Problematic element in chronology

António Pedro Marques · 31 May 2011, 14:21 · 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: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gUGVkcm8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 15:21:41 +0100
Subject: (urth) Problematic element in chronology
In-Reply-To: <1FA299F467334EA3AB206557AEDF319A@jill>
References: <87E792FA008E4A679A9EFA68176C4976@jill><4DE0BB7C.2060406 at gmail.com><919CCDA1A13748D3885C08CACA98A8FF@jill>
	<ACEAA57F-D428-4FB2-B650-33276F9B59D8 at gmail.com>
	<1FA299F467334EA3AB206557AEDF319A@jill>
Message-ID: <4DE4F975.7040803 at gmail.com>

Gerry Quinn wrote (30-05-2011 19:36):
> 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.

How many are there, recognisably red, in his sky?

>>> I think he either (1) didn't think of this point,
>>
>> Not in character.
>
> I disagree, it is not a very obvious point.

I find it obvious as can be in context.

>>> (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!)

I do find the relativistic speed of the Whorl troubling *if* it comes from 
the Whorl's technology alone.

>>> 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!

This is the guy who thinks there's an obvious explanation in the story for 
Apu Punchau's miracle.

> We know of know sun-like stars that we just happen to see at twenty times
> the distance they wuld normally be visible.

Sorry, I didn't get this sentence.

>>> 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 hoe do you know it isn't? Of course it isn't given our understanding of 
how it works in our universe, but what have we got to show for ourselves 
that gives us the authority to say 'this is impossible'?

> 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!.

The more so since correct science is something that hasn't been observed in 
the wild.

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