Subject: (whorl) Hermeneutic Crocagators

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 08:27:19 +0000

I wrote then Jason wrote:

> [re: inhumi taken along with the Nieghbors]

> >  They're not "hypothesized," dammit. The Neighbors _say_ so,
> >  in RETURN. (Don't ask me for a page cite, though; my copies
> >  of SHORT are out on loan and won't be back for a while.)

> Fine; assume the Neighbors never lie and that the narrator is
> 100% trustworthy.  That's a reasonable hypothesis, but
> nevertheless an assumption.

I disagree; it is not a reasonable hypothesis, and I make no 
such assumption. 

Bhere's a pretty simple hermeneutic principle here: I do assume
by default, unless there is some specific _reason_ to believe 
that either the Neighbors or the Narr are giving false information, 
that a given statement is true. If we don't make this assumption,
then there's no particular reason not to say "the whole damn thing 
is a lie."

Taking this to a more complex construction, Mr Wolfe has done 
something in the "Short" books that give us a set of hermeneutic
possibilities not normally present in an "unreliable narrator"
text: by providing us with explicit "editors," he has provided
us with the ability to distinguish at least five and possibly 
more degrees of trustworthiness in the Narr's statements 
(including his quoting of others):

1. Those directly corroborated by the "editors."

2. Those corroborated indirectly by the "editors" -- e.g., they
   cannot directly corroborate Horn's experiences with Seawrack
   in OBW, but they can corroborate her existence.

3. Those concerning which the "editors" would know the "truth,"
   and have the opportunity to contradict the Narr, and do not,
   e.g., most of his experiences from the battle with Soldo on.
   (Of course, here we have the problematic possibilities that
   one or more of the editors might themselves have some reason 
   for concealing the truth and letting the Narr's statement 
   stand.)

4. Those concerning which the "editors" would have no direct
   knowledge, e.g., those concerning his experiences from the
   time Horn departs for Pajarocu until he hooks up with Hoof,
   or is it Hide? (I find them about as distinct as Donald
   Duck's nephews...)

5. Those concerning which the "editors" directly contradict
   the Narr. (But note that we still have to judge for ourselves
   whose statement, if any, is "correct," and whether the other
   party is mistaken, lying, or something else).

> The important aspect of that assumption (or "fact," whatever) lies
> in the effects of the interaction of abilities that enables astral
> travel, or bilocation.  Maybe the Neighbors can do some things by
> themselves, others only with the inhumi.  

Possibly, but I suggest that (barring some compelling reason to 
believe so) this is needlessly multiplying entities.

> Maybe thinking about the relation between Horn's ability to
> bilocate in terms of his movement _into_ Silk, as it were, 
> and the presence of inhumi might shed some light on the pesky
> question of astral travel.

Perhaps the Narr is able to bilocate only after Horn's 
transmigration into Silk's body, and then only with the (witting 
or un-) assistance of an inhum*, precisely _because_ he is not a 
Neighbor? To put it differently: the question is not "why is he
able to do this only under these circumstances," but "why is he
able to do it at all," and the circumstances under which he can
do it should then be regarded as clues rather thanr restrictions.

> I'm also curious about Quetzal's lineage, but that seems to be
> a minor thread.

Agreed. Certainly there is very little in "Short" that bears
_directly_ on Q.

> >  > He [Quetzal] might have been born on Green, however.

> > The word seems to be "must." It appears that the inhumi 
> > can only breed on Green.

> We don't really know much about the abilities of the Neighbors. 
> They might be able to replicate inhumi breeding conditions.  

Ahem. And the key words in my cited remark are "seems" and 
"appears." Certainly the Neighbors _might_ be able to do this;
then we must ask, Is there any evidence in the text that they
(a) can and (b) have any reason to? I don't wish to be difficult,
but I'm against erecting towers of speculation when simpler
explanations are or even _might be_ available; and I think it's
clear that we're too "young" in exploring these books to be
able to say that we've exhausted the simple explanations.

> Again, the question here is-- if Quetzal was born on Green,
> by what means did he make his way to the Loganstone.  

Failing evidence otherwise, I see no reason to dismiss the
Neighbor's statement cited earlier. Have you any specific 
_textual_ reason to doubt that Q was brought there by the
Neighbors?

> >  There are implications that it has been only a short time --
> >  I believe I first got that impression on the island with the
> >  not-very-ruined Neighbor-place in BLUE.

> Agreed.  However, a short time could mean centuries, or decades,
> depending on the technology involved and the degree of ruin. 
> Since we don't know (or, more precisely, since I can't recall
> any statements on this matter) the inhumi lifespan, this
> could involve generations.  

Or might not: the only thing we know for certain is that an inhuma
who was active shortly after Sinew was born has produced at least
one generation of offspring and is still active enough to have 
returned to Blue around the time of the opening of OBW.

> Still speculation, but pertinent for determining whether
> intelligence passes to grandchildren.

Unless we can find either a specific case of a grandchild 
(which I suspect may be difficult), or a combination of 
evidence pointing to (a) the longevity of inhumi and (b) the 
age of the ruins (which I suspect is impossible), I see no 
way to do anything _but_ speculate on this. 

*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: Jason Ingram <jingram at usc.edu>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:32:42 +0000

It seems that I was being overly simplistic in my attempt to portray 
Blattid as nit-picking over semantics.  I'm glad that I provoked him 
to present a valuable hermeneutic analysis.  I might add another 
category: scenes which the editors present based upon their private 
conversations with the narrator (roughly half of _Return_).  Here we 
have reconstructed scenes based upon statements by the narrator, 
which the narrator seemingly didn't have a chance to edit; a sort of 
camera obscura corroboration that is itself questionable.

I should preface my comments below by stressing that I don't really 
disagree with Dan'l's conclusions.

Regarding Occam's razor and bilocation: (quoting Blattid)

>do it should then be regarded as clues rather thanr restrictions.

I agree with this method; it seems more parsimonious to argue that 
the narrator has the same ability to bilocate as the Neighbors, and 
that the inhumi are prerequisite for both.  Otherwise we have to find 
a new reason to explain why the Neighbors took inhumi along with 
them.  There are plenty of other reasons, but why needlessly multiply 
explanations? (Of course, the Neighbors were able to transmit Horn's 
consciousness into Silk's body with the aid of their ring, but the 
narrator's ability to bilocate afterwards only strengthens my 
conviction that the inhumi act as 'amplifiers' for abilities 
possessed and bestowed by the Neighbors.)

Blattid:

>I don't wish to be difficult,

I think it would be difficult to find any simple explanation that 
fits the available evidence.  Believing that the inhumi can only 
breed on Green implies that the Neigbors have to return to replenish 
their "stock," or that they have found some other workaround.  (Maybe 
they didn't want to take inhumi along but ended up doing so anyway; 
this would introduce turbulence into other readings.)   I'm reluctant 
to press this point, but it occurs to me that *if* Green were the 
only breeding ground for inhumi, then a number of inhumi infused with 
Neighbor-abilities (whatever those are) would likely be running 
around.  Intriguing notion . . .

(next I quote  blattid then myself; skirting both Heideggerian 
discussions of the difference between "seems to be 'must'" and 
"might" and Hegelian debate about "appearance" and the value of 
speculation)

>_textual_ reason to doubt that Q was brought there by the

I must have been confused about the nature of the Neighbor's 
statement.  I didn't think that they had claimed to have dropped an 
inhum* off upon the Whorl.  If they did, could someone please cite a 
page number?

I'll endorse the rest of Dan'l's post, and refrain from speculatin' 
in public . . .

Jason--I'll adopt the nom de whorl of 'Sepia', if it's available.

---

From: Robert Borski <rborski at charter.net>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 12:30:03 +0000

Quoth the newly-monickered Sepia:

<Believing that the inhumi can only breed on Green implies that the Neigbors
have to return to replenish their "stock," or that they have found some
other workaround. (Maybe they didn't want to take inhumi along but ended up
doing so anyway; this would introduce turbulence into other readings.) I'm
reluctant to press this point, but it occurs to me that *if* Green were the
only breeding ground for inhumi, then a number of inhumi infused with
Neighbor-abilities (whatever those are) would likely be running around.
Intriguing notion . . .>

I've always argued this was a distinct possibility--that the inhumi can
breed on Blue in either sewer or stagnant water, the same way leeches or the
albino crocagators of New York do. Horn (who thinks that feathers fall at a
different rate of speed than iron) is convinced it is otherwise and Jahlee
semi-endorses this, but I believe both are lying. And while containing
sewage or designing better waste treatment facilities is well within the
realm of possibility (note Inclito's civil engineering skills), draining
every wetland or pool of muck is not (think "weapon too heavy to handle".) I
believe it was William Ansley who brought up the mosquito parallel and it
remains apposite.

<<Failing evidence otherwise, I see no reason to dismiss the Neighbor's
statement cited earlier. Have you any specific _textual_ reason to doubt
that Q was brought there by the Neighbors?>>

< I must have been confused about the nature of the Neighbor's statement. I
didn't think that they had claimed to have dropped an inhum* off upon the
Whorl. If they did, could someone please cite a page number?>

P. 235, RTTW. Vadsig is talking to Horn about her wish to visit the Whorl.

-----------------------

"To go to the Long Sun Whorl I would like. Always of it you talk, and cook,
and my old master and mistress. In Grotestad they were born, mysire, but
never it I have seen."

I told her it was possible she would.

"There the Vanished People went?"

I nodded.

"To greet us it was?"

"You might put it so, though they were sensible enough to find out a good
deal about us--and infect us with inhumi--

"Bad thing!"

"Before they ventured to greet even a few of us."

"Bad it was," Vadsig agreed with Oreb.

"To leave inhumi among us?" I shook my head. "It was a small price to pay
for two whorls, and it enabled the neighbors to guage much more accurately
the differences between our race and their own."
------------------------

Robert Borski