# Plausibility *The Urth list — 3 messages, 2 voices, 12 Nov 2009* > Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright > in each message remains with the person who wrote it. > Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original > archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than > retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact. --- ### David Stockhoff *12 Nov 2009, 01:59* That makes sense. Does it explain why Abel is so hard to follow? Certainly his material is bound to be looser, less subject to "modern" analysis. I was struck by Abel's lack of interest in his surroundings---it's very American in a way, and yet it fits the milieu. I think Severian's narrative is strengthened by a couple of other factors that tie into the plausibility principle but are separate from it. Mainly, he's Autarch, with a very clear place in the world and a biography that is more like a history or a hagiography. Every detail counts, as we know, and he knows it too. Wolfe may well have precise knowledge of Abel's comings and goings, but we don't necessarily need to. However, I can't argue that Severian has a better sense of the structure of his universe than Abel does. He may be better read, and probably learned a lot more as Autarch than he knew during his travels. But both characters have a distinctly medieval point of view. Severian attempts to explain what happened to him. Does Abel? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:23:56 +0100 > From: adamattman > To: urth at lists.urth.net > Subject: Re: (urth) Urth Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5 > Message-ID: <4AF9E7FC.30607 at googlemail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed > > that's plausible. > > and it reminds me of this: (taken from: > http://mysite.verizon.net/~vze2tmhh/wolfeint.html) > > Q: What is the difference between science fiction and fantasy? > > GW: Plausibility, really. Science fiction is what you can make people > believe; fantasy is what people have to suspend disbelief for. Many > physicists believe that there will never be a faster-than-light drive -- > it's impossible. But you can make people believe in one, since they > don't know much physics. And there are some physicists who believe it is > possible. If you talk about somebody genetically engineering unicorns, > it's probably fantasy, because people don't believe in it. But it's so > close that you can almost touch it; we're almost at the point where we > can make a unicorn. > > So it's all a matter of plausibility. Do people think, "The future might > be like this?" If so, it's science fiction. If they think, "This could > never happen," that's fantasy. > > > > > -------------------------- --- ### Scott Wowra *12 Nov 2009, 13:26 · in reply to David Stockhoff* Able (not Abel) is a young teenager transformed into the body of a man. Think about how well you wrote as a teenager. Did you understand all of your motivations and have perfect insight into your actions? I know I didn't. In contrast, Severian has the wisdom of multitudes. Given that, Sev certainly has more book-smarts and insight into his motivations...he can view his behavior from 1000s of different perspectives. Comparing their abilities to self-reflect is a stretch and ultimately will make Able look like a dunce. Someone commented that Able was a "brute and a bully." Not sure that characterization holds water by the end of "The Wizard." He seems to be fairly mature and certainly not a bully like he was early in The Knight. His ultimate choice of desire over duty may not be heroic, but I tend to think many of us would have made the same choice. > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 8:59 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: > That makes sense. Does it explain why Abel is so hard to follow? Certainly > his material is bound to be looser, less subject to "modern" analysis. I was > struck by Abel's lack of interest in his surroundings---it's very American > in a way, and yet it fits the milieu. > > I think Severian's narrative is strengthened by a couple of other factors > that tie into the plausibility principle but are separate from it. Mainly, > he's Autarch, with a very clear place in the world and a biography that is > more like a history or a hagiography. Every detail counts, as we know, and > he knows it too. Wolfe may well have precise knowledge of Abel's comings and > goings, but we don't necessarily need to. > > However, I can't argue that Severian has a better sense of the structure of > his universe than Abel does. He may be better read, and probably learned a > lot more as Autarch than he knew during his travels. But both characters > have a distinctly medieval point of view. Severian attempts to explain what > happened to him. Does Abel? > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:23:56 +0100 > From: adamattman > To: urth at lists.urth.net > Subject: Re: (urth) Urth Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5 > Message-ID: <4AF9E7FC.30607 at googlemail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed > > that's plausible. > > and it reminds me of this: (taken from: > http://mysite.verizon.net/~vze2tmhh/wolfeint.html > ) > > Q: What is the difference between science fiction and fantasy? > > GW: Plausibility, really. Science fiction is what you can make people > believe; fantasy is what people have to suspend disbelief for. Many > physicists believe that there will never be a faster-than-light drive -- > it's impossible. But you can make people believe in one, since they don't > know much physics. And there are some physicists who believe it is possible. > If you talk about somebody genetically engineering unicorns, it's probably > fantasy, because people don't believe in it. But it's so close that you can > almost touch it; we're almost at the point where we can make a unicorn. > > So it's all a matter of plausibility. Do people think, "The future might be > like this?" If so, it's science fiction. If they think, "This could never > happen," that's fantasy. > > > > > -------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ --- ### David Stockhoff *12 Nov 2009, 18:23 · follows Scott Wowra* True, but I was more struck by Able's rather flat interpretation of his universe---where is he, WHEN is he, the sequence of events that make up the plot---than his interpretation of his feelings. That's what I found hard to follow. At any rate, while Severian does have those advantages (he is Autarch, as I said), Able does very well for himself despite, I think, lacking a strong analytical component to his personality, or a desire to understand or explain (or excuse). > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:26:16 -0500 > From: Scott Wowra > To: The Urth Mailing List > Subject: Re: (urth) Plausibility > Message-ID: > <78918eac0911120526v31d6b3c6le77c839414e8ae6a at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Able (not Abel) is a young teenager transformed into the body of a man. > Think about how well you wrote as a teenager. Did you understand all of your > motivations and have perfect insight into your actions? I know I didn't. In > contrast, Severian has the wisdom of multitudes. Given that, Sev certainly > has more book-smarts and insight into his motivations...he can view his > behavior from 1000s of different perspectives. Comparing their abilities to > self-reflect is a stretch and ultimately will make Able look like a dunce. > > Someone commented that Able was a "brute and a bully." Not sure that > characterization holds water by the end of "The Wizard." He seems to be > fairly mature and certainly not a bully like he was early in The Knight. His > ultimate choice of desire over duty may not be heroic, but I tend to think > many of us would have made the same choice. > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 8:59 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: >> That makes sense. Does it explain why Abel is so hard to follow? Certainly >> his material is bound to be looser, less subject to "modern" analysis. I was >> struck by Abel's lack of interest in his surroundings---it's very American >> in a way, and yet it fits the milieu. >> >> I think Severian's narrative is strengthened by a couple of other factors >> that tie into the plausibility principle but are separate from it. Mainly, >> he's Autarch, with a very clear place in the world and a biography that is >> more like a history or a hagiography. Every detail counts, as we know, and >> he knows it too. Wolfe may well have precise knowledge of Abel's comings and >> goings, but we don't necessarily need to. >> >> However, I can't argue that Severian has a better sense of the structure of >> his universe than Abel does. He may be better read, and probably learned a >> lot more as Autarch than he knew during his travels. But both characters >> have a distinctly medieval point of view. Severian attempts to explain what >> happened to him. Does Abel? >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---