Sorcerer's House Comment

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Fred Kiesche <godelescherbach at gmail.com> wrote: ?The Sorcerer’s House, by Gene Wolfe, amazed me. It was such a cunning book, and it went so deep. A foxy fantasy about a house that grows, with chapters that are the Greater Trumps of a tarot deck.

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com> wrote: On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Fred Kiesche <godelescherbach at gmail.com> wrote:

“The Sorcerer’s House, by Gene Wolfe, amazed me. It was such a cunning book, and it went so deep. A foxy fantasy about a house that grows, with chapters that are the Greater Trumps of a tarot deck.

Hm, we didn't think it was very deep - Bax was indeed the evil twin who by the end murders his brother and usurps his wife and possessions, just like Emlyn was the evil twin and Ieyuan misunderstood. Maybe we missed something by not looking at the Greater Trumps” -- gwern http://www.gwern.net _______________________________________________

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Fred Kiesche <godelescherbach at gmail.com>wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/books/review/neil-gaiman-shares-his-reading-habits.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all ===== What was the last truly great book you read? ?The Sorcerer’s House, by Gene Wolfe, amazed me. It was such a cunning book, and it went so deep. A foxy fantasy about a house that grows, with chapters that are the Greater Trumps of a tarot deck. ===== -- F.P. Kiesche III "Ah Mr. Gibbon, another damned, fat, square book. Always, scribble, scribble, scribble, eh?" (The Duke of Gloucester, on being presented with Volume 2 of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.) Blogging at The Lensman's Children ( http://theeternalgoldenbraid.blogspot.com/). _______________________________________________

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:56 AM, nate jarvis <natejarv at gmail.com> wrote: Was it 2 sets of twins in TSH? Or did they send one human and a changeling back to the real world and keep one human and a changeling in faerie (ie, is Bax a changeling, or a human, and if he's a human is one the twins from faerie his brother and the other a changeling meant to pass as him?) Nate. _______________________________________________

On May 4, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Antonin Scriabin <kierkegaurdian at gmail.com> wrote: Neil Gaiman rubbed shoulders with a bunch of big writers (Wolfe, Lafferty, Douglas Adams). I have liked his stuff for the most part, although American Gods and Neverwhere weren't anywhere near as good as Sandman or Fragile Things. On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:56 AM, nate jarvis <natejarv at gmail.com> wrote: Was it 2 sets of twins in TSH? Or did they send one human and a changeling back to the real world and keep one human and a changeling in faerie (ie, is Bax a changeling, or a human, and if he's a human is one the twins from faerie his brother and the other a changeling meant to pass as him?) Nate. _______________________________________________

On May 3, 2012, at 4:44 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote: Maybe we missed something by not looking at the Greater Trumps?

than perhaps Gaiman.

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Craig Brewer <cnbrewer at yahoo.com> wrote: I tend to agree. He always seems best when he's doing something oblique, like collaborating or writing for varied formats. I don't think that's a bad thing because parts of Sandman stand up with the best sf writing. But he's always described himself more as a storyteller in something of an old fashioned sense rather tha "a writer," and I think that's apt. I also think of him as a channeler of other things to broader audiences. That's not only because he always promos people I like, but even stuff like Sandman brought some "literary" stuff to comics, and it brought non-comics readers to graphic novels, etc. He makes people who don't like genre stuff...like genre stuff, and that's a good thing. He also just seems to me like a guy who "gets it" in all the right ways, both in terms of knowing what's good (anything he edits is worth the price) and in knowing what he does best for the most part. On May 4, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Antonin Scriabin <kierkegaurdian at gmail.com> wrote: Neil Gaiman rubbed shoulders with a bunch of big writers (Wolfe, Lafferty, Douglas Adams). I have liked his stuff for the most part, although American Gods and Neverwhere weren't anywhere near as good as Sandman or Fragile Things. On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:56 AM, nate jarvis <natejarv at gmail.com> wrote:

Was it 2 sets of twins in TSH? Or did they send one human and a changeling back to the real world and keep one human and a changeling in faerie (ie, is Bax a changeling, or a human, and if he's a human is one the twins from faerie his brother and the other a changeling meant to pass as him?) Nate. _______________________________________________

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com> wrote: I've never been convinced that Gaiman is necessarily a great interpretive analyst. ?His strengths are elsewhere.

On May 4, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote: The book is dedicated effusively to Gaiman by Wolfe; it's not unreasonable to think that Wolfe targeted it at Gaiman or simply gave Gaiman some hints or something.

I took a quick look at the first 6 or 7 chapters. I don't see any obvious correspondence with the letter titles and the order given in Wikipedia, but 'magician' does seem to align with the fish part of the plot. Possibly the trumps are a skeleton key to figuring out the unscrambled order of the letters? I don't remember anyone pointing out any interesting problems with the ordering and giving a revealing true ordering.

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Darth Ed <darthed77 at gmail.com> wrote: On May 4, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote:

The book is dedicated effusively to Gaiman by Wolfe; it's not unreasonable to think that Wolfe targeted it at Gaiman or simply gave Gaiman some hints or something.

I concur. That's my feeling as well.

I took a quick look at the first 6 or 7 chapters. I don't see any obvious correspondence with the letter titles and the order given in Wikipedia, but 'magician' does seem to align with the fish part of the plot. Possibly the trumps are a skeleton key to figuring out the unscrambled order of the letters? I don't remember anyone pointing out any interesting problems with the ordering and giving a revealing true ordering.

I don't think the letters/chapters are out of order per se with regards to some canonical ordering of the Major Arcana and that we need to reorder the chapters/letters to fit that canonical ordering. In a Tarot reading, the cards are shuffled and the ordering of the cards is significant to the person who is being read by the reader. And I don't think the titles are necessarily related to the Major Arcana, but rather the principle characters and/or action that takes place in each letter/chapter can be matched to each of the Major Arcana. In that respect, I'm keen on David Stockoff's interpretation which identified several such matches for a handful of the letters/chapters. He also incorporated the mirroring nicely into his interpretation. His identifications seemed quite reasonable to me, and I think further study is warranted and may come up with additional identifications between the letters/chapters and the Major Arcana. I'll certainly be looking for such connection on my next reading of TSH, but I suspect that's probably years from now, unfortunately. In a sense, we, the readers of the book, are like the Tarot reader who reads the past, present, and future of a person/character. The cards/chapters represent the past and the present; the reader interprets them and uses them to foretell the future of the person/character. Later, Ed My WolfeWiki profile: http://www.wolfewiki.com/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Profiles.DarthEd _______________________________________________

On 5/7/2012 4:47 PM, Fred Kiesche wrote: Tarot: Read a long time ago was NOVA by Samuel R. Delany. I just got a hardcover of the "first" edition (SFBC, long story as to why that is the hardcover). Much of the story revolves around the Tarot; I have not read this in years and will be putting it on Mount Tobereread. On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Darth Ed <darthed77 at gmail.com <mailto:darthed77 at gmail.com>> wrote: On May 4, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote: > The book is dedicated effusively to Gaiman by Wolfe; it's not > unreasonable to think that Wolfe targeted it at Gaiman or simply gave > Gaiman some hints or something. I concur. That's my feeling as well. > I took a quick look at the first 6 or 7 chapters. I don't see any > obvious correspondence with the letter titles and the order given in > Wikipedia, but 'magician' does seem to align with the fish part of the > plot. Possibly the trumps are a skeleton key to figuring out the > unscrambled order of the letters? I don't remember anyone pointing out > any interesting problems with the ordering and giving a revealing true > ordering. I don't think the letters/chapters are out of order per se with regards to some canonical ordering of the Major Arcana and that we need to reorder the chapters/letters to fit that canonical ordering. In a Tarot reading, the cards are shuffled and the ordering of the cards is significant to the person who is being read by the reader. And I don't think the titles are necessarily related to the Major Arcana, but rather the principle characters and/or action that takes place in each letter/chapter can be matched to each of the Major Arcana. In that respect, I'm keen on David Stockoff's interpretation which identified several such matches for a handful of the letters/chapters. He also incorporated the mirroring nicely into his interpretation. His identifications seemed quite reasonable to me, and I think further study is warranted and may come up with additional identifications between the letters/chapters and the Major Arcana. I'll certainly be looking for such connection on my next reading of TSH, but I suspect that's probably years from now, unfortunately. In a sense, we, the readers of the book, are like the Tarot reader who reads the past, present, and future of a person/character. The cards/chapters represent the past and the present; the reader interprets them and uses them to foretell the future of the person/character. Later, Ed My WolfeWiki profile: http://www.wolfewiki.com/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Profiles.DarthEd _______________________________________________

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:31 PM, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> wrote: I think I know that mountain. Legend says its summit stands unseen above the clouds and may be reached by no man or woman. I'll have to read NOVA; I find the Tarot interesting as the basis for an organizational scheme. On 5/7/2012 4:47 PM, Fred Kiesche wrote:

Tarot: Read a long time ago was NOVA by Samuel R. Delany. I just got a hardcover of the "first" edition (SFBC, long story as to why that is the hardcover). Much of the story revolves around the Tarot; I have not read this in years and will be putting it on Mount Tobereread. On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Darth Ed <darthed77 at gmail.com <mailto:darthed77 at gmail.com>> wrote: ? ?On May 4, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote: ? ?> The book is dedicated effusively to Gaiman by Wolfe; it's not ? ?> unreasonable to think that Wolfe targeted it at Gaiman or simply ? ?gave ? ?> Gaiman some hints or something. ? ?I concur. That's my feeling as well. ? ?> I took a quick look at the first 6 or 7 chapters. I don't see any ? ?> obvious correspondence with the letter titles and the order given in ? ?> Wikipedia, but 'magician' does seem to align with the fish part ? ?of the ? ?> plot. Possibly the trumps are a skeleton key to figuring out the ? ?> unscrambled order of the letters? I don't remember anyone ? ?pointing out ? ?> any interesting problems with the ordering and giving a ? ?revealing true ? ?> ordering. ? ?I don't think the letters/chapters are out of order per se with ? ?regards to ? ?some canonical ordering of the Major Arcana and that we need to ? ?reorder the ? ?chapters/letters to fit that canonical ordering. In a Tarot ? ?reading, the ? ?cards are shuffled and the ordering of the cards is significant to the ? ?person who is being read by the reader. And I don't think the ? ?titles are ? ?necessarily related to the Major Arcana, but rather the principle ? ?characters and/or action that takes place in each letter/chapter ? ?can be ? ?matched to each of the Major Arcana. In that respect, I'm keen on ? ?David ? ?Stockoff's interpretation which identified several such matches for a ? ?handful of the letters/chapters. He also incorporated the ? ?mirroring nicely ? ?into his interpretation. His identifications seemed quite ? ?reasonable to me, ? ?and I think further study is warranted and may come up with additional ? ?identifications between the letters/chapters and the Major Arcana. ? ?I'll ? ?certainly be looking for such connection on my next reading of ? ?TSH, but I ? ?suspect that's probably years from now, unfortunately. ? ?In a sense, we, the readers of the book, are like the Tarot reader who ? ?reads the past, present, and future of a person/character. The ? ?cards/chapters represent the past and the present; the reader ? ?interprets ? ?them and uses them to foretell the future of the person/character. ? ?Later, ? ?Ed ? ?My WolfeWiki profile: ? ?http://www.wolfewiki.com/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Profiles.DarthEd ? ?_______________________________________________

On Mon, 7 May 2012, David Stockhoff wrote: I'll have to read NOVA; I find the Tarot interesting as the basis for an organizational scheme.

On 5/7/2012 7:47 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: The Tarot is not the organizational schema of NOVA, but it's one of the things used to produce meaning.

On 5/7/2012 9:00 PM, David Duffy wrote: On Mon, 7 May 2012, David Stockhoff wrote:

I'll have to read NOVA; I find the Tarot interesting as the basis for an organizational scheme.

You've read Calvino, I take it? Cheers, David Duffy. _______________________________________________

On 5/7/2012 12:49 PM, Darth Ed wrote: On May 4, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote:

The book is dedicated effusively to Gaiman by Wolfe; it's not unreasonable to think that Wolfe targeted it at Gaiman or simply gave Gaiman some hints or something.

I concur. That's my feeling as well.

I took a quick look at the first 6 or 7 chapters. I don't see any obvious correspondence with the letter titles and the order given in Wikipedia, but 'magician' does seem to align with the fish part of the plot. Possibly the trumps are a skeleton key to figuring out the unscrambled order of the letters? I don't remember anyone pointing out any interesting problems with the ordering and giving a revealing true ordering.

I don't think the letters/chapters are out of order per se with regards to some canonical ordering of the Major Arcana and that we need to reorder the chapters/letters to fit that canonical ordering. In a Tarot reading, the cards are shuffled and the ordering of the cards is significant to the person who is being read by the reader. And I don't think the titles are necessarily related to the Major Arcana, but rather the principle characters and/or action that takes place in each letter/chapter can be matched to each of the Major Arcana. In that respect, I'm keen on David Stockoff's interpretation which identified several such matches for a handful of the letters/chapters. He also incorporated the mirroring nicely into his interpretation. His identifications seemed quite reasonable to me, and I think further study is warranted and may come up with additional identifications between the letters/chapters and the Major Arcana. I'll certainly be looking for such connection on my next reading of TSH, but I suspect that's probably years from now, unfortunately. In a sense, we, the readers of the book, are like the Tarot reader who reads the past, present, and future of a person/character. The cards/chapters represent the past and the present; the reader interprets them and uses them to foretell the future of the person/character. Later, Ed