do the Hierogrammates care about the megatherians?

Gerry Quinn · 24 May 2011, 00:38 · from 2011-May.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: Tue, 24 May 2011 01:38:20 +0100
Subject: (urth) do the Hierogrammates *care* about the megatherians?
References: <SNT123-W220B7E3214FF82B9BAC2DDCF710 at phx.gbl>	<AE83B76DDD3A4DCCB4C28DABF86BA1B5@jill>	<4DD6C327.5090406 at gmail.com><535089.18349.qm at web114704.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>	<4DD6EBE4.5000407 at gmail.com><CF45A7FFB0554242BE3B514EBE3B8BC5@jill>	<4DD74568.2040606 at gmail.com><68AC8C3C67314A15A40B9FB895DD5E50@jill>	<4DD9D005.6010701 at gmail.com><AEC7C702B7C14DB1BF20E6F99A3B4822@jill>	<4DDAA392.6000405 at gmail.com><6CA26952AAB44A74B9F01FC7CF51C630@jill>
	<4DDAD35A.6030303 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EEDE4BE90CC4A45A16FD8D6A227B70E@jill>


From: "James Wynn" <crushtv at gmail.com>
>> Gerry Quinn:
>> [...] And (I will just note) the main character of the story is 
>> Frog/Romulus. He and his immediate story and twin brother are more 
>> central than the details of his ancestors.
>
> Why do you not say that this is the story of Mowgli with a few details of 
> Romulus thrown in?

Because the story of the actual doings of Frog is the story of Romulus. 
(The story of his ancestry is also that of Romulus.)  The section involving 
the Senate of Wolves is from the Jungle Book, but Frog is only a passive 
spectator there.

> The name "Mowgli" actually _means_ 'frog', and

Yes, it seems he gets his name from the Jungle Book.  Which means, in turn, 
that there is no need for any strained connection to Ymar!  I maintain, 
however, that the names Romulus and Remus retain an echo in the equally 
alliterative Frog and Fish.  Wolfe mixes the two stories.

[By the way, I don't see the name Spring Wind as a problem.  In the first 
place, Mars is associated with Spring.  It is suggested in the story that 
Early Summer had a particular reason for calling him Spring Wind, but that 
reason is not stated.  However, what *is* stated is that Early Summer took a 
secret delight in his affinity for agriculture. There was a Greek god of 
Spring winds called Zephyr who brought the rains of early spring which were 
necessary for seeds to sprout; it may be that Early Summer was thinking of 
these winds and rains.]

> there are at least as many parallels as with Romulus. There's no Red 
> Flower in Romulus' story.

But there is!  Juno was impregnated by a magic flower, and this is repeated 
in Wolfe's version.  Wolfe states that the flower was "redder than any 
rose".  So while the association of the red flower with fire comes from the 
Jungle Book, Wolfe has again mixed the two stories together.  In the Jungle 
Book, Mowgli's grandmother was not impregnated by fire.

Traditionally the magic flower appears to be the foxglove, which comes in a 
variety of colours, including red.

> What could be more straightforward? Of course, there's no Naked One in 
> either story. It only maps to The Jungle Book because bear=bare (ha ha ha) 
> but then we know that "puns are not translation" so let's ignore that. 
> And the Red Flower was never Mowgli's banner. There are lots details that 
> sort of parallel one story or both, but are actually unique.
> This is a perfect example of confirmation bias. You see what you think 
> your supposed to see and you filter out all the rest.

The fact is that the points of coincidence between Frog's life story and 
that of Romulus are pretty much exact.  I listed them.  There's no "sort of 
parallel detail" involved - there is a reproduction that is essentialy exact 
to the limits within which Wolfe was working - for example Rhea Silvia's 
name, or the death of Remus.

The connections to the Jungle Book may be pretty solid too; the only thing 
is that those parts are not really much about Frog.


>>> Of course, there is nothing in Romulus' or Remus' name or story to 
>>> suggest calling them "Frog" and "Fish". You are arbitrarily stating that 
>>> it's random noise because it doesn't fit your preconceived model.
>>
>> What would *you* suggest calling them?  There is no obvious translation 
>> as with Juno or in particular Rhea Silvia.  Any name that sounds like 
>> Rome is way too obvious to be usable.
>
> Since when does Wolfe require obvious translations? I suppose a name 
> associated with "teat" which is a common etymology of the word "Rome". 
> Suddenly, Wolfe _doesn't_ want to be obvious?

He's not hiding the origins of the story; that doesn't mean he wants to 
crudely replicate it. You may be right about the etymology of Romulus, but 
it doesn't seem well-known - I googled and the only suggestion I saw was 
Wikipedia's suggestion that it may simply be a back-formation from Rome. 
Then there is the problem of what to name Remus.  So, Kipling came to the 
rescue!  And the alliteration of Romulus and Remus is preserved in the names 
of Frog and Fish.


>> [...]Romulus isn't a character in the books either.  If Romulus could be 
>> in a story, Martin Luther King could also.
>> As could Neil Armstrong.
>
> It's not Romulus anymore than it is Mowgli. You making the same mistake as 
> the mythologers Wolfe is parodying.

It *is* Romulus and in parts Mowgli.  The stories told are the stories of 
what Romulus did, and to a lesser extent what Mowgli's animal friends did.

>> [...]  More importantly, if Wolfe had put a reference to Ymar or Typhon 
>> into the story of Frog, it would have been to tell us something about 
>> them.  What, exactly, do you think we are being told?
>
> Ymar's parentage and a glimpse at the vast history Wolfe has imagined.

I could buy a reference to Typhon in Spring Wind - but what exactly are you 
proposing with regard to Ymar's parentage?  Wolfe in a later book places 
Ymar as a youmg apprentice of the Torturer's of Typhon's time [an error on 
Wolfe's part, IMO, as I think Ymar should have been later - but that's just 
my literary opinion].  Clearly in UotNS Ymar's parentage is unknown - but 
for it to to be mythologised it would have to have later become widely known 
that Ymar was the son of Typhon.  But there's no supporting evidence for 
that.   And if the mythologisers made that mistake, why did the fact become 
widely known enough for them to do so, and then become forgotten again?

And Ymar clearly didn't found Nessus.  It's hard to see how he could have 
had a twin brother.  If the mythologisers are making a mistake, WHY do you 
think they are making such a mistake?  Why do they conflate the stories of 
Romulus and Ymar?


>> I'm asking - if Wolfe is for some reason telling us the story of Romulus, 
>> but hinting (in a manner too subtle for me)...
>
> yep. It went right over your head.
> It's not the story of Romulus. Nor is it the story of Mowgli. That is the 
> mistake the mythographers made. And you are making it write along with 
> them. I'm appreciating Wolfe's joke more and more.

So what's the Great Secret of Ymar then?  [Though we've now established that 
the name Frog comes from the Jungle Book, so you really have no 
justification at all for your Ymar = emir = rana = frog argument!  The name 
Frog has been explained, and the explanation has nothing to do with Ymar.]

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