Problematic element in chronology

Gerry Quinn · 31 May 2011, 14:59 · 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, 31 May 2011 15:59:37 +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><1FA299F467334EA3AB206557AEDF319A@jill>
	<4DE4F975.7040803 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ED489397DA55412E9DF0A25723768FBA@jill>

From: "Ant?nio Pedro Marques" <entonio at gmail.com>
> Gerry Quinn wrote (30-05-2011 19:36):
>> From: "Ant?nio Pedro Marques" <entonio at gmail.com>

>>> 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 don't know.  There are twenty or so dim red stars in our sky, but most are 
variables.  Still, even if there is only one, I don't see why he should 
assume that that particular star must be Sol without having some reason to 
do so other than its colour.  And why would Wolfe deliberately have him make 
this mistake?

>>>> 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.

We must agree to differ then.  I didn't think of it immediately at all.  One 
has to make a link between relativistic time dilation and the distance 
travelled, which isn't the direct link usually made in popular accounts.  I 
don't remember anyone bringing the matter up.

>>>> (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.

Where else would it come from?  There's no indication that it was anything 
other than a personal propject of Typhon's.  Besides, if he could have 
called in favours from aliens to build or drive it it, why could he not have 
done the same with regard to building a modest orbital space heater?  (Could 
double as a weapon, frying enemies like ants - Typhon would have loved it!)

>>>> 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.

I don't remember talking about Apu Punchau, or whatever this miracle is. 
But anyway, if you can think of an obvious explanation, by all means let's 
hear it!

>> 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.

The second 'know' should have been 'no'  (I don't no why I make such typos, 
but I am often catching them!)

>>>> 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'?

If we can't say this is impossible, we know nothing at all, and I don't 
accept that.

>> 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.

I disagree.  For example, I think "Stars are distant suns" is correct 
science.  They are not holes in a celestial sphere letting in the light of 
Yesod, or candles held by floating angels, or some such alternative 
explanation.

Wolfe has said various things like "how do you know a godling cannot be 50 
feet tall, and just constructed differently from humans?"  And that is fair 
enough.  Nevertheless, I think he misses or decides to ignore scientific 
facts quite often when the story demands it.  One example discussed some 
time ago was the angular velocity of the Whorl and its effect on floaters. 
It was generally accepted that these are incompatible with the size of the 
Whorl.  But Wolfe wanted the Whorl to be big, and he was satisfied with 
science that had the appearance of possible versimilitude (if that is not a 
redundant expression, but I think people will know what I mean).  He doesn't 
want anything to scream "this is really impossible", but I, at least, don't 
think the visibility of Sol from Blue screams that, even if it is an 
unusually clear difficulty once one spots it.

- Gerry Quinn

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