Introduction and Breath

Gerry Quinn · 17 Apr 2011, 22:31 · from 2011-April.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: gerryq at indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 23:31:49 +0100
Subject: (urth) Introduction and Breath
References: <BANLkTik_4w2RyPg-_cSBwYYPO68HEkA55w at mail.gmail.com>	<2287.2.6.15.19.1302728897.squirrel at websecu.irit.fr>	<6C450A90F88D4BA997DF9DCF98FAAF33@jill>	<4DA6EFD6.5010307 at gmail.com>	<526475.52363.qm at web37607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<BANLkTimqnEO1A3qTuLGdCBKAyDPTKnUaow at mail.gmail.com>	<4DA881E1.1080906 at gmail.com><BANLkTi=RCPVs0JO=DW3LJ2+vqZQX8NYHhg at mail.gmail.com>
	<4DAB52AB.1060203 at verizon.net>
Message-ID: <72EC5D2EB0E842E1B97DEA81E746139A@jill>

From: "David Stockhoff" <dstockhoff at verizon.net>

> I think the test here is "more unreliable than is usual in science 
> fiction." It's a pretty low bar Severian clears with ease, just by his 
> lies of omission.
>
> Gerry's comment that, to Severian, "just a moment ago" is long enough to 
> compose ~50 written pages by hand is another example, however limited in 
> effect.

I think the main meaning of this episode is the slightly cruel joke about 
Nicarete being left to wait on the Autarch's whim once again, after spending 
her life waiting in the antechamber of previous Autarchs. Severian's 
absorption in his writing just sets it up.  I wouldn't call it an example of 
an unreliable narrator, really.  He didn't notice the time passing.  It's 
not an unnatural thing not to notice; anybody might be unreliable in the 
same fashion.

For me, the term 'unreliable narator' implies that the author is telling us 
another, different story disguised behind the overt story the narrator is 
telling is; either the narrator is lying or he doesn't understand what's 
going on.  I really don't think that either is the case with Severian.

A narrator who simply makes mistakes or who doesn't know everything isn't 
unreliable in this strong sense.  Maybe we could define 'weakly unreliable' 
and 'strongly unreliable' - but I personally feel that the expression 
'unreliable narrator' should be reserved for the strong sense.  Probably all 
Wolfe's characters are unreliable in the weak sense - consider the Nebraskan 
in 'The Nebraskan and the Nereid' discussed earlier, for example.  We are 
told what he sees, but he does not realise that he is meeting the same girl 
in the inn and the sea-cave, so we are not told.  But does that make him 
unreliable?  It certainly does not make him a liar, anyway.

- Gerry Quinn

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