Subject: (whorl) Textual criticism of TBOTSS

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:21:23 +0000

With all the talk about the difficulty of determining the "true facts"
behind the narrative(s) of TBOTSS, I thought I'd try and determine just what
are the textual "components" of the book we have, and how close each of them
is to the events it purports to describe.  In the analysis below, I confine
myself to what can be determined from the text, setting aside for the
present hypotheses about long chains of copyists and such (which I'll get to
later).  There's nothing really new here, but I thought it'd be handy to
have it in one place.

The components are:

1.  The Narrator's manuscript, corrected for "obvious errors" and divided
into chapters by the editors, and copied by the editors, presumably
introducing further errors.

2.  The third-person "Horn" sections written by the editors.

3.  The first-person sections written by the editors, singly or together.

4.  The volume and chapter titles, supplied by the editors.

5.  The epigraphs to the volumes, of unknown provenance.

If my hypothesis, that the final two paragraphs were appended by someone
else long after the rest of the book was written, is correct, then all the
above were copied by an unknown copyist, introducing further errors.

6.  The final two paragraphs, authorship unknown.

All the above were transcribed and translated (unless the Common Tongue is
English; I don't recall) by Wolfe, introducing further errors.  And finally,

7.  The lists of "Proper Names in the Text," which I take to be by Wolfe,
since the editors would have had no need to gloss Blue or Green.

In terms of closeness to the "events" they describe, 1, 3, and 6 are written
by participants or eyewitnesses, though the "correction" and copying may
have introduced inauthentic material.  2 is a narrative based on a
combination, in unknown proportions, of a participant's testimony,
imperfectly recollected by its hearers (there is no indication that Horn's
recollections were transcribed at the time he spoke them) and conjecture by
the editors.  5 is a mystery: they may be transcribed directly from the
documents, or copies thereof; they may be Horn's reconstructions from
memory; or they may even be the editor's reconstructions from conjecture,
though this last seems unlikely.  Similarly, we don't know whether Horn, the
editors, or Wolfe placed the epigraphs in their current positions.

All the above takes the text's account of itself at face value.  Is this
justified?  I think it is.  The absence of contradictions, or passages of
nonsense, implies either that there was no long chain of copyists, or that
if there was it preserved the text accurately. And while the suggestion
(made by someone a long time ago) that the hard-to-swallow elements of
TBOTSS are legendary accretions to the original book has attractive
features, I don't think it can be sustained.  The style and voice is too
consistent for the book to be such a composite.  (And it's the astral travel
I'd most like to dispose of as legendary, but if it were just a legend how
would the originator have known about Severian and Merryn?)

If my account is correct, then the "textual problems" raised by TBOTSS are a
less difficult than any of the Gospels (though if you believe John is
written by an eyewitness--a minority view, as far as I can gather--you may
disagree), and certainly much less difficult than the Gospels taken
collectively, or the Bible as a whole.  For reconstructing the "true
events," the significant components are 1, 2, and 3.  And if the editors
aren't lying, which there's no reason to think they are (and if they are,
the problem of what "really happened" becomes unsolvable), then 1 and 3 are
essentially eyewitness and participant testimony.  The only major problem is
2, which admittedly is a biggie; but even here we know the authorship and
sources, just not what stems from which source.

--Adam

*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: Betty, Brian <bbetty at foleyhoag.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:52:09 +0000

Adam Stephanides wrote: "If my account is correct, then the "textual
problems" raised by TBOTSS are a less difficult than any of the Gospels
(though if you believe John is written by an eyewitness--a minority view, as
far as I can gather--you may disagree), and certainly much less difficult
than the Gospels taken collectively, or the Bible as a whole."

I definitely think it's easier than those, mostly because we have a single
author at the bottom, that being Wolfe. The Bible was clearly written by
many separate persons, and it's obvious from the seemingly limitless
conflicts among those claiming to be Biblical Literalists (even those who
are only Gospel literalists) that the Bible contains conflicting material.
The Gospels themselves are mysterious to us: Bishop Spong (considered by
many to be a 'heretic', which I think is a ridiculously anachronistic term)
of the Episcopal Church has managed to explain the first three Gospels in
terms of the traditional Jewish liturgical year without straining the text
(really!); whether he is right or not, it point out that what we understand
about them pales to what mystery the texts have for our understanding. (And
I'm not Christian!)

In comparison, we know that Wolfe, as talented as he is, remains a single
human being with - somewhere - a single writing goal, even if that/those
goal(s) is/are unclear to us.

Anna June
*****************
Surah 101: The Calamity (al-Qari'a)
The qari'a
What is the qari'a?
What can tell you of the qari'a?
A day humankind are like moths scattered
And mountains are like fluffs of wool
Whoever's scales weigh heavy
His is a life that is pleasing
His mother is Haayiyat
What can tell you what she is?
Raging fire

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:17:54 +0000

> I definitely think it's easier than those, mostly because we have
> a single author at the bottom, that being Wolfe. 

I deeply agree with Anna June (and Adam) on this point.

> Bishop Spong (considered by many to be a 'heretic', which I
> think is a ridiculously anachronistic term)

It is an accurately descriptive term -- though I don't know whether
it applies to Spong in particular. Within the context of a community
of faith (Christian or otherwise), there are agreed-upon tenets;
they are defining of the faith community. Within the context of 
that community (and ONLY in that context), tenets which directly
or by strong implication contradict those community-defining tenets 
are "heresy." One who believes such tenets is a "heretic," and 
puts him- or herself outside the pale of the faith community.
One who teaches (or attempts to teach) such tenets to others in
the community is a "heresiarch," and is actively destructive of 
the community (at least in its present form; it is possible that 
the net result of such teaching will actually be a strengthened
community).

Some examples: Abraham was a heretic in the context of polythestic 
Chaldaea; so were Peter, Paul, and the other Apostles in the 
context of monist Judaea; so was Martin Luther in the context of 
Roman Catholicism.

> [Spong] of the Episcopal Church has managed to explain the first 
> three Gospels in terms of the traditional Jewish liturgical year
> without straining the text

It seems quite likely to me -- again, I haven't read Spong, but 
the story as related in the synoptic Gospels is _deeply_ tied to
Second-Temple Jewish piety and liturgy. Many of the parables and
most of Jesus' encounters with the various priestly factions are
completely out of context if you don't understand that.

> In comparison, we know that Wolfe, as talented as he is, remains
> a single human being with - somewhere - a single writing goal,
> even if that/those goal(s) is/are unclear to us.

And here I must disagree, or refrain from agreement. It seems
very unlikely to me that Wolfe, or any other writer, has a
"single" goal in creating a work as complex as -- well, as any
reasonably-serious novel. (Disclaimer: I exempt from the term 
"reasonably-serious novel" (a) most potboiling pulp adventure 
novels and (b) most "yellow-journalist" novels like THE OCTOPUS 
and THE JUNGLE -- "most" because there are exceptions, books in
both categories that exceed the minimal requirements of their
categories.)

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 23:12:49 +0000

on 6/15/01 2:52 PM, Betty, Brian at BBetty at foleyhoag.com wrote:

> author at the bottom, that being Wolfe.

I don't think the crucial difference is that TBOTSS has a single author.
While Wolfe is the sole real author, there are several fictional authors,
whose goals in writing differ to some extent (whatever Narr's motives for
writing his manuscript are, they're not the same as the Editors' motives for
writing the third-person sections, or for writing their individual
first-person sections).  Theoretically Wolfe could have written a book whose
fictional authors and sources were as various and entangled as the real
authors and sources of the Bible; but he didn't.

--Adam

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 07:54:45 +0000

--- Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net> wrote:
> is to the events it purports to describe.
...

Thanks for this clarifying outline.

> English; I don't recall) by Wolfe, introducing
> further errors.
...

And that, in turn, was set into type by publishers,
introducing further errors.  I read the SFBC edition,
but I gather from comments in the archives that the
original Tor edition was also poorly proofread.
Though it would be amusing if the typos were made
intentionally by Wolfe, for instance as reflections of
copyists' errors in his supposed original source.

Incidentally, maybe people who know about textual
criticism will be skeptical of this, but it's possible
that some of the fictional editing steps did in fact
correct previous errors.

Jerry Friedman

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 08:50:42 +0000

> that some of the fictional editing steps did in fact

This is certainly possible, and does in fact happen in RL,
but nowhere near as often as it introduces them.