{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/6668", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 6668, "subject": "Short Story 60: Forlesen part 2", "messages": 1, "voices": 1, "first": "2014-09-14T18:11:02+00:00", "last": "2014-09-14T18:11:02+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-09-14T18:11:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Short Story 60: Forlesen part 2", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "THE ANSWERS OF THE EXPLAINER:\n\nEven on a first reading the final answer of the Explainer is poignant and\npowerful, embodying the uncertainty anyone who has spent their entire life\nas Forlesen has with no hint of transcendence, respite, or the big picture\nwithout tension and worry. Is what he has suffered worth it? ?No — Yes. No.\nYes. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Maybe. There are three explanations for this\nstring of responses besides the obvious one (that even the Explainer isn’t\nsure if it was worth it).\n\nThe first explanation involves matching up the nine professions named by\nthe Explainer and their respective answers to the question of whether\nForlesen's life was worth it.\n\nDoctor: No — From a biological perspective, Forlesen’s life has been\npointless, producing offspring that will have the same useless lives with\nno concern for their own true health.\n\nPriest: Yes — A divine presence, with an eternal salvation, might make\nstruggle worthwhile.\n\nPhilosopher: No — Even existentialism can’t save this miserable system —\nthe model is innately nihilistic in its ends. Even if it does seek fleeting\nwealth and profit, what good does that do?\n\nTheologian: Yes — Even fallen systems can be redeemed. Was this the right\nEmmanuel?\n\nActor: Yes — The role itself and the entertainment might have proven\ninstructive to whoever was watching through the partition as a lesson on\nhow not to exist — and the actor can always walk away from the role.\nForlesen's life might be part of an ongoing debate.\n\nWarlock: No — There was no magic or secret knowledge to be found in this\nsystem.\n\nNational Hero: Yes — The sacrifice of the self for family and economic\nprosperity might be worth something.\n\nAged Loremaster: Yes — We can learn things from the mistakes of history,\neven if they depict oppressively evil systems.\n\nNovelist: Maybe — In its attempt to depict a particular kind of very real\nhell accurately, the story itself may not have any hint of true redemption\nor value, and instead simply diagnose a problem currently beyond our means\nto fix. The diagnosis and ambiguous chronicle of human strife might achieve\nsome kind of universal appeal.\n\nThe second possibility is suggested by Robert Borski on the Urth Mailing\nList: that the entire experience is a computer simulation with “Hidden\nDrives” and even defragmentation — in his sketch, the string of yes and no\ncorrespond with binary code. While I think it is a model and re-enactment\nof something real meant for instruction (Model Pattern Products), I think\nthere is more physical or spiritual reality to Forlesen's day than a\ncomputer program. The text does mention rumors of Frick trying to talk to\nthe computer, however.\n\nThe third possibility is that the Explainer is answering whichever\nquestions Forlesen asked in his life which received no answers. After a\ncareful perusal, there do not seem to be enough unanswered questions,\nunless we pose the scenarios of the Explainer as questions, too. The\npossibility of misaligning these answers is huge, and perhaps this scheme\nis forced.\n\n“Can I tell you what it was I saw?” (referring to the shifting columns\nunder the bridge, speaking to the cop) No.\n\n“Are they falling down?” Yes.\n\n“Have you been noticing cracks?” No.\n\n“You may have been oppressed by demons.” Yes.\n\n“Or revived by unseen aliens who — have sought to re-create the life of the\ntwentieth century.” Yes.\n\n“Or it may be that there is a small pressure exerted by a tumor in your\nbrain.” No.\n\n“Those are the explanations?” Yes.\n\n“I want to know if it's meant anything.” Yes.\n\n“If what I suffered — it it's been worth it.” Maybe.\n\nSome of those separations are forced, and perhaps making such parallels\nwith all the half answered and repeated questions is impossible.\n\nTHE TECHNICAL PROBLEMS:\n\nClearly this is a slapped together reality which is reassembled every day.\nThe buildings are consumed by black and orange machines (the same color as\nconstruction signs), the pillars move (or are they simply clouds?), the\npoliceman is connected to his car by wires, and everything tastes of oil —\nthe world is continually under construction, even in the meeting rooms. The\nCreativity Group exercises show reenactments of events which were already\ndone — a debate between real teachers then re-enacted and filmed again, and\nmany of the details in Forlesen seem as if everything is following a kind\nof model pattern (thus Model Pattern Products).\n\nThe problem of Forlesen is that of course many of the explanations in text\nwill work, and perhaps none of them are necessary to “get” the point of the\nstory, which is quite obvious — the dehumanizing and farcical attempts at\ncreativity and morality enforced by modern business corporations are\ncontrary to nature and the normal human condition — but it still seems that\nall of these things should add up to something greater than merely the\nassertion that Forlesen might be dead and in hell (unless he is Frick meant\nto endure the business model he helped create). One does feel that Forlesen\nis in Frick’s world regardless, wondering why he is not the master for whom\nthe universe has been made. It is fascinating that Abraham Beale and Adam\nBean have the same face, almost as if the company is the “seed” Abraham\nplanted which came to nothing.\n\nThe frustration of the text is that despite its clear didactic and moral\nmessage, the pattern which it models remains opaque. Some of the characters\nForlesen encounters map to a particular type of dead mentioned in the book,\nsuch as Fields, whose sports metaphor match up with the fourth kind of\ndead, or Abraham Beale, who seems to have returned in his grandchildren’s\ntime, but it does not seem that every type of dead is represented in the\ntext.\n\nHIDDEN DRIVES SIGNS\n\nThe signs for hidden drives are black and orange — orange is usually\nreserved for construction signs, something which seems to be consistent\nwith the imagery that we have throughout — the set is being constructed and\naltered as needed. Their obverse at lunch reads SLOW CHILDREN and at night,\nYIELD. This might connote the need to perpetuate the species, even in the\nmidst of the veneer of useless work life — the motivation that is never\ndiscussed on the job.\n\nGLASS\n\nWhy do the partition glass and mirrors show Forlesen different things?\nPartition glass exists to separate something, and this time it looks like\nperhaps there is an observational element, as Fields, through the glass,\nbecomes a fastidious and neat man with glasses. When asked if partition\nglass could be used as window glass, Fields responds, “Hell no.”\n\nTHE WINGED BEINGS\n\nWhen Forlesen first sees the winged being on the cover of the red book,\nwhich details the types of dead, he asks “What is it?” His wife replies,\n“It’s supposed to tell you how to be good, and how to live — everything\nlike that.” At one point he feels himself such a winged being or like a\nhawk when he is on top of the undulating highway, but his descent and the\nmotif of the bird cage in the bet-your-life game no doubt show that the\nspiritual wings are fettered. It is possible that Forlesen is not human, as\nthe first paragraphs of the novella speculate. Perhaps this is all an act\nthat copies human life as part of a “debate” on its utility and the manner\nin which it should be judged after the fact.\n\nCREATIVITY GROUP\n\nIn the creativity group, the employees are to “create creativity itself”\nand watch a movie on creativity which is the most derivative scenario\nimaginable. When Forlesen supposes actors would understand creativity\nbetter than teachers, the response is: “It's a re-creation of an actual\nmeeting of real teachers — They photographed it and taped it, then had the\nactors reproduce the debate.” This feels like the scenario for Forlesen — a\nrecreation of old business practices, possibly for part of a larger debate\nor quest for understanding.\n\nOne gets the sense that this entire novella is based on such a recreation —\nput on by creatures who have no comprehension of the reasons for the\nbusiness world or human life. The doubletalk in this creativity scene is\nmind-numbing:\n\n“What creativity is going to do for you in the way of problem study is\npoint the way to new ways of seeing your problem — not necessarily\nsuccessful — if by successful what you mean is permitting you to make a\nnontrivial elaboration of the problem definition.”\n\n“I think we're all agreed [that problem definitions don't limit creativity]\nwhen they're creative problem definitions. Right, Ned?”\n\n?Of Creative problems.\n\nWith names like Abraham, Adam, Emanuel, and Edna (a name derived from the\nGarden of Eden) involved in this broken system, the problem is one inherent\nand systemic in creation similar to the problem of evil — how could life\ncome to this? Forlesen even suggests they form clay and start in — clearly\nderivative of the earliest conception of Jewish and Christian creation\ntraditions on the manner in which man was formed.\n\nThe idea of the conflict in Forlesen being nothing but a recreation is\nrecapitulated in one of the Explainer's options: “You may have been\noppressed by demons — or revived by unseen aliens who, landing on the Earth\neons after the death of the last man,have sought to re-create the life of\nthe twentieth century”. Perhaps a spiritual spin on this is possible — a\nmodel incited by angelic beings ignorant of good and evil attempting to\nunderstand and judge something so vapid and all consuming as the\nmiddle-management business model of Model Pattern Products, but without\ntrue comprehension — the pages of books in the model don't match up well,\nand something is lost in translation.\n\nTHE GRADING SYSTEM:\n\nThe computer grades answers to the sample leadership problems and assigns a\ngrade between a high score of 757 and a low score of 49 (757 is the sum of\nseven consecutive primes, 49 is seven squared). The quorum necessary to\nchange pages from the brown book is never seven or less. This repetition of\nseven is in stark contrast to the overwhelming “hell” comments made by the\nmanagement staff.\n\nBET-YOUR-LIFE MINIGAME\n\nThe bet your life minigame, “the management-managing real-life pseudogame”\ninvolves eight and twelve sided die in small birdcages. It is a bidding and\nselling kind of game, but several of the “harmless” wagers made actually\nmirror the condition of Forlesen. He tastes oil everywhere and sees oil\nstains, and his first thought is that his feet are “shoes”. Mr. Fleer’s\ninstructions are “BID 17 ASK 18 — SNOWMOBILE 5 — UP — OPEN NEW TERRITORY\nSHUT DOWN COAL OIL SHOES FLEER.” Note the shutting down of oil (ubiquitous\nin the text), shoes, and coal there, and after Forlesen goes into the hall\nit feels glacial, “filled with quiet wind and the memory of ice.”\nForlesen’s area of the game is being shut down, eaten by the black and\norange machines late in the day. Earlier the text made clear there were\ntwelve types of dead, and perhaps the 12 and 8 sided die represent them and\nthe — quorum (never seven or less) necessary to change the rules of the\ngame. If that quorum is reached, then the pages in the brown book can be\naltered — the book which contains the script of Forlesen's life.\n\nThe only real mention of coal (besides the very real possibility that all\nof these people are metaphorically burning in hell) might be in the real\nlife occupation of Henry Clay Frick, the coal and railroad magnate. Abraham\nBeale says that once he fired on the railroad, and he also says that “the\nrailroads and the coal mines buy your state legislatures, right?” It is\nprobably no coincidence that these are the two areas Henry Clay Frick\ncontrolled, but these are being shut down.\n\nOf course, it is unclear what Forlesen actually accomplishes in this game\nby walking out before the man with the bristly mustache can cheat him by\nselling back the stock he just bought at a higher price. (Forlesen and he\nconverse in the hallway, and the man does not recognize him — there is no\nindividuality in the business world besides trite cliches and metaphors.)\n\nLITERARY ALLUSIONS:\n\nWhile it is almost a work of Naturalism, there is the sense that these men\nare being forced to live life unnaturally — all society’s desires are not\nequal. Social conditions and the environment do seem to have a kind of\ninescapable force in this novella. Forlesen decides to go to work so that\nEdna can have the peace of mind knowing that she and her children won’t\nstarve — the natural, adventurous life that Abraham Beale lived is\npreferable, but has somehow become an impossibility for Forlesen’s life,\nwhose existence has been hard determined from the moment of his awakening.\nHe even finds evidence that everything is scripted in his brown book.\nWolfe’s indictment of the system offers no answers, merely a diagnosis.\nClearly Wolfe posits that this existence, for all its naturalistic force to\nproduce conformity and mold people in patterns based on generic models, is\ncompletely unnatural.\n\nThe clearest short story homage might be to Sturgeon's “Yesterday Was\nMonday”, where a man awakens to find tomorrow under construction by a\nworking crew. The “age” of the new wing and the buildings being torn down\nby black and orange machines at the end of “Forlesen” especially echo this\nidea.\n\nNAMES:\n\nFirst Generation:\n\nAbraham Beale — Abraham means “father of many” or “a multitude”; Beale can\nmean “handsome or fair” or even son of Bel.\n\nAdam Bean — Adam is the founder of Model Pattern Products, it is certainly\nno coincidence that he is named after the first man responsible for the\nfall from grace. His name could imply “man” or “redness”. Bean implies a\ngrower or planter of beans/seeds. This resonates with the idea that Abraham\nBeale “planted” the buy-out inheritance he received for his farm to become\nthe highway.\n\nAvery Beale — Avery can mean “elf ruler or counsel”, though in light of his\nassociation with roosters and the bird cages extant in the bet your life\ngame, it is conceivable that an aviary is implied.\n\nAbner Bunter - Abraham's lawyer, Abner means “father of light” and of\ncourse a bunt is only a soft hit in baseball — perhaps he did not\naccomplish what he as capable of.\n\nSecond Generation:\n\nC. D?Andrea replaced by Ed Fields. The name can imply “manly”.\n\nC. Dudley — He solved the business problem left in the wake of Bean’s\ndemise, Dudley can mean “a woodland clearing” or it can imply a descendant\nof black sides?. He is probably replaced by Frick.\n\nCappy Dillingham — Cappy is a gypsy name for “profit”. The last name means\n“homestead of the Dull people” (a place name, though surprisingly apt).\n\nThird Generation\n\nEmanuel Forlesen / Forlosen — Emanuel means “God is with us” and Forlesen\nis an archaic form of lost or forlorn — in its German pronunciation,\nvorlesen, means “to read”.\n\nErnie Frick — the gold toothed, balding, and mole-faced person in charge of\nModel Pattern Products, as far as can be determined. (The name Frick became\na euphemistically dirty word because of the real life Henry Clay Frick).\nErnest means “serious, determined.”\n\nEdna Forlesen — Her name means “rejuvenation, pleasure, delight.” Derived\nfrom the same source as the garden of Eden.\n\nMiss Fawn — She is the secretary to Mr. Freeling who then becomes Mrs.\nFrost. While the name obviously means young deer, it is clear that her name\nreflects her attitude — a transformation from fawning insincerity to frosty\nindifference once she gets what she wants.\n\nMiss Fedd — She was once in traffic and is a cousin to Miss Fawn.\n\nEd Fields — Sports analogies dominate his life, thus the last name. Edward\nmeans “guardian” and Fields implies someone who lives on land cleared of\nforest but not yet cultivated for use.\n\nMr. Fleer — His life revolves around ski analogies; he obviously invests in\nsnowmobiles in Bet-Your-Life, but his name can mean “to flee” or indicate a\nrefugee.\n\nMr. Ffoulks - In the bet your life mini-game, Forlesen uses his name. He is\ninvested in toys, weapons, and is “big” in aquariums. Obviously his last\nname implies “people” or ?folk?. Forlesen jokes that he feels it is the age\nof aquariums — a pun on the age of aquarius, which would be associated with\nmodernization, noncomformity, idealism, and freedom, among other things —\nwhereas an aquarium is of course a confinement with transparent sides so\nthat the captives can be observed.\n\nMr. Elmer Freeling — Mr. Freeling is Ed Field's chief and sailing is his\ndominant metaphor. Elmer is derived from a surname meaning “noble or\nfamous”.\n\nMr. Flint — Mr. Freeling’s boss, Flint reports directly to Mr. Frick.\nObviously a Flint rock can be used to start a fire. It is not clear that we\never see him, unless he is the man carrying a coat outside of Mr. Frick's\noffice, or perhaps the man in the red coat in the Bet-Your-Life game.\n\nEdward Franklin — As already stated, the first name Edward implies\n“guardian”. Franklin indicates a free land owner.\n\nEugene Fine — Eugene means “well born” and Fine was originally a place\nname; he is the reason that the creativity meeting must be held at\n\nEnid Fenton — Enid means “soul or life” and Fenton implies a marshy\nsettlement. Her individuality and refusal to fit in make her the subject of\nthe sample leadership problem.\n\nEric Fairchild and his mother — Eric can imply “forever or eternal ruler”,\nand Fairchild is obvious. His trope is to always ask if people see what he\nmeans, and to assert that he in fact does see what they mean in turn. He\nindicates the top grade is 757 and the the low grade is 49.\n\nFourth Generation:\n\nGeorge Howe — George's first name means “earth worker” and Howe is a place\nname derived from someone living by a small hill or barrow.\n\nGordie Hilbert - Forlesen’s orientation, his first name means “from the\ncornered hill”, and the last implies magnificence in battle.\n\nUNANSWERED QUESTIONS:\n\nIs Emmanuel Forlesen a human being at all? Is this simply an angelic\nrecreation of a debate about the utility (or futility) of 20th century\nhuman existence? Is Frick’s soul on trial for what he has done to people in\nlife?\n\nWhy is the term hours used only once in the text, at a point which is\nchronologically incorrect if “ours” was meant?\n\nWhat is the significance of the brown book's grammatical change from saying\n“good field” to “good Fields?” Is Fields the exemplary middle management\nman or is this a more metaphorical exhortation to plant seed in better\nfields than this corporate nonsense? Otherwise, that portion of the brown\nbook indicates that there is a coach or quarterback upstairs and emphasizes\nteamwork.\n\nAre the twelve kinds of dead related to the thirteen characters of\nForlesen’s generation present at work? Are they in turn related to the 12\nsided dice trapped in bird cages in the Bet-Your-Life psuedogame?\n\nIs there really an objective underlying principle to “Forlesen”, or is\nmeaninglessness and absurdity the true answer? The brown book serving as\nthe rule book for Bet-Your-Life depicting events in Forlesen's life really\ndoes make the entire thing seem like a scripted recreation.\n\nCONNECTION WITH OTHER WORKS:\n\nForlesen is one of the most bleak and despairing portraits of a world\nstripped of freedom in Wolfe’s body of work, and even though it is\nunrealistic in its precise details, it might be the most realistic thing he\nhas ever written. Its unrelenting portrayal of corporate America as a place\nof ineffective metaphors and incompetent management is scathing and\nprobably fairly accurate. The tense gender relationship that stems from a\nwoman completely dependent on a man for her support is deftly painted in\njust a few lines of dialogue.\n\nOne can easily imagine someone who has worked their entire lives asking the\nquestion Forlesen asks at the end, and reaching the same indeterminate\nconclusion. The story operates effectively without ever grasping its\nobjective situation, but perhaps pinpointing that is not as important as\nasking why corporations have become such dull beasts. “Forlesen” stands out\nin Wolfe’s work because of its focus on the mechanical conglomeration\ncompletely beyond the power of any one working man to influence or change,\nand it has a special and unique place in Wolfe’s oeuvre. Wolfe’s\nexplorations of modernism (exemplified in “Morning Glory”) are equally\ncritical but seem to offer more hope — a man can change his attitude and\nhis beliefs, but a man who has to feed his family must conform to society’s\nbanal expectations. In the exaltation of corporations and companies to\npowers beyond even government or national control, perhaps the nearly\ncontemporary “Hour of Trust” obliquely approaches the same theme, but\n“Forlesen” is a far more effective and universal condemnation of something\nwhich the vast majority of Americans have had to face. Wolfe may not have\never been interested in writing the stereotypical Great American Novel of 20\nth century life, but he comes close to capturing the true horror of modern\nlife in “Forlesen”, perhaps his greatest social commentary. The blind,\ninane, and pathetic company has become like a God which perhaps does not\ndemand human sacrifice but somehow manages to sacrifice humanity anyway.\n\nRESOURCES:\n\nBorski, Robert. “Forlesen”. Urth.net Mailing List. 26 September 1998. Web.\n14 September 2014. \n\nSkrabec, Quentin R. *Henry Clay Frick: The Life of the Perfect Capitalist*.\nJefferson: McFarland, 2010.\n\nStandiford, Les. *Meet You in Hell: Andrew Carnegie, Henry Clay Frick, and\nthe Bitter Partnership that Changed America*. New York: Broadway Books,\n2006." } ] } ] }