{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/whorl/1371", "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": 1371, "subject": "Digest whorl.v012.n106", "messages": 3, "voices": 3, "first": "2001-04-19T04:24:19+00:00", "last": "2001-04-19T09:44:32+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Timothy Reilly", "address": "treilly at ozemail.com.au" }, "date": "2001-04-19T04:24:19+00:00", "subject": "(whorl) Re: Digest whorl.v012.n106", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In whorl.v012.n106, Rostrum wrote in response to my question \"how many gods\ndoes a planet need\"?:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The best estimate I can make, based on my available sample of one planet,\nis thousands and thousands (Thor, Aphrodite, Molech, Baal, Allah, YHWH,\nJesus, Shiva, Ganesha, Aura Mainyu, Cuchullin, Gaia, Isis, Ra, Brahma,\nKartar, Thetans, the August Personage of Jade, Cthulhu...). Some seem to\nbe space aliens, some seem to be deified human beings that may or may not\nin the future take up residence on Earth, some are related to indigenous\npeoples, PLUS there's the \"real\" God..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A nice riposte. I was going to write that my question was rhetorical, but\nthis would get us back to individual statements of religious belief..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nAre the \"minor\" gods of the LS whorl all originally other friends\netc of Typhon (eg Kypris)?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "No. The Outsider is \"a minor god.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, I know but is clearly miscategorised as such. What about Quadrifons,\nThyone et al ie the \"real\" minor gods?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "What does \"god\"' mean in the LS and SS series?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It is a deliberately ambiguous, multivalued and multiordinal term.\nThe Outsider is _not_ a god in the same sense as the Mother. Neither\nis a god in the same sense as Pas. None of these is a god in the\nsame sense that Scylla-in-Oreb is a goddess. Furthermore, Pas and\nPassilk and Kypris, all in Mainframe, are not gods in quite the\nsame sense." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is what troubles me. LS at least drew a distinction between the real\nthing (the Outsider) and the computer scans of malevolent human beings in\nMainframe (called \"gods\" but really technological manifestations). But TBSS\nblows this out by using \"god\" to mean almost anything, and thereby depriving\nthe concept of any real meaning. At least, I can't define what a \"god\"\nmeans in TBSS. If it can mean a space alien (the Mother), why aren't the\nNeighbours (or even theoretically the inhumi) \"gods\"? They're not, but the\nNeighbours we're told have \"gods\" of their own. We're never told the\ndifference even in the Narrator's mind between all these. I could\nunderstand if he groped his way to the conclusion that the only real god is\nthe Outsider, but while he often suggests this it doesn't disqualify all the\nothers as also being described as \"gods\" by him too. One wonders what his\ndefinition of a god is.\n\nI don't want to flog a dead horse much longer re astral travel, but Dan'l\nsaid:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Granted NEW made some handwaving attempts to offer pseudoscientific\nexplanations for ... some of ... the Miracles of Severian, how\nanyone can read LONG without recognizing right up front that Silk's\nenlightenment on page one is an unvarnished miracle is quite beyond\nme." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Re LS I don't agree that a subjective sense of enlightenment that may or may\nnot be due to an aneurism can possibly be compared with FTL astral travel\nthat breaks every physical rule in the book of science. I agree that in NS\n\"miracles\" occurred but not anywhere near this order (at least until it\nstarted falling apart with TUNS, but that's another dead horse that has been\nflogged enough...).\n\nRe why the Narrator doesn't at least try to astral travel somewhere he says\nhe wants to be:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think it is fairly clear, though, that it could not have\nsucceeded -- Horn seems to be able to astral-travel (a) only in\nthe presence of an inhum[u|a] and (b) only to places that someone\nwith whome he is astral-travelling has been, i.e., to Green\n(because all the inhumi have been there, pretty much by definition)\nor Urth (because wossisface of Soldo has been there)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Exactly - even if the Narrator having been somewhere before can't count (so\nperhaps ruling out Seawrack), Hoof/Hide have been to Nettle's place on\nLizard. So he _could_ at least try to go there. But despite all his many\nprotestations about his longing to be back with Nettle he instead goes\nacross planetary voids to nasty places like Green and Urth. Since you\nappear to agree that on some occasions at least the Narrator is voluntarily\nchoosing where to go, this just doesn't make sense. Or it leads to absurd\nadditions to the rules that make the whole concept even more unacceptable." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The problem with giving characters these magic abilities is that\nit's irritating when they don't use them (or at least try to use\nthem) in the way that would be rational given the motivations\nthey've described." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Again, agreed in principle; the question then is whether this is\na failure on Mr Wolfe's part (as it might be) or some clue to\nthe actual (as opposed to claimed) motivations of the Narr. Given\nMr Wolfe's demonstrated skill as a writer of unreliable narrators,\nI think it is at least worth while to spend some time (a year or\nso) living with the assumption that there is something more there\nbefore tossing the books aside as miswritten." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Much as I admire Mr Wolfe (TBNS is the Book of Gold for me, as for many\nothers), I've said before on this list that we don't need to be hagiographic\nabout every word he writes. To quote alga, TBSS is not the Torah. We know\nWolfe made mistakes near the end of TBLS in mixing up Mint and Marble. My\nimpression, both from such examples and the proofreading of TBLS/SS is that\nhe's not as careful as he was in writing TBNS. Certainly he clearly didn't\nwrite TBLS and TBSS in advance, unlike TBNS. And the number of hanging\ncharacters (eg Master Xiphias) and events (eg the long, boring visit to the\ntalus factory in LS that some predicted would find relevance in SS) suggest\nto me that, sadly, Homer is nodding. As he's entitled to - he has created a\nmarvellous body of work and is getting on, after all.\n\nTim\n\n\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": "2001-04-19T09:26:27+00:00", "subject": "Re: (whorl) Re: Digest whorl.v012.n106", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Timothy Reilly wrote:\nblows this out by using \"god\" to mean almost anything, and thereby depriving\nthe concept of any real meaning. At least, I can't define what a \"god\"\nmeans in TBSS. If it can mean a space alien (the Mother), why aren't the\nNeighbours (or even theoretically the inhumi) \"gods\"? They're not, but the\nNeighbours we're told have \"gods\" of their own. We're never told the\ndifference even in the Narrator's mind between all these. [snip] One\nwonders what his definition of a god is." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "My impression is that Horn uses the same definition I used when listing\nthe gods of Earth; a god is one who has been worshipped[1] by somebody\nsometime somewhere. Gods can be powerful, not powerful, space aliens, not\nspace aliens, existent or non-existent. \n\nHorn|Silk does muse about whether a given god is a \"true\" god, which seems\nto mean that the god really exists and is really powerful (e.g. Pas loses\npoints for being stuck on the whorl), and maybe even that the god is\nworthy of one's trust/love/worship (that seems to be what is meant when\nSilk is said to have not credited any god save the Outsider when he knew\nfirsthand that Scylla was real and powerful).\n\n-Rostrum\n\n[1] Using a broad definition of worship to include fear, desire to\nplacate, or even recognize with respect--I'm not sure the Greeks or the\nChinese actually worshipped every god they told stories about, but their\nrecognizing them as gods is what makes them gods in the sense Horn seems\nto use the word. Even if nobody worships Quadrafons, he's still a god\nbecause he's listed as such in the Writings.\n\n-Rostrum\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": "2001-04-19T09:44:32+00:00", "subject": "RE: (whorl) Re: Digest whorl.v012.n106", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Tim Reilly, in response to my remark that \"god\" in SS is \"a \ndeliberately ambiguous, multivalued and multiordinal term,\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "wrote:\nThis is what troubles me. LS at least drew a distinction between\nthe real thing (the Outsider) and the computer scans of malevolent\nhuman beings in Mainframe (called \"gods\" but really technological\nmanifestations). But TBSS blows this out by using \"god\" to mean\nalmost anything, and thereby depriving the concept of any real \nmeaning. At least, I can't define what a \"god\" means in TBSS. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Try this: The Narr uses (or seems to use) the word \"god\" to refer \nto a general concept, \"beings vastly more powerful than bios and \nchems, who use their power to manipulate or influence the behavior \nof bios and chems, and want [or seem to want] obedience and ritual \nworship from bios and chems.\" \n\nGreat Scylla, the Outsider, and the Pas-and-His-Pals show certainly\nfit this descirption. The Mother is more problematic, in that she \ndoes not show any immediate sign of wanting human worship, but then \nthe Narr refers to her as one of the gods of the Neighbors, and \nassumes (rightly or wrongly) that they worshipped her.\n\nThe key point here is that this is, more or less, what \"god\" meant\nto a pre-monotheistic pagan -- again, vide also the _Soldier_ books\nfor more on Wolfe's thought on this subject. The Whorl is a pagan \nsociety with no real clue of the existence of a unique God (Pas,\nlike Zeus and Odin, is more a \"first among equals\" than a singular\nGod of the sort believed by the J/C/I tradition and postulated by\nAristotle); Silk's enlightenment marks a transitional point at \nwhich monotheism begins to supplant paganism. \n\nAbout which more below." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If it can mean a space alien (the Mother), why aren't the\nNeighbours (or even theoretically the inhumi) \"gods\"? " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Nowhere _near_ the order of power represented by the Mother, great\nScylla, etc.; nor do they show any intention to be worshipped by \nhumans -- though both do in fact manipulate humans: but then, so \ndo humans manipulate other humans. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "We're never told the difference even in the Narrator's mind between\nall these. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ummmm... I don't think there _is_, at first, a clear distinction." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I could understand if he groped his way to the conclusion that the\nonly real god is the Outsider, but while he often suggests this it\ndoesn't disqualify all the others as also being described as \"gods\"\nby him too. One wonders what his definition of a god is." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've made a suggestion above.\n\nI think that the Narr, like just-Silk, comes to the conclusion (the\ncorrect conclusion, certainly from my point of view and Mr Wolfe's)\nthat, regardless of the existence in nature (including technology;\n\"nature\" here means \"the physicial universe\") of beings of vast power,\nthe being referred to in the series as \"the Outsider,\" and in the NEW\nbooks as \"the Increate,\" is a being of a higher and different order, \nand transcendent wrt nature. On the other hand, the acceptance of this\none God does not instantaneously wipe out in the minds of either Silk\nor the Narr the existence of \"gods.\" This is consistent, btw, with \nthe history of monotheism among the Hebrews; in the earlier Writings,\nit's clear that, though God is God and Israel is to have but one God,\nthere are other \"gods.\" This is why the Decalogue has that very odd\nwording, \"you will have no other god _before me_\"; this is why the \nIsraelites keep worshipping the local gods of the territories they\nconquer; and this is why, for example, the priests of Egypt actually\nare able to work miracles in their small way. It's a big step from\nthe nearly pantheistic view of paganism to the idea of a single\nimmanent-and-transcendent God; it's another step, nearly as big, to\nthe idea that these other things aren't gods at all -- so big that\nthe early Church couldn't think of any other way to account for these\n\"gods\" except as demons. (Yes, Paul wrote, as did a few of the more\nadvanced OT writers, of the idea that these \"gods\" were just things\nmade by human hands; but the early Church was not, in general, as\nadvanced in its thought as Paul; and it believed, as does Wolfe, as\ndo I, that belief in these \"gods\" came from somewhere more than just\nthe imaginations of the believers. For that matter, Mister Orthodox\nhimself, C.S. Lewis, seems to have believed, or at least considered\nplausible, something of the sort -- viz. the wizard on the island of \nthe Dufflepuds (in THE VOYAGE OF THE \"DAWN TREADER\") and the entire \nnovel TILL WE HAVE FACES.\n\nAnyway, both Silk and the Narr are persons raised from infancy with\nthe above-described pagan conception of \"a god.\" Persons raised in a\nChristian or post-Christian environment find it very difficult (I \nknow I did for years) to really grasp the very different way in which\nsomeone raised pagan -- really raised pagan, I mean, and not in the\nsemi-serious neopagan headset, which is more postmodern than ancient\n-- understands the concept of \"a god.\" Even Silk's prayer is not \"I\nknow that you are the only God,\" but \"I know that you are the only \ngod for me.\" \n\nThe gods of Mainframe, the Outsider, pose no special problem. The\nMother and Great Scylla certainly fit the overall definition; the\nonly problem seems to be that they are _different_ from the gods\nthe Whorlians grew up with. But that would not, in fact, be a \nproblem for the Whorlians, who knew all along that Pas'n'Co are\nthe gods of the Long Sun Whorl and that there were other gods on \nthe old Short Sun Whorl (though they believe that Pas had been one\nsuch). This is roughly analogous to the way that the Greeks and \nRomans would travel to another country and quite placidly accept\nthat that the folks here had different gods -- though, to be sure,\nthe more intellectual sort of Greek in later years tended to start\nclassifying the gods of foreign parts as to what Greek god they \n\"really\" were: Thoth is \"really\" Hermes and all that sort of thing.\n\nTimothy, I thank you for calling my attention to this point, \nbecause, while I hadn't really realized it until you did, this is\nactually one of Wolfe's clearest _successes_ in the Long and Short \nSun books: he successfully portrays, from within, the attitudes of\na pagan who is just beginning to grapple with the idea of One \nimmanent and transcendent God.\n\nContinuing to flog the red spot on the pavement where the dead horse\nused to be:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Re LS I don't agree that a subjective sense of enlightenment that\nmay or may not be due to an aneurism can possibly be compared with\nFTL astral travel that breaks every physical rule in the book of\nscience. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Pfui. Crane's hypothesis doesn't hold water for thirty seconds; Silk\ngains too much actual _knowledge_ from his enlightenment to be the\nresult of an aneurism. You can try explaining it away as the momentary\nemergence of some random psychic power, but it ain't no aneurism." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I agree that in NS \"miracles\" occurred but not anywhere near this\norder " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ummm. The resurrection of the dead (including the long-dead, i.e., \nTyphon -- maybe -- and Apu-Punchau -- definitely) isn't \"anywhere \nnear this order?\" The fight with the Sorcerers doesn't \"break every\nphysical rule in the book of science\"? Pish and tosh." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Re why the Narrator doesn't at least try to astral travel\nsomewhere he says he wants to be:" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "... As I believe I said in an earlier post, I think this is \n_actually_ revelatory of the Narr's character and not of the\nlimits of astral travel. The Narr is decidedly not a reliable\nNarr. That being the case, I suspend discussion of the mechanics\nas not terribly relevant to the question." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Much as I admire Mr Wolfe (TBNS is the Book of Gold for me,\nas for many others), " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I can't go that far, but I can't say any one book is \"the Book of\nGold\" for me. It is a book which I have returned to about ten times\nand will return to many more times before I shuffle off to Buff, uh,\nI mean off this mortal coil. I rank it with THE LORD OF THE RINGS,\nTHE DOOMSDAY BOOK (which I recently read: the only novel in years,\npossibly _ever_, to make me weep openly), and a select few others\nas something deserving a word one notch above \"masterpiece.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I've said before on this list that we don't need to be\nhagiographic about every word he writes. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Agreed. (Anyone want to discuss ARES?)\n\n[...]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Certainly he clearly didn't write TBLS and TBSS in advance,\nunlike TBNS. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Heh. Funny thing -- my understanding was that he had all of SHORT \nin all-but-last draft form before publishing OBW. And CASTLE OF \nTHE OTTER semi-debunks the standard myth about NEW being completely\nwritten before SHADOW wa published." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And the number of hanging characters (eg Master Xiphias) " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hanging how? Don't know his fate? What a surprise! Never do!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "and events (eg the long, boring visit to the talus factory in LS\nthat some predicted would find relevance in SS) " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Boring? Boring?!? One of my favorite sequences in LONG.\n\nDisgustibus etc.\n\n--Dan'l/Blattid\n\n\n*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun." } ] } ] }