Plausibility

David Stockhoff · 12 Nov 2009, 01:59 · from 2009-November.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: dstockhoff at verizon.net (David Stockhoff)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:59:58 -0500
Subject: (urth) Plausibility
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1257977688.28662.urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net>
References: <mailman.1.1257977688.28662.urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net>
Message-ID: <4AFB6C1E.1020702 at verizon.net>

That makes sense. Does it explain why Abel is so hard to follow? Certainly his material is bound to be looser, less subject to "modern" analysis. I was struck by Abel's lack of interest in his surroundings---it's very American in a way, and yet it fits the milieu.

I think Severian's narrative is strengthened by a couple of other factors that tie into the plausibility principle but are separate from it. Mainly, he's Autarch, with a very clear place in the world and a biography that is more like a history or a hagiography. Every detail counts, as we know, and he knows it too. Wolfe may well have precise knowledge of Abel's comings and goings, but we don't necessarily need to.

However, I can't argue that Severian has a better sense of the structure of his universe than Abel does. He may be better read, and probably learned a lot more as Autarch than he knew during his travels. But both characters have a distinctly medieval point of view. Severian attempts to explain what happened to him. Does Abel?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:23:56 +0100
From: adamattman <adamattman at gmail.com>
To: urth at lists.urth.net
Subject: Re: (urth) Urth Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5
Message-ID: <4AF9E7FC.30607 at googlemail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed

that's plausible.

and it reminds me of this: (taken from: 
http://mysite.verizon.net/~vze2tmhh/wolfeint.html)

Q: What is the difference between science fiction and fantasy?

GW: Plausibility, really. Science fiction is what you can make people 
believe; fantasy is what people have to suspend disbelief for. Many 
physicists believe that there will never be a faster-than-light drive -- 
it's impossible. But you can make people believe in one, since they 
don't know much physics. And there are some physicists who believe it is 
possible. If you talk about somebody genetically engineering unicorns, 
it's probably fantasy, because people don't believe in it. But it's so 
close that you can almost touch it; we're almost at the point where we 
can make a unicorn.

So it's all a matter of plausibility. Do people think, "The future might 
be like this?" If so, it's science fiction. If they think, "This could 
never happen," that's fantasy.

--------------------------

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