{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/whorl/1342",
    "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": 1342,
    "subject": "What Happened? (re: \"It's Mostly the Ending\")",
    "messages": 2,
    "voices": 2,
    "first": "2001-04-11T08:27:41+00:00",
    "last": "2001-04-12T22:34:47+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<whorl-v0012-0578@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes",
        "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com"
      },
      "date": "2001-04-11T08:27:41+00:00",
      "subject": "(whorl) What Happened? (re: \"It's Mostly the Ending\")",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Viz writes, viz:"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "There are two major areas where the book as a whole lets us down\non, and we've beaten them both to death, but I'll say again:\n\na) we get the huge buildup on the secret of the inhumi, and it\nturns out the secret doesn't meet the expectations that the\nnarrative builds up for it. We were expecting something more than\nwe guessed in the first volume, but that was it.\n\nb) the fact that the narrator is Horn in Silk's body has been\nobvious since the first volume, so the climactic revelation that\nthe narrator is Horn in Silk's body falls flat."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Some thoughts on this...\n\n1. Mr Wolfe has been (dis?)informed over and again by reviewers \nboth friendly and un that his texts are just too difficult for \nan sf audience; that nobody can reasonably eke out his intent\nfrom the cryptons and gnomions he sparses out purloinedlettrishily,\nand perhaps in response he has _underestimated_ his audience this\ngo, transparing the solutions so only a Piers Anthony fan could \nmiss them.\n\n2. Contrariwise perhaps this is a case of \"Who killed the Comedian?\" \n-- for non-Watchmen-readers, that would be a special kind of red \nherring, where the writer putts puzzles with clear solutions in \nplain sight so as to obscure the real puzzles. \n     If so, Mr Wolfe's use of the technique is different from Mr\nMoore's: those who, like me, participated in the excited discussion\nof each issue of WATCHMEN as it came out will recall that, long \nbefore the conclusion, we realized the ethical and philosophical \nquestions the story raised were far more interesting than the \nmurder mystery (which, however, contributed its share to those \nquestions); here, the readers are caught up in the red herrings and\nunwilling to recognize them as such. \n     Which is a shame. We've had some small discussion of what \nthese novels are really about -- the nature of identity; the \napplication or applicability of Christian soteriology to a people \nthat have no chance of knowing (by natural knowledge) the Gospel; \nthe possibility of salvation for \"demons\"; what Charles Williams\ncalled the \"Web of Exchange\"; etc., etc., etc. -- questions, btw,\nto which the questions of \"who is the Narrator?\" and \"What is the\nSecret?\" are quite relevant, but in an almost reversible manner;\nunderstand identity and know who the Narrator is, understand \nthe Web of Exchange and know the Secret of the Inhumi.\n     Granted these are more difficult to grapple with, especially \nafter a single reading; granted, they don't appear at the raw \nplot/surface level the way the Comedian-problems do; granted, it \nwill take years rather than weeks to tease them out of the texts \nat hand... still, aren't these really more interesting questions?\n\n--Dan'l\n\n\n*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "message_id": "<whorl-v0012-0604@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Adam Stephanides",
        "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net"
      },
      "date": "2001-04-12T22:34:47+00:00",
      "subject": "Re: (whorl) What Happened? (re: \"It's Mostly the Ending\")",
      "in_reply_to": "<whorl-v0012-0578@digest.urth.net>",
      "reply_link": "subject",
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "on 4/11/01 10:27 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes at ddanehy at siebel.com wrote:\nViz writes, viz:"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "There are two major areas where the book as a whole lets us down\non, and we've beaten them both to death, but I'll say again:\n\na) we get the huge buildup on the secret of the inhumi, and it\nturns out the secret doesn't meet the expectations that the\nnarrative builds up for it. We were expecting something more than\nwe guessed in the first volume, but that was it.\n\nb) the fact that the narrator is Horn in Silk's body has been\nobvious since the first volume, so the climactic revelation that\nthe narrator is Horn in Silk's body falls flat."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "2. Contrariwise perhaps this is a case of \"Who killed the Comedian?\"\n-- for non-Watchmen-readers, that would be a special kind of red\nherring, where the writer putts puzzles with clear solutions in\nplain sight so as to obscure the real puzzles.\nIf so, Mr Wolfe's use of the technique is different from Mr\nMoore's: those who, like me, participated in the excited discussion\nof each issue of WATCHMEN as it came out will recall that, long\nbefore the conclusion, we realized the ethical and philosophical\nquestions the story raised were far more interesting than the\nmurder mystery (which, however, contributed its share to those\nquestions); here, the readers are caught up in the red herrings and\nunwilling to recognize them as such."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Unlike Vizcacha, I wasn't disappointed by the revelation of the narrator's\nidentity; and I was, conversely, disappointed by a number of other things.\nBut I don't think that Wolfe intended either the secret of the inhumi or the\nnarrator's identity to be a \"red herring.\"  The positions in which both\nrevelations are placed, and the ways in which the revelations are presented,\nconvince me that Wolfe intended us to view these revelations as a big deal.\n\nAnd TBOTSS is a novel, not a philosophical treatise.  While I can imagine a\nnovel in which the protagonist's identity turns out to be a \"red herring,\"\nTBOTSS ain't it.  Nor is TBOTSS a novel in which the plot is just a pretext\nfor discussing philosophical issues.  And human-inhumi relations, of which\nthe secret is an integral part, are vital to the plot."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "Which is a shame. We've had some small discussion of what\nthese novels are really about -- the nature of identity; the\napplication or applicability of Christian soteriology to a people\nthat have no chance of knowing (by natural knowledge) the Gospel;\nthe possibility of salvation for \"demons\"; what Charles Williams\ncalled the \"Web of Exchange\"; etc., etc., etc. -- questions, btw,\nto which the questions of \"who is the Narrator?\" and \"What is the\nSecret?\" are quite relevant, but in an almost reversible manner;\nunderstand identity and know who the Narrator is, understand\nthe Web of Exchange and know the Secret of the Inhumi.\nGranted these are more difficult to grapple with, especially\nafter a single reading; granted, they don't appear at the raw\nplot/surface level the way the Comedian-problems do; granted, it\nwill take years rather than weeks to tease them out of the texts\nat hand... still, aren't these really more interesting questions?"
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "No.  To be specific:\n\nFrankly, I don't believe Wolfe has anything particularly profound to say\nabout \"the nature of identity.\"  In fact, this whole question is so obscure\nin RttW (Wolfe's intent that Horn's spirit departs Silk's body in between\nthe next-to-last and last astral trips to Urth seems clear to me, but what\nexactly this entails I have no idea) that I doubt any coherent \"position\" on\nthis can be extracted from the books.\n\nI don't know \"what Charles Williams called the 'Web of Exchange,'\" but I\ndon't see that Wolfe in RttW has any more to say on the subject of exchange\nthan that if you're cruel to people, they will be cruel to you, and if\nyou're nice, they'll be nice.  An uplifting sentiment, but again hardly\nprofound.\n\nAs for \"the application or applicability of Christian soteriology to a\npeople that have no chance of knowing (by natural knowledge) the Gospel;\nthe possibility of salvation for 'demons,'\" I have no interest in these\nquestions, and no desire to use RttW as a springboard to discuss them.\n\nFor me, the bottom line is that Wolfe is a novelist, not a philosopher or\ntheologian.  I'm interested in his philosophy or theology only insofar as it\nhelps me understand his novels.  I'm not interested in discussing his novels\nin order to understand his philosophy or theology.\n\n--Adam\n\n\n*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}