lots of stuff

brunians at brunians.org · 10 Jul 2010, 01:36 · 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: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 21:36:28 -0400
Subject: (urth) lots of stuff
In-Reply-To: <772357.51292.qm at web50708.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <SNT123-W12E6B4CF1E9CDBCCE9EB60CFB50 at phx.gbl><A4E50BED5BA84D9EBB1B66865551BCDC@jill>
	<4C378278.8070409 at gmail.com> <242CDA0648A34BB4B17CA3BAE46645BD@jill>
	<772357.51292.qm at web50708.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <df04fd08cf651bfe24c989bc5963f36f.squirrel at brunians.org>

It's God's plan that everybody die.

Sometimes a whole bunch go at once.

Get over it.

It's really not a big deal.

.


> From: Gerry Quinn <gerryq at indigo.ie>
>
>>From: "Ant?nio Pedro Marques" <entonio at gmail.com>
> ...
>
>>> I'm not sure that's what you're getting at, but I've asked some days
>>> ago, if
>>>Tzadkiel is evil, where are the *good*
>>> people opposing the new sun, since the ones that seem to oppose it
>>> don't
>>>compare favourably with the ones
>>> serving it. That to me is the chief problem with the Tzadkiel-is-evil
>>> idea.
>
>> I must have missed that, but yes, that is what I am getting at.  It
>> seems like
>>a structural necessity in the text.
>
> I don't see that.  If there are any "good" characters in /Pirate Freedom/,
> they're pretty minor.  As I recall.  But I don't think Tzadkiel (who I'd
> like to
> forget) was supposed to be evil.
>
> On the monkey business--I didn't notice the monkey repetitions, and I
> agree that
> they're interesting.  Perhaps even more clearly crying out for an
> explanation
> are the two appearances of Fechin.  I have no idea what the explanation
> might
> be, but I really don't think it's that Rudesind, the old man, or Fechin is
> Inire.  I find it much more believable that we're supposed to think the
> baboon
> at the lazaret is a spy for Inire.
>
> (Somebody asked why /Father/ Inire.  I still want to know.  And I'm with
> those
> who think he isn't sexually interested in girls, or any humans.)
>
> People, I think Ryan Quinn especially, have been saying they think that
> since
> Wolfe spent all that time on TBotNS, every detail must be significant.  I
> don't
> think that's necessarily true.  Nadine Gordimer, in her introduction to a
> collection of her early short stories, defined the short story as fiction
> short
> enough for the writer to keep it all in his or her head at once.  (As I
> recall.)  Vladimir Nabokov claimed he wrote his novels this way.  He wrote
> on
> index cards and could fill in any point in the story (though he also said
> he
> wore out erasers faster than pencil lead).  He may have written /Ada/ this
> way,
> but TBotNS is more than twice as long, and I don't believe Wolfe knew at
> every
> point what he had written at every other point that readers might connect
> with
> it.  (Heck, Nabokov didn't notice every possible false lead either.)  In
> particular, I think that when he wrote the appendix to /Shadow/, he was
> thinking
> that it took place in our future, not in a past cycle of the universe.
>
> Executive summary: When he mentioned a monkey, he might not have
> remembered
> every other time he mentioned a monkey.
>
> (By the way, Nabokov said specifically that some of his stories, maybe all
> his
> later ones, contained a second tale hidden under the first one, like the
> "Second
> House" that Lee mentioned.  I recommend him for those who like fiction of
> that
> kind.  I'll also say, and have said at NABOKV-L, that Wolfe is the most
> Nabokovian sf writer.  But I'm not guaranteeing you'll like Nabokov.)
>
> I too was horrified by the flood in TUotNS (though I'd stopped enjoying
> the book
> long before that because I felt the writing was far below Wolfe's
> standard).
> The afterlife doesn't mitigate the disaster unless the victims got as good
> a
> chance to repent as they would have if they hadn't been killed.  True, the
> Bible
> says God caused a flood, but he seems to have thought it was a bad idea
> afterwards, which he apparently didn't after the flood Severian caused.
>
> Jerry Friedman
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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