{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/whorl/1535", "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": 1535, "subject": "a personal tangent in praise of Gene", "messages": 4, "voices": 4, "first": "2002-01-09T06:23:40+00:00", "last": "2002-01-09T17:22:18+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "maa32", "address": "maa32 at dana.ucc.nau.edu" }, "date": "2002-01-09T06:23:40+00:00", "subject": "a personal tangent in praise of Gene", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I am posting this long exposition here in praise of the various features of \nthe Short Sun that make it worth reappraisal. If you don't want to read it, \nfeel free to skip it. If you do, I mention a sentence or two of personal \nfacts that have no relevance to the list but I include since I composed this \nat one sitting off the top of my head, and add this warning as as an \nintroductory addendum:\n\nSo, do you think the genetics of plants accounts for the doubling? I do ... \nthe question is, would Gene know enough about it to put it in there ... how \nmuch chromosomal knowledge of plants does an engineer (even though he was \neditor of plant engineering, I think that was a different kind of plant -- but \nhe is a science fiction writer who has worked with cloning at some level in \nFifth Head of Cerberus, Book of the Long Sun, and Book of the Short Sun) have \nat his disposal? He could certainly gain as much information more accurately \nand easily than he could about, for instance, ancient Greece. \nAnd look at how those neighbors get so pissed off when somebody approaches \ntheir trees. And how they describe people at the trial in Dorp: you are \nbirds living in our chimney. All right, we have seen how the island was \ncomposed of huge trees, and how the narrator could never see their eyes, and \nhow they usually appear on a big tree. People are living on top of those big \ntrees, like birds resting on a chimney. Face it, either I'm the weirdest mis \n- reader in the universe, or Gene and I think alike. \nAnd also, just so you guys know, I think the real speculation should be \nwhether a cloned embryo has an individual soul or shares it with its \noriginator or another clone, and if so, should we consider Malrubius a part of \nthat equation? Could the conservative Catholic Wolfe be hinting that cloning \ncan create an affinity between two otherwise disparate people living at \ndifferent times? That is why Silk can go there at that time: Malrubius has \nbeen there, and they somehow share something that allows silk to travel there.\nAnd if you guys still don't like how I've done all this, that's ok. I think \nthat there was a ton more to The Book of the Short Sun than any of us have as \nyet realized, and I think it is one of his greatest creations, whether I'm \nwrong about my individual theories or not. I think he's gotten a bad rap by a \nlot of people on this one, and that his talents exceed understanding and \nespecially exceed SIMPLIFICATION. He likes to make things as complicated as \npossible. If he is going to make an easy association like flooded blue world \nand forested green world, which are obviously Ushas and Lune (come on, the \ntheme of the book is about coming home and finding that you no longer belong \nthere)he is going to make it very hard for us to figure out where we are, and \nvery hard for us to reconcile the obvious similarities of Blue and Ushas. He \nis the trickiest and the greatest. (he says at one point in On Blue's Waters, \nthe biggest mysteries are the obvious ones. To me, that says that a huge \nfreaking blue and green planet are the same huge blue and green planet we have \nalready dealt with)\nI just wanted to get that off my chest. And if all that I have done to reveal \nthe grandeur of Wolfe's design does not please you guys, and I am accused of \nmisreading, and beating old theories to death, (I'm only twenty-three, and \nsensitive to all this censure), then just remember how dead this list was \nuntil I started throwing out outrageous theories - I always find something new \nto talk about. (of course, that could be because everybody thought the list \nWAS dying) Do you really want to hurt my feelings? (And if you think I'm dumb, \nI really did get a 1600 on my SATs, and after months and months my last \ngirlfriend randomly dumped me one day through e-mail saying: \"Marc, Things \nhaven't been going so well. You are obviously too smart for me. I'm sorry if \nit hurts your feelings.\" When asked, \"can we talk about this?\" she replied, \n\"no.\" I am just very bad at organizing things and staying on one topic) You \nneed a free reign on your consciousness when you read Wolfe, and you have to \nbe able to draw from a huge base of knowledge. How smart is he? I think he's \nsmarter than me - or maybe just infinitely clever. He isn't senile at all - \nhe's only getting better. And if you think he's losing it, you are wrong. I \nstill think there is something Silk had to do in the past to save the world \nthat only Severian could help him do - and until I figure out (to my \nsatisfaction) I won't stop throwing out crackpot theories (or at least \nthinking them up.)\nIf I were as sensitive as Marcel, I would go up to my room all night and think \nabout how nobody wants to really read Gene Wolfe carefully (on the gene wolfe \nmailing list, no less!)and struggle with reconciling paradoxes when we know \nthat paradoxes answer everything. God Bless Gene Wolfe. Long live the King. \nSorry. I got carried away. I really have enjoyed talking with you guys. I \nthink I've had a ton of great ideas that really make the text more interesting \n(whatever happened to Borski? He had great ideas comparable in obscurity to \nmost of mine, often with as little textual evidence as I have, too!) Enough - \nI just don't think you can apply Occam's razor to a tricky dude like Gene \nWolfe - perhaps his greatest trick was concealing the setting from us. We \nhave no idea where we are, why the animals have changed, who the aliens are, \nand he gave us all these easy tricks to ponder: Oreb is Scylla, The Secret of \nthe Inhumi was too obvious, The narrator was obviously Silk the whole time. \nHe's been fooling you! The obvious is true, but the obvious truths are hidden! \nYou know Wolfe is good enough to do that! He should have won a Hugo. Why did \nHarry Potter IV win? What the heck?! \nSeriously guys, I really think we have been approaching the book in a much too \nfacile manner (except for the fascinating commentary on its obvious didactic \npurpose -> usually a didactic point is the hidden part. Here, the external \nconflict (I'm not talking about the inhumu, but rather the Mother) is hidden, \nand the didactic message is obvious; it's distopian critique is obvious; it's \nseemingly irreconcilable narrative voice becomes obvious; yet nothing is \nobvious even on re-reading because we are looking for what has already been \nexposed: oh, yes, scylla haunts his dream and oreb flies in a lot. Oh yes, he \nscrews up Nettle and hyacinth's names. Oh yes, he is obviously Silk. I think \nthat it really bears very little in common with The Book of the Long Sun -> \nwhich was comparitively open and honest even though they were trapped inside \nthe whorl. Outside the whorl, in the vastness of space, there is no openness: \neven the narrator does't realize who he is, Hoof doesn't recognize his own \nfather in Babbie even though he treats him so obviously like a son, and we \ncannot recognize our own home because we have forgotten science. OK, that's \nmore than enough for one night. (On the other hand, wouldn't it be funny if I \nconvinced you all, and I was utterly wrong? that is also unmistakably why gene \nwolfe is the greatest)\nMarc Aramini" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Spectacled Bear", "address": "spectacled.bear at pobox.com" }, "date": "2002-01-09T10:10:21+00:00", "subject": "Re: (whorl) a personal tangent in praise of Gene", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "At 06:23 2002-01-09, maa32 wrote:\n..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think \nthat there was a ton more to The Book of the Short Sun than any of us have as \nyet realized, and I think it is one of his greatest creations, whether I'm \nwrong about my individual theories or not. I think he's gotten a bad rap by a \nlot of people on this one, and that his talents exceed understanding and \nespecially exceed SIMPLIFICATION." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That's certainly true. There appear to be so many loose ends, like the\nwhole business of who the Mother is and what she intends, and the link\nbetween her and the Scylla on Urth. Someone on this list once said that\nyou know you're starting to understand a Wolfe book when the ending feels\nlike an ending and not just an abrupt halt in the narrative, and that was\nspot on. There's a real feeling of all those plot points joining up to form\na solid arc of story, if that makes any sense.\n\n..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "(whatever happened to Borski? He had great ideas comparable in obscurity to \nmost of mine, often with as little textual evidence as I have, too!)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And - why do we never see the two of you at the same time?\n\nActually, I think you are on firmer ground, mostly. All the things about\ntrees and plant genetics and the repeated motifs like the salt and the\nwall are very telling; they must mean *something*, because that's how\nthings work with Wolfe. And the speculation about Horn and Babbie too\n- that was always one of the most mystifying passages. Whether your\ntheories are right or not, you have certainly found some very interesting\nthings to think about and debate. Thanks!\n\nSpectacled Bear." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2002-01-09T17:22:18+00:00", "subject": "RE: (whorl) a personal tangent in praise of Gene", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Marc,\n\nI agree completely with you about Wolfe and about the SS books: when the\nlist went through the immediate post-RttW spasm of discussion, I recall\ncommenting that the books were far too complex to dismiss, the way some\nseemed to, without living and wrestling with them for at least a year or\ntwo. I stand by that." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "... remember how dead this list was until I started throwing out\noutrageous theories " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, it has been quiet lately, yes." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I just don't think you can apply Occam's razor to a tricky dude like Gene\nWolfe " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, here I agree and disagree. You can apply it _where appropriate_. The\nreal problem with the Principle of Parsimony is that it's misunderstood and\nmisused. It does _not_ state, as often misquoted, that the simplest \nexplanation is the likeliest; it suggests that one's solutions should not\nneedlessly hypothesize \"entities\" not obviously present in the problem. I\nthink that principle _does_ apply - that is, our solutions to the problems \nGW's works present should not introduce any persons, planets, etc., not\nclearly present in the works." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "He should have won a Hugo. Why did Harry Potter IV win? What the heck?! " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Frankly, I doubt GW will ever win a novel Hugo; the fan base that votes the \naward is demographically pretty broad and GW's fan base is, demographically,\npretty narrow. The time when \"intellectual\" novels could realistically win\nthe Hugo was pretty much over by the mid-'70s." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think that it really bears very little in common with The Book of\nthe Long Sun -> which was comparitively open and honest even though\nthey were trapped inside the whorl. Outside the whorl, in the vastness\nof space, there is no openness: even the narrator does't realize who he\nis, Hoof doesn't recognize his own father in Babbie even though he\ntreats him so obviously like a son, and we cannot recognize our own\nhome because we have forgotten science. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I like this. I don't think I can go with Blue/Green == Urth/Lune, but\nyour point about the relative openness/closedness of the two Books is\nvery well put." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-01-09T16:16:02+00:00", "subject": "Re: (whorl) a personal tangent in praise of Gene", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Marc, speakng as one overintelligent guy to another, bin there, done that,\ngo and get drunk, have a hike, do somehting non-cerebral, NOW!!!\n\n ----- ***** -----\n\n\nOtherwise, FWIW, I agree with you in many areas - except I do not accept the\nliteral identity of the planets.\n\nI always thought \"trees eating trees\" was a poetic way of talking about\narboreal parasitism. Hmmmm.\n\nBut I just read \"Silhouette\" again - it has apportation, something very like\nthe notules, and interestingly, motile, fighting, plants . . . .\n\n Andy R\n\n\n\n\n\n----- Original Message -----" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"maa32\" \nI just wanted to get that off my chest. And if all that I have done to\nreveal\nthe grandeur of Wolfe's design does not please you guys, and I am accused\nof\nmisreading, and beating old theories to death, (I'm only twenty-three, and\nsensitive to all this censure), then just remember how dead this list was\nuntil I started throwing out outrageous theories - I always find something\nnew\nto talk about. (of course, that could be because everybody thought the\nlist\nWAS dying) Do you really want to hurt my feelings? (And if you think I'm\ndumb,\nI really did get a 1600 on my SATs, and after months and months my last\ngirlfriend randomly dumped me one day through e-mail saying: \"Marc, Things\nhaven't been going so well. You are obviously too smart for me. I'm\nsorry if\nit hurts your feelings.\" When asked, \"can we talk about this?\" she\nreplied,\n\"no.\" I am just very bad at organizing things and staying on one topic)" } ] } ] }