Patera Incus

James Wynn · 16 Aug 2010, 13:24 · from 2010-August.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: crushtv at gmail.com (James Wynn)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:24:31 -0500
Subject: (urth) Patera Incus
In-Reply-To: <SNT123-W582AF4D1C8B0B57B9D8CF4CF9B0 at phx.gbl>
References: <SNT123-W582AF4D1C8B0B57B9D8CF4CF9B0 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4C693C0F.2040206 at gmail.com>

> Lee-
> I think [James's] first conclusion is that if Wolfe goes through the trouble
> of describing how a letter is written and re-written then SOMETHING weird is
> going on. I think even Roy might agree with this conclusion though it might strain
> every fiber in his being to admit it. I acknowledge and appreciate the effort he
> made a month or two ago to concede, after years of discussion,  that perhaps
> there is some monkey business going on with Father Inire.
>
> James, your second conclusion is a hypothesis to explain what weird thing is
> happening with these letters- Incus is a woman. Perhaps part of your (perceived
> on my part) frustration is that Roy is finding evidence to poke holes in your
> conclusion without offering an alternate conclusion on what is going one here
> (other than the default- nothing). Others might attack your conclusion by
> instead by proposing more plausible explanations of their own.
>
>

I'm not really "frustrated" with Roy, because, knowing him on the list 
as I have for quite a while, I realize where he is coming from. And I 
know that, often, I can't possibly get there from where I am coming from.
I fully realize that my sort of analysis is for him sometimes like 
running a squirrel in front of a rottweiler and other times like 
lighting a cigarette in a flour mill.

The fact is, I didn't originally decide that Incus was a woman based 
those letters or Hyacinth's sacrifice. I stumbled upon a few things 
Wolfe was doing thematically and saw --to my surprise-- that he was 
treating Incus consistently as female. It was only then that I knew what 
to do with the peculiarities of Incus's letters presented themselves as 
major lacunas, because _then_ I knew what to do with them. The textual 
clues began to present themselves  (including ones I didn't denote 
because they are just too incidental and are part of other tricky 
puzzles). It's a very illustrative example of the idiosyncrasies of 
human perception. Its not just an assortment of parts that I've fitted 
together to see if they go (I do that often as well). It's more like a 
word in a crossword puzzle that was 1) built entirely from the other 
answers and 2) precisely fits the definition. Consequently, because of 
the way I came to this conclusion, if Wolfe himself told me that Incus 
was not female, I'd call him a g d liar (not that I think that will 
happen). It is as clearly stated in the text for me as the question of 
whether there are inhumis on the Whorl.

This is not the sort of process that Roy can possibly respect. I 
understand that and I understand why. That's cool.

I was fully expecting some kind of dramatic "reveal" regarding Incus in 
"The Book of the Short Sun" and was perplexed that it didn't happen -- 
just another peek-a-boo with Maytera Corn. Who is Wolfe writing these 
puzzles for anyway?

Ultimately, Roy's posts are more useful to me than they are to himself, 
since he (often rather consciously) adopts the most philistine pose and 
forces me to come to him.  This always helps me since it I have to strip 
all the fuzz off my arguments to get to where he is. It usually doesn't 
help him at all because, for the most occult puzzles in Wolfe's stories, 
you can't get all the fuzz off them.

> Perhaps these others could be compared to infantrymen, engating in battle mano-a mano.
> If so, perhaps we can see Roy as akin to  a sniper. He cannot risk his acknowledged
> (by me and others including Borski and Andre-Driussi) value as a defender of the lupine
> gospel by betraying his own position and subjecting himself to the withering fire of the
> enemy.

Ehh...sometimes he proposes radical theories of his own. Not so much 
anymore. But it still happens. He's a cunning debater though and he is 
not willing to undermine his own vetting of a new explanation with 
alternate theories that might move the focus off the subject at hand. He 
forces a theory to stand or fall on its own. Which is handy for 
everyone. Unfortunately, most people propose theories that they are 
looking for help "filling out". And a fight with Roy early on can kill 
that discussion.

> We each have our talents. If we recognize this and approach disussing Wolfe as though we
> are on the same team as opposed to working against each other, I think progress will be
> maximized. As I see it, Roy is not shooting down your theory, he is helping to improve it.

I agree. I'm quite grateful for Roy's attention when I attract it.

u+16b9

> My opinion is that something weird IS going on when a fictional letter is written, then
> re-written. And so far, James' explanation has the honor of Best Working Hypothesis on what
> that weird thing is. Perhaps there are other candidates?

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