Typhon's nature

David Stockhoff · 16 Oct 2011, 19:23 · from 2011-October.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: dstockhoff at verizon.net (David Stockhoff)
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 15:23:14 -0400
Subject: (urth) Typhon's nature
In-Reply-To: <1318778704.82946.YahooMailClassic at web161803.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <1318778704.82946.YahooMailClassic at web161803.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4E9B2F22.4020406 at verizon.net>

On 10/16/2011 11:25 AM, Marc Aramini wrote:

...
I don't think he just goes straight from one myth to his writing, it's 
too limiting.  He has his own agenda, this is why I can't lend any real 
credence in authorial intent in Typhon and Echidna as siblings are to 
mapping myths onto the stories unless they are just EXPLICIT in the text.
However, WOLFE DOES NOT SPELL OUT EVERYTHING or we wouldn't all 
disagree, and sometimes these inferences require outside knowledge, the 
"roman a clef" principal and play intertextually.  That's just the way 
it is.  Having said that, no, I don't think he maps mythology in terms 
of familial relationships this way since he created his own relationship 
scheme on the whorl through features and names (yeah, it makes sense 
that SOMEHOW [i posit "adoption"] Tussah and Silk are related because of 
their names)

These are two opposite principals. On the one hand, we need some degree 
of concreteness before we fall for "extraordinary claims." On the other, 
we know that some explicitness is indirect. "Explicit" does not mean 
"shouted."

In the case of Typhon's theoretical incest with Echidna, it's not a plot 
point, because it's deep backstory. It's as much thematic as background, 
a little less concrete and well-defined. Standards are lower: there's no 
reason to hash it out as though it has a direct impact on the 
characters. It's just implied. I can hold it suspended in my mind as 
something that fits (the names, the monstrous offspring, Typhon as 
Satan, as Alexander, as Pharaoh, as Oz, etc.) without regarding it as a 
bedrock positive. However, we already have incest occurring at least 
twice in TBotNS, and that almost cries out for a third instance.

Unfortunately for the antigenetic contingent, Silk himself is more than 
a character. He's a BODY. The origin of his body is itself a backstory. 
An event 30 years ago physically affects Silk today. So we can't just 
dismiss a potentially tangled and warped tale of genetic inheritance (of 
possibly very interesting traits) as unimportant just because we'd 
rather see Typhon as a one-dimensional cardboard plot point of no deep 
significance and a randomly chosen name.

>

---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 111016-1, 10/16/2011
Tested on: 10/16/2011 3:23:15 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software.
http://www.avast.com

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