Subject: (urth) Dorcas (was: The mystery of the image of an astronaut cleaned by Rudesind)

From: Tony Ellis <tonyellis69 at btopenworld.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 18:33:35 +0000

James Wynn wrote (of the Dorcas-grandmother puzzle):

> I remember when the grandmother theory was posed. There was no more
> textual evidence for it than this Hairy Inire theory. The only reason
> it's not sitting on the "Half-baked Theory" pile today is because Wolfe
> uncharacteristically confirmed it to a questioner.

and

>This "transparent" puzzle was only understood some 20 years after the
>book was published.  I'm sure you would have been on the list explaining
>it a week after the SotT was published if you had had the opportunity.

Where are you getting this from? The Dorcas-is-Sev's-grandmother
puzzle was understood by some of us as soon as we read Citadel of the
Autarch back in the 1980s.

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 18:35:52 +0000

> Autarch back in the 1980s.

Yep. In fact, I didn't even realize it was considered a "puzzle."

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 18:47:54 +0000

> Yep. In fact, I didn't even realize it was considered a "puzzle."

I don't know how it could have passed your notice that this issue was 
debated on this list in detail in the late 90s.

u+16b9

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 19:08:15 +0000

> debated on this list in detail in the late 90s.

I think should elaborate on this. Sure there were people who read tBotNS 
and said "Aha! Dorcas is Severian's grandmother." That Number Five's 
name could be derived from the text was lore from at least the late 70s.

One day perhaps it will revealed in no uncertain terms that Tussah is a 
clone of Typhon and that the narrator of the Book of the Short Sun is 
Neighbor. But if that happens, I'm not going to say "Ho ho! Why it was 
*obvious*! What's the mystery here? I was saying that from the 
beginning!" The issue is whether Dorcas as Sev's grandmother was 
explained in terms that made it convincing to all.

I think simian references to Inire and Rudesind are significant, but I 
never paid them much mind before. Now they *do* appear obvious, don't they?

u+169b

---

From: António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 19:40:52 +0000

James Wynn wrote (09-07-2010 20:08):

> Sure there were people who read tBotNS and said "Aha! Dorcas is Severian's grandmother."

Unlike the usual 'Wolfean mysteries', the indentity of Dorcas is hinted at 
using the classic literary devices one finds everywhere. I think this is 
what makes it so obvious and not really a 'puzzle'. I also think it makes 
your comparison misguided. Again, the debate with Dorcas isn't whether there 
is convincing evidence, it's more like whether the evidence isn't deceptive.

> never paid them much mind before. Now they *do* appear obvious, don't they?

I don't see what you mean. There are several simian references throughout 
the book. Lowering the bar for what constitutes a simian reference gets us 
even more. They do not apply only to Inire and Rudesind. They may tell us 
more about Severian and his society than the people being described. And 
it's funny that the fauna is so different yet simians are supposed to be 
just like our own. But again - what do you mean when you say they're obvious?

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 20:01:21 +0000

> On 7/9/2010 2:40 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
> But again - what do you mean when you say they're obvious?
>

I mean that they they are *clearly*, almost to the point of 
self-evidence, intended by the author to signal something. Or as Roy put 
it today in the initial post of the "Monkey Business" thread:

> That some characters in the Urth Cycle are compared, in some way, with
> monkeys is beyond dispute. Since Wolfe wrote it, I think almost everyone
> will agree that the simian markers signify *something*.
>    

u+16b9

---

From: António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 20:07:51 +0000

> it today in the initial post of the "Monkey Business" thread:

So you're saying that you didn't notice that they were there before? But 
your wording suggested you were aware of them. If you were, what has 
changed? I'm assuming it wasn't Ryan's mentioning them, since you say they 
are almost self-evident. What then?

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 21:06:11 +0000

>>>> James Wynn said:
> On 7/9/2010 3:07 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
> So you're saying that you didn't notice that they were there before? 
> But your wording suggested you were aware of them. If you were, what 
> has changed? I'm assuming it wasn't Ryan's mentioning them, since you 
> say they are almost self-evident. What then?

Look. English is not your first language. I get that. But you are 
allowing your debility to make an ass of you.
Also, didn't you just chide me for trimming messages for emphasis? Why 
did you drop the quotation from Roy that I offered to further illustrate 
what I was saying?

u+16b9

---

From: Tony Ellis <tonyellis69 at btopenworld.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 21:53:34 +0000

James Wynn wrote:
>The issue is whether Dorcas as Sev's grandmother was

No, the issue in this thread is whether it was explained in terms so
*un*convincing that you were right to call it 'a half-baked theory' or
'only understood 20 years after the book was published'.

Neither of these things is true. As Dan'l says, it's debatable whether
it should be classed as a puzzle at all.

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 22:16:38 +0000

> On 7/9/2010 4:53 PM, Tony Ellis wrote:

No. You misread part of that. I did not call it a half-baked theory. I 
said this:
> The only reason

If it was explained in terms at all before the late 90s, I'm unaware of 
it. It's not an issue of it being in "un"convincing terms. Perhaps 
"insufficiently convincing" is accurate, because people can be very hard 
to convince. But in the late 90s, the explanation was carefully detailed 
in a way that many people began nodding their heads in agreement. Still, 
until someone posted that Wolfe had confirmed this (which I believe 
unfortunately occurred  when the archives were broken), alternate 
theories were regularly offered and debated on this list. Now it is 
gospel and the other constructs are beneath the waves as Nessus is 
beneath the oceans of Ushas. It's as though they never happened.

If I've inadvertently dissed you, I apologize.

u+16b9

---

From: Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 22:49:26 +0000

James Wynn wrote:
[snip]
> it. [snip]

It is stated in the original LEXICON URTHUS, p-90, published in 1994, that
Dorcas is Severian's paternal grandmother.

-Roy

---

From: Ryan Dunn <ryan at liftingfaces.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 23:34:12 +0000

On Jul 9, 2010, at 6:16 PM, James Wynn wrote:

> No. You misread part of that. I did not call it a half-baked theory. I said this:
>> The only reason
> If it was explained in terms at all before the late 90s, I'm unaware of it.

I've read BotNS twice through, and am on a third scouring, non-linear, clue hunting, note-taking. I came to the grandma Dorcas without much effort, which is saying alot if you've read my previous argument starters (aka mailing list threads).

But I think the point was, it wasn't explained in the late 90's, but rather in the mid-80's when the books were published, because the explanations are in the text, quite obviously in my opinion.

Dorcas and the boatman birthed 'You-Are-My-Mother-Come-Again' Ouen.

Ouen knocked up Catherine, who was handed to the torturers where she birthed Severian (plenty exposition going to great lengths to explain what happens when a woman gives birth while a client of the Matachin Tower.

And finally, Severian clearly described as sharing Ouen's profile.

Done and done, as far as I can deduce.

Now, about those monkeys........

...ryan

---

From: Ryan Dunn <ryan at liftingfaces.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 23:38:09 +0000

> Dorcas is Severian's paternal grandmother.

Oh, and I always liked this quote from the book, guess who said it...

"Look at the great successes of the past - they say their deities are the masters of all the universes, and yet that they require grandmothers to defend them, as if they were children frightened by poultry."

...ryan

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 00:00:13 +0000

> On 7/9/2010 5:49 PM, Roy C. Lackey wrote:

This is an excellent example of what I'm talking about.

In the definition for Dorcas, Mantis places her status as Severian's 
grandmother in the commentary...a location that, in the 1st edition, he 
seems to have favored for speculation and spoilers. Far less often for 
self-evident points of fact. And as Tony Ellis IIRC referenced, many 
people viewed it as a feint. And why wouldn't they? Sev's opinion about 
Ouen's and Catharine's connection is rather peculiar: "A woman you loved 
or perhaps only one who loved you".

> On 7/9/2010 6:34 PM, Ryan Dunn wrote:

I'm not going to disparage those who had alternate readings in this 
case. Suffice that Wolfe has instilled extreme paranoia in his 
readership and inclined them to straining at ants. I don't say he has no 
one to blame but himself, but he bears a large culpability.

u+16b9

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 00:17:56 +0000

conversation off-list.
I want to apologize to Antonio and to anyone who read my just previous 
responses to him. I was out of line taking it here.

u+16b9

---

From: António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 01:08:16 +0000

James Wynn wrote (10-07-2010 01:17):
> Look, when one becomes exasperated, that's the time to take the
> conversation off-list.

Whoa. I'd like to apologise to everyone as well, including James, for my 
part in it. I wasn't going to, but you were the better man in providing the 
opportunity. And I've appreciated reading the Map of the Whorl these last years.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 01:33:18 +0000

James Wynn wrote:
> On 7/9/2010 3:07 PM, Ant??nio Pedro Marques wrote:

> allowing your debility to make an ass of you.

He's the one who looks like an ass?

.

---

From: Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 04:08:13 +0000

Ryan Dunn wrote:
> "Look at the great successes of the past - they say their deities are the
masters of all the universes, and yet that they require grandmothers to
defend them, as if they were children frightened by poultry."

I'm not going to step into that. <g> Anyway, I think Thecla's next line was
better, even if it more properly belongs in Andrew's thread.

"Or that the authority that punishes no one while there exists a chance for
reformation will punish everyone when there is no possibility anyone will
become the better for it."

-Roy

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 04:18:28 +0000

Thecla is an atheist.

.

> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 05:48:23 +0000

> Whoa. I'd like to apologise to everyone as well, including James, for 
> my part in it. I wasn't going to, but you were the better man in 
> providing the opportunity. And I've appreciated reading the Map of the 
> Whorl these last years.

And look! Now we're fine again. There's a lesson there about emotions. 
They seem as big and imposing as a house and an offense against them is 
a knife through your heart. Then you shrug your shoulders and a breeze 
blows them away. They are by definition irrational.

u+16b9

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 06:58:26 +0000

I ain't apologizing to anybody.

I will point out, however, as I do occasionally, that I lie almost
constantly.

Very little that I say is reliable.

.

---

From: Tony Ellis <tonyellis69 at btopenworld.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 13:13:59 +0000

James Wynn wrote:
>in a way that many people began nodding their heads in agreement.

Ah, I think I understand now. We are talking at cross-purposes. When
you talk about the Dorcas theory being  'explained' or 'understood'
you mean 'explained in circles of Wolfean criticism such as this
list', don't you? But I, and I think also Antonio, Dan'l, Ryan and
Roy, are talking about how it is explained *in the text*. In the text,
it is made transparently clear that Dorcas is Severian's grandmother,
as several people have now come forward and demonstrated.

This is why I can't agree that 'if Wolfe hadn't confirmed the
grandmother theory, it would be on the Half-Baked Theory pile today'.
People like us would never have allowed it to languish there.

>If I've inadvertently dissed you, I apologize.

Not at all. I am entirely un-dissed, but thank you.

>Dorcas is Severian's paternal grandmother.

If anyone has issue 164 of Vector, the critical journal of the BSFA,
they'll see that some tiresome guy called Anthony Ellis stated it back
in October, 1991. :-)

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 13:50:22 +0000

This is my general criticism against the ouinusses and ouanquerres that
infest this list.

.