Subject: (urth) The Devil in a Forest

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 19:54:06 +0000

Who shot Gloin?
 
 J.

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 19:56:02 +0000

Legolas, in the library, with the revolver.

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:54 PM, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote:
> Who shot Gloin?
>
> J. _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 19:59:16 +0000

> Legolas, in the library, with the revolver.

Actually, it was a hunting bow. Your out of the game.
:-)

J.

---

From: Adam Thornton <adam at io.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 20:23:33 +0000

> Who shot Gloin?

Grimli.

Oh, no, that's *how* shot Gloin.

Adam

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 15:36:13 +0000

Am I really the only person on this list who's read this book? Really?

Okay. Here's what it is (not obvious from the summary on the back of the 
book). It's a re-telling Robin Hood. It's not clear where it is supposed to 
occur.  The names are English (or Scandinavian in the case of Gloin), so 
combined with the Robin Hood connection it's a slam dunk. But the references 
to King Wenceslas in the summary (not the book) suggests it might have been 
intended to take place in the Czech Republic of the 11th century. The 
enormous mountain that plays such a dominant role in the story (requiring 
more than a day's march to reach the summit) tends to bring to mind the 
Pyrenees or the Alps.

This is not a sci-fi story or a fantasy story. The "magic" that takes place 
is of the "real", naturalistic sort. Miracles are not ruled out, however. 
There is a Father Brown-style detective priest.

**SPOILERS TO FOLLOW**

I think all the loose ends are  wrapped up at the end (but with Wolfe, can 
one be sure?) EXCEPT for one of the characters (Gloin) being shot by an 
arrow. He was fleeing an attack by soldiers in the woods. The soldier's deny 
having shot him (no reason they would lie about it). The arrow was not from 
a military cross-bow. So that suggests to me that the arrow was fired from 
Wat's bow. But Wat had left his bow at the Inn, and by the end of the story 
it is made clear that Wat could not have reclaimed it until after Gloin was 
shot.

So who shot him? Joselynn's father? Could he have left his duties at the Inn 
to go with the soldier's to hunt for the refugees? Maybe --if all the 
soldiers were involved in the search. He might have left with the bow and 
shot Gloin so the soldiers would catch him and let Joselynn escape. Or he 
might have done it so Joselynn would not be alone with him in the woods. But 
there's no reference in the book that suggests her father knew how to use a 
bow, and it was a risky shot considering how close Gloin and Joselynn 
probably were to each other. Anyway, he seems like the ONLY viable choice, 
but he's still an unacceptable one in my mind (something that happens a lot 
when I read Wolfe).

J.

---

From: Mo Holkar / UKG <lists at ukg.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 16:57:05 +0000

>Am I really the only person on this list who's read this book? Really?

I have read it -- but a long time ago (like 20 years or more), so I 
don't remember the details of plot. I am hoping that someone else 
will pick this up with you though!

best wishes,

Mo

# ~ # ~ #

WolfeWiki -- a wiki about Gene Wolfe
http://www.wolfewiki.com/pmwiki/

---

From: John Smith <jsmith2627 at att.net>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 20:10:15 +0000

I've read The Devil in the Forest and I liked it.  It is good fantasy.  It's been many years since I read it, but some images stick with me.  For instance, the witch who tells fortunes by throwing "the thigh bones of men."

Best wishes,

Jack

--- On Thu, 5/14/09, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: (urth) The Devil in a Forest
> To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
> Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 11:36 AM
> Okay. Here's what it is (not obvious from the summary
> on the back of the book). It's a re-telling Robin Hood.
> It's not clear where it is supposed to occur.  The names
> are English (or Scandinavian in the case of Gloin), so
> combined with the Robin Hood connection it's a slam
> dunk. But the references to King Wenceslas in the summary
> (not the book) suggests it might have been intended to take
> place in the Czech Republic of the 11th century. The
> enormous mountain that plays such a dominant role in the
> story (requiring more than a day's march to reach the
> summit) tends to bring to mind the Pyrenees or the Alps.
> 
> This is not a sci-fi story or a fantasy story. The
> "magic" that takes place is of the
> "real", naturalistic sort. Miracles are not ruled
> out, however. There is a Father Brown-style detective
> priest.
> 
> **SPOILERS TO FOLLOW**
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think all the loose ends are  wrapped up at the end (but
> with Wolfe, can one be sure?) EXCEPT for one of the
> characters (Gloin) being shot by an arrow. He was fleeing an
> attack by soldiers in the woods. The soldier's deny
> having shot him (no reason they would lie about it). The
> arrow was not from a military cross-bow. So that suggests to
> me that the arrow was fired from Wat's bow. But Wat had
> left his bow at the Inn, and by the end of the story it is
> made clear that Wat could not have reclaimed it until after
> Gloin was shot.
> 
> So who shot him? Joselynn's father? Could he have left
> his duties at the Inn to go with the soldier's to hunt
> for the refugees? Maybe --if all the soldiers were involved
> in the search. He might have left with the bow and shot
> Gloin so the soldiers would catch him and let Joselynn
> escape. Or he might have done it so Joselynn would not be
> alone with him in the woods. But there's no reference in
> the book that suggests her father knew how to use a bow, and
> it was a risky shot considering how close Gloin and Joselynn
> probably were to each other. Anyway, he seems like the ONLY
> viable choice, but he's still an unacceptable one in my
> mind (something that happens a lot when I read Wolfe).
> 
> J. 
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 20:25:15 +0000

> I've read The Devil in the Forest and I liked it.
>It is good fantasy.  It's been many years since I read it,
>but some images stick with me.
>For instance, the witch who tells fortunes by throwing
>"the thigh bones of men."

It might have got by you at the time but Mother Cloot actually says:
"Thigh bones of men. [...] Tell a lie and be a lawyer--tell the truth and be 
a trull. Murdered by me and their mothers, Mark; and every one is a left 
thigh bone."

So she claims she collected the left thigh bones of male fetuses she had 
aborted for fortune-telling. Of course, every verifiable statement  she says 
is a lie so, who knows?

J.

---

From: don doggett <kingwukong at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 07:05:25 +0000

Sorry James, I've read The Devil in a Forest, but I was pretty underwhelmed by it, so I never dug very deep. 

Don
Doggerel
www.don-doggett.blogspot.com

--- On Thu, 5/14/09, Mo Holkar / UKG <lists at ukg.co.uk> wrote:

> From: Mo Holkar / UKG <lists at ukg.co.uk>
> Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 9:57 AM
> I have read it -- but a long time ago (like 20 years or
> more), so I don't remember the details of plot. I am hoping
> that someone else will pick this up with you though!
> 
> best wishes,
> 
> Mo
> 
> 
> # ~ # ~ #
>

---

From: don doggett <kingwukong at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 07:05:40 +0000

Don
Doggerel

---

From: Transentient <transentient at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 12:33:07 +0000

> Am I really the only person on this list who's read this book? Really?

I read it a couple years ago and really enjoyed it, but I don't recall  
what, if any, resolution I arrived at for who shot Gloin.

Is it completely impossible that Mark actually shot Gloin?

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 13:31:57 +0000

> Don Doggett:
>Sorry James, I've read The Devil in a Forest,
 >but I was pretty underwhelmed by it, so I never dug very deep.

Look, this is no great work, but it is a very "well-constructed" work; to a 
degree that it's worth examining for that reason alone. Most people are 
unaware of the story of the evil abbess who poisons, blinds, and kills Robin 
Hood. Wolfe has combined the abbess, Baba Yaga, and Hansel & Gretel's witch 
into a single character.

The story has lots of interesting, filled-out characters. The abbe' is an 
early Silk as well as a kind of Friar Tuck.

Thematically Wat/Robin Hood is an interesting exemplar of the corrupting 
nature of socialism while the Ganelon/Sherriff of Nottingham is an exemplar 
of the ambiguous but cruel nature of big, bureaucratic government.

I've read much worse novels, even by Wolfe.

> Transentient:

Yeah, I think it is. Mark came straight from the woods with Wat (after Wat 
stabbed him) to the hideout with the refugees. If we assume the deed was 
done with Wat's bow then there was no opportunity to retrieve it.  The deed 
was not done with a military bow, anyway. Also tDiaF has a third person 
narrator that speaks from Mark's POV.

So I don't think he could do something without us knowing it, unless...
...unless Mother Cloot mixed up some of that special potion that she gave 
Wat to make him Ganelon (or the other way around). But , it's still unlikely 
that Mark shot Gloin I think. He was over-taken by the soldiers.
Nor could he have killed the sexton, for that matter, despite what Mother 
Cloot said. It must have been the charcoal burner. But what was his motive? 
I bet there are some hints if I read some of the Robin Hood versions.

Hmmm...I suppose it's possible that Mother Cloot carried Wat's bow to him in 
the forest, but that would undermine Mark's reasoning for concluding that 
Wat was Ganelon. Still it's not unheard of in a Wolfe novel for people to 
come to the right conclusion for the wrong reason.

J.

---

From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 13:13:11 +0000

I don't recall the novel well, but I'm skeptical that one can so confidently read direct criticism of socialism and bureaucratic government in it. They are modern ideas that may be roughly linked but can't actually be represented in this milieu. Naturally Wolfe doesn't like them, because they are inferior to the rule of a good king. So I'd like to see more citations specifically supporting that theory. Unless, of course, you meant it only in a general or indirect sense.

First of all, by the time you've equated socialism with "robbing from the rich and giving to the poor," you've already hanged socialism without a trial, because that means you don't know what it is. Though I will grant that it is commonly understood in that way in the US, and that the requirement of ignorance does not rule out Wolfe's understanding it that way too.

Second, in what way does a feudal figure resemble modern big government? Again, punitive overtaxing---a practice that was perfected by the Medicis, not by the IRS, by any stretch---and being corrupt and evil bears no particular relation to big government as we know it. Rather, it's business as usual for imperial/authoritarian orders of the kind our big government replaced. 

If anything, the story sets---if I can again put it in the terms of past debates---'good' king vs 'bad' king. Bad kings tax and kill freely and destroy all that is not theirs; good kings try to improve things but also tax and kill with restraint. Nobility should behave in a certain way, according to a code, as a knight. Neither the sheriff nor Wat is a nobleman, and thus cannot be either. Clearly Wat is misguided, but it wouldn't be the first time a Wolfe protagonist is misguided.

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 08:31:57 -0500
From: "James Wynn" <crushtv at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: (urth) The Devil in a Forest
To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
Message-ID: <26082D4CA6CD4E83A88223747DCF7E57 at eMachinePC>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response

---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 090515-0, 05/15/2009
Tested on: 5/16/2009 9:13:13 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 19:58:15 +0000

>David Stockhoff said: I don't recall the novel well, but I'm skeptical that 
>one
>can so confidently read direct criticism of socialism and bureaucratic
>government in it. So I'd like to see more citations specifically supporting
>that theory. Unless, of course, you meant it only in a general or indirect 
>sense.

I do think it's done in a more indirect sense. This novel is "about" many 
things, but the shadow of economic/social commentary lies long and dark over 
it. Wolfe starts with a hero of folklore known for "robbing the rich to give 
to the poor". But he starts the story from the perspective of "the rich". 
For starters, we get an old peddler, who is also a very clever salesman that 
manages to get housewives to spend more than they planned to. Wat shoots him 
dead with an arrow and robs him.  Later he justifies it (he quite good a 
justifying everything he does) saying:

"I put my second-best shaft in his neck. I don't like the breed--nasty, 
whining creatures that cry and say you're taking their last farthing when 
they've half a dozen of gold in one shoe and a thousand more, like as not, 
in the mattress at home."

Then we meet the Villagers--the rest of "the rich"--all of whom are 
tradesmen. They start with a plan to form a private militia to root out Wat, 
but Wat is a clever corrupter. Before things get far along, he has convinced 
a sizable chunk of the tradesmen to join him in a plot to rob a nobleman 
(someone who is rich from the tradesmen's POV).  But, actually, no nobleman 
will ever get skinned because Wat's real plan is to rob one of the 
tradesmen.

Only after we meet the rich, are we introduced to "the poor". The Poor are 
the charcoal burners in the forest. Wat's relationship with them is to buy 
them off. There is no time in the story when Wat's relationship with them is 
chummier than that. They can't go to the authorities even if they were 
inclined to because their own livelihood is technically illegal. But Wat 
knows that they might turn him in for a reward so he is never among them in 
trust.

There are no speeches about liberty or the rights of property, but Wolfe 
effectively demolishes  the whole philosophical structure of forcibly taking 
from "the rich" for purposes of benevolence.  It simply does not happen 
here.

>...in what way does a feudal figure resemble modern big government?

If this isn't a fable about the foolishness of depending on the beneficence 
of  the government, I can't imagine what would be. In order to protect 
themselves from thievery, members of the village seek the help of the 
government. But once they have let the camel's nose under the tent, they 
find that people actually performing those duties are not interested in 
"rescuing" them, but in following the letter of the law as it has been 
defined to them, and feathering their own well-being as much as they're 
permitted within the strict definition of their duties. In short, the Law 
(the government from the POV of the villagers), is a bigger marauder than 
Wat. They treat all the villagers as a potential law-breakers, and in deed 
Philip the Cobbler and Gloin the Weaver are defined technically as "Wat's 
men" even though they never robbed anyone, even though there was never 
anyone to rob.

> If anything, the story sets---if I can again put
>it in the terms of past debates---'good' king vs 'bad' king. Bad kings tax 
>and kill freely and destroy all that is not theirs; good kings try to 
>improve things but also tax and kill with
>restraint. Nobility should behave in a certain way, according
>to a code, as a knight. Neither the sheriff nor Wat is a nobleman,
>and thus cannot be either. Clearly Wat is misguided, but it
>wouldn't be the first time a Wolfe protagonist is misguided.

Wat is not presented as "misguided". He's a ruthless murderer and thief, and 
as clever a corrupter of those around him as the Devil himself. He's also 
not in his right mind. He's totally controlled by Mother Cloot.

There is no "good king" and no "bad king" in this story. Wat is both the 
highwayman AND the sheriff (there's a metaphor for you). There is a king at 
the end who provides information to tie up lose ends, but he doesn't punish 
the soldiers for what they did to Mark's village as a "good king" would. He 
doesn't attempt to arrive at a higher justice for Phillip and Gloin. Mark 
tells the king that the soldier's promised to release them if he led them to 
Wat, and the king just waved it away. The abbe' tells Mark they are sure to 
be hanged in a very short time. Nor is the king presented as a ravager. He's 
just an amiable old guy. It's not clear what he would have done if he'd 
known how often Mark went willingly through the forest with Wat.

>First of all, by the time you've equated socialism with "robbing
>from the rich and giving to the poor," you've already hanged
>socialism without a trial, because that means you don't know
>what it is. Though I will grant that it is commonly understood
>in that way in the US, and that the requirement of ignorance
>does not rule out Wolfe's understanding it that way too.

I suspect Wolfe does not believe socialism deserves a trial. The reason 
socialism is understood "as robbing from the rich to give to the poor" in 
the US is because the country was founded on the ideals of private property. 
Excepting slavery and the treatment of the Indians, there was never a time 
of clearly defined "class" -- of a "place" in society that one is expected 
to know. Actually, "rob from the rich" is a nicer way to put it than Kipling 
did: "They promised abundance for all/By robbing proverbial Peter to pay 
proverbial Paul". In order to get from here to there (socialism/welfare 
state), the advocates of the shift have always framed it as taking from 
those who "don't need it" in order to fund "the community".

J.

---

From: Michael Straight <mfstraight at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:25:39 +0000

> Am I really the only person on this list who's read this book? Really?

Hey James!  I like this book quite a lot.

As I said a while ago on this list, the thing that sticks with me most is
the way Wat manipulates the villagers, dividing them into smaller and
smaller factions, promising them less and less for deeds that are more and
more evil.   I think Wolfe is more interested in that sort of exploration of
the nature of evil than he is in making some sort of political statement.

Like in the Soldier books, Wolfe has these little details that really make
me feel like I'm getting a ground-view glimpse of medieval peasant life that
I don't get from a lot of fantasy.  Little things like Mark brushing his
teeth with a twig.

Rostrum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20090622/3013e09e/attachment.htm>

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:37:55 +0000

> more evil.   I think Wolfe is more interested in that sort of exploration
> of the nature of evil than he is in making some sort of political
> statement.

As interested.

It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping.

I really like TDiaF also.

.

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:48:14 +0000

Michael Straight:
>>I think Wolfe is more interested in that sort of exploration

Josh:
> As interested. It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping. I really like TDiaF 
> also.

That's pretty funny, Josh.

I didn't expect to like it as much as I did. I was expecting something along 
the level of "Pandora" quality. When I finished it, I considered it solid 
piece, but nothing of much depth. But as I discussed it, I began to 
appreciate it much more. The characters are iconic with each having his own 
"space". Very Dickensian. And as I said, it would be thick-headed to say the 
novel is "about" this or that. Part of my low(er) opinion of it was that I 
didn't think the political angle was very subtle at all. After talking to 
people about it, I came to the opposite conclusion. Yeah, it's about the 
corrupting power of greed and the human susceptibility to venality. But 
those evils are dressed in the idea of "robbing from the rich to give to the 
poor". And re-distribution of wealth is a major political issue. You can't 
really escape that theme in an homage to the Robin Hood story (which this 
is, and a quite deft one). The sad thing is that I'm probably spoiling the 
novel for some people, at least, by pointing out that there *is* a political 
statement in there. Fortunately, there seems to be more than enough 
deniability in the work for readers to ignore me as a crank and enjoy the 
novel for all its other attributes.

J.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:10:24 +0000

> James Wynn:

> The sad thing is that I'm probably spoiling the
> novel for some people, at least, by pointing out that there *is* a
> political statement in there. Fortunately, there seems to be more than
> enough deniability in the work for readers to ignore me as a crank and
> enjoy the novel for all its other attributes.

Gene Wolfe is not just a good propagandist, he is one of the best that I
have ever seen. If you are likely to be hostile to his agenda, chances are
you just won't get it, and will recommend the story to friends of yours,
who might not be hostile to his agenda.

.