{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5563", "note": "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.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 5563, "subject": "The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "messages": 147, "voices": 20, "first": "2010-03-19T21:42:24+00:00", "last": "2010-05-03T15:57:41+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<44fb53d11003191442y48191c3ataaac84d798b8b983@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Matthew Keeley", "address": "matthew.keeley.1 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-03-19T21:42:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Just finished reading the new book; it seems a lot clearer than AEG, but,\nbeing Wolfe, there are quite a few unasked questions raised by my first\nreading. But first I should insert spoiler space, as I will be discussing\nthe ending, etc.\n\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n\n(spoilers commence)\n\n1. Goldwurm's Tower — Apparently the previous owner was named Ambrosius;\nthis seems likely to be a reference to Ambrose, often named as Merlin's\ntutor. In other versions, Merlin is called \"Merlin Ambrosius\". And I believe\nthere's a legend that Merlin died \"three times\" — broke his neck, drowned,\nand something else. The information is somewhat hard to find online; later I\nshall consult some of my Arthurian books.\n\n2. Goldwurm again — In what object did he deposit his numen?\n\n3. I think we can all agree that George didn't really write the last letter\nand that Bax is going to take his place. Winker follows \"George\", for one\nthing. And \"George\" seems to know a lot about Victorian fiction, the subject\nof one of Bax's degrees. So why is the real George absent? Did Bax kill him?\nOr did George run off to faerie to try and take command, as he said he would\ndo in an earlier letter?\n\n4. What did Ted's ghost leave Doris? Could Ted be another Zwart pseudonym?\n\n5. Bax very quickly starts calling his putative butler \"old Nick\", one of\nthe devil's classic nicknames. He doesn't seem to notice, but maybe his\nsubconscious is warning him not to trust the man? Was there a \"real\" Nick\nbefore he was replaced by Zwart?\n\n6. Under what conditions can Toby and Winkle transform? Can't just be a full\nmoon.\n\n7. What's Musashi — a historical figure — doing in faerie? Is this an\nidealized archetypal Musashi as opposed to the historic one?\n\n8. What's with the dwarf?\n\n9. The \"compiler\" states that the letters may be out of order.... Are there\nany that are clearly in the wrong place in the narrative?\n\n-Matt" } ] }, { "message_id": "<44fb53d11003191514w3b034f04occ786b38fc1d6192@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Matthew Keeley", "address": "matthew.keeley.1 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-03-19T22:14:25+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<44fb53d11003191442y48191c3ataaac84d798b8b983@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Another thought, one that gives away major plot points.\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n\n\n\n\nWas Ambrosius Mr. Black's son? In some legends Merlin Ambrosius is the son\nof the devil (or at least a demon of some sort). One of Zwart's aliases is\n\"old Nick\", an old name for Satan? Is Mr. Black really a devil? Or does he\njust have the accoutrements of one?\n\n-Matt" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Matthew Keeley\nwrote:\nJust finished reading the new book; it seems a lot clearer than AEG, but,\nbeing Wolfe, there are quite a few unasked questions raised by my first\nreading. But first I should insert spoiler space, as I will be discussing\nthe ending, etc.\n\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n\n(spoilers commence)\n\n1. Goldwurm's Tower — Apparently the previous owner was named Ambrosius;\nthis seems likely to be a reference to Ambrose, often named as Merlin's\ntutor. In other versions, Merlin is called \"Merlin Ambrosius\". And I believe\nthere's a legend that Merlin died \"three times\" — broke his neck, drowned,\nand something else. The information is somewhat hard to find online; later I\nshall consult some of my Arthurian books.\n\n2. Goldwurm again — In what object did he deposit his numen?\n\n3. I think we can all agree that George didn't really write the last letter\nand that Bax is going to take his place. Winker follows \"George\", for one\nthing. And \"George\" seems to know a lot about Victorian fiction, the subject\nof one of Bax's degrees. So why is the real George absent? Did Bax kill him?\nOr did George run off to faerie to try and take command, as he said he would\ndo in an earlier letter?\n\n4. What did Ted's ghost leave Doris? Could Ted be another Zwart pseudonym?\n\n5. Bax very quickly starts calling his putative butler \"old Nick\", one of\nthe devil's classic nicknames. He doesn't seem to notice, but maybe his\nsubconscious is warning him not to trust the man? Was there a \"real\" Nick\nbefore he was replaced by Zwart?\n\n6. Under what conditions can Toby and Winkle transform? Can't just be a\nfull moon.\n\n7. What's Musashi — a historical figure — doing in faerie? Is this an\nidealized archetypal Musashi as opposed to the historic one?\n\n8. What's with the dwarf?\n\n9. The \"compiler\" states that the letters may be out of order.... Are there\nany that are clearly in the wrong place in the narrative?\n\n-Matt\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gwern Branwen", "address": "gwern0 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-03-20T03:46:48+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<44fb53d11003191442y48191c3ataaac84d798b8b983@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Matthew Keeley\n wrote:\nJust finished reading the new book; it seems a lot clearer than AEG, but," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I did notice Wolfe explained more of the onomastics than usual." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "(spoilers commence)\n1. Goldwurm's Tower — Apparently the previous owner was named Ambrosius;\nthis seems likely to be a reference to Ambrose, often named as Merlin's\ntutor. In other versions, Merlin is called \"Merlin Ambrosius\". And I believe\nthere's a legend that Merlin died \"three times\" — broke his neck, drowned,\nand something else. The information is somewhat hard to find online; later I\nshall consult some of my Arthurian books." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I wonder how much we could possibly deduce about Goldwurm. We aren't\ntold a heck of a lot, after all.\n\nHere's one off-the-wall suggestion: at the end, Baxter is hailed as a\nson and rival sorcerer. Presumably the rivalry would be a friendly\none. A similar scenario might obtain with the other pair of twins: one\nis the master and the other the apprentice. But the apprentice may yet\nseek to murder the master (we're told that he's the master of 'cold'\nrage which strikes days, weeks, or years later). Perhaps Goldwurm &\nAmbrosius were yet another pair of twins? That would further explain\nwhy Goldwurm thought he could easily find the numen-object: twins have\nspecial insight into each other's preferences.\n\nHere's another off-the-wall suggestion: Ambrosius is Ted. Enough of\nthe mundane characters turn out to be special that we should be\nsuspicious of the others. The numen of Ambrosius was hidden in a ring\nhidden in a fish (a la Koschei the Deathless hiding his heart inside a\nduck inside a rabbit inside...), and came to Bax as a fellow sorcerer\nthrough the operation of the tri-thingy. This explains the ring. The\nshared sorcerous similarity is why Doris thinks they're unspeakably\nalike, and may also explain why Ted's ghost wants them together." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "2. Goldwurm again — In what object did he deposit his numen?\n3. I think we can all agree that George didn't really write the last letter\nand that Bax is going to take his place. Winker follows \"George\", for one\nthing. And \"George\" seems to know a lot about Victorian fiction, the subject\nof one of Bax's degrees. So why is the real George absent? Did Bax kill him?\nOr did George run off to faerie to try and take command, as he said he would\ndo in an earlier letter?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think it's just as indicated: Bax killed George, liberating George's\nwife from her loveless marriage and getting her married to the 'right\ntwin'. After several years - time enough to exhaust the interest of\nthe mansion, and 'level up' as a sorcerer, and time enough for age to\nstart bothering Bax, he departs." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "4. What did Ted's ghost leave Doris? Could Ted be another Zwart pseudonym?\n5. Bax very quickly starts calling his putative butler \"old Nick\", one of\nthe devil's classic nicknames. He doesn't seem to notice, but maybe his\nsubconscious is warning him not to trust the man? Was there a \"real\" Nick\nbefore he was replaced by Zwart?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "He would've had to replace the dog too, no?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "6. Under what conditions can Toby and Winkle transform? Can't just be a full\nmoon." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I have a hunch it has to do with the mushroom ring." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "7. What's Musashi — a historical figure — doing in faerie? Is this an\nidealized archetypal Musashi as opposed to the historic one?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think this is Wolfe just continuing his distant interest in Japan;\nas someone who was very interested in Japan, Wolfe's mentions ring\nhollow. He gets some things right: a fox spirit like Winker would be\naffiliated with Inari\n(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inari_%28mythology%29) and would usually\nmanifest as a beautiful young woman. But others are new to me (the Fox\nSword?) and some seem just wrong - why is Musashi the author of _*A*\nBook of Five Rings_? It's usually 'The' Book of Five Rings or 'Book of\nFive Rings' period. And the 3 reasons given that Musashi would refrain\nfrom fighting Bax are either tired American jokes ('The world's\ngreatest swordsman doesn't fear the world's second best, but the\nworld's worst, because he has no idea what that idiot will do') or\nunconvincing. Further, the facefox shouldn't be any color but white if\nit's a servant of Inari. (eg. in Hiroshige's woodblock prints ending\nthe _One Hundred Famous Views of Edo_, there are scores of foxes\ngathered at an Inari shrine - each pure white.)\n\nAnd I notice that the stereotypical Chinese/Japanese lallating accents\nare *still* there. Maybe next time..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "8. What's with the dwarf?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I haven't the slightest idea. He appears gratuitous, Dickens aside.\nMaybe he's meant to illustrate the avaricious amoral nature of Faerie?\n\nI've been pondering a theory that perhaps we have the good twin/bad\ntwin reversed, and that Bax really is evil, and likewise his\ncorresponding twin bother, and that the dwarf is so depraved & evil\nthat his capture & confinement is meant to be a signal that the\ncapturing & confining brother is actually good. But this doesn't seem\nto work at all." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "9. The \"compiler\" states that the letters may be out of order.... Are there\nany that are clearly in the wrong place in the narrative?\n-Matt" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "My problem is that I naturally expect letters to arrive out of order,\nkey letters to be missing, and long delays between replies, so just\nabout any ordering seems plausible to me and nothing cries out as\nfake." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Was Ambrosius Mr. Black's son? In some legends Merlin Ambrosius is the son\nof the devil (or at least a demon of some sort). One of Zwart's aliases is\n\"old Nick\", an old name for Satan? Is Mr. Black really a devil? Or does he\njust have the accoutrements of one?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm inclined to think that he's not literally a devil: Wolfe makes fun\nof that during dinner. And Black seems ambivalent, and somewhat evil\n(doesn't intervene to prevent multiple murders, creates and unleashes\na vampire, etc.), but not as malevolent as a real devil.\n\nThat's not to say he may not be a Faust-like figure - Lupine sold her\nsoul, so there must be souls and entities to sell souls to.\n\n----\n\nOne thing I didn't quite follow was the finances: when Bax explains\nthat the legacy was exhausted entirely, forcing him to seek a job,\ndoesn't that imply that it's all gone? Then why does he so prominently\ndepend on checks coming in the first couple letters?" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "gwern" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Crossley", "address": "ishmael at drizzle.com" }, "date": "2010-03-20T05:44:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Glad to see people taking on the interpretive task already. I finished the\nbook a couple days ago, and as with all Wolfe's books, there are obviously\nlayers below the surface. I feel like I have a handle on the second-order\nmysteries of the plot, but haven't yet given thought to the third- (or\nfourth?) level. Eager to hear more notions, half-baked or otherwise.\n\nJames " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/19/10 7:46 PM, \"Gwern Branwen\" wrote:\nOn Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Matthew Keeley\n\nwrote:\nJust finished reading the new book; it seems a lot clearer than AEG,\nbut," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I did notice Wolfe explained more of the onomastics than usual." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "(spoilers commence)\n1. Goldwurm's Tower — Apparently the previous owner was\nnamed Ambrosius;\nthis seems likely to be a reference to Ambrose, often named\nas Merlin's\ntutor. In other versions, Merlin is called \"Merlin Ambrosius\".\nAnd I believe\nthere's a legend that Merlin died \"three times\" — broke his\nneck, drowned,\nand something else. The information is somewhat hard to find\nonline; later I\nshall consult some of my Arthurian books." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I wonder how much" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "we could possibly deduce about Goldwurm. We aren't\ntold a heck of a lot, after\nall." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Here's one off-the-wall suggestion: at the end, Baxter is hailed as" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "a" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "son and rival sorcerer. Presumably the rivalry would be a friendly\none. A" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "similar scenario might obtain with the other pair of twins: one\nis the master\nand the other the apprentice. But the apprentice may yet\nseek to murder the\nmaster (we're told that he's the master of 'cold'" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "rage which strikes days," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "weeks, or years later). Perhaps Goldwurm &\nAmbrosius were yet another pair of\ntwins? That would further explain\nwhy Goldwurm thought he could easily find\nthe numen-object: twins have\nspecial insight into each other's\npreferences." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Here's another off-the-wall suggestion: Ambrosius is Ted. Enough" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "of" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "the mundane characters turn out to be special that we should be\nsuspicious" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "of the others. The numen of Ambrosius was hidden in a ring\nhidden in a fish (a\nla Koschei the Deathless hiding his heart inside a\nduck inside a rabbit\ninside...), and came to Bax as a fellow sorcerer\nthrough the operation of the\ntri-thingy. This explains the ring. The\nshared sorcerous similarity is why\nDoris thinks they're unspeakably\nalike, and may also explain why Ted's ghost\nwants them together." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "2. Goldwurm again — In what object did he deposit his\nnumen?\n3. I think we can all agree that George didn't really write the last\nletter\nand that Bax is going to take his place. Winker follows \"George\", for\none\nthing. And \"George\" seems to know a lot about Victorian fiction, the\nsubject\nof one of Bax's degrees. So why is the real George absent? Did Bax\nkill him?\nOr did George run off to faerie to try and take command, as he\nsaid he would\ndo in an earlier letter?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think it's just as indicated: Bax" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "killed George, liberating George's\nwife from her loveless marriage and getting\nher married to the 'right\ntwin'. After several years - time enough to exhaust\nthe interest of\nthe mansion, and 'level up' as a sorcerer, and time enough for\nage to" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "start bothering Bax, he departs." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "4. What did Ted's ghost leave\nDoris? Could Ted be another Zwart pseudonym?\n5. Bax very quickly starts\ncalling his putative butler \"old Nick\", one of\nthe devil's classic\nnicknames. He doesn't seem to notice, but maybe his\nsubconscious is warning\nhim not to trust the man? Was there a \"real\" Nick\nbefore he was replaced by\nZwart?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "He would've had to replace the dog too, no?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "6. Under what\nconditions can Toby and Winkle transform? Can't just be a full\nmoon." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I have" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "a hunch it has to do with the mushroom ring." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "7. What's Musashi — a\nhistorical figure — doing in faerie? Is this an\nidealized archetypal Musashi\nas opposed to the historic one?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think this is Wolfe just continuing his" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "distant interest in Japan;" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "as someone who was very interested in Japan," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Wolfe's mentions ring\nhollow. He gets some things right: a fox spirit like\nWinker would be\naffiliated with\nInari\n(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inari_%28mythology%29) and would\nusually\nmanifest as a beautiful young woman. But others are new to me (the\nFox" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sword?) and some seem just wrong - why is Musashi the author of _*A*\nBook" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "of Five Rings_? It's usually 'The' Book of Five Rings or 'Book of\nFive Rings'\nperiod. And the 3 reasons given that Musashi would refrain\nfrom fighting Bax\nare either tired American jokes ('The world's\ngreatest swordsman doesn't fear\nthe world's second best, but the\nworld's worst, because he has no idea what\nthat idiot will do') or\nunconvincing. Further, the facefox shouldn't be any\ncolor but white if\nit's a servant of Inari. (eg. in Hiroshige's woodblock\nprints ending\nthe _One Hundred Famous Views of Edo_, there are scores of\nfoxes" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "gathered at an Inari shrine - each pure white.)\n\nAnd I notice that the" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "stereotypical Chinese/Japanese lallating accents\nare *still* there. Maybe next\ntime..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "8. What's with the dwarf?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I haven't the slightest idea. He appears" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "gratuitous, Dickens aside." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Maybe he's meant to illustrate the avaricious" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "amoral nature of Faerie?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've been pondering a theory that perhaps we have" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "the good twin/bad\ntwin reversed, and that Bax really is evil, and likewise\nhis" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "corresponding twin bother, and that the dwarf is so depraved & evil\nthat" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "his capture & confinement is meant to be a signal that the\ncapturing &\nconfining brother is actually good. But this doesn't seem\nto work at all." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "9. The \"compiler\" states that the letters may be out of order.... Are there\n\nany that are clearly in the wrong place in the narrative?\n-Matt" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "My problem" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "is that I naturally expect letters to arrive out of order,\nkey letters to be\nmissing, and long delays between replies, so just\nabout any ordering seems\nplausible to me and nothing cries out as" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "fake." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Was Ambrosius Mr. Black's\nson? In some legends Merlin Ambrosius is the son\nof the devil (or at least a\ndemon of some sort). One of Zwart's aliases is\n\"old Nick\", an old name for\nSatan? Is Mr. Black really a devil? Or does he\njust have the accoutrements\nof one?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm inclined to think that he's not literally a devil: Wolfe makes" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "fun\nof that during dinner. And Black seems ambivalent, and somewhat\nevil" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "(doesn't intervene to prevent multiple murders, creates and unleashes\na" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "vampire, etc.), but not as malevolent as a real devil." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That's not to say he" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "may not be a Faust-like figure - Lupine sold her\nsoul, so there must be souls\nand entities to sell souls to." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "----\n\nOne thing I didn't quite follow was the" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "finances: when Bax explains\nthat the legacy was exhausted entirely, forcing\nhim to seek a job,\ndoesn't that imply that it's all gone? Then why does he so\nprominently" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "depend on checks coming in the first couple letters?" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "> \ngwern" } ] }, { "message_id": "<44fb53d11003200829w69c1a3efq6f8f2bdf8e530170@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Matthew Keeley", "address": "matthew.keeley.1 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-03-20T15:29:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:\n\nOne thing I didn't quite follow was the finances: when Bax explains\nthat the legacy was exhausted entirely, forcing him to seek a job,\ndoesn't that imply that it's all gone? Then why does he so prominently\ndepend on checks coming in the first couple letters?\n\n--\ngwern\n_______________________________________________" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The legacy was from George and Bax's Aunt Carla; the checks were from his\nadoptive mother.\n\n-Matt" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Mr Thalassocrat", "address": "thalassocrat08 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-03-23T04:38:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<44fb53d11003191442y48191c3ataaac84d798b8b983@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Matthew Keeley\nwrote:\nJust finished reading the new book; it seems a lot clearer than AEG, but,\nbeing Wolfe, there are quite a few unasked questions raised by my first\nreading. But first I should insert spoiler space, as I will be discussing\nthe ending, etc.\n\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n\n(spoilers commence)\n\n" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "3. I think we can all agree that George didn't really write the last letter\nand that Bax is going to take his place. Winker follows \"George\", for one\nthing. And \"George\" seems to know a lot about Victorian fiction, the subject\nof one of Bax's degrees. So why is the real George absent? Did Bax kill him?\nOr did George run off to faerie to try and take command, as he said he would\ndo in an earlier letter?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Maybe Bax's intention from the first was to lure George to Medicine Hat,\nkill him & take over his non-ex-felon life (and money). Bax is a \"revenge\nserved cold\" sort of guy. He screwed George out of his share of the aunt's\ninheritance because George hit him, back in the day. Later, George had him\nimprisoned. Now Bax is aiming for bigger payback.\n\nIn his first letter to his con-buddy he presents George as a possible source\nof funds - that's what he sees in George; money. Bax is very interested in\nmoney. He cultivates George's bubble-headed wife to ensure a smooth\ntransition. For 7 years he enjoys George's assets and wife (while still\nhaving access to the face-fox's charms).\n\nAfter 7 years, \"Bax\" is legally dead & he can reclaim the house and bank\naccounts via \"Bax's\" will. Perhaps George's wife's charms are fading. Time\nto disappear, go back to the house and start a life in Faery ..." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gwern Branwen", "address": "gwern0 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-03-23T13:01:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Mr Thalassocrat\n wrote:\n\n\nOn Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Matthew Keeley \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Just finished reading the new book; it seems a lot clearer than AEG, but,\nbeing Wolfe, there are quite a few unasked questions raised by my first\nreading. But first I should insert spoiler space, as I will be discussing\nthe ending, etc.\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n(spoilers commence)\n" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "3. I think we can all agree that George didn't really write the last\nletter and that Bax is going to take his place. Winker follows \"George\", for\none thing. And \"George\" seems to know a lot about Victorian fiction, the\nsubject of one of Bax's degrees. So why is the real George absent? Did Bax\nkill him? Or did George run off to faerie to try and take command, as he\nsaid he would do in an earlier letter?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Maybe?Bax's intention from the first was to lure George to Medicine Hat,\nkill him & take over his non-ex-felon?life (and money). Bax is a \"revenge\nserved cold\" sort of guy. He screwed George out of his share of the aunt's\ninheritance because George hit him, back in the day. Later, George had him\nimprisoned. Now Bax is aiming for bigger payback.\n\nIn his first letter to his con-buddy he presents George as a possible source\nof funds - that's what he sees in George; money. Bax is very interested in\nmoney. He cultivates George's bubble-headed wife to ensure a smooth\ntransition. For 7 years he enjoys George's assets and wife (while still\nhaving access to the face-fox's charms).\n\nAfter 7 years, \"Bax\" is legally dead & he can reclaim the house and bank\naccounts via \"Bax's\" will. Perhaps George's wife's charms are fading. Time\nto disappear, go back to the house and start a life in Faery ..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Re-reading it, the last letter becomes ever more obvious: the style is\nlike Bax, the few hours in faerie he mentions is like Bax, the signoff\nis like Bax, the sudden turn-around in affections is like Bax, the\nproposed trip to just Greece is like Bax (and in the vein of his\nsecond PhD, like the readings at the library are in the vein of the\nfirst). Wolfe has really made this replacement easy to identify.\n\nHowever, I don't think Bax planned the duel from the start. He\noriginally just wants money from George, with no mention of George\ncoming over and doing something bizarre like signing his will over to\nBax. George is not yet angry enough, until the butler and trial, to\nwant to kill Bax - suffering as a poor ex-con is enough for him.\nWithout Faerie, Bax has no plausible explanation for Millie of where\nGeorge went. And so on. The replacement only works after a great deal\nhas happened.\n\n(Open questions: what happened to Zwart's twin? Is he Ted? How did\nZwart know that Bax would be fighting werewolves years in advance?)" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "gwern" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gwern Branwen", "address": "gwern0 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-03-23T13:21:54+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "John C. Wright: http://johncwright.livejournal.com/322189.html\n\n\"Between the time I wrote the original post at 4.00 AM and now at\n10.00, I have reached page 33. Thoughts so far: Mistrust whatever the\nletter-writer says when he writes to his brother, whom he is asking\nfor money. When the ex-con is reading Thucydides, suspect a change of\npersonality or identity, as often happens in a Wolfe book. When the\nex-con finds a ring inside a fish, he takes it as a sign of good\nfortune, but the Polycrates myth (if I remember it correctly) is that\na king throws a ring into the sea to avert the jealousy of the gods;\nand finding the ring inside a fisherman's catch meant that the god\nrejected the sacrifice: in other words, it is an prodigy among ill\nomens. \"\n\nSide note; this is a hilarious D&D story:\nhttp://johncwright.livejournal.com/323619.html\nAlso funny; how Wright seems to bring politics into everything, eg.\nhttp://johncwright.livejournal.com/324494.html (I didn't sympathize\nwith the Mars preservers in Robinson's _Blue Mars_, but that didn't\nstop me from enjoying it.)" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "gwern" } ] }, { "message_id": "<37bfbeb61003230900g4a0de861qb2d0068397fd8c57@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Jonathan Goodwin", "address": "joncgoodwin at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-03-23T16:00:54+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The Women's Studies professor at Mt. Holyoke who gave Millie a good\ngrade if she would let her hold her hand was fairly offensive, I\nthought.\n\nThe book itself I liked, and I intend to write a review of it soon." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote:\nJohn C. Wright: http://johncwright.livejournal.com/322189.html\n\n\"Between the time I wrote the original post at 4.00 AM and now at\n10.00, I have reached page 33. Thoughts so far: Mistrust whatever the\nletter-writer says when he writes to his brother, whom he is asking\nfor money. When the ex-con is reading Thucydides, suspect a change of\npersonality or identity, as often happens in a Wolfe book. When the\nex-con finds a ring inside a fish, he takes it as a sign of good\nfortune, but the Polycrates myth (if I remember it correctly) is that\na king throws a ring into the sea to avert the jealousy of the gods;\nand finding the ring inside a fisherman's catch meant that the god\nrejected the sacrifice: in other words, it is an prodigy among ill\nomens. \"\n\nSide note; this is a hilarious D&D story:\nhttp://johncwright.livejournal.com/323619.html\nAlso funny; how Wright seems to bring politics into everything, eg.\nhttp://johncwright.livejournal.com/324494.html (I didn't sympathize\nwith the Mars preservers in Robinson's _Blue Mars_, but that didn't\nstop me from enjoying it.)\n\n--\ngwern\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gwern Branwen", "address": "gwern0 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-03-23T16:10:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<37bfbeb61003230900g4a0de861qb2d0068397fd8c57@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Jonathan Goodwin\n wrote:\nThe Women's Studies professor at Mt. Holyoke who gave Millie a good\ngrade if she would let her hold her hand was fairly offensive, I\nthought." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "On pg 238, I had took that as the metaphorical use of 'hand-holding':\nMillie was in the middle of saying how her grades were terrible except\nfor that professor helping her out." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "gwern" } ] }, { "message_id": "<37bfbeb61003231005m7ab3adf0se841ee3973be720d@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Jonathan Goodwin", "address": "joncgoodwin at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-03-23T17:05:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I detected a snideness to it, first of all, and it comes at a point\nwhere she's talking about not having learned much in\ncollege--presumably because of all of these politically correct\nliberals, etc. The snideness seems to me to indicate that the\nprofessor had some sapphic interest in her because she's also been\nwriting in that letter about how her looks affect people." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote:\nOn Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Jonathan Goodwin\n wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The Women's Studies professor at Mt. Holyoke who gave Millie a good\ngrade if she would let her hold her hand was fairly offensive, I\nthought." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On pg 238, I had took that as the metaphorical use of 'hand-holding':\nMillie was in the middle of saying how her grades were terrible except\nfor that professor helping her out.\n\n--\ngwern\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<139696.26112.qm@web81407.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Stuart Hamm", "address": "hammstu at sbcglobal.net" }, "date": "2010-03-23T17:16:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<37bfbeb61003231005m7ab3adf0se841ee3973be720d@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I read as \" I slept with professor and I'd sleep with you if you were here\"...\n\n???????? ? ? \n?Mobile — (415) 786-3624\nSTUHAMM.COM\nFACEBOOK/STUARTHAMM\nmyspace.com/stuhamm\nSkype? stuart.hamm\n? ?? \n\n\n--- On Tue, 3/23/10, Jonathan Goodwin wrote:\n\nFrom: Jonathan Goodwin \nSubject: Re: (urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 10:05 AM\n\nI detected a snideness to it, first of all, and it comes at a point\nwhere she's talking about not having learned much in\ncollege--presumably because of all of these politically correct\nliberals, etc. The snideness seems to me to indicate that the\nprofessor had some sapphic interest in her because she's also been\nwriting in that letter about how her looks affect people." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote:\nOn Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Jonathan Goodwin\n wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The Women's Studies professor at Mt. Holyoke who gave Millie a good\ngrade if she would let her hold her hand was fairly offensive, I\nthought." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On pg 238, I had took that as the metaphorical use of 'hand-holding':\nMillie was in the middle of saying how her grades were terrible except\nfor that professor helping her out.\n\n--\ngwern\n_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Mr Thalassocrat", "address": "thalassocrat08 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-03-23T20:31:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:\n On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Mr Thalassocrat\n wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Matthew Keeley <\nmatthew.keeley.1 at gmail.com>\nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Just finished reading the new book; it seems a lot clearer than AEG,\nbut,\nbeing Wolfe, there are quite a few unasked questions raised by my first\nreading. But first I should insert spoiler space, as I will be\ndiscussing\nthe ending, etc.\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n(spoilers commence)\n" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "3. I think we can all agree that George didn't really write the last\nletter and that Bax is going to take his place. Winker follows \"George\",\nfor\none thing. And \"George\" seems to know a lot about Victorian fiction, the\nsubject of one of Bax's degrees. So why is the real George absent? Did\nBax\nkill him? Or did George run off to faerie to try and take command, as he\nsaid he would do in an earlier letter?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Maybe Bax's intention from the first was to lure George to Medicine Hat,\nkill him & take over his non-ex-felon life (and money). Bax is a \"revenge\nserved cold\" sort of guy. He screwed George out of his share of the\naunt's\ninheritance because George hit him, back in the day. Later, George had\nhim\nimprisoned. Now Bax is aiming for bigger payback.\n\nIn his first letter to his con-buddy he presents George as a possible\nsource\nof funds - that's what he sees in George; money. Bax is very interested\nin\nmoney. He cultivates George's bubble-headed wife to ensure a smooth\ntransition. For 7 years he enjoys George's assets and wife (while still\nhaving access to the face-fox's charms).\n\nAfter 7 years, \"Bax\" is legally dead & he can reclaim the house and bank\naccounts via \"Bax's\" will. Perhaps George's wife's charms are fading." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Time\nto disappear, go back to the house and start a life in Faery ...\n\nRe-reading it, the last letter becomes ever more obvious: the style is\nlike Bax, the few hours in faerie he mentions is like Bax, the signoff\nis like Bax, the sudden turn-around in affections is like Bax, the\nproposed trip to just Greece is like Bax (and in the vein of his\nsecond PhD, like the readings at the library are in the vein of the\nfirst). Wolfe has really made this replacement easy to identify.\n\nHowever, I don't think Bax planned the duel from the start. He\noriginally just wants money from George, with no mention of George\ncoming over and doing something bizarre like signing his will over to\nBax. George is not yet angry enough, until the butler and trial, to\nwant to kill Bax - suffering as a poor ex-con is enough for him.\nWithout Faerie, Bax has no plausible explanation for Millie of where\nGeorge went. And so on. The replacement only works after a great deal\nhas happened." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But it's Bax who makes a will in favour of George, and Bax who \"disappears\".\nEverything about the replacement is under Bax's control, really, if he can\nget George to come to him, set George up to be killed, dispose of the body &\nget Millie to accept him (Bax) as \"George\". Faerie isn't an essential\nelement for this scheme." } ] }, { "message_id": "<37bfbeb61003231353lfb5a157m448342f13f58bba6@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Jonathan Goodwin", "address": "joncgoodwin at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-03-23T20:53:39+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I predict that it won't be long before someone claims that the last\nletter purportedly from George but heavily hinted to be from Bax is in\nfact from George. Then someone will claim that it was Bax pretending\nto be George pretending to be Bax pretending to be George. Then why\nnot keep going." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Mr Thalassocrat\n wrote:\n\n\nOn Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Mr Thalassocrat\n wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Matthew Keeley\n\nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Just finished reading the new book; it seems a lot clearer than AEG,\nbut,\nbeing Wolfe, there are quite a few unasked questions raised by my first\nreading. But first I should insert spoiler space, as I will be\ndiscussing\nthe ending, etc.\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n(spoilers commence)\n" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "3. I think we can all agree that George didn't really write the last\nletter and that Bax is going to take his place. Winker follows\n\"George\", for\none thing. And \"George\" seems to know a lot about Victorian fiction,\nthe\nsubject of one of Bax's degrees. So why is the real George absent? Did\nBax\nkill him? Or did George run off to faerie to try and take command, as\nhe\nsaid he would do in an earlier letter?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Maybe?Bax's intention from the first was to lure George to Medicine Hat,\nkill him & take over his non-ex-felon?life (and money). Bax is a\n\"revenge\nserved cold\" sort of guy. He screwed George out of his share of the\naunt's\ninheritance because George hit him, back in the day. Later, George had\nhim\nimprisoned. Now Bax is aiming for bigger payback.\n\nIn his first letter to his con-buddy he presents George as a possible\nsource\nof funds - that's what he sees in George; money. Bax is very interested\nin\nmoney. He cultivates George's bubble-headed wife to ensure a smooth\ntransition. For 7 years he enjoys George's assets and wife (while still\nhaving access to the face-fox's charms).\n\nAfter 7 years, \"Bax\" is legally dead & he can reclaim the house and bank\naccounts via \"Bax's\" will. Perhaps George's wife's charms are fading.\nTime\nto disappear, go back to the house and start a life in Faery ..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Re-reading it, the last letter becomes ever more obvious: the style is\nlike Bax, the few hours in faerie he mentions is like Bax, the signoff\nis like Bax, the sudden turn-around in affections is like Bax, the\nproposed trip to just Greece is like Bax (and in the vein of his\nsecond PhD, like the readings at the library are in the vein of the\nfirst). Wolfe has really made this replacement easy to identify.\n\nHowever, I don't think Bax planned the duel from the start. He\noriginally just wants money from George, with no mention of George\ncoming over and doing something bizarre like signing his will over to\nBax. George is not yet angry enough, until the butler and trial, to\nwant to kill Bax - suffering as a poor ex-con is enough for him.\nWithout Faerie, Bax has no plausible explanation for Millie of where\nGeorge went. And so on. The replacement only works after a great deal\nhas happened." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But it's Bax who makes a will in favour of George, and Bax who \"disappears\".\nEverything about the replacement is under Bax's control, really, if he can\nget George to come to him, set George up to be killed, dispose of the body?&\nget Millie to accept him (Bax) as \"George\". Faerie isn't an essential\nelement for this scheme.\n\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gwern Branwen", "address": "gwern0 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-03-23T21:21:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Mr Thalassocrat\n wrote:\nBut it's Bax who makes a will in favour of George, and Bax who \"disappears\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "According to the message from George, they both make a will in favor\nof each other. Bax has a good reason to want to replace George and not\njust kill him: there will be zero questions asked this way (notice\nthat the final letter's lame explanation of Bax just going off into\nfaerie for no stated reason, forever, apparently is completely\nsuccessful - the endnote presents 'George' as having no trouble\nwhatsoever managing Bax's estate, George's estate, or having Bax\ndeclared dead)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Everything about the replacement is under Bax's control, really, if he can\nget George to come to him, set George up to be killed, dispose of the body?&\nget Millie to accept him (Bax) as \"George\". Faerie isn't an essential\nelement for this scheme." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Neither twin seems to be especially in control. Both need to kill each\nother. Bax *might* be able to forge George's signature, but he still\nneeds George dead, and vice versa. I don't really follow what you're\nsaying here - if there's any advantage accruing to Bax, isn't that\njust further evidence that Bax did kill & replace George?" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "gwern" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Mr Thalassocrat", "address": "thalassocrat08 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-03-23T21:37:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote:\nOn Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Mr Thalassocrat\n wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But it's Bax who makes a will in favour of George, and Bax who\n\"disappears\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "According to the message from George, they both make a will in favor\nof each other. Bax has a good reason to want to replace George and not\njust kill him: there will be zero questions asked this way (notice\nthat the final letter's lame explanation of Bax just going off into\nfaerie for no stated reason, forever, apparently is completely\nsuccessful - the endnote presents 'George' as having no trouble\nwhatsoever managing Bax's estate, George's estate, or having Bax\ndeclared dead)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Everything about the replacement is under Bax's control, really, if he\ncan\nget George to come to him, set George up to be killed, dispose of the\nbody &\nget Millie to accept him (Bax) as \"George\". Faerie isn't an essential\nelement for this scheme." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Neither twin seems to be especially in control. Both need to kill each\nother. Bax *might* be able to forge George's signature, but he still\nneeds George dead, and vice versa. I don't really follow what you're\nsaying here - if there's any advantage accruing to Bax, isn't that\njust further evidence that Bax did kill & replace George?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sure - we're agreed that Bax killed & replaced George. The discussion (I\nthought) was about whether Bax planned it all along. I think he might have." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gwern Branwen", "address": "gwern0 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-03-23T22:53:14+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Mr Thalassocrat\n wrote:\nOn Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Mr Thalassocrat\n wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "But it's Bax who makes a will in favour of George, and Bax who\n\"disappears\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "According to the message from George, they both make a will in favor\nof each other. Bax has a good reason to want to replace George and not\njust kill him: there will be zero questions asked this way (notice\nthat the final letter's lame explanation of Bax just going off into\nfaerie for no stated reason, forever, apparently is completely\nsuccessful - the endnote presents 'George' as having no trouble\nwhatsoever managing Bax's estate, George's estate, or having Bax\ndeclared dead)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Everything about the replacement is under Bax's control, really, if he\ncan\nget George to come to him, set George up to be killed, dispose of the\nbody?&\nget Millie to accept him (Bax) as \"George\". Faerie isn't an essential\nelement for this scheme." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Neither twin seems to be especially in control. Both need to kill each\nother. Bax *might* be able to forge George's signature, but he still\nneeds George dead, and vice versa. I don't really follow what you're\nsaying here - if there's any advantage accruing to Bax, isn't that\njust further evidence that Bax did kill & replace George?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sure - we're agreed that Bax killed & replaced George. The discussion (I\nthought) was about whether Bax planned it all along. I think he might have." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "OK; I'll reiterate - how could Bax have planned the inheritance, the\nvarious events that made George willing to come, George's offer, the\ntwo pistols, Faerie, and the independent corroboration that makes the\nfinal replacement at all possible (the psychic's letters, the letters\nfrom his prison friends, the end note's asseveration that Bax really\ndid come into the wealth he claimed to've in his letters), all from\nthe very getgo as a starving ex-con who was breaking into houses and\nconstruction sites?" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "gwern" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Thomas Bitterman", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2010-03-27T01:25:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:\nOK; I'll reiterate - how could Bax have planned the inheritance, the\nvarious events that made George willing to come, George's offer, the\ntwo pistols, Faerie, and the independent corroboration that makes the\nfinal replacement at all possible (the psychic's letters, the letters\nfrom his prison friends, the end note's asseveration that Bax really\ndid come into the wealth he claimed to've in his letters), all from\nthe very getgo as a starving ex-con who was breaking into houses and\nconstruction sites?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Nothing in the letters actually happened. Bax knew Millie had a thing for\nhim\nbefore he went to prison. So did George - it accounts for his anger toward\nBax, his meanness to Millie, and his desire to throw Bax in jail.\n\nWhile in jail, Bax decides to kill and replace his brother. He befriends a\nforger\n(Lou) and a killer (\"shotgun\" Shel, which I just got) and learns some\nskills.\n\nWhen he gets out he starts writing these flowery letters, full of fairy tale\nmonsters.\nHe sends them to George, knowing that George will read them, and then\nMillie.\nBax knows the effect this will have on George, and baits him to come to\nMedicine\nMan. Bax kills him, forges a will, and gets the money and the girl.\n\nWhen it comes right down to it, we are presented with no evidence that any\nof the\nevents described actually happened. The Compiler makes no effort to check\nout\ntitle records, police logs or other documentation that would corroborate the\nstory. His removal of dates makes it that much harder for anybody\ninterested\nto check, also. Why would he do this? Because Bax is the Compiler, and\nthis\nbook is him gloating over his big scam." } ] }, { "message_id": "<37bfbeb61003261844l23179778rd267a2ff2a0f5590@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Jonathan Goodwin", "address": "joncgoodwin at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-03-27T01:44:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Identifying the compiler and Bax makes everything too easy. If you can\nreconcile this with an implied author compiler and the psychic, then\nit might work better. (I had somewhat similar thoughts.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Thomas Bitterman wrote:\nOn Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "OK; I'll reiterate - how could Bax have planned the inheritance, the\nvarious events that made George willing to come, George's offer, the\ntwo pistols, Faerie, and the independent corroboration that makes the\nfinal replacement at all possible (the psychic's letters, the letters\nfrom his prison friends, the end note's asseveration that Bax really\ndid come into the wealth he claimed to've in his letters), all from\nthe very getgo as a starving ex-con who was breaking into houses and\nconstruction sites?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Nothing in the letters actually happened. Bax knew Millie had a thing for\nhim\nbefore he went to prison. So did George - it accounts for his anger toward\nBax, his meanness to Millie, and his desire to throw Bax in jail.\n\nWhile in jail, Bax decides to kill and replace his brother. He befriends a\nforger\n(Lou) and a killer (\"shotgun\" Shel, which I just got) and learns some\nskills.\n\nWhen he gets out he starts writing these flowery letters, full of fairy tale\nmonsters.\nHe sends them to George, knowing that George will read them, and then\nMillie.\nBax knows the effect this will have on George, and baits him to come to\nMedicine\nMan. Bax kills him, forges a will, and gets the money and the girl.\n\nWhen it comes right down to it, we are presented with no evidence that any\nof the\nevents described actually happened. The Compiler makes no effort to check\nout\ntitle records, police logs or other documentation that would corroborate the\nstory. His removal of dates makes it that much harder for anybody\ninterested\nto check, also. Why would he do this? Because Bax is the Compiler, and\nthis\nbook is him gloating over his big scam.\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gwern Branwen", "address": "gwern0 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-03-27T13:48:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Thomas Bitterman wrote:\nOn Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "OK; I'll reiterate - how could Bax have planned the inheritance, the\nvarious events that made George willing to come, George's offer, the\ntwo pistols, Faerie, and the independent corroboration that makes the\nfinal replacement at all possible (the psychic's letters, the letters\nfrom his prison friends, the end note's asseveration that Bax really\ndid come into the wealth he claimed to've in his letters), all from\nthe very getgo as a starving ex-con who was breaking into houses and\nconstruction sites?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Nothing in the letters actually happened. Bax knew Millie had a thing for\nhim\nbefore he went to prison. So did George - it accounts for his anger toward\nBax, his meanness to Millie, and his desire to throw Bax in jail.\n\nWhile in jail, Bax decides to kill and replace his brother. He befriends a\nforger\n(Lou) and a killer (\"shotgun\" Shel, which I just got) and learns some\nskills.\n\nWhen he gets out he starts writing these flowery letters, full of fairy tale\nmonsters.\nHe sends them to George, knowing that George will read them, and then\nMillie.\nBax knows the effect this will have on George, and baits him to come to\nMedicine\nMan. Bax kills him, forges a will, and gets the money and the girl.\n\nWhen it comes right down to it, we are presented with no evidence that any\nof the\nevents described actually happened. The Compiler makes no effort to check\nout\ntitle records, police logs or other documentation that would corroborate the\nstory. His removal of dates makes it that much harder for anybody\ninterested\nto check, also. Why would he do this? Because Bax is the Compiler, and\nthis\nbook is him gloating over his big scam." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The hound of horror would be very checkable, especially if the\narchives really do bristle with stories." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "gwern" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Thomas Bitterman", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2010-03-27T14:34:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote:\nThe hound of horror would be very checkable, especially if the\narchives really do bristle with stories." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And it's the only thing the Compiler sources. All small towns have ghost\nstories.\nBax wove this one into his story. It's always handy to have a few true\nthings in\neven the biggest hoax.\n\nIf we assume the Compiler is not Wolfe that leaves the question of what kind\nof\nbook this is supposed to be. The Compiler is trying to pass it off as\nnon-fiction\nin the sense that the people, places, letters and many of the events\nactually\nexisted/happened. The Compiler does not indicate that he thinks Bax killed\nGeorge. That makes this a colorful missing person story, with some\nquestions\nabout how it came to be written.\n\nFirst, how did the Compiler find out about the story in the first place?\nThere is\nno indication that the story, even while it was happening, made much news in\nMedicine Man, much less the outside world.\n\nSecond, how did the Compiler get all the letters he did? He credits Millie,\nShell's\ndaughter, and Mrs. Pogach for providing the letters they had. However,\nthere are\nletters in the book that that group can't account for:\n- the letters to and from Doris\n- letters that were sent to Bax (assuming the senders did not keep copies)\n\nBax knew about the story because he was there. And he got all the letters\nbecause\nhe either wrote them or received them. He kept copies to help keep his\nstory straight." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Thomas Bitterman", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2010-03-27T14:51:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<37bfbeb61003261844l23179778rd267a2ff2a0f5590@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Jonathan Goodwin wrote:\nIdentifying the compiler and Bax makes everything too easy. If you can\nreconcile this with an implied author compiler and the psychic, then\nit might work better. (I had somewhat similar thoughts.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The psychic is a confederate. She is paid for her help in getting Millie to\nbuy in to the whole Faerie thing. Having a psychic as a fraud would fit\nWolfe.\n\nA little terminology before handling the Compiler. Let's use \"author\" to\nindicate the writer of the story, in the world of the story. For example,\nSeverian or Watson. We can then use \"Author\" to identify the real-life\nwriter, for example Wolfe or Doyle.\n\nWolfe has used the author/Author distinction before, in Urth. In Urth,\nWolfe explicitly identifies when the Author is speaking. If we take it as a\nrule that Wolfe always identifies when the Author is speaking, then the\nlack of identification of the Compiler as the Author would make the Compiler\nthe author. That is, the Compiler is a fictional character who wrote the\nstory,\nin the world of the story." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gwern Branwen", "address": "gwern0 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-03-27T14:57:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Thomas Bitterman wrote:\nOn Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The hound of horror would be very checkable, especially if the\narchives really do bristle with stories." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And it's the only thing the Compiler sources. All small towns have ghost\nstories.\nBax wove this one into his story. It's always handy to have a few true\nthings in\neven the biggest hoax.\n\nIf we assume the Compiler is not Wolfe that leaves the question of what kind\nof\nbook this is supposed to be. The Compiler is trying to pass it off as\nnon-fiction\nin the sense that the people, places, letters and many of the events\nactually\nexisted/happened. The Compiler does not indicate that he thinks Bax killed\nGeorge. That makes this a colorful missing person story, with some\nquestions\nabout how it came to be written.\n\nFirst, how did the Compiler find out about the story in the first place?\nThere is\nno indication that the story, even while it was happening, made much news in\nMedicine Man, much less the outside world.\n\nSecond, how did the Compiler get all the letters he did? He credits Millie,\nShell's\ndaughter, and Mrs. Pogach for providing the letters they had. However,\nthere are\nletters in the book that that group can't account for:\n- the letters to and from Doris\n- letters that were sent to Bax (assuming the senders did not keep copies)\n\nBax knew about the story because he was there. And he got all the letters\nbecause\nhe either wrote them or received them. He kept copies to help keep his\nstory straight." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If the compiler is Bax, then why does he drop in quite explicit hints\nthat the letters' dates have been tampered with and that Bax may be\nlying about how he obtained the house etc. Wouldn't Bax just omit\nthose points or say 'I removed dates for brevity, like I edited the\nlanguage'?\n\nIf the answer is that Bax is performing a triple-fake, adding those in\nto defuse suspicion that the events are fake - then I think you've\ngone a little far down the rabbit hole." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "gwern" } ] }, { "message_id": "<37bfbeb61003270821p3add8a5ew581ecec8bbe10f65@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Jonathan Goodwin", "address": "joncgoodwin at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-03-27T15:21:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You see, the issue here is that the \"Compiler's Note\" is a paratext,\nto use Genette's term, in the same way that the little blurbs about\nfinding Latro and Severian's manuscripts are. They are an agreed-upon\nfiction, because we understand that some justification is expected for\nhow this particular narrative structure came to be. Such devices are\nvery common in older novels, and I agree with you that it is not\nappropriate to identify the author of them with Gene Wolfe exactly,\nparticularly when there is a direct statement that this arranger has\nmade certain influential choices in the presentation of the material.\nAssuming, however, that the arranger and Bax are one makes the entire\nstructure either incoherent or pointless. The fiction of the\n\"compiler's note\" is that comes from a putative arranger/editor of\nthese letters prior, not to their discovery, but their publication.\nThis is a different level or frame in the narrative structure and\nhaving Bax jump it does not fit. Having made that point, I agree that\nBax is the exact type who would want to defraud/murder his brother and\nthen brag about it in an obscure form. I just don't think we need the\ncompiler identification to make this work.\n\nAlso, re Wolfe' attitude toward the psychic, he is fond of pointing\nout that witches and such can be found in the yellowpages and seems to\nlike the rather timeworn concept of having them both be frauds and\ngifted/cursed with the real thing." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Thomas Bitterman wrote:\nOn Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Jonathan Goodwin \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Identifying the compiler and Bax makes everything too easy. If you can\nreconcile this with an implied author compiler and the psychic, then\nit might work better. (I had somewhat similar thoughts.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The psychic is a confederate. She is paid for her help in getting Millie to\nbuy in to the whole Faerie thing. Having a psychic as a fraud would fit\nWolfe.\n\nA little terminology before handling the Compiler. Let's use \"author\" to\nindicate the writer of the story, in the world of the story. For example,\nSeverian or Watson. We can then use \"Author\" to identify the real-life\nwriter, for example Wolfe or Doyle.\n\nWolfe has used the author/Author distinction before, in Urth. In Urth,\nWolfe explicitly identifies when the Author is speaking. If we take it as a\nrule that Wolfe always identifies when the Author is speaking, then the\nlack of identification of the Compiler as the Author would make the Compiler\nthe author. That is, the Compiler is a fictional character who wrote the\nstory,\nin the world of the story.\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4BB0ACB4.9090208@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dave Tallman", "address": "davetallman at msn.com" }, "date": "2010-03-29T13:35:48+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<37bfbeb61003270821p3add8a5ew581ecec8bbe10f65@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jonathan Goodwin wrote:\n...I agree that\nBax is the exact type who would want to defraud/murder his brother and\nthen brag about it in an obscure form. I just don't think we need the\ncompiler identification to make this work.\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree that making the compiler Bax, so that all the supporting \nevidence can be lies (the storage cabinet and the description of the \nJapanese sword by Mrs. Dunn that is good enough for an expert, for \nexample) is cheating, taking away the suspension of disbelief to an \nextreme extent. Push this too far, and you arrive at the true but \nuninteresting conclusion that this is a work of fiction and none of the \ncharacters are real.\n\nThe independent evidence of the letters from others, especially the \nchallenge letter by George on pp. 261-262, shows that what Bax says \nabout the supernatural world is essentially true. Is that letter \nsupposedly forged by Bax?\n\nOne question for me is the identity of the \"wonderful girl who really \nknows her way around that place.\" I suspect it is Doris, who might have \nthought George was the winning side. She does know more of the \nsupernatural than first appears, given her connection to her \nghost-husband Ted. It could possibly be Lupine, but it's doubtful \nbecause she's all about Emlyn." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Thomas Bitterman", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2010-03-29T21:01:01+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<37bfbeb61003270821p3add8a5ew581ecec8bbe10f65@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Jonathan Goodwin wrote:\nYou see, the issue here is that the \"Compiler's Note\" is a paratext,\nto use Genette's term, in the same way that the little blurbs about\nfinding Latro and Severian's manuscripts are. They are an agreed-upon" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Maybe not that agreed-upon :-)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "fiction, because we understand that some justification is expected for\nhow this particular narrative structure came to be. Such devices are\nvery common in older novels, and I agree with you that it is not\nappropriate to identify the author of them with Gene Wolfe exactly,\nparticularly when there is a direct statement that this arranger has\nmade certain influential choices in the presentation of the material.\nAssuming, however, that the arranger and Bax are one makes the entire\nstructure either incoherent or pointless." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't see why this is the case." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The fiction of the\n\"compiler's note\" is that comes from a putative arranger/editor of\nthese letters prior, not to their discovery, but their publication." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I do not see why such an assumption must be made. It is easy to\nimagine an epistolary novel containing an appendix to the effect of\n\"What a wild adventure I had\" where the \"I\" was the author of some\nof the letters." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This is a different level or frame in the narrative structure and\nhaving Bax jump it does not fit." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Nothing else fits the notes.\n- if Wolfe is the Compiler, why would he have to pay one of his own\n characters for some letters? why/how would he search out the sword\n and perform other in-world actions?\n- if it is some other, unknown, in-world character, how did they hear about\n this obscure, small-town missing-persons case? how did they know the\n letters were out of order? how did they get letters sent to Doris, whom\n they never spoke to? or the letters from George to Bax, both dead?" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gwern Branwen", "address": "gwern0 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-03-29T21:19:40+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Thomas Bitterman wrote:\nNothing else fits the notes.\n- if Wolfe is the Compiler, why would he have to pay one of his own\n? characters for some letters? why/how would he search out the sword\n? and perform other in-world actions?\n- if it is some other, unknown, in-world character, how did they hear about\n? this obscure, small-town missing-persons case? how did they know the\n? letters were out of order? how did they get letters sent to Doris, whom\n? they never spoke to? or the letters from George to Bax, both dead?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "None of these are insurmountable, and all are far more likely than the\nframestory in TBOTNS. (Oh, in the incredible vastness of space, the\ntranslator found a tiny object floating around from a previous\nuniverse? Whatever.)\n\nThere's somebody interested in anything. The long tail. Maybe the\ncompiler is a historian from that town. Maybe they are a relative.\nMaybe they are a researcher who heard about the Hound of Horror and\ninvestigated. (Remember the backfiles bristling comment; that's the\ncomment of someone who has went into the stacks.) There are millions\nof books published each year; they can't *all* be about major\ninteresting topics. And the letters are intrinsically interesting.\n(Look at us!)\n\nHow did they know the letters were out of order? Do you have some\nreason to distrust the given explanation?\n\nHow do you know the compiler never spoke to Doris? He doesn't mention\nher. Not all thanks are exhaustive.\n\nWhy couldn't Millie (whom the compiler thanks first and foremost for\naccess to letters, including letters belonging to George) have\nGeorge's letters? If 'George' inherited the mansion, then he also\ninherits those letters, which would have been left in the mansion. Why\nwould 'George' have kept them? Trophies, or just scholarly ratpacking.\n\nNone of these answers are particularly odd, none throw any particular\nlight on anything (and so Wolfe can't be expected to have supplied\nthem), and importantly, don't force us to doubt each and everything we\nare told. Total skepticism is not a good exegetical starting point\nwith fiction." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "gwern" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Thomas Bitterman", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2010-03-29T23:08:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<4BB0ACB4.9090208@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Dave Tallman wrote:\nI agree that making the compiler Bax, so that all the supporting evidence\ncan be lies (the storage cabinet and the description of the Japanese sword\nby Mrs. Dunn that is good enough for an expert, for example) is cheating,\ntaking away the suspension of disbelief to an extreme extent. Push this too\nfar, and you arrive at the true but uninteresting conclusion that this is a\nwork of fiction and none of the characters are real." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Then it should not be pushed too far." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The independent evidence of the letters from others, especially the\nchallenge letter by George on pp. 261-262, shows that what Bax says about\nthe supernatural world is essentially true. Is that letter supposedly forged\nby Bax?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It is a strange letter. At the time it was written (which is a bit hazy),\nGeorge is\napparently lost in the house. Why would he write a letter from inside the\nhouse?\nHow would it get delivered? Why not just talk to Bax directly, especially\nwhen\nGeorge is planning a duel (certainly illegal, and likely to void any will)?\nWhy duel\ninstead of just killing Bax and, as the sole surviving relative, inherit the\nplace\noutright?\n\nSo either George is wandering lost in the house and writing letters that go\nagainst\nhis own interests, or is wandering around town frantically looking for Bax\nwhen he\nknows exactly where Bax lives. Or Bax wrote it to make George look bad.\n\nOne question for me is the identity of the \"wonderful girl who really knows" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "her way around that place.\" I suspect it is Doris, who might have thought\nGeorge was the winning side. She does know more of the supernatural than\nfirst appears, given her connection to her ghost-husband Ted. It could\npossibly be Lupine, but it's doubtful because she's all about Emlyn." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'll admit to liking this theory, even if it is (somewhat) inconsistent with\nmy own." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Thomas Bitterman", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2010-03-30T00:12:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:\nOn Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Thomas Bitterman \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Nothing else fits the notes.\n- if Wolfe is the Compiler, why would he have to pay one of his own\n characters for some letters? why/how would he search out the sword\n and perform other in-world actions?\n- if it is some other, unknown, in-world character, how did they hear\nabout\n this obscure, small-town missing-persons case? how did they know the\n letters were out of order? how did they get letters sent to Doris,\nwhom\n they never spoke to? or the letters from George to Bax, both dead?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "None of these are insurmountable, and all are far more likely than the\nframestory in TBOTNS. (Oh, in the incredible vastness of space, the\ntranslator found a tiny object floating around from a previous\nuniverse? Whatever.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Given the universe of the New Sun the framestory is not the most far-fetched\nthing that happened. Explanations should fit within the universe of the\nwork,\nor at least within the same realism-ballpark." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "There's somebody interested in anything. The long tail. Maybe the\ncompiler is a historian from that town. Maybe they are a relative.\nMaybe they are a researcher who heard about the Hound of Horror and\ninvestigated. (Remember the backfiles bristling comment; that's the\ncomment of someone who has went into the stacks.) There are millions\nof books published each year; they can't *all* be about major\ninteresting topics. And the letters are intrinsically interesting.\n(Look at us!)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Most books are written to turn a profit, or are at least published to do so.\nSmall-town missing-persons stories generally don't. So that leaves a\nlocal historian or a relative. One might expect a historian to be a little\nmore curious about things like dates, title transfers, police records and\nthe like. None of the major characters are exactly crawling with relatives.\nBax is at least as likely.\n\nIt just occurred to me that his next-door neighbor is named Mrs. Naber.\nThe whole book is littered with clumsy lies and inconsistencies.\n\nHow did they know the letters were out of order? Do you have some" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "reason to distrust the given explanation?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The explanation is \"half the dates he provided were clearly incorrect\". So\nyeah. How would the Compiler know that?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "How do you know the compiler never spoke to Doris? He doesn't mention\nher. Not all thanks are exhaustive." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No, but they do tend to include the most important sources. Doris wrote\nor is the subject of more letters than Mrs. Pogach, who is thanked. I may\nbe wrong; it may be that Doris is just mentioned a lot but not written to\nmuch. Still an omission from such a small list bears examination." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Why couldn't Millie (whom the compiler thanks first and foremost for\naccess to letters, including letters belonging to George) have\nGeorge's letters? If 'George' inherited the mansion, then he also\ninherits those letters, which would have been left in the mansion. Why\nwould 'George' have kept them? Trophies, or just scholarly ratpacking." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In other words, no good reason if 'George' is not Bax. Who keeps letters\nwhere their wife hits on their brother? This is a good reason to believe\nthat Bax killed George. If 'George' is Bax, then Millie would have all the\nletters sent to Bax (and, we can assume, she kept the ones sent to\nthe original George). I can buy that. It is a little weird that she would\nkeep\nthe mash notes from his girlfriends, but ok.\n\nNone of these answers are particularly odd, none throw any particular" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "light on anything (and so Wolfe can't be expected to have supplied\nthem), and importantly, don't force us to doubt each and everything we\nare told. Total skepticism is not a good exegetical starting point\nwith fiction." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There is no need for total skepticism. Just follow the rule: Anything\nhaving to\ndo with Faerie is made up. Bax is using Faerie-stories to either mess with\nMillie, or provide and explanation for something he'd really rather not\nexplain,\nor both. The real-world events: Bax being in Medicine Man, killing George,\npaying Mrs. Pogach, and so on, really happened. Or more or less did - the\nCompiler says he changed names in some instances, so maybe those things\nhappened to people whose names we don't know." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--\ngwern" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4BB15A08.4010903@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dave Tallman", "address": "davetallman at msn.com" }, "date": "2010-03-30T01:55:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Thomas Bitterman wrote:\nIt is a strange letter. At the time it was written (which is a bit hazy),\nGeorge is\napparently lost in the house. Why would he write a letter from inside the\nhouse?\nHow would it get delivered? Why not just talk to Bax directly, especially\nwhen\nGeorge is planning a duel (certainly illegal, and likely to void any will)?\nWhy duel\ninstead of just killing Bax and, as the sole surviving relative, inherit the\nplace\noutright?\n\nSo either George is wandering lost in the house and writing letters that go\nagainst\nhis own interests, or is wandering around town frantically looking for Bax\nwhen he\nknows exactly where Bax lives. Or Bax wrote it to make George look bad.\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It's not really a letter at all. It's a challenge note. All George had \nto do was leave it someplace in the house where he thought Bax would \nfind it. Why not talk to Bax directly? He can't find him. Why not just \nkill Bax? He can't find him. George may think he'll never find Bax \nunless Bax lets himself be found. Hence the challenge.\n\nI'm willing to consider the possibility of forgery, too. On p. 12 Bax \nwrites \"I am tempted to post this to myself.\" Bax is ambidextrous, so \nhe can produce two different handwritings, and he has forged his \nbrother's signature before.\n\nStill there almost has to be at least the threat of a duel, or Bax \nwouldn't have written to Shell for advice about it. I tend to think the \nnote is genuine, or else a revised one with fantastic elements added by Bax,\n\nThere are no letters to Doris in the whole book. There are two letters \nfrom her, that Bax/George kept (probably like he kept all letters mailed \nto him, somewhere in the house).\n\nIs Doris more than she seems? Her \"Dear John\" letter makes her sound \ncompletely ignorant, but:\n1) The last name of a mythical monster. In mythology, Doris is the \nmother of the Nereides.\n2) Doris means \"gift\" in Greek, Theodore (Ted) is \"gift of God\". Is Ted \nreally a familiar of some kind? Maybe Ted's ring gave her some power \nover him (or allows Ted to come to his aid in times of danger), and she \nwanted it back when she thought George would be the easier one to \ncontrol (no magical talent, no facefox mistress, etc.).\n3) When George fails/is killed she tries to get back with Bax, but too \nlate. Now she speaks confidently of ghostly messages and werewolves." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4BB21082.3000501@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dave Tallman", "address": "davetallman at msn.com" }, "date": "2010-03-30T14:53:54+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<4BB15A08.4010903@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dave Tallman wrote:\nI'm willing to consider the possibility of forgery, too. On p. 12 Bax \nwrites \"I am tempted to post this to myself.\" Bax is ambidextrous, so \nhe can produce two different handwritings, and he has forged his \nbrother's signature before.\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "One more detail: who is Henry Parkhill (p. 156)?\n\n/I have founded my own little firm, you see. I call it A Plus Tutors. \nOur president is Henry Parkhill. (I know you would like him, Shell. You \nmight recognize him as well./\n\nThis is the only reference to the man, apparently an ex-con that Shell \nwould know. Nothing is said about him in other letters. Does he play a \nbigger role? If, for example, he is the butler that other people see \n(Doris letter, p. 290) then it casts a lot of doubt on the \nZwart/Ieuen/Emlyn story.\n\nOn the other hand, both Madame Orizia and Doris validate the story of \nlocking the vampire Nicholas in the trunk. Doris also validates the \nfirst werewolf attack, the awful basement, and the rapist dwarf. The \ngreatest magic of all is that a penniless ex-con suddenly comes into \nwealth and property: \"Riverscene, the Black House, and the house that \nhad once been Mrs. Martha Murrey's\" (p. 300). So I must agee with the \nanonymous Collator: \"all that he tells us cannot be false.\"" } ] }, { "message_id": "<44fb53d11003300939v7e6b8e9bm2deb17faa77b600c@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Matthew Keeley", "address": "matthew.keeley.1 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-03-30T16:39:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<4BB21082.3000501@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Dave Tallman wrote:\n Dave Tallman wrote:\n\nI'm willing to consider the possibility of forgery, too. On p. 12 Bax\nwrites \"I am tempted to post this to myself.\" Bax is ambidextrous, so\nhe can produce two different handwritings, and he has forged his\nbrother's signature before.\n\n\n One more detail: who is Henry Parkhill (p. 156)?\n\n*I have founded my own little firm, you see. I call it A Plus Tutors. Our\npresident is Henry Parkhill. (I know you would like him, Shell. You might\nrecognize him as well.*\n\nThis is the only reference to the man, apparently an ex-con that Shell\nwould know. Nothing is said about him in other letters. Does he play a\nbigger role? If, for example, he is the butler that other people see (Doris\nletter, p. 290) then it casts a lot of doubt on the Zwart/Ieuen/Emlyn story." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I assumed \"Parkhill\" was a false name for Bax, who forges and signs stuff in\nthe Parkhill name.\n\n-Matt" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Thomas Bitterman", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2010-03-30T22:36:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<4BB15A08.4010903@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Dave Tallman wrote:\nThomas Bitterman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "It is a strange letter. At the time it was written (which is a bit hazy),\nGeorge is\napparently lost in the house. Why would he write a letter from inside the\nhouse?\nHow would it get delivered? Why not just talk to Bax directly, especially\nwhen\nGeorge is planning a duel (certainly illegal, and likely to void any\nwill)?\nWhy duel\ninstead of just killing Bax and, as the sole surviving relative, inherit\nthe\nplace\noutright?\n\nSo either George is wandering lost in the house and writing letters that\ngo\nagainst\nhis own interests, or is wandering around town frantically looking for Bax\nwhen he\nknows exactly where Bax lives. Or Bax wrote it to make George look bad." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It's not really a letter at all. It's a challenge note." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "potaytoe, potahto." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "All George had to do was leave it someplace in the house where he thought\nBax would find it. Why not talk to Bax directly? He can't find him. Why not\njust kill Bax? He can't find him. George may think he'll never find Bax\nunless Bax lets himself be found. Hence the challenge." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If George can lave a piece of paper somewhere Bax can find it, he could just\nleave himself there. Either Nicholas is helping George (as seems likely)\nand could lead George to the kitchen where they could just wait, or George\nis hopelessly lost in the house (it seems to happen to everybody) and is in\nno position to be leaving notes to be found." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Still there almost has to be at least the threat of a duel, or Bax wouldn't\nhave written to Shell for advice about it. I tend to think the note is\ngenuine, or else a revised one with fantastic elements added by Bax," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I took it that Bax was really more interested in how to fire a gun, rather\nthan the duel per se." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "There are no letters to Doris in the whole book. There are two letters from\nher, that Bax/George kept (probably like he kept all letters mailed to him,\nsomewhere in the house)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Darn. Of course, you are right." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Thomas Bitterman", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2010-03-30T22:44:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<4BB21082.3000501@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Dave Tallman wrote:\nOn the other hand, both Madame Orizia and Doris validate the story of\nlocking the vampire Nicholas in the trunk. Doris also validates the first\nwerewolf attack, the awful basement, and the rapist dwarf." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This just begs the question. The only record we have of them seeing any of\nthis is from the letters that Bax has. These are the very letters that are\nbeing called into doubt, at least the supernatural parts." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The greatest magic of all is that a penniless ex-con suddenly comes into\nwealth and property: \"Riverscene, the Black House, and the house that had\nonce been Mrs. Martha Murrey's\" (p. 300). So I must agee with the anonymous\nCollator: \"all that he tells us cannot be false.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Windows into Faerie, werewolves, vampires, visions of the future, astral\nprojection, triannuluses (triannuli?), houses that grow and rearrange -\nthese are all harder to swallow than lucking into money. Not everything he\nsays is false, just the stuff about Faerie." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Crossley", "address": "ishmael at drizzle.com" }, "date": "2010-03-30T23:02:43+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/30/10 3:44 PM, \"Thomas Bitterman\" wrote:\n\nWindows into Faerie, werewolves, vampires, visions of the future, astral\nprojection, triannuluses (triannuli?), houses that grow and rearrange - these\nare all harder to swallow than lucking into money. Not everything he says is\nfalse, just the stuff about Faerie." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Just so I have this straight you’re arguing that all the supernatural\nelements in the book are the product of Bax’s imagination, part of a scheme\nto eliminate his brother, capture Millie’s affections and explain his\nnew-found wealth? \n\nIf so, why all the coy hints the reader puts together along the way (fox =\nWinker, Zwart = Black, etc.)? Why couldn’t the fantastic part of the story\nbe told more explicitly? It would be an equally (un)convincing tale whether\nlaid out straightforwardly or in Wolfean fashion. And who’s the reading\naudience who has to be convinced, just Millie?\n\nJames" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gwern Branwen", "address": "gwern0 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-03-30T23:08:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:02 PM, James Crossley wrote:\nOn 3/30/10 3:44 PM, \"Thomas Bitterman\" wrote:\n\n\nWindows into Faerie, werewolves, vampires, visions of the future, astral\nprojection, triannuluses (triannuli?), houses that grow and rearrange -\nthese are all harder to swallow than lucking into money. Not everything he\nsays is false, just the stuff about Faerie.\n\n\nJust so I have this straight you’re arguing that all the supernatural\nelements in the book are the product of Bax’s imagination, part of a scheme\nto eliminate his brother, capture Millie’s affections and explain his\nnew-found wealth?\n\nIf so, why all the coy hints the reader puts together along the way (fox =\nWinker, Zwart = Black, etc.)? Why couldn’t the fantastic part of the story\nbe told more explicitly? It would be an equally (un)convincing tale whether\nlaid out straightforwardly or in Wolfean fashion. “And who’s the reading\naudience who has to be convinced, just Millie”\n\nJames" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Given Millie's intellectual prowess (or lack thereof), I think a story\ntargeted solely at Millie would read much simpler than the actual\nstory." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "gwern" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dave Tallman", "address": "davetallman at msn.com" }, "date": "2010-03-31T00:01:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thomas Bitterman" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This just begs the question. The only record we have of them seeing any of\nthis is from the letters that Bax has. These are the very letters that are\nbeing called into doubt, at least the supernatural parts." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No, I am bringing in all the independent witnesses against your theory. To\nsupport it, you have to say that the challenge note from George, the letters\nfrom Madame Orizia, and the second letter from Doris are all forged or\nedited by Bax. And I say that oversteps the bounds of the suspension of\ndisbelief. About the only letters admitted as factual at this point are\nthose to and from Shell, and letters from Millie." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Windows into Faerie, werewolves, vampires, visions of the future, astral\nprojection, triannuluses (triannuli?), houses that grow and rearrange -\nthese are all harder to swallow than lucking into money. Not everything he\nsays is false, just the stuff about Faerie." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "All right then, what is your rational explanation for him \"lucking into\nmoney\"? Was a deed to a house just handed to him? If so, why? And then he\njust happens to inherit a valuable chunk of real estate? Please show\nin-story clues to what really happened." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gwern Branwen", "address": "gwern0 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-03-31T00:55:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Dave Tallman wrote:\nThomas Bitterman" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "This just begs the question. The only record we have of them seeing any\nof\n\nthis is from the letters that Bax has. These are the very letters that\nare\nbeing called into doubt, at least the supernatural parts." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "No, I am bringing in all the independent witnesses against your theory. To\nsupport it, you have to say that the challenge note from George, the letters\nfrom Madame Orizia, and the second letter from Doris are all forged or\nedited by Bax. And I say that oversteps the bounds of the suspension of\ndisbelief. About the only letters admitted as factual at this point are\nthose to and from Shell, and letters from Millie." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Windows into Faerie, werewolves, vampires, visions of the future, astral\nprojection, triannuluses (triannuli?), houses that grow and rearrange -\n\nthese are all harder to swallow than lucking into money. Not everything\nhe\nsays is false, just the stuff about Faerie." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "All right then, what is your rational explanation for him \"lucking into\nmoney\"? Was a deed to a house just handed to him? If so, why? And then he\njust happens to inherit a valuable chunk of real estate? Please show\nin-story clues to what really happened." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If I had to construct a 'real' story along those lines, I'd go with\nsomething like this:\n1. Bax moves into the mansion\n2. when he tries to regularize his squatting, he goes to Martha and\nusing his smooth wiles on a lonely old woman, cons her into letting\nhim stay under the perfectly normal custodial arrangement\n3. He thoroughly searches the house, and discovers the eccentric\nprevious owners had had valuable collections. Bax didn't lie about the\ngold coins, but he found many more. Gold is very valuable, after all,\nespecially collectibles. Bax has modest needs. Alternate scheme: he\ntakes out a mortgage.\n4. He embarks on his elaborate con/murder scheme of George.\n5. Mischief managed.\n6. He forges Murrey's will - she also had the Skotos Strip. (Why not?\nShe seems to have tons of real estate in general.) Alternate scheme:\nhe gets her to sign that over as well / forges her signature.\n7. Murrey vanishes like George.\n\nNote how much violence to the narrative we have to do." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "gwern" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Thomas Bitterman", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2010-03-31T01:55:01+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:02 PM, James Crossley wrote:\n On 3/30/10 3:44 PM, \"Thomas Bitterman\" wrote:\n\nWindows into Faerie, werewolves, vampires, visions of the future, astral\nprojection, triannuluses (triannuli?), houses that grow and rearrange -\nthese are all harder to swallow than lucking into money. Not everything he\nsays is false, just the stuff about Faerie.\n\n\nJust so I have this straight you’re arguing that all the supernatural\nelements in the book are the product of Bax’s imagination, part of a scheme\nto eliminate his brother, capture Millie’s affections and explain his\nnew-found wealth?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Exactly. The only exceptions being:\n- the Hound stories, which Bax picked up from local legends\n- Doris seeing Ted, when she was not terribly emotionally stable\n\nThis theory is similar to the one where Severian was just a stooge for some\naliens, and was mistaken/lied to/lied about the Increate all along.\n\nIf so, why all the coy hints the reader puts together along the way (fox =" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Winker, Zwart = Black, etc.)? Why couldn’t the fantastic part of the story\nbe told more explicitly? It would be an equally (un)convincing tale whether\nlaid out straightforwardly or in Wolfean fashion. And who’s the reading\naudience who has to be convinced, just Millie?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Bax is clever, smart, and well-read. He likes his little jokes. But there\nare limits. The story he weaves is already full of loose threads and\nproblems. Making the story more explicit makes it more complex and harder\nto keep straight.\n\nBax has two audiences: Millie and the general public. Millie is the most\nimportant - he needs to woo her (and anger George) and uses her fondness for\nfantastic stories to do it. The general public will be dissuaded from\nlooking too closely at the dodgy transactions involved due to the fantastic\nstories surrounding them. And last, Bax wants to brag." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Thomas Bitterman", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2010-03-31T02:36:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Dave Tallman wrote:\nThomas Bitterman" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "This just begs the question. The only record we have of them seeing any of\n\nthis is from the letters that Bax has. These are the very letters that are\nbeing called into doubt, at least the supernatural parts." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "No, I am bringing in all the independent witnesses against your theory. To\nsupport it, you have to say that the challenge note from George, the letters\nfrom Madame Orizia, and the second letter from Doris are all forged or\nedited by Bax. And I say that oversteps the bounds of the suspension of\ndisbelief. About the only letters admitted as factual at this point are\nthose to and from Shell, and letters from Millie." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "As mentioned in another post, the circumstances of George's note and its\ncontents make forgery probable, IMHO. Madame Orizia is an accomplice (and\nsomewhat out of\nthe loop - how could she cover his home \"quite thoroughly\", given the\nwarping it's always doing?). Doris was not emotionally stable when she\nwrote the second latter and should not be considered a reliable witness.\nFWIW, the Compiler (whom I maintain is Bax) is upfront about \"extensive\"\nediting.\n\nSo:\n- the note from George is a forgery\n- Orizia's letters are genuine, but she is mixing truth and fantasy\n- Doris's letters are genuine, but she is emotionally distraught and hence\nunreliable\n\nWindows into Faerie, werewolves, vampires, visions of the future, astral" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "projection, triannuluses (triannuli?), houses that grow and rearrange -\n\nthese are all harder to swallow than lucking into money. Not everything he\nsays is false, just the stuff about Faerie." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "All right then, what is your rational explanation for him \"lucking into\nmoney\"? Was a deed to a house just handed to him? If so, why? And then he\njust happens to inherit a valuable chunk of real estate? Please show\nin-story clues to what really happened." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Fraud and forgery. I mean, a felon fraudster, truly gifted in forgery,\n\"inherits\"/forges wills for properties from a couple of people who died out\nof town with no heirs? Really? This is less believable than windows into\nFaerie, werewolves, vampires, etc." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Thomas Bitterman", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2010-03-31T03:21:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:\nIf I had to construct a 'real' story along those lines, I'd go with\nsomething like this:\n1. Bax moves into the mansion\n2. when he tries to regularize his squatting, he goes to Martha and\nusing his smooth wiles on a lonely old woman, cons her into letting\nhim stay under the perfectly normal custodial arrangement" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "These seem reasonable, and Bax says they happened (although he gets the\nhouse before he squats long).\n\n3. He thoroughly searches the house, and discovers the eccentric" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "previous owners had had valuable collections. Bax didn't lie about the\ngold coins, but he found many more. Gold is very valuable, after all,\nespecially collectibles. Bax has modest needs. Alternate scheme: he\ntakes out a mortgage." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Exactly what Bax says happened (sans mortgage)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "4. He embarks on his elaborate con/murder scheme of George.\n5. Mischief managed." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Basically,\n- Bax meets girls (girls dig Bax)\n- Bax forges Skotos's will and gets property\n- George shows up, Bax kills him and disposes of the body (probably by\nthrowing it in the river)\n- Bax replaces George, dumps girls, and runs off with Millie\n\n6. He forges Murrey's will - she also had the Skotos Strip. (Why not?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "She seems to have tons of real estate in general.) Alternate scheme:\nhe gets her to sign that over as well / forges her signature." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The Skotos Strip was owned by Alexander Skotos, aka Zwart Black, not\nMurrey. Luckily for Bax, Skotos \"died\" out of town also without any normal\nheirs.\n\nIs it just me, or is it weird that Faerie-sorcerers own prime investment\nproperty? Is buying riverside plots in Reality something immortal\nFaerie-people do a lot? When he registered the deed, did he put \"that\ncastle over there that Ambrosius used to own\" as his home address? Or\nperhaps he provided a copy of his driver's license. He owns a car with a\nvampire locked in the trunk, so why not?\n\n7. Murrey vanishes like George." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't remember her vanishing. It is mentioned that Bax owned the house\nthat used to be hers, but it is not stated that she is dead. Other\ncharacters that are dead or missing are noted as such. The Compiler is so\nlax about checking details it is hard to say what really happened.\n\nNote how much violence to the narrative we have to do." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't see a lot of violence to anything but Faerie. It reads like \"murder\nin a small town\" with a thick layer of fantasy thrown on top." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4BB2CC14.9020208@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dave Tallman", "address": "davetallman at msn.com" }, "date": "2010-03-31T04:14:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Thomas Bitterman wrote:\nAs mentioned in another post, the circumstances of George's note and its\ncontents make forgery probable, IMHO. Madame Orizia is an accomplice (and\nsomewhat out of\nthe loop - how could she cover his home \"quite thoroughly\", given the\nwarping it's always doing?). Doris was not emotionally stable when she\nwrote the second latter and should not be considered a reliable witness.\nFWIW, the Compiler (whom I maintain is Bax) is upfront about \"extensive\"\nediting.\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't allow Bax as the Compiler in any theories because it makes \ncomplete fraud much too easy. But temporal rearrangement of letters is \nallowed. For example, if the second Doris letter was written when she \nwas drunk and/or crazy, then Bax is allowed to spin a story around the \ncrazy things she said (and maybe even forge the postscript).\n\nMoving the Skotos inquiry letter (155-157) earlier would help, because \nit helps eliminate the coincidence of Bax moving to Medicine Man and \nmoving into the Black House. Suppose eccentric millionaire Skotos \ndecided to leave property to Bax for whatever reason (he admired his Phd \nresearch?) Per the Shell letter of 197-198, Skotos was making inquiries \nabout Bax while he was in prison, and probably got in touch with Lou (p. \n9). Deeding the Black House to him, and making a will leaving the \nriver-front property would give Bax a reason to move there.\n\nUnfortunately, that doesn't quite work. The inquiry letter mentions \nGeorge being held at gunpoint, which wouldn't happen unless George came \nthere after receiving other strange letters. Early letters from Bax to \nShell (9-10, 23-24) indicate him moving to Medicine Man for other \nreasons and having no great expectations at all.\n\nSo we are left with Bax coincidentally moving to Medicine Man, and \ncoincidentally moving into a house that would be his. Such a coincidence \namounts to him being unconsciously being drawn there by his magical \nheritage. So it's magic, and the whole story stems from that.\n\nWhy the complete rejection of the fantastic, anyway. You wouldn't read \n\"Pirate Freedom\" with the attitude: \"Time travel is impossible, so \nwhatever the narrator says about going to the past must be lies.\" This \nis a Wolfe story, and he often writes of the fantastic. So why not \naccept it?" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4BB2D238.7020907@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dave Tallman", "address": "davetallman at msn.com" }, "date": "2010-03-31T04:40:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Thomas Bitterman wrote:\nBasically,\n- Bax meets girls (girls dig Bax)\n- Bax forges Skotos's will and gets property\n- George shows up, Bax kills him and disposes of the body (probably by\nthrowing it in the river)\n- Bax replaces George, dumps girls, and runs off with Millie\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"Girls dig Bax' -- not Doris, not without an expectation of money (per. \n\"Dear John\" letter, which needs to be genuine because it doesn't really \nmention the fantastic).\n\n\"Bax forges Skotos's will and gets property\" -- I find that /very/ hard \nto believe, especially since Bax knows nothing of Skotos at the \nbeginning and has to ask his cellmate for information." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Crossley", "address": "ishmael at drizzle.com" }, "date": "2010-03-31T06:18:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/30/10 6:55 PM, \"Thomas Bitterman\" wrote:\n\n\nBax has two audiences: Millie and the general public. Millie is the most\nimportant - he needs to woo her (and anger George) and uses her fondness for\nfantastic stories to do it. The general public will be dissuaded from looking\ntoo closely at the dodgy transactions involved due to the fantastic stories\nsurrounding them. And last, Bax wants to brag." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It’s just possible that Bax (or someone) might construct a bizarre fantasy\nto pull the wool over Millie’s eyes, but frankly, she seems too\nsimple-minded to appreciate the convoluted way the fantasy is laid out, so\nthat part of the argument isn’t very convincing to me.\n\nAs for the general public being less inclined to examine dodgy financial\ntransactions because of a barely-coherent cover story involving facefoxes,\nsilver bullets, vampires and sorcerers, I’m afraid that’s completely\nimplausible.\n\nJames" } ] }, { "message_id": "<483783.96122.qm@web37606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-04-17T15:11:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<4BB2CC14.9020208@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Dave Tallman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Why the complete rejection of the fantastic, anyway. You wouldn't read \"Pirate Freedom\" with the attitude: \"Time\ntravel is impossible, so whatever the narrator says about going to the past must be lies.\" This is a Wolfe story,\nand he often writes of the fantastic. So why not accept it?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Just on this point, and, although I'm not yet totally convinced that TSH is actually just a big con, I think there are a number of reasons why it would fit perfectly with Wolfe's attitude towards the fantastic." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From early on, Wolfe has recognized the two sides of the fantastic, both the actual pure wonder of it AND the potential for deception, both in worlds where it's real and worlds where it's all fabrication. The entire puzzle/mystery form of his writing is constantly playing with the idea that everything could have some other explanation. Sometimes the explanation is magical, often when we or characters expect our own \"realistic\" assumptions to be obvious and certain. But, at the same time, his magical characters are, even when \"really\" magical, also often full of illusion and deception: is the Claw *really* a magical trinket, or is it Severian's higher nature that does the \"magic,\" for example?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I mean, there are other examples, of course, but thematically, it seems to fit perfectly well with Wolfe's attitude toward the fantastic and the way it calls on us decide what is true or false, which is something his characters are always having to face (Silk and the Outsider, Able and his role in the world, Horn and his identity/duty, etc.). So maybe the question with Bax is whether or not his ability to tell a wonderful, compelling, puzzling story (which is, of course, also Wolfe's talent) is innocent or dangerous? From that angle, it seems like one of the \"big issues\" with TSH is the relationship between fantasy and dishonesty. That seems like a perfectly appropriate theme for a writer who has always maintained that fantasy is one of the best ways to deal with the \"really real\" -- why shouldn't he write a story that explicitly explores the other side of that coin?\n\nCraig\n\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<11462.72.171.0.142.1271518124.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2010-04-17T15:28:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<483783.96122.qm@web37606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I get the impression that the faery stuff is all real.\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dave Tallman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Why the complete rejection of the fantastic, anyway. You wouldn't read\n\"Pirate Freedom\" with the attitude: \"Time\ntravel is impossible, so whatever the narrator says about going to the\npast must be lies.\" This is a Wolfe story,\nand he often writes of the fantastic. So why not accept it?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Just on this point, and, although I'm not yet totally convinced that TSH\nis actually just a big con, I think there are a number of reasons why it\nwould fit perfectly with Wolfe's attitude towards the fantastic." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From early on, Wolfe has recognized the two sides of the fantastic, both\nthe actual pure wonder of it AND the potential for deception, both in\nworlds where it's real and worlds where it's all fabrication. The entire\npuzzle/mystery form of his writing is constantly playing with the idea\nthat everything could have some other explanation. Sometimes the\nexplanation is magical, often when we or characters expect our own\n\"realistic\" assumptions to be obvious and certain. But, at the same time,\nhis magical characters are, even when \"really\" magical, also often full\nof illusion and deception: is the Claw *really* a magical trinket, or is\nit Severian's higher nature that does the \"magic,\" for example?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I mean, there are other examples, of course, but thematically, it seems to\nfit perfectly well with Wolfe's attitude toward the fantastic and the way\nit calls on us decide what is true or false, which is something his\ncharacters are always having to face (Silk and the Outsider, Able and his\nrole in the world, Horn and his identity/duty, etc.). So maybe the\nquestion with Bax is whether or not his ability to tell a wonderful,\ncompelling, puzzling story (which is, of course, also Wolfe's talent) is\ninnocent or dangerous? From that angle, it seems like one of the \"big\nissues\" with TSH is the relationship between fantasy and dishonesty. That\nseems like a perfectly appropriate theme for a writer who has always\nmaintained that fantasy is one of the best ways to deal with the \"really\nreal\" -- why shouldn't he write a story that explicitly explores the other\nside of that coin?\n\nCraig\n\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-17T23:42:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<483783.96122.qm@web37606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So maybe the question with Bax is whether or not his ability to tell a wonderful,\ncompelling, puzzling story (which is, of course, also Wolfe's talent) is innocent or\ndangerous? From that angle, it seems like one of the \"big issues\" with TSH is the\nrelationship between fantasy and dishonesty. That seems like a perfectly appropriate\ntheme for a writer who has always maintained that fantasy is one of the best ways to\ndeal with the \"really real\" -- why shouldn't he write a story that explicitly explores the\nother side of that coin?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I just think the story is lame if the whole thing is a fabrication of\nBax's, because --after all-- it already IS a fabrication by Wolfe. It\nwould be like saying everything in the Latro novels was a product of\nLatro's deranged state due to his wound. It makes trying to understand\nthe \"contrived\" story to be moot, because any inconsistencies can be\nmarked up to shoddy story-telling. We're already facing the problems\nof possible plot-holes anyway. If we treat the story as a work by Bax\ninstead of Wolfe, what is the value of that? Shall we investigate the\nquality of Bax's novel instead? I certainly hope this is not true. I'm\nnot re-reading it as though this is the case, because I don't think\nI'm up to analyzing two novels at once.\n\nJ." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1870.72.171.0.142.1271549033.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2010-04-18T00:03:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "As I say, I get the impression that Bax lies a lot, but not about the\nsupernatural stuff.\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "So maybe the question with Bax is whether or not his ability to tell a\nwonderful,\ncompelling, puzzling story (which is, of course, also Wolfe's talent) is\ninnocent or\ndangerous? From that angle, it seems like one of the \"big issues\" with\nTSH is the\nrelationship between fantasy and dishonesty. That seems like a perfectly\nappropriate\ntheme for a writer who has always maintained that fantasy is one of the\nbest ways to\ndeal with the \"really real\" -- why shouldn't he write a story that\nexplicitly explores the\nother side of that coin?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I just think the story is lame if the whole thing is a fabrication of\nBax's, because --after all-- it already IS a fabrication by Wolfe. It\nwould be like saying everything in the Latro novels was a product of\nLatro's deranged state due to his wound. It makes trying to understand\nthe \"contrived\" story to be moot, because any inconsistencies can be\nmarked up to shoddy story-telling. We're already facing the problems\nof possible plot-holes anyway. If we treat the story as a work by Bax\ninstead of Wolfe, what is the value of that? Shall we investigate the\nquality of Bax's novel instead? I certainly hope this is not true. I'm\nnot re-reading it as though this is the case, because I don't think\nI'm up to analyzing two novels at once.\n\nJ.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<132766.1173.qm@web37607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-04-18T04:12:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I just think the story is lame if the whole thing is a fabrication of" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Bax's, because --after all-- it already IS a fabrication by Wolfe." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Perhaps. But I'm intrigued by the idea that this one might not just be Wolfe-as-usual. After all, there's a lot in this one that makes me think there might be other dimensions to work out. Maybe the game this time isn't \"figure out the puzzle\" but instead \"see how the lies illuminate the reality.\"\n\nSay, for the sake of argument, that nothing supernatural actually happened. Then we can ask why Bax would bother to create this whole farce? On the one hand, it freaks out his brother, gets Bax his wife, and is a full-on revenge and con scheme -- that's the plot level. But, in the story itself, we might also see Bax working out his failed relationship with his brother -- a bit of psychological allegory, perhaps. The whole \"good twin/bad twin\" thing with Emlyn and Ieuan is like him trying to decide if either he or George is the \"good\" or \"bad\" twin. There's the issue of absent/mysterious fathers from two brothers who have fought their whole lives and competed with each other over how to define success in terms of money, women, and careers. In other words, all of the \"fantasy\" elements could well be Bax coming up with little allegories about his relationship to George. It's myth-making in a perfectly Wolfean sense: using one myth to illuminate another\n story, but this time it's \"Faerie\" illuminating a broken relationship rather than, say, Norse/chivalric motifs illuminating a Christian story (TWK).\n\nAgain, I'm not convinced that this is right, but I'll hold out the possibility. One thing that keeps coming up is how the whole issue of the nature of trust and betrayal appears over and over.\n\nTake the \"Silver Bullets\" chapters (22 and 23) alone, it's almost pervasive: Bax and Emlyn go back and forth about \"promising\" and whether they're telling each other the truth about werewolves/facefoxes (160-1), Bax having the policeman ride with him for directions even though he doesn't have a license (a tiny but successful \"con,\" 164), the way Bax describes Trelawny as someone who trusted once and decided never to again (164), the entire scene about how to determine the truth of Bax's identity and whether or not to trust someone (and how difficult it is for Bax/Doris to trust the lawyer) (164-8), the wonderful image of Bax being able to write two different things with two different hands (167-8), the rigmarole about spoken versus written ways that Skotos gave identifying markers about Bax (166), whether or not the police could trust George's story or everyone else's (170), whether or not Bax wanted to lie about George hitting him (170), lying about the\n gun being loaded (171, 174), whether Skotos was a \"daredevil\" or a \"scoundrel\" (175), Bax explaining in the most detail so far about how he defrauded George and his friends (177-8), Bax lecturing Ieuan about trying to deceive a deceiver, again in the context of brothers deceiving each other (181), meeting Cathy Ruth, who claims proficiency at writing very public lies (187-88), the note in the box that could mean different things either magical or mundane (i.e., kill a werewolf or discover who the son/mother is) (190, 192).\n\nAnd this, at the very end of chapter 23: \"I don't say it often, because anyone can say anything. Words really mean very little. Men can be defrauded with words and women can be seduced with words, and it really comes to about the same thing.\" (195)\n\nAnd the name of the next chapter: \"Never Trust.\"\n\nAnd why \"Silver Bullets\" twice? Dull material that can easily rust its shiny, fantastic surface away...and kills magical, two-faced creatures? heh...\n\nGranted, a lot of that is thematic rather than plot-level details. But I guess I just have a hard time believing that such a careful writer as Wolfe would create a narrator whose primary biographical signifier from the beginning of the story is \"released prisoner convicted of fraud\" and then have us listen to him describe an utterly outrageous story of magic and luck with total credulity when he's also cramming the narrative full of overtones about how everyone could potentially be conning everyone else, from the newspaper people to the real estate agents to the jeweler trying to lowball Bax on the coin to the psychic with fake crystal balls." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "If we treat the story as a work by Bax\ninstead of Wolfe, what is the value of that? Shall we investigate the\nquality of Bax's novel instead?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If some of the stuff I've just said is right, then that's PRECISELY what we're supposed to be doing. If...\n\nCraig\n\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<844106.4073.qm@web37607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-04-18T04:15:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<1870.72.171.0.142.1271549033.squirrel@brunians.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "As I say, I get the impression that Bax lies a lot, but not about the" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "supernatural stuff." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "So, forget for the moment the obvious fact that Wolfe writes sf/fantasy...why would you trust a convicted con artist who starts writing letters to a brother he hates about a magical house?\n\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<3838.72.171.0.142.1271564958.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2010-04-18T04:29:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<132766.1173.qm@web37607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There are several Wolfes in several Worlds.\n\nI think three or four.\n\nThey pass stories around and collaborate.\n\n." } ] }, { "message_id": "<8780.72.171.0.142.1271565116.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2010-04-18T04:31:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<844106.4073.qm@web37607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't have a problem with the idea that he is running a number on his\nbrother.\n\nI don't have a problem with that idea at all.\n\nBut the supernatural stuff is real.\n\nI've known con men. Con men are OK as long as they are convinced that you\nwill seriously hurt them if they fuck with you.\n\nI've run cons, in fact, though I am not a con man by profession.\n\n." } ] }, { "message_id": "<257559.68360.qm@web37602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-04-18T04:34:39+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<8780.72.171.0.142.1271565116.squirrel@brunians.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That's nice, but it doesn't really explain why anyone should trust Bax.\n\nCome on, nothing in the text?\n\nMaybe this wolf(e) is just too conning/cunning and your disbelief was suspended before even opening the book?\n\n\n\n\n----- Original Message ----\nFrom: \"brunians at brunians.org\" \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Sat, April 17, 2010 11:31:56 PM\nSubject: Re: (urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)\n\nI don't have a problem with the idea that he is running a number on his\nbrother.\n\nI don't have a problem with that idea at all.\n\nBut the supernatural stuff is real.\n\nI've known con men. Con men are OK as long as they are convinced that you\nwill seriously hurt them if they fuck with you.\n\nI've run cons, in fact, though I am not a con man by profession.\n\n." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1809.72.171.0.142.1271565409.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2010-04-18T04:36:49+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<257559.68360.qm@web37602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You don't have to trust Bax.\n\nWhat you do is up to you, the way it always is or should be.\n\n." } ] }, { "message_id": "<731510.15843.qm@web37607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-04-18T04:42:32+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<1809.72.171.0.142.1271565409.squirrel@brunians.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, since \"Bax\" is the source of information about the supernatural in the book, I take it that while *I* don't have to trust Bax, *you* do if you think it happened.\n\nBut I get the feeling you're playing a different game than I am, so we'll leave it be.\n\nIn other news, anyone else read a book where every other event was organized by who was taking whom to which meal and who was paying for it? I can't decide whether that's important or whether Wolfe just always wrote this while hungry. My mental map of Medicine Man is dominated by restaurants.\n\n\n\n\n----- Original Message ----\nFrom: \"brunians at brunians.org\" \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Sat, April 17, 2010 11:36:49 PM\nSubject: Re: (urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)\n\nYou don't have to trust Bax.\n\nWhat you do is up to you, the way it always is or should be.\n\n." } ] }, { "message_id": "<2669.72.171.0.142.1271566737.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2010-04-18T04:58:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<731510.15843.qm@web37607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Certain kinds of people act certain kinds of ways.\n\nBax is a fictional character.\n\nI believe in lots of supernatural stuff and Wolfe does too.\n\nI don't ask you to use my reading of the book.\n\nI don't think that there are canonical readings to Wolfe's later books.\n\nI have no idea what to think about your feeling that I am playing a\ndifferent game than you are, and wonder if you might not expand upon this\nintriguing remark?\n\n." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gwern Branwen", "address": "gwern0 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-18T13:13:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<731510.15843.qm@web37607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nWell, since \"Bax\" is the source of information about the supernatural in the book, I take it that while *I* don't have to trust Bax, *you* do if you think it happened.\n\nBut I get the feeling you're playing a different game than I am, so we'll leave it be.\n\nIn other news, anyone else read a book where every other event was organized by who was taking whom to which meal and who was paying for it? I can't decide whether that's important or whether Wolfe just always wrote this while hungry. My mental map of Medicine Man is dominated by restaurants." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The latter, I think. Food pervaded AEG too - I think someone on this\nlist quoted Wolfe as saying that the Green Goddess salad dressing\nwasn't important but a joke and part of a personal challenge to see\nhow often he could work food in?" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "gwern" } ] }, { "message_id": "<464204.69124.qm@web37601.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-04-18T16:59:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Bax as the Compiler and a question", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Just a note that if Bax was the compiler, his degree in 19th century lit might make it perfectly appropriate for him to write an epistolary novel. More were certainly written in the 18th century, but a rather prominent one about a vampire was written in 1897.\n\nBut a question: he mentions that he was working on a 3rd Ph.D. when his aunt's money ran out. Do we know what he was studying or have any hints? Folklore? The occult?\n\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dave Tallman", "address": "davetallman at msn.com" }, "date": "2010-04-18T20:09:39+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Craig Brewer wrote:\nThat's nice, but it doesn't really explain why anyone should trust Bax.\n\nCome on, nothing in the text?\n\nMaybe this wolf(e) is just too conning/cunning and your disbelief was suspended before even opening the book?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Everyone who doubts Bax has to reckon with all the independent\ncorroborations in the story:\n1) The second letter of Doris, particularly the postscript confirms: the\nwerewolf attack, the strange basement, the rapist dwarf, and locking up the\nvampire. Not to mention the appearance of ghost Ted in the main body of the\nletter.\n2) The challenge note from George, confirming the existence of Faerie.\n3) The letter from the psychic confirming and charging for the vampire\nlock-up incident.\n4) Evidence found by the Collator that Bax had an ancient samurai sword.\n5) The fact that a ex-con swindler somehow obtained valuable real estate in\nMedicine Man.\n\nThe more I hear that all of this was forged by Bax somehow, and he was the\nCollator so he could change all the letters as much as he wished, the weaker\nthe case appears to me. There has to be a core of events that \"actually\nhappened\" that is confirmed by independent evidence." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Thomas Bitterman", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2010-04-18T21:41:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<132766.1173.qm@web37607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Craig Brewer wrote:\n\nGranted, a lot of that is thematic rather than plot-level details. But I\nguess I just have a hard time believing that such a careful writer as Wolfe\nwould create a narrator whose primary biographical signifier from the\nbeginning of the story is \"released prisoner convicted of fraud\" and then\nhave us listen to him describe an utterly outrageous story of magic and luck\nwith total credulity when he's also cramming the narrative full of overtones\nabout how everyone could potentially be conning everyone else, from the\nnewspaper people to the real estate agents to the jeweler trying to lowball\nBax on the coin to the psychic with fake crystal balls." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Mr. Brewer is better at explaining than I am, certainly. Severian tortures,\nLatro forgets. Why wouldn't a liar lie?" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Thomas Bitterman", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2010-04-18T22:05:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 7:42 PM, James Wynn wrote:\nSo maybe the question with Bax is whether or not his ability to tell a\nwonderful,\ncompelling, puzzling story (which is, of course, also Wolfe's talent) is\ninnocent or\ndangerous? From that angle, it seems like one of the \"big issues\" with TSH\nis the\nrelationship between fantasy and dishonesty. That seems like a perfectly\nappropriate\ntheme for a writer who has always maintained that fantasy is one of the\nbest ways to\ndeal with the \"really real\" -- why shouldn't he write a story that\nexplicitly explores the\nother side of that coin?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I just think the story is lame if the whole thing is a fabrication of\nBax's, because --after all-- it already IS a fabrication by Wolfe. It\nwould be like saying everything in the Latro novels was a product of\nLatro's deranged state due to his wound." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't know that anyone believes that everything Severian says is truthful,\nyet the New Sun series is not adjudged \"lame\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It makes trying to understand\nthe \"contrived\" story to be moot, because any inconsistencies can be\nmarked up to shoddy story-telling." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The inconsistencies are the clues that Bax is making it up. He's a\nsecond-rate fraudster spinning a tall tale on the fly. Of course he's\nmaking mistakes." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "We're already facing the problems\nof possible plot-holes anyway. If we treat the story as a work by Bax\ninstead of Wolfe, what is the value of that?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Either Bax is a bad writer, Wolfe is, or we're bad readers. At some point\nin the interpretation of the work, in order to smooth out inconsistencies\nand patch holes, it is very easy to start writing fan fiction instead of\ninterpreting. This is the worst of two worlds - bad readers covering up for\na bad writer. If the mistakes are Bax's, instead, then Wolfe has pulled off\na Borgesian feat - a wizard who has created a fictional world but left\nlittle inconsistencies in it so we can find our way back out." } ] }, { "message_id": "<7946.72.171.0.142.1271630080.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2010-04-18T22:34:40+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Con men normally behave like con men.\n\nI've known con men.\n\nIt's obvious to me that Wolfe has also.\n\nCon men are not all the time on the con.\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Craig Brewer wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Granted, a lot of that is thematic rather than plot-level details. But I\nguess I just have a hard time believing that such a careful writer as\nWolfe\nwould create a narrator whose primary biographical signifier from the\nbeginning of the story is \"released prisoner convicted of fraud\" and\nthen\nhave us listen to him describe an utterly outrageous story of magic and\nluck\nwith total credulity when he's also cramming the narrative full of\novertones\nabout how everyone could potentially be conning everyone else, from the\nnewspaper people to the real estate agents to the jeweler trying to\nlowball\nBax on the coin to the psychic with fake crystal balls." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Mr. Brewer is better at explaining than I am, certainly. Severian\ntortures,\nLatro forgets. Why wouldn't a liar lie?\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<839038.56389.qm@web37602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-04-19T03:23:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: How many types of magic?", "in_reply_to": "<7946.72.171.0.142.1271630080.squirrel@brunians.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "(I'm stepping away from my disbelief in magic here, so back\nto the world of the fiction...)\n \nHow many different types of \"magic\" are there in\nTHS? I mean, what in the book does a sorcerer actually do?\n \n1) We have the discussion of \"numen\" early on and\nits association with the triannulus.\n2) We've got familiars. (Winkle/Winker)\n3) We've got soul-swapping to become a werewolf (and so\nbecoming a shape-changer is something a human can apparently decide to do by a\n\"spell\" of some sort). [And why the literal nature of the wolf's\nskin? Earlier, Emlyn says that \"A werewolf is a man or a woman who puts on\na wolf's skin.\" (69), and I took that to be metaphorical/magical. But when\nthey face Lupine at the end, they literally cut off the wolf-skin.]\n4) We've got some vague power hidden in birth names\ndiscussed by old Nick.\n5) We've got travel through magic portals with the windows\nand Ieuan's breaking windows to keep Bax from going into faerie. (At least I\nassume that's what was going on.)\n6) Martha talks about distinctions between sorcerers,\nwitches, and warlocks: \"There's almost no one there [in faerie]. ...\nSorcerers who war with sorcerers. Sorcerers who war with witches. Warlocks who\nwar with everyone.\" At the very least, the sorcerer/warlock distinction\nseems important, so just who the frak IS Goldwurm?\n7) We've got Martha's talk about magic language: \"Magic...is\ndiplomacy. It isn't just saying the words. It's who says them, how he says\nthem, and when he says them.\" (283)\n \nSo is there some way to tie all this together? I might have\nan easier time just going with \"magic is magic, so let it be vague,\"\nexcept that, early on, the whole discussion of the triannulus and numen is\ngiven in such detail and then sort of casually forgotten that it just seems to\nbeg for some kind of more systematic approach. Then Martha's sudden mini-lecture on how to cast a spell comes back to something like instructing Bax how to be a sorcerer, which is what I thought the early numen talk was setting us up for.\n\n \n(I have to say that #7 really struck me as resonating with\nwhat Bax says about language and lying earlier: \"I don't say it often,\nbecause anyone can say anything. Words really mean very little. Men can be\ndefrauded with words and women can be seduced with words, and it really comes\nto about the same thing.\" (195) What Martha says is very similar to how\nBax talks about fraud: words mean little; it's how they're used, with whom and\nin what circumstances, that matters. If anything is a flag that we should at\nthe very least question how much we should believe of magic in this\nstory-told-through-people-talking-to-other-people, isn't this it?)\n \nOh, and his neighbor Mrs. Nabor/neighbor...a tiny thing that\nI just noticed, but with old Nick's talk about birth names being so powerful,\ndoes every character, major or minor, have this kind of (Dickensian, even)\nmeaningful name? (Although \"Nabor\" wouldn't have been her birth name...Murrey\nwas.)\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<006201cadf80$f6110940$90cd4a0c@rclackey>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2010-04-19T05:27:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dave Tallman wrote:\nEveryone who doubts Bax has to reckon with all the independent\ncorroborations in the story:\n1) The second letter of Doris, particularly the postscript confirms: the\nwerewolf attack, the strange basement, the rapist dwarf, and locking up\nthe\nvampire. Not to mention the appearance of ghost Ted in the main body of\nthe\nletter.\n2) The challenge note from George, confirming the existence of Faerie.\n3) The letter from the psychic confirming and charging for the vampire\nlock-up incident.\n4) Evidence found by the Collator that Bax had an ancient samurai sword.\n5) The fact that a ex-con swindler somehow obtained valuable real estate\nin\nMedicine Man.\n\nThe more I hear that all of this was forged by Bax somehow, and he was the\nCollator so he could change all the letters as much as he wished, the\nweaker\nthe case appears to me. There has to be a core of events that \"actually\nhappened\" that is confirmed by independent evidence." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What Dave said, and James, too.\n\nThe beauty of doubting all that is supernatural and having Bax as the\ncompiler is that anything the doubter cannot explain can be written off as a\nlie. That is very convienient for the doubter, but a line has to be drawn\nsomewhere. If some or all of the letters are lies or forgeries perpetrated\nby Bax, what are we left with? What, if anything, really happened?\n\nAdding to Dave's list: Did the house of the book's title even exist? If so,\ndid it in fact grow from nine rooms to more than forty? If not, how could\npeople keep getting lost in it? If there were no supernatural characters,\nwho were Lupine, Winker, Nicholas, Emlyn, Ieuan, old Nick and a\ntelephone-using dog named Toby? Who raped Cathy? If a boy from Faerie didn't\nbeat the hell out of Bax, who did?\n\nWhere did a failed con less than six months out of prison really get all\nthat money he was spending all over town? Where did he get ancient gold\ncoins? Who or what killed and dismembered at least three people?\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<819983.74223.qm@web37608.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-04-19T05:35:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<006201cadf80$f6110940$90cd4a0c@rclackey>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "If some or all of the letters are lies or forgeries perpetrated" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "by Bax, what are we left with? What, if anything, really happened?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Isn't that a strangely beautiful question?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "If there were no supernatural characters," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "who were Lupine, Winker, Nicholas, Emlyn, Ieuan, old Nick and a\ntelephone-using dog named Toby? Who raped Cathy? If a boy from Faerie didn't\nbeat the hell out of Bax, who did?\n\nAgain, strangely beautiful...\n\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<212118.32539.qm@web37604.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-04-19T05:42:14+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<006201cadf80$f6110940$90cd4a0c@rclackey>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Who or what killed and dismembered at least three people?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That, I think, is the crux of it. It appeals to Neil Gaiman's idea about wolf(e)s being key to GW books. But it's also the hinge between whatever fiction Bax could create and anything that could be substantiated by other sources.\n\nWho actually died and why?\n\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<111118.65134.qm@web37607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-04-19T05:43:48+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Kiki", "in_reply_to": "<212118.32539.qm@web37604.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And who is Kiki, really?\n\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4BCC5DC6.7010105@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dave Tallman", "address": "davetallman at msn.com" }, "date": "2010-04-19T13:42:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Kiki", "in_reply_to": "<111118.65134.qm@web37607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Craig Brewer" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And who is Kiki, really?\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The name \"Kiki\" might be an homage to \"Kiki's Delivery Service,\" a \nJapanese anime by Miyazaki. That would indicate that Kiki is a witch. \nShe demonstrates supernatural insight when she tells Bax and Doris that \nthere is a third person in the car, \"settin' in the dark.\" This must be \nNicholas in the trunk.\n\n\"Twice in a cart's all I ever rode,\" suggests she is not of the modern \nworld. She must be of Faerie." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Thomas Bitterman", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2010-04-19T14:24:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Dave Tallman wrote:\nCraig Brewer wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "That's nice, but it doesn't really explain why anyone should trust Bax.\n\nCome on, nothing in the text?\n\nMaybe this wolf(e) is just too conning/cunning and your disbelief was suspended before even opening the book?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Everyone who doubts Bax has to reckon with all the independent\ncorroborations in the story:" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I mentioned some of these before, but to recap." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "1) The second letter of Doris, particularly the postscript confirms: the\nwerewolf attack, the strange basement, the rapist dwarf, and locking up the\nvampire. Not to mention the appearance of ghost Ted in the main body of the\nletter." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The postscript would be the easiest part of the latter to forge. The rest\nof the letter does not mention Faerie. Doris is not terribly stable at that\npoint in the narrative in any case." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "2) The challenge note from George, confirming the existence of Faerie." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A letter that basically screams out \"Hey, police! I want to kill my brother\nand am taking active steps to do so!\". Out of character, written at a point\nwhen George is missing. IMHO, obviously Bax's doing. And now George is\ndead with no way to contest it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "3) The letter from the psychic confirming and charging for the vampire\nlock-up incident." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A psychic who is in on the con, at least part way." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "4) Evidence found by the Collator that Bax had an ancient samurai sword." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "IIRC, the Collator never could find the sword." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "5) The fact that a ex-con swindler somehow obtained valuable real estate in\nMedicine Man." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Bax is a con man. It's what they do." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The more I hear that all of this was forged by Bax somehow, and he was the\nCollator so he could change all the letters as much as he wished, the weaker\nthe case appears to me. There has to be a core of events that \"actually\nhappened\" that is confirmed by independent evidence." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Where do you plan on obtaining this independent evidence? The Collator is\namazingly negligent when it comes to gathering evidence. There should be\nall sorts of records of things that went on - deeds, newspaper articles,\npolice reports, other witnesses - yet the Collator examines none of them.\nIt's like he doesn't want to know." } ] }, { "message_id": "<6289.72.171.0.141.1271687173.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2010-04-19T14:26:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Kiki", "in_reply_to": "<4BCC5DC6.7010105@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That is what I thought.\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Craig Brewer\nAnd who is Kiki, really?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The name \"Kiki\" might be an homage to \"Kiki's Delivery Service,\" a\nJapanese anime by Miyazaki. That would indicate that Kiki is a witch.\nShe demonstrates supernatural insight when she tells Bax and Doris that\nthere is a third person in the car, \"settin' in the dark.\" This must be\nNicholas in the trunk.\n\n\"Twice in a cart's all I ever rode,\" suggests she is not of the modern\nworld. She must be of Faerie.\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<571520.55736.qm@web37608.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-04-19T14:40:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "3) The letter from the psychic confirming and charging for the vampire lock-up incident." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "A psychic who is in on the con, at least part way." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I do wonder about her \"fee.\" It's over $4k, right, which she says is just for \"travel reimbursement\" since she mentions elsewhere that she decided to do her other services for free. But that seems pretty steep just for a plane ticket and a few nights in a Hilton. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "4) Evidence found by the Collator that Bax had an ancient samurai sword." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "IIRC, the Collator never could find the sword." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "He couldn't, but he did find a safe that could have housed it. And the sword was also supposed to be \"George's,\" right? " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Where do you plan on obtaining this independent evidence? The Collator is amazingly negligent when it comes to gathering evidence. There should be all sorts of\nrecords of things that went on - deeds, newspaper articles, police reports, other witnesses - yet the Collator examines none of them. It's like he doesn't want to\nknow." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If Shell's letters are legitimate, then Skotos and the \"skinny man\" (Nicholas-the-vampire, I assume) were in fact looking for information on Bax, at least according to the guy Shell talked to. Is it possible that Skotos really was Bax/George's father, but that Bax was trying to still create a huge fiction to dupe George after he'd learned all about it? It'd be hard to piece that together, and it would be quite a fragile con.\n\nIn the end, I'm not convinced that the entire thing was a total fabrication. But I am convinced that Wolfe means us to think that it's a possibility since, otherwise, I have a hard time understanding why Bax should ever have been a con man at all, unless it was just an easy way to get the character into (and then out of) jail.\n\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Eugene Zaretskiy", "address": "eugene.zar at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-19T14:58:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<571520.55736.qm@web37608.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nIn the end, I'm not convinced that the entire thing was a total fabrication.\nBut I am convinced that Wolfe means us to think that it's a possibility\nsince, otherwise, I have a hard time understanding why Bax should ever have\nbeen a con man at all, unless it was just an easy way to get the character\ninto (and then out of) jail." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is what I think, too. Craig, earlier you said it made sense for\nWolfe to write a novel where the fantasy elements are fabrications.\nSimilarly, maybe his objective is more nuanced than that (Wolfe?\nNuanced? Crazy, I know) and he wants to \"con\" readers into believing\nwhatever they want about Bax's story. If there's a level to this book\nwhere Bax is the compiler and made everything up, I don't think it's\nthe ONLY path to understanding the book as a whole, but I agree with\nyou that Bax's being a con man and other such details are placed by\nWolfe to add to this particular reading. I'm amazed that the \"debate\"\nhas gone on for so long, though; you either believe it and toss away\nany hope of understanding the book as a puzzle box (this approach\nbeing understandably labeled \"lame\" by some) or you don't believe it.\n\nI get this feeling GW would be highly amused by all this. (Does he\nread this list?) Can't the \"Bax made it all up\" theory co-exist with\nthe puzzle box version?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "John Watkins", "address": "john.watkins04 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-19T15:07:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Maybe the point of the story is narrative desire. In college, a professor\nasked a class I was in if anyone believed that Trystero was \"real\" within\nthe world of The Crying of Lot 49. I was one of the ones who did, and when\nasked to explain why, I sort of blurted \"Because it's a better story.\"\n\nIf Bax is a con man who made up all the fantastic elements, then the story\nis prosaic, dull, and flat. If Bax is utterly honest with us and every word\nof the letters can be believed, then the story is straightforward. If Bax\nis artfully mixing truth and lies, and some of the supernatural events do\noccur, then the story is fascinating and complex. I want the best story to\nbe the \"true\" story, and maybe that's the point.\n\nOne thing that's significant about Wolfe's reliance on unreliable narrators,\nand I think this is most explicit in Long Sun and Short Sun, is that he's\nmirroring an important aspect of Christian religious faith. Believers, for\nthe most part, rely upon the Gospels, accounts that are, by their natural,\nunreliable. Wolfe seems to think that this is or can be a rational choice,\nbut he's not interested in soft-pedalling the complications this entails.\nBut maybe there's a Chesteronian idea at work as well, which is that stories\nthat are *compelling *are more likely to be true--that human beings\nnaturally seek to order things into coherent and interesting narratives\nbecause we think that such narratives best help us to make sense of the\nworld." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Eugene Zaretskiy wrote:\nOn Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Craig Brewer wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "In the end, I'm not convinced that the entire thing was a total\nfabrication.\nBut I am convinced that Wolfe means us to think that it's a possibility\nsince, otherwise, I have a hard time understanding why Bax should ever\nhave\nbeen a con man at all, unless it was just an easy way to get the\ncharacter\ninto (and then out of) jail." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This is what I think, too. Craig, earlier you said it made sense for\nWolfe to write a novel where the fantasy elements are fabrications.\nSimilarly, maybe his objective is more nuanced than that (Wolfe?\nNuanced? Crazy, I know) and he wants to \"con\" readers into believing\nwhatever they want about Bax's story. If there's a level to this book\nwhere Bax is the compiler and made everything up, I don't think it's\nthe ONLY path to understanding the book as a whole, but I agree with\nyou that Bax's being a con man and other such details are placed by\nWolfe to add to this particular reading. I'm amazed that the \"debate\"\nhas gone on for so long, though; you either believe it and toss away\nany hope of understanding the book as a puzzle box (this approach\nbeing understandably labeled \"lame\" by some) or you don't believe it.\n\nI get this feeling GW would be highly amused by all this. (Does he\nread this list?) Can't the \"Bax made it all up\" theory co-exist with\nthe puzzle box version?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<106850.13854.qm@web37606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-04-19T15:14:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm with you on this.\n\nI think a big part of it has to do with how the last few chapters start to talk about the nature of what a sorcerer does. Earlier, I mentioned how similar Martha's description of magic words are to Bax's description of lying. A lot of it comes down to controlling context and influencing how people will receive what gets said. (I.e., Bax has no idea what the magic words mean, but he can \"sell\" them, and that makes him a powerful sorcerer. Even the triannulus seems to come down to interpretation (the pictures are quite abstract, apparently, and Emlyn and Bax see either a fox or a wolf, depending on what they want...and Emlyn even suggests that sometimes it's hard to tell when the spell is finished since it often depends on symbols).\n\nBut if being a sorcerer is being a powerful story-teller, so powerful that you can make lies (or at least empty words) have real power, then perhaps it is possible that the story could be both true and false at the same time. And that's an idea I really like.\n\n\n\n----- Original Message ----\nFrom: Eugene Zaretskiy \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Mon, April 19, 2010 9:58:23 AM\nSubject: Re: (urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nIn the end, I'm not convinced that the entire thing was a total fabrication.\nBut I am convinced that Wolfe means us to think that it's a possibility\nsince, otherwise, I have a hard time understanding why Bax should ever have\nbeen a con man at all, unless it was just an easy way to get the character\ninto (and then out of) jail." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is what I think, too. Craig, earlier you said it made sense for\nWolfe to write a novel where the fantasy elements are fabrications.\nSimilarly, maybe his objective is more nuanced than that (Wolfe?\nNuanced? Crazy, I know) and he wants to \"con\" readers into believing\nwhatever they want about Bax's story. If there's a level to this book\nwhere Bax is the compiler and made everything up, I don't think it's\nthe ONLY path to understanding the book as a whole, but I agree with\nyou that Bax's being a con man and other such details are placed by\nWolfe to add to this particular reading. I'm amazed that the \"debate\"\nhas gone on for so long, though; you either believe it and toss away\nany hope of understanding the book as a puzzle box (this approach\nbeing understandably labeled \"lame\" by some) or you don't believe it.\n\nI get this feeling GW would be highly amused by all this. (Does he\nread this list?) Can't the \"Bax made it all up\" theory co-exist with\nthe puzzle box version?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Eugene Z\nhttp://blog.eugenez.net" } ] }, { "message_id": "<74803.35828.qm@web37604.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-04-19T15:18:43+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "One thing that's significant about Wolfe's reliance on unreliable narrators, and I think this is most explicit in Long Sun and Short Sun,\nis that he's mirroring an >important aspect of Christian religious faith. Believers, for the most part, rely upon the Gospels, accounts\nthat are, by their natural, unreliable. Wolfe seems to think that this is or can be a rational choice, but he's not interested in soft-pedalling\nthe complications this entails. But maybe there's a Chesteronian idea at work as well, which is that stories that are compelling are more\nlikely to be true--that human beings naturally seek to order things into coherent and interesting narratives because we think that such\nnarratives best help us to make sense of the world." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I like this a lot.\n\nIt also speaks to Severian's dilemma: could he just be a dupe of alien creatures AND an actual messiah figure? Even false things can be true.\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<11526.72.171.0.141.1271690776.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2010-04-19T15:26:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I go along with this.\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Maybe the point of the story is narrative desire. In college, a professor\nasked a class I was in if anyone believed that Trystero was \"real\" within\nthe world of The Crying of Lot 49. I was one of the ones who did, and\nwhen\nasked to explain why, I sort of blurted \"Because it's a better story.\"\n\nIf Bax is a con man who made up all the fantastic elements, then the story\nis prosaic, dull, and flat. If Bax is utterly honest with us and every\nword\nof the letters can be believed, then the story is straightforward. If Bax\nis artfully mixing truth and lies, and some of the supernatural events do\noccur, then the story is fascinating and complex. I want the best story\nto\nbe the \"true\" story, and maybe that's the point.\n\nOne thing that's significant about Wolfe's reliance on unreliable\nnarrators,\nand I think this is most explicit in Long Sun and Short Sun, is that he's\nmirroring an important aspect of Christian religious faith. Believers,\nfor\nthe most part, rely upon the Gospels, accounts that are, by their natural,\nunreliable. Wolfe seems to think that this is or can be a rational\nchoice,\nbut he's not interested in soft-pedalling the complications this entails.\nBut maybe there's a Chesteronian idea at work as well, which is that\nstories\nthat are *compelling *are more likely to be true--that human beings\nnaturally seek to order things into coherent and interesting narratives\nbecause we think that such narratives best help us to make sense of the\nworld.\n\nOn Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Eugene Zaretskiy\nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Craig Brewer \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "In the end, I'm not convinced that the entire thing was a total\nfabrication.\nBut I am convinced that Wolfe means us to think that it's a\npossibility\nsince, otherwise, I have a hard time understanding why Bax should ever\nhave\nbeen a con man at all, unless it was just an easy way to get the\ncharacter\ninto (and then out of) jail." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "This is what I think, too. Craig, earlier you said it made sense for\nWolfe to write a novel where the fantasy elements are fabrications.\nSimilarly, maybe his objective is more nuanced than that (Wolfe?\nNuanced? Crazy, I know) and he wants to \"con\" readers into believing\nwhatever they want about Bax's story. If there's a level to this book\nwhere Bax is the compiler and made everything up, I don't think it's\nthe ONLY path to understanding the book as a whole, but I agree with\nyou that Bax's being a con man and other such details are placed by\nWolfe to add to this particular reading. I'm amazed that the \"debate\"\nhas gone on for so long, though; you either believe it and toss away\nany hope of understanding the book as a puzzle box (this approach\nbeing understandably labeled \"lame\" by some) or you don't believe it.\n\nI get this feeling GW would be highly amused by all this. (Does he\nread this list?) Can't the \"Bax made it all up\" theory co-exist with\nthe puzzle box version?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4BCC7659.5070902@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2010-04-19T15:27:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Kiki", "in_reply_to": "<6289.72.171.0.141.1271687173.squirrel@brunians.org>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And there's also the eery significance of carts in /*Le Morte d'Arthur*/ and elsewhere: The condemned were carried in carts to the gallows, but goddesses were also carried in carts in procession long before that. \n\nSo a witch's or fairy's riding \"twice in a cart\" could mean something very precise, but I couldn't guess what." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 2\nDate: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:42:30 -0600\nFrom: Dave Tallman \nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nSubject: Re: (urth) Kiki\nMessage-ID: <4BCC5DC6.7010105 at gmail.com>\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed\n\nCraig Brewer" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "And who is Kiki, really?\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \nThe name \"Kiki\" might be an homage to \"Kiki's Delivery Service,\" a \nJapanese anime by Miyazaki. That would indicate that Kiki is a witch. \nShe demonstrates supernatural insight when she tells Bax and Doris that \nthere is a third person in the car, \"settin' in the dark.\" This must be \nNicholas in the trunk.\n\n\"Twice in a cart's all I ever rode,\" suggests she is not of the modern \nworld. She must be of Faerie.\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Eugene Zaretskiy", "address": "eugene.zar at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-19T15:42:07+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:07 AM, John Watkins wrote:\nMaybe the point of the story is narrative desire. In college, a professor\nasked a class I was in if anyone believed that Trystero was \"real\" within\nthe world of The Crying of Lot 49. I was one of the ones who did, and when\nasked to explain why, I sort of blurted \"Because it's a better story.\"\n\nIf Bax is a con man who made up all the fantastic elements, then the story\nis prosaic, dull, and flat. If Bax is utterly honest with us and every word\nof the letters can be believed, then the story is straightforward. If Bax\nis artfully mixing truth and lies, and some of the supernatural events do\noccur, then the story is fascinating and complex. I want the best story to\nbe the \"true\" story, and maybe that's the point.\n\nOne thing that's significant about Wolfe's reliance on unreliable narrators,\nand I think this is most explicit in Long Sun and Short Sun, is that he's\nmirroring an important aspect of Christian religious faith. Believers, for\nthe most part, rely upon the Gospels, accounts that are, by their natural,\nunreliable. Wolfe seems to think that this is or can be a rational choice,\nbut he's not interested in soft-pedalling the complications this entails.\nBut maybe there's a Chesteronian idea at work as well, which is that stories\nthat are compelling are more likely to be true--that human beings naturally\nseek to order things into coherent and interesting narratives because we\nthink that such narratives best help us to make sense of the world." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Awesome. Totally on board with John's reply." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Eugene Zaretskiy \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Craig Brewer wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "In the end, I'm not convinced that the entire thing was a total\nfabrication.\nBut I am convinced that Wolfe means us to think that it's a possibility\nsince, otherwise, I have a hard time understanding why Bax should ever\nhave\nbeen a con man at all, unless it was just an easy way to get the\ncharacter\ninto (and then out of) jail." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "This is what I think, too. Craig, earlier you said it made sense for\nWolfe to write a novel where the fantasy elements are fabrications.\nSimilarly, maybe his objective is more nuanced than that (Wolfe?\nNuanced? Crazy, I know) and he wants to \"con\" readers into believing\nwhatever they want about Bax's story. If there's a level to this book\nwhere Bax is the compiler and made everything up, I don't think it's\nthe ONLY path to understanding the book as a whole, but I agree with\nyou that Bax's being a con man and other such details are placed by\nWolfe to add to this particular reading. I'm amazed that the \"debate\"\nhas gone on for so long, though; you either believe it and toss away\nany hope of understanding the book as a puzzle box (this approach\nbeing understandably labeled \"lame\" by some) or you don't believe it.\n\nI get this feeling GW would be highly amused by all this. (Does he\nread this list?) Can't the \"Bax made it all up\" theory co-exist with\nthe puzzle box version?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "John Watkins", "address": "john.watkins04 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-19T15:44:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<74803.35828.qm@web37604.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "My own take on New Sun is that the aliens are the dupes of the Increate. I\nhave almost no textual support for this, except for the conversation in Long\nSun in which someone (Incus?) says that if a demon pretends to be a god the\ngod will convent them into himself. While Incus isn't necessarily the best\nguide, it's confirmed by the Outsider in Exodus:\n\n\"As I am claiming Kypris even now because love always proceeds from me, real\nlove, true love. First romance.\"\nSo if the Hieros are evil aliens duping Severian by pretending to be angels\nand archangels in the service of the Increate, they'll wind up being angels\nand archangels in the service of the Increate, at least indirectly and\neventually." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Craig Brewer wrote:\n >>One thing that's significant about Wolfe's reliance on unreliable\nnarrators, and I think this is most explicit in Long Sun and Short Sun,\nis that he's mirroring an >important aspect of Christian religious\nfaith. Believers, for the most part, rely upon the Gospels, accounts\nthat are, by their natural, unreliable. Wolfe seems to think that this\nis or can be a rational choice, but he's not interested in soft-pedalling\nthe complications this entails. But maybe there's a Chesteronian idea at\nwork as well, which is that stories that are *compelling *are more\nlikely to be true--that human beings naturally seek to order things into\ncoherent and interesting narratives because we think that such\nnarratives best help us to make sense of the world.\n\nI like this a lot.\n\nIt also speaks to Severian's dilemma: could he just be a dupe of alien\ncreatures AND an actual messiah figure? Even false things can be true.\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<472823.43390.qm@web37606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-04-19T15:51:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yep.\nAnd a torturer can become a savior by acting like one.\nAnd it adds a more meaningful dimension to Horn becoming Silk.\nAnd a con-man can turn from the \"evil twin\" to the \"good twin,\" etc., etc." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "John Watkins", "address": "john.watkins04 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-19T15:59:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<472823.43390.qm@web37606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nYep.\nAnd a torturer can become a savior by acting like one.\nAnd it adds a more meaningful dimension to Horn becoming Silk.\nAnd a con-man can turn from the \"evil twin\" to the \"good twin,\" etc., etc.\n\n\n ------------------------------\n*From:* John Watkins \n\n*To:* The Urth Mailing List \n*Sent:* Mon, April 19, 2010 10:44:13 AM\n\n*Subject:* Re: (urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)\n\nMy own take on New Sun is that the aliens are the dupes of the Increate. I\nhave almost no textual support for this, except for the conversation in Long\nSun in which someone (Incus?) says that if a demon pretends to be a god the\ngod will convent them into himself. While Incus isn't necessarily the best\nguide, it's confirmed by the Outsider in Exodus:\n\n\"As I am claiming Kypris even now because love always proceeds from me,\nreal love, true love. First romance.\"\nSo if the Hieros are evil aliens duping Severian by pretending to be angels\nand archangels in the service of the Increate, they'll wind up being angels\nand archangels in the service of the Increate, at least indirectly and\neventually.\n On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Craig Brewer wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": " >>One thing that's significant about Wolfe's reliance on unreliable\nnarrators, and I think this is most explicit in Long Sun and Short Sun,\nis that he's mirroring an >important aspect of Christian religious\nfaith. Believers, for the most part, rely upon the Gospels, accounts\nthat are, by their natural, unreliable. Wolfe seems to think that this\nis or can be a rational choice, but he's not interested in soft-pedalling\nthe complications this entails. But maybe there's a Chesteronian idea\nat work as well, which is that stories that are *compelling *are more\nlikely to be true--that human beings naturally seek to order things into\ncoherent and interesting narratives because we think that such\nnarratives best help us to make sense of the world.\n\nI like this a lot.\n\nIt also speaks to Severian's dilemma: could he just be a dupe of alien\ncreatures AND an actual messiah figure? Even false things can be true.\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "John Watkins", "address": "john.watkins04 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-19T16:00:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, that was right in front of me, Craig, and I missed it. We've been\nfocused on the effect of Bax's lies on others, not their effect on himself." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:59 AM, John Watkins wrote:\n\n\nOn Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Craig Brewer wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": " Yep.\nAnd a torturer can become a savior by acting like one.\nAnd it adds a more meaningful dimension to Horn becoming Silk.\nAnd a con-man can turn from the \"evil twin\" to the \"good twin,\" etc., etc.\n\n\n ------------------------------\n*From:* John Watkins \n\n*To:* The Urth Mailing List \n*Sent:* Mon, April 19, 2010 10:44:13 AM\n\n*Subject:* Re: (urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)\n\nMy own take on New Sun is that the aliens are the dupes of the Increate.\nI have almost no textual support for this, except for the conversation in\nLong Sun in which someone (Incus?) says that if a demon pretends to be a god\nthe god will convent them into himself. While Incus isn't necessarily the\nbest guide, it's confirmed by the Outsider in Exodus:\n\n\"As I am claiming Kypris even now because love always proceeds from me,\nreal love, true love. First romance.\"\nSo if the Hieros are evil aliens duping Severian by pretending to be\nangels and archangels in the service of the Increate, they'll wind up being\nangels and archangels in the service of the Increate, at least indirectly\nand eventually.\n On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Craig Brewer wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": " >>One thing that's significant about Wolfe's reliance on unreliable\nnarrators, and I think this is most explicit in Long Sun and Short Sun,\nis that he's mirroring an >important aspect of Christian religious\nfaith. Believers, for the most part, rely upon the Gospels, accounts\nthat are, by their natural, unreliable. Wolfe seems to think that this\nis or can be a rational choice, but he's not interested in soft-pedalling\nthe complications this entails. But maybe there's a Chesteronian idea\nat work as well, which is that stories that are *compelling *are more\nlikely to be true--that human beings naturally seek to order things\ninto coherent and interesting narratives because we think that such\nnarratives best help us to make sense of the world.\n\nI like this a lot.\n\nIt also speaks to Severian's dilemma: could he just be a dupe of alien\ncreatures AND an actual messiah figure? Even false things can be true.\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Matthew Keeley", "address": "matthew.keeley.1 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-19T16:08:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Kiki", "in_reply_to": "<4BCC7659.5070902@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:27 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:\nAnd there's also the eery significance of carts in /*Le Morte d'Arthur*/\nand elsewhere: The condemned were carried in carts to the gallows, but\ngoddesses were also carried in carts in procession long before that.\nSo a witch's or fairy's riding \"twice in a cart\" could mean something very\nprecise, but I couldn't guess what." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "At one point Lancelot, questing to save Guenivere, loses his horse, swallows\nhis pride, and rides in a cart to save the queen. Indeed, Lancelot was\nsometimes known as \"The Knight of the Cart\".\n\n-Matt" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4BCC83D6.9080202@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2010-04-19T16:24:54+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Can we put this together with John's post and call this \"the reification of narrative desire\"?\n\nAny story is, naturally, true and false at the same time, in exactly that way. Storytellers are hopeful liars. Readers are hopeful consumers of lies. And so on. Sorcerers take it one step further. \n\nThat's fantasy (entertainment)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nMessage: 1\nDate: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:14:27 -0700 (PDT)\nFrom: Craig Brewer \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSubject: Re: (urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)\nMessage-ID: <106850.13854.qm at web37606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii\n\nI'm with you on this.\n\nI think a big part of it has to do with how the last few chapters start to talk about the nature of what a sorcerer does. Earlier, I mentioned how similar Martha's description of magic words are to Bax's description of lying. A lot of it comes down to controlling context and influencing how people will receive what gets said. (I.e., Bax has no idea what the magic words mean, but he can \"sell\" them, and that makes him a powerful sorcerer. Even the triannulus seems to come down to interpretation (the pictures are quite abstract, apparently, and Emlyn and Bax see either a fox or a wolf, depending on what they want...and Emlyn even suggests that sometimes it's hard to tell when the spell is finished since it often depends on symbols).\n\nBut if being a sorcerer is being a powerful story-teller, so powerful that you can make lies (or at least empty words) have real power, then perhaps it is possible that the story could be both true and false at the same time. And that's an idea I really like." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-19T16:31:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<4BCC83D6.9080202@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"All statements are in some sense true, in some sense false, and in some\nsense meaningless.\" - the Principia Discordia." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:24 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:\nCan we put this together with John's post and call this \"the reification of\nnarrative desire\"?\n\nAny story is, naturally, true and false at the same time, in exactly that\nway. Storytellers are hopeful liars. Readers are hopeful consumers of lies.\nAnd so on. Sorcerers take it one step further.\nThat's fantasy (entertainment).\n----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nMessage: 1\nDate: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:14:27 -0700 (PDT)\nFrom: Craig Brewer \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSubject: Re: (urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)\nMessage-ID: <106850.13854.qm at web37606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii\n\nI'm with you on this.\n\nI think a big part of it has to do with how the last few chapters start to\ntalk about the nature of what a sorcerer does. Earlier, I mentioned how\nsimilar Martha's description of magic words are to Bax's description of\nlying. A lot of it comes down to controlling context and influencing how\npeople will receive what gets said. (I.e., Bax has no idea what the magic\nwords mean, but he can \"sell\" them, and that makes him a powerful sorcerer.\nEven the triannulus seems to come down to interpretation (the pictures are\nquite abstract, apparently, and Emlyn and Bax see either a fox or a wolf,\ndepending on what they want...and Emlyn even suggests that sometimes it's\nhard to tell when the spell is finished since it often depends on symbols).\n\nBut if being a sorcerer is being a powerful story-teller, so powerful that\nyou can make lies (or at least empty words) have real power, then perhaps it\nis possible that the story could be both true and false at the same time.\nAnd that's an idea I really like.\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Thomas Bitterman", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2010-04-19T19:57:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:07 AM, John Watkins wrote:\nMaybe the point of the story is narrative desire. In college, a professor\nasked a class I was in if anyone believed that Trystero was \"real\" within\nthe world of The Crying of Lot 49. I was one of the ones who did, and when\nasked to explain why, I sort of blurted \"Because it's a better story.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I thought Trystero was real, too. It's not even clear what it could mean\nfor a fictional entity to be thinking about something that wasn't real. But\nthis is starting to get real confusing.\n\nIf Bax is a con man who made up all the fantastic elements, then the story" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "is prosaic, dull, and flat." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't find it such. If lying and sorcery are the same thing, then Bax is\ntruly a powerful sorcerer. He fooled not just a bunch of fictional\ncharacters, but readers in the real world, too." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But maybe there's a Chesteronian idea at work as well, which is that\nstories that are *compelling *are more likely to be true--that human\nbeings naturally seek to order things into coherent and interesting\nnarratives because we think that such narratives best help us to make sense\nof the world." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Could you explain this further?" } ] }, { "message_id": "<178249.62229.qm@web37606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-04-20T14:30:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Kiki", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The OED says that \"cart\" was also often used for \"carriage,\" so it could just be Wolfe using older vocab.\n\nI'm more interested in Kiki's role in the narrative. I mean, is she just there for \"we're now in faerie\" flavor, or does she have some other identity we don't really know. The character list says that she was befriended by Doris and Bax, but does giving her a ride really go so far as making friends? Since Martha mentions witches and sorcerers fighting witches, I like the possibility that she's a witch, but then I wonder what else might identify her as a witch, apart from just being old, bent, mysterious, and able to tell that there's a vampire in the trunk.\n\nAnd, for some reason, when they mention that her house is just out of sight in the forest, something about that reminded me of one of the first glimpses of Faerie we get in Crowley's _Little, Big_ with the little house. Nothing specific, just one of many flashes of Crowley's book that kept popping into my head while reading. The houses that change shape/size is another obvious similarity, of course." } ] }, { "message_id": "<874612.39892.qm@web81406.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Stuart Hamm", "address": "hammstu at sbcglobal.net" }, "date": "2010-04-20T14:37:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Kiki", "in_reply_to": "<178249.62229.qm@web37606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Maybe I need to re-read the book look for references to \"Spirited Away\" and \"Princess Mononoke\"...\n\n???????? ? ? \n?Mobile — (415) 786-3624\nSTUHAMM.COM\nFACEBOOK/STUARTHAMM\nmyspace.com/stuhamm\nSkype? stuart.hamm\n? ?? \n\n\n--- On Tue, 4/20/10, Craig Brewer wrote:\n\nFrom: Craig Brewer \nSubject: Re: (urth) Kiki\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Tuesday, April 20, 2010, 7:30 AM\n\nThe OED says that \"cart\" was also often used for \"carriage,\" so it could just be Wolfe using older vocab.\n\nI'm more interested in Kiki's role in the narrative. I mean, is she just there for \"we're now in faerie\" flavor, or does she have some other identity we don't really know. The character list says that she was befriended by Doris and Bax, but does giving her a ride really go so far as making friends? Since Martha mentions witches and sorcerers fighting witches, I like the possibility that she's a witch, but then I wonder what else might identify her as a witch, apart from just being old, bent, mysterious, and able to tell that there's a vampire in the trunk.\n\nAnd, for some reason, when they mention that her house is just out of sight in the forest, something about that reminded me\n of one of the first glimpses of Faerie we get in Crowley's _Little, Big_ with the little house. Nothing specific, just one of many flashes of Crowley's book that kept popping into my head while reading. The houses that change shape/size is another obvious similarity, of course.\n\n\nFrom: Matthew Keeley \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Mon, April 19, 2010 11:08:02 AM\nSubject: Re: (urth) Kiki\n\n\nOn Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:27 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:\n\nAnd there's also the eery significance of carts in /*Le Morte d'Arthur*/ and elsewhere: The condemned were carried in carts to the gallows, but goddesses were also carried in carts in procession long before that. \n\n\nSo a witch's or fairy's riding \"twice in a cart\" could mean something very precise, but I couldn't guess what.\n\n\n\nAt one point Lancelot, questing to save Guenivere, loses his horse, swallows his pride, and rides in a cart to save the queen. Indeed, Lancelot was sometimes known as \"The Knight of the Cart\".\n\n-Matt\n\n\n\n\n \n-----Inline Attachment Follows-----" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-20T15:27:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "<1870.72.171.0.142.1271549033.squirrel@brunians.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "On my second read, I think Bax always intended to replace George from\nthe start. Right from letter #2, he gives George precise directions to\nthe house. I think that at that time, he intended for George to show\nup there so he could murder him. He definitely implies in the letter\nthat he is capable of murder.\n\nIncidentally, I'm more convinced the supernatural stuff is real. Bax\ninheriting a house is too coincidental otherwise. And you don't\nattempt to pull a con with \"My house is full of faeries (unless you\nare dealing with someone inclined to believe it).\n\nJ." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 7:03 PM, wrote:\n\nAs I say, I get the impression that Bax lies a lot, but not about the\nsupernatural stuff.\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "So maybe the question with Bax is whether or not his ability to tell a\nwonderful,\ncompelling, puzzling story (which is, of course, also Wolfe's talent) is\ninnocent or\ndangerous? From that angle, it seems like one of the \"big issues\" with\nTSH is the\nrelationship between fantasy and dishonesty. That seems like a perfectly\nappropriate\ntheme for a writer who has always maintained that fantasy is one of the\nbest ways to\ndeal with the \"really real\" -- why shouldn't he write a story that\nexplicitly explores the\nother side of that coin?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I just think the story is lame if the whole thing is a fabrication of\nBax's, because --after all-- it already IS a fabrication by Wolfe. It\nwould be like saying everything in the Latro novels was a product of\nLatro's deranged state due to his wound. It makes trying to understand\nthe \"contrived\" story to be moot, because any inconsistencies can be\nmarked up to shoddy story-telling. We're already facing the problems\nof possible plot-holes anyway. If we treat the story as a work by Bax\ninstead of Wolfe, what is the value of that? Shall we investigate the\nquality of Bax's novel instead? I certainly hope this is not true. I'm\nnot re-reading it as though this is the case, because I don't think\nI'm up to analyzing two novels at once.\n\nJ.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Eugene Zaretskiy", "address": "eugene.zar at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-20T16:06:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:27 AM, James Wynn wrote:\nOn my second read, I think Bax always intended to replace George from\nthe start. Right from letter #2, he gives George precise directions to\nthe house. I think that at that time, he intended for George to show\nup there so he could murder him. He definitely implies in the letter\nthat he is capable of murder." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I noticed the same thing on my second read through, but also just\nreading Bax's syrupy writing with the idea that his aim is to replace\nGeorge puts those early letters in a completely different light. Why\nis he writing to George in the first place? His\n\"he's-my-brother-and-I-love-him\" shtick stinks of Ieaun's poor\nattempts at pretending to be something else. I don't have the book in\nfront of me to quote, but almost every seemingly earnest plea to\nGeorge/Millie rings false. They rung false even on the first\nread-through, but I had chalked it up to Bax trying to keep up\nappearances and just being polite. Reading it now, it seems clear his\nintent is not only to lure George to him, but also to woo Millie. He's\nvery careful to speak kindly of George at all times, but also making\nhimself sound superior by making himself empathetic, uh, if that makes\nsense. Calling himself the bad brother with a curled lip and puppy\neyes, basically.\n\nMillie's not very bright, and Bax knows that. But I get the impression\nhe also knows that she would detect that it's not George who has\nreturned to her. So he's trying to convince her (successfully, as we\nsee in Millie's letter) that he's the better brother, and that a\nconfrontation between the two of them is inevitable. The last letter\nis for appearances' sake." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Incidentally, I'm more convinced the supernatural stuff is real. Bax\ninheriting a house is too coincidental otherwise. And you don't\nattempt to pull a con with \"My house is full of faeries (unless you\nare dealing with someone inclined to believe it)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, some of it. Bax certainly makes a compelling case for the\nopposite, in light of our observations above. He's a convicted con\nman, and knowing that he ultimately replaces his brother (if we are to\nuse that interpretation of the last letter) and reading his early\nletters for what they are, it does seem to lend credence to idea that\nwhat follows are Bax's all-inclusive attempts to con a easy-to-anger\nbrother to his death and a gullible Millie to believe the fantastic,\nromantic tale that unfolds using his knowledge of 19th century\nliterature as sources. I'm not saying I believe that, or don't believe\nit. As John Watkins said, choose whichever one makes a better story\nfor you." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "J.\n\nOn Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 7:03 PM, ? wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "As I say, I get the impression that Bax lies a lot, but not about the\nsupernatural stuff.\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "So maybe the question with Bax is whether or not his ability to tell a\nwonderful,\ncompelling, puzzling story (which is, of course, also Wolfe's talent) is\ninnocent or\ndangerous? From that angle, it seems like one of the \"big issues\" with\nTSH is the\nrelationship between fantasy and dishonesty. That seems like a perfectly\nappropriate\ntheme for a writer who has always maintained that fantasy is one of the\nbest ways to\ndeal with the \"really real\" -- why shouldn't he write a story that\nexplicitly explores the\nother side of that coin?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I just think the story is lame if the whole thing is a fabrication of\nBax's, because --after all-- it already IS a fabrication by Wolfe. It\nwould be like saying everything in the Latro novels was a product of\nLatro's deranged state due to his wound. It makes trying to understand\nthe \"contrived\" story to be moot, because any inconsistencies can be\nmarked up to shoddy story-telling. We're already facing the problems\nof possible plot-holes anyway. If we treat the story as a work by Bax\ninstead of Wolfe, what is the value of that? Shall we investigate the\nquality of Bax's novel instead? I certainly hope this is not true. I'm\nnot re-reading it as though this is the case, because I don't think\nI'm up to analyzing two novels at once.\n\nJ.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<36398.75608.qm@web37602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-04-20T16:12:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "On my second read, I think Bax always intended to replace George from the start." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I tend to agree. And on my second read, Bax really started to seem like an ass to me, at least at the beginning. Toward the end, I get the sense that he's changing quite a bit. But his whole tone often sounds to me like the kind of feigned innocence specifically designed to piss someone off, at least when he's addressing George. That whole \"I know you'll think I'm being crazy, but I swear I'm being sincere in my intentions\" and \"I can imagine you've thrown this away, but I do so hope you're still reading, my beloved brother\" seems like the kind of thing designed just to push someone's buttons, especially someone who already hates you. And since he told Shell early on that he at least planned to get a few hundred out of George, he's at least planning something from the beginning, even if it's not murder.\n\nAfter George shows up and is thrown in jail, though, the tone of the letters seems to change.\n\nAnd as for the fairy stuff being too crazy for a con, *IF* Bax was making it all up, I assumed it was for Millie's benefit and specifically to outrage George, both because the \"poetic\" creations would irritate the otherwise \"practical\" George and because George would probably guess that he was doing it to seduce Millie (or at the very least to seduce her imagination and sympathy for Bax).\n\nHave we entertained the possibility that some of the supernatural is real and some is made up? If anything was made up, I suspect that Emlyn and Ieuan aren't real but are instead a kind of creation Bax makes to tell a little story about how he and George don't get along. (But then that leaves open a lot of questions about Lupine's \"gifts\" for Emlyn and her reality, etc.)\n\n\n\n\n----- Original Message ----\nFrom: James Wynn \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Tue, April 20, 2010 10:27:15 AM\nSubject: Re: (urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)\n\nOn my second read, I think Bax always intended to replace George from\nthe start. Right from letter #2, he gives George precise directions to\nthe house. I think that at that time, he intended for George to show\nup there so he could murder him. He definitely implies in the letter\nthat he is capable of murder.\n\nIncidentally, I'm more convinced the supernatural stuff is real. Bax\ninheriting a house is too coincidental otherwise. And you don't\nattempt to pull a con with \"My house is full of faeries (unless you\nare dealing with someone inclined to believe it).\n\nJ." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 7:03 PM, wrote:\n\nAs I say, I get the impression that Bax lies a lot, but not about the\nsupernatural stuff.\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "So maybe the question with Bax is whether or not his ability to tell a\nwonderful,\ncompelling, puzzling story (which is, of course, also Wolfe's talent) is\ninnocent or\ndangerous? From that angle, it seems like one of the \"big issues\" with\nTSH is the\nrelationship between fantasy and dishonesty. That seems like a perfectly\nappropriate\ntheme for a writer who has always maintained that fantasy is one of the\nbest ways to\ndeal with the \"really real\" -- why shouldn't he write a story that\nexplicitly explores the\nother side of that coin?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I just think the story is lame if the whole thing is a fabrication of\nBax's, because --after all-- it already IS a fabrication by Wolfe. It\nwould be like saying everything in the Latro novels was a product of\nLatro's deranged state due to his wound. It makes trying to understand\nthe \"contrived\" story to be moot, because any inconsistencies can be\nmarked up to shoddy story-telling. We're already facing the problems\nof possible plot-holes anyway. If we treat the story as a work by Bax\ninstead of Wolfe, what is the value of that? Shall we investigate the\nquality of Bax's novel instead? I certainly hope this is not true. I'm\nnot re-reading it as though this is the case, because I don't think\nI'm up to analyzing two novels at once.\n\nJ.\n_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net" } ] }, { "message_id": "<656285.19570.qm@web37603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-04-20T16:48:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "People have put forward the possibility that Ted was Ambrosius, the \"murdered Sorcerer.\" (The initials TAG would also support that: Ted/Theodore Ambrosius Griffin.)\n\nBut is it also possible that he was a werewolf who had been beaten during the fight with Lupine? Was the \"something wet\" a wolf skin that was removed like Lupine's? The fight did happen by the river, of course, so it could well have gotten wet in the fight, or the \"Riverman\" could have scalped him or some such. Then perhaps the ring was his soul that got traded away, and now Doris wants it back because she (intuitively, at least) expects that it will help him come back all the way?\n\nAlso, was Griffin his name or Doris' maiden name? I don't recall her ever saying either way. Could the \"G\" in TAG also stand for Goldwurm? After all, isn't a golden worm wind itself into a circle/ring, like the one Doris gives Bax?\n\nAnd, not to push too far, but could Ted have been Mr. Black as well? Doris never saw Skotos/Mr. Black, and she says that Bax reminds him of her. And her description fits with what we know of Mr. Black: \"He was taller and quite a bit heavier. Your hair's sort of yellow-brown, and his was almost black.\" (39) (Interestingly, when describing the fish, there are three \"shades of black\" (37) in the fish...but perhaps there are also three \"shades\" of Mr. Black: Mr. B/Skotos/Ted? Ted died two years before all of this, and I can't find the part where it says how long ago Skotos or Mr. Black died.\n\n(And only vaguely related, but is the lion-headed man that Winker takes Bax to at all related to Doris? She's Griffin, a lion's body, so that lion head would complete her? Is that just grasping at straws?)\n\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gwern Branwen", "address": "gwern0 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-20T16:57:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "<656285.19570.qm@web37603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\n(And only vaguely related, but is the lion-headed man that Winker takes Bax to at all related to Doris? She's Griffin, a lion's body, so that lion head would complete her? Is that just grasping at straws?)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "My take is that the lion-head is another Orientalism; not precisely\naccurate (no more than the Musashi depicted), but 'through a mirror\ndarkly'. Lions are an extremely common motif in Buddhism (the Lion's\nroar drives away ignorance), and in particular, Manjushri,\nBoddhisattva of wisdom (Bax goes to the lion-man for answers,\nremember), is frequently paired with lions.*\n\n* quick ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manjushri#Iconography" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "gwern" } ] }, { "message_id": "<002b01cae0b7$af48c7e0$b5cd4a0c@rclackey>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2010-04-20T18:31:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "<656285.19570.qm@web37603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Craig Brewer wrote:\n[snip]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Also, was Griffin his name or Doris' maiden name? I don't recall her ever\nsaying either way. Could the \"G\" in TAG also stand for Goldwurm? After all,\nisn't a golden worm wind itself into a circle/ring, like the one Doris gives\nBax?<" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The list of characters at the end gives his name as Ted Griffin." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And, not to push too far, but could Ted have been Mr. Black as well? Doris\nnever saw Skotos/Mr. Black, and she says that Bax reminds him of her. And\nher description fits with what we know of Mr. Black: \"He was taller and\nquite a bit heavier. Your hair's sort of yellow-brown, and his was almost\nblack.\" (39) <" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Nope. Doris said that Ted was taller and heavier than Bax (39). Bax also\ndescribed the apparition of Ted he saw in the Skotos woods as a \"big,\nheavyset man\" (129). Biddy described Black as \"small, not a whole lot taller\nthan I am\" (207). Jake said Skotos (aka Black) was \"three or four inches\nshorter\" than Bax and agreed with Bax that he had been \"a brisk, energetic\nlittle man\" (217).\n\n[snip]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ted died two years before all of this, and I can't find the part where it\nsays how long ago Skotos or Mr. Black died.<" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Skotos \"died\" three years ago (216).\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<002401cae0bc$b55e2580$48d14a0c@rclackey>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2010-04-20T19:07:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Kiki", "in_reply_to": "<178249.62229.qm@web37606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Craig Brewer wrote:\n[snip]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And, for some reason, when they mention that her house is just out of\nsight in the forest, something about that reminded me of one of the first\nglimpses of Faerie we get in Crowley's _Little, Big_ with the little house." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Nothing specific, just one of many flashes of Crowley's book that kept\npopping into my head while reading. The houses that change shape/size is\nanother obvious similarity, of course.<\n\nI, too, was reminded of Crowley's book, particularly that last bit about\nhouses changing size, being bigger on the inside than they could possibly\nhave been as judged from outside, IIRC. That is why I brought up earlier the\nissue of the Black house changing from nine rooms to more than forty. Martha\nsaid, \"It grows when people live in it, and shrinks when they don't.\" (278)\n\nThe house, perhaps more than anything else, makes me believe the Faerie bits\nof the story are true. That house is a doorway into Faerie, and that is why\nGeorge wanted it. (261)\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "John Watkins", "address": "john.watkins04 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-20T19:14:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Kiki", "in_reply_to": "<002401cae0bc$b55e2580$48d14a0c@rclackey>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I haven't read Little, Big yet (on my shelf but buried at the moment) but\ndid anyone else get a bit of a House of Leaves vibe? House of Leaves is,\nIMHO, a more ambitious book and a better one, but both are stories about\nweird houses that seemingly increase in size, told by unreliable narrators\nand involving a pair of twins. There's even an epistolatory section of\nHouse of Leaves." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nCraig Brewer wrote:\n[snip]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "And, for some reason, when they mention that her house is just out of\nsight in the forest, something about that reminded me of one of the first\nglimpses of Faerie we get in Crowley's _Little, Big_ with the little house." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Nothing specific, just one of many flashes of Crowley's book that kept\npopping into my head while reading. The houses that change shape/size is\nanother obvious similarity, of course.<\n\nI, too, was reminded of Crowley's book, particularly that last bit about\nhouses changing size, being bigger on the inside than they could possibly\nhave been as judged from outside, IIRC. That is why I brought up earlier\nthe\nissue of the Black house changing from nine rooms to more than forty.\nMartha\nsaid, \"It grows when people live in it, and shrinks when they don't.\" (278)\n\nThe house, perhaps more than anything else, makes me believe the Faerie\nbits\nof the story are true. That house is a doorway into Faerie, and that is why\nGeorge wanted it. (261)\n\n-Roy\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Fred Kiesche", "address": "godelescherbach at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-20T19:15:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Kiki", "in_reply_to": "<4BCC5DC6.7010105@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Maybe we need to search the text for Sluggy Freelance references! ;)\n\nhttp://www.sluggy.com/\n\nhttp://www.sluggy.com/nvg\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_of_Sluggy_Freelance#Kiki" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Dave Tallman wrote:\nCraig Brewer\n\nAnd who is Kiki, really?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The name \"Kiki\" might be an homage to \"Kiki's Delivery Service,\" a Japanese\nanime by Miyazaki. That would indicate that Kiki is a witch. She\ndemonstrates supernatural insight when she tells Bax and Doris that there is\na third person in the car, \"settin' in the dark.\" This must be Nicholas in\nthe trunk.\n\n\"Twice in a cart's all I ever rode,\" suggests she is not of the modern\nworld. She must be of Faerie.\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<912986.45611.qm@web37603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-04-20T20:49:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "<002b01cae0b7$af48c7e0$b5cd4a0c@rclackey>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Roy said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The list of characters at the end gives his name as Ted Griffin." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Doh. Totally forgot to check. And you're right about the different descriptions of Skotos, as well (another oversight).\n\nBut what about his connection to the werewolves, if there is one? He appears to Bax in the woods the same time he meets Lupine. And it still seems possible that whatever \"wet\" thing he had with him when he appeared to Doris could have been a wolf skin...although why was it embroidered with his initials? Obviously, its being wet is supposed to help us identify it, but I feel dense for not quite getting it.\n\nAnd do we think he's actually dead and what Bax/Doris see is his ghost? Or has he just relocated to faerie like Black seems to have done? The list of characters specifically identifies Ambrosius as a \"murdered\" sorcerer, so if Ted and Ambrosius are the same, we're seeing his ghost?\n\nBut even more than that...why is Ambrosius or Ted even in the story, for that matter? I can't quite figure out their significance, other than as an added bit of strangeness.\n\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-20T21:48:07+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "<912986.45611.qm@web37603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And it still seems possible that whatever \"wet\" thing he had with him\nwhen he appeared to Doris could have been a wolf skin...\nalthough why was it embroidered with his initials?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The most obvious explanation is that it was a handkerchief into which\nTed was crying. That explanation seems *too* obvious in light of that\nDoris would not name it, but a wolfskin does not seem to be a likely\nembroidered item unless Ted's mom didn't want him to lose it when went\nto Faeri camp.\n\nJ." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nRoy said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The list of characters at the end gives his name as Ted Griffin." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Doh. Totally forgot to check. And you're right about the different descriptions of Skotos, as well (another oversight).\n\nBut what about his connection to the werewolves, if there is one? He appears to Bax in the woods the same time he meets Lupine. And it still seems possible that whatever \"wet\" thing he had with him when he appeared to Doris could have been a wolf skin...although why was it embroidered with his initials? Obviously, its being wet is supposed to help us identify it, but I feel dense for not quite getting it.\n\nAnd do we think he's actually dead and what Bax/Doris see is his ghost? Or has he just relocated to faerie like Black seems to have done? The list of characters specifically identifies Ambrosius as a \"murdered\" sorcerer, so if Ted and Ambrosius are the same, we're seeing his ghost?\n\nBut even more than that...why is Ambrosius or Ted even in the story, for that matter? I can't quite figure out their significance, other than as an added bit of strangeness.\n\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-20T22:44:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Kiki", "in_reply_to": "<002401cae0bc$b55e2580$48d14a0c@rclackey>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I, too, was reminded of Crowley's book, particularly that last bit about\nhouses changing size, being bigger on the inside than they could possibly\nhave been as judged from outside, IIRC. That is why I brought up earlier the\nissue of the Black house changing from nine rooms to more than forty. Martha\nsaid, \"It grows when people live in it, and shrinks when they don't.\" (278)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The labyrnthian Black House's reminded me of Weer's large, constantly\ngrowing house in Peace which had rooms Weer knew of but had trouble or\neven no idea how to find them.\n\nJ." } ] }, { "message_id": "<005101cae0e6$72bd7800$76d14a0c@rclackey>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2010-04-21T00:06:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "<912986.45611.qm@web37603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Craig Brewer wrote:\nBut what about his connection to the werewolves, if there is one? He\nappears to Bax in the woods the same time he meets Lupine. <" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "FWIW, my impression of Ted's ghost (if it was a ghost) in the woods was that\nhe was trying to protect Doris in some way from the werewolf. In the same\nway, I thought that Winkle was also trying to distract Lupine away from Bax\nby barking and getting the werewolf to chase her.\n\nEarlier, It was also Ted's ghost(?) who intervened when Ieuan was beating\nBax. That was the man he mistook as Ieuan's father." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And it still seems possible that whatever \"wet\" thing he had with him when\nhe appeared to Doris could have been a wolf skin...although why was it\nembroidered with his initials? Obviously, its being wet is supposed to help\nus identify it, but I feel dense for not quite getting it.<" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't know what it was if it wasn't a handkerchief, but I don't think a\nwolf skin could be said to have a \"corner\".\n\nWell, hell! My wife hasn't read the book, knows nothing about it. But I just\ndescribed the scene to her that Doris described in her letter, and said that\na monogrammed handkerchief, the obvious choice, probably wasn't the answer.\nShe came up with stationery. Duh! In a book made up of letters! Who wudda\nthunk it!\n\nI have to think about this.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4BCE587A.9070008@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Adam Thornton", "address": "adam at io.com" }, "date": "2010-04-21T01:44:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Kiki", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Fred Kiesche wrote:\nMaybe we need to search the text for Sluggy Freelance references! ;)\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Uh, guys?\n\nMaybe there *is* a Geek Comic reference going on.\n\nDoes no one else remember Ted Griffin?\n\nDilbert from, oh, 1995 or so: Dilbert needs approval for some sort of \npurchase. His boss says \"You need to get Griffin's signature.\" Dilbert \nasks, \"You mean Ted Griffin in finance or \nGriffin-the-mythological-beast?\" Pointy-haired boss answers \"Whichever \nis harder.\"\n\nAdam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Eugene Zaretskiy", "address": "eugene.zar at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-21T04:30:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Kiki", "in_reply_to": "<4BCE587A.9070008@io.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Adam Thornton wrote:\nFred Kiesche wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Maybe we need to search the text for Sluggy Freelance references! ;)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Uh, guys?\n\nMaybe there *is* a Geek Comic reference going on.\n\nDoes no one else remember Ted Griffin?\n\nDilbert from, oh, 1995 or so: Dilbert needs approval for some sort of\npurchase. ?His boss says \"You need to get Griffin's signature.\" ?Dilbert\nasks, \"You mean Ted Griffin in finance or Griffin-the-mythological-beast?\"\n?Pointy-haired boss answers \"Whichever is harder.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Or it could be a reference to Ted Griffin, who wrote the screenplay\nfor Matchstick Men. ;)\n\nIn all seriousness, it seems to me that Ted is short for Theodore.\nSome website I found on Google says that comes from the words \"Divine\nGift\" in Greek. And according to Wikipedia, Amborsius is Latin derived\nfrom the Greek word \"ambrotos\" meaning divine or immortal. That links\nthose two quite nicely for me and explains the name. Google isn't\nshedding any light on Griffin. Don't mythological griffins guard gold?\nIsn't Ted's ring gold?\n\nAnyway, I apologize if this sounds flippant. It just seems as though\ntossing out names from pop culture isn't very useful. I personally\nprefer trying to understand the etymology of the name, a habit this\nlist actually got me hooked on. That said, Kiki from _Delivery\nService_ is at least slightly more believable to me because she *is* a\nwitch." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Adam\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<001b01cae11b$681120c0$b8d24a0c@rclackey>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2010-04-21T06:25:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "<912986.45611.qm@web37603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Taking up where I left off:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Craig Brewer wrote:\nAnd do we think he's actually dead and what Bax/Doris see is his ghost? Or\nhas he just relocated to faerie like Black seems to have done? The list of\ncharacters specifically identifies Ambrosius as a \"murdered\" sorcerer, so if\nTed and Ambrosius are the same, we're seeing his ghost?<" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm not sure what to think about Ted. Doris claimed to still be paying off\nhis medical bills, which suggests he died, probably in a hospital. Funerals\ncan be faked, like Skotos's.\n\nThe best Bax could figure, Skotos showed up about the time Black\ndisappeared. Bax stopped drinking three years and ten months ago, presumably\nwhen he went to prison. He spent a little over three years there and had\nbeen out for less than six months. Skotos \"died\" three years ago, just about\nthe time Bax went to prison.\n\nMartha left her younger twins when they were still young boys. (I'm not sure\nhow that works. If no one ages in Faerie, how could they ever grow up There?\nBax pegged their age at 13 to 15. How did they get to be that old unless\nthey spent those years Here?)\n\nI'm rambling here. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But even more than that...why is Ambrosius or Ted even in the story, for\nthat matter? I can't quite figure out their significance, other than as an\nadded bit of strangeness.<" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The ring with the changeable stone that Bax found in the catfish was\napparently the object in which Ambrosius had stored some of his power (270).\nSo Ted's ring probably had nothing to do with Ambrosius. Ambrosius was\nBlack's rival in some sense (ibid.). I suggest that the external object in\nwhich Black stored some of his power was the poor wooden crutch old Nick\ncarried but didn't need to walk. At the final river battle, old Nick\nrevealed himself as Zwart Black and his crutch became more like a hiker's\nstaff and had a \"gold head\" (284).\n\nI showed earlier that Ted is not Black. Black is not dead and has his own\n\"weapon of sorcery\" (so called, p-73). If Goldwurm killed Ambrosius, he\nobviously did not kill Black. *After* Doris gave Bax Ted's ring, when the\nbig man we later learn looked like Ted showed up when Ieuan was beating Bax,\nBax saw a ring on the big man's hand (50). (At least I *think* he meant a\nring on the man's hand. Maybe not.) That ring, at the time, made Bax think\nthe big man was \"something else\" than the boy's father, a false conclusion\nhe came to after the event. What the hell? What ring could dead Ted have\nbeen wearing that night? According to Doris, he hadn't even been buried with\nhis wedding band, which was then being worn by Bax.\n\nWhat \"something else\" could Bax have thought him to be? A ghost, because the\nring on the man's hand (if that is intended) looked like one of the two he\nhimself was wearing? Remember, at that point Bax didn't know what Ted or\nBlack looked like. Or Ambrosius.\n\nWhatever the conclusion Bax came to about this ring at the time, why did he\nlater decide the big man must be the boy's father?\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<834910.26309.qm@web37605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-04-21T12:53:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "<001b01cae11b$681120c0$b8d24a0c@rclackey>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "These are all good questions and ways to reason this out, I think.\n\nA couple of points: are we sure that the man who appears to Bax by the river before he talks to Lupine was actually Ambrosius? Why not Goldwurm? I've been assuming, like others, that Ted and Ambrosius were probably the same and that his appearing in the forest was somehow to protect Doris. But I suppose I could be mistaken. When the \"big, heavyset man\" stands frowning in front of them (129), Doris has already turned back and Lupine was holding Bax's hand. Maybe a small detail, but it already seems at that point that Lupine is more interested in Bax than Doris, so does she need protection?\n\nI'm also just curious about Ted's ring. It's gold and has a basket-weave design. All we know about Goldwurm, really, is his name and that he lives in a tower. But a golden wurm just seems too close to a golden ring for me to dismiss the possibility quite yet.\n\nAnother question: with so many twins around, is it possible that Zwart Black also has a twin? If so, Ted is out because, as Roy has pointed out, Wolfe specifically makes them different sizes. But could it be Goldwurm since so much is made about good and bad twins fighting? Or Ambrosius if he ISN'T Ted? But who and why? (And if Black was really old Nick the whole time, is Nicholas more than just a created vampire?)\n\nSorry for the ramble...\n\n\n\n\n----- Original Message ----\nFrom: Roy C. Lackey \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Wed, April 21, 2010 1:25:10 AM\nSubject: Re: (urth) TSH: Ted's identity\n\nTaking up where I left off:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Craig Brewer wrote:\nAnd do we think he's actually dead and what Bax/Doris see is his ghost? Or\nhas he just relocated to faerie like Black seems to have done? The list of\ncharacters specifically identifies Ambrosius as a \"murdered\" sorcerer, so if\nTed and Ambrosius are the same, we're seeing his ghost?<" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm not sure what to think about Ted. Doris claimed to still be paying off\nhis medical bills, which suggests he died, probably in a hospital. Funerals\ncan be faked, like Skotos's.\n\nThe best Bax could figure, Skotos showed up about the time Black\ndisappeared. Bax stopped drinking three years and ten months ago, presumably\nwhen he went to prison. He spent a little over three years there and had\nbeen out for less than six months. Skotos \"died\" three years ago, just about\nthe time Bax went to prison.\n\nMartha left her younger twins when they were still young boys. (I'm not sure\nhow that works. If no one ages in Faerie, how could they ever grow up There?\nBax pegged their age at 13 to 15. How did they get to be that old unless\nthey spent those years Here?)\n\nI'm rambling here. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But even more than that...why is Ambrosius or Ted even in the story, for\nthat matter? I can't quite figure out their significance, other than as an\nadded bit of strangeness.<" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The ring with the changeable stone that Bax found in the catfish was\napparently the object in which Ambrosius had stored some of his power (270).\nSo Ted's ring probably had nothing to do with Ambrosius. Ambrosius was\nBlack's rival in some sense (ibid.). I suggest that the external object in\nwhich Black stored some of his power was the poor wooden crutch old Nick\ncarried but didn't need to walk. At the final river battle, old Nick\nrevealed himself as Zwart Black and his crutch became more like a hiker's\nstaff and had a \"gold head\" (284).\n\nI showed earlier that Ted is not Black. Black is not dead and has his own\n\"weapon of sorcery\" (so called, p-73). If Goldwurm killed Ambrosius, he\nobviously did not kill Black. *After* Doris gave Bax Ted's ring, when the\nbig man we later learn looked like Ted showed up when Ieuan was beating Bax,\nBax saw a ring on the big man's hand (50). (At least I *think* he meant a\nring on the man's hand. Maybe not.) That ring, at the time, made Bax think\nthe big man was \"something else\" than the boy's father, a false conclusion\nhe came to after the event. What the hell? What ring could dead Ted have\nbeen wearing that night? According to Doris, he hadn't even been buried with\nhis wedding band, which was then being worn by Bax.\n\nWhat \"something else\" could Bax have thought him to be? A ghost, because the\nring on the man's hand (if that is intended) looked like one of the two he\nhimself was wearing? Remember, at that point Bax didn't know what Ted or\nBlack looked like. Or Ambrosius.\n\nWhatever the conclusion Bax came to about this ring at the time, why did he\nlater decide the big man must be the boy's father?\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-21T13:37:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "<005101cae0e6$72bd7800$76d14a0c@rclackey>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But what about his connection to the werewolves, if there is one?\nHe appears to Bax in the woods the same time he meets Lupine." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "FWIW, my impression of Ted's ghost (if it was a ghost) in the woods\nwas that he was trying to protect Doris in some way from the werewolf.\nIn the same way, I thought that Winkle was also trying to distract Lupine\naway from Bax by barking and getting the werewolf to chase her." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If Ted was there to protect anyone, surely it was to protect Bax. He\nhad already protected him from Ieuan.\n\nJ." } ] }, { "message_id": "<003801cae180$425969e0$bed14a0c@rclackey>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2010-04-21T18:27:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "James Wynn quoted and wrote:\nBut what about his connection to the werewolves, if there is one?\nHe appears to Bax in the woods the same time he meets Lupine." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "FWIW, my impression of Ted's ghost (if it was a ghost) in the woods\nwas that he was trying to protect Doris in some way from the werewolf.\nIn the same way, I thought that Winkle was also trying to distract Lupine\naway from Bax by barking and getting the werewolf to chase her." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If Ted was there to protect anyone, surely it was to protect Bax." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Maybe. But as soon as Lupine muttered boo, he split. Why? What kind of\nprotection is that? What does a dead man have to fear from a werewolf?\nRemember that when Lupine first took Bax's hand in the dark woods, Bax\nthought she was Doris. (Shades of the Doris/Lupine confusion later at the\ncar.) When Lupine spoke, Ted may have realized she wasn't Doris, so he left,\nmaybe to look after Doris as she headed back to the car." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "He\nhad already protected him from Ieuan." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Again, maybe. Bax leaves that impression, but I'm not 100% sure that's\nreally what happened, even if that was the practical effect.\n\nBut then neither am I convinced that the \"other\" guy in the back of Bax's\ncar with Doris (\"You have t'other one in back there, settin' with you in the\ndark?\" [183] ) that Kiki mentioned was Nicholas, then still safely locked up\nin the trunk. I think it may have been ghostly Ted, hanging around Doris and\ntrying to look after her.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<004901cae180$acb6b900$bed14a0c@rclackey>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2010-04-21T18:30:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "<834910.26309.qm@web37605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Craig Brewer wrote:\nA couple of points: are we sure that the man who appears to Bax by the\nriver before he talks to Lupine was actually Ambrosius? Why not Goldwurm?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've been assuming, like others, that Ted and Ambrosius were probably the\nsame and that his appearing in the forest was somehow to protect Doris.<\n\nI don't know if Ted was also Ambrosius, but Bax said that the big man looked\nlike the pictures he later saw of Ted (134). That middle initial \"A\" is\nreally all I have seen that *may* connect the two.\n\nBut, speaking of initials, George has a middle initial \"J\". If Bax has one,\nit isn't given in the book, which means we are probably supposed to figure\nit out. If Martha gave her firstborn sons names, we don't know them. The\nnames Baxter and George are taken from the adoptive parents' families (177).\nIt makes no sense for one child to have been given a middle name but not the\nother." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But I suppose I could be mistaken. When the \"big, heavyset man\" stands\nfrowning in front of them (129), Doris has already turned back and Lupine\nwas holding Bax's hand. Maybe a small detail, but it already seems at that\npoint that Lupine is more interested in Bax than Doris, so does she need\nprotection?<" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "See my reply to James." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm also just curious about Ted's ring. It's gold and has a basket-weave\ndesign. All we know about Goldwurm, really, is his name and that he lives in\na tower. But a golden wurm just seems too close to a golden ring for me to\ndismiss the possibility quite yet.<" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't know what to think about Ted's ring. Bax said it was a little worn.\nHe also said Doris was between 30 and 35, so she couldn't have been married\nto Ted all that long. The greater the gold content, the faster a ring will\nshow wear, but still . . . Normally, the bride provides the groom's wedding\nring, doesn't she? How does that complicate matters?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Another question: with so many twins around, is it possible that Zwart\nBlack also has a twin? <" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Possible, but I see no good reason to think so. Twins run in families, but\nwe are shown that it is Martha's side that has that proclivity." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If so, Ted is out because, as Roy has pointed out, Wolfe specifically makes\nthem different sizes. But could it be Goldwurm since so much is made about\ngood and bad twins fighting? Or Ambrosius if he ISN'T Ted? <" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Bax thought that Ambrosius had been a \"friendly rival\" of Zwart (270). If\nso, that doesn't sound like the sort bitter feuding we see within Martha's\nsets of twins." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But who and why? (And if Black was really old Nick the whole time, is\nNicholas more than just a created vampire?)<" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Black's role as old Nick clearly riffed on the Nicholas-the-Butler guy that\nwent back at least forty years but, in the story, he doesn't seem to me to\nbe much more than a bogeyman, just thrown in with all the other supernatural\ncharacters that have nothing to do with traditional conceptions of Faerie.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-21T18:55:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "<003801cae180$425969e0$bed14a0c@rclackey>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "If Ted was there to protect anyone, surely it was to protect Bax." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Maybe. But as soon as Lupine muttered boo, he split. Why? What kind of\nprotection is that? What does a dead man have to fear from a werewolf?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not basing this on much, but perhaps the wet thing was wet because it\ncame from the river. That assumes of course that Ted is really dead.\n\n\nJ." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-21T19:02:43+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "<005101cae0e6$72bd7800$76d14a0c@rclackey>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, hell! My wife hasn't read the book, knows nothing about it. But I just\ndescribed the scene to her that Doris described in her letter, and said that\na monogrammed handkerchief, the obvious choice, probably wasn't the answer.\nShe came up with stationery. Duh! In a book made up of letters! Who wudda\nthunk it!" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, at least stationary has a corner. A shirt doesn't work. But an\nenvelope has a corner and one might put their initials in the return\naddress.It would have to be a letter *he* had written. But any\nexplanation needs a good reason why she wouldn't say what it was. I\nwould think it would be something too disgusting to write or something\nvery incriminating to Ted or Doris. It's needs to be a key to the plot\nor else why make such a big deal of it? There are really not that many\nthings that are commonly monogrammed, I think, and I'm really\nbefuddled.\n\nJ." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "John Watkins", "address": "john.watkins04 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-21T19:05:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "People (especially married people) also monogram towels. And towels are\nfrequently wet. Especially if they've just been used to dry someone off,\nafter maybe crawling in from the river or after showering off after crawling\nout of a grave.\n\nJust thought I'd throw my wild speculation out there." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 3:02 PM, James Wynn wrote:\nWell, hell! My wife hasn't read the book, knows nothing about it. But I\njust\ndescribed the scene to her that Doris described in her letter, and said\nthat\na monogrammed handkerchief, the obvious choice, probably wasn't the\nanswer.\nShe came up with stationery. Duh! In a book made up of letters! Who wudda\nthunk it!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, at least stationary has a corner. A shirt doesn't work. But an\nenvelope has a corner and one might put their initials in the return\naddress.It would have to be a letter *he* had written. But any\nexplanation needs a good reason why she wouldn't say what it was. I\nwould think it would be something too disgusting to write or something\nvery incriminating to Ted or Doris. It's needs to be a key to the plot\nor else why make such a big deal of it? There are really not that many\nthings that are commonly monogrammed, I think, and I'm really\nbefuddled.\n\nJ.\n _______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<006101cae193$1d3a90e0$85cd4a0c@rclackey>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2010-04-21T20:42:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "John Watkins wrote:\nPeople (especially married people) also monogram towels. And towels are\nfrequently wet. Especially if they've just been used to dry someone off,\nafter maybe crawling in from the river or after showering off after\ncrawling\nout of a grave." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I thought of towels, also pillow cases and, maybe, sheets. But those items\nare as innocent as a handkerchief. As James says, any explanation needs a\ngood reason why she wouldn't say what it was.\n\nI don't know why some people want to connect the item's wetness with the\nriver incident. Doris saw Ted in her bedroom days after the river incident;\nthere would have been more than enough time for anything gotten wet at the\nriver to have dried out. And there is no indication that the apparition of\nTed in the woods ever even went near the river, anyway.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-22T15:02:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "<006101cae193$1d3a90e0$85cd4a0c@rclackey>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't know why some people want to connect the item's wetness with the\nriver incident. Doris saw Ted in her bedroom days after the river incident;\nthere would have been more than enough time for anything gotten wet at the\nriver to have dried out. And there is no indication that the apparition of\nTed in the woods ever even went near the river, anyway." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You mean when Bax met Lupine at the river, right? But there is another\nimportant river incident that occurred close to Ted's Apparition.The\nbattle royale. In Letter 42, Doris writes that she has seen Ted. Then\nafter she has returned to the Black House she writes the PS that she,\nZwart, Orizia, and George (whom I suspect was Bax) forced Nicholas\nback into the trunk.\n\nJust before the river battle, Nicholas calls Bax on Doris' cell phone\n(Letter 41). So Doris did see only a few hours before the river\nbattle. Now, if Ted were the body Lupina was remaking it would tie Ted\nto The Wet Thing. Of course we would still be left an a quandry (so to\nspeak) as to what the Thing was.\n\nJ." } ] }, { "message_id": "<001301cae247$541e2ea0$6ad34a0c@rclackey>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2010-04-22T18:12:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "James Wynn quoted and wrote:\nI don't know why some people want to connect the item's wetness with the\nriver incident. Doris saw Ted in her bedroom days after the river\nincident;\nthere would have been more than enough time for anything gotten wet at\nthe\nriver to have dried out. And there is no indication that the apparition\nof\nTed in the woods ever even went near the river, anyway." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You mean when Bax met Lupine at the river, right?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Right. The first trip Bax and Doris made to the woods, when he saw the brief\napparition of the big man." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But there is another\nimportant river incident that occurred close to Ted's Apparition.The\nbattle royale. In Letter 42, Doris writes that she has seen Ted. Then\nafter she has returned to the Black House she writes the PS that she,\nZwart, Orizia, and George (whom I suspect was Bax) forced Nicholas\nback into the trunk." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is the sequence of events:\n\n1) She saw Ted crying in her bedroom, as described in the body of her\nletter.\n2) In the postscript she wrote: \"I went to your house after I finished this\nletter.\" She went on to say in the postscript that she helped capture\nNicholas, and gave him her cell phone (290).\n\nThere is no doubt about it: Doris saw the apparition of Ted in her bedroom\n*before* the river battle even took place. So whatever the wet thing was\nthat Ted left behind, it did not get wet at the river battle." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Just before the river battle, Nicholas calls Bax on Doris' cell phone\n(Letter 41). So Doris did see only a few hours before the river\nbattle. Now, if Ted were the body Lupina was remaking it would tie Ted\nto The Wet Thing. Of course we would still be left an a quandry (so to\nspeak) as to what the Thing was." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The body that Lupine was trying to put together was an assemblage from\nmultiple bodies; one arm came from a woman, one from a man (282). There is\nno reason to suppose that any of the body parts came from Ted.\n\nBTW, what was the point of Bax taking a phone call from Nicholas in the\nmiddle of a battle? Comic relief?\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-22T18:57:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "<001301cae247$541e2ea0$6ad34a0c@rclackey>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "There is no doubt about it: Doris saw the apparition of Ted in her bedroom\n*before* the river battle even took place. So whatever the wet thing was\nthat Ted left behind, it did not get wet at the river battle." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yeah, but (assuming the apparition is a \"ghost\") that Ted didn't get\nit from the river battle does not preclude his appearance from having\nsomething to do with that battle. The close juxtaposition of a river\nbattle letter (41) with a letter about Ted and a Wet Thing (42) should\nnot pass without reference. Especially since the battle occurs within\nhours of the apparition.\n\nMind, I'm not asserting he Ted's body is in the river--it's just that\nat this point identifying The Wet Thing encourages wild speculation in\norder arrive at all possible explanations. That Ted's body is in the\nRiver is qualifies as just that. But it isn't exactly *wild*\nspeculation to associate The Wet Thing in Letter 42 with the River in\nLetter 41.\n\nBax got the onyx ring from the River. Personally, with Ted's ring\nalready in play, I had never bothered to speculate on a previous owner\nof the ring. But if there were one, then wouldn't he be in the River?\n\nQuestion: How does a ghost leave something behind? Answer (in the form\nof a question): How did Pike's ghost leave something behind? Wolfe has\nalready established that there are many variant potential examples of\n\"the essence of one who has died separated from his original corporeal\nform\". So Ted might be dead or he might be alive. There might be more\nthan one." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "BTW, what was the point of Bax taking a phone call from Nicholas in the\nmiddle of a battle? Comic relief?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, it was definitely comic relief. I thought it was funny anyway.\nIt also establishes the timeline of Letters 41 & 42. Otherwise, we\nwould have assumed 42 occurred an undetermined amount of time after\n41.\n\nSo if it is a clue of anything, there is a good chance it is to help\nassociate Ted's apparition with the battle. If it was supposed to be\nan especially revealing clue, I've missed it so far, but there you\nhave it.\n\nJ." } ] }, { "message_id": "<000601cae260$203d3360$42d24a0c@rclackey>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2010-04-22T21:07:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "James Wynn wrote:\nBax got the onyx ring from the River. Personally, with Ted's ring\nalready in play, I had never bothered to speculate on a previous owner\nof the ring. But if there were one, then wouldn't he be in the River?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm not following you. The gold ring with the dark stone that Bax found in\nthe catfish had belonged to Ambrosius (270). It was the \"weapon of sorcery\"\nwherein Ambrosius had stored some of his power, the item Goldwurm hadn't\nbeen able to find (73). Ambrosius had supposedly been strangled and his body\nthrown in a river (74), probably the same river we have been talking about.\n\nTed's body (the list of characters says he was Doris's \"late husband\") had\nbeen placed in a casket and buried (36). So Ted's body was never in the\nriver. The body parts Lupine called up from the river had come from victims\nof the \"Horror Hound\", as Martha called it (285).\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-22T22:07:32+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "<000601cae260$203d3360$42d24a0c@rclackey>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm not following you. The gold ring with the dark stone that Bax found in\nthe catfish had belonged to Ambrosius (270). It was the \"weapon of\nsorcery\" wherein Ambrosius had stored some of his power, the item\nGoldwurm hadn't been able to find (73). Ambrosius had supposedly been\nstrangled and his body thrown in a river (74), probably the same river we\nhave been talking about." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, it's obvious I haven't re-read to page 74 yet. As page 270, why\ndo you think the ring Bax showed Kate was the onyx and not the wedding\nband (which I had assumed on my first read)? I mean, is it really\npossible that Goldwurm would throw Ambrosius' body in the river with\nexpensive-looking jewelry still on it?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ted's body (the list of characters says he was Doris's \"late husband\") had\nbeen placed in a casket and buried (36). So Ted's body was never in the\nriver. The body parts Lupine called up from the river had come from victims\nof the \"Horror Hound\", as Martha called it (285)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "So you consider the list of characters 100% authoritative? So you\ndon't think it possible that there is any duplication or ellisions? If\nthe list says Ambrosius a \"murdered sorcerer\" and there are no other\nmurdered sorcerers on the list, that's the way it is. And if the list\nsays Ted is \"late\" there is no valid reading this as ironic? How do\nyou know that Ambrosius was not actually murdered after Ted faked his\ndeath? How do you know he was not killed by Lupine? That would still\nmake him Doris's \"late husband\" right?\n\nAnd it's a strange ghost that leaves a tear-stained anything. That is,\nif it is a gothic ghost. So you've got a mystery there.\n\nIt's fine that you don't think Ambrosius was Ted (I mistakenly thought\nthat had become all but accepted fact), but the text is simply not as\nflatly plain as you seem to be letting on.\n\nJ." } ] }, { "message_id": "<001501cae277$f66e74a0$d1ce4a0c@rclackey>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2010-04-23T00:00:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "James Wynn quoted and wrote:\nI'm not following you. The gold ring with the dark stone that Bax found\nin\nthe catfish had belonged to Ambrosius (270). It was the \"weapon of\nsorcery\" wherein Ambrosius had stored some of his power, the item\nGoldwurm hadn't been able to find (73). Ambrosius had supposedly been\nstrangled and his body thrown in a river (74), probably the same river\nwe\nhave been talking about." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, it's obvious I haven't re-read to page 74 yet. As page 270, why\ndo you think the ring Bax showed Kate was the onyx and not the wedding\nband (which I had assumed on my first read)?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Because Kate commented on the stone: \"That's a nice stone.\" Ted's ring had\nno stone." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I mean, is it really\npossible that Goldwurm would throw Ambrosius' body in the river with\nexpensive-looking jewelry still on it?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes. When Bax first showed the ring to a jeweler, he handed it over for\nexamination. He was told it was old but worthless. \"Just costume jewelry,\nsir.\" (31) When Bax wore it, it looked valuable, the various types of opal\nlater mentioned. That's why Bax didn't want to take it off to show it to\nDorcas. It was a magic ring. It could disguise itself, just as old Nick's\ncheap wooden crutch later had a \"gold head\" (284). Goldwurm apparently\ndidn't know the ring's worth because he couldn't see the worth." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Ted's body (the list of characters says he was Doris's \"late husband\")" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "had" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "been placed in a casket and buried (36). So Ted's body was never in the\nriver. The body parts Lupine called up from the river had come from\nvictims\nof the \"Horror Hound\", as Martha called it (285)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So you consider the list of characters 100% authoritative? So you\ndon't think it possible that there is any duplication or ellisions? If\nthe list says Ambrosius a \"murdered sorcerer\" and there are no other\nmurdered sorcerers on the list, that's the way it is. And if the list\nsays Ted is \"late\" there is no valid reading this as ironic? How do\nyou know that Ambrosius was not actually murdered after Ted faked his\ndeath?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Teen Emlyn said, \"It was before my time, but I've heard that the old\nsorcerer's name was Ambrosius.\" (74) Ted died just two years ago (36)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "How do you know he was not killed by Lupine? That would still\nmake him Doris's \"late husband\" right?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think Doris would have mentioned it if her husband had been killed by a\nwerewolf two years ago. Her co-workers Jake Jacobs and/or Jim Hardaway would\nprobably have mentioned it, too, given all the gossip and newspaper articles\nabout the Horror Hound." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And it's a strange ghost that leaves a tear-stained anything. That is,\nif it is a gothic ghost. So you've got a mystery there.\n\nIt's fine that you don't think Ambrosius was Ted (I mistakenly thought\nthat had become all but accepted fact)," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't know if they are/were the same person or not, so I haven't said what\nI believe, one way or the other." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "but the text is simply not as\nflatly plain as you seem to be letting on." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "About some things it is.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<002201cae278$faa2b300$d1ce4a0c@rclackey>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2010-04-23T00:07:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I wrote:\nThat's why Bax didn't want to take it off to show it to\nDorcas. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "My mistake. I meant, of course, Doris.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<781470.14532.qm@web37604.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-04-23T13:36:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "<001501cae277$f66e74a0$d1ce4a0c@rclackey>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I mean, is it really" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "possible that Goldwurm would throw Ambrosius' body in the river with\nexpensive-looking jewelry still on it?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Goldwurm apparently\ndidn't know the ring's worth because he couldn't see the worth." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Maybe I'm just remembering incorrectly, but are we ever told specifically that Goldwurm killed Ambrosius and threw his body in the river? I can't seem to find it.\n\nAnd as long as we're talking about small gold things, what about the coins? The coin collector says they're probably greek with Athena on one side. But he never identifies the other side, although we get a lot of talk about how it is NOT an amazon. Ideas? Significance? I'm a bit at a loss about why the coin stash was specifically Greek rather than generic magic fairy coins or some such.\n\nBut the ancient Greek echoes in this have me a bit confused, since that's a different set of myths from faerie that seem to operate in very different ways. Nonetheless, we have Bax's degree in classics, the greek coins, Greek names (and wasn't \"Doris\" a minor sea god?), didn't they even hit a Mediterranean restaurant once?\n\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<001b01cae319$e5dc7b80$b5cd4a0c@rclackey>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2010-04-23T19:19:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "<781470.14532.qm@web37604.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Craig Brewer wrote:\nMaybe I'm just remembering incorrectly, but are we ever told specifically\nthat Goldwurm killed Ambrosius and threw his body in the river? I can't seem\nto find it.<" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes. That's the story as given by Emlyn. I cited the page number in the post\nto which you are responding. Page 74. \"I imagine Goldwurm thought he'd find\nhis master's [weapon of sorcery] without much trouble, so he didn't keep him\naround to question. Just strangled him and threw him in the river. It was\nbefore my time, but I've heard that the old sorcerer's name was Ambrosius.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And as long as we're talking about small gold things, what about the\ncoins? The coin collector says they're probably greek with Athena on one\nside. But he never identifies the other side, although we get a lot of talk\nabout how it is NOT an amazon. Ideas? Significance? I'm a bit at a loss\nabout why the coin stash was specifically Greek rather than generic magic\nfairy coins or some such.<" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't know. Being *ancient* Greek would add monetary value to them, but\nthen it soon turned out that Bax didn't need the money for them. It may be\nthat the coins were planted, along with the cash, probably by Zwart. Or they\nwere a side effect of the use by Bax of the unintelligent triannulus to get\nmoney." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But the ancient Greek echoes in this have me a bit confused, since that's\na different set of myths from faerie that seem to operate in very different\nways. Nonetheless, we have Bax's degree in classics, the greek coins, Greek\nnames (and wasn't \"Doris\" a minor sea god?), didn't they even hit a\nMediterranean restaurant once? <" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The triannulus obviously responds to what amounts to wish-fulfillment. For\nBax, the scholar and lover of things Greek, old Greek coins would represent\nriches. The other Greek echoes may just reflect Bax's and/or Wolfe's\ninterests.\n\nAs for the mixture of mythologies in the book -- all those things that are\nnot a part of traditional Faerie lore -- Wolfe's notion of faerie seems to\nbe a catch-all for many things normally considered to be supernatural,\nregardless of cultural origin.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-23T19:28:49+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "<001b01cae319$e5dc7b80$b5cd4a0c@rclackey>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nCraig Brewer wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Maybe I'm just remembering incorrectly, but are we ever told specifically\nthat Goldwurm killed Ambrosius and threw his body in the river? I can't seem\nto find it.<" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yes. That's the story as given by Emlyn. I cited the page number in the post\nto which you are responding. Page 74. \"I imagine Goldwurm thought he'd find\nhis master's [weapon of sorcery] without much trouble, so he didn't keep him\naround to question. Just strangled him and threw him in the river. It was\nbefore my time, but I've heard that the old sorcerer's name was Ambrosius.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ummm. This makes it clear that Emlyn does _NOT_ know what happened;\nfor he begins by saying \"I imagine...\"" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gwern Branwen", "address": "gwern0 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-23T20:03:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nOn Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Roy C. Lackey wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Craig Brewer wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Maybe I'm just remembering incorrectly, but are we ever told specifically\nthat Goldwurm killed Ambrosius and threw his body in the river? I can't seem\nto find it.<" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Yes. That's the story as given by Emlyn. I cited the page number in the post\nto which you are responding. Page 74. \"I imagine Goldwurm thought he'd find\nhis master's [weapon of sorcery] without much trouble, so he didn't keep him\naround to question. Just strangled him and threw him in the river. It was\nbefore my time, but I've heard that the old sorcerer's name was Ambrosius.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ummm. This makes it clear that Emlyn does _NOT_ know what happened;\nfor he begins by saying \"I imagine...\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I read that as the imagine is about Emlyn's speculation about\nGoldwurm's thoughts and reasons for not keeping Ambrosius around to\nquestion. I don't read it as Emlyn imagining the entire scenario, and\nonly actually knowing 'Goldwurm was killed by someone who may've been\nnamed Ambrosius.' I suspect I'm not alone in this." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "gwern" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Eugene Zaretskiy", "address": "eugene.zar at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-23T20:29:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "<001b01cae319$e5dc7b80$b5cd4a0c@rclackey>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nAs for the mixture of mythologies in the book -- all those things that are\nnot a part of traditional Faerie lore -- Wolfe's notion of faerie seems to\nbe a catch-all for many things normally considered to be supernatural,\nregardless of cultural origin." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think that's true, but I also think this is precisely the sort of\nthing that lends credence to the idea that Bax made everything up.\nThere are an awful lot references to a variety of sources, ranging\nfrom various mythologies to Dickens' _The Old Curiosity Shop_), all\nthings that Bax's PhD's would make him an expert in." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "-Roy\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<11211.72.171.0.145.1272056181.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2010-04-23T20:56:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Faerie is like that.\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Roy C. Lackey wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "As for the mixture of mythologies in the book -- all those things that\nare\nnot a part of traditional Faerie lore -- Wolfe's notion of faerie seems\nto\nbe a catch-all for many things normally considered to be supernatural,\nregardless of cultural origin." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think that's true, but I also think this is precisely the sort of\nthing that lends credence to the idea that Bax made everything up.\nThere are an awful lot references to a variety of sources, ranging\nfrom various mythologies to Dickens' _The Old Curiosity Shop_), all\nthings that Bax's PhD's would make him an expert in." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "-Roy\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<6084.72.171.0.145.1272056248.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2010-04-23T20:57:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I assume that when you visit Faery your body is asleep or in some state or\nother, but I don't know that.\n\nIt seems pretty physical when you are in the middle of it.\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Roy C. Lackey wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "As for the mixture of mythologies in the book -- all those things that\nare\nnot a part of traditional Faerie lore -- Wolfe's notion of faerie seems\nto\nbe a catch-all for many things normally considered to be supernatural,\nregardless of cultural origin." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think that's true, but I also think this is precisely the sort of\nthing that lends credence to the idea that Bax made everything up.\nThere are an awful lot references to a variety of sources, ranging\nfrom various mythologies to Dickens' _The Old Curiosity Shop_), all\nthings that Bax's PhD's would make him an expert in." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "-Roy\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-23T20:57:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "<11211.72.171.0.145.1272056181.squirrel@brunians.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 1:56 PM, wrote:\nFaerie is like that." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "...said Tom, gnomically." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "<3372.72.171.0.145.1272056423.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2010-04-23T21:00:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Nome?\n\nAlaska.\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 1:56 PM, wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Faerie is like that." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "...said Tom, gnomically.\n\n--\nDan'l Danehy-Oakes\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<135148.64119.qm@web37603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-04-23T21:00:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If Bax's third, unfinished degree was in East Asian Studies or some such, you'd have even stronger case.\n\n\n\n----- Original Message ----\nFrom: Eugene Zaretskiy \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Fri, April 23, 2010 3:29:30 PM\nSubject: Re: (urth) TSH: Ted's identity" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nAs for the mixture of mythologies in the book -- all those things that are\nnot a part of traditional Faerie lore -- Wolfe's notion of faerie seems to\nbe a catch-all for many things normally considered to be supernatural,\nregardless of cultural origin." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think that's true, but I also think this is precisely the sort of\nthing that lends credence to the idea that Bax made everything up.\nThere are an awful lot references to a variety of sources, ranging\nfrom various mythologies to Dickens' _The Old Curiosity Shop_), all\nthings that Bax's PhD's would make him an expert in." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "-Roy\n\n_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Eugene Z\nhttp://blog.eugenez.net" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "John Watkins", "address": "john.watkins04 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-23T21:17:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "<3372.72.171.0.145.1272056423.squirrel@brunians.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Nome?\n\nKing." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 5:00 PM, wrote:\nNome?\n\nAlaska.\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 1:56 PM, wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Faerie is like that." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "...said Tom, gnomically.\n\n--\nDan'l Danehy-Oakes\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<9378.72.171.0.145.1272060231.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2010-04-23T22:03:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "King?\n\nSalmon!\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Nome?\n\nKing.\n\nOn Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 5:00 PM, wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Nome?\n\nAlaska.\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 1:56 PM, wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Faerie is like that." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "...said Tom, gnomically.\n\n--\nDan'l Danehy-Oakes\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-23T22:04:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "<9378.72.171.0.145.1272060231.squirrel@brunians.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Salmon ought to do something about these silly puns." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:03 PM, wrote:\nKing?\n\nSalmon!\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Nome?\n\nKing.\n\nOn Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 5:00 PM, wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Nome?\n\nAlaska.\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 1:56 PM, ? wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "Faerie is like that." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "...said Tom, gnomically.\n\n--\nDan'l Danehy-Oakes\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<13223.72.171.0.145.1272060441.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2010-04-23T22:07:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It calls for punishment.\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Salmon ought to do something about these silly puns.\n\nOn Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:03 PM, wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "King?\n\nSalmon!\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Nome?\n\nKing.\n\nOn Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 5:00 PM, wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Nome?\n\nAlaska.\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 1:56 PM, ? wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "Faerie is like that." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "...said Tom, gnomically.\n\n--\nDan'l Danehy-Oakes\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<003701cae4aa$103d3360$40d24a0c@rclackey>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2010-04-25T19:03:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gwern Branwen quoted and wrote:\nUmmm. This makes it clear that Emlyn does _NOT_ know what happened;\nfor he begins by saying \"I imagine...\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I read that as the imagine is about Emlyn's speculation about\nGoldwurm's thoughts and reasons for not keeping Ambrosius around to\nquestion. I don't read it as Emlyn imagining the entire scenario, and\nonly actually knowing 'Goldwurm was killed by someone who may've been\nnamed Ambrosius.' I suspect I'm not alone in this." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Quite so. In addition, Emlyn is, in effect, the only source of information\nwe have concerning Ambrosius and Goldwurm, so we are stuck with his\ntestimony.\n\nLet's cut to the chase: Emlyn is supposed to be a boy from Faerie, as are\nthe two sorcerers. If none of the faerie and/or supernatural stuff is real,\nthen nothing about these characters matters. Speculations regarding ghostly\nTed's identity and whether or not he was also Ambrosius and what the wet\nthing he left behind may have been are fools' exercises. There can be no\nmagic rings, werewolves, a talking vixen, a sorcerer's tower in faerie, a\nhouse that expands and has windows onto faerie, or eerie forests far larger\nthan any map shows them to be.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jonathan Goodwin", "address": "joncgoodwin at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-25T19:09:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "<003701cae4aa$103d3360$40d24a0c@rclackey>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "As it would reveal things, deliberately or not, about the fabricator's\nstate of mind, the details about those characters would matter. If you\nwere looking for unconscious revelation, then the most apparently\ninsignificant details might be particularly important.\n\nI myself don't quite think this is the best approach, but the fact\nthat it has occurred to several of the book's early readers shouldn't\nbe ignored." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nGwern Branwen quoted and wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Ummm. This makes it clear that Emlyn does _NOT_ know what happened;\nfor he begins by saying \"I imagine...\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I read that as the imagine is about Emlyn's speculation about\nGoldwurm's thoughts and reasons for not keeping Ambrosius around to\nquestion. I don't read it as Emlyn imagining the entire scenario, and\nonly actually knowing 'Goldwurm was killed by someone who may've been\nnamed Ambrosius.' I suspect I'm not alone in this." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Quite so. In addition, Emlyn is, in effect, the only source of information\nwe have concerning Ambrosius and Goldwurm, so we are stuck with his\ntestimony.\n\nLet's cut to the chase: Emlyn is supposed to be a boy from Faerie, as are\nthe two sorcerers. If none of the faerie and/or supernatural stuff is real,\nthen nothing about these characters matters. Speculations regarding ghostly\nTed's identity and whether or not he was also Ambrosius and what the wet\nthing he left behind may have been are fools' exercises. There can be no\nmagic rings, werewolves, a talking vixen, a sorcerer's tower in faerie, a\nhouse that expands and has windows onto faerie, or eerie forests far larger\nthan any map shows them to be.\n\n-Roy\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<63FB9AC7E0AEC7459DBCC99DC44247CA0717FC97@BOSIDEXDB.Bankofscotland.ie>", "from": { "name": "O'Donnell, Tim BOSI", "address": "tim.o'donnell at bankofscotland.ie" }, "date": "2010-04-26T09:12:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It's treatable with punicillin, but should the patient fail to respond all the doctors\ncan do is make them as punless as possible." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From: brunians at brunians.org" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "To: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nSubject: Re: (urth) TSH: Ted's identity\nMessage-ID: <13223.72.171.0.145.1272060441.squirrel at brunians.org>\nContent-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1\n\nIt calls for punishment.\n\n." } ] }, { "message_id": "<14606.72.171.0.142.1272274626.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2010-04-26T09:37:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted's identity", "in_reply_to": "<63FB9AC7E0AEC7459DBCC99DC44247CA0717FC97@BOSIDEXDB.Bankofscotland.ie>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Take him away to the punitentiery!\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It's treatable with punicillin, but should the patient fail to respond all\nthe doctors\ncan do is make them as punless as possible." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "From: brunians at brunians.org\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nSubject: Re: (urth) TSH: Ted's identity\nMessage-ID: <13223.72.171.0.145.1272060441.squirrel at brunians.org>\nContent-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It calls for punishment.\n\n.\n\n************************************************************************************************\nFind out more about us at www.bankofscotland.ie\n\n\nThe information contained in this message is confidential and is intended\nfor the addressee only. If you have received this message in error or\nthere are any problems please notify the originator immediately. The\nunauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is\nstrictly forbidden. This mail and any attachments have been scanned for\nviruses prior to leaving Bank of Scotland Ireland's network.\nBank of Scotland Ireland will not be liable for direct, special, indirect\nor consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of this\nmessage by a third party or as a result of any virus being passed on. Bank\nof Scotland (Ireland) reserves the right to monitor and record e-mail\nmessages sent to and from this address for the purposes of investigating\nor detecting any unauthorised use of its system and ensuring its effective\noperation.\n\nBank of Scotland (Ireland) Limited is part of Lloyds Banking Group plc and\nis regulated by the Financial Regulator. Registered in Ireland Number:\n8545. Registered office: Bank of Scotland House, 124-127 St. Stephen???s\nGreen, Dublin 2.\n\n****************************************************************************************************\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<124061.73786.qm@web37603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-04-26T14:27:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Fiction, halves, twins", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree that, in the end, it just doesn't make much sense if the whole thing was a ruse. Or rather, the first half of the book would make sense. But after George gets arrested, or at least after he gets released and isn't likely to be receiving letters any more, it just gets too weird and difficult to figure out how and why Bax would keep up with the fiction.\n\nBut speaking of \"halves,\" I've been wondering about that. The book is 44 chapters long. The middle chapters 22 and 23 have the same name (\"Silver Bullets\"). Somewhere in a review, Neil Gaiman mentioned that he thought the Tarot was significant and the 22 major arcana cards might have something to do with that. I'm not quite sure where he would go with that, though.\n\nI do wonder if the two halves of the book are at all connected to the ideas of twins. I wouldn't go so far as to say that one half was written by one twin and the second half secretly written by another, but, nonetheless, something is going on there.\n\n\n\n----- Original Message ----\nFrom: Jonathan Goodwin \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Sun, April 25, 2010 2:09:47 PM\nSubject: Re: (urth) TSH: Ted's identity\n\nAs it would reveal things, deliberately or not, about the fabricator's\nstate of mind, the details about those characters would matter. If you\nwere looking for unconscious revelation, then the most apparently\ninsignificant details might be particularly important.\n\nI myself don't quite think this is the best approach, but the fact\nthat it has occurred to several of the book's early readers shouldn't\nbe ignored." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nGwern Branwen quoted and wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Ummm. This makes it clear that Emlyn does _NOT_ know what happened;\nfor he begins by saying \"I imagine...\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I read that as the imagine is about Emlyn's speculation about\nGoldwurm's thoughts and reasons for not keeping Ambrosius around to\nquestion. I don't read it as Emlyn imagining the entire scenario, and\nonly actually knowing 'Goldwurm was killed by someone who may've been\nnamed Ambrosius.' I suspect I'm not alone in this." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Quite so. In addition, Emlyn is, in effect, the only source of information\nwe have concerning Ambrosius and Goldwurm, so we are stuck with his\ntestimony.\n\nLet's cut to the chase: Emlyn is supposed to be a boy from Faerie, as are\nthe two sorcerers. If none of the faerie and/or supernatural stuff is real,\nthen nothing about these characters matters. Speculations regarding ghostly\nTed's identity and whether or not he was also Ambrosius and what the wet\nthing he left behind may have been are fools' exercises. There can be no\nmagic rings, werewolves, a talking vixen, a sorcerer's tower in faerie, a\nhouse that expands and has windows onto faerie, or eerie forests far larger\nthan any map shows them to be.\n\n-Roy\n\n_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net" } ] }, { "message_id": "<9074.72.171.0.142.1272292443.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2010-04-26T14:34:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Fiction, halves, twins", "in_reply_to": "<124061.73786.qm@web37603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Gene's started playing with the tarot?\n\nThat should be interesting.\n\nI see I do need to reread this soonly.\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I agree that, in the end, it just doesn't make much sense if the whole\nthing was a ruse. Or rather, the first half of the book would make sense.\nBut after George gets arrested, or at least after he gets released and\nisn't likely to be receiving letters any more, it just gets too weird and\ndifficult to figure out how and why Bax would keep up with the fiction.\n\nBut speaking of \"halves,\" I've been wondering about that. The book is 44\nchapters long. The middle chapters 22 and 23 have the same name (\"Silver\nBullets\"). Somewhere in a review, Neil Gaiman mentioned that he thought\nthe Tarot was significant and the 22 major arcana cards might have\nsomething to do with that. I'm not quite sure where he would go with that,\nthough.\n\nI do wonder if the two halves of the book are at all connected to the\nideas of twins. I wouldn't go so far as to say that one half was written\nby one twin and the second half secretly written by another, but,\nnonetheless, something is going on there.\n\n\n\n----- Original Message ----\nFrom: Jonathan Goodwin \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Sun, April 25, 2010 2:09:47 PM\nSubject: Re: (urth) TSH: Ted's identity\n\nAs it would reveal things, deliberately or not, about the fabricator's\nstate of mind, the details about those characters would matter. If you\nwere looking for unconscious revelation, then the most apparently\ninsignificant details might be particularly important.\n\nI myself don't quite think this is the best approach, but the fact\nthat it has occurred to several of the book's early readers shouldn't\nbe ignored.\n\nOn Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Roy C. Lackey wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gwern Branwen quoted and wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Ummm. This makes it clear that Emlyn does _NOT_ know what happened;\nfor he begins by saying \"I imagine...\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I read that as the imagine is about Emlyn's speculation about\nGoldwurm's thoughts and reasons for not keeping Ambrosius around to\nquestion. I don't read it as Emlyn imagining the entire scenario, and\nonly actually knowing 'Goldwurm was killed by someone who may've been\nnamed Ambrosius.' I suspect I'm not alone in this." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Quite so. In addition, Emlyn is, in effect, the only source of\ninformation\nwe have concerning Ambrosius and Goldwurm, so we are stuck with his\ntestimony.\n\nLet's cut to the chase: Emlyn is supposed to be a boy from Faerie, as\nare\nthe two sorcerers. If none of the faerie and/or supernatural stuff is\nreal,\nthen nothing about these characters matters. Speculations regarding\nghostly\nTed's identity and whether or not he was also Ambrosius and what the wet\nthing he left behind may have been are fools' exercises. There can be no\nmagic rings, werewolves, a talking vixen, a sorcerer's tower in faerie,\na\nhouse that expands and has windows onto faerie, or eerie forests far\nlarger\nthan any map shows them to be.\n\n-Roy\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4BD6280A.3070705@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2010-04-26T23:55:54+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Fiction, halves, twins", "in_reply_to": "<9074.72.171.0.142.1272292443.squirrel@brunians.org>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I haven't read the book yet myself, but here are the Arcana minus their \nvarious interpretations. Anyone want to take a shot? (no \"silver \nbullet\" pun intended, I swear.)\n\n\nNumber \tName\nNone (0 or 22) \tThe Fool \n\n1 \tThe Magician / The Juggler \n\n2 \tThe High Priestess / The Popess \n\n3 \tThe Empress \n4 \tThe Emperor \n5 \tThe Hierophant / The Pope \n\n6 \tThe Lovers \n7 \tThe Chariot \n8 or 11 \tJustice \n9 \tThe Hermit \n10 \tWheel of Fortune \n\n11 or 8 \tStrength / Fortitude \n\n12 \tThe Hanged Man / The Traitor \n\n13 \tDeath \n14 \tTemperance \n15 \tThe Devil \n16 \tThe Tower / Fire \n\n17 \tThe Star \n18 \tThe Moon \n19 \tThe Sun \n20 \tJudgment / The Angel \n\n21 \tThe World " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 3\nDate: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 07:27:06 -0700 (PDT)\nFrom: Craig Brewer " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4BD6EE56.40402@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dave Tallman", "address": "davetallman at msn.com" }, "date": "2010-04-27T14:01:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Fiction, halves, twins", "in_reply_to": "<124061.73786.qm@web37603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The middle symmetry suggests arranging the chapters in pairs and looking \nfor common features. There are books where this works, for example \"The \nScarlet Letter\" and \"Fearful Symmetry\" (one of the comics in the \n\"Watchmen\" series).\n\n22: \"Silver Bullets\" and 23: \"Silver Bullets\"\n22 to Millie. 23 to George.\nCommon feature: title, pistols with silver bullets.\n\n21: \"Who Was He?\" and 24: \"Never Trust\"\n21 to Shell. 24 from Shell.\nCommon feature: 24 answers the questions in 21 about girls and Skotos.\n\n20: \"A Very Strange House\" and 25: \"The Hitchhiker\"\n20 to George. 25 to Orizia\nCommon feature: In 20 Madame Orizia makes a psychic visit, in 25 this is \nreferred to by Bax.\n\n19: \"The Professional\" and 26: \"Bax Investigates\"\n19 from Orizia. 26 to Millie.\nCommon feature: in 19 Madame Orizia offers her services, in 26 Bax tells \nMillie about the letter.\n\n18: \"Lupine\" and 27: \"Remember the Pistols?\"\n18 to Millie. 27 to Shell.\nCommon feature: In 18 is the first mention of Lupine by name. In 27 \nthere is mention of shooting an animal (the werewolf).\n\n17: \"A Tramp\" and 28: \"Cherchez la Femme\"\n17 to Millie. 28 to George.\nCommon features: 17 has the first appearance of Toby, the dog. In 28 Bax \ngets a call from Toby in human form.\n\n16: \"Be Careful\" and 29: \"Help is on the Way\"\n16 from Millie. 29 from Madame Orizia.\nCommon features: 16 mentions Madame Orizia for the first time. 29 has \nher arriving to help.\n\n15: \"Women\" and 30: \"Freedom!\"\n15 is to Shell. 30 is from Millie.\nCommon features: in 15 Bax mentions his two lovers. In 30 Millie hints \nthat she doesn't love George and she wants Bax.\n\n14: \"Is it a Ghost?\" and 31: \"Get Out -- And Got Out\"\n14 is to George. 31 is to Millie.\nCommon features: 14 mentions Nicholas the Butler and the locked trunk. \nIn 31, the trunk in unlocked and Nicholas emerges.\n\n13: \"Mouthpiece\" and 32: \"A Request\"\n13 is from Shell. 32 is from Shell.\nCommon feature: both are from Shell, offering advice.\n\n12: \"A Big Deal in Prospect\" and 33: \"On the Home Front\"\n12 is to George. 33 is from Millie.\nCommon feature: 12 has a date with Doris and an invitation to her home. \n33 shows Millie is jealous of Doris and the other women.\n\n11: \"On Various Women\" and 34: \"Fox and Wolf\"\n11 is to George. 34 is to Millie.\nCommon features: 11 has the first appearance of Winkle in human form. 34 \nmentions werefoxes and werewolves. The title may also refer to Bax and \nGeorge respectively.\n\n10: \"Tough Question\" and 35: \"The Duelist\"\n10 is to Shell. 35 is to Shell.\nCommon features: In both Bax asks Shell questions and speaks of legal \nmatters.\n\n9: \"Sorcery\" and 36: \"Wherever You Are\"\n9 is to George. 36 is to George.\nCommon feature: both have to do with finding things. In 9 the triannulus \nfinds fish, etc. In 36 Bax is looking for George.\n\n8: \"The Good Boy\" and 37: \"The Challenge\"\n8 is to George. 37 is from George.\nCommon feature: fights between brothers. In 8 is the introduction of the \nconflict between Emlyn and Ieuan. In 37 is a death challenge from George \nto Bax.\n\n7: \"Bax Takes a Beating\" and 38: \"Manjushri\"\n7 is to George. 38 is to Millie.\nCommon feature: visions brought about by Winkle. In 7 there is the \nvision of the dance on the lawn. In 38 is the visit to legendary Japan \nfor advice.\n\n6: \"Fresh Air\" and 39: \"Be Cool\"\n6 is from Shell. 39 is from Shell.\nCommon feature: both from Shell with friendly confidences.\n\n5: \"So Many Shades of Black\" and 40: \"Dear John\"\nCommon Feature: dating Doris. 5 has a first letter from Doris making a \ndate with Bax. 40 is Doris breaking up with Bax.\n\n4: \"Fisherman's Luck\" and 41: \"The Riverman\"\n4 is to George. 41 is to George.\nCommon feature: Bax using sorcery. In 4 Bax uses sorcery for the first \ntime to get fish and the ring. In 41 he uses it to summon the Riverman \nand win the battle.\n\n3: \"From One Big House to Another\" and 42: \"A Terrible Mistake\"\n3 is to Shell. 4 is from Doris.\nCommon feature: the house. 3 mentions the house to Shell for the first \ntime. In 42 Doris visits the house for the last time.\n\n2: \"Your Brother\" and 43: \"Final Report\"\n2 is to George. 43 is from Madame Orizia\nCommon feature: opening and closing business arrangements. In 2 Bax \nwrites to George for the first time and asks for money. In 43 Madame \nOrizia writes to Bax for the last time and asks for money.\n\n1: \"Your Old Cellmate\" and 44: \"Home!\"\nCommon feature: rags to riches. In 1 Bax has nothing and is trying to \nget money from George. In 44 Bax gets everything of George's including \nhis identity and his wife.\n\nIf the arcana theory is right, these chapter pairs may also be \nassociated with the tarot deck. I don't have time to look at that now, \nbut someone else may give it a try." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4BD796D8.5070400@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2010-04-28T02:00:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Fiction, halves, twins", "in_reply_to": "<4BD6EE56.40402@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A few guesses at connections to the Arcana, based entirely on Dave Tallman's chapter descriptions:\n\n15: \"Women\" and 30: \"Freedom!\"\n15 is to Shell. 30 is from Millie.\nCommon features: in 15 Bax mentions his two lovers. In 30 Millie hints \nthat she doesn't love George and she wants Bax.\n\nTemperance: Moderation or a compromise is required\n\n...................\n\n13: \"Mouthpiece\" and 32: \"A Request\"\n13 is from Shell. 32 is from Shell.\nCommon feature: both are from Shell, offering advice.\n\nHanged Man: Inaction\n\n....................\n\n8: \"The Good Boy\" and 37: \"The Challenge\"\n8 is to George. 37 is from George.\nCommon feature: fights between brothers. In 8 is the introduction of the \nconflict between Emlyn and Ieuan. In 37 is a death challenge from George \nto Bax.\n\nChariot: Conquest, pride\n\n....................\n\n3: \"From One Big House to Another\" and 42: \"A Terrible Mistake\"\n3 is to Shell. 4 is from Doris.\nCommon feature: the house. 3 mentions the house to Shell for the first \ntime. In 42 Doris visits the house for the last time.\n\nPriestess: Otherworldliness, assuming the house is not really of this earth\n\n2: \"Your Brother\" and 43: \"Final Report\"\n2 is to George. 43 is from Madame Orizia\nCommon feature: opening and closing business arrangements. In 2 Bax \nwrites to George for the first time and asks for money. In 43 Madame \nOrizia writes to Bax for the last time and asks for money.\n\nMagician: a swindler?\n\n1: \"Your Old Cellmate\" and 44: \"Home!\"\nCommon feature: rags to riches. In 1 Bax has nothing and is trying to \nget money from George. In 44 Bax gets everything of George's including \nhis identity and his wife.\n\nThe Fool: is always a poor young man, an empty vessel to be filled with knowledge or riches\n\n\nThis may not be a handy way to understand the story. Two obvious problems arise: (1) what Tarot interpretation is used? (2) is it applied in a \"high\" or \"low\" style? For deep meaning or jokey convenience? You can't tell with Wolfe.\n\nWe also don't know whether a card is to be read straight or reversed. In short, you'll need to know both the Tarot and the story well to get much out of it. \n\nHowever, we know Wolfe knows everything there is to know about classical gods and goddesses. I'd assume he would follow, for example, the High Priestess as Isis and the Empress as Venus/Demeter rather than some new-agey interpretation." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 2\nDate: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:01:58 -0600\nFrom: Dave Tallman \nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nSubject: Re: (urth) Fiction, halves, twins\nMessage-ID: <4BD6EE56.40402 at gmail.com>\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed\n\nThe middle symmetry suggests arranging the chapters in pairs and looking \nfor common features. There are books where this works, for example \"The \nScarlet Letter\" and \"Fearful Symmetry\" (one of the comics in the \n\"Watchmen\" series).\n\n22: \"Silver Bullets\" and 23: \"Silver Bullets\"\n22 to Millie. 23 to George.\nCommon feature: title, pistols with silver bullets.\n\n21: \"Who Was He?\" and 24: \"Never Trust\"\n21 to Shell. 24 from Shell.\nCommon feature: 24 answers the questions in 21 about girls and Skotos.\n\n20: \"A Very Strange House\" and 25: \"The Hitchhiker\"\n20 to George. 25 to Orizia\nCommon feature: In 20 Madame Orizia makes a psychic visit, in 25 this is \nreferred to by Bax.\n\n19: \"The Professional\" and 26: \"Bax Investigates\"\n19 from Orizia. 26 to Millie.\nCommon feature: in 19 Madame Orizia offers her services, in 26 Bax tells \nMillie about the letter.\n\n18: \"Lupine\" and 27: \"Remember the Pistols?\"\n18 to Millie. 27 to Shell.\nCommon feature: In 18 is the first mention of Lupine by name. In 27 \nthere is mention of shooting an animal (the werewolf).\n\n17: \"A Tramp\" and 28: \"Cherchez la Femme\"\n17 to Millie. 28 to George.\nCommon features: 17 has the first appearance of Toby, the dog. In 28 Bax \ngets a call from Toby in human form.\n\n16: \"Be Careful\" and 29: \"Help is on the Way\"\n16 from Millie. 29 from Madame Orizia.\nCommon features: 16 mentions Madame Orizia for the first time. 29 has \nher arriving to help.\n\n15: \"Women\" and 30: \"Freedom!\"\n15 is to Shell. 30 is from Millie.\nCommon features: in 15 Bax mentions his two lovers. In 30 Millie hints \nthat she doesn't love George and she wants Bax.\n\n14: \"Is it a Ghost?\" and 31: \"Get Out -- And Got Out\"\n14 is to George. 31 is to Millie.\nCommon features: 14 mentions Nicholas the Butler and the locked trunk. \nIn 31, the trunk in unlocked and Nicholas emerges.\n\n13: \"Mouthpiece\" and 32: \"A Request\"\n13 is from Shell. 32 is from Shell.\nCommon feature: both are from Shell, offering advice.\n\n12: \"A Big Deal in Prospect\" and 33: \"On the Home Front\"\n12 is to George. 33 is from Millie.\nCommon feature: 12 has a date with Doris and an invitation to her home. \n33 shows Millie is jealous of Doris and the other women.\n\n11: \"On Various Women\" and 34: \"Fox and Wolf\"\n11 is to George. 34 is to Millie.\nCommon features: 11 has the first appearance of Winkle in human form. 34 \nmentions werefoxes and werewolves. The title may also refer to Bax and \nGeorge respectively.\n\n10: \"Tough Question\" and 35: \"The Duelist\"\n10 is to Shell. 35 is to Shell.\nCommon features: In both Bax asks Shell questions and speaks of legal \nmatters.\n\n9: \"Sorcery\" and 36: \"Wherever You Are\"\n9 is to George. 36 is to George.\nCommon feature: both have to do with finding things. In 9 the triannulus \nfinds fish, etc. In 36 Bax is looking for George.\n\n8: \"The Good Boy\" and 37: \"The Challenge\"\n8 is to George. 37 is from George.\nCommon feature: fights between brothers. In 8 is the introduction of the \nconflict between Emlyn and Ieuan. In 37 is a death challenge from George \nto Bax.\n\n7: \"Bax Takes a Beating\" and 38: \"Manjushri\"\n7 is to George. 38 is to Millie.\nCommon feature: visions brought about by Winkle. In 7 there is the \nvision of the dance on the lawn. In 38 is the visit to legendary Japan \nfor advice.\n\n6: \"Fresh Air\" and 39: \"Be Cool\"\n6 is from Shell. 39 is from Shell.\nCommon feature: both from Shell with friendly confidences.\n\n5: \"So Many Shades of Black\" and 40: \"Dear John\"\nCommon Feature: dating Doris. 5 has a first letter from Doris making a \ndate with Bax. 40 is Doris breaking up with Bax.\n\n4: \"Fisherman's Luck\" and 41: \"The Riverman\"\n4 is to George. 41 is to George.\nCommon feature: Bax using sorcery. In 4 Bax uses sorcery for the first \ntime to get fish and the ring. In 41 he uses it to summon the Riverman \nand win the battle.\n\n3: \"From One Big House to Another\" and 42: \"A Terrible Mistake\"\n3 is to Shell. 4 is from Doris.\nCommon feature: the house. 3 mentions the house to Shell for the first \ntime. In 42 Doris visits the house for the last time.\n\n2: \"Your Brother\" and 43: \"Final Report\"\n2 is to George. 43 is from Madame Orizia\nCommon feature: opening and closing business arrangements. In 2 Bax \nwrites to George for the first time and asks for money. In 43 Madame \nOrizia writes to Bax for the last time and asks for money.\n\n1: \"Your Old Cellmate\" and 44: \"Home!\"\nCommon feature: rags to riches. In 1 Bax has nothing and is trying to \nget money from George. In 44 Bax gets everything of George's including \nhis identity and his wife.\n\nIf the arcana theory is right, these chapter pairs may also be \nassociated with the tarot deck. I don't have time to look at that now, \nbut someone else may give it a try." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gwern Branwen", "address": "gwern0 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-04-28T02:20:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Fiction, halves, twins", "in_reply_to": "<4BD796D8.5070400@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:00 PM, David Stockhoff\n wrote:\nA few guesses at connections to the Arcana, based entirely on Dave Tallman's\nchapter descriptions:\n\n15: \"Women\" and 30: \"Freedom!\"\n15 is to Shell. 30 is from Millie.\nCommon features: in 15 Bax mentions his two lovers. In 30 Millie hints that\nshe doesn't love George and she wants Bax.\n\nTemperance: Moderation or a compromise is required\n\n...................\n\n13: \"Mouthpiece\" and 32: \"A Request\"\n13 is from Shell. 32 is from Shell.\nCommon feature: both are from Shell, offering advice.\n\nHanged Man: Inaction\n\n....................\n\n8: \"The Good Boy\" and 37: \"The Challenge\"\n8 is to George. 37 is from George.\nCommon feature: fights between brothers. In 8 is the introduction of the\nconflict between Emlyn and Ieuan. In 37 is a death challenge from George to\nBax.\n\nChariot: Conquest, pride\n\n....................\n\n3: \"From One Big House to Another\" and 42: \"A Terrible Mistake\"\n3 is to Shell. 4 is from Doris.\nCommon feature: the house. 3 mentions the house to Shell for the first time.\nIn 42 Doris visits the house for the last time.\n\nPriestess: Otherworldliness, assuming the house is not really of this earth\n\n2: \"Your Brother\" and 43: \"Final Report\"\n2 is to George. 43 is from Madame Orizia\nCommon feature: opening and closing business arrangements. In 2 Bax writes\nto George for the first time and asks for money. In 43 Madame Orizia writes\nto Bax for the last time and asks for money.\n\nMagician: a swindler?\n\n1: \"Your Old Cellmate\" and 44: \"Home!\"\nCommon feature: rags to riches. In 1 Bax has nothing and is trying to get\nmoney from George. In 44 Bax gets everything of George's including his\nidentity and his wife.\n\nThe Fool: is always a poor young man, an empty vessel to be filled with\nknowledge or riches\n\n\nThis may not be a handy way to understand the story. Two obvious problems\narise: (1) what Tarot interpretation is used? (2) is it applied in a \"high\"\nor \"low\" style? For deep meaning or jokey convenience? You can't tell with\nWolfe.\n\nWe also don't know whether a card is to be read straight or reversed. In\nshort, you'll need to know both the Tarot and the story well to get much out\nof it.\nHowever, we know Wolfe knows everything there is to know about classical\ngods and goddesses. I'd assume he would follow, for example, the High\nPriestess as Isis and the Empress as Venus/Demeter rather than some new-agey\ninterpretation." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "While thinking about these connections, I thought to myself, what\nevidence do we have that Wolfe is even familiar with the Tarot? None\nof these connections seem especially insightful or interesting, and as\nyou point out there are many free variables.\n\nThen I remembered Wolfe's poem, 'The Computer Iterates The Greater\nTrumps'. It's become surprisingly difficult to find, but is in Google\nBooks:\nhttp://books.google.com/books?id=vy9L08MQKkIC&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=computer+iterates+the+greater+trumps&source=bl&ots=gicT5e7-jF&sigRkOAz3qvf29tUPMhZaKJvjkQOg&hl=en&ei=cZrXS-PEI4P88AbhzsTmBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum\u0012&ved\fDAQ6AEwCw#v=onepage&q&fúlse\n\nAnyhoo, in that poem, Wolf enumerates the Trumps backwards from 21\n(Universe) to 0 (Fool)." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "gwern" } ] }, { "message_id": "<745814.4745.qm@smtp821.mail.ird.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Mo Holkar / UKG", "address": "lists at ukg.co.uk" }, "date": "2010-04-28T07:47:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Fiction, halves, twins", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At 03:20 28/04/2010, Gwern wrote:\nWhile thinking about these connections, I thought to myself, what\nevidence do we have that Wolfe is even familiar with the Tarot? None\nof these connections seem especially insightful or interesting, and as\nyou point out there are many free variables." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Another pointer that Wolfe may have had the Tarot in mind when \nwriting this particular book is found on p74 where Emlyn talks about \nweapons of sorcery:\n\n\"Swords, mostly.... A lot are staffs and wands these days. I've heard \nof cups, too.\"\n(And coins feature in that chapter in their own right.)\n\nMo\n\n\n# ~ # ~ #\n\nWolfeWiki -- a wiki about Gene Wolfe\nhttp://www.wolfewiki.com/pmwiki/ " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4BD8AC48.7090109@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2010-04-28T21:44:40+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Fiction, halves, twins", "in_reply_to": "<745814.4745.qm@smtp821.mail.ird.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Great!\n\nOne thing that a correspondence scheme can do here is confirm the primary \"meaning\" or point of each chapter---to tell us what to look out for, what is important. Since the Tarot is a system for organizing and transmitting esoteric knowledge, I never doubted that Wolfe was very familiar with it indeed. And the version he presents in TCITGT is helpful. \n\nFor example: I wondered about how to connect the Star and werewolves. \n\nBut Wolfe says Star = \"Magna Mater of the Old Cult.\" As readers of the Soldier novels know, this means lycanthropy. So Dave's elucidation of lycanthropy as the major plot point or introduction of that chapter pair is confirmed.\n\nI didn't know Temperance could be Time. Watch out for that ..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 2\nDate: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:20:31 -0400\nFrom: Gwern Branwen \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSubject: Re: (urth) Fiction, halves, twins\nMessage-ID:\n\t\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n\nWhile thinking about these connections, I thought to myself, what\nevidence do we have that Wolfe is even familiar with the Tarot? None\nof these connections seem especially insightful or interesting, and as\nyou point out there are many free variables.\n\nThen I remembered Wolfe's poem, 'The Computer Iterates The Greater\nTrumps'. It's become surprisingly difficult to find, but is in Google\nBooks:\nhttp://books.google.com/books?id=vy9L08MQKkIC&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=computer+iterates+the+greater+trumps&source=bl&ots=gicT5e7-jF&sigRkOAz3qvf29tUPMhZaKJvjkQOg&hl=en&ei=cZrXS-PEI4P88AbhzsTmBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum\u0012&ved\fDAQ6AEwCw#v=onepage&q&fúlse\n\nAnyhoo, in that poem, Wolf enumerates the Trumps backwards from 21\n(Universe) to 0 (Fool).\n\n-- gwern ------------------------------" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dave Tallman", "address": "davetallman at msn.com" }, "date": "2010-04-29T18:55:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Fiction, halves, twins", "in_reply_to": "<4BD8AC48.7090109@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Stockhoff wrote:\nOne thing that a correspondence scheme can do here is confirm the primary\n\"meaning\" or point of each chapter---to tell us what to look out for, what\nis important. Since the Tarot is a system for organizing and transmitting\nesoteric knowledge, I never doubted that Wolfe was very familiar with it\nindeed. And the version he presents in TCITGT is helpful.\n\nFor example: I wondered about how to connect the Star and werewolves.\n\nBut Wolfe says Star = \"Magna Mater of the Old Cult.\" As readers of the\nSoldier novels know, this means lycanthropy. So Dave's elucidation of\nlycanthropy as the major plot point or introduction of that chapter pair is\nconfirmed.\n\nI didn't know Temperance could be Time. Watch out for that ..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Another approach is to associate Tarot symbols with prominent characters and\nobjects and see how far we can go, and how well the matches align with\nchapters containing them.\n\n 0 Fool -- Bax in the beginning\n 1 Magician -- Madame Orizia\n 2 High Priestess -- Doris\n 3 Empress -- Martha Murrey\n 4 Emperor -- Mr. Black\n 5 Hierophant -- the man who gave Bax fish?\n 6 Lovers -- Bax with Doris and Winkle\n 7 Chariot -- the car\n 8 Justice -- the justice system, Finn\n 9 Hermit -- Kiki\n10 Wheel of Fortune -- the triannulus\n11 Strength -- George\n12 Hanged Man -- Bax waiting, hung up at first\n13 Death -- Nicholas\n14 Temperance/Time -- chapters with time warping\n15 Devil -- the dwarf, also \"Old Nick\"\n16 Tower -- Goldwurm's tower\n17 Star -- Lupine\n18 Moon -- Winkle\n19 Sun - Bax as detective, getting clarity\n20 Judgment -- the battle royale\n21 World -- final chapter with success and a world tour" } ] }, { "message_id": "<587071.48913.qm@smtp823.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Mo Holkar / UKG", "address": "lists at ukg.co.uk" }, "date": "2010-05-03T15:57:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Fiction, halves, twins", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At 19:55 29/04/2010, Dave wrote:\n 5 Hierophant -- the man who gave Bax fish?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The Hierophant, also known as the Pope, might be Urban Trelawny. The \nthemes usually associated with this trump -- experience, social \nconservatism, authority structure, etc -- seem to fit him; as well as \nhis forename.\n\nMo\n\n\n\n# ~ # ~ #\n\nWolfeWiki -- a wiki about Gene Wolfe\nhttp://www.wolfewiki.com/pmwiki/ " } ] } ] }