the Antifederalist? . > Or to defend the State state vs the Federal state, at most. > > Lee Berman wrote: >>>>> The intent of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to more >>>>> readily defend themselves against the government, when this becomes >>>>> necessary, as it inevitably does. >> There is a classic A.E. Van Vogt story called The Weapon Shop which >> addresses >> this issue using that interpretation. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weapon_Shop >> Great pulp SF story. I loved it. >> >> And didn't Gene Wolfe mention Van Vogt in Fifth Head of Cerberus? I bet >> he has >> read that story. >> >> Anyway, the wording of the Second Amendment is- >>> "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free >>> State, >>> the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." >> To me this wording suggests an interpretation counter to the standard >> Libertarian view which seems to focus on the word "free" and ignores the >> other >> 26 words. Bearing arms would seem to be meant for the defense of the >> state not >> to attack the state or defend against it. A "well regulated militia" >> sounds like >> a state organized function to me not some sort of individual defense >> against >> the state or lawless brigands or wild animals. >> _________________________________________________________________ >> Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your >> inbox. >> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1 >> _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *06 Jul 2010, 21:56 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* God kills everybody who dies. . > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Jack Smith > wrote: >> 4. ?Guns frequently appear in Wolfe's contemporary American settings, >> like >> Castleview and Free Live Free. > ...not to mention very prominently in _The Sorcerer's House_. >> Of course, weapons may just be used for dramatic effect. — However, our >> author seems to believe that weapons can be used for good as well as >> evil. >> No blanket condemnation of lethal force and lethal instruments. > Weapons as such are morally neutral objects. It is their use that is > morally fraught. As the saying goes, "Gods don't kill people; > religious fanatics kill people." > > -- > Dan'l Danehy-Oakes > _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *06 Jul 2010, 22:14 · in reply to Marc Aramini* Those of you who don't get this frighten me. . > Of course Wolfe as an exmilitary man at the end of his seventh decade is > going to have an affinity for weapons. My father, now seventy and an ex > marine, always had a gun in the house, took me shooting as a child, taught > me boxing, and completely embraced the martial > culture as necessary to protect the people that you love. I was always > taught if someone came in the house kill them and put a weapon in their > hand and if they almost get out the door drag them back in. He doesn't go > anywhere without his gun and has a concealed weapon permit. > > I imagine Wolfe is more devout than my father, but my mother is a devout > catholic and also exmilitary and weapons are normal, just a part of every > day life. What is surprising about someone who fought in Korea recognizing > that weapons are necessary in life when someone else may hurt you? > > On Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 12:02 PM PDT Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Jack Smith >> wrote: >>> 4. ?Guns frequently appear in Wolfe's contemporary American settings, >>> like >>> Castleview and Free Live Free. >> ...not to mention very prominently in _The Sorcerer's House_. >>> Of course, weapons may just be used for dramatic effect. — However, our >>> author seems to believe that weapons can be used for good as well as >>> evil. >>> No blanket condemnation of lethal force and lethal instruments. >> Weapons as such are morally neutral objects. It is their use that is >> morally fraught. As the saying goes, "Gods don't kill people; >> religious fanatics kill people." >> >> -- >> Dan'l Danehy-Oakes >> _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *06 Jul 2010, 22:23 · in reply to Lee Berman* Free men may arm themselves in their own defense. Slaves may be armed in defense of their masters. Livestock has no desire to be armed. . >> That would be a legitimate interpretation of the Second Amendment, Lee, >> except for two things: >> 1) The Founders who wrote it that way didn't interpret it that way. I'd >> imagine they would know since they wrote the thing. >> 2) The Bill of Rights was placed in the Constitution for the purpose of >> protecting the people's liberties against the encroachments of the >> government. > Those are reasonable arguments. I have nothing against them. It just > appears > to me that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to allow regulated > militias > to function. This has little to do with how the Second Amendment is > usually > invoked today. Why didn't the Founding Fathers mention self-defense, > hunting > and defense from fascist governments in that amendment? Why only militias? > And > are there now legal militias which rely on self-owned weapons? In all > militias > I know of,you must use a government owned weapon, yes? A militia armed > solely > with self-owned weapons would tend to get the Ruby Ridge/Waco treatment, I > think. > > I have never felt a need for personal ownership of guns so I'm sure that > fact > biases my opinion of the Second Amendment, just as those who enjoy the > ownership > of guns would be similarly biased in the opposite direction. It is an > interesting > topic but not one I will waste more of this board's space on. I can only > invoke > A.E. Van Vogt so many times ;-). > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your > inbox. > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2 > _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *06 Jul 2010, 22:25 · in reply to David Stockhoff* > Of course fascism hadn't been invented yet. Nor had lynching and armed > race riots. How ignorant are you, exactly? . --- ### brunians at brunians.org *06 Jul 2010, 22:27 · in reply to David Stockhoff* > Below. > > Jeff Wilson wrote: >> On 7/4/2010 6:48 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: >>> Of course fascism hadn't been invented yet. Nor had lynching and armed >>> race riots. >> I'm not sure how much of this is humor or rhetoric. > Neither. Just the facts. No one was ever lynched before the 19th century or so. There were never any ethnic conflicts, or if there were, they used their fists. The rivers flowed with soda water, and lollipops grew on trees. . >>> But I agree that the 2A did not have individual self-defense against >>> muggers and burglars in mind, any more than it was intended to secure >>> only the state's right to defend itself. It addresses the right of the >>> People. Not persons. Not states. >> I'm not sure how you distinguish between persons and People. The 4th >> amendment, introduced at the same time on the same piece of paper, >> uses the identical wording "the right of the people". Does this mean >> that persons, houses, papers, and effects are also held under >> government regulation as a collective rather than an individual right? >> Of course, in the idiom of the time, "person" had a much stronger >> connotation than today of the individual's objective physical >> presence, their physical body and the artifacts and space immediately >> proximate to it. This would make it a poorer term of reference for >> establishing abstract, inalienable rights that endure even if the >> "person" had business physically far afield. > I agree that it is a tricky question and one central to any serious > debate about the 2A. But the People plainly are thought to defend > themselves with an organized militia based on universal individual > long-gun ownership, because that's what a militia is. (I suppose a > militia armed with pistols could be effective if mounted, but hardly > otherwise. And such could keep order against minor disruptions, just as > cops with .38s can. But there is probably no precedent for an > all-handgun militia, because generally handguns have been more > controlled than rifles. With good reason.) > > Any reading regarding individuals acting outside of an organized group, > or regarding either pistols or machine guns, or defense against muggers > and burglars, has to connect with this basic idea or fail to ground > itself in the 2A. Thus, it's hard to see how it spells out my right to > carry a concealed pocket revolver in a club at 2:00 AM in a city whose > residents fear handguns enough to collectively decide to ban them, let > alone my right to have several machine gun nests positioned around my > house. But it certainly lets me defend my property on my own as I see > fit, and that's where I think most Americans do overwhelmingly agree. > It's just too bad that handguns kill more handgun owners and their > children than they do burglars. > > Although one could argue that absent any police force or guard at all, > either of these "rights" may suddenly become useful. And that's what SF > is good for---exploring such situations. Zombies, for example. Don't > take that argument to the SC, though. >> I'm pretty sure that Wolfe would agree that the People is made of >> individuals, and while a state can be a sovereign person and not their >> subjects, a literally democratic state is made of individual persons. >> Given his prodigious, endlessly elaborate convolutions of notional >> languages and expressions historic and posthistoric, one can expect >> him to be more than sufficiently informed to take the Constitution as >> it was intended to be read in its time, as a document of its time. > Sure. See above. > _______________________________________________ --- ### Adam Thornton *06 Jul 2010, 22:59 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > On 07/06/2010 04:51 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: > Have none of you read the Federalist and the Antifederalist? > > . > Was that the one with the giant with a ship for a head, and the magic black beans, and the boy fishing for the Sun? Adam --- ### David Stockhoff *06 Jul 2010, 23:10 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* Of Brunianism? Very. >> brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> Of course fascism hadn't been invented yet. Nor had lynching and armed >> race riots. >> > How ignorant are you, exactly? > > . > > > _______________________________________________ > Urth Mailing List > To post, write urth at urth.net --- ### brunians at brunians.org *07 Jul 2010, 00:03 · in reply to Adam Thornton* It was not. It was the debate over the ratification of the American constitution, conducted in the press. This very issue, that of the right to keep and bear arms, was discussed by the people who wrote the Constitution in these epistles. . > On 07/06/2010 04:51 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> Have none of you read the Federalist and the Antifederalist? >> >> . > Was that the one with the giant with a ship for a head, and the magic > black beans, and the boy fishing for the Sun? > > Adam > _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *07 Jul 2010, 00:05 · in reply to David Stockhoff* Of Reality, David, specifically as it manifests in human behavior. It is a rhetorical question. . > Of Brunianism? Very. > > brunians at brunians.org wrote: >>> Of course fascism hadn't been invented yet. Nor had lynching and armed >>> race riots. >> How ignorant are you, exactly? >> >> . >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Urth Mailing List --- ### David Stockhoff *07 Jul 2010, 00:27 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* As was mine! I admit; I lied. I WAS being a little facetious. But I really don't think the Founders were concerned about armed white men killing blacks. First, the rhetoric hadn't heated up to the point where it was 100 years later. You could still teach black slaves to read. Second, they would have been more concerned, however unrealistically, about armed black slaves killing whites, but again see point #1. Indians were far more of a "problem" (i.e., scapegoat). Do you support slaveowners' right to arm themselves against slave uprisings? Do you support the right of slaves to arm themselves against their "owners"? > brunians at brunians.org wrote: > Of Reality, David, specifically as it manifests in human behavior. > > It is a rhetorical question. > > . > > > >> Of Brunianism? Very. >> >> brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> >>>> Of course fascism hadn't been invented yet. Nor had lynching and armed >>>> race riots. >>>> >>>> >>> How ignorant are you, exactly? >>> >>> . >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Urth Mailing List >>> To post, write urth at urth.net >>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net >>> >>> >>> --- >>> avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. >>> Virus Database (VPS): 100706-1, 07/06/2010 >>> Tested on: 7/6/2010 7:07:05 PM >>> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. >>> http://www.avast.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *07 Jul 2010, 00:45 · in reply to David Stockhoff* They weren't. It was ordinary practice to arm your slaves when you moved about in dangerous territory. You mistakenly believe that I am as ignorant as you. Please do not assume that you know in detail what I am talking about. Ask questions to elicit information. . > As was mine! > > I admit; I lied. I WAS being a little facetious. > > But I really don't think the Founders were concerned about armed white > men killing blacks. First, the rhetoric hadn't heated up to the point > where it was 100 years later. You could still teach black slaves to > read. Second, they would have been more concerned, however > unrealistically, about armed black slaves killing whites, but again see > point #1. Indians were far more of a "problem" (i.e., scapegoat). > > Do you support slaveowners' right to arm themselves against slave > uprisings? Do you support the right of slaves to arm themselves against > their "owners"? > > brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> Of Reality, David, specifically as it manifests in human behavior. >> >> It is a rhetorical question. >> >> . >>> Of Brunianism? Very. >>> >>> brunians at brunians.org wrote: >>>>> Of course fascism hadn't been invented yet. Nor had lynching and >>>>> armed >>>>> race riots. >>>> How ignorant are you, exactly? >>>> >>>> . >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### David Stockhoff *07 Jul 2010, 00:53 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* Right. Yes, of course it was. So what? Do you actually have any information? We can't know if you don't say what you're talking about---but of course you never do. > brunians at brunians.org wrote: > They weren't. > > It was ordinary practice to arm your slaves when you moved about in > dangerous territory. > > You mistakenly believe that I am as ignorant as you. > > Please do not assume that you know in detail what I am talking about. > > Ask questions to elicit information. > > . > > > >> As was mine! >> >> I admit; I lied. I WAS being a little facetious. >> >> But I really don't think the Founders were concerned about armed white >> men killing blacks. First, the rhetoric hadn't heated up to the point >> where it was 100 years later. You could still teach black slaves to >> read. Second, they would have been more concerned, however >> unrealistically, about armed black slaves killing whites, but again see >> point #1. Indians were far more of a "problem" (i.e., scapegoat). >> >> Do you support slaveowners' right to arm themselves against slave >> uprisings? Do you support the right of slaves to arm themselves against >> their "owners"? >> >> brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> >>> Of Reality, David, specifically as it manifests in human behavior. >>> >>> It is a rhetorical question. >>> >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Of Brunianism? Very. >>>> >>>> brunians at brunians.org wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Of course fascism hadn't been invented yet. Nor had lynching and >>>>>> armed >>>>>> race riots. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> How ignorant are you, exactly? >>>>> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Urth Mailing List --- ### brunians at brunians.org *07 Jul 2010, 03:25 · in reply to David Stockhoff* I actually have information. What information would you like? . > Right. > > Yes, of course it was. So what? > > Do you actually have any information? > > We can't know if you don't say what you're talking about---but of course > you never do. > > brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> They weren't. >> >> It was ordinary practice to arm your slaves when you moved about in >> dangerous territory. >> >> You mistakenly believe that I am as ignorant as you. >> >> Please do not assume that you know in detail what I am talking about. >> >> Ask questions to elicit information. >> >> . >>> As was mine! >>> >>> I admit; I lied. I WAS being a little facetious. >>> >>> But I really don't think the Founders were concerned about armed white >>> men killing blacks. First, the rhetoric hadn't heated up to the point >>> where it was 100 years later. You could still teach black slaves to >>> read. Second, they would have been more concerned, however >>> unrealistically, about armed black slaves killing whites, but again see >>> point #1. Indians were far more of a "problem" (i.e., scapegoat). >>> >>> Do you support slaveowners' right to arm themselves against slave >>> uprisings? Do you support the right of slaves to arm themselves against >>> their "owners"? >>> >>> brunians at brunians.org wrote: >>>> Of Reality, David, specifically as it manifests in human behavior. >>>> >>>> It is a rhetorical question. >>>> >>>> . >>>>> Of Brunianism? Very. >>>>> >>>>> brunians at brunians.org wrote: >>>>>>> Of course fascism hadn't been invented yet. Nor had lynching and >>>>>>> armed >>>>>>> race riots. >>>>>> How ignorant are you, exactly? >>>>>> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### David Stockhoff *07 Jul 2010, 03:26 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* I said, "So what"? > brunians at brunians.org wrote: > I actually have information. > > What information would you like? > > . > > > >> Right. >> >> Yes, of course it was. So what? >> >> Do you actually have any information? >> >> We can't know if you don't say what you're talking about---but of course >> you never do. >> >> brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> >>> They weren't. >>> >>> It was ordinary practice to arm your slaves when you moved about in >>> dangerous territory. >>> >>> You mistakenly believe that I am as ignorant as you. >>> >>> Please do not assume that you know in detail what I am talking about. >>> >>> Ask questions to elicit information. >>> >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> As was mine! >>>> >>>> I admit; I lied. I WAS being a little facetious. >>>> >>>> But I really don't think the Founders were concerned about armed white >>>> men killing blacks. First, the rhetoric hadn't heated up to the point >>>> where it was 100 years later. You could still teach black slaves to >>>> read. Second, they would have been more concerned, however >>>> unrealistically, about armed black slaves killing whites, but again see >>>> point #1. Indians were far more of a "problem" (i.e., scapegoat). >>>> >>>> Do you support slaveowners' right to arm themselves against slave >>>> uprisings? Do you support the right of slaves to arm themselves against >>>> their "owners"? >>>> >>>> brunians at brunians.org wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Of Reality, David, specifically as it manifests in human behavior. >>>>> >>>>> It is a rhetorical question. >>>>> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Of Brunianism? Very. >>>>>> >>>>>> brunians at brunians.org wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course fascism hadn't been invented yet. Nor had lynching and >>>>>>>> armed >>>>>>>> race riots. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> How ignorant are you, exactly? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Urth Mailing List >>>>>>> To post, write urth at urth.net >>>>>>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. >>>>>>> Virus Database (VPS): 100706-1, 07/06/2010 >>>>>>> Tested on: 7/6/2010 7:07:05 PM >>>>>>> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. >>>>>>> http://www.avast.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### Adam Thornton *07 Jul 2010, 03:28 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > On 07/06/2010 10:25 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: > I actually have information. > > What information would you like? > > "FOURTEEN!" shouted the Humbug, always eager to be first with the wrong answer. --- ### brunians at brunians.org *07 Jul 2010, 05:02 · in reply to David Stockhoff* First you want information, then you don't want information. You don't know what you want. . > I said, "So what"? > > brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> I actually have information. >> >> What information would you like? >> >> . >>> Right. >>> >>> Yes, of course it was. So what? >>> >>> Do you actually have any information? >>> >>> We can't know if you don't say what you're talking about---but of >>> course >>> you never do. >>> >>> brunians at brunians.org wrote: >>>> They weren't. >>>> >>>> It was ordinary practice to arm your slaves when you moved about in >>>> dangerous territory. >>>> >>>> You mistakenly believe that I am as ignorant as you. >>>> >>>> Please do not assume that you know in detail what I am talking about. >>>> >>>> Ask questions to elicit information. >>>> >>>> . >>>>> As was mine! >>>>> >>>>> I admit; I lied. I WAS being a little facetious. >>>>> >>>>> But I really don't think the Founders were concerned about armed >>>>> white >>>>> men killing blacks. First, the rhetoric hadn't heated up to the point >>>>> where it was 100 years later. You could still teach black slaves to >>>>> read. Second, they would have been more concerned, however >>>>> unrealistically, about armed black slaves killing whites, but again >>>>> see >>>>> point #1. Indians were far more of a "problem" (i.e., scapegoat). >>>>> >>>>> Do you support slaveowners' right to arm themselves against slave >>>>> uprisings? Do you support the right of slaves to arm themselves >>>>> against >>>>> their "owners"? >>>>> >>>>> brunians at brunians.org wrote: >>>>>> Of Reality, David, specifically as it manifests in human behavior. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is a rhetorical question. >>>>>> >>>>>> . >>>>>>> Of Brunianism? Very. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> brunians at brunians.org wrote: >>>>>>>>> Of course fascism hadn't been invented yet. Nor had lynching and >>>>>>>>> armed >>>>>>>>> race riots. >>>>>>>> How ignorant are you, exactly? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Urth Mailing List >>>>>>>> To post, write urth at urth.net >>>>>>>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. >>>>>>>> Virus Database (VPS): 100706-1, 07/06/2010 >>>>>>>> Tested on: 7/6/2010 7:07:05 PM >>>>>>>> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. >>>>>>>> http://www.avast.com >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### David Stockhoff *07 Jul 2010, 12:19 · in reply to Adam Thornton* What is that, Adam? It's so familiar, but Google fails me. > Adam Thornton wrote: > On 07/06/2010 10:25 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> I actually have information. >> >> What information would you like? >> >> > "FOURTEEN!" shouted the Humbug, always eager to be first with the > wrong answer. > _______________________________________________ > Urth Mailing List > To post, write urth at urth.net --- ### Adam Thornton *07 Jul 2010, 13:15 · in reply to David Stockhoff* > On 07/07/2010 07:19 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: > What is that, Adam? It's so familiar, but Google fails me. > > Adam Thornton wrote: >> On 07/06/2010 10:25 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >>> I actually have information. >>> >>> What information would you like? >> "FOURTEEN!" shouted the Humbug, always eager to be first with the >> wrong answer. It's _The Phantom Tollbooth_, but from memory, so it's probably incorrect. Adam --- ### Robert Thornton *08 Jul 2010, 02:44 · in reply to Adam Thornton* I un-lurk to agree with David Stockhoff. Josh, if you could talk more about Wolfe and maybe expound further upon your thoughts, I would personally appreciate it. I think who we are as list members should take second place to what we think about Wolfe and the many aspects of his works. and we keep on running right into non-Wolfe-related issues of personal belief. You are playing a key role in encouraging non-Wolfean discourse of almost any sort. Please, I don't want to unsubscribe due to this silliness. Also, Josh, I will not respond to any personal attacks, defenses of your approach to posting, or anything else except Wolfe-related matters. I have not delved deep into Wolfe and I enjoy when others do. That's what this list is about right? Rob --- ### brunians at brunians.org *08 Jul 2010, 03:05 · in reply to Robert Thornton* I am not here to adulate Gene Wolfe. I am here to discuss his work. You are as welcome to dislike my point of view and me personally as David is. Why do you think it may be important to me that you agree with David? . > I un-lurk to agree with David Stockhoff. > > Josh, if you could talk more about Wolfe and maybe expound further upon > your thoughts, I would personally appreciate it. > > I think who we are as list members should take second place to what we > think about Wolfe and the many aspects of his works. and we keep on > running right into non-Wolfe-related issues of personal belief. You are > playing a key role in encouraging non-Wolfean discourse of almost any > sort. > > Please, I don't want to unsubscribe due to this silliness. Also, Josh, I > will not respond to any personal attacks, defenses of your approach to > posting, or anything else except Wolfe-related matters. I have not delved > deep into Wolfe and I enjoy when others do. That's what this list is about > right? > > Rob > > > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Gwern Branwen *08 Jul 2010, 10:28 · in reply to James Wynn* > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:24 AM, James Wynn wrote: > This is an ingenious method to kill a zombie thread ("Appearance of Inire"): > reintroduce an old zombie thread that has already resurrected itself 3 times > previously to flush it away. Presumably, the list has built up enough > antibodies to fight off "The Politics of Gene Wolfe" in short order and then > both zombie threads are gone. We shall call this the Zombie Colonic. I was sure that I had, at some point, remarked that Wolfe's books seemed to be getting more political (or perhaps I should say, politically incorrect?) as he got older. However, that particular email was the best I could do in finding my previous comments to which my _Starwater Strains_ email was a reply. > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Sunanda wrote: > Have you read _Operation Ares_? > Perhaps an outlier, but definitely political. > > Sunanda No, never. (Nor have I read the collection of his Korea letters.) How is OA political? On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 12:35 PM, James Wynn wrote: ... > For the most part, however, the examples given from "Starwater Strains" are > seeing what one expects to see. You don't have to be a > conservative/libertarian to imagine a dystopian government (ex. George > Orwell). You don't need to be a Tea Partyer to wish well a revolution that > will bring down the "big important gangs with suits and guns". That sounds > like the communist/anarchist G-20 protesters in Toronto. I disagree. Those protesters are equally pro-gun control. When was the last time you saw MoveOn.org and its ilk urge the expiry of the assault weapons ban? Who are gnashing their teeth over the recent Supreme Court decision but the same general set of liberals that worry about climate change and evil multinationals? And I mentioned the story that was just about the debasement of money - when was the last time you saw liberals worry about the coinage? (From reading the _New York Times_ opeds, their chief concern seems to be what rate of debasement/inflation is best for economic growth.) These aren't generic SF/libertarian fears. > On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote: > And Gwern is telling us that a story in /Starwater Strains/, which I haven't read, depicts a future tyranny as disarming the public. Lots of people have written dystopias without ever mentioning laws on weapon ownership. > On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Rebecca Bushong-Taylor > wrote: > I believe this is true. Gene has told me that when they were younger, he > and Rosemary would regularly practice throwing knives, in part as a way to > keep the kids respectfully in line. He strongly encouraged me to take it > up. > On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Matthew Keeley > wrote: > Great anecdote, and it rather explains the essay on the proper use of > throwing knives in Castle of Days... I too am entertained, but also a little perplexed. With Robert Jordan, who so far as I am aware has never thrown a knife in his life, the books are full of knife throwers. (In _Wheel of Time_, knife-throwing seems to be a standard skill, akin to swimming - it's more surprising when a character *can't* do it.) But with Wolfe, who is quite knowledgeable, knife-throwers are very rare. Offhand, I can't think of one! I guess we could say that SF and fantasy writers write what they don't know... ``` gwern ``` --- ### Mr Thalassocrat *08 Jul 2010, 10:35 · in reply to Gwern Branwen* > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote: > But with Wolfe, who is quite > knowledgeable, knife-throwers are very rare. Offhand, I can't think of > one! > > Can only think of one, offhand: Kypris-in-Chenille, in the manteion with Silk and Remora, throwing Musk's knife. --- ### brunians at brunians.org *08 Jul 2010, 10:55 · in reply to Gwern Branwen* You generalize well, Gwern. I've always admired that in you. I find little to argue with you besides that. In any case, I never argue. . > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:24 AM, James Wynn wrote: >> This is an ingenious method to kill a zombie thread ("Appearance of >> Inire"): >> reintroduce an old zombie thread that has already resurrected itself 3 >> times >> previously to flush it away. Presumably, the list has built up enough >> antibodies to fight off "The Politics of Gene Wolfe" in short order and >> then >> both zombie threads are gone. We shall call this the Zombie Colonic. > I was sure that I had, at some point, remarked that Wolfe's books > seemed to be getting more political (or perhaps I should say, > politically incorrect?) as he got older. However, that particular > email was the best I could do in finding my previous comments to which > my _Starwater Strains_ email was a reply. > > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Sunanda wrote: >> Have you read _Operation Ares_? >> Perhaps an outlier, but definitely political. >> >> Sunanda > No, never. (Nor have I read the collection of his Korea letters.) How > is OA political? > > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 12:35 PM, James Wynn wrote: > ... >> For the most part, however, the examples given from "Starwater Strains" >> are >> seeing what one expects to see. You don't have to be a >> conservative/libertarian to imagine a dystopian government (ex. George >> Orwell). You don't need to be a Tea Partyer to wish well a revolution >> that >> will bring down the "big important gangs with suits and guns". That >> sounds >> like the communist/anarchist G-20 protesters in Toronto. > I disagree. Those protesters are equally pro-gun control. When was the > last time you saw MoveOn.org and its ilk urge the expiry of the > assault weapons ban? Who are gnashing their teeth over the recent > Supreme Court decision but the same general set of liberals that worry > about climate change and evil multinationals? And I mentioned the > story that was just about the debasement of money - when was the last > time you saw liberals worry about the coinage? (From reading the _New > York Times_ opeds, their chief concern seems to be what rate of > debasement/inflation is best for economic growth.) > > These aren't generic SF/libertarian fears. > > On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Jerry Friedman > wrote: >> And Gwern is telling us that a story in /Starwater Strains/, which I >> haven't read, depicts a future tyranny as disarming the public. Lots of >> people have written dystopias without ever mentioning laws on weapon >> ownership. > On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Rebecca Bushong-Taylor > wrote: >> I believe this is true. Gene has told me that when they were younger, >> he >> and Rosemary would regularly practice throwing knives, in part as a way >> to >> keep the kids respectfully in line. He strongly encouraged me to take >> it >> up. > On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Matthew Keeley > wrote: >> Great anecdote, and it rather explains the essay on the proper use of >> throwing knives in Castle of Days... > I too am entertained, but also a little perplexed. With Robert Jordan, > who so far as I am aware has never thrown a knife in his life, the > books are full of knife throwers. (In _Wheel of Time_, knife-throwing > seems to be a standard skill, akin to swimming - it's more surprising > when a character *can't* do it.) But with Wolfe, who is quite > knowledgeable, knife-throwers are very rare. Offhand, I can't think of > one! > > I guess we could say that SF and fantasy writers write what they don't > know... > > -- > gwern > _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *08 Jul 2010, 10:56 · in reply to Mr Thalassocrat* I didn't actually know that Wolfe was a knife guy. Doesn't surprise me even a little. All the good guys are knife guys. . > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote: >> But with Wolfe, who is quite >> knowledgeable, knife-throwers are very rare. Offhand, I can't think of >> one! >> >> Can only think of one, offhand: Kypris-in-Chenille, in the manteion with >> Silk and Remora, throwing Musk's knife. > _______________________________________________ --- ### David Stockhoff *08 Jul 2010, 12:11 · in reply to Mr Thalassocrat* You do have the duel with the avern. > Mr Thalassocrat wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Gwern Branwen > wrote: > > But with Wolfe, who is quite > knowledgeable, knife-throwers are very rare. Offhand, I can't think of > one! > > Can only think of one, offhand: Kypris-in-Chenille, in the manteion > with Silk and Remora, throwing Musk's knife. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Urth Mailing List > To post, write urth at urth.net --- ### Jeff Wilson *08 Jul 2010, 21:00 · in reply to Gwern Branwen* > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:24 AM, James Wynn wrote: > I too am entertained, but also a little perplexed. With Robert Jordan, > who so far as I am aware has never thrown a knife in his life, the > books are full of knife throwers. (In _Wheel of Time_, knife-throwing > seems to be a standard skill, akin to swimming - it's more surprising > when a character *can't* do it.) But with Wolfe, who is quite > knowledgeable, knife-throwers are very rare. Offhand, I can't think of > one! The avern duel is pretty knife-throwy. --- ### David Stockhoff *13 Jul 2010, 01:03 · in reply to Adam Thornton* No, that's definitely it. > Adam Thornton wrote: > On 07/07/2010 07:19 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: >> What is that, Adam? It's so familiar, but Google fails me. >> >> Adam Thornton wrote: >>> On 07/06/2010 10:25 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >>>> I actually have information. >>>> >>>> What information would you like? >>> "FOURTEEN!" shouted the Humbug, always eager to be first with the >>> wrong answer. > It's _The Phantom Tollbooth_, but from memory, so it's probably > incorrect. > > Adam > _______________________________________________ --- ### hammstu at sbcglobal.net *13 Jul 2010, 01:04 · in reply to David Stockhoff* More Phantom Toll booth references please!! Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed -----Original Message----- From: David Stockhoff Sender: urth-bounces at lists.urth.net Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:03:26 To: The Urth Mailing List Reply-To: The Urth Mailing List Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics of Gene Wolfe No, that's definitely it. > Adam Thornton wrote: > On 07/07/2010 07:19 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: >> What is that, Adam? It's so familiar, but Google fails me. >> >> Adam Thornton wrote: >>> On 07/06/2010 10:25 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >>>> I actually have information. >>>> >>>> What information would you like? >>> "FOURTEEN!" shouted the Humbug, always eager to be first with the >>> wrong answer. > It's _The Phantom Tollbooth_, but from memory, so it's probably > incorrect. > > Adam > _______________________________________________ > Urth Mailing List > To post, write urth at urth.net > Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net > > > --- > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 100707-1, 07/07/2010 > Tested on: 7/7/2010 6:39:54 PM > avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. > http://www.avast.com ---