The Typhon-Severian Family Tree

James Wynn · 30 Jun 2005, 14:21 · from 2005-June.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: thewynns at earthlink.net (James Wynn)
Date: Thu Jun 30 14:21:17 2005
Subject: (urth) The Typhon-Severian Family Tree
Message-ID: <14205555.1120166475112.JavaMail.root at wamui-rubis.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

>Chris said:
>If we take Severian's memory for granted, then he should remember *all* of 
>the tombs he's been around with a high degree of detail, and could lead them 
>to one of those just as easily as he could lead them to his own, given a 
>basic description (and one can assume that Typhon's tomb will be distinctive 
>in some way). And I think this is a fairly unproblematic answer.

If we presume Sev investigated every tomb, perhaps his memory is the key. 
Why presume that? For that matter, why presume that Cilinia's tomb is
written a script that Severian can read?

>>I said:
>>It would be cheating for me to say "well, Wolfe made a mistake, here".
>>I don't have answer to this. Nor can I relinquish my discomfort with the
>>description of how the crypt was found. However, you have proven that
>>fingering Severian's crypt as Cilinia's is not as obvious as I asserted.

>To which Chris responded:
>I do find this point [the number and his description of the layout of the
>coffins] entirely convincing. I do not see any way you can 
>reasonably hold on to the idea that the two tombs are the same. On the other 
>hand I also don't see why you should need to hold on to it. Severian may 
>well have several crypts (or unmarked burial plots) within the city, not to 
>mention Apu Punchau's, etc. 

The reason why I hold it...is for the reason I gave: The description of its finding
is not as it should be. I won't argue Wolfe did not carefully read his "New Sun"
description of the tomb carefully before writing Hoof's, but that is not
inconceivable. Another option, is that this is not a tomb we have met before
in the Sun cycle, but the passage is badly written...which is also
conceivable. 

>This element seems to be one that you like 
>because it adds depth to your interpretation, rather than being a
>necessary support.
>With the case of the tombs, if there is an error it is non-trivial; there is 
>no flat textual contradiction involved; and even with the theory-bound 
>objection you have, the objection itself is non-critical to the theory.So I 
>don't see any real motivation to say that the tomb description is a goof.

You didn't require this proof to believe the tombs were separate in the first
place. It is unself-reflective to say this and not to consider that you find
MSG's reference "entirely convincing" only because it helps bring the
narrative back to a normative keel for you.  

I accept the reference, yet I'm still unsatisfied by the narration of the event
which is what led me in the first place (and for no other reason) to conclude
the tomb was Severians.

It IS an added benefit that the tomb "adds depth to my interpretation",
but Severian being in Typhon's family is not at all necessary for any 
theory regarding clones on the Whorl, and I did not expect to find it. 
It *did*, I grant, explain why the Rajan meeting Severian was
"necessary" in a literary sense, but I've lived with things that don't
make sense in the Sun Cycle before and I will in the future. 

I also grant that the "clones on Urth" theory has had a couple of wide
holes kicked in it over the last week. But any theory that does
not convince one, appears to be founded on cobwebs of some
psychoanalytical need. That's not true in this case, but I can't make it
stop looking like I'm trying to fit the evidence to my case. All I can say
is I did not arrived at the conclusion that the tomb was Severian's with
a theory in mind and nothing that led me to it has changed. I simply can't resolve it.

>I wasn't aware there was even a controversy 
>regarding the Rajan's fasting. It always seemed to me straightforward that 
>he was disciplining his appetites, out of awareness that the inhumi picked 
>up their excessive appetites from us.

I think only Marc Aramini has used it as an important foundation of a theory.
Silk didn't eat *much* but he was quite hungry most of the time. The Rajan
on the other hand explicitly states (I can't remember where right now) that
he frequently pretends to eat and is quite good at it, otherwise he seems
uninterested in eating. It might be interesting to start a thread on his
appetite since the references are extensive and, I grant, contradictory. But
a seach of the books in Amazon.com for "eat"  and "hungry" will provide
plenty of grist for advocates and detractors (I checked to be sure). The
shear number of the relavant references should at least convince that the
Rajan's lack eating or lack of NEED for eating is no insignificant subplot.  
For the record, I say he lacks a need to eat (much or at all) in the winter
because he is largely extent a Neighbor. 
http://lists.urth.net/htdig.cgi/urth-urth.net/2004-December/000274.html
He's gets hungry in the Spring because the Neighbors are SOMEHOW
associated with the trees/are the trees just as the same is true for the
inhumi and the vines.

It seems that it is unavoidable that some will see meaning and purpose in
Wolfe's fiction where others see naturalistic exposition.

~ James Wynn

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net