Subject: (whorl) Re: Digest whorl.v012.n105

From: akt <akt at attglobal.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:28:48 +0000

>From Shellac:

> Yes, I'm very aware that I have named myself for a product made from
> insect goo (as silk is) and once used for phonograph recordings.  It's
> all rather "fannish" I suppose, but occasionally I find it amsusing.
> I used to laugh out loud at whoever it was who signed as "Sergeant
> Rock", being an occasional DC war comics fan.

I miss the Sarge. If you are still out there, could you please give us a
salute, for old times?

>From Ratty:

>          Women to be picked up and dumped at will. Well, we all know
that
> the Odyssey is partly behind this narrative, and Odysseus was hardly a
> model of faithfulness to his wife. What is of note, though I don't
know how
> much Wolfe has thought about this, is that pre-Christian heroes like
> Odysseus don't really undergo the kind of moral transformation we have
come
> to expect in literature of the Christian (and "post-Christian") era.
> Odysseus does not change as a result of his descent into Hades; no
"death
> and moral resurrection" here; and he's about as vicious at the end as
he
> has been all along. But both Horn and Severian are becoming better
people,
> though not very dramatically. They make a little progress, not great
> progress. In the case of Horn, it's Silk's influence, in various ways.
>          Rape? Hey, what else are women for? Sure, MY WIFE is to be
> protected (and maybe yours also, if you're my equal), but the rest are
fair
> game, to be used at will. That's the "ancient heroic" attitude, pretty
> much. (Though Homer was not totally blind to the problem, as the first
book
> of the Iliad shows.)

Ratty, while I appreciate the general tone of your screed, I have to
object to its specifics (well, you knew I would, didn't you?).
Specifically, then, not only is there no rape in The Odyssey, but women
are treated as powerful and controlling figures. There are four
important featured players, as I recall: Calypso, Circe, Nausica and
Penelope. Helen and Athena are significant background figures, while the
women he encounters at the boundary of Hades are formidable, if
sorrowful. Nausica is only a girl, but as a princess she compels
respect, and much of the story is told directly to her and her father.
No one could possibly call the other women victims. The outlook is so
feminist that Samuel Butler, in fact, speculated that the true author of
The Odyssey was a woman (Robert Graves concurred, alo c.f. Harold Bloom
and -The Book of J-). Women in the Greek plays get somewhat similar
treatment. (I hedge because this is a big subject and could be argued
for a long time; also there is the actual position of women in Greek
society, which was not so hot.) The Iliad, granted, is different, a war
story, and two women are treated as sex slaves. Their male counterparts
were slaughtered, however--plus ca change.

Let's go even further back, to Gilgamesh. At its opening, G, the king
and partly divine as well, is having his swinish way with the
about-to-be brides of the town (droit de seigneur). But, significantly,
the entire populace objects and appeals to the gods, which sets the plot
in motion. The other women of the epic, the ritual prostitute who
humanizes Enkidu, G's mother Ninsun (a minor goddess, to be sure), and
the uncanny tavernkeeper (who has a name that I've forgotten) are
treated with great respect. The *dis*respect G and Enkidu show to the
goddess Inanna is punished direly. The Scorpion Woman and Ziasudra's
wife (OK, as wives you've accounted for these) get equal billing, even
though Z's wife doesn't have a name. (Neither does Mrs. Noah.)

So I object to your thesis of Wolfe's using epic as an excuse. Epic is
more complicated than that. And I hardly think the Middle Eastern view
of women served up by the Bible--multiple wives and concubines, Mary and
Martha etc.--is more progressive. Let's not forget that Mary's
impregnation was exactly the same as that of Zeus's numerous
ladyfriends. She didn't exactly ask for it, did she?

>          Wolfe, I'm sure, is quite sympathetic to some of the concerns
of
> feminism. Men have very often treated women very badly, historically,
and
> Wolfe wants us to think about this fact.
>          Rape and also the sexual abuse of children is pretty damn
common,
> and he's trying to deal with it. It's clear that HE does not approve
of it.
> Where traditional epics like the Odyssey might find Odysseus'
adulteries
> "good stuff," and the Kalevala presents Lemmenkainen's fornications as
> humorous, it's pretty clear that Horn's and Severian's follies are not
held
> up for our amusement. Even in Jack Vance, though Cugel gets his
> comeuppance, his dalliances are presented as light humor. I don't
think
> Wolfe ever presents adultery or fornication that way. Wolfe's
"realism" is
> designed to make us uncomfortable, but I don't think his own moral
> perspective is hard to discern.

Well, I leave this up to others.

>From Rostrum:

> At a minimum, Horn is at fault and bears responsibility for insisting
that
> Seawrack sing for him.
>
> But what does Horn think about the rape?  He says that the fault is
his
> own, and he says the song is no excuse, but he does mention it,
possibly
> wanting his readers to excuse him.  (Of course this is Silk|Horn
writing.
> Is Silk dragging an honest confession from a rapist who wants to
excuse
> himself, or is Silk finding the true cause behind Horn's attempt to
blame
> himself?)

To have her bleeding to the point she cannot swim? Perhaps you are
excusing him too much. Until the Wooly Bug's post, I tended to do that
too.

> And while Silk|Horn's killing of Jahlee was wrong, I think it's
extremely
> understandable, considering the danger to Nettle and the depth of
Jahlee's
> betrayal.  In spite of Silk's contributions to the whole thing, it is
> amazing that Horn could learn to love as a daughter the creature that
> almost killed Sinew, leading to a major rift in his marriage to
Nettle.
> To bring Jahlee to Lizard was a huge imposition on Nettle, requiring
her
> to put a lot of trust in Silk and/or Horn.  It's not just Silk|Horn's
> trust in Jahlee that is broken, but Nettle's trust in Silk|Horn.

Yes, this is the point that I bump up against. Why, when so much of
these books, or this book as we might as well call it, has to do with
S/H's coming not only to terms, but coming to love as a father these
three demonic creatures--a subject I found truly enthralling and worthy
of serious contemplation--does he throw it all away so quickly? He
started way back with Quetzal, an interesting, complicated character.
The end of RttW seems to make trivial a huge investment of effort in a
really chewy subject.

>From Tim, re astral travel:

> "Petty"...well it substantially decreased my enjoyment of the series,
and
> leads directly to the issue discussed previously as to whether Wolfe
is
> writing Science Fiction or Science Fantasy.  It is something of a
> disappointment to find it's the latter after the earlier books in this
> "universe of discourse" (TBNS and TBLS) suggested the former.  As I've
asked
> before, why doesn't the Narrator try to astral travel to Seawrack or
Nettle
> (the two places he repeatedly says he wants to be) once he's
discovered this
> useful ability?  The rules of astral travel don't seem sufficiently
clear to
> rule this out.  Instead he goes (involuntarily it seems) to Green, and
(it
> seems eventually voluntarily) to Urth.  The problem with giving
characters
> these magic abilities is that it's irritating when they don't use them
(or
> at least try to use them) in the way that would be rational given the
> motivations they've described.

This bothered me a lot on first reading. I got over it, for sheer
enjoyment of the other worlds, but never completely--bringing it up
makes me uneasy again.

> What on _urth_ I'm talking about is that TBLS is IMHO (and not only
mine...)
> clearly juvenilia by the standards Wolfe established in TBNS,
especially in
> terms of narrative style but also content.  I won't repeat discussions
that
> are in the archives.  Obviously such aesthetic judgments involve
matters of
> opinion.  That's mine.

I felt *exactly* the same way. And am in the archives as saying so. What
brought me around is admiration for the plot structure, which is
formidable (*unlike* that of SS, which seems, well, sloppy--complicated
but sloppy).

-alga

*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun.
*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.moonmilk.com/whorl/
*To leave the list, send "unsubscribe" to whorl-request at lists.best.com
*If it's Wolfe but not Long Sun, please use the URTH list: urth at lists.best.com

---

From: Alex David Groce <alex_groce at gs246.sp.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:56:11 +0000

alga wrote:

> So I object to your thesis of Wolfe's using epic as an excuse. Epic
> is more complicated than that. And I hardly think the Middle Eastern
> view of women served up by the Bible--multiple wives and concubines,
> Mary and Martha etc.--is more progressive. Let's not forget that
> Mary's impregnation was exactly the same as that of Zeus's numerous

Not that this isn't purely a tangent, but actually in Luke 1 the angel
announces things to come to Mary before she is pregnant, and Mary says
"May it be to me as you have said."  So, in fact, her consent is
given.  Indeed, in some sense the Magnificat is a poetic expression of
the same sentiment.

--
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:32
--
Alex David Groce (agroce+ at cs.cmu.edu)
Ph.D. Student, Carnegie Mellon University - Computer Science Department
8112 Wean Hall (412)-268-3066
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~agroce

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:27:28 +0000

Alga oozed:

> Let's not forget that Mary's impregnation was exactly the same 
> as that of Zeus's numerous ladyfriends. She didn't exactly ask
> for it, did she?

Well... yes. Check out the Gospel according to Luke (the _only_
account of the Annunciation to Mary -- Mt. has an account of the
Annunciation to Joseph, a different matter). The angel tells her
what God has in mind, and Mary says, "Let it be done to me," and
proceeds a few paragraphs (but possibly several months) later to
sing one of the finest psalms in the Bible in praise of God for
doing this very thing. 

Okay, it's a man's account told decades later: but (a) if we're
talking about the text we have, then there's no point in saying
"yeah, but" — the text is the text; and (b) this text is the 
only evidence we have at all, one way or another: you certainly
can't support your claim simply by saying "there is no evidence
at all."

--Dan'l

---

From: James Jordan <jbjordan4 at home.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:32:15 +0000

>object to its specifics (well, you knew I would, didn't you?).

         Sure I did, Slimy. It was my purpose to draw you back into the 
discussion. ;-)

>were slaughtered, however--plus ca change.

  snip

         Okay. Good point. Instead of using the Greeks, I should have 
simply pointed to the history of the world in general.

snip

>The end of RttW seems to make trivial a huge investment of effort in a

         I still disagree. I think Jahlee's death is moving, and though it 
puts the narrator in a bad light, I think it communicates well to the 
reader. Jahlee dies AS A HUMAN, as a PERSON. Her death is, so to speak, her 
last step into true humanity. I know it did not have effect on you, so 
maybe Wolfe could have done a better job here; but I think most readers 
will feel as I do.
         As for the narrator, well I've suggested that may this is the 
emerging Silk, who does not have the same sympathy for the inhumi that Horn 
has learned to have -- though I'm still not sure who the narrator is 
supposed to be at the end of the book. If anything, that's the point of 
Wolfe's failure as far as I'm concerned. I did not care to "meet Silk" 
again in such a way. ("Hurray! It's Silk again!" Gimmeabreak!) It also 
seems rather pointless, since the novel SEEMS to be about Horn's 
development, and just to wipe him out, or submerge him into Silk -- well, 
it does not work for me! And so, I guess I agree with your point.
         I'd still rather think that it's Horn at the end, still being 
transformed by Silky influences, and that his attack on Jahlee was a lapse 
back into his "old nature." But I've been persuaded that I'm probably 
wrong, and that all the rest of you are right -- though I don't like it.

The Rat

---

From: James Jordan <jbjordan4 at home.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:19:26 +0000

>Alga wrote:

>ladyfriends. She didn't exactly ask for it, did she?

         Okay, I know your point of view. (I have your book on hell, after 
all.) My point was the influence of the Bible on our culture, and during 
those centuries it was believed that the Bible forbids polygamy and that 
people who practise it suffer for it. Obviously nobody believed that Mary 
and Martha were "wives" of Jesus, and they accepted the text as teaching 
that Mary accepted the role offered her. So, however some modern people may 
read the Bible, I was speaking of its cultural influence over the previous 
1800 years. I don't suppose this is a good topic for this list to discuss 
in detail; I assume you see my point.
         But I grant your point about Homer and the early epics, at least 
to a degree, as I stated in my other post.

King of Rats

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:11:15 +0000

>> But what does Horn think about the rape?  He says that the fault is his
>> own, and he says the song is no excuse, but he does mention it, possibly
>> wanting his readers to excuse him.  (Of course this is Silk|Horn writing.
>> Is Silk dragging an honest confession from a rapist who wants to excuse
>> himself, or is Silk finding the true cause behind Horn's attempt to blame
>> himself?)

> excusing him too much. Until the Wooly Bug's post, I tended to do that

If anything, the extreme brutality of what happened makes me lean more
toward believing that Seawrack's song produced some kind of irresistable
compulsion to act as Horn did.

It all depends on how it works.  If the song simply increases Horn's
desire to do what he wants, then it reveals that his desires are pretty
ugly and Horn should be condemned for acting on them (but I'd also be
tempted to give him credit for normally keeping such desires in
check--unless you buy an extreme Bad Horn theory that has him doing lots
of ugly stuff he never tells us about--Nettle could hardly survive such
treatment regularly even if she were the type to stay with so abusive a
husband, nor is it likely his Gaonese concubine would escape with him if
he were normally that brutal--but then that's Silk).  But if the song
actually compells Horn to act in a certain way, then whether he's nice or
ugly doesn't tell us anything about Horn because it's not him doing.

What we really need to know is what sort (if any) of madness or mind
control the song causes.  And given the scant evidence we have, I'm
inclined to think that it is sufficiently mindwarping to give Horn the
benefit of the doubt.

-Rostrum