{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/whorl/42", "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": 42, "subject": "Patera Pike's Ghost", "messages": 6, "voices": 5, "first": "1997-01-23T17:05:52+00:00", "last": "1997-01-25T12:08:54+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "David_Lebling", "address": "david_lebling at avid.com" }, "date": "1997-01-23T17:05:52+00:00", "subject": "(whorl) Patera Pike's Ghost", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm puzzled over the appearance of Patera Pike's \"ghost\" in _Lake_.\n\nSilk hears Pike walking about upstairs, hears his bed creak, and sees\nhim in the bedroom. Then Pike disappears (dissolve into mist, actually)\nand immediately afterward Silk sees a smallish black shape which he\nthinks is Oreb fly out the window.\n\nOreb, who as we have previously observed sees better than anyone, denies\nbeing in the bedroom, and when Silk decides he probably jumped out the\nwindow (being unable to fly yet), he denies that too.\n\nOreb is pretty reliable, so I don't think he's lying. Silk has a known\ntendency to come up with an explanation for everything, and those\nexplanations don't always turn out to be right.\n\nDid Silk see an inhumu (probably Quetzal?). Are there any other cases\nof such _observed_ shapeshifting on the part of Quetzal (or anyone else,\nfor that matter)? Recall that we haven't even met Quetzal, though we\nhave seen Teasel attacked. Later in the story, Quetzal invariably\ndisappears when everyone's back is turned.\n\nThis is the only incident I can think of in the books that doesn't have\na rationalistic explanation, and it's also the only \"supernatural\" event\nthat isn't immediately explained away by someone. Silk in fact seems to\nrelish the weirdness, making a remark about the manteion being full of\n\"gods and ghosts.\"\n\nAny thoughts?\n\n Dave Lebling\n (david_lebling at avid.com)\n\nps: I hope everyone else is having as much fun with this list as I am!\n\nQuestions or problems to whorl-owner at lists.best.com" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Doug Eigsti", "address": "douge at nti.com" }, "date": "1997-01-25T07:09:22+00:00", "subject": "Re: (whorl) Patera Pike's Ghost", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "[Posted from Whorl, the mailing list for Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun]\n\nI'm puzzled over the appearance of Patera Pike's \"ghost\" in _Lake_.\n\nSilk hears Pike walking about upstairs, hears his bed creak, and sees\nhim in the bedroom. Then Pike disappears (dissolve into mist, actually)\nand immediately afterward Silk sees a smallish black shape which he\nthinks is Oreb fly out the window.\n\nOreb, who as we have previously observed sees better than anyone, denies\nbeing in the bedroom, and when Silk decides he probably jumped out the\nwindow (being unable to fly yet), he denies that too.\n\nOreb is pretty reliable, so I don't think he's lying. Silk has a known\ntendency to come up with an explanation for everything, and those\nexplanations don't always turn out to be right.\n\nDid Silk see an inhumu (probably Quetzal?). Are there any other cases\nof such _observed_ shapeshifting on the part of Quetzal (or anyone else,\nfor that matter)? Recall that we haven't even met Quetzal, though we\nhave seen Teasel attacked. Later in the story, Quetzal invariably\ndisappears when everyone's back is turned.\n\nThis is the only incident I can think of in the books that doesn't have\na rationalistic explanation, and it's also the only \"supernatural\" event\nthat isn't immediately explained away by someone. Silk in fact seems to\nrelish the weirdness, making a remark about the manteion being full of\n\"gods and ghosts.\"\n\nAny thoughts?\n\n Dave Lebling\n (david_lebling at avid.com)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "David,\n\n\tI would put Pike's haunting in the same category as the \"asomatous\ntravel\" Mucor performs. On page 62 of LAKE Silk ruminates to Oreb on the\nsupernatural. Here he groups the manifestations of \"gods and ghosts\"\ntogether, including Kypris, Pike and \"all the rest\". Strangely he rejects\nMucor's cavortings as supernatural, preferring to classify them as being of\nthe devil. So, to Silk, things supernatural would be pertaining to the\ngods. What \"all the rest\" encompasses he does not elaborate.\n\tI would eliminate the appearances of the gods in Sacred windows\nand glasses. These are technological marvels, granted indistinguishable\nfrom magic, that have a \"natural\" explanation. Mucor, Pike, Quetzal and\nperhaps Silk's uncanny abilities would fall into the supernatural, in\nspite of the conclusions arrived at by Silk. Silk has a pawn's \nwhorl-view, he is not privy to the machinations of the Marvelous Brass \nChess Playing Automatons that inhabit mainframe. \n\tHow do you suppose Horn sees things? Is he intentionally\nmisleading the reader by having Silk come to the wrong conclusions time\nand again?\n\n=Doug Eigsti=\ndouge at nti.com\n\n\nQuestions or problems to whorl-owner at lists.best.com" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Fernando Q. Gouvea", "address": "fqgouvea at colby.edu" }, "date": "1997-01-25T09:38:02+00:00", "subject": "Re: (whorl) Patera Pike's Ghost", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "**** On Thu, 23 Jan 97 17:05:52 -0500, David_Lebling at avid.com said:\n\nDL> I'm puzzled over the appearance of Patera Pike's \"ghost\" in _Lake_.\n\nDL> Did Silk see an inhumu (probably Quetzal?). Are there any other cases\nDL> of such _observed_ shapeshifting on the part of Quetzal (or anyone\nDL> else, for that matter)? Recall that we haven't even met Quetzal,\nDL> though we have seen Teasel attacked. Later in the story, Quetzal\nDL> invariably disappears when everyone's back is turned.\n\nI think that's a very interesting possibility, one that hadn't ocurred to\nme. It's true that the ghost incident is one of the more mysterious ones in\nthe series. The thing that's missing to make this a plausible explanation,\nthough, is a reason: why would Quetzal be doing that? Why create an\nappearance of Patera Pike?\n\nIn fact, the issue of Patera Pike's role in the story is itself an\ninteresting one. He never appears, but he seems to be important in a number\nof levels (for example, it seems to have been his prayers that initiated\nthe Outsider's action, or at least Silk thinks so).\n\nFernando" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Fernando Q. Gouvea\t\t\t\nChair, Dept. of Math & CS\t\tEditor, MAA Online\nColby College\t\t\t\thttp://www.maa.org\nfqgouvea at colby.edu\t\t\tfqgouvea at maa.org\n==========================================================\n\nDear Miss Manners:\n\tMy home economics teacher says that one must never place one's\n\telbows on the table. However, I have read that one elbow, in\n\tbetween courses, is all right. Which is correct?\n\nGentle Reader:\n\tFor the purpose of answering examinations in your home\n\teconomics class, your teacher is correct. Catching on to this\n\tprinciple of education may be of even greater importance to you\n\tnow than learning correct current table manners, vital as Miss\n\tManners believes that is.\n\n\n\nQuestions or problems to whorl-owner at lists.best.com" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jim Jordan", "address": "jbjordan at gnt.net" }, "date": "1997-01-25T10:42:09+00:00", "subject": "Re: (whorl) Patera Pike's Ghost", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "[Posted from Whorl, the mailing list for Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "How do you suppose Horn sees things? Is he intentionally\nmisleading the reader by having Silk come to the wrong conclusions time\nand again?\n\n=Doug Eigsti=" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\tI don't think so. The question has been raised whether Severian is a\ntrustworthy narrator. If we cannot trust Severian, then the whole story\nfalls apart, since there is no way to check on it. Thus, the story is\nSeverian's story, period, warts and all. In conversation Wolfe rejected the\nnotion that Severian is duplicitous.\n\tWolfe's game is to give you all the facts, so you can figure it out. If we\ncannot trust the narration, the game is no good. The suggestion of a\nduplicitous narrator destroys everything Wolfe is trying to do.\n\tAnd I think the same applies here. If Horn is misleading us, there is\nreally no way we can know it. But there really is no reason to think he is.\nWe are to assume that Horn spend hours, perhaps days, talking with Silk,\nand that he is accurately reporting what Silk told him. Wolfe as a\nconservative Catholic assumes that Matthew and Mark are telling the truth\nabout Jesus, and the reader of the Long Sun Quartet should assume Horn is\ntelling the truth about Silk and the other characters.\n\tThe other way Horn knows stuff is by interviewing the people who made the\nexodus with him, who happen to be many people who chatted with Silk and\ncould tell him a lot about Silk. It would be interesting to test this\nhypothesis by taking a list of the people with Horn, and then seeing how\nmuch of the Quartet could have been reported by those people. For instance,\nall the passages about Chenille and Auk are thereby accounted for. \n\nJBJordan\n\n\nQuestions or problems to whorl-owner at lists.best.com" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "CoxRathvon", "address": "coxrathvon at aol.com" }, "date": "1997-01-25T11:46:03+00:00", "subject": "Re: (whorl) Patera Pike's Ghost", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I tend to agree with David Lebling that the vision of Pike, followed by an\nobject flitting out the window (not Oreb, he wouldn't lie), is probably our\ndark friend the shape-shifting Quetzal. Silk's ruminations about gods,\ndevils, and ghosts can't be taken too seriously here in the first book of the\nadventure, for Silk still has a lot to learn about the true nature of the\nWhorl. \n\nI have another question about Quetzal which I'm still formulating and will\npost soon. It has to do with his presence at Silk's apparent death, when\nSilk's floater crashes into the pit and he is temporarily buried--and when,\nnotably, Silk has a vision of his *four* parents (two biological, plus his\nadoptive mother, plus Calde Tussah). More on that soon.\n\n--Henry Rathvon\n\nQuestions or problems to whorl-owner at lists.best.com" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Fernando Q. Gouvea", "address": "fqgouvea at colby.edu" }, "date": "1997-01-25T12:08:54+00:00", "subject": "Re: (whorl) Patera Pike's Ghost", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "**** On Sat, 25 Jan 1997 10:42:09 -0600, Jim Jordan said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "How do you suppose Horn sees things? Is he intentionally misleading the\nreader by having Silk come to the wrong conclusions time and again?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Jim> \tI don't think so. The question has been raised whether Severian is\nJim> a trustworthy narrator. If we cannot trust Severian, then the whole\nJim> story falls apart, since there is no way to check on it. Thus, the\nJim> story is Severian's story, period, warts and all. In conversation\nJim> Wolfe rejected the notion that Severian is duplicitous. Wolfe's game\n\nWell, we need to be a little careful here. Severian certainly does report\nhimself saying things to people that do not agree with what he has told us\nin his narrative. So he's unreliable at some point: either he hasn't told\nthe truth in the past, or in the narrative. And certainly there are things\nin the narrative that he could have made explicit but which are only hinted\nat.\n\nJim> is to give you all the facts, so you can figure it out. If we cannot\nJim> trust the narration, the game is no good. The suggestion of a\nJim> duplicitous narrator destroys everything Wolfe is trying to do. And I\nJim> think the same applies here. If Horn is misleading us, there is really\nJim> no way we can know it. But there really is no reason to think he is.\n\nI agree here that there is no hint that Horn is *intentionally* misleading\nus, though of course there's things in his \"defence\" that suggest that he\nmay have missed something (e.g., his comments on Auk).\n\nJim> We are to assume that Horn spend hours, perhaps days, talking with\nJim> Silk, and that he is accurately reporting what Silk told him. Wolfe as\nJim> a conservative Catholic assumes that Matthew and Mark are telling the\nJim> truth about Jesus, and the reader of the Long Sun Quartet should\nJim> assume Horn is telling the truth about Silk and the other characters.\n\nActually, the comparison with the gospels is interesting. Are we to think\nof this as analogous to, say, the gospel of Luke (which presents itself as\nbased on investigation of the sources and eyewitnesses, and seems intended\nas largely objective, though of course there's some interpretation\ninvolved), or the gospel of John (which is written *long* after the fact,\nand clearly has a large layer of interpretation superimposed on the story)?" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Fernando Q. Gouvea\t\t\t\nChair, Dept. of Math & CS\t\tEditor, MAA Online\nColby College\t\t\t\thttp://www.maa.org\nfqgouvea at colby.edu\t\t\tfqgouvea at maa.org\n==========================================================\n\nScience is facts; just as houses are made of stones, so is science made\nof facts; but a pile of stones is not a house and a collection of facts\nis not necessarily science.\n\t\t-- Henri Poincaire\n\n\n\nQuestions or problems to whorl-owner at lists.best.com" } ] } ] }