{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5994", "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": 5994, "subject": "Introduction and Breath", "messages": 50, "voices": 18, "first": "2011-04-13T20:33:18+00:00", "last": "2011-05-05T16:52:10+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Bart Everson", "address": "b at rox.com" }, "date": "2011-04-13T20:33:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Greetings Urth people,\n\nI have been lurking here for a while, somewhat overwhelmed by the sheer\nvolume.\n\nActually I don't care for the term lurking. I don't like what it connotes. I\ndon't feel like I've been hiding in the shadows. I feel like I've been\nsubmerged, swimming through the endless flow of your words. Now that we seem\nto have hit a relatively calm spell, I thought I should be polite and\nintroduce myself, even though I have nothing in particular to say. I feel\nlike now I am coming up to the surface to take a breath of air.\n\nEven as I write this I'm having a sense of *d?j? vu*. Have I introduced\nmyself before? I don't think so, but I did some lurking (I mean swimming)\nhere almost ten years ago, or so I recall. I've searched the archives but I\ncan't see any evidence that I ever made my presence known. Then again, I\ncan't be certain, I've used so many different aliases on the net. I do\nremember that I was turned on to *Little, Big* when it was mentioned here,\nso thank you for that, whoever you are.\n\nI'm writing now because at this time I'm making my way through *The Book of\nthe New Sun* yet again. I've lost track of how many times I've read it. This\nmight be my 15th time or my 20th. I've read it aloud (three or four times)\nand I've read the books in reverse order and even read it chapter-by-chapter\nin reverse order or in randomized fashion according to a scheme I devised\nand have long since forgotten. I find new insights are revealed by\ncontriving such juxtapositions.\n\nFinally, I thought I'd ask something that has perplexed me for many years. I\noften read about Severian's supposed unreliability as a narrator. This\nnotion greatly intrigued me at first as I think *Pale Fire* is one of the\ngreatest books ever written, and each time I have revisited the story I have\nlooked for clues, but I'm unable to figure this one out. What exactly is the\nnature of his unreliability? Every cited instance I've seen seems to be\nfairly trivial. What is the big lie? What am I missing?\n\nEditor B" } ] }, { "message_id": "<2287.2.6.15.19.1302728897.squirrel@websecu.irit.fr>", "from": { "name": "soloviev at irit.fr", "address": "soloviev at irit.fr" }, "date": "2011-04-13T21:08:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Greetings -\n\nwell, I am sure that it is my first posting to the list\n(glad that I am here).\n\nI think an important example of withholding certain information\n(if not lie) can be found in the end of the \"Book of the Short\nSun\" where Horn-Silk is visiting Urth with Jahlee and others,\nand Severian as a boy is helping him to return Scylla (Cilinia) to her\ncoffin. There were several meetings with Severian, meeting\nwith Gurloes, Triskele etc. It gives some idea what information\nSeverian may withhold in the \"Book of the New Sun\".\n\nAll the best\n\nSergei Soloviev" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Greetings Urth people,\n\nI have been lurking here for a while, somewhat overwhelmed by the sheer\nvolume.\n\nActually I don't care for the term lurking. I don't like what it connotes.\nI\ndon't feel like I've been hiding in the shadows. I feel like I've been\nsubmerged, swimming through the endless flow of your words. Now that we\nseem\nto have hit a relatively calm spell, I thought I should be polite and\nintroduce myself, even though I have nothing in particular to say. I feel\nlike now I am coming up to the surface to take a breath of air.\n\nEven as I write this I'm having a sense of *d?j? vu*. Have I introduced\nmyself before? I don't think so, but I did some lurking (I mean swimming)\nhere almost ten years ago, or so I recall. I've searched the archives but\nI\ncan't see any evidence that I ever made my presence known. Then again, I\ncan't be certain, I've used so many different aliases on the net. I do\nremember that I was turned on to *Little, Big* when it was mentioned here,\nso thank you for that, whoever you are.\n\nI'm writing now because at this time I'm making my way through *The Book\nof\nthe New Sun* yet again. I've lost track of how many times I've read it.\nThis\nmight be my 15th time or my 20th. I've read it aloud (three or four times)\nand I've read the books in reverse order and even read it\nchapter-by-chapter\nin reverse order or in randomized fashion according to a scheme I devised\nand have long since forgotten. I find new insights are revealed by\ncontriving such juxtapositions.\n\nFinally, I thought I'd ask something that has perplexed me for many years.\nI\noften read about Severian's supposed unreliability as a narrator. This\nnotion greatly intrigued me at first as I think *Pale Fire* is one of the\ngreatest books ever written, and each time I have revisited the story I\nhave\nlooked for clues, but I'm unable to figure this one out. What exactly is\nthe\nnature of his unreliability? Every cited instance I've seen seems to be\nfairly trivial. What is the big lie? What am I missing?\n\nEditor B\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<791598.93162.qm@web114715.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-04-13T22:41:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<2287.2.6.15.19.1302728897.squirrel@websecu.irit.fr>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"soloviev at irit.fr\" \n\nGreetings -\n\nwell, I am sure that it is my first posting to the list\n(glad that I am here)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hi, Sergei. Was it partly a mention of Pale Fire that got you to delurk (if \nyou're the same Sergei Soloviev I remember from NABOKV-L)?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think an important example of withholding certain information\n(if not lie) can be found in the end of the \"Book of the Short\nSun\" where Horn-Silk is visiting Urth with Jahlee and others,\nand Severian as a boy is helping him to return Scylla (Cilinia) to her\ncoffin. There were several meetings with Severian, meeting\nwith Gurloes, Triskele etc. It gives some idea what information\nSeverian may withhold in the \"Book of the New Sun\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Like Editor B, I'm interested in why people call Severian unreliable. I find it \nso unlikely that he'd leave out the visits from Horn-Silk (who he thinks is \nMaster Malrubius), that I've wondered whether that Severian is in a different \ntimeline.\n\nEditor B, Pale Fire is one of my favorite books too, but when I mention it or \nNabokov here, no one responds.\n\nJerry Friedman" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Allan Anderson", "address": "rubel at goosemoon.org" }, "date": "2011-04-13T23:01:54+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<791598.93162.qm@web114715.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:\n\nEditor B, Pale Fire is one of my favorite books too, but when I mention it\nor\nNabokov here, no one responds." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I adored Lolita and Ada, but haven't yet read Pale Fire or anything else by\nNabakov. Oh, except for those lectures where he rips into Dostoyevsky and\npraises Tolstoy.\n\nI haven't really thought about Nabakov in a critical fashion, so perhaps\nthat's why little occurs to me when comparing him to Wolfe. What's an\ninteresting place to start? The way they present their narrators?\n\nI'm a tad skeptical of an explanation of the BotNS narrative's lacunae which\nrelies completely on a book written so much later on. I don't mind if the\nanswer isn't concrete, but I'd really want the book's puzzles to contribute\nto the experience of the book as it stands alone." } ] }, { "message_id": "<36462027-B874-4180-93D7-7329FA4380E2@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Adam Thornton", "address": "adam at io.com" }, "date": "2011-04-13T23:25:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<791598.93162.qm@web114715.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Apr 13, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:\nEditor B, Pale Fire is one of my favorite books too, but when I mention it or \nNabokov here, no one responds." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I dig Pale Fire a whole lot too, but I've only read it once and can't claim to have gotten very much of it.\n\nAdam" } ] }, { "message_id": "<6C450A90F88D4BA997DF9DCF98FAAF33@jill>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2011-04-13T23:48:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<2287.2.6.15.19.1302728897.squirrel@websecu.irit.fr>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: \n\nBart Everson:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "well, I am sure that it is my first posting to the list\n(glad that I am here)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Welcome!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think an important example of withholding certain information\n(if not lie) can be found in the end of the \"Book of the Short\nSun\" where Horn-Silk is visiting Urth with Jahlee and others,\nand Severian as a boy is helping him to return Scylla (Cilinia) to her\ncoffin. There were several meetings with Severian, meeting\nwith Gurloes, Triskele etc. It gives some idea what information\nSeverian may withhold in the \"Book of the New Sun\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This was written years (decades) afterwards, though. I don't think it can \nreally be taken as characterising the general case.\n\nOne thing I've noticed on various boards is people confidently asserting \nthat Severian is a liar, then clamming up when asked for examples.\n\nHe does of course mention minor lies, for example the executioner misleads \nthe executee about the details of the ritual, which he suggests is for the \nbenefit of the latter, though surely it is in part for the benefit of the \nformer too. But such things hardly make his book unreliable.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<844046.95617.qm@web114714.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-04-14T04:07:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Allan Anderson \n..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I haven't really thought about Nabakov in a critical fashion, so perhaps that's " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "why little occurs to me when comparing him to Wolfe. What's an interesting place \n\nto start? The way they present their narrators?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Here's my post at NABOKV-L recommending Wolfe to the people there:\n\nhttp://listserv.ucsb.edu/lsv-cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0212&L=nabokv-l&P=R9842\n\nHere's one by another person:\n\nhttp://listserv.ucsb.edu/lsv-cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0504&L=nabokv-l&P=626\n\nLet me also quote a letter Nabokov wrote to Katharine White at the New Yorker, \nwho had rejected his story \"The Vane Sisters\" (which is on a rather Wolfean \ntheme):\n\n\"Most of the stories I am contemplating (and some I have written in the \npast--you actually published one with such an 'inside'--the one about the old \nJewish couple and their sick boy) will be composed on these lines, according to \nthis system wherein a second (main) story is woven into, or placed behind, the \nsuperficial semitransparent story.\"\n\nIt's not Nabokov's best sentence, but it sounds distinctly like Wolfe's system \nto me. At least a lot of people here read Wolfe that way.\n\n(By the way, I recommend that story about the old Jewish couple, \"Signs and \nSymbols\"--though over 60 years later, there's no consensus on the \ninterpretation.)\n\nJerry Friedman" } ] }, { "message_id": "<716666.27036.qm@smtp815.mail.ird.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Mo Holkar", "address": "lists at ukg.co.uk" }, "date": "2011-04-14T06:32:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<791598.93162.qm@web114715.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At 23:41 13/04/2011, Jerry Friedman wrote:\nEditor B, Pale Fire is one of my favorite books too, but when I mention it or\nNabokov here, no one responds." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It's one of my favourite books too, but the accumulated weight and \nyears of Nabokov scholarship out there make me wary of saying much \nmore than that about it :-)\n\nbest,\n\nMo\n\n\n# ~ # ~ #\n\nWolfeWiki -- a wiki about Gene Wolfe\nhttp://www.wolfewiki.com/pmwiki/ " } ] }, { "message_id": "<1551.2.6.15.19.1302765971.squirrel@websecu.irit.fr>", "from": { "name": "soloviev at irit.fr", "address": "soloviev at irit.fr" }, "date": "2011-04-14T07:26:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<791598.93162.qm@web114715.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Dear Jerry,\n\nyes, it is me, but I visited this (Urth) list because I am\na long time admirer of (most of) Wolfe's oeuvre. Glad to see you\nhere.\n\n(Nowadays I am still often looking the posts at Nabokov's list, but\nseldom posting myself.)\n\nCheers\n\nSergei" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From: \"soloviev at irit.fr\" \n\nGreetings -\n\nwell, I am sure that it is my first posting to the list\n(glad that I am here)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Hi, Sergei. Was it partly a mention of Pale Fire that got you to delurk\n(if\nyou're the same Sergei Soloviev I remember from NABOKV-L)?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I think an important example of withholding certain information\n(if not lie) can be found in the end of the \"Book of the Short\nSun\" where Horn-Silk is visiting Urth with Jahlee and others,\nand Severian as a boy is helping him to return Scylla (Cilinia) to her\ncoffin. There were several meetings with Severian, meeting\nwith Gurloes, Triskele etc. It gives some idea what information\nSeverian may withhold in the \"Book of the New Sun\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Like Editor B, I'm interested in why people call Severian unreliable. I\nfind it\nso unlikely that he'd leave out the visits from Horn-Silk (who he thinks\nis\nMaster Malrubius), that I've wondered whether that Severian is in a\ndifferent\ntimeline.\n\nEditor B, Pale Fire is one of my favorite books too, but when I mention it\nor\nNabokov here, no one responds.\n\nJerry Friedman\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DA6EFD6.5010307@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-04-14T13:00:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<6C450A90F88D4BA997DF9DCF98FAAF33@jill>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote (14-04-2011 00:48):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "One thing I've noticed on various boards is people confidently asserting\nthat Severian is a liar, then clamming up when asked for examples." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think that's chiefly because the inconsistencies in the narrative are so \nobvious that asking for them is kind of a breach of social contract.\n\nBut the problem imo is that, like 'fantastic', 'unreliable narrator' is yet \nanother label people attach to a thing, when in fact the author's purpose \nwas just to write it the way he sees it. Just as Gene Wolfe points out that \ncharacterising parts of literature as 'fantastic' is but an artifact of \nbeing used to view 'naturalistic' literature, a comparatively recent fad, as \nthe default or only kind of literature, so the 'unreliable narrator' concept \nis an artifact of being used to an omniscient, unerring, objective, \ntransparent narrator, which in itself is a very questionable idea." } ] }, { "message_id": "<526475.52363.qm@web37607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-04-15T15:35:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<4DA6EFD6.5010307@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've always assumed that, in Severian's case, he gets the \"unreliable narrator\" \ntag for reasons other than outright lying. There are a number of reasons he \nmight not be exactly reliable:\n\n1) He's a (or an ex-) political leader writing his memoirs.\n2) He's got multiple peoples' memories running around his head, and the \nnarrator's \"I\" isn't always the same person's.\n3) The cultural differences and \"translations\" that \"Gene Wolfe\" made from the \nmanuscript mean that we don't share the same common cultural context. Thus, a \n\"steed\" or a \"mount\" isn't always a horse. Or \"people\" might not always be \nhuman, or humans as we know them. The tower is a rocket, but he doesn't \nexplicitly mention that because he doesn't need to explain it to the audience he \nthinks he's writing for, etc...\n4) The obvious point that he claims to have a perfect memory but occasionally \nmentions not remembering (or at least not having paid attention to) certain \ndetails.\n\n\n\n\n----- Original Message ----\nFrom: Ant?nio Pedro Marques \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Thu, April 14, 2011 8:00:06 AM\nSubject: Re: (urth) Introduction and Breath\n\nGerry Quinn wrote (14-04-2011 00:48):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "One thing I've noticed on various boards is people confidently asserting\nthat Severian is a liar, then clamming up when asked for examples." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think that's chiefly because the inconsistencies in the narrative are so \nobvious that asking for them is kind of a breach of social contract.\n\nBut the problem imo is that, like 'fantastic', 'unreliable narrator' is yet \nanother label people attach to a thing, when in fact the author's purpose was \njust to write it the way he sees it. Just as Gene Wolfe points out that \ncharacterising parts of literature as 'fantastic' is but an artifact of being \nused to view 'naturalistic' literature, a comparatively recent fad, as the \ndefault or only kind of literature, so the 'unreliable narrator' concept is an \nartifact of being used to an omniscient, unerring, objective, transparent \nnarrator, which in itself is a very questionable idea." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Antonin Scriabin", "address": "kierkegaurdian at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-04-15T16:48:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<526475.52363.qm@web37607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Possible Urth of the New Sun Spoilers!\n\nGood points concerning the nature of Severian's \"unreliable narration\".\nThat was one thing that struck me while reading New Sun (I have only read it\nonce) ... Severian's perfect memory seems selective. There are moments\nwhere seems to say \"I have a perfect memory, except for when I don't\".\nFurthermore, once the time travel elements in Urth of the New Sun are\nrevealed, it seems clear that his memory being perfect or not is secondary\nin narrative importance to the fact that there are multiple versions of him\nrunning around through time, with various other minds trapped in his, etc.\nThese seem to make him a problematic narrator more so than his tendency to\nlie / mislead (although that too is important)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nI've always assumed that, in Severian's case, he gets the \"unreliable\nnarrator\"\ntag for reasons other than outright lying. There are a number of reasons he\nmight not be exactly reliable:\n\n1) He's a (or an ex-) political leader writing his memoirs.\n2) He's got multiple peoples' memories running around his head, and the\nnarrator's \"I\" isn't always the same person's.\n3) The cultural differences and \"translations\" that \"Gene Wolfe\" made from\nthe\nmanuscript mean that we don't share the same common cultural context. Thus,\na\n\"steed\" or a \"mount\" isn't always a horse. Or \"people\" might not always be\nhuman, or humans as we know them. The tower is a rocket, but he doesn't\nexplicitly mention that because he doesn't need to explain it to the\naudience he\nthinks he's writing for, etc...\n4) The obvious point that he claims to have a perfect memory but\noccasionally\nmentions not remembering (or at least not having paid attention to) certain\ndetails.\n\n\n\n\n----- Original Message ----\nFrom: Ant?nio Pedro Marques " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DA881E1.1080906@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-04-15T17:35:29+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Antonin Scriabin wrote (15-04-2011 17:48):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Severian's perfect memory seems selective. There are moments\nwhere seems to say \"I have a perfect memory, except for when I don't\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Am I misremembering, or one of the first pages of NS goes like this: 'So \nDrotte was doing something... did I mention I have a perfect memory? I have \na perfect memory! Anyway, Roche was doing something...'?\n\nAlmost cartoonish. Roger Rabbitish." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-04-16T08:58:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<4DA881E1.1080906@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "So glad people are asking about Severian as unreliable narrator! I suspect\nit's one of those ideas that someone said in a review and then it got\nblurbed on a jacket cover and then it just became the 'official'\ninterpretation and is now in an endless repeat loop. I don't think I have\never yet mentioned it in comments or reviews about New Sun as I simply don't\nunderstand it. I'm totally open to being shown how it is the case, but the\nreasons given in this thread are, frankly, unconvincing. They show how\nWolfe's narrative art overall is strange and tricksy and indirect and\nelusive - things I *do* talk about in commenting on all of Wolfe's fiction -\nbut not how Severian himself overall is helpfully and accurately described\nas an 'unreliable narrator' or how this is a central and significant trope\nthat characterises tBotNS. It's all hints and suspicions and possibilities\n- which are great, but should be left at that I think.\n\nWe still await the carefully documented and argued case for Severian as\nunreliable narrator.\n\n-DOJP\n\n2011/4/15 Ant?nio Pedro Marques " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Antonin Scriabin wrote (15-04-2011 17:48):\n\n Severian's perfect memory seems selective. There are moments\nwhere seems to say \"I have a perfect memory, except for when I don't\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Am I misremembering, or one of the first pages of NS goes like this: 'So\nDrotte was doing something... did I mention I have a perfect memory? I have\na perfect memory! Anyway, Roche was doing something...'?\n\nAlmost cartoonish. Roger Rabbitish.\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Tony Ellis", "address": "tonyellis69 at btopenworld.com" }, "date": "2011-04-16T09:48:32+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:\nAm I misremembering, or one of the first pages of NS goes like this: 'So\nDrotte was doing something... did I mention I have a perfect memory? I have\na perfect memory! Anyway, Roche was doing something...'?\n\nAlmost cartoonish. Roger Rabbitish." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've always felt that this looks far more like a faux-pas on the part\nof Wolfe than anything to do with Severian's memory." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "entonio at gmail.com", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-04-16T11:14:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No dia 2011/04/16, ?s 10:48, Tony Ellis \nescreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Am I misremembering, or one of the first pages of NS goes like \nthis: 'So\nDrotte was doing something... did I mention I have a perfect \nmemory? I have\na perfect memory! Anyway, Roche was doing something...'?\n\nAlmost cartoonish. Roger Rabbitish." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I've always felt that this looks far more like a faux-pas on the part\nof Wolfe than anything to do with Severian's memory." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Obviously one can't complain about feelings, but I just can't \nunderstand how you may feel that way. Only if you feel it's too \ncartoonish to be true, but this isn't at all the only instance of such \nhumour by GW." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Matthew Knapton", "address": "eruantien at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-04-16T11:47:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hi.\n\nI haven't read any ..Sun books outside of the Book of the New Sun, and don't\nhave them to hand to look up references. However!\n\nI buy into the unreliable-Severian. While it's certainly possible that his\nrepeatedly-claimed perfect memory isn't actually perfect (and either he\nlies, or has convinced himself that his subconscious inventions are real\nmemories), we can be generous to Severian and assume that his memory is\nindeed perfect. But that doesn't help his case, because perfect recall isn't\nthe only thing required to be an omniscient narrator - he lacks perfect\nunderstanding as well. He might be able to remember every scene of his life,\nbut if he misunderstands what he sees, or attributes purposes and\nimplications to the actions and appearance of people around him incorrectly,\nhe's just as unreliable a narrator as someone who doesn't well remember the\nscene in question. Maybe even more unreliable, so to speak, or at least less\nhelpful, since the person-without-perfect-memory would admit to gaps in the\nstory.\n\nAnd of course, having a perfect memory doesn't mean it's all transcribed\ninto his writing. At some point I think Severian actually writes that he has\n\"left out details which are unimportant\", noting a few sentences later\n(without irony) that he has \"no sense of perspective\".\n\nPersonally I also think his memory is faulty (though I tend to think he's\ndeceiving himself that what he remembers is perfect, rather than 'actively'\nlying); the bits which got me early on were his recollections of Thecla.\nLike I say I don't have my copies of the books to hand, but fairly early on\ndoesn't he give one account of Thecla's death, and then later (in an offhand\ncomment) give an entirely different one? His description of their\nrelationship as sexual or platonic seems to change as the books goes on,\ntoo.\n\nI feel like cataloguing examples sort of misses the point though; if there's\none thing a reader of Gene Wolfe knows it's that he isn't going to spell\nanything out in crayon :) and \"unreliable narration\", for one reason or\nanother, does seem to be a recurring theme throughout a lot of his books." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Daniel Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:\nSo glad people are asking about Severian as unreliable narrator! I suspect\nit's one of those ideas that someone said in a review and then it got\nblurbed on a jacket cover and then it just became the 'official'\ninterpretation and is now in an endless repeat loop. I don't think I have\never yet mentioned it in comments or reviews about New Sun as I simply don't\nunderstand it. I'm totally open to being shown how it is the case, but the\nreasons given in this thread are, frankly, unconvincing. They show how\nWolfe's narrative art overall is strange and tricksy and indirect and\nelusive - things I *do* talk about in commenting on all of Wolfe's fiction\n- but not how Severian himself overall is helpfully and accurately described\nas an 'unreliable narrator' or how this is a central and significant trope\nthat characterises tBotNS. It's all hints and suspicions and possibilities\n- which are great, but should be left at that I think.\n\nWe still await the carefully documented and argued case for Severian as\nunreliable narrator.\n\n-DOJP\n\n\n2011/4/15 Ant?nio Pedro Marques " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Antonin Scriabin wrote (15-04-2011 17:48):\n\n Severian's perfect memory seems selective. There are moments\nwhere seems to say \"I have a perfect memory, except for when I don't\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Am I misremembering, or one of the first pages of NS goes like this: 'So\nDrotte was doing something... did I mention I have a perfect memory? I have\na perfect memory! Anyway, Roche was doing something...'?\n\nAlmost cartoonish. Roger Rabbitish.\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<50B24CFF-2655-4848-A386-EEF9D1D94DB1@yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-04-16T16:35:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Depending on what you feel constitutes the beat criteria for an \"unreliable narrator,\" I suppose SilkHorn in Short Sun would be just as good if not a better candidate for the label than Severian. His either confused or repressed or deliberately self-forgetting memory of his own identity makes him particularly difficult." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Apr 16, 2011, at 6:47 AM, Matthew Knapton wrote:\nHi.\n\nI 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!\n\nI 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.\n\nAnd 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\".\n\nPersonally 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.\n\nI 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.\n\n\nOn Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Daniel Petersen wrote:\nSo 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.\n\nWe still await the carefully documented and argued case for Severian as unreliable narrator.\n\n-DOJP\n\n\n2011/4/15 Ant?nio Pedro Marques \nAntonin Scriabin wrote (15-04-2011 17:48):\n\nSeverian's perfect memory seems selective. There are moments\nwhere seems to say \"I have a perfect memory, except for when I don't\".\n\nAm 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...'?\n\nAlmost cartoonish. Roger Rabbitish.\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DAB52AB.1060203@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-04-17T20:50:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think the test here is \"more unreliable than is usual in science \nfiction.\" It's a pretty low bar Severian clears with ease, just by his \nlies of omission.\n\nGerry's comment that, to Severian, \"just a moment ago\" is long enough to \ncompose ~50 written pages by hand is another example, however limited in \neffect." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 4/16/2011 4:58 AM, Daniel Petersen wrote:\nSo glad people are asking about Severian as unreliable narrator! I \nsuspect it's one of those ideas that someone said in a review and then \nit got blurbed on a jacket cover and then it just became the \n'official' interpretation and is now in an endless repeat loop. I \ndon't think I have ever yet mentioned it in comments or reviews about \nNew Sun as I simply don't understand it. I'm totally open to being \nshown how it is the case, but the reasons given in this thread are, \nfrankly, unconvincing. They show how Wolfe's narrative art overall is \nstrange and tricksy and indirect and elusive - things I /do/ talk \nabout in commenting on all of Wolfe's fiction - but not how Severian \nhimself overall is helpfully and accurately described as an \n'unreliable narrator' or how this is a central and significant trope \nthat characterises tBotNS. It's all hints and suspicions and \npossibilities - which are great, but should be left at that I think.\n\nWe still await the carefully documented and argued case for Severian \nas unreliable narrator.\n\n-DOJP\n\n2011/4/15 Ant?nio Pedro Marques >\n\n Antonin Scriabin wrote (15-04-2011 17:48):\n\n Severian's perfect memory seems selective. There are moments\n where seems to say \"I have a perfect memory, except for when I\n don't\".\n\n\n Am I misremembering, or one of the first pages of NS goes like\n this: 'So Drotte was doing something... did I mention I have a\n perfect memory? I have a perfect memory! Anyway, Roche was doing\n something...'?\n\n Almost cartoonish. Roger Rabbitish.\n\n _______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<72EC5D2EB0E842E1B97DEA81E746139A@jill>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2011-04-17T22:31:49+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<4DAB52AB.1060203@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"David Stockhoff\" \nI think the test here is \"more unreliable than is usual in science \nfiction.\" It's a pretty low bar Severian clears with ease, just by his \nlies of omission.\n\nGerry's comment that, to Severian, \"just a moment ago\" is long enough to \ncompose ~50 written pages by hand is another example, however limited in \neffect." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think the main meaning of this episode is the slightly cruel joke about \nNicarete being left to wait on the Autarch's whim once again, after spending \nher life waiting in the antechamber of previous Autarchs. Severian's \nabsorption in his writing just sets it up. I wouldn't call it an example of \nan unreliable narrator, really. He didn't notice the time passing. It's \nnot an unnatural thing not to notice; anybody might be unreliable in the \nsame fashion.\n\nFor me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is telling us \nanother, different story disguised behind the overt story the narrator is \ntelling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't understand what's \ngoing on. I really don't think that either is the case with Severian.\n\nA narrator who simply makes mistakes or who doesn't know everything isn't \nunreliable in this strong sense. Maybe we could define 'weakly unreliable' \nand 'strongly unreliable' - but I personally feel that the expression \n'unreliable narrator' should be reserved for the strong sense. Probably all \nWolfe's characters are unreliable in the weak sense - consider the Nebraskan \nin 'The Nebraskan and the Nereid' discussed earlier, for example. We are \ntold what he sees, but he does not realise that he is meeting the same girl \nin the inn and the sea-cave, so we are not told. But does that make him \nunreliable? It certainly does not make him a liar, anyway.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DAB732D.9050206@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-04-17T23:09:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<72EC5D2EB0E842E1B97DEA81E746139A@jill>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:\nFor me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is telling\nus another, different story disguised behind the overt story the\nnarrator is telling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't\nunderstand what's going on." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think you're doing overanalysis. 'Unreliable narrator' simply means \nthat the narrative isn't the absolute complete truth of what happened. \nWhich, actually, applies to any narrative. What Gene Wolfe does - as \nother did and do - is to craft that part of his work, instead of leaving \nit to be a subproduct." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DAB7A15.1000006@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-04-17T23:39:01+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<72EC5D2EB0E842E1B97DEA81E746139A@jill>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Absolutely. But I think the \"more unreliable than is usual in science \nfiction\" standard applies, in which case all the characters you mention \nare indeed unreliable. Often in SF, a character voices exposition, e.g., \n\"We have occupied this planet since it was colonized by Terra in the \nFirst Empire. Our main exports are ...\" This is something of a \nbenchmark; we can always tell when the bad guy lies.\n\nVillains, of course, say \"Ours is a peaceful planet that has never known \nwar, etc.\" Captain Kirk always gets to the bottom of this.\n\nBut the Nebraskan is a great example of unreliability, because he \ndoesn't lie. Yet, we cannot trust his narration---that's all that \n\"unreliable\" means. Similarly, when Blood appears at the manteion \nunnamed, the narrator is, by conventional standards, being almost \ndishonest. The fact that he makes the reader guess is important, not the \nclues he offers." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 4/17/2011 6:31 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n\nFrom: \"David Stockhoff\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I think the test here is \"more unreliable than is usual in science \nfiction.\" It's a pretty low bar Severian clears with ease, just by \nhis lies of omission.\n\nGerry's comment that, to Severian, \"just a moment ago\" is long enough \nto compose ~50 written pages by hand is another example, however \nlimited in effect." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think the main meaning of this episode is the slightly cruel joke \nabout Nicarete being left to wait on the Autarch's whim once again, \nafter spending her life waiting in the antechamber of previous \nAutarchs. Severian's absorption in his writing just sets it up. I \nwouldn't call it an example of an unreliable narrator, really. He \ndidn't notice the time passing. It's not an unnatural thing not to \nnotice; anybody might be unreliable in the same fashion.\n\nFor me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is \ntelling us another, different story disguised behind the overt story \nthe narrator is telling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't \nunderstand what's going on. I really don't think that either is the \ncase with Severian.\n\nA narrator who simply makes mistakes or who doesn't know everything \nisn't unreliable in this strong sense. Maybe we could define 'weakly \nunreliable' and 'strongly unreliable' - but I personally feel that the \nexpression 'unreliable narrator' should be reserved for the strong \nsense. Probably all Wolfe's characters are unreliable in the weak \nsense - consider the Nebraskan in 'The Nebraskan and the Nereid' \ndiscussed earlier, for example. We are told what he sees, but he does \nnot realise that he is meeting the same girl in the inn and the \nsea-cave, so we are not told. But does that make him unreliable? It \ncertainly does not make him a liar, anyway.\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DAB8766.6060508@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-04-18T00:35:50+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<4DAB732D.9050206@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Exactly." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 4/17/2011 7:09 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:\nGerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is telling\nus another, different story disguised behind the overt story the\nnarrator is telling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't\nunderstand what's going on." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think you're doing overanalysis. 'Unreliable narrator' simply means \nthat the narrative isn't the absolute complete truth of what happened. \nWhich, actually, applies to any narrative. What Gene Wolfe does - as \nother did and do - is to craft that part of his work, instead of \nleaving it to be a subproduct.\n_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DABB1B0.90500@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Adam Thornton", "address": "adam at io.com" }, "date": "2011-04-18T03:36:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<4DAB732D.9050206@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 04/17/2011 06:09 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:\nGerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is telling\nus another, different story disguised behind the overt story the\nnarrator is telling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't\nunderstand what's going on." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think you're doing overanalysis. 'Unreliable narrator' simply means \nthat the narrative isn't the absolute complete truth of what happened. \nWhich, actually, applies to any narrative. What Gene Wolfe does - as \nother did and do - is to craft that part of his work, instead of \nleaving it to be a subproduct." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If nothing else, there's the whole Severian-Thecla \"My love for her was \npure and chaste,\" when it's Severian, and \"And then he was \nall-a-grabbin' my breasts,\" when it's Thecla doing the remembering.\n\nAdam" } ] }, { "message_id": "<371453.25343.qm@web114712.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-04-18T04:29:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<4DAB7A15.1000006@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 4/17/2011 6:31 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is telling us \nanother, different story disguised > >behind the overt story the narrator is \ntelling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't understand what's > \ngoing on. I really don't think that either is the case with Severian.\n\nA narrator who simply makes mistakes or who doesn't know everything isn't \nunreliable in this strong\nsense. Maybe we could define 'weakly unreliable' and 'strongly unreliable' - \nbut I personally feel that the\nexpression 'unreliable narrator' should be reserved for the strong sense. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Probably all Wolfe's characters\nare unreliable in the weak sense - consider the Nebraskan in 'The Nebraskan \nand the Nereid' discussed\nearlier, for example. We are told what he sees, but he does not realise \nthat he is meeting the same girl in\nthe inn and the sea-cave, so we are not told. But does that make him \nunreliable? It certainly does not\nmake him a liar, anyway." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Antonio Marques wrote:\nI think you're doing overanalysis. 'Unreliable narrator' simply means that the \nnarrative isn't the absolute >complete truth of what happened. Which, actually, \napplies to any narrative. What Gene Wolfe does - as >other did and do - is to \ncraft that part of his work, instead of leaving it to be a subproduct." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The original meaning of \"unreliable narrator\", as used by Wayne C. Booth in /The \nRhetoric of Fiction/, is that the narrator's /norms/ differ from the implied \nauthor's. He gives examples such as Barry Lyndon, morally as far from the \nauthor as possible (Booth says--I haven't read it), and Huck Finn, who calls \nhimself bad when we can tell the author thinks he's good. Or the narrator \"is \nmistaken, or believes himself to have qualities which the author denies him\"--I \nsuppose Kinbote would be a good example of that last, or Pooter in /The Diary of \na Nobody/. Booth says irony on the narrator's part is not an example, but lying \nis, though an uncommon one.\n\nhttp://books.google.com/books?id=VfUgMbRYSW4C&pg=PA159\n\nNo doubt the meaning has changed. I'm with Gerry Quinn. There's no point in \nmaking a big deal out unreliability unless it's \"strong\" unreliability--the \nstory is or could be substantially different from what you get by believing the \nnarrator." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: David Stockhoff \n... But I think the \"more unreliable than is usual in science fiction\" \nstandard applies, in which case\nall the characters you mention are indeed unreliable." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "...\n\nOkay, but why have some people stressed it so much?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But the Nebraskan is a great example of unreliability, because he doesn't lie. \nYet, we cannot trust his\nnarration---that's all that \"unreliable\" means." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I wouldn't call a person unreliable who didn't notice something in the dark, and \nI wouldn't say I couldn't trust what he told me.\n\n(I suppose it's just as well if nobody has put forward an interpretation of that \nstory where the actual narrator is unreliable, or Thoe is.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Similarly, when Blood appears at the manteion unnamed, the\nnarrator is, by conventional standards, being almost dishonest. The fact that \nhe makes the reader guess is > important, not the clues he offers." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, that fact is important, but it doesn't make him unreliable. He's just \nchoosing an unusual way of communicating, one that his author likes. Similarly, \nSeverian has his own way of telling us that Dorcas is his grandmother, and his \nchoosing that way may tell us something about him, such as that he likes \nindirection (or is that Wolfe?) or that he's uncomfortable with having had sex \nwith his grandmother. If that's one of what you called \"lies by omission\", I \ncan't agree.\n\nJerry Friedman" } ] }, { "message_id": "<080D021A2D8C440B99508F9D60251285@jill>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2011-04-18T10:38:48+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<371453.25343.qm@web114712.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Jerry Friedman\" \nAntonio Marques wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 4/17/2011 6:31 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is \ntelling us\nanother, different story disguised > >behind the overt story the narrator \nis\ntelling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't understand what's \n\ngoing on. I really don't think that either is the case with Severian." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I think you're doing overanalysis. 'Unreliable narrator' simply means \nthat the\nnarrative isn't the absolute >complete truth of what happened. Which, \nactually,\napplies to any narrative. What Gene Wolfe does - as >other did and do - is \nto\ncraft that part of his work, instead of leaving it to be a subproduct." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The original meaning of \"unreliable narrator\", as used by Wayne C. Booth \nin /The\nRhetoric of Fiction/, is that the narrator's /norms/ differ from the \nimplied\nauthor's. He gives examples such as Barry Lyndon, morally as far from the\nauthor as possible (Booth says--I haven't read it), and Huck Finn, who \ncalls\nhimself bad when we can tell the author thinks he's good. Or the narrator \n\"is\nmistaken, or believes himself to have qualities which the author denies \nhim\"--I\nsuppose Kinbote would be a good example of that last, or Pooter in /The \nDiary of\na Nobody/. Booth says irony on the narrator's part is not an example, but \nlying\nis, though an uncommon one.\n\nhttp://books.google.com/books?id=VfUgMbRYSW4C&pg=PA159\n\nNo doubt the meaning has changed. I'm with Gerry Quinn. There's no point \nin\nmaking a big deal out unreliability unless it's \"strong\" \nunreliability--the\nstory is or could be substantially different from what you get by \nbelieving the\nnarrator." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I like Booth's attitude." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But the Nebraskan is a great example of unreliability, because he \ndoesn't lie.\nYet, we cannot trust his\nnarration---that's all that \"unreliable\" means." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I wouldn't call a person unreliable who didn't notice something in the \ndark, and\nI wouldn't say I couldn't trust what he told me.\n\n(I suppose it's just as well if nobody has put forward an interpretation \nof that\nstory where the actual narrator is unreliable, or Thoe is.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Booth writes: \"We should remind ourselves that any sustained inside view, of \nwhatever depth, temporarily turns the character whose mind is shown into a \nnarrator.\"\n\nThis is my perspective also. 'The Nebraskan and the Nereid' is told in \nclose third person; there is no explicit narrator other than the author. \nBut when I wrote about earlier, I thought of the Nebraskan as the narrator.\n\nIn many ways, the third person 'pseudo-narrator' is more free to deceive \nthan the most unreliable of direct narrators, though we can more easily \nbelieve that his deception is unintentional. When the author, writing from \ninside Cooper's head, refers in passing to \"the dumpy little \nmaid-of-all-work\", we must accept this as what Cooper saw, even though later \nhe encounters the same person in different circumstances, and does not \nrecognise her. Had Cooper been the actual narrator, we would wonder ifl he \nwas in some way lying when he describes her thus - this is close to the kind \nof 'lying' that Severian is being accused of. Severian (or the \nhypothethical narrating Cooper) would reply that he is merely describing as \nclearly as possible what was in his head at the time. To interrupt the \nstory to describe exactly who she was would (apart from interfering with the \nflow of the narrative) do a disservice to the subjective history, in the \npurported interest of an objective history which will in any case be fully \nexplicated by the end. \"I am telling you the truth\", Severian would say, \n\"but I cannot do it unless you let me tell it in my own way!\" Cooper does \nnot have to answer this question; he can hide behind the coat-tails of the \nomniscient author. And yet the narrative methodology, apart from this \nreally rather inessential difference, is almost the same in both.\n\nShould we not speak of unreliable narratives, rather than unreliable \nnarrators?\n\nAntonio says above that every author does unreliability - Gene Wolfe crafts \nit, and other novelists achieve it as a \"sub-product\". I don't really agree \nwith this distinction. All decent authors are aware of the issue, I think - \nthey just go different ways to achieve the effect. It's present in most \nnovels.\n\nI guess this ties into my view that Wolfe is a much *clearer* author than \nhis reputation would suggest. You just need to read him. Some people seem \nto use his reputation as an excuse to put their hands over their ears and \nsay \"Lah, lah, unreliable, I'm not listening...\"\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DAC2D92.1010904@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-04-18T12:24:50+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<080D021A2D8C440B99508F9D60251285@jill>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote (18-04-2011 11:38):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Should we not speak of unreliable narratives, rather than unreliable\nnarrators?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think so, if we should speak at all." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Antonio says above that every author does unreliability - Gene Wolfe\ncrafts it, and other novelists achieve it as a \"sub-product\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not quite. I didn't mean GW crafts unreliability. I meant he cares about it\nexisting, and handles it accordingly. I also said others did and do it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't really agree with this distinction. All decent authors are aware\nof the issue, I think - they just go different ways to achieve the\neffect." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Where I disagree is that it is an effect to be achieved. It's innerent, and\nI don't share the view that most authors tack it gracefully." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I guess this ties into my view that Wolfe is a much *clearer* author than\n his reputation would suggest." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Oddly enough, that's my opinion as well." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jack Smith", "address": "jack.smith.1946 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-04-18T14:07:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<371453.25343.qm@web114712.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "*Wuthering Heights* is what I think of as a good example of unreliable\nnarrators. The story as a whole is told by an outsider, who doesn't\nunderstand the place or its people, and most of the tale is told to him by\na character who may have her own agenda that is antithetical to the main\ncharacters. The love story emerges from speakers who don't understand it at\nall." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:\nOn 4/17/2011 6:31 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is\n telling us\nanother, different story disguised > >behind the overt story the narrator\nis\ntelling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't understand what's" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "going on. I really don't think that either is the case with Severian.\n\nA narrator who simply makes mistakes or who doesn't know everything\nisn't\nunreliable in this strong\nsense. Maybe we could define 'weakly unreliable' and 'strongly\nunreliable' -\nbut I personally feel that the\nexpression 'unreliable narrator' should be reserved for the strong\n sense." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Probably all Wolfe's characters\nare unreliable in the weak sense - consider the Nebraskan in 'The\nNebraskan\nand the Nereid' discussed\nearlier, for example. We are told what he sees, but he does not\nrealise\nthat he is meeting the same girl in\nthe inn and the sea-cave, so we are not told. But does that make him\nunreliable? It certainly does not\nmake him a liar, anyway." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Antonio Marques wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I think you're doing overanalysis. 'Unreliable narrator' simply means\nthat the\nnarrative isn't the absolute >complete truth of what happened. Which,\nactually,\napplies to any narrative. What Gene Wolfe does - as >other did and do - is\nto\ncraft that part of his work, instead of leaving it to be a subproduct." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The original meaning of \"unreliable narrator\", as used by Wayne C. Booth in\n/The\nRhetoric of Fiction/, is that the narrator's /norms/ differ from the\nimplied\nauthor's. He gives examples such as Barry Lyndon, morally as far from the\nauthor as possible (Booth says--I haven't read it), and Huck Finn, who\ncalls\nhimself bad when we can tell the author thinks he's good. Or the narrator\n\"is\nmistaken, or believes himself to have qualities which the author denies\nhim\"--I\nsuppose Kinbote would be a good example of that last, or Pooter in /The\nDiary of\na Nobody/. Booth says irony on the narrator's part is not an example, but\nlying\nis, though an uncommon one.\n\nhttp://books.google.com/books?id=VfUgMbRYSW4C&pg=PA159\n\nNo doubt the meaning has changed. I'm with Gerry Quinn. There's no point\nin\nmaking a big deal out unreliability unless it's \"strong\" unreliability--the\nstory is or could be substantially different from what you get by believing\nthe\nnarrator." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From: David Stockhoff \n... But I think the \"more unreliable than is usual in science fiction\"\nstandard applies, in which case\nall the characters you mention are indeed unreliable." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "...\n\nOkay, but why have some people stressed it so much?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But the Nebraskan is a great example of unreliability, because he\n doesn't lie.\nYet, we cannot trust his\nnarration---that's all that \"unreliable\" means." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I wouldn't call a person unreliable who didn't notice something in the\ndark, and\nI wouldn't say I couldn't trust what he told me.\n\n(I suppose it's just as well if nobody has put forward an interpretation of\nthat\nstory where the actual narrator is unreliable, or Thoe is.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Similarly, when Blood appears at the manteion unnamed, the\nnarrator is, by conventional standards, being almost dishonest. The fact\nthat\nhe makes the reader guess is > important, not the clues he offers." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yes, that fact is important, but it doesn't make him unreliable. He's just\nchoosing an unusual way of communicating, one that his author likes.\n Similarly,\nSeverian has his own way of telling us that Dorcas is his grandmother, and\nhis\nchoosing that way may tell us something about him, such as that he likes\nindirection (or is that Wolfe?) or that he's uncomfortable with having had\nsex\nwith his grandmother. If that's one of what you called \"lies by omission\",\nI\ncan't agree.\n\nJerry Friedman\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<868823.40017.qm@web84107.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "DAVID STOCKHOFF", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-04-18T14:35:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Apologies if my replies appear out of order." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 4/17/2011 6:31 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is? telling us?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "another, different story disguised > >behind the overt story the? narrator is?\ntelling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't understand? what's >?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "going on. I really don't think that either is the case with? Severian.\n\nA narrator who simply makes mistakes or who doesn't? know everything isn't?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "unreliable in this strong\nsense. Maybe we could? define 'weakly unreliable' and 'strongly unreliable' -?\nbut I personally feel? that the\nexpression 'unreliable narrator' should be reserved for the strong? sense. ?\nProbably all Wolfe's characters\nare unreliable in the weak sense -? consider the Nebraskan in 'The Nebraskan?\nand the Nereid' discussed\nearlier, for? example. We are told what he sees, but he does not realise?\nthat he is? meeting the same girl in\nthe inn and the sea-cave, so we are not told. But? does that make him?\nunreliable? It certainly does not\nmake him a liar, anyway." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Antonio Marques wrote:\nI think you're doing overanalysis. 'Unreliable narrator'? simply means that the?\nnarrative isn't the absolute >complete truth of? what happened. Which, actually,\napplies to any narrative. What Gene Wolfe does - as >other did and do - is to?\ncraft that part of his work, instead of leaving it to be a subproduct." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The original meaning of \"unreliable narrator\", as used by Wayne C. Booth in /The?\nRhetoric of Fiction/, is that the narrator's /norms/ differ from the implied?\nauthor's. He gives examples such as Barry Lyndon, morally as far from the?\nauthor as possible (Booth says--I haven't read it), and Huck Finn, who calls?\nhimself bad when we can tell the author thinks he's good. Or the narrator \"is?\nmistaken, or believes himself to have qualities which the author denies him\"--I?\nsuppose Kinbote would be a good example of that last, or Pooter in /The Diary of?\na Nobody/. Booth says irony on the narrator's part is not an example, but lying?\nis, though an uncommon one.\n\n\nhttp://books.google.com/books?id=VfUgMbRYSW4C&pg=PA159\n\n\nNo doubt the meaning has changed. I'm with Gerry Quinn. There's no point in?\nmaking a big deal out unreliability unless it's \"strong\" unreliability--the?\nstory is or could be substantially different from what you get by believing the?\nnarrator." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: David Stockhoff \n... But I think the \"more unreliable than is usual in science fiction\" ?\nstandard applies, in which case\nall the characters you mention are indeed? unreliable." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "...\n\n\nOkay, but why have some people stressed it so much?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But the Nebraskan is a great example of unreliability, because he? doesn't lie.\nYet, we cannot trust his\nnarration---that's all that \"unreliable\"? means." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "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.\n---Of course not. You just can't RELY on it. It's all in contrast to the omniscient narrator.\n\n\n(I suppose it's just as well if nobody has put forward an interpretation of that?\nstory where the actual narrator is unreliable, or Thoe is.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Similarly, when Blood appears at the manteion unnamed, the\nnarrator is, by conventional standards, being almost dishonest. The fact that?>he makes the? reader guess is > important, not the clues he offers." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "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. ?\n\n---I should have said, by conventional SF standards. The whole point of that example is not that there are 2 definitions of \"unreliability\"---I think we should pick one and stick to it---but that the label of \"unreliable\" got applied to Wolfe because his narration does this kind of thing 5 times before breakfast (and if he still gets up at 5:00 AM to write the way he did before he retired from Plant, I mean that literally).\nSimilarly, 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.\n\n---Not that Severian is uncomfortable with that fact---I didn't say that. But that it happened at all and he damn well knows it.\n\n\nJerry Friedman\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DAC4D39.2040608@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-04-18T14:39:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<868823.40017.qm@web84107.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote (18-04-2011 15:35):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You just can't RELY on it. It's all in contrast to the omniscient narrator." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "+1" } ] }, { "message_id": "<241282.71042.qm@web84101.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "DAVID STOCKHOFF", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-04-18T17:52:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<4DAC4D39.2040608@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Although as an afterthought I suppose there is still some distance between a narrative with a clearly delineated and limited viewpoint---and a narrative that pretends to even more severe limitations.\n\nTaking as a model of reliability the Philip Marlowe (IIRC, I'm no Chandler expert) style of narration: \n\n\"A gorgeous redhead walked into my office...\"\n\n\"I knew the name she hissed at me. He was a big shot around town ...\"\n\nBasically, the narrator may tell us \n\n(a) everything he sees, hears, knows, and thinks (as above)\n(b) only what he sees and hears but not what he thinks\n(c) only some of what he sees and hears (i.e., he withholds)\n(d) some dramatic combination, e.g., where he tells us everything but the identity of the killer, which he knew from page 1. \n\nMixing b and c by selective editing combined with relaying to us his internal dialog would be one obvious way for the narrator to make himself look good---too good. He might also lie outright or be unable to put obvious clues together, like Mr McGoo (think The Pink Panther as told by Inspector Clouseau). I'd consider these to be further limitations farther along the spectrum, but clearly more artificial than simply withholding for narrative effect. There are so many ways to play this, there seems little point in making any more precise distinctions. \n\nAs examples, consider these parallel treatments of the same event:\n\n\"I greatly feared that I was going to die.\"\n\n\"My heart pounded so hard I nearly fell over.\"\n\n\"I felt no fear, but heard a distant hammering like the ringing of giant gongs.\"\n\n\"I thought only of my dear Monica as I squeezed the trigger of my 9 mm Beretta three times, firing blindly in the dark. Thus, I brought justice to her killer.\"\n\n\"Only later did it occur to me that I had nearly met death at that moment.\"\n\nTo us, these are routine dodges/edits/misdirections, but if you take the Victorian novel as the benchmark for all modern fiction, some are indeed less honest than others, by omission at least. \n\nWolfe plays these tricks all the time, and indeed seems to love subverting the straight detective story, but he's only \"unreliable\" to readers who still follow the Victorian standard, which survives in genres like boys' adventure fiction. His storytelling is probably more \"consistently\" and \"playfully\" unreliable than it is dramatically or substantively unreliable. \n\nUnreliability doesn't require lying, and Severian's tale is mostly just incredibly complex and fundamentally unbelievable. But compare Severian's failure to confess his incest to Humbert Humbert's not-well-hidden rape of Lolita.\n\n(The Flashman series plays with this modern-vs-Victorian contrast by putting a cowardly narrator in charge of a story defined by a Victorian template. Compared to us, Victorians told everything straight but the sex, although they had certain rhetorical devices of debatable honesty at their disposal as well.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- On Mon, 4/18/11, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:\nFrom: Ant?nio Pedro Marques \nSubject: Re: (urth) Introduction and Breath" } ] }, { "message_id": "<288593.11500.qm@web84108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "DAVID STOCKHOFF", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-04-18T17:59:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Incidental observation", "in_reply_to": "<241282.71042.qm@web84101.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I was just looking for commentary on Lolita and found the following brief description of a minor character:\n\nValeria - 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.\n\nI can't imagine Wolfe would appropriate the name Valeria lightly, especially given Severian's attraction to ... well, they aren't nymphets exactly." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DAC8AF5.3030204@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-04-18T19:03:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Incidental observation", "in_reply_to": "<288593.11500.qm@web84108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well...Dorcas is a water nymph, and by extension a siren. One issue that \nmight be important is that Valeria is, in a sense, Sev's \"first \ngirlfriend\". He meets her before he met Thecla or any of the others." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 4/18/2011 12:59 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:\nI was just looking for commentary on Lolita and found the following brief description of a minor character:\n\nValeria - 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.\n\nI can't imagine Wolfe would appropriate the name Valeria lightly, especially given Severian's attraction to ... well, they aren't nymphets exactly.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DAC8E90.6030908@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-04-18T19:18:40+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<241282.71042.qm@web84101.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Additionally,\n\ne) Almost all of what he sees and hears that he considers important and \nalso his interpretation on that. However, 1) some things he describes \nthat he considers incidental are more important than he realizes, 2) \nsome things he sees as significant he interprets wrongly. In both, cases \nthe author presents enough information (or believes he has) that the \nreader can properly interpret them.\n\nf) All of the above, but neither the narrator nor the reader has enough \ninformation to interpret the data. This is done to add a sense of depth \nto the plot such as when the dwarves sing of Nargothrond in \"The \nHobbit\". But, when Wolfe does it, he is far more ornery such as when \nSeverian first meets Apu Punchau.\n\nJ" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 4/18/2011 12:52 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:\nBasically, the narrator may tell us\n\n(a) everything he sees, hears, knows, and thinks (as above)\n(b) only what he sees and hears but not what he thinks\n(c) only some of what he sees and hears (i.e., he withholds)\n(d) some dramatic combination, e.g., where he tells us everything but the identity of the killer, which he knew from page 1." } ] }, { "message_id": "<003d01cbfdfe$9bf905a0$cfd14a0c@rclackey>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2011-04-18T19:26:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<72EC5D2EB0E842E1B97DEA81E746139A@jill>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:\nFor me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is telling\nus\nanother, different story disguised behind the overt story the narrator is\ntelling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't understand what's\ngoing on. I really don't think that either is the case with Severian.\n\nA narrator who simply makes mistakes or who doesn't know everything isn't\nunreliable in this strong sense. Maybe we could define 'weakly\nunreliable'\nand 'strongly unreliable' - but I personally feel that the expression\n'unreliable narrator' should be reserved for the strong sense. [snip]" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In general I agree with you, but Severian is a special case because of his\nself-vaunted perfect memory. There are mistakes in his narrative (I once\nposted a list of them), most of them minor, but it's hard sometimes to\ndecide which are his and which are Wolfe's. If Severian did not go on so\nmuch about his perfect memory, most such errors could be overlooked. There\nis one however that is not so easy to dismiss.\n\nIn the first chapter of SHADOW, Severian says that Vodalus handed his pistol\nto the big man we later learn is named Hildegrin. Thea then took the pistol\nfrom Hildegrin. But near the end of the first chapter of CLAW, while going\non again about his memory, he recalls that night in the necropolis and says\nthat Vodalus had given the pistol to his mistress. In the Appendix to\nCITADEL, Wolfe wrote that Vodalus had handed the pistol to Thea.\n\nWhich of the two Vodalus handed the pistol to is not in itself really\nimportant; Thea ended up with the pistol either way. But I find it a little\nhard to believe that Wolfe made this blunder because there was otherwise no\npoint in having Vodalus first hand the pistol to Hildegrin, unless the\ndetail served Wolfe to demonstrate that Severian's memory is not quite so\nreliable as he believed.\n\nSeverian was a teenaged boy at the time of the necropolis incident. What\nimpressed him at the time was what he perceived as something of a heroic\ngesture; Vodalus declined to use his superior weapon against poorly armed\nrabble. He handed off the pistol and drew his sword to perform a rearguard\naction against superior numbers, thus putting his life in jeopardy. That act\nof perceived gallantry is what stood out in Severian's memory of the\nincident.\n\nWhen he recalled the incident a couple years later, in another context in\nSaltus, he still admired Vodalus for that action. When he wrote about both\noccasions, ten years after Saltus, his opinion about Vodalus had changed but\nhe still remembered the emotional impact of that first meeting in the\nnecropolis. It seems to me that his emotions can and do sometimes distort\nhis memories. In the case of the pistol, his admiration for the gesture\nseems to have colored his recall of the details of what had actually\nhappened. As he wrote at the end of the first chapter of CLAW, \"And in any\ncase, the old, recalled emotions were too strong. I was trapped in\nadmiration for what I had once admired, as a fly in amber remains the\ncaptive of some long-vanished pine.\"\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<380954.43979.qm@web84107.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "DAVID STOCKHOFF", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-04-18T20:30:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Incidental observation", "in_reply_to": "<4DAC8AF5.3030204@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "True, and she was a girl when he met her. More of an Annabel Leigh, perhaps." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- On Mon, 4/18/11, James Wynn wrote:\nFrom: James Wynn \nSubject: Re: (urth) Incidental observation\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Monday, April 18, 2011, 3:03 PM\nWell...Dorcas is a water nymph, and\nby extension a siren. One issue that \nmight be important is that Valeria is, in a sense, Sev's\n\"first \ngirlfriend\". He meets her before he met Thecla or any of\nthe others.\n\nOn 4/18/2011 12:59 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I was just looking for commentary on Lolita and found\nthe following brief description of a minor character:\n\nValeria -? Humbert’s first wife, whom he\nmarried to cure himself of his addiction to nymphets." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Humbert finds Valeria intellectually inferior and often\nbullies her. When he plans to move to America, Valeria\nleaves him to marry a Russian taxi driver. Valeria and her\nhusband die in California years later." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I can't imagine Wolfe would appropriate the name\nValeria lightly, especially given Severian's attraction to\n... well, they aren't nymphets exactly.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<29736.43979.qm@web84107.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "DAVID STOCKHOFF", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-04-18T20:46:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<4DAC8E90.6030908@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Right. Similarly, Humbert Humbert tends to narrate by focusing on descriptions of his thoughts and emotions. This not only makes him appear a more reasonable person than he could possibly be, but tends to minimize all sorts of things central to the plot, perhaps especially Quilty (whom I can barely remember). Naturally he does not mention his murder of Quilty (IIRC), but he hardly even mentions Quilty at all. He's like a truly mad and dishonest Severian; his memory is intact but his attention has a vast blind spot." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- On Mon, 4/18/11, James Wynn wrote:\nFrom: James Wynn \nSubject: Re: (urth) Introduction and Breath\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Monday, April 18, 2011, 3:18 PM\nAdditionally,\n\ne)? Almost all of what he sees and hears that he\nconsiders important and also his interpretation on that.\nHowever, 1) some things he describes that he considers\nincidental are more important than he realizes, 2)\nsome things he sees as significant he interprets wrongly. In\nboth, cases the author presents enough information (or\nbelieves he has) that the reader can properly interpret\nthem.\n\nf)? All of the above, but neither the narrator nor the\nreader has enough information to interpret the data. This is\ndone to add a sense of depth to the plot such as when the\ndwarves sing of Nargothrond in \"The Hobbit\". But, when\nWolfe does it, he is far more ornery such as when Severian\nfirst meets Apu Punchau.\n\nJ\n\n\nOn 4/18/2011 12:52 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Basically, the narrator may tell us\n\n(a) everything? he sees, hears, knows, and thinks\n(as above)\n(b) only what he sees and hears but not what he\nthinks\n(c) only some of what he sees and hears (i.e., he\nwithholds)\n(d) some dramatic combination, e.g., where he tells us\neverything but the identity of the killer, which he knew\nfrom page 1." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-04-18T20:58:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<003d01cbfdfe$9bf905a0$cfd14a0c@rclackey>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Man, talk about unreliable narratives/narrators! I've totally got snarled\nin trying to decipher who's said what in this exchange! Anyway, I'm largely\nrooting for the minority that are saying 'unreliable narrator' is not such\nan appropriate and distinctive label for Severian. (I'm almost certain\nGerry Quinn is one person doing so and I'm sure there are some others with\nhim.)\n\nHowever, Roy's (I think) last post there about Sev's recurrent claim to\nperfect memory mixed with his own comments about how his emotions affect his\nview (and it might be added that he says eventually our minds turn\nfalsehoods into truths, or something like that) have me thinking. Roy, can\nyou link to your list you made? (I know someone said making a list of\nerrors/inconsistencies 'misses the point' but I don't see how.)\n\nAgain, most of what's being argued is that Wolfe is a clever, indirect,\ncomplex writer (who's yet clearer than we give him credit for, especially in\nthe fog of the built-up pre-aura from blurbs about his devious authorial\nways) and/or Severian's a very complex, thoughtful character who only gives\nout certain information when he feels he's ready and given enough back story\n(or who just sometimes thinks 'oh! I should mention this too' or 'did I ever\ngive that detail?' etc.).\n\nNot convinced that's 'hard' unreliable narrator material (and yes, I think\n'hard' and 'soft' are a useful distinction, the latter being what tons of\nauthors do with the inherent trickiness of narration - we need something\nmuch more to name it as a main trope that Wolfe is allegedly [in]famous\nfor).\n\n-DOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nGerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is telling\nus\nanother, different story disguised behind the overt story the narrator is\ntelling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't understand what's\ngoing on. I really don't think that either is the case with Severian.\n\nA narrator who simply makes mistakes or who doesn't know everything isn't\nunreliable in this strong sense. Maybe we could define 'weakly\nunreliable'\nand 'strongly unreliable' - but I personally feel that the expression\n'unreliable narrator' should be reserved for the strong sense. [snip]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In general I agree with you, but Severian is a special case because of his\nself-vaunted perfect memory. There are mistakes in his narrative (I once\nposted a list of them), most of them minor, but it's hard sometimes to\ndecide which are his and which are Wolfe's. If Severian did not go on so\nmuch about his perfect memory, most such errors could be overlooked. There\nis one however that is not so easy to dismiss.\n\nIn the first chapter of SHADOW, Severian says that Vodalus handed his\npistol\nto the big man we later learn is named Hildegrin. Thea then took the pistol\nfrom Hildegrin. But near the end of the first chapter of CLAW, while going\non again about his memory, he recalls that night in the necropolis and says\nthat Vodalus had given the pistol to his mistress. In the Appendix to\nCITADEL, Wolfe wrote that Vodalus had handed the pistol to Thea.\n\nWhich of the two Vodalus handed the pistol to is not in itself really\nimportant; Thea ended up with the pistol either way. But I find it a little\nhard to believe that Wolfe made this blunder because there was otherwise no\npoint in having Vodalus first hand the pistol to Hildegrin, unless the\ndetail served Wolfe to demonstrate that Severian's memory is not quite so\nreliable as he believed.\n\nSeverian was a teenaged boy at the time of the necropolis incident. What\nimpressed him at the time was what he perceived as something of a heroic\ngesture; Vodalus declined to use his superior weapon against poorly armed\nrabble. He handed off the pistol and drew his sword to perform a rearguard\naction against superior numbers, thus putting his life in jeopardy. That\nact\nof perceived gallantry is what stood out in Severian's memory of the\nincident.\n\nWhen he recalled the incident a couple years later, in another context in\nSaltus, he still admired Vodalus for that action. When he wrote about both\noccasions, ten years after Saltus, his opinion about Vodalus had changed\nbut\nhe still remembered the emotional impact of that first meeting in the\nnecropolis. It seems to me that his emotions can and do sometimes distort\nhis memories. In the case of the pistol, his admiration for the gesture\nseems to have colored his recall of the details of what had actually\nhappened. As he wrote at the end of the first chapter of CLAW, \"And in any\ncase, the old, recalled emotions were too strong. I was trapped in\nadmiration for what I had once admired, as a fly in amber remains the\ncaptive of some long-vanished pine.\"\n\n-Roy\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<004d01cbfe48$eab32320$7ed14a0c@rclackey>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2011-04-19T04:18:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Daniel Petersen wrote:\nHowever, Roy's (I think) last post there about Sev's recurrent claim to\nperfect memory mixed with his own comments about how his emotions affect\nhis\nview (and it might be added that he says eventually our minds turn\nfalsehoods into truths, or something like that) have me thinking. Roy,\ncan\nyou link to your list you made? (I know someone said making a list of\nerrors/inconsistencies 'misses the point' but I don't see how.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "FWIW: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0307/3619.txt.shtml\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<829692.26715.qm@smtp816.mail.ird.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Mo Holkar", "address": "lists at ukg.co.uk" }, "date": "2011-04-19T08:01:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<003d01cbfdfe$9bf905a0$cfd14a0c@rclackey>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At 20:26 18/04/2011, Roy wrote:\nIn the first chapter of SHADOW, Severian says that Vodalus handed his pistol\nto the big man we later learn is named Hildegrin. Thea then took the pistol\nfrom Hildegrin. But near the end of the first chapter of CLAW, while going\non again about his memory, he recalls that night in the necropolis and says\nthat Vodalus had given the pistol to his mistress." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I suppose readers who hold the view that when Severian makes errors, \nthey are significant, might interpret that as meaning that actually \nHildegrin is Vodalus's 'mistress' -- or at least that Severian thinks \nhe is. Hildegrin is often referred to as Vodalus's 'badger' -- \nperhaps that term has a further, illicit meaning besides the three \nobvious ones.\n\nbest,\n\nMo\n\n\n\n\n# ~ # ~ #\n\nWolfeWiki -- a wiki about Gene Wolfe\nhttp://www.wolfewiki.com/pmwiki/ " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DAD79DE.8080109@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-04-19T12:02:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<829692.26715.qm@smtp816.mail.ird.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree that errors so proximate to a claim of perfect memory are \nparticularly suspect. But I would think they would be more significant, \ni.e., intended to misdirect the reader from something Severian does not \nwant the reader to see, not simply highlight his fallibility, although \nthat's possible.\n\nOn a related note, the other day I saw in a used book sale a dictionary \nof premodern sexual slang. Why oh why did I not pick it up?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 4/19/2011 4:01 AM, Mo Holkar wrote:\nAt 20:26 18/04/2011, Roy wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "In the first chapter of SHADOW, Severian says that Vodalus handed his \npistol\nto the big man we later learn is named Hildegrin. Thea then took the \npistol\nfrom Hildegrin. But near the end of the first chapter of CLAW, while \ngoing\non again about his memory, he recalls that night in the necropolis \nand says\nthat Vodalus had given the pistol to his mistress." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I suppose readers who hold the view that when Severian makes errors, \nthey are significant, might interpret that as meaning that actually \nHildegrin is Vodalus's 'mistress' -- or at least that Severian thinks \nhe is. Hildegrin is often referred to as Vodalus's 'badger' -- perhaps \nthat term has a further, illicit meaning besides the three obvious ones.\n\nbest,\n\nMo\n\n\n\n\n# ~ # ~ #\n\nWolfeWiki -- a wiki about Gene Wolfe\nhttp://www.wolfewiki.com/pmwiki/\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DADDFFA.20302@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-04-19T19:18:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<72EC5D2EB0E842E1B97DEA81E746139A@jill>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 4/17/2011 5:31 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\nFor me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is \ntelling us another, different story disguised behind the overt story \nthe narrator is telling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't \nunderstand what's going on. I really don't think that either is the \ncase with Severian.\n\nA narrator who simply makes mistakes or who doesn't know everything \nisn't unreliable in this strong sense. Maybe we could define 'weakly \nunreliable' and 'strongly unreliable'" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What then would be an example in literature of a 'strongly unreliable' \nnarrator?\n\nJ" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Brian Short", "address": "brian.short at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-04-19T19:24:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<4DADDFFA.20302@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Verbal from The Usual Suspects would be a strongly unreliable narrator\nby this definition.\n\nThanks,\n-Brian" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:18 PM, James Wynn wrote:\nOn 4/17/2011 5:31 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is telling\nus another, different story disguised behind the overt story the narrator is\ntelling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't understand what's\ngoing on. “I really don't think that either is the case with Severian.\n\nA narrator who simply makes mistakes or who doesn't know everything isn't\nunreliable in this strong sense. ?Maybe we could define 'weakly unreliable'\nand 'strongly unreliable'" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What then would be an example in literature of a 'strongly unreliable'\nnarrator”\n\nJ\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<670616.28659.qm@web84103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "DAVID STOCKHOFF", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-04-19T19:58:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<4DADDFFA.20302@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Humbert Humbert?\n\nAlso perhaps whoever narrated The Black Prince (it's been a while for me, but the setup is similar)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- On Tue, 4/19/11, James Wynn wrote:\nFrom: James Wynn \nSubject: Re: (urth) Introduction and Breath\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Tuesday, April 19, 2011, 3:18 PM\nOn 4/17/2011 5:31 PM, Gerry Quinn\nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the\nauthor is telling us another, different story disguised\nbehind the overt story the narrator is telling is; either\nthe narrator is lying or he doesn't understand what's going\non. I really don't think that either is the case with\nSeverian.\n\nA narrator who simply makes mistakes or who doesn't\nknow everything isn't unreliable in this strong sense." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Maybe we could define 'weakly unreliable' and 'strongly\nunreliable'\n\nWhat then would be an example in literature of a 'strongly\nunreliable' narrator?\n\nJ\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DADE9D2.8000303@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-04-19T20:00:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ah okay. Then I do not believe the *strong* version to be a true \ndefinition of an Unreliable Narrator. Verbal is merely making up most of \nthe story. He is \"unreliable\" only in the sense that he has incorporated \nreal people into his fabrication and possibly real events.\n\nAn unreliable narrator generally attempts to speak the truth, but you \ncan't RELY on him to do so. He's wrong, misinformed, covers up \ninadequacies, or has a screwed up moral code/worldview through which he \ninterprets events.\n\nWolfean unreliable narrators:\n\nWeer, because he excludes his culpability\nVRT, because he is motivated by nature to completely disappear into Marsch\nSeverian, because anyone who says \"I am mad\" is as untrustworthy as a \nguy who says \"I always lie\".\nLatro, because of his brain damage he cannot even say himself whether \nanything in his diary is true even to the question of whether HE wrote \nit. Nor can he know if he was rational at the times when he converses \nwith gods.\nBax, because he is a con-artist whom we know forged some of his letters \nand he has reason to lie to his sister-in-law and probably his brother." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 4/19/2011 2:24 PM, Brian Short wrote:\nVerbal from The Usual Suspects would be a strongly unreliable narrator\nby this definition.\n\nThanks,\n-Brian\n\nOn Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:18 PM, James Wynn wrote:\n\nWhat then would be an example in literature of a 'strongly unreliable'\nnarrator?\n\nJ" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 4/17/2011 5:31 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is telling\nus another, different story disguised behind the overt story the narrator is\ntelling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't understand what's\ngoing on. I really don't think that either is the case with Severian.\n\nA narrator who simply makes mistakes or who doesn't know everything isn't\nunreliable in this strong sense. Maybe we could define 'weakly unreliable'\nand 'strongly unreliable'" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Brian Short", "address": "brian.short at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-04-19T20:05:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<4DADE9D2.8000303@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, yes. One way to think about it is that Verbal is a liar, is\naware that he's lying, and is doing it deliberately.\n\nI agree with you that most unreliable narrators don't fit into that\nmold. When I think of typical unreliable narrators, I think of\ncharacters that have a different way of looking at the world from me\n(the reader) and the rest of society, but who don't necessarily think\nthey're different. They're damaged in some way.\n\nSeverian (at least Severian Two) probably fits into this, but his aims\nin writing The Book of the New Sun aren't entirely clear.\n\nThanks,\n-Brian" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:00 PM, James Wynn wrote:\nAh okay. Then I do not believe the *strong* version to be a true definition\nof an Unreliable Narrator. Verbal is merely making up most of the story. He\nis \"unreliable\" only in the sense that he has incorporated real people into\nhis fabrication and possibly real events.\n\nAn unreliable narrator generally attempts to speak the truth, but you can't\nRELY on him to do so. He's wrong, misinformed, covers up inadequacies, or\nhas a screwed up moral code/worldview through which he interprets events.\n\nWolfean unreliable narrators:\n\nWeer, because he excludes his culpability\nVRT, because he is motivated by nature to completely disappear into Marsch\nSeverian, because anyone who says \"I am mad\" is as untrustworthy as a guy\nwho says \"I always lie\".\nLatro, because of his brain damage he cannot even say himself whether\nanything in his diary is true even to the question of whether HE wrote it.\nNor can he know if he was rational at the times when he converses with gods.\nBax, because he is a con-artist whom we know forged some of his letters and\nhe has reason to lie to his sister-in-law and probably his brother.\n\n\nOn 4/19/2011 2:24 PM, Brian Short wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Verbal from The Usual Suspects would be a strongly unreliable narrator\nby this definition.\n\nThanks,\n-Brian\n\nOn Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:18 PM, James Wynn “wrote:\n\nWhat then would be an example in literature of a 'strongly unreliable'\nnarrator”\n\nJ" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "On 4/17/2011 5:31 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is telling\nus another, different story disguised behind the overt story the\nnarrator is\ntelling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't understand what's\ngoing on. ?I really don't think that either is the case with Severian.\n\nA narrator who simply makes mistakes or who doesn't know everything\nisn't\nunreliable in this strong sense. ?Maybe we could define 'weakly\nunreliable'\nand 'strongly unreliable'" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<8de1bbbe3b9c672c565bdcf53977cd8a@imap.io.com>", "from": { "name": "Adam Thornton IO", "address": "adam at io.com" }, "date": "2011-04-19T20:24:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<670616.28659.qm@web84103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:58:56 -0700 (PDT), DAVID STOCKHOFF\n wrote:\nHumbert Humbert?\n\nAlso perhaps whoever narrated The Black Prince (it's been a while for\nme,\nbut the setup is similar)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Charles Kinbote, or perhaps, \"Charles Kinbote\", of course, as long as\nwe're on Nabokov.\n\nAdam" } ] }, { "message_id": "<880800.11469.qm@web114712.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-04-19T21:27:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Strongly unreliable narrators", "in_reply_to": "<8de1bbbe3b9c672c565bdcf53977cd8a@imap.io.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: Adam Thornton (IO) \nOn Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:58:56 -0700 (PDT), DAVID STOCKHOFF\n wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Humbert Humbert?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "...\n\nHe's?massively unreliable in Booth's sense of differing ?from the author's \nnorms, but he does seem to knowingly let you know most of the facts. Though \nsome unreliable-narrator fans think Humbert invented the epiphany while \nlistening to the children's voices, the murder of Quilty, and much of the rest \nof the book." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Charles Kinbote, or perhaps, \"Charles Kinbote\", of course, as long as\nwe're on Nabokov." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "He's the first who came to my mind.\n\nAlso, Agatha Christie narrators who committed the murder, and the third-person \nnarration in \"An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge\".\n\nThree where the question is whether they're reliable or not: the narrator of \n\"The Tell-Tale Heart\"; Horselover Fat, in VALIS, as I recall; and the governess \nin \"The Turn of the Screw\", a classic example.\n\nAnother definitely unreliable narrator:\n\nS\np\no\ni\nl\ne\nr\n\nf\no\nr\n\nK\ni\nm\n\nS\nt\na\nn\nl\ne\ny\n\nR\no\nb\ni\nn\ns\no\nn\n\nThe narrator of the first third of Icehenge, and maybe the narrator of the \nsecond third--it's been a while.\n\nJerry Friedman" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DAE0250.6090806@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-04-19T21:44:48+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Strongly unreliable narrators", "in_reply_to": "<880800.11469.qm@web114712.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Essentially, an unreliable narrator is someone who:\n\na) has motivation to distort the truth\n\nb) is obviously debilitated somehow in his perceptive/interpretive ability\n\nThere must always be a likelihood significant truth to the story or else \nnarrator and the author merge into one voice -- that is, he is not a \nnarrator, he is a spinner of tales." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 4/19/2011 4:27 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:\nFrom: Adam Thornton (IO)\nOn Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:58:56 -0700 (PDT), DAVID STOCKHOFF\n wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Humbert Humbert?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "...\n\nHe's massively unreliable in Booth's sense of differing from the author's\nnorms, but he does seem to knowingly let you know most of the facts. Though\nsome unreliable-narrator fans think Humbert invented the epiphany while\nlistening to the children's voices, the murder of Quilty, and much of the rest\nof the book." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Charles Kinbote, or perhaps, \"Charles Kinbote\", of course, as long as\nwe're on Nabokov." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "He's the first who came to my mind.\n\nAlso, Agatha Christie narrators who committed the murder, and the third-person\nnarration in \"An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge\".\n\nThree where the question is whether they're reliable or not: the narrator of\n\"The Tell-Tale Heart\"; Horselover Fat, in VALIS, as I recall; and the governess\nin \"The Turn of the Screw\", a classic example.\n\nAnother definitely unreliable narrator:\n\nS\np\no\ni\nl\ne\nr\n\nf\no\nr\n\nK\ni\nm\n\nS\nt\na\nn\nl\ne\ny\n\nR\no\nb\ni\nn\ns\no\nn\n\nThe narrator of the first third of Icehenge, and maybe the narrator of the\nsecond third--it's been a while.\n\nJerry Friedman\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Bart Everson", "address": "b at rox.com" }, "date": "2011-05-05T16:52:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Introduction and Breath", "in_reply_to": "<8de1bbbe3b9c672c565bdcf53977cd8a@imap.io.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Now that this thread seems definitively dead, I just wanted to revive it\nbriefly and say thanks for the many thoughtful and thought-provoking\nresponses to my query.\n\nIt seems the question of Severian's unreliability depends on one's\ndefinition of \"unreliable.\"\n\nI'm sure we all agree that Severian's narrative lends itself to deep reading\nand re-reading. The ostensible surface narrative isn't the whole story.\nThere are depths to plumb and mysteries to explore. From that angle I see\nhow the \"unreliable\" label can be applied. But on the other hand, Severian\nis not *strongly* unreliable in the sense that prevarications (or insanity)\ncreate that layered narrative. At least I don't think so. The layers of\nmeaning stem from subtlety rather than active deception.\n\nThe contradictions and apparent lies that have been cataloged are quite\ninteresting, but they do not seem to me to suggest a deep alternate reading.\nIf anything, they strike me as, perhaps, an authorial joke, or, in some\ncases, authorial error.\n\nIn any case, my main concern was that I was missing some huge aspect of\nSeverian's narrative, and you all have collectively laid my mind to rest on\nthat issue. I won't say that I've unraveled every riddle in these books. Far\nfrom it. But I think I'm aware, at least, of most of the outstanding\nquestions. Having been through the story so many times, all Severian's\nsubtleties have become very familiar, like an old friend. I enjoy this\naspect of the narrative greatly.\n\nI am currently reading the Book of the New Sun aloud to my wife, for the\nsecond time. The first time through I refrained from editorial comment. I\ndid not explain beyond what was in the text. I wanted my wife to be able to\nexperience the richness of discovery first hand. I'm not sure if she did. In\nany event, this second time though, I am taking the opposite approach and\nexplaining each mystery, little or big, as we encounter them — to the best\nof my ability. She doesn't get the joy of unlocking the secrets herself, but\nshe can appreciate Wolfe's ingenious constructions, and it doesn't reflect\ntoo badly on me either.\n\nPerhaps you could say I've come to rely on Severian's unreliability.\n\nThanks again,\n\nEditor B" } ] } ] }