Introduction and Breath

Greetings Urth people, I have been lurking here for a while, somewhat overwhelmed by the sheer volume. Actually I don't care for the term lurking. I don't like what it connotes. I don't feel like I've been hiding in the shadows. I feel like I've been submerged, swimming through the endless flow of your words. Now that we seem to have hit a relatively calm spell, I thought I should be polite and introduce myself, even though I have nothing in particular to say. I feel like now I am coming up to the surface to take a breath of air. Even as I write this I'm having a sense of d?j? vu. Have I introduced myself before? I don't think so, but I did some lurking (I mean swimming) here almost ten years ago, or so I recall. I've searched the archives but I can't see any evidence that I ever made my presence known. Then again, I can't be certain, I've used so many different aliases on the net. I do remember that I was turned on to Little, Big when it was mentioned here, so thank you for that, whoever you are. I'm writing now because at this time I'm making my way through The Book of the New Sun yet again. I've lost track of how many times I've read it. This might be my 15th time or my 20th. I've read it aloud (three or four times) and I've read the books in reverse order and even read it chapter-by-chapter in reverse order or in randomized fashion according to a scheme I devised and have long since forgotten. I find new insights are revealed by contriving such juxtapositions. Finally, I thought I'd ask something that has perplexed me for many years. I often read about Severian's supposed unreliability as a narrator. This notion greatly intrigued me at first as I think Pale Fire is one of the greatest books ever written, and each time I have revisited the story I have looked for clues, but I'm unable to figure this one out. What exactly is the nature of his unreliability? Every cited instance I've seen seems to be fairly trivial. What is the big lie? What am I missing? Editor B _______________________________________________

From: "soloviev at irit.fr" <soloviev at irit.fr> Greetings - well, I am sure that it is my first posting to the list (glad that I am here).

I think an important example of withholding certain information (if not lie) can be found in the end of the "Book of the Short Sun" where Horn-Silk is visiting Urth with Jahlee and others, and Severian as a boy is helping him to return Scylla (Cilinia) to her coffin. There were several meetings with Severian, meeting with Gurloes, Triskele etc. It gives some idea what information Severian may withhold in the "Book of the New Sun".

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>wrote: Editor B, Pale Fire is one of my favorite books too, but when I mention it or Nabokov here, no one responds.

On Apr 13, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote: Editor B, Pale Fire is one of my favorite books too, but when I mention it or Nabokov here, no one responds.

well, I am sure that it is my first posting to the list (glad that I am here).

I think an important example of withholding certain information (if not lie) can be found in the end of the "Book of the Short Sun" where Horn-Silk is visiting Urth with Jahlee and others, and Severian as a boy is helping him to return Scylla (Cilinia) to her coffin. There were several meetings with Severian, meeting with Gurloes, Triskele etc. It gives some idea what information Severian may withhold in the "Book of the New Sun".

I haven't really thought about Nabakov in a critical fashion, so perhaps that's

why little occurs to me when comparing him to Wolfe. What's an interesting place to start? The way they present their narrators?

At 23:41 13/04/2011, Jerry Friedman wrote: Editor B, Pale Fire is one of my favorite books too, but when I mention it or Nabokov here, no one responds.

From: "soloviev at irit.fr" <soloviev at irit.fr> Greetings - well, I am sure that it is my first posting to the list (glad that I am here).

Hi, Sergei. Was it partly a mention of Pale Fire that got you to delurk (if you're the same Sergei Soloviev I remember from NABOKV-L)?

I think an important example of withholding certain information (if not lie) can be found in the end of the "Book of the Short Sun" where Horn-Silk is visiting Urth with Jahlee and others, and Severian as a boy is helping him to return Scylla (Cilinia) to her coffin. There were several meetings with Severian, meeting with Gurloes, Triskele etc. It gives some idea what information Severian may withhold in the "Book of the New Sun".

Like Editor B, I'm interested in why people call Severian unreliable. I find it so unlikely that he'd leave out the visits from Horn-Silk (who he thinks is Master Malrubius), that I've wondered whether that Severian is in a different timeline. Editor B, Pale Fire is one of my favorite books too, but when I mention it or Nabokov here, no one responds. Jerry Friedman _______________________________________________

One thing I've noticed on various boards is people confidently asserting that Severian is a liar, then clamming up when asked for examples.

One thing I've noticed on various boards is people confidently asserting that Severian is a liar, then clamming up when asked for examples.

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Craig Brewer <cnbrewer at yahoo.com> wrote: I've always assumed that, in Severian's case, he gets the "unreliable narrator" tag for reasons other than outright lying. There are a number of reasons he might not be exactly reliable: 1) He's a (or an ex-) political leader writing his memoirs. 2) He's got multiple peoples' memories running around his head, and the narrator's "I" isn't always the same person's. 3) The cultural differences and "translations" that "Gene Wolfe" made from the manuscript mean that we don't share the same common cultural context. Thus, a "steed" or a "mount" isn't always a horse. Or "people" might not always be human, or humans as we know them. The tower is a rocket, but he doesn't explicitly mention that because he doesn't need to explain it to the audience he thinks he's writing for, etc... 4) The obvious point that he claims to have a perfect memory but occasionally mentions not remembering (or at least not having paid attention to) certain details. ----- Original Message ---- From: Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>

Severian's perfect memory seems selective. There are moments where seems to say "I have a perfect memory, except for when I don't".

Antonin Scriabin wrote (15-04-2011 17:48): Severian's perfect memory seems selective. There are moments where seems to say "I have a perfect memory, except for when I don't".

Am I misremembering, or one of the first pages of NS goes like this: 'So Drotte was doing something... did I mention I have a perfect memory? I have a perfect memory! Anyway, Roche was doing something...'? Almost cartoonish. Roger Rabbitish. _______________________________________________

Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: Am I misremembering, or one of the first pages of NS goes like this: 'So Drotte was doing something... did I mention I have a perfect memory? I have a perfect memory! Anyway, Roche was doing something...'? Almost cartoonish. Roger Rabbitish.

Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:

Am I misremembering, or one of the first pages of NS goes like this: 'So Drotte was doing something... did I mention I have a perfect memory? I have a perfect memory! Anyway, Roche was doing something...'? Almost cartoonish. Roger Rabbitish.

I've always felt that this looks far more like a faux-pas on the part of Wolfe than anything to do with Severian's memory.

On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Daniel Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: So glad people are asking about Severian as unreliable narrator! I suspect it's one of those ideas that someone said in a review and then it got blurbed on a jacket cover and then it just became the 'official' interpretation and is now in an endless repeat loop. I don't think I have ever yet mentioned it in comments or reviews about New Sun as I simply don't understand it. I'm totally open to being shown how it is the case, but the reasons given in this thread are, frankly, unconvincing. They show how Wolfe's narrative art overall is strange and tricksy and indirect and elusive - things I do talk about in commenting on all of Wolfe's fiction - but not how Severian himself overall is helpfully and accurately described as an 'unreliable narrator' or how this is a central and significant trope that characterises tBotNS. It's all hints and suspicions and possibilities - which are great, but should be left at that I think. We still await the carefully documented and argued case for Severian as unreliable narrator. -DOJP 2011/4/15 Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>

Antonin Scriabin wrote (15-04-2011 17:48): Severian's perfect memory seems selective. There are moments where seems to say "I have a perfect memory, except for when I don't".

Am I misremembering, or one of the first pages of NS goes like this: 'So Drotte was doing something... did I mention I have a perfect memory? I have a perfect memory! Anyway, Roche was doing something...'? Almost cartoonish. Roger Rabbitish. _______________________________________________

On Apr 16, 2011, at 6:47 AM, Matthew Knapton <eruantien at gmail.com> wrote: Hi. I haven't read any ..Sun books outside of the Book of the New Sun, and don't have them to hand to look up references. However! I buy into the unreliable-Severian. While it's certainly possible that his repeatedly-claimed perfect memory isn't actually perfect (and either he lies, or has convinced himself that his subconscious inventions are real memories), we can be generous to Severian and assume that his memory is indeed perfect. But that doesn't help his case, because perfect recall isn't the only thing required to be an omniscient narrator - he lacks perfect understanding as well. He might be able to remember every scene of his life, but if he misunderstands what he sees, or attributes purposes and implications to the actions and appearance of people around him incorrectly, he's just as unreliable a narrator as someone who doesn't well remember the scene in question. Maybe even more unreliable, so to speak, or at least less helpful, since the person-without-perfect-memory would admit to gaps in the story. And of course, having a perfect memory doesn't mean it's all transcribed into his writing. At some point I think Severian actually writes that he has "left out details which are unimportant", noting a few sentences later (without irony) that he has "no sense of perspective". Personally I also think his memory is faulty (though I tend to think he's deceiving himself that what he remembers is perfect, rather than 'actively' lying); the bits which got me early on were his recollections of Thecla. Like I say I don't have my copies of the books to hand, but fairly early on doesn't he give one account of Thecla's death, and then later (in an offhand comment) give an entirely different one? His description of their relationship as sexual or platonic seems to change as the books goes on, too. I feel like cataloguing examples sort of misses the point though; if there's one thing a reader of Gene Wolfe knows it's that he isn't going to spell anything out in crayon :) and "unreliable narration", for one reason or another, does seem to be a recurring theme throughout a lot of his books. On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: So glad people are asking about Severian as unreliable narrator! I suspect it's one of those ideas that someone said in a review and then it got blurbed on a jacket cover and then it just became the 'official' interpretation and is now in an endless repeat loop. I don't think I have ever yet mentioned it in comments or reviews about New Sun as I simply don't understand it. I'm totally open to being shown how it is the case, but the reasons given in this thread are, frankly, unconvincing. They show how Wolfe's narrative art overall is strange and tricksy and indirect and elusive - things I do talk about in commenting on all of Wolfe's fiction - but not how Severian himself overall is helpfully and accurately described as an 'unreliable narrator' or how this is a central and significant trope that characterises tBotNS. It's all hints and suspicions and possibilities - which are great, but should be left at that I think. We still await the carefully documented and argued case for Severian as unreliable narrator. -DOJP 2011/4/15 Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com> Antonin Scriabin wrote (15-04-2011 17:48): Severian's perfect memory seems selective. There are moments where seems to say "I have a perfect memory, except for when I don't". Am I misremembering, or one of the first pages of NS goes like this: 'So Drotte was doing something... did I mention I have a perfect memory? I have a perfect memory! Anyway, Roche was doing something...'? Almost cartoonish. Roger Rabbitish. _______________________________________________

On 4/16/2011 4:58 AM, Daniel Petersen wrote: So glad people are asking about Severian as unreliable narrator! I suspect it's one of those ideas that someone said in a review and then it got blurbed on a jacket cover and then it just became the 'official' interpretation and is now in an endless repeat loop. I don't think I have ever yet mentioned it in comments or reviews about New Sun as I simply don't understand it. I'm totally open to being shown how it is the case, but the reasons given in this thread are, frankly, unconvincing. They show how Wolfe's narrative art overall is strange and tricksy and indirect and elusive - things I /do/ talk about in commenting on all of Wolfe's fiction - but not how Severian himself overall is helpfully and accurately described as an 'unreliable narrator' or how this is a central and significant trope that characterises tBotNS. It's all hints and suspicions and possibilities - which are great, but should be left at that I think. We still await the carefully documented and argued case for Severian as unreliable narrator. -DOJP 2011/4/15 Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com <mailto:entonio at gmail.com>> Antonin Scriabin wrote (15-04-2011 17:48): Severian's perfect memory seems selective. There are moments where seems to say "I have a perfect memory, except for when I don't". Am I misremembering, or one of the first pages of NS goes like this: 'So Drotte was doing something... did I mention I have a perfect memory? I have a perfect memory! Anyway, Roche was doing something...'? Almost cartoonish. Roger Rabbitish. _______________________________________________

From: "David Stockhoff" <dstockhoff at verizon.net> I think the test here is "more unreliable than is usual in science fiction." It's a pretty low bar Severian clears with ease, just by his lies of omission. Gerry's comment that, to Severian, "just a moment ago" is long enough to compose ~50 written pages by hand is another example, however limited in effect.

Gerry Quinn wrote: For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is telling us another, different story disguised behind the overt story the narrator is telling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't understand what's going on.

On 4/17/2011 6:31 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote: From: "David Stockhoff" <dstockhoff at verizon.net>

I think the test here is "more unreliable than is usual in science fiction." It's a pretty low bar Severian clears with ease, just by his lies of omission. Gerry's comment that, to Severian, "just a moment ago" is long enough to compose ~50 written pages by hand is another example, however limited in effect.

I think the main meaning of this episode is the slightly cruel joke about Nicarete being left to wait on the Autarch's whim once again, after spending her life waiting in the antechamber of previous Autarchs. Severian's absorption in his writing just sets it up. I wouldn't call it an example of an unreliable narrator, really. He didn't notice the time passing. It's not an unnatural thing not to notice; anybody might be unreliable in the same fashion. For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is telling us another, different story disguised behind the overt story the narrator is telling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't understand what's going on. I really don't think that either is the case with Severian. A narrator who simply makes mistakes or who doesn't know everything isn't unreliable in this strong sense. Maybe we could define 'weakly unreliable' and 'strongly unreliable' - but I personally feel that the expression 'unreliable narrator' should be reserved for the strong sense. Probably all Wolfe's characters are unreliable in the weak sense - consider the Nebraskan in 'The Nebraskan and the Nereid' discussed earlier, for example. We are told what he sees, but he does not realise that he is meeting the same girl in the inn and the sea-cave, so we are not told. But does that make him unreliable? It certainly does not make him a liar, anyway. - Gerry Quinn _______________________________________________

On 4/17/2011 7:09 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote: Gerry Quinn wrote:

For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is telling us another, different story disguised behind the overt story the narrator is telling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't understand what's going on.

I think you're doing overanalysis. 'Unreliable narrator' simply means that the narrative isn't the absolute complete truth of what happened. Which, actually, applies to any narrative. What Gene Wolfe does - as other did and do - is to craft that part of his work, instead of leaving it to be a subproduct. _______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List

On 04/17/2011 06:09 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote: Gerry Quinn wrote:

For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is telling us another, different story disguised behind the overt story the narrator is telling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't understand what's going on.

I think you're doing overanalysis. 'Unreliable narrator' simply means that the narrative isn't the absolute complete truth of what happened. Which, actually, applies to any narrative. What Gene Wolfe does - as other did and do - is to craft that part of his work, instead of leaving it to be a subproduct.

On 4/17/2011 6:31 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:

For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is telling us another, different story disguised > >behind the overt story the narrator is telling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't understand what's > going on. I really don't think that either is the case with Severian. A narrator who simply makes mistakes or who doesn't know everything isn't unreliable in this strong sense. Maybe we could define 'weakly unreliable' and 'strongly unreliable' - but I personally feel that the expression 'unreliable narrator' should be reserved for the strong sense.

Probably all Wolfe's characters are unreliable in the weak sense - consider the Nebraskan in 'The Nebraskan and the Nereid' discussed earlier, for example. We are told what he sees, but he does not realise that he is meeting the same girl in the inn and the sea-cave, so we are not told. But does that make him unreliable? It certainly does not make him a liar, anyway.

Antonio Marques wrote: I think you're doing overanalysis. 'Unreliable narrator' simply means that the narrative isn't the absolute >complete truth of what happened. Which, actually, applies to any narrative. What Gene Wolfe does - as >other did and do - is to craft that part of his work, instead of leaving it to be a subproduct.

From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> ... But I think the "more unreliable than is usual in science fiction" standard applies, in which case all the characters you mention are indeed unreliable.

But the Nebraskan is a great example of unreliability, because he doesn't lie. Yet, we cannot trust his narration---that's all that "unreliable" means.

Similarly, when Blood appears at the manteion unnamed, the narrator is, by conventional standards, being almost dishonest. The fact that he makes the reader guess is > important, not the clues he offers.

From: "Jerry Friedman" <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com> Antonio Marques wrote:

On 4/17/2011 6:31 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:

For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is telling us another, different story disguised > >behind the overt story the narrator is telling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't understand what's going on. I really don't think that either is the case with Severian.

I think you're doing overanalysis. 'Unreliable narrator' simply means that the narrative isn't the absolute >complete truth of what happened. Which, actually, applies to any narrative. What Gene Wolfe does - as >other did and do - is to craft that part of his work, instead of leaving it to be a subproduct.

The original meaning of "unreliable narrator", as used by Wayne C. Booth in /The Rhetoric of Fiction/, is that the narrator's /norms/ differ from the implied author's. He gives examples such as Barry Lyndon, morally as far from the author as possible (Booth says--I haven't read it), and Huck Finn, who calls himself bad when we can tell the author thinks he's good. Or the narrator "is mistaken, or believes himself to have qualities which the author denies him"--I suppose Kinbote would be a good example of that last, or Pooter in /The Diary of a Nobody/. Booth says irony on the narrator's part is not an example, but lying is, though an uncommon one. http://books.google.com/books?id=VfUgMbRYSW4C&pg=PA159 No doubt the meaning has changed. I'm with Gerry Quinn. There's no point in making a big deal out unreliability unless it's "strong" unreliability--the story is or could be substantially different from what you get by believing the narrator.

But the Nebraskan is a great example of unreliability, because he doesn't lie. Yet, we cannot trust his narration---that's all that "unreliable" means.

I wouldn't call a person unreliable who didn't notice something in the dark, and I wouldn't say I couldn't trust what he told me. (I suppose it's just as well if nobody has put forward an interpretation of that story where the actual narrator is unreliable, or Thoe is.)

Should we not speak of unreliable narratives, rather than unreliable narrators?

Antonio says above that every author does unreliability - Gene Wolfe crafts it, and other novelists achieve it as a "sub-product".

I don't really agree with this distinction. All decent authors are aware of the issue, I think - they just go different ways to achieve the effect.

I guess this ties into my view that Wolfe is a much clearer author than his reputation would suggest.

On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>wrote: On 4/17/2011 6:31 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:

For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is telling us another, different story disguised > >behind the overt story the narrator is telling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't understand what's

going on. I really don't think that either is the case with Severian. A narrator who simply makes mistakes or who doesn't know everything isn't unreliable in this strong sense. Maybe we could define 'weakly unreliable' and 'strongly unreliable' - but I personally feel that the expression 'unreliable narrator' should be reserved for the strong sense.

Probably all Wolfe's characters are unreliable in the weak sense - consider the Nebraskan in 'The Nebraskan and the Nereid' discussed earlier, for example. We are told what he sees, but he does not realise that he is meeting the same girl in the inn and the sea-cave, so we are not told. But does that make him unreliable? It certainly does not make him a liar, anyway.

Antonio Marques wrote:

I think you're doing overanalysis. 'Unreliable narrator' simply means that the narrative isn't the absolute >complete truth of what happened. Which, actually, applies to any narrative. What Gene Wolfe does - as >other did and do - is to craft that part of his work, instead of leaving it to be a subproduct.

The original meaning of "unreliable narrator", as used by Wayne C. Booth in /The Rhetoric of Fiction/, is that the narrator's /norms/ differ from the implied author's. He gives examples such as Barry Lyndon, morally as far from the author as possible (Booth says--I haven't read it), and Huck Finn, who calls himself bad when we can tell the author thinks he's good. Or the narrator "is mistaken, or believes himself to have qualities which the author denies him"--I suppose Kinbote would be a good example of that last, or Pooter in /The Diary of a Nobody/. Booth says irony on the narrator's part is not an example, but lying is, though an uncommon one. http://books.google.com/books?id=VfUgMbRYSW4C&pg=PA159 No doubt the meaning has changed. I'm with Gerry Quinn. There's no point in making a big deal out unreliability unless it's "strong" unreliability--the story is or could be substantially different from what you get by believing the narrator.

From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> ... But I think the "more unreliable than is usual in science fiction" standard applies, in which case all the characters you mention are indeed unreliable.

... Okay, but why have some people stressed it so much?

But the Nebraskan is a great example of unreliability, because he doesn't lie. Yet, we cannot trust his narration---that's all that "unreliable" means.

I wouldn't call a person unreliable who didn't notice something in the dark, and I wouldn't say I couldn't trust what he told me. (I suppose it's just as well if nobody has put forward an interpretation of that story where the actual narrator is unreliable, or Thoe is.)

Similarly, when Blood appears at the manteion unnamed, the narrator is, by conventional standards, being almost dishonest. The fact that he makes the reader guess is > important, not the clues he offers.

Yes, that fact is important, but it doesn't make him unreliable. He's just choosing an unusual way of communicating, one that his author likes. Similarly, Severian has his own way of telling us that Dorcas is his grandmother, and his choosing that way may tell us something about him, such as that he likes indirection (or is that Wolfe?) or that he's uncomfortable with having had sex with his grandmother. If that's one of what you called "lies by omission", I can't agree. Jerry Friedman _______________________________________________

On 4/17/2011 6:31 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:

For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is? telling us?

another, different story disguised > >behind the overt story the? narrator is? telling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't understand? what's >?

going on. I really don't think that either is the case with? Severian. A narrator who simply makes mistakes or who doesn't? know everything isn't?

unreliable in this strong sense. Maybe we could? define 'weakly unreliable' and 'strongly unreliable' -? but I personally feel? that the expression 'unreliable narrator' should be reserved for the strong? sense. ? Probably all Wolfe's characters are unreliable in the weak sense -? consider the Nebraskan in 'The Nebraskan? and the Nereid' discussed earlier, for? example. We are told what he sees, but he does not realise? that he is? meeting the same girl in the inn and the sea-cave, so we are not told. But? does that make him? unreliable? It certainly does not make him a liar, anyway.

Antonio Marques wrote: I think you're doing overanalysis. 'Unreliable narrator'? simply means that the? narrative isn't the absolute >complete truth of? what happened. Which, actually, applies to any narrative. What Gene Wolfe does - as >other did and do - is to? craft that part of his work, instead of leaving it to be a subproduct.

From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> ... But I think the "more unreliable than is usual in science fiction" ? standard applies, in which case all the characters you mention are indeed? unreliable.

But the Nebraskan is a great example of unreliability, because he? doesn't lie. Yet, we cannot trust his narration---that's all that "unreliable"? means.

Similarly, when Blood appears at the manteion unnamed, the narrator is, by conventional standards, being almost dishonest. The fact that?>he makes the? reader guess is > important, not the clues he offers.

You just can't RELY on it. It's all in contrast to the omniscient narrator.

--- On Mon, 4/18/11, Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote: From: Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com> Subject: Re: (urth) Introduction and Breath

On 4/18/2011 12:59 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote: I was just looking for commentary on Lolita and found the following brief description of a minor character: Valeria - Humbert’s first wife, whom he married to cure himself of his addiction to nymphets. Humbert finds Valeria intellectually inferior and often bullies her. When he plans to move to America, Valeria leaves him to marry a Russian taxi driver. Valeria and her husband die in California years later. I can't imagine Wolfe would appropriate the name Valeria lightly, especially given Severian's attraction to ... well, they aren't nymphets exactly. _______________________________________________

On 4/18/2011 12:52 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote: Basically, the narrator may tell us (a) everything he sees, hears, knows, and thinks (as above) (b) only what he sees and hears but not what he thinks (c) only some of what he sees and hears (i.e., he withholds) (d) some dramatic combination, e.g., where he tells us everything but the identity of the killer, which he knew from page 1.

Gerry Quinn wrote: For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is telling us another, different story disguised behind the overt story the narrator is telling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't understand what's going on. I really don't think that either is the case with Severian. A narrator who simply makes mistakes or who doesn't know everything isn't unreliable in this strong sense. Maybe we could define 'weakly unreliable' and 'strongly unreliable' - but I personally feel that the expression 'unreliable narrator' should be reserved for the strong sense. [snip]

--- On Mon, 4/18/11, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote: From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> Subject: Re: (urth) Incidental observation To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net> Date: Monday, April 18, 2011, 3:03 PM Well...Dorcas is a water nymph, and by extension a siren. One issue that might be important is that Valeria is, in a sense, Sev's "first girlfriend". He meets her before he met Thecla or any of the others. On 4/18/2011 12:59 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:

I was just looking for commentary on Lolita and found the following brief description of a minor character: Valeria -? Humbert’s first wife, whom he married to cure himself of his addiction to nymphets.

Humbert finds Valeria intellectually inferior and often bullies her. When he plans to move to America, Valeria leaves him to marry a Russian taxi driver. Valeria and her husband die in California years later.

I can't imagine Wolfe would appropriate the name Valeria lightly, especially given Severian's attraction to ... well, they aren't nymphets exactly. _______________________________________________

--- On Mon, 4/18/11, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote: From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> Subject: Re: (urth) Introduction and Breath To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net> Date: Monday, April 18, 2011, 3:18 PM Additionally, e)? Almost all of what he sees and hears that he considers important and also his interpretation on that. However, 1) some things he describes that he considers incidental are more important than he realizes, 2) some things he sees as significant he interprets wrongly. In both, cases the author presents enough information (or believes he has) that the reader can properly interpret them. f)? All of the above, but neither the narrator nor the reader has enough information to interpret the data. This is done to add a sense of depth to the plot such as when the dwarves sing of Nargothrond in "The Hobbit". But, when Wolfe does it, he is far more ornery such as when Severian first meets Apu Punchau. J On 4/18/2011 12:52 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:

Basically, the narrator may tell us (a) everything? he sees, hears, knows, and thinks (as above) (b) only what he sees and hears but not what he thinks (c) only some of what he sees and hears (i.e., he withholds) (d) some dramatic combination, e.g., where he tells us everything but the identity of the killer, which he knew from page 1.

_______________________________________________

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net> wrote: Gerry Quinn wrote:

For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is telling us another, different story disguised behind the overt story the narrator is telling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't understand what's going on. I really don't think that either is the case with Severian. A narrator who simply makes mistakes or who doesn't know everything isn't unreliable in this strong sense. Maybe we could define 'weakly unreliable' and 'strongly unreliable' - but I personally feel that the expression 'unreliable narrator' should be reserved for the strong sense. [snip]

In general I agree with you, but Severian is a special case because of his self-vaunted perfect memory. There are mistakes in his narrative (I once posted a list of them), most of them minor, but it's hard sometimes to decide which are his and which are Wolfe's. If Severian did not go on so much about his perfect memory, most such errors could be overlooked. There is one however that is not so easy to dismiss. In the first chapter of SHADOW, Severian says that Vodalus handed his pistol to the big man we later learn is named Hildegrin. Thea then took the pistol from Hildegrin. But near the end of the first chapter of CLAW, while going on again about his memory, he recalls that night in the necropolis and says that Vodalus had given the pistol to his mistress. In the Appendix to CITADEL, Wolfe wrote that Vodalus had handed the pistol to Thea. Which of the two Vodalus handed the pistol to is not in itself really important; Thea ended up with the pistol either way. But I find it a little hard to believe that Wolfe made this blunder because there was otherwise no point in having Vodalus first hand the pistol to Hildegrin, unless the detail served Wolfe to demonstrate that Severian's memory is not quite so reliable as he believed. Severian was a teenaged boy at the time of the necropolis incident. What impressed him at the time was what he perceived as something of a heroic gesture; Vodalus declined to use his superior weapon against poorly armed rabble. He handed off the pistol and drew his sword to perform a rearguard action against superior numbers, thus putting his life in jeopardy. That act of perceived gallantry is what stood out in Severian's memory of the incident. When he recalled the incident a couple years later, in another context in Saltus, he still admired Vodalus for that action. When he wrote about both occasions, ten years after Saltus, his opinion about Vodalus had changed but he still remembered the emotional impact of that first meeting in the necropolis. It seems to me that his emotions can and do sometimes distort his memories. In the case of the pistol, his admiration for the gesture seems to have colored his recall of the details of what had actually happened. As he wrote at the end of the first chapter of CLAW, "And in any case, the old, recalled emotions were too strong. I was trapped in admiration for what I had once admired, as a fly in amber remains the captive of some long-vanished pine." -Roy _______________________________________________

Daniel Petersen wrote: However, Roy's (I think) last post there about Sev's recurrent claim to perfect memory mixed with his own comments about how his emotions affect his view (and it might be added that he says eventually our minds turn falsehoods into truths, or something like that) have me thinking. Roy, can you link to your list you made? (I know someone said making a list of errors/inconsistencies 'misses the point' but I don't see how.)

At 20:26 18/04/2011, Roy wrote: In the first chapter of SHADOW, Severian says that Vodalus handed his pistol to the big man we later learn is named Hildegrin. Thea then took the pistol from Hildegrin. But near the end of the first chapter of CLAW, while going on again about his memory, he recalls that night in the necropolis and says that Vodalus had given the pistol to his mistress.

On 4/19/2011 4:01 AM, Mo Holkar wrote: At 20:26 18/04/2011, Roy wrote:

In the first chapter of SHADOW, Severian says that Vodalus handed his pistol to the big man we later learn is named Hildegrin. Thea then took the pistol from Hildegrin. But near the end of the first chapter of CLAW, while going on again about his memory, he recalls that night in the necropolis and says that Vodalus had given the pistol to his mistress.

I suppose readers who hold the view that when Severian makes errors, they are significant, might interpret that as meaning that actually Hildegrin is Vodalus's 'mistress' -- or at least that Severian thinks he is. Hildegrin is often referred to as Vodalus's 'badger' -- perhaps that term has a further, illicit meaning besides the three obvious ones. best, Mo # ~ # ~ # WolfeWiki -- a wiki about Gene Wolfe http://www.wolfewiki.com/pmwiki/ _______________________________________________

On 4/17/2011 5:31 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote: For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is telling us another, different story disguised behind the overt story the narrator is telling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't understand what's going on. I really don't think that either is the case with Severian. A narrator who simply makes mistakes or who doesn't know everything isn't unreliable in this strong sense. Maybe we could define 'weakly unreliable' and 'strongly unreliable'

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:18 PM, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote: On 4/17/2011 5:31 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:

For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is telling us another, different story disguised behind the overt story the narrator is telling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't understand what's going on. “I really don't think that either is the case with Severian. A narrator who simply makes mistakes or who doesn't know everything isn't unreliable in this strong sense. ?Maybe we could define 'weakly unreliable' and 'strongly unreliable'

What then would be an example in literature of a 'strongly unreliable' narrator” J _______________________________________________

--- On Tue, 4/19/11, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote: From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> Subject: Re: (urth) Introduction and Breath To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net> Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2011, 3:18 PM On 4/17/2011 5:31 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:

For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is telling us another, different story disguised behind the overt story the narrator is telling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't understand what's going on. I really don't think that either is the case with Severian. A narrator who simply makes mistakes or who doesn't know everything isn't unreliable in this strong sense.

Maybe we could define 'weakly unreliable' and 'strongly unreliable' What then would be an example in literature of a 'strongly unreliable' narrator? J _______________________________________________

On 4/19/2011 2:24 PM, Brian Short wrote: Verbal from The Usual Suspects would be a strongly unreliable narrator by this definition. Thanks, -Brian On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:18 PM, James Wynn<crushtv at gmail.com> wrote: What then would be an example in literature of a 'strongly unreliable' narrator? J

On 4/17/2011 5:31 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:

For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is telling us another, different story disguised behind the overt story the narrator is telling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't understand what's going on. I really don't think that either is the case with Severian. A narrator who simply makes mistakes or who doesn't know everything isn't unreliable in this strong sense. Maybe we could define 'weakly unreliable' and 'strongly unreliable'

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:00 PM, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote: Ah okay. Then I do not believe the strong version to be a true definition of an Unreliable Narrator. Verbal is merely making up most of the story. He is "unreliable" only in the sense that he has incorporated real people into his fabrication and possibly real events. An unreliable narrator generally attempts to speak the truth, but you can't RELY on him to do so. He's wrong, misinformed, covers up inadequacies, or has a screwed up moral code/worldview through which he interprets events. Wolfean unreliable narrators: Weer, because he excludes his culpability VRT, because he is motivated by nature to completely disappear into Marsch Severian, because anyone who says "I am mad" is as untrustworthy as a guy who says "I always lie". Latro, because of his brain damage he cannot even say himself whether anything in his diary is true even to the question of whether HE wrote it. Nor can he know if he was rational at the times when he converses with gods. Bax, because he is a con-artist whom we know forged some of his letters and he has reason to lie to his sister-in-law and probably his brother. On 4/19/2011 2:24 PM, Brian Short wrote:

Verbal from The Usual Suspects would be a strongly unreliable narrator by this definition. Thanks, -Brian On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:18 PM, James Wynn<crushtv at gmail.com> “wrote: What then would be an example in literature of a 'strongly unreliable' narrator” J

On 4/17/2011 5:31 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:

For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is telling us another, different story disguised behind the overt story the narrator is telling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't understand what's going on. ?I really don't think that either is the case with Severian. A narrator who simply makes mistakes or who doesn't know everything isn't unreliable in this strong sense. ?Maybe we could define 'weakly unreliable' and 'strongly unreliable'

_______________________________________________

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:58:56 -0700 (PDT), DAVID STOCKHOFF <dstockhoff at verizon.net> wrote: Humbert Humbert? Also perhaps whoever narrated The Black Prince (it's been a while for me, but the setup is similar).

From: Adam Thornton (IO) <adam at io.com> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:58:56 -0700 (PDT), DAVID STOCKHOFF <dstockhoff at verizon.net> wrote:

Humbert Humbert?

Charles Kinbote, or perhaps, "Charles Kinbote", of course, as long as we're on Nabokov.

On 4/19/2011 4:27 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote: From: Adam Thornton (IO)<adam at io.com> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:58:56 -0700 (PDT), DAVID STOCKHOFF <dstockhoff at verizon.net> wrote:

Humbert Humbert?

... He's massively unreliable in Booth's sense of differing from the author's norms, but he does seem to knowingly let you know most of the facts. Though some unreliable-narrator fans think Humbert invented the epiphany while listening to the children's voices, the murder of Quilty, and much of the rest of the book.

Charles Kinbote, or perhaps, "Charles Kinbote", of course, as long as we're on Nabokov.

He's the first who came to my mind. Also, Agatha Christie narrators who committed the murder, and the third-person narration in "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge". Three where the question is whether they're reliable or not: the narrator of "The Tell-Tale Heart"; Horselover Fat, in VALIS, as I recall; and the governess in "The Turn of the Screw", a classic example. Another definitely unreliable narrator: S p o i l e r f o r K i m S t a n l e y R o b i n s o n The narrator of the first third of Icehenge, and maybe the narrator of the second third--it's been a while. Jerry Friedman _______________________________________________