Pike's ghost
The Urth list — 344 messages, 15 voices, 22 Nov 2011
https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/6121
Andrew Mason22 Nov 2011, 17:31
?I haven’t managed to read everything posted over the last couple of weeks, so some of these points may already have been made, in which case apologies.
What can we know about Pike’s ghost? All Wolfe has explicitly said is that it isn’t Quetzal and it isn’t machine-generated, which leaves many possibilities. Elsewhere, though, he did say that he had put a ghost in one of his books to stop it being read simply as science fiction; and Pike’s ghost is the most likely candidate for this. So there is reason to think it’s a real ghost.
There are two bits of evidence that may be relevant to this. First, Mucor can travel outside her body — not only to possess others, but also to appear in disembodied form. Apart from her appearance in this scene she does so at least twice — on a pool in the tunnels, and on the airship. So it seems that disembodied spirits are possible. Perhaps they create a body out of air to make themselves visible.
Secondly, though this may be rather less certain, it looks as if, apart from the many ways the dead may be recalled — aquastors, mainframe gods etc. ? there is a real afterlife in the solar universe. The main evidence for this is Silk’s vision on the Aureate Path. I take it that the “he” who sends Silk’s parents is the Outsider, which suggests that they are coming from a real heaven.
If we put these two things together, ghosts — spirits of the dead travelling in disembodied form — certainly seem to be possible; so Pike’s ghost in and of itself is not particularly puzzling. What is puzzling is his turning up at the same time as Mucor and a duplicate Oreb — a rather weird coincidence, if it is one.
Regarding Mucor, Silk (talking to Mamelta) suggests that it was in fact she who summoned Pike’s spirit. It does not seem impossible that she has that power — though it would be helpful if she were seen to exercise it elsewhere. (Of course, knowing how Wolfe thinks, it’s not impossible he saw this as an obvious case of her summoning a spirit, which might then help us to interpret less obvious cases elsewhere.) I did once find an old theory in the archives in which Pike’s ghost turns up again later in the work (also in connection with Mucor); but rather sadly I decided it was unlikely to be true.
Now Oreb. I still think that, in the dark, through a curtain, Silk
might have mistaken something else for Oreb; but I can’t think who else it can be. If I remember rightly, Quetzal at this point hasn’t been alerted to Silk’s significance. So let’s accept that it’s Oreb. Well, since Oreb can’t fly at this moment, he must be travelling outside his body. Might it be that Mucor gives others the power to do so? It wouldn’t be too surprising if she could. Inhumi can travel astrally and can also enable others to do so. Hierogrammates and undines can walk the corridors of time and can also enable others to do so. Again, this can be seen as a set-up for her doing the same thing later, if a case of this can be found.
James Wynn22 Nov 2011, 20:27
↳ in reply to Andrew Mason
2 quoted lines
On 11/22/2011 11:31 AM, Andrew Mason wrote:
Regarding Mucor, Silk (talking to Mamelta) suggests that it was in fact she who summoned Pike’s spirit.
Andrew, I don't know if you saw my response to you on 11/9...
http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/2011-November/024264.html ... but at that point I posed that the Mucor traveling with "Pike's ghost" is Mucor from Blue on her mission to locate Silk for Horn.
Since I think that the Rajan MUST be able to Time-travel, it technically possible for him to bring her back in Time to Silk's room. Additionally, notice that there is a difference between the way she disapperates in Silk's room vs the way she disapperates in the tunnels and on the Trivigaunte floater. In those other situations, she slowly disappears into a green luminescence. In Silk's room, she dissolves into a mist, just as "the ghost" does.
Now, I want to include a another wrinkle I've been toying with and you might not have see it. I've always considered it a remarkable coincidence Horn was dying on Green just as Silk was killing himself in front of Hy's casket. But if dream-travel is Time-travel this would not have been a problem for the Neighbors. So is possible that when Horn starts his mission, Silk has already slashed his wrists. Consequently, when Mucor sets out for Silk the only one she finds is the Rajan. When she sees him, she recognizes him as Silk and tell him of her mission. He gives her the warning that Mucor will later deliver to Horn. But then he dutifully takes her to the past so she can "find Silk". When she sees where he has taken her, she realizes that this is not the Silk she is looking for ** so she returns to her body as all dream-travelers do, by waking up.
** If it seems that Wolfe did not provide enough clues for this, remember that this is the same thing as Auk kidnapping Hy for sacrifice and then realizing that "she was not the woman he was supposed to bring." There was no explanation of _that_internal struggle either.
All of this
does make it so that it is Mucor who summoned Pike's ghost, and it gives the Rajan a reason to do so beyond "That's what he's supposed to do."
Finally, it is important to remember that a ghost, strictly speaking, is the disembodied spirit of someone who has died. The Rajan denies that this is what they are to someone in Nessus. But it was technically true for the Rajan (that's the maximum irony) even if one believes as I do that Silk's spirit has been replaced by a Neighbor.
PS. I'm so happy to return to this subject. :-D
↳ in reply to James Wynn
2 quoted lines
On 11/22/2011 3:27 PM, James Wynn wrote:
** If it seems that Wolfe did not provide enough clues for this, remember that this is the same thing as Auk kidnapping Hy for sacrifice and then realizing that "she was not the woman he was supposed to bring." There was no explanation of _that_internal struggle either.
That was indeed a strange moment, seemingly at right angles to what the surface story required.
James Wynn22 Nov 2011, 20:58
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
James Wynn wrote:
** If it seems that Wolfe did not provide enough clues for this, remember that this is the same thing as Auk kidnapping Hy for sacrifice and then realizing that "she was not the woman he was supposed to bring." There was no explanation of _that_internal struggle either.
David Stockhoff wrote:
That was indeed a strange moment, seemingly at right angles to what the surface story required.
I should say that this event straddle's both my readings that Incus is female** and that Hy is the inhuma, Fava, in dream-travel. Hy was not the woman he should bring, but Incus was.
**Incidentally, recalled this statement by Incus in "Calde of the Long Sun": "I was born some seven years after my youngest sibling, Femur. Conceive of my parents' delight, I invite you, when the passing
days, weeks, months, and years showed ever
more plainly my predilection for a life of holy contemplation, of
worship and ritual, far from the bothersome exigencies that trouble the hours of most men."
"Femur" in Latin is //feminis// which also means "woman".
Assuming I am correct, this is another out-of-narrative hint (there seem to be only those for this) that Incus is female.
António Pedro Marques22 Nov 2011, 21:01
↳ in reply to James Wynn
James Wynn wrote (22-11-2011 20:27):
1 quoted line
Now, I want to include a another wrinkle I've been toying with and you might not have see it. I've always considered it a remarkable coincidence Horn was dying on Green just as Silk was killing himself in front of Hy's casket. But if dream-travel is Time-travel this would not have been a problem for the Neighbors. So is possible that when Horn starts his mission, Silk has already slashed his wrists. Consequently, when Mucor sets out for Silk the only one she finds is the Rajan. When she sees him, she recognizes him as Silk and tell him of her mission. He gives her the warning that Mucor will later deliver to Horn. But then he dutifully takes her to the past so she can "find Silk". When she sees where he has taken her, she realizes that this is not the Silk she is looking for ** so she returns to her body as all dream-travelers do, by waking up.
'[T]he only one she finds is the Rajan' implying that the Rajan was present in some place at that particular moment in time, with no other Silk present in any place at that particular moment in time.
James Wynn22 Nov 2011, 21:02
↳ in reply to James Wynn
2 quoted lines
On 11/22/2011 2:27 PM, James Wynn wrote:
Now, I want to include a another wrinkle I've been toying with and you might not have see it. I've always considered it a remarkable coincidence Horn was dying on Green just as Silk was killing himself in front of Hy's casket. But if dream-travel is Time-travel this would not have been a problem for the Neighbors. So is possible that when Horn starts his mission, Silk has already slashed his wrists. Consequently, when Mucor sets out for Silk the only one she finds is the Rajan. When she sees him, she recognizes him as Silk and tell him of her mission. He gives her the warning that Mucor will later deliver to Horn. But then he dutifully takes her to the past so she can "find Silk". When she sees where he has taken her, she realizes that this is not the Silk she is looking for ** so she returns to her body as all dream-travelers do, by waking up.
I wanted to also say that I need to break down the time-line as much as possible into days, weeks, months to see if I can show that Horn's travels and the Rajan's overlap.
James Wynn22 Nov 2011, 21:10
↳ in reply to António Pedro Marques
10 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
James Wynn wrote:
Now, I want to include a another wrinkle I've been toying with and
you might
not have see it. I've always considered it a remarkable coincidence
Horn was
dying on Green just as Silk was killing himself in front of Hy's
casket. But
if dream-travel is Time-travel this would not have been a problem for the Neighbors. So is possible that when Horn starts his mission, Silk has already slashed his wrists. Consequently, when Mucor sets out for Silk the only one she finds is the Rajan. When she sees him, she recognizes him as Silk and tell him of her mission. He gives her the warning that Mucor will later deliver to Horn. But then he dutifully takes her to the past so she can "find Silk". When she sees where he has taken her, she realizes that this is not the Silk she is looking for ** so she returns to her body as all dream-travelers do, by waking up.
Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
'[T]he only one she finds is the Rajan' implying that the Rajan was present in some place at that particular moment in time, with no other Silk present in any place at that particular moment in time.
Exactly. Thank you, Antonio.
Marc Aramini22 Nov 2011, 21:15
↳ in reply to James Wynn
I had thought about this a long time ago, but it gave me a very real headache.
22 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
--- On Tue, 11/22/11, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote: From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> Subject: Re: (urth) Pike's ghost To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net> Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 1:02 PM On 11/22/2011 2:27 PM, James Wynn wrote:
Now, I want to include a another wrinkle I've been
toying with and you might not have see it. I've always
considered it a remarkable coincidence Horn was dying on
Green just as Silk was killing himself in front of Hy's
casket. But if dream-travel is Time-travel this would not
have been a problem for the Neighbors. So is possible that
when Horn starts his mission, Silk has already slashed his
wrists. Consequently, when Mucor sets out for Silk the only
one she finds is the Rajan. When she sees him, she
recognizes him as Silk and tell him of her mission. He gives
her the warning that Mucor will later deliver to Horn. But
then he dutifully takes her to the past so she can "find
Silk". When she sees where he has taken her, she realizes
that this is not the Silk she is looking for ** so she
returns to her body as all dream-travelers do, by waking
up.
I wanted to also say that I need to break down the
time-line as much as possible into days, weeks, months to
see if I can show that Horn's travels and the Rajan's
overlap.
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Andrew Mason
2 quoted lines
On 11/22/2011 11:31 AM, Andrew Mason wrote:
Secondly, though this may be rather less certain, it looks as if, apart from the many ways the dead may be recalled — aquastors, mainframe gods etc. ? there is a real afterlife in the solar universe. The main evidence for this is Silk’s vision on the Aureate Path. I take it that the “he” who sends Silk’s parents is the Outsider, which suggests that they are coming from a real heaven.
You know, having come kicking and screaming to the conclusion that Silk is positively a clone of Typhon, this actually complicates Silk's encounter on the Aureate Path. Let's say two of his parents are Tussah and Silk's Mother. Who are the other two? Typhon as clone father? Okay. Maybe. So who is the other mother? Not Kyrpris or even Mamelta. "Early Summer"?
David Stockhoff22 Nov 2011, 21:24
↳ in reply to James Wynn
5 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 11/22/2011 4:10 PM, James Wynn wrote:
James Wynn wrote:
Now, I want to include a another wrinkle I've been toying with and you might not have see it. I've always considered it a remarkable coincidence Horn was dying on Green just as Silk was killing himself in front of Hy's casket. But if dream-travel is Time-travel this would not have been a problem for the Neighbors. So is possible that when Horn starts his mission, Silk has already slashed his wrists. Consequently, when Mucor sets out for Silk the only one she finds is the Rajan. When she sees him, she recognizes him as Silk and tell him of her mission. He gives her the warning that Mucor will later deliver to Horn. But then he dutifully takes her to the past so she can "find Silk". When she sees where he has taken her, she realizes that this is not the Silk she is looking for ** so she returns to her body as all dream-travelers do, by waking up.
Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
'[T]he only one she finds is the Rajan' implying that the Rajan was present in some place at that particular moment in time, with no other Silk present in any place at that particular moment in time.
Why is that not the Silk she is looking for?
James Wynn22 Nov 2011, 21:32
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
7 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
On 11/22/2011 3:24 PM, David Stockhoff wrote:
On 11/22/2011 4:10 PM, James Wynn wrote:
James Wynn wrote:
Now, I want to include a another wrinkle I've been toying with and you might not have see it. I've always considered it a remarkable coincidence Horn was dying on Green just as Silk was killing himself in front of Hy's casket. But if dream-travel is Time-travel this would not have been a problem for the Neighbors. So is possible that when Horn starts his mission, Silk has already slashed his wrists. Consequently, when Mucor sets out for Silk the only one she finds is the Rajan. When she sees him, she recognizes him as Silk and tell him of her mission. He gives her the warning that Mucor will later deliver to Horn. But then he dutifully takes her to the past so she can "find Silk". When she sees where he has taken her, she realizes that this is not the Silk she is looking for ** so she returns to her body as all dream-travelers do, by waking up.
Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
'[T]he only one she finds is the Rajan' implying that the Rajan was present in some place at that particular moment in time, with no other Silk present in any place at that particular moment in time.
Why is that not the Silk she is looking for?
Because she is looking for a Silk that Horn can bring to New Viron. If she takes this Silk then there will be no New Viron. Also, Wolfe seems to be excluding temporal paradoxes. Mucor will not make a decision to take Silk into the future since he has to stay and finish the story of The Book of the Long Sun.
David Stockhoff22 Nov 2011, 21:39
↳ in reply to James Wynn
9 quoted lines · 1–5 deep
On 11/22/2011 4:32 PM, James Wynn wrote:
On 11/22/2011 3:24 PM, David Stockhoff wrote:
On 11/22/2011 4:10 PM, James Wynn wrote:
James Wynn wrote:
Now, I want to include a another wrinkle I've been toying with and you might not have see it. I've always considered it a remarkable coincidence Horn was dying on Green just as Silk was killing himself in front of Hy's casket. But if dream-travel is Time-travel this would not have been a problem for the Neighbors. So is possible that when Horn starts his mission, Silk has already slashed his wrists. Consequently, when Mucor sets out for Silk the only one she finds is the Rajan. When she sees him, she recognizes him as Silk and tell him of her mission. He gives her the warning that Mucor will later deliver to Horn. But then he dutifully takes her to the past so she can "find Silk". When she sees where he has taken her, she realizes that this is not the Silk she is looking for ** so she returns to her body as all dream-travelers do, by waking up.
Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
'[T]he only one she finds is the Rajan' implying that the Rajan was present in some place at that particular moment in time, with no other Silk present in any place at that particular moment in time.
Why is that not the Silk she is looking for?
Because she is looking for a Silk that Horn can bring to New Viron. If she takes this Silk then there will be no New Viron. Also, Wolfe seems to be excluding temporal paradoxes. Mucor will not make a decision to take Silk into the future since he has to stay and finish the story of The Book of the Long Sun.
Ah, of course. All the more reason for Mucor not to make a speech like the ghost of Xmas Future.
Technically, she could have said, Psst, Silk---go to New Viron! But Silk would need more than that. Similarly, the Rajan did not need to take her so far back (at the lander would have been helpful), but I guess his time machine lacks precise controls.
James Wynn22 Nov 2011, 21:45
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
2 quoted lines
On 11/22/2011 3:39 PM, David Stockhoff wrote:
Technically, she could have said, Psst, Silk---go to New Viron! But Silk would need more than that. Similarly, the Rajan did not need to take her so far back (at the lander would have been helpful), but I guess his time machine lacks precise controls.
I suppose that I could rationalize that since neither she nor the Rajan had been to Silk and Hy's cabin before, he couldn't take her there.
Roy C. Lackey23 Nov 2011, 05:36
↳ in reply to James Wynn
2 quoted lines · depth 2
James Wynn wrote:
Now, I want to include a another wrinkle I've been toying with and you might not have see it. I've always considered it a remarkable coincidence Horn was dying on Green just as Silk was killing himself in front of Hy's casket. But if dream-travel is Time-travel
For the record, I don't believe that dream travel involves time travel. And, yes, I've seen what you regard as evidence, but I am not persuaded.
3 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
this would
not have been a problem for the Neighbors. So is possible that when Horn starts his mission, Silk has already slashed his wrists.
Consequently, when Mucor sets out for Silk the only one she finds is the Rajan.
[snip]
Let me see if I have this straight. You are suggesting that on the day Horn visited Mucor and Marble at Mucor's Rock, at the beginning of Horn's journey to Pajarocu, Silk was bleeding beside Hy's casket?
-Roy
Lee Berman23 Nov 2011, 13:29
↳ follows, by subject match Roy C. Lackey
4 quoted lines
James Wynn:
**Incidentally, recalled this statement by Incus in "Calde of the Long Sun": "I was born some seven years after my youngest sibling, Femur.
"Femur" in Latin is //feminis// which also means "woman".
Assuming I am correct, this is another out-of-narrative hint (there seem to be only those for this) that Incus is female.
There is something odd about the gender of Incus. I think that's clear.
I don't know if Wolfe was aware of and using the Latin version of femur as a play on the word "feminine". It may be. But I'm 100% sure he was aware of something else.
The femur is the biggest/longest bone in the human body. The incus (middle ear bone) is the smallest/shortest bone. Of 200+ bones Wolfe had to choose from, these two choices cannot be a coincidence.
It could simply designate the body size of Incus but that doesn't seem significant enough for such a cryptic but clearly presented puzzle to solve. If it relates to gender, as you propose, perhaps (ahem) the size of the bone is meant to reflect degree of maleness.
Is it possible Incus, instead of simply being female, is hermaphroditic or transgendered in some way? Consider the theories regarding Hyacinth's ambiguous gender, based both on mythology and textual clues. Doesn't this present a very clear reason for a confusion between Hyacinth and Incus?
James Wynn23 Nov 2011, 13:40
↳ in reply to Roy C. Lackey
3 quoted lines
Let me see if I have this straight. You are suggesting that on the day Horn visited Mucor and Marble at Mucor's Rock, at the beginning of Horn's journey to Pajarocu, Silk was bleeding beside Hy's casket?
-Roy
No. I am posing that Silk was bleeding before Hy's casket well before that day.
David Stockhoff23 Nov 2011, 14:35
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
2 quoted lines
On 11/23/2011 8:29 AM, Lee Berman wrote:
The femur is the biggest/longest bone in the human body. The incus (middle ear bone) is the smallest/shortest bone. Of 200+ bones Wolfe had to choose from, these two choices cannot be a coincidence.
Interesting observation.
1 quoted line
It could simply designate the body size of Incus but that doesn't seem significant enough for such a cryptic but clearly presented puzzle to solve. If it relates to gender, as you propose, perhaps (ahem) the size of the bone is meant to reflect degree of maleness.
Or something about small men and big women? Note Incus calls Femur a "sibling," not brother or sister. Seems generally to be a sexually ambiguous family!
1 quoted line
Is it possible Incus, instead of simply being female, is hermaphroditic or transgendered in some way? Consider the theories regarding Hyacinth's ambiguous gender, based both on mythology and textual clues. Doesn't this present a very clear reason for a confusion between Hyacinth and Incus?
Could it it be a flag for that ambiguity, rather than evidence either way?
Gerry Quinn23 Nov 2011, 14:57
↳ in reply to Andrew Mason
From: Andrew Mason
1 quoted line
What can we know about Pike’s ghost? All Wolfe has explicitly said is that it isn’t Quetzal and it isn’t machine-generated, which leaves many possibilities. Elsewhere, though, he did say that he had put a ghost in one of his books to stop it being read simply as science fiction; and Pike’s ghost is the most likely candidate for this. So there is reason to think it’s a real ghost.
I think this is reasonably likely. In its favour is the fact that the ghost was wearing Pike’s hat, which Silk had worn earlier that day in his expedition to Blood’s house. Not that I’m an expert in the occult, but that seems a possible way to attract a ghost. [Also, there is Blood’s genetic connection to Pike — hard to see how it fits in but I’ll set it down.]
My feeling, though, is that it’s not so much a ghost as a vision sent by the Outsider telling Silk he’s on the right track. But of course, this is something that can be both.
1 quoted line
If we put these two things together, ghosts — spirits of the dead travelling in disembodied form — certainly seem to be possible; so Pike’s ghost in and of itself is not particularly puzzling. What is puzzling is his turning up at the same time as Mucor and a duplicate Oreb — a rather weird coincidence, if it is one.
I don’t see Mucor’s appearance as a real problem. She is fascinated by Silk and is clearly following him since the exorcism. Next day she appears twice in the tunnels. She appears when Echidna possesses Marble, and nobody is saying that’s too much of a coincidence and Echidna must have brought her along. Even if Echidna likes her (didn’t she say that sometime?)
Oreb is the tricky one. Silk comes up with an explanation that is at least rational but nobody believes (maybe that’s a hint from Wolfe that the ghost is real). I’m not convinced by your idea that Mucor gives others special powers — I don’t remember any instances of it.
Assuming Silk saw a flying bird, the best explanation I can think of is that Mucor possessed a bird in order to search for Silk (it’s the first time she comes to him), but that also seems to lack justification elsewhere. It’s also possible, I think, that Silk caught a glimpse of Pike’s ghost (whatever it was) and imagined the bird. That also reduces the coincidence factor.
- Gerry Quinn
Lee Berman23 Nov 2011, 15:33
↳ follows, by subject match Gerry Quinn
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Is it possible Incus, instead of simply being female, is hermaphroditic or transgendered in some way? Consider the theories regarding Hyacinth's ambiguous gender, based both on mythology and textual clues. Doesn't this present a very clear reason for a confusion between Hyacinth and Incus?
David Stockhoff: Could it it be a flag for that ambiguity, rather than evidence either way?
Oh absolutely. Some quotes from Gene Wolfe interviews suggest that many of his "puzzles" are not meant to have specific solutions but merely hint at a certain theme. Surely other puzzles do have specific solutions and I think we can all admit that telling the difference is not always easy.
We have discussed a father-son-father theme which may reflect the Dionysus(primeval spirit)- Zeus(father)-Dionysus(son) connection. It likely also reflects the Roy Wolfe(father)- Gene Wolfe(author)-Roy Wolfe(son) trinity.
This discussion brings to mind an adjunct theme of manly father-effeminate son. We see that with Zeus and young Dionysus, surely. Phillip and young Alexander also. I don't know about the Wolfe family but I think it is there with Horn and Sinew/Krait. Pas and Silk also?
Interestingly it seems reversed with wimpy Ouen and boiled leather and horn Severian. Of course, Gene Wolfe was a younger author then. Ouen may reflect his own father. Roy-Gene-Roy? I get the sense that as a narrator, Wolfe matured from Severian into Horn.
Gerry Quinn23 Nov 2011, 15:50
↳ in reply to James Wynn
From: James Wynn
Roy Lackey:
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Let me see if I have this straight. You are suggesting that on the day Horn visited Mucor and Marble at Mucor's Rock, at the beginning of Horn's journey to Pajarocu, Silk was bleeding beside Hy's casket?
No. I am posing that Silk was bleeding before Hy's casket well before that day.
So either way Mucor was lying when she said she spoke to Silk. In either case, why didn’t she just tell Horn that Silk was dead?
Of course what Mucor says to Horn about the danger of finding Silk is mysterious anyway, and I do not have an explanation for it at this time.
- Gerry Quinn
James Wynn23 Nov 2011, 16:08
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
On 11/23/2011 9:50 AM,
6 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
From: James Wynn <mailto:crushtv at gmail.com>
Roy Lackey:
Let me see if I have this straight. You are suggesting that on the day Horn visited Mucor and Marble at Mucor's Rock, at the beginning of Horn's journey to Pajarocu, Silk was bleeding beside Hy's casket?
No. I am posing that Silk was bleeding before Hy's casket well before that day.
Gerry Quinn wrote:
So either way Mucor was lying when she said she spoke to Silk.
?!
Really? That's what it would boil down to for you?
1 quoted line
In either case, why didn't she just tell Horn that Silk was dead?
Because it is not that simple. I'm not sure she could have explained it to Horn even if she understood it.
Gerry Quinn23 Nov 2011, 16:18
↳ in reply to James Wynn
From: James Wynn
On 11/23/2011 9:50 AM,
8 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
From: James Wynn
Roy Lackey:
Let me see if I have this straight. You are suggesting that on the day Horn visited Mucor and Marble at Mucor's Rock, at the beginning of Horn's journey to Pajarocu, Silk was bleeding beside Hy's casket?
No. I am posing that Silk was bleeding before Hy's casket well before that day.
Gerry Quinn wrote:
So either way Mucor was lying when she said she spoke to Silk.
?!
Really? That's what it would boil down to for you?
Nobody said anything about “boiling down”. But it would be a facet of what happened, worthy of thinking about, no?
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
In either case, why didn’t she just tell Horn that Silk was dead?
Because it is not that simple. I'm not sure she could have explained it to Horn even if she understood it.
Fortunately we have you to explain it to us!
If Silk slit his wrists a long time previously, did Mucor time travel? Or see SilkHorn stumbling around Viron? If it was long enough ago he might have been already in Gaon, of course.
- Gerry
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes23 Nov 2011, 16:47
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
Ummm...I don't think Silk was bleeding before Hy's casket long before the events of Horn's journey OBW, or even during them. Reasoning: Hoof/Hide have become significantly older by the time the Narrator meets them. That already implies a significant time has passed since Horn left New Viron; it won't do to shorten that time by pushing Horn's entry into Silk's body back in time.
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
António Pedro Marques23 Nov 2011, 17:01
↳ in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote (23-11-2011 16:47):
1 quoted line
Ummm...I don't think Silk was bleeding before Hy's casket long before the events of Horn's journey OBW, or even during them. Reasoning: Hoof/Hide have become significantly older by the time the Narrator meets them. That already implies a significant time has passed since Horn left New Viron; it won't do to shorten that time by pushing Horn's entry into Silk's body back in time.
They only have to do the opposite and say that Silk was bleeding long after Horn was dying on Green.
James Wynn23 Nov 2011, 17:14
↳ in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
2 quoted lines
On 11/23/2011 10:47 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
Ummm...I don't think Silk was bleeding before Hy's casket long before the events of Horn's journey OBW, or even during them. Reasoning: Hoof/Hide have become significantly older by the time the Narrator meets them. That already implies a significant time has passed since Horn left New Viron; it won't do to_shorten_ that time by pu
Actually, although I have not broken down the time-line for the SS to weeks and months, I believe the time for the return of meeting Hide/Hoof is much shorter than I expected (based on when they say they left home). I've often said that the time-line SS is screwy and this was part of what I was referring to. Kids grow very fast at Hoof and Hide's age.
James Wynn23 Nov 2011, 17:19
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
7 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
From: James Wynn <mailto:crushtv at gmail.com>
No. I am posing that Silk was bleeding before Hy's casket well before that day.
Gerry Quinn wrote:
So either way Mucor was lying when she said she spoke to Silk.
?!
Really? That's what it would boil down to for you?
Nobody said anything about "boiling down". But it would be a facet of what happened, worthy of thinking about, no?
I don't think it comes down to lie.
3 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
In either case, why didn't she just tell Horn that Silk was dead?
Because it is not that simple. I'm not sure she could have explained it to Horn even if she understood it.
Fortunately we have you to explain it to us!
Hm. [I have unrecorded thoughts here. Use the powers of subtext to divine them.]
1 quoted line
If Silk slit his wrists a long time previously, did Mucor time travel? Or see SilkHorn stumbling around Viron? If it was long enough ago he might have been already in Gaon, of course.
It would be the most self-evidently convenient if he met Mucor "on mission" after he arrived at Blanco.
Gerry Quinn23 Nov 2011, 17:55
↳ in reply to James Wynn
From: James Wynn
1 quoted line
If Silk slit his wrists a long time previously, did Mucor time travel? Or see SilkHorn stumbling around Viron? If it was long enough ago he might have been already in Gaon, of course.
It would be the most self-evidently convenient if he met Mucor "on mission" after he arrived at Blanco.
Marble thinks Mucor takes a long time because she has to go to the Whorl to find Silk. But that’s hardly a crushing objection.
- Gerry Quinn
James Wynn23 Nov 2011, 18:41
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
5 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
If we put these two things together, ghosts — spirits of the dead travelling in disembodied form — certainly seem to be possible; so Pike’s ghost in and of itself is not particularly puzzling. What is puzzling is his turning up at the same time as Mucor and a duplicate Oreb — a rather weird coincidence, if it is one.
On 11/23/2011 8:57 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
I don’t see Mucor’s appearance as a real problem. She is fascinated by Silk and is clearly following him since the exorcism. Next day she appears twice in the tunnels. She appears when Echidna possesses Marble, and nobody is saying that’s too much of a coincidence and Echidna must have brought her along. Even if Echidna likes her (didn’t she say that sometime?)
Oreb is the tricky one. Silk comes up with an explanation that is at least rational but nobody believes (maybe that’s a hint from Wolfe that the ghost is real). I’m not convinced by your idea that Mucor gives others special powers — I don’t remember any instances of it.
There is no precedence for Mucor possessing and animal to travel to a location and then "chaining" into an astral appearance. Given her apparent powers, I can't imagine why such a thing would even be necessary. This is a theory utterly without foundation. It has a feel of desperation about it. I do not like.
It is not that the appearances of Pike's ghost, or Mucor, or Oreb in the window is a such a big problem on their own. The problem is their near simultaneous appearance, and the surrounding facts. Any serious theory on this event needs to explain how the appearance of all three fit together. Mucor and Oreb are linked by being in the room together when Silk awakes. The likelihood that Oreb is astral connects them both to the Rajan. The subsequent appearance of Pike's ghost acting more like something from "The Ghost in the Invisible Bikini" than "Wuthering Heights" or "A Christmas Carol" makes him plausibly associated with the Rajan (whom we haven't seen previously but must be there unless Oreb lied about being in the room).
Gerry Quinn23 Nov 2011, 19:31
↳ in reply to James Wynn
From: James Wynn
5 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
If we put these two things together, ghosts — spirits of the dead travelling in disembodied form — certainly seem to be possible; so Pike’s ghost in and of itself is not particularly puzzling. What is puzzling is his turning up at the same time as Mucor and a duplicate Oreb — a rather weird coincidence, if it is one.
On 11/23/2011 8:57 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
I don’t see Mucor’s appearance as a real problem. She is fascinated by Silk and is clearly following him since the exorcism. Next day she appears twice in the tunnels. She appears when Echidna possesses Marble, and nobody is saying that’s too much of a coincidence and Echidna must have brought her along. Even if Echidna likes her (didn’t she say that sometime?)
Oreb is the tricky one. Silk comes up with an explanation that is at least rational but nobody believes (maybe that’s a hint from Wolfe that the ghost is real). I’m not convinced by your idea that Mucor gives others special powers — I don’t remember any instances of it.
There is no precedence for Mucor possessing and animal to travel to a location and then "chaining" into an astral appearance. Given her apparent powers, I can't imagine why such a thing would even be necessary. This is a theory utterly without foundation. It has a feel of desperation about it. I do not like.
It is not that the appearances of Pike's ghost, or Mucor, or Oreb in the window is a such a big problem on their own. The problem is their near simultaneous appearance, and the surrounding facts. Any serious theory on this event needs to explain how the appearance of all three fit together. Mucor and Oreb are linked by being in the room together when Silk awakes. The likelihood that Oreb is astral connects them both to the Rajan. The subsequent appearance of Pike's ghost acting more like something from "The Ghost in the Invisible Bikini" than "Wuthering Heights" or "A Christmas Carol" makes him plausibly associated with the Rajan (whom we haven't seen previously but must be there unless Oreb lied about being in the room).
Gerry Quinn23 Nov 2011, 19:45
↳ in reply to James Wynn
From: James Wynn
There is no precedence for Mucor possessing and animal to travel to a
location and then "chaining" into an astral appearance. Given her
apparent powers, I can't imagine why such a thing would even be
necessary. This is a theory utterly without foundation. It has a feel of
desperation about it. I do not like.
It is not that the appearances of Pike's ghost, or Mucor, or Oreb in the
window is a such a big problem on their own. The problem is their near
simultaneous appearance, and the surrounding facts. Any serious theory
on this event needs to explain how the appearance of all three fit
together. Mucor and Oreb are linked by being in the room together when
Silk awakes. The likelihood that Oreb is astral connects them both to
the Rajan. The subsequent appearance of Pike's ghost acting more like
something from "The Ghost in the Invisible Bikini" than "Wuthering
Heights" or "A Christmas Carol" makes him plausibly associated with the
Rajan (whom we haven't seen previously but must be there unless Oreb
lied about being in the room).
Or unless there was some other reason for Silk thinking he saw Oreb. At least two have been proposed.
If Oreb isn’t an astral traveller, there’s no link to the Rajan at all. Silk doesn’t see the Rajan; he sees Pike. [And unlike the case with Oreb, he sees him in the light. Granted he’s a ghost, but still...]
Your argument depends on Silk unerringly recognising Oreb in the dark, Oreb being an astral traveller, and Silk completely failing to recognise his 43-year old one-eyed self in the light, and thinking instead that he sees his 70+ year old predecessor. Oh, and astral travel involving time-travel (so long as it’s meaningless time travel).
Is my theory so “utterly without foundation” and “desperate” by comparison?
- Gerry Quinn
Roy C. Lackey23 Nov 2011, 22:08
↳ in reply to James Wynn
3 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
James Wynn quoted Gerry and wrote:
If Silk slit his wrists a long time previously, did Mucor time travel? Or see SilkHorn stumbling around Viron? If it was long enough ago he might have been already in Gaon, of course.
It would be the most self-evidently convenient if he met Mucor "on mission" after he arrived at Blanco.
Gerry has anticipated me.
We are told at the beginning of OBW that the next Conjunction is two years away. There is no getting around this fact. It is important and I will come back to it. It can't be explained away by time travel. I could cite page numbers, but it seems to be largely a waste of my time, so I will outline the situation briefly.
It was summer when Horn left Lizard. The time period from when Horn left Mucor's Rock until he left for Green on the Pajarocu lander was a span of months, but probably less than six months. That was followed by no more than a few weeks on the lander. From his arrival on Green until his death in another lander on Green was about six months. That adds up to about a year of time from the start of Horn's journey to his spirit being sent into Silk's body on the LSW.
The time spent by Silkhorn on the LSW, after Horn's spirit was sent into Silk's body, was less than two weeks. Allow a few more weeks for travel back to Blue on Hari Mau's lander. No more than six weeks after Horn died on Green, Silkhorn was sitting pretty as the Rajan of Gaon. Soon after arrival in Gaon, Oreb flew away and was gone for about a year. There was time spent on the war with Han. Winter had just begun when Silkhorn left Gaon. Conjunction came while Silkhorn was in Gaon.
Winter came on while Silkhorn was in Blanko and continued while he was in Dorp. It was still very cold when he reached New Viron, but spring was not far away. No matter how you cut it, more that two years elapsed on Blue between Horn's departure from Lizard and Silkhorn's arrival in New Viron, as determined by Conjunction.
As I have said, I do not believe that dream travel involves time travel. Neither do I believe that what Mucor does when she sends her spirit forth is the same thing that Silkhorn does when he dream travels. After all, her talent was a genetic freak that had nothing to do with Neighbors or inhumi. Be that as it may, if Mucor sent her spirit to the LSW, that day at Mucor's Rock, as the text has it, she would have found both Silk and Hy to be alive. If you want to postulate that she sent her spirit back in time to any moment before Horn's death on Green, an event which was still a year in her future, Silkhorn simply would not yet exist.
That paradox aside, if you postulate that she went back in time to when Silkhorn was in Blanko, then Hy had already been dead for at least two years and Horn's proposed trip to the LSW could not possibly have put her or Silk in jeopardy because he wasn't there and she was dead. Further, Mucor did contact Silkhorn twice while he was in Blanko, both times about Babbie and both times in "real time", i.e. the "present" of the story.
-Roy
James Wynn23 Nov 2011, 22:30
↳ in reply to Roy C. Lackey
2 quoted lines
On 11/23/2011 4:08 PM, Roy C. Lackey wrote:
[Roy offers a time-line]
I have some problems with a couple presumptions in your time-line, and there are some important mentions of time that you have not brought up. However, I'm not inclined to critique your time-line when I haven't produced one myself because that would be insulting. So I shall concede to you the argument at this point.
1 quoted line
As I have said, I do not believe that dream travel involves time travel.
On the issue of the second Oreb and on the grandmother's tale you've never proposed an explanation that I know of. I cannot argue with "I don't believe it".
1 quoted line
Neither do I believe that what Mucor does when she sends her spirit forth is the same thing that Silkhorn does when he dream travels. [...]
Nor do I. I have repeatedly noted the difference in the way she disappears in Silk's room vs how she disappears from astral travel in the tunnels and on the Trivigaunte floater.
1 quoted line
That paradox aside, if you postulate that she went back in time to when Silkhorn was in Blanko, then Hy had already been dead for at least two years and Horn's proposed trip to the LSW could not possibly have put her or Silk in jeopardy because he wasn't there and she was dead.
"if you postulate that she went back in time to when Silkhorn was in Blanko" Do you mean "forward in time"?
Be that as it may. Neither Silk nor Hy were in any danger for Horn coming there. After "Horn's" death on Green, our Narrator wanders all about Viron without any fear or threat. Perhaps you think Silk or Mucor were lying.
2 quoted lines
Further, Mucor did
contact Silkhorn twice while he was in Blanko, both times about Babbie and both times in "real time", i.e. the "present" of the story.
That's true. So what?
Andrew Mason23 Nov 2011, 23:00
↳ follows, by subject match James Wynn
3 quoted lines
James Wynn wrote:
You know, having come kicking and screaming to the conclusion that Silk is positively a clone of Typhon, this actually complicates Silk's encounter on the Aureate Path. Let's say two of his parents are Tussah and Silk's Mother. Who are the other two? Typhon as clone father? Okay. Maybe. So who is the other mother? Not Kyrpris or even Mamelta. "Early Summer"?
Well, I have always seen the two parents as evidence that Silk is not a clone. Also, it still seems to me that Silk's response is best explained if he recognises his mother, and this makes most sense if she is Mamelta; (her being Kypris would also explain it, but would bring problems of its own).
Andrew Mason23 Nov 2011, 23:11
↳ follows, by subject match Andrew Mason
3 quoted lines
Gerry Quinn wrote:
My feeling, though, is that it’s not so much a ghost as a vision sent by the Outsider telling Silk he’s on the right track. ?But of course, this is something that can be both.
Well, the Outsider can certainly send spirits of the dead. If it were just a vision, though, and not a spirit, one would have to find soem other explanation for Wolfe's remarks about putting a ghost in one of his works.
=>
1 quoted line
I don’t see Mucor’s appearance as a real problem. “She is fascinated by Silk and is clearly following him since the exorcism. ?Next day she appears twice in the tunnels. ?She appears when Echidna possesses Marble, and nobody is saying that’s too much of a coincidence and Echidna must have brought her along. ?Even if Echidna likes her (didn’t she say that sometime”)
Mucor's appearance is indeed not a problem. I'm treating that as the basic fact which needs no special explanation, and the other two as consequences of it. The problem is three ghostly appearances at the same time. it seems unlikely they have three separate explanations. To be sure, coincidences do happen in the solar universe, and that's not too surprising in a world which has a providential God, but in this case Silk actually theorises about a connection between Mucor and Pike, which would be an oddly misleading clue if it was just an acident that they were both there at once. (Silk's theory might be wrong, but in the absence of something very clear which confounds it, it seems reasonable to think he's right.)
1 quoted line
Oreb is the tricky one. ?Silk comes up with an explanation that is at least rational but nobody believes (maybe that’s a hint from Wolfe that the ghost is real). ?I’m not convinced by your idea that Mucor gives others special powers — I don’t remember any instances of it.
Well, you might say 'except this one' - which, given Wolfe's known tendency to think things are obvious when they aren't, can't be ruled out. But it doesn't seem too surprising to me - if she can summon spirits of the dead, why might she not also summon spirits of the living - given that the living have spirits which can leave their bodies, as her own case implies?
António Pedro Marques23 Nov 2011, 23:22
↳ in reply to Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason wrote (23-11-2011 23:11):
1 quoted line
The problem is three ghostly appearances at the same time.
Not necessarily. That can be explained away plausibly. Imo and that of others, the problem is the second Oreb. There is that I know of no credible way to have a second Oreb there that doesn't involve good old time travel. And saying it wasn't Oreb isn't enough: GW uses so much ink with it that there must be something there. Other than that, I find that time-travel as part of dream-travel is very unsatisfactory (other than some fluctuation, but that very restricted), unless it's key to some other revelation which may be there but I haven't seen yet (f.i., it's key to Marc's theory, but as I said I can't make his theory work for me).
Gerry Quinn23 Nov 2011, 23:36
↳ in reply to Andrew Mason
From: Andrew Mason
3 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Gerry Quinn wrote:
My feeling, though, is that it’s not so much a ghost as a vision sent by the Outsider Silk he’s on the right track. But of course, this is something that can be both.
Well, the Outsider can certainly send spirits of the dead. If it were just a vision, though, and not a spirit, one would have to find soem other explanation for Wolfe's remarks about putting a ghost in one of his works.
Yes, but maybe the ghost is not Pike but some other character in some other book. Pike does indeed seem like the best candidate, though.
3 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
I don’t see Mucor’s appearance as a real problem. She is fascinated by Silk
and is clearly following him since the exorcism. Next day she appears twice in the tunnels. She appears when Echidna possesses Marble, and nobody is saying that’s too much of a coincidence and Echidna must have brought her along. Even if Echidna likes her (didn’t she say that sometime?)
Mucor's appearance is indeed not a problem. I'm treating that as the basic fact which needs no special explanation, and the other two as consequences of it. The problem is three ghostly appearances at the same time. it seems unlikely they have three separate explanations. To be sure, coincidences do happen in the solar universe, and that's not too surprising in a world which has a providential God, but in this case Silk actually theorises about a connection between Mucor and Pike, which would be an oddly misleading clue if it was just an acident that they were both there at once. (Silk's theory might be wrong, but in the absence of something very clear which confounds it, it seems reasonable to think he's right.)
I don't recall Silk's theorising. But there is actually a connection between Mucor and Pike: she is his granddaughter, even if fewer realise it than Wolfe expected. Could that be the purpose of Pike's ghost?
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Oreb is the tricky one. Silk comes up with an explanation that is at least rational but nobody believes (maybe that’s a hint from Wolfe that the ghost is real). I’m not convinced by your idea that Mucor gives others special powers — I don’t remember any instances of it.
Well, you might say 'except this one' - which, given Wolfe's known tendency to think things are obvious when they aren't, can't be ruled out. But it doesn't seem too surprising to me - if she can summon spirits of the dead, why might she not also summon spirits of the living - given that the living have spirits which can leave their bodies, as her own case implies?
It's fairly similar to my argument that she might have searched for Silk by possessing a bird. It's reasonably plausible in terms of stuff Mucor can do, but there's no other obvious incident of her doing such a thing.
- Gerry Quinn
Larry Miller24 Nov 2011, 03:11
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
Silks theorising on Mucor and Pike occurs near the end of Lake Ch. 9. And Mucor is not actually Bloods daughter thus there is no familial relation to Pike.
23 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 11/23/11, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
From: Andrew Mason
Gerry Quinn wrote:
My feeling, though, is that it’s not so much a ghost as a vision sent by
the Outsider
Silk he’s on the right track. But of course, this is something that can
be both.
Well, the Outsider can certainly send spirits of the dead. If it were just a vision, though, and not a spirit, one would have to find soem other explanation for Wolfe's remarks about putting a ghost in one of his works.
Yes, but maybe the ghost is not Pike but some other character in some other book. Pike does indeed seem like the best candidate, though.
I don’t see Mucor’s appearance as a real problem. She is fascinated by Silk
and is clearly following him since the exorcism. Next day she appears twice in the tunnels. She appears when Echidna possesses Marble, and nobody is saying that’s too much of a coincidence and Echidna must have brought her along. Even if Echidna likes her (didn’t she say that sometime?)
Mucor's appearance is indeed not a problem. I'm treating that as the basic fact which needs no special explanation, and the other two as consequences of it. The problem is three ghostly appearances at the same time. it seems unlikely they have three separate explanations. To be sure, coincidences do happen in the solar universe, and that's not too surprising in a world which has a providential God, but in this case Silk actually theorises about a connection between Mucor and Pike, which would be an oddly misleading clue if it was just an acident that they were both there at once. (Silk's theory might be wrong, but in the absence of something very clear which confounds it, it seems reasonable to think he's right.)
I don't recall Silk's theorising. But there is actually a connection between Mucor and Pike: she is his granddaughter, even if fewer realise it than Wolfe expected. Could that be the purpose of Pike's ghost?
Oreb is the tricky one. Silk comes up with an explanation that is at least rational but nobody believes (maybe that’s a hint from Wolfe that the ghost is real). I’m not convinced by your idea that Mucor gives others special powers — I don’t remember any instances of it.
Well, you might say 'except this one' - which, given Wolfe's known tendency to think things are obvious when they aren't, can't be ruled out. But it doesn't seem too surprising to me - if she can summon spirits of the dead, why might she not also summon spirits of the living - given that the living have spirits which can leave their bodies, as her own case implies?
It's fairly similar to my argument that she might have searched for Silk by possessing a bird. It's reasonably plausible in terms of stuff Mucor can do, but there's no other obvious incident of her doing such a thing.
- Gerry Quinn
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to James Wynn
2 quoted lines
James Wynn wrote:
I have some problems with a couple presumptions in your time-line, and there are some important mentions of time that you have not brought up. However, I'm not inclined to critique your time-line when I haven't produced one myself because that would be insulting. So I shall concede to you the argument at this point.
Conjunction is not a presumption. The rest was just a bonus, for context. Conjunction establishes that at least two years passed between Horn asking Mucor to search for Silk and Silkhorn's departure from Gaon. This was in response to:
**********
3 quoted lines
Let me see if I have this straight. You are suggesting that on the day Horn visited Mucor and Marble at Mucor's Rock, at the beginning of Horn's journey to Pajarocu, Silk was bleeding beside Hy's casket?
No. I am posing that Silk was bleeding before Hy's casket well before that day.
**********
There isn't a lot of time for that to have happened that isn't accounted for in the text.
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
As I have said, I do not believe that dream travel involves time travel.
On the issue of the second Oreb and on the grandmother's tale you've never proposed an explanation that I know of. I cannot argue with "I don't believe it".
Silkhorn explicitly stated that he had gotten inside Fava's tale and changed it, which she later confirmed. If he did it to her story, he can do it to another. As for the bird in Silk's bedroom, you postulated recently that Oreb had been possessed by Pas at the time he "died" before Silk could sacrifice him. You also recently noted that possessed humans can perform feats they would not otherwise be able to perform. Pas could have done that with Oreb, damaged wing and all, and the bird not remember the event. Not that I believe it, but I guess you can't argue with yourself, either.
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Neither do I believe that what Mucor does when she sends her spirit forth is the same thing that Silkhorn does when he dream travels. [...]
Nor do I. I have repeatedly noted the difference in the way she disappears in Silk's room vs how she disappears from astral travel in the tunnels and on the Trivigaunte floater.
I don't think the differences among the times she disappears are significant. Five such occasions have been mentioned, not counting mirrors.
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
That paradox aside, if you postulate that she went back in time to when Silkhorn was in Blanko, then Hy had already been dead for at least two years and Horn's proposed trip to the LSW could not possibly have put her or Silk in jeopardy because he wasn't there and she was dead.
"if you postulate that she went back in time to when Silkhorn was in Blanko" Do you mean "forward in time"?
No, back in time. I only mentioned Blanko because you did, in response to Gerry. I included both comments in my previous post. Or see the quote from you above.
4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Be that as it may. Neither Silk nor Hy were in any danger for Horn coming there. After "Horn's" death on Green, our Narrator wanders all about Viron without any fear or threat. Perhaps you think Silk or Mucor were lying.
Further, Mucor did
contact Silkhorn twice while he was in Blanko, both times about Babbie and both times in "real time", i.e. the "present" of the story.
That's true. So what?
Again, because you said:
1 quoted line
It would be the most self-evidently convenient if he met Mucor "on mission" after he arrived at Blanco.
There isn't enough time for Horn's journey to overlap Silkhorn's after he arrived in Blanko.
-Roy
Gerry Quinn24 Nov 2011, 12:49
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
From: Larry Miller
3 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/23/11, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
I don't recall Silk's theorising. But there is actually a connection between Mucor and Pike: she is his granddaughter, even if fewer realise it than Wolfe expected. Could that be the purpose of Pike's ghost?
Silks theorising on Mucor and Pike occurs near the end of Lake Ch. 9. And Mucor is not actually Bloods daughter thus there is no familial relation to Pike.
Ah yes — I have read it now. Interesting that Silk no longer mentions Oreb, probably writing him off as appearing only in his imagination. Instead he thinks that Mucor’s appearance somehow made Pike’s possible, and that she, rather than Pike, made the noises upstairs afterwards.
I think Silk is right, and that the connection may be that she is Pike’s grandaughter. True, she is not genetically related to him, but in Long Sun Wolfe clearly treats adoptive relationships as similar in significance to genetic ones, so I don’t think that matters.
Marble certainly refers to Mucor as her grandaughter, and she is even less genetically related to Mucor than Pike is!
Maybe Pike’s ghost is a clue set by Wolfe to point towards Blood being Pike’s son.
- Gerry Quinn
Roy C. Lackey24 Nov 2011, 22:47
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
Mucor was naked on the night of Pike's ghost, just as she had been naked the first time Silk saw her in the flesh the night before at Blood's villa. When he was questioning Oreb about her, he described her as a "girl" or "thin young woman". She was about fifteen; Silk was twenty-three.
At Mucor's Rock, when Horn asked her to find Silk for him, she was not naked. She had been on Blue for twenty years, more than half her life. She was the same age as Horn, and he had not recognized her until he looked into her eyes.
Taken together, these elements strongly suggest that the Mucor Silk saw in his manse on the night of Pike's ghost looked little like the 35-year-old Mucor Horn saw on Mucor's Rock. It's doubtful that young Silk would even have recognized the older woman.
-Roy
James Wynn25 Nov 2011, 16:55
↳ in reply to Roy C. Lackey
Roy,
3 quoted lines
Roy C. Lackey wrote:
As for the bird in Silk's bedroom, you postulated recently that
Oreb had been possessed by Pas at the time he "died" before Silk could sacrifice him. You also recently noted that possessed humans can perform feats they would not otherwise be able to perform. Pas could have done that with Oreb, damaged wing and all, and the bird not remember the event. Not that I believe it, but I guess you can't argue with yourself, either.
I have no interest in arguing with myself but why would /you/ assert I can't do that when you are arguing with yourself right here? Roy says "I don't believe that Pas possessed Oreb but I hereby propose that DID possess Oreb and send him into Silk's room."
That's a solution? Why do we need to complicate things with a possession at all? Why not have Oreb hop up the stairs into Silk's room and jump down into the bushes? There has NEVER been a problem with getting Oreb into Silk's room or out. The problem has always been why he (or Pas for that matter) would go there in the first place and why he would continue to lie about it after Silk told him he wouldn't be punished for it. This is rank sophistry.
Here's simpler solution for you.../Mint/ sneaked into Silk's residence, grabbed Oreb and left him there. But /first/ she gave him a rophenol so he wouldn't remember it. Why would she do that? Who the hell cares? At least it avoids considering time-travel. After all, this is a Wolfe novel set in Briah. I mean, how believable is it that there would be Time-travel?
I'm going to address the rest of your post, but I want you to know that it is because I would like very much to satisfactorily figure out what is going on the LS/SS and I'm pretty sure your timeline doesn't cut it. I am NOT doing it to win the crown of King Debater of the Urth List. Nor I am doing it because I love chasing your arguments around the rose bush.
Roy C. Lackey25 Nov 2011, 19:03
↳ in reply to James Wynn
4 quoted lines · depth 2
James Wynn quoted and wrote:
Roy C. Lackey wrote:
As for the bird in Silk's bedroom, you postulated recently that
Oreb had been possessed by Pas at the time he "died" before Silk could sacrifice him. You also recently noted that possessed humans can perform feats they would not otherwise be able to perform. Pas could have done that with Oreb, damaged wing and all, and the bird not remember the event.
Not
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
that I believe it, but I guess you can't argue with yourself, either.
I have no interest in arguing with myself but why would /you/ assert I can't do that when you are arguing with yourself right here? Roy says "I don't believe that Pas possessed Oreb but I hereby propose that DID possess Oreb and send him into Silk's room."
I don't see how you could have read my paragraph and come to the conclusion that I thought Pas was in Oreb at all. I said that I didn't believe it, period.
1 quoted line
That's a solution? Why do we need to complicate things with a possession at all? Why not have Oreb hop up the stairs into Silk's room and jump down into the bushes? There has NEVER been a problem with getting Oreb into Silk's room or out. The problem has always been why he (or Pas for that matter) would go there in the first place and why he would continue to lie about it after Silk told him he wouldn't be punished for it. This is rank sophistry.
You are the one who brought up the possession of Oreb by Pas. I carried the thought experiment a step further.
-Roy
James Wynn25 Nov 2011, 19:15
↳ in reply to Roy C. Lackey
2 quoted lines
Roy C. Lackey wrote:
I don't see how you could have read my paragraph and come to the conclusion that I thought Pas was in Oreb at all. I said that I didn't believe it, period.
Then why did you offer that as your ONLY explanation for why the second Oreb was there? I know you said you didn't believe it Pas was possessing Oreb. That's why I said you were arguing with yourself. You've managed to even confuse yourself.
1 quoted line
You are the one who brought up the possession of Oreb by Pas. I carried the thought experiment a step further.
No you didn't. Rather than deal with a problem for which you have no answer, you decided to attempt a mocking BS answer. But what it revealed is that you have never really thought about the real problem of the second Oreb because it would suggest answers you aren't comfortable with.
What concerns me is that maybe this means your entire refutation has Refuting as its only purpose. The answer is irrelevant as long as it the conclusion does not fall within predetermined ranges. I don't see you as my enemy, Roy. I'm not trying to beat you.
Roy C. Lackey25 Nov 2011, 22:57
↳ in reply to James Wynn
3 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
James Wynn quoted and wrote:
You are the one who brought up the possession of Oreb by Pas. I carried the thought experiment a step further.
No you didn't. Rather than deal with a problem for which you have no answer, you decided to attempt a mocking BS answer. But what it revealed is that you have never really thought about the real problem of the second Oreb because it would suggest answers you aren't comfortable with.
I do have an answer, but that is beside the point. As I have said before, I will not be manipulated into playing anyone else's games by anyone else's rules.
I may post my solution to the Oreb mystery later tonight, only because I thought it up long ago and the subject has come up again. I have nothing better to do with it. It doesn't involve time travel and it separates Mucor and Oreb from Pike's ghost, which I think are different events, just as the text divides them and has already been pointed out.
-Roy
Andrew Mason25 Nov 2011, 23:12
↳ follows, by subject match Roy C. Lackey
Antonio Pedro Marquez wrote: .
3 quoted lines
Imo and that of
others, the problem is the second Oreb.
There is that I know of no credible way to have a second Oreb there that doesn't involve good old time travel.
I don't see that; it seems to me that out-of-body travel is enough. And out-of-body travel is certainly possible. It is indeed puzzling why Oreb should be doing it at this moment, but it's also puzzling (I think we agree) why he should be travelling in time. It would indeed be odd if this were the only occasion of someone other than Mucor doing it, so I'm hoping that other hidden cases may be found; but then time-travel is also hidden, if it's present.
Gerry Quinn25 Nov 2011, 23:28
↳ in reply to Andrew Mason
From: Andrew Mason
1 quoted line
I don't see that; it seems to me that out-of-body travel is enough. And out-of-body travel is certainly possible. It is indeed puzzling why Oreb should be doing it at this moment, but it's also puzzling (I think we agree) why he should be travelling in time. It would indeed be odd if this were the only occasion of someone other than Mucor doing it, so I'm hoping that other hidden cases may be found; but then time-travel is also hidden, if it's present.
Horn seems to do it in the pit, when the long-nosed man touches something to his forehead.
- Gerry Quinn
James Wynn26 Nov 2011, 00:43
↳ in reply to Roy C. Lackey
5 quoted lines
Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net> wrote:
I do have an answer, but that is beside the point. As I have said before, I will not be manipulated into playing anyone else's games by anyone else's rules.
I may post my solution to the Oreb mystery later tonight, only because I thought it up long ago and the subject has come up again.
Well, that would be great! I must say that it is illuminating to learn that during that all those years that I participated in discussions with you trying to reconcile events...where I was running around trying dredge up references, considering how to best answer your challenges...that you saw me as a sucker "playing your game"...trotting out ideas for you to shoot at in order for you to temper your own personal theories that you would share one day or not. However that actually makes sense looking back. I had assumed this was a game we had all agreed to play together.
Gerry Quinn26 Nov 2011, 19:47
↳ in reply to James Wynn
From: James Wynn
1 quoted line
You know, having come kicking and screaming to the conclusion that Silk is positively a clone of Typhon, this actually complicates Silk's encounter on the Aureate Path. Let's say two of his parents are Tussah and Silk's Mother. Who are the other two? Typhon as clone father? Okay. Maybe. So who is the other mother? Not Kyrpris or even Mamelta. "Early Summer"?
Something just occurred to me this morning. Mamelta and Rigoglio (as well as chems, but they mightn?t know or notice) are not the only people who were contemporaneous with Typhon. All the Sleepers were, and there must have been hundreds if not thousands in the cities SilkHorn travelled through.
Typhon made a big point of the fact that peoples? recognition of his face was a vital part of his rule (and his family walked through peoples? dreams).
So how could Silk be a clone of Typhon without it being talked about?
- Gerry Quinn
Marc Aramini26 Nov 2011, 21:36
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
The text is clear their memories were "altered" before being placed in the sleep... but I agree with you,
you would expect a clone of the monarch to be somewhat recognizable.
--- On Sat, 11/26/11, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
From: Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com>
Subject: Re: (urth) Pike's ghost
To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
Date: Saturday, November 26, 2011, 11:47 AM
From: James Wynn
1 quoted line
You know, having come kicking and screaming to the conclusion that Silk
is positively a clone of Typhon, this actually complicates Silk's
encounter on the Aureate Path. Let's say two of his parents are Tussah
and Silk's Mother. Who are the other two? Typhon as clone father? Okay.
Maybe. So who is the other mother? Not Kyrpris or even Mamelta. "Early
Summer"?
Something just occurred to me this morning. Mamelta and Rigoglio (as well as chems, but they mightn?t know or notice) are not the only people who were contemporaneous with Typhon. All the Sleepers were, and there must have been hundreds if not thousands in the cities SilkHorn travelled through.
Typhon made a big point of the fact that peoples? recognition of his face was a vital part of his rule (and his family walked through peoples? dreams).
So how could Silk be a clone of Typhon without it being talked about?
- Gerry Quinn
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Larry Miller26 Nov 2011, 22:33
↳ in reply to Marc Aramini
I apologize for asking such a question as Im sure it has been discussed ad naseum but as I am fairly new to the list and still playing catch up in the archives here goes: What makes anyone think that Silk is a clone of Typhon? Id be interested in hearing the basis of this theory and any textual evidence anyone has that points to such a conclusion. Thanks.
31 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/26/11, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com> wrote:
The text is clear their memories were "altered" before being placed in the sleep... but I agree with you, you would expect a clone of the monarch to be somewhat recognizable.
--- On Sat, 11/26/11, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
From: Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com>
Subject: Re: (urth) Pike's ghost
To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
Date: Saturday, November 26, 2011, 11:47 AM
From: James Wynn
You know, having come kicking and screaming to the conclusion that Silk
is positively a clone of Typhon, this actually complicates Silk's
encounter on the Aureate Path. Let's say two of his parents are Tussah
and Silk's Mother. Who are the other two? Typhon as clone father? Okay.
Maybe. So who is the other mother? Not Kyrpris or even Mamelta. "Early
Summer"?
Something just occurred to me this morning. Mamelta and Rigoglio (as well
as chems, but they mightn?t know or notice) are not the only people who were contemporaneous with Typhon. All the Sleepers were, and there must have been hundreds if not thousands in the cities SilkHorn travelled through.
Typhon made a big point of the fact that peoples? recognition of his face was a vital part of his rule (and his family walked through peoples? dreams).
So how could Silk be a clone of Typhon without it being talked about?
- Gerry Quinn
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
Larry Miller wrote (26-11-2011 22:33):
1 quoted line
I apologize for asking such a question as Im sure it has been discussed ad naseum but as I am fairly new to the list and still playing catch up in the archives here goes: What makes anyone think that Silk is a clone of Typhon? Id be interested in hearing the basis of this theory and any textual evidence anyone has that points to such a conclusion. Thanks.
You'll really have to read the archives from 2011 (especially James and Marc). It's an idea that has been developed along, not set in stone at a particular moment.
Gerry Quinn26 Nov 2011, 23:16
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
From: Larry Miller
1 quoted line
I apologize for asking such a question as Im sure it has been discussed ad naseum but as I am fairly new to the list and still playing catch up in the archives here goes: What makes anyone think that Silk is a clone of Typhon? Id be interested in hearing the basis of this theory and any textual evidence anyone has that points to such a conclusion. Thanks.
There are a good few reasons that appeal to various degrees to various people. One is the fact that Silk is certainly a special embryo, one seeming bred to have leadership abilities. Another is the thoughts and hints from several places that Typhon/Pas would have planned to disembark on the colonised planets. Those two are the main ones that tilt me towards the concept. I know Marc also sets store by various dreams and visions of Silk, and Kypris wanting him in particular to augment Pas. And I think other people have other motivations for thinking that way.
But there are problems with Silk as Typhon clone — I pointed out this particular one before in regard to Mamelta and Rigoglio, but I just realised it applies to all Sleepers.
I think it’s very possible that Silk as Typhon clone was a “seed” for Wolfe’s original concept, a seed that got buried and eventually abandoned as a real thread in the storyline. [Okay, seeds need to be buried — but they die if you bury them too deep.]
- Gerry Quinn
Larry Miller27 Nov 2011, 01:18
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
Thanks Gerry. My only problem with this theory is that I believe Typhon is an alien. Silk may be have been a body grown for Pas to use after disembarking, a body for "permanent possession" that he could rule from. Again I am willing to hear any evidence or opinions regarding this.
6 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/26/11, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
From: Larry Miller
I apologize for asking such a question as Im sure it has been discussed ad naseum but as I am fairly new to the list and still playing catch up in the archives here goes: What makes anyone think that Silk is a clone of Typhon? Id be interested in hearing the basis of this theory and any textual evidence anyone has that points to such a conclusion. Thanks.
There are a good few reasons that appeal to various degrees to various people. One is the fact that Silk is certainly a special embryo, one seeming bred to have leadership abilities. Another is the thoughts and hints from several places that Typhon/Pas would have planned to disembark on the colonised planets. Those two are the main ones that tilt me towards the concept. I know Marc also sets store by various dreams and visions of Silk, and Kypris wanting him in particular to augment Pas. And I think other people have other motivations for thinking that way. But there are problems with Silk as Typhon clone — I pointed out this particular one before in regard to Mamelta and Rigoglio, but I just realised it applies to all Sleepers. I think it’s very possible that Silk as Typhon clone was a “seed” for Wolfe’s original concept, a seed that got buried and eventually abandoned as a real thread in the storyline. [Okay, seeds need to be buried — but they die if you bury them too deep.]
- Gerry Quinn
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
From: Larry Miller
1 quoted line
Thanks Gerry. My only problem with this theory is that I believe Typhon is an alien. Silk may be have been a body grown for Pas to use after disembarking, a body for "permanent possession" that he could rule from. Again I am willing to hear any evidence or opinions regarding this.
Why would humans be loyal to an alien? Severian sees him as a man with two heads, but notices no other non-human characteristics.
Typhon may well have come from off-Urth, but I think he is human, or approximately so.
What makes you think he is an alien?
- Gerry Quinn
Larry Miller27 Nov 2011, 06:12
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
Well I dont think that Typhons alien origin was common knowledge among the people thus his comment in Urth where Severian is told by Typhons guard not to speak of anything he sees inside Typhons chambers. Typhon perhaps doesnt want the illusion that he is human shattered. And there is hints in the Vingtners comments to Severian that the people wish to overthrow Typhon. I think hes an alien mainly because of Wolfes naming strategum and some things that he says to Severian. When telling him about his grafting to Piaton he mentions the solar decay and says "I should have left then." I think maybe hes refering to escaping back to his homeworld. His comments about "sending his thoughts into far places" are a reference to some psychic abilities he has (and I know there are those on here that disagree). And theres Severians initial description of the newly resurrected Monarch. "...it was as though one of the monstous constellations of the night sky had fallen to Urth and clothed itself in the flesh of humankind."
6 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/26/11, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
From: Larry Miller
Thanks Gerry. My only problem with this theory is that I believe Typhon is an alien. Silk may be have been a body grown for Pas to use after disembarking, a body for "permanent possession" that he could rule from. Again I am willing to hear any evidence or opinions regarding this.
Why would humans be loyal to an alien? Severian sees him as a man with two heads, but notices no other non-human characteristics. Typhon may well have come from off-Urth, but I think he is human, or approximately so. What makes you think he is an alien?
- Gerry Quinn
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
Well, if Typhon would be an alien, it would be much more difficult to graft his head to Piaton. And why take such risky and complex operation? I think that the straightforward explanation is much more convincing.
Typhon is clever enough
to tell the truth when he thinks it will not undermine his power (he may be mistaken, of course). He says to Severian (in the Sword of the Lictor) that he needed a new body (quite understandable for ageing dictator), and that the plan (suggested by his medics) was that his head may be grafted and later, when his head will take all functions - voluntary and involuntary - from Piaton, then the head of Piaton can be removed. He didn't want the people on Urth to know that he has two heads - this is why Severian (in the UotNS) was told not to speak of what he has seen. The cargo of Whorl is conditioned to see Pas as god, so there is no problem with two heads. It was different with the people of the whole Urth - not possible to condition all, hence the risk of the rebellion if they know that the ruler is a monstrosity. And he wanted to keep his face.
Sergei Soloviev
15 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
Larry Miller wrote:
Well I dont think that Typhons alien origin was common knowledge among the people thus his comment in Urth where Severian is told by Typhons guard not to speak of anything he sees inside Typhons chambers. Typhon perhaps doesnt want the illusion that he is human shattered. And there is hints in the Vingtners comments to Severian that the people wish to overthrow Typhon. I think hes an alien mainly because of Wolfes naming strategum and some things that he says to Severian. When telling him about his grafting to Piaton he mentions the solar decay and says "I should have left then." I think maybe hes refering to escaping back to his homeworld. His comments about "sending his thoughts into far places" are a reference to some psychic abilities he has (and I know there are those on here that disagree). And theres Severians initial description of the newly resurrected Monarch. "...it was as though one of the monstous constellations of the night sky had fallen to Urth and clothed itself in the flesh of humankind."
On 11/26/11, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
From: Larry Miller
Thanks Gerry. My only problem with this theory is that I believe Typhon is an alien. Silk may be have been a body grown for Pas to use after disembarking, a body for "permanent possession" that he could rule from. Again I am willing to hear any evidence or opinions regarding this.
Why would humans be loyal to an alien? Severian sees him as a man with two heads, but notices no other non-human characteristics. Typhon may well have come from off-Urth, but I think he is human, or approximately so. What makes you think he is an alien?
- Gerry Quinn
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Sergei SOLOVIEV
From: Sergei SOLOVIEV
I agree with Sergei — Typhon may well have come from off-Urth but he is human, or close enough for government work.
Even if he has psychic powers (I personally think he has near-supernatural charisma and leadership abilities) that doesn’t really disqualify him from being human I think.
It’s true that Severian makes much of his astonishment at Typhon, given that we would probably be less amazed by him than by other things Severian doesn’t make a fuss about, But he never mentions anything else strange about him, and when you think about it, he does refer to “the flesh of humankind”.
A possibility occurs to me: do the people of Severian’s time recognise a constellation called Typhon, probably represented as a two-headed man?
- Gerry Quinn
4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Well, if Typhon would be an alien, it would be much more difficult to graft his head to Piaton. And why take such risky and complex operation? I think that the straightforward explanation is much more convincing.
Larry Miller wrote:
[?] I think hes an alien mainly because
of Wolfes naming strategum and some things that he says to Severian. When telling him about his grafting to Piaton he mentions the solar decay and says "I should have left then." I think maybe hes refering to escaping back to his homeworld. His comments about "sending his thoughts into far places" are a reference to some psychic abilities he has (and I know there are those on here that disagree). And theres Severians initial description of the newly resurrected Monarch. "...it was as though one of the monstous constellations of the night sky had fallen to Urth and clothed itself in the flesh of humankind."
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
That's an interesting and suggestive quote, but I think the key word is "monstrous." The man has two heads. I think the "night sky" has gnostic overtones that are stronger than any suggestion of actual alien-ness.
9 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 11/27/2011 1:12 AM, Larry Miller wrote:
Well I dont think that Typhons alien origin was common knowledge among the people thus his comment in Urth where Severian is told by Typhons guard not to speak of anything he sees inside Typhons chambers. Typhon perhaps doesnt want the illusion that he is human shattered. And there is hints in the Vingtners comments to Severian that the people wish to overthrow Typhon. I think hes an alien mainly because of Wolfes naming strategum and some things that he says to Severian. When telling him about his grafting to Piaton he mentions the solar decay and says "I should have left then." I think maybe hes refering to escaping back to his homeworld. His comments about "sending his thoughts into far places" are a reference to some psychic abilities he has (and I know there are those on here that disagree). And theres Severians initial description of the newly resurrected Monarch. "...it was as though one of the monstous constellations of the night sky had fallen to Urth and clothed itself in the flesh of humankind."
On 11/26/11, Gerry Quinn<gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
From: Larry Miller
Thanks Gerry. My only problem with this theory is that I believe Typhon is an alien. Silk may be have been a body grown for Pas to use after disembarking, a body for "permanent possession" that he could rule from. Again I am willing to hear any evidence or opinions regarding this.
Why would humans be loyal to an alien? Severian sees him as a man with two heads, but notices no other non-human characteristics. Typhon may well have come from off-Urth, but I think he is human, or approximately so. What makes you think he is an alien?
- Gerry Quinn
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
From: David Stockhoff
3 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
That's an interesting and suggestive quote, but I think the key word is "monstrous." The man has two heads. I think the "night sky" has gnostic overtones that are stronger than any suggestion of actual alien-ness.
On 11/27/2011 1:12 AM, Larry Miller wrote:
"...it was as though one of the monstous constellations of the night sky had fallen to Urth and clothed itself in the flesh of humankind."
Granted the stars are visible during the day on Urth, but surely the night must still be the best time for viewing constellations?
I don’t see what you mean by “gnostic overtones”. If you mention constellations, it’s only natural to think about the night sky.
- Gerry Quinn
Lee Berman27 Nov 2011, 17:45
↳ follows, by subject match Gerry Quinn
2 quoted lines
larry miller: I think hes an alien mainly because
of Wolfes naming strategum and some things that he says to Severian. When telling him about his grafting to Piaton he mentions the solar decay and says "I should have left then." I think maybe hes refering to escaping back to his homeworld. His comments about "sending his thoughts into far places" are a reference to some psychic abilities he has (and I know there are those on here that disagree). And theres Severians initial description of the newly resurrected Monarch. "...it was as though one of the monstous constellations of the night sky had fallen to Urth and clothed itself in the flesh of humankind."
I think your reasoning is spot on, larry. If Wolfe wanted us to think
of Typhon as a normal, Commonwealthy sort of human he would have been given a saint name. Other non-human aliens are given Roman names like Inire, Cumaean, Barbatus and Famulimus. Alien monsters are given monster names from mythology like Abaia, Erebus and Scylla. Why should Typhon not follow the same rules?
I think idea makes greater sense if we consider that humanity has been out in space for a long time at the time of Severian's story. Aliens may well be mutated, evolved humans in origin.
In my understanding, when Wolfe uses mythological names then leaves gaps in our knowlege about the characters, the gaps may be filled using mythology. Gods, demons and angels could never appear to humans in their true form. They always had to assume a human (or animal or other) form to walk among us. Thus with Typhon. (and Scylla/Cilinia?)
The Mandragora (myth Typhon was a mandragora) is a good clue that Typhon has human bodies with special abilities cloned for his personality to be downloaded into. We see this process continued on The Whorl and that feeds into the idea that Silk was a clone of Typhon. I think it makes more sense to think that Silk and other special individuals were created so that they might become a receptacle for the gods.
Another unmentioned hint that Silk was prepared as a receptacle for Pas
is Typhon's mysterious hair color. We are told the two headed guy has
one dark-haired head and one light-haired head but we aren't told which
is Typhon and which is Piaton. There are clues which can tell us that
Typhon was, in fact, the blonde but why would WOlfe make it such a secret unless it was supposed to be important? For whatever reason, Typhon/Pas seems to like inhabiting blond guys.
FWIW, I think the original mystery of the blond/dark hair might have to do
with Typhon's (and Spring Wind's?) association with Alexander The Great. He
was a blonde Macedonian commanding an army with many darker coloured Greeks. (aside from the parallels of Spring Wind/Typhon to Alexander there is the issue of Alexander's supposed, claimed godhood which resonates).
Larry Miller27 Nov 2011, 20:47
↳ in reply to Sergei SOLOVIEV
Typhons motivation is simple. He wants to extend his life and his rule. His grafting onto Piaton was a desperate measure that he undertook to accomplish this. By saying that he is an alien I am not saying that he is immortal. His original body was dying or died so he sought a way to live on despite the complications and risks.
17 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
On 11/27/11, Sergei SOLOVIEV <soloviev at irit.fr> wrote:
Well, if Typhon would be an alien, it would be much more difficult to graft his head to Piaton. And why take such risky and complex operation? I think that the straightforward explanation is much more convincing.
Typhon is clever enough
to tell the truth when he thinks it will not undermine his power (he may be mistaken, of course). He says to Severian (in the Sword of the Lictor) that he needed a new body (quite understandable for ageing dictator), and that the plan (suggested by his medics) was that his head may be grafted and later, when his head will take all functions - voluntary and involuntary - from Piaton, then the head of Piaton can be removed. He didn't want the people on Urth to know that he has two heads - this is why Severian (in the UotNS) was told not to speak of what he has seen. The cargo of Whorl is conditioned to see Pas as god, so there is no problem with two heads. It was different with the people of the whole Urth - not possible to condition all, hence the risk of the rebellion if they know that the ruler is a monstrosity. And he wanted to keep his face.
Sergei Soloviev
Larry Miller wrote:
Well I dont think that Typhons alien origin was common knowledge among the people thus his comment in Urth where Severian is told by Typhons guard not to speak of anything he sees inside Typhons chambers. Typhon perhaps doesnt want the illusion that he is human shattered. And there is hints in the Vingtners comments to Severian that the people wish to overthrow Typhon. I think hes an alien mainly because of Wolfes naming strategum and some things that he says to Severian. When telling him about his grafting to Piaton he mentions the solar decay and says "I should have left then." I think maybe hes refering to escaping back to his homeworld. His comments about "sending his thoughts into far places" are a reference to some psychic abilities he has (and I know there are those on here that disagree). And theres Severians initial description of the newly resurrected Monarch. "...it was as though one of the monstous constellations of the night sky had fallen to Urth and clothed itself in the flesh of humankind."
On 11/26/11, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
From: Larry Miller
Thanks Gerry. My only problem with this theory is that I believe Typhon is an alien. Silk may be have been a body grown for Pas to use after disembarking, a body for "permanent possession" that he could rule from. Again I am willing to hear any evidence or opinions regarding this.
Why would humans be loyal to an alien? Severian sees him as a man with two heads, but notices no other non-human characteristics. Typhon may well have come from off-Urth, but I think he is human, or approximately so. What makes you think he is an alien?
- Gerry Quinn
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
Severian sees him as a "man" because Piaton is a human. Typhons head however may closely resemble a human or might even be the head of another human body he possessed so that could explain why Severian doesnt remark upon any alien characteristics. His psychic abilities (if he does possess any) seem to be quite different than Decuman who IIRC is the only other human who has any mental powers. His comment about sending his thoughts seem much more in common with the astral travel done by the Inhumi and the Neighbors who are not human. It seems Typhon engineered abilities akin to his into humans (as in the case of Mucor) later.
17 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 11/27/11, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
From: Sergei SOLOVIEV
I agree with Sergei — Typhon may well have come from off-Urth but he is human, or close enough for government work.
Even if he has psychic powers (I personally think he has near-supernatural charisma and leadership abilities) that doesn’t really disqualify him from being human I think.
It’s true that Severian makes much of his astonishment at Typhon, given that we would probably be less amazed by him than by other things Severian doesn’t make a fuss about, But he never mentions anything else strange about him, and when you think about it, he does refer to “the flesh of humankind”.
A possibility occurs to me: do the people of Severian’s time recognise a constellation called Typhon, probably represented as a two-headed man?
- Gerry Quinn
Well, if Typhon would be an alien, it would be much more difficult to graft his head to Piaton. And why take such risky and complex operation? I think that the straightforward explanation is much more convincing.
Larry Miller wrote:
[?] I think hes an alien mainly because
of Wolfes naming strategum and some things that he says to Severian. When telling him about his grafting to Piaton he mentions the solar decay and says "I should have left then." I think maybe hes refering to escaping back to his homeworld. His comments about "sending his thoughts into far places" are a reference to some psychic abilities he has (and I know there are those on here that disagree). And theres Severians initial description of the newly resurrected Monarch. "...it was as though one of the monstous constellations of the night sky had fallen to Urth and clothed itself in the flesh of humankind."
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
Thanks Lee. I think that the concept of aliens in Wolfes universe being evolved or mutated humans is interesting and it may very well be that Typhon could be one of these beings. I think the more likely explanation regarding Silk as clone is that Silk is not a clone of Typhons original alien body but a clone of the blond haired man whose head is grafted onto Piaton. That would explain the hair color at least. As for the Mandragora, I brought that up a few months back as a possible body for Typhon ( I see it as a proto chem and the Prime Calcula that is referred to in Exodus/Long Sun).
67 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/27/11, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:
larry miller: I think hes an alien mainly because
of Wolfes naming strategum and some things that he says to Severian. When telling him about his grafting to Piaton he mentions the solar decay and says "I should have left then." I think maybe hes refering to escaping back to his homeworld. His comments about "sending his thoughts into far places" are a reference to some psychic abilities he has (and I know there are those on here that disagree). And theres Severians initial description of the newly resurrected Monarch. "...it was as though one of the monstous constellations of the night sky had fallen to Urth and clothed itself in the flesh of humankind."
I think your reasoning is spot on, larry. If Wolfe wanted us to think
of Typhon as a normal, Commonwealthy sort of human he would have been
given a saint name. Other non-human aliens are given Roman names like
Inire, Cumaean, Barbatus and Famulimus. Alien monsters are given monster
names from mythology like Abaia, Erebus and Scylla. Why should Typhon not
follow the same rules?
I think idea makes greater sense if we consider that humanity has been
out in space for a long time at the time of Severian's story. Aliens
may well be mutated, evolved humans in origin.
In my understanding, when Wolfe uses mythological names then leaves gaps
in our knowlege about the characters, the gaps may be filled using
mythology. Gods, demons and angels could never appear to humans in their
true form. They always had to assume a human (or animal or other) form to
walk among us. Thus with Typhon. (and Scylla/Cilinia?)
The Mandragora (myth Typhon was a mandragora) is a good clue that Typhon has
human bodies with special abilities cloned for his personality to be downloaded
into. We see this process continued on The Whorl and that feeds into the idea
that Silk was a clone of Typhon. I think it makes more sense to think that Silk
and other special individuals were created so that they might become a receptacle
for the gods.
Another unmentioned hint that Silk was prepared as a receptacle for Pas
is Typhon's mysterious hair color. We are told the two headed guy has
one dark-haired head and one light-haired head but we aren't told which
is Typhon and which is Piaton. There are clues which can tell us that
Typhon was, in fact, the blonde but why would WOlfe make it such a secret
unless it was supposed to be important? For whatever reason, Typhon/Pas seems
to like inhabiting blond guys.
FWIW, I think the original mystery of the blond/dark hair might have to do
with Typhon's (and Spring Wind's?) association with Alexander The Great. He
was a blonde Macedonian commanding an army with many darker coloured Greeks.
(aside from the parallels of Spring Wind/Typhon to Alexander there is the issue
of Alexander's supposed, claimed godhood which resonates).
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
20 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
--- On Sun, 11/27/11, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:
I think your reasoning is spot on, larry. If Wolfe wanted
us to think
of Typhon as a normal, Commonwealthy sort of human he would
have been
given a saint name. Other non-human aliens are given Roman
names like
Inire, Cumaean, Barbatus and Famulimus. Alien monsters are
given monster
names from mythology like Abaia, Erebus and Scylla. Why
should Typhon not
follow the same rules?
The only thing here is that he is from pre-conciliator times (as was Jonas) so it is not clear whether his alien name is indicative of his nature or the time he was named and alive. Admittedly, Jonas was not entirely organic, but his OT name is distinct from the saint's names, so the naming system on pre-conciliator relics and leftovers like Typhon (who could have even assumed the name in his pretension to godhood as he ascended to temporal authority) is a wee bit ambiguous.
Gerry Quinn27 Nov 2011, 21:28
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
From: Larry Miller
1 quoted line
Severian sees him as a "man" because Piaton is a human. Typhons head however may closely resemble a human or might even be the head of another human body he possessed so that could explain why Severian doesnt remark upon any alien characteristics.
I don’t see much reason to think he is non-human, though he may be an off-world human. Sure, he doesn’t have a saint’s name, but then again he made himself into a monster of sorts (Baldanders may have done the same). His family appear to be human, and Cilinia, the only other of his family to be named, bears a saint’s name. He’s apparently human enough to breed with humans. And nobody suggests he is not human AFAIK.
2 quoted lines
His psychic abilities
(if he does possess any) seem to be quite different than Decuman who IIRC is the only other human who has any mental powers.
I think Decuman was merely the most powerful sorceror in his group, not the only one.
2 quoted lines
His comment
about sending his thoughts seem much more in common with the astral travel done by the Inhumi and the Neighbors who are not human. It seems Typhon engineered abilities akin to his into humans (as in the case of Mucor) later.
I still reckon he is just referring to communications technology here.
- Gerry Quinn
Larry Miller27 Nov 2011, 21:49
↳ in reply to Marc Aramini
While Jonas isnt a saintly name it is derived from the bible. As to your other point all the human characters that are from pre-Conciliator era such as Declan, Hadelin, Zama, Herena, even Ymar all named after saints. Ceryx the Necromancer who also possesses some mental abilities and who is also probably from off-world bears a mythological name. Wolfes naming scheme still sticks.
21 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/27/11, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com> wrote:
--- On Sun, 11/27/11, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:
I think your reasoning is spot on, larry. If Wolfe wanted
us to think
of Typhon as a normal, Commonwealthy sort of human he would
have been
given a saint name. Other non-human aliens are given Roman
names like
Inire, Cumaean, Barbatus and Famulimus. Alien monsters are
given monster
names from mythology like Abaia, Erebus and Scylla. Why
should Typhon not
follow the same rules?
The only thing here is that he is from pre-conciliator times (as was Jonas) so it is not clear whether his alien name is indicative of his nature or the time he was named and alive. Admittedly, Jonas was not entirely organic, but his OT name is distinct from the saint's names, so the naming system on pre-conciliator relics and leftovers like Typhon (who could have even assumed the name in his pretension to godhood as he ascended to temporal authority) is a wee bit ambiguous.
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
Ceryx is, I think, the other ambiguous one in exactly the same category as Typhon. It is not entirely entirely clear if he is alien or simply "magical" or "extra-ordinary", though of course theories proliferate about him. Definitely a similar category to Typhon.
Larry Miller27 Nov 2011, 22:03
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
Yes but Typhon seems to have done the opposite of those such as Baldanders. He began as a monster that transformed himself into a human so that he could rule over humans. Him being able to breed with humans may be another reason why he undertook such a transplant.
Maybe Piaton is biologically the father of his children (we know that his sexual organs are still functional because of him "nursing his erection")?
12 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/27/11, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
From: Larry Miller
Severian sees him as a "man" because Piaton is a human. Typhons head however may closely resemble a human or might even be the head of another human body he possessed so that could explain why Severian doesnt remark upon any alien characteristics.
I don’t see much reason to think he is non-human, though he may be an off-world human. Sure, he doesn’t have a saint’s name, but then again he made himself into a monster of sorts (Baldanders may have done the same). His family appear to be human, and Cilinia, the only other of his family to be named, bears a saint’s name. He’s apparently human enough to breed with humans. And nobody suggests he is not human AFAIK.
His psychic abilities
(if he does possess any) seem to be quite different than Decuman who IIRC is the only other human who has any mental powers.
I think Decuman was merely the most powerful sorceror in his group, not the only one.
His comment
about sending his thoughts seem much more in common with the astral travel done by the Inhumi and the Neighbors who are not human. It seems Typhon engineered abilities akin to his into humans (as in the case of Mucor) later.
I still reckon he is just referring to communications technology here.
- Gerry Quinn
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
It is said that the head of Typhon was grafted to Piaton's body about one year before the fall of his empire! It had no time to take control (it is said in the Sword of the Lictor, and in UotNS Severian meets Typhon trying to recover after his operation). Not enough time to make children!
Sergei Soloviev
26 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
Larry Miller wrote:
Yes but Typhon seems to have done the opposite of those such as Baldanders. He began as a monster that transformed himself into a human so that he could rule over humans. Him being able to breed with humans may be another reason why he undertook such a transplant.
Maybe Piaton is biologically the father of his children (we know that his sexual organs are still functional because of him "nursing his erection")?
On 11/27/11, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
From: Larry Miller
Severian sees him as a "man" because Piaton is a human. Typhons head however may closely resemble a human or might even be the head of another human body he possessed so that could explain why Severian doesnt remark upon any alien characteristics.
I don’t see much reason to think he is non-human, though he may be an off-world human. Sure, he doesn’t have a saint’s name, but then again he made himself into a monster of sorts (Baldanders may have done the same). His family appear to be human, and Cilinia, the only other of his family to be named, bears a saint’s name. He’s apparently human enough to breed with humans. And nobody suggests he is not human AFAIK.
His psychic abilities
(if he does possess any) seem to be quite different than Decuman who IIRC is the only other human who has any mental powers.
I think Decuman was merely the most powerful sorceror in his group, not the only one.
His comment
about sending his thoughts seem much more in common with the astral travel done by the Inhumi and the Neighbors who are not human. It seems Typhon engineered abilities akin to his into humans (as in the case of Mucor) later.
I still reckon he is just referring to communications technology here.
- Gerry Quinn
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Marc Aramini
Yeah his powers seem to be telekinetic in nature. I know he breaks Severians staff and animates the corpse. Telekinesis would surely allow these acts as they are physical manipulation. Does he do anything else extraordinary that Telekinesis wouldnt explain?
4 quoted lines
On 11/27/11, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com> wrote:
Ceryx is, I think, the other ambiguous one in exactly the same category as Typhon. It is not entirely entirely clear if he is alien or simply "magical" or "extra-ordinary", though of course theories proliferate about him. Definitely a similar category to Typhon.
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
As to the names, it may be that given names are mostly the names of the saints, but the names chosen for themselves by "actively evil" (or anti-religious) people are not - Typhon, Ceryx may be such names. Baldanders as well, or Dr. Talos. Why do you think they are names given at birth? By the way, are "Casdoe", "Agia", "Agilus" the names of the saints?
Sergei Soloviev
28 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
Larry Miller wrote:
While Jonas isnt a saintly name it is derived from the bible. As to your other point all the human characters that are from pre-Conciliator era such as Declan, Hadelin, Zama, Herena, even Ymar all named after saints. Ceryx the Necromancer who also possesses some mental abilities and who is also probably from off-world bears a mythological name. Wolfes naming scheme still sticks.
On 11/27/11, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com> wrote:
--- On Sun, 11/27/11, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:
I think your reasoning is spot on, larry. If Wolfe wanted
us to think
of Typhon as a normal, Commonwealthy sort of human he would
have been
given a saint name. Other non-human aliens are given Roman
names like
Inire, Cumaean, Barbatus and Famulimus. Alien monsters are
given monster
names from mythology like Abaia, Erebus and Scylla. Why
should Typhon not
follow the same rules?
The only thing here is that he is from pre-conciliator times (as was Jonas) so it is not clear whether his alien name is indicative of his nature or the time he was named and alive. Admittedly, Jonas was not entirely organic, but his OT name is distinct from the saint's names, so the naming system on pre-conciliator relics and leftovers like Typhon (who could have even assumed the name in his pretension to godhood as he ascended to temporal authority) is a wee bit ambiguous.
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Sergei SOLOVIEV
Where does it say when Typhon was grafted to Piaton? And not to be a smart ass but since when is a year not enough time to have children. Besides even if Piaton did not father children through sexual relations there is still artificial insemination, cloning, etc. Maybe his children began life as embryos. There is that comment to Severian that he was not born as we might think it. Perhaps it was the same for his children.
21 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
On 11/27/11, Sergei SOLOVIEV <soloviev at irit.fr> wrote:
It is said that the head of Typhon was grafted to Piaton's body about one year before the fall of his empire! It had no time to take control (it is said in the Sword of the Lictor, and in UotNS Severian meets Typhon trying to recover after his operation). Not enough time to make children!
Sergei Soloviev
Larry Miller wrote:
Yes but Typhon seems to have done the opposite of those such as Baldanders. He began as a monster that transformed himself into a human so that he could rule over humans. Him being able to breed with humans may be another reason why he undertook such a transplant.
Maybe Piaton is biologically the father of his children (we know that his sexual organs are still functional because of him "nursing his erection")?
On 11/27/11, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
From: Larry Miller
Severian sees him as a "man" because Piaton is a human. Typhons head however may closely resemble a human or might even be the head of another human body he possessed so that could explain why Severian doesnt remark upon any alien characteristics.
I don’t see much reason to think he is non-human, though he may be an off-world human. Sure, he doesn’t have a saint’s name, but then again he made himself into a monster of sorts (Baldanders may have done the same). His family appear to be human, and Cilinia, the only other of his family to be named, bears a saint’s name. He’s apparently human enough to breed with humans. And nobody suggests he is not human AFAIK.
His psychic abilities
(if he does possess any) seem to be quite different than Decuman who IIRC is the only other human who has any mental powers.
I think Decuman was merely the most powerful sorceror in his group, not the only one.
His comment
about sending his thoughts seem much more in common with the astral travel done by the Inhumi and the Neighbors who are not human. It seems Typhon engineered abilities akin to his into humans (as in the case of Mucor) later.
I still reckon he is just referring to communications technology here.
- Gerry Quinn
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
What age have the children of Typhon? He had to send the Whorl the year before the end of his rule - the year between the operation (grafting) and rebellions.
Sergei Soloviev
42 quoted lines · 1–5 deep
Larry Miller wrote:
Where does it say when Typhon was grafted to Piaton? And not to be a smart ass but since when is a year not enough time to have children. Besides even if Piaton did not father children through sexual relations there is still artificial insemination, cloning, etc. Maybe his children began life as embryos. There is that comment to Severian that he was not born as we might think it. Perhaps it was the same for his children.
On 11/27/11, Sergei SOLOVIEV <soloviev at irit.fr> wrote:
It is said that the head of Typhon was grafted to Piaton's body about one year before the fall of his empire! It had no time to take control (it is said in the Sword of the Lictor, and in UotNS Severian meets Typhon trying to recover after his operation). Not enough time to make children!
Sergei Soloviev
Larry Miller wrote:
Yes but Typhon seems to have done the opposite of those such as Baldanders. He began as a monster that transformed himself into a human so that he could rule over humans. Him being able to breed with humans may be another reason why he undertook such a transplant.
Maybe Piaton is biologically the father of his children (we know that his sexual organs are still functional because of him "nursing his erection")?
On 11/27/11, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
From: Larry Miller
Severian sees him as a "man" because Piaton is a human. Typhons head however may closely resemble a human or might even be the head of another human body he possessed so that could explain why Severian doesnt remark upon any alien characteristics.
I don’t see much reason to think he is non-human, though he may be an off-world human. Sure, he doesn’t have a saint’s name, but then again he made himself into a monster of sorts (Baldanders may have done the same). His family appear to be human, and Cilinia, the only other of his family to be named, bears a saint’s name. He’s apparently human enough to breed with humans. And nobody suggests he is not human AFAIK.
His psychic abilities
(if he does possess any) seem to be quite different than Decuman who IIRC is the only other human who has any mental powers.
I think Decuman was merely the most powerful sorceror in his group, not the only one.
His comment
about sending his thoughts seem much more in common with the astral travel done by the Inhumi and the Neighbors who are not human. It seems Typhon engineered abilities akin to his into humans (as in the case of Mucor) later.
I still reckon he is just referring to communications technology here.
- Gerry Quinn
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Sergei SOLOVIEV
Yes Agia, Agilus, and Casdoe are saints. Baldanders and Talos are mythic names and that seems to fit with thier natures as Baldanders has become more than human and Talos is a homunculus. As to whether Typhon and Ceryx chose those names themselves, who knows?
28 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
On 11/27/11, Sergei SOLOVIEV <soloviev at irit.fr> wrote:
As to the names, it may be that given names are mostly the names of the saints, but the names chosen for themselves by "actively evil" (or anti-religious) people are not - Typhon, Ceryx may be such names. Baldanders as well, or Dr. Talos. Why do you think they are names given at birth? By the way, are "Casdoe", "Agia", "Agilus" the names of the saints?
Sergei Soloviev
Larry Miller wrote:
While Jonas isnt a saintly name it is derived from the bible. As to your other point all the human characters that are from pre-Conciliator era such as Declan, Hadelin, Zama, Herena, even Ymar all named after saints. Ceryx the Necromancer who also possesses some mental abilities and who is also probably from off-world bears a mythological name. Wolfes naming scheme still sticks.
On 11/27/11, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com> wrote:
--- On Sun, 11/27/11, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:
I think your reasoning is spot on, larry. If Wolfe wanted
us to think
of Typhon as a normal, Commonwealthy sort of human he would
have been
given a saint name. Other non-human aliens are given Roman
names like
Inire, Cumaean, Barbatus and Famulimus. Alien monsters are
given monster
names from mythology like Abaia, Erebus and Scylla. Why
should Typhon not
follow the same rules?
The only thing here is that he is from pre-conciliator times (as was Jonas) so it is not clear whether his alien name is indicative of his nature or the time he was named and alive. Admittedly, Jonas was not entirely organic, but his OT name is distinct from the saint's names, so the naming system on pre-conciliator relics and leftovers like Typhon (who could have even assumed the name in his pretension to godhood as he ascended to temporal authority) is a wee bit ambiguous.
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Sergei SOLOVIEV
I just want to know where the one year figure comes in. Where does it say that?
29 quoted lines · 1–6 deep
On 11/27/11, Sergei SOLOVIEV <soloviev at irit.fr> wrote:
What age have the children of Typhon? He had to send the Whorl the year before the end of his rule - the year between the operation (grafting) and rebellions.
Sergei Soloviev
Larry Miller wrote:
Where does it say when Typhon was grafted to Piaton? And not to be a smart ass but since when is a year not enough time to have children. Besides even if Piaton did not father children through sexual relations there is still artificial insemination, cloning, etc. Maybe his children began life as embryos. There is that comment to Severian that he was not born as we might think it. Perhaps it was the same for his children.
On 11/27/11, Sergei SOLOVIEV <soloviev at irit.fr> wrote:
It is said that the head of Typhon was grafted to Piaton's body about one year before the fall of his empire! It had no time to take control (it is said in the Sword of the Lictor, and in UotNS Severian meets Typhon trying to recover after his operation). Not enough time to make children!
Sergei Soloviev
Larry Miller wrote:
Yes but Typhon seems to have done the opposite of those such as Baldanders. He began as a monster that transformed himself into a human so that he could rule over humans. Him being able to breed with humans may be another reason why he undertook such a transplant.
Maybe Piaton is biologically the father of his children (we know that his sexual organs are still functional because of him "nursing his erection")?
On 11/27/11, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
From: Larry Miller
Severian sees him as a "man" because Piaton is a human. Typhons head however may closely resemble a human or might even be the head of another human body he possessed so that could explain why Severian doesnt remark upon any alien characteristics.
I don’t see much reason to think he is non-human, though he may be an off-world human. Sure, he doesn’t have a saint’s name, but then again he made himself into a monster of sorts (Baldanders may have done the same). His family appear to be human, and Cilinia, the only other of his family to be named, bears a saint’s name. He’s apparently human enough to breed with humans. And nobody suggests he is not human AFAIK.
His psychic abilities
(if he does possess any) seem to be quite different than Decuman who IIRC is the only other human who has any mental powers.
I think Decuman was merely the most powerful sorceror in his group, not the only one.
His comment
about sending his thoughts seem much more in common with the astral travel done by the Inhumi and the Neighbors who are not human. It seems Typhon engineered abilities akin to his into humans (as in the case of Mucor) later.
I still reckon he is just referring to communications technology here.
- Gerry Quinn
_______________________________________________
↳ follows, by subject match Larry Miller
3 quoted lines
larry miller: I think the more likely explanation regarding Silk as clone
is that Silk is not a clone of Typhons original alien body but a clone of
the blond haired man whose head is grafted onto Piaton.
Agreed. (and it would solve some debates on the issue of "Silk=Pas?")
1 quoted line
While Jonas isnt a saintly name it is derived from the bible.
yep, and we learn that Jonas isn't from the Commonwealth nor even human so
the saintly rule is not broken with him. (interestingly, neither is there a
Saint Miles)
5 quoted lines
all the human characters that are from pre-Conciliator era such as Declan,
Hadelin, Zama, Herena, even Ymar all named after saints. Ceryx the
Necromancer who also possesses some mental abilities and who is also probably
from off-world bears a mythological name. Wolfes naming scheme still sticks.
...Does he do anything else extraordinary that Telekinesis wouldnt explain?
Still sizzlin' larry! Yep, the Commonwealth names were saintly before the Conciliator. And in addition to telekinesis, Ceryx reanimates Zama, in zombie fashion. Not as good as Severian but still (dark) magic. This dark reanimation calls to mind some other BotNS characters. Also, I think Ceryx is best seen as Typhon's vizier scouting out this new wonderworker. After the Ceryx encounter, Typhon's soldiers start looking for Severian to bring him in. (some interesting possibilities might arise if Ceryx is vizier, btw).
1 quoted line
Where does it say when Typhon was grafted to Piaton?
Typhon says it, very specifically. "Nor was Piaton grafted to me. I was grafted to him. What do you think of that?"
Also, Piaton's body was strapped down while Typhon waited for his neural connections
to dominate and the corpse appears to still have been strapped down when
Typhon/Piaton died. So I think we can rule out Piaton's body being used for reproduction.
An interesting question is- in what manner do Typhon and Echidna have reproductive sex and have all those kids if they were aliens? And the answer, again, may be found in mythology.
We could ask how a 40 mile tall monster with 100 heads, snakes for legs, with fire
belching out from all his orifices manage to have sex with a snake woman who lives
in cave? Very carefully? I suppose he has to duck his head when he comes in. But, in seriousness, we can't really comprehend such a thing, nor are we really meant to. The ancients used impossible images to explain that which human beings can't really understand. Gene Wolfe also.
António Marques28 Nov 2011, 00:01
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
2 quoted lines
Larry Miller wrote:
Where does it say when Typhon was grafted to Piaton? And not to be a smart ass but since when is a year not enough time to have children. Besides even if Piaton did not father children through sexual relations there is still artificial insemination, cloning, etc. Maybe his children began life as embryos. There is that comment to Severian that he was not born as we might think it. Perhaps it was the same for his children.
Typhon's children mention having a life before being scanned into the Whorl. Cilinia/Scylla was entering puberty.
How come Cilinia's business with monster-Scylla is a treason to Typhon and then Typhon allows her to be scanned into the Whorl as a Scylla?
Gerry Quinn28 Nov 2011, 00:02
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
From: Larry Miller
1 quoted line
Yes but Typhon seems to have done the opposite of those such as Baldanders. He began as a monster that transformed himself into a human so that he could rule over humans.
What makes you think that?
- Gerry Quinn
Larry Miller28 Nov 2011, 00:04
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
Thanks again Lee. I know that Typhon was grafted onto Piaton, my question was when? I was wondering where the One year figure came from between Typhons grafting and his death. If Piaton wasnt the biological father then perhaps it was the blond haired man?
58 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/27/11, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:
larry miller: I think the more likely explanation regarding Silk as clone
is that Silk is not a clone of Typhons original alien body but a clone of
the blond haired man whose head is grafted onto Piaton.
Agreed. (and it would solve some debates on the issue of "Silk=Pas?")
While Jonas isnt a saintly name it is derived from the bible.
yep, and we learn that Jonas isn't from the Commonwealth nor even human so
the saintly rule is not broken with him. (interestingly, neither is there a
Saint Miles)
all the human characters that are from pre-Conciliator era such as Declan,
Hadelin, Zama, Herena, even Ymar all named after saints. Ceryx the
Necromancer who also possesses some mental abilities and who is also probably
from off-world bears a mythological name. Wolfes naming scheme still sticks.
...Does he do anything else extraordinary that Telekinesis wouldnt explain?
Still sizzlin' larry! Yep, the Commonwealth names were saintly before the
Conciliator. And in addition to telekinesis, Ceryx reanimates Zama, in zombie
fashion. Not as good as Severian but still (dark) magic. This dark reanimation
calls to mind some other BotNS characters. Also, I think Ceryx is best seen
as Typhon's vizier scouting out this new wonderworker. After the Ceryx encounter,
Typhon's soldiers start looking for Severian to bring him in. (some interesting
possibilities might arise if Ceryx is vizier, btw).
Where does it say when Typhon was grafted to Piaton?
Typhon says it, very specifically. "Nor was Piaton grafted to me. I was grafted
to him. What do you think of that?"
Also, Piaton's body was strapped down while Typhon waited for his neural connections
to dominate and the corpse appears to still have been strapped down when
Typhon/Piaton died. So I think we can rule out Piaton's body being used for reproduction.
An interesting question is- in what manner do Typhon and Echidna have reproductive
sex and have all those kids if they were aliens? And the answer, again, may be found
in mythology.
We could ask how a 40 mile tall monster with 100 heads, snakes for legs, with fire
belching out from all his orifices manage to have sex with a snake woman who lives
in cave? Very carefully? I suppose he has to duck his head when he comes in. But, in
seriousness, we can't really comprehend such a thing, nor are we really meant to. The
ancients used impossible images to explain that which human beings can't really understand.
Gene Wolfe also.
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
From: Lee Berman
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
larry miller: I think the more likely explanation regarding Silk as clone is that Silk is not a clone of Typhons original alien body but a clone of the blond haired man whose head is grafted onto Piaton.
Agreed. (and it would solve some debates on the issue of "Silk=Pas?")
Surely it’s evident that the blond-haired man was Typhon?
If he were some sort of human mind-slave of a monstrous alien (for which I don’t believe there’s any textual evidence), and if cloning technology were available, then the alien would surely make a bunch of clones and switch to a new one if the old one wore out. There would be no need for head transplants.
Typhon is human or close to human.
Also, if the blond-haired man were the known face of Pas, the same problem would occur with regard to Silk in that none of the Sleepers seem to recognise him as a twin of the Monarch.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn28 Nov 2011, 00:15
↳ in reply to António Marques
From: Ant?nio Marques
1 quoted line
How come Cilinia's business with monster-Scylla is a treason to Typhon and then Typhon allows her to be scanned into the Whorl as a Scylla?
He didn’t know anything about it when she was scanned and the Whorl launched? Though you’d think he’d send a message to Pas on the subject...
- Gerry Quinn
Larry Miller28 Nov 2011, 00:26
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
Before this thread turns into another Typhons Nature Ill just say this: In Castle of the Otter in the Onomastics chapter Wolfe very clearly lays out his naming scheme. His first rule is "Everything is just what it says it is." He even refers to Typhon as a monster and Piaton as a man. Typhon therefore is not human (or at least not in the same way as the Urthlings are) even in Wolfes eyes. There are things in the text that also seem to point to Typhons "alienness." Whether you choose to read them that way is up to the individual reader ultimately. This may just be one of those things we will have to agree to disagree on Gerry.
6 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/27/11, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
From: Larry Miller
Yes but Typhon seems to have done the opposite of those such as Baldanders. He began as a monster that transformed himself into a human so that he could rule over humans.
What makes you think that?
- Gerry Quinn
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
3 quoted lines
Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: Ant?nio Marques <mailto:entonio at gmail.com>
How come Cilinia's business with monster-Scylla is a treason to Typhon a nd then Typhon allows her to be scanned into the Whorl as a Scylla? He didn’t know anything about it when she was scanned and the Whorl launched?
He must, otherwise how would she be a Scylla?
1 quoted line
Though you’d think he’d send a message to Pas on the subject...
An interesting question - was there contact between Urth and the Whorl after the launch? (Can't see why not, if there's beings on Urth able to contact far away minds...)
António Marques28 Nov 2011, 00:38
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
2 quoted lines
Larry Miller wrote:
Before this thread turns into another Typhons Nature
In what way hasn't it?
1 quoted line
Ill just say this: In Castle of the Otter in the Onomastics chapter Wolfe very clearly lays out his naming scheme. His first rule is "Everything is just what it says it is." He even refers to Typhon as a monster and Piaton as a man. Typhon therefore is not human (or at least not in the same way as the Urthlings are) even in Wolfes eyes. There are things in the text that also seem to point to Typhons "alienness." Whether you choose to read them that way is up to the individual reader ultimately. This may just be one of those things we will have to agree to disagree on Gerry.
This is one of those things on which a firm opinion isn't all that relevant in isolation. It's rather 'there's this interesting scheme in which Typhon isn't human' and 'there's this interesting scheme in which Typhon is human'.
Larry Miller28 Nov 2011, 00:41
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
Didnt all the sleepers have thier minds wiped before boarding the Whorl? That would seem to solve the problem of recognition of Silk. Maybe the cloned bodies wouldnt be fully grown in time for Typhon to transfer into. As far as being a "mind slave to a monstrous alien", this doesnt seem to be too far from what the gods of the Whorl do or what the Neighbor supposedly does to Horn in the pit. What would make that type of possession any different?
14 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 11/27/11, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
From: Lee Berman
larry miller: I think the more likely explanation regarding Silk as clone is that Silk is not a clone of Typhons original alien body but a clone of the blond haired man whose head is grafted onto Piaton.
Agreed. (and it would solve some debates on the issue of "Silk=Pas?")
Surely it’s evident that the blond-haired man was Typhon?
If he were some sort of human mind-slave of a monstrous alien (for which I don’t believe there’s any textual evidence), and if cloning technology were available, then the alien would surely make a bunch of clones and switch to a new one if the old one wore out. There would be no need for head transplants.
Typhon is human or close to human.
Also, if the blond-haired man were the known face of Pas, the same problem would occur with regard to Silk in that none of the Sleepers seem to recognise him as a twin of the Monarch.
- Gerry Quinn
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
From: Larry Miller
1 quoted line
Before this thread turns into another Typhons Nature Ill just say this: In Castle of the Otter in the Onomastics chapter Wolfe very clearly lays out his naming scheme. His first rule is "Everything is just what it says it is." He even refers to Typhon as a monster and Piaton as a man. Typhon therefore is not human (or at least not in the same way as the Urthlings are) even in Wolfes eyes. There are things in the text that also seem to point to Typhons "alienness." Whether you choose to read them that way is up to the individual reader ultimately. This may just be one of those things we will have to agree to disagree on Gerry.
Can’t a man be a monster?
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn28 Nov 2011, 01:02
↳ in reply to António Marques
From: Ant?nio Marques
4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: Ant?nio Marques <mailto:entonio at gmail.com>
How come Cilinia's business with monster-Scylla is a treason to Typhon a nd then Typhon allows her to be scanned into the Whorl as a Scylla? He didn’t know anything about it when she was scanned and the Whorl launched?
He must, otherwise how would she be a Scylla?
He mightn?t have known about Scylla. Or he might not have recognised the significance of the name she took.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn28 Nov 2011, 01:16
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
From: Larry Miller
2 quoted lines
Didnt all the sleepers have thier minds wiped before boarding the
Whorl? That would seem to solve the problem of recognition of Silk, and don;t
Something was done to them, but they seem to remember their time on Urth reasonably well. Both Mamelta and Rigoglio have plenty to say about Typhon, and there is no suggestion of lacunae in their memory.
1 quoted line
Maybe the cloned bodies wouldnt be fully grown in time for Typhon to transfer into.
If he read the Evil Overlord’s Handbook, he would have prepared them in advance. But really, when he talks to Severian, it’s hard to believe we are not intended to believe that the head is his own.
2 quoted lines
As far as being a "mind slave to a monstrous alien",
this doesnt seem to be too far from what the gods of the Whorl do or what the Neighbor supposedly does to Horn in the pit. What would make that type of possession any different?
Permanence? The gods? possession of humans tends to be short-lived. Humans are too small to hold them.
As for Horn being possessed by a Neighbour in the pit, there’s not IMO the slightest evidence for it. I could accept for the sake of argument that Horn might have died in the pit and been reconstituted by the Neighbours, but there’s then about two books of him being Horn with a bit of Silk, and the Neighbours clearly regard him as a representative of the human race.
- Gerry Quinn
Larry Miller28 Nov 2011, 01:24
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
well of course Gerry. But Typhon is a monster in the same way that Abaia or Erebus are monsters. As I said before if you see Typhon as human thats fine. I just trust Wolfes naming conventions and certain clues that I interpreted to point towards Typhon not being human. As Ive said before Piaton is surely human and Typhons head is probably human too. But his name seems to signify alien origin. We know that possession of bodies by Typhon and his family is possible so why is it hard to think that Typhon occupied other bodies before Piaton and the blond haired man?
6 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/27/11, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
From: Larry Miller
Before this thread turns into another Typhons Nature Ill just say this: In Castle of the Otter in the Onomastics chapter Wolfe very clearly lays out his naming scheme. His first rule is "Everything is just what it says it is." He even refers to Typhon as a monster and Piaton as a man. Typhon therefore is not human (or at least not in the same way as the Urthlings are) even in Wolfes eyes. There are things in the text that also seem to point to Typhons "alienness." Whether you choose to read them that way is up to the individual reader ultimately. This may just be one of those things we will have to agree to disagree on Gerry.
Can’t a man be a monster?
- Gerry Quinn
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
20 quoted lines
Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: Ant?nio Marques <mailto:entonio at gmail.com>
>
Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
> From: Ant?nio Marques <mailto:entonio at gmail.com>
>
>> How come Cilinia's business with monster-Scylla is a treason to
>
>> Typhon a nd then Typhon allows her to be scanned into the Whorl as
>
>> a Scylla?
>
> He didn’t know anything about it when she was scanned and the Whorl
>
> launched?
>
He must, otherwise how would she be a Scylla?
He mightn?t have known about Scylla. Or he might not have recognised the significance of the name she took.
But it's not only the name, it's the whole package. And he learned instantly of Abaia - or did he?
António Marques28 Nov 2011, 01:30
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
2 quoted lines
Larry Miller wrote:
well of course Gerry. But Typhon is a monster in the same way that Abaia or Erebus are monsters. As I said before if you see Typhon as human thats fine. I just trust Wolfes naming conventions and certain clues that I interpreted to point towards Typhon not being human. As Ive said before Piaton is surely human and Typhons head is probably human too. But his name seems to signify alien origin. We know that possession of bodies by Typhon and his family is possible so why is it hard to think that Typhon occupied other bodies before Piaton and the blond haired man?
It isn't especially hard. But why was his fate tied to the blond head then?
Gerry Quinn28 Nov 2011, 01:39
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
From: Larry Miller
1 quoted line
well of course Gerry. But Typhon is a monster in the same way that Abaia or Erebus are monsters. As I said before if you see Typhon as human thats fine. I just trust Wolfes naming conventions and certain clues that I interpreted to point towards Typhon not being human. As Ive said before Piaton is surely human and Typhons head is probably human too. But his name seems to signify alien origin. We know that possession of bodies by Typhon and his family is possible so why is it hard to think that Typhon occupied other bodies before Piaton and the blond haired man?
The possession is technological, based on light pulses sent via the Sacred Windows. There’s no evidence that Typhon himself can do it. Scanning is the same for Silk as for Typhon / Kypris / Cilinia.
Cilinia, his daughter, seems to be a human girl. She even has a saint’s name. Presumably Kypris is also (we don’t know her original name).
Typhon is unique in his rapid conquest of Urth. If he inhabited other bodies previously, why don’t we hear of them?
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn28 Nov 2011, 01:44
↳ in reply to António Marques
From: Ant?nio Marques
12 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: Ant?nio Marques mailto:entonio at gmail.com
>> How come Cilinia's business with monster-Scylla is a treason to
>> Typhon a nd then Typhon allows her to be scanned into the Whorl as
>> a Scylla?
>
> He didn’t know anything about it when she was scanned and the Whorl
> launched?
>
He must, otherwise how would she be a Scylla?
He mightn?t have known about Scylla. Or he might not have recognised the significance of the name she took.
But it's not only the name, it's the whole package. And he learned instantly of Abaia - or did he?
Either that, or he learned ?ah, my old enemy Abaia is still around, and doing well it seems — maybe it’s time to negotiate a new understanding.
But it seems possible to me that he didn’t recognise an issue with Cilinia when the Whorl was launched. And if she was executed for treason, the exact nature of her treason might not have been known.
- Gerry Quinn
Larry Miller28 Nov 2011, 01:45
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
I dont know about Rigoglio but Mamelta says nothing about Typhon. IIRC the only memory of Urth she relates is being on a patio with her brothers throwing a ball through a water fountain. And I did say "supposedly" that a Neighbor possessed Horn. Ill also agree with you that permanence is a problem when regarding possession. One thing that I think should be stressed is that Typhons grafting was a last ditch effort to extend his life. His possession of the blond haired man could have worn out that body but Typhon wanted to keep his head because it bore the face that the people of Urth knew as Monarch so thats why he undertook such a desperate measure.
14 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/27/11, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
From: Larry Miller
Didnt all the sleepers have thier minds wiped before boarding the
Whorl? That would seem to solve the problem of recognition of Silk, and don;t Something was done to them, but they seem to remember their time on Urth reasonably well. Both Mamelta and Rigoglio have plenty to say about Typhon, and there is no suggestion of lacunae in their memory.
Maybe the cloned bodies wouldnt be fully grown in time for Typhon to transfer into.
If he read the Evil Overlord’s Handbook, he would have prepared them in advance. But really, when he talks to Severian, it’s hard to believe we are not intended to believe that the head is his own.
As far as being a "mind slave to a monstrous alien",
this doesnt seem to be too far from what the gods of the Whorl do or what the Neighbor supposedly does to Horn in the pit. What would make that type of possession any different?
Permanence? The gods? possession of humans tends to be short-lived. Humans are too small to hold them.
As for Horn being possessed by a Neighbour in the pit, there’s not IMO the slightest evidence for it. I could accept for the sake of argument that Horn might have died in the pit and been reconstituted by the Neighbours, but there’s then about two books of him being Horn with a bit of Silk, and the Neighbours clearly regard him as a representative of the human race.
- Gerry Quinn
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
Cilinia has a saints name because she is biologically human as her father is likely Piaton or the Blonde haired man. His fate is tied with this blonde haired man because this is the "face" that the people acknowledge as Monarch. Mainframe possession is technological your right but whose to say that Typhons race didnt possess the means to inhabit others. Is Mucors possession technological? No its not so there you go. As far as other bodies go I do believe we hear about at least one- the mandragora which again I believe is the Prime Calcula mentioned by Echidna when Silk asks "Did Pas ever possess anyone who died?" in Exodus
6 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/27/11, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
From: Larry Miller
well of course Gerry. But Typhon is a monster in the same way that Abaia or Erebus are monsters. As I said before if you see Typhon as human thats fine. I just trust Wolfes naming conventions and certain clues that I interpreted to point towards Typhon not being human. As Ive said before Piaton is surely human and Typhons head is probably human too. But his name seems to signify alien origin. We know that possession of bodies by Typhon and his family is possible so why is it hard to think that Typhon occupied other bodies before Piaton and the blond haired man?
The possession is technological, based on light pulses sent via the Sacred Windows. There’s no evidence that Typhon himself can do it. Scanning is the same for Silk as for Typhon / Kypris / Cilinia. Cilinia, his daughter, seems to be a human girl. She even has a saint’s name. Presumably Kypris is also (we don’t know her original name). Typhon is unique in his rapid conquest of Urth. If he inhabited other bodies previously, why don’t we hear of them?
- Gerry Quinn
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
7 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 11/27/2011 6:42 PM, Lee Berman wrote:
While Jonas isnt a saintly name it is derived from the bible.
yep, and we learn that Jonas isn't from the Commonwealth nor even human so
the saintly rule is not broken with him. (interestingly, neither is there a
Saint Miles)
Miles isn't his real name. Severian calls him that because he is nameless and is a soldier. It means "soldier."
Larry Miller28 Nov 2011, 02:35
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
Doesnt Miles eventually recover some memories and tell Severian that his name is in fact Miles though?
9 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
On 11/27/11, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> wrote: On 11/27/2011 6:42 PM, Lee Berman wrote:
While Jonas isnt a saintly name it is derived from the bible.
yep, and we learn that Jonas isn't from the Commonwealth nor even human so
the saintly rule is not broken with him. (interestingly, neither is there a
Saint Miles)
Miles isn't his real name. Severian calls him that because he is nameless and is a soldier. It means "soldier."
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
No dia 28/11/2011, ?s 01:57, Larry Miller <decanus1284 at gmail.com> escreveu:
2 quoted lines
His fate is tied
with this blonde haired man because this is the "face" that the people acknowledge as Monarch.
Possibly his fate as Monarch, but his fate as a living entity? He does seem to be dead/sleeping from the Concilliator's time to Severian's, and he does seem to die by Severian's hand. Do you hold that he may have been/be somewhere far away, unable to act on Urth while/when the blond head is asleep/dead/killed? Unable or unwilling to possess someone else?
Gerry Quinn28 Nov 2011, 03:15
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
From: Larry Miller
1 quoted line
Cilinia has a saints name because she is biologically human as her father is likely Piaton or the Blonde haired man. His fate is tied with this blonde haired man because this is the "face" that the people acknowledge as Monarch.
Typhon wanted a son. If he were a space monster, surely he would hardly have cared about the son of some random Urthling?
2 quoted lines
Mainframe possession is technological your
right but whose to say that Typhons race didnt possess the means to inhabit others. Is Mucors possession technological? No its not so there you go. As far as other bodies go I do believe we hear about at least one- the mandragora which again I believe is the Prime Calcula mentioned by Echidna when Silk asks "Did Pas ever possess anyone who died?" in Exodus
The mandragora? Do you mean the homunculus in a jar Severian found, probably thousands — and certainly hundreds — of years after Typhon? I don’t see what that has to do with him.
“The prime calcula... His citadel” is surely the Prime Calculator, a component of Mainframe, a sort of primary ALU. Echidna is losing control of Marble when she blurts out these sentence fragments.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn28 Nov 2011, 03:17
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
From: Larry Miller
1 quoted line
I dont know about Rigoglio but Mamelta says nothing about Typhon. IIRC the only memory of Urth she relates is being on a patio with her brothers throwing a ball through a water fountain.
It’s true she doesn’t mention Typhon specifically, but she remembers his family, notably Molpe. They danced through her dreams.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn28 Nov 2011, 03:22
↳ in reply to António Pedro Marques
From: Ant?nio Pedro Marques
5 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
No dia 28/11/2011, ?s 01:57, Larry Miller <decanus1284 at gmail.com> escreveu:
His fate is tied
v> with this blonde haired man because this is the "face" that the people acknowledge as Monarch.
Possibly his fate as Monarch, but his fate as a living entity? He does seem to be dead/sleeping from the Concilliator's time to Severian's, and he does seem to die by Severian's hand. Do you hold that he may have been/be somewhere far away, unable to act on Urth while/when the blond head is asleep/dead/killed? Unable or
unwilling to possess someone else?
That is a good point. And when Severian woke him he was all gung-ho to take over Urth again, yet fifty years later he had not reappeared after being killed. I think Severian got the right guy...
- Gerry Quinn
Lee Berman28 Nov 2011, 03:25
↳ follows, by subject match Gerry Quinn
1 quoted line
larry miller: Didnt all the sleepers have thier minds wiped before boarding the Whorl? That would seem to solve the problem of recognition of Silk.
Yes. There is an additional bit of evidence. In the back of a manteion, during a search for a working window, iirc, Silk discovers a painting of "Pas" depicting him presiding over an orgy scene of sexual debauchery. The nursing of erection(s) presents us with a clear clue that Pas is the Typhon that Severian meets and that the depiction of his tyrannical perversions is accurate.
There is no glimmer of recognition in Silk. No jog of memory of some hint in the Chrasmologic Writings or anything. Silk just considers it utter blasphemy, destroys it on the spot and never mentions it again (iirc). There is clearly something working on the Whorl to erase accurate memories of Typhon. (and that something may be a part of Silk).
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Miles isn't his real name. Severian calls him that because he is nameless and is a soldier. It means "soldier."
larry miller: Doesnt Miles eventually recover some memories and tell Severian that his name is in fact Miles though?
Yes though the restored memory is reported to Severian by a Pelerine, not by
Miles himself.
Larry Miller28 Nov 2011, 04:04
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
No I think that his mind or whatever you want to call it laid dormant all those years between the Conciliator until his resurrection. The reason he didnt reappear is because Severian killed that body before his mind could be transferred into another. I dont think Typhons abilities work in the same way as Mucors where he can jump from body to body at will. There has to be some kind of procedure/operation involved. Unfortunately for him Typhon was stuck in the body that Severian killed.
10 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 11/27/11, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
From: Ant?nio Pedro Marques
No dia 28/11/2011, ?s 01:57, Larry Miller <decanus1284 at gmail.com> escreveu:
His fate is tied
v> with this blonde haired man because this is the "face" that the people acknowledge as Monarch.
Possibly his fate as Monarch, but his fate as a living entity? He does seem to be dead/sleeping from the Concilliator's time to Severian's, and he does seem to die by Severian's hand. Do you hold that he may have been/be somewhere far away, unable to act on Urth while/when the blond head is asleep/dead/killed? Unable or
unwilling to possess someone else?
That is a good point. And when Severian woke him he was all gung-ho to take over Urth again, yet fifty years later he had not reappeared after being killed. I think Severian got the right guy...
- Gerry Quinn
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
From: Lee Berman
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
larry miller: Didnt all the sleepers have thier minds wiped before boarding the Whorl? That would seem to solve the problem of recognition of Silk.
Yes. There is an additional bit of evidence. In the back of a manteion, during a search for a working window, iirc, Silk discovers a painting of "Pas" depicting him presiding over an orgy scene of sexual debauchery. The nursing of erection(s) presents us with a clear clue that Pas is the Typhon that Severian meets and that the depiction of his tyrannical perversions is accurate.
Their minds weren’t wiped — we know that quite clearly from Mamelta and Rigoglio, who remember much of their time on Urth.
As for the painting, it might well have been an realistic psychological portrait, but presumably Piaton had but one penis. (Unless, of course, Typhon had more than one head grafted — but Severian does not mention a second penis.) Most likely, it is just blasphemous porn.
1 quoted line
There is no glimmer of recognition in Silk. No jog of memory of some hint in the Chrasmologic Writings or anything. Silk just considers it utter blasphemy, destroys it on the spot and never mentions it again (iirc). There is clearly something working on the Whorl to erase accurate memories of Typhon. (and that something may be a part of Silk).
It’s 300 years ago. Silk was born ten or fifteen generations after the Whorl was launched, and he has never heard of Typhon anyway, only Pas. There’s no need to speculate on unnatural modes of memory erasure.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn28 Nov 2011, 04:23
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
From: Larry Miller
1 quoted line
No I think that his mind or whatever you want to call it laid dormant all those years between the Conciliator until his resurrection. The reason he didnt reappear is because Severian killed that body before his mind could be transferred into another. I dont think Typhons abilities work in the same way as Mucors where he can jump from body to body at will. There has to be some kind of procedure/operation involved. Unfortunately for him Typhon was stuck in the body that Severian killed.
Why assume an alien with one-way mind transfer, when there’s no difference from if he was human all along?
- Gerry Quinn
António Pedro Marques28 Nov 2011, 04:38
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
No dia 28/11/2011, ?s 04:23, "Gerry Quinn" <gerry at bindweed.com> escreveu:
4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
From: Larry Miller
No I think that his mind or whatever you want to call it laid dormant all those years between the Conciliator until his resurrection. The reason he didnt reappear is because Severian killed that body before his mind could be transferred into another. I dont think Typhons abilities work in the same way as Mucors where he can jump from body to body at will. There has to be some kind of procedure/operation involved. Unfortunately for him Typhon was stuck in the body that Severian killed.
Why assume an alien with one-way mind transfer, when there’s no difference from if he was human all along?
Well, there can be differences between the two scenarios. But they would be reflected somewhere else. That is why, I repeat, the whole question doesn't matter very much in isolation.
Sergei SOLOVIEV28 Nov 2011, 11:18
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
We still can ask whether Baldanders and Talos had chosen their names themselves (or Baldanders had chosen for Talos) - implicitly, for ordinary people in Wolfe's worlds the names are chosen by parents, but for extraordinary people? It is naive to think that Wolfe just has chosen the mythological names - he may want to say that the personages have chosen these names and this says something about their character.
Sergei Soloviev
39 quoted lines · 1–5 deep
Larry Miller wrote:
Yes Agia, Agilus, and Casdoe are saints. Baldanders and Talos are mythic names and that seems to fit with thier natures as Baldanders has become more than human and Talos is a homunculus. As to whether Typhon and Ceryx chose those names themselves, who knows?
On 11/27/11, Sergei SOLOVIEV <soloviev at irit.fr> wrote:
As to the names, it may be that given names are mostly the names of the saints, but the names chosen for themselves by "actively evil" (or anti-religious) people are not - Typhon, Ceryx may be such names. Baldanders as well, or Dr. Talos. Why do you think they are names given at birth? By the way, are "Casdoe", "Agia", "Agilus" the names of the saints?
Sergei Soloviev
Larry Miller wrote:
While Jonas isnt a saintly name it is derived from the bible. As to your other point all the human characters that are from pre-Conciliator era such as Declan, Hadelin, Zama, Herena, even Ymar all named after saints. Ceryx the Necromancer who also possesses some mental abilities and who is also probably from off-world bears a mythological name. Wolfes naming scheme still sticks.
On 11/27/11, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com> wrote:
--- On Sun, 11/27/11, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:
I think your reasoning is spot on, larry. If Wolfe wanted
us to think
of Typhon as a normal, Commonwealthy sort of human he would
have been
given a saint name. Other non-human aliens are given Roman
names like
Inire, Cumaean, Barbatus and Famulimus. Alien monsters are
given monster
names from mythology like Abaia, Erebus and Scylla. Why
should Typhon not
follow the same rules?
The only thing here is that he is from pre-conciliator times (as was Jonas) so it is not clear whether his alien name is indicative of his nature or the time he was named and alive. Admittedly, Jonas was not entirely organic, but his OT name is distinct from the saint's names, so the naming system on pre-conciliator relics and leftovers like Typhon (who could have even assumed the name in his pretension to godhood as he ascended to temporal authority) is a wee bit ambiguous.
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
Duke Rigoglio mentions having seen Pas/Typhon.
Sergei
24 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
Larry Miller wrote:
Didnt all the sleepers have thier minds wiped before boarding the Whorl? That would seem to solve the problem of recognition of Silk. Maybe the cloned bodies wouldnt be fully grown in time for Typhon to transfer into. As far as being a "mind slave to a monstrous alien", this doesnt seem to be too far from what the gods of the Whorl do or what the Neighbor supposedly does to Horn in the pit. What would make that type of possession any different?
On 11/27/11, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
From: Lee Berman
larry miller: I think the more likely explanation regarding Silk as clone is that Silk is not a clone of Typhons original alien body but a clone of the blond haired man whose head is grafted onto Piaton.
Agreed. (and it would solve some debates on the issue of "Silk=Pas?")
Surely it’s evident that the blond-haired man was Typhon?
If he were some sort of human mind-slave of a monstrous alien (for which I don’t believe there’s any textual evidence), and if cloning technology were available, then the alien would surely make a bunch of clones and switch to a new one if the old one wore out. There would be no need for head transplants.
Typhon is human or close to human.
Also, if the blond-haired man were the known face of Pas, the same problem would occur with regard to Silk in that none of the Sleepers seem to recognise him as a twin of the Monarch.
- Gerry Quinn
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
From: Lee Berman
3 quoted lines
Yes. There is an additional bit of evidence. In the back of a manteion, during a search for a working window, iirc, Silk discovers a painting of "Pas" depicting him presiding over an orgy scene of sexual debauchery. The nursing of erection(s) presents us with a clear clue that Pas is the Typhon that Severian meets and that the depiction of his tyrannical perversions is accurate.
There is no glimmer of recognition in Silk. No jog of memory of some hint in the Chrasmologic Writings or anything. Silk just considers it utter blasphemy, destroys it on the spot and never mentions it again (iirc).
Actually this is quite incorrect. Silk recognises the painting as a “crude mockery of Campion’s celebrated painting of Pas enthroned”.
Campion’s painting was probably created at the time the Whorl was being fitted out (it shows bulldozers, referred to as taluses), and in the Whorl, which is unlikely to be as prone to viral images as our current society, would have needed some time to become famous. The obscene parody, then, was presumably created much later.
- Gerry Quinn
António Pedro Marques28 Nov 2011, 14:13
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn wrote (28-11-2011 13:10):
5 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
From: Lee Berman <mailto:severiansola at hotmail.com>
Yes. There is an additional bit of evidence. In the back of a manteion, during a search for a working window, iirc, Silk discovers a painting of "Pas" depicting him presiding over an orgy scene of sexual debauchery. The nursing of erection(s) presents us with a clear clue that Pas is the Typhon that Severian meets and that the depiction of his tyrannical perversions is accurate.
There is no glimmer of recognition in Silk. No jog of memory of some hint in the Chrasmologic Writings or anything. Silk just considers it utter blasphemy, destroys it on the spot and never mentions it again (iirc).
Actually this is quite incorrect. Silk recognises the painting as a “crude mockery of Campion’s celebrated painting of Pas enthroned”. Campion’s painting was probably created at the time the Whorl was being fitted out (it shows bulldozers, referred to as taluses), and in the Whorl, which is unlikely to be as prone to viral images as our current society, would have needed some time to become famous. The obscene parody, then, was presumably created much later.
Either way, what is meant by 'recognition'? If it's that Silk doesn't recognise Typhon, there's no reason he should, he's never met him. If it's that Silk doesn't recognise himself, well, one more hint that he doesn't look like Pas (who probably looks like Typhon, and if he doesn't it's at best neutral data, not evidence for anything).
David Stockhoff28 Nov 2011, 15:42
↳ in reply to António Pedro Marques
8 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 11/28/2011 9:13 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
Gerry Quinn wrote (28-11-2011 13:10):
From: Lee Berman <mailto:severiansola at hotmail.com>
Yes. There is an additional bit of evidence. In the back of a manteion, during a search for a working window, iirc, Silk discovers a painting of "Pas" depicting him presiding over an orgy scene of sexual debauchery. The nursing of erection(s) presents us with a clear clue that Pas is the Typhon that Severian meets and that the depiction of his tyrannical perversions is accurate.
There is no glimmer of recognition in Silk. No jog of memory of some hint in the Chrasmologic Writings or anything. Silk just considers it utter blasphemy, destroys it on the spot and never mentions it again (iirc).
Actually this is quite incorrect. Silk recognises the painting as a “crude mockery of Campion’s celebrated painting of Pas enthroned”. Campion’s painting was probably created at the time the Whorl was being fitted out (it shows bulldozers, referred to as taluses), and in the Whorl, which is unlikely to be as prone to viral images as our current society, would have needed some time to become famous. The obscene parody, then, was presumably created much later.
Either way, what is meant by 'recognition'? If it's that Silk doesn't recognise Typhon, there's no reason he should, he's never met him. If it's that Silk doesn't recognise himself, well, one more hint that he doesn't look like Pas (who probably looks like Typhon, and if he doesn't it's at best neutral data, not evidence for anything).
There's no real reason, even if he is a clone, why Silk should look that much like a parody of a painting of Pas that probably was meant to glorify him. How do we even know Pas looks that much like Typhon? Would a reborn/genetic Jesus recognize his official portrait?
Any ideas on whether Silk's head (when shown to Silk as Pas by Khypris) replaced Piaton's or Typhon's head? is Silk ridden or rider?
Lee Berman28 Nov 2011, 15:55
↳ follows, by subject match David Stockhoff
1 quoted line
Gerry Quinn: Their minds weren’t wiped — we know that quite clearly from Mamelta and Rigoglio, who remember much of their time on Urth.
I would keep in mind that Mamelta was awakened improperly and there was no chance for what might have been the mind wiping process. Rigoglio seems to be a special case, for some reason (authorily to provide the reader with needed information).
But, there was mind erasure going on as is made clear in Tartaros' conversation with Auk. You shouldn't assume it was complete mind erasure. The conversation reflects a selective erasure with regard to the gods and their worship.
3 quoted lines
As for the painting, it might well have been an realistic psychological portrait,
but presumably Piaton had but one penis.....Campion’s painting was probably created
at the time the Whorl was being fitted out (it shows bulldozers, referred to as taluses), and in the Whorl, which is unlikely to be as prone to viral images as our current society, would have needed some time to become famous. The obscene parody, then, was presumably created much later.
The evidence suggests you have it backwards. The bulldozers are a direct reference to the autonomous machines ("wains", iirc) which were used to carve the mountains into Typhon's likeness. The orgy is a direct reference to Typhon's demand of Severian, as his regent, to provide him tribute of young women and boys. The nursing of erections also a direct reference to Severian's experience with Typhon.
Thus the perverted, blasphemous painting, accurately depicting reality on Urth is the older and more original painting. Campion's painting is a cleaned up version of it for use on The Whorl, where Pas is a cleaned up version of Typhon.
what I think is not well understood or discussed is that the cleanup of Typhon and his transformation into the more benign, creative demiurge Pas is the work of the Outsider. The mytho-religious aspects of the Outsider explain why He would want to do this. Silk and perhaps Tartaros are working to accomplish the goals of the Outsider (which include the suppression of Typhon's monstrous family, not to mention the similar, dual-natured Ayuntamiento).
David Stockhoff28 Nov 2011, 16:04
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
9 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/28/2011 10:55 AM, Lee Berman wrote:
As for the painting, it might well have been an realistic psychological portrait,
but presumably Piaton had but one penis.....Campion’s painting was probably created
at the time the Whorl was being fitted out (it shows bulldozers, referred to as taluses), and in the Whorl, which is unlikely to be as prone to viral images as our current society, would have needed some time to become famous. The obscene parody, then, was presumably created much later.
The evidence suggests you have it backwards. The bulldozers are a direct reference to the autonomous machines ("wains", iirc) which were used to carve the mountains into Typhon's likeness. The orgy is a direct reference to Typhon's demand of Severian, as his regent, to provide him tribute of young women and boys. The nursing of erections also a direct reference to Severian's experience with Typhon.
Thus the perverted, blasphemous painting, accurately depicting reality on Urth is the older and more original painting. Campion's painting is a cleaned up version of it for use on The Whorl, where Pas is a cleaned up version of Typhon.
what I think is not well understood or discussed is that the cleanup of Typhon and his transformation into the more benign, creative demiurge Pas is the work of the Outsider. The mytho-religious aspects of the Outsider explain why He would want to do this. Silk and perhaps Tartaros are working to accomplish the goals of the Outsider (which include the suppression of Typhon's monstrous family, not to mention the similar, dual-natured Ayuntamiento).
Lee, that is a great analysis. I have to agree, having never thought about it. I am not sure what damage it does to the general point I just made, though it weakens the argument I gave. I'm still skeptical that a clone of Typhon has to look exactly like an iconic painting of him.
James Wynn28 Nov 2011, 16:30
↳ in reply to Marc Aramini
2 quoted lines
On 11/27/2011 3:27 PM, Marc Aramini wrote:
The only thing here is that he is from pre-conciliator times (as was Jonas) so it is not clear whether his alien name is indicative of his nature or the time he was named and alive. Admittedly, Jonas was not entirely organic, but his OT name is distinct from the saint's names, so the naming system on pre-conciliator relics and leftovers like Typhon (who could have even assumed the name in his pretension to godhood as he ascended to temporal authority) is a wee bit ambiguous.
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
David Stockhoff wrote (28-11-2011 15:42):
10 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
On 11/28/2011 9:13 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
Gerry Quinn wrote (28-11-2011 13:10):
From: Lee Berman <mailto:severiansola at hotmail.com>
Yes. There is an additional bit of evidence. In the back of a manteion, during a search for a working window, iirc, Silk discovers a painting of "Pas" depicting him presiding over an orgy scene of sexual debauchery. The nursing of erection(s) presents us with a clear clue that Pas is the Typhon that Severian meets and that the depiction of his tyrannical perversions is accurate.
There is no glimmer of recognition in Silk. No jog of memory of some hint in the Chrasmologic Writings or anything. Silk just considers it utter blasphemy, destroys it on the spot and never mentions it again (iirc).
Actually this is quite incorrect. Silk recognises the painting as a “crude mockery of Campion’s celebrated painting of Pas enthroned”. Campion’s painting was probably created at the time the Whorl was being fitted out (it shows bulldozers, referred to as taluses), and in the Whorl, which is unlikely to be as prone to viral images as our current society, would have needed some time to become famous. The obscene parody, then, was presumably created much later.
Either way, what is meant by 'recognition'? If it's that Silk doesn't recognise Typhon, there's no reason he should, he's never met him. If it's that Silk doesn't recognise himself, well, one more hint that he doesn't look like Pas (who probably looks like Typhon, and if he doesn't it's at best neutral data, not evidence for anything).
There's no real reason, even if he is a clone, why Silk should look that
much like a parody of a painting of Pas that probably was meant to glorify him.
There is a real reason. It may not be asbolute, but it certainly isn't absent.
However, the issue is whether Silk not finding Pas's likeness familiar is evidence for or against Silk being Typhon's clone: and the conclusion is that while it need not be against it, it certainly isn't for it.
1 quoted line
How do we even know Pas looks that much like Typhon?
I'm not sure we do, but it would be logical.
1 quoted line
Would a reborn/genetic Jesus recognize his official portrait?
If his official portrait had been commissioned by the original Jesus, who had a fixation with his likeness? I think so.
1 quoted line
Any ideas on whether Silk's head (when shown to Silk as Pas by Khypris) replaced Piaton's or Typhon's head? is Silk ridden or rider?
Have none. The only certain part is that Pas's heads were Piaton and Typhon's, not two Typhon'ss (ELS 526-7).
James Wynn28 Nov 2011, 17:35
↳ in reply to Sergei SOLOVIEV
However, their memories have been tinkered with. If a Cargo would not have had a moment of striking recognition at Silk's appearance, I don't think a Sleeper would do any better. The Sleepers don't even call him Typhon. They call him Pas like everyone else. Although he remembers that the gods walked among them on Urth, he also still considers them gods.
22 quoted lines · 1–5 deep
On 11/28/2011 5:26 AM, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote:
Duke Rigoglio mentions having seen Pas/Typhon.
Sergei
Larry Miller wrote:
Didnt all the sleepers have thier minds wiped before boarding the Whorl? That would seem to solve the problem of recognition of Silk. Maybe the cloned bodies wouldnt be fully grown in time for Typhon to transfer into. As far as being a "mind slave to a monstrous alien", this doesnt seem to be too far from what the gods of the Whorl do or what the Neighbor supposedly does to Horn in the pit. What would make that type of possession any different?
On 11/27/11, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
From: Lee Berman
larry miller: I think the more likely explanation regarding Silk as clone is that Silk is not a clone of Typhons original alien body but a clone of the blond haired man whose head is grafted onto Piaton.
Agreed. (and it would solve some debates on the issue of "Silk=Pas?")
Surely it’s evident that the blond-haired man was Typhon?
If he were some sort of human mind-slave of a monstrous alien (for which I don’t believe there’s any textual evidence), and if cloning technology were available, then the alien would surely make a bunch of clones and switch to a new one if the old one wore out. There would be no need for head transplants.
Typhon is human or close to human.
Also, if the blond-haired man were the known face of Pas, the same problem would occur with regard to Silk in that none of the Sleepers seem to recognise him as a twin of the Monarch.
- Gerry Quinn
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to James Wynn
James Wynn wrote (28-11-2011 17:35):
1 quoted line
However, their memories have been tinkered with. If a Cargo would not have had a moment of striking recognition at Silk's appearance, I don't think a Sleeper would do any better. The Sleepers don't even call him Typhon. They call him Pas like everyone else. Although he remembers that the gods walked among them on Urth, he also still considers them gods.
Their memories have been tinkered with in order for them to put their personal lives behind, but there is no suggestion that they have had the Typhons' appearances erased - why would they do that, it would only detract from the Typhons' glory.
David Stockhoff28 Nov 2011, 17:57
↳ in reply to António Pedro Marques
13 quoted lines · 1–5 deep
On 11/28/2011 12:02 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
David Stockhoff wrote (28-11-2011 15:42):
On 11/28/2011 9:13 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
Gerry Quinn wrote (28-11-2011 13:10):
From: Lee Berman <mailto:severiansola at hotmail.com>
Yes. There is an additional bit of evidence. In the back of a manteion, during a search for a working window, iirc, Silk discovers a painting of "Pas" depicting him presiding over an orgy scene of sexual debauchery. The nursing of erection(s) presents us with a clear clue that Pas is the Typhon that Severian meets and that the depiction of his tyrannical perversions is accurate.
There is no glimmer of recognition in Silk. No jog of memory of some hint in the Chrasmologic Writings or anything. Silk just considers it utter blasphemy, destroys it on the spot and never mentions it again (iirc).
Actually this is quite incorrect. Silk recognises the painting as a “crude mockery of Campion’s celebrated painting of Pas enthroned”. Campion’s painting was probably created at the time the Whorl was being fitted out (it shows bulldozers, referred to as taluses), and in the Whorl, which is unlikely to be as prone to viral images as our current society, would have needed some time to become famous. The obscene parody, then, was presumably created much later.
Either way, what is meant by 'recognition'? If it's that Silk doesn't recognise Typhon, there's no reason he should, he's never met him. If it's that Silk doesn't recognise himself, well, one more hint that he doesn't look like Pas (who probably looks like Typhon, and if he doesn't it's at best neutral data, not evidence for anything).
There's no real reason, even if he is a clone, why Silk should look that
much like a parody of a painting of Pas that probably was meant to glorify him.
There is a real reason. It may not be asbolute, but it certainly isn't absent.
If you think there is a real reason why "why Silk should look that much like a parody of a painting of Pas that probably was meant to glorify him" but you don't know what it is, would you at least care to say why you think this is true?
1 quoted line
However, the issue is whether Silk not finding Pas's likeness familiar is evidence for or against Silk being Typhon's clone: and the conclusion is that while it need not be against it, it certainly isn't for it.
I think it is completely neutral in both directions. But remember, the evidence in question is not "Silk not finding Pas's likeness familiar" but rather Silk not commenting on it (i.e., Horn not commenting, which really means only that Silk didn't tell Horn).
Since Silk would hardly have commented on such a thing to anyone ("By the way, Horn, I'm Pas," said Silk ... not!), it can't be evidence of anything at all.
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
How do we even know Pas looks that much like Typhon?
I'm not sure we do, but it would be logical.
Why? Where does this assumption come from?
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Would a reborn/genetic Jesus recognize his official portrait?
If his official portrait had been commissioned by the original Jesus, who had a fixation with his likeness? I think so.
Is there any room in your theory for basic propaganda? You mean the "actual Jesus who would do such a thing" would want an exactly correct portrait, nothing exaggerated?
I grant that it's probably not Typhon's pimply skin or weak chin that gives him his charisma, but if you think such portraits are always extremely accurate I've got a bridge to sell you.
Note also that he had himself shown with two heads. So much for the theory that he just wanted his BLONDE face preserved forever, eh?
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Any ideas on whether Silk's head (when shown to Silk as Pas by Khypris) replaced Piaton's or Typhon's head? is Silk ridden or rider?
Have none. The only certain part is that Pas's heads were Piaton and Typhon's, not two Typhon'ss (ELS 526-7).
Up until then, yes. But the only certain information about his depiction including Silk is this:
The face lovelier than any mortal woman's dispersed like smoke. In its place stood a bronze-limbed man with rippling muscles and two heads.
One was Silk's.
No mention of any distinction between heads whatsoever.
Marc Aramini28 Nov 2011, 18:06
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
Silk's description as a slender but fit guy WOULD NOT MAKE HIM SIMILAR IN BUILD TO piaton at all: he is described as somebody who could run all night, whereas, while Piaton is not THE biggest of Typhon's servants, his description of one of palpable extreme strength. Chenille "looks" stockier and stronger than Silk. I doubt she would look stronger than Piaton. These descriptions preclude Silk being any kind of Piaton - he is the stuff of the original monarch, insofar as he might be related at all to him.
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes28 Nov 2011, 18:16
↳ in reply to Marc Aramini
I think Silk's ability to lead/influence others IS the charisma Typhon associates with his face. The embryo that became Silk was a clone of Typhon into which he intended to d/l himself on arrival at the Whorl's destination, thus preserving his "face."
4 quoted lines
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com> wrote:
Silk's description as a slender but fit guy WOULD NOT MAKE HIM SIMILAR IN BUILD TO piaton at all: he is described as somebody who could run all night, whereas, while Piaton is not THE biggest of Typhon's servants, his description of one of palpable extreme strength. ?Chenille "looks" stockier and stronger than Silk. ?I doubt she would look stronger than Piaton. ?These descriptions preclude Silk being any kind of Piaton - he is the stuff of the original monarch, insofar as he might be related at all to him.
_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
↳ in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
Yeah that seems to be where I was going with my Silk=blond haired man clone idea.
António Pedro Marques28 Nov 2011, 18:37
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
David Stockhoff wrote (28-11-2011 17:57):
13 quoted lines · 1–6 deep
On 11/28/2011 12:02 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
David Stockhoff wrote (28-11-2011 15:42):
On 11/28/2011 9:13 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
Gerry Quinn wrote (28-11-2011 13:10):
From: Lee Berman <mailto:severiansola at hotmail.com>
Yes. There is an additional bit of evidence. In the back of a manteion, during a search for a working window, iirc, Silk discovers a painting of "Pas" depicting him presiding over an orgy scene of sexual debauchery. The nursing of erection(s) presents us with a clear clue that Pas is the Typhon that Severian meets and that the depiction of his tyrannical perversions is accurate.
There is no glimmer of recognition in Silk. No jog of memory of some hint in the Chrasmologic Writings or anything. Silk just considers it utter blasphemy, destroys it on the spot and never mentions it again (iirc).
Actually this is quite incorrect. Silk recognises the painting as a “crude mockery of Campion’s celebrated painting of Pas enthroned”. Campion’s painting was probably created at the time the Whorl was being fitted out (it shows bulldozers, referred to as taluses), and in the Whorl, which is unlikely to be as prone to viral images as our current society, would have needed some time to become famous. The obscene parody, then, was presumably created much later.
Either way, what is meant by 'recognition'? If it's that Silk doesn't recognise Typhon, there's no reason he should, he's never met him. If it's that Silk doesn't recognise himself, well, one more hint that he doesn't look like Pas (who probably looks like Typhon, and if he doesn't it's at best neutral data, not evidence for anything).
There's no real reason, even if he is a clone, why Silk should look that much like a parody of a painting of Pas that probably was meant to glorify him.
There is a real reason. It may not be asbolute, but it certainly isn't absent.
If you think there is a real reason why "why Silk should look that much like a parody of a painting of Pas that probably was meant to glorify him" but you don't know what it is, would you at least care to say why you think this is true?
Clones usually look like the original and parodies usually look like the original, so there is just a wee possibility that a clone of someone should look a wee bit like a parody of that someone.
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
However, the issue is whether Silk not finding Pas's likeness familiar is evidence for or against Silk being Typhon's clone: and the conclusion is that while it need not be against it, it certainly isn't for it.
I think it is completely neutral in both directions.
It is neither neutral nor otherwise. It may or may not be against it; it may not be for it.
4 quoted lines
But remember, the
evidence in question is not "Silk not finding Pas's likeness familiar" but rather Silk not commenting on it (i.e., Horn not commenting, which really means only that Silk didn't tell Horn).
Since Silk would hardly have commented on such a thing to anyone ("By the way, Horn, I'm Pas," said Silk ... not!), it can't be evidence of anything at all.
It isn't it can't, it's it needn't.
3 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
How do we even know Pas looks that much like Typhon?
I'm not sure we do, but it would be logical.
Why? Where does this assumption come from?
Where does any assumption ever come from? If Pas was created from Typhon, any difference between them would need a rationale. Not having an obvious one, it isn't impossible, but it's the less likely option.
3 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
Would a reborn/genetic Jesus recognize his official portrait?
If his official portrait had been commissioned by the original Jesus, who had a fixation with his likeness? I think so.
Is there any room in your theory for basic propaganda? You mean the "actual Jesus who would do such a thing" would want an exactly correct portrait, nothing exaggerated?
When did we begin talking about exageration? I don't think a propaganda portrait of Stalin that made him look like Pi?sudski would be effective.
3 quoted lines
I grant that it's probably not Typhon's pimply skin or weak chin that gives him his charisma, but if you think such portraits are always extremely accurate I've got a bridge to sell you.
Note also that he had himself shown with two heads. So much for the theory that he just wanted his BLONDE face preserved forever, eh?
(I don't follow this one.)
7 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
Any ideas on whether Silk's head (when shown to Silk as Pas by Khypris) replaced Piaton's or Typhon's head? is Silk ridden or rider?
Have none. The only certain part is that Pas's heads were Piaton and Typhon's, not two Typhon'ss (ELS 526-7).
Up until then, yes. But the only certain information about his depiction including Silk is this:
The face lovelier than any mortal woman's dispersed like smoke. In its place stood a bronze-limbed man with rippling muscles and two heads. One was Silk's.
No mention of any distinction between heads whatsoever.
Aside from the fact that
- if Silk replaced Piaton and there weren't a distinction between Silk and Blond, they wouldn't say 'one' was Silk's, as both would be Silk/Blond
- if Silk replaced Blond and there weren't a distinction between Silk and Blond, why would they say it was Silk's now, since it had always been?
Lee Berman28 Nov 2011, 19:23
↳ follows, by subject match António Pedro Marques
2 quoted lines
Marc Aramini: Silk's description as a slender but fit guy WOULD NOT MAKE HIM SIMILAR IN BUILD TO piaton at all.
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: I think Silk's ability to lead/influence others IS the charisma Typhon associates with his face. The embryo that became Silk was a clone of Typhon into which he intended to d/l himself on arrival at the Whorl's destination, thus preserving his "face."
Yes, I think Dan'l's idea is more in line with larry's theory (and what is actually going on, imho).
Leaving the question of Typhon's alien nature aside for now, the Mandragora seems almost indisputable proof of Typhon's potential to be cloned or downloaded into a new body in some manner. There is nothing dragon-like about the fetus in the bottle. What possible reason is there for Wolfe to call it "Mandragora" if not to refer to Typhon, the only other reference to a man-dragon there is.
Severian is shocked beyond belief that Typhon would choose to have his own head chopped off as most of us would be. But Typhon just laughs it off casually demonstrating a lack of human body self-identification and preservation that we all share. Moreover Typhon says he was not born, in the way Severian understands it. The evidence seems pretty clear that the blond-haired body in which Typhon resides is not his original self.
I don't have a definite opinion on what this means in regard to Silk but I think there is surely some connection there. FWIW, I'll mention that at the end of RttW, during a dream-travel to Urth, they are on a ship. Along with snaky-armed Scylla (or is it Cilinia? doesn't matter) there is a big, blonde guy steering the ship. He is clearly supposed to be connected to Typhon/Pas in some manner.
Is this dream-travel version of Pas meant to be Silk? Or is it Jugano? Oreb? I dunno. Maybe someone can make sense of it better than me.
David Stockhoff28 Nov 2011, 19:24
↳ in reply to António Pedro Marques
10 quoted lines · 1–5 deep
On 11/28/2011 1:37 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
David Stockhoff wrote (28-11-2011 17:57):
On 11/28/2011 12:02 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
David Stockhoff wrote (28-11-2011 15:42):
On 11/28/2011 9:13 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
Either way, what is meant by 'recognition'? If it's that Silk doesn't recognise Typhon, there's no reason he should, he's never met him. If it's that Silk doesn't recognise himself, well, one more hint that he doesn't look like Pas (who probably looks like Typhon, and if he doesn't it's at best neutral data, not evidence for anything).
There's no real reason, even if he is a clone, why Silk should look that much like a parody of a painting of Pas that probably was meant to glorify him.
There is a real reason. It may not be asbolute, but it certainly isn't absent.
If you think there is a real reason why "why Silk should look that much like a parody of a painting of Pas that probably was meant to glorify him" but you don't know what it is, would you at least care to say why you think this is true?
Clones usually look like the original and parodies usually look like the original, so there is just a wee possibility that a clone of someone should look a wee bit like a parody of that someone.
I'd put the likely resemblance as a little stronger than "a wee bit," but if we're talking about a minimum (potentially after surgery, scars, etc.) then I agree, especially since the discussion was about looking "exactly" like an original.
However, I think some attention to the word "parody" in the sense of "caricature" is in order. A caricature is the very opposite of an exact copy, in that it exaggerates salient features. So does propaganda.
3 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
However, the issue is whether Silk not finding Pas's likeness familiar is evidence for or against Silk being Typhon's clone: and the conclusion is that while it need not be against it, it certainly isn't for it.
I think it is completely neutral in both directions.
It is neither neutral nor otherwise. It may or may not be against it; it may not be for it.
Please let us know when have an argument for this conclusion, or at least when you care to show a logical path to it, other than simply repeating your assertion.
5 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
But remember, the
evidence in question is not "Silk not finding Pas's likeness familiar" but rather Silk not commenting on it (i.e., Horn not commenting, which really means only that Silk didn't tell Horn).
Since Silk would hardly have commented on such a thing to anyone ("By the way, Horn, I'm Pas," said Silk ... not!), it can't be evidence of anything at all.
It isn't it can't, it's it needn't.
No, it's that it isn't. See my argument.
4 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
How do we even know Pas looks that much like Typhon?
I'm not sure we do, but it would be logical.
Why? Where does this assumption come from?
Where does any assumption ever come from? If Pas was created from Typhon, any difference between them would need a rationale. Not having an obvious one, it isn't impossible, but it's the less likely option.
Now, don't you know what asserting assumptions makes out of you and me?
If you frequently run into clones who look exactly like their originals, that would be a good answer. If you don't, then on what do you base your assumption?
4 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
Would a reborn/genetic Jesus recognize his official portrait?
If his official portrait had been commissioned by the original Jesus, who had a fixation with his likeness? I think so.
Is there any room in your theory for basic propaganda? You mean the "actual Jesus who would do such a thing" would want an exactly correct portrait, nothing exaggerated?
When did we begin talking about exageration? I don't think a propaganda portrait of Stalin that made him look like Pi?sudski would be effective.
Um, okay. But someone mentioned parody, which usually suggests careful exaggeration as a technique. See above.
4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
I grant that it's probably not Typhon's pimply skin or weak chin that gives him his charisma, but if you think such portraits are always extremely accurate I've got a bridge to sell you.
Note also that he had himself shown with two heads. So much for the theory that he just wanted his BLONDE face preserved forever, eh?
(I don't follow this one.)
You said Typhon commissioned the portrait with two heads; you said he was fixated on people seeing his original face. If you see no tension there, forget it.
For all we know, Typhon did NOT commission either painting. He may not have had total control of it, or "died" before the Whorl was launched. It was a huge project.
12 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
Any ideas on whether Silk's head (when shown to Silk as Pas by Khypris) replaced Piaton's or Typhon's head? is Silk ridden or rider?
Have none. The only certain part is that Pas's heads were Piaton and Typhon's, not two Typhon'ss (ELS 526-7).
Up until then, yes. But the only certain information about his depiction including Silk is this:
The face lovelier than any mortal woman's dispersed like smoke. In its place stood a bronze-limbed man with rippling muscles and two heads. One was Silk's.
No mention of any distinction between heads whatsoever.
Aside from the fact that
- if Silk replaced Piaton and there weren't a distinction between Silk and Blond, they wouldn't say 'one' was Silk's, as both would be Silk/Blond
- if Silk replaced Blond and there weren't a distinction between Silk and Blond, why would they say it was Silk's now, since it had always been?
You are continuing to assume that Blond and Silk are totally identical. Given that assumption, you're right: the sentence should read either "Both were Silk's" or "One was Silk's."
But given the assumption that Silk does NOT exactly resemble Typhon, the sentence should read either "One was Silk's" or "One was Silk's."
So we can rule out only that Silk replaced Piaton AND he and Typhon are identical. Both seem implausible to me; there are too many identifications of Silk with Typhon and too little evidence that Silk looks exactly like Typhon.
We are after all talking about a text written by Wolfe. If he had wanted to be clearer he would have said "The lighter one was..." or "The darker one was now..."
David Stockhoff28 Nov 2011, 19:36
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
2 quoted lines
On 11/28/2011 2:23 PM, Lee Berman wrote:
Severian is shocked beyond belief that Typhon would choose to have his own head chopped off as most of us would be. But Typhon just laughs it off casually demonstrating a lack of human body self-identification and preservation that we all share. Moreover Typhon says he was not born, in the way Severian understands it. The evidence seems pretty clear that the blond-haired body in which Typhon resides is not his original self.
Certainly Typhon is uncannily careless of his body. But recall your own theory that what many characters in TBOTNS desire is immortality. His body is now just in the way, whether it is his original one or not.
David Stockhoff28 Nov 2011, 20:17
↳ in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
I'm not sure Typhon actually believed that his face was the source of his charisma. I think his face was simply the face his charisma was attached to, and he as much as said so: "it is the face [and I think he was speaking generally here] that men are accustomed to obey ." Echoing Malrubius' "attachment to the person of the monarch" and meaning only those men who are already accustomed to obey it, not that as many as ten generations from now men will suddenly obey a man with a magic face.
[The only way that could work is for Pas to have been made to look exactly like Typhon and kept in view so that Pas could pop into Silk, who meanwhile looks as much like Pas as possible, and be tyrant again. But Pas was murdered, or people presumably would have been writing "Pas for Calde" on the walls. So the whole Oz-like plan appears to have been rather fuzzy. Pas's face is not exactly everywhere, even allowing for the campaign to erase him. Typhon's own face may have been almost entirely unknown, since showing it had no purpose---no one knew who he was. The "Is Silk Typhon?" question is not whether Silk looks like Typhon but whether he looks like Pas, with whom Silk has no precise genetic relationship, despite some arguments to the contrary.]
Furthermore, I don't see any evidence that Silk is persuasive because of his face, although he must be good-looking enough. He's persuasive because he's decisive and humble and smart and sees things clearly. These may or may not be Typhonian characteristics.
Pas also may have been turned by the Outsider. But do you mean Pas would download himself? Funny, it seems to have almost gone the other way---or maybe it did---with Pas getting Silk's face but staying on the Whorl.
6 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/28/2011 1:16 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
I think Silk's ability to lead/influence others IS the charisma Typhon associates with his face. The embryo that became Silk was a clone of Typhon into which he intended to d/l himself on arrival at the Whorl's destination, thus preserving his "face."
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Marc Aramini<marcaramini at yahoo.com> wrote:
Silk's description as a slender but fit guy WOULD NOT MAKE HIM SIMILAR IN BUILD TO piaton at all: he is described as somebody who could run all night, whereas, while Piaton is not THE biggest of Typhon's servants, his description of one of palpable extreme strength. Chenille "looks" stockier and stronger than Silk. I doubt she would look stronger than Piaton. These descriptions preclude Silk being any kind of Piaton - he is the stuff of the original monarch, insofar as he might be related at all to him.
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
Am I the only one that thinks that the mandragora and the Prime Calcula are one and the same? I know some believe it is a reference to the Mainframe AI but is there any mention of a prime Calculator anywhere? And why would Echidna mention this when asked about Pas possessing bodies? And theres mention of the Citadel in the same sentence.
13 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/28/11, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:
Marc Aramini: Silk's description as a slender but fit guy WOULD NOT MAKE HIM SIMILAR IN BUILD TO piaton at all.
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: I think Silk's ability to lead/influence others IS the charisma Typhon associates with his face. The embryo that became Silk was a clone of Typhon into which he intended to d/l himself on arrival at the Whorl's destination, thus preserving his "face."
Yes, I think Dan'l's idea is more in line with larry's theory (and what is actually going on, imho).
Leaving the question of Typhon's alien nature aside for now, the Mandragora seems almost indisputable proof of Typhon's potential to be cloned or downloaded into a new body in some manner. There is nothing dragon-like about the fetus in the bottle. What possible reason is there for Wolfe to call it "Mandragora" if not to refer to Typhon, the only other reference to a man-dragon there is.
Severian is shocked beyond belief that Typhon would choose to have his own head chopped off as most of us would be. But Typhon just laughs it off casually demonstrating a lack of human body self-identification and preservation that we all share. Moreover Typhon says he was not born, in the way Severian understands it. The evidence seems pretty clear that the blond-haired body in which Typhon resides is not his original self.
I don't have a definite opinion on what this means in regard to Silk but I think there is surely some connection there. FWIW, I'll mention that at the end of RttW, during a dream-travel to Urth, they are on a ship. Along with snaky-armed Scylla (or is it Cilinia? doesn't matter) there is a big, blonde guy steering the ship. He is clearly supposed to be connected to Typhon/Pas in some manner.
Is this dream-travel version of Pas meant to be Silk? Or is it Jugano? Oreb? I dunno. Maybe someone can make sense of it better than me.
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
24 quoted lines · 1–6 deep
David Stockhoff wrote:
On 11/28/2011 1:37 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
David Stockhoff wrote (28-11-2011 17:57):
On 11/28/2011 12:02 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
David Stockhoff wrote (28-11-2011 15:42):
On 11/28/2011 9:13 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
Either way, what is meant by 'recognition'? If it's that
Silk doesn't recognise Typhon, there's no reason he should,
he's never met him. If it's that Silk doesn't recognise
himself, well, one more hint that he doesn't look like Pas
(who probably looks like Typhon, and if he doesn't it's at
best neutral data, not evidence for anything).
There's no real reason, even if he is a clone, why Silk
should look that much like a parody of a painting of Pas that
probably was meant to glorify him.
There is a real reason. It may not be asbolute, but it
certainly isn't absent.
If you think there is a real reason why "why Silk should look that much like a parody of a painting of Pas that probably was meant to glorify him" but you don't know what it is, would you at least care to say why you think this is true?
Clones usually look like the original and parodies usually look like the original, so there is just a wee possibility that a clone of someone should look a wee bit like a parody of that someone.
I'd put the likely resemblance as a little stronger than "a wee bit,"
but if we're talking about a minimum (potentially after surgery, scars, etc.) then I agree, especially since the discussion was about looking "exactly" like an original.
However, I think some attention to the word "parody" in the sense of
"caricature" is in order. A caricature is the very opposite of an exact copy, in that it exaggerates salient features. So does propaganda.
It does, but recognisability, which is the issue, is a desired feature.
4 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
However, the issue is whether Silk not finding Pas's likeness familiar is evidence for or against Silk being Typhon's clone: and the conclusion is that while it need not be against it, it certainly isn't for it.
I think it is completely neutral in both directions.
It is neither neutral nor otherwise. It may or may not be against it; it may not be for it.
Please let us know when have an argument for this conclusion, or at least when you care to show a logical path to it, other than simply repeating your assertion.
The argument for the conclusion was in the paragraphs above the conclusion, which you skipped.
5 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
But remember, the evidence in question is not "Silk not finding Pas's likeness familiar" but rather Silk not commenting on it (i.e., Horn not commenting, which really means only that Silk didn't tell Horn).
Since Silk would hardly have commented on such a thing to anyone ("By the way, Horn, I'm Pas," said Silk ... not!), it can't be evidence of anything at all.
It isn't it can't, it's it needn't.
No, it's that it isn't. See my argument.
Your argument, while tenable, only addresses a part of the issue, and there is a world of difference between 'this isn't 100% certain' and 'the likelihood of this is 50%'.
7 quoted lines · 1–5 deep
How do we even know Pas looks that much like Typhon?
I'm not sure we do, but it would be logical.
Why? Where does this assumption come from?
Where does any assumption ever come from? If Pas was created from Typhon, any difference between them would need a rationale. Not having an obvious one, it isn't impossible, but it's the less likely option.
Now, don't you know what asserting assumptions makes out of you and me?
If you frequently run into clones who look exactly like their originals, that would be a good answer. If you don't, then on what do you base your assumption?
Where do you run into clones that do not look almost exactly like their originals? (I'm anticipating something about FHC, but for the sake of being a discussion of any usefulness, we should be spared the FHC-specific bits.) A 'clone' is what we call someone whose DNA came from another one. Given the same, or roughly the same, DNA, you end up with very similar, if not identical, organisms. I suppose you can tinker with the DNA, but there comes a point when it's no longer meaningful to refer to the resulting individual as a 'clone'.
Moreover, this was on whether Pas, not Silk, looked like Typhon.
7 quoted lines · 1–5 deep
Would a reborn/genetic Jesus recognize his official
portrait?
If his official portrait had been commissioned by the original
Jesus, who had a fixation with his likeness? I think so.
Is there any room in your theory for basic propaganda? You mean the "actual Jesus who would do such a thing" would want an exactly correct portrait, nothing exaggerated?
When did we begin talking about exageration? I don't think a propaganda portrait of Stalin that made him look like Pi?sudski would be effective.
Um, okay. But someone mentioned parody, which usually suggests careful exaggeration as a technique. See above.
But one it comes to that, I don't know what you're arguing. I've clearly said:
- Pas probably looks like Typhon, but one can argue otherwise
- If Silk is Typhon's clone he probably looks like Typhon, but one can argue otherwise
- Therefore if Silk is Typhon's clone he probably looks like Pas, but one can argue otherwise
- What one cannot argue is that Silk not looking like Pas is evidence that Silk is Typhon's clone
I wonder which of the four you find objection with.
8 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
I grant that it's probably not Typhon's pimply skin or weak chin that gives him his charisma, but if you think such portraits are always extremely accurate I've got a bridge to sell you.
Note also that he had himself shown with two heads. So much for the theory that he just wanted his BLONDE face preserved forever, eh?
(I don't follow this one.)
You said Typhon commissioned the portrait with two heads; you said he
was fixated on people seeing his original face. If you see no tension there, forget it.
For all we know, Typhon did NOT commission either painting. He may not have had total control of it, or "died" before the Whorl was launched. It was a huge project.
I didn't say anything of the sort. I said the odds were that the portrait would be reasonably faithful but it might as well not be. That's what qualifying the possibilities with 'probably' means.
The original argument was that Pas didn't look like Typhon because, otherwise, Silk would have recognised Pas as Typhon and shows no hint of doing so. I merely pointed out the problems in that reasoning.
16 quoted lines · 1–5 deep
Any ideas on whether Silk's head (when shown to Silk as Pas
by Khypris) replaced Piaton's or Typhon's head? is Silk
ridden or rider?
Have none. The only certain part is that Pas's heads were
Piaton and Typhon's, not two Typhon'ss (ELS 526-7).
Up until then, yes. But the only certain information about his depiction including Silk is this:
The face lovelier than any mortal woman's dispersed like smoke. In its place stood a bronze-limbed man with rippling muscles and two heads. One was Silk's.
No mention of any distinction between heads whatsoever.
Aside from the fact that
- if Silk replaced Piaton and there weren't a distinction between Silk and Blond, they wouldn't say 'one' was Silk's, as both would be Silk/Blond
- if Silk replaced Blond and there weren't a distinction between Silk and Blond, why would they say it was Silk's now, since it had always been?
You are continuing to assume that Blond and Silk are totally identical. Given that assumption, you're right: the sentence should read either "Both were Silk's" or "One was Silk's."
The issue is that I'm not assuming. I said 'if'.
3 quoted lines
But given the assumption that Silk does NOT exactly resemble Typhon, the sentence should read either "One was Silk's" or "One was Silk's."
So we can rule out only that Silk replaced Piaton AND he and Typhon are identical.
I think we can rule out any one in which Silk and Typhon are strikingly similar.
3 quoted lines
Both seem implausible to me; there are too many
identifications of Silk with Typhon and too little evidence that Silk
looks exactly like Typhon.
And that is why the clone (as opposed to some other blood relationship) theory is unsatisfying for most.
1 quoted line
We are after all talking about a text written by Wolfe. If he had wanted to be clearer he would have said "The lighter one was..." or "The darker one was now..."
Like that couldn't be argued away.
António Marques28 Nov 2011, 21:04
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
2 quoted lines
Larry Miller wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks that the mandragora and the Prime Calcula are one and the same?
No, it's been floated around more than once.
1 quoted line
I know some believe it is a reference to the Mainframe AI but is there any mention of a prime Calculator anywhere? And why would Echidna mention this when asked about Pas possessing bodies? And theres mention of the Citadel in the same sentence.
I think the problem is that nobody knows what to do with either the reference to a 'Prime Calcula' (whatever that might be, is it the Kaaba's stone?) or the Mandragora. It looks as if cutting them out of the story loses us nothing. Which we know can't be the case. But having the 'Prime Calcula' be the Mandragora and the Mandragora be something related to Typhon or Severian opens which perspectives?
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes28 Nov 2011, 21:09
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
2 quoted lines
David Stockhoff wrote:
I'm not sure Typhon actually believed that his face was the source of his charisma. ... I don't see any evidence that Silk is persuasive because of his face...
You're missing my point. I put "face" in quotes because I don't believe for a moment that the face is the source of Silk's charisma. But I am suggesting that Typhon had the same persuasive/commanding ability as Silk; that this was a genetically bred ability; and that Typhon wanted to have it when he (via Pas) came to the Whorl's destination.
And, yes, I did mean that Pas was to d/l into Silk.
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
Lee Berman28 Nov 2011, 21:25
↳ follows, by subject match Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Severian is shocked beyond belief that Typhon would choose to have his own head chopped off as most of us would be. But Typhon just laughs it off casually demonstrating a lack of human body self-identification and preservation that we all share. The evidence seems pretty clear that the blond-haired body in which Typhon resides is not his original self.
David Stockhoff: Certainly Typhon is uncannily careless of his body. But recall your own theory that what many characters in TBOTNS desire is immortality. His body is now just in the way, whether it is his original one or not.
Yes. I think immortality is a key concept. Notice that I didn't discuss Typhon's original "body" but rather his original "self". Immortality might be an inherent quality of such beings (not a far-feched conclusion for beings which can so easily copy themselves).
I strongly consider that Typhon's true, original nature is akin to that of ancient gods, monsters, angels, demons, etc. They are more of what we are forced to call a "spirit" in nature. They don't have any sort of "body" that would make sense to human perception. In many cases (notably Zeus and Jaweh) a human being is destroyed if ever confronted with the true, full glory of a god's presence.
Thus pagan gods, angels, demons etc. must take on a material, human (or animal or burning bush) form to allow them to interact with us. I think this may be what is going on with Typhon and the other gods of the Whorl. With Shadow Children also. And perhaps even inhumi if their original parasitic form was even less substantial than reptiles or lianas.
James Wynn28 Nov 2011, 21:33
↳ in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
2 quoted lines
On 11/28/2011 3:09 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
And, yes, I did mean that Pas was to d/l into Silk.
This is said so often.
But if Typhon wanted Pas to possess Silk as the ruler of Blue, why didn't he do possess Silk at the Mainframe or immediately after? Or, for that matter, any time in the years after Pas was resurrected?
António Marques28 Nov 2011, 21:42
↳ in reply to James Wynn
5 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
James Wynn wrote:
On 11/28/2011 3:09 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
And, yes, I did mean that Pas was to d/l into Silk.
This is said so often.
But if Typhon wanted Pas to possess Silk as the ruler of Blue, why didn't he do possess Silk at the Mainframe or immediately after? Or, for that matter, any time in the years after Pas was resurrected?
Or, for that matter, what for? What good is it for Typhon if some guy in a far away solar system is possessed by a copy of Typhon's mind?
I rather think Silk may have been meant as a viceroy. Not for Pas, a computer program which was meant as a tool, but for Typhon himself, who wasn't planning to get dead.
Larry Miller28 Nov 2011, 21:51
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
Yeah I always wondered if Typhon was in fact a fallen Hierodule. "Better to rule in Hell than to be a slave to Heaven" indeed.
12 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 11/28/11, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:
Severian is shocked beyond belief that Typhon would choose to have his
own head chopped
off as most of us would be. But Typhon just laughs it off casually demonstrating a lack of human body self-identification and preservation that we all share. The evidence seems pretty clear that the blond-haired body in which Typhon resides is not his original self.
David Stockhoff: Certainly Typhon is uncannily careless of his body. But recall your own theory that what many characters in TBOTNS desire is immortality. His body is now just in the way, whether it is his original one or not.
Yes. I think immortality is a key concept. Notice that I didn't discuss Typhon's original "body" but rather his original "self". Immortality might be an inherent quality of such beings (not a far-feched conclusion for beings which can so easily copy themselves).
I strongly consider that Typhon's true, original nature is akin to that of ancient gods, monsters, angels, demons, etc. They are more of what we are forced to call a "spirit" in nature. They don't have any sort of "body" that would make sense to human perception. In many cases (notably Zeus and Jaweh) a human being is destroyed if ever confronted with the true, full glory of a god's presence.
Thus pagan gods, angels, demons etc. must take on a material, human (or animal or burning bush) form to allow them to interact with us. I think this may be what is going on with Typhon and the other gods of the Whorl. With Shadow Children also. And perhaps even inhumi if their original parasitic form was even less substantial than reptiles or lianas.
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to António Marques
26 quoted lines · 1–7 deep
On 11/28/2011 3:56 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:
David Stockhoff wrote:
On 11/28/2011 1:37 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
David Stockhoff wrote (28-11-2011 17:57):
On 11/28/2011 12:02 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
David Stockhoff wrote (28-11-2011 15:42):
On 11/28/2011 9:13 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
Either way, what is meant by 'recognition'? If it's that
Silk doesn't recognise Typhon, there's no reason he should,
he's never met him. If it's that Silk doesn't recognise
himself, well, one more hint that he doesn't look like Pas
(who probably looks like Typhon, and if he doesn't it's at
best neutral data, not evidence for anything).
There's no real reason, even if he is a clone, why Silk
should look that much like a parody of a painting of Pas that
probably was meant to glorify him.
There is a real reason. It may not be asbolute, but it
certainly isn't absent.
If you think there is a real reason why "why Silk should look that much like a parody of a painting of Pas that probably was meant to glorify him" but you don't know what it is, would you at least care to say why you think this is true?
Clones usually look like the original and parodies usually look like the original, so there is just a wee possibility that a clone of someone should look a wee bit like a parody of that someone.
I'd put the likely resemblance as a little stronger than "a wee bit,"
but if we're talking about a minimum (potentially after surgery, scars, etc.) then I agree, especially since the discussion was about looking "exactly" like an original.
However, I think some attention to the word "parody" in the sense of
"caricature" is in order. A caricature is the very opposite of an exact copy, in that it exaggerates salient features. So does propaganda.
It does, but recognisability, which is the issue, is a desired feature.
Yes, and?
5 quoted lines · 1–5 deep
However, the issue is whether Silk not finding Pas's likeness familiar is evidence for or against Silk being Typhon's clone: and the conclusion is that while it need not be against it, it certainly isn't for it.
I think it is completely neutral in both directions.
It is neither neutral nor otherwise. It may or may not be against it; it may not be for it.
Please let us know when have an argument for this conclusion, or at least when you care to show a logical path to it, other than simply repeating your assertion.
The argument for the conclusion was in the paragraphs above the conclusion, which you skipped.
No, I read all of it. You didn't present an argument.
6 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
But remember, the evidence in question is not "Silk not finding Pas's likeness familiar" but rather Silk not commenting on it (i.e., Horn not commenting, which really means only that Silk didn't tell Horn).
Since Silk would hardly have commented on such a thing to anyone ("By the way, Horn, I'm Pas," said Silk ... not!), it can't be evidence of anything at all.
It isn't it can't, it's it needn't.
No, it's that it isn't. See my argument.
Your argument, while tenable, only addresses a part of the issue, and there is a world of difference between 'this isn't 100% certain' and 'the likelihood of this is 50%'.
Neither of which is anything you or I wrote.
8 quoted lines · 1–6 deep
How do we even know Pas looks that much like Typhon?
I'm not sure we do, but it would be logical.
Why? Where does this assumption come from?
Where does any assumption ever come from? If Pas was created from Typhon, any difference between them would need a rationale. Not having an obvious one, it isn't impossible, but it's the less likely option.
Now, don't you know what asserting assumptions makes out of you and me?
If you frequently run into clones who look exactly like their originals, that would be a good answer. If you don't, then on what do you base your assumption?
Where do you run into clones that do not look almost exactly like their originals? (I'm anticipating something about FHC, but for the sake of being a discussion of any usefulness, we should be spared the FHC-specific bits.) A 'clone' is what we call someone whose DNA came from another one. Given the same, or roughly the same, DNA, you end up with very similar, if not identical, organisms. I suppose you can tinker with the DNA, but there comes a point when it's no longer meaningful to refer to the resulting individual as a 'clone'.
Tinker schminker. The critical difference is between genotype and phenotype.
1 quoted line
Moreover, this was on whether Pas, not Silk, looked like Typhon.
Right. Pas doesn't need to look like Typhon, since no one on the Whorl knows or cares what Typhon looks like. Silk doesn't need to look like Typhon, since no one on the Whorl knows or cares what Typhon looks like. But Silk should look roughly like Pas, whom no one has seen in a generation, if he is a clone of Typhon for Pas to possess. Does he? I propose that yes, he looks roughly like these two faces few people have seen in a generation or more (remember that their magic windows don't work). Not enough for anyone to comment on it, but possibly enough for Silk to note and NOT comment on it. We'll never know.
15 quoted lines · 1–6 deep
Would a reborn/genetic Jesus recognize his official
portrait?
If his official portrait had been commissioned by the original
Jesus, who had a fixation with his likeness? I think so.
Is there any room in your theory for basic propaganda? You mean the "actual Jesus who would do such a thing" would want an exactly correct portrait, nothing exaggerated?
When did we begin talking about exageration? I don't think a propaganda portrait of Stalin that made him look like Pi?sudski would be effective.
Um, okay. But someone mentioned parody, which usually suggests careful exaggeration as a technique. See above.
But one it comes to that, I don't know what you're arguing. I've clearly said:
- Pas probably looks like Typhon, but one can argue otherwise
- If Silk is Typhon's clone he probably looks like Typhon, but one can argue otherwise
- Therefore if Silk is Typhon's clone he probably looks like Pas, but one can argue otherwise
- What one cannot argue is that Silk not looking like Pas is evidence that Silk is Typhon's clone
I wonder which of the four you find objection with.
None of them. What I object to is your straitjacketing the discussion into false categories by ignoring the word exactly. Pas probably looks roughly like Typhon; Silk probably looks roughly like Typhon; Silk probably looks roughly like Pas. What they don't do is look exactly like each other.
As for your last assertion---so what? Who has argued that? Rather, I
have stated that it's a matter of the narrative commenting or not commenting. It is NOT a simple matter of whether Silk recognizes himself. Silk not looking like Pas is NOT evidence that Silk is NOT Typhon's clone. It's neutral. That's what we're disagreeing on, remember?
11 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
I grant that it's probably not Typhon's pimply skin or weak chin that gives him his charisma, but if you think such portraits are always extremely accurate I've got a bridge to sell you.
Note also that he had himself shown with two heads. So much for the theory that he just wanted his BLONDE face preserved forever, eh?
(I don't follow this one.)
You said Typhon commissioned the portrait with two heads; you said he
was fixated on people seeing his original face. If you see no tension there, forget it.
For all we know, Typhon did NOT commission either painting. He may not have had total control of it, or "died" before the Whorl was launched. It was a huge project.
I didn't say anything of the sort. I said the odds were that the portrait would be reasonably faithful but it might as well not be. That's what qualifying the possibilities with 'probably' means.
The original argument was that Pas didn't look like Typhon because, otherwise, Silk would have recognised Pas as Typhon and shows no hint of doing so. I merely pointed out the problems in that reasoning.
Where did Silk see Typhon when he knew it was Typhon and not Pas?
17 quoted lines · 1–6 deep
Any ideas on whether Silk's head (when shown to Silk as Pas
by Khypris) replaced Piaton's or Typhon's head? is Silk
ridden or rider?
Have none. The only certain part is that Pas's heads were
Piaton and Typhon's, not two Typhon'ss (ELS 526-7).
Up until then, yes. But the only certain information about his depiction including Silk is this:
The face lovelier than any mortal woman's dispersed like smoke. In its place stood a bronze-limbed man with rippling muscles and two heads. One was Silk's.
No mention of any distinction between heads whatsoever.
Aside from the fact that
- if Silk replaced Piaton and there weren't a distinction between Silk and Blond, they wouldn't say 'one' was Silk's, as both would be Silk/Blond
- if Silk replaced Blond and there weren't a distinction between Silk and Blond, why would they say it was Silk's now, since it had always been?
You are continuing to assume that Blond and Silk are totally identical. Given that assumption, you're right: the sentence should read either "Both were Silk's" or "One was Silk's."
The issue is that I'm not assuming. I said 'if'.
I must have missed the "if not" parts.
5 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
But given the assumption that Silk does NOT exactly resemble Typhon, the sentence should read either "One was Silk's" or "One was Silk's."
So we can rule out only that Silk replaced Piaton AND he and Typhon are identical.
I think we can rule out any one in which Silk and Typhon are
strikingly similar.
Good!
5 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Both seem implausible to me; there are too many
identifications of Silk with Typhon and too little evidence that Silk
looks exactly like Typhon.
And that is why the clone (as opposed to some other blood
relationship) theory is unsatisfying for most.
Right, because you ignore the difference between genotype and phenotype.
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
We are after all talking about a text written by Wolfe. If he had wanted to be clearer he would have said "The lighter one was..." or "The darker one was now..."
Like that couldn't be argued away.
Whatever that means. I will leave it for you to argue.
David Stockhoff28 Nov 2011, 22:21
↳ in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
Understood.
6 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/28/2011 4:09 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
David Stockhoff wrote:
I'm not sure Typhon actually believed that his face was the source of his charisma. ... I don't see any evidence that Silk is persuasive because of his face...
You're missing my point. I put "face" in quotes because I don't believe for a moment that the face is the source of Silk's charisma. But I am suggesting that Typhon had the same persuasive/commanding ability as Silk; that this was a genetically bred ability; and that Typhon wanted to have it when he (via Pas) came to the Whorl's destination.
And, yes, I did mean that Pas was to d/l into Silk.
↳ in reply to António Marques
9 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 11/28/2011 4:42 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:
James Wynn wrote:
On 11/28/2011 3:09 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
And, yes, I did mean that Pas was to d/l into Silk.
This is said so often.
But if Typhon wanted Pas to possess Silk as the ruler of Blue, why didn't he do possess Silk at the Mainframe or immediately after? Or, for that matter, any time in the years after Pas was resurrected?
Or, for that matter, what for? What good is it for Typhon if some guy in a far away solar system is possessed by a copy of Typhon's mind?
I rather think Silk may have been meant as a viceroy. Not for Pas, a computer program which was meant as a tool, but for Typhon himself, who wasn't planning to get dead.
There is that....
António Marques28 Nov 2011, 23:00
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
David, I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. You may go on, but as far as I can tell our only disagreements are on two points (to sum up what I also wrote below):
- You (as many others) often like to assert "there's no reason to believe X" when in fact it's merely that "though the odds are for X, it may well be otherwise". That seriously gets on my nerves. If you don't see yourself in this picture, then maybe it's my wrong impression. If you don't like it as well, that's very good.
- You (as probably others) seem to believe phenotypic plasticity can lead to clones being very different from their originals. That is just not the case in what regards higher animals, the more since the environments aren't radically different, and specifically it won't give you two persons with really different faces. Nor do I think that could have been GW's intention.
26 quoted lines · 1–8 deep
David Stockhoff wrote:
On 11/28/2011 3:56 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:
David Stockhoff wrote:
On 11/28/2011 1:37 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
David Stockhoff wrote (28-11-2011 17:57):
On 11/28/2011 12:02 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
David Stockhoff wrote (28-11-2011 15:42):
On 11/28/2011 9:13 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
Either way, what is meant by 'recognition'? If it's that
Silk doesn't recognise Typhon, there's no reason he should,
he's never met him. If it's that Silk doesn't recognise
himself, well, one more hint that he doesn't look like Pas
(who probably looks like Typhon, and if he doesn't it's at
best neutral data, not evidence for anything).
There's no real reason, even if he is a clone, why Silk
should look that much like a parody of a painting of Pas that
probably was meant to glorify him.
There is a real reason. It may not be asbolute, but it
certainly isn't absent.
If you think there is a real reason why "why Silk should look that much like a parody of a painting of Pas that probably was meant to glorify him" but you don't know what it is, would you at least care to say why you think this is true?
Clones usually look like the original and parodies usually look like the original, so there is just a wee possibility that a clone of someone should look a wee bit like a parody of that someone.
I'd put the likely resemblance as a little stronger than "a wee bit," but if we're talking about a minimum (potentially after surgery, scars, etc.) then I agree, especially since the discussion was about looking "exactly" like an original.
However, I think some attention to the word "parody" in the sense of "caricature" is in order. A caricature is the very opposite of an exact copy, in that it exaggerates salient features. So does propaganda.
It does, but recognisability, which is the issue, is a desired feature.
Yes, and?
And we're talking about Silk not recognising himself in Pas's picture.
6 quoted lines · 1–6 deep
However, the issue is whether Silk not finding Pas's likeness familiar is evidence for or against Silk being Typhon's clone: and the conclusion is that while it need not be against it, it certainly isn't for it.
I think it is completely neutral in both directions.
It is neither neutral nor otherwise. It may or may not be against it; it may not be for it.
Please let us know when have an argument for this conclusion, or at least when you care to show a logical path to it, other than simply repeating your assertion.
The argument for the conclusion was in the paragraphs above the conclusion, which you skipped.
No, I read all of it. You didn't present an argument.
Yes, I did. That's in fact all I did.
7 quoted lines · 1–5 deep
But remember, the evidence in question is not "Silk not finding Pas's likeness familiar" but rather Silk not commenting on it (i.e., Horn not commenting, which really means only that Silk didn't tell Horn).
Since Silk would hardly have commented on such a thing to anyone ("By the way, Horn, I'm Pas," said Silk ... not!), it can't be evidence of anything at all.
It isn't it can't, it's it needn't.
No, it's that it isn't. See my argument.
Your argument, while tenable, only addresses a part of the issue, and there is a world of difference between 'this isn't 100% certain' and 'the likelihood of this is 50%'.
Neither of which is anything you or I wrote.
Of course it is. You chose to depict something that merely isn't certain as 'there is no real reason [for it]'. It's not the first time, either, here or in History. And I really, really, dislike that.
9 quoted lines · 1–7 deep
How do we even know Pas looks that much like Typhon?
I'm not sure we do, but it would be logical.
Why? Where does this assumption come from?
Where does any assumption ever come from? If Pas was created from Typhon, any difference between them would need a rationale. Not having an obvious one, it isn't impossible, but it's the less likely option.
Now, don't you know what asserting assumptions makes out of you and me?
If you frequently run into clones who look exactly like their originals, that would be a good answer. If you don't, then on what do you base your assumption?
Where do you run into clones that do not look almost exactly like their originals? (I'm anticipating something about FHC, but for the sake of being a discussion of any usefulness, we should be spared the FHC-specific bits.) A 'clone' is what we call someone whose DNA came from another one. Given the same, or roughly the same, DNA, you end up with very similar, if not identical, organisms. I suppose you can tinker with the DNA, but there comes a point when it's no longer meaningful to refer to the resulting individual as a 'clone'.
Tinker schminker. The critical difference is between genotype and phenotype.
What do you mean by that?
A genotype and a phenotype aren't 'different'. A phenotype is an expression of a genotype. The same genotype always results in very similar phenotypes, unless you do extensive manipulation of the environment, which is not the case here (Silk was born of a pregnancy), and anyway would result in differences of a different order than mere facial resemblance.
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Moreover, this was on whether Pas, not Silk, looked like Typhon.
Right. Pas doesn't need to look like Typhon, since no one on the Whorl knows or cares what Typhon looks like.
Though neither does he need not to look like Typhon, so that remains the null hypothesis. Ready to be cast aside, but a reason should be provided.
2 quoted lines
Silk doesn't need to look like
Typhon, since no one on the Whorl knows or cares what Typhon looks like. But Silk should look roughly like Pas, whom no one has seen in a generation, if he is a clone of Typhon for Pas to possess. Does he? I propose that yes, he looks roughly like these two faces few people have seen in a generation or more (remember that their magic windows don't work).
And Pas was dead.
2 quoted lines
Not enough for anyone to comment on it, but possibly enough
for Silk to note and NOT comment on it. We'll never know.
I don't think anyone has claimed that people should comment on Silk looking a bit like Pas, only on Silk looking an awful lot like Pas.
15 quoted lines · 1–7 deep
Would a reborn/genetic Jesus recognize his official
portrait?
If his official portrait had been commissioned by the original Jesus, who had a fixation with his likeness? I think so.
Is there any room in your theory for basic propaganda? You mean the "actual Jesus who would do such a thing" would want an exactly correct portrait, nothing exaggerated?
When did we begin talking about exageration? I don't think a propaganda portrait of Stalin that made him look like Pi?sudski would be effective.
Um, okay. But someone mentioned parody, which usually suggests careful exaggeration as a technique. See above.
But one it comes to that, I don't know what you're arguing. I've clearly said:
- Pas probably looks like Typhon, but one can argue otherwise
- If Silk is Typhon's clone he probably looks like Typhon, but one can argue otherwise
- Therefore if Silk is Typhon's clone he probably looks like Pas, but one can argue otherwise
- What one cannot argue is that Silk not looking like Pas is evidence that Silk is Typhon's clone
I wonder which of the four you find objection with.
None of them. What I object to is your straitjacketing the discussion into false categories by ignoring the word exactly. Pas probably looks roughly like Typhon; Silk probably looks roughly like Typhon; Silk probably looks roughly like Pas. What they don't do is look exactly like each other.
But I didn't straitjacket the discussion. There has been nobody claiming that they must look exactly alike. Though, if Silk is a clone of Typhon in any meaningful sense, he really must look like his twin brother given the other particulars of the story. That's just that. You seem to want Silk to be a clone of Typhon without the implications that that brings.
1 quoted line
As for your last assertion---so what? Who has argued that?
That's when/why I entered this discussion.
2 quoted lines
Rather, I
have stated that it's a matter of the narrative commenting or not commenting. It is NOT a simple matter of whether Silk recognizes himself. Silk not looking like Pas is NOT evidence that Silk is NOT Typhon's clone. It's neutral. That's what we're disagreeing on, remember?
Yes, and the way you state it here, you are wrong. It's not neutral. You must provide a reason for Pas not to look like Typhon. All you have provided are reasons for Pas not having to look like Typhon. Should you provide a reason for Pas not to look like Typhon, then Silk not looking like Pas would be noncommittal as to his being Typhon's clone or not in the framework of that reason.
11 quoted lines · 1–5 deep
I grant that it's probably not Typhon's pimply skin or weak chin that gives him his charisma, but if you think such portraits are always extremely accurate I've got a bridge to sell you.
Note also that he had himself shown with two heads. So much for the theory that he just wanted his BLONDE face preserved forever, eh?
(I don't follow this one.)
You said Typhon commissioned the portrait with two heads; you said he was fixated on people seeing his original face. If you see no tension there, forget it.
For all we know, Typhon did NOT commission either painting. He may not have had total control of it, or "died" before the Whorl was launched. It was a huge project.
I didn't say anything of the sort. I said the odds were that the portrait would be reasonably faithful but it might as well not be. That's what qualifying the possibilities with 'probably' means.
The original argument was that Pas didn't look like Typhon because, otherwise, Silk would have recognised Pas as Typhon and shows no hint of doing so. I merely pointed out the problems in that reasoning.
Where did Silk see Typhon when he knew it was Typhon and not Pas?
That's the first problem that was pointed out.
18 quoted lines · 1–7 deep
Any ideas on whether Silk's head (when shown to Silk as Pas
by Khypris) replaced Piaton's or Typhon's head? is Silk
ridden or rider?
Have none. The only certain part is that Pas's heads were
Piaton and Typhon's, not two Typhon'ss (ELS 526-7).
Up until then, yes. But the only certain information about his depiction including Silk is this:
The face lovelier than any mortal woman's dispersed like smoke. In its place stood a bronze-limbed man with rippling muscles and two heads. One was Silk's.
No mention of any distinction between heads whatsoever.
Aside from the fact that
- if Silk replaced Piaton and there weren't a distinction between Silk and Blond, they wouldn't say 'one' was Silk's, as both would be Silk/Blond
- if Silk replaced Blond and there weren't a distinction between Silk and Blond, why would they say it was Silk's now, since it had always been?
You are continuing to assume that Blond and Silk are totally identical. Given that assumption, you're right: the sentence should read either "Both were Silk's" or "One was Silk's."
The issue is that I'm not assuming. I said 'if'.
I must have missed the "if not" parts.
Wherever there's an if, there's an else. An empty else is usually ellided. If Silk and Blond are distinct, then the episode actually makes sense (in both my hypotheses above, it doesn't; it's a reductio ad absurdum).
6 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
But given the assumption that Silk does NOT exactly resemble Typhon, the sentence should read either "One was Silk's" or "One was Silk's."
So we can rule out only that Silk replaced Piaton AND he and Typhon are identical.
I think we can rule out any one in which Silk and Typhon are
strikingly similar.
Good!
Yes!
5 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
Both seem implausible to me; there are too many
identifications of Silk with Typhon and too little evidence that Silk looks exactly like Typhon.
And that is why the clone (as opposed to some other blood
relationship) theory is unsatisfying for most.
Right, because you ignore the difference between genotype and phenotype.
There you go again.
3 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
We are after all talking about a text written by Wolfe. If he had wanted to be clearer he would have said "The lighter one was..." or "The darker one was now..."
Like that couldn't be argued away.
Whatever that means. I will leave it for you to argue.
If only.
James Wynn28 Nov 2011, 23:36
↳ in reply to António Marques
2 quoted lines
On 11/28/2011 5:00 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:
- You (as many others) often like to assert "there's no reason to believe X" when in fact it's merely that "though the odds are for X, it may well be otherwise".
Unfortunately, there are no odds-makers in literary criticism. Perhaps you mean "though THERE ARE REASONS for X, it may well be otherwise". Everybody thinks his theory is the most likely.
1 quoted line
- You (as probably others) seem to believe phenotypic plasticity can lead to clones being very different from their originals. That is just not the case in what regards higher animals, the more since the environments aren't radically different, and specifically it won't give you two persons with really different faces. Nor do I think that could have been GW's intention.
If Silk is a clone of Typhon, we are probably supposed to believe Silk looked a lot like Typhon when he was young. However, there it is nowhere asserted that either head of Pas looks just like Typhon...unless someone is going to argue that the original Echidna had snakes in her hair and Cilinia had squid arms.
Jerry Friedman28 Nov 2011, 23:43
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
1 quoted line
From: Lee Berman severiansola at hotmail.com
...
1 quoted line
Leaving the question of Typhon's alien nature aside for now, the Mandragora seems almost indisputable proof of Typhon's potential to be cloned or downloaded into a new body in some manner. There is nothing dragon-like about the fetus in the bottle. What possible reason is there for Wolfe to call it "Mandragora" if not to refer to Typhon, the only other reference to a man-dragon there is.
...
Oddly enough, a possible answer is at Wikipedia.
"Some alchemists, impressed by this idea, speculated on the culture of the mandragore, and experimented in the artificial reproduction of a soil sufficiently fruitful and a sun sufficiently active to humanise the said root, and thus create men without the concurrence of the female."??A Wikipedia editor has added, "(See: Homunculus)."
From /Transcendental Magic: Its Doctrine and Ritual/?by ?liphas L?vi, translated by?Arthur Edward Waite. The book is at
http://books.google.com/books?id=e0GcOrh-xNAC&pg=PA323
There's a little more on plant-animal hybridization in the full passage, and perhaps people will find other points of interest.
So this may be saying that someone has taken a mandrake root and humanized it, creating a homunculus.
No doubt there's much more to say about this, but this margin is too small.
Jerry Friedman
↳ in reply to James Wynn
4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
James Wynn wrote:
On 11/28/2011 5:00 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:
- You (as many others) often like to assert "there's no reason to believe X" when in fact it's merely that "though the odds are for X, it may well be otherwise".
Unfortunately, there are no odds-makers in literary criticism. Perhaps you mean "though THERE ARE REASONS for X, it may well be otherwise". Everybody thinks his theory is the most likely.
This isn't about theories. This is about when something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. If you want it not to be a duck, you'll have to say why you think it isn't a duck. It may perfectly well not be a duck. However, if you don't even care to say why you want it not to be a duck, please don't go around saying 'there's no reason to believe it is a duck'. Because, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the odds are it is a duck. Presuming it to be a duck is agnostic. 'Agnostic' doesn't mean not taking a stance. It doesn't mean bumping into furniture because that thing that looks like a piece of furniture may or may not be a piece of furniture. Where is literary criticism different? If we're told enlightenment came to Patera Silk in the ball court, the odds are it was in the ball court. The odds are not that it was in Maytera Mint's chambers. Nor are we to say that there is no reason to think it was in the ball court.
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
- You (as probably others) seem to believe phenotypic plasticity can lead to clones being very different from their originals. That is just not the case in what regards higher animals, the more since the environments aren't radically different, and specifically it won't give you two persons with really different faces. Nor do I think that could have been GW's intention.
If Silk is a clone of Typhon, we are probably supposed to believe Silk looked a lot like Typhon when he was young. However, there it is nowhere asserted that either head of Pas looks just like Typhon...unless someone is going to argue that the original Echidna had snakes in her hair and Cilinia had squid arms.
Whether Pas looks like Typhon is a completely different question. Here I was addressing the issue of phenotypes/genotypes.
David Stockhoff28 Nov 2011, 23:58
↳ in reply to António Marques
2 quoted lines
On 11/28/2011 6:00 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:
David, I think we're talking at cross-purposes here.
I heartily agree (I think).
3 quoted lines
You may go on, but as far as I can tell our only disagreements are on two points (to sum up what I also wrote below):
- You (as many others) often like to assert "there's no reason to believe X" when in fact it's merely that "though the odds are for X, it may well be otherwise". That seriously gets on my nerves. If you don't see yourself in this picture, then maybe it's my wrong impression. If you don't like it as well, that's very good.
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to put odds on anything, but I'm pretty sure that kind of argument pisses me off too. You can't prove negatives, so why argue for them? All that does is shoot down other people's suggestions.
1 quoted line
- You (as probably others) seem to believe phenotypic plasticity can lead to clones being very different from their originals. That is just not the case in what regards higher animals, the more since the environments aren't radically different, and specifically it won't give you two persons with really different faces. Nor do I think that could have been GW's intention.
I have a few comments which may or may not be counterarguments:
(1) You and I have never seen a human clone. Therefore, we really have no idea of that plasticity or how much control one may have over it or how we would react to it: Would you recognize your own cloned brother? Maybe you would think so at first and then dismiss it for many reasons.
(2) Human faces are as different from other species as one could imagine. We have little facial fur and have evolved brains that focus to an amazing degree on facial recognition and distinction. We see resemblances easily, but also see differences: "Hey, that guy looks like Tom Hanks, except for the beard and the hair and the clothes...."
(3) Yet our memories are poor and we really only recognize well about 80 face types. But most of the research on this came out since BNS if not BLS.
My point is that there is enough plasticity here for Wolfe to do whatever he needs to do. It's a major plot problem for characters to recognize one another when they can't be allowed to, as well as a great tactic to have characters suspect one another when they "just can't" be that person. Wolfe does all of this and more with great deviousness and precision. If there are strong signals that Silk is a clone of Typhon and strong signals that Silk doesn't look enough like him to be recognized (even by himself!) in a whorl where Typhon is forgotten or distorted, then that's the way it is. But this is not a "just so" story---I hate those too.
Both are true, and if you want a biological explanation it lies in these 3 points and the fact that genotype is not phenotype, and the cloning techniques are unknown anyway. Certainly we know embryos are grown in vivo rather than in a vat, and that means "maternal" hormones will directly and possibly hugely affect phenotype.
I prefer text-based arguments such as those I laid out in my post to Dan'l: Pas has been dead 30 years, the windows are all dark, and Typhon is unknown.
David Stockhoff29 Nov 2011, 00:02
↳ in reply to Jerry Friedman
15 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/28/2011 6:43 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
From: Lee Berman severiansola at hotmail.com
...
Leaving the question of Typhon's alien nature aside for now, the Mandragora seems almost indisputable proof of Typhon's potential to be cloned or downloaded into a new body in some manner. There is nothing dragon-like about the fetus in the bottle. What possible reason is there for Wolfe to call it "Mandragora" if not to refer to Typhon, the only other reference to a man-dragon there is.
...
Oddly enough, a possible answer is at Wikipedia.
"Some alchemists, impressed by this idea, speculated on the culture of the mandragore, and experimented in the artificial reproduction of a soil sufficiently fruitful and a sun sufficiently active to humanise the said root, and thus create men without the concurrence of the female." A Wikipedia editor has added, "(See: Homunculus)."
There's a little more on plant-animal hybridization in the full passage, and perhaps people will find other points of interest.
So this may be saying that someone has taken a mandrake root and humanized it, creating a homunculus.
No doubt there's much more to say about this, but this margin is too small.
Jerry Friedman
Awesome. My guess is that it indicates someone tried to grow a human in a vat, as in Dune, vs surgically placing it in a womb, as done by Blood.
David Stockhoff29 Nov 2011, 00:15
↳ in reply to António Marques
6 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 11/28/2011 6:56 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:
James Wynn wrote:
On 11/28/2011 5:00 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:
- You (as many others) often like to assert "there's no reason to believe X" when in fact it's merely that "though the odds are for X, it may well be otherwise".
Unfortunately, there are no odds-makers in literary criticism. Perhaps you mean "though THERE ARE REASONS for X, it may well be otherwise". Everybody thinks his theory is the most likely.
This isn't about theories. This is about when something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. If you want it not to be a duck, you'll have to say why you think it isn't a duck. It may perfectly well not be a duck. However, if you don't even care to say why you want it not to be a duck, please don't go around saying 'there's no reason to believe it is a duck'. Because, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the odds are it is a duck. Presuming it to be a duck is agnostic. 'Agnostic' doesn't mean not taking a stance. It doesn't mean bumping into furniture because that thing that looks like a piece of furniture may or may not be a piece of furniture. Where is literary criticism different? If we're told enlightenment came to Patera Silk in the ball court, the odds are it was in the ball court. The odds are not that it was in Maytera Mint's chambers. Nor are we to say that there is no reason to think it was in the ball court.
This is a simple case, of course. Others are not so simple. I agree, for example, that if we read "X is a clone of Y" then we can have a working hypothesis that maybe Y robbed the bank, not X who has been falsely accused. We have to consider that cloning may be read as identity.
When we see signs that cloning might not produce identical twins---when characters have no trouble telling X and Y apart---we need to examine our assumptions. That's not the same as asserting that "there is no reason to believe" cloning = identity but I can see how they could be mistaken.
3 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
- You (as probably others) seem to believe phenotypic plasticity can lead to clones being very different from their originals. That is just not the case in what regards higher animals, the more since the environments aren't radically different, and specifically it won't give you two persons with really different faces. Nor do I think that could have been GW's intention.
If Silk is a clone of Typhon, we are probably supposed to believe Silk looked a lot like Typhon when he was young. However, there it is nowhere asserted that either head of Pas looks just like Typhon...unless someone is going to argue that the original Echidna had snakes in her hair and Cilinia had squid arms.
Whether Pas looks like Typhon is a completely different question. Here I was addressing the issue of phenotypes/genotypes.
Do you mean Pas's resemblance to Typhon is purely a matter of artistic, i.e., painterly, or for that matter political, license? If so, I agree, though the two questions are hardly unrelated.
António Marques29 Nov 2011, 00:16
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
8 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
David Stockhoff wrote:
On 11/28/2011 6:00 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:
David, I think we're talking at cross-purposes here.
I heartily agree (I think).
You may go on, but as far as I can tell our only disagreements are on two points (to sum up what I also wrote below):
- You (as many others) often like to assert "there's no reason to believe X" when in fact it's merely that "though the odds are for X, it may well be otherwise". That seriously gets on my nerves. If you don't see yourself in this picture, then maybe it's my wrong impression. If you don't like it as well, that's very good.
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to put odds on anything, but I'm pretty sure that kind of argument pisses me off too. You can't prove negatives, so why argue for them? All that does is shoot down other people's suggestions.
Possibly I misapplied the word 'odds'. Yes, I think you're right.
12 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
- You (as probably others) seem to believe phenotypic plasticity can lead to clones being very different from their originals. That is just not the case in what regards higher animals, the more since the environments aren't radically different, and specifically it won't give you two persons with really different faces. Nor do I think that could have been GW's intention.
I have a few comments which may or may not be counterarguments:
(1) You and I have never seen a human clone. Therefore, we really have no idea of that plasticity or how much control one may have over it or how we would react to it: Would you recognize your own cloned brother? Maybe you would think so at first and then dismiss it for many reasons.
(2) Human faces are as different from other species as one could imagine. We have little facial fur and have evolved brains that focus to an amazing degree on facial recognition and distinction. We see resemblances easily, but also see differences: "Hey, that guy looks like Tom Hanks, except for the beard and the hair and the clothes...."
(3) Yet our memories are poor and we really only recognize well about 80 face types. But most of the research on this came out since BNS if not BLS.
My point is that there is enough plasticity here for Wolfe to do whatever he needs to do. It's a major plot problem for characters to recognize one another when they can't be allowed to, as well as a great tactic to have characters suspect one another when they "just can't" be that person. Wolfe does all of this and more with great deviousness and precision. If there are strong signals that Silk is a clone of Typhon and strong signals that Silk doesn't look enough like him to be recognized (even by himself!) in a whorl where Typhon is forgotten or distorted, then that's the way it is. But this is not a "just so" story---I hate those too.
Both are true, and if you want a biological explanation it lies in these 3 points and the fact that genotype is not phenotype, and the cloning techniques are unknown anyway. Certainly we know embryos are grown in vivo rather than in a vat, and that means "maternal" hormones will directly and possibly hugely affect phenotype.
I have no disagreemnt with any of the above.
1 quoted line
I prefer text-based arguments such as those I laid out in my post to Dan'l: Pas has been dead 30 years, the windows are all dark, and Typhon is unknown.
And the sleepers don't meet Silk - except for Mamelta who is still confused (if she had had more time, she would have had more time, but hey, there's a reason she didn't) - and the Duko who meets a very wizened Silk and didn't have all that much time.
'Silk looks a lot like Typhon but Pas not so much and nobody knows Pas very well anyway' is plausible.
António Marques29 Nov 2011, 00:20
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
10 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
David Stockhoff wrote:
On 11/28/2011 6:56 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:
James Wynn wrote:
On 11/28/2011 5:00 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:
- You (as many others) often like to assert "there's no reason to believe X" when in fact it's merely that "though the odds are for X, it may well be otherwise".
Unfortunately, there are no odds-makers in literary criticism. Perhaps you mean "though THERE ARE REASONS for X, it may well be otherwise". Everybody thinks his theory is the most likely.
This isn't about theories. This is about when something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. If you want it not to be a duck, you'll have to say why you think it isn't a duck. It may perfectly well not be a duck. However, if you don't even care to say why you want it not to be a duck, please don't go around saying 'there's no reason to believe it is a duck'. Because, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the odds are it is a duck. Presuming it to be a duck is agnostic. 'Agnostic' doesn't mean not taking a stance. It doesn't mean bumping into furniture because that thing that looks like a piece of furniture may or may not be a piece of furniture. Where is literary criticism different? If we're told enlightenment came to Patera Silk in the ball court, the odds are it was in the ball court. The odds are not that it was in Maytera Mint's chambers. Nor are we to say that there is no reason to think it was in the ball court.
This is a simple case, of course. Others are not so simple. I agree, for example, that if we read "X is a clone of Y" then we can have a working hypothesis that maybe Y robbed the bank, not X who has been falsely accused. We have to consider that cloning may be read as identity.
When we see signs that cloning might not produce identical twins---when characters have no trouble telling X and Y apart---we need to examine our assumptions. That's not the same as asserting that "there is no reason to believe" cloning = identity but I can see how they could be mistaken.
Correct.
4 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
- You (as probably others) seem to believe phenotypic plasticity can lead to clones being very different from their originals. That is just not the case in what regards higher animals, the more since the environments aren't radically different, and specifically it won't give you two persons with really different faces. Nor do I think that could have been GW's intention.
If Silk is a clone of Typhon, we are probably supposed to believe Silk looked a lot like Typhon when he was young. However, there it is nowhere asserted that either head of Pas looks just like Typhon...unless someone is going to argue that the original Echidna had snakes in her hair and Cilinia had squid arms.
Whether Pas looks like Typhon is a completely different question. Here I was addressing the issue of phenotypes/genotypes.
Do you mean Pas's resemblance to Typhon is purely a matter of artistic, i.e., painterly, or for that matter political, license? If so, I agree, though the two questions are hardly unrelated.
I think so, yes, and yes, they're not unrelated.
Larry Miller29 Nov 2011, 00:20
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
Yeah thats interesting for sure. I agree with David though. Someone tried to grow a human being. The question is who that someone is. Typhon is a logical choice. By the way the Axolotl Tanks are revealed to be the bodies of Tleilaxu females so the vats are wombs. Sorry big Dune fan so I had to chime in on that.
19 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 11/28/11, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> wrote: On 11/28/2011 6:43 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
From: Lee Berman severiansola at hotmail.com
...
Leaving the question of Typhon's alien nature aside for now, the Mandragora seems almost indisputable proof of Typhon's potential to be cloned or downloaded into a new body in some manner. There is nothing dragon-like about the fetus in the bottle. What possible reason is there for Wolfe to call it "Mandragora" if not to refer to Typhon, the only other reference to a man-dragon there is.
...
Oddly enough, a possible answer is at Wikipedia.
"Some alchemists, impressed by this idea, speculated on the culture of the mandragore, and experimented in the artificial reproduction of a soil sufficiently fruitful and a sun sufficiently active to humanise the said root, and thus create men without the concurrence of the female." A Wikipedia editor has added, "(See: Homunculus)."
There's a little more on plant-animal hybridization in the full passage, and perhaps people will find other points of interest.
So this may be saying that someone has taken a mandrake root and humanized it, creating a homunculus.
No doubt there's much more to say about this, but this margin is too small.
Jerry Friedman
Awesome. My guess is that it indicates someone tried to grow a human in a vat, as in Dune, vs surgically placing it in a womb, as done by Blood.
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to António Marques
5 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 11/28/2011 5:56 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:
On 11/28/2011 5:00 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:
- You (as many others) often like to assert "there's no reason to believe X" when in fact it's merely that "though the odds are for X, it may well be otherwise".
Unfortunately, there are no odds-makers in literary criticism. Perhaps you mean "though THERE ARE REASONS for X, it may well be otherwise". Everybody thinks his theory is the most likely.
This isn't about theories. This is about when something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
If it is you own theory, it always quacks.
António Marques29 Nov 2011, 00:37
↳ in reply to James Wynn
7 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
James Wynn wrote:
On 11/28/2011 5:56 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:
On 11/28/2011 5:00 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:
- You (as many others) often like to assert "there's no reason to believe X" when in fact it's merely that "though the odds are for X, it may well be otherwise".
Unfortunately, there are no odds-makers in literary criticism. Perhaps you mean "though THERE ARE REASONS for X, it may well be otherwise". Everybody thinks his theory is the most likely.
This isn't about theories. This is about when something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
If it is you own theory, it always quacks.
If this really is you talking, James, and the odds are it is, I'm beginning to understand you a lot better.
David Stockhoff29 Nov 2011, 01:17
↳ in reply to António Marques
9 quoted lines · 1–5 deep
On 11/28/2011 7:37 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:
James Wynn wrote:
On 11/28/2011 5:56 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:
On 11/28/2011 5:00 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:
- You (as many others) often like to assert "there's no reason to believe X" when in fact it's merely that "though the odds are for X, it may well be otherwise".
Unfortunately, there are no odds-makers in literary criticism. Perhaps you mean "though THERE ARE REASONS for X, it may well be otherwise". Everybody thinks his theory is the most likely.
This isn't about theories. This is about when something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
If it is you own theory, it always quacks.
If this really is you talking, James, and the odds are it is, I'm beginning to understand you a lot better.
Quack!
David Stockhoff29 Nov 2011, 01:20
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
Ah, good. I'm actually a bit disappointed to hear that, because I always found the combination of the word "vat" to be chilling in the context of growing cloned humans. I thought of dank, dark tubs.
Yes, Typhon would have tried that.
23 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
On 11/28/2011 7:20 PM, Larry Miller wrote:
Yeah thats interesting for sure. I agree with David though. Someone tried to grow a human being. The question is who that someone is. Typhon is a logical choice. By the way the Axolotl Tanks are revealed to be the bodies of Tleilaxu females so the vats are wombs. Sorry big Dune fan so I had to chime in on that.
On 11/28/11, David Stockhoff<dstockhoff at verizon.net> wrote:
On 11/28/2011 6:43 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
From: Lee Berman severiansola at hotmail.com
...
Leaving the question of Typhon's alien nature aside for now, the Mandragora seems almost indisputable proof of Typhon's potential to be cloned or downloaded into a new body in some manner. There is nothing dragon-like about the fetus in the bottle. What possible reason is there for Wolfe to call it "Mandragora" if not to refer to Typhon, the only other reference to a man-dragon there is.
...
Oddly enough, a possible answer is at Wikipedia.
"Some alchemists, impressed by this idea, speculated on the culture of the mandragore, and experimented in the artificial reproduction of a soil sufficiently fruitful and a sun sufficiently active to humanise the said root, and thus create men without the concurrence of the female." A Wikipedia editor has added, "(See: Homunculus)."
There's a little more on plant-animal hybridization in the full passage, and perhaps people will find other points of interest.
So this may be saying that someone has taken a mandrake root and humanized it, creating a homunculus.
No doubt there's much more to say about this, but this margin is too small.
Jerry Friedman
Awesome. My guess is that it indicates someone tried to grow a human in a vat, as in Dune, vs surgically placing it in a womb, as done by Blood.
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
Well the Tleilaxu females are lobotomized, hooked to machines, and mutate into massive piles of flesh large enough to birth a full size human clone (or Ghola as the are called in the Duniverse). Id say thats more chilling then a dark, dirty tub!
28 quoted lines · 1–5 deep
On 11/28/11, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> wrote:
Ah, good. I'm actually a bit disappointed to hear that, because I always found the combination of the word "vat" to be chilling in the context of growing cloned humans. I thought of dank, dark tubs.
Yes, Typhon would have tried that.
On 11/28/2011 7:20 PM, Larry Miller wrote:
Yeah thats interesting for sure. I agree with David though. Someone tried to grow a human being. The question is who that someone is. Typhon is a logical choice. By the way the Axolotl Tanks are revealed to be the bodies of Tleilaxu females so the vats are wombs. Sorry big Dune fan so I had to chime in on that.
On 11/28/11, David Stockhoff<dstockhoff at verizon.net> wrote:
On 11/28/2011 6:43 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
From: Lee Berman severiansola at hotmail.com
...
Leaving the question of Typhon's alien nature aside for now, the Mandragora seems almost indisputable proof of Typhon's potential to be cloned or downloaded into a new body in some manner. There is nothing dragon-like about the fetus in the bottle. What possible reason is there for Wolfe to call it "Mandragora" if not to refer to Typhon, the only other reference to a man-dragon there is.
...
Oddly enough, a possible answer is at Wikipedia.
"Some alchemists, impressed by this idea, speculated on the culture of the mandragore, and experimented in the artificial reproduction of a soil sufficiently fruitful and a sun sufficiently active to humanise the said root, and thus create men without the concurrence of the female." A Wikipedia editor has added, "(See: Homunculus)."
There's a little more on plant-animal hybridization in the full passage, and perhaps people will find other points of interest.
So this may be saying that someone has taken a mandrake root and humanized it, creating a homunculus.
No doubt there's much more to say about this, but this margin is too small.
Jerry Friedman
Awesome. My guess is that it indicates someone tried to grow a human in a vat, as in Dune, vs surgically placing it in a womb, as done by Blood.
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
yeah, but in a very different way ....
5 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/28/2011 9:06 PM, Larry Miller wrote:
Well the Tleilaxu females are lobotomized, hooked to machines, and mutate into massive piles of flesh large enough to birth a full size human clone (or Ghola as the are called in the Duniverse). Id say thats more chilling then a dark, dirty tub!
On 11/28/11, David Stockhoff<dstockhoff at verizon.net> wrote:
Ah, good. I'm actually a bit disappointed to hear that, because I always found the combination of the word "vat" to be chilling in the context of growing cloned humans. I thought of dank, dark tubs.
↳ follows, by subject match David Stockhoff
2 quoted lines
Jerry Friedman: >> So this may be saying that someone has taken a mandrake root
and humanized it, creating a homunculus.
It might. But mandrake and mandragora are essentially the same word, "drake" being another word for dragon.
I guess it might be a difference in reading preference. Is a Wolfe book to be read as a random sequence of colorful episodes which have no connection to each other? I don't see it that way.
If a random someone has grown a fetus from a plant root for no apparent reason, I can't see that as a more interesting interpretation than one which explains who created that fetus and for what purpose. As larry says, mandrake and Mandragora both point to Typhon (as homunculus ties to Dr. Talos, but we won't complicate the matter with that, for now).
2 quoted lines
larry miller: The question is who that someone is.
Typhon is a logical choice. By the way the Axolotl Tanks are revealed to be the bodies of Tleilaxu females so the vats are wombs. Sorry big Dune fan so I had to chime in on that.
Dune fan here also. I am one of the few who likes the second trilogy better than the first (I consider Dune books 4, 5 and 6 to be more WOlfe-like, actually). Book 6 was a fantastic finale. (it should have ended there; I find the Frank Herbert-post-mortem Dune books to be unreadable even if his son wrote them. Same for Brian Herbert's attempt to continue the D.Void-Jesus Incident series.)
Anyway, I also agree with larry. The revelation that the clinical Tleilaxu "vats" are really gigantic, decapitated females is presented as a high point of horror in the series. They not only produce facedancers and clones with these giant uteri, they also engineer them to produce volumes of melange spice by the ton-lot. Ugh.
Jerry Friedman29 Nov 2011, 06:23
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
4 quoted lines
From: Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>
Jerry Friedman: >> So this may be saying that someone has taken a mandrake root and humanized it, creating a homunculus.
It might. But mandrake and mandragora are essentially the same word, "drake" being another word for dragon.
Yes, that's why I said the mandragora might be a mandrake root.
"Folk etymology associated the second element with /dragoun/ and substituted native /drake/ in its place."
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=mandrake&searchmode=none1 quoted line
I guess it might be a difference in reading preference. Is a Wolfe book to be read as a random sequence of colorful episodes which have no connection to each? other? I don't see it that way.
Nobody does. Not around here, anyway. Maybe you've misread me and others and think we see it that way, or maybe you know you're exaggerating to the point of considerable distortion, or something else.
1 quoted line
If a random someone has grown a fetus from a plant root for no apparent reason, I can't see that as a more interesting interpretation than one which explains who created that fetus and for what purpose.
Okay. I can't see yours as an interesting interpretation. That's a matter of taste.
However, I am saying that because of the Levi quotation, or just because a fabulous mandrake root is something human-like but not really human, I don't think it's valid to say that the only possible reason for Wolfe to use the word was as a connection to Typhon. Indeed, I think it's quite possible that such a connection never entered his mind.
2 quoted lines
As larry says, mandrake and Mandragora
both point to Typhon (as homunculus ties to Dr. Talos, but we won't complicate the matter with that, for now).
Why don't they point to Ymar? The two Biblical references to mandrakes are in connection with Rachel and the maiden in the Song of Songs, both types of the Virgin Mary in Catholic theology (or I can find at least one source that says that about each one). I don't think I need to make the last connection.
Or why not the Sleeper? Shakespeare refers to mandragora as a soporific, including in a fairly famous passage from /Othello/.
Or Severian in his first life or two? The most famous quotation about a mandrake starts "Go and catch a falling star", which immediately brings to mind the slingers' song, which Wolfe said illuminates--darkly--Severian's past and future.
http://books.google.com/books?id=N-IemS8Uqn0C&pg=PA233
(You might prefer to associate the falling star with Lucifer and thus with Satan, who Typhon echoes.)
1 quoted line · depth 2
larry miller: The question is who that someone is.
Not necessarily. Maybe we're meant to leave it as a mystery and concentrate on the interaction between Severian and the homunculus.
Jerry Friedman
Sergei SOLOVIEV29 Nov 2011, 11:16
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
To me it seems that the vision when Silk sees his own head instead of one of Typhon's/Pas head has to be interpreted "spiritually" - he feels the danger to become a monster because he is (or is going to be) a leader of the people. Even the word "charisma" sounds a bit like a name of a monster.
Sergei Soloviev
23 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
David Stockhoff wrote:
On 11/28/2011 6:00 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:
David, I think we're talking at cross-purposes here.
I heartily agree (I think).
You may go on, but as far as I can tell our only disagreements are on two points (to sum up what I also wrote below):
- You (as many others) often like to assert "there's no reason to believe X" when in fact it's merely that "though the odds are for X, it may well be otherwise". That seriously gets on my nerves. If you don't see yourself in this picture, then maybe it's my wrong impression. If you don't like it as well, that's very good.
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to put odds on anything, but I'm pretty sure that kind of argument pisses me off too. You can't prove negatives, so why argue for them? All that does is shoot down other people's suggestions.
- You (as probably others) seem to believe phenotypic plasticity can lead to clones being very different from their originals. That is just not the case in what regards higher animals, the more since the environments aren't radically different, and specifically it won't give you two persons with really different faces. Nor do I think that could have been GW's intention.
I have a few comments which may or may not be counterarguments:
(1) You and I have never seen a human clone. Therefore, we really have no idea of that plasticity or how much control one may have over it or how we would react to it: Would you recognize your own cloned brother? Maybe you would think so at first and then dismiss it for many reasons.
(2) Human faces are as different from other species as one could imagine. We have little facial fur and have evolved brains that focus to an amazing degree on facial recognition and distinction. We see resemblances easily, but also see differences: "Hey, that guy looks like Tom Hanks, except for the beard and the hair and the clothes...."
(3) Yet our memories are poor and we really only recognize well about 80 face types. But most of the research on this came out since BNS if not BLS.
My point is that there is enough plasticity here for Wolfe to do whatever he needs to do. It's a major plot problem for characters to recognize one another when they can't be allowed to, as well as a great tactic to have characters suspect one another when they "just can't" be that person. Wolfe does all of this and more with great deviousness and precision. If there are strong signals that Silk is a clone of Typhon and strong signals that Silk doesn't look enough like him to be recognized (even by himself!) in a whorl where Typhon is forgotten or distorted, then that's the way it is. But this is not a "just so" story---I hate those too.
Both are true, and if you want a biological explanation it lies in these 3 points and the fact that genotype is not phenotype, and the cloning techniques are unknown anyway. Certainly we know embryos are grown in vivo rather than in a vat, and that means "maternal" hormones will directly and possibly hugely affect phenotype.
I prefer text-based arguments such as those I laid out in my post to Dan'l: Pas has been dead 30 years, the windows are all dark, and Typhon is unknown.
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
Funny that you bring up the D. Void books as I always saw quite a bit of them in Long/Short Sun. The second Dune trilogy is by far better than the first.
43 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/28/11, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:
Jerry Friedman: >> So this may be saying that someone has taken a mandrake root
and humanized it, creating a homunculus.
It might. But mandrake and mandragora are essentially the same word, "drake" being
another word for dragon.
I guess it might be a difference in reading preference. Is a Wolfe book to be read
as a random sequence of colorful episodes which have no connection to each other? I
don't see it that way.
If a random someone has grown a fetus from a plant root for no apparent reason, I
can't see that as a more interesting interpretation than one which explains who
created that fetus and for what purpose. As larry says, mandrake and Mandragora both
point to Typhon (as homunculus ties to Dr. Talos, but we won't complicate the matter
with that, for now).
larry miller: The question is who that someone is.
Typhon is a logical choice. By the way the Axolotl Tanks are revealed to be the bodies of Tleilaxu females so the vats are wombs. Sorry big Dune fan so I had to chime in on that.
Dune fan here also. I am one of the few who likes the second trilogy better than the
first (I consider Dune books 4, 5 and 6 to be more WOlfe-like, actually). Book 6 was a
fantastic finale. (it should have ended there; I find the Frank Herbert-post-mortem Dune
books to be unreadable even if his son wrote them. Same for Brian Herbert's attempt to
continue the D.Void-Jesus Incident series.)
Anyway, I also agree with larry. The revelation that the clinical Tleilaxu "vats" are
really gigantic, decapitated females is presented as a high point of horror in the
series. They not only produce facedancers and clones with these giant uteri, they also
engineer them to produce volumes of melange spice by the ton-lot. Ugh.
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
From: Lee Berman
1 quoted line
Leaving the question of Typhon's alien nature aside for now, the Mandragora seems almost indisputable proof of Typhon's potential to be cloned or downloaded into a new body in some manner. There is nothing dragon-like about the fetus in the bottle. What possible reason is there for Wolfe to call it "Mandragora" if not to refer to Typhon, the only other reference to a man-dragon there is.
Mandragora is a quite standard name for such homunculi. In fact, it’s the only meaning given by Wikipedia:
?In myth, mandragoras are familiar demons who appear in the figures of little men without beards.
Mandragoras are thought to be little dolls or figures given to sorcerers by the Devil for the purpose of being consulted by them in time of need;
How can you talk of “undisputable proof?” All you have is an inconsequential pun. Nothing whatsoever connects the mandragora to Typhon.
1 quoted line
Severian is shocked beyond belief that Typhon would choose to have his own head chopped off as most of us would be. But Typhon just laughs it off casually demonstrating a lack of human body self-identification and preservation that we all share. Moreover Typhon says he was not born, in the way Severian understands it. The evidence seems pretty clear that the blond-haired body in which Typhon resides is not his original self.
What blond-haired body? Typhon resides in Piaton’s body. And indeed, it is not his original self. Nor was his current self born, in the way Severian would understand it.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn29 Nov 2011, 13:46
↳ in reply to James Wynn
From: James Wynn
1 quoted line
However, their memories have been tinkered with. If a Cargo would not have had a moment of striking recognition at Silk's appearance, I don't think a Sleeper would do any better. The Sleepers don't even call him Typhon. They call him Pas like everyone else. Although he remembers that the gods walked among them on Urth, he also still considers them gods.
Mamelta calls him the Monarch. As for the rest, the Sleepers have to get along with the other people of Blue.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn29 Nov 2011, 13:48
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
From: David Stockhoff
1 quoted line
Ah, good. I'm actually a bit disappointed to hear that, because I always found the combination of the word "vat" to be chilling in the context of growing cloned humans. I thought of dank, dark tubs.
Vance usually uses it when his wizards grow humanoid agents (though they are rarely clones exactly).
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn29 Nov 2011, 13:59
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
From: Larry Miller
1 quoted line
Am I the only one that thinks that the mandragora and the Prime Calcula are one and the same? I know some believe it is a reference to the Mainframe AI but is there any mention of a prime Calculator anywhere? And why would Echidna mention this when asked about Pas possessing bodies? And theres mention of the Citadel in the same sentence.
The question Silk asked was about how Pas died — that’s why he asked if Pas possessed someone who died. Echidna answered the implied question, but she was losing control of Marble and her words were fragmented. She is referring to Pas’s last defence in Mainframe. The Prime Calculator, or Prime Calculation Unit, or whatever, was Pas’s citadel. [Possibly it was damaged in the struggle, but that’s speculation.]
She looks towards the Sacred window as she says it. I think that’s an indication of looking towards Mainframe, though I suppose I would interpret it the same way if she looked east.
For me, “prime calculator” is the obvious interpretation — “calcula” isn’t even a word, really. And a reference to the Citadel of Nessus makes no sense that I can see.
- Gerry Quinn
David Stockhoff29 Nov 2011, 14:17
↳ in reply to Jerry Friedman
6 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/29/2011 1:23 AM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
From: Lee Berman<severiansola at hotmail.com>
If a random someone has grown a fetus from a plant root for no apparent reason, I can't see that as a more interesting interpretation than one which explains who created that fetus and for what purpose.
Okay. I can't see yours as an interesting interpretation. That's a matter of taste.
However, I am saying that because of the Levi quotation, or just because a fabulous mandrake root is something human-like but not really human, I don't think it's valid to say that the only possible reason for Wolfe to use the word was as a connection to Typhon. Indeed, I think it's quite possible that such a connection never entered his mind.
Sorry, what's the Levi quotation?
It's quite possible, except that the whole cloning/in vivo/possession/scanning trope was plainly already in Wolfe's mind, and as such maybe the LS/SS arcs as well. Typhon is a major connection between Severian in the Citadel and the embryonic Silk in the Whorl. So it stands to reason that Typhon created it as a failed experiment on the way to devising his colonization strategies, but it's not a critical plot point.
4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
As larry says, mandrake and Mandragora
both point to Typhon (as homunculus ties to Dr. Talos, but we won't complicate the matter with that, for now).
Why don't they point to Ymar? The two Biblical references to mandrakes are in connection with Rachel and the maiden in the Song of Songs, both types of the Virgin Mary in Catholic theology (or I can find at least one source that says that about each one). I don't think I need to make the last connection.
Actually, please do. I don't follow this or know the references at all. Why Ymar? (I did just find the Rachel ones but don;t know how to interpret them.)
1 quoted line
Or why not the Sleeper? Shakespeare refers to mandragora as a soporific, including in a fairly famous passage from /Othello/.
Meaning "the sleepers" on the Whorl? Or another sleeper?
1 quoted line
Or Severian in his first life or two? The most famous quotation about a mandrake starts "Go and catch a falling star", which immediately brings to mind the slingers' song, which Wolfe said illuminates--darkly--Severian's past and future.
5 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
larry miller: The question is who that someone is.
Not necessarily. Maybe we're meant to leave it as a mystery and concentrate on the interaction between Severian and the homunculus.
I agree. But the Donne quote, if it is a key link, does lead to the image of impregnating a mandrake root, which takes us back to who and why, and what resulted from it.
Gerry Quinn29 Nov 2011, 14:20
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
From: Lee Berman
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Gerry Quinn: Their minds weren’t wiped — we know that quite clearly from Mamelta and Rigoglio, who remember much of their time on Urth.
I would keep in mind that Mamelta was awakened improperly and there was no chance for what might have been the mind wiping process. Rigoglio seems to be a special case, for some reason (authorily to provide the reader with needed information).
They are the two Sleepers that we talk to (unless there are more in IGJ and RttW that I haven’t got to on my re-read) and so must be taken as representative. Mamelta indicates that she has had a brain operation, presumably long enough before the Whorl was launched to allow recuperation. No special additional procedures seem to be available or required.
1 quoted line
But, there was mind erasure going on as is made clear in Tartaros' conversation with Auk. You shouldn't assume it was complete mind erasure. The conversation reflects a selective erasure with regard to the gods and their worship.
Sure. [Although it’s not certain that the procedure was exactly the same for the First Settlers and the Sleepers, and it seems to have been different again for the Crew, if indeed their memories were tampered with at all — they see the Whorl gods as “aspects of Mainframe”.] In any case, it’s quite clear that any memory erasure among the Sleepers was very incomplete.
4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
As for the painting, it might well have been an realistic psychological portrait,
but presumably Piaton had but one penis.....Campion’s painting was probably created
at the time the Whorl was being fitted out (it shows bulldozers, referred to as taluses), and in the Whorl, which is unlikely to be as prone to viral images as our current society, would have needed some time to become famous. The obscene parody, then, was presumably created much later.
The evidence suggests you have it backwards. The bulldozers are a direct reference to the autonomous machines ("wains", iirc) which were used to carve the mountains into Typhon's likeness. The orgy is a direct reference to Typhon's demand of Severian, as his regent, to provide him tribute of young women and boys. The nursing of erections also a direct reference to Severian's experience with Typhon.
None of that can sustain even cursory scrutiny. A “wain” is just a large cart, but that’s beside the point. The description refers to two of Pas’s bulldozers which “were still at work upon the whorl”. They were planting a tree behind his throne. If the mountain head were above a throne, a tree behind it would be kind of invisible, no? It has absolutely nothing to do with the mountain head.
The orgy is on a drape Blood has ordered or acquired to cover the Sacred window in his brothel. It is an obscene parody of Campion’s well-known original painting. Typhon did not have two penises, or if he had Severian did not mention it. The two penises in the orgy painting are clearly created by a painter steeped in the two-headed iconography of Pas the whorl god — it was painted by someone in the Whorl, and could not have been painted before Typhon became Pas. [Campion may or may not have departed with the Whorl.]
1 quoted line
Thus the perverted, blasphemous painting, accurately depicting reality on Urth is the older and more original painting.
That kind of summarises your entire approach to Wolfe. And, as I’ve shown above, it doesn’t work as an interpretation.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn29 Nov 2011, 15:18
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
From: David Stockhoff
1 quoted line
Any ideas on whether Silk's head (when shown to Silk as Pas by Khypris) replaced Piaton's or Typhon's head? is Silk ridden or rider?
I don’t think it matters — Two-Headed Pas as icon has two equal heads. The Typhon-Piaton origin is no longer relevant, and would be meaningless to Silk, for whom the image is created. Like the Sign of Addition, it is interpreted differently in Silk’s time.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn29 Nov 2011, 15:23
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
From: David Stockhoff
4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/28/2011 1:37 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
Where does any assumption ever come from? If Pas was created from Typhon, any difference between them would need a rationale. Not having an obvious one, it isn't impossible, but it's the less likely option.
Now, don't you know what asserting assumptions makes out of you and me?
If you frequently run into clones who look exactly like their originals, that would be a good answer. If you don't, then on what do you base your assumption?
Don’t we all? Identical twins are clones.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn29 Nov 2011, 15:27
↳ in reply to James Wynn
From: James Wynn
4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/28/2011 3:09 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
And, yes, I did mean that Pas was to d/l into Silk.
This is said so often.
But if Typhon wanted Pas to possess Silk as the ruler of Blue, why didn't he do possess Silk at the Mainframe or immediately after? Or, for that matter, any time in the years after Pas was resurrected?
That isn’t too hard to explain. He might have lost a lot of data when he died and resurrected. He would then have needed more of Silk than he had planned to use.
- Gerry Quinn
David Stockhoff29 Nov 2011, 15:27
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
5 quoted lines
On 11/29/2011 10:18 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>
Any ideas on whether Silk's head (when shown to Silk as Pas by Khypris)
replaced Piaton's or Typhon's head? is Silk ridden or rider?
I don’t think it matters — Two-Headed Pas as icon has two equal heads. The Typhon-Piaton origin is no longer relevant, and would be meaningless to Silk, for whom the image is created. Like the Sign of Addition, it is interpreted differently in Silk’s time.
Whether it has meaning to Silk or not is probably irrelevant because he has seen little more of Pas than anyone else his age, but I agree that even for readers of BNS looking for clues in BLS, the precise historical relationship between the heads may be set aside in the absence of any indications of which head Silk replaced. Pas is after all no longer a rider of a single human body.
But that still leaves us to interpret the vision. If one head is more Pas than the other (and it may be that neither head is in Pas' iconography), the choice of heads may indicate whether Silk is to be senior or junior head, with whatever implications may follow. As you suggest, Wolfe's vagueness on this point may simply mean it is null.
David Stockhoff29 Nov 2011, 15:29
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
10 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 11/29/2011 10:23 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>
On 11/28/2011 1:37 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
Where does any assumption ever come from? If Pas was created from Typhon, any difference between them would need a rationale. Not having an obvious one, it isn't impossible, but it's the less likely option.
Now, don't you know what asserting assumptions makes out of you and me?
If you frequently run into clones who look exactly like their originals, that would be a good answer. If you don't, then on what do you base your assumption?
Don’t we all? Identical twins are clones.
- Gerry Quinn
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn wrote (29-11-2011 15:18):
5 quoted lines
From: David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>
> Any ideas on whether Silk's head (when shown to Silk as Pas by Khypris)
>
replaced Piaton's or Typhon's head? is Silk ridden or rider?
I don’t think it matters — Two-Headed Pas as icon has two equal heads.
Where does it say that? Pas on the Sacred Window after Sand's sacrifice has a radiant head and a stupefied one.
2 quoted lines
The
Typhon-Piaton origin is no longer relevant, and would be meaningless to Silk, for whom the image is created. Like the Sign of Addition, it is interpreted differently in Silk’s time.
↳ in reply to António Marques
4 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 11/28/2011 6:37 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:
This isn't about theories. This is about when something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
If it is you own theory, it always quacks.
If this really is you talking, James, and the odds are it is, I'm beginning to understand you a lot better.
It is a logical error that people fall into. They argue from authority based on what they consider is "most likely true" or "the consensus". This liberates them from having to explain WHY what they believe is "most likely true". They have generously yielded to THEMSELVES the default position. MY description of events (whoever the pronoun refers to) is always the one that is obviously true because it is so obviously true to me. Maybe it is obviously true because I read irony into the event or because I rigorously choose not to in this case. Maybe I am remembering a /single/ statement by someone that provoked me when I read it or maybe I see the author following a genre of literature or historical philosophy that I happen to be very familiar with.
I can handle kooky theories. I can ignore them or explore them until I have built a case (in my own mind) that the obstacles against the theory are just to great (until more and contravening information is available). What I'm really annoyed by is /smugness/. It makes me want to take the opposite position just to see how it plays out. I think the smug aren't really thinking because they have afforded themselves the right not to.
António Pedro Marques29 Nov 2011, 16:20
↳ in reply to James Wynn
James Wynn wrote (29-11-2011 16:12):
5 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
On 11/28/2011 6:37 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:
This isn't about theories. This is about when something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
If it is you own theory, it always quacks.
If this really is you talking, James, and the odds are it is, I'm beginning to understand you a lot better.
It is a logical error that people fall into. They argue from authority based on what they consider is "most likely true" or "the consensus". This liberates them from having to explain WHY what they believe is "most likely true".
Why do you believe enlightenment came to Patera Silk in the ball court?
3 quoted lines
They have generously yielded to THEMSELVES the default position. MY description of events (whoever the pronoun refers to) is always the one that is obviously true because it is so obviously true to me. Maybe it is obviously true because I read irony into the event or because I rigorously choose not to in this case. Maybe I am remembering a /single/ statement by someone that provoked me when I read it or maybe I see the author following a genre of literature or historical philosophy that I happen to be very familiar with.
I can handle kooky theories. I can ignore them or explore them until I have built a case (in my own mind) that the obstacles against the theory are just to great (until more and contravening information is available). What I'm really annoyed by is /smugness/. It makes me want to take the opposite position just to see how it plays out. I think the smug aren't really thinking because they have afforded themselves the right not to.
And what in your view constitutes smugness?
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes29 Nov 2011, 16:26
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
2 quoted lines
Gerry Quinn wrote:
For me, “prime calculator” is the obvious interpretation — “calcula” isn’t even a word, really.
Actually, it's the plural of "calculus," meaning "little stone."
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes29 Nov 2011, 16:26
↳ in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
Sorry, not the plural: the feminine.
6 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote: Gerry Quinn wrote:
For me, “prime calculator” is the obvious interpretation — “calcula” isn’t even a word, really.
Actually, it's the plural of "calculus," meaning "little stone."
--
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
Gerry Quinn29 Nov 2011, 16:30
↳ in reply to António Pedro Marques
From: Ant?nio Pedro Marques
7 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Gerry Quinn wrote (29-11-2011 15:18):
From: David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>
> Any ideas on whether Silk's head (when shown to Silk as Pas by Khypris)
>
replaced Piaton's or Typhon's head? is Silk ridden or rider?
I don’t think it matters — Two-Headed Pas as icon has two equal heads.
Where does it say that? Pas on the Sacred Window after Sand's sacrifice has a radiant head and a stupefied one.
You’re right — I never noticed that.
At the same time, I never noticed the heads being different elsewhere. Perhaps Pas had to restore from an early save.
I guess that Silk’s head would replace Piaton’s, then. But I still think that his intended position will not be the equivalent of Piaton’s. The two-headed aspect of the god Pas has become real.
- Gerry Quinn
James Wynn29 Nov 2011, 16:37
↳ in reply to António Pedro Marques
4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
James Wynn wrote:
It is a logical error that people fall into.
Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
Why do you believe enlightenment came to Patera Silk in the ball court?
Because the text says so. But --guess what?-- that's NOT the only theory. Marc has posited that the whole event and Silk's communication with the Outsider was engineered by Pas and Kypris. I can bring up technical refutations ("Pas is dead.") but I fully know that I would like the story less if the enlightenment were a ruse. That's also the primary reason I don't believe Lee's "Grand Unified Theory" of aliens=gods or that the ultimate goals of the Hierodules is evil. Nietzsche said that the mind is the slave of the body. Well, often intricately conceived refutations are actually diplomats for our /preferences/. And that potential is always lurking in each of our discourses on both sides.
6 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
They argue from authority based
on what they consider is "most likely true" or "the consensus". This liberates them from having to explain WHY what they believe is "most likely true". They have generously yielded to THEMSELVES the default position.
[...]What I'm
really annoyed by is /smugness/. It makes me want to take the opposite position just to see how it plays out. I think the smug aren't really thinking because they have afforded themselves the right not to.
And what in your view constitutes smugness?
I think I just described it.
António Pedro Marques29 Nov 2011, 16:45
↳ in reply to James Wynn
James Wynn wrote (29-11-2011 16:37):
5 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
James Wynn wrote:
It is a logical error that people fall into.
Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
Why do you believe enlightenment came to Patera Silk in the ball court?
Because the text says so.
If the text says so and everyone can go look and everyone is supposed to have read it once, isn't it a bit tiresome to have to repeat at each turn what the text says?
2 quoted lines
But --guess what?-- that's NOT the only theory.
Marc has posited that the whole event and Silk's communication with the Outsider was engineered by Pas and Kypris. I can bring up technical refutations ("Pas is dead.") but I fully know that I would like the story less if the enlightenment were a ruse. That's also the primary reason I don't believe Lee's "Grand Unified Theory" of aliens=gods or that the ultimate goals of the Hierodules is evil. Nietzsche said that the mind is the slave of the body. Well, often intricately conceived refutations are actually diplomats for our /preferences/. And that potential is always lurking in each of our discourses on both sides.
If everything everyone does has unspeakable motivations, why point out that this or that action have unspeakable motivations?
7 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
They argue from authority based
on what they consider is "most likely true" or "the consensus". This liberates them from having to explain WHY what they believe is "most likely true". They have generously yielded to THEMSELVES the default position.
[...]What I'm
really annoyed by is /smugness/. It makes me want to take the opposite position just to see how it plays out. I think the smug aren't really thinking because they have afforded themselves the right not to.
And what in your view constitutes smugness?
I think I just described it.
If so, one could argue that smugness is in the eye of the beholder.
David Stockhoff29 Nov 2011, 16:47
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
12 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: Ant?nio Pedro Marques <mailto:entonio at gmail.com>
Gerry Quinn wrote (29-11-2011 15:18):
From: David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>
Any ideas on whether Silk's head (when shown to Silk as Pas by Khypris)
replaced Piaton's or Typhon's head? is Silk ridden or rider?
I don’t think it matters — Two-Headed Pas as icon has two equal heads.
Where does it say that? Pas on the Sacred Window after Sand's
sacrifice has
a radiant head and a stupefied one.
You’re right — I never noticed that.
At the same time, I never noticed the heads being different elsewhere. Perhaps Pas had to restore from an early save. I guess that Silk’s head would replace Piaton’s, then. But I still think that his intended position will not be the equivalent of Piaton’s. The two-headed aspect of the god Pas has become real.
And ... drum roll ... WHY do you think that? WHY do you guess that? WHY?
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes29 Nov 2011, 16:55
↳ in reply to António Pedro Marques
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Why do you believe enlightenment came to Patera Silk in the ball court?
Because the text says so.
Which means that Horn and Nettle say so. To what extent may we rely upon their interpretation of this event?
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
António Pedro Marques29 Nov 2011, 16:59
↳ in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote (29-11-2011 16:55):
3 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
Why do you believe enlightenment came to Patera Silk in the ball court?
Because the text says so.
Which means that Horn and Nettle say so. To what extent may we rely upon their interpretation of this event?
And to what extent may we rely on their assertion that they wrote LS?
And to what extent may we rely on their actual existence?
Come to think of it, it may well be the case that all those stories are the product of someone's imagination.
David Stockhoff29 Nov 2011, 16:59
↳ in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
4 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 11/29/2011 11:55 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
Why do you believe enlightenment came to Patera Silk in the ball court?
Because the text says so.
Which means that Horn and Nettle say so. To what extent may we rely upon their interpretation of this event?
Exactly. However, Silk also narrates it as the Rajan, and it comes up a lot in BLS. So we may presume that he told Horn and Nettle.
If he did not, then the end of OBW does not signify that Silk is back, because then that must be Horn narrating and making things up.
Aaagh! Infinite improbability loop!
António Pedro Marques29 Nov 2011, 17:09
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
David Stockhoff wrote (29-11-2011 16:59):
9 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
On 11/29/2011 11:55 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
Why do you believe enlightenment came to Patera Silk in the ball court?
Because the text says so.
Which means that Horn and Nettle say so. To what extent may we rely upon their interpretation of this event?
Exactly. However, Silk also narrates it as the Rajan, and it comes up a lot in BLS. So we may presume that he told Horn and Nettle.
If he did not, then the end of OBW does not signify that Silk is back, because then that must be Horn narrating and making things up.
Aaagh! Infinite improbability loop!
Now for something completely different (really). Who is (are?) the Silk in the Rajan?
- Has the original Silk been lost?
- No Silk we meet seems to know anything about the 20 years of Silk's life after Horn left the Whorl.
- At the end of RW we simultaneously learn how 'a' Silk may or may have not been hiding in Pig, and how 'Silk' accepts he is Silk in New Viron. However, the two episodes have no connection between them. The 'Silk in denial' we meet, except for the bit aboard the Whorl, is all after the appearance of the Silk in Pig. Which Silk is the one in Pig? Does he or does he not get into the [then yet to be] Rajan?
- The [then yet to be] Rajan aboard the Whorl before that episode doesn't seem to behave any less like Silk than he does afterwards.
James Wynn29 Nov 2011, 17:09
↳ in reply to António Pedro Marques
4 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
Why do you believe enlightenment came to Patera Silk in the ball court?
Because the text says so.
If the text says so and everyone can go look and everyone is supposed to have read it once, isn't it a bit tiresome to have to repeat at each turn what the text says?
You know, ironically, I thought I answered that question in the text that followed. But I'll approach it in more detail. Answer: Because this is literature, and words can have more than one meaning. And because events carefully described can have different significance based on interpretation (thus we have Detective novels). And because, that's the field when you are discussing Wolfe. But (here's the beauty) you are /not/ required to engage anyone for whom you believe conversation is pointless. Embrace your freedom. But if you engage, it is always pointless if you approach it with the presumption that it is someone else's job to prove you wrong.
2 quoted lines
If everything everyone does has unspeakable motivations,
why point out that this or that action have unspeakable motivations?
That's like saying that because we are all sinners, discussion of good behavior is pointless. It's like saying that anyone who condemns behavior is "self-righteous", anyone who earns a decent salary is "greedy".
8 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
They argue from authority based
on what they consider is "most likely true" or "the consensus". This liberates them from having to explain WHY what they believe is "most likely true". They have generously yielded to THEMSELVES the default position.
[...]What I'm
really annoyed by is /smugness/. It makes me want to take the opposite position just to see how it plays out. I think the smug aren't really thinking because they have afforded themselves the right not to.
And what in your view constitutes smugness?
I think I just described it.
If so, one could argue that smugness is in the eye of the beholder.
Of course you can argue that. Most of us hail from free countries.
But being smug doesn't require that you are wrong. It only means that you are not applying to your own theories the rigor to which you are with great adamance disputing others. It is a hypocrisy in which the hypocrite has satisfied himself that his hypocrisy is "authentic". It's like a tyrant who believes everything he does is just because God put him there. The "smug" has constructed a palace of mirrors that all show /only/ himself and always in the perfect light.
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes29 Nov 2011, 17:11
↳ in reply to António Pedro Marques
10 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote (29-11-2011 16:55):
Why do you believe enlightenment came to Patera Silk in the ball court?
Because the text says so.
Which means that Horn and Nettle say so. To what extent may we rely upon their interpretation of this event?
And to what extent may we rely on their assertion that they wrote LS?
And to what extent may we rely on their actual existence?
Come to think of it, it may well be the case that all those stories are the product of someone's imagination.
Well, obviously they're the product of Wolfe's imagination; the question is to what extent, within the posited reality of Wolfe's imagination, we may rely upon what they say about Silk's enlightenment. I want the enlightenment to be real, because it makes the story much better (for me). But we have to keep in mind that we are talking about an account written by a couple of Silk fanboyz (well, a fanboy and a fangirl), based on hearsay, several years after the events in question.
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
James Wynn29 Nov 2011, 17:12
↳ in reply to António Pedro Marques
6 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
Why do you believe enlightenment came to Patera Silk in the ball court?
Because the text says so.
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
Which means that Horn and Nettle say so. To what extent may we rely upon their interpretation of this event?
Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
And to what extent may we rely on their assertion that they wrote LS? And to what extent may we rely on their actual existence? Come to think of it, it may well be the case that all those stories are the product of someone's imagination.
Antonio, what do you suppose the point was in having Horn and Nettle write the story as opposed to an omniscient third-person narrator?
Gerry Quinn29 Nov 2011, 17:14
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
From: David Stockhoff
10 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: Ant?nio Pedro Marques mailto:entonio at gmail.com
replaced Piaton's or Typhon's head? is Silk ridden or rider?
I don’t think it matters — Two-Headed Pas as icon has two equal heads.
Where does it say that? Pas on the Sacred Window after Sand's
sacrifice has
a radiant head and a stupefied one.
You’re right — I never noticed that.
At the same time, I never noticed the heads being different elsewhere. Perhaps Pas had to restore from an early save. I guess that Silk’s head would replace Piaton’s, then. But I still think that his intended position will not be the equivalent of Piaton’s. The two-headed aspect of the god Pas has become real.
And ... drum roll ... WHY do you think that? WHY do you guess that? WHY?
Lots of reasons. Presumably Kypris doesn’t show Silk his own head gasping. And I don;t think she’s trying to trick him either. Also, in RttW he seems to play a role in Pas/Silk that is greater than Piaton’s role in Typhon/Piaton. And it fits with the concept of the evolution of our idea of god which Wolfe seems to imply in the text.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn29 Nov 2011, 17:18
↳ in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
1 quoted line
Sorry, not the plural: the feminine.
That Echidna is one stoned lady!
- Gerry Quinn
James Wynn29 Nov 2011, 17:19
↳ in reply to António Pedro Marques
5 quoted lines
On 11/29/2011 11:09 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
Now for something completely different (really). Who is (are?) the Silk in the Rajan?
- Has the original Silk been lost?
- No Silk we meet seems to know anything about the 20 years of Silk's life after Horn left the Whorl.
Obviously, I believe that Wolfe has created a narrator for these stories who, while writing in first-person, is analogous to Horn and Nettle writing about Silk.
1 quoted line
- At the end of RW we simultaneously learn how 'a' Silk may or may have not been hiding in Pig, and how 'Silk' accepts he is Silk in New Viron.
That's not my interpretation of the final events at all.
1 quoted line
However, the two episodes have no connection between them. The 'Silk in denial' we meet, except for the bit aboard the Whorl, is all after the appearance of the Silk in Pig. Which Silk is the one in Pig? Does he or does he not get into the [then yet to be] Rajan?
It is an interesting question as to whether Silver Silk has possessed the Rajan.
Sergei SOLOVIEV29 Nov 2011, 17:33
↳ in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
I think plural is "calculi".
Sergei Soloviev
8 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
Gerry Quinn wrote:
For me, “prime calculator” is the obvious interpretation — “calcula” isn’t even a word, really.
Actually, it's the plural of "calculus," meaning "little stone."
↳ in reply to James Wynn
James Wynn wrote (29-11-2011 17:09):
5 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
Why do you believe enlightenment came to Patera Silk in the ball court?
Because the text says so.
If the text says so and everyone can go look and everyone is supposed to have read it once, isn't it a bit tiresome to have to repeat at each turn what the text says?
You know, ironically, I thought I answered that question in the text that followed. But I'll approach it in more detail. Answer: Because this is literature, and words can have more than one meaning. And because events carefully described can have different significance based on interpretation (thus we have Detective novels). And because, that's the field when you are discussing Wolfe. But (here's the beauty) you are /not/ required to engage anyone for whom you believe conversation is pointless. Embrace your freedom. But if you engage, it is always pointless if you approach it with the presumption that it is someone else's job to prove you wrong.
So you admit that when you ask where others get their assumptions from, it's a rhetoric/flippant question?
3 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
If everything everyone does has unspeakable motivations,
why point out that this or that action have unspeakable motivations?
That's like saying that because we are all sinners, discussion of good behavior is pointless. It's like saying that anyone who condemns behavior is "self-righteous", anyone who earns a decent salary is "greedy".
Indeed, that's exactly where your procedure takes us: 'anyone who takes a part of a literary work a priori at face value is "theorising"'.
10 quoted lines · 1–5 deep
They argue from authority based
on what they consider is "most likely true" or "the consensus". This liberates them from having to explain WHY what they believe is "most likely true". They have generously yielded to THEMSELVES the default position.
[...]What I'm
really annoyed by is /smugness/. It makes me want to take the opposite position just to see how it plays out. I think the smug aren't really thinking because they have afforded themselves the right not to.
And what in your view constitutes smugness?
I think I just described it.
If so, one could argue that smugness is in the eye of the beholder.
Of course you can argue that. Most of us hail from free countries.
But being smug doesn't require that you are wrong. It only means that you are not applying to your own theories the rigor to which you are with great adamance disputing others. It is a hypocrisy in which the hypocrite has satisfied himself that his hypocrisy is "authentic". It's like a tyrant who believes everything he does is just because God put him there. The "smug" has constructed a palace of mirrors that all show /only/ himself and always in the perfect light.
Whereas others are convinced that their opinions are wrong, correct?
Or - how do you say it? - 'if it's not my theory, they're not applying to it the rigor which they are with great adamance disputing me'.
António Pedro Marques29 Nov 2011, 17:35
↳ in reply to James Wynn
James Wynn wrote (29-11-2011 17:12):
7 quoted lines · 1–5 deep
Why do you believe enlightenment came to Patera Silk in the ball court?
Because the text says so.
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
Which means that Horn and Nettle say so. To what extent may we rely upon their interpretation of this event?
Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
And to what extent may we rely on their assertion that they wrote LS? And to what extent may we rely on their actual existence? Come to think of it, it may well be the case that all those stories are the product of someone's imagination.
Antonio, what do you suppose the point was in having Horn and Nettle write the story as opposed to an omniscient third-person narrator?
What do you base your theory that it was Horn and Nettle on? There's no real reason to believe it. It may have been Marrow's slave.
David Stockhoff29 Nov 2011, 17:36
↳ in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
12 quoted lines · 1–5 deep
On 11/29/2011 12:11 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote (29-11-2011 16:55):
Why do you believe enlightenment came to Patera Silk in the ball court?
Because the text says so.
Which means that Horn and Nettle say so. To what extent may we rely upon their interpretation of this event?
And to what extent may we rely on their assertion that they wrote LS?
And to what extent may we rely on their actual existence?
Come to think of it, it may well be the case that all those stories are the product of someone's imagination.
Well, obviously they're the product of Wolfe's imagination; the question is to what extent, within the posited reality of Wolfe's imagination, we may rely upon what they say about Silk's enlightenment. I want the enlightenment to be real, because it makes the story much better (for me). But we have to keep in mind that we are talking about an account written by a couple of Silk fanboyz (well, a fanboy and a fangirl), based on hearsay, several years after the events in question.
And this is after all how saints are made.
Sergei SOLOVIEV29 Nov 2011, 17:37
↳ in reply to James Wynn
I like very much this formulation - and agree that it is often my reason de disagree with certain theories
1 quoted line
I fully know that I would like the story less if
Sergei Soloviev
15 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
James Wynn wrote:
James Wynn wrote:
It is a logical error that people fall into.
Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
Why do you believe enlightenment came to Patera Silk in the ball court?
Because the text says so. But --guess what?-- that's NOT the only theory. Marc has posited that the whole event and Silk's communication with the Outsider was engineered by Pas and Kypris. I can bring up technical refutations ("Pas is dead.") but I fully know that I would like the story less if the enlightenment were a ruse. That's also the primary reason I don't believe Lee's "Grand Unified Theory" of aliens=gods or that the ultimate goals of the Hierodules is evil. Nietzsche said that the mind is the slave of the body. Well, often intricately conceived refutations are actually diplomats for our /preferences/. And that potential is always lurking in each of our discourses on both sides.
They argue from authority based
on what they consider is "most likely true" or "the consensus". This liberates them from having to explain WHY what they believe is "most likely true". They have generously yielded to THEMSELVES the default position.
[...]What I'm
really annoyed by is /smugness/. It makes me want to take the opposite position just to see how it plays out. I think the smug aren't really thinking because they have afforded themselves the right not to.
And what in your view constitutes smugness?
I think I just described it.
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
13 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
On 11/29/2011 12:14 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>
On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: Ant?nio Pedro Marques mailto:entonio at gmail.com
replaced Piaton's or Typhon's head? is Silk ridden or rider?
I don’t think it matters — Two-Headed Pas as icon has two equal heads.
Where does it say that? Pas on the Sacred Window after Sand's
sacrifice has
a radiant head and a stupefied one.
You’re right — I never noticed that.
At the same time, I never noticed the heads being different elsewhere. Perhaps Pas had to restore from an early save. I guess that Silk’s head would replace Piaton’s, then. But I still think that his intended position will not be the equivalent of Piaton’s. The two-headed aspect of the god Pas has become real.
And ... drum roll ... WHY do you think that? WHY do you guess that? WHY?
Lots of reasons. Presumably Kypris doesn’t show Silk his own head gasping. And I don;t think she’s trying to trick him either. Also, in RttW he seems to play a role in Pas/Silk that is greater than Piaton’s role in Typhon/Piaton. And it fits with the concept of the evolution of our idea of god which Wolfe seems to imply in the text.
Thanks for reminding me why I decided to stop talking to you.
David Stockhoff29 Nov 2011, 17:39
↳ in reply to António Pedro Marques
3 quoted lines
On 11/29/2011 12:33 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
So you admit that when you ask where others get their assumptions from, it's a rhetoric/flippant question?
It certainly isn;t when I ask it.
David Stockhoff29 Nov 2011, 17:40
↳ in reply to António Pedro Marques
10 quoted lines · 1–6 deep
On 11/29/2011 12:35 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
James Wynn wrote (29-11-2011 17:12):
Why do you believe enlightenment came to Patera Silk in the ball court?
Because the text says so.
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
Which means that Horn and Nettle say so. To what extent may we rely upon their interpretation of this event?
Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
And to what extent may we rely on their assertion that they wrote LS? And to what extent may we rely on their actual existence? Come to think of it, it may well be the case that all those stories are the product of someone's imagination.
Antonio, what do you suppose the point was in having Horn and Nettle write the story as opposed to an omniscient third-person narrator?
What do you base your theory that it was Horn and Nettle on? There's no real reason to believe it. It may have been Marrow's slave.
Aren't you now doing what you just told us you can't stand?
António Pedro Marques29 Nov 2011, 17:43
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
David Stockhoff wrote (29-11-2011 17:39):
3 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/29/2011 12:33 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
So you admit that when you ask where others get their assumptions from, it's a rhetoric/flippant question?
It certainly isn;t when I ask it.
It's good to know. Sometimes a written medium doesn't carry that information very well.
But I was talking here to James.
António Pedro Marques29 Nov 2011, 17:46
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
David Stockhoff wrote (29-11-2011 17:40):
11 quoted lines · 1–7 deep
On 11/29/2011 12:35 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
James Wynn wrote (29-11-2011 17:12):
Why do you believe enlightenment came to Patera Silk in the ball court?
Because the text says so.
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
Which means that Horn and Nettle say so. To what extent may we rely upon their interpretation of this event?
Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
And to what extent may we rely on their assertion that they wrote LS? And to what extent may we rely on their actual existence? Come to think of it, it may well be the case that all those stories are the product of someone's imagination.
Antonio, what do you suppose the point was in having Horn and Nettle write the story as opposed to an omniscient third-person narrator?
What do you base your theory that it was Horn and Nettle on? There's no real reason to believe it. It may have been Marrow's slave.
Aren't you now doing what you just told us you can't stand?
Precisely, so that those who don't understand why I can't stand it may get an idea.
The problem with it is not so much the isolated instance. It's that it can go on forever, and the perspective of it going on forever is disheartening.
David Stockhoff29 Nov 2011, 17:56
↳ in reply to António Pedro Marques
8 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 11/29/2011 12:43 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
David Stockhoff wrote (29-11-2011 17:39):
On 11/29/2011 12:33 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
So you admit that when you ask where others get their assumptions from, it's a rhetoric/flippant question?
It certainly isn;t when I ask it.
It's good to know. Sometimes a written medium doesn't carry that information very well.
But I was talking here to James.
I suppose I hoped to point out that it need not be rhetorical or flippant (and those are not synonyms) no matter who asks. But OK.
James Wynn29 Nov 2011, 17:57
↳ in reply to António Pedro Marques
3 quoted lines
On 11/29/2011 11:33 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
So you admit that when you ask where others get their assumptions from, it's a rhetoric/flippant question?
I have admitted nothing of the sort. If I am going to discuss a theory, I approach it from the position, "What if it were true? What would I expect?". I have never said to anyone, for an example, "This is /your/ theory. YOU come up with something that I will accept." I've been told that here in various ways by some people. I've seen people say it to others. That's expecting other people to prove you wrong. That's smug. That's a jerk.
5 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
If everything everyone does has unspeakable motivations,
why point out that this or that action have unspeakable motivations?
That's like saying that because we are all sinners, discussion of good behavior is pointless. It's like saying that anyone who condemns behavior is "self-righteous", anyone who earns a decent salary is "greedy".
Indeed, that's exactly where your procedure takes us: 'anyone who
takes a part of a literary work a priori at face value is "theorising"'.
No. That' is not where I am taking you. However, the second part is true. I am asserting that people who are reading literature are theorizing. They are interpreting from the text the intentions of an author whom they have never met or barely know. I am demolishing the belief (which would be a desirable belief for anyone) that one's own interpretations need no justification...it just "is".
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
But being smug doesn't require that you are wrong. It only means that you are not applying to your own theories the rigor to which you are with great adamance disputing others. It is a hypocrisy in which the hypocrite has satisfied himself that his hypocrisy is "authentic". It's like a tyrant who believes everything he does is just because God put him there. The "smug" has constructed a palace of mirrors that all show /only/ himself and always in the perfect light.
Whereas others are convinced that their opinions are wrong, correct?
No. Wow, Antonio, everything with you is either on Everest or at the bottom of the Pacific. Do you really read Wolfe's stories with such an uncomfortable grasp on the idea of ambiguity? I'll say it again. If you engage with someone about ambiguous literary novels like Wolfe's, and you approach every question with the attitude, "Let's see if your weird new theory can prove me wrong." then you are smug. And you are wasting the other person's time. Done.
1 quoted line
Or - how do you say it? - 'if it's not my theory, they're not applying to it the rigor which they are with great adamance disputing me'.
If that's what you've got out of our conversation then it is beyond my abilities to clarify it better.
David Stockhoff29 Nov 2011, 17:58
↳ in reply to António Pedro Marques
19 quoted lines · 1–8 deep
On 11/29/2011 12:46 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
David Stockhoff wrote (29-11-2011 17:40):
On 11/29/2011 12:35 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
James Wynn wrote (29-11-2011 17:12):
Why do you believe enlightenment came to Patera Silk in the
ball court?
Because the text says so.
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
Which means that Horn and Nettle say so. To what extent may we rely upon their interpretation of this event?
Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
And to what extent may we rely on their assertion that they wrote LS? And to what extent may we rely on their actual existence? Come to think of it, it may well be the case that all those stories are the product of someone's imagination.
Antonio, what do you suppose the point was in having Horn and
Nettle write
the story as opposed to an omniscient third-person narrator?
What do you base your theory that it was Horn and Nettle on? There's no real reason to believe it. It may have been Marrow's slave.
Aren't you now doing what you just told us you can't stand?
Precisely, so that those who don't understand why I can't stand it may get an idea.
The problem with it is not so much the isolated instance. It's that it can go on forever, and the perspective of it going on forever is disheartening.
Well, I'm glad that's clear. I'll assume you're thinking of Gerry....
James Wynn29 Nov 2011, 17:58
↳ in reply to António Pedro Marques
3 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Antonio, what do you suppose the point was in having Horn and Nettle write the story as opposed to an omniscient third-person narrator?
Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
What do you base your theory that it was Horn and Nettle on? There's no real reason to believe it. It may have been Marrow's slave.
That's an artless dodge, Antonio. I'll expect an answer to my question first.
David Stockhoff29 Nov 2011, 18:02
↳ in reply to James Wynn
2 quoted lines
On 11/29/2011 12:57 PM, James Wynn wrote:
If I am going to discuss a theory, I approach it from the position, "What if it were true? What would I expect?". I have never said to anyone, for an example, "This is /your/ theory. YOU come up with something that I will accept." I've been told that here in various ways by some people. I've seen people say it to others. That's expecting other people to prove you wrong. That's smug. That's a jerk.
Exactly.
On the other hand, I do expect commenters who assert that I'm wrong to
prove me wrong. Sometimes they do in short order.
Sometimes they don't and won't, and it takes forever to find that out.
Gerry Quinn29 Nov 2011, 18:04
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
From: David Stockhoff
7 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
On 11/29/2011 12:14 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>
On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
I guess that Silk’s head would replace Piaton’s, then. But I still think that his intended position will not be the equivalent of Piaton’s. The two-headed aspect of the god Pas has become real.
And ... drum roll ... WHY do you think that? WHY do you guess that? WHY?
Lots of reasons. Presumably Kypris doesn’t show Silk his own head gasping. And I don;t think she’s trying to trick him either. Also, in RttW he seems to play a role in Pas/Silk that is greater than Piaton’s role in Typhon/Piaton. And it fits with the concept of the evolution of our idea of god which Wolfe seems to imply in the text.
Thanks for reminding me why I decided to stop talking to you.
Your response puzzles me. Perhaps the “drum roll” interjection is intended to represent some sort of victory screech, but I cannot see in what argument you are victorious or even guess in what argument you think you are.
- Gerry Quinn
David Stockhoff29 Nov 2011, 18:15
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
11 quoted lines · 1–5 deep
On 11/29/2011 1:04 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>
On 11/29/2011 12:14 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>
On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
I guess that Silk’s head would replace Piaton’s, then. But I still think that his intended position will not be the equivalent of Piaton’s. The two-headed aspect of the god Pas has become real.
And ... drum roll ... WHY do you think that? WHY do you guess
that? WHY?
Lots of reasons. Presumably Kypris doesn’t show Silk his own head gasping. And I don;t think she’s trying to trick him either. Also, in RttW he seems to play a role in Pas/Silk that is greater than Piaton’s role in Typhon/Piaton. And it fits with the concept of the evolution of our idea of god which Wolfe seems to imply in the text.
Thanks for reminding me why I decided to stop talking to you.
Your response puzzles me. Perhaps the “drum roll” interjection is intended to represent some sort of victory screech, but I cannot see in what argument you are victorious or even guess in what argument you think you are.
And I cannot guess where you get the idea that I think I'm victorious, or why you think "victory" is the central point.
Much of the difficulty in talking to you is on full display here. You come up with half-processed semi-random stuff out of nowhere and relate it to nothing, with no stated assumptions and no attempt at conclusions. You don't bother to follow a logical flow of /if/ and /then/. You don't define your terms. And then you get personal.
Your answers are worse than meaningless because it takes a week to extract from you what you meant in the first place, if you meant anything. It is wearying. You never just answer a question about your own thoughts with a straight answer. Are you trying to be the Wizard of Oz or the little man behind the curtain?
Sergei SOLOVIEV29 Nov 2011, 18:49
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
I think that there are still some "minimum requirements" to the people who advance an extravagant new theory -
- if they claim that the theory is supported by the text, it would be fair to do the work finding necessary quotations, and honestly present the context (not to make the opponent to browse the whole book to find out that the next sentence to the sentence just quoted is disproving the theory)
- to be polite, and not to present disagreement as stupidity
- not to try to intimidate the opponents presenting their hypotheses as common knowledge and consensus
Regards
Sergei Soloviev
9 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
David Stockhoff wrote:
On 11/29/2011 12:57 PM, James Wynn wrote:
If I am going to discuss a theory, I approach it from the position, "What if it were true? What would I expect?". I have never said to anyone, for an example, "This is /your/ theory. YOU come up with something that I will accept." I've been told that here in various ways by some people. I've seen people say it to others. That's expecting other people to prove you wrong. That's smug. That's a jerk.
Exactly.
On the other hand, I do expect commenters who assert that I'm wrong to prove me wrong. Sometimes they do in short order.
Sometimes they don't and won't, and it takes forever to find that out.
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
From: David Stockhoff
12 quoted lines · 1–6 deep
On 11/29/2011 1:04 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>
On 11/29/2011 12:14 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>
On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
I guess that Silk’s head would replace Piaton’s, then. But I still think that his intended position will not be the equivalent of Piaton’s. The two-headed aspect of the god Pas has become real.
And ... drum roll ... WHY do you think that? WHY do you guess
that? WHY?
Lots of reasons. Presumably Kypris doesn’t show Silk his own head gasping. And I don;t think she’s trying to trick him either. Also, in RttW he seems to play a role in Pas/Silk that is greater than Piaton’s role in Typhon/Piaton. And it fits with the concept of the evolution of our idea of god which Wolfe seems to imply in the text.
Thanks for reminding me why I decided to stop talking to you.
Your response puzzles me. Perhaps the “drum roll” interjection is intended to represent some sort of victory screech, but I cannot see in what argument you are victorious or even guess in what argument you think you are.
And I cannot guess where you get the idea that I think I'm victorious, or why you think "victory" is the central point.
So what was the point you were making, then? Do you disagree with my reasoning regarding the role of Silk in Pas/Silk?
1 quoted line
Much of the difficulty in talking to you is on full display here. You come up with half-processed semi-random stuff out of nowhere and relate it to nothing, with no stated assumptions and no attempt at conclusions. You don't bother to follow a logical flow of /if/ and /then/. You don't define your terms. And then you get personal.
This is so weird. An aspect of the storyline was mentioned (the relationship of Silk to Pas/Silk) and I said what I think about it. You asked me why and I told you the reasons. I didn’t think too hard about them, but they hardly qualify as “half-processed semi-random stuff” — they are pretty specific points that support the conclusion that Silk in Pas/Silk is not a new Piaton. Or do you disagree?
I don’t think I produce semi-random stuff, either half-processed or over-processed.
1 quoted line
Your answers are worse than meaningless because it takes a week to extract from you what you meant in the first place, if you meant anything.
I answered within minutes, and the thing we are discussing is pretty specific, even if we don’t learn too much in the text. (I have still to re-read RttW, in which the Pas/silk relationship is probably best defined, and perhaps I will have more detailed thoughts on the subject then.) But, as I said, the reasons I gave seem to imply that Silk-in-Pas does not become Piaton.
2 quoted lines
It is wearying. You never just answer a question about your
own thoughts with a straight answer. Are you trying to be the Wizard of Oz or the little man behind the curtain?
You think I have secret reasons for believing what I do about Silk-in-Pas? I don’t. Those things I mentioned are the things that seem relevant to me at this time. I’m willing to be convinced otherwise, if someone brings up more evidence. I had completely forgotten one of the heads of the reconstituted Pas was gasping, which could indicate a Pas closer to his origins than I had thought. But that alone is not enough for me to change my mind on the subject.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn29 Nov 2011, 18:49
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
From: David Stockhoff
12 quoted lines · 1–6 deep
On 11/29/2011 1:04 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>
On 11/29/2011 12:14 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>
On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
I guess that Silk’s head would replace Piaton’s, then. But I still think that his intended position will not be the equivalent of Piaton’s. The two-headed aspect of the god Pas has become real.
And ... drum roll ... WHY do you think that? WHY do you guess
that? WHY?
Lots of reasons. Presumably Kypris doesn’t show Silk his own head gasping. And I don;t think she’s trying to trick him either. Also, in RttW he seems to play a role in Pas/Silk that is greater than Piaton’s role in Typhon/Piaton. And it fits with the concept of the evolution of our idea of god which Wolfe seems to imply in the text.
Thanks for reminding me why I decided to stop talking to you.
Your response puzzles me. Perhaps the “drum roll” interjection is intended to represent some sort of victory screech, but I cannot see in what argument you are victorious or even guess in what argument you think you are.
And I cannot guess where you get the idea that I think I'm victorious, or why you think "victory" is the central point.
So what was the point you were making, then? Do you disagree with my reasoning regarding the role of Silk in Pas/Silk?
1 quoted line
Much of the difficulty in talking to you is on full display here. You come up with half-processed semi-random stuff out of nowhere and relate it to nothing, with no stated assumptions and no attempt at conclusions. You don't bother to follow a logical flow of /if/ and /then/. You don't define your terms. And then you get personal.
This is so weird. An aspect of the storyline was mentioned (the relationship of Silk to Pas/Silk) and I said what I think about it. You asked me why and I told you the reasons. I didn’t think too hard about them, but they hardly qualify as “half-processed semi-random stuff” — they are pretty specific points that support the conclusion that Silk in Pas/Silk is not a new Piaton. Or do you disagree?
I don’t think I produce semi-random stuff, either half-processed or over-processed.
1 quoted line
Your answers are worse than meaningless because it takes a week to extract from you what you meant in the first place, if you meant anything.
I answered within minutes, and the thing we are discussing is pretty specific, even if we don’t learn too much in the text. (I have still to re-read RttW, in which the Pas/silk relationship is probably best defined, and perhaps I will have more detailed thoughts on the subject then.) But, as I said, the reasons I gave seem to imply that Silk-in-Pas does not become Piaton.
2 quoted lines
It is wearying. You never just answer a question about your
own thoughts with a straight answer. Are you trying to be the Wizard of Oz or the little man behind the curtain?
You think I have secret reasons for believing what I do about Silk-in-Pas? I don’t. Those things I mentioned are the things that seem relevant to me at this time. I’m willing to be convinced otherwise, if someone brings up more evidence. I had completely forgotten one of the heads of the reconstituted Pas was gasping, which could indicate a Pas closer to his origins than I had thought. But that alone is not enough for me to change my mind on the subject.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn29 Nov 2011, 18:49
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
From: David Stockhoff
12 quoted lines · 1–6 deep
On 11/29/2011 1:04 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>
On 11/29/2011 12:14 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>
On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
I guess that Silk’s head would replace Piaton’s, then. But I still think that his intended position will not be the equivalent of Piaton’s. The two-headed aspect of the god Pas has become real.
And ... drum roll ... WHY do you think that? WHY do you guess
that? WHY?
Lots of reasons. Presumably Kypris doesn’t show Silk his own head gasping. And I don;t think she’s trying to trick him either. Also, in RttW he seems to play a role in Pas/Silk that is greater than Piaton’s role in Typhon/Piaton. And it fits with the concept of the evolution of our idea of god which Wolfe seems to imply in the text.
Thanks for reminding me why I decided to stop talking to you.
Your response puzzles me. Perhaps the “drum roll” interjection is intended to represent some sort of victory screech, but I cannot see in what argument you are victorious or even guess in what argument you think you are.
And I cannot guess where you get the idea that I think I'm victorious, or why you think "victory" is the central point.
So what was the point you were making, then? Do you disagree with my reasoning regarding the role of Silk in Pas/Silk?
1 quoted line
Much of the difficulty in talking to you is on full display here. You come up with half-processed semi-random stuff out of nowhere and relate it to nothing, with no stated assumptions and no attempt at conclusions. You don't bother to follow a logical flow of /if/ and /then/. You don't define your terms. And then you get personal.
This is so weird. An aspect of the storyline was mentioned (the relationship of Silk to Pas/Silk) and I said what I think about it. You asked me why and I told you the reasons. I didn’t think too hard about them, but they hardly qualify as “half-processed semi-random stuff” — they are pretty specific points that support the conclusion that Silk in Pas/Silk is not a new Piaton. Or do you disagree?
I don’t think I produce semi-random stuff, either half-processed or over-processed.
1 quoted line
Your answers are worse than meaningless because it takes a week to extract from you what you meant in the first place, if you meant anything.
I answered within minutes, and the thing we are discussing is pretty specific, even if we don’t learn too much in the text. (I have still to re-read RttW, in which the Pas/silk relationship is probably best defined, and perhaps I will have more detailed thoughts on the subject then.) But, as I said, the reasons I gave seem to imply that Silk-in-Pas does not become Piaton.
2 quoted lines
It is wearying. You never just answer a question about your
own thoughts with a straight answer. Are you trying to be the Wizard of Oz or the little man behind the curtain?
You think I have secret reasons for believing what I do about Silk-in-Pas? I don’t. Those things I mentioned are the things that seem relevant to me at this time. I’m willing to be convinced otherwise, if someone brings up more evidence. I had completely forgotten one of the heads of the reconstituted Pas was gasping, which could indicate a Pas closer to his origins than I had thought. But that alone is not enough for me to change my mind on the subject.
- Gerry Quinn
James Wynn29 Nov 2011, 19:03
↳ in reply to Sergei SOLOVIEV
8 quoted lines
On 11/29/2011 12:49 PM, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote:
I think that there are still some "minimum requirements" to the people who advance an extravagant new theory -
- if they claim that the theory is supported by the text, it would be fair to do the work finding necessary quotations, and honestly present the context (not to make the opponent to browse the whole book to find out that the next sentence to the sentence just quoted is disproving the theory)
- to be polite, and not to present disagreement as stupidity
- not to try to intimidate the opponents presenting their hypotheses as common knowledge and consensus
It doesn't need to be a so-called extravagant theory for all these rules to apply. There are people with extravagant theories who have presented them in detail many times in the past. It's probably not reasonable for anyone to be required to back every statement with proof each time they make an assertion. If someone makes an assertion and you aren't clear on where it says that, why should anyone but the person making the assertion be required to search the books for the text. Have them quote the text verbatim and include the chapter (page numbers are typically useless). That's hardly an onerous burden.
Arguing from the position that any interpretation in this text is mere "common knowledge" or consensus is bad form. There is actually very little in these books that everyone agrees on 100%. However, I don't feel the need for everyone to constantly qualify everything with "I know not everyone sees it that way". That is probably the one common thread in all interpretations of Wolfe's novels.
As for being polite, I'd say it another way. Remember that we're talking about literature here. Horn's fate does not rest on our conclusion. You don't need to be overtly rude to be annoying. You don't need to call people names to make people want to call you names.
James Wynn29 Nov 2011, 19:11
↳ in reply to James Wynn
2 quoted lines
On 11/29/2011 1:03 PM, James Wynn wrote:
As for being polite, I'd say it another way. Remember that we're talking about literature here. Horn's fate does not rest on our conclusion. You don't need to be overtly rude to be annoying. You don't need to call people names to make people want to call you names.
Also: Not everyone's interpretation is going to be useful to you. If you know in advance that there is no way you are going to be convinced by it, consider deeply whether it is worth yours or the other person's time to discuss it. If you do it anyway, be sure you can tell yourself why and make sure it is a nice reason.
António Pedro Marques29 Nov 2011, 19:12
↳ in reply to James Wynn
James Wynn wrote (29-11-2011 17:57):
5 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 11/29/2011 11:33 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
James Wynn wrote:
Antonio, what do you suppose the point was in having Horn and Nettle write the story as opposed to an omniscient third-person narrator?
Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: What do you base your theory that it was Horn and Nettle on? There's no real reason to believe it. It may have been Marrow's slave.
That's an artless dodge, Antonio. I'll expect an answer to my question first.
Why, seeing as though yours was in response to an unanswered one of mine and it is based on what you consider a theory whose assumptions haven't been clarified yet?
4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
So you admit that when you ask where others get their assumptions from,
it's a rhetoric/flippant question?
I have admitted nothing of the sort. If I am going to discuss a theory, I
approach it from the position, "What if it were true? What would I expect?". I have never said to anyone, for an example, "This is /your/ theory. YOU come up with something that I will accept." I've been told that here in various ways by some people. I've seen people say it to others. That's expecting other people to prove you wrong. That's smug. That's a jerk.
If a theory hasn't addressed a point, it's stupid to ask how it may do so? I know you've been caught trying to complete other people's theories, but that's not necessarily the only (respectful or otherwise) way to go on about it.
4 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
If everything everyone does has unspeakable motivations, why point out that this or that action have unspeakable motivations?
That's like saying that because we are all sinners, discussion of good behavior is pointless. It's like saying that anyone who condemns behavior is "self-righteous", anyone who earns a decent salary is "greedy".
Indeed, that's exactly where your procedure takes us: 'anyone who takes a part of a literary work a priori at face value is "theorising"'.
No. That' is not where I am taking you. However, the second part is true.
(Say what?)
1 quoted line
I am asserting that people who are reading literature are theorizing. They are interpreting from the text the intentions of an author whom they have never met or barely know. I am demolishing the belief (which would be a desirable belief for anyone) that one's own interpretations need no justification...it just "is".
But what makes you think you're more enlightened in this respect that anyone else?
5 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
But being smug doesn't require that you are wrong. It only means that you are not applying to your own theories the rigor to which you are with great adamance disputing others. It is a hypocrisy in which the hypocrite has satisfied himself that his hypocrisy is "authentic". It's like a tyrant who believes everything he does is just because God put him there. The "smug" has constructed a palace of mirrors that all show /only/ himself and always in the perfect light.
Whereas others are convinced that their opinions are wrong, correct?
No. Wow, Antonio, everything with you is either on Everest or at the bottom of the Pacific. Do you really read Wolfe's stories with such an uncomfortable grasp on the idea of ambiguity? I'll say it again. If you engage with someone about ambiguous literary novels like Wolfe's, and you
approach every question with the attitude, "Let's see if your weird new
theory can prove me wrong." then you are smug. And you are wasting the other person's time. Done.
What do you call people who think others approach every question with that attitude?
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Or - how do you say it? - 'if it's not my theory, they're not applying to it the rigor which they are with great adamance disputing me'.
If that's what you've got out of our conversation then it is beyond my abilities to clarify it better.
I don't think the problem lies with clarification. For instance, you may think I'm being irritanting for replying with only one or two lines to entire parapgraphs of yours. That makes it look like you went to the trouble of explaining yourself at length, whereas I ignored all your effort and just grabbed a couple of anchors I though I could deftly hang on to. I know I hate it when people do that and I wished to asseverate that is not the case. In this discussion or elsewhere, you're one of the persons I always read carefully, because your arguments are well developed (though I also read carefully some others who mostly just introduce interesting thoughts to the discussion). But that is not to say I don't find problems also, and one problem I do find is that you seem to want to determine how others should respond to you. And if you're justified in your anger at destructive behaviour, you're also very picky in your judgement. There's more than one way to be constructive, and sometimes it's legitimate to ask why is theory X better than no theory at all (spare us for now the Everything Is A Theory bit). If it's right to ask of a professional naysayer what are they doing in a forum, it's also right to ask what are we sharing our ideas for if discussion of their plausibility is off-limits.
You may not notice it, but by taking offense even at the Professional Naysayers you're stifling discussion and discouraging new ideas from appearing. The people who are accused of Naysaying may in fact express dismay at the theories they discuss, but discuss them they do, and in terms of the theories themselves. At least up to the point where is becomes a discussion over their legitimacy as questioners, and that's where people other than the handful involved tune off. It may be unfair, but that's how it works. If you don't find anything substantive in their objections, why address them? You can keep developping your arguments elsethread. But if you do find something substantive, that's what should be addressed, not the unpleasantness of havign rain on one's parade.
These books are awfully complex and one debating style won't get us all the way.
And sometimes, one reads a whole paragraph, and the sum of the ideas in it takes the argument some place, and one asks a simple question about that place so that all can establish new ground and move on.
David Stockhoff29 Nov 2011, 19:13
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
Down the rabbit hole again ...
23 quoted lines · 1–7 deep
On 11/29/2011 1:49 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>
On 11/29/2011 1:04 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>
On 11/29/2011 12:14 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>
On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
I guess that Silk’s head would replace Piaton’s, then. But
I still
think that his intended position will not be the equivalent of Piaton’s. The two-headed aspect of the god Pas has become real.
And ... drum roll ... WHY do you think that? WHY do you guess
that? WHY?
Lots of reasons. Presumably Kypris doesn’t show Silk his own head gasping. And I don;t think she’s trying to trick him either.
Also, in
RttW he seems to play a role in Pas/Silk that is greater than
Piaton’s
role in Typhon/Piaton. And it fits with the concept of the
evolution
of our idea of god which Wolfe seems to imply in the text.
Thanks for reminding me why I decided to stop talking to you.
Your response puzzles me. Perhaps the “drum roll” interjection is intended to represent some sort of victory screech, but I cannot see in what argument you are victorious or even guess in what argument you think you are.
And I cannot guess where you get the idea that I think I'm victorious, or why you think "victory" is the central point.
So what was the point you were making, then?
To ask you "why."
1 quoted line
Do you disagree with my reasoning regarding the role of Silk in Pas/Silk?
Gerry, I have no idea! How can I? What "reasoning"?
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Much of the difficulty in talking to you is on full display here. You come up with half-processed semi-random stuff out of nowhere and relate it to nothing, with no stated assumptions and no attempt at conclusions. You don't bother to follow a logical flow of /if/ and /then/. You don't define your terms. And then you get personal.
This is so weird. An aspect of the storyline was mentioned (the relationship of Silk to Pas/Silk) and I said what I think about it. You asked me why and I told you the reasons. I didn’t think too hard about them, but they hardly qualify as “half-processed semi-random stuff” — they are pretty specific points that support the conclusion that Silk in Pas/Silk is not a new Piaton. Or do you disagree?
Not quite. The point raised was whether anyone had any ideas about which head Silk replaced (and by inference what that might mean if anything). You answered so I played along. Here we are. You still haven't given any coherent reasons---you've made statements with no hints as to how they are reasons.
1 quoted line
I don’t think I produce semi-random stuff, either half-processed or over-processed.
I am sure of that.
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Your answers are worse than meaningless because it takes a week to extract from you what you meant in the first place, if you meant anything.
I answered within minutes, and the thing we are discussing is pretty specific, even if we don’t learn too much in the text. (I have still to re-read RttW, in which the Pas/silk relationship is probably best defined, and perhaps I will have more detailed thoughts on the subject then.) But, as I said, the reasons I gave seem to imply that Silk-in-Pas does not become Piaton.
You've said that, but you haven't said why.
3 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
It is wearying. You never just answer a question about your
own thoughts with a straight answer. Are you trying to be the Wizard of Oz or the little man behind the curtain?
You think I have secret reasons for believing what I do about Silk-in-Pas? I don’t. Those things I mentioned are the things that seem relevant to me at this time. I’m willing to be convinced otherwise, if someone brings up more evidence. I had completely forgotten one of the heads of the reconstituted Pas was gasping, which could indicate a Pas closer to his origins than I had thought. But that alone is not enough for me to change my mind on the subject.
No, I don't think you have secret reasons for your opinion. They simply have not been clearly expressed. I couldn't begin to try to change your mind, if I cared to do so, without knowing your reasons for your opinions.
António Pedro Marques29 Nov 2011, 19:15
↳ in reply to Sergei SOLOVIEV
Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote (29-11-2011 18:49):
3 quoted lines
I think that there are still some "minimum requirements" to the people who advance an extravagant new theory -
- if they claim that the theory is supported by the text, it would be fair to do the work finding necessary quotations, and honestly present the context (not to make the opponent to browse the whole book to find out that the next sentence to the sentence just quoted is disproving the theory)
Something which has happened more than once. But of course that applies only to the point where there already is an 'opponent'.
1 quoted line
- to be polite, and not to present disagreement as stupidity
Something which happens all the time, usually in the form of sarcasm.
1 quoted line
- not to try to intimidate the opponents presenting their hypotheses as common knowledge and consensus
'Pass off as common knowledge and consensus' is also a problem here.
António Pedro Marques29 Nov 2011, 19:22
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
David Stockhoff wrote (29-11-2011 17:58):
9 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
On 11/29/2011 12:46 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
David Stockhoff wrote (29-11-2011 17:40):
On 11/29/2011 12:35 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
What do you base your theory that it was Horn and Nettle on? There's no real reason to believe it. It may have been Marrow's slave.
Aren't you now doing what you just told us you can't stand?
Precisely, so that those who don't understand why I can't stand it may get an idea.
The problem with it is not so much the isolated instance. It's that it can go on forever, and the perspective of it going on forever is disheartening.
Well, I'm glad that's clear. I'll assume you're thinking of Gerry....
Believe or not, I wasn't thinking about anyone in particular or even about this list. It's a tactic(?) that pops up every now and then, wherever we may be. I don't think I do it, but I hereby encourage everyone to call me on it should it happen.
David Stockhoff29 Nov 2011, 19:26
↳ in reply to James Wynn
10 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/29/2011 2:03 PM, James Wynn wrote:
On 11/29/2011 12:49 PM, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote:
I think that there are still some "minimum requirements" to the people who advance an extravagant new theory -
- if they claim that the theory is supported by the text, it would be fair to do the work finding necessary quotations, and honestly present the context (not to make the opponent to browse the whole book to find out that the next sentence to the sentence just quoted is disproving the theory)
- to be polite, and not to present disagreement as stupidity
- not to try to intimidate the opponents presenting their hypotheses as common knowledge and consensus
It doesn't need to be a so-called extravagant theory for all these rules to apply. There are people with extravagant theories who have presented them in detail many times in the past. It's probably not reasonable for anyone to be required to back every statement with proof each time they make an assertion.
Of course, there's the problem of who decides what theories are "extravagant."
For example, it's OK to describe your vision of the big picture without showing proof; how can you show proof for a theory when it is based on everything? But such theories tend to be unprovable and therefore undisprovable (and undisprovable does not mean proven). In a sense, then, perhaps it is the most "extravagant" theories that ought to require less proof, not the reverse.
I guess my point is that honesty goes a long way. If a theory is based on intuition, admit it. If it's based on books outside the text, say so. If you don't know any books outside the text, admit that too. These have been problems in the past.
António Pedro Marques29 Nov 2011, 19:29
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
David Stockhoff wrote (29-11-2011 19:26):
1 quoted line
I guess my point is that honesty goes a long way. If a theory is based on intuition, admit it. If it's based on books outside the text, say so. If you don't know any books outside the text, admit that too. These have been problems in the past.
I think this may be the most important contribution someone sent in a long, long time.
Gerry Quinn29 Nov 2011, 19:39
↳ in reply to James Wynn
From: James Wynn
1 quoted line
Also: Not everyone's interpretation is going to be useful to you. If you know in advance that there is no way you are going to be convinced by it, consider deeply whether it is worth yours or the other person's time to discuss it. If you do it anyway, be sure you can tell yourself why and make sure it is a nice reason.
If you can show an interpretation is wrong, you save others from being misled by it. Seems a good reason to point out the problem.
- Gerry Quinn
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes29 Nov 2011, 19:59
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
2 quoted lines
Gerry Quinn wrote:
If you can show an interpretation is wrong, you save others from being misled by it. Seems a good reason to point out the problem.
What do you mean by "wrong" and "misled?" These seem to assume that there is a True Interpretation and all others are wrong, where I think that texts in general and Wolfe's texts in particular are polysemous and subject to a multitude of (apparently) contradictory interpretations, all based on the text.
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
Gerry Quinn29 Nov 2011, 20:03
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
From: David Stockhoff
2 quoted lines
On 11/29/2011 1:49 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: David Stockhoff mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net
I wrote earlier:
I guess that Silk’s head would replace Piaton’s, then. But I still don’t think that his intended position will not be the equivalent of Piaton’s. The two-headed aspect of the god Pas has become real.
You asked (with drum rolls) WHY I guessed or believed those things. And I answered:
Lots of reasons. Presumably Kypris doesn’t show Silk his own head gasping.
And I don’t think she’s trying to trick him either. Also, in RttW he seems to play a role in Pas/Silk that is greater than Piaton’s role in Typhon/Piaton. And it fits with the concept of the evolution of our idea of god which Wolfe seems to imply in the text.
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
This is so weird. An aspect of the storyline was mentioned (the relationship of Silk to Pas/Silk) and I said what I think about it. You asked me why and I told you the reasons. I didn’t think too hard about them, but they hardly qualify as “half-processed semi-random stuff” — they are pretty specific points that support the conclusion that Silk in Pas/Silk is not a new Piaton. Or do you disagree?
Not quite. The point raised was whether anyone had any ideas about which head Silk replaced (and by inference what that might mean if anything).
Yes. I thought, and still do, that it is obvious that if Piaton’s gasping head is generally seen when Typhon manifests, then Silk’s head will replace that one. Kypris suggests that Silk and Typhon will be equal: “You’d be him. And he’d be you.” If one head were gasping in the image she shows him, it implicitly contradicts that assertion.
So, I assumed that nobody would disagree on the point of which head, and I moved on to the more interesting question of what it means.
1 quoted line
You answered so I played along. Here we are. You still haven't given any coherent reasons---you've made statements with no hints as to how they are reasons.
Do you need everything spelled out? I think my reasons were pretty straightforward to understand. I think the choice of head doesn’t mean anything unless one of two things happened: (1) Silk’s head replaced the non-gasping head, which would indicate a near-total replacement of Typhon by Silk, or (2) Silk’s head replaced the gasping head, and was gasping itself, which would indicate Silk took on a Piaton-like role.
Neither of these two possibilities fit well with Kypris’s proposal, so I don’t think either of these are what he was shown. Thus he must have replaced the gasping head, but not himself gasping. Hence my answer to the original question.
This would indicate he had some approximation of equality with Original Pas, unless Kypris was lying to him. And I think, though I need to re-read RttW, that her telling the truth fits with the story. Though of course, the opposite could indicate an unpleasant interpretation for Silent/Silver Silk — i.e. that he does not appear in the Sacred Windows because he has not the power to do so. I must confirm on my re-read that there is good evidence that Silk has a real role in New Pas.
Anyway, I hope that’s a sufficient explication.
- Gerry Quinn
entonio at gmail.com29 Nov 2011, 20:03
↳ in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
No dia 2011/11/29, ?s 19:59, "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <danldo at gmail.com> escreveu:
3 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Gerry Quinn wrote:
If you can show an interpretation is wrong, you save others from being misled by it. Seems a good reason to point out the problem.
What do you mean by "wrong" and "misled?" These seem to assume
It doesn't. 'X is wrong' is not the same as 'All but Y are wrong'.
6 quoted lines
that
there is a True Interpretation and all others are wrong, where I think that texts in general and Wolfe's texts in particular are polysemous and subject to a multitude of (apparently) contradictory interpretations, all based on the text.
--
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
3 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Gerry Quinn wrote:
If you can show an interpretation is wrong, you save others from being misled by it. Seems a good reason to point out the problem.
What do you mean by "wrong" and "misled?" These seem to assume that there is a True Interpretation and all others are wrong, where I think that texts in general and Wolfe's texts in particular are polysemous and subject to a multitude of (apparently) contradictory interpretations, all based on the text.
It only assumes that some interpretations are wrong, and that some interpretations exist, already discovered or not, that are better than the wrong ones.
- Gerry Quinn
Lee Berman29 Nov 2011, 20:50
↳ follows, by subject match Gerry Quinn
6 quoted lines
Gerry Quinn: None of that can sustain even cursory scrutiny. A “wain” is just a
large cart, but that’s beside the point. The description refers to two of Pas’s
bulldozers which “were still at work upon the whorl”. They were planting a tree
behind his throne. If the mountain head were above a throne, a tree behind it
would be kind of invisible, no? It has absolutely nothing to do with the mountain head.
The orgy is on a drape Blood has ordered or acquired to cover the Sacred window in his brothel. It is an obscene parody of Campion’s well-known original painting. Typhon did not have two penises, or if he had Severian did not mention it. The two penises in the orgy painting are clearly created by a painter steeped in the two-headed iconography of Pas the whorl god — it was painted by someone in the Whorl, and could not have been painted before Typhon became Pas. [Campion may or may not have departed with the Whorl.]
Gerry, you are entitled to your opinion though I concur that it doesn't sustain even cursory scrutiny. You are reading the text in isolationist fashion, as though it is describing some reality rather than being a work of literary fiction which contains allusion, often to the author's own previous work.
In this case there is a clear, easy to see connection between this painting and Severian's encounter with Typhon. We don't know where it was created, Whorl or Urth, but it depicts Typhon on Urth, where Typhon actually had a throne. It does not depict Pas. How does a computer program have a throne, not to mention preside over an orgy?
Campion's painting is a cleaned up version of this one, not the reverse.
(Blood's primary association was with Scylla, not Pas, btw)
Lee Berman29 Nov 2011, 21:02
↳ follows, by subject match Lee Berman
3 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
If a random someone has grown a fetus from a plant root for no apparent reason, I can't see that as a more interesting interpretation than one which explains who created that fetus and for what purpose.
Okay. I can't see yours as an interesting interpretation. That's a matter of taste.
David Stockhoff: .....except that the whole cloning/in vivo/possession/scanning trope was plainly already in Wolfe's mind, and as such maybe the LS/SS arcs as well. Typhon is a major connection between Severian in the Citadel and the embryonic Silk in the Whorl. So it stands to reason that Typhon created it as a failed experiment on the way to devising his colonization strategies, but it's not a critical plot point.
It is a matter of taste. It also is a constrast between viewing Wolfe's work as a series of isolated incident or carrying a thread of connection as David illustrates. You may take a reference to a mandragora and choose a Biblical connection to Rachel and exclude the possibility that it refers to cloning and a mythological man-dragon.
It's just that cloning and Typhon are intensely important themes which Wolfe has developed
in work previous to and post-BotNS. If your preference is to ignore that, and focus on
an isolated reference to Rachel I am not going to argue that you are "wrong". But I see no reason to denounce my preference for seeing multiple internal connections across Wolfe's work.
Lee Berman29 Nov 2011, 21:09
↳ follows, by subject match Lee Berman
2 quoted lines
James Wynn: It only means that you are not applying to your own theories
the rigor to which you are with great adamance disputing others. It is a hypocrisy in which the hypocrite has satisfied himself that his hypocrisy is "authentic".
I agree with what I think is James' philosophy that one should apply their critical analysis most stringently upon one's self and one's own theories and ideas. Devoting one's criticism solely to the ideas of others is smug, cheap and easy. My impression is that James is not a hypocrite and that he self-reviews and self-critiques to a very high level. I look up to his example.
Lee Berman29 Nov 2011, 21:12
↳ follows, by subject match Lee Berman
1 quoted line
Sergei Soloviev: I think plural is "calculi".
"Calculii" maybe? If "calculus" is singular, male form.
Plural of female "calcula" would be calculae, iirc.
David Stockhoff29 Nov 2011, 21:17
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
6 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/29/2011 3:03 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>
On 11/29/2011 1:49 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: David Stockhoff mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net
Not quite. The point raised was whether anyone had any ideas about which head Silk replaced (and by inference what that might mean if anything).
Yes. I thought, and still do, that it is obvious that if Piaton’s gasping head is generally seen when Typhon manifests, then Silk’s head will replace that one. Kypris suggests that Silk and Typhon will be equal: “You’d be him. And he’d be you.” If one head were gasping in the image she shows him, it implicitly contradicts that assertion.
I thought you had forgotten that Piaton's head lolled and gasped. But obviously I can see how “You’d be him. And he’d be you.” is ambiguous in the case of a two-headed god, which is why I raised the point.
Still, the "plain" meaning of that line is that "Silk would be Pas and Pas would be Silk. Why? Because Kypris is talking about Pas, not Typhon, and because we know about the gods' ability to possess. Is there anything wrong with this reading?
I have already said that Silk's replacing Piaton might suggest a junior status, which would indeed contradict the equality and identity Kypris has claimed. So we agree on that. Therefore I doubt that Silk replaced Piaton at all. Whether he is gasping or not is irrelevant because it isn't mentioned; I think it probably didn't happen.
On the other hand, Silk's replacing Typhon's head corresponds best with his "being" Pas, since Piaton is merely a host, like the Whorl god Pas's banks of electronics. Pas is a scan of Typhon, not Piaton. Right?
1 quoted line
So, I assumed that nobody would disagree on the point of which head, and I moved on to the more interesting question of what it means.
It had barely been discussed!
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
You answered so I played along. Here we are. You still haven't given any coherent reasons---you've made statements with no hints as to how they are reasons.
Do you need everything spelled out?
Let's just say "yes."
1 quoted line
I think my reasons were pretty straightforward to understand. I think the choice of head doesn’t mean anything unless one of two things happened: (1) Silk’s head replaced the non-gasping head, which would indicate a near-total replacement of Typhon by Silk, or (2) Silk’s head replaced the gasping head, and was gasping itself, which would indicate Silk took on a Piaton-like role.
More or less as I said in my "rider or ridden" formulation of the question. But remember Pas has nothing of Piaton in him aside from his image, since we know Pas began as a scan of Typhon, not Piaton. Right?
That means there is no literal meaning to Silk replacing Piaton. It can only be symbolic. In fact, given what Kypris said and what we know of BSS, Silk is both rider and ridden. Pas has absorbed him and he has absorbed Pas. Kypris said so. Does that make sense?
If Wolfe tipped us to Silk being one or the other---and he did not---then we might expect and look for more of one and less of the other. Thus my question.
1 quoted line
Neither of these two possibilities fit well with Kypris’s proposal, so I don’t think either of these are what he was shown. Thus he must have replaced the gasping head, but not himself gasping. Hence my answer to the original question.
The text says nothing about this. It says "One of them was Silk's."
But now I'm confused: You said "the choice of head doesn’t mean anything unless one of two things happened" and then you said "Neither of these two possibilities fit well with Kypris’s proposal, so I don’t think either of these are what he was shown." Does this mean you think "he must have replaced the gasping head, but not himself gasping"---your own answer---does not mean anything?
Somehow you have managed to argue that Silk is now a non-gasping Piaton without touching on anything I'd call evidence. Do you see why I pressed for details?
1 quoted line
This would indicate he had some approximation of equality with Original Pas, unless Kypris was lying to him.
I agree about equality, although Kypris addresses identity, which should trump equality. But I don't see how Silk = Piaton creates equality, even non-gasping equality. Piaton was a slave. Typhon rode him like a horse and he helped Severian kill Typhon. Not an auspicious depiction of a soul-swapping transaction with a god.
1 quoted line
And I think, though I need to re-read RttW, that her telling the truth fits with the story. Though of course, the opposite could indicate an unpleasant interpretation for Silent/Silver Silk — i.e. that he does not appear in the Sacred Windows because he has not the power to do so. I must confirm on my re-read that there is good evidence that Silk has a real role in New Pas.
Me too. I am honestly not even sure Silk went for the scan, although the existence of the Silly Silks seems to demand it.
1 quoted line
Anyway, I hope that’s a sufficient explication.
I have serious problems with it, but thanks for providing it.
James Wynn29 Nov 2011, 21:21
↳ in reply to António Pedro Marques
4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
James Wynn wrote:
Antonio, what do you suppose the point was in having Horn and Nettle write the story as opposed to an omniscient third-person narrator?
Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
Why [answer you], seeing as though yours was in response to an unanswered one of mine and it is based on what you consider a theory whose assumptions haven't been clarified yet?
You're still dodging...and being pointlessly argumentative. When you have written six posts attempting to clarify an answer to this question, then you can evoke parity between us.
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
I am asserting that people who are reading literature are theorizing. They are interpreting from the text the intentions of an author whom they have never met or barely know. I am demolishing the belief (which would be a desirable belief for anyone) that one's own interpretations need no justification...it just "is".
But what makes you think you're more enlightened in this respect that anyone else?
Nothing. I am interpreting as well. I don't recall establishing a comparison. If you or I engage someone with a supposedly "extravagant" explanation and start from the position that it must be compared to a "standard" (which by some fortuitous fluke happens to be our own understanding of the text) then you or I are behaving in an unenlightened manner. I'm not going to be painted in corner in which denouncing thoughtless arrogance is in itself arrogant. That way lies destruction.
5 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
I'll say it again. If you
engage with someone about ambiguous literary novels like Wolfe's, and you
approach every question with the attitude, "Let's see if your weird new
theory can prove me wrong." then you are smug. And you are wasting the other person's time. Done.
What do you call people who think others approach every question with that attitude?
See above.
3 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
Or - how do you say it? - 'if it's not my theory, they're not applying to it the rigor which they are with great adamance disputing me'.
If that's what you've got out of our conversation then it is beyond my abilities to clarify it better.
I don't think the problem lies with clarification. For instance, you may think I'm being irritanting for replying with only one or two lines to entire parapgraphs of yours. That makes it look like you went to the trouble of explaining yourself at length, whereas I ignored all your effort and just grabbed a couple of anchors I though I could deftly hang on to. I know I hate it when people do that and I wished to asseverate that is not the case.
It is good, certainly, that you are aware of the intense similarity.
1 quoted line
[Antonio says a lot of good and complimentary stuff]
Declaring someone's model to be simply untenable, because, well, it just obviously is...that is a huge waste of that person's time. If that is one's approach, he should move on. It is not necessary for anyone to comment on every thread. It distresses some people that some people are having long threads of discussions that they don't find interesting or useful or true...as though someone felt that every conversation at a party had to be interesting to him.
It is intriguing that you can see how a supposedly untenable theory is a distraction, but you believe that 1) someone with an interpretation that (supposedly) brooks no literary allusions or irony and 2) makes ever increasing demands that others' explanations explain everything , even the authors failure to present the story in a way that would make it emphatically clear to HIMSELF...that you don't see that as being an issue of distraction. What we have here are two separate interpretations of the text (I'm sorry but that's simply the way I read it--see? I am not setting my conclusions above anyone else's here). No use can come of insisting that the extravagant high literary theory must metaphysically trump the extravagantly mundane-focused theory to be valid. Both must be considered separately on their own merits. Otherwise, it affords the extravagantly mundane theorist the luxury of forever, and self-satisfyingly saying "no"; which he will 99 times out of 100.
"Professional Naysayers" (to the extent that designation applies) are not furthering discussion, Antonio, anymore than than a house built on top of an intersection is furthering the flow of traffic by making everyone route around it. If every response comes down to "I don't see it", well, any blind man can take that position regarding a sunset. I take no offense to such people, unless...
a) After many missives I realize that their point was to establish
that their viewpoint is unassailable.
b) the I have carefully attempted to answer their questions and they
responds with an answer formatted for its supposed cleverness or
sneer-quality
(I don't make any insistence about how people respond to me. You are
wrong about that. But I'm not required to like it if they are
boorish--or boarish-- or hostile. I've recently decided that the
best way to respond in those cases is to in some way acknowledge
that, yes, I did note that trollish response --which the person
certainly wanted for me to notice-- without directly engaging it. I
will not psychoanalyze the behavior. I will not try to get the
person to admit the behavior nor reform. I need no confirmation from
them for what I have clearly read.)
I'm not interested in debating for points or earning a reputation. My problem with smug people is not that they are smug, it is that they usually waste my time. They offer me no significant insight into our conversation because they are not really interested in my half of it. They are only interested in how cleanly they can strike. Their opinion of their own intelligence, without exception in my experience, far exceeds the reality from my perspective.
Lee Berman29 Nov 2011, 21:21
↳ follows, by subject match James Wynn
1 quoted line
James Wynn: There is actually very little in these books that everyone agrees on 100%.
Heh. That's for sure. A couple months ago I tried to think of an example of one- that the events of BotNS take place in South America (or its analog) and got a denial and argument from Jerry. Given that, I suppose it is ridiculous to think we could agree on something more abstract, such as the meaning of the Mandragora.
David Stockhoff29 Nov 2011, 21:22
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
14 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/29/2011 3:50 PM, Lee Berman wrote:
Gerry Quinn: None of that can sustain even cursory scrutiny. A “wain” is just a
large cart, but that’s beside the point. The description refers to two of Pas’s
bulldozers which “were still at work upon the whorl”. They were planting a tree
behind his throne. If the mountain head were above a throne, a tree behind it
would be kind of invisible, no? It has absolutely nothing to do with the mountain head.
The orgy is on a drape Blood has ordered or acquired to cover the Sacred window in his brothel. It is an obscene parody of Campion’s well-known original painting. Typhon did not have two penises, or if he had Severian did not mention it. The two penises in the orgy painting are clearly created by a painter steeped in the two-headed iconography of Pas the whorl god — it was painted by someone in the Whorl, and could not have been painted before Typhon became Pas. [Campion may or may not have departed with the Whorl.]
Gerry, you are entitled to your opinion though I concur that it doesn't sustain even cursory scrutiny. You are reading the text in isolationist fashion, as though it is describing some reality rather than being a work of literary fiction which contains allusion, often to the author's own previous work.
In this case there is a clear, easy to see connection between this painting and Severian's encounter with Typhon. We don't know where it was created, Whorl or Urth, but it depicts Typhon on Urth, where Typhon actually had a throne. It does not depict Pas. How does a computer program have a throne, not to mention preside over an orgy?
Campion's painting is a cleaned up version of this one, not the reverse.
(Blood's primary association was with Scylla, not Pas, btw)
Gerry has a point, however, in saying that Typhon did not have two penises. I'd put this down to (a) the propagandizing of Typhon as Pas (better to suggest the Tyrant God is a double being rather than a surgical freakshow) and (b) Wolfe's motif of doubling (hybridization and possession). As someone noted recently, there are miracles false and true; there may also be ways to fake doubling. Typhon is such a fake.
Lee Berman29 Nov 2011, 21:32
↳ follows, by subject match David Stockhoff
1 quoted line
Gerry Quinn: If you can show an interpretation is wrong, you save others from being misled by it. Seems a good reason to point out the problem.
Heh. Our knight in shining armour!
But is it possible "others" don't really need saving? Are not "others" fully capable of deciding for themselves which interpretations have merit? Do "others" really need Gerry Quinn to do this work for them? What qualifies you for this position as saviour?
Gerry is it possible your contributions are actually more self-serving than in the service of others? I do appreciate your honesty in posting such a revealing and candid statement of your intentions. And I apologize for the rhetorical questions. But perhaps they are worth asking.
Gerry Quinn29 Nov 2011, 22:01
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
From: Lee Berman
7 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Gerry Quinn: None of that can sustain even cursory scrutiny. A “wain” is just a
large cart, but that’s beside the point. The description refers to two of Pas’s
bulldozers which “were still at work upon the whorl”. They were planting a tree
behind his throne. If the mountain head were above a throne, a tree behind it
would be kind of invisible, no? It has absolutely nothing to do with the mountain head.
The orgy is on a drape Blood has ordered or acquired to cover the Sacred window in his rothel. It is an obscene parody of Campion’s well-known original painting. Typhon did not have two penises, or if he had Severian did not mention it. The two penises in the orgy painting are clearly created by a painter steeped in the two-headed iconography of Pas the whorl god — it was painted by someone in the Whorl, and could not have been painted before Typhon became Pas. [Campion may or may not have departed with the Whorl.]
Gerry, you are entitled to your opinion though I concur that it doesn't sustain even cursory scrutiny. You are reading the text in isolationist fashion, as though it is describing some reality rather than being a work of literary fiction which contains allusion, often to the author's own previous work.
No, I’m reading the text in order to learn what the author meant to imply by it, which in this case is really rather clear. If the text says “Silk went through the door”, we do not have to drag up every instance of a door being mentioned in the text to understand it. Much the same may be said of erections.
1 quoted line
In this case there is a clear, easy to see connection between this painting and Severian's encounter with Typhon.
There is zero connection. Typhon has an erection when he is excited by the exercise of power. Porno-Pas has two erections in Blood’s painting. But these have nothing in particular to do with one another. Erections are not uncommon in hard-core pornographic images; it is their absence that would be surprising.
1 quoted line
We don't know where it was created, Whorl or Urth, but it depicts Typhon on Urth, where Typhon actually had a throne.
It cannot depict Typhon on Urth. There is no plausible reason that an artist would represent Typhon with two penises, so clearly the pornographic image depicts Pas. And therefore it was painted on the Whorl, where Pas rules.
The original, non-pornographic picture by Campion on which it was based also depicts Pas. Arguably. however, it depicts Typhon also. Both paintings include both a physical and a non-physical figure (“the vast, dim faces of the spiritual Pas”). The physical figure in Campion’s original may be intended to represent the Monarch’s creation of the Whorl, where his spiritual self is being enthroned. The painting is set on the Whorl. We are told so in the text.
2 quoted lines
It does not depict Pas.
How does a computer program have a throne, not to mention preside over an orgy?
A computer program doesn’t have a throne, but there is no reason why a painting of one cannot include a throne, or an orgy, or both. Pas is depicted in many ways by his worshippers (and, as we see, by others). The content of Campion’s painting is metaphorical for the most part.
And certainly the gods of the Whorl could preside over orgies, if they so wished. Apparently they do not, but that’s no reason why Blood’s unknown artist, creating a painting suitable for a brothel, should not have imagined it.
1 quoted line
Campion's painting is a cleaned up version of this one, not the reverse.
Yet another reason to rule this out is Blood’s observation, “do you know how much that stuff costs?” which has a clear implication of “a bit but not as much as an antique from before the time of the Whorl”. Most likely Blood or a previous owner of the brothel had it commissioned.
1 quoted line
(Blood's primary association was with Scylla, not Pas, btw)
And? Maybe he has Scylla-porn drapes too. Tentacles everywhere.
- Gerry Quinn
David Stockhoff29 Nov 2011, 22:15
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
3 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/29/2011 5:01 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
In this case there is a clear, easy to see connection between this painting and Severian's encounter with Typhon.
There is zero connection. Typhon has an erection when he is excited by the exercise of power. Porno-Pas has two erections in Blood’s painting. But these have nothing in particular to do with one another. Erections are not uncommon in hard-core pornographic images; it is their absence that would be surprising.
I AM impressed!
Along these lines, I argue that Severian is not an important character and narrator in BNS. After all, novels usually have protagonists as well as narrators. It would be a poor novel that lacked either. Therefore, we should pay not attention to what Severian says or does.
Still, Gerry again has a point. The scene is in a brothel. It may well be more accurate a depiction in some ways than Campion's. But that's irony, not necessarily evidence of historical proximity.
Gerry Quinn29 Nov 2011, 22:16
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
From: Lee Berman
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Gerry Quinn: If you can show an interpretation is wrong, you save others from being misled by it. Seems a good reason to point out the problem.
But is it possible "others" don't really need saving? Are not "others" fully capable of deciding for themselves which interpretations have merit? Do "others" really need Gerry Quinn to do this work for them? What qualifies you for this position as saviour?
You might as well argue that nobody should post their interpretations, as others could think them up for themselves.
If people have already worked out my reason or another reason why an interpretation must be wrong, of course I do not save them time. But I’d say on balance I am their saviour of time, if you want to used such a perverse sense of the word “saviour”.
What qualifies me for the position of saviour of their time is merely a post that saves them time.
1 quoted line
Gerry is it possible your contributions are actually more self-serving than in the service of others? I do appreciate your honesty in posting such a revealing and candid statement of your intentions. And I apologize for the rhetorical questions. But perhaps they are worth asking.
<Shrug> It’s hard to see what I gain from pointing out flaws in theories, except what everyone gains, i.e. a better feel for which theories are viable. Whatever my motivations, what you seem to be doing is implicitly calling for the censorship of posts that point out flaws in theories, or perhaps only in your preferred theories. Such censorship is rarely conducive to progress.
- Gerry Quinn
James Wynn29 Nov 2011, 22:44
↳ in reply to entonio at gmail.com
6 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
Gerry Quinn wrote:
If you can show an interpretation is wrong, you save others from being misled by it. Seems a good reason to point out the problem.
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
What do you mean by "wrong" and "misled?" These seem to assume that there is a True Interpretation and all others are wrong, where I think that texts in general and Wolfe's texts in particular are polysemous and subject to a multitude of (apparently) contradictory interpretations, all based on the text.
entonio at gmail.com wrote:
It doesn't. 'X is wrong' is not the same as 'All but Y are wrong'.
Perhaps, but if your method of proof is to assert that there is an alternate interpretation, then you aren't proving anything except that there is an alternate interpretation.
Marc Aramini29 Nov 2011, 23:21
↳ in reply to James Wynn
8 quoted lines
--- On Tue, 11/29/11, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote:
Because the text says so. But --guess what?-- that's
NOT the only theory. Marc has posited that the whole event
and Silk's communication with the Outsider was engineered by
Pas and Kypris. I can bring up technical refutations ("Pas
is dead.") but I fully know that I would like the story less
if the enlightenment were a ruse.
I'm just going to barge in here, because I feel like this lack of "true" enlightenment is being a bit ... not misconstrued, but used in a secular anti-spiritual way I don't think is necessarily conducive to Gene's point of view. I DO think that the voices Silk hears can be physically explained to some degree in that they were preprogrammed by his parents, Pas/Kypris, and I do find it ironic that these voices would lead him to reject the religion established by Pas to a great degree in something outside it [the Outsider Pas imitates), but I also find it wonderfully ironic that a false elightenment can be a true enlightenment, too, and serve a greater purpose. Pas was calling him to his function as son and savior, but the words of Pas the demiurge helped create something much more spiritual than was originally intended. So ultimately it doesn't matter at all whether there is a physical mechanism for those voices (I think there is) - it still has a
mysterious impact. Silks is a good man in a misguided religion, but enlightenment, whether related to a physical 1-2-3 type cause and effect or not explainable by the reality, is still enlightenment. That's all.
David Stockhoff30 Nov 2011, 00:06
↳ in reply to Marc Aramini
11 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/29/2011 6:21 PM, Marc Aramini wrote:
--- On Tue, 11/29/11, James Wynn<crushtv at gmail.com> wrote:
Because the text says so. But --guess what?-- that's
NOT the only theory. Marc has posited that the whole event
and Silk's communication with the Outsider was engineered by
Pas and Kypris. I can bring up technical refutations ("Pas
is dead.") but I fully know that I would like the story less
if the enlightenment were a ruse.
I'm just going to barge in here, because I feel like this lack of "true" enlightenment is being a bit ... not misconstrued, but used in a secular anti-spiritual way I don't think is necessarily conducive to Gene's point of view. I DO think that the voices Silk hears can be physically explained to some degree in that they were preprogrammed by his parents, Pas/Kypris, and I do find it ironic that these voices would lead him to reject the religion established by Pas to a great degree in something outside it [the Outsider Pas imitates), but I also find it wonderfully ironic that a false elightenment can be a true enlightenment, too, and serve a greater purpose. Pas was calling him to his function as son and savior, but the words of Pas the demiurge helped create something much more spiritual than was originally intended. So ultimately it doesn't matter at all whether there is a physical mechanism for those voices (I think there is) - it still has a
mysterious impact. Silks is a good man in a misguided religion, but enlightenment, whether related to a physical 1-2-3 type cause and effect or not explainable by the reality, is still enlightenment. That's all.
I agree. That is the only way any enlightenment could be "true": all enlightenment must be true. All the various mechanics of enlightenment are too easy to explain away, after Dr Crane's fashion. But it's the result that matters, not the cause. It's what the subject does next that matters. If that were not the case, Silk may as well be a robot receiving instructions radioed to the fillings in his teeth.
António Marques30 Nov 2011, 00:06
↳ in reply to James Wynn
8 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
James Wynn wrote:
Gerry Quinn wrote:
If you can show an interpretation is wrong, you save others from being misled by it. Seems a good reason to point out the problem.
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
What do you mean by "wrong" and "misled?" These seem to assume that there is a True Interpretation and all others are wrong, where I think that texts in general and Wolfe's texts in particular are polysemous and subject to a multitude of (apparently) contradictory interpretations, all based on the text.
entonio at gmail.com wrote:
It doesn't. 'X is wrong' is not the same as 'All but Y are wrong'.
Perhaps, but if your method of proof is to assert that there is an alternate interpretation, then you aren't proving anything except that there is an alternate interpretation.
It can become entangled, no? When you point out actual problems with an interpretation and then people ask you for an alternative, they are the ones admitting the alternative as a method of 'proof' against the other:
- A says X in explanation of P
- B points out that X doesn't go well with 1 and 2
- A then asks for an explanation of P that has no problems with 1 and 2
- B provides Y, effectively showing that it's possible to explain P without clashing with 1 and 2
In that case, Y doesn't disprove X. It's 1 and 2 that disprove X. The
role of Y is to show that it's possible to solve P in harmony with 1 and
2. That is relevant because if no one could come up with a solution of P that wasn't invalidated by 1 or 2 or whatever, then it could be argued that the necessity of solving P anyway trumped the objections of 1 and
2. (Though as I'll say below I don't think this last argument ever holds.)
I know it's fashionable here now to say that in a Wolfe story there are always explanations of type Y which are meant for the simple minded, with an X kept for those who aim higher. However, I don't see that that's the case. In my experience, yes, there are always commonplace or even somewhat elaborate type Y explanations, and there are often others which are not obvious, but they're not type X, violating 1 and 2, they're type W, looking at it all from a dazzling perspective but violating nothing.
(That's why, for instance, I think Marc's ideas, while possibly very off the mark, are going on about it The Right Way. And yes, I think many of yours do too. Or Ryan's.)
Marc Aramini30 Nov 2011, 01:53
↳ in reply to António Marques
1 quoted line
--- On Tue, 11/29/11, Ant?nio Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote: (That's why, for instance, I think Marc's ideas, while possibly very off the mark, are going on about it The Right Way. And yes, I think many of yours do too. Or Ryan's.)
Thanks! The caveat here is that they are never very far off the marc.
Marc Aramini30 Nov 2011, 02:04
↳ in reply to James Wynn
22 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
--- On Tue, 11/29/11, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote: From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> Subject: Re: (urth) Pike's ghost To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net> Date: Tuesday, November 29, 2011, 9:19 AM On 11/29/2011 11:09 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
Now for something completely different (really). Who
is (are?) the Silk in the Rajan?
- Has the original Silk been lost?
- No Silk we meet seems to know anything about the 20
years of Silk's life after Horn left the Whorl.
Obviously, I believe that Wolfe has created a narrator for
these stories who, while writing in first-person, is
analogous to Horn and Nettle writing about Silk.
- At the end of RW we simultaneously learn how 'a'
Silk may or may have not been hiding in Pig, and how 'Silk'
accepts he is Silk in New Viron.
That's not my interpretation of the final events at all.
However, the two episodes have no connection between
them. The 'Silk in denial' we meet, except for the bit
aboard the Whorl, is all after the appearance of the Silk in
Pig. Which Silk is the one in Pig? Does he or does he not
get into the [then yet to be] Rajan?
It is an interesting question as to whether Silver Silk has
possessed the Rajan.
I am almost certain the reason for the conclusion of Short Sun being the sacrifice of the eye (in flash back anyway) is simply that THAT is the moment when Silk is "saved"/rebooted. He pretty much left the building/lost his will to live when Hy died, and that reboot is an integral way to the manner I read the text: most of the Rajan post OBW is, in my opinion, dominated by the Silver Silk personality that rode in Pig. I guess I could be wrong, but I think that is key to Silk's reconstitution, re-enacting the reconstitution of Pas.
Marc Aramini30 Nov 2011, 02:09
↳ in reply to Marc Aramini
13 quoted lines
--- On Tue, 11/29/11, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com> wrote:
I am almost certain the reason for the conclusion of Short
Sun being the sacrifice of the eye (in flash back anyway) is
simply that THAT is the moment when Silk is
"saved"/rebooted. He pretty much left the
building/lost his will to live when Hy died, and that reboot
is an integral way to the manner I read the text: most of
the Rajan post OBW is, in my opinion, dominated by the
Silver Silk personality that rode in Pig. I guess I
could be wrong, but I think that is key to Silk's
reconstitution, re-enacting the reconstitution of Pas.
_______________________________________________
I also wanted to add very breifly that I think Gene has mastered the understated conclusions that don't feel like conclusions: saving Silk at the end of RttW is involved in that flash of colors that, once Pig has his eye, can be used to transfer Silk back to his own body, out from his own plucked out eye and back in through the whole one: this is the point where search for Silk "ended" - the rest was just tying it up, Horn saying his goodbyes, and Silk (and whatever else is in there with him that grants him special qualities) taking up Horn's quest home mistakenly.
{I argue that the other conclusion is symbolic: the text of the sprouting Hyacinth shows the fate of man, though crushed under the shepherd's heel. But that is unrelated to the Pig - eyed true conclusion.}
Jerry Friedman30 Nov 2011, 05:38
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
6 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net>
On 11/29/2011 1:23 AM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
From: Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>
If a random someone has grown a fetus from a plant root for no apparent reason, I can't see that as a more interesting interpretation than one which explains who created that fetus and for what purpose.
Okay. I can't see yours as an interesting interpretation. That's a matter of taste. However, I am saying that because of the Levi quotation, or just because a??fabulous mandrake root is something human-like but not really human, I don't think it's valid to say that the only possible reason for Wolfe to use the word was as a connection to Typhon. Indeed, I think it's quite possible that such a connection never entered his mind.
Sorry, what's the Levi quotation?
This sentence from the occultist Eliphas Levi, which I'd quoted earlier.
"Some alchemists, impressed by this idea, speculated on the culture of
the mandragore, and experimented in the artificial reproduction of a
soil sufficiently fruitful and a sun sufficiently active to humanise the said root, and thus create men without the concurrence of the female."
1 quoted line
It's quite possible, except that the whole cloning/in
????vivo/possession/scanning trope was plainly already in Wolfe's mind, ????and as such maybe the LS/SS arcs as well. Typhon is a major ????connection between Severian in the Citadel and the embryonic Silk in ????the Whorl. So it stands to reason that Typhon created it as a failed ????experiment on the way to devising his colonization strategies,
Well, I'd say it's no inconsistent with anything. I'm very hesitant to interpret anything in BotNS based on the possibility that Wolfe was already thinking of the Long and Short Sun books.
1 quoted line
but it's not a critical plot point.
Agreed.
1 quoted line · depth 3
As larry says, mandrake and Mandragora
both point to Typhon (as homunculus ties to Dr. Talos, but we won't complicate the matter with that, for now).
4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Why don't they point to Ymar? The two Biblical references to mandrakes are in connection with Rachel and
the maiden in the Song of Songs, both types of the Virgin Mary in Catholic theology (or I can find at least one
source that says that about each one). I don't think I need to make the last connection.
Actually, please do.
The last connection is that Ymar is an anagram of Mary.
1 quoted line
I don't follow this or know the references at
????all. Why Ymar? (I did just find the Rachel ones but don;t know how ????to interpret them.)
Just disagreeing with Lee's comment that the word "mandragora" could only point to Typhon. I don't think any of these word games /necessarily/ point to one thing. You can always find connections to others. Of course, you and Lee and others may have reasons for preferring one connection.
I meant to add that "mandragora" can suggest "dragoman". Agia and the jungle guide might both count as dragomans. Maybe some people will like a possible connection between the mandragora and Father Inire.
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Or why not the Sleeper? Shakespeare refers to mandragora as a soporific, including in a fairly famous passage from /Othello/.
Meaning "the sleepers" on the Whorl? Or another sleeper?
I was thinking of the god worshiped on Ushas under that name, but any one you want.
6 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Or Severian in his first life or two? The most famous quotation about a mandrake starts "Go and catch a falling star", which immediately brings to mind the slingers' song, which Wolfe said illuminates--darkly--Severian's past and future.
This quotation?:
?Go, and catch a falling star, / Get with child a mandrake root, / Tell me, where all past years are, / Or who cleft the Devil's foot.
?John Donne quotes(English poet, 1572-1631)
That is indeed striking.
Great lines, and of course Severian finds out where past years are. Other connections can easily be made. But I can't say whether Wolfe had it mind or not.
4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
larry miller: The question is who that someone is.
Not necessarily. Maybe we're meant to leave it as a mystery and concentrate on the interaction between Severian and the homunculus.
I agree. But the Donne quote, if it is a key link, does lead to the ????image of impregnating a mandrake root, which takes us back to who ????and why, and what resulted from it.
Oddly enough, it doesn't take me to those questions at all.
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman30 Nov 2011, 06:00
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
7 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
From: Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>
If a random someone has grown a fetus from a plant root for no apparent reason, I
can't see that as a more interesting interpretation than one which explains
who created that fetus and for what purpose.
Okay. I can't see yours as an interesting interpretation. That's a matter of taste.
David Stockhoff: .....except that the whole cloning/in vivo/possession/scanning trope was plainly already in Wolfe's mind, and as such maybe the LS/SS arcs as well. Typhon is a major connection between Severian in the Citadel and the embryonic Silk in the Whorl. So it stands to reason that Typhon created it as a failed experiment on the way to devising his colonization strategies, but it's not a critical plot point.
It is a matter of taste. It also is a constrast between viewing Wolfe's work as a series of isolated incident
I don't view it that way. Are you perhaps reasoning that if one possible connection doesn't interest me, I don't see any connections?
2 quoted lines
or carrying a thread of connection as David illustrates. You may take
a reference to a mandragora and choose a Biblical connection to Rachel and exclude the possibility that it refers to cloning and a mythological man-dragon.
I didn't exclude anything. I don't know where you got the idea that I might have.
1 quoted line
It's just that cloning and Typhon are intensely important themes which Wolfe has developed in work previous to and post-BotNS.
So is the creation of non-cloned sentient beings, such as Dr. Talos, who you mentioned earlier. Are you excluding that as a possibility for the mandragora?
In general, biological engineering and its creations, or should I call them its victims, are important themes in Wolfe's work. I take it we all agree that the mandragora is an instance of that theme.
1 quoted line
If your preference is to ignore that, and focus on an isolated reference to Rachel
It wasn't isolated--I connected that reference and the Shulamite reference to Ymar.
2 quoted lines
I am not going to argue that you are "wrong". But I see no
reason to denounce my preference for seeing multiple internal connections across Wolfe's work.
Good thing I didn't denounce it. I was arguing against your statement that there was only one internal connection from the word "mandragora".
I admit this might make you, or someone else who thought it was the only possibility, less sure of the connection. But Wolfe is sometimes ambiguous.
Jerry Friedman
Lee Berman30 Nov 2011, 06:25
↳ follows, by subject match Jerry Friedman
1 quoted line
Gerry has a point, however, in saying that Typhon did not have two penises.
The only point made by this observation is that this is meant as a work of art not a photographic portrait. The two penises are clearly a reference to Typhon's two heads (I think it might be auctorial error on WOlfe's part to give Pas two heads, as we all know Typhon's two heads were a deeply kept secret). It may also reflect the Typhon family's snake-like nature. Many snakes have two penises and my impression from his work is that Wolfe's zoological knowledge is sufficient for him to know this.
Moreover, there are giant phallic images surrounding Typhon in the painting. Campion renders them as trees (Trees as phallic symbols, is this of interest to James and Marc? ;- )). So yes, this is a work of art.
A work of art depicting Typhon on Urth. The connections to what we learn from Severian are pretty hard to ignore. Should we really think that WOlfe used the term "nursing an erection" twice in reference to the same (or a derived) character by accident or happenstance, as Gerry is suggesting? Is Wolfe really so oblivious to his own previous writing?
The whorl during Silk's life does not have monarchs sitting on thrones.
The rulers of the Whorl are Caldes or Ayuntamientos or Generals who surely
would not be caught publicly masturbating as Severian tells us Typhon is willing to do.
Pas is a computer program who, whenever he appeared, did so in a screen. I don't think he was sitting in a throne, masturbating in his screen appearances. The painting is clearly not inspired by anything occurring on the Whorl. Through the Severian connection and Typhon's depicted status as a throne-sitting monarch, the painting clearly depicts a scene from Urth.
So, Gerry made a mistake here. No big deal. He is right about many things and has no need to feel ashamed about this particular misreading. I don't even begrudge him a bit of pride-salvaging if he would like to continue ignoring the reference to Severian's Typhon encounter and instead argue that WOlfe put the painting into his story to simply to add a splash of color and some gratuitous porn in a brothel. Perhaps that really is how Gerry sees Wolfe as a author.
But that's not really my business. I have no interest in "saving" people from wasting their time with Gerry. He is surely a good guy at heart and I really don't want people to ignore him. I no more want to "censor" him than he intends to censor the people who post theories he doesn't like. Gerry and I are both highly appreciative of all the contributions and contributors to this list. Thank you. Thank you all. From both of us.
Lee Berman30 Nov 2011, 06:31
↳ follows, by subject match Lee Berman
1 quoted line
Marc Aramini: Thanks! The caveat here is that they are never very far off the marc.
Heh. Good aim with your punning, Mr. Marcsman.
Gerry Quinn30 Nov 2011, 12:29
↳ in reply to Marc Aramini
From: Marc Aramini
4 quoted lines
I am almost certain the reason for the conclusion of Short Sun being the sacrifice
of the eye (in flash back anyway) is simply that THAT is the moment when Silk is
"saved"/rebooted. He pretty much left the building/lost his will to live when Hy died, and that reboot is an integral way to the manner I read the text: most of
the Rajan post OBW is, in my opinion, dominated by the Silver Silk personality that rode in Pig.
Something struck me in that paragraph. When you mention Silver Silk, are you saying that the Silver/Silent aspect of Silk is what leads him to ride quietly in SilkHorn? That he’s kind of looking through SilkHorn’s eye like he does Sacred windows, without taking over?
It would be interesting perspective on the Silver/Silent thing. It could also be intended to work in reverse, i.e. we might think of Silk silently travelling in SilkHorn and speculate about life for Silk in Mainframe.
I’m not very convinced by this concept, but it seems worth thinking about.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn30 Nov 2011, 12:34
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
From: David Stockhoff
[Which head?]
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Anyway, I hope that’s a sufficient explication.
I have serious problems with it, but thanks for providing it.
I find it hard to disentangle this post, but I suspect we agree in general on how Silk relates to Pas, even if we don’t quite understand each others? explanations...
- Gerry Quinn
Lee Berman30 Nov 2011, 13:12
↳ follows, by subject match Gerry Quinn
2 quoted lines
Antonio Pedro Marques: I know it's fashionable here now to say that in a Wolfe
story there are always explanations of type Y which are meant for the simple minded, with an X kept for those who aim higher. However, I don't see that that's the case.
It is not the case. The adjective "fashionable" implies there is some sissy-boy elite who impose arbitrary levels of nobility to different sorts of explanations. If anyone has the authority to impose a hierarchy on levels of understanding, it is Gene Wolfe. And he has made it clear in BotNS, using two different analogies, that there are different levels of understanding but they are circular not stacked. If the lowest level is also the highest, there is no hierarchy. No top dog category of theories which dominate the lower dogs in the hierarchy.
I see no reason for those who prefer to focus on "ploughman's" understanding of the text to feel inferior and attacked by those who focus the more allusory, philosophical understandings. This feeling of being attacked seems to lead to a hurt, defensive stance which contributes to much of the rancor and bile found here.
As I've noted in another post, in many cases the philosophical understanding can be easier to grasp, as it runs in threads through all of Wolfe's work. He doesn't change his philosophy much from book to book. What does change are the intricate details of the surface story. Wolfe puts a lot of work into developing these and their associated mysteries. I wish this could be recognized by those who reflexively react against allusive and philosophical interpretations with the feral defensiveness of a subordinate pack animal. The perceived inferior status is a self-invention.
Gerry Quinn30 Nov 2011, 13:18
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
From: Lee Berman
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Gerry has a point, however, in saying that Typhon did not have two penises.
The only point made by this observation is that this is meant as a work of art not a photographic portrait. The two penises are clearly a reference to Typhon's two heads (I think it might be auctorial error on WOlfe's part to give Pas two heads, as we all know Typhon's two heads were a deeply kept secret). It may also reflect the Typhon family's snake-like nature. Many snakes have two penises and my impression from his work is that Wolfe's zoological knowledge is sufficient for him to know this.
This argument is just silly. Why would the artist put in two penises to refer to the two heads, when he has also drawn the two heads, and twice over?
As for snakes, maybe the inhumi have two penises, and it’s not at all unlikely that the Neighbours and the other large animals of Blue have. But Typhon doesn’t. Severian would have noticed; one imagines he would have found it even more alarming than the heads.
1 quoted line
Moreover, there are giant phallic images surrounding Typhon in the painting. Campion renders them as trees (Trees as phallic symbols, is this of interest to James and Marc? ;- )). So yes, this is a work of art.
Campion’s painting is largely allegorical, but certain of the items surrounding Typhon are based on the real construction of the Whorl. The “butter yellow” of the taluses is a clear nod from Wolfe to the modern'-day reader that the “taluses” are actually bulldozers. And that is another indication that Campion’s painting, rather than the brothel drape (which is said to be one of several such drapes), is the original.
1 quoted line
A work of art depicting Typhon on Urth. The connections to what we learn from Severian are pretty hard to ignore. Should we really think that WOlfe used the term "nursing an erection" twice in reference to the same (or a derived) character by accident or happenstance, as Gerry is suggesting? Is Wolfe really so oblivious to his own previous writing?
It actually tells us in the text that it is set on the whorl! “In the original painting, two of Pas’s taluses [..] were still at work upon the whorl.” Campion is showing the culmination of the construction of the Whorl, symbolised by the enthronement of a physical as well as a spiritual Pas. The physical Pas in the original can probably be understood as Typhon. We are not told if he was nude in it, but if he was he only had one penis (again, this is clearly indicated in the text, which contrasts the brothel picture with the original).
As for the phrase “nursing an erection”, it is not that uncommon, and I see no reason why Wolfe should have attempted to find a circumlocution just for the sake of confounding intentionally obtuse readings.
3 quoted lines
The whorl during Silk's life does not have monarchs sitting on thrones.
The rulers of the Whorl are Caldes or Ayuntamientos or Generals who surely
would not be caught publicly masturbating as Severian tells us Typhon is willing to do.
And Campion’s painting does not depict the whorl during Silk’s life.
[It probably does have monarchs — the Rajan of Whorl-Gaon is surely one, and may well have a throne. But in Gaon they admire Echidna, so I guess public masturbation would be a no-no there. Whether it is permitted or encouraged in some cities, we are not told.]
1 quoted line
Pas is a computer program who, whenever he appeared, did so in a screen. I don't think he was sitting in a throne, masturbating in his screen appearances. The painting is clearly not inspired by anything occurring on the Whorl. Through the Severian connection and Typhon's depicted status as a throne-sitting monarch, the painting clearly depicts a scene from Urth.
At the time of Campion’s painting, he may not even have appeared yet, for all we know, though I should imagine he probably had. Campion’s painting is inspired by the construction of the Whorl — it was doubtless commissioned to celebrate it, just as the painting by Blood’s unknown artist was commissioned, long after with absolute clarity that the scene is from the Whorl.
2 quoted lines
So, Gerry made a mistake here. No big deal. He is right about many things and has no need to feel ashamed about this particular misreading. I don't even begrudge him a bit of pride-salvaging if he would like to continue ignoring the reference to Severian's Typhon encounter and instead argue that WOlfe put the painting into his story to simply to add a splash of color and some gratuitous porn in a brothel.
Perhaps that really is how Gerry sees Wolfe as a author.
There is no reference to Severian — that is an utterly absurd reading. And the statement about “a splash of colour and some gratuitous porn” demonstrates, sadly, a complete inability or unwillingness to interpret a typical example of one of Wolfe’s greatest skills in action. He describes the scene in the brothel — with, indeed, lots of local colour — and at the same time he tells us about events three hundred years before, showing us heavy equipment at work on the whorl, the commissioning of a celebratory painting, and the foundation/reinforcement of the cult of Pas on the Whorl, as the spiritual Pas takes over from the physical Pas/Typhon on his physical throne. Anyone who can read Wolfe can correctly read this short passage.
This is how Wolfe works as an author. It is a shame that you cannot or will not see it, and instead spend your time grasping at ridiculous irrelevancies in order to promote bizarre and perverse misreadings of Wolfe’s work.
- Gerry Quinn
Lee Berman30 Nov 2011, 13:36
↳ follows, by subject match Gerry Quinn
1 quoted line
Jerry Friedman: Just disagreeing with Lee's comment that the word "mandragora" could only point to Typhon. I don't think any of these word games /necessarily/ point to one thing. You can always find connections to others. Of course, you and Lee and others may have reasons for preferring one connection.
You miscontrue my point, Jerry. In fact I don't think "mandragora" can only refer to Typhon. I completely think the references to mandrake and occultism and even satanism are there and intentional. My history of posts reflects that. But I do not ignore that Typhon is also associated with Satan.
I think Wolfe writes in this manner- using a constellation of associated ideas with internal story connections to convey his message. My assertion is that "mandragora" must (in my view) refer to Typhon, not that it may only (for all readers) refer to Typhon.
I think the mandragora is part of a constellation of story elements which help direct how Wolfe wants us to think of Typhon through the arc of the 12 book Sun Series- that being as a superhumanly gifted, demonic tyrant-deity who sows the seeds of his own destruction when he devotes his efforts to self-indulgence but who has the capacity to become a benign, demiurgical Creator when his efforts are so directed. This, of course, is a parallel to certain lines of gnostic religious philosophy regarding God, Devil and creation.
1 quoted line
Oddly enough, it doesn't take me to those questions at all.
I get the impression you are offended by suggestions that the story takes a reader anywhere, specifically (even S. America ;- )). But if you do have a sense of where WOlfe's writing takes you, which you have not previously revealed, I am interested in hearing about it.
David Stockhoff30 Nov 2011, 14:26
↳ in reply to Jerry Friedman
9 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/30/2011 12:38 AM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
From: David Stockhoff<dstockhoff at verizon.net>
Sorry, what's the Levi quotation?
This sentence from the occultist Eliphas Levi, which I'd quoted earlier.
"Some alchemists, impressed by this idea, speculated on the culture of
the mandragore, and experimented in the artificial reproduction of a
soil sufficiently fruitful and a sun sufficiently active to humanise the said root, and thus create men without the concurrence of the female."
thanks!
"A sun sufficiently active to humanize...." What a suggestive line.
5 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Why don't they point to Ymar? The two Biblical references to mandrakes are in connection with Rachel and
the maiden in the Song of Songs, both types of the Virgin Mary in Catholic theology (or I can find at least one
source that says that about each one). I don't think I need to make the last connection.
Actually, please do.
The last connection is that Ymar is an anagram of Mary.
d'oh!
6 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
I don't follow this or know the references at
all. Why Ymar? (I did just find the Rachel ones but don;t know how
to interpret them.)
Just disagreeing with Lee's comment that the word "mandragora" could only point to Typhon. I don't think any of these word games /necessarily/ point to one thing. You can always find connections to others. Of course, you and Lee and others may have reasons for preferring one connection.
I meant to add that "mandragora" can suggest "dragoman". Agia and the jungle guide might both count as dragomans. Maybe some people will like a possible connection between the mandragora and Father Inire.
I'm pretty "catholic" in my tastes when it comes to connections.
3 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
Or why not the Sleeper? Shakespeare refers to mandragora as a soporific, including in a fairly famous passage from /Othello/.
Meaning "the sleepers" on the Whorl? Or another sleeper?
I was thinking of the god worshiped on Ushas under that name, but any one you want.
Ah. Perhaps.
The quote:
Not poppy, nor mandragora,
Nor all the drowsy syrups of the world,
Shall ever medicine thee to that sweet sleep
Which thou owedst yesterday.
Othello, 3. 3
10 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
Or Severian in his first life or two? The most famous quotation about a mandrake starts "Go and catch a falling star", which immediately brings to mind the slingers' song, which Wolfe said illuminates--darkly--Severian's past and future.
This quotation?:
?Go, and catch a falling star, / Get with child a mandrake root, / Tell me, where all past years are, / Or who cleft the Devil's foot.
John Donne quotes(English poet, 1572-1631)
Great lines, and of course Severian finds out where past years are. Other connections can easily be made. But I can't say whether Wolfe had it mind or not.
Not necessarily. Maybe we're meant to leave it as a mystery and concentrate on the interaction between Severian and the homunculus.
I agree. But the Donne quote, if it is a key link, does lead to the image of impregnating a mandrake root, which takes us back to who and why, and what resulted from it.
Oddly enough, it doesn't take me to those questions at all.
Does it at least take you back to Levi?
David Stockhoff30 Nov 2011, 14:35
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
5 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/30/2011 1:25 AM, Lee Berman wrote:
Gerry has a point, however, in saying that Typhon did not have two penises.
The only point made by this observation is that this is meant as a work of art
not a photographic portrait.
No doubt about that.
2 quoted lines
The two penises are clearly a reference to Typhon's
two heads (I think it might be auctorial error on WOlfe's part to give Pas two heads, as we all know Typhon's two heads were a deeply kept secret). It may also reflect the Typhon family's snake-like nature. Many snakes have two penises and my impression from his work is that Wolfe's zoological knowledge is sufficient for him to know this.
Interesting!
3 quoted lines
Moreover, there are giant phallic images surrounding Typhon in the painting. Campion renders them as trees (Trees as phallic symbols, is this of interest to James and Marc? ;- )). So yes, this is a work of art.
A work of art depicting Typhon on Urth. The connections to what we learn from Severian are pretty hard to ignore. Should we really think that WOlfe used the term "nursing an erection" twice in reference to the same (or a derived) character by accident or happenstance, as Gerry is suggesting? Is Wolfe really so oblivious to his own previous writing?
No one has suggested that Wolfe is oblivious, though perhaps you could read it from Gerry's post. But just because the painting seems to mix a parody of Pas with a truer depiction of Typhon does not tell us its provenance with any certainty. "Connections" are not always hard-wired---I have suggested irony as an explanation, because Wolfe uses irony and is always interested in our interpretations of the divine.
If a pornographer paints a truer picture of God than an official iconographer, so be it.
9 quoted lines
The whorl during Silk's life does not have monarchs sitting on thrones.
The rulers of the Whorl are Caldes or Ayuntamientos or Generals who surely
would not be caught publicly masturbating as Severian tells us Typhon is willing to do.
Pas is a computer program who, whenever he appeared, did so in a screen. I don't think he was sitting in a throne, masturbating in his screen appearances. The painting is clearly not inspired by anything occurring on the Whorl. Through the Severian connection and Typhon's depicted status as a throne-sitting monarch, the painting clearly depicts a scene from Urth.
So, Gerry made a mistake here. No big deal. He is right about many things and has no need to feel ashamed about this particular misreading. I don't even begrudge him a bit of pride-salvaging if he would like to continue ignoring the reference to Severian's Typhon encounter and instead argue that WOlfe put the painting into his story to simply to add a splash of color and some gratuitous porn in a brothel. Perhaps that really is how Gerry sees Wolfe as a author.
But that's not really my business. I have no interest in "saving" people from wasting their time with Gerry. He is surely a good guy at heart and I really don't want people to ignore him. I no more want to "censor" him than he intends to censor the people who post theories he doesn't like. Gerry and I are both highly appreciative of all the contributions and contributors to this list. Thank you. Thank you all. From both of us.
You certainly don;t need to argue with Gerry through me. All I said was that Gerry had a point. Pas's two penises clearly derive from some misunderstanding of Typhon based on an understanding of Pas. Typhon was a parody of Pas who preceded Pas, because Pas was a version of Typhon.
António Pedro Marques30 Nov 2011, 14:48
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn wrote (30-11-2011 13:18):
5 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
From: Lee Berman <mailto:severiansola at hotmail.com>
David Stockhoff:
Gerry has a point, however, in saying that Typhon did not have two penises.
The only point made by this observation is that this is meant as a work of art not a photographic portrait. The two penises are clearly a reference to Typhon's two heads (I think it might be auctorial error on WOlfe's part to give Pas two heads, as we all know Typhon's two heads were a deeply kept secret). It may also reflect the Typhon family's snake-like nature. Many snakes have two penises and my impression from his work is that Wolfe's zoological knowledge is sufficient for him to know this.
This argument is just silly. Why would the artist put in two penises to refer to the two heads, when he has also drawn the two heads, and twice over? As for snakes, maybe the inhumi have two penises, and it’s not at all unlikely that the Neighbours and the other large animals of Blue have. But Typhon doesn’t. Severian would have noticed; one imagines he would have found it even more alarming than the heads.
What snakes actually have is their phallus split in two, and they're only able to use one of the halves at a time. While of no consequence to a parody painting, it is fundamentally different from the actual doubling we see in Blue's wildlife.
James Wynn30 Nov 2011, 16:53
↳ in reply to António Marques
7 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
What do you mean by "wrong" and "misled?" These seem to assume that there is a True Interpretation and all others are wrong, where I think that texts in general and Wolfe's texts in particular are polysemous and subject to a multitude of (apparently) contradictory interpretations, all based on the text.
entonio at gmail.com wrote:
It doesn't. 'X is wrong' is not the same as 'All but Y are wrong'.
Perhaps, but if your method of proof is to assert that there is an alternate interpretation, then you aren't proving anything except that there is an alternate interpretation.
Ant?nio Marques wrote:
It can become entangled, no? When you point out actual problems with an interpretation and then people ask you for an alternative,
Unfortunately that is not the only way it happens. What very often happens is that someone suggests an explanation of an occurrence that is not explicitly declared or based on irony or allusion, and someone else will respond with:
"This explanation is a totally unsupported. The truth of this event
is clearly declared in text [James notes: although actually only
implied] by this flat half-blind reading of the story that I follow.
Thus, I have proved that my initial reading is correct and not in
need of enlightenment because I am eschewing any high literary
understanding of the events and other literary voodoo."
This person is not refuting an explanation AND THEN going on to explain his alternate understanding. He refuting an explanation WITH his alternate understanding.
António Pedro Marques30 Nov 2011, 17:21
↳ in reply to James Wynn
James Wynn wrote (30-11-2011 16:53):
17 quoted lines · 1–5 deep
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
What do you mean by "wrong" and "misled?" These seem to assume that there is a True Interpretation and all others are wrong, where I think that texts in general and Wolfe's texts in particular are polysemous and subject to a multitude of (apparently) contradictory interpretations, all based on the text.
entonio at gmail.com wrote:
It doesn't. 'X is wrong' is not the same as 'All but Y are wrong'.
Perhaps, but if your method of proof is to assert that there is an alternate interpretation, then you aren't proving anything except that there is an alternate interpretation.
Ant?nio Marques wrote:
It can become entangled, no? When you point out actual problems with an interpretation and then people ask you for an alternative,
Unfortunately that is not the only way it happens. What very often happens is that someone suggests an explanation of an occurrence that is not explicitly declared or based on irony or allusion, and someone else will respond with:
"This explanation is a totally unsupported. The truth of this event is
clearly declared in text [James notes: although actually only implied]
by this flat half-blind reading of the story that I follow. Thus, I have
proved that my initial reading is correct and not in need of
enlightenment because I am eschewing any high literary understanding of
the events and other literary voodoo."
This person is not refuting an explanation AND THEN going on to explain his alternate understanding. He refuting an explanation WITH his alternate understanding.
Even in your parody above, your person starts off with 'This explanation is a totally unsupported'. That's the refuting part, not the eventual Dumb Interpretation.
What I suggest is that next time you see someone declaring an interpretation as totally unsupported without an explanation, you call them on that. Arguing abstractions may be useful for making general cases - I did it above and you do it here -, but general cases only need making if they're not obvious. I presented the one above because it seemed to me it wasn't obvious. However, I have difficulty seeing how yours isn't - nobody has to be told what's wrong with a dismissal that doesn't present a reason (or whose reason wasn't general knowledge unadressed by the hypothesis).
James Wynn30 Nov 2011, 17:44
↳ in reply to António Pedro Marques
18 quoted lines · 1–5 deep
entonio at gmail.com wrote:
It doesn't. 'X is wrong' is not the same as 'All but Y are wrong'.
James Wynn wrote:
Perhaps, but if your method of proof is to assert that there is an alternate interpretation, then you aren't proving anything except that there is an alternate interpretation.
Ant?nio Marques wrote:
It can become entangled, no? When you point out actual problems with an interpretation and then people ask you for an alternative,
Unfortunately that is not the only way it happens. What very often happens is that someone suggests an explanation of an occurrence that is not explicitly declared or based on irony or allusion, and someone else will respond with:
"This explanation is a totally unsupported. The truth of this event is
clearly declared in text [James notes: although actually only implied]
by this flat half-blind reading of the story that I follow. Thus, I have
proved that my initial reading is correct and not in need of
enlightenment because I am eschewing any high literary understanding of
the events and other literary voodoo."
This person is not refuting an explanation AND THEN going on to explain his alternate understanding. He refuting an explanation WITH his alternate understanding.
Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
Even in your parody above, your person starts off with 'This explanation is a totally unsupported'. That's the refuting part, not the eventual Dumb Interpretation. What I suggest is that next time you see someone declaring an interpretation as totally unsupported without an explanation, you call them on that.
I believe that "calling them on that" is already documented in several dozen threads on this list. It doesn't work, because as I stated, the person believes his interpretation is the default interpretation, argues that is relentlessly, and believes, therefore, that the existence of his alternate interpretation is explanation enough that the other is unsupported.
Actually, it is very rare here that someone offers any theory that is certifiably "unsupported". Trying to prove it is is probably a waste of time.
1 quoted line
Arguing abstractions may be useful for making general cases - I did it above and you do it here -, but general cases only need making if they're not obvious. I presented the one above because it seemed to me it wasn't obvious. However, I have difficulty seeing how yours isn't - nobody has to be told what's wrong with a dismissal that doesn't present a reason (or whose reason wasn't general knowledge unadressed by the hypothesis).
I don't think you are recognizing the problem. The problem is that we have two people who are using quite different methods of interpretation and one of them is claiming that the other's is not valid or, at least, never valid unless the reading is first credentialed by his own interpretive methods.
António Pedro Marques30 Nov 2011, 18:16
↳ in reply to James Wynn
James Wynn wrote (30-11-2011 17:44):
1 quoted line
I don't think you are recognizing the problem. The problem is that we have two people who are using quite different methods of interpretation and one of them is claiming that the other's is not valid or, at least, never valid unless the reading is first credentialed by his own interpretive methods.
I simply disagree that that's what we have here. Do I have the right? I'm saying that B's view of B's interpretation as valid only comes into question as a contrast to B's view of A's interpretation's as not valid. The issue are the reasons why B thinks A's interpretation is not valid. If you think the archives are full of theories challenged because they have simpler alternatives, I think perhaps you might reread them. They are challenged because they have problems, and the only way to go forward is to address those problems. For instance, your time travel has the major unstated problem that there appears to be no significant temporal displacement in the certified instances of dream travel we have. On a first approach to that problem, you adduce some discrepancies that seem to exist, such as the ages of Horn's and Sinew's children. But that isn't very strong, so you've now suggested that among other things Silk's 'suicide' occurred long before Horn body's death on Green. You're reasoning, trying to find a way for your model to work better. That is good. What isn't good is complaining that those who see the exact same problem as you do are merely being obnoxious. You do know that if a theory has problems they must be addressed, and saying that it's all down to methods and readings only takes you so far.
Lee Berman30 Nov 2011, 18:20
↳ follows, by subject match António Pedro Marques
7 quoted lines · depth 2
Mandragora is the genus of the plant mandrake,
which often has a somewhat man-shaped root. It is also the name of a
type of demon. These demons are little dolls given to a sorceror by
the Devil for the purpose of consulting "in time of need". They are
thought to be related to the "/fetish> thought to be related to the "/fetish
which is nothing else than a dwelling-place made by a shaman or medicine-man
for the reception of any wandering spirit who chooses to take up his abode therein."
I was aware of these meanings and always found them applicable. The little guy in the jar probably was used as a consultant. But by whom? Which "sorcerer"? Severian's autarchial memories make no mention of the Mandragora to him. Perhaps the Mandragora predates the autarchs.
Do we have a medicine man or shaman in our story? Two, it would seem- Isangoma and the Uturuncu, the jungle shaman. Many feel these two represent the same character, Father Inire. Do we have a sorcerer in the story? Hethor? Ceryx? Are these also the same character?
Ceryx is a sorcerer to be found in Typhon's period on Urth. What is his relationship to Typhon? Why does he have the same obsession with raising the dead as so many characters in Severian's time? In Typhon, do we have the "Devil" who provides the sorcerer with a Mandragora? Perhaps Father Inire started his career as a vizier well before (he installed) the first autarch of the Commonwealth, Ymar.
FWIW, though the jungle shaman supposedly can turn into a tiger, Uturuncu means "puma" in Quechua. This is also the name of a volcanic mountain in Bolivia. There are two BotNS characters who have mountainous, volcanic descriptions attributed to them. I don't know exactly how Abaia and Erebus (and Typhon) are related to the shaman/Inire. But we might be able to make some guesses after observing Tzadkiel, The Mother and Great Scylla in action.
Lee Berman30 Nov 2011, 18:32
↳ follows, by subject match Lee Berman
1 quoted line
Antonio Pedro Marques: If you think the archives are full of theories challenged because they have simpler alternatives, I think perhaps you might reread them. They are challenged because they have problems, and the only way to go forward is to address those problems.
Is Antonio implying that some theories are problem-free and therefore go unchallenged? I'd be interested in see a list of such theories (though I suspect it would end up being a very short and boring list).
Conversely, since virtually all theories are challenged, does that lead
to the conclusion that all theories have problems and ought to be abandoned?
I see no mechanism for "going forward" in Antonio's guidelines for the proper way of conducting business here. But perhaps I misunderstand him.
1 quoted line
David Stockhoff: You certainly don't need to argue with Gerry through me.
Well, if that is a problem I can try to avoid that in the future. But since
I am using writing to participate in this forum, I think it is more interesting to use literary devices at times, rather than try to maintain the illusion that the bunch of us knuckleheads are actually in a room together, conversing directly through speech. Keeps things here in the proper perspective of being entertainment rather than real world interactions.
James Wynn30 Nov 2011, 18:51
↳ in reply to António Pedro Marques
3 quoted lines
On 11/30/2011 12:16 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
If you think
the archives are full of theories challenged because they have simpler alternatives, I think perhaps you might reread them.
That is in no way how I have described the challenges.
However, you have perfectly described the way that an unenlightened** challenger (such as I have been describing) sees his own challenges. HIS alternative is "simpler". Of one's own alternatives are /always/ simpler: Either it does not require a recognition of irony in the text or it does not leave problematic questions hanging or something else. It is the failure to understand that marks one's approached as unenlightened. I'm sure no one creates theories out of a perverse glee for Rube Goldberg constructions.
**"Unenlightened" is a term you, Antonio, originally coined. I'm merely adopting it so we can use the same terms.
Lee Berman30 Nov 2011, 19:54
↳ follows, by subject match James Wynn
1 quoted line
James Wynn: I'm sure no one creates theories out of a perverse glee for Rube Goldberg constructions.
I agree. At least no one who has been a participant in this forum for
any length of time. Still, accusations of such are a common tactic used
by a certain contingent to express their emotional frustration and/or perhaps to provoke an emotional response when their initial, more scholarly attempts at winning an argument fail.
Let's face it- some people have an inherent philosophy to their social interactions in which "Losing Is Not An Option". You don't have to be a professional wrestler to partake in that view of life.
Larry Miller30 Nov 2011, 20:51
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
Thank you Lee for pointing out that the memories Severian inherited from the previous Autarchs make no mention of the Mandragora.
11 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 11/30/11, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:
Mandragora is the genus of the plant mandrake,
which often has a somewhat man-shaped root. It is also the name of a type of demon. These demons are little dolls given to a sorceror by the Devil for the purpose of consulting "in time of need". They are thought to be related to the "/fetish> thought to be related to the "/fetish which is nothing else than a dwelling-place made by a shaman or medicine-man for the reception of any wandering spirit who chooses to take up his abode therein."
I was aware of these meanings and always found them applicable. The little guy in the jar probably was used as a consultant. But by whom? Which "sorcerer"? Severian's autarchial memories make no mention of the Mandragora to him. Perhaps the Mandragora predates the autarchs.
Do we have a medicine man or shaman in our story? Two, it would seem- Isangoma and the Uturuncu, the jungle shaman. Many feel these two represent the same character, Father Inire. Do we have a sorcerer in the story? Hethor? Ceryx? Are these also the same character?
Ceryx is a sorcerer to be found in Typhon's period on Urth. What is his relationship to Typhon? Why does he have the same obsession with raising the dead as so many characters in Severian's time? In Typhon, do we have the "Devil" who provides the sorcerer with a Mandragora? Perhaps Father Inire started his career as a vizier well before (he installed) the first autarch of the Commonwealth, Ymar.
FWIW, though the jungle shaman supposedly can turn into a tiger, Uturuncu means "puma" in Quechua. This is also the name of a volcanic mountain in Bolivia. There are two BotNS characters who have mountainous, volcanic descriptions attributed to them. I don't know exactly how Abaia and Erebus (and Typhon) are related to the shaman/Inire. But we might be able to make some guesses after observing Tzadkiel, The Mother and Great Scylla in action.
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
From: Larry Miller
1 quoted line
Thank you Lee for pointing out that the memories Severian inherited from the previous Autarchs make no mention of the Mandragora.
Or of any of the many other things he found in his quarters. They were, however, the quarters of earlier Autarchs, even though they had not been used for centuries.
- Gerry Quinn
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/30/11, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:
I was aware of these meanings and always found them applicable. The little guy in the jar probably was used as a consultant. But by whom? Which "sorcerer"? Severian's autarchial memories make no mention of the Mandragora to him. Perhaps the Mandragora predates the autarchs.
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
Does it say that anywhere? IIRC it only says that it is the oldest part of the Citadel.
David Stockhoff30 Nov 2011, 21:35
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/30/2011 4:10 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
Thank you Lee for pointing out that the memories Severian inherited from the previous Autarchs make no mention of the Mandragora.
Or of any of the many other things he found in his quarters. They were, however, the quarters of earlier Autarchs, even though they had not been used for centuries.
- Gerry Quinn
How do we know this? Is the answer somewhere here:
Yet it was impossible that I should occupy a suite other than that anciently set aside for
the autarchs; and impossible too that I should have it refurnished to a degree that would
imply criticism of my predecessors. And if the furniture had more to recommend it to the
mind than to the body, what a delight it was to discover the treasures those same
predecessors had left behind: There were papers relating to matters now utterly forgotten
and not always identifiable; mechanical devices ingenious and enigmatic; a microcosm
that stirred to life at the warmth of my hands, and whose minute inhabitants seemed to
grow larger and more human as I watched them; a laboratory containing the fabled
"emerald bench" and many other things, the most interesting of which was a mandragora
in spirits.
Or not? Is the "most interesting" mandragora really on the same level of significance as the "unidentifiable papers"? Is Severian supposed to have instant recall of things his predecessors have themselves forgotten?
But for diplomacy's sake let me edit Lee's comment a bit:
It appears from the questions Severian puts to the mandragora that he doesn't know who or what it is. From this we may conclude that "the memories Severian inherited from the previous Autarchs make no mention of the Mandragora."
Is that better?
Gerry Quinn30 Nov 2011, 21:37
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
From: Larry Miller
1 quoted line
Does it say that anywhere? IIRC it only says that it is the oldest part of the Citadel.
He talks about his predecessors, and uses the magic Autarch words to get in.
- Gerry Quinn
António Marques30 Nov 2011, 21:41
↳ in reply to James Wynn
4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
James Wynn wrote:
On 11/30/2011 12:16 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
If you think the archives are full of theories challenged because they have simpler alternatives, I think perhaps you might reread them.
That is in no way how I have described the challenges.
No? You couched it in rather judgemental terms.
1 quoted line
However, you have perfectly described the way that an unenlightened** challenger (such as I have been describing) sees his own challenges. HIS alternative is "simpler". Of one's own alternatives are /always/ simpler: Either it does not require a recognition of irony in the text or it does not leave problematic questions hanging or something else.
If it does not require a recognition of irony in the text or it does not leave problematic questions hanging or something else, then it's simpler because it does not require a recognition of irony in the text or it does not leave problematic questions hanging or something else, not because it's one's own.
1 quoted line
It is the failure to understand that marks one's approached as unenlightened.
Failure to understand what? (Please don't answer 'Precisely.'.)
You seem to be drawing a distinction between the 'challenges' and that which they challenge. You seem to be willing to have such a distinction when it comes to belittle the 'challenges', all the while denying there is a distinction other than 'authorship' when it suits your argument. It seems. To me.
1 quoted line
I'm sure no one creates theories out of a perverse glee for Rube Goldberg constructions.
What gives you that certainty?
But I'm all for Rube Goldberg theories. As long as they work.
1 quoted line
**"Unenlightened" is a term you, Antonio, originally coined. I'm merely adopting it so we can use the same terms.
Coined it I may have, but I can't find the reference and I would like to in order to understand what made it so memorable. Can you provide it? (If not actually, from memory?)
Larry Miller30 Nov 2011, 21:51
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
gotcha.
6 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/30/11, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
From: Larry Miller
Does it say that anywhere? IIRC it only says that it is the oldest part of the Citadel.
He talks about his predecessors, and uses the magic Autarch words to get in.
- Gerry Quinn
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
8 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 11/30/2011 4:51 PM, Larry Miller wrote:
gotcha.
On 11/30/11, Gerry Quinn<gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
From: Larry Miller
Does it say that anywhere? IIRC it only says that it is the oldest part of the Citadel.
He talks about his predecessors, and uses the magic Autarch words to get in.
- Gerry Quinn
Not quite. It's here:
"Yet it was impossible that I should occupy a suite other than that anciently set aside for the autarchs...."
Thus the suite is "that anciently set aside for the autarchs."
James Wynn30 Nov 2011, 22:47
↳ in reply to António Marques
6 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
Ant?nio Marques wrote:
If you think the archives are full of theories challenged because they have simpler alternatives, I think perhaps you might reread them.
James Wynn wrote:
That is in no way how I have described the challenges.
Antonio wrote
No? You couched it in rather judgemental terms.
I'm not sure how that would matter in regards to whether or not I said that theories are challenged because there are simpler alternatives. The point is, I didn't say it. But, people who cannot disabuse themselves of the idea that their own interpretations are objectively the most reasonable, simpler, and obvious, and are therefore the DEFAULT theory...these people make that claim all the time.
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
However, you have perfectly described the way that an unenlightened** challenger (such as I have been describing) sees his own challenges. HIS alternative is "simpler". Of one's own alternatives are /always/ simpler: Either it does not require a recognition of irony in the text or it does not leave problematic questions hanging or something else.
If it does not require a recognition of irony in the text or it does not leave problematic questions hanging or something else, then it's simpler because it does not require a recognition of irony in the text or it does not leave problematic questions hanging or something else, not because it's one's own.
????? <eyes squinting, head tilted with a look of befuddlement>
And a Rube Goldberg contraption is simpler because it only consists of unmachined parts. (coo-coo) My actual POINT was that when an alternative is your own, the remaining complexities are insignificant to you, the simplifications a a great major improvement. It is your child. The defects have charm. Your point is what? Just to have the last word?
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
It is the failure to understand that marks one's approached as unenlightened.
Failure to understand what? (Please don't answer 'Precisely.'.)
It is the failure to understand /that one's own alternatives always appear simpler/ that marks one's approached as unenlightened...that is, lacking in awareness of his own nonobjectivity.
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
**"Unenlightened" is a term you, Antonio, originally coined. I'm merely adopting it so we can use the same terms.
Coined it I may have, but I can't find the reference and I would like to in order to understand what made it so memorable. Can you provide it? (If not actually, from memory?)
I believe it developed at earliest with a statement from you along the lines of "what makes you so much more enlightened?" Your point at the time seemed to be that describing the terms "arrogant" and "smug" is in and of itself arrogant and smug. Which I then explained was an absurd presumption. So, "unenlightened" seems to have developed as a less "judgmental" term for arrogant/smug. I'm not crazy about it, because without history, it looks like we're saying there is a certain universally /enlightened/ approach rather than an approaches that are individually bad. I considered using another term but then thought we might get sidetracked into a discussion of defining terms...which we seemed have done anyway.
You have convinced me, Antonio, I shall go back to using term "smug".
António Marques01 Dec 2011, 00:02
↳ in reply to James Wynn
(You are welcome to reply with a passionate denial of the assessment I
give below of your position and a questioning of the assertions I've
made, but as to the first, I doubt there is anything wrong about it, and
as to the latter this isn't Philosophy and Epistemology 101, so I'll let you have the Last Word if you so wish - if I intended to discuss such matters it wouldn't be here; here their only purpose is to help understand what is each other's view, which I think has already been done.)
12 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
James Wynn wrote:
Ant?nio Marques wrote:
James Wynn wrote:
Ant?nio Marques wrote:
If you think the archives are full of theories challenged
because they have simpler alternatives, I think perhaps you
might reread them.
James Wynn wrote: That is in no way how I have described the
challenges.
Antonio wrote No? You couched it in rather judgemental terms.
I'm not sure how that would matter in regards to whether or not I said that theories are challenged because there are simpler alternatives. The point is, I didn't say it. But, people who cannot disabuse themselves of the idea that their own interpretations are
objectively the most reasonable, simpler, and obvious, and are therefore the DEFAULT theory...these people make that claim all the time.
Reasonable, simpler and obvious are 3 separate things. And 3 objective things. You seem stuck on a stage where 'reasonable', 'simpler' and 'obvious' (and 'objective') (and 'default') are Desired Qualities That Prove Superiority, and you seem to have developed an intense aversion to their use, which you think you can disavow by claiming that it's all subjective. Well, it's not. Those words have meanings, those meanings are precise enough. According to domain, they can also be qualified. Thus, they do not exist in a 'pure' form. That, however, does not mean they're meaningless catchwords as you'd like to believe and you like to assert. But each time you assert it ('one's own ideas are always [whatever]'), it's not those concepts that go away or lose weight, it's your position that goes a bit further down the slippery slope.
Yes, there are defaults. Sometimes there aren't defaults because the candidate to being default is defective. Being a 'default' is nothing special. The idea that the 'default' has precedence, if not unique authority, is nothing more than a positivst idea, and positivism was a 19th century pop-atheist fad. The idea that 'there must be a scientific explanation' and that once a scientific explanation is devised it must absolutely be 'the' correct one is but an extension of that. I won't even be the last one to stand by that attitude, I won't stand by it at all, but that doesn't mean that there aren't defaults.
I don't know what it was that brought you such a personal antipathy to those concepts. Possibly you've been confronted with them in the past, possibly even unjustly, and the way you found to get around it was to relativise them. Well, all is not relative. All is relative, but not to the same degree. Those last two statements are equivalent. This is not psychoanalysis, it's clarification of stance. (Form can be deceiving.)
I think I now have a perfect understanding of your position, so you don't have to explain it further. That still doesn't allow me to predict which behaviour you will consider 'smug', because, if I take your criteria, a given behaviour is smug if it involves a given type of interpretation, but on the other hand one cannot distinguish between types of interpretations because you adamantly deny that the traits that define the type in question actually exist. I won't pull a James and say that smug behaviour is that which is contrary to James, because I don't think you view it that way, but it may well be be an accurate predictor (now's the time to point out that there are many who have been able to disagree with you in a non-smug way?). Either way, I hope I've understood enough of it so I can avoid incurring in such a fault. Time will tell. Well, you will tell.
I'm not quite sure I've made my own position entirely clear, nor am I sure it is of enough interest to anyone. If anyone wishes clarification on some given point, feel free to ask.
[There's really nothing below this point that hasn't been said above.]
4 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
However, you have perfectly described the way that an unenlightened** challenger (such as I have been describing) sees
his own challenges. HIS alternative is "simpler". Of one's own alternatives are /always/ simpler: Either it does not require a recognition of irony in the text or it does not leave problematic questions hanging or something else.
If it does not require a recognition of irony in the text or it does not leave problematic questions hanging or something else, then it's simpler because it does not require a recognition of irony in the text or it does not leave problematic questions hanging or something else, not because it's one's own.
????? <eyes squinting, head tilted with a look of befuddlement> And a Rube Goldberg contraption is simpler because it only consists of unmachined parts. (coo-coo)
No, it's not (simpler than what?). That you're left to befuddledly argue that is illustrative.
2 quoted lines
My actual POINT was that when an alternative is your own, the remaining complexities are insignificant to you, the simplifications
a a great major improvement. It is your child. The defects have charm. Your point is what? Just to have the last word?
No, I didn't even have a point here. I was trying to understand yours. You have kindly provided it. You had before, but then the rest of your arguments seemed to point otherwise. Your point in untenable.
4 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
**"Unenlightened" is a term you, Antonio, originally coined. I'm merely adopting it so we can use the same terms.
Coined it I may have, but I can't find the reference and I would like to in order to understand what made it so memorable. Can you provide it? (If not actually, from memory?)
I believe it developed at earliest with a statement from you along
the lines of "what makes you so much more enlightened?" Your point at the time seemed to be that describing the terms "arrogant" and "smug" is in and of itself arrogant and smug. Which I then explained was an absurd presumption (...)
I see. Well, I think there is a difference between asking someone why do they think they're more enlightened than others, and coining a term 'unenlightened'. But that is beside the point. You misunderstood my remark. All I asked was why did you think you alone had the ability to use such concepts as objectivity (something you feel free to use to condemn others, and free to deny it exists when it doesn't suit your argument) or you alone had the ability to view the inherent subjectivity in every observation. I don't think that's arrogant on your part, since it appears unintentional.
Lee Berman01 Dec 2011, 01:12
↳ follows, by subject match António Marques
7 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/30/2011 4:51 PM, Larry Miller wrote:
gotcha.
On 11/30/11, Gerry Quinn<gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
He talks about his predecessors, and uses the magic Autarch words to get in.
David Stockhoff: Not quite. It's here:
"Yet it was impossible that I should occupy a suite other than that anciently set aside for the autarchs...."
Thus the suite is "that anciently set aside for the autarchs.">
Yes. If we read carefully, the text more precisely supports larry: that Severian has the memories of all the old autarchs evidenced by his knowledge of ancient autarch words. That Severian finds nothing familiar in the suites set aide for the autarchs suggests that no previous autarch ever used the suite.
Thus, larry's conclusion that the contents of the suite, including the mandragora, may date back to Typhon's era, is supported. You could argue that Severian just happens to remember the words for the suite but just happens to forget the contents. But the only purpose of such a toothless assertion would be a desperate attempt to win a losing battle.
We have Brian's definition of "mandragora" referring to shamans and sorcerers. larry do you have any views on Father Inire and what he was doing during Typhon's reign?
Gerry Quinn01 Dec 2011, 02:14
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
From: Lee Berman
4 quoted lines
Yes. If we read carefully, the text more precisely supports larry: that Severian has the memories of all the old autarchs evidenced by his knowledge of ancient autarch words. That Severian finds nothing familiar in the suites set aide for
the autarchs suggests that no previous autarch ever used the suite.
Thus, larry's conclusion that the contents of the suite, including the mandragora, may date back to Typhon's era, is supported. You could argue that Severian just happens to remember the words for the suite but just happens to forget the contents. But the only purpose of such a toothless assertion would be a desperate attempt to win a losing battle.
Severian: ?What a delight it was to discover the treasures those same predecessors [the Autarchs] had left behind.
As for the words, they are kept fresh in the memory of all Autarchs because they unlock many doors, both doors they use regularly, and doors they and their predecessors have not opened for centuries. The contents of rooms unopened for centuries are naturally forgotten; the Old Autarch himself pointed out that only his memories will be vivid in the mind of Severian.
You are flailing desperately here, Lee. The only cure is to reassess your habit of clutching at some random word or even syllable with no connection to the narrative, then asserting it to be proof of some bizarre secret history whilst ignoring its incompatibility with events, characters and storyline. [In this case, the notion that Typhon would have wished or intended to live on as a pickled homunculus in a jar. We actually know how he lived on. And when he met Severian, he did not ask about the homunculus.]
- Gerry Quinn
Larry Miller01 Dec 2011, 03:19
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
I dont think Inire was on Urth during Typhons time. He may have made visits to that time period via his mirrors but IMHO I dont believe he started taking part in Urths history until after Typhons downfall. I wouldnt rule out though that he had a part in elevating Ymar (another lowly torturer) to the throne and establishing the line of Autarchs. Perhaps these were the purpose of the aforementioned visits?
31 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 11/30/11, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:
On 11/30/2011 4:51 PM, Larry Miller wrote:
gotcha.
On 11/30/11, Gerry Quinn<gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
He talks about his predecessors, and uses the magic Autarch words to get in.
David Stockhoff: Not quite. It's here:
"Yet it was impossible that I should occupy a suite other than that anciently set aside for the autarchs...."
Thus the suite is "that anciently set aside for the autarchs.">
Yes. If we read carefully, the text more precisely supports larry: that Severian
has the memories of all the old autarchs evidenced by his knowledge of ancient
autarch words. That Severian finds nothing familiar in the suites set aide for
the autarchs suggests that no previous autarch ever used the suite.
Thus, larry's conclusion that the contents of the suite, including the mandragora,
may date back to Typhon's era, is supported. You could argue that Severian just
happens to remember the words for the suite but just happens to forget the contents.
But the only purpose of such a toothless assertion would be a desperate attempt to
win a losing battle.
We have Brian's definition of "mandragora" referring to shamans and sorcerers. larry
do you have any views on Father Inire and what he was doing during Typhon's reign?
_______________________________________________
↳ follows, by subject match Larry Miller
7 quoted lines
larry miller: I dont think Inire was on Urth during Typhons time.
He may have made visits to that time period via his mirrors but IMHO
I dont believe he started taking part in Urths history until after
Typhons downfall. I wouldnt rule out though that he had a part in
elevating Ymar (another lowly torturer) to the throne and establishing
the line of Autarchs. Perhaps these were the purpose of the
aforementioned visits?
Okay, so if I understand your view correctly, Inire's purpose on Urth is to groom and support autarchs, with the eventually ascension of the right one to New Sun status? I think this jibes with Borski's view and quite a few others on this list (my own view differs).
4 quoted lines
Gerry Quinn: In this case, the notion that Typhon would have wished or
intended to live on as a pickled homunculus in a jar. We actually know
how he lived on. And when he met Severian, he did not ask about the
homunculus.
Nice try, Gerry, but no. At least you are understanding that Typhon on Urth sat on a throne and was the subject of the pornographic painting. But your attempt to play dumb here isn't working. I know you are smart. Smart enough to know that a body prepared in waiting to receive a host personality needn't remain as a fetus nor pickled in a jar once the upload has taken place. You are just pretending to not get it. Why would Typhon ask Severian about the mandragora? Why would Severian be expected to know about that? Anyway, isn't Typhon more into telling Severian things than asking? Anyway, nice try.
Larry Miller01 Dec 2011, 04:04
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
I think thats part of it yeah. Obviously theres got to be more to to the story than that. What do think about Inire?
30 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 11/30/11, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:
larry miller: I dont think Inire was on Urth during Typhons time.
He may have made visits to that time period via his mirrors but IMHO
I dont believe he started taking part in Urths history until after
Typhons downfall. I wouldnt rule out though that he had a part in
elevating Ymar (another lowly torturer) to the throne and establishing
the line of Autarchs. Perhaps these were the purpose of the
aforementioned visits?
Okay, so if I understand your view correctly, Inire's purpose on Urth is to groom and support autarchs, with the eventually ascension of the right one to New Sun status? I think this jibes with Borski's view and quite a few others on this list (my own view differs).
Gerry Quinn: In this case, the notion that Typhon would have wished or
intended to live on as a pickled homunculus in a jar. We actually know
how he lived on. And when he met Severian, he did not ask about the
homunculus.
Nice try, Gerry, but no. At least you are understanding that Typhon on Urth
sat on a throne and was the subject of the pornographic painting. But your
attempt to play dumb here isn't working. I know you are smart. Smart enough
to know that a body prepared in waiting to receive a host personality needn't
remain as a fetus nor pickled in a jar once the upload has taken place. You
are just pretending to not get it. Why would Typhon ask Severian about the
mandragora? Why would Severian be expected to know about that? Anyway, isn't
Typhon more into telling Severian things than asking? Anyway, nice try.
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
From: Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>
Jerry Friedman: Just disagreeing with Lee's comment that the word "mandragora"
could only point to Typhon. I don't think any of these word games /necessarily/ point to one thing. You can always find connections to others. Of course, you and Lee and others may have reasons for preferring one connection.
You miscontrue my point, Jerry. In fact I don't think "mandragora" can only refer to Typhon. I completely think the references to mandrake and occultism and even satanism are there and intentional. My history of posts reflects that. But I do not ignore that Typhon is also associated with Satan.
See below.
1 quoted line
I think Wolfe writes in this manner- using a constellation of associated ideas with internal story connections to convey his message. My assertion is that "mandragora" must (in my view) refer to Typhon, not that it may only (for all readers) refer to Typhon.
Got it. I disagree with that too. Unless you're just saying you're certain that it refers to Typhon, which I can't argue with.
1 quoted line · depth 2
Leaving the question of Typhon's alien nature aside for now, the Mandragora seems almost indisputable proof of Typhon's potential to be cloned or downloaded into a new body in some manner. There is nothing dragon-like about the fetus in the bottle. What possible reason is there for Wolfe to call it "Mandragora" if not to refer to Typhon, the only other reference to a man-dragon there is.
That's what I was disagreeing with. I took your question to be
rhetorical (even to the lack of a question mark), since you were talking about "almost indisputable proof". In that case you appeared to be
saying the only possible reason for Wolfe to call it a mandragora was to refer to Typhon. I don't think I misconstrued your statement.
If your posting history shows that you've seen other reasons as well, I'm afraid I'd forgotten them (or
never saw them--I've been skipping lots of posts lately and have at other times too).
In a tetralogy of hundreds of thousands of words, chance verbal
connections are inevitable. No author in the human race (to which so many of my favorite authors belong) can possibly anticipate every
connection a reader might make and write the book so as to forestall it. The evidence for this is that you can always find more connections, such as the ones I suggested to Ymar, the Sleeper, Severian, and the jungle guide. So connections can occur by accident. If you take the approach of selecting the ones that make for a reading that satisfies you, you're very likely to be selecting some that occurred by accident. Of course that may be all right with you. To me it's very far from "almost indisputable proof" of the connection, still farther from proof of an idea based on the connection (such as that Typhon could be downloaded into a new body).
1 quoted line
I think the mandragora is part of a constellation of story elements which help direct how Wolfe wants us to think of Typhon through the arc of the 12 book Sun Series- that being as a superhumanly gifted, demonic tyrant-deity who sows the seeds of his own destruction when he devotes his efforts to self-indulgence but who has the capacity to become a benign, demiurgical Creator when his efforts are so directed. This, of course, is a parallel to certain lines of gnostic religious philosophy regarding God, Devil and creation.
As I said, I have very grave doubts that Wolfe had any parts of the Short and Long Sun in mind before the New Sun was finished. Otherwise I can see what you're saying about Typhon--but not the mandragora.
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Oddly enough, it doesn't take me to those questions at all.
I get the impression you are offended by suggestions that the story takes a reader anywhere,
Certainly not.
1 quoted line
specifically (even S. America ;- )).
Not offended, though I dislike statements that can be greatly improved by qualifying them.
"For all real numbers x, x/x = 1." --false
"For all real numbers x except zero, x/x = 1." --true
"We all agree that the Commonwealth's continent is an analog of South America." --false
"We all agree that the Commonwealth's continent has many resemblances to South America, but differs in at least some details." --probably true
2 quoted lines
But if you do have a sense of where
WOlfe's writing takes you, which you have not previously revealed, I am interested in hearing about it.
Nothing I haven't previously revealed.
Jerry Friedman
P. S. Not to mislead anyone on a trivial point--Chesterton isn't one of my favorite authors, though I do like "The human race, to which so many of my readers belong..."
David Stockhoff01 Dec 2011, 13:09
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
8 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 11/30/2011 8:12 PM, Lee Berman wrote:
On 11/30/2011 4:51 PM, Larry Miller wrote:
gotcha.
On 11/30/11, Gerry Quinn<gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
He talks about his predecessors, and uses the magic Autarch words to get in.
David Stockhoff: Not quite. It's here:
"Yet it was impossible that I should occupy a suite other than that anciently set aside for the autarchs...." Thus the suite is "that anciently set aside for the autarchs.">
Yes. If we read carefully, the text more precisely supports larry: that Severian has the memories of all the old autarchs evidenced by his knowledge of ancient autarch words. That Severian finds nothing familiar in the suites set aide for the autarchs suggests that no previous autarch ever used the suite.
Hmm. I think they are unfamiliar, for the most part, because they are dull and therefore forgotten. Severian as much as says so. The homonculus stands out because it is the "most interesting."
1 quoted line
Thus, larry's conclusion that the contents of the suite, including the mandragora, may date back to Typhon's era, is supported. You could argue that Severian just happens to remember the words for the suite but just happens to forget the contents. But the only purpose of such a toothless assertion would be a desperate attempt to win a losing battle.
The words for the suite would be universal for all autarchal suites, wouldn't they? I am not sure what battle you mean. But I agree that the suite has not been much used since the first autarchs. The decor and furnishings are plainly space-age and have "Typhonic era" written all over them.
Lee Berman01 Dec 2011, 13:36
↳ follows, by subject match David Stockhoff
1 quoted line
larry miller: I think thats part of it yeah. Obviously theres got to be more to to the story than that. What do think about Inire?
Quite a bit, actually. And it can get complicated. As Severian is the central character of the main narrative, I think Inire is the central character of the subtext (perhaps we can frame it as Autarch Severian inhabiting the public House Absolute while mysterious vizier Inire inhabits the Secret House).
I can provide whatever details you are interested in, but my view of Inire is based on the principle that when Wolfe uses a mythological name in the Sun Series and leaves out crucial information regarding that character, the gaps can be filled by studying mythology. And in the past 10 years Gene Wolfe has forced me to do a lot of studying.
If it is understood that the name "Inire" is derived from an epithet of Faunus (Pan), the resulting connection to Dionysus provides a connection to the whole Sun Series story and a mythological framework which stretches from the primeval Greek gods to the gnostic precursors of Christianity. That's my view, anyway.
1 quoted line
Jerry Friedman: ...Unless you're just saying you're certain that it refers to Typhon, which I can't argue with.
Yes, that's really what I was saying. Not "only" to Typhon.
1 quoted line
If your posting history shows that you've seen other reasons as well, I'm afraid I'd forgotten them (or never saw them--I've been skipping lots of posts lately and have at other times too).. ..Not offended, though I dislike statements that can be greatly improved by qualifying them.
Understood and agreed, Jerry. I am currently in a phase of posting fairly frequently so perhaps it can be understandable to you why I might inadvertently lean toward taking a short cut and skip statement qualifications I have made so many times in other recent posts.
Lee Berman01 Dec 2011, 14:03
↳ follows, by subject match Lee Berman
1 quoted line
David Stockhoff: The words for the suite would be universal for all autarchal suites, wouldn't they? I am not sure what battle you mean. But I agree that the suite has not been much used since the first autarchs. The decor and furnishings are plainly space-age and have "Typhonic era" written all over them.
Good question on the secret words. I was always under the impression that there was a complex collection of words which were unique to each Autarchial gateway to secret places.
It would be more efficient if there was only one word for all of them. But in UotNS, on Flood Day, when Severian is in the secret passage which takes him to the throne room (and allows him to encounter his mother and Agia (the assassin), he notes that many Autarchial lovers were given the secret words to allow trysts and those lovers gave the words to their own paramours, and so on. Thecla's cadre having access to the Antechamber supports the idea that some of the secret words were given out, and thus it would be better to have distinct words for each secret portal.
Yes, I don't think we are really given enough information to know for sure if any autarchs had used that suite. We know it wasn't used much and, as you say, the information we do get supports larry's theory that the Mandragora and the rest date back to Typhon's time.
Please be understanding of my personal style. In here and in the real world it is part of
my personality to address people in the manner in which they prefer to be addressed. I respond to most people here in a cordial and scholarly fashion because that's what they like.
I respond to Gerry in a belligerent, carping, condescending tone because that's what he likes. Thus the reference to "battle". I don't really enjoy writing that way, but I am willing to adopt Gerry's tone and tactics when responding to him, in consideration of his feelings. I take pride in being a good host and I don't want Gerry to feel unwelcome here just because his communication style differs from others.
Gerry Quinn01 Dec 2011, 14:20
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
From: Lee Berman
4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
larry miller:
I dont think Inire was on Urth during Typhons time.
He may have made visits to that time period via his mirrors but IMHO
I dont believe he started taking part in Urths history until after Typhons downfall. I wouldnt rule out though that he had a part in elevating Ymar (another lowly torturer) to the throne and establishing the line of Autarchs. Perhaps these were the purpose of the aforementioned visits?
I don’t recall us being told anything much about Inire’s history, one way or the other. Clearly he has been influential for some considerable time when Severian ascends to the throne. My feel for the matter, and it is only that, is that Inire has been around since about the time of the Old Autarch (who also went to Yesod) and maybe a bit before. Previously to that, no Autarch since Ymar went to Yesod, IIRC. It would make sense if Inire came along to help and advise around this time now that it looks like the New Sun is finally becoming a real possibility.
1 quoted line
Okay, so if I understand your view correctly, Inire's purpose on Urth is to groom and support autarchs, with the eventually ascension of the right one to New Sun status? I think this jibes with Borski's view and quite a few others on this list (my own view differs).
That would be my view also, and I cannot think of any actions or statements by Inire that would tend to undermine it.
4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Gerry Quinn:
In this case, the notion that Typhon would have wished or
intended to live on as a pickled homunculus in a jar. We actually know how he lived on. And when he met Severian, he did not ask about the homunculus.
Nice try, Gerry, but no. At least you are understanding that Typhon on Urth sat on a throne and was the subject of the pornographic painting.
I think everyone on the list can clearly see how nonsensical that claim is. Why do you keep posting this kind of stuff?
2 quoted lines
But your
attempt to play dumb here isn't working. I know you are smart. Smart enough to know that a body prepared in waiting to receive a host personality needn't remain as a fetus nor pickled in a jar once the upload has taken place.
How so? Severian spoke to the homunculus, and all it wanted was to die; it even tried to provoke Severian into killing it, IIRC. It had no hope for any other sort of life. What evidence have you for the above speculation?
2 quoted lines
You
are just pretending to not get it. Why would Typhon ask Severian about the mandragora? Why would Severian be expected to know about that? Anyway, isn't Typhon more into telling Severian things than asking? Anyway, nice try.
Admittedly, my point that about him not asking was weak. Fortunately, it is unnecessary given the overwhelming lack of evidence for your case, and the reasonably solid arguments against it, such as above, and the profound absence of anything that would require such a convoluted explanation.
It’s not entirely unlikely, though, that Wolfe would have had Typhon say something if he had intended for some reason that the homunculus in a jar in a chamber belonging to ancient Autarchs was actually intended as a body for Typhon to be downloaded into. Severian comes from the Citadel; Wolfe could have had Typhon say something along the lines of “I left some things behind there...” and added some other clue that would be recognisable by alert readers.
But that’s all irrelevant anyway. As far as I can see your only “evidence” for this latest ridiculous hypothesis is that the term Wolfe uses for the homunculus, a fairly standard term for such things insofar as such terms may be standard, can be transformed by a series of semantically empty puns into some connection with a mythological monster whose name Typhon bears. That’s about the size of it, isn’t it?
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn01 Dec 2011, 14:47
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
From: Lee Berman
3 quoted lines
Good question on the secret words. I was always under the impression that there was a complex collection of words which were unique to each Autarchial gateway to secret places.
It would be more efficient if there was only one word for all of them. But in UotNS, on Flood Day, when Severian is in the secret passage which takes him to the throne room (and allows him to encounter his mother and Agia (the assassin), he notes that many Autarchial lovers were given the secret words to allow trysts and those lovers gave the words to their own paramours, and so on. Thecla's cadre having access to the Antechamber supports the idea that some of the secret words were given out, and thus it would be better to have distinct words for each secret portal.
There is no reason to suppose either that there is one word for all, or that each portal has its own word. Something in between is most probable. In any case, one fact we do know is that Severian did indeed know the words for the ancient suite. [Perhaps it it had been used more often, the password would have been changed occasionally.]
1 quoted line
Yes, I don't think we are really given enough information to know for sure if any autarchs had used that suite.
Except the bit where Severian tells us they used the suite. Of course he could have been wrong and they just stored a lot of stuff there, and obviously there’s no proof that they didn’t inherit some stuff from Typhon whether they used it or not, just as some of the books in the library undoubtedly date from Typhon’s time.
2 quoted lines
We know it wasn't used much and, as you say, the information we do get
supports larry's theory that the Mandragora and the rest date back to Typhon's time.
The information we get is that it was ancient, and the decor is described. Does anyone know if the decor in Typhon’s time is described in Urth (and Typhon’s quarters in the mountains), and whether it matches the suite? If not, the information supports only the idea that the suite and its contents are ancient. On the other hand, if for example chairs were typically used in Typhon’s time, we would know that the suite was furnished long after.
- Gerry Quinn
entonio at gmail.com01 Dec 2011, 15:10
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
No dia 2011/12/01, ?s 14:20, "Gerry Quinn" <gerry at bindweed.com> escreveu:
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Okay, so if I understand your view correctly, Inire's purpose on Urth is to groom and support autarchs, with the eventually ascension of the right one to New Sun status? I think this jibes with Borski's view and quite a few others on this list (my own view differs).
That would be my view also, and I cannot think of any actions or statements by Inire that would tend to undermine it.
Not to be the devil's advocate, but I think that is clearly the default, simple, surface interpretation, which cries out loud for an intricate alternative.
entonio at gmail.com01 Dec 2011, 15:16
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
No dia 2011/12/01, ?s 14:47, "Gerry Quinn" <gerry at bindweed.com> escreveu:
2 quoted lines
The information we get is that it was ancient, and the decor is described. Does anyone know if the decor in Typhon’s time is descri bed in Urth (and Typhon’s quarters in the mountains), and whether it
matches the suite? If not, the information supports only the idea that the suite and its contents are ancient. On the other hand, if for example chairs were typically used in Typhon’s time, we would kn ow that the suite was furnished long after.
What's the general view on the development of technolgy after Typhon? At first sight, it only went downhill from there; could the islands left have seen local progress? Either way I don't see those as a source of refinements to the Autarchial chambers.
David Stockhoff01 Dec 2011, 15:20
↳ in reply to entonio at gmail.com
5 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 12/1/2011 10:10 AM, entonio at gmail.com wrote:
No dia 2011/12/01, ?s 14:20, "Gerry Quinn" <gerry at bindweed.com <mailto:gerry at bindweed.com>> escreveu:
Okay, so if I understand your view correctly, Inire's purpose on Urth is to groom and support autarchs, with the eventually ascension of the right one to New Sun status? I think this jibes with Borski's view and quite a few others on this list (my own view differs).
That would be my view also, and I cannot think of any actions or statements by Inire that would tend to undermine it.
Not to be the devil's advocate, but I think that is clearly the default, simple, surface interpretation, which cries out loud for an intricate alternative.
Or at least some development. One can certainly imagine variations on "groom" and "support."
David Stockhoff01 Dec 2011, 15:35
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
5 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 12/1/2011 9:47 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: Lee Berman<mailto:severiansola at hotmail.com>
Good question on the secret words. I was always under the impression that there was a complex collection of words which were unique to each Autarchial gateway to secret places.
It would be more efficient if there was only one word for all of them. But in UotNS, on Flood Day, when Severian is in the secret passage which takes him to the throne room (and allows him to encounter his mother and Agia (the assassin), he notes that many Autarchial lovers were given the secret words to allow trysts and those lovers gave the words to their own paramours, and so on. Thecla's cadre having access to the Antechamber supports the idea that some of the secret words were given out, and thus it would be better to have distinct words for each secret portal.
There is no reason to suppose either that there is one word for all, or that each portal has its own word. Something in between is most probable. In any case, one fact we do know is that Severian did indeed know the words for the ancient suite. [Perhaps it it had been used more often, the password would have been changed occasionally.]
Somewhere in between is my best guess as well.
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Yes, I don't think we are really given enough information to know for sure if any autarchs had used that suite.
Except the bit where Severian tells us they used the suite. Of course he could have been wrong and they just stored a lot of stuff there, and obviously there’s no proof that they didn’t inherit some stuff from Typhon whether they used it or not, just as some of the books in the library undoubtedly date from Typhon’s time.
We don;t know how may used it. It may have been few.
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
We know it wasn't used much and, as you say, the information we do get supports larry's theory that the Mandragora and the rest date back to Typhon's time.
The information we get is that it was ancient, and the decor is described. Does anyone know if the decor in Typhon’s time is described in Urth (and Typhon’s quarters in the mountains), and whether it matches the suite? If not, the information supports only the idea that the suite and its contents are ancient. On the other hand, if for example chairs were typically used in Typhon’s time, we would know that the suite was furnished long after.
Including the chairs, which sound like beanbag chairs from the 1970s, the furnishings are plainly late 20th century and later, with what seem to be curved computer desks, fabric stretched across plastic skeletons, and so on.
Severian's definition of a chair is going to be different from and probably narrower than ours, so I think to say there are no chairs because Severian said so is to believe Severian a bit naively. Of course there is seating.
Gerry Quinn01 Dec 2011, 15:41
↳ in reply to entonio at gmail.com
From: entonio at gmail.com
No dia 2011/12/01, ?s 14:47, "Gerry Quinn" <gerry at bindweed.com> escreveu:
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
The information we get is that it was ancient, and the decor is described. Does anyone know if the decor in Typhon’s time is descri bed in Urth (and Typhon’s quarters in the mountains), and whether it matches the suite? If not, the information supports only the idea that the suite and its contents are ancient. On the other hand, if for example chairs were typically used in Typhon’s time, we would kn ow that the suite was furnished long after.
What's the general view on the development of technolgy after Typhon? At first sight, it only went downhill from there; could the islands left have seen local progress? Either way I don't see those as a source of refinements to the Autarchial chambers.
I think tech went downhill, but I don’t see it as relevant to the decor of the chambers, which will be affected more by fashion except for the absence of high tech items.
In this case we are told the ancient chambers had no chairs, only intricately fashioned cushions. But cushions and chairs are surely available options in all non-Arctic societies from the Bronze Age onwards, so tech level doesn’t really matter, and the use of cushions rather than chairs tells us nothing about it.
The absence of chairs, however, tells us that the chamber was furnished at a time when chairs were unfashionable. If we were told that Typhon’s quarters in Urth were furnished only with cushions, it would be a strong suggestion that the chamber came from this time. On the other hand, if people (especially the upper classes) normally sat on chairs or benches in Typhon’s time, we would have an indication that the chambers were furnished some time later.
- Gerry Quinn
Lee Berman01 Dec 2011, 16:07
↳ follows, by subject match Gerry Quinn
1 quoted line
Gerry Quinn: I don’t recall us being told anything much about Inire’s history, one way or the other.
I don't fault you for your lack of curiosity regarding this omission, Gerry.
But perhaps you have enough empathy for the differences in thinking of others that you can see why others might wonder why left Inire's origins such a mystery and consider that there is a solution provided, though it isn't so obvious as to slap you on the face. Entonio, below, is an example of this alternate way of thinking which involves curiosity.
1 quoted line
I think everyone on the list can clearly see how nonsensical that claim is. Why do you keep posting this kind of stuff?
Because you like it and keep responding to it and I want to make you feel welcome and useful here.
1 quoted line
Entonio: Not to be the devil's advocate, but I think that is clearly the default, simple, surface interpretation, which cries out loud for an intricate alternative.
In asking deeper questions regarding Typhon, Inire and Hethor you are indeed acting as devil's advocate on more than one level.
1 quoted line
David Stockhoff: Or at least some development. One can certainly imagine variations on "groom" and "support."
Yes. In my view, Father Inire is more interested in Severian's powers of healing and resurrection than his bringing a New Sun. Ushas doesn't seem a particular friendly and welcoming place for Father Inire and his works, eh wot?
Moreover the diabolical nature of the dark, nasty versions of resurrection and immortality we are exposed to in the story via Vodalus, Hildegren, The Cumaean, witches, Baldanders, the old Autarch, khaibits, the Old Leech and Ceryx all have threads of connection. Trace these back to the source and I think you'll find that all roads lead to (Roman named) Inire.
Severian may not be a "Christ-figure" but it is hard to deny he has Christ-like powers. I think it makes sense for a Christian author to create a world in which pagan, gnostic sorts of deity-beings are covetous of such powers.
Gerry Quinn01 Dec 2011, 17:24
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
From: Lee Berman
3 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Gerry Quinn: I don’t recall us being told anything much about Inire’s history, one way or the other.
I don't fault you for your lack of curiosity regarding this omission, Gerry.
But perhaps you have enough empathy for the differences in thinking of others that you can see why others might wonder why left Inire's origins such a mystery and consider that there is a solution provided, though it isn't so obvious as to slap you on the face. Entonio, below, is an example of this alternate way of thinking which involves curiosity.
I merely state it as a fact: there are few if any indications that Inire is not who he appears to be. The same applies to many other characters. Wolfe rarely tells us more than he needs about the history of any character, so the absence of a detailed history is not in itself suspicious. If there is some evidence, I would certainly not reject it out of hand. I have not thus far seen any such plausible, evidence-based theory proposed.
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
I think everyone on the list can clearly see how nonsensical that claim is. Why do you keep posting this kind of stuff?
Because you like it and keep responding to it and I want to make you feel welcome and useful here.
Insisting on the truth of plainly ridiculous theories is worthless noise that debases the list. You should be embarrassed about the issue of the painting, because it shows how poorly you have read and understood Wolfe, at least in this instance. Those inclined to be interested in your other theories must surely have taken note.
6 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
Entonio: Not to be the devil's advocate, but I think that is clearly the
> default, simple, surface interpretation, which cries out loud for an
> intricate alternative.
In asking deeper questions regarding Typhon, Inire and Hethor you are indeed acting as devil's advocate on more than one level.
David Stockhoff: Or at least some development. One can certainly imagine variations on "groom" and "support."
Yes. In my view, Father Inire is more interested in Severian's powers of healing and resurrection than his bringing a New Sun. Ushas doesn't seem a particular friendly and welcoming place for Father Inire and his works, eh wot?
Fortunate then, perhaps, that there is little evidence that he lives to see it, or expects to. But in any case, he could doubtless retire to the stars if he wished, his work done.
1 quoted line
Moreover the diabolical nature of the dark, nasty versions of resurrection and immortality we are exposed to in the story via Vodalus, Hildegren, The Cumaean, witches, Baldanders, the old Autarch, khaibits, the Old Leech and Ceryx all have threads of connection. Trace these back to the source and I think you'll find that all roads lead to (Roman named) Inire.
In your mind, everything leads to Inire. Others will require evidence rather than bald assertion.
1 quoted line
Severian may not be a "Christ-figure" but it is hard to deny he has Christ-like powers. I think it makes sense for a Christian author to create a world in which pagan, gnostic sorts of deity-beings are covetous of such powers.
A Christian or non-Christian author might create many kinds of worlds. It requires evidence to show that a given world created by a Christian author is one of them.
By all means, demonstrate how the secret history of Inire is described in the text. I am sure we would all be very interested in such a demonstration. So far, you haven’t provided one.
- Gerry Quinn
Lee Berman01 Dec 2011, 19:25
↳ follows, by subject match Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn:
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
I think everyone on the list can clearly see how nonsensical that claim is..
Those inclined to be interested in your other theories must surely have taken note... Others will require evidence rather than bald assertion... I am sure we would all be very interested in such a demonstration.
Gerry, Gerry, my Gerry. Over and over you make reference to other people on this list.
As though I care one whit about them! I have only one audience member I really care about. He is quite devoted and tireless in his attention to me and I reciprocate by giving him what he wants. My passion and longing...ahem, well. Anyway.. Gerry would you consider having a beer one night? Maybe some billiards or darts? We could discuss Wolfe..
Larry Miller01 Dec 2011, 19:26
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
I think the most important clue that Wolfe gives us regarding Inire is his letter. In the letter he mentions his "cousins" and says that it will not be long before they side not only with humanity but with "us". Who are these cousins? And why are they so reluctant to side with humanity? Who does the us refer to (Inire and Severian? The Commonwealth?)?
7 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
On 12/1/11, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> wrote: On 12/1/2011 10:10 AM, entonio at gmail.com wrote:
No dia 2011/12/01, ?s 14:20, "Gerry Quinn" <gerry at bindweed.com <mailto:gerry at bindweed.com>> escreveu:
Okay, so if I understand your view correctly, Inire's purpose on Urth is to groom and support autarchs, with the eventually ascension of the right one to New Sun status? I think this jibes with Borski's view and quite a few others on this list (my own view differs).
That would be my view also, and I cannot think of any actions or statements by Inire that would tend to undermine it.
Not to be the devil's advocate, but I think that is clearly the default, simple, surface interpretation, which cries out loud for an intricate alternative.
Or at least some development. One can certainly imagine variations on "groom" and "support."
_______________________________________________
↳ follows, by subject match Larry Miller
larry miller: I think the most important clue that Wolfe gives us regarding Inire is his letter. In the letter he mentions his "cousins" and says that it will not be long before they side not only with humanity but with "us". Who are these cousins? And why are they so reluctant to side with humanity? Who does the us refer to (Inire and Severian? The Commonwealth?)?
Excellent observations and questions larry. I think the letter is our best clue
to Father Inire. Second best is Severian's Domnina/mirror story and the rest are incidental, unless you accept that we see disguised versions of him. Everything in the letter (and Domnina story) is drenched with important information about this guy.
Most agree that Father Inire (and the Cumaean) are cacogens; aliens not from Urth.
So who are their "cousins"? Cousin implies a sibling-like relationship, once or twice removed. We aren't shown that many aliens on Urth. Who fits that description best? The alzabo? The notule or salamander?
Well, I'm being silly. The text of UotNS makes it pretty clear that it is the hierodules who are being refered to as cousins. The Baldanders/Talos conversations rather clearly describe B, F and O as reluctant helpers of humanity.
Invoking the religio-mythological connection, who would be the "once or twice removed" relatives of angels? As I see it, removed from heaven= fallen. I think we can expect that fallen angels would be, in many ways, the opposite of angels. B and F are tall, Inire and Cumaean are short. B and F are young and beautiful, Inire and Cumaean are old and ugly. B and F are careful to minimize their interactions with humanity. Inire and the Cumaean get right into the thick of things- ugly things like war and necromancy and artificial beautification.
Anyway, what Inire hopes to get from his "cousins" are more weapons. This is made clear from the letter and Inire's obsession with winning the war with the Ascians. When he says "us" he may mean Inire and Severian. He may mean the Commonwealth. It doesn't matter. Think of it from Father Inire's perspective. He gets a new Autarch every few decades but he remains in his position as "humble servant" for 1000+ years. Who is really benefitting when the Autarch and the Commonwealth triumph? Father Inire.
B, F and O seem to have higher goals in mind than winning wars. Inire, Cumaean and Barbatus and Famulimus may share Roman names, as cousins might be expected to do, but their physical, behavioral and lifespan differences must mean something. We may be tempted to think of Inire as a wise, benign, humble sort of servant to Severian. But if we read Inire's letter and the story of Domnina carefully we are shown disturbing flaws in his character. Wolfe marks Father Inire's chamber with a monstrous ("teratoid") symbol. Should we ignore it?
Gerry Quinn01 Dec 2011, 22:51
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
From: Lee Berman
1 quoted line
Well, I'm being silly. The text of UotNS makes it pretty clear that it is the hierodules who are being refered to as cousins. The Baldanders/Talos conversations rather clearly describe B, F and O as reluctant helpers of humanity.
Indeed, it seems likely that these are the cousins in question. Reluctantly or not, they seem willing to help both humanity and others; Severian interrupts one of their visits to the room where Baldanders vivisects human women. As interstellar arms dealers, if that is one of their roles on Urth, they also apparently do not choose sides. They seem to take the view that conflict leads to progress.
1 quoted line
Invoking the religio-mythological connection, who would be the "once or twice removed" relatives of angels? As I see it, removed from heaven= fallen. I think we can expect that fallen angels would be, in many ways, the opposite of angels.
This angle would seem to require that you identify angels. You mean the interstellar arms dealers, right? Would an angel say: "Is all the world a war of good and bad? Have you not thought it might be something more?"
2 quoted lines
B and F are tall,
Inire and Cumaean are short. B and F are young and beautiful, Inire and Cumaean are old and ugly. B and F are careful to minimize their interactions with humanity. Inire and the Cumaean get right into the thick of things- ugly things like war and necromancy and artificial beautification.
If the Hierodules are supplying weapons to both sides (of course we’re not certain of that, I think — perhaps some other group of cacogens is supplying them, in which case it might be they who are Inire’s cousins), they would seem to have a worse claim on our sort of morality than Inire. The Cumaean does a little necromancy, but the artificial beautification was the work of the Hierodules? pal Talos.
1 quoted line
Anyway, what Inire hopes to get from his "cousins" are more weapons. This is made clear from the letter and Inire's obsession with winning the war with the Ascians. When he says "us" he may mean Inire and Severian. He may mean the Commonwealth. It doesn't matter. Think of it from Father Inire's perspective. He gets a new Autarch every few decades but he remains in his position as "humble servant" for 1000+ years. Who is really benefitting when the Autarch and the Commonwealth triumph? Father Inire.
Is there any evidence that Inire has been around for 1000 years, or anything like it? And if he knows that Severian will bring the New Sun, he doesn’t apparently intend to do anything to stop it.
1 quoted line
B, F and O seem to have higher goals in mind than winning wars.
Indeed, it appears they don’t care who lives or dies so long as human knowledge advances. They would willing have worked simultaneously with Josef Mengele and the Manhattan Project.
2 quoted lines
Inire, Cumaean and Barbatus
and Famulimus may share Roman names, as cousins might be expected to do, but their physical, behavioral and lifespan differences must mean something. We may be tempted to think of Inire as a wise, benign, humble sort of servant to Severian. But if we read Inire's letter and the story of Domnina carefully we are shown disturbing flaws in his character. Wolfe marks Father Inire's chamber with a monstrous ("teratoid") symbol. Should we ignore it?
No more than we should ignore the hideous masks worn by Barbatus and co., I suppose.
- Gerry Quinn
Lee Berman02 Dec 2011, 01:13
↳ follows, by subject match Gerry Quinn
2 quoted lines
Gerry Quinn: As interstellar arms dealers, if that is one of their (hierodule)
roles on Urth
Agreed, it is one of their roles.
2 quoted lines
also apparently do not choose sides. They seem to take the view that conflict
leads to progress.
Well, they might choose Severian over Baldanders. Isn't fully clear. But they
do clearly value conflict. The hammer, anvil and tongs of warfare are tools used to forge humanity. Let's not forget that violence and conflict instigated by hiero-types was a primary driver of the events on Yesod (not to mention the Ship).
2 quoted lines
This angle would seem to require that you identify angels. You mean the interstellar
arms dealers, right?
Correct. When I say angels, I mean the Bibical kind not those found on Christmas cards. Think Angel of Death slaying Egyptian children, Cherubim with flaming sword guarding Eden. The four archangels leading the Hebrew army to victory on the battlefield. Uriel, Michael, Raphael and good old Gabriel (Dr. Talos' role) on the frontlines,
2 quoted lines
Would an angel say: "Is all the world a war of good and bad? Have you not thought
it might be something more?"
I think the answer to that is obvious.
4 quoted lines
If the Hierodules are supplying weapons to both sides (of course we’re not certain of
that, I think — perhaps some other group of cacogens is supplying them, in which case
it might be they who are Inire’s cousins), they would seem to have a worse claim on
our sort of morality than Inire.
It might have some substance if you base your hyphothetical "other group" on some unmentioned level of Biblical angels or something like that. Otherwise, they are just a non-textual Gerry invention or extrapolation. Nothing wrong with that I guess.
As far as angelic morality, you've already explained it in your argument above. Neither angels nor God are subject to judgement by human morality. They are higher beings and have their own "mysterious ways" to justify what they do. They act as a scientist acts injecting carcinogens into thousands of animals and dissecting them for a higher cause. The animals are a lower class of being and have no choice but to submit to judgement of their superiors when it comes to moral decisions. Same for the people of Urth, who are as dead as a pack of lab rats.
1 quoted line
Is there any evidence that Inire has been around for 1000 years, or anything like it?
He has been vizier to all the autarchs. How many years of them have there been?
2 quoted lines
And if he knows that Severian will bring the New Sun, he doesn’t apparently intend to do
anything to stop it.
He reacted in the same way that Jupiter and Dionysus reacted to the coming of Jesus. Perhaps
they knew they were about to be swept away, perhaps they didn't. But what were they supposed
to do about it?
1 quoted line
Indeed, it appears they don’t care who lives or dies so long as human knowledge advances.
That might be a way to look at it. I think "spiritual advancement" is a better way of
understanding what is really going on here. The bottom line is that pretty much every
human on Urth does die. We had a similar situation during a Flood here on earth.
1 quoted line
They would willing have worked simultaneously with Josef Mengele and the Manhattan Project.
God allowed both those projects to continue simultaneously, didn't He? They both killed a lot
of people. Are you implying that one of these actions was "good" and the other "bad"? Or that
both are bad? Both good? I'm not quite catching your meaning on this one.
Gerry Quinn02 Dec 2011, 02:04
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
From: Lee Berman
4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Gerry Quinn: As interstellar arms dealers, if that is one of their (hierodule) roles on Urth
Agreed, it is one of their roles.
also apparently do not choose sides. They seem to take the view that conflict leads to progress.
Well, they might choose Severian over Baldanders. Isn't fully clear.
It’s clear enough — they didn’t take sides in that fight. Though they probably knew how it ended, as Baldanders himself guessed, I think.
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
This angle would seem to require that you identify angels. You mean the interstellar arms dealers, right?
Correct. When I say angels, I mean the Bibical kind not those found on Christmas cards. Think Angel of Death slaying Egyptian children, Cherubim with flaming sword guarding Eden. The four archangels leading the Hebrew army to victory on the battlefield. Uriel, Michael, Raphael and good old Gabriel (Dr. Talos' role) on the frontlines,
But all those angels, who admittedly did not flinch at the sight of blood, seem to have picked one side. Do we know of any Biblical angels who supported both sides in a conflict?
I’m not saying the Hierodules are evil, by the way, even in our terms. I’m just saying that setting them up as “angels”, in order to make a contrast with “demons” like (you are proposing) Father Inire, doesn’t seem to work well given the actual behaviour of both sides. Inire, it would seem to me, supports the better side on Urth. If the Hierodules are selling arms to both Commonwealth and Ascians, in an Urth tottering towards extinction, surely we must prefer Inire, who cleaves — against his own best interests — to the Autarch who runs a seemingly more human, if backward, realm, and will in time bring about a New Sun.
Famulimus may have a pretty face, but if we demand that she and Inire are angel and devil, or devil and angel respectively... is it not Inire, by his actions, who deserves the title of angel? Perhaps he also has a fantastic body under those robes, but prefers to be judged by his deeds.
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Would an angel say: "Is all the world a war of good and bad? Have you not thought it might be something more?"
I think the answer to that is obvious.
Only if “angel” has other than the usual meaning.
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
If the Hierodules are supplying weapons to both sides (of course we’re not certain of that, I think — perhaps some other group of cacogens is supplying them, in which case it might be they who are Inire’s cousins), they would seem to have a worse claim on our sort of morality than Inire.
It might have some substance if you base your hyphothetical "other group" on some unmentioned level of Biblical angels or something like that. Otherwise, they are just a non-textual Gerry invention or extrapolation. Nothing wrong with that I guess.
It was more of a Gerry interjection. Are we sure it is the Hierodules who supply energy weapons to both the Commonwealth and the Ascians? I think it is them also, but I am not certain we know it from the text, so I mention the alternative. Like Quetzal, I am a careful man.
1 quoted line
As far as angelic morality, you've already explained it in your argument above. Neither angels nor God are subject to judgement by human morality. They are higher beings and have their own "mysterious ways" to justify what they do. They act as a scientist acts injecting carcinogens into thousands of animals and dissecting them for a higher cause. The animals are a lower class of being and have no choice but to submit to judgement of their superiors when it comes to moral decisions. Same for the people of Urth, who are as dead as a pack of lab rats.
We cannot control their actions. But we can choose what we call them. If they abuse us, the word “angel” seems inappropriate.
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Is there any evidence that Inire has been around for 1000 years, or anything like it?
He has been vizier to all the autarchs. How many years of them have there been?
Ah, I hadn’t realised that. I thought it was only known that he had been around a while, and served the Old Autarch.
Where does it say he served all the Autarchs?
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
And if he knows that Severian will bring the New Sun, he doesn’t apparently intend to do anything to stop it.
He reacted in the same way that Jupiter and Dionysus reacted to the coming of Jesus. Perhaps they knew they were about to be swept away, perhaps they didn't. But what were they supposed to do about it?
He could have killed Severian in the jungle, for a start. Okay, you can argue that wibbley-wobbley-timey-wimey stuff would have cancelled his efforts, if he had. But why do anything, if that is the case?
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Indeed, it appears they don’t care who lives or dies so long as human knowledge advances.
That might be a way to look at it. I think "spiritual advancement" is a better way of understanding what is really going on here. The bottom line is that pretty much every human on Urth does die. We had a similar situation during a Flood here on earth.
Baldanders doesn’t seem big on spiritual advancement, and they help him. [I also don’t agree that the flood wipes out almost all humans, though I accept it is devastating.]
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
They would willing have worked simultaneously with Josef Mengele and the Manhattan Project.
God allowed both those projects to continue simultaneously, didn't He? They both killed a lot of people. Are you implying that one of these actions was "good" and the other "bad"? Or that both are bad? Both good? I'm not quite catching your meaning on this one.
But was God more than usually present as a special advisor to both projects? If God is omnipresent, he was present at both, certainly. And the leaders of both may have prayed for his aid and asserted his presence, for all I know. But in BotNS, the room in which Baldanders dissects living women is a place in which the Hierodules especially manifest themselves. (To be fair, they claim that the matter is nothing to do with them.)
- Gerry Quinn
Lee Berman02 Dec 2011, 03:59
↳ follows, by subject match Lee Berman
Well, a decent conversation :- )
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Well, (hierodules) might choose Severian over Baldanders. Isn't fully clear.
It’s clear enough — they didn’t take sides in that fight.
I'm not so sure. But either way, my judgement of the tone of their conversation suggests that they really like Severian. Baldanders...not so much. Baldanders experiments with human bodies. Severian tortures them and cuts their heads off. They need someone who will be willing to exterminate most of humanity, right? Kindness is obviously not the criterion which gets you picked to be New Sun. (devotion and loyalty to the the Increate is more like it)
1 quoted line
Do we know of any Biblical angels who supported both sides in a conflict?
I don't think Baldanders and Talos are the "other" side in whatever conflict the hierodules are fighting. They seem to have chosen Severian over Baldanders as their champion against a greater foe who shall remain unmentioned for now. If Baldanders did receive the mermaid's kiss to produce the scars(gills?) on his neck and underwater breathing, it might have contributed to his abandonment by the hierodules. WOrking with the enemy, even temporarily, isn't such a good idea. God/Increate and His agents always know.
Anyway, in regard to angels "supporting both sides" let's just say that the Bible is a pretty one-sided book as should be expected. If we read the holy texts of Hebrew rivals (as Wolfe has) we will find the Bible's demons recognized instead as angels and gods. But good or evil, angel or demon, all do God's will. No getting around that.
8 quoted lines
I’m not saying the Hierodules are evil, by the way, even in our terms. I’m just
saying that setting them up as “angels”, in order to make a contrast with “demons”
like (you are proposing) Father Inire, doesn’t seem to work well given the actual
behaviour of both sides. Inire, it would seem to me, supports the better side on
Urth. If the Hierodules are selling arms to both Commonwealth and Ascians, in an
Urth tottering towards extinction, surely we must prefer Inire, who cleaves ?
against his own best interests — to the Autarch who runs a seemingly more human,
if backward, realm, and will in time bring about a New Sun.
I think you are trapped in a modernist sort of stereotype where angels represent some universal "good" while demons represent universal "evil". How "good" are God's angels going to appear to Egyptians or Canaanites who suffered massive genocide at their hands? Do you forget that God Himself did direct massive genocide with His Biblical Flood? He even killed the innocent animals who didn't make it to the ark, just to cleanse the earth of human wickedness.
Gerry you are not a Christian. Neither am I. But I know enough to know that devout Christian beliefs in "good" and "evil" are not based on human moral judgement but rather by allegiance to God and faith that all He does is ultimately "good" no matter how bad it may seem to us now. And when we read a book by Gene WOlfe we reside in the world of a Creator with devout, scholarly Christian values. This must be understood.
Appearances and behavior aside, we can know Hierodules to be angelic because they invoke the Increate as their master and inspiration. In contrast, Father Inire invokes Helios, Hyperior, Surya and Savitar. Angels associate with God. Demons with pagan/gnostic deities. All do God's will of course. But angels do it loyally and willingly.
Anyway, WOlfe affirms that the hiero-types (all of them) are angelic beings in the James Jordan interview. You've got the wings. You've got the superhuman beauty. You've got the angelic auras. Whaddya want, halos and harps? ;- )
Lee Berman02 Dec 2011, 06:02
↳ follows, by subject match Gerry Quinn
3 quoted lines
Gerry Quinn: Ah, I hadn’t realised that. I thought it was only known that
he had been around a while, and served the Old Autarch. Where does it say he
served all the Autarchs?
The statement about Father Inire's term comes from Rudesind in the meeting at
the House Absolute. Rudesind forgets the lines he was supposed to say, and
Severian asks him who had coached him. Rudesind says:
2 quoted lines
"Why, Father Inire...Who do you suppose? Senile. That's what they say.
Been vizier to I don't know how many autarchs since Ymar."
Without that bit of information I can see why it would be difficult to consider Father Inire stretching back to Typhon's time or what his role might have been during Typhon's rule. Thoughts about sorcerers and mandragoras also figure into that particular equation.
Jeff Wilson02 Dec 2011, 06:09
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
3 quoted lines · depth 2
On 12/2/2011 12:02 AM, Lee Berman wrote:
"Why, Father Inire...Who do you suppose? Senile. That's what they say.
Been vizier to I don't know how many autarchs since Ymar."
This is suspect, however, because Rudesind is the senile one; putting the word alone in a sentence even gives it extra emphasis.
Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com
Computational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana
<
http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >
↳ follows, by subject match Jeff Wilson
5 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 12/2/2011 12:02 AM, Lee Berman wrote:
"Why, Father Inire...Who do you suppose? Senile. That's what they say.
Been vizier to I don't know how many autarchs since Ymar."
Jeff Wilson: This is suspect, however, because Rudesind is the senile one;
putting the word alone in a sentence even gives it extra emphasis.
I agree. The whole conversation is fishy. Is Father Inire senile or is
it Rudesind who just forgot his lines? Let's remember that Rudesind is small, old and bent and looks like a monkey.
In this conversation, Rudesind is revealed to have been an artist. He was also the subject of a painting by Fechin. But there is a clue that painting may have been a self-portrait.
Severian meets the Autarch after this conversation, and is then guided to the thiasus by a small, hooded, cloaked person. Perhaps Rudesind put on a hooded cloak?
2 quoted lines
Gerry Quinn: The Cumaean does a little necromancy, but the artificial beautification
was the work of the Hierodules? pal Talos.
Merryn twice makes claims that The Cumaean is superior to Dr. Talos, both as a physician and a beautificator. Merryn herself appears to be a subject of The Cumaean's work as she appears to be the same age as she was when Severian saw her some 15 years previously. At that time, when Severian was a kid, Merryn's face was:
"at once suggestive of beauty and disease. The witch to whom it beloned seemed old to me and must actually have been about twenty or a little less..."She was not tall and she carried herself in the bent-backed posture of extreme age. Her face was so lovely and bloodless that it might have been a mask carved in ivory by some master sculptor".
Severian's connection to The Cumaean during the seance seems to give him the gift of true sight. He sees The Cumaean in her snake-like form, "one of those who ride the night air who sometimes choose to borrow a human seeming".
He sees Merryn and observes, "Now that intelligence no longer animated that ivory mask I saw that it was no more than parchment over bone".
Severian had it backwards in their first meeting, Merryn is really old but has been made to appear young. This jibes with The Cumaean's decribed role as a beautifier and her detailed knowledge of those arts including how Jolenta had been beautified.
FWIW, I think Merryn's age, name and lack of height disqualify her as a candidate for being Severian's twin. I think Jolenta's height, name and the incest factor make her a better candidate. Was she a witch before waitress?
Gerry Quinn02 Dec 2011, 15:44
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
From: Lee Berman
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Gerry Quinn: Ah, I hadn’t realised that. I thought it was only known that he had been around a while, and served the Old Autarch. Where does it say he served all the Autarchs?
The statement about Father Inire's term comes from Rudesind in the meeting at the House Absolute. Rudesind forgets the lines he was supposed to say, and Severian asks him who had coached him. Rudesind says: "Why, Father Inire...Who do you suppose? Senile. That's what they say. Been vizier to I don't know how many autarchs since Ymar."
Fair enough — I had missed that. Jeff makes a reasonable point about Rudesind (easy to imagine the old guy exaggerating Inire’s lifespan) but I think it’s probably correct. It is not unlike Wolfe to say the true statement straight out in a way that invites the reader to disbelieve it if he wishes. In any case, it’s clear that there’s no problem with a theory that makes Inire very ancient, even if “young Inire” theories can find solace in Rudesind’s age.
1 quoted line
Without that bit of information I can see why it would be difficult to consider Father Inire stretching back to Typhon's time or what his role might have been during Typhon's rule. Thoughts about sorcerers and mandragoras also figure into that particular equation.
Well, we are told he was vizier to Ymar, who apparently became Autarch after Typhon had himself mummified, and given that a few decades won’t have meant much to a guy that old, we can assume he was around during Typhon’s reign. However, the most obvious hypothesis in this regard was that if he was on Urth, he was of the party involved in putting a black hole in the Sun, an action of which Typhon would have disapproved.
We know Ymar went to Yesod; the most obvious hypothesis is that Inire helped him, and when he failed, he stayed on Urth helping Ymar’s successors, until such time as the New Sun would eventually come.
Given that he is a cousin of the Hierodules, why would he be even on Urth unless he came to punish Typhon, or to set up the new order afterwards? Given Typhon’s nature, we cannot reasonably suspect that Inire manipulated him into whatever actions resulted in the black hole. So a theory placing Inire on Urth during Typhon’s time seemingly must assume that he was there for his own reasons, whether as hedge sorceror, member of Typhon’s court, or whatever. If so, he can hardly have been there for the purpose of catching the New Sun.
If all he wanted was a long cushy life as vizier to the Autarchs, surely he would have done his best to prevent Severian bringing the New Sun. Conversely, if he wanted the New Sun, why wait as vizier for centuries or more?
It’s possible to invent all sorts of theories, and anything inexplicable can always be put down to mysterious time travel stuff. But really, why not make our judgements based on what he does, which is help and protect the Autarchs, one of whom will bring the New Sun? If he was left there by the Hierodules for exactly that purpose, both his longevity and his presence in Ymar’s court are explained.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn02 Dec 2011, 16:06
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
From: Lee Berman
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Gerry Quinn: The Cumaean does a little necromancy, but the artificial beautification was the work of the Hierodules? pal Talos.
Merryn twice makes claims that The Cumaean is superior to Dr. Talos, both as a physician and a beautificator.
And we have no reason to doubt it. But of beautification or the like, she says: “it is not a task of the kind the Cumaean undertakes, save in great need”.
3 quoted lines
Merryn herself appears to be a subject of The Cumaean's
work as she appears to be the same age as she was when Severian saw her some 15 years previously. At that time, when Severian was a kid, Merryn's face was:
"at once suggestive of beauty and disease. The witch to whom it beloned seemed old to me and must actually have been about twenty or a little less..."She was not tall and she carried herself in the bent-backed posture of extreme age. Her face was so lovely and bloodless that it might have been a mask carved in ivory by some master sculptor".
It is certainly plausible that Merryn is the same witch Severian met when younger, in which case she is not his sister. But she lacks the wires etc. Severian sees in Jolenta. I don’t really see her as being artificially beautified by the Cumaean, but I think it is possible that her life was artificially extended. However, the contrast between her and Jolenta is great. You are suggesting that artificial beautification is evil [if so, then every woman is evil], but even if Merryn has been artificially beautified, one actually sees a contrast between good and evil uses of such technology. We have no reason to believe the Cumaean would do what Talos did.
1 quoted line
Severian had it backwards in their first meeting, Merryn is really old but has been made to appear young. This jibes with The Cumaean's decribed role as a beautifier and her detailed knowledge of those arts including how Jolenta had been beautified.
She has a detailed knowledge of just about everything.
1 quoted line
FWIW, I think Merryn's age, name and lack of height disqualify her as a candidate for being Severian's twin. I think Jolenta's height, name and the incest factor make her a better candidate. Was she a witch before waitress?
If she’s old, she can’t be Severian’s twin, certainly. Maybe she isn’t really old and her witchy experiments/knowledge age her. Then she would look similar to the Cumaean’s previous acolyte whom Severian met.
I don’t think there’s any sensible reason to think Jolenta is Severian’s sister. We don’t know her name, and your “incest factor” is meaningless. Severian sleeps with countless women of wildly differering backgrounbd and descriptions, so his sleeping with a woman cannot be an indicator of a genetic relationship (why would it be anyway?) I can’t remember her height but it hardly means much.
- Gerry Quinn
entonio at gmail.com02 Dec 2011, 17:04
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
No dia 2011/12/02, ?s 16:06, "Gerry Quinn" <gerry at bindweed.com> escreveu:
2 quoted lines
I don’t think there’s any sensible reason to think Jolenta is
Severian’s sister.
If we are to make any sense of it, then, at first sight, Severian's sister, if there is one, should be about his age. That limits the options considerably.
Jerry Friedman02 Dec 2011, 17:05
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
2 quoted lines
From: Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com>
From: Lee Berman
...
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
FWIW, I think Merryn's age, name and lack of height disqualify her as a candidate for being Severian's twin. I think Jolenta's height, name and the incest factor make her a better candidate. Was she a witch before waitress??????
If she’s old, she can’t be Severian’s twin, certainly.
There's always time travel. Is it odd that Severian doesn't consider the possibility?
By the way, is there any reason to connect the speculation that there's only one Ship with Severian's speculation that there are only two witches?
3 quoted lines
Maybe she isn’t really old and her witchy experiments/knowledge age her. Then she would look similar to the Cumaean’s previous acolyte whom Severian met.
I don’t think there’s any sensible reason to think Jolenta is Severian’s sister. We don’t know her name,
Let me see if I have this right. For some readers, our not knowing her original name would suggest that she's Severian's sister, because if we knew it, that would give the game away. Can anyone confirm this?
1 quoted line
and your “incest factor” is meaningless.
I'm inclined to agree there.
1 quoted line
Severian sleeps with countless women of wildly differering backgrounbd and descriptions, so his sleeping with a woman cannot be an indicator of a genetic relationship (why would it be anyway?)
Can we count them? Thecla, her khaibit, Dorcas, Jolenta, Daria, Pia, Valeria, and whatever women and others I've forgotten about in UotNS. Who am I missing?
1 quoted line
I can’t remember her height but it hardly means much.
Jerry Friedman
David Stockhoff02 Dec 2011, 18:39
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
18 quoted lines
On 12/2/2011 8:15 AM, Lee Berman wrote:
On 12/2/2011 12:02 AM, Lee Berman wrote:
Gerry Quinn: The Cumaean does a little necromancy, but the artificial beautification was the work of the Hierodules? pal Talos.
Merryn twice makes claims that The Cumaean is superior to Dr. Talos, both as a physician and a beautificator. Merryn herself appears to be a subject of The Cumaean's work as she appears to be the same age as she was when Severian saw her some 15 years
previously. At that time, when Severian was a kid, Merryn's face was:
"at once suggestive of beauty and disease. The witch to whom it beloned seemed old to me and must actually have been about twenty or a little less..." She was not tall and she carried herself in the bent-backed posture of extreme age. Her face was so lovely and bloodless that it might have been a mask carved in ivory by some master sculptor".
Severian's connection to The Cumaean during the seance seems to give him the gift of true sight. He sees The Cumaean in her snake-like form, "one of those who ride the night air who sometimes choose to borrow a human seeming".
He sees Merryn and observes, "Now that intelligence no longer animated that ivory mask I saw that it was no more than parchment over bone".
Severian had it backwards in their first meeting, Merryn is really old but has been made to appear young. This jibes with The Cumaean's decribed role as a beautifier and her detailed knowledge of those arts including how Jolenta had been beautified.
FWIW, I think Merryn's age, name and lack of height disqualify her as a candidate for being Severian's twin. I think Jolenta's height, name and the incest factor make her a better candidate. Was she a witch before waitress?
With all that is going on in the rooftop scene, it seems a little narrow to focus on "Cumaean as beautician." Or even as a physician:
"You do not need a physician now," Merryn said. "Someone better is here."
Merryn doesn't say "a better one is here." She says "someone better [than a physician] is here. " Therefore, the Cumaean is not a physician. After all, she doesn't have anything but wine to give Jolenta.
She seems to have powers over time. If she always sees the way Severian sees during the seance, as from a perspective longer than a single moment, then of course she can see Jolenta's bands and wires like he can. She doesn't seem to care much about appearances, and given the dismissive way she talks of Merryn, she doesn't really sound like a witch who would say, "Oh my, you'll never catch a man with that face, dearie. Come here and let me fix you up."
As for the evidence that she is a beautician ... is it possible that you have been deceived by a metaphor? "Parchment over bone" means either that Merryn wears a mask, which Sev can now see (it is not "ivory" as it appears, i.e., firm, smooth white carved "skin," but a thin skin mask), or that she is simply very old (no mask at all, but thin skin over cheekbones without flesh, as the aged can have)---hard to say for sure. Maybe she is a kind of marionette, who knows.
Either way, is it not likely that Merryn is ravaged by time? And is it not just a small step from there to consider that maybe she has seen more years than those that have passed between now and last Severian saw her? And is she not bent over, thus actually making her taller than she looks? Sev says "she was not tall" and "she was bent over" in the same breath. I defer to his ability to size up a client, but that seems odd.
Without judging whether Merryn is Severa or not, Merryn strikes me as being the closest. Only three rules need to be true to make her a candidate: (1) all half-exultant women are tall, but not as tall as exultants or male half-exultants (2) all twin sisters of torturers are witches (3) all witches are ravaged by time. (1 and 3 would effectively cancel under casual observation.) Is there not a hypothesis floating around that the Witches' Keep is a "chronostructure"?
What is it about the name Jolenta (violet) that disqualifies her from being Severa?
Larry Miller02 Dec 2011, 18:40
↳ in reply to Jerry Friedman
Im gonna have to agree with Lee. Id say that Jolenta a better candidate for Severa than any other female character in the book. Yes the fact that we never know her real name is a clue that Wolfe is hiding something. Every other significant character is named. I cant recall the injury but I know there is a point where Jolenta is unable to walk and has to be carried by Severian echoing Severians later lameness. I think its also important that Jolenta along with Dorcas acts in the play (where Severians mother is a character no doubt). Yeah the incest thing may be irrelevant but take into account that Wolfe hints that Jolenta and Dorcas may have also had a sexual relationship. Dorcas sleeping with both her grandchildren is a kind of symmetry found elsewhere in the book.
17 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 12/2/11, Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com> wrote: From: Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> From: Lee Berman ...
FWIW, I think Merryn's age, name and lack of height disqualify her as a candidate for being Severian's twin. I think Jolenta's height, name and the incest factor make her a better candidate. Was she a witch before waitress?
If she’s old, she can’t be Severian’s twin, certainly.
There's always time travel. Is it odd that Severian doesn't consider the possibility?
By the way, is there any reason to connect the speculation that there's only one Ship with Severian's speculation that there are only two witches?
Maybe she isn’t really old and her witchy experiments/knowledge age her. Then she would look similar to the Cumaean’s previous acolyte whom Severian met.
I don’t think there’s any sensible reason to think Jolenta is Severian’s sister. We don’t know her name,
Let me see if I have this right. For some readers, our not knowing her original name would suggest that she's Severian's sister, because if we knew it, that would give the game away. Can anyone confirm this?
and your “incest factor” is meaningless.
I'm inclined to agree there.
Severian sleeps with countless women of wildly differering backgrounbd and descriptions, so his sleeping with a woman cannot be an indicator of a genetic relationship (why would it be anyway?)
Can we count them? Thecla, her khaibit, Dorcas, Jolenta, Daria, Pia, Valeria, and whatever women and others I've forgotten about in UotNS. Who am I missing?
I can’t remember her height but it hardly means much.
Jerry Friedman
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
4 quoted lines
David Stockhoff wrote:
"You do not need a physician now," Merryn said. "Someone better is here."
Merryn doesn't say "a better one is here." She says "someone better [than a physician] is here. " Therefore, the Cumaean is not a physician.
Ummmm.
Are you sure that Merryn is referring to the Cumaean? Or is she (perhaps without realizing it) referring to Severian?
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
David Stockhoff02 Dec 2011, 19:06
↳ in reply to Jerry Friedman
10 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 12/2/2011 12:05 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
From: Gerry Quinn<gerry at bindweed.com>
From: Lee Berman
...
FWIW, I think Merryn's age, name and lack of height disqualify her as a candidate for being Severian's twin. I think Jolenta's height, name and the incest factor make her a better candidate. Was she a witch before waitress?
If she’s old, she can’t be Severian’s twin, certainly.
There's always time travel. Is it odd that Severian doesn't consider the possibility?
By the way, is there any reason to connect the speculation that there's only one Ship with Severian's speculation that there are only two witches?
Provisionally, I consider such thoughts to be largely philosophical and intended to disguise hints about Severian himself as well as the nature of time and the universe and human evolution. They suggest that archetypes are real---and one could write a book about that topic in Wolfe alone.
Somehow I have a persistent image of a single needle stitching back and forth through time---is that Severian's or my own? At any rate, Master Ash suggests time is a fabric or a sea. The Conciliator seems to behave as a darning needle stitching the fabric of time. Whether purely cyclical or slowly getting somewhere it is a huge theme; one would expect hints such as this dropped throughout. And they are.
5 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Maybe she isn’t really old and her witchy experiments/knowledge age her. Then she would look similar to the Cumaean’s previous acolyte whom Severian met.
I don’t think there’s any sensible reason to think Jolenta is Severian’s sister. We don’t know her name,
Let me see if I have this right. For some readers, our not knowing her original name would suggest that she's Severian's sister, because if we knew it, that would give the game away. Can anyone confirm this?
If that were true, the only possible name would be Severa. No other name comes close to the absolute certainty that Severa is sister of Severian. All other feminine names could serve to hide that name. So I don't see how characters' names can mean a lot one way or another in proving Severa exists.
3 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
and your “incest factor” is meaningless.
I'm inclined to agree there.
I think incest is meaningful but that doesn't mean it must occur, much less always. For all we know, Severa is indeed Severian's real twin sister and according to alchemy, their union would repair the divide between the male and female godhead, or whatever it's supposed to have done for the Egyptians.
So what? That would make Apheta a prime candidate, but that turns the theory on its head. What would happen if Severa and Severian did NOT meet and mate? Anything?
If Briah is a gnostic/fallen universe where beings enact meaningless rituals in hopes of connection with the Divine, but where a Christ figure achieves an apotheosis of sorts and a partial reconciliation of Increate and man by doing all sorts of other things, would we really expect all those rituals to come about? Wouldn't they be a different path from the one he took?
David Stockhoff02 Dec 2011, 19:31
↳ in reply to Larry Miller
That's an interesting thought.
3 quoted lines
On 12/2/2011 1:40 PM, Larry Miller wrote:
Dorcas sleeping with both her grandchildren is a kind
of symmetry found elsewhere in the book.
↳ in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
8 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 12/2/2011 1:48 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
David Stockhoff wrote:
"You do not need a physician now," Merryn said. "Someone better is here."
Merryn doesn't say "a better one is here." She says "someone better [than a physician] is here. " Therefore, the Cumaean is not a physician.
Ummmm.
Are you sure that Merryn is referring to the Cumaean? Or is she (perhaps without realizing it) referring to Severian?
Me? No, not at all. The Cumaean does nothing visible for Jolenta but give her wine. Neither does Severian, but that is no surprise.
Lee Berman02 Dec 2011, 20:04
↳ follows, by subject match David Stockhoff
3 quoted lines
larry miller: Id say that Jolenta is a better candidate for Severa
than any other female character in the book. Yes the fact that we
never know her real name is a clue that Wolfe is hiding something.
Agreed. If there was a witch character of the right age named Severa, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Even if we ignore the theme of incest (which we should not do, imho), are there any other characters who are Severian's age and who might be named Severa and who might have been raised with witches? I think only (stage name) Jolenta fits that bill.
2 quoted lines
David Stockhoff: I think incest is meaningful but that doesn't mean it
must occur, much less always.
I agree.
Severian's travels resemble those of a clueless Greek hero like Oedipus, stumbling into situations of which he doesn't understand the significance. Oedipus had sex with his mother, an act that defined him. If he had sex with other women too, that does not make him any less of a motherf..well, you know. A pattern of incest among Severian's mates does not require that all his mates were family members.
1 quoted line
....That would make Apheta a prime candidate, but that turns the theory on its head.
I'll disagree. Severian's sex with Apheta might be a positive clue. Also
the fact that Apheta did not enjoy the sex (kinda like siblings Typhon and Echidna? Now there was a crappy marriage for sure). Apheta does not seem to have been born on Urth with Severian and she doesn't seem to have been a witch nor even had a name before she met Severian. Moreover, the concept of a missing twin to Severian named Severa was developed in the first four books, ostensibly a fait accompli. It would have been quite unfair of Wolfe to dangle Severa at us then only show her in an unplanned additional volume.
1 quoted line
If Briah is a gnostic/fallen universe where beings enact meaningless rituals in hopes of connection with the Divine......
I don't see it quite this way. Briah is a gnostic universe but retarded not fallen. Actually, I think Briah is rising, but just a lot more slowly than our unverse. We got our Flood at the dawn of civilization and Christ at 1 A.D. Briah doesn't get its Flood until the equivalent of many thousands of years into our future. And Briah has glimmers but has not yet achieved a Christ when the story ends. Still spiritually polytheistic and nature-god oriented.
David Stockhoff02 Dec 2011, 20:33
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
It occurred to me that the Witches' patron saint might shed light on them. It's a stretch, because such connections usually serve to confirm a theory rather than suggest a new one, but here goes (from the Wiki and Catholic Saints Index).
(1) Mag/Maggie/Margaret is one of the Three Holy Maids who are the most important of the 14 Holy Helpers, all virgin martyrs. All three appear in BNS: Barbara, who lived in a tower, is the patroness of matrosses/artillerymen, Mag is the saint of the witches, and we know about Katherine. All three are spurious saints with fantastic backstories. All were beheaded. I'm pretty sure BNS began as an abandoned short story about Katherine (as detailed elsewhere by others), so it makes sense that Wolfe put these three at the center of BNS.
Other important beheaded virgin martyrs are Valeria of Limoges (beheaded), Agnes (beheaded), and Lucy (blinded before executed). All their stories have fantastic elements.
/Sankt Margaretha mit dem Wurm,/
/Sankt Barbara mit dem Turm,/
/Sankt Catharina mit dem Radl,/
/das sind die heiligen drei Madl./^[2] <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Holy_Helpers#cite_note-1>
/Saint Margaret with the dragon
<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_dragon>/
/Saint Barbara with the tower/
/Saint Catherine with the wheel/
/those are the three holy maids.
/
(2) Saint Margaret is the patron of women in childbirth because she prayed at her death that women in childbirth would, upon calling on her, be safely delivered of the child as she had been delivered from the belly of the dragon.
[The witches get all girls who are delivered by women to be tortured.]
(3) Margaret was born in Antioch, the daughter of a pagan priest named Aedesius. Antioch was a Roman province under the rule of the Roman Emperor Diocletian (r.284-305). Emperor Diocletian mounted some of the fiercest persecutions of the early Church especially in the East of the Empire. Margaret converted to the Christian faith and became a devout Christian and had taken vows of chastity. The Governor of Antioch had Margaret arrested and she was thrown into a dungeon. According to legend whilst she was in the dungeon, the devil came and tempted her in the form of a dragon, but as she made the sign of the Cross the dragon at first fled. He then returned and swallowed her up but she was able to burst out. When Margaret was led out to be beheaded, she thanked God that the end of her travail had come, and prayed that in memory of her miraculous deliverance out of the womb of the dragon, women in labour who invoked her might find help through her sufferings.
(4) Saint Margaret is represented in Christian art with a dragon at her feet, with the end of a cross thrust between his teeth. The garland of pearls generally worn round her neck is in allusion to her name, which among Oriental nations signifies a pearl.
[The Cumaean, who appears as a snake to Severian, swallows a rod that appears to extend into other dimensions or into time. She is thus linked with Satan, but I don't argue that this should be taken literally.]
(5) Her historical existence has been questioned; she was declared apocryphal by Pope Gelasius I in 494, but devotion to her revived in the West with the Crusades. ....
(6) The Eastern Orthodox Church knows Margaret as Saint Marina, and celebrates her feast day on July 17. She has been identified with Saint Pelagia — "Marina" being the Latin equivalent of the Greek name "Pelagia" — who, according to a legend, was also called Margarita. We possess no historical documents on St Margaret as distinct from St Pelagia. The Greek Marina came from Antioch, Pisidia (as opposed to Antioch of Syria), but this distinction was lost in the West.
[Any associations with the sea are worth noting....]
(7) An attempt has been made, but without success, to prove that the
group of legends with which that of Saint Margaret is connected is
derived from a transformation of the pagan divinity Aphrodite into a Christian saint. The problem of her identity is a purely literary question.
[Any associations with classical gods are worth noting as well.]
Has anyone considered Valeria as a candidate to be the beautiful maid who is beheaded annually at the Feast of St Katherine? This would require that Severian suppress any recognition of her, but then we already know he suppressed any conscious desire to see her again, let alone marry her, through four books.
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
5 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 12/2/2011 3:04 PM, Lee Berman wrote:
David Stockhoff: I think incest is meaningful but that doesn't mean it must occur, much less always.
I agree.
Severian's travels resemble those of a clueless Greek hero like Oedipus, stumbling into situations of which he doesn't understand the significance. Oedipus had sex with his mother, an act that defined him. If he had sex with other women too, that does not make him any less of a motherf..well, you know. A pattern of incest among Severian's mates does not require that all his mates were family members.
And Oedipus wasn't the only Greek hero who bumbled around through his career. Heracles was not much better.
6 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
....That would make Apheta a prime candidate, but that turns the theory on its head.
I'll disagree. Severian's sex with Apheta might be a positive clue. Also
the fact that Apheta did not enjoy the sex (kinda like siblings Typhon and
Echidna? Now there was a crappy marriage for sure).
Agreed. Their mating seems quite alchemical in its result, just not incestuous in form. Unless she looked like Severa, which would then be false alchemy. Hidden false alchemy!
1 quoted line
Apheta does not seem to have been born on Urth with Severian and she doesn't seem to have been a witch nor even had a name before she met Severian. Moreover, the concept of a missing twin to Severian named Severa was developed in the first four books, ostensibly a fait accompli. It would have been quite unfair of Wolfe to dangle Severa at us then only show her in an unplanned additional volume.
That's what I meant by "turns on its head." It doesn't work for Apheta to be Severa. However, if there is a Severa and Sev is not to mate with her, it might make sense that he would engage in ritual holy mating with someone else instead of Severa, a mating that would produce a real effect vs a presumably false effect.
Note: This line of thought, stretched as it is, pretty much requires Severa to be Merryn (unmated) and not Jolenta (mated).
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
If Briah is a gnostic/fallen universe where beings enact meaningless rituals in hopes of connection with the Divine......
I don't see it quite this way. Briah is a gnostic universe but retarded not fallen. Actually, I think Briah is rising, but just a lot more slowly than our unverse. We got our Flood at the dawn of civilization and Christ at 1 A.D. Briah doesn't get its Flood until the equivalent of many thousands of years into our future. And Briah has glimmers but has not yet achieved a Christ when the story ends. Still spiritually polytheistic and nature-god oriented.
That's pretty much what I meant. Unenlightened, groping at shadows.
Gerry Quinn02 Dec 2011, 20:59
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
From: Lee Berman
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
larry miller: Id say that Jolenta is a better candidate for Severa than any other female character in the book. Yes the fact that we never know her real name is a clue that Wolfe is hiding something.
Agreed. If there was a witch character of the right age named Severa, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Even if we ignore the theme of incest (which we should not do, imho), are there any other characters who are Severian's age and who might be named Severa and who might have been raised with witches? I think only (stage name) Jolenta fits that bill.
Merryn might be Severian’s age for all we know. We know there is something odd about her age; she looks both old and young, and one or other appearance must be false. It might be the old appearance as easily as the young. If Severian has a sister who is a character, I am pretty sure it is Merryn.
Jolenta is a waitress not a witch, and there’s no indication that she was ever otherwise. Come to think of it, if she had been a witch she would surely have been much more wary of Talos’s blandishments. And I can think of no thematic reason why someone like Jolenta should be Severian’s sister.
1 quoted line
Severian's travels resemble those of a clueless Greek hero like Oedipus, stumbling into situations of which he doesn't understand the significance. Oedipus had sex with his mother, an act that defined him. If he had sex with other women too, that does not make him any less of a motherf..well, you know. A pattern of incest among Severian's mates does not require that all his mates were family members.
It requires that more than one of them was. If you can demonstrate that someone other than Jolenta or Dorcas is closely related to Severian, then you can argue that a pattern exists and Jolenta might follow it. But if you just have Jolenta and Dorcas, you are assuming what you want to prove.
If we just have Dorcas (the subject of a weird age distortion amounting to time travel and therefore not really within the bounds of “normal” incestuous relationships anyway) there’s no pattern involved.
And as we’ve seen, it’s very obvious that most of Severian’s lovers cannot be close relations. And also that sex with Dorcas isn’t in any way a defining characteristic of Severian’s story, as was the case with that of Oedipus .
- Gerry Quinn
David Stockhoff02 Dec 2011, 21:59
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
Thinking about how "fair" Wolfe was in writing UNS to explain all the things readers missed in BNS, something occurred to me regarding Apheta, who seems impossible to predict:
We already had a clear clue that Sev was to meet Apheta and mate with her and produce the New Sun---that is, that the New Sun would be procreated, not created. I doubt anyone saw it. That clue is that the Old Autarch failed and was unmanned.
Why is this a clue to a strange and climactic scene of UNS? Because the unmanning was not a random punishment. There were surely practical reasons for it, but I think Wolfean logic demanded it. It's ridiculously simple. Positive is balanced with negative, presence with absence. Either you pass and your genitals contribute to a mythic regeneration or you fail and they no longer exist.
The genitals were the key. We knew the New Sun would result. So (action A) removal of genitals pointed to the presence of (action B) procreation. Had the eyes or head been removed, that would have pointed to creation of the New Sun by means involving the eyes or head.
I don't know if it's possible to apply this principle elsewhere; it needs other relevant knowledge to provide context. Does the apparent absence of Severa (her identity not revealed in UNS and therefore either not important or nonexistent), point to another "obvious" presence somewhere else? Perhaps a doubled or multiplied Severian?
Jeff Wilson02 Dec 2011, 22:10
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
2 quoted lines
On Fri, December 2, 2011 15:59, David Stockhoff wrote:
Why is this a clue to a strange and climactic scene of UNS? Because the unmanning was not a random punishment. There were surely practical reasons for it, but I think Wolfean logic demanded it. It's ridiculously simple. Positive is balanced with negative, presence with absence. Either you pass and your genitals contribute to a mythic regeneration or you fail and they no longer exist.
This seems culturally relative, and not particularly of a BotNS-wide culture; in Norse myth, which is very much a part of the mix, missing body parts indicate the opposite outcome of a fruitful sacrifice: Heads for wisdom, eyes for knowledge, hands for justice.
David Stockhoff02 Dec 2011, 22:31
↳ in reply to Jeff Wilson
4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 12/2/2011 5:10 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:
On Fri, December 2, 2011 15:59, David Stockhoff wrote:
Why is this a clue to a strange and climactic scene of UNS? Because the unmanning was not a random punishment. There were surely practical reasons for it, but I think Wolfean logic demanded it. It's ridiculously simple. Positive is balanced with negative, presence with absence. Either you pass and your genitals contribute to a mythic regeneration or you fail and they no longer exist.
This seems culturally relative, and not particularly of a BotNS-wide culture; in Norse myth, which is very much a part of the mix, missing body parts indicate the opposite outcome of a fruitful sacrifice: Heads for wisdom, eyes for knowledge, hands for justice.
Ah, so there is precedent for it. Yes, it seems to have a mythical force, so I'm not surprised.
But my point has nothing to do with any BNS culture and everything to do with the kind of logical path Wolfe expects us to know how to follow. If there are such rules in myth, then so much the better.
Jeff Wilson03 Dec 2011, 01:54
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
8 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 12/2/2011 7:15 AM, Lee Berman wrote:
Jeff Wilson: This is suspect, however, because Rudesind is the senile one;
putting the word alone in a sentence even gives it extra emphasis.
I agree. The whole conversation is fishy. Is Father Inire senile or is
it Rudesind who just forgot his lines? Let's remember that Rudesind is small,
old and bent and looks like a monkey.
For the 99th time, Rudesind is TALL. He makes a ladder look like stool when Sev comes across him.
Saying he is old and bent and looks like a monkey is double counting;
being old makes him bent into a simian posture instead of properly upright.
But there may be a connection yet: what process in the books allows a person to live out their normal life span and die, yet still be farting around years later doing the necessary, that would benefit from the involvement of a painter?
Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com
Computational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana
<
http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
8 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 12/2/2011 4:31 PM, David Stockhoff wrote:
On 12/2/2011 5:10 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:
On Fri, December 2, 2011 15:59, David Stockhoff wrote:
Why is this a clue to a strange and climactic scene of UNS? Because the unmanning was not a random punishment. There were surely practical reasons for it, but I think Wolfean logic demanded it. It's ridiculously simple. Positive is balanced with negative, presence with absence. Either you pass and your genitals contribute to a mythic regeneration or you fail and they no longer exist.
This seems culturally relative, and not particularly of a BotNS-wide culture; in Norse myth, which is very much a part of the mix, missing body parts indicate the opposite outcome of a fruitful sacrifice: Heads for wisdom, eyes for knowledge, hands for justice.
Ah, so there is precedent for it. Yes, it seems to have a mythical force, so I'm not surprised.
But my point has nothing to do with any BNS culture and everything to do with the kind of logical path Wolfe expects us to know how to follow. If there are such rules in myth, then so much the better.
By opposite outcome, I mean the opposite of what you propose. Mimir
loses his head, but the head endures and becomes guardian of the well.
Odin is missing an eye because he successfully traded it for drinking at the well. Tyr loses his hand when he successfully tricks Fenris into captivity. Loki fails to win his challenge but keeps his head. Sif falls for Loki's tricks or just falls for Loki romantically but ends with more exotic and alluring hair than before instead of losing her charms for good.
Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com
Computational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana
<
http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >
↳ in reply to Jeff Wilson
10 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
On 12/2/2011 9:13 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:
On 12/2/2011 4:31 PM, David Stockhoff wrote:
On 12/2/2011 5:10 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:
On Fri, December 2, 2011 15:59, David Stockhoff wrote:
Why is this a clue to a strange and climactic scene of UNS? Because the unmanning was not a random punishment. There were surely practical reasons for it, but I think Wolfean logic demanded it. It's ridiculously simple. Positive is balanced with negative, presence with absence. Either you pass and your genitals contribute to a mythic regeneration or you fail and they no longer exist.
This seems culturally relative, and not particularly of a BotNS-wide culture; in Norse myth, which is very much a part of the mix, missing body parts indicate the opposite outcome of a fruitful sacrifice: Heads for wisdom, eyes for knowledge, hands for justice.
Ah, so there is precedent for it. Yes, it seems to have a mythical force, so I'm not surprised.
But my point has nothing to do with any BNS culture and everything to do with the kind of logical path Wolfe expects us to know how to follow. If there are such rules in myth, then so much the better.
By opposite outcome, I mean the opposite of what you propose. Mimir loses his head, but the head endures and becomes guardian of the well. Odin is missing an eye because he successfully traded it for drinking at the well. Tyr loses his hand when he successfully tricks Fenris into captivity. Loki fails to win his challenge but keeps his head. Sif falls for Loki's tricks or just falls for Loki romantically but ends with more exotic and alluring hair than before instead of losing her charms for good.
I see. That is indeed the opposite of losing your manhood in failing to procreate.
Lee Berman03 Dec 2011, 14:00
↳ follows, by subject match Jeff Wilson
2 quoted lines
David Stockhoff: if there is a Severa and Sev is not to mate
with her, it might make sense that he would engage in ritual holy mating with someone else instead of Severa
My own thought is that if Wolfe is playing ironic Oedipal games, Severian might have sex with every female relative he encounters except his mother. Could the Holy Katharine ritual be your ritual holy mating, along the lines of the animal guys marrying a bear sow?
Then there is Agia. There are a couple converging lines of evidence that she is Severian's cousin. There is intense mutual desire there but it is never consummated.
1 quoted line
Gerry Quinn: Jolenta is a waitress not a witch.
Jolenta is an actress. We don't know her name when she was a waitress. The thin girl with straggling hair had only been a waitress for about a month and she recognizes Severian as a carnifex. Is there any evidence she had not previously been a witch but left her guild in symmetry with Severian's story? If not she is a viable candidate for Severa.
2 quoted lines
Jeff Wilson: For the 99th time, Rudesind is TALL. He makes a ladder look
like stool when Sev comes across him.
Heh. I missed those 99 times, Jeff. And I am very interested in the character
of Rudesind (for obvious reasons).
The first time Severian meets Rudesind, he is on a ladder (and scrabbles down).
His ladder is mentioned twice in their third meeting.
The second time Severian meets him, from a distance he:
3 quoted lines
"saw someone ahead of me sitting (as I first thought) upon a high stool. As I
drew nearer, I found that what I had taken to be a stool was a stepladder, and
that the old man perched on it was cleaning one of the pictures."
A stepladder, this time. Is Rudesind standing or sitting? Perching could be either. It is most normal to stand on a ladder, though a stepladder does offer the option of sitting. I think standing is more normal in the course of doing work. So if, from a distance, Rudesind standing looks like a normal person sitting, it means he is very short. I understand Jeff's ladder/stool= tall conclusion. But I think short-man- standing-appears-as-normal-person-sitting to be a more direct interpretation.
2 quoted lines
Saying he is old and bent and looks like a monkey is double counting;
being old makes him bent into a simian posture instead of properly upright.
Being old is not the equivalent of being bent and monkey-like. Palaemon, Ultan and
Ash are good examples of the contrary. As a fellow curator, I could see why Rudesind
might be made to look tall like Ultan. But I don't think he is. Old, bent and
monkey-like are all Father Inire attributes. Rudesind being short also should not be
a surprise. If you don't think he actually IS Father Inire, he needn't be. But I think
there is a resemblance.
Moreover, Rudesind's nose almost touches his chin. Here are a couple images which I
think resemble what Wolfe was going for with that:
http://images.mudfooted.com/face-Proboscis-Monkey.jpg
http://www.lightwatervillage.co.uk/takefive/graphics/illusion5a.jpg
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
From: Lee Berman
1 quoted line
Then there is Agia. There are a couple converging lines of evidence that she is Severian's cousin.
What evidence?
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Gerry Quinn: Jolenta is a waitress not a witch.
Jolenta is an actress. We don't know her name when she was a waitress. The thin girl with straggling hair had only been a waitress for about a month and she recognizes Severian as a carnifex. Is there any evidence she had not previously been a witch but left her guild in symmetry with Severian's story? If not she is a viable candidate for Severa.
The waitress wasn’t an actress (two statements of hers indicate it) and there’s no indication that she hadn’t worked elsewhere as a waitress before her current employment. However, I think you have inadvertently hit on something that indicates she was never a witch.
Palaemon: ?Nowhere but in Nessus - nowhere but here in the Citadel - is there a chapter of our guild. Lesser places have no more than a carnifex.
Severian is still wearing what he wore as a journeyman of the Torturers Guild. A witch would recognise him as a torturer. Jolenta calls him a carnifex, the name used for an executioner/torturer everywhere else.
- Gerry Quinn
David Stockhoff03 Dec 2011, 16:14
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 12/3/2011 9:00 AM, Lee Berman wrote:
David Stockhoff: if there is a Severa and Sev is not to mate
with her, it might make sense that he would engage in ritual holy mating with someone else instead of Severa
My own thought is that if Wolfe is playing ironic Oedipal games, Severian might have sex with every female relative he encounters except his mother. Could the Holy Katharine ritual be your ritual holy mating, along the lines of the animal guys marrying a bear sow?
Symmetry and the centrality of procreation does suggest that there may be some related aspect to the Katherine ritual. But birth vs death seems more likely, doesn't it?
Birth = Mag and the witches, sex/marriage = man's animal nature and the beast handlers (I don't think their patron saint is mentioned, rather Mithraism is suggested), death = Katherine and the Seekers. These are the three Serious Events of human life. It seems like all Urth's core historic religious folklore is preserved in the Citadel.
Also, in the Celtic belief system (I hesitate to call it religion), the
head was the seat of the spirit. In some places, heads were apparently detached and kept for longer than the body, which was buried quickly; heads were buried weeks later, sometime with the body, sometimes higher than the body. So decapitation is a strong symbol of the separation of body and spirit/life and death and thus possibly salvation from materiality.
Beheading also seems to be a link with the Pelerines, since some but not all of their namesakes were beheaded, although that may only apply to those who leave the order, such as Catherine and Cyriaca (Mannea was beheaded, however). I don't recall whether they take vows of celibacy (like the virgin martrys) but it would make sense; they are a female counterpart to the Seekers, as are the witches.
7 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Then there is Agia. There are a couple converging lines of evidence that
she is Severian's cousin. There is intense mutual desire there but it is
never consummated.
Gerry Quinn: Jolenta is a waitress not a witch.
Jolenta is an actress. We don't know her name when she was a waitress. The thin girl with straggling hair had only been a waitress for about a month and she recognizes Severian as a carnifex. Is there any evidence she had not previously been a witch but left her guild in symmetry with Severian's story? If not she is a viable candidate for Severa.
I doubt witches leave the Tower more easily than the Torturers. But that is a solid point: anyone who recognizes a carnifex so far from the Citadel might have had some history near the Citadel, and we don't know what she used to be a month earlier. The soldiers thought Severian was in carnifex costume, as did Agia, but Jolenta said "One of you is a carnifex."
Any idea what her coloring was before Talos transformed her?
David Stockhoff03 Dec 2011, 16:25
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
5 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 12/3/2011 9:49 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
From: Lee Berman <mailto:severiansola at hotmail.com>
Gerry Quinn: Jolenta is a waitress not a witch.
Jolenta is an actress. We don't know her name when she was a waitress. The thin girl with straggling hair had only been a waitress for about a month and she recognizes Severian as a carnifex. Is there any evidence she had not previously been a witch but left her guild in symmetry with Severian's story? If not she is a viable candidate for Severa.
The waitress wasn’t an actress (two statements of hers indicate it) and there’s no indication that she hadn’t worked elsewhere as a waitress before her current employment. However, I think you have inadvertently hit on something that indicates she was never a witch. Palaemon: ?Nowhere but in Nessus - nowhere but here in the Citadel - is there a chapter of our guild. Lesser places have no more than a carnifex. Severian is still wearing what he wore as a journeyman of the Torturers Guild. A witch would recognise him as a torturer. Jolenta calls him a carnifex, the name used for an executioner/torturer everywhere else.
Good eye.
But a witch who recognizes a torturer outside the Citadel might not say so; if Jolenta is some kind of escaped (or even just a failed) witch, she may not want to reveal too much knowledge to strangers that she would then have to explain. Severian would certainly have noticed had she said "torturer" (or Seeker) vs "carnifex."
You'd think it would have come up later, however. Even tangentially or cryptically. I don't recall any odd conversations between them. Maybe she is just poor and comes from an older part of the city where the Citadel is not just a legend.
entonio at gmail.com03 Dec 2011, 20:33
↳ in reply to Gerry Quinn
No dia 2011/12/03, ?s 14:49, "Gerry Quinn" <gerry at bindweed.com> escreveu:
4 quoted lines
Palaemon: ?Nowhere but in Nessus - nowhere but here in the Citadel -
is there a chapter of our guild. Lesser places have no more than a carnifex.
Severian is still wearing what he wore as a journeyman of the Torturers Guild. A witch would recognise him as a torturer. Jolenta calls him a carnifex, the name used for an executioner/ torturer everywhere else.
If those are the only two instances of the word, I'd say it's pretty concluisive as to her not having been a witch - not that I see why she should have been one.
David Stockhoff03 Dec 2011, 20:59
↳ in reply to entonio at gmail.com
7 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 12/3/2011 3:33 PM, entonio at gmail.com wrote:
No dia 2011/12/03, ?s 14:49, "Gerry Quinn" <gerry at bindweed.com> escreveu:
Palaemon: ?Nowhere but in Nessus - nowhere but here in the Citadel
- is there a chapter of our guild. Lesser places have no more than a carnifex.
Severian is still wearing what he wore as a journeyman of the Torturers Guild. A witch would recognise him as a torturer. Jolenta calls him a carnifex, the name used for an executioner/torturer everywhere else.
If those are the only two instances of the word, I'd say it's pretty concluisive as to her not having been a witch - not that I see why she should have been one.
It occurs to me that if we can argue Jolenta is Severa because she was a witch, we are already accepting that Merryn is (the prime candidate for) Severa.
Why? Because both arguments rely on the assumption that Severa is a witch.
Jeff Wilson04 Dec 2011, 00:41
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
8 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
"saw someone ahead of me sitting (as I first thought) upon a high stool. As I
drew nearer, I found that what I had taken to be a stool was a stepladder, and
that the old man perched on it was cleaning one of the pictures."
A stepladder, this time. Is Rudesind standing or sitting? Perching could be either.
It is most normal to stand on a ladder, though a stepladder does offer the option
of sitting. I think standing is more normal in the course of doing work.
That's correct, but Sev affirmitively writes that he was sitting. the revision is in what he is sitting on, but not that he is sitting at all. Stepladders are mostly higher than high stools, so in order to maintain similar appearnces, the person on the stepladder needs to be taller than average in similar proportion.
If Rudesind is sitting on a stepladder smaller than a high stool, that indicates to me that he is trying to clean an area of canvas lower down than usual, and is doing so to avoid stooping. this also is sometihng that a taller person than average would be given to do since they have all the farther to stoop.
Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com
Computational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana
<
http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >
↳ in reply to David Stockhoff
No dia 2011/12/03, ?s 20:59, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> escreveu:
10 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 12/3/2011 3:33 PM, entonio at gmail.com wrote:
No dia 2011/12/03, ?s 14:49, "Gerry Quinn" <gerry at bindweed.com> es creveu:
Palaemon: ?Nowhere but in Nessus - nowhere but here in the Citad el - is there a chapter of our guild. Lesser places have no more
than a carnifex.
Severian is still wearing what he wore as a journeyman of the Torturers Guild. A witch would recognise him as a torturer. Jolenta calls him a carnifex, the name used for an executioner/ torturer everywhere else.
If those are the only two instances of the word, I'd say it's pretty concluisive as to her not having been a witch - not that I see why she should have been one.
It occurs to me that if we can argue Jolenta is Severa because she was a witch, we are already accepting that Merryn is (the prime candidate for) Severa.
Why? Because both arguments rely on the assumption that Severa is a witch.
Which would only be weighty if she had been born in her morher's captivity.
Lee Berman04 Dec 2011, 04:20
↳ follows, by subject match entonio at gmail.com
4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
"saw someone ahead of me sitting (as I first thought) upon a high stool. As I
drew nearer, I found that what I had taken to be a stool was a stepladder, and
that the old man perched on it was cleaning one of the pictures."
Jeff Wilson: That's correct, but Sev affirmitively writes that he was sitting.
I don't think he does. He says he "first thought" someone was sitting, implying this was later proved incorrect. So Rudesind was standing but from a distance his shortness made him look like he was sitting.
If he only meant to amend the stool to stepladder I think he would have written it:
"saw someone ahead of me sitting upon a high stool (as I first thought).
That's my reading. You might be right, Jeff. Perhaps Wolfe meant to describe Rudesind as being tall with that passage. Perhaps to match tall, old Ultan his fellow curator.
But since Rudesind:
"scrambled down from the ladder like an aged monkey, seeming all arms and legs and wrinkled neck; his hands were as long as my feet, the crooked fingers laced with blue veins"
he just doesn't seem much like Ultan. Moreover, Severian mentions Ultan's height several times. I would think he would mention Rudesind's tallness in a similar direct matter if it were so.
To me he seems a lot like Father Inire, who is short. And resemblence to Father Inire is NOT
something Wolfe will call attention to, even if it is obvious (as for Rudesind and Dorcas'
husband). Moreover, Rudesin's a gaze is like a turtle, his hands as long as feet and his nose almost
touching his chin. I could see such features used to describe an alien.
It would be nice if we had someone else's opinion of Rudesind but the two armigers don't mention the guy on the ladder in the first meeing. The old Autarch doesn't mention him. And they are alone together in their second two meetings.
Gerry Quinn04 Dec 2011, 14:25
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
From: Lee Berman
1 quoted line
To me he seems a lot like Father Inire, who is short. And resemblence to Father Inire is NOT something Wolfe will call attention to, even if it is obvious (as for Rudesind and Dorcas' husband).
The above is a circular argument. We have no reason to suppose ab initio that Rudesind and Dorcas’s husband resemble Father Inire, even if they are old and short like a million other human men of Nessus, and therefore no reason to suppose that Wolfe would avoid mentioning it.
In fact, the only time we see someone who clearly seems to be Father Inire in disguise, he is wearing a mask that entirely covers his head. The likely implication is that Inire is identifiable as a cacogen when his face is visible. Does the text suggest anywhere that Inire can convincingly pass for human when his face is not hidden? [He does communicate with Agia, as noted in his letter, but there he implies that enhanced interrogative techniques were used.]
- Gerry Quinn
Lee Berman04 Dec 2011, 18:11
↳ follows, by subject match Gerry Quinn
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
To me (Rudesind) seems a lot like Father Inire, who is short.
Gerry Quinn: The above is a circular argument.
There is nothing circular about it. It is a straight comparison. Both Rudesind and Father Inire are old, bent and monkey-like. I think it likely they are also both short. You see? No circle.
Neither is that an argument. I am stating my opinion. I guess you
are arguing that your opinion is better than mine. But it isn't a very strong argument given the source. Your objectivity is severely lacking. You really, really want to be right, even when such a thing is not achievable.
2 quoted lines
In fact, the only time we see someone who clearly seems to be Father Inire
in disguise, he is wearing a mask that entirely covers his head.
How do you manage to see clearly through a mask, Gerry? Or is it your opinion
you are stating, rather than making an argument?
3 quoted lines
The likely implication is that Inire is identifiable as a cacogen when his face
is visible. Does the text suggest anywhere that Inire can convincingly pass for
human when his face is not hidden?
Only if you recognize all the places that Father Inire passes for human, which you do not. Keep it simple, Gerry. You are comfortable with that and it gives you a sense of rightness which is very important to you. You already know the right answers so there is no reason to continue challenging yourself in this manner.
Jeff Wilson27 Dec 2011, 06:23
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
10 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 12/3/2011 10:20 PM, Lee Berman wrote:
"saw someone ahead of me sitting (as I first thought) upon a high stool. As I
drew nearer, I found that what I had taken to be a stool was a stepladder, and
that the old man perched on it was cleaning one of the pictures."
Jeff Wilson: That's correct, but Sev affirmitively writes that he was sitting.
I don't think he does. He says he "first thought" someone was sitting, implying this
was later proved incorrect. So Rudesind was standing but from a distance his shortness
made him look like he was sitting.
Perhaps. When diagramming the sentence, it is evident that the parentetical could modify either of the previous "sitting" or the subsequent "upon a high stool", and the following sentence makes it clear that the stool was the mistaken thought since it is a stepladder instead. This accounts for the "as I thought" conditional, ergo the "sitting" predicate stands unmodified. Rudesinde is sitting on a stepladder in the way that a person would be expected to sit on a high stool, and in so doing gives the impression that a stepladder is a high stool.
High stools typically raise the occupant's head to close to a standing height, making their seats about rump high. The smallest practical stepladder would be about two 8" steps tall, while they go on up indefinitely, but given that when Severian speaks...
2 quoted lines
"Excuse me," I said.
He turned and peered down at me in puzzlement. "Know your voice, don't I?"
Rudesind's head is still higher than Sev's head, so making the "stool" shorter makes his standing height taller still. Given that Sev's used to being taller than the bulk of non-exultant humanity, the expected height of a high stool occupant would be a head shorter than him, while Rudesind seems to be at least a head taller.
13 quoted lines
But since Rudesind:
"scrambled down from the ladder like an aged monkey, seeming all arms and legs and
wrinkled neck; his hands were as long as my feet, the crooked fingers laced with blue
veins"
he just doesn't seem much like Ultan. Moreover, Severian mentions Ultan's height several
times. I would think he would mention Rudesind's tallness in a similar direct matter if it
were so.
But he only mentions Baldanders' tallness once or twice despite him being very tall indeed.
It may be that Severian thinks of tallness as being outranked in visual magnitude by Baldanders' overall hugeness and by Rudesind's gangliness.
But he does mention Rudesind's oversized parts (hands as long as feet, disporportionate limbs and neck) but does not mention any parts that would make him any smaller overall.
So yes, he's similar to Inire in his simian physique, but he's easily 2-3 times his size.
Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com
Computational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana
<
http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >
↳ in reply to Jeff Wilson
Why would one sit on a "step" ladder, let alone do so while actively cleaning a painting?
To me: 1. Rudesind is standing on a step ladder; and 2. Severian thinking he at first sees a man sitting on a high stool (I'm envisioning a bar stool) implies that (combined with the monkey like long arms and the way he "scrambles") that Rudesind is gangly and short indeed.
And not at all like the more exultant seeming (even in name) Master Ultan. Ultan seemed more like Severian's grandfather while Rudesind seemed like Inire's brother.
One represents a stunted commoner while the other represents a weathered person of import. At least to me.
But what of Cyby!?!?
:)
...ryan
42 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
On Dec 27, 2011, at 12:23 AM, Jeff Wilson <jwilson at clueland.com> wrote: On 12/3/2011 10:20 PM, Lee Berman wrote:
"saw someone ahead of me sitting (as I first thought) upon a high stool. As I
drew nearer, I found that what I had taken to be a stool was a stepladder, and
that the old man perched on it was cleaning one of the pictures."
Jeff Wilson: That's correct, but Sev affirmitively writes that he was sitting.
I don't think he does. He says he "first thought" someone was sitting, implying this
was later proved incorrect. So Rudesind was standing but from a distance his shortness
made him look like he was sitting.
Perhaps. When diagramming the sentence, it is evident that the parentetical could modify either of the previous "sitting" or the subsequent "upon a high stool", and the following sentence makes it clear that the stool was the mistaken thought since it is a stepladder instead. This accounts for the "as I thought" conditional, ergo the "sitting" predicate stands unmodified. Rudesinde is sitting on a stepladder in the way that a person would be expected to sit on a high stool, and in so doing gives the impression that a stepladder is a high stool.
High stools typically raise the occupant's head to close to a standing height, making their seats about rump high. The smallest practical stepladder would be about two 8" steps tall, while they go on up indefinitely, but given that when Severian speaks...
"Excuse me," I said.
He turned and peered down at me in puzzlement. "Know your voice, don't I?"
Rudesind's head is still higher than Sev's head, so making the "stool" shorter makes his standing height taller still. Given that Sev's used to being taller than the bulk of non-exultant humanity, the expected height of a high stool occupant would be a head shorter than him, while Rudesind seems to be at least a head taller.
But since Rudesind:
"scrambled down from the ladder like an aged monkey, seeming all arms and legs and
wrinkled neck; his hands were as long as my feet, the crooked fingers laced with blue
veins"
he just doesn't seem much like Ultan. Moreover, Severian mentions Ultan's height several
times. I would think he would mention Rudesind's tallness in a similar direct matter if it
were so.
But he only mentions Baldanders' tallness once or twice despite him being very tall indeed.
It may be that Severian thinks of tallness as being outranked in visual magnitude by Baldanders' overall hugeness and by Rudesind's gangliness.
But he does mention Rudesind's oversized parts (hands as long as feet, disporportionate limbs and neck) but does not mention any parts that would make him any smaller overall.
So yes, he's similar to Inire in his simian physique, but he's easily 2-3 times his size.
--
Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com
Computational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana
<
http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Ryan Dunn
2 quoted lines
On 12/27/2011 10:05 AM, Ryan Dunn wrote:
Why would one sit on a "step" ladder, let alone do so while actively cleaning a painting?
Because sitting allows an old man to work longer at a stretch, and there is nowhere else to sit within reach of paintings high on a wall.
1 quoted line
To me: 1. Rudesind is standing on a step ladder; and 2. Severian thinking he at first sees a man sitting on a high stool (I'm envisioning a bar stool) implies that (combined with the monkey like long arms and the way he "scrambles") that Rudesind is gangly and short indeed.
It seems to me that you are uniquely suited as a motion picture artist to illustrate your hypothesis.
Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com
Computational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana
<
http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >
↳ in reply to Jeff Wilson
So Jeff, is it your opinion that Rudesind is not short? I'm confused. I mean, I get the flaws you pointed out but did you have a counter view? Sorry.
...ryan
11 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On Dec 27, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Jeff Wilson <jwilson at clueland.com> wrote: On 12/27/2011 10:05 AM, Ryan Dunn wrote:
Why would one sit on a "step" ladder, let alone do so while actively cleaning a painting?
Because sitting allows an old man to work longer at a stretch, and there is nowhere else to sit within reach of paintings high on a wall.
To me: 1. Rudesind is standing on a step ladder; and 2. Severian thinking he at first sees a man sitting on a high stool (I'm envisioning a bar stool) implies that (combined with the monkey like long arms and the way he "scrambles") that Rudesind is gangly and short indeed.
It seems to me that you are uniquely suited as a motion picture artist to illustrate your hypothesis.
--
Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com
Computational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana
<
http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >
_______________________________________________
↳ in reply to Ryan Dunn
2 quoted lines
On 12/27/2011 3:55 PM, Ryan Dunn wrote:
So Jeff, is it your opinion that Rudesind is not short? I'm confused. I mean, I get the flaws you pointed out but did you have a counter view? Sorry.
I think Rudesind is tall because he has big body parts and when he sits atop a stepladder he makes it look like it is merely a high stool.
Perhaps we can both post photos of people on ladders in an attempt to reconcile the interpretations. As a director of commercial videos, you doubtless have numerous occasions to see a variety of crew people on a variety of step ladders. As it happens, I work with digital imaging myself and can expect to record people of various proportions parched on stepladders for a demonstration this coming spring semester.
Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com
Computational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana
<
http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >
↳ in reply to Jeff Wilson
2 quoted lines
On Dec 27, 2011, at 10:17 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:
I think Rudesind is tall because he has big body parts and when he sits atop a stepladder he makes it look like it is merely a high stool.
This may very well be. But let me string together all of the descriptions I could find and just share my perception. Before I do, however, has anyone else commented on the fact that Rudesind refers to the Urth in the painting as "your blue Urth," as though it belongs to Severian and not him? Does this prompt anyone to wonder whether the masters may not be Urthlings? Or, at least, Rudesind himself, as the servant to a cacogen?
Anyhow...
"... I came upon an old man perched on a high ladder."
- While perched does not explicitly infer sitting nor standing, I can't help but read this passage as a small old man standing atop a stepladder. Your reasoning would imply that Severian assumed an old man appeared standing up on a stool instead of sitting on a ladder. It seems an awkward impression for Severian to have, but if a Short man was standing atop a stepladder, it might look like someone sitting on a stool from afar.
"He had a weak glance, reminding me of the turtles we sometimes frightened on the banks of Gyoll, and a nose and chin that nearly met."
- While a weak, turtle-like glance doesn't refer to height, I find the description more Lilliputian than leggy.
"... he scrambled down from the ladder like an aged monkey, seeming all arms and legs and wrinkled neck; his hands were as long as my feet, the crooked fingers laced with blue veins."
- Scrambled errs on the side of someone slight of stature, and an aged monkey implies a hunched-over posture (I can't think of any monkeys taller than a human when hunched over). Maybe if he stood erect he would be less stout, but as it stands he's a hunched over hook-nosed elderly man to me.
"As I drew nearer, I found that what I had taken to be a stool was a stepladder, and that the old man perched on it was cleaning one of the pictures."
- Here he is, perched again. Odd that the eidetic Severian finds a familiar prop in a familiar setting with a familiar old man so unfamiliar on first glance, though. Plus, I'm finding the recurrence of that word "perched" a bit peculiar now.
"Gripping the sides of the ladder, he began to descend, his sponge still in his hand."
- Would a tall man grip the sides of a stepladder? I'm not so sure a short person would either, may be a simple slip up in the prop Gene had in mind through these scenes?
"He thumped his own bosom with the sponge, then bent close to me, whispering though there was no one but ourselves in the long corridor."
- Now here is something interesting. If he indeed bent close to Severian to whisper, it stands to reason he may be in fact TALLER than the torturer's apprentice. Assuming he bent to reach Severian's ear, and didn't just bend as a return to his base posture after thumping his chest.
"He pulled the edge of my cloak, and I followed him."
- And a few sentences later, Rudesind is tugging on the edge of Severian's cloak. But what edge? The hem? the in-seam? Unclear, but feels like a short person tugging at a taller person's garb to me.
"He made a countrified bow."
- I dunno, but an informal, awkward bow also feels stunted and clumsy, but I am beginning to think I am simply biased about wanting this man to resemble Inire now (or Fechin or whomever else has monkey-like features and a weathered visage).
"The old man hung his head and pulled at his thin beard. I could see the dry skin of his face rise in hollow-sided, tiny cones as it sought to follow the white hairs."
- Tiny, coned indentations on his face implies to me a smallish head. Again not connected to height, but consistent with a series of shriveled up descriptions.
...ryan
Gerry Quinn28 Dec 2011, 12:44
↳ in reply to Jeff Wilson
From: Jeff Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 4:17 AM
To: The Urth Mailing List
Subject: Re: (urth) Father Inire
4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 12/27/2011 3:55 PM, Ryan Dunn wrote:
So Jeff, is it your opinion that Rudesind is not short? I'm confused. I mean, I get the flaws you pointed out but did you have a counter view? Sorry.
I think Rudesind is tall because he has big body parts and when he sits atop a stepladder he makes it look like it is merely a high stool.
Perhaps we can both post photos of people on ladders in an attempt to reconcile the interpretations. As a director of commercial videos, you doubtless have numerous occasions to see a variety of crew people on a variety of step ladders. As it happens, I work with digital imaging myself and can expect to record people of various proportions parched on stepladders for a demonstration this coming spring semester.
Or apply Rule 34 and google for “nude on stepladder”.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn28 Dec 2011, 12:53
↳ in reply to Ryan Dunn
From: Ryan Dunn
"The old man hung his head and pulled at his thin beard. I could see the dry skin of his face rise in hollow-sided, tiny cones as it sought to follow the white hairs."
Ah, there’s the giveaway: Rudesind has the distinctly mammalian characteristic of a beard.
- Gerry Quinn
Lee Berman28 Dec 2011, 13:31
↳ follows, by subject match Gerry Quinn
1 quoted line
Ryan Dunn: has anyone else commented on the fact that Rudesind refers to the Urth in the painting as "your blue Urth," as though it belongs to Severian and not him?
I noticed also and it has been a part of my Father Inire theory. With recognition that it could also simply be a folksy way of talking.
1 quoted line
I am beginning to think I am simply biased about wanting this man to resemble Inire now (or Fechin or whomever else has monkey-like features and a weathered visage).
I like this part of your post the best. Easy to understand your doubts. I think they are exactly what Gene Wolfe hopes to inspire. I applaud your method though. I think it is the correct one, i.e. to collect all the salient information pertaining to a mystery in one place and ponder it. Of course I agree with your assessment that placed all together, Rudesind seems more short than tall (and perhaps more alien than human).
Too often the opposite approach to Wolfe's mysteries is used, i.e. a particular position is decided upon, then snips from the text are cherry picked to support that position, leaving contradictory evidence out.
I often get the impression that Wolfe tries to inspire doubt in his readers in a parallel to the doubts a man of faith must have, surrounded by a cynical, scientific world. The one slim source of faith Wolfe has provided is found in the two interviews where he reveals that Dr. Marsch has indeed been imitated and replaced by an abo.
He deliberately placed so many seeds of doubt in the text regarding this, that a few very intelligent (albeit skeptical-leaning) long-term contributors on this board insisted that it did not happen. (these skeptics dropped off the board soon after the interviews came to light)
I personally (in the real world) tend toward skepticism. But I believe Wolfe has laid traps throughout his work designed to snare people exactly like me (and Dr. Crane). I think his message is that skepticism is a safe and understandable course to take, but if you eschew faith you will be missing out on many miracles and wonders (and horrors?). I was impressed with Marc's recent assertion that he fully embraces both science and religion. He isn't likely to miss out on anything! :- ))
David Stockhoff03 Jan 2012, 22:15
↳ in reply to Jeff Wilson
12 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On 1/3/2012 1:59 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:
On Tue, January 3, 2012 10:46, David Stockhoff wrote:
On 12/27/2011 1:23 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote:
But he does mention Rudesind's oversized parts (hands as long as feet, disporportionate limbs and neck) but does not mention any parts that would make him any smaller overall.
So yes, he's similar to Inire in his simian physique, but he's easily 2-3 times his size.
I think this analysis is correct.
Thank you!
Just now it has occurred to me that perhaps the shared simian qualities are meant not to link Rudesind to Inire so much as to link them and the various other characters with primate appearances, and indirectly but no less strongly with the other persons characterized with animal features to animals in general.
That is, I think it's part of the intended subtext that all these created beings are still humble beasts to some extent, but for the grace of the Increate who gives them a soul and the capacity for good and evil. Inire's more pronounced animal features despite his lofty origins may symbolize his squandering or misuse of that gift, in particular his hand in the creation of the mastiff men and the other underpeople. His undertaking to lift them up closer to man has left him below man in the Increate's esteem.
Maybe. The theme of raising up and lowering down Man---or at very least the stretching of the definition of Man---is strong in BNS. Wolfe does seem to want us to be always conscious of a great scale or Chain and think about our development and our future: the stars above, the abyss below.
However, I can't say I've noticed a motif of describing characters in terms of animals. Dr Talos is certainly one such. For all we know Inire is an australopithecine. Perhaps the intent is merely to emphasize our animal nature as well as our distance from the Increate?
Lee Berman04 Jan 2012, 13:03
↳ follows, by subject match David Stockhoff
1 quoted line
David Stockhoff: The theme of raising up and lowering down Man---or at very least the stretching of the definition of Man---is strong in BNS.
I really think you are onto something with this. Tzadkiel is meant to depict a higher being than humanity and he/she demonstrates a full spectrum of expression from lower being to human to angel. (the other spectrum he/she varies on is size but perhaps that is a separate discussion).
1 quoted line
the stars above, the abyss below.
Yesod, Briah, Abaddon= Olympus, Earth, Hades or Asgard, Midgard, Niflheim/Hel etc.
1 quoted line
However, I can't say I've noticed a motif of describing characters in terms of animals.
I think we do see this and it is associated with characters which are higher beings than humans. Tzadkiel and The Cumaean are explicitly shown in an animalistic form. The megatherians are, by definition, beastial. Melito's angel takes an eagle form. The armiger's daughter has her lark form. We must wonder about "Mother Pyrexia" and what she turned into while confined.
I think an extrapolation of this theme makes it almost necessary to wonder what monkey form Father Inire might be taking. Why would other aliens take animal form and not him? I find Talos' vulpine nature and some animalistic comparisons for other characters to be invitations to speculate on their alien/angelic/pagan god nature.
IMHO, the snake and bird and fish (and Pig) associations found in Long/Short Sun for superhuman characters continue this theme.
Jordon Flato04 Jan 2012, 15:45
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
In terms of animal forms in the work, the most striking for me are the masks of the hieros, which seem hideous monsters, but are creatures of urth. So here the alien presence is directly linked to being masked as an animal. Of course I think there ius more to it than that
1 quoted line
On Jan 4, 2012 5:03 AM, "Lee Berman" <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote: David Stockhoff: The theme of raising up and lowering down Man---or at very least the stretching of the definition of Man---is strong in BNS.
I really think you are onto something with this. Tzadkiel is meant to depict a higher being than humanity and he/she demonstrates a full spectrum of expression from lower being to human to angel. (the other spectrum he/she varies on is size but perhaps that is a separate discussion).
1 quoted line
the stars above, the abyss below.
Yesod, Briah, Abaddon= Olympus, Earth, Hades or Asgard, Midgard, Niflheim/Hel etc.
1 quoted line
However, I can't say I've noticed a motif of describing characters in terms of animals.
I think we do see this and it is associated with characters which are higher beings than humans. Tzadkiel and The Cumaean are explicitly shown in an animalistic form. The megatherians are, by definition, beastial. Melito's angel takes an eagle form. The armiger's daughter has her lark form. We must wonder about "Mother Pyrexia" and what she turned into while confined.
I think an extrapolation of this theme makes it almost necessary to wonder what monkey form Father Inire might be taking. Why would other aliens take animal form and not him? I find Talos' vulpine nature and some animalistic comparisons for other characters to be invitations to speculate on their alien/angelic/pagan god nature.
IMHO, the snake and bird and fish (and Pig) associations found in Long/Short Sun for superhuman characters continue this theme.
Gerry Quinn09 Jan 2012, 19:28
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
From: Lee Berman
3 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
David Stockhoff:
However, I can't say I've noticed a motif of describing characters in terms of animals.
I think we do see this and it is associated with characters which are higher beings than humans. Tzadkiel and The Cumaean are explicitly shown in an animalistic form.
The megatherians are, by definition, beastial.
Since we don’t know who the megatherians were, that is hardly certain. While the name suggests beasts, the fact of a biography suggests otherwise.
2 quoted lines
Melito's angel takes an eagle form. The
armiger's daughter has her lark form. We must wonder about "Mother Pyrexia" and what she turned into while confined.
The first two aren’t characters. That said, the humans Rudesind and Fechin are also likened to monkeys. And Agia turns gracefully like a cat. I don’t think there’s any particular motif there, though. People in life and in books are not infrequently likened to animals.
1 quoted line
I think an extrapolation of this theme makes it almost necessary to wonder what monkey form Father Inire might be taking. Why would other aliens take animal form and not him?
He is described as looking like a monkey (admittedly he is so described by someone who has never seen him). But can it really be considered unusual for aliens to be described in terms of animal analogies? A non-human living creature is likely to remind us of some sort of animal.
1 quoted line
I find Talos' vulpine nature and some animalistic comparisons for other characters to be invitations to speculate on their alien/angelic/pagan god nature.
On the other hand, the undines don’t seem to be likened to any particular animal, nor are the sea monsters Abaia etc. Nor is Typhon.
1 quoted line
IMHO, the snake and bird and fish (and Pig) associations found in Long/Short Sun for superhuman characters continue this theme.
Some of the gods have strong animal associations, but others don’t have anything much.
- Gerry Quinn
Lee Berman10 Jan 2012, 17:26
↳ follows, by subject match Gerry Quinn
2 quoted lines
Gerry Quinn: While the name ("megatherian") suggests beasts, the fact of a
biography suggests otherwise.
I don't see why. Can't a beast have a biography? Especially a sentient beast. The examples of this are too numerous to mention but "mega" implies large size. It isn't too hard to figure out which notable character is really large and named for an earth-inspired animal.
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Melito's angel takes an eagle form. The armiger's daughter has her lark form.
The(se) first two aren’t characters.
Heh. Funny. I know there is more than one definition for the word "character" but
I meant the one which refers to persons or beings in a story. Severian, Melito and
the angel are all characters.
2 quoted lines
the humans Rudesind and Fechin are also likened to monkeys. And Agia turns gracefully
like a cat. I don’t think there’s any particular motif there, though.
Well, we aren't discussing similes, at least I am not. Think more in terms of dog men and
cat women and man apes. And Tzadkiel, who obviously has a beastly component or two.
1 quoted line
On the other hand, the undines don’t seem to be likened to any particular animal
Heh. I find that a rather fishy conclusion. ;-)
Or perhaps we should consider the Order Sirenia (manatees)?
Gerry Quinn10 Jan 2012, 19:58
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
From: Lee Berman
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Gerry Quinn: While the name ("megatherian") suggests beasts, the fact of a biography suggests otherwise.
I don't see why. Can't a beast have a biography? Especially a sentient beast. The examples of this are too numerous to mention but "mega" implies large size. It isn't too hard to figure out which notable character is really large and named for an earth-inspired animal.
“Lives of the Seventeen Megatherians” is simply wrong as a possible name for a biography of Abaia, Erebus, and the rest, for a multitude of reasons. They are never referred to as “the Megatherians” either. And we also know that there are even animals called megatheres at large in the grounds of the House absolute.
- Gerry Quinn
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.