Subject: (urth) Hero as Werwolf

From: Jonathan Goodwin <joncgoodwin at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:44:12 +0000

I'm teaching Island of Dr. Death, etc. in an introduction to short
fiction class this semester. We covered "Hero as Werwolf" yesterday,
and I had some questions about it that came up during class.

I've looked as best I could through the archives, though I'm sure I
must have missed several things. What I saw didn't address these
questions, though again I'm sure it's been discussed.  Anyway, here's
the first one:

When the recording starts, here is what Paul hears:

"I am sorry to detain you, but there is reason to think that you have
undergone a recent deviation from the _optional_ development pattern.
In a few minutes, it may be useful for us to review what is meant by
'_optimal_ development.' Look at the projection." (emphases mine)

It is such in both the Island collection and the Best of. I didn't
check the original. I asked the class whether they thought it was a
misprint, and, if not, why the two words were used. Most seemed to
agree that it was not a misprint but were unsure of the implications.
The possibility was raised that the masters intended to use homo
sapiens (the "optional" development) to colonize the moon or similar
(this being their "optimal" use) for resource extraction perhaps:

"Later one's peer group becomes, for a time, all-important--or nearly
so. The boys and girls you see are attending a model school in
Armstrong. Notice that no tint is used to mask the black of space
above their airtents."

But then we remembered the woman that Paul kills speaking of how in
"another year, everything would have been alright." Some thought that
implied that she would be leaving, though others assumed that the
masters had not created a needless egalitarian society and that she
may have been supporting herself via prostitution.

We also discussed why it was Hugo De Vries, of all people, in
four-dimensional projection, though this seems relatively clear.

---

From: Mo Holkar / UKG <lists at ukg.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:04:44 +0000

>(this being their "optimal" use) for resource extraction perhaps:

Hmm, I tend to believe that it is a misprint, and that it should be 
"optimal" both times. The literal reading would be 
uncharacteristically clumsy: the second sentence wouldn't flow on 
logically from the first. I don't think "optional development" is 
sufficiently meaningful to be genuine.

I guess we'll never know, though!

Mo

# ~ # ~ #

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

---

From: Jonathan Goodwin <joncgoodwin at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:47:54 +0000

If someone has the original printing, or could check the other
reprints, and they all match, well, it's not final evidence that it's
not a misprint; but I would imagine that someone would have queried
him about it along the way. I think it makes sense as is, personally,
and is a characteristically Wolfean touch.

Also, the OED entry on "werewolf" notes: "The first element has
usually been identified with OE. wer man WERE n.1, but the form were-
in place of wer- (cf. however were- and wer{asg}ild WERGELD), and the
variants in war-, var-, makes this somewhat doubtful.
  Evidence for the real currency of the word (chiefly in the {beta}
and {gamma} forms) is rare, and confined to Sc., after the 17th cent.
In modern use it has been revived through folk-lore studies, and until
recently the most usual form has been werewolf, and occas. wehrwolf
from German.] "

The first entry from 1000 has "werewolf" as the spelling.

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Mo Holkar / UKG <lists at ukg.co.uk> wrote:
> "optimal" both times. The literal reading would be uncharacteristically
> clumsy: the second sentence wouldn't flow on logically from the first. I
> don't think "optional development" is sufficiently meaningful to be genuine.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:39:51 +0000

> The first entry from 1000 has "werewolf" as the spelling.

I'm going to hypothesize that the reason "werewolf" has the extra "e" is 
because the pronunciation requirements for an Old English speaker to say the 
"ehr"  sound in front of a "w". I'm not offering any proof of this. It is 
just that the translation "man-wolf" is just too compelling in absence of an 
alternative.

J.