Are the Neighbors REALLY the Neighbors?

Lee Berman · 15 Feb 2011, 15:23 · from 2011-February.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: severiansola at hotmail.com (Lee Berman)
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:23:53 -0500
Subject: (urth) Are the Neighbors REALLY the Neighbors?
Message-ID: <SNT123-w230B444DEE1DF1454E06AFCFD30 at phx.gbl>

>James Wynn: Actually, it is not at all uncommon for Wolfe to spend paragraphs of a 
>hand-wringing over theories that are wrong but alert the reader to a 
>puzzle to be solved. An obvious example (to me) is when Silk spends 2 or 
>3 pages speculating on why he called Blood "son" on their first meeting. 
>A good rule of thumb for reading Wolfe is that when a theory is offered, 
>it is probably wrong in some key way (although in some ways correct as 
>well).

>David Stockhoff: Right, and if Wolfe is being parsimonious, the right and wrong parts 
>tell us more about the character doing the theorizing than about the 
>problem itself.

I agree with both of these assessments so I consider myself suitably chastened in 
regard to general Wolfean auctorial tropes. Still I think this particular passage is
a somewhat unique example/exception. 

Since we already know so much about Horn , I don't think these paragraphs are written 
primarily for expository revelation about the narrator. They really are about the
crusty, barnacle creature.

With Blood and Silk and other elements of the story, we have multiple sections discussing
these characters and their relationships. So we have a basis for correcting a wrong theory
by a character. For this passage this is all we ever get regarding the crusty barnacle guy. 
So by what basis could we correct anything that Horn gets wrong?

I'm willing to accept enough of what Horn says to agree with the portion of Marc's theory
that this is the only example of a fully flesh-and-blood Neighbor that we see.

Horn uses examples from The Whorl of people ostensibly blessed but really cursed by wealth 
or other gifts from the gods (James, interesting that you mention Blood) as the basis for
his theory. To me this hearkens to similar examples from earth's own mythology, most obviously
Midas (a reference I think would be of great interest to James). Perhaps this is how gifts from 
the gods on all whorls work (so what does that say about Severian and his divine gift?).

Wolfe makes the crusty creature so strong it swats Babbie aside like a fly. A bit speculative
but this reminds me of Nephilim- biblical men of reknown, Baldanders etc. Perhaps this barnacle guy
is Blue's version.

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