Hut in the Jungle

On Mar 18, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Son of Witz wrote: I understand that it serves to show us that one can time travel, without knowing it, by merely walking through certain spaces that are somehow set up for this. This makes that very clear. Robert mentions Paris, and we see a propeller plane, it's a window into Urth's past as Earth.

I understand that it serves to show us that one can time travel, without knowing it, by merely walking through certain spaces that are somehow set up for this. This makes that very clear. Robert mentions Paris, and we see a propeller plane, it's a window into Urth's past as Earth.

Are we sure it's the past?

On Mar 18, 2009, at 3:42 PM, James Wynn wrote: I understand that it serves to show us that one can time travel, without knowing it, by merely walking through certain spaces that are somehow set up for this. This makes that very clear. Robert mentions Paris, and we see a propeller plane, it's a window into Urth's past as Earth.

Are we sure it's the past?

If you believe, as I do, that they are the missionaries Robert and Mary Moffat (Robert was a former gardener), then I would say it was in the past. This would mean that the Time that Sev is in when he sees the plane is not the Time where he encountered the missionaries.

-----Original Message----- From: James Wynn [mailto:crushtv at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 01:42 PM To: 'The Urth Mailing List' Subject: Re: (urth) Hut in the Jungle

I understand that it serves to show us that one can time travel, without knowing it, by merely walking through certain spaces that are somehow set up for this. This makes that very clear. Robert mentions Paris, and we see a propeller plane, it's a window into Urth's past as Earth.

Are we sure it's the past?

If you believe, as I do, that they are the missionaries Robert and Mary Moffat (Robert was a former gardener), then I would say it was in the past. This would mean that the Time that Sev is in when he sees the plane is not the Time where he encountered the missionaries.

------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:08:33 +0000 From: "Son of Witz" <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org> Subject: (urth) Hut in the Jungle To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net> Message-ID: <W62781468770971237406913 at webmail18> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Ok, so I'm rereading NewSun again. what the hell is going on in the Hut in the Jungle. I understand that it serves to show us that one can time travel, without knowing it, by merely walking through certain spaces that are somehow set up for this. This makes that very clear. Robert mentions Paris, and we see a propeller plane, it's a window into Urth's past as Earth. Others have pointed out that the text the Preceptress is reading is from the Old Testament (or was that NT?). During that scene Agia uses the term Theoanthropos, God-Man, which is usually applied to Christ (any others?) Is this to tell us that belief in Christ is part of the world. I understand that, as the translation device goes, Theoanthropos could apply to other God-men we haven't met, so it's not a necessary reading, but is that the intent? Insangoma appears to be refering to the New Sun when he chants: "He comes when the sun is setting, See his feet upon the water! Tracks of flame across the water" and they feel the Tokoloshe, spirits from the future. "Don't you see they are only the results of what we do? They are the spiritis of the future, and we make them ourselves?" Is this just saying that the fallen state of Urth is contemporary Earth's doing, somehow? and what is Insagoma's story about the nephew fishing? /confused ~witz ------------------------------

------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:42:32 -0500 From: "James Wynn" <crushtv at gmail.com> Subject: Re: (urth) Hut in the Jungle To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net> Message-ID: <546F8E4F5A224456A6CD4E91FFAEFD6E at eMachinePC> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original If you believe, as I do, that they are the missionaries Robert and Mary Moffat (Robert was a former gardener), then I would say it was in the past. This would mean that the Time that Sev is in when he sees the plane is not the Time where he encountered the missionaries. ------------------------------

I said: If you believe, as I do, that they are the missionaries Robert and Mary Moffat (Robert was a former gardener), then I would say it was in the past. This would mean that the Time that Sev is in when he sees the plane is not the Time where he encountered the missionaries. David Stockhoff: Wow, that sounds right. But they hear the mail-plane and know what it is, even though it's from 50 years after their time.

--- On Wed, 3/18/09, Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org> wrote: I understand that it serves to show us that one can time travel, without knowing it, by merely walking through certain spaces that are somehow set up for this. This makes that very clear. Robert mentions Paris, and we see a propeller plane, it's a window into Urth's past as Earth.

Are we sure it's the past?

I am. it seems abundantly clear, and even GW's translator note says as much. I dismiss outright the suggestion that GW may not = Gene Wolfe.

and they feel the Tokoloshe, spirits from the future. "Don't you see they are only the results of what we do? They are the spiritis of the future, and we make them ourselves?" Is this just saying that the fallen state of Urth is contemporary Earth's doing, somehow?

/confused ~witz

-----Original Message----- From: Jerry Friedman [mailto:jerry_friedman at yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 04:23 PM To: 'The Urth Mailing List' Subject: Re: (urth) Hut in the Jungle --- On Wed, 3/18/09, Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org> wrote:

I understand that it serves to show us that one can time travel, without knowing it, by merely walking through certain spaces that are somehow set up for this. This makes that very clear. Robert mentions Paris, and we see a propeller plane, it's a window into Urth's past as Earth.

Are we sure it's the past?

I am. it seems abundantly clear, and even GW's translator note says as much. I dismiss outright the suggestion that GW may not = Gene Wolfe.

I should remind you of this quotation from James Jordan's interview with that same person, whoever he is (or maybe I shouldn't, because I'd like to forget it): "JJ: This universe that you set in Briah, or part of it--is that our universe? Or is that a universe that resurrected saints have set up in the world to come as part of the cities that they made? "GW: No. I thought of it as a long past universe. Something that we are repeating rather than something that we are." http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2tmhh/wolfejbj.html How "the era's few extant buildings" fits into that I can't imagine. But if Severian's universe is like ours with small differences, it would explain the odd dislocations--"Isangoma" and "tokoloshe" from South Africa but "uakari" and "margay" from South America and "hesperorn" (Cretaceous) and "oreodont" (Oligocene and Miocene) from North America, and the slightly off translation from the Bible. On the other hand, Agia's claim that the people in the hut are enchanted people of her time would also explain it if the enchantment didn't create a perfect imitation. Jerry Friedman

and they feel the Tokoloshe, spirits from the future. "Don't you see they are only the results of what we do? They are the spiritis of the future, and we make them ourselves?" Is this just saying that the fallen state of Urth is contemporary Earth's doing, somehow?

/confused ~witz

Gwern, I see what you mean about those being two directions of the same issue. But there's something else going on there, as well. I always thought that Talos was really talking about myth and stories: he's saying, "Hey, this is Frankenstein, but backwards!" And the point is that myth shapes us, but we also move away from the original intent of myths so that they are changed and distorted over time. What happens in the hut seems less about myth and story than about reflecting on the consequences of one's actions, but also realizing that who we are may be the consequence of someone else's actions. Both are about how, you're right, it's hard to pin down an "original" cause or action. But they're dealing with different mechanisms: choices on the one hand and myth/story on the other. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that there may be different ways that they're thinking about the relationship between past and future. ----- Original Message ---- From: Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:27:57 PM Subject: Re: (urth) Hut in the Jungle On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org> wrote: ...

and they feel the Tokoloshe, spirits from the future. "Don't you see they are only the results of what we do? They are the spiritis of the future, and we make them ourselves?" Is this just saying that the fallen state of Urth is contemporary Earth's doing, somehow?

...

/confused ~witz

I've always taken this as being the opposite of what is said in Sword of the Lictor: 'Dr. Talos whispered, "Look about you???don't you recognize this? It is just as he says!" "What do you mean?" I whispered in return. "The castle? The monster? The man of learning? I only just thought of it. Surely you know that just as the momentous events of the past cast their shadows down the ages, so now, when the sun is drawing toward the dark, our own shadows race into the past to trouble mankind's dreams." "You're mad," I said. "Or joking." "Mad?" Baldanders rumbled. "You are mad. You with your fantasies of theurgy. How they must be laughing at us. They think all of us barbarians... I, who have labored three lifetimes."' I've always loved that line: "our own shadows race into the past to trouble mankind's dreams." The spirits of the future trouble the dreams of the present, and the present make the results that lie in the future. Which was the original? Neither, perhaps. -- gwern _______________________________________________

Gwern, I see what you mean about those being two directions of the same issue. But there's something else going on there, as well. I always thought that Talos was really talking about myth and stories: he's saying, "Hey, this is Frankenstein, but backwards!" And the point is that myth shapes us, but we also move away from the original intent of myths so that they are changed and distorted over time. What happens in the hut seems less about myth and story than about reflecting on the consequences of one's actions, but also realizing that who we are may be the consequence of someone else's actions. Both are about how, you're right, it's hard to pin down an "original" cause or action. But they're dealing with different mechanisms: choices on the one hand and myth/story on the other. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that there may be different ways that they're thinking about the relationship between past and future. ----- Original Message ---- From: Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:27:57 PM Subject: Re: (urth) Hut in the Jungle On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org> wrote: ...

and they feel the Tokoloshe, spirits from the future. "Don't you see they are only the results of what we do? They are the spiritis of the future, and we make them ourselves?" Is this just saying that the fallen state of Urth is contemporary Earth's doing, somehow?

...

/confused ~witz

I've always taken this as being the opposite of what is said in Sword of the Lictor: 'Dr. Talos whispered, "Look about you???don't you recognize this? It is just as he says!" "What do you mean?" I whispered in return. "The castle? The monster? The man of learning? I only just thought of it. Surely you know that just as the momentous events of the past cast their shadows down the ages, so now, when the sun is drawing toward the dark, our own shadows race into the past to trouble mankind's dreams." "You're mad," I said. "Or joking." "Mad?" Baldanders rumbled. "You are mad. You with your fantasies of theurgy. How they must be laughing at us. They think all of us barbarians... I, who have labored three lifetimes."' I've always loved that line: "our own shadows race into the past to trouble mankind's dreams." The spirits of the future trouble the dreams of the present, and the present make the results that lie in the future. Which was the original? Neither, perhaps. -- gwern _______________________________________________ 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

Fair enough. (Although it leaves the Frankenstein reference as just something "cute" to throw in there.) Can you explain how it works here? Is there a particular past event that Talos is referring to that their present-as-future is affecting? Perhaps both? Is he suggesting that they're writing Frankenstein at that moment? heh... ----- Original Message ---- From: "brunians at brunians.org" <brunians at brunians.org> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 12:02:39 AM Subject: Re: (urth) Hut in the Jungle No, Talos (or Wolfe) meant that pretty literally. We discussed this when Wolfe and met in the mid 80's. John Cramer was also present. Gene and I found that we agreed that time was a certain way, which includes future events affecting the past in certain tricky ways. .

Gwern, I see what you mean about those being two directions of the same issue. But there's something else going on there, as well. I always thought that Talos was really talking about myth and stories: he's saying, "Hey, this is Frankenstein, but backwards!" And the point is that myth shapes us, but we also move away from the original intent of myths so that they are changed and distorted over time. What happens in the hut seems less about myth and story than about reflecting on the consequences of one's actions, but also realizing that who we are may be the consequence of someone else's actions. Both are about how, you're right, it's hard to pin down an "original" cause or action. But they're dealing with different mechanisms: choices on the one hand and myth/story on the other. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that there may be different ways that they're thinking about the relationship between past and future. ----- Original Message ---- From: Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com>

On Mar 18, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Craig Brewer wrote: Fair enough. (Although it leaves the Frankenstein reference as just something "cute" to throw in there.) Can you explain how it works here? Is there a particular past event that Talos is referring to that their present-as-future is affecting? Perhaps both? Is he suggesting that they're writing Frankenstein at that moment? heh... ----- Original Message ---- From: "brunians at brunians.org" <brunians at brunians.org> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 12:02:39 AM Subject: Re: (urth) Hut in the Jungle No, Talos (or Wolfe) meant that pretty literally. We discussed this when Wolfe and met in the mid 80's. John Cramer was also present. Gene and I found that we agreed that time was a certain way, which includes future events affecting the past in certain tricky ways. .

Gwern, I see what you mean about those being two directions of the same issue. But there's something else going on there, as well. I always thought that Talos was really talking about myth and stories: he's saying, "Hey, this is Frankenstein, but backwards!" And the point is that myth shapes us, but we also move away from the original intent of myths so that they are changed and distorted over time. What happens in the hut seems less about myth and story than about reflecting on the consequences of one's actions, but also realizing that who we are may be the consequence of someone else's actions. Both are about how, you're right, it's hard to pin down an "original" cause or action. But they're dealing with different mechanisms: choices on the one hand and myth/story on the other. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that there may be different ways that they're thinking about the relationship between past and future. ----- Original Message ---- From: Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com>

On Mar 18, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Craig Brewer wrote: Fair enough. (Although it leaves the Frankenstein reference as just something "cute" to throw in there.) Can you explain how it works here? Is there a particular past event that Talos is referring to that their present-as-future is affecting? Perhaps both? Is he suggesting that they're writing Frankenstein at that moment? heh... ----- Original Message ---- From: "brunians at brunians.org" <brunians at brunians.org> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 12:02:39 AM Subject: Re: (urth) Hut in the Jungle No, Talos (or Wolfe) meant that pretty literally. We discussed this when Wolfe and met in the mid 80's. John Cramer was also present. Gene and I found that we agreed that time was a certain way, which includes future events affecting the past in certain tricky ways. .

Gwern, I see what you mean about those being two directions of the same issue. But there's something else going on there, as well. I always thought that Talos was really talking about myth and stories: he's saying, "Hey, this is Frankenstein, but backwards!" And the point is that myth shapes us, but we also move away from the original intent of myths so that they are changed and distorted over time. What happens in the hut seems less about myth and story than about reflecting on the consequences of one's actions, but also realizing that who we are may be the consequence of someone else's actions. Both are about how, you're right, it's hard to pin down an "original" cause or action. But they're dealing with different mechanisms: choices on the one hand and myth/story on the other. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that there may be different ways that they're thinking about the relationship between past and future. ----- Original Message ---- From: Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:27:57 PM Subject: Re: (urth) Hut in the Jungle On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org> wrote: ...

and they feel the Tokoloshe, spirits from the future. "Don't you see they are only the results of what we do? They are the spiritis of the future, and we make them ourselves?" Is this just saying that the fallen state of Urth is contemporary Earth's doing, somehow?

...

/confused ~witz

I've always taken this as being the opposite of what is said in Sword of the Lictor: 'Dr. Talos whispered, "Look about you???don't you recognize this? It is just as he says!" "What do you mean?" I whispered in return. "The castle? The monster? The man of learning? I only just thought of it. Surely you know that just as the momentous events of the past cast their shadows down the ages, so now, when the sun is drawing toward the dark, our own shadows race into the past to trouble mankind's dreams." "You're mad," I said. "Or joking." "Mad?" Baldanders rumbled. "You are mad. You with your fantasies of theurgy. How they must be laughing at us. They think all of us barbarians... I, who have labored three lifetimes."' I've always loved that line: "our own shadows race into the past to trouble mankind's dreams." The spirits of the future trouble the dreams of the present, and the present make the results that lie in the future. Which was the original? Neither, perhaps. -- gwern _______________________________________________ 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

_______________________________________________ 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

On Mar 18, 2009, at 10:37 PM, Craig Brewer wrote: Dizzying from one perspective. Underwhelming from another. Or I suppose both at once.

If you're right, then the upshot of this would be that myth (Prometheus) is a retelling "from the future" of a very worldly event, Baldanders creating Talos and eventually destroying himself, which comes to have "mythic" proportions by being "projected" through a past lens darkly. Is that right?

But why does it have to be "from the future"? What does that add to the idea that real events can be blown up into myths that resonate with meaning far from their original context? What's different about a myth's origin being in the future than in the past? (Apart from the coolness factor, I agree.)

----- Original Message ---- From: Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 12:31:05 AM Subject: Re: (urth) Hut in the Jungle no no. It's not just "cute". it's fairly profound. it's literal, and it's a good example of why I've been saying the time loop is intractable. Things in this story's past have their roots in it's temporal future. I know it's a steady refrain from me, but Amphisbaena, Amphisbaena Amphisbaena. He's suggesting they ARE Frankensein, and the "particular past event that Talos is referring to" is the writing of Frankenstein and other Promethean stories. Dizzyingly awesome idea. ~witz On Mar 18, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:

Fair enough. (Although it leaves the Frankenstein reference as just something "cute" to throw in there.) Can you explain how it works here? Is there a particular past event that Talos is referring to that their present-as-future is affecting? Perhaps both? Is he suggesting that they're writing Frankenstein at that moment? heh... ----- Original Message ---- From: "brunians at brunians.org" <brunians at brunians.org> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 12:02:39 AM Subject: Re: (urth) Hut in the Jungle No, Talos (or Wolfe) meant that pretty literally. We discussed this when Wolfe and met in the mid 80's. John Cramer was also present. Gene and I found that we agreed that time was a certain way, which includes future events affecting the past in certain tricky ways. .

Gwern, I see what you mean about those being two directions of the same issue. But there's something else going on there, as well. I always thought that Talos was really talking about myth and stories: he's saying, "Hey, this is Frankenstein, but backwards!" And the point is that myth shapes us, but we also move away from the original intent of myths so that they are changed and distorted over time. What happens in the hut seems less about myth and story than about reflecting on the consequences of one's actions, but also realizing that who we are may be the consequence of someone else's actions. Both are about how, you're right, it's hard to pin down an "original" cause or action. But they're dealing with different mechanisms: choices on the one hand and myth/story on the other. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that there may be different ways that they're thinking about the relationship between past and future. ----- Original Message ---- From: Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com>

--- On Wed, 3/18/09, Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org> wrote: From: Jerry Friedman [mailto:jerry_friedman at yahoo.com] --- On Wed, 3/18/09, Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org> wrote:

Are we sure it's the past?

I am. it seems abundantly clear, and even GW's translator note says as much. I dismiss outright the suggestion that GW may not = Gene Wolfe.

I should remind you of this quotation from James Jordan's interview with that same person, whoever he is (or maybe I shouldn't, because I'd like to forget it): "JJ: This universe that you set in Briah, or part of it--is that our universe? Or is that a universe that resurrected saints have set up in the world to come as part of the cities that they made? "GW: No. I thought of it as a long past universe.

Something that we are repeating rather than something that we are."

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2tmhh/wolfejbj.html How "the era's few extant buildings" fits into that I can't imagine.

That's interesting. the enchantment idea actually works pretty well, though it can't account for the plan.

and Long Past works pretty much just as well for me.

On Mar 18, 2009, at 10:44 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote: On the subject of one time influencing an earlier time, I think Christian thinkers have said or speculated that the Incarnation had consequences in its past. And it's no harder, possibly easier to accept than time travel.

On Mar 18, 2009, at 10:37 PM, Craig Brewer wrote: Dizzying from one perspective. Underwhelming from another. Or I suppose both at once.

If you're right, then the upshot of this would be that myth (Prometheus) is a retelling "from the future" of a very worldly event, Baldanders creating Talos and eventually destroying himself, which comes to have "mythic" proportions by being "projected" through a past lens darkly. Is that right?

But why does it have to be "from the future"? What does that add to the idea that real events can be blown up into myths that resonate with meaning far from their original context? What's different about a myth's origin being in the future than in the past? (Apart from the coolness factor, I agree.)

----- Original Message ---- From: Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 12:31:05 AM Subject: Re: (urth) Hut in the Jungle no no. It's not just "cute". it's fairly profound. it's literal, and it's a good example of why I've been saying the time loop is intractable. Things in this story's past have their roots in it's temporal future. I know it's a steady refrain from me, but Amphisbaena, Amphisbaena Amphisbaena. He's suggesting they ARE Frankensein, and the "particular past event that Talos is referring to" is the writing of Frankenstein and other Promethean stories. Dizzyingly awesome idea. ~witz On Mar 18, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:

Fair enough. (Although it leaves the Frankenstein reference as just something "cute" to throw in there.) Can you explain how it works here? Is there a particular past event that Talos is referring to that their present-as-future is affecting? Perhaps both? Is he suggesting that they're writing Frankenstein at that moment? heh... ----- Original Message ---- From: "brunians at brunians.org" <brunians at brunians.org> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 12:02:39 AM Subject: Re: (urth) Hut in the Jungle No, Talos (or Wolfe) meant that pretty literally. We discussed this when Wolfe and met in the mid 80's. John Cramer was also present. Gene and I found that we agreed that time was a certain way, which includes future events affecting the past in certain tricky ways. .

Gwern, I see what you mean about those being two directions of the same issue. But there's something else going on there, as well. I always thought that Talos was really talking about myth and stories: he's saying, "Hey, this is Frankenstein, but backwards!" And the point is that myth shapes us, but we also move away from the original intent of myths so that they are changed and distorted over time. What happens in the hut seems less about myth and story than about reflecting on the consequences of one's actions, but also realizing that who we are may be the consequence of someone else's actions. Both are about how, you're right, it's hard to pin down an "original" cause or action. But they're dealing with different mechanisms: choices on the one hand and myth/story on the other. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that there may be different ways that they're thinking about the relationship between past and future. ----- Original Message ---- From: Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:27:57 PM Subject: Re: (urth) Hut in the Jungle On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org> wrote: ...

and they feel the Tokoloshe, spirits from the future. "Don't you see they are only the results of what we do? They are the spiritis of the future, and we make them ourselves?" Is this just saying that the fallen state of Urth is contemporary Earth's doing, somehow?

...

/confused ~witz

I've always taken this as being the opposite of what is said in Sword of the Lictor: 'Dr. Talos whispered, "Look about you???don't you recognize this? It is just as he says!" "What do you mean?" I whispered in return. "The castle? The monster? The man of learning? I only just thought of it. Surely you know that just as the momentous events of the past cast their shadows down the ages, so now, when the sun is drawing toward the dark, our own shadows race into the past to trouble mankind's dreams." "You're mad," I said. "Or joking." "Mad?" Baldanders rumbled. "You are mad. You with your fantasies of theurgy. How they must be laughing at us. They think all of us barbarians... I, who have labored three lifetimes."' I've always loved that line: "our own shadows race into the past to trouble mankind's dreams." The spirits of the future trouble the dreams of the present, and the present make the results that lie in the future. Which was the original? Neither, perhaps. -- gwern _______________________________________________ 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

_______________________________________________ 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

_______________________________________________ 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

--- On Wed, 3/18/09, Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org> wrote: On Mar 18, 2009, at 10:44 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:

On the subject of one time influencing an earlier time, I think Christian thinkers have said or speculated that the Incarnation had consequences in its past. And it's no harder, possibly easier to accept than time travel.

See Baldandars/Frankenstein discussion in this thread.

On Mar 18, 2009, at 10:57 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote: --- On Wed, 3/18/09, Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org> wrote:

On Mar 18, 2009, at 10:44 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:

On the subject of one time influencing an earlier time, I think Christian thinkers have said or speculated that the Incarnation had consequences in its past. And it's no harder, possibly easier to accept than time travel.

See Baldandars/Frankenstein discussion in this thread.

That's what I was talking about. My comment on Jesus caused you to make a similar comment a little earlier. Jerry Friedman

On Mar 18, 2009, at 10:52 PM, Craig Brewer wrote: Or another way to put it would be that some myths are true only in the future. They make themselves true by projecting pseudo-false stories about themselves in the past which help bring about their realization. That would be Severian, yes? And on that reading, Talos realizing that his situation is what Prometheus was really all about is significant in the text because it's a smaller example of your Amphisbaena where the REAL meaningful Amphisbaena's are the cosmic myths which are lies (in the past) that make themselves become true (in the future). Is that right? If so, then I can retract my underwhelming. Oh, and: Gee Whiz. Gene Wolfe. Coincidence?

On the subject of one time influencing an earlier time, I think Christian thinkers have said or speculated that the Incarnation had consequences in its past. And it's no harder, possibly easier to accept than time travel.

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Craig Brewer wrote: Can you explain how it works here? Is there a particular past event that Talos is referring to that their present-as-future is affecting? Perhaps both? Is he suggesting that they're writing Frankenstein at that moment? heh...

Son of Witz wrote: no no. It's not just "cute". it's fairly profound. it's literal, and it's a good example of why I've been saying the time loop is intractable. Things in this story's past have their roots in it's temporal future. I know it's a steady refrain from me, but Amphisbaena, Amphisbaena Amphisbaena.

He's suggesting they ARE Frankensein, and the "particular past event that Talos is referring to" is the writing of Frankenstein and other Promethean stories. Dizzyingly awesome idea.

David Duffy wrote: On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Craig Brewer wrote:

Can you explain how it works here? Is there a particular past event that Talos is referring to that their present-as-future is affecting? Perhaps both? Is he suggesting that they're writing Frankenstein at that moment? heh...

I read it as a nod to Childhood's End And I thought the missionaries are "modern day" individuals who are "chant-caught" reenactors.

------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:37:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Craig Brewer <cnbrewer at yahoo.com> Subject: Re: (urth) Hut in the Jungle To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Message-ID: <810925.3733.qm at web37602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Dizzying from one perspective. Underwhelming from another. Or I suppose both at once. If you're right, then the upshot of this would be that myth (Prometheus) is a retelling "from the future" of a very worldly event, Baldanders creating Talos and eventually destroying himself, which comes to have "mythic" proportions by being "projected" through a past lens darkly. Is that right? But why does it have to be "from the future"? What does that add to the idea that real events can be blown up into myths that resonate with meaning far from their original context? What's different about a myth's origin being in the future than in the past? (Apart from the coolness factor, I agree.)

------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:52:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Craig Brewer <cnbrewer at yahoo.com> Subject: Re: (urth) Hut in the Jungle

------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:26:31 +1000 (EST) From: David Duffy <David.Duffy at qimr.edu.au> Subject: Re: (urth) Hut in the Jungle To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0903191724001.12018 at orpheus.qimr.edu.au> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Craig Brewer wrote:

Can you explain how it works here? Is there a particular past event that Talos is referring to that their present-as-future is affecting? Perhaps both? Is he suggesting that they're writing Frankenstein at that moment? heh...

I read it as a nod to Childhood's End And I thought the missionaries are "modern day" individuals who are "chant-caught" reenactors. David Duffy. ------------------------------

As I see it, the idea flows logically from the concept that all time exists, or that there is a no-time or over-time (Eternity, Akal, Empyrean) from which all time can be accessed. This is a basic aspect of the Catholic God, usually expressed less mechanically of course. You could perhaps say the Increate is the medium through which large or iconic events send their ripples and echoes and eddies forward and backward. As long as there is no actual time travel, it doesn't pose problems---and in BotNS there is also time travel anyway. ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:37:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Craig Brewer <cnbrewer at yahoo.com> Subject: Re: (urth) Hut in the Jungle To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Message-ID: <810925.3733.qm at web37602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Dizzying from one perspective. Underwhelming from another. Or I suppose both at once. If you're right, then the upshot of this would be that myth (Prometheus) is a retelling "from the future" of a very worldly event, Baldanders creating Talos and eventually destroying himself, which comes to have "mythic" proportions by being "projected" through a past lens darkly. Is that right? But why does it have to be "from the future"? What does that add to the idea that real events can be blown up into myths that resonate with meaning far from their original context? What's different about a myth's origin being in the future than in the past? (Apart from the coolness factor, I agree.) --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090318-0, 03/18/2009 Tested on: 3/19/2009 7:56:09 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com _______________________________________________

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 1:02 AM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote: No, Talos (or Wolfe) meant that pretty literally. We discussed this when Wolfe and met in the mid 80's. John Cramer was also present. Gene and I found that we agreed that time was a certain way, which includes future events affecting the past in certain tricky ways.

brunians at brunians.org wrote: There are multiple time dimensions. The level of the World that we inhabit includes three spacelike and one timelike dimension. This is a selection (sort of) from the 'next level up' which includes four spacelike dimensions, two timelike dimensions (one of which is parallel to 'our' time and a third timelike dimension which stands to the creatures of the 'next level up' as our time dimension does to us.

------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:12:44 -0400 (EDT) From: brunians at brunians.org Subject: Re: (urth) Hut in the Jungle To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net> Message-ID: <5114.67.142.130.34.1237464764.squirrel at brunians.org> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 There are multiple time dimensions. The level of the World that we inhabit includes three spacelike and one timelike dimension. This is a selection (sort of) from the 'next level up' which includes four spacelike dimensions, two timelike dimensions (one of which is parallel to 'our' time and a third timelike dimension which stands to the creatures of the 'next level up' as our time dimension does to us. I derive this from my work with the well known 'Enochian' system of magick, and as I recall Wolfe expressed general agreement with it when we discussed it.

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 1:02 AM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

No, Talos (or Wolfe) meant that pretty literally. We discussed this when Wolfe and met in the mid 80's. John Cramer was also present. Gene and I found that we agreed that time was a certain way, which includes future events affecting the past in certain tricky ways.

That's interesting. As pleased as I am to have my reading validated like that, I'm a little disturbed that it had to be by non-public sources! Was this discussion ever written up or summarized?

brunians at brunians.org wrote:

There are multiple time dimensions.

The level of the World that we inhabit includes three spacelike and one timelike dimension. This is a selection (sort of) from the 'next level up' which includes four spacelike dimensions, two timelike dimensions (one of which is parallel to 'our' time) and a third timelike dimension which stands to the creatures of the 'next level up' as our time dimension does to us.

You're missing a closing parenthesis whose placement could drastically influence the way this second sentence would be parsed.

Are you sure he wasn't humoring you? I kid. Sure, that's plausible. I tend to think it's unnecessarily complex for NS/LS/SS, but then see Wolfe's diagram of the Wizard Knight uni/multiverse. ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:12:44 -0400 (EDT) From: brunians at brunians.org Subject: Re: (urth) Hut in the Jungle To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net> Message-ID: <5114.67.142.130.34.1237464764.squirrel at brunians.org> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 There are multiple time dimensions. The level of the World that we inhabit includes three spacelike and one timelike dimension. This is a selection (sort of) from the 'next level up' which includes four spacelike dimensions, two timelike dimensions (one of which is parallel to 'our' time and a third timelike dimension which stands to the creatures of the 'next level up' as our time dimension does to us. I derive this from my work with the well known 'Enochian' system of magick, and as I recall Wolfe expressed general agreement with it when we discussed it. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090318-0, 03/18/2009 Tested on: 3/19/2009 10:21:46 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com _______________________________________________

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 8:14 AM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote: He is one of three or four people who I can have a conversation with on this level. The idea that he was humoring me never crossed my mind. I have watched him humor people (and you can too, if you show up at any talk he gives, there are always one or two in the audience who positively require it). .

Are you sure he wasn't humoring you? I kid. Sure, that's plausible. I tend to think it's unnecessarily complex for NS/LS/SS, but then see Wolfe's diagram of the Wizard Knight uni/multiverse. ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:12:44 -0400 (EDT) From: brunians at brunians.org Subject: Re: (urth) Hut in the Jungle To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net> Message-ID: <5114.67.142.130.34.1237464764.squirrel at brunians.org> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 There are multiple time dimensions. The level of the World that we inhabit includes three spacelike and one timelike dimension. This is a selection (sort of) from the 'next level up' which includes four spacelike dimensions, two timelike dimensions (one of which is parallel to 'our' time and a third timelike dimension which stands to the creatures of the 'next level up' as our time dimension does to us. I derive this from my work with the well known 'Enochian' system of magick, and as I recall Wolfe expressed general agreement with it when we discussed it. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090318-0, 03/18/2009 Tested on: 3/19/2009 10:21:46 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com _______________________________________________

There is a very similar system laid out by G. I. Gurdjieff, an Armenian mystic. He lays out a very cogent and beautiful cosmology which resonates nearly exactly with what you are saying, while relating it to a much arger cosmology as well, relating to the octave, and trinities. You might find it interesting. Ever come across his stuff? On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 8:14 AM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

He is one of three or four people who I can have a conversation with on this level. The idea that he was humoring me never crossed my mind. I have watched him humor people (and you can too, if you show up at any talk he gives, there are always one or two in the audience who positively require it). .

Are you sure he wasn't humoring you? I kid. Sure, that's plausible. I tend to think it's unnecessarily complex for NS/LS/SS, but then see Wolfe's diagram of the Wizard Knight uni/multiverse. ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:12:44 -0400 (EDT) From: brunians at brunians.org Subject: Re: (urth) Hut in the Jungle To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net> Message-ID: <5114.67.142.130.34.1237464764.squirrel at brunians.org> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 There are multiple time dimensions. The level of the World that we inhabit includes three spacelike and one timelike dimension. This is a selection (sort of) from the 'next level up' which includes four spacelike dimensions, two timelike dimensions (one of which is parallel to 'our' time and a third timelike dimension which stands to the creatures of the 'next level up' as our time dimension does to us. I derive this from my work with the well known 'Enochian' system of magick, and as I recall Wolfe expressed general agreement with it when we discussed it. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090318-0, 03/18/2009 Tested on: 3/19/2009 10:21:46 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com _______________________________________________

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:23 AM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote: I don't know much about Gurdjieff's system. I am aware of it, I haven't done any work with it, I don't remember too many details. I have been meaning to read "Beelzebub's Tales" for some time. .

There is a very similar system laid out by G. I. Gurdjieff, an Armenian mystic. He lays out a very cogent and beautiful cosmology which resonates nearly exactly with what you are saying, while relating it to a much arger cosmology as well, relating to the octave, and trinities. You might find it interesting. Ever come across his stuff? On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 8:14 AM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

He is one of three or four people who I can have a conversation with on this level. The idea that he was humoring me never crossed my mind. I have watched him humor people (and you can too, if you show up at any talk he gives, there are always one or two in the audience who positively require it). .

Are you sure he wasn't humoring you? I kid. Sure, that's plausible. I tend to think it's unnecessarily complex for NS/LS/SS, but then see Wolfe's diagram of the Wizard Knight uni/multiverse. ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:12:44 -0400 (EDT) From: brunians at brunians.org Subject: Re: (urth) Hut in the Jungle To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net> Message-ID: <5114.67.142.130.34.1237464764.squirrel at brunians.org> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 There are multiple time dimensions. The level of the World that we inhabit includes three spacelike and one timelike dimension. This is a selection (sort of) from the 'next level up' which includes four spacelike dimensions, two timelike dimensions (one of which is parallel to 'our' time and a third timelike dimension which stands to the creatures of the 'next level up' as our time dimension does to us. I derive this from my work with the well known 'Enochian' system of magick, and as I recall Wolfe expressed general agreement with it when we discussed it. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090318-0, 03/18/2009 Tested on: 3/19/2009 10:21:46 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com _______________________________________________

Beelzebub's Tales is a true Golden Book, though not necessarily the best place to start. I think "In Search of the Miraculous" is a good place to start and ponder, and then dive into the hyper-density of Beelzebub's Tales.

If Book of the New Sun hides it's meanings for future readings, Beelzebub's tales buries it's meanings for future generations. It is so fraking dense, and astutely profound.

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:23 AM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

I don't know much about Gurdjieff's system. I am aware of it, I haven't done any work with it, I don't remember too many details. I have been meaning to read "Beelzebub's Tales" for some time. .

There is a very similar system laid out by G. I. Gurdjieff, an Armenian mystic. He lays out a very cogent and beautiful cosmology which resonates nearly exactly with what you are saying, while relating it to a much arger cosmology as well, relating to the octave, and trinities. You might find it interesting. Ever come across his stuff? On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 8:14 AM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

He is one of three or four people who I can have a conversation with on this level. The idea that he was humoring me never crossed my mind. I have watched him humor people (and you can too, if you show up at any talk he gives, there are always one or two in the audience who positively require it). .

Are you sure he wasn't humoring you? I kid. Sure, that's plausible. I tend to think it's unnecessarily complex for NS/LS/SS, but then see Wolfe's diagram of the Wizard Knight uni/multiverse. ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:12:44 -0400 (EDT) From: brunians at brunians.org Subject: Re: (urth) Hut in the Jungle

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:34 AM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote: Beelzebub's Tales is a true Golden Book, though not necessarily the best place to start. I think "In Search of the Miraculous" is a good place to start and ponder, and then dive into the hyper-density of Beelzebub's Tales.

If Book of the New Sun hides it's meanings for future readings, Beelzebub's tales buries it's meanings for future generations. It is so fraking dense, and astutely profound.

May be. You are not selling it well. .

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:23 AM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

I don't know much about Gurdjieff's system. I am aware of it, I haven't done any work with it, I don't remember too many details. I have been meaning to read "Beelzebub's Tales" for some time. .

There is a very similar system laid out by G. I. Gurdjieff, an Armenian mystic. He lays out a very cogent and beautiful cosmology which resonates nearly exactly with what you are saying, while relating it to a much arger cosmology as well, relating to the octave, and trinities. You might find it interesting. Ever come across his stuff? On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 8:14 AM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

He is one of three or four people who I can have a conversation with on this level. The idea that he was humoring me never crossed my mind. I have watched him humor people (and you can too, if you show up at any talk he gives, there are always one or two in the audience who positively require it). .

Are you sure he wasn't humoring you? I kid. Sure, that's plausible. I tend to think it's unnecessarily complex for NS/LS/SS, but then see Wolfe's diagram of the Wizard Knight uni/multiverse. ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:12:44 -0400 (EDT) From: brunians at brunians.org Subject: Re: (urth) Hut in the Jungle

If Book of the New Sun hides it's meanings for future readings, Beelzebub's tales buries it's meanings for future generations. It is so fraking dense, and astutely profound.

May be.

You are not selling it well.

Ah. Well, my intent is not to sell anything.

I saw something you said that made me think you might find it of interest.

That's all.

On Mar 30, 2009, at 9:05 PM, b sharp wrote: FWIW- I see the Jungle Hut as a clear example of a time travel device as most specifically described for the Last House: a labyrinthine entranceway leading to a vertical structure. We see this pattern repeated in the towers around the Atrium of Time, Ultan's Library and probably in the Naviscaput's lair. Higher levels are in the future and lower levels are in the past (this helps explain Valeria and the Path of Air). Thus, the earth that we see at the top of the ladder of the Jungle Hut is in Urth's future. This is supported by the textual and Wolfe interview clues which suggest Urth is the analog of Earth which exists in a previous universal iteration. And why Urth has Severian while Earth has Christ, etc. And I think Isangoma is a Father Inire incarnation, like most of the twisted old monkey-like guys we find; Hephaestus analog that he is. Jungle Hut allows Inire access to some earth artifacts which make it to Urth like a picture of the moon landing, Frankenstein story, etc. _________________________________________________________________

would the Sorcerers underground pits list among those examples?

Is there any reason to infer that the time travel device in the vertical structure is forward only?

JJ: This universe that you set in Briah, or part of it--is that our universe? Or is that a universe that resurrected saints have set up in the world to come as part of the cities that they made?

GW: No. I thought of it as a long past universe. Something that we are repeating rather than something that we are.

Isangoma / Inire — hmmmm....

b sharp wrote: FWIW- I see the Jungle Hut as a clear example of a time travel device as most specifically described for the Last House: a labyrinthine entranceway leading to a vertical structure. We see this pattern repeated in the towers around the Atrium of Time, Ultan's Library and probably in the Naviscaput's lair. Higher levels are in the future and lower levels are in the past (this helps explain Valeria and the Path of Air).

On Mar 31, 2009, at 11:35 AM, b sharp wrote: Son o'Witz asks-

would the Sorcerers underground pits list among those examples?

Good question. The entranceway is a bit labyrinthine but I don't see any time travel elements involved as seen in the other examples.

Is there any reason to infer that the time travel device in the vertical structure is forward only?

No. Severian moves from future to present in the Last House by going down flights of stairs. Living in a tower near the Atrium of Time, Valeria and her home have antique qualities. She and her family live in the lower levels of her tower, below ground level. Thus I deduce she comes from Severian's past. I think Ultan's Library is hidden in the past; twisted, old monkey-like Rudesind, wise in the ways of Inire, directs Severian to a shortcut to the Library and he has to descend to get there. Cyriaca's uncle's (a suspiciously knowlegeable character worth investigting) story jibes with this idea of the library hidden in the past (as does the J.L.Borges allusion). Regarding Urth's relationship to Earth I'll note that in Norse mythology, the three Norns are Urth (past), Verthandi (present) and Skuld (future). Wolfe won't speak on a lot of the mysteries of his books but I think on this one he is clear and open.Here is a quote from Gene Wolfe in an interview with James Jordan regarding Severian and Urth's place in regard to our world:

JJ: This universe that you set in Briah, or part of it--is that our universe? Or is that a universe that resurrected saints have set up in the world to come as part of the cities that they made?

GW: No. I thought of it as a long past universe. Something that we are repeating rather than something that we are.

I think there is a similar quote like this in another interview or two.

Isangoma / Inire — hmmmm....

Well when Inire is first mentioned we are told he is very old, bent and twisted and looks like a monkey. Why would such an important character never be openly shown? Using this physical description I think we can find him appearing many times, but never openly. Recognizing that (like Hephaestus) in addition to being bent he is adept at creating stuff helps the identification sometimes. Also, like so many Greek Gods, he seems to have a thing for young, human women. Sometimes he can be spotted that way. I'll mention that toward the end of UotNS, Severian sees a woman being escorted by soldiers along the Path of Air. This woman is surely related to the Contessa in Dr. Talos' play but other hints tie her to Catherine AND to the dead woman in the grave at the very beginning of Severian's story. Leaving other implications to dangle, I'll conjecture that the Path of Air leads to the top of a tower in the Citadel. Going from top to the bottom of this tower brings a person back in time from Flood Day to the time just before Severian becomes Captain of Apprentices. Anyway, here is the link to the James Jordan interview. http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2tmhh/wolfejbj.html#urth2 Jordan's questions are so intensely religious I think Wolfe lets his guard down a little more than usual. Fine with me! -bsharp _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_70faster_032009 _______________________________________________

What's the example for Ultan? IIRC, during his sighted days he was fond of reading by a window on the 49th floor of the library, overlooking the Upholsterer's Garden.

On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 9:35 AM, b sharp <bsharporflat at hotmail.com> wrote: Jeff Wilson writes:

What's the example for Ultan? IIRC, during his sighted days he was fond of reading by a window on the 49th floor of the library, overlooking the Upholsterer's Garden.

Thanks for bringing up that scene, I had forgotten it. I'm not sure if it is negative or positive evidence for the library extending back (and forward) into time. We are told it extends in space as far as the House Absolute; too far to be a "natural" extension I'll guess.

FWIW -bsharp _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_042009 _______________________________________________

On Apr 3, 2009, at 6:35 AM, b sharp wrote: Jeff Wilson writes:

What's the example for Ultan? IIRC, during his sighted days he was fond of reading by a window on the 49th floor of the library, overlooking the Upholsterer's Garden.

Thanks for bringing up that scene, I had forgotten it. I'm not sure if it is negative or positive evidence for the library extending back (and forward) into time. We are told it extends in space as far as the House Absolute; too far to be a "natural" extension I'll guess. I re-read the passage and I'll note that the Upholsterer's Garden serves the purpose of drying rosemary to stuff into pillows (reminds me a bit of the cushions from Severian's tryst with Jolenta). If the Library extends down to the past but also rises up 49 floors, perhaps it extends far enough into the future to reach Earth, as does the Jungle Hut. With regards to Gene Wolfe's Earth, I think it is safe to say that Rosemary (Wolfe's wife) is an important part of it. Also, wolfe was 49 years old when Shadow of the Torturer was published. I'll also note that Ultan (and Cyby) tell the story of his reading and looking out the window of the 49th floor to mark when Ultan first started to realize he was going blind. I'll further note that Jorge Luis Borges became fully blind in his 50's (he was 81 when SotT was published). FWIW -bsharp _________________________________________________________________

Son of Witz wrote: in the realm of Sci-Fi, has anyone else done this sort of embedded casual time travel structure before?

------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:08:21 -0700 From: Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org> Subject: Re: (urth) Hut in the Jungle To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Message-ID: <A5689B9D-2C26-42BA-B973-AEA2B9DC3511 at butcherbaker.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes On Apr 3, 2009, at 6:35 AM, b sharp wrote:

Jeff Wilson writes:

What's the example for Ultan? IIRC, during his sighted days he was fond of reading by a window on the 49th floor of the library, overlooking the Upholsterer's Garden.

Thanks for bringing up that scene, I had forgotten it. I'm not sure if it is negative or positive evidence for the library extending back (and forward) into time. We are told it extends in space as far as the House Absolute; too far to be a "natural" extension I'll guess. I re-read the passage and I'll note that the Upholsterer's Garden serves the purpose of drying rosemary to stuff into pillows (reminds me a bit of the cushions from Severian's tryst with Jolenta). If the Library extends down to the past but also rises up 49 floors, perhaps it extends far enough into the future to reach Earth, as does the Jungle Hut. With regards to Gene Wolfe's Earth, I think it is safe to say that Rosemary (Wolfe's wife) is an important part of it. Also, wolfe was 49 years old when Shadow of the Torturer was published. I'll also note that Ultan (and Cyby) tell the story of his reading and looking out the window of the 49th floor to mark when Ultan first started to realize he was going blind. I'll further note that Jorge Luis Borges became fully blind in his 50's (he was 81 when SotT was published). FWIW -bsharp _________________________________________________________________

nice parsing. I love that 49 bit. in the realm of Sci-Fi, has anyone else done this sort of embedded casual time travel structure before? I've always considered our timelines to be wrapped up in a spiral, so a vertical structure would have the opportunity to exist in the different layers. reminds one of a archeological documentary where the narrator says, as you descend into the canyon, "And now we walk further back in time with each strata in the crust" ------------------------------

On Apr 4, 2009, at 5:46 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote: Son of Witz wrote:

in the realm of Sci-Fi, has anyone else done this sort of embedded casual time travel structure before?

Zelazny has some of it in his Amber books, and David Gerrold put some into the original "Land of the Lost" TV series. -- Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > _______________________________________________

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:57 AM, Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org>wrote: getting dim memories of Land of the Lost now. SLEESTAKS!!! On Apr 4, 2009, at 5:46 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote: Son of Witz wrote:

in the realm of Sci-Fi, has anyone else done this sort of embedded casual time travel structure before?

Zelazny has some of it in his Amber books, and David Gerrold put some into the original "Land of the Lost" TV series. -- Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson <http://www.io.com/%7Ejwilson> > _______________________________________________

It must be obvious to everyone that the inspiration for Zak on Tzadkiels ship was little Chaka from Land of the Lost. Am I right? Am I right?

Son of Witz wrote: getting dim memories of Land of the Lost now. SLEESTAKS!!!