The mystery of the image of an astronaut cleaned by Rudesind

brunians at brunians.org · 07 Jul 2010, 23:30 · from 2010-July.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: brunians at brunians.org (brunians at brunians.org)
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 19:30:30 -0400
Subject: (urth) The mystery of the image of an astronaut cleaned by
 Rudesind
In-Reply-To: <4C350826.9040907 at gmail.com>
References: <SNT123-W256DB5C8585628C8109423CFB30 at phx.gbl>
	<520E36C4-BC0B-4DFE-8F64-BC9EB1D9BF4C at liftingfaces.com>
	<4C34A1F4.6030501 at gmail.com>
	<F7C7A8D7-66C9-4746-9662-C742E53311FE at liftingfaces.com>
	<AANLkTilkfznBstbta55hgfGmNqnPuJiBaxTBg1nk4CNf at mail.gmail.com>
	<4C34C6AF.9060709 at gmail.com> <4C34C8AF.70507 at gmail.com>
	<152f839bbd02f83fc03a5318462443d7.squirrel at brunians.org>
	<4C34D82D.5070500 at gmail.com> <4C34DA51.8040901 at gmail.com>
	<4C34ED71.2020108 at gmail.com> <4C34EDED.3070502 at gmail.com>
	<4C34EF25.7030109 at gmail.com> <4C34F4E3.9020109 at gmail.com>
	<4C350826.9040907 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <59b762c9e019715a00149bb6538dbaa6.squirrel at brunians.org>

What the hell do you expect from a protestant?

.

> James Wynn wrote (07-07-2010 22:42):
>> On 7/7/2010 4:18 PM, Ant??nio Pedro Marques wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But *if* Wolfe had written Superman and the etxt didn't show
>>>>> Superman and Clark were the same guy, our speculation that they
>>>>> might be *would* lead to a richer reading. We would postulate they
>>>>> were the same guy because that would take the story to a whole new
>>>>> level, not because of some esoteric motivation for weaving the
>>>>> alter ego theme into it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whereas no one has yet explained just what the
>>>>> considering-that-some-characters-in-the-BNS-are-Inire brings to
>>>>> the table. Lee points to it enlightening Inire's nature and
>>>>> motivations, but I find that sketchy. Could your camp do some more
>>>>> sketching, perhaps?
>>>>
>>>> What's the narrative advantage of Dorcas being Severian's
>>>> grandmother?
>>>
>>> I'm not talking about narrative advantage. I'm talking about
>>> speculative advantage.
>>>
>>> And as a side note I'm against the idea of narrative advantage. I don't
>>> see that real life employs it, why should fiction?
>>
>> Okay. What's the speculative advantage to Dorcas being Severian's
>> grandmother?
>
> That has been discussed to death.
>
>> I remember when the grandmother theory was posed. There was no more
>> textual evidence for it than this Hairy Inire theory. The only reason
>> it's not sitting on the "Half-baked Theory" pile today is because Wolfe
>> uncharacteristically confirmed it to a questioner.
>
> It's probably the only 'puzzle' in the book that everyone gets. The only
> way
> it could be more transparent would be if instead of Cas the boatman would
> have called her Dorcas. It's not like the boatman calls her Fifi.
>
>> I think the real test is: "Do the accumulated facts form a real pattern
>> or only a perceived pattern?" Almost anything you say about Wolfe's
>> fiction *could* be shunted with "who cares? This won't change my opinion
>>  on the story." If you feel that way, fine. Go on to the next post. You
>> have nothing to add. People post these theories because they see what
>> looks like a deliberate pattern. They want someone to say "It couldn't
>> work because..." or "Here's something else that fits that pattern...."
>
> You're *again* trying to find patterns for patterns' sake. That's what's
> wrong with it.
>
> Patterns come by the dozens. In books as rich in detail as Wolfe's you can
> get patterns out of anything. It's futile. You think you're clever because
> you've found a pattern, when in fact the hard thing is not to find them.
> For the umpteenth time, the *worth* of patterns is what's at stake. Not
> their viability. To show a pattern is viable in a Wolfe book is like
> showing
> there are stars in the sky. "It couldn't work because..." is all but
> impossible - especially when all contrary evidence can be just ignored, as
> in this Rudesind/Inire case - and "Here's something else that fits that
> pattern...." is essentially gratis. The real test is 'that pattern is
> interesting because...'. And what I've asked and haven't yet seen is what
> follows in that ellipsis.
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

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