Problematic element in chronology

Gerry Quinn · 30 May 2011, 18:36 · 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: Mon, 30 May 2011 19:36:28 +0100
Subject: (urth) Problematic element in chronology
References: <87E792FA008E4A679A9EFA68176C4976@jill><4DE0BB7C.2060406 at gmail.com><919CCDA1A13748D3885C08CACA98A8FF@jill>
	<ACEAA57F-D428-4FB2-B650-33276F9B59D8 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1FA299F467334EA3AB206557AEDF319A@jill>

-
From: "Ant?nio Pedro Marques" <entonio at gmail.com>
> No dia 28/05/2011, ?s 19:42, "Gerry Quinn" <gerryq at indigo.ie> escreveu:
>> From: "Ant?nio Marques" <entonio at gmail.com>
>>> Gerry Quinn wrote:

>>>> On Blue, SilkHorn explains to prospective astral travellers that they
>>>> can, if they peer for some time, see a dim red star - this is of course
>>>> Sol, etiolated by the black hole inside it.
>>>
>>> But we only have the narrator's word for it, and the narrator isnt 
>>> omniscient.
>>
>> True enough... but in most Wolfe including all of the Solar Cycle, we 
>> only have the narratopr's word for *everything*.  One has to ask why he 
>> should lie, or make a mistake?  And if he hasn't seen the star, why 
>> should he say it is visible, whereas if he has, why should he mistake a 
>> particular star for Sol?
>
> I think it's reasonably obvious: he visited a red sun, he saw a red sun in 
> the sky, bingo, he thinks they're the same. That's just one possible 
> explanation which I find more plausible than a GW oversight.

I find it hard to see why he would pick on a particular red star.

>> I think he either (1) didn't think of this point,
>
> Not in character.

I disagree, it is not a very obvious point.

>> (2) supports a 350-year chronology between Typhon and Severian,
>
> Makes no sense to me.

Hard to know.  I don't think he does either, but then again 350 years is 
plenty time for a lot of autarchs.  Overall I do think the Whorl was 
intended to travel relativistically, and the Urth time since launch is 
between 1000 and 2000 years, but I don't think 350 years is impossible (and 
it would solve the problem of why Typhon, with the energy to drive the Whorl 
relativistically at his disposal, did not use a fraction of this energy to 
replace the diminished heat of the Sun!)

>> or (3) thought it would be cool to have Sol visible even if the physics 
>> doesn't work.
>
> ...and thought to himself there would be no dearth of possible 
> explanations so let's do it. Mirrors? Folded space-time?

There's quite a dearth of explanations arising naturally out of the story! 
We know of know sun-like stars that we just happen to see at twenty times 
the distance they wuld normally be visible.

>>  I think Wolfe is quite happy to gloss over lots of dodgy science if it 
>> fits the story (realistically, it's obvious - leaving aside physics for 
>> the moment, absorbing not just memories but *memories coordinated into a 
>> personality* by eating corpses is obviously impossible.
>
> So we think, but then again it's not like we've much of a portfolio to 
> show as a species.

I think that Wolfe knows this is not really possible but happily wrote it 
anyway.  I think he strives for scientific versimilitude when he can, but 
such versimilitude is far from perfect.  And why should it be - he is 
writing science fiction stories, not science textbooks. If the science were 
correct readers could reasonably ask for their money back!.

- Gerry Quinn

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