Subject: (urth) Horns abilities

From: larry miller <biglar1984 at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:40:30 +0000

Can anyone tell me why Horn is able to get inside and change the
stories being told in In Greens Jungles?

---

From: António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:54:27 +0000

> stories being told in In Greens Jungles?

I must be losing it - I knew the answer to this question and I can't recall it.

Also, does anyone remeber the part where dream Fava wants to know where the 
kitchen is? I also knew perfectly why she did - and can't recall it.

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:23:47 +0000

Dream travel is time travel. Remember Pike's ghost?

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 26, 2011, at 6:40 AM, larry miller <biglar1984 at gmail.com> wrote:

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

---

From: entonio at gmail.com <entonio at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:35:59 +0000

I don't think that, even if it were true, has anything to do with it.

---

From: Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:56:09 +0000

--- On Wed, 10/26/11, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: (urth) Horns abilities
> To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
> Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2011, 6:23 AM

My position, too.  For sure.  and I rather like the little doll in the dreams as mucor teaming up with fava spirit (or whoever is dead).

Dream travel is definitely time travel.

---

From: Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:04:13 +0000

What's the deal with it being semi-physical?  Is it 'out of body' even
though you can physically influence stuff in the place you 'go' to?  It's
one of the weirdest things I've ever seen (because it's not as simple as
time travel on one hand or visions on the other, etc.).  And Wolfe's
introduction and development of it narratively (especially in In Green's
Jungles) is one of the most jaw-dropping, mind-bending experiences I've had
in reading.

-DOJP

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com> wrote:

> My position, too.  For sure.  and I rather like the little doll in the
> dreams as mucor teaming up with fava spirit (or whoever is dead).
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111026/9697c715/attachment.htm>

---

From: António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:09:35 +0000

Marc Aramini wrote (26-10-2011 15:56):
>
>
> --- On Wed, 10/26/11, James Wynn<crushtv at gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> From: James Wynn<crushtv at gmail.com>
>> To: "The Urth Mailing List"<urth at lists.urth.net>
>> On Oct 26, 2011, at 6:40 AM, larry miller<biglar1984 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>

It can't be 'definitely' since there's no consensus, but *even if it were*, 
how does dream travel account for Incanto inserting himself into the stories 
while they're being told, *to the knowledge* of the storytellers?

---

From: Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:12:20 +0000

--- On Wed, 10/26/11, Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>
> Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2011, 8:09 AM
> > --- On Wed, 10/26/11, James Wynn<crushtv at gmail.com>?
> wrote:
> >
> >>> Can anyone tell me why Horn is able to get
> inside and
> >> change the
> > My position, too. For sure. and I rather
> like the little doll in the dreams as mucor teaming up with
> fava spirit (or whoever is dead).
> >

Bill and Ted stuff, he hears the story and makes  a decision to leave the trash can where it can fall in a few minutes or later that night.

---

From: Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:13:58 +0000

> >>> stories being told in In Greens Jungles?

consensus doesn't matter for definitely.  I hate to say it but it's true.  The earth is definitely not entirely flat whether we all agree or not.  I am definitely not bald even if you think I am or might be.

---

From: António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:15:18 +0000

Marc Aramini wrote (26-10-2011 16:12):
>
>
> --- On Wed, 10/26/11, Ant?nio Pedro Marques<entonio at gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> From: Ant?nio Pedro Marques<entonio at gmail.com>

You'll have to elaborate.

---

From: António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:16:12 +0000

> consensus doesn't matter for definitely.  I hate to say it but it's true.  The earth is definitely not entirely flat whether we all agree or not.  I am definitely not bald even if you think I am or…

I chose the word 'consensus' precisely because it doesn't mean 'unanimity'.

---

From: Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:21:11 +0000

> I chose the word 'consensus' precisely because it doesn't

In Bill and Ted, a garbage nonsense movie, their ability to influence the course of events is absurdly "ghost in the machine" type stuff.  They need help out of a tight spot so they simple say stuff like, "Let's not forget to provide for that eventuality and aid ourselves later by coming back in time and fixing it."  Then, they are instantly aided.  

The system of cause and effect is reversed and undermined, and I think the same thing is ocurring in the Wolfe story.  And I'm telling you it's definitely time travel related in one fashion whether anyone on earth except one or three other men agree with me or not, that's all there is to it.  A woman knows the child is hers, a man has faith that it is.  That's all I want to say on it.

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:30:32 +0000

>> consensus doesn't matter for definitely.  I hate to say it but it's 
>> true.  The earth is definitely not entirely flat whether we all agree 
>> or not.  I am definitely not bald even if you think I am or might be.
>

In the 14th century, the Earth definitely revolved around the Sun even 
if only Copernicus said so.

There is simply no other reasonable explanation, given the context, for 
Pike's sparkly disapperating ghost and the astral flying Oreb Silk also 
meets upstairs at a time when Oreb's wing is damaged.
Combine that with Rajan appearing in the grandmother's tale, and the 
timelines not matching for when Horn left, Hide left, Hoof left, and the 
ages of Sinew's sons -- well, dream-travel is time travel.

J.

---

From: Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:51:23 +0000

'There is simply no other reasonable explanation, given the context, for
Pike's sparkly disapperating ghost'

Does 'reasonable' here = naturalistic?  Are we not allowing for any 'real'
(traditionally construed - i.e. spirits of the dead) ghosts in Wolfe's
cycle?  (Or is there something about the context you mention that requires a
non-supernatural account in this particular case?)

-DOJP
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111026/728c4a07/attachment.htm>

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:56:43 +0000

On 10/26/2011 10:51 AM, Daniel Petersen wrote:
> 'There is simply no other reasonable explanation, given the context, 
> for Pike's sparkly disapperating ghost'
>
> Does 'reasonable' here = naturalistic?  Are we not allowing for any 
> 'real' (traditionally construed - i.e. spirits of the dead) ghosts in 
> Wolfe's cycle?  (Or is there something about the context you mention 
> that requires a non-supernatural account in this particular case?)
> -DOJP
>

Not give the subsequent appearance of astral Oreb.

Otherwise, I'd accept the appearance as a Gothic-style ghost, although a 
weird one. When such ghosts appear they don't typically wave like a 
tourist at Disneyland. Nor disappear like James T. Kirk being beamed up.

J.

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:57:59 +0000

>
>
>     > On Oct 26, 2011, at 6:40 AM, larry miller <biglar1984 at gmail.com
>     <mailto:biglar1984 at gmail.com>>
>     > wrote:
>     > From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com <mailto:crushtv at gmail.com>>
>     > To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net
>     <mailto:urth at lists.urth.net>>
>     Marc Aramini wrote:
>     My position, too.  For sure.  and I rather like the little doll in
>     the dreams as mucor teaming up with fava spirit (or whoever is
>     dead). Dream travel is definitely time travel.
>
>
On 10/26/2011 10:04 AM, Daniel Petersen wrote:
> though you can physically influence stuff in the place you 'go' to?  
> It's one of the weirdest things I've ever seen (because it's not as 
> simple as time travel on one hand or visions on the other, etc.).  And 
> Wolfe's introduction and development of it narratively (especially in 
> In Green's Jungles) is one of the most jaw-dropping, mind-bending 
> experiences I've had in reading.
> -DOJP

They are disembodied spirits (ghosts, if you will) with bodies fashioned 
from "dream-stuff". Thus they can die in dream-travel and their bodies 
remain. Their bodies that they left, are not killed in that case, but 
are left senseless and souless. If your sleeping body dies in dream-travel,

-----------------
"Do you recall how, when you were hardly more than a boy, I taught you 
the art by which we flesh sons from dream stuff?"
[...]
"For though he did not know why, being of the stuff of dreams he was
drawn to her; and she, whose eyes held starlight, to him."
Chapter 17, Claw of the Concilliator

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111026/5315c8cd/attachment-0001.htm>

---

From: Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:01:52 +0000

Great, thanks for that clarification.  My evidential assessment of your
position will have to await my re-read of Long Sun, but I now see the
analytic validity of your view.  It seems a fair enough line of reasoning.

-DOJP

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 4:56 PM, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote:

> weird one. When such ghosts appear they don't typically wave like a tourist
> at Disneyland. Nor disappear like James T. Kirk being beamed up.
>
> J.
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Urth Mailing List
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111026/917112f9/attachment.htm>

---

From: Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:13:22 +0000

*They are disembodied spirits (ghosts, if you will) with bodies fashioned
from "dream-stuff". Thus they can die in dream-travel and their bodies
remain. Their bodies that they left, are not killed in that case, but are
left senseless and souless. If your sleeping body dies in dream-travel,

-----------------
"Do you recall how, when you were hardly more than a boy, I taught you the
art by which we flesh sons from dream stuff?"
[...]
"For though he did not know why, being of the stuff of dreams he was
drawn to her; and she, whose eyes held starlight, to him."
Chapter 17, Claw of the Concilliator*

Great connections with the quotes from Claw!  It still looks slightly more
complicated and mysterious than just this though.  For example, Horn can
form a sword from dream stuff apparently and then actually cut physical
things on Green with it.  It's one thing for a ghost to throw plates that
break.  But it's another for the ghost to form a dream-plate or spirit-plate
and the plate manages to leave a shiner on the eye of the person hit by it.
(Even though eventually no other evidence of the plate's existence will
remain.)

-DOJP

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 4:57 PM, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote:

>> dreams as mucor teaming up with fava spirit (or whoever is dead). Dream
>> travel is definitely time travel.
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111026/0dcca4cf/attachment.htm>

---

From: António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:22:43 +0000

Marc Aramini wrote (26-10-2011 16:21):
> In Bill and Ted, a garbage nonsense movie, their ability to influence the
> course of events is absurdly "ghost in the machine" type stuff.  They
> need help out of a tight spot so they simple say stuff like, "Let's not
> forget to provide for that eventuality and aid ourselves later by coming
> back in time and fixing it."  Then, they are instantly aided.

That still doesn't explain the scene at the dinner table. Should Incanto 
'dream travel' into the original setting of stories at some point (either 
before, during, or after they're being told) (a thing for which there isn't 
any evidence at all), the storytellers wouldn't be able to tell he had done so.

> The system of cause and effect is reversed and undermined, and I think
> the same thing is ocurring in the Wolfe story.  And I'm telling you it's
> definitely time travel related in one fashion whether anyone on earth
> except one or three other men agree with me or not, that's all there is
> to it.  A woman knows the child is hers, a man has faith that it is.
> That's all I want to say on it.

There are two separate issues here:

- whether it is definite for you
- whether it is consensual

Yes, it may be definite for you; however, for you to say it is definite, not
qualified explicitly or by context, and not expect others to complain, it
also has to be consensual.

---

From: António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:28:21 +0000

James Wynn wrote (26-10-2011 16:30):
>>> consensus doesn't matter for definitely. I hate to say it but it's true.
>>> The earth is definitely not entirely flat whether we all agree or not. I
>>> am definitely not bald even if you think I am or might be.
>>
> In the 14th century, the Earth definitely revolved around the Sun even if
> only Copernicus said so.
>

I've already assumed for the sake of discussion that time travel is 
available to Incanto. I still don't see how it allows him to manipulate the 
stories. Yes, it may explain his presence in the grandmother's (but then 
again, that's about the most convincing evidence for time travel, so if it 
can have a different explanation then there goes the evidence), but not the 
others, nor the fact that they notice they're being manipulated.

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:28:57 +0000

Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:

> Should Incanto

Ummmmm.

It seems to me that Wolfe is deliberately posing a dilemma about
memory (and time-travel) with Incanto's dream-travel. When he changes
something in someone's past, they remember it both the "new" way and
the "old" way. Now, if he "really" changed the past, they should
remember it "only" the "new" way -- the "old" way now always never
happened. But if he doesn't, then what is he changing? "Only" the
memories of the person telling the story? Yet, the changes seem to
have "real" consequences; and, again, if he really _changed_ their
memories, they should not remember the pre-change version. Or should
they?

I believe that the point here is that this is something that can
_only_ happen in a text...and a text of a particular kind (Postmodern
SF) at that.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:39:26 +0000

> _only_ happen in a text...and a text of a particular kind (Postmodern

Let's be economical. They're telling stories. The stories set off as 
biographical, but there's no reason they must remain accurate. Just because 
they insert some character into a story they're telling which started off as 
biographical, it doesn't follow that they think the characater really 
existed in their lives. If I tell some story about my childhood and at some 
point put Kirsten Dunst in it, it doesn't follow that I suddenly think 
Kirsten Dunst was part of my childhood.

---

From: Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:40:51 +0000

*I believe that the point here is that this is something that can
_only_ happen in a text...and a text of a particular kind (Postmodern
SF) at that.

--
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes*

I suspect with Catholic supernatural realists like Wolfe, R. A. Lafferty,
and Tim Powers, you have to be careful not to limit super-temporal or
super-physical phenomena to the text only.  I bet they think 'real'
(extralinguistic) life is at least as weird as the weirdest text ever
written and probably more so.  You never know when a theological theme may
be lurking near (among other sorts).  As Tolkien famously remarked:  'It
does not do to leave a live [theological] dragon **out of your calculations,
if you live near him.'

-DOJP
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111026/869aba27/attachment.htm>

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:42:04 +0000

> Kirsten Dunst was part of my childhood.

But if you tell a story about your childhood, and _someone else_
causes you to put Kirsten Dunst into it, and afterwards you remember
Kirsten Dunst being a part of it ... well, that's a different
kettle-o'-fish entirely.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:45:50 +0000

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Daniel Petersen
<danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:

> does not do to leave a live [theological] dragon out of your calculations,
> if you live near him.'

Well, a fair point here. But in a story that is so much about the
telling of stories, something of the nature of storytelling seems to
be part of the story.

I agree with what you think Wolfe etc. think -- that is, I think that
reality is not only queerer than we think, it's queerer than we are
capable of thinking (or writing) about. But I _also_ think that there
are some things that are artifacts of writing and are possible only in
texts (though I mean much more by "write" and "text" than you probably
think: as Frere Derrida says, we are never outside of the text).

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:47:00 +0000

> Kirsten Dunst being a part of it ... well, that's a different

Yes, but we're missing the 'afterwards you remember Kirsten Dunst being a 
part of it' part. It may be there, but I don't remember it.

---

From: Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:56:57 +0000

*On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>wrote:

...something of the nature of storytelling seems to
be part of the story*

Oh yes, definitely.  The supernatural realism and concern with stories and
storytelling are not at all mutually exclusive - in fact, they're pretty
much guaranteed to be inextricably bound together for Wolfe.

*...reality is not only queerer than we think, it's queerer than we are
capable of thinking (or writing) about. But I _also_ think that there
are some things that are artifacts of writing and are possible only in
texts (though I mean much more by "write" and "text" than you probably
think: as Frere Derrida says, we are never outside of the text).*

I won't pretend to completely understand the metaphysical view you're
alluding to without a lengthy discussion over some pints, but I think I'm
sympathetic to one degree or another.  The Catholic writers (and other
non-reductionist writers) aren't committed to a view of reality that knows
no difference between text and world.  It's just that we are best to bet
there's usually an open door of possibility for even the wildest phenomena
of the text to be extra-textual phenomena too.

-DOJP
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111026/bd708acb/attachment.htm>

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:05:58 +0000

Daniel Petersen wrote:
> The Catholic writers (and other
> no difference between text and world.

Remember that for us (I too am an adult convert to Catholicism, among
other things) the wor(l)d was spoken -- is in itself a kind of text.
The Word of God was made flesh, and indeed has its point-of-origin in
some sense in the flesh; it is always already _incarnate_ (i.e., not
merely spoken but written). The spoken word of God is the Act of
Creation: Let there be <foo> and there was <foo> .

> It's just that we are best to bet

What I am saying is that there _are_ no extra-textual phenomena: all
phenomena are in some sense textual. I think that to understand what
Wolfe is doing here we must understand not only the textuality of the
text but the _radical_ textuality of the "internal" reality of his
stories.

Also, Wolfe messes with unreliable narrators. Now, when a narrator
inside a story told by an unreliable narrator tells a story, is that
story (and that narrator) reliable? Why or why not? What _is_ there
for us to interpret, but the text and its intertextuality?

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:20:35 +0000

> also has to be consensual.

I don't expect consensus anymore (it's not useful at all when discussing Wolfe), but I do believe in absolute truth.  Complaints are simply not relevant in this particular case, for a lot of reasons, not necessarily explicit but neither entirely non-contextual.  I would like to bury it there.  

Complaining and gnashing of teeth cannot unmake reality, unless Silk is meddling in these posts.

---

From: Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:29:33 +0000

*I too am an adult convert to Catholicism, among
other things*

You've converted as an adult to other religions as well?  Heh, heh, just
jokin'.

*the wor(l)d was spoken -- is in itself a kind of text.
The Word of God was made flesh, and indeed has its point-of-origin in
some sense in the flesh; it is always already _incarnate_ (i.e., not
merely spoken but written). The spoken word of God is the Act of
Creation*

Well, I admit I didn't expect you to go there, but, yeah, if we're talking
about a Logos-cosmos when we say things like 'the world is text' or what
have you, then I'm right there with you.  That's the metaphysics I think
Wolfe brings to his craft - and the craft is richer for it in my opinion.

(Incidentally, I accept such a worldview as well, though not myself RC - a
lowly Proddy I'm afraid - we can't seem to make any great authors of our own
so we are ever the barnacles on the great RC writers - though I'm proud to
steal a ride from such legendary vessels as Chesterton, Wolfe, O'Connor,
Percy, Lafferty, etc.)

*I think that to understand what
Wolfe is doing here we must understand not only the textuality of the
text but the _radical_ textuality of the "internal" reality of his
stories.*

Don't think I understand this bit.

*What _is_ there
for us to interpret, but the text and its intertextuality?*

I'm not sure Wolfe ever gets so far down inside a narratological rat's nest
that he or we can never emerge.  From interviews I'd say he definitely
envisions us going all the way through the labyrinth and out again,
bewildered and humbled, yes, but also wiser and nobler.  We readers have a
hard time trusting him about this and even wonder if it's just one more lie,
I think.  But I have to say, without any thought as to whether I ever
understand even a small percent of the intertextual mysteries he delivers, I
do trust his face-value claim that he's not just trying to irretrievably
confuse his readers.  (I'm not saying this because I think you, Dan'l,
mistrust Wolfe's claim - I don't know one way or the other.  It just occurs
to me in thinking of being potentially locked only into his 'internal'
text.)

I guess I mean that I don't think unreliability is the last word in Wolfe,
even though he has made such extensive use of it.

-DOJP
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111026/a46867cc/attachment.htm>

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:09:11 +0000

Daniel Petersen wrote:
> I too am an adult convert to Catholicism, among
> other things

> You've converted as an adult to other religions as well? Heh, heh, just

Other philosophies, to be sure.

> Wolfe brings to his craft - and the craft is richer for it in my opinion.

I agree.

> steal a ride from such legendary vessels as Chesterton, Wolfe, O'Connor,

Oh, but! You have such giants as LaHaye and Jenkins!

(Ducking and running...)

Seriously, there are some pretty darn good Protestant writers,
starting with Lewis and Williams (though they're both pretty
high-church, in Williams's case so high it's basically Catholic Lite).

>> I think that to understand what

> Don't think I understand this bit.

What I am saying is that inside the text there is nothing but more
text. If there is anything "extra-textual," it is what _we_ bring to
the text. ("Behind our efforts, let there be found our efforts.") The
text is composed of signifiers, which (can) signify only because they
are part of the web (_textus_) of other signifiers that constitutes
the text. As above, so below: the text is fractally textual, when you
dig down into it you find the structure of the larger text, repeated
to infinity (or as close to infinity as a human creator can manage).

> What _is_ there
> that he or we can never emerge.

What would it mean to "emerge"? To emerge from Wolfe's text is merely
to return to the larger textus of "reality," of which we are
signifying nodes ... but then, so is Wolfe's text, it is embedded in
the larger textus which allows it to signify.

> From interviews I'd say he definitely

I think Wolfe is a very tricksy writer, but honest in his way. Even
his unreliable narrators have their reliability -- once you decrypt
_why_ they are hiding you can decode _what_ is hidden. But Wolfe is
sometimes too tricksy for his own good and it can be hard to figure
out all the "why"s.

> to me in thinking of being potentially locked only into his 'internal'

I do indeed trust Wolfe's claim, but distrust his ability to _deliver_
on it. I don't think he deliberately creates insoluble puzzles, but I
suspect he becomes frustrated with our inability to find what, to him,
is so obvious. There's a passage in Campbell and Robinson's "Skeleton
Key to Finnegans Wake" where they say that Joyce is driven to his
obscurity because he is desperately trying to tell us something too
obvious for clarity, or something like that. I think that Wolfe is in
his way as obscure, and as brilliant, as Joyce -- and _far_ less
impressed with his own cleverness than Joyce was.

> even though he has made such extensive use of it.

I don't know if there can ever be a "last word" in any text as rich as
the Solar labyrinth, but I agree that, if there were, it would not be
unreliability. Wolfe is striving for clarity.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:15:20 +0000

On 10/26/2011 11:28 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
> available to Incanto. I still don't see how it allows him to 
> manipulate the stories. Yes, it may explain his presence in the 
> grandmother's (but then again, that's about the most convincing 
> evidence for time travel, so if it can have a different explanation 
> then there goes the evidence), but not the others, nor the fact that 
> they notice they're being manipulated. 

Which other stories are being manipulated? Analyzing them in detail 
might be revealing.

IMO, the grandmother's tale is merely confirmation for what is already 
revealed by the presence of the astral Oreb and (hence) the Rajan in 
"Lake of the Long Sun".

J.

---

From: Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:37:17 +0000

*Oh, but! You have such giants as LaHaye and Jenkins!

(Ducking and running...)*

I laid myself bare and you took full advantage.  As soon as I recover from
this dirty below the belt winding I shall thrash you soundly if I may but
find a way... (I was laughing aloud truth be told.)  Yes, the high churchman
Lewis and Williams are great and I'll happily claim them for my 'camp' (the
fine Cordwainer Smith fits here too I believe).  Of course, with Bunyan and
Milton we have some of the BEST EVER writers on our team.  Something just
seemed to go drastically wrong after the 17th century.

Good thoughts on the rest.  I'll have to ponder it all.  Especially some
idea of 'emerging' from Wolfe's text - a sense of 'completion' or having
journeyed *somewhere* during the immersion into his narratives.  I think
there must be something like this going on - no matter how otherwise
ever-open his texts remain.  (Probably something similar to going from Briah
'up' to the 'higher' universe (I forget the name - starts with 'Y'?) - the
journey's FAR from over, but you're definitely NOT where you started.

And I agree with you that Wolfe is probably sometimes too tricksy for his
own good - I trust his intentions but not necessarily his ability to deliver
- yes.  Good connection to Joyce studies too.

-DOJP

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111026/f46ccd49/attachment.htm>

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:44:40 +0000

Oh, I am so _embarassed_ not to have thought of Cordwainer Smith...

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Daniel Petersen
<danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:
> find a way... (I was laughing aloud truth be told.)? Yes, the high churchman
> journeyed somewhere during the immersion into his narratives. I think there
> must be something like this going on - no matter how otherwise ever-open his
> texts remain. (Probably something similar to going from Briah 'up' to the
> 'higher' universe (I forget the name - starts with 'Y'?) - the journey's FAR
> from over, but you're definitely NOT where you started.
>

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:12:41 +0000

> (Incidentally, I accept such a worldview as well, though not myself RC 
> - a lowly Proddy I'm afraid - we can't seem to make any great authors 
> of our own so we are ever the barnacles on the great RC writers - 
> though I'm proud to steal a ride from such legendary vessels as 
> Chesterton, Wolfe, O'Connor, Percy, Lafferty, etc.)

CS Lewis, Charles Williams, George MacDonald, John Bunyan.

Although, one does sense that Protestants prefer non-fiction. But they 
still represent.

J.

---

From: Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:49:57 +0000

George MacD!  How could I neglect to mention one of my all-time faves.
Well, thanks all for reminding me that Proddys do represent!  (Although it
seems to have been a suspiciously long while - anything since Smith in the
50s?  Walter Wangerin's Book of the Dun Cow from the late 70s is excellent
and he's a very good writer - but he didn't really pan out overall I
think.)  [Don't any of you *dare* mention that Legislation-cephalus fellow.]

-DOJP

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111026/46b7ac65/attachment.htm>

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:11:11 +0000

Oh, and. Madeleine L'Engle and Susan Cooper (both Anglican/Episcopal),
Connie Willis and Dr Seuss (Lutheran), Steven King and Jack Williamson
(Methodist), and Orson Scott Card if you want to count Mormons as a
kind of Protestants.

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Daniel Petersen
<danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:
> George MacD!? How could I neglect to mention one of my all-time faves.
> Well, thanks all for reminding me that Proddys do represent!? (Although it
> think.)? [Don't any of you dare mention that Legislation-cephalus fellow.]
>
> -DOJP
>
>>> (Incidentally, I accept such a worldview as well, though not myself RC -
>>> a lowly Proddy I'm afraid - we can't seem to make any great authors of our
>>> own so we are ever the barnacles on the great RC writers - though I'm proud
>>> to steal a ride from such legendary vessels as Chesterton, Wolfe, O'Connor,
>>> Percy, Lafferty, etc.)
>>

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:42:27 +0000

On 10/26/2011 3:11 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
> Orson Scott Card if you want to count Mormons as a
> kind of Protestants.

They, at least, think they are. And they definitely share in the 
Evangelical culture.

J.

---

From: Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 12:55:34 +0000

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes 

> memories, they should not remember the pre-change version. Or should
I’m staying out of this until I’ve re-read Short Sun, then I’ll come up with naturalistic explanations if I can!
I will note, however, that Master Ash interacts with Severian, even though he comes from one of multiple futures.  How well that ties in with time-travelling hierodules etc. is a question for another day.
- Gerry Quinn

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111027/c69f9d7d/attachment-0001.htm>

---

From: Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 12:58:01 +0000

From: Ant?nio Pedro Marques 

> part of it' part. It may be there, but I don't remember it.
Of course such things can happen in real life: see “recovered memory syndrome”.
- Gerry Quinn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111027/1f8fda73/attachment-0001.htm>