{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/whorl/1449", "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": 1449, "subject": "Textual criticism of TBOTSS", "messages": 6, "voices": 4, "first": "2001-06-15T13:17:54+00:00", "last": "2001-06-18T08:50:42+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2001-06-15T14:21:23+00:00", "subject": "(whorl) Textual criticism of TBOTSS", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "With all the talk about the difficulty of determining the \"true facts\"\nbehind the narrative(s) of TBOTSS, I thought I'd try and determine just what\nare the textual \"components\" of the book we have, and how close each of them\nis to the events it purports to describe. In the analysis below, I confine\nmyself to what can be determined from the text, setting aside for the\npresent hypotheses about long chains of copyists and such (which I'll get to\nlater). There's nothing really new here, but I thought it'd be handy to\nhave it in one place.\n\nThe components are:\n\n1. The Narrator's manuscript, corrected for \"obvious errors\" and divided\ninto chapters by the editors, and copied by the editors, presumably\nintroducing further errors.\n\n2. The third-person \"Horn\" sections written by the editors.\n\n3. The first-person sections written by the editors, singly or together.\n\n4. The volume and chapter titles, supplied by the editors.\n\n5. The epigraphs to the volumes, of unknown provenance.\n\nIf my hypothesis, that the final two paragraphs were appended by someone\nelse long after the rest of the book was written, is correct, then all the\nabove were copied by an unknown copyist, introducing further errors.\n\n6. The final two paragraphs, authorship unknown.\n\nAll the above were transcribed and translated (unless the Common Tongue is\nEnglish; I don't recall) by Wolfe, introducing further errors. And finally,\n\n7. The lists of \"Proper Names in the Text,\" which I take to be by Wolfe,\nsince the editors would have had no need to gloss Blue or Green.\n\nIn terms of closeness to the \"events\" they describe, 1, 3, and 6 are written\nby participants or eyewitnesses, though the \"correction\" and copying may\nhave introduced inauthentic material. 2 is a narrative based on a\ncombination, in unknown proportions, of a participant's testimony,\nimperfectly recollected by its hearers (there is no indication that Horn's\nrecollections were transcribed at the time he spoke them) and conjecture by\nthe editors. 5 is a mystery: they may be transcribed directly from the\ndocuments, or copies thereof; they may be Horn's reconstructions from\nmemory; or they may even be the editor's reconstructions from conjecture,\nthough this last seems unlikely. Similarly, we don't know whether Horn, the\neditors, or Wolfe placed the epigraphs in their current positions.\n\nAll the above takes the text's account of itself at face value. Is this\njustified? I think it is. The absence of contradictions, or passages of\nnonsense, implies either that there was no long chain of copyists, or that\nif there was it preserved the text accurately. And while the suggestion\n(made by someone a long time ago) that the hard-to-swallow elements of\nTBOTSS are legendary accretions to the original book has attractive\nfeatures, I don't think it can be sustained. The style and voice is too\nconsistent for the book to be such a composite. (And it's the astral travel\nI'd most like to dispose of as legendary, but if it were just a legend how\nwould the originator have known about Severian and Merryn?)\n\nIf my account is correct, then the \"textual problems\" raised by TBOTSS are a\nless difficult than any of the Gospels (though if you believe John is\nwritten by an eyewitness--a minority view, as far as I can gather--you may\ndisagree), and certainly much less difficult than the Gospels taken\ncollectively, or the Bible as a whole. For reconstructing the \"true\nevents,\" the significant components are 1, 2, and 3. And if the editors\naren't lying, which there's no reason to think they are (and if they are,\nthe problem of what \"really happened\" becomes unsolvable), then 1 and 3 are\nessentially eyewitness and participant testimony. The only major problem is\n2, which admittedly is a biggie; but even here we know the authorship and\nsources, just not what stems from which source.\n\n--Adam\n\n\n\n\n*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Betty, Brian", "address": "bbetty at foleyhoag.com" }, "date": "2001-06-15T15:52:09+00:00", "subject": "(whorl) Textual criticism of TBOTSS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Adam Stephanides wrote: \"If my account is correct, then the \"textual\nproblems\" raised by TBOTSS are a less difficult than any of the Gospels\n(though if you believe John is written by an eyewitness--a minority view, as\nfar as I can gather--you may disagree), and certainly much less difficult\nthan the Gospels taken collectively, or the Bible as a whole.\"\n\nI definitely think it's easier than those, mostly because we have a single\nauthor at the bottom, that being Wolfe. The Bible was clearly written by\nmany separate persons, and it's obvious from the seemingly limitless\nconflicts among those claiming to be Biblical Literalists (even those who\nare only Gospel literalists) that the Bible contains conflicting material.\nThe Gospels themselves are mysterious to us: Bishop Spong (considered by\nmany to be a 'heretic', which I think is a ridiculously anachronistic term)\nof the Episcopal Church has managed to explain the first three Gospels in\nterms of the traditional Jewish liturgical year without straining the text\n(really!); whether he is right or not, it point out that what we understand\nabout them pales to what mystery the texts have for our understanding. (And\nI'm not Christian!)\n\nIn comparison, we know that Wolfe, as talented as he is, remains a single\nhuman being with - somewhere - a single writing goal, even if that/those\ngoal(s) is/are unclear to us.\n\nAnna June\n*****************\nSurah 101: The Calamity (al-Qari'a)\nThe qari'a\nWhat is the qari'a?\nWhat can tell you of the qari'a?\nA day humankind are like moths scattered\nAnd mountains are like fluffs of wool\nWhoever's scales weigh heavy\nHis is a life that is pleasing\nHis mother is Haayiyat\nWhat can tell you what she is?\nRaging fire\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": "2001-06-15T13:17:54+00:00", "subject": "RE: (whorl) Textual criticism of TBOTSS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I definitely think it's easier than those, mostly because we have\na single author at the bottom, that being Wolfe. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I deeply agree with Anna June (and Adam) on this point." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Bishop Spong (considered by many to be a 'heretic', which I\nthink is a ridiculously anachronistic term)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It is an accurately descriptive term -- though I don't know whether\nit applies to Spong in particular. Within the context of a community\nof faith (Christian or otherwise), there are agreed-upon tenets;\nthey are defining of the faith community. Within the context of \nthat community (and ONLY in that context), tenets which directly\nor by strong implication contradict those community-defining tenets \nare \"heresy.\" One who believes such tenets is a \"heretic,\" and \nputs him- or herself outside the pale of the faith community.\nOne who teaches (or attempts to teach) such tenets to others in\nthe community is a \"heresiarch,\" and is actively destructive of \nthe community (at least in its present form; it is possible that \nthe net result of such teaching will actually be a strengthened\ncommunity).\n\nSome examples: Abraham was a heretic in the context of polythestic \nChaldaea; so were Peter, Paul, and the other Apostles in the \ncontext of monist Judaea; so was Martin Luther in the context of \nRoman Catholicism." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "[Spong] of the Episcopal Church has managed to explain the first \nthree Gospels in terms of the traditional Jewish liturgical year\nwithout straining the text" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It seems quite likely to me -- again, I haven't read Spong, but \nthe story as related in the synoptic Gospels is _deeply_ tied to\nSecond-Temple Jewish piety and liturgy. Many of the parables and\nmost of Jesus' encounters with the various priestly factions are\ncompletely out of context if you don't understand that." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In comparison, we know that Wolfe, as talented as he is, remains\na single human being with - somewhere - a single writing goal,\neven if that/those goal(s) is/are unclear to us." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And here I must disagree, or refrain from agreement. It seems\nvery unlikely to me that Wolfe, or any other writer, has a\n\"single\" goal in creating a work as complex as -- well, as any\nreasonably-serious novel. (Disclaimer: I exempt from the term \n\"reasonably-serious novel\" (a) most potboiling pulp adventure \nnovels and (b) most \"yellow-journalist\" novels like THE OCTOPUS \nand THE JUNGLE -- \"most\" because there are exceptions, books in\nboth categories that exceed the minimal requirements of their\ncategories.)\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": "2001-06-15T23:12:49+00:00", "subject": "Re: (whorl) Textual criticism of TBOTSS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "on 6/15/01 2:52 PM, Betty, Brian at BBetty at foleyhoag.com wrote:\nAdam Stephanides wrote: \"If my account is correct, then the \"textual\nproblems\" raised by TBOTSS are a less difficult than any of the Gospels\n(though if you believe John is written by an eyewitness--a minority view, as\nfar as I can gather--you may disagree), and certainly much less difficult\nthan the Gospels taken collectively, or the Bible as a whole.\"\n\nI definitely think it's easier than those, mostly because we have a single\nauthor at the bottom, that being Wolfe." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't think the crucial difference is that TBOTSS has a single author.\nWhile Wolfe is the sole real author, there are several fictional authors,\nwhose goals in writing differ to some extent (whatever Narr's motives for\nwriting his manuscript are, they're not the same as the Editors' motives for\nwriting the third-person sections, or for writing their individual\nfirst-person sections). Theoretically Wolfe could have written a book whose\nfictional authors and sources were as various and entangled as the real\nauthors and sources of the Bible; but he didn't.\n\n--Adam\n\n\n*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2001-06-18T07:54:45+00:00", "subject": "Re: (whorl) Textual criticism of TBOTSS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- Adam Stephanides wrote:\nWith all the talk about the difficulty of\ndetermining the \"true facts\"\nbehind the narrative(s) of TBOTSS, I thought I'd try\nand determine just what\nare the textual \"components\" of the book we have,\nand how close each of them\nis to the events it purports to describe." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "...\n\nThanks for this clarifying outline." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "All the above were transcribed and translated\n(unless the Common Tongue is\nEnglish; I don't recall) by Wolfe, introducing\nfurther errors." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "...\n\nAnd that, in turn, was set into type by publishers,\nintroducing further errors. I read the SFBC edition,\nbut I gather from comments in the archives that the\noriginal Tor edition was also poorly proofread.\nThough it would be amusing if the typos were made\nintentionally by Wolfe, for instance as reflections of\ncopyists' errors in his supposed original source.\n\nIncidentally, maybe people who know about textual\ncriticism will be skeptical of this, but it's possible\nthat some of the fictional editing steps did in fact\ncorrect previous errors.\n\nJerry Friedman" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2001-06-18T08:50:42+00:00", "subject": "RE: (whorl) Textual criticism of TBOTSS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Quoth Jerry Friedman:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Incidentally, maybe people who know about textual\ncriticism will be skeptical of this, but it's possible\nthat some of the fictional editing steps did in fact\ncorrect previous errors." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is certainly possible, and does in fact happen in RL,\nbut nowhere near as often as it introduces them. \n\n\n*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun." } ] } ] }