Subject: (urth) Wolfe at Readercon

From: Yves Meynard <meynard at videotron.ca>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:57:49 +0000

I can heartily recommend Readercon to anyone who appreciates Wolfe's  
work. You're likely to find a lot of people who share your tastes. I  
know I'll be there (but then, I always am).

Yves

---

From: Matthew Keeley <matthew.keeley.1 at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:26:22 +0000

Didn't realize you still subscribed to Urth, though I did see your
name on the Readercon guest list. I take it you'll be appearing on
some panels? In any case, if I go, I'll make sure to bring along my
copy of The Book of Knights.

And is anyone else on this list going? I know there's a lot of
"geographical diversity" here, but surely there's more than one Urth
lister in New England?

-Matt

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Yves Meynard<meynard at videotron.ca> wrote:
> I can heartily recommend Readercon to anyone who appreciates Wolfe's work.
> You're likely to find a lot of people who share your tastes. I know I'll be
> there (but then, I always am).
>
> Yves
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>

---

From: Matthew Keeley <matthew.keeley.1 at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:57:48 +0000

As I wouldn't have learned of Readercon were it not for this list, I
think I would be remiss if I didn't tell you something about the
convention.

Readercon was in Burlington, Massachusetts, about an hour away from my
house. As I didn't have three hundred dollars to spend on a hotel room
(Pity the poor impoverished grad), I decided to commute back and forth
each day. As a result, I didn't get to stay very late every day and I
doubtless missed many fine and interesting things. As this is the Urth
List, I'm only going to discuss Wolfe-related events at the con,
though there were several other Major Writers there, including John
Crowley and Samuel Delany.

Friday

This was my first con, and it's a trifle intimidating to finish
registration and then see your one of your favorite writers standing
not twenty feet away. Mr. Wolfe was scheduled to speak at the day's
first panel, on "Egocentrism and Creativity." I walked into the room
twenty minutes before the program was scheduled to start, screwed up
my courage, and approached Gene and Rosemary Wolfe. I said I was a
great fan of his work, etc. etc. Wolfe, as it turns out, is a much
nicer person than most of his characters. He introduced me to Rosemary
and to Patrick O'Leary, who was sitting with them. I saw Wolfe several
times throughout the weekend, and he always knew my name, even when I
was too far away for him to read my nametag. Great guy.

The panel itself was very good; when asked to introduce himself, Wolfe
just said "I practically invented Pringles." There was a lot of
applause. Three writers / books that Wolfe says most influenced him:
G.K. Chesterton, Ruth Plumly Thompson, Style Guide for Engineers (I'm
not sure on that exact title). The Plumly Thompson pick confused one
of the other panelists; Wolfe defended her merits over fellow
Oz-writer L. Frank Baum.

(Note that this next portion includes some spoilers for future works
and for An Evil Guest)

One of Readercon's specialties is the "Kaffeeklatsch," where writers
meet over coffee with ten or so of their fans. Wolfe's Kaffeeklatsch
was on Friday, I made sure to sign up early. The "klatsches" take
place in normal hotel rooms, though the beds have been replaced with
round tables. Wolfe's klatsch was standing-room-only. When I asked
what Wolfe was working on, he talked a little about Home Fires, the
second draft of which he finished in February. Apparently it involves
an energy-poor future Earth, an interstellar war, and complications in
love arriving as a result of time dilation. Wolfe is also writing a
short story about a talking refrigerator (!) and has written a story
called "King Rat" for a Frederick Pohl tribute anthology. Wolfe also
briefly discussed his past position as head of the Science Fiction
Poetry Association. Apparently many readers would approach him with
their poems. Wolfe would ask who their favorite poets were, and they
would respond that they didn't read poetry, they wrote it. One gets
the impression Wolfe suffered much in this job. Wolfe said his
favorite of his novels changes from day to day, but Peace is generally
near the top of the list. He also said An Evil Guest was the most fun
to write; he felt bad leaving Cassie. He also said that Bill Reis was
an interesting villain because "he was so close to being a hero" but
he still wanted to make himself "dictator" of Earth. I suppose this
helps AEG interpretation a bit?

Later in the day, Wolfe was on a panel about "Words as Magic." John
Crowley discussed the Old Masters' "underpainting" technique; he said
Wolfe's books give the sense of having been thoroughly-prepared and
"underpainted" in the same way. Crowley, unsurprisingly, was far more
eloquent there than I am here. Alas, I left after this panel, so I
missed Wolfe, Patrick O'Leary, Yves Meynard, and Michael Cisco
discussing "Reality and Dream in Fiction."
(http://www.essentialvermeer.com/technique/technique_underpainting.html)

Saturday

Wolfe was scheduled to read from The Sorcerer's House, which the
Readercon program says is coming out next year. I arrived late, so it
wasn't until after the reading finished that Wolfe had been reading
his new short story "King Rat." It has lions and spiders and
elephants, oh my, and is blackly comic. It is nothing at all like what
I've heard Sorcerer's House is like, so I felt pretty silly.

Sunday

Alas, I didn't attend any Lupine panels or events Sunday. I did,
however, buy a few Wolfe books at the Readercon bookshop. David
Hartwell was selling a bunch of books; I picked up a copy of
Operations Ares from him for $5. The book was signed, which rather
surprised me. Mr. Hartwell says Wolfe no longer cringes quite so much
when he sees his first novel and is now willing to sign copies.

All in all a fantastic weekend - Readercon was absolutely full of
writers I like and admire, and they all seemed to be extremely nice
people. If you're in the New England area, definitely consider
Readercon next year.

-Matt

---

From: Adam Thornton <adam at io.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 03:13:57 +0000

On Jul 18, 2009, at 9:57 PM, Matthew Keeley wrote:

> The Plumly Thompson pick confused one

I respect Gene Wolfe a great deal, but he's JUST PLAIN WRONG on this  
one.

Adam

---

From: Russ Allbery <rra at stanford.edu>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 03:22:23 +0000

>> The Plumly Thompson pick confused one of the other panelists; Wolfe
>> defended her merits over fellow Oz-writer L. Frank Baum.
>

Yeah, I was going to say -- that's the first time I've ever heard anyone
say anything positive about Ruth Plumly Thompson's Oz books.  I'm now
*very* curious what he sees in them and what arguments he was making.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

---

From: Matthew Keeley <matthew.keeley.1 at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:20:15 +0000

Forgot to mention that someone asked Wolfe about the prospect of
another Latro book. He didn't rule it out, but did say he's getting
older.

-Matt

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:19:28 +0000

Thanks for the run-down, Matthew. 

Do you remember what Wolfe's defense of Ruth Plumly Thompson was?

---

From: Matthew Keeley <matthew.keeley.1 at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:48:18 +0000

> Do you remember what Wolfe's defense of Ruth Plumly Thompson was?

It wasn't very specific or prolonged; he just said he liked her and
thought she was underrated. Allen Steele disagreed with him, but the
conversation was quite short.

-Matt

---

From: JBarach at aol.com <jbarach at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:33:08 +0000

> Do you remember what Wolfe's defense of Ruth

I don't know about Wolfe, but here's what Lin Carter once  wrote:
 
*********************************

And this past year we lost another writer to whom I owe a deep personal  
debt -- Miss Ruth Plumly Thompson, of Oz and Philadelphia.  When in her  
twenties, she picked up the Oz books after the death of L. Frank Baum, and  
continued to write them, one a year, for most of her life.  Her  twenty-second Oz 
book, The Enchanted Island of Oz, has just been  published posthumously.  
She died on April 6, 1976.
 
The Oz books are the best and the greatest children's books in American  
literature.  And their excellence, their sparkling sense of fun and  
adventurous swagger and endless color and variety, are due in very large  measure to 
Miss Thompson.  It was these books (and, in particular,  *her* contributions 
to the series) that first caught and held my  interest in my boyhood.  I 
owe it entirely to Miss Thompson that, early  on, I was turned in the 
direction of fantasy.  Bless her ... she was a  lovely lady. -- Lin Carter, 
"Introduction," The Year's Best Fantasy  Stories: 3 (DAW, 1977).

*********************************
 
Wolfe also has mentioned her contributions (alongside Baum's) more than  
once in interviews 
 
_http://tinyurl.com/nnk3qq_ (http://tinyurl.com/nnk3qq) 
 
_http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/interviews/wolfe46interview.htm_ 
(http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/interviews/wolfe46interview.htm) 

John

**************What's for dinner tonight?  Find quick and easy dinner ideas 
for any occasion. 
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?ncid=emlcntusfood00000008)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20090720/1d3171ab/attachment.htm>

---

From: Milton Jackson <miltonwjackson at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:05:45 +0000

I think Wolfe's done all he can do with Latro short of killing the character
off. Althought Soldier of Sidon can't claim the level of writing its
predecessors had, it still was a fine book and, I believe, a great place to
end the story. Wolfe is known for leaving things out of his writings so the
readers can exercise their imaginations and reach their own conclusions
(sometimes radically different from person to person) about his worlds and
characters. I say let it stand at that. He's done a remarkable job with
Latro, and as the much-lamented Robert E Howard did with Red Nails, his last
tale of the great barbarian Conan, he's said as much as anyone can expect of
the character and should feel the need to direct his considerable talents
elsewhere.

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Matthew Keeley

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20090720/44609d49/attachment.html>

---

From: JBarach at aol.com <jbarach at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:10:38 +0000

Milton writes:
 
> I think Wolfe's done all he can do with Latro short of  killing
> the character off. Althought Soldier of Sidon can't  claim
> the level of writing its predecessors had, it still was a  fine
> book and, I believe, a great place to end the  story.
 
I haven't read Sidon yet, but ... surely the matter of his memory-problem  
has yet to be resolved.  That is, I assume Wolfe didn't intend it to be  
just some weird feature that plays no role in the plot but that allows Wolfe to 
 do some fun stuff with the narrative.  
 
Of course, that may have been how the idea originated ("What if I had a  
character who couldn't remember more than a day at a time?"), but it seems to 
me  that Wolfe usually DOES something with those sorts of ideas.  As he says 
in  one of his essays or interviews about writing, many people think they 
have a  great idea for a story when they come up with an idea for the premise 
of a story  or the opening of the story ("What if a guy couldn't remember 
more than a day at  a time?").  But what is important is knowing the *end* of 
the story and how  the story gets to it.  
 
So if Wolfe came up with this particular idea, it seems consistent to me to 
 think that Wolfe had some idea of where he wanted to go with the idea.   
It's not just a gimmick to allow, for instance, characters to deceive Latro  
because he can't remember that they were untrustworthy.  It's going  
somewhere.  The memory loss happened for a reason, and therefore it is  something 
that is both resolvable and needing resolution.  
 
Or so it seems to me.  Now you'll tell me that all that stuff was  cleared 
up in Sidon....
 
John

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20090720/351e674e/attachment.html>

---

From: Milton Jackson <miltonwjackson at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:24:10 +0000

I'll tell you no such thing. You'll have to read the book to determine what
you think of what Wolfe does with Latro. One thing any Wolfe fan should know
is that Wolfe rarely gives a traditional resolution to his works. They are
often openended and incomplete in ways that would damage other authors'
reputations though. Wolfe is a writer who rewards both perception and
repeated delving into his worlds by his readers. If you expect the Latro
sequence to go from A to Z, then you're reading the wrong books. If you
expect a more Citizen Kane-style mode of storytelling filled with lacunae,
subtle hints, and endings that leave a sense of wonder rather than
completion, then you're definitely reading the right books. Others may
disagree with me, but my perception of Soldier of Sidon is that it
effectively brings the sequence to the closest thing to closure it needs.
Anything else, to me--unless superbly done (something Wolfe is quite capable
of)--would be meaningless windowdressing.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:10 PM, <JBarach at aol.com> wrote:

> has yet to be resolved.  That is, I assume Wolfe didn't intend it to be just
> some weird feature that plays no role in the plot but that allows Wolfe to
> character who couldn't remember more than a day at a time?"), but it seems
> to me that Wolfe usually DOES something with those sorts of ideas.  As he
> says in one of his essays or interviews about writing, many people think
> they have a great idea for a story when they come up with an idea for the
> premise of a story or the opening of the story ("What if a guy couldn't
> remember more than a day at a time?").  But what is important is knowing the
> *end* of the story and how the story gets to it.
>
> think that Wolfe had some idea of where he wanted to go with the idea.  It's
> not just a gimmick to allow, for instance, characters to deceive Latro
> somewhere.  The memory loss happened for a reason, and therefore it is
> something that is both resolvable and needing resolution.
>
> ------------------------------
> What's for dinner tonight? Find quick and easy dinner ideas<http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?ncid=emlcntusfood00000008>for any occasion.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20090720/34cae912/attachment.htm>

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:32:17 +0000

Well, Wolfe at one point was talking of having Latro ride a Phoenician boat
to the Americas. I suppose that's probably out of the question now.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Milton Jackson<miltonwjackson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >?the character off. Althought Soldier of Sidon can't claim
>> >?the level of writing its predecessors had, it still was a fine
>> >?book and, I believe, a great place to end the story.
>>
>> So if Wolfe came up with this particular idea, it seems consistent to me
>> to think that Wolfe had some idea of where he wanted to go with the idea.
>> ________________________________
>> What's for dinner tonight? Find quick and easy dinner ideas for any
>> occasion.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:10:13 +0000

>Anything else, to me--unless superbly done (something Wolfe is quite 
>capable of)--
>would be meaningless windowdressing.

I like Sidon, but I it *does* feel odd that Sidon occurs after Latro has 
already returned home. The expectation is that the arc of the stories is 
Latro's attempt to "get back" and to reveal something of his past. So that 
he goes to Africa instead of Persia (or at least moves in that direction) 
just feels "off".

~ James

---

From: Bryan Alexander <bryan.alexander at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:32:43 +0000

I'm just trying to get my head around the amazing co-presence of
Wolfe, Michael Cisco, and John Crowley.  Wow.

-- 
Bryan Alexander
http://infocult.typepad.com/
http://twitter.com/BryanAlexander

---

From: Matthew Keeley <matthew.keeley.1 at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:25:50 +0000

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Bryan
Alexander<bryan.alexander at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wolfe, Michael Cisco, and John Crowley. ?Wow.
>

I never did see Cisco (though I bought two of his books on sale, as
I've heard they're good), but  there was a minute or two that I saw
where Gene Wolfe, John Crowley, and Samuel Delany were all in the same
room together.

-Matt

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:51:16 +0000

>So if Wolfe came up with this particular idea, it seems consistent
>to me to think that Wolfe had some idea of where he wanted
>to go with the idea.  It's not just a gimmick to allow, for instance,
>characters to deceive Latro because he can't remember that they
>were untrustworthy.

I always thought it was intended as a critique on the integrity of history. 
Wolfe did this even more directly in "Peace". Also, while Severian *says* he 
has perfect memory, it begs the question "How does he know that?" And in 
fact immediately after he makes this claim the first time, he commits a 
glaring error of fact.

Every morning Latro reads a diary that others tell him was written by 
himself. But he can't really *know* that he wrote it or (assuming he did) if 
he made it up or if he is crazy. He's like us when we read history.

We assume that history is *real* and myth is not, in part, because history 
is verifiable. However, the facts of Herodotus's history in which Latro's 
story is set--the first history so called--was challenged only a few decades 
later by Thucydides. Also it is full of stories of manticores (verified), 
flying snakes, wool growing on trees (verified), and a personal encounter 
with Pan. We can find evidence that *supports* certain claims of history, 
but we can't truly verify or discount recorded events and conversations. 
That ability has been lost to the *mists* of Time.

J

---

From: Bruce Hayles <brucehayles at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:59:54 +0000

Doesn't a god force Latro to choose between either finding himself among
friends or regaining his memory? I thought his continued wanderings were
because being among friends without memory proved to not be enough.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20090721/3324cc2e/attachment.htm>

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:20:11 +0000

> story is set--the first history so called--was challenged only a few
> decades later by Thucydides. Also it is full of stories of manticores
> (verified),

I don't know what Herodotus was referring to here, but it wasn't nothing.

> flying snakes,

There are flying snakes (or at least gliding snakes).

>                wool growing on trees (verified),

It's a variety of Indian cotton.

>                                                 and a personal encounter
> with Pan.

People have personal encounters with God literally all of the time.

.

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:55:50 +0000

>>Also it is full of stories of manticores (verified),

> I don't know what Herodotus was referring to here, but it wasn't nothing.

"Manticore" is from the Indian word for tiger. Granted, tigers don't have 
three rows of teeth or a tail with spikes, but Pausanias (2nd century) 
recognized it as the tiger with fanciful flourishes.

> There are flying snakes (or at least gliding snakes).

Yeah, but Herodotus describes a whole Egyptian ecology involving birds etc.

> It's a variety of Indian cotton.

Right.

>> and a personal encounter with Pan.

> People have personal encounters with God literally all of the time.

Yeah, but only Abraham claimed to have met him in the mundane way (on the 
road to Athens) that Herodotus relates.

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:53:11 +0000

James Wynn wrote:
> Also, while 
> Severian *says* he has perfect memory, it begs the question "How does he 
> know that?" 

BTQ abuse makes the Baby Theoanthropos cry.

http://begthequestion.info/

You can make a difference.

-- 
Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com
< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >

---

From: John Watkins <john.watkins04 at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 01:11:37 +0000

A rare lapse from the erudite Mr. Wynn.

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com> wrote:

> James Wynn wrote:
>
>> Also, while Severian *says* he has perfect memory, it begs the question
>> "How does he know that?"
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20090722/579e8618/attachment.htm>

---

From: Matthew Keeley <matthew.keeley.1 at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 01:29:14 +0000

And yet the colloquial usage of "begs the question" does make sense;
it's a nice and colorful shorthand. Less irritating than trying to
figure out the definition of "nonplussed."

http://podictionary.com/?p=653

-Matt

---

From: Daniel D Jones <ddjones at riddlemaster.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 01:37:10 +0000

> figure out the definition of "nonplussed."

Then say "...begs one to ask the question.."  or "...begs that the question be 
asked..."  If you find those a bit cumbersome, "raises the question" is just as 
clear and succinct as the misused phrase.

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:32:38 +0000

> You can make a difference.

Thanks for not reporting my BTQ abuse to Logic Protective Services. ;-)

Still, while I can see how the term "begs the question" might be misused 
("Which begs the question, who made James a logician?") , it has never been 
clear to me why "begs the question" is bad form to introduce a question that 
*properly* illustrates an unsupported premise in a statement.

For example, I could have said: "This is begging the question. How does he 
know that?" That would have protected me from allegations of BTQA, but the 
two phrases convey the same  meaning and the modified form does not distort 
the etymological intent of the term (as I understand it). Granted, the 
modified form is not "easier", but I think reflexive outrage at the mere use 
of the term "begs the question" is oversensitivity on the part of some 
logicians...which is reason enough to use it.

"[Irony is] like rain on a wedding day" is not true. The statement is an 
outrage to "irony". But the problem is not the syntactical form.

James

---

From: Adam Thornton <adam at io.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:18:28 +0000

On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:32 AM, James Wynn wrote:

> For example, I could have said: "This is begging the question. How  
> does he know that?" That would have protected me from allegations of  
> BTQA, but the two phrases convey the same  meaning and the modified  
> form does not distort the etymological intent of the term (as I  
> understand it). Granted, the modified form is not "easier", but I  
> think reflexive outrage at the mere use of the term "begs the  
> question" is oversensitivity on the part of some logicians...which  
> is reason enough to use it.

Outraging logicians has never been a particularly good motivator for  
me.  I must be doing it wrong.

Adam

---

From: Lane Haygood <lhaygood at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:30:20 +0000

Outraging logicians is never a good idea. We come armed with syllogisms.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 23, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Adam Thornton <adam at io.com> wrote:

>> does he know that?" That would have protected me from allegations  
>> of BTQA, but the two phrases convey the same  meaning and the  
>> modified form does not distort the etymological intent of the term  
>> (as I understand it). Granted, the modified form is not "easier",  
>> but I think reflexive outrage at the mere use of the term "begs the

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:31:33 +0000

>>Granted, the modified form is not "easier", but I  think reflexive outrage 
>>at the mere use of the term "begs the  question" is oversensitivity on the 
>>part of some logicians...which  is reason enough to use it.
>
> Outraging logicians has never been a particularly good motivator for  me. 
> I must be doing it wrong.

You must be, Adam.

Logicians are not Vulcans, they only enjoy pretending to be ones. They have 
petty pet peeves just like the rest of humanity. In some cases, those who 
assume the title "logician" are not at all removed from those taking part in 
the annual "Klingon Beauty Contest" in Atlanta. When meeting a person who is 
showing off his invulnerable armor, how can one resist poking an uncovered 
sore?

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:49:13 +0000

James Wynn wrote:
>>> Also, while Severian *says* he has perfect memory, it begs the 
>>> question "How does he know that?"
>>
> ("Which begs the question, who made James a logician?") , it has never 
> been clear to me why "begs the question" is bad form to introduce a 
> question that *properly* illustrates an unsupported premise in a statement.

Because it was coined to refer not to a premise but a conclusion 
supported in a specific, fallacious way, that of circular reasoning. 
Sev's claim is supported in a different fallacious way, involving 
confirmation bias.

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:12:15 +0000

>Because it was coined to refer not to a premise but a conclusion supported 
>in a specific, fallacious way, that of circular reasoning. Sev's claim is 
>supported in a different fallacious way, involving confirmation bias.

Okay.  Attempting to put it another way, you are saying that the question 
Severian is begging is "Is it possible for one to know for certain if one 
has forgotten or misremembered something?", not "How does Severian know he 
remembers everything?"

Well, okay, the first question is better *phrased* logically. However, the 
answers to both are congruent ("It is not possible" and "Severian cannot"). 
IMO the latter is perfectly suitable unless I'm constructing a logical 
equation, and it is *superior* rhetorically in that it is more directly to 
the point. I'm categorizing this so-called error with the Split Infinitive 
rule (http://www.newdream.net/~scully/toelw/Lowth.htm).

I agree it is dangerous to handle BTQ in this way unless you know what you 
are doing; but, I didn't use the term to say "His claim brings to mind such 
and such speculation". I used the term to say "Severian's statement is based 
on a specific unsupported premise undermined by an obvious Socratic 
proposition which I shall hereby phrase in a way that is applicable to our 
current discussion." Sans evidence that my usage is misleading, I intend to 
be incorrigible about this.

Irrelevant aside: I don't remember learning Confirmation Bias as one of the 
logical fallacies. After looking up a couple of websites I see that it is 
defined as a "fallacy of evidence". If that's the case, it can *lead* 
directly to Circular Reasoning (among, I presume, other logical fallacies 
although I can't think of any at the moment).

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:10:16 +0000

--- On Thu, 7/23/09, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote:

...

> I'm categorizing this so-called
> error with the Split Infinitive rule
> (http://www.newdream.net/~scully/toelw/Lowth.htm).
...

Speaking of pet peeves, that article hit one of mine.
Lowth's grammar book never mentions split infinitives.
Yes, I read the whole book looking for that.  Everything
I know about split infinitives (and some things other
people know) is at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive

On the subject of ending sentences with prepositions, I
quoted at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lowth

what Lowth actually said, which isn't exactly what Scott E.
Kapel's article (linked to above) might lead you to think.
(If you can read the gray on black.)

I'd say BTQ is what Bryan Garner calls "skunked".
Whichever sense you use it in, people will misunderstand
or criticize you.  When it's used to mean a logical
fallacy, I don't remember seeing it with the question in
apposition.

Jerry Friedman

---

From: Daniel D Jones <ddjones at riddlemaster.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:50:30 +0000

On Thursday 23 July 2009 10:32:38 James Wynn wrote:
> clear to me why "begs the question" is bad form to introduce a question
> that *properly* illustrates an unsupported premise in a statement.

It's bad form to use the phrase incorrectly, regardless of whether or not it's 
in relation to a fallacy.

> modified form is not "easier", but I think reflexive outrage at the mere
> use of the term "begs the question" is oversensitivity on the part of some

I disagree that the two forms convey the same meaning.  You stated that "it," 
not "he," begs the question and then stated the question that "it" was 
"begging."  I think the vast majority of readers would interpret that to mean 
that Severain's claim (the "it" in the statement) raises the question you 
explicitly stated: How does he know that his memory is perfect?  I think few 
readers, even those who are quite familiar with the correct definition, would 
interpret it to mean that Severian has committed a logical fallacy.  

> outrage to "irony". But the problem is not the syntactical form.

If you truly meant to say that Severian committed the logical fallacy of 
begging the question, then you phrased it in such a manner that almost 
everyone who read your statement would misinterpret it.

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 03:15:34 +0000

James Wynn wrote:
> Okay.  Attempting to put it another way, you are saying that the 
> question Severian is begging is "Is it possible for one to know for 
> certain if one has forgotten or misremembered something?", not "How does 
> Severian know he remembers everything?"

Oy!

There's no begging of either question that I can see. Severian feels his 
memory is perfect because he can find no gaps in it *and* apparently 
neither can Palaemon.  Until his attention is drawn to an inconsistency, 
any forgetting was both holistic, as if the object of the memory never 
existed at all, and trivial, regarding matters that no one else cared 
about or remembered and did not involve objective, physical consequences 
like being unable to open a door because of forgetting where the keys 
were left.

And there may be things excusable as being different in the not-English 
idiom the Urthlings use, similar to the way our "I forgot my keys" can 
really mean forgetting, or it can mean "I was distracted from my 
responsibilities and no attempt at recall was made".

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:55:35 +0000

>Severian feels his memory is perfect because he can find no gaps in it 
>*and* apparently neither can Palaemon.

But having gaps in your memory is not the only way you can "forget". 
Severian's tale exemplifies this at the tippy-top of page 2 of The Shadow of 
the Torturer:

"I would have hidden, but __Roche__ held me, saying, 'Wait, I see pikes.' "
[snip][short exposition about how Severian never forgets anything because it 
is "recreated" each day][snip]
"...they had pikes, as __Drotte__ had said."

You can say this is a trivial detail, and it is. But it is also quite 
glaring and occurs in the first 10 inches of text, closely embedded around 
his first and one of his more elaborate claims of perfect memory. The intent 
seems to be to make a mockery of Severian's claim. You detail the conditions 
of all of Severian's forgetting episodes, but everything we know about the 
events surrounding Severian's life comes solely from himself. Yes this 
carries the Unreliable Narrator to an absurd level. That seems to have been 
Wolfe's point.

J

---

From: Craig Brewer <cnbrewer at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:42:29 +0000

I also find it strange that he loses his way in the Corridors of Time. It happens so early that it seems like another flag that even his memory of immediate events is far from perfect.

----- Original Message ----
From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 7:55:35 AM
Subject: Re: (urth) Severian's memory

> Severian feels his memory is perfect because he can find no gaps in it *and* apparently neither can Palaemon.

But having gaps in your memory is not the only way you can "forget". Severian's tale exemplifies this at the tippy-top of page 2 of The Shadow of the Torturer:

"I would have hidden, but __Roche__ held me, saying, 'Wait, I see pikes.' "
[snip][short exposition about how Severian never forgets anything because it is "recreated" each day][snip]
"...they had pikes, as __Drotte__ had said."

You can say this is a trivial detail, and it is. But it is also quite glaring and occurs in the first 10 inches of text, closely embedded around his first and one of his more elaborate claims of perfect memory. The intent seems to be to make a mockery of Severian's claim. You detail the conditions of all of Severian's forgetting episodes, but everything we know about the events surrounding Severian's life comes solely from himself. Yes this carries the Unreliable Narrator to an absurd level. That seems to have been Wolfe's point.

J

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:53:14 +0000

James Wynn wrote:
> Severian's tale exemplifies this at the tippy-top of page 2 of The 
> Shadow of the Torturer:
> 
> [snip][short exposition about how Severian never forgets anything 
> because it is "recreated" each day][snip]
> glaring and occurs in the first 10 inches of text, closely embedded 
> around his first and one of his more elaborate claims of perfect memory. 
> The intent seems to be to make a mockery of Severian's claim. You detail 
> the conditions of all of Severian's forgetting episodes, but everything 
> we know about the events surrounding Severian's life comes solely from 
> himself. Yes this carries the Unreliable Narrator to an absurd level. 
> That seems to have been Wolfe's point.

The Roche-Eata mismatch is flaw in his memory, but not a grossly 
obvious one. The narrator seeks to recall the incident and does so, but 
the effort produces a false positive that is duly recorded. This isn't a 
logical flaw, but one of woefully subjective methodology.

Severian-the-narrator also tends to immerse himself in his past persona 
as he writes, and at this point Severian-the-protagonist may never have 
had to confront the flaws in his memory, leading Sev-the-narrator to 
write the nonsense about his memory losing nothing in the end, similar 
to the way he shifts from Sev to Thecla in the middle of a childhood 
reminisce later on.

There is also confirmation bias in that the admittedly few occasions 
when his memory lacks fidelity don't stand out as much as his more 
frequent impressive and successful feats of memory, similar to the way a 
psychic prediction that comes true is more memorable to some than the 
piles of failed ones.

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 01:05:09 +0000

Craig Brewer wrote:
> I also find it strange that he loses his way in the Corridors of
> Time. It happens so early that it seems like another flag that even
> his memory of immediate events is far from perfect.

I'd have to give him the benefit of the doubt there, as the corridors 
extend back through time and dimension, so that three lefts may not make 
  a right.

Severian further admits he doesn't remember what he does not perceive on 
the first page of chapter 27 in SWORD. "[...]I have forgotten much of 
that, because I was so exhausted that I moved as though in sleep." In 
his first encounter with higher dimensions, he may not have sen 
everything about his surrounding, he may not have been able to correctly 
interpret his propriceptor sense as put on foot in direction gamma from 
the other, and it may have even made him a bit ill and internally 
distracted.

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 02:09:08 +0000

>The narrator seeks to recall the incident and does so, but the effort 
>produces a false positive that is duly recorded. This isn't a logical flaw, 
>but one of woefully subjective methodology.

The logical flaw is his argument "I do not forget." which is based 
(presumably) on a specific unsupported premise: "I would know if I had 
forgotten something." This is the logical flaw defined as Begging The 
Question.

---

From: John Watkins <john.watkins04 at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:49:15 +0000

Well, it's definitely an unstated and unsupported premise.  I'm not sure
that it counts as question-begging.  Many people do know that they forget
things.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20090726/e70f10f2/attachment.htm>

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 20:10:36 +0000

James Wynn wrote:
>> produces a false positive that is duly recorded. This isn't a logical 
>> flaw, but one of woefully subjective methodology.
> 
> The logical flaw is his argument "I do not forget."

This is a single proposition. A logical argument has the form of two or 
more propositions.

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 07:54:20 +0000

> forgotten something." This is the logical flaw defined as Begging The 

Can you point to where he actually says something like this, please?

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:43:49 +0000

> Can you point to where he actually says something like this, please?
You mean where Severian says he doesn't forget anything? I'm not trying to 
be dense. I just want verification before I proceed. Surely that is the most 
universally recognized opinion that Severian has about himself.

J

---

From: James B. Jordan <jbjordan4 at cox.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:43:12 +0000

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive

I was taught that the rule against split infinitives comes from the 
oppression of Latin grammar imposed on English. Latin infinitives are 
one word; hence English infinitives must be treated as one word.

JBJordan

James B. Jordan
Director, Biblical Horizons
Box 1096
Niceville, FL 32588
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20090729/4929402b/attachment.htm>

---

From: Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:57:52 +0000

> Can you point to where he actually says something like this, please?

Severian says often that he never forgets, although he eventually
modifies this to he usually doesn't forget and implies he knows those
periods of forgetting:

"It is my nature, my joy and my curse, to forget nothing. Every rattling chain
and whistling wind, every sight, smell, and taste, remains changeless in my
mind, and though I know it is not so with everyone, I cannot imagine what it can
mean to be otherwise, as if one had slept when in fact an experience is merely
remote."

"How I reached my bed I have no notion. Those who drink much have told me that
they sometimes forget all that befell them in the latter part of the night, and
perhaps it was so with me. But I think it more likely that I (who never forget
anything, who, if I may for once confess the truth, though I seem to boast, do
not truly understand what others mean when they say forget, for it seems to me
that all experience becomes a part of my being) only slept and was carried
there."

""I never forget a voice," I told him, "or anything else." And then in my
eagerness, I impulsively added what was perhaps the worst thing I could have
said: "You tried to brain me with your shovel." His face became masklike at
once, and he stepped back into his boat and rowed out onto the brown water."

"    "Liege," I said, "my head is swimming." (Then, lying,) "I cannot
remember those words truly, I
have forgotten them already. Did I hear you say that Dorcas and the
others will be in the House
Absolute?""

"THE FLOATING BOAT would not obey me, for I had not the word
for it. (I have often thought that its word may have been among the
things Piaton had tried to tell me, as he had told me to take his life;
and I wish I had come to heed him sooner.) In the end, I was forced
to climb from the right eye? the worst climb of my life. In this
overlong account of my adventures, I have said often that I forget
nothing; but I have forgotten much of that, because I was so
exhausted that I moved as though in sleep. When I staggered at last
into the silent, sealed town that stood among the feet of the
cataracts, it must have been nearly night, and I lay down beside a
wall that gave me shelter from the wind."

"At one moment they were nearly invisible; at the next they were
upon me like a torrent. I cannot say who the riders were or on what
beasts they rode; not because I have forgotten (for I forget nothing)
but because I saw nothing clearly. There was no question of
fighting, only of seeking in some way to live. I parried a blow from
a twisted weapon that was neither sword nor ax; the piebald reared,
and I saw an arrow protruding from his chest like a horn of fire. A
rider crashed against us, and we fell into the dark."

'"I have forgotten! Do you remember when we flew over the armies?
For a time I forgot it! I know now what it is to forget."
There was pale laughter in his voice. "Which you will now
remember always."
"I hope so, but it fades even as we speak. It vanishes like mist,
which must itself be a forgetting. What was that weapon that
brought us down?"'

'Triskele laid his scarred head against my knee, the ambassador of
all crippled things, of the Autarch who had carried a tray in the
House Absolute and lain paralyzed in the palanquin waiting to pass
to me the humming voices in his skull, of Thecla writhing under the
Revolutionary, and of the woman even I, who had boasted I could
forget nothing, had nearly forgotten, bleeding and dying beneath our
tower. Perhaps after all it was my discovery of Triskele, which I
have said changed nothing, that in the end changed everything. I did
not have to answer this time; Master Malrubius saw my answer in
my face.'

"There will be long, slow days on the ship. I will read. I still have so
much to learn. I will sleep, dozing in my berth, listening to the
centuries wash against the hull. This manuscript I shall send to
Master Ultan; but while I am on the ship, when I cannot sleep and
have tired of reading, I shall write it out again?I who forget nothing
?every word, just as I have written it here."

"
One of the advantages of such a memory as mine, which stores everything and
forgets nothing, is that it is as good as paper at such times. (Indeed, that may
be its only advantage.) On this occasion, however, it did me no more good than
it had when I had tried to follow the directions of that lochage of the peltasts
whom I met upon the bridge of Gyoll. No doubt Idas had assumed I knew
more of the ship than I did, and that I would not count doors and look for
turnings                               with
exactness."

"                                     These Hierogrammates who ruled the
universe and what lay beyond had not merely mistaken another for me, but
now sought to remind me, who could forget nothing, of the scenes of my life;
and did so (so it seemed to me) less skillfully than my own memories could
have."

""You have undergone trials," she said. "If you wish, I can give you that which
will make you forget them all. Though only by instinct, you will still bring a
young                sun            to              your               world."
I shook my head. "I don't want to forget, Tzadkiel. I've boasted too often that
I forget nothing, and forgetting which I have known once or twice seems to
me                 a             kind                 of               death.""

"Burgundofara went to look at the cabin while I sat trying
to wipe the image of Zama's face from my eyes and watching the crew make
ready to cast off. One of the sun-browned rivermen seemed familiar; but I,
who can forget nothing, sometimes have difficulty in bringing the quarry to
bay     in     a     memory       that   grows      ever     more        vast."

""Our        rescuer,"       Odilo    continued,      beaming,      "is?"
"Don't matter," the sailor snapped. "You get down there and trim that
mains'l. Jib's fouled, too. You stamp now and stutter, or she'll capsize."
It had been ten years and more since I had sailed on the Samru, but I had
learned then how a fore-and-aft rig operates, and I do not forget."

"The continents themselves are old as raddled women, long since stripped of
beauty and fertility. The New Sun comes, and he will send them crashing into the
sea like foundered ships. And from the sea lift new glittering with
gold, silver,
iron, and copper. With diamonds, rubies, turquoises, lands wallowing in the soil
of a million millennia, so long ago washed down to the sea.
I, who boast of forgetting nothing, had forgotten that it was the demons who
had                                 spoken
       so."

-- 
gwern

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:22:20 +0000

...

>> Everything
> oppression of Latin grammar imposed on English. Latin
> infinitives are one
> word; hence English infinitives must be treated as one
> word.

You put that clearly.  However, though many people
have been taught that (including me), I'd like to see
some evidence for it.  When the rule against split
infinitives was first stated, in the 19th century, did
anyone actually justify the rule with Latin grammar?  Is
there any reason to think that was anyone's
justification?

I'd be interested in any citation earlier than the one
in the Wikipedia article (John Opdycke, 1941).  I'm not
looking for people claiming without evidence, "The split
infinitive was banned because of an analogy with Latin"--
we have plenty of those.

Jerry Friedman

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:56:08 +0000

>>oppression of Latin grammar imposed on English.
>.Latin infinitives are one word; hence English infinitives
>>must be treated as one word.

>in the Wikipedia article (John Opdycke, 1941).

Sorry for maligning Lowth without checking whether it was so. Based on the 
other works cited in the wiki article, it appears that some 19th cen. 
stylists believed that it was merely the most common accepted usage and the 
arguments against splitting infinitives were generally arguments against 
supposed modernism (Realist literature and the like). It is interesting to 
me, the number of cited 19th cen authorities who argued for this rule 
without offering any objective reason at all. So Opdycke is to be commended 
at least for that.

I wonder whether Opdycke was not on to something though. I can't think of an 
instance where the infinitive is split in the King James Bible. If one is 
reading a lot of literature closely translated from Latin or Romance 
languages, rather than vernacular literature, you might not run into many 
split infinitives. Think of the wordy feel of the personal letters of 
18th-19th centuries. There seems to have been little drive toward the 
ordinary concisiveness of casual speech (which infinitive splitting affords) 
until you get to writers like Mark Twain who adopted a folksy tone ("I get 
paid as much for using the word 'city' as I do 'metropolis'"). Isn't it 
possible that split the infinitive rule was derived from writing patterns 
influenced by English works translated from other languages? So, indirectly, 
Opdycke might have put his finger on the root of the rule.

J.

---

From: Milton Jackson <miltonwjackson at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:29:02 +0000

When I took grammar in high school, my English teacher told me the reason
compound verbs and infinitives shouldn't be split was that large numbers of
words between the component parts of the phrase broke the flow of the
sentence. How true that is I don't know, but that's what I was taught.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20090729/e531d312/attachment.htm>

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:20:36 +0000

--- On Wed, 7/29/09, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote:
Jerry: > >>> Speaking of pet peeves,
> that article hit one of mine.
> Sorry for maligning Lowth without checking whether it was
> so.

You didn't malign him--that article did.

> Based on the other works cited in the wiki article, it
> appears that some 19th cen. stylists believed that it was
> merely the most common accepted usage and the arguments
> against splitting infinitives were generally arguments
> against supposed modernism (Realist literature and the
> like).

I missed the modernism part.

> It is interesting to me, the number of cited 19th cen
> authorities who argued for this rule without offering any
> objective reason at all. So Opdycke is to be commended at
> least for that.

I don't know--is an objective reason that makes no sense
better than no objective reason?
 
> I wonder whether Opdycke was not on to something though. I
> can't think of an instance where the infinitive is split in
> the King James Bible.

You have a good memory.  According to /American Heritage
Book of English Usage (quoted at the Wikip article), the
KJV has no split infinitives.

> If one is reading a lot of literature
> closely translated from Latin or Romance languages, rather
> than vernacular literature, you might not run into many
> split infinitives.

Interesting point.

> Think of the wordy feel of the personal
> letters of 18th-19th centuries. There seems to have been
> little drive toward the ordinary concisiveness of casual
> speech (which infinitive splitting affords) until you get to
> writers like Mark Twain who adopted a folksy tone ("I get
> paid as much for using the word 'city' as I do
> 'metropolis'"). Isn't it possible that split the infinitive
> rule was derived from writing patterns influenced by English
> works translated from other languages? So, indirectly,

Sure, it's possible, and many experts have said so.  But I'd
like to see some evidence.

To wrench this back on topic, does Mr. Wolfe ever split
infinitives?  Do his characters?  After all the work I've
done on the Wikipedia article, you'd think I'd have noticed,
but I haven't.

Jerry Friedman

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:24:29 +0000

Interesting.  I agree that you usually shouldn't put a lot
of words between an auxiliary verb and a main verb, or
between "to" and an infinitive.  (By the way, I'm told
that Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar treats this "to"
as an auxiliary verb!)  But English speakers *have always
split* compound verbs with single words, and we still *do
not avoid* it.  So this doesn't strike me as an argument
against splitting infinitives with single words.

Jerry Friedman

--- On Wed, 7/29/09, Milton Jackson <miltonwjackson at gmail.com> wrote:
> When I took grammar in high school, my
> English teacher told me the reason compound verbs and
> infinitives shouldn't be split was that large numbers of
> words between the component parts of the phrase broke the
> flow of the sentence. How true that is I don't know, but
> that's what I was taught.
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:22 PM,
> Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> --- On
> Wed, 7/29/09, James B. Jordan <jbjordan4 at cox.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > I was taught that the rule against split infinitives
> comes
> > from the
> You put that clearly. “However, though many people
> some evidence for it. ?When the rule against split
> anyone actually justify the rule with Latin grammar” “Is
> justification”
> in the Wikipedia article (John Opdycke, 1941). ?I'm
> not
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>

---

From: Allan Anderson <rubel at goosemoon.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:01:19 +0000

I think the functional questions are 1) does using a split infinitive allow more
rhetorical oomph, and if so, 2) will the elegance and flash it affords
sufficiently dazzle all but the most hardened grammarians?

or,

Will the reader be distracted from your point by the nagging worry that you've
violated some possibly valid rule?

On Thu Jul 30 17:24 , Jerry Friedman  sent:

>--- On Wed, 7/29/09, Milton Jackson miltonwjackson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jerry Friedman jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> --- On
>> Wed, 7/29/09, James B. Jordan jbjordan4 at cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 05:43:26 +0000

>done on the Wikipedia article, you'd think I'd have noticed,

Interesting. After a quick scan of a variety of his books, I think he does 
it very rarely if at all. He seems to use far fewer infinitives than I do 
and seems to avoid the inclination to split them by eschewing adverbs. I 
expected Severian, at least, to split a lot of them. That's an interesting 
stylistic signature I hadn't noticed. If someone could do a full search of 
some of his works for the word "to", we could know whether this really is an 
emphatic rule that he follows.

>>...were generally arguments
>> against supposed modernism
>>(Realist literature and the like).
>

I can't remember the sources but they included references to splitting the 
infinitive "the way some do nowadays" or something like that. That sounded 
to me like shaking your fist at "those unruly kids". And now that you've 
pointed out that list of books in the wiki that split/don't split, I note 
that the splitters listed are Realists. I'm surprised that Spenser is not a 
splitter, though.

>better than no objective reason?

It makes sense. It's just that his reasons come apart when you pick at them 
a little. I think my explanation is better, but I have the benefit of his 
failure.

>> I wonder whether Opdycke was not on to something though. [reorder]
>>I can't think of an instance where the infinitive is split in
>> the King James Bible.

> KJV has no split infinitives.

I didn't really *remember* it, beyond that there weren't any in the passages 
I could quote from memory. I thought of the Latin translation connection 
first and then did a word search for "to" in John, Romans, Ephesians, 
Proverbs, Psalms and I Samuel--the books I most expected to find splitting 
if it existed. If I'd examined the full wiki article rather than the poking 
in the notes section only, I guess I could have saved myself the trouble.

>>speech[snip]. Isn't it possible that split the infinitive
Has an expert really said exactly that? That the *inclination* not to split 
in 18th-19th century English was due to reading mostly Great Books that were 
translated from Latin?
The 19th century sources don't seem to give a reason at all beyond common 
usage. If one of their peers *did*, not many seem to have been aware of it. 
That's a kind of evidence.

J.

---

From: Jeffrey Brent McBeth <mcbeth at broggs.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:25:28 +0000

> violated some possibly valid rule?

One of the beautiful things about spoken English is the common
practice to insert syllables, words, and phrases in the middle of
other words and phrases where the iambic rhythm largely inherent in
English allows.  I would suggest that splitting infinitives is usually
a manifestation of this larger ability (that I've not heard in Spanish
speakers, and my German coworkers claimed doesn't exist there either).
One more vulgar example is the insertion of swear words into the
middle of other words (Ex. abso-.......-lutely)

(On a poetical bent, I personally find heptameter more natural than
pentameter, though)

Jeff

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over 
 the man who cannot read them."
 -- Mark Twain
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20090731/ed740edb/attachment.pgp>

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:26:56 +0000

> > sufficiently dazzle all but the most hardened

To me, split infinitives are sometimes the most natural
word order, with no special elegance or flash.

> > violated some possibly valid rule?

That would be too bad.
 
> middle of other words (Ex. abso-.......-lutely)

This is called "tmesis".  I thought you could only do it
with swear words and euphemisms for them.

Speaking of iambs (and I am), a classic example of tmesis
is

http://www.abc.net.au/overnights/stories/s1307296.htm
 
> (On a poetical bent, I personally find heptameter more
> natural than pentameter, though)

Lots of nursery rhymes, ballads, and hymns are in
heptameter (split up into four and three), and most of
us heard or read lots of those before we got to blank
verse and sonnets.

I can think of only three Wolfe poems offhand: the "shooting
star" one (tetrameter), the "Row, brothers, row" one
(trimeter), and the "Sad experience teaches me" one
(tetrameter).

Jerry Friedman

---

From: Matthew King <automatthew at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:05:45 +0000

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:43 AM, James Wynn<crushtv at gmail.com> wrote:
> If someone could do a full search of some of his works for the word "to"

I somehow came by a few of his works in text form.  Let's see what
regular expressions can do.  I'll just search for "to " followed by
any word ending in "ly".

$ ls *.txt
Death of Dr Island by Gene Wolfe.txt
Wolfe, Gene - Exodus From the Long Sun - Book 4.txt
Island of Dr Death by Gene Wolfe.txt
Wolfe, Gene - Nightside The Long Sun.txt
Seven American Nights by Gene Wolfe.txt
Wolfe, Gene - The Claw of the Conciliator.txt
Wolfe, Gene - Book of the New Sun 1 - Shadow of the Torturer.txt
Wolfe, Gene - The Urth Of The New Sun.txt
Wolfe, Gene - Calde of the Long Sun - Book 3.txt
Wolfe, Gene - Urth of the New Sun, The.txt

$ egrep -o 'to [[:alnum:]]+ly ' ./*.txt
./Seven American Nights by Gene Wolfe.txt:to graphically
./Seven American Nights by Gene Wolfe.txt:to fly
./Wolfe, Gene - Nightside The Long Sun.txt:to apply
./Wolfe, Gene - Nightside The Long Sun.txt:to fly
./Wolfe, Gene - Nightside The Long Sun.txt:to fly
./Wolfe, Gene - The Claw of the Conciliator.txt:to rely
./Wolfe, Gene - The Claw of the Conciliator.txt:to fly
./Wolfe, Gene - The Claw of the Conciliator.txt:to ply
./Wolfe, Gene - The Claw of the Conciliator.txt:to fly
./Wolfe, Gene - The Urth Of The New Sun.txt:to fully

Results:  one instance each of "to graphically" and "to fully"

The documents were obviously OCRed, so textual corruptions may have
put some split infinitives beyond the reach of a simple search.

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:25:46 +0000

--- On Fri, 7/31/09, Matthew King <automatthew at gmail.com> wrote:
...

> put some split infinitives beyond the reach of a simple

And some adverbs don't end in -ly.

But /The Best of Gene Wolfe/ is on limited preview at
Google Books.  With your results above, I can find that
extremely split infinitive:

"For an instant, the shadow wall used at the beginning
of the second act was illuminated again to graphically
(or I should say pornographically) present Ellen's
desire...."

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZiSVR-pDf6QC&pg=PA302

The one from /The Urth of the New Sun/ is a false
positive, though.

"Baldanders rose to take it, and I saw that he had grown
to fully twice my height."

http://books.google.com/books?id=748HJZl6dAkC&pg=PA303

Jerry Friedman