{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/6025", "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": 6025, "subject": "More on Frog and Fish", "messages": 14, "voices": 6, "first": "2011-05-25T21:19:51+00:00", "last": "2011-06-14T17:36:34+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andrew Mason", "address": "andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com" }, "date": "2011-05-25T21:19:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) More on Frog and Fish", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "James Wynn wrote:\nExcept that his name, \"Spring Wind\", makes no sense as a designation for\nMars." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It makes perfect sense to me. 'March winds' is a well-established\nphrase, enshrined in a nursery rhyme.\n\nAnd a garbled retelling the Romulus tale is kind of lame and" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "unimaginative. And, well, there's really nothing Wolfean about that\nreading. I contend, Wolfe just _would not do_ what you are saying he\ndid. Even a Freshman writer wouldn't do something as lame as that." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That depends what you think he's doing with it. I don't suppose he's\njust saying 'Here's a garbled retelling of the Romulus tale'. The\nmyths which are incorporated into the story are there for a purpose.\nDr Talos later says, in connection with _Frankenstein_, that events\ncan have a backward influence, so that stories from the past reflect\nthe future. I think the Romulus and Mowgli stories are to be seen as\npointing to Severian. Not only was he brought up by 'wolves' and\nbecame a ruler, but his mother, it seems, was a virgin priestess, and\nhe had a twin. Also as a baby he was carried in a basket. (It's not\nclear why that would be important, but Wolfe seems to think it is - he\nmentions baskets repeatedly.) On the face of it, he's a better fit\nfor Frog than Ymar was. But of course the story isn't a record of his\nlife; it's a myth that looks forward to him.\n\nWe know that _Wonders of Urth and Sky_ incorporates material from our\nown time, and earlier; it contains direct quotations from Genesis and\nfrom Marlowe. Jonas recognises the Theseus story as a source, and is\nable to clarify a puzzling point in 'The Student and his Son' by\nreference to it. In the light of that it seems reasonable to try to\ninterpret 'Frog' in the light of stories extant now; and in fact\nalmost everything in it can be so explained. The bits that don't fit\nRomulus can be explained by reference to Mowgli, and the bits that\ndon't fit Mowgli can be explained by reference to Romulus. If events\ncloser to Severian's time have been incorporated into it, it's not\nclear what difference they can have made. Either Ymar's life\nrecapitulated that of Romulus in amazing detail, with an interlude in\nwhich it was more like that of Mowgli, or the myths have actually\ncorrupted the way the story is told, in which case we can't use it to\nfind out the truth about Ymar. This is even more true of Spring Wind,\nwhose life seems to follow that of Mars in every detail.\n\nBy the way, it occurs to me that there is a source for 'Fish', other\nthan its being a neat counterpart to 'Frog'. It comes at the end, 'The\nPlowing of the Fish'. . The author has linked the burying of a victim\nunder the foundations of a city with the ploughing of literal fish\ninto the fields,. as the Pilgirm Father did on the advice of the\nhistorical Squanto." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-05-25T23:35:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) More on Frog and Fish", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Andrew Mason: it seems reasonable to try to\ninterpret 'Frog' in the light of stories extant now; and in fact\nalmost everything in it can be so explained. The bits that don't fit\nRomulus can be explained by reference to Mowgli, and the bits that\ndon't fit Mowgli can be explained by reference to Romulus." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI agree with this approach for many of WOlfe's mysteries. We have a story \nwith many gaps left unexplained but we are provided with multiple source\nmaterials. Where one source does not explain, another can often be found\nwhich does. Where mythology fails, the Bible may step in, etc." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think the Romulus and Mowgli stories are to be seen as\npointing to Severian. Not only was he brought up by 'wolves' and\nbecame a ruler, but his mother, it seems, was a virgin priestess, and\nhe had a twin. Also as a baby he was carried in a basket. (It's not\nclear why that would be important, but Wolfe seems to think it is - he\nmentions baskets repeatedly.) On the face of it, he's a better fit\nfor Frog than Ymar was. But of course the story isn't a record of his\nlife; it's a myth that looks forward to him." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nGreat insight, Andrew. Perhaps Severian should be considered the foremost\nsubject of the myth. Still, especially with UotNS, there is much to suggest\nYmar can be considered as a \"little\" or \"first\" version of Severian. And, \nas I noted in another post, the Tale of the Boy Called Frog is told to a\ncharacter named Little Severian. The legends are said to reverberate both \nforward and backward in the corridors of time. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DDDB937.5010902@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-05-26T02:21:43+00:00", "subject": "(urth) More on Frog and Fish", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think the Romulus and Mowgli stories are to be seen as\npointing to Severian. Not only was he brought up by 'wolves' and\nbecame a ruler, but his mother, it seems, was a virgin priestess, and\nhe had a twin. Also as a baby he was carried in a basket. (It's not\nclear why that would be important, but Wolfe seems to think it is - he\nmentions baskets repeatedly.) On the face of it, he's a better fit\nfor Frog than Ymar was. But of course the story isn't a record of his\nlife; it's a myth that looks forward to him." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This was actually my first assumption. I was motivated to make it work. \nBut we know more about Severian than anyone else in the book, yet beyond \nvery broad outlines (in some cases), he doesn't seem to map or be \nmappable. The whole bit about the Butcher and the wolves...and just \ncan't see how to force him into it. And there are elements that don't \nreally seem to work at all. Even after Urth of the New Sun, the \nend-story doesn't look like Severian at all. That flood would be hard to \nmiss.\n\nJ." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andrew Mason", "address": "andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com" }, "date": "2011-05-26T20:06:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) More on Frog and Fish", "in_reply_to": "<4DDDB937.5010902@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "James Wynn wrote:\nBut we know more about Severian than anyone else in the book, yet beyond\nvery broad outlines (in some cases), he doesn't seem to map or be\nmappable. The whole bit about the Butcher and the wolves...and just\ncan't see how to force him into it. And there are elements that don't\nreally seem to work at all. Even after Urth of the New Sun, the\nend-story doesn't look like Severian at all. That flood would be hard to\nmiss." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But I don't think the myth has to be applicable in every detail. The\nmyths which are applied to Jesus don't fit him in every detail;\n_Frankenstein_ doesn't fit Baldanders in every detail (though, come to\nthink of it, his backward influence may explain why so many people\nconfuse the creator with the monster). The story follows the myths so\nclosely (counting _The Jungle Book_ as a myth, as it will be by then),\n that I don't think it can apply in detail to any future person,\nunless his life bore an incredibly close resemblance to the myths. So\nthe connection must be looser. (That doesn't rule out there being some\nhidden connections as well as the obvious ones. I don't know what,\nthough.)" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DE3F0D4.8050701@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-05-30T19:32:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) More on Frog and Fish & Ymar", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Andrew Mason:\nI'm not sure why June is OK for Juno, but March is not OK for Mars.\n(We're asking what a redactor of the myth might think. What\nassociations the name might have outside the story, what symbolic\nvalue Wolfe might give it, is another question.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Because the \"redactors\" are not sloppy. That's the beauty of what Wolfe \nhas done here. It is possible to imagine an intelligent scholar \ntranslating Juno as \"Early Summer\" and Rhea Silvia as \"woodland bird\" or \nBird of the Woods. The name for the bird was chosen from the name of the \ngoddess.\n\"March Winds\" is possibly a fine stand-in for Zephyr. But the word March \nis a direct translation of 'Mars'. Mars is not associated with the \n_winds_ that arise during that time period. The object is different for \neach one. Do you see that one of these things is not like the others?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Regarding the evidence of dates: every bit of it can be answered.\nSeverian may be wrong about the date of the Conciliator. Cyriaca may\nbe wrong about the book - she's certainly wrong about some things. (I\nwas wrong, in any case, to say she says the book was several chiliads\nold; she says no one has looked at it for a chiliad, though that\nimplies it's considerably earlier than that.) A lot of early autarchs\nmay have had short reigns, which allowed the mountains to be carved\nquickly. (It's the number of autarchs, rather than the time it takes\nto carve a mountain, which is the problem.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Why should we assume that only autarchs carved their forms into \nmountains? I don't believe it is said so. Isn't that something any \nauthority would do if he had the means?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Thus, Wolfe was able to\nmake Typhon just a chiliad earlier without direct contradiction - its\nnot as if he had made Typhon say 'I was born five thousand eight\nhundred and forty-three years ago'. But a lot of people get the feel\nof a much earlier Typhon - all the bits of evidence seem naturally to\npoint to it. and are confused when, in_Short Sun_, the gap seems to\nbe much shorter." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "At the time, I had the feeling that Ymar's history was quite distant as \nwell. I found the date of 1000 years since Ymar to be quite jarring." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "James Wynn:\nBut we know more about Severian than anyone else in the book, yet beyond\nvery broad outlines (in some cases), he doesn't seem to map or be\nmappable. The whole bit about the Butcher and the wolves...and just\ncan't see how to force him into it. And there are elements that don't\nreally seem to work at all. Even after Urth of the New Sun, the\nend-story doesn't look like Severian at all. That flood would be hard to\nmiss." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But I don't think the myth has to be applicable in every detail. The\nmyths which are applied to Jesus don't fit him in every detail;\n_Frankenstein_ doesn't fit Baldanders in every detail (though, come to\nthink of it, his backward influence may explain why so many people\nconfuse the creator with the monster)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This not the same as either of those. Those are merely references (one \nof them uniquely declared as a reference). This is more -- or at least \nquite different. Wolfe didn't have anyone retell the story of \nFrankenstein badly. Because that would be stupid. By the same token, I \njust don't believe Wolfe would tell this story as you say he is. This is \nlike Severian finding the Lunar Landing portrait with Rudisen. He \ndoesn't recognize the character (at least not at the time), but _we_ are \nexpected to divine *some* of its meaning from details in the story. This \nis a story told in intricate detail in the characters are merely \nthrice-removed in narration. The story must be able to fit in every \ndetail or explain why it doesn't. For example, I recognize that Typhon's \nmother's name was not \"June \" or \"Juno\" or anything like it. The same is \ntrue for \"Bird of the Woods\". Those name were applied to those \ncharacters BECAUSE the compilers didn't have their actual names and \nbelieved, wrongly, that the story Romulus was an alternated telling of \nthe same story--because the stories ARE so similar." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The story follows the myths so\nclosely (counting_The Jungle Book_ as a myth, as it will be by then),\n that I don't think it can apply in detail to any future person,\nunless his life bore an incredibly close resemblance to the myths." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I keep using people who equate Jesus with Dionysus or Mithras. \nAdditionally, the other dying gods who St. Justin argued against \nequating with Jesus in the 2nd century. Wolfe's opinion is not like \nJustin's. It's closer to CS Lewis'. Wolfe believes that the myths come \nto us from an eternal pattern and, presumably, he believes Jesus is the \nfulfillment of that pattern. That we are hard-wired to detect that \neternal pattern because it is \"real\". Lee mentions Alexander. Alexander \nand King Arthur were real people whose deeds were seen as fitting that \npattern as well, and therefore Alexander became a character of myth, and \nArthur of legend.\n\nBy the same token, the high-points of the story birth of Frog was, based \non evidence, close enough to the story of Romulus that an intellectually \nhonest scholar could conclude they were the same. It's the same \nsituation as the Frankenstein analogy (which might or might not be \ngenuine; I mean, how much could Dr. Talos be expected to know about \ntemporal ESP, after all)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Is that relevant, though? The gap the characters are trying to\ndetermine is between Rigoglio's departure (Typhon's time) and his\nreturn (Severian's time) - both on Urth. What the Rajan's home time\nis, on Blue, is another issue." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Is it necessary that the period at which Rigoglio dies be the same as \nthe one where they meet Severian? Aren't those separate trips?\n\nJ." } ] }, { "message_id": "<056D7D85F34B4CD79A081169A32DC748@jill>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2011-05-30T20:12:01+00:00", "subject": "(urth) More on Frog and Fish & Ymar", "in_reply_to": "<4DE3F0D4.8050701@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "[I can't interleaf my response due to the formatting.]\n\nI think you are over-interpreting here with regard to the name - or half the name - of Spring Wind.. Why do any scholars need to be involved at all? Somebody could have written down the story just as it had evolved to when he heard it. Bird of the Woods and Spring Wind might have got their names separately at any time during its evolution. Stories about talking wolves carrying knives do not have the air of a serious scholarly effort to uncover historical facts. Instead, I think, some scholar of a chiliad or two ago wrote it down along with all the other collected legends, just as it was told to him. \n\nMars might have become Spring Wind in various ways. The wind is actually mentioned in the story as having two interpretations. Perhaps Wolfe added that because the real reason he put it in was that he wanted a not-easily recognisable alternate name for Mars, but Spring was simply too short and obviously symbolic. \n\nBird of the Wood and Early Summer sound like real names, personalised and non-symbolic. Summer for a woman might not be too bad (perhaps because it is used in our culture today, though it is recent), but Spring for a man would instantly raise the question of what it means, and Wolfe wants that question to be secondary to the actual story of the people concerned. (As with everything else in his stories.)\n\nOn the separate matter of Rigoglio, I think you are right that there were separate visits, but surely there is every indication that the visits were to the same time period?\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n\n\n\n From: James Wynn \nAndrew Mason:\nI'm not sure why June is OK for Juno, but March is not OK for Mars.\n(We're asking what a redactor of the myth might think. What\nassociations the name might have outside the story, what symbolic\nvalue Wolfe might give it, is another question.)\n\n Because the \"redactors\" are not sloppy. That's the beauty of what Wolfe has done here. It is possible to imagine an intelligent scholar translating Juno as \"Early Summer\" and Rhea Silvia as \"woodland bird\" or Bird of the Woods. The name for the bird was chosen from the name of the goddess.\n \"March Winds\" is possibly a fine stand-in for Zephyr. But the word March is a direct translation of 'Mars'. Mars is not associated with the _winds_ that arise during that time period. The object is different for each one. Do you see that one of these things is not like the others?\n\n\n[--]Is that relevant, though? The gap the characters are trying to\ndetermine is between Rigoglio's departure (Typhon's time) and his\nreturn (Severian's time) - both on Urth. What the Rajan's home time\nis, on Blue, is another issue.\n Is it necessary that the period at which Rigoglio dies be the same as the one where they meet Severian? Aren't those separate trips?\n\n J.\n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n _______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DE3FE05.7020802@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-05-30T20:28:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) More on Frog and Fish & Ymar", "in_reply_to": "<056D7D85F34B4CD79A081169A32DC748@jill>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 5/30/2011 3:12 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n[I can't interleaf my response due to the formatting.]\nI think you are over-interpreting here with regard to the name - or \nhalf the name - of Spring Wind.. Why do any scholars need to be \ninvolved at all? Somebody could have written down the story just as \nit had evolved to when he heard it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There aren't any scholars. There is author. A very good one. He's shown \nhis skill with this sort of thing in the other two names. There's none \nof that skill on display in your interpretation of the name or story.\n\nJ" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2011-05-30T23:13:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) More on Frog and Fish & Ymar", "in_reply_to": "<4DE3FE05.7020802@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: James Wynn \n On 5/30/2011 3:12 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote: \n I think you are over-interpreting here with regard to the name - or half the name - of Spring Wind.. Why do any scholars need to be involved at all? Somebody could have written down the story just as it had evolved to when he heard it. \n\n There aren't any scholars. There is author. A very good one. He's shown his skill with this sort of thing in the other two names. There's none of that skill on display in your interpretation of the name or story.\n\nI don't understand how you draw that conclusion. Somebody collected a bunch of old legends a chiliad or three before Severian's time. From our vantage in prehistory, we can easily see the main sources of these tales (presumably neither ordinary people nor scholars of late Urth would have). The names may have been acquired at any time in the past, for any reason. \n\nRumpelstiltskin means something like 'poltergeist', which does not really fit the Grimm's story at all. Wikipedia doesn't tell me if the Grimms used the name because it sounded good, or because that name was traditional. Similar stories exist with different names. You can't place so great a stake on such a trivial thing, in my opinion.\n\nAnd I don't see what's so especially masterful about the name Bird of the Wood. At some time 'Rhea' was grossly misinterpreted. Perhaps out of a half-understanding of Latin, perhaps for fun [in truth, it's a typically Wolfean joke, and that is its real origin, a joke directed to the reader of BotNS by the 'translator' rather than the apparent author], perhaps because it sounded good. It's possible that the name originated with the person who finally wrote down the story in Severian's book, but it is at least as likely that the substitution happened long long ago at the hands of some unknown Homer.\n\nYour thesis that the writer mistook the story (whose roots we know) for a story about the deeds of Typhon does not ring true to me. It's just an ancient story, I believe. Spring Wind is Mars, maybe with some random accretions but nothing that obviously comes from Typhon. Somehow over chiliads of retelling, the story of Romulus and Remus became associated with the story of The Jungle Book. Some names got changed in various ways. \n\nIf another story conflates the Monitor and the Minotaur, can we really say that names mean anything?\n\nI don't agree with you aesthethically about what you see as deficiencies in the name 'Spring Wind', and I also don't agree that Wolfe needed to embed any secret history of Urth in it. [I do see a possible secret history in the way the animals are seen as carrying hand weapons, just as the people in the antechamber imagined them. But I don't set too much store by this; Wolfe simply doesn't give us enough to go on to draw such conclusions.]\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DE4D58B.3020608@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-05-31T11:48:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) More on Frog and Fish & Ymar", "in_reply_to": "<4DE3F0D4.8050701@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 5/30/2011 3:32 PM, James Wynn wrote:\nWolfe believes that the myths come to us from an eternal pattern and, \npresumably, he believes Jesus is the fulfillment of that pattern. That \nwe are hard-wired to detect that eternal pattern because it is \n\"real\". Lee mentions Alexander. Alexander and King Arthur were real \npeople whose deeds were seen as fitting that pattern as well, and \ntherefore Alexander became a character of myth, and Arthur of legend." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is am excellent summary of Wolfe's attitude toward myth. Literally, \nto Wolfe, the story of Jesus/Christ is The Greatest Story Ever Told.\n\nYou mention green and blue and I'd be interested in your ideas there \ntoo. I just read mantis's great essay on why bears and wolves and cats \nkeep appearing too, and maybe they are related. Although his ideas \nsometimes seem about to run off into areas that your theory above does \nnot predict; that is, I think Wolfe is more purposeful than mantis suggests." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-05-31T14:46:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) More on Frog and Fish & Ymar", "in_reply_to": "<4DE4D58B.3020608@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "James Wynn: Wolfe believes that the myths come to us from an eternal pattern and, \npresumably, he believes Jesus is the fulfillment of that pattern. That \nwe are hard-wired to detect that eternal pattern because it is \n\"real\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Stockhoff: This is am excellent summary of Wolfe's attitude toward myth. Literally, \nto Wolfe, the story of Jesus/Christ is The Greatest Story Ever Told." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree. I think this is a great way to look at Wolfe's work. My own leaning is to \nattribute the Campbellian monomyth as a function of human psychology, culture and society.\nWhile clearly wolfe recognizes that, as a religious man, he is also likely to see a higher,\nspiritual basis for the monomyth pattern that goes beyond humanity. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DF4E2C0.7000305@poczta.fm>", "from": { "name": "Stanislaus B.", "address": "sbocian at poczta.fm" }, "date": "2011-06-12T16:01:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) More on Frog and Fish & Ymar", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Campbell's Monomyth is a distorted version of the mythical world-view. \nHe tries to reduce all myths to one myth - and this is his own invention.\n\nThe mythical worldview is that there is one superior world of gods - the \nTrue World, and the Secondary World in which we live. The true patterns \nfrom the True World are repeated many times in the Secondary World - but \neach time they are distorted by the matter and accidents, so the \nrepetitions are never exact. For that reason Poetry is more true than \nHistory.\n\nAristotle, Poetics:\n\nhttp://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.1.1.html\n\n\"Part IX\n\nIt is, moreover, evident from what has been said, that it is not the\nfunction of the poet to relate what has happened, but what may happen-\nwhat is possible according to the law of probability or necessity.\nThe poet and the historian differ not by writing in verse or in prose.\nThe work of Herodotus might be put into verse, and it would still\nbe a species of history, with meter no less than without it. The true\ndifference is that one relates what has happened, the other what may\nhappen. Poetry, therefore, is a more philosophical and a higher thing\nthan history: for poetry tends to express the universal, history the\nparticular. By the universal I mean how a person of a certain type\non occasion speak or act, according to the law of probability or necessity;\nand it is this universality at which poetry aims in the names she\nattaches to the personages. The particular is- for example- what Alcibiades\ndid or suffered.\"\n\n\nOr to quote the Fragment of Saga\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B6gubrot_af_Nokkrum\nhttp://www.oe.eclipse.co.uk/nom/Fragment.htm\n\"It happened that one night, as the king was sleeping on the poop-deck \nof his ship, that he dreamt that a great dragon flew out of the sea, \nsparks from it soaring into the sky like sparks from a forge, lighting \nup all the lands around it. And after it flew all the birds he thought \nthere were in the Northlands. Next he saw a great cloud come up from the \nnorth, and he sees that it brings with it such great rain and gales that \nhe thought all woods and all land would be washed away in the water that \nrained down. There was thunder and lightning with it. And when that \ngreat dragon flew from the sea onto the land, there came at him the rain \nand the storm and such great darkness that in a moment he could see \nneither the dragon nor the birds, though he heard a great din of the \nthunder and the storm, and it all went south and west over the land, and \nengulfed the whole of his realm. And he thought he looked towards the \nships then, and they were nothing but whales now, all of them, and they \nswim out to sea.\n\nAnd then he awoke and called to him his foster father Hord and tells him \nhis dream and asks him to interpret it. Hord declares himself too old to \nknow how to understand dreams. He was stood on a rock under the head of \nthe pier while the king lay on the poop-deck, lifting the edges of the \ntent, as they spoke.\n\nThe king was in a foul mood and said, “Come aboard, Hord, and interpret \nmy dream.”\n\nHord said he couldn’t come aboard, “but your dream needs no \ninterpreting. You can see for yourself what it means, and most likely it \nwon’t be long before there’s a change of rulers in Sweden and Denmark. \nAnd now the greed of the grave is on you, the hunger that betokens a \nman’s end, with this thought of yours to subjugate all the realms, but \nwhat you don’t know is that the outcome will be your death, and your \nenemies will have your kingdom.”\n\nThe king said, “Come here and speak your prophesies of doom!”\n\nHord said, “Here will I stand and from here speak them.”\n\nThe king said, “Who was Halfdan the Brave among the Aesir?”\n\nHord replies, “He was Baldr among the Aesir, and all the gods wept, not \nlike you.”\n\n“You speak well,” said the king. “Come here and tell me your tidings.”\n\nHord replies, “Here will I stand and from here tell them.”\n\nThe king asks, “Who was Hroerek among the Aesir?”\n\nHord replies, “He was Hoenir who was the most scared of the Aesir, \nthough he was bad to you.”\n\n“Who was Helgi the Bold among the Aesir,” says he king.\n\nHord replies, “He was Hermod who had the best of courage, and no good to \nyou.”\n\nThe king asked, “Who was Gudrod among the Aesir?”\n\nHord replies, “He was Heimdall, who was the most foolish of the Aesir, \nthough he was bad to you.”\n\nThe king said, “Who am I among the Aesir?”\n\nHord replies, “You must be the serpent that’s worst in the world, the \none they call the Midgard Serpent.”\n\nThe king answers, very angry, “If you pronounce my doom, then let me \ntell you you’ll live no longer, for I know you where you stand, you big \nboggart. [1] So get you to the Midgard Serpent, and let’s see which of \nus is best when push comes to shove.”\n\nThen the king sprang from the poop-deck, and he was so angry that he \nsprang out through the bottom edge of the tent. Hord dropped from the \nrock and plunged into the sea, and that was the last the watchmen aboard \nthe king’s ship saw of either of them.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "2011-05-31 16:46, Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "James Wynn: Wolfe believes that the myths come to us from an eternal pattern and,\npresumably, he believes Jesus is the fulfillment of that pattern. That\nwe are hard-wired to detect that eternal pattern because it is\n\"real\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "David Stockhoff: This is am excellent summary of Wolfe's attitude toward myth. Literally,\nto Wolfe, the story of Jesus/Christ is The Greatest Story Ever Told." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I agree. I think this is a great way to look at Wolfe's work. My own leaning is to\nattribute the Campbellian monomyth as a function of human psychology, culture and society.\nWhile clearly wolfe recognizes that, as a religious man, he is also likely to see a higher,\nspiritual basis for the monomyth pattern that goes beyond humanity. \t\t \t \t\t\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-06-14T12:16:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) More on Frog and Fish & Ymar", "in_reply_to": "<4DF4E2C0.7000305@poczta.fm>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Stanislaus B: The mythical worldview is that there is one superior world of gods\n- the True World, and the Secondary World in which we live. The true patterns \nfrom the True World are repeated many times in the Secondary World - but \neach time they are distorted by the matter and accidents, so the \nrepetitions are never exact. For that reason Poetry is more true than History." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nThis sentiment claws to the heart of the Sun Series for me, especially BotNS. \n \nIt may be that Wolfe considers the problem of which world to consider \"superior\" \nand \"True\" to be relativistic. That is, from a religious/mythological perspective,\nthe world of God(s) is the true one and our human world is a shadowy created \nreflection of that true world. While from a humanistic/scientific view, our world \nis the real one and the stories of God and gods is a shadowy reflection of our \nreality.\n\nThe circularity Wolfe gives humans and Hierogrammates in BotNS suggests to me he \nconsiders both perspectives to have equal footing and validity. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DF75372.4090701@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-06-14T12:26:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) More on Frog and Fish & Ymar", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes. Wolfe would be a pretty bad engineer if he believed our physical \nlaws to be mere shadows of the True Laws that rule a higher existence. \n(Consider how you would feel if your doctor told you that.) Or so I \nwould think.\n\nIn fact, one might argue that to even attempt to \"realistically\" depict \na \"higher\" universe is to bring it down to our level to begin with, \nputting them on a par with one another. The Celtic/pagan otherworld is a \nfar more useful fictional mode than the Christian, however much they \nhave in common. So this \"equal validity\" is crucial to Wolfe's fiction \nin more than one way." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 6/14/2011 8:16 AM, Lee Berman wrote:\nStanislaus B: The mythical worldview is that there is one superior world of gods\n- the True World, and the Secondary World in which we live. The true patterns\nfrom the True World are repeated many times in the Secondary World - but\neach time they are distorted by the matter and accidents, so the\nrepetitions are never exact. For that reason Poetry is more true than History." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This sentiment claws to the heart of the Sun Series for me, especially BotNS.\n\nIt may be that Wolfe considers the problem of which world to consider \"superior\"\nand \"True\" to be relativistic. That is, from a religious/mythological perspective,\nthe world of God(s) is the true one and our human world is a shadowy created\nreflection of that true world. While from a humanistic/scientific view, our world\nis the real one and the stories of God and gods is a shadowy reflection of our\nreality.\n\nThe circularity Wolfe gives humans and Hierogrammates in BotNS suggests to me he\nconsiders both perspectives to have equal footing and validity. \t\t \t \t\t\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DF79C22.5050707@poczta.fm>", "from": { "name": "Stanislaus B.", "address": "sbocian at poczta.fm" }, "date": "2011-06-14T17:36:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth) More on Frog and Fish & Ymar", "in_reply_to": "<4DF75372.4090701@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Engineering is a rather interesting discipline. It must take into \naccount both perspectives:\n- it absolutely depends on the Platonic world of mathematical formulas, \nwhich order the behaviour of the matter,\n- but it also must take into account that matter doesn't follow \nperfectly the patterns. Parts are designed with tolerances - how far can \nthey diverge from standard; machines wear out in predictable and \nunpredictable ways. Chaotic matter disturbs the perfect mechanism of \ncelestial wheels\n\nBut it is true that the default Western worldview puts much more trust \ninto the superior patterns than.did Greeks and Romans. For them, the \nmaterial world was irreparably corrupt; the reflections of the perfect \nheavenly system were rare, and were more often than not stifled by \nrandom chaos of matter. For us, everything goes according to \nmathematical patterns, and even random and chaotic events are ruled by \nthe rules of probabililty, quantum waves etc.\n\nBut there is also a third worldview - also perfectly known to Wolfe, who \nindeed explained it best. It is the eastern worldview, according to \nwhich reality is not an imperfect reflection of the perfect original - \nbut one which resembles it in large extent, but a random concatenation \nof unconnected factors, mostly having to do with emotions, which hides \nthe true reality. It is the worldview of Buddhism, and also of the most \npart of the modern philosophy. In it, the true reality is unknowable \n(transcendental, to Kant), and the scientific rules of the universe \nwhich we can learn are only artefact of our own mind - and have nothing \nto do with things in themselves.\n\nThis worldview, as I said, is popular in modern philosophy, for various \nreasons - it is both absolutely sceptic, because it holds that true \nreality is absolutely unknowable, and it also in effect identifies \nhumanity - represented by philosophers - with God. Since everything we \ncan know and experience are creations of our own mind, our mind creates \neverything which matters. We (or rather, I - because in reality every \nman is the same) are the creators of the universe. And we do not need to \nlearn - since our mind creates the world, we can deduct it from the \nfirst principles, or assume it to agree with our wishes.\n\nFor obvious reasons, this way of thinking is not very consistent with \nengineering. Engineers certainly can learn true laws of physics - this \nis how they make bridges which do not fall down. And they must confirm \nthose laws by experiment - Kantian assumptions won't keep the ship \nafloat. \"The comets do not follow my theories? So much the worse for \ncomets!\", or \"Give me matter, and I will construct a world out of it!\" - \nthose are not principles of a successful engineer.\n\nAnd, returning to the Neoplatonic worldview, with perfect originals and \nimperfect copies, there is an interesting variant of it. Generally, \noriginals are held to be earlier than copies. Originals are arches, \nprinciples, or, as it is called now, archetypes. But in Bible, the \nfinal, perfect originals will come at the end of the world. Until than, \nwe have to do with a series of types, imperfect shadows thrown before \nthe great events.\n\nhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/type.html\n\nThe following article on the typology of Scripture by William G. \nMoorehead is reproduced from /The International Standard Bible \nEncyclopedia/, ed. James Orr (Chicago: Howard-Severance Co., 1930), vol. \n5, pp. 3029-3030.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n TYPE\n\nThe Bible furnishes abundant evidence of the presence of types and of \ntypical instruction in the Sacred Word. The New Testament attests this \nfact. It takes up a large number of persons and things and events of \nformer dispensations, and it treats them as adumbrations and prophecies \nof the future. A generation ago a widespread interest in the study of \ntypology prevailed; latterly the interest has largely subsided, chiefly \nbecause of the vagaries and extravagances which attended its treatment \non the part of not a few writers. Pressing the typical teaching of \nScripture so far as to imperil the historical validity of God's word is \nboth dangerous and certain to be followed by reaction and neglect of the \nsubject.\n\n\n 1. Definition of Type\n\nThe word \"type\" is derived from a Greek term tupoV (/tupos/), which \noccurs 16 times in the New Testament. It is variously translated in the \nKing James Version, e.g. twice \"print\" (John 20:25 \n); \ntwice \"figure\" (Acts 7:43 \n; \nRomans 5:14 \n); \ntwice \"pattern\" (Titus 2:7 \n; \nHebrews 8:5 \n); \nonce \"fashion\" (Acts 7:44 \n); \nonce \"manner\" (Acts 23:25 \n); \nonce \"form\" (Romans 6:17 \n); \nand seven times \"example\" (1 Corinthians 10:6,11 \n; \nPhilippians 3:17 \n; \n1 Thessalonians 1:7 \n; \n2 Thessalonians 3:9 \n; \n1 Timothy 4:12 \n; \n1 Peter 5:3 \n). \nIt is clear from these texts that the New Testament writers use the word \n\"type\" with some degree of latitude; yet one general idea is common to \nall, namely, \"likeness.\" A person, event or thing is so fashioned or \nappointed as to resemble another; the one is made to answer to the other \nin some essential feature; in some particulars the one matches the \nother. The two are called type and antitype; and the link which binds \nthem together is the correspondence, the similarity, of the one with the \nother.\n\nThree other words in the New Testament express the same general idea. \nOne is \"shadow\" (skia, /skia/, Hebrews 10:1 \n), \n\"For the law having a shadow of the good things to come\"--as if the \nsubstance or reality that was still future cast its shadow backward into \nthe old economy. \"Shadow\" implies dimness and transitoriness; but it \nalso implies a measure of resemblance between the one and the other.\n\nThe second term is \"parable\" (parabolh, /parabole/, Hebrews 9:9 \n); \nthe tabernacle with its services was an acted parable for the time then \npresent, adumbrating thus the blessed reality which was to come.\n\nThe third term is \"copy\" or \"pattern\" (upodeigma, /hupodeigma/), a word \nthat denotes a sketch or draft of something future, invisible (Hebrews \n9:23 \n); \nthe tabernacle and its furniture and services were copies, outlines of \nheavenly things.\n\nTypes are pictures, object-lessons, by which God taught His people \nconcerning His grace and saving power. The Mosaic system was a sort of \nkindergarten in which God's people were trained in divine things, by \nwhich also they were led to look for better things to come. An old \nwriter thus expresses it: \"God in the types of the last dispensation was \nteaching His children their letters. In this dispensation He is teaching \nthem to put the letters together, and they find that the letters, \narrange them as they will, spell Christ, and nothing but Christ.\"\n\nIn creation the Lord uses one thing for many purposes. One simple \ninstrument meets many ends. For how many ends does water serve! And the \natmosphere: it supplies the lungs, conveys sound, diffuses odors, drives \nships, supports fire, gives rain, fulfills besides one knows not how \nmany other purposes. And God's Word is like His work, is His work, and, \nlike creation, is inexhaustible. Whatever God touches, be it a mighty \nsun or an insect's wing, a vast prophecy or a little type, He perfects \nfor the place and the purpose He has in mind.\n\n\n 2. Distinctive Features\n\nWhat are the distinctive features of a type? A type, to be such in \nreality, must possess three well-defined qualities. (1) It must be a \ntrue picture of the person or the thing it represents or prefigures. A \ntype is a draft or sketch of some well-defined feature of redemption, \nand therefore it must in some distinct way resemble its antitype, e.g. \nAaron as high priest is a rough figure of Christ the Great High Priest, \nand the Day of Atonement in Israel (Leviticus 16) must be a true picture \nof the atoning work of Christ. (2) The type must be of divine \nappointment. In its institution it is designed to bear a likeness to the \nantitype. Both type and antitype are preordained as constituent parts of \nthe scheme of redemption. As centuries sometimes lie between the type \nand its accomplishment in the antitype, of course infinite wisdom alone \ncan ordain the one to be the picture of the other. Only God can make \ntypes. (3) A type always prefigures something future. A Scriptural type \nand predictive prophecy are in substance the same, differing only in \nform. This fact distinguishes between a symbol and a type. A symbol may \nrepresent a thing of the present or of the past as well as of the \nfuture, e.g. the symbols in the Lord's Supper. A type always looks to \nthe future; an element of prediction must necessarily be in it.\n\n\n 3. Classification of Types\n\nAnother thing in the study of types should be borne in mind, namely, \nthat a thing in itself evil cannot be the type of what is good and pure. \nIt is somewhat difficult to give a satisfactory classification of \nBiblical types, but broadly they may be distributed under three heads: \n(1) Personal types, by which are meant those personages of Scripture \nwhose lives and experiences illustrate some principle or truth of \nredemption. Such are Adam, who is expressly described as the \"figure of \nhim that was to come\" (Romans 5:14), Melchizedek, Abraham, Aaron, \nJoseph, Jonah, etc. (2) Historical types, in which are included the \ngreat historical events that under Providence became striking \nforeshadowings of good things to come, e.g. the Deliverance from the \nBondage of Egypt; the Wilderness Journey; the Conquest of Canaan; the \nCall of Abraham; Deliverances by the Judges, etc. (3) Ritual types, such \nas the Altar, the Offerings, the Priesthood, the Tabernacle and its \nfurniture. There are typical persons, places, times, things, actions, in \nthe Old Testament, and a reverent study of them leads into a thorough \nacquaintance with the fullness and the blessedness of the word of God." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "2011-06-14 14:26, David Stockhoff wrote:\nYes. Wolfe would be a pretty bad engineer if he believed our physical \nlaws to be mere shadows of the True Laws that rule a higher existence. \n(Consider how you would feel if your doctor told you that.) Or so I \nwould think.\n\nIn fact, one might argue that to even attempt to \"realistically\" \ndepict a \"higher\" universe is to bring it down to our level to begin \nwith, putting them on a par with one another. The Celtic/pagan \notherworld is a far more useful fictional mode than the Christian, \nhowever much they have in common. So this \"equal validity\" is crucial \nto Wolfe's fiction in more than one way.\n\nOn 6/14/2011 8:16 AM, Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Stanislaus B: The mythical worldview is that there is one superior \nworld of gods\n- the True World, and the Secondary World in which we live. The true \npatterns\nfrom the True World are repeated many times in the Secondary World - \nbut\neach time they are distorted by the matter and accidents, so the\nrepetitions are never exact. For that reason Poetry is more true \nthan History." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "This sentiment claws to the heart of the Sun Series for me, \nespecially BotNS.\n\nIt may be that Wolfe considers the problem of which world to consider \n\"superior\"\nand \"True\" to be relativistic. That is, from a religious/mythological \nperspective,\nthe world of God(s) is the true one and our human world is a shadowy \ncreated\nreflection of that true world. While from a humanistic/scientific \nview, our world\nis the real one and the stories of God and gods is a shadowy \nreflection of our\nreality.\n\nThe circularity Wolfe gives humans and Hierogrammates in BotNS \nsuggests to me he\nconsiders both perspectives to have equal footing and validity.\n_______________________________________________" } ] } ] }