{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/823", "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": 823, "subject": "New Sun miscellany", "messages": 6, "voices": 4, "first": "1998-06-17T20:54:13+00:00", "last": "1998-06-29T09:55:28+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "adam louis stephanides", "address": "astephan at students.uiuc.edu" }, "date": "1998-06-17T20:54:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) New Sun miscellany", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A few days ago I finished rereading BotNS and UotNS and skimming through\nthe archive's posts on the books. (Whew!) I've already posted a few of\nmy thoughts. I have some more questions and comments on various topics,\nwhich I'll gather up here.\n\n1) I haven't seen the map in Plan[e]t Engineering, but I've read the\ndiscussion in the archive and accepted that the Commonwealth was South\nAmerica, and thought I had a fairly good grasp of the topography. But\nthen I came across this sentence in Citadel, ch. V: \"I did have the\nimpression (though I could not be sure it was correct) that it [Ascia] was\na single land mass, and not a chain of islands like our south...\" Where \ndoes this fit in with what else we know about the Commonwealth's\ngeography? Of course, maybe Severian just means that the south _contains_\na chain of islands; but that's not what he says.\n\n2) After Little Severian dies, Severian is thinking about how that whole\nfamily is now dead, and tells us: \"I knew then, on the arm of that giant\nfigure, the ambition to conquer time...\" (III, ch. 24) And as the New\nSun, he does conquer time. Of course, before he actually becomes the New\nSun he doesn't realize time travel is part of the package, but even the\n\"bringing the New Sun\" he expects to be doing would be \"conquering time\"\nin a sense, since it's reversing the effects of entropy. We know that the\nHierodules are shaping Severian to maximize the probability that he will\naspire to and succeed in bringing/being the New Sun; this raises the grim\npossibility that they somehow brought about Little Severian's death to\nhelp motivate Severian.\n\n3) A few months ago, there was a discussion as to why Thecla's personality\nwas so well preserved within Severian. Me and someone else both thought\nwe there was a passage saying it was because the Claw brought her to life\nwithin him, but couldn't remember where it was. I found it: it's in the\nconversation between Severian and the postulant Ava in IV, ch. 10. It's\nAva who puts forward this theory, so it's not as authoritative as if it\nhad been the old Autarch or the Hierodules, but Severian is convinced by\nit (his words at the altar, IV Ch. 14).\n\n4) Does it strike anyone else that Severian's behavior at the start of\nUrth is just a tad irresponsible? He is (or so he believes) soon to\nundergo a trial which will have the most momentous consequences for Urth,\nas well as for himself. You would think he would be devoting himself to\nplanning his strategy at the trial and figuring out what his predecessor\nhad done wrong. Instead he first wastes what must be days recopying the\nmanuscript of (our) BotNS (how long would that take, anyway?) so that\npeople in other universes will know of his exploits. (Not even Typhon was\nso vainglorious.) Then, apparently out of sheer boyish exuberance, he\ntries to jump to the top of the mast and nearly gets himself killed.\nTo be sure, he may have spent a lot of time pondering his strategy for the\ntrial that he doesn't tell us about, but from his performance at the\n\"trial\" it doesn't look like it: all he can think of to do is to\nunconsciously parrot the old Autarch's speech, which a little thought\nwould indicate is not necessarily the best move. Of course, his \"trial\"\nturns out to be a put-up job, so his dereliction doesn't matter. And he\ndoes have his guardian angel looking out for him, though I don't know\nwhether even Tzadkiel could have done anything about his being lost in\nspace (even the eidelon trick wouldn't work, with no dead brain to draw\nmemories from).\n\n5) My final question is one that probably only Wolfe can answer, though\nthe answer may be in some interview. We know that _Urth of the New Sun_\nwas not part of Wolfe's original intention, but was written as a\ncompromise with his editor. And _Urth_ makes explicit a number of matters\nhighly relevant to BotNS, but which are much more obscure there, and would\noften probably have gone unsuspected without _Urth_. My question is\ntwofold: In doing the final revisions of BotNS, did Wolfe have the\neventual existence of _Urth_ in mind? In other words, would these matters\nthat are made explicit in _Urth_ have been equally explicit in BotNS, had\nWolfe gained his first preference and not written _Urth_? And to what\nextent can we assume that Wolfe's vision of the New Sun universe is the\nsame in _Urth_ as it was in BotNS?\n\nAs usual, comments are actively solicited.\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "CRCulver", "address": "crculver at aol.com" }, "date": "1998-06-18T05:02:01+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) New Sun miscellany", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "<5) My final question is one that probably only Wolfe can answer, though\nthe answer may be in some interview. We know that _Urth of the New Sun_\nwas not part of Wolfe's original intention, but was written as a\ncompromise with his editor. And _Urth_ makes explicit a number of matters\nhighly relevant to BotNS, but which are much more obscure there, and would\noften probably have gone unsuspected without _Urth_. My question is\ntwofold: In doing the final revisions of BotNS, did Wolfe have the\neventual existence of _Urth_ in mind? In other words, would these matters\nthat are made explicit in _Urth_ have been equally explicit in BotNS, had\nWolfe gained his first preference and not written _Urth_? And to what\nextent can we assume that Wolfe's vision of the New Sun universe is the\nsame in _Urth_ as it was in BotNS?>\n\nIt is certain there are some things in the BotNS that would make no sense and\nhave no observable purpose if Wolfe didn't already have some elements of UotNS\nplanned. The first thing that springs to mind is the winged Tzadkiel in the\nAutarch's book.\n\n- Christopher R. Culver" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Peter Westlake", "address": "peter at harlequin.co.uk" }, "date": "1998-06-18T10:20:27+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) New Sun miscellany", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Adam said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "3) A few months ago, there was a discussion as to why Thecla's personality\nwas so well preserved within Severian. Me and someone else both thought\nwe there was a passage saying it was because the Claw brought her to life\nwithin him, but couldn't remember where it was. I found it: it's in the\nconversation between Severian and the postulant Ava in IV, ch. 10. It's\nAva who puts forward this theory, so it's not as authoritative as if it\nhad been the old Autarch or the Hierodules, but Severian is convinced by\nit (his words at the altar, IV Ch. 14)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm half a book behind Adam, and I spotted that too. Didn't someone\non this or the Whorl list say that birds in Wolfe always tell the\ntruth - and does \"Ava\" count? :-)\n\nThere's also a bit somewhere (books at home, sorry) where it is\nmade fairly clear that the Autarch's \"spirit\" is alive in the\nsame way as Thecla, almost certainly because of the improved\nmethod of transfer, using living brain cells. And in UtoNS\nthere's reference to the Autarch talking to Severian before\nthey all merged into a single(ish) personality." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "4) Does it strike anyone else that Severian's behavior at the start of\nUrth is just a tad irresponsible?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I get the impression he expects to have a very long voyage, so a\nfew days don't matter. Climbing the mast *is* rather silly, though\nI can see how he might get carried away once he was out there." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "5) My final question is one that probably only Wolfe can answer, though\nthe answer may be in some interview. We know that _Urth of the New Sun_\nwas not part of Wolfe's original intention, but was written as a\ncompromise with his editor." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I hadn't heard that. What happened?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And _Urth_ makes explicit a number of matters\nhighly relevant to BotNS, but which are much more obscure there, and would\noften probably have gone unsuspected without _Urth_. My question is\ntwofold: In doing the final revisions of BotNS, did Wolfe have the\neventual existence of _Urth_ in mind? In other words, would these matters\nthat are made explicit in _Urth_ have been equally explicit in BotNS, had\nWolfe gained his first preference and not written _Urth_? And to what\nextent can we assume that Wolfe's vision of the New Sun universe is the\nsame in _Urth_ as it was in BotNS?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You took the words right out of my mouth! It seems to me that any\npuzzles in BotNS ought to have answers in BotNS, subject only to\nmodification by things we find out later in UotNS. For instance,\nat the end of BotNS, we discover that the Severian who would have\nexisted if the Hierodules had not intervened (and who did exist in\nan \"earlier\" time-track) travelled the corridors, spending some\ntime as Apu-Punchau, eventually leaving the stone town for the\nlast time and some time later dying and being buried in the\nmausoleum. In UotNS it turns out to be more complicated than that\n(right? I haven't re-read that far yet), but still consistent with\nthe earlier book. This is an instance of what might be called the\nReichenbach principle - exploitation of our lack of omniscience\nabout what \"really\" happens in the world of the story. I think\nwe should answer questions about BotNS first with reference to\nthat book alone - as we would have had to for several years in\nreal time - and then apply the extra knowledge from UotNS. If the\nanswers come out differently, that in itself is interesting.\n\nChristopher said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It is certain there are some things in the BotNS that would make no sense and\nhave no observable purpose if Wolfe didn't already have some elements of UotNS\nplanned. The first thing that springs to mind is the winged Tzadkiel in the\nAutarch's book." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Granted we don't find out who that is, but do we really need to for BotNS?\nThere are plenty of references to amchaspands and things outside time to\ngive some clue as to what *kind* of thing Severian might be seeing. He\ngets a glimpse of a higher reality; it's one of those passages that give\nthe impression that the author knows more about the world of the book than\nhe is telling. It's one of the things the best authors can do, and\ncontributes strongly to our belief in the world of the story.\n\nWhile we're being miscellaneous, some older threads about things\nthat I hadn't re-read at the time:\n\nJonas and Miles: Severian isn't the only one who sees Jonas in Miles.\nThe Pelerine who sees Thecla in Severian comments that Miles is \"like\nthat too\". Jonas really is there somehow. How he gets there, and what\nhappens to his previous body, is another question!\n\nArmigers: somewhere in the archives is a comment to the effect that\narmigers are people who are allowed to bear arms, like Samurai. In\nfact, the kind of arms \"armiger\" refers to are coats of arms, like\nthe rose/ship/fountain in the mausoleum. My apologies to those of\nyou who knew this perfectly well already!\n\nHildegrin: I get the idea about S and A-P \"merging\", I think,\nespecially after reading \"Twin Mounds\". William asked why one\nHildegrin appeared to be struggling with something invisible;\ncould it be that Severian is really seeing one Hildegrin, but\nwith two pairs of eyes? As Apu-Punchau, he sees Hildegrin trying\nto capture him; as Severian, he sees H but can't see A-P. Not\nbeing able to see people who aren't quite in your own time is\ncommon to this and \"Twin Mounds\", though I would never have\nworked it out for myself. I'm still not entirely clear on this\nepisode, in fact. Why was it fatal to Hildegrin?\nWould someone like to explain it all to me slowly?\nBears are not universally intelligent, remember. [*] \n\nNarrative reticence: I subscribe to the \"remembering to put\nin details only when they become relevant\" theory, mostly,\nwith some clear-cut cases of \"torment the reader\". Severian\nnot saying why he was leaving Thrax is a prime example.\nThe disturbance at the gate of Nessus, where we only learn\nbit by bit that someone had tried to take a wagon along the\nroad and been caught, is another.\n\nFinal Ignorant Question: what is Texas A & M, please?\n\nSpectacled Bear.\n\n\n[*] For the Whorl list, I adopted the name Spectacled Bear because\n(a) they are the only bear that lives in South America (and who\nwould have thought reading Gene Wolfe would give new insight into\nthe work of Michael Bond?!) and (b) I heard someone describing on\nthe radio her research work with spectacled bears, in which a male\nbear was given a pole with which to knock down fruit that had been\nplaced high up out of his reach. Instead he held it upright and tried\nto climb it, giving me a perfect analogy and excuse for unsupported\nconjecture. The research concluded that \"bears are not universally\nintelligent\"." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "straight at email.unc.edu" }, "date": "1998-06-18T10:15:19+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) New Sun miscellany", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, adam louis stephanides wrote:\n5) My final question is one that probably only Wolfe can answer, though\nthe answer may be in some interview. We know that _Urth of the New Sun_\nwas not part of Wolfe's original intention, but was written as a\ncompromise with his editor. And _Urth_ makes explicit a number of matters\nhighly relevant to BotNS, but which are much more obscure there, and would\noften probably have gone unsuspected without _Urth_. My question is\ntwofold: In doing the final revisions of BotNS, did Wolfe have the\neventual existence of _Urth_ in mind? In other words, would these matters\nthat are made explicit in _Urth_ have been equally explicit in BotNS, had\nWolfe gained his first preference and not written _Urth_? And to what\nextent can we assume that Wolfe's vision of the New Sun universe is the\nsame in _Urth_ as it was in BotNS?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Wow! I've been considering for days now how to ask this very question.\n\nLike many people, I read the BotNS and was entranced but knew I wasn't\ngetting all of it, and now know that I missed much more than I suspected\nat the time.\n\nI read Urth directly after BotNS and was so disappointed that for a while\nI wanted to ignore it, pretend I'd never read it. The answers it gave to\nquestions raised in BotNS were so different from the provisional ones I'd\ncome up with, it was hard to reconcile. \n\nI was also disappointed with the flow of the book. The first half spends\na long time on Severian's journey in the ship to Yesod, a leisurely pace\nthat I suppose is in keeping with the BotNS, but which made me impatient\nat the time, seeming too much like a digression. \n\nThen the second half of the book seemed really rushed, like Wolfe had this\nchecklist of things Severian needed to do to fulfill all the prophesies -\ndo miracles and become the Concilator (check), meet Typhon for the \"first\"\ntime (check), go back in time to become Apo Punchau (check), bring the New\nSun (check). They all just seemed kind of tacked on and not fully fleshed\nout. In light of you comment about Wolfe making a \"compromise\" I almost\nwonder if he initally wanted to leave these scenes to the reader's\nimagination but the editor convinced him to spell things out that he only\nwanted to hint at. \n\nI also admit that I liked my initial impression that in BotNS the\nConcilator legend was a jumble mixing stories of Jesus with a contemporary\nof Typhon and possibly other historical/mythological figures. So I was\ndisappointed to see Severian acting it out so literally. If the\nConciliator is \"just\" Severian and not in some way also a memory of Jesus,\nthen it's harder to place Severian as the \"Christian figure\" Wolfe wants\nhim to be. And it seems then like the New Sun/Long Sun multiverse is\nmerely a new, self-contained, mythology rather than an extension of\nChristian mythology (which I would find more interesting, and I thought\nwas Wolfe's intent). \n\nGetting back to Adam's comments, I'm reminded of Borges, who was very\ninterested in the idea of how our reading of a text changes because of\nwhat else we've read. (See especially \"Pierre Menard, Author of the\nQuixote\" and \"Kafka and his Precursors\"). I think Wolfe very\ndeliberately and successfully created with Exodus a book that almost\nrewrites the earlier books in the Long Sun series and am fascinated by how\ndifferent a re-reading of them is after finishing Exodus.\n\nReading this list has convinced me that what Wolfe has done with Urth does\nin fact make BotNS more interesting than my original reading, and I'm way\noverdue in re-reading BotNS, but I'm also still interested in BotNS as it\nstands without Urth. I'd be interested in alternate interpretations of\nevents in BotNS that Urth rules out. Is it certain, for instance, in the\nfirst four books that Severian himself will one day become the\nConciliator? Are there any reviews or discussions of BotNS I could get my\nhands on that predate Urth? \n\n-Ramblin' Rostrum" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "straight at email.unc.edu" }, "date": "1998-06-18T10:22:32+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) New Sun miscellany", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Peter Westlake wrote:\nYou took the words right out of my mouth! It seems to me that any\npuzzles in BotNS ought to have answers in BotNS, subject only to\nmodification by things we find out later in UotNS. \nI think\nwe should answer questions about BotNS first with reference to\nthat book alone - as we would have had to for several years in\nreal time - and then apply the extra knowledge from UotNS. If the\nanswers come out differently, that in itself is interesting." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A fascinating, but at best difficult exercise! Some might argue it is\nimpossible, that having read Urth, there are some possibilities we just\nwon't be able to see in BotNS anymore. I can't imagine, for instance,\npretending anymore that the Urth is so old that the Sun is dying of\nnatural causes, even though I read the whole series without catching on\nabout the black hole. \n\nThe best route might be to read reviews that predate Urth or remember\ninterpretations we had before we read Urth and in discussing them limit\nthe \"evidence\" to BotNS.\n\n-Rostrum" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Peter Westlake", "address": "peter at harlequin.co.uk" }, "date": "1998-06-29T09:55:28+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) New Sun miscellany", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "At 11:20 1998-06-18 +0100, a foolish Bear wrote:\n..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Armigers: somewhere in the archives is a comment to the effect that\narmigers are people who are allowed to bear arms, like Samurai. In\nfact, the kind of arms \"armiger\" refers to are coats of arms, like\nthe rose/ship/fountain in the mausoleum. My apologies to those of\nyou who knew this perfectly well already!" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I couldn't find that in the archives when I wrote the message;\nimagine my embarrasment on finding it in the afterword to _Claw_!\nIt actually says that the name suggests a fighting class, rather\nlike the Samurai. The stuff about coats of arms is still true,\nof course, and arms were usually granted to knights, who were\na fighting class too. My thanks to all who refrained from\npointing out my mistake ;-)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Bears are not universally intelligent, remember." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Now this bit, I stand by.\n\nSBear." } ] } ] }