{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/840",
    "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": 840,
    "subject": "Severian's lacunae",
    "messages": 1,
    "voices": 1,
    "first": "1998-06-21T13:46:41+00:00",
    "last": "1998-06-21T13:46:41+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0014-0065@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "adam louis stephanides",
        "address": "astephan at students.uiuc.edu"
      },
      "date": "1998-06-21T13:46:41+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) Severian's lacunae",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "There were some very interesting responses on the subject of Severian's\nreticence, as I called it.  I like Peter Stephenson's interpretation of\nthis as Severian pigeonholing people, especially women, and wanting them\nto behave according to the categories he's put them into.  This might\nconnect to his habit of dropping wise-sounding little apothegms into his\nnarrative (which often contradict each other, especially on the subject of\nlove and desire).\n\nI can't go along with the idea that the examples I gave were just a\nstylistic choice.  In some cases, Severian's delayed revelations can be\nexplained in this way (e. g. the end of his encounter with Cyriaca;\nperhaps the delayed revelation that in the opening fight in the necropolis\nSeverian killed a man).  But the examples I gave violate the norms of\nnarration too severely to be just a stylistic variation.  In the case of\nthe Severian-Thecla relationship, all but the most suspicious reader will\ngo quite a long time believing that Severian's original portrayal of the\nrelationship was accurate (the first unambiguous indication that they\nwere lovers I found was in Claw, ch. 8).  For the examples I gave\nregarding Dorcas (the Dorcas-Jolenta relationship and Severian's jealousy\nthereof; Dorcas's remark about the Erinyes) it's even worse:\nSeverian gives us enough information to show that his original portrayal\nwas misleading, but not enough to let us know what the actual situation\nwas.\n\nI also disagree with Neal Smith's explanation that Severian only includes\ndetails when they're relevant to the actions of himself or others.\nSeverian includes a lot of details that are not relevant in that sense; as\nPeter Wright has pointed out, he's a very digressive narrator.  And he\ndiscusses his emotions at times even when they don't affect his actions:\ne.g. at the start of Shadow, ch. 13.  And of course, his making love to\nThecla is an action, and one that's very important to his story.\n\nFinally, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes's theory that because Severian has a perfect\nmemory he sometimes gets so absorbed in the past that he simply forgets he\nhasn't already told us important information doesn't convince me, although\nI'm not clear as to how his perfect memory works, if in fact it exists.\nBesides, it's hard to see how as he relives his life he could simply\n\"forget\" to recount such an important event as his first sexual encounter\nwith Thecla.\n\nStill, I don't think that the final word on Severian's lacunae has been\nuttered.  As I suggested in a previous post, my current feeling is that a\ncloser analysis of Severian's narrative technique would be extremely\nhelpful in understanding BotNS.\n\n--Adam"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}