{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/whorl/1312", "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": "whorl", "thread": { "id": 1312, "subject": "Third-person sections in RttW", "messages": 8, "voices": 5, "first": "2001-04-01T22:01:41+00:00", "last": "2001-04-11T13:48:37+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2001-04-01T22:01:41+00:00", "subject": "(whorl) Third-person sections in RttW", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've been trying to approach the problem of the third-person sections from a\ndifferent angle, by asking why they are there at all. When you think about\nit, their presence is strange. After all, the editors' primary aim is to\npublish \"the protagonist's\" memoir. I can't think of any real-life examples\nin which the editors of a memoir have supplemented it with a novelistic\nreconstruction of episodes missing from the memoir (although I'm sure that\nnow that I've said this, somebody will come up with one). If the editors\nsimply wanted to fill in the gaps in Horn's story, a straightforward account\nthe length of Horn's chapter summarizing his career on Green would have\nsufficed. Why compose an extended \"re-creat[ion]\" from Horn's perspective,\nmany of the details of which must be invented? Especially since, by failing\nto specify what is invention and what isn't, the editors cast doubt upon\neverything in their re-creation.\n\nThe only clue to the editors' motives I'm aware of is their statement in the\nAfterword: \"What is most certain is the point most frequently doubted by\nthose who have read earlier drafts of the present volume: that he abandoned\nhis search for Silk in order that his chance-met friend's vision might be\nrestored.\" And they continue to argue this for ten more lines. This\nsuggests to me that the editors wrote the third-person sections precisely in\norder to \"prove\" this claim, a proof that a factual account presumably would\nnot have supplied and that their earlier drafts did not.\n\nBut what, precisely, was the doubt the editors were trying to refute? Was\nit the view held by many on this list that the protagonist gave up his eye\nso he could download Silk-in-Pig, and hence was continuing, not sacrificing\nhis quest? Perhaps, but I don't know why the editors would go to such\nlengths to refute this view. It seems more likely to me that they were\nrefuting claims that the protagonist had not sacrificed his eye at all: that\nhe had just lost his eye somehow, later abandoned his quest, and invented\nthe story of the bargain with Hari Mau and sacrificed eye to excuse his\nabandonment. The continuation of the paragraph, with its insistence that\nHorn acted only from the most honorable motives, and may not have been\nabandoning the quest after all, makes more sense if directed against such a\nclaim.\n\nBut this is where my reasoning stops. Lacking any independent account of\nthe protagonist on Whorl, and lacking the earlier drafts, we don't know what\nincidents, if any, were invented or altered by the editors to make the\nprotagonist's sacrifice more convincing. Nor do I see how this hypothesis\nwould explain the anomalous features of the third-person sections I and\nothers have pointed out. Perhaps someone else can carry this line of attack\nforward." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "About those anomalous features, incidentally: Rostrum wrote:\nFolks have complained that Horn's children wouldn't write that way, that\nit is implausible that they would write a narrative that deliberately\nhides the protagonist's identity until the \"gotcha\" moment at the very end\nwhere they write, \"Silk nodded.\"\n\nI think this is a misunderstanding. I think Horn's kids faced the same\nproblem that drives us to write about \"Hornsilk\" or \"Silkhorn,\" that they\nbelieved that this man was somehow both Silk and Horn and that rather than\nuse some awkward amalgam name like Passilk, they just didn't call him\nanything until the point in the story where he had changed and it then\nseemed appropriate just to call him Silk." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But there are ways of indicating that the protagonist is both Horn and Silk\nwithout using amalgams like \"Silkhorn.\" And while the editors' suppression\nof any name but \"he\" leaves the protagonist's identity ambiguous in\nretrospect, it doesn't read that way at the time. Since \"Horn\" protests\nthat he is Horn throughout, and since the third-person sections give us (we\nthink) access to \"Horn's\" mind which seemingly bears out his claim, we\naccept his claim at face value (at least I did). So the failure to identify\nthe protagonist is deceptive in effect. And I have a hard time believing\nthe editors wouldn't have recognized that and taken steps to correct it.\n\n--Adam\n\n\n*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "straight at email.unc.edu" }, "date": "2001-04-02T09:36:35+00:00", "subject": "Re: (whorl) Third-person sections in RttW", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Adam Stephanides wrote:\nIf the editors\nsimply wanted to fill in the gaps in Horn's story, a straightforward account\nthe length of Horn's chapter summarizing his career on Green would have\nsufficed. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The simplest explanation seems to me that Nettle was interested in the\nWhorl, so Horn talked a lot about what happened in the Whorl amongst his\nfamily but very little about the events of OBW and IGJ. So much that the\nkids had lots of material, much more than a chapter, and decided to\nincorporate all of it into the book.\n\nThey must have decided to model the third book on the first one, which\nswitches back and forth from present to past. Book two has some\nflashbacks, but book three, as the Narrator wrote it, has almost none. So\nthey may have written the Whorl stuff the way they did to make book three\nbetter match the other two." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But there are ways of indicating that the protagonist is both Horn and Silk\nwithout using amalgams like \"Silkhorn.\" And while the editors' suppression\nof any name but \"he\" leaves the protagonist's identity ambiguous in\nretrospect, it doesn't read that way at the time. Since \"Horn\" protests\nthat he is Horn throughout, and since the third-person sections give us (we\nthink) access to \"Horn's\" mind which seemingly bears out his claim, we\naccept his claim at face value (at least I did). So the failure to identify\nthe protagonist is deceptive in effect. And I have a hard time believing\nthe editors wouldn't have recognized that and taken steps to correct it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Every single person Hornsilk meets in the Whorl recognizes him as Silk and\ntreats him like Silk. Oreb identifies him on almost every page. Short of\nadding editorial comentary (e.g. \"'My name is Horn,' said the hybrid\nperson, not realizing that it was Horn's spirit inhabiting Silk's body.\"),\nI don't know what more the editors could have done. And I'm not sure they\nwere confident enough in what had happened to supply that kind of\nstatement even if they had wanted to write that way.\n\n-Rostrum\n\n\n*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2001-04-02T20:04:23+00:00", "subject": "Re: (whorl) Third-person sections in RttW", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "on 4/2/01 8:36 AM, Michael Straight at straight at email.unc.edu wrote:\nOn Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Adam Stephanides wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "If the editors\nsimply wanted to fill in the gaps in Horn's story, a straightforward account\nthe length of Horn's chapter summarizing his career on Green would have\nsufficed. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The simplest explanation seems to me that Nettle was interested in the\nWhorl, so Horn talked a lot about what happened in the Whorl amongst his\nfamily but very little about the events of OBW and IGJ. So much that the\nkids had lots of material, much more than a chapter, and decided to\nincorporate all of it into the book." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Then why not include Horn's conversations on his time on Whorl as\nconversations, like the Hoof-penned chapters?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "They must have decided to model the third book on the first one, which\nswitches back and forth from present to past. Book two has some\nflashbacks, but book three, as the Narrator wrote it, has almost none. So\nthey may have written the Whorl stuff the way they did to make book three\nbetter match the other two." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This would make perfect sense if the editors were writing a novel. But, at\nthe risk of becoming tedious, they're not." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Every single person Hornsilk meets in the Whorl recognizes him as Silk and\ntreats him like Silk. Oreb identifies him on almost every page." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "All that showed was that Horn was in Silk's body, which was already clear.\nIt fails to convey that the protagonist is, in spirit, as much Silk as Horn.\n(Of course, some people on this list don't believe that this was true until\nafter Pig gets his eye; but there are third-person sections taking place\nafter that event, and they refer to the protagonist in the same way.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Short of\nadding editorial comentary (e.g. \"'My name is Horn,' said the hybrid\nperson, not realizing that it was Horn's spirit inhabiting Silk's body.\"),\nI don't know what more the editors could have done." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And why shouldn't they add editorial commentary? They're editors, after\nall. And they do add editorial commentary; they just wait until after Wolfe\nhas sprung his surprise." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And I'm not sure they\nwere confident enough in what had happened to supply that kind of\nstatement even if they had wanted to write that way." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "They could have said that, too, in that case.\n\n--Adam\n\n\n*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2001-04-03T07:49:45+00:00", "subject": "RE: (whorl) Third-person sections in RttW", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "They must have decided to model the third book on the first one, which\nswitches back and forth from present to past. Book two has some\nflashbacks, but book three, as the Narrator wrote it, has almost none." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "So" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "they may have written the Whorl stuff the way they did to make book\nthree\nbetter match the other two." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This would make perfect sense if the editors were writing a novel. But,\nat\nthe risk of becoming tedious, they're not." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Also, at the risk of being obvious, the structure of Book Three does\nnot significantly match that of Book One -- in RttW, the flashbacks are\nseparated from the \"present\" narrative by chapter breaks; in OBW, they\nare integrated and occasionally difficult to separate from them.\n\n\n*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Jordan", "address": "jbjordan4 at home.com" }, "date": "2001-04-09T20:32:47+00:00", "subject": "Re: (whorl) Third-person sections in RttW", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But there are ways of indicating that the protagonist is both Horn and Silk\nwithout using amalgams like \"Silkhorn.\" And while the editors' suppression\nof any name but \"he\" leaves the protagonist's identity ambiguous in\nretrospect, it doesn't read that way at the time. Since \"Horn\" protests\nthat he is Horn throughout, and since the third-person sections give us (we\nthink) access to \"Horn's\" mind which seemingly bears out his claim, we\naccept his claim at face value (at least I did). So the failure to identify\nthe protagonist is deceptive in effect. And I have a hard time believing\nthe editors wouldn't have recognized that and taken steps to correct it.\n\n--Adam" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " though this has been discussed to death, you do bring another \nslant to it. Wolfe is more than capable of tricking us and reversing our \nexpectations at the end of this trilogy. But are the editors of the 3d \nperson sections? Why would they do this? As you note, such tricking makes \nlittle sense. I persist in suspecting that the Narrator is really mainly \nHorn, though in Silk's body, and that this is who he continues to be. But \nat this point, I'm reduced to little more than a suspicion, because of the \neffective way everyone here has beaten me up over this.\n And I'll bring this up again, since nobody commented on in when I \nbrought it up the first time. I cannot find the place, but at one point the \nNarrator, having been accused of being Silk for the nth time, looks for a \nscar he expects to find on Silk's body, and claims not to find it, thereby \nreassuring himself that he is not Silk. Of course, it is pretty clear that \nhe is in Silk's body, and is partly Silk; but he himself thinks he has \nreasons to dismiss the views of everyone around him.\n\nNutria the Nut\n\n\n*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "William Ansley", "address": "wansley at warwick.net" }, "date": "2001-04-10T23:59:53+00:00", "subject": "Re: (whorl) Third-person sections in RttW", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At 8:32 PM -0500 4/9/01, James Jordan wrote:\n And I'll bring this up again, since nobody commented on in \nwhen I brought it up the first time. I cannot find the place, but at \none point the Narrator, having been accused of being Silk for the \nnth time, looks for a scar he expects to find on Silk's body, and \nclaims not to find it, thereby reassuring himself that he is not \nSilk. Of course, it is pretty clear that he is in Silk's body, and \nis partly Silk; but he himself thinks he has reasons to dismiss the \nviews of everyone around him." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't think you are going to get much help from this memory, which \nis inexact, if I have found the passage you are thinking of. I \nbelieve the passage you refer to is the one on page 188 of RttW:\n\n----------------------------------------\n... I actually pushed back my sleeve to look for the scars his beak \nhad left on Silk's arm. Needless to say, they were not there--it was \nSilk, not I, who fought the white-headed one ...\n----------------------------------------\n\nThis seems promising, but this scene takes place during an astral \njourney to Green, when Silk|Horn* is searching for Jahlee. I don't \nthink we can base any firm conclusions about identity based on \nwhether Silk|Horn's astral body has scars or not. And I don't think \nSilk|Horn rationally could either.\n\nBy the way, no matter how much anyone reading this appreciates and \nadmires the BotSS, I don't think anyone will deny that the elaborate \nstructure Wolfe uses in these books makes finding a specific passage \na royal pain in the ... neck.\n\nWilliam Ansley\n\n*This is my new invention. The vertical bar stands for \"or\" in many \nmath and computer-science related notations.\n\n*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "straight at email.unc.edu" }, "date": "2001-04-11T08:23:44+00:00", "subject": "Re: (whorl) Third-person sections in RttW", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, William Ansley wrote:\nBy the way, no matter how much anyone reading this appreciates and \nadmires the BotSS, I don't think anyone will deny that the elaborate \nstructure Wolfe uses in these books makes finding a specific passage \na royal pain in the ... neck." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The worst novel I've ever read in that respect is Cryptonomicon by Neil\nStephenson. It jumps back and forth between two timelines and the the two\ntimelines jump around from various perspectives and are very episodic, so\neven after you've just read it, when you're looking for a specific passage\nit's almost impossible to figure out if it is before or after the passage\nyou've opened the book to. One of the few books I absolutely needed a\nbookmark for when I was reading it.\n\n-Rostrum\n\n(I found Cryptonomicon hilarious and highly entertaining, btw. The\nstory's not much, but the writing is so much fun I didn't care--forget the\nstory, give me more digressions on organ-pipe computers or mathematical\nmodels for divvying up inheritance!)\n\n\n*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Jordan", "address": "jbjordan4 at home.com" }, "date": "2001-04-11T13:48:37+00:00", "subject": "Re: (whorl) Third-person sections in RttW", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At 11:59 PM 4/10/2001 -0400, you wrote:\nAt 8:32 PM -0500 4/9/01, James Jordan wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": " And I'll bring this up again, since nobody commented on in when \nI brought it up the first time. I cannot find the place, but at one \npoint the Narrator, having been accused of being Silk for the nth time, \nlooks for a scar he expects to find on Silk's body, and claims not to \nfind it, thereby reassuring himself that he is not Silk. Of course, it \nis pretty clear that he is in Silk's body, and is partly Silk; but he \nhimself thinks he has reasons to dismiss the views of everyone around him." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't think you are going to get much help from this memory, which is \ninexact, if I have found the passage you are thinking of. I believe the \npassage you refer to is the one on page 188 of RttW:\n\n----------------------------------------\n... I actually pushed back my sleeve to look for the scars his beak had \nleft on Silk's arm. Needless to say, they were not there--it was Silk, not \nI, who fought the white-headed one ...\n----------------------------------------\n\nThis seems promising, but this scene takes place during an astral journey \nto Green, when Silk|Horn* is searching for Jahlee. I don't think we can \nbase any firm conclusions about identity based on whether Silk|Horn's \nastral body has scars or not. And I don't think Silk|Horn rationally could \neither.\n\nBy the way, no matter how much anyone reading this appreciates and admires \nthe BotSS, I don't think anyone will deny that the elaborate structure \nWolfe uses in these books makes finding a specific passage a royal pain in \nthe ... neck.\n\nWilliam Ansley" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Good point. That was the passage I remembered, and as part of an astral \njourney, it clearly does not count for what I thought it might. I stand \ncorrectified.\n\nNutria\n\n\n*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun." } ] } ] }