This week in Google alerts

Gerry Quinn · 05 Nov 2011, 13:01 · from 2011-November.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: gerry at bindweed.com (Gerry Quinn)
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 13:01:15 -0000
Subject: (urth) This week  in Google alerts
In-Reply-To: <4EB5259F.4010308 at verizon.net>
References: <SNT123-W3944B1093A3A54057F5AD8CFDA0 at phx.gbl><944700BE64674BAFA2F5935E9AE095DE@Rover><4EB42C37.8040704 at gmail.com><EFB0B66565F54B10A0926D481A145C64@Rover>
	<4EB5259F.4010308 at verizon.net>
Message-ID: <8F9FD21148EA44B6B809CEDDE7A988AA@Rover>

From: David Stockhoff 

> (1) You're right that no knowledge of obscure fauns is "needed." Full 
> understanding of exactly how Wolfe composes and constructs his stories 
> is not "needed." Not every reader knows his/her mythology backwards and 
> forwards or wants to. But Wolfe does.

That doesn?t mean he sets cryptic crossword puzzles using this knowledge.  I think he chooses names that he feels are appropriate, but they do *not* indicate that the bearer is similar to or replicating behaviour of his namesake.  That would be ugly and obvious.  (If a character is performing something like the labours of Hercules, he will not be named Hercules or Hercule.)  Instead, the names create an ambiance.  If he does tricks with the names they are in-story, like the councillors getting names of old world monkeys.

Rhea Silvia doesn?t contradict this: she is a particular identifiable character, not a clone.  The same for Dionysus et al.  Jesus on Palm Sunday isn?t named (indeed, I think Wolfe usually avoids giving names to characters we are supposed to recognise) but it?s obvious who is meant.

> (2) These fauns are hardly "obscure"!

All fauns are obscure!  Except maybe Tumnus.

> (3) The syllables "silen" and "silv" are not exactly random. If they 
> were random, they might be "xy" or "kra" or "chih." Perhaps you mean 
> it's pure alliteration? Silly Silk would do just as well then. Sober 
> Silk. Serious Silk. Anything that starts with S and fits Silk would do.

?Silent? and ?Silver? are not random.  The reasons they are used is given, and is clear.  Actually it would be hard to find equally good alternatives given the story, but of course Wolfe, if he wanted to put in some cryptic reference of the kind postulated, could have had Silk develop some characteristic other than looking silently through the Sacred Windows. 

The ?link? to Silenus and Silvanus is random, IMO.  

Tartaros is called ?Tenebrous Tartarus?.  In Magic the Gathering there?s a card:

Teneb, the Harvester
Legendary Creature ? Dragon
Flying
Whenever Teneb, the Harvester deals combat damage to a player, you may pay 2 Black mana. If you do, put target creature card from a graveyard onto the battlefield under your control.
So... maybe Tartaros killed that mysterious dead woman in the alley, and that gave him the power to restore Auk (who actually died of his head injury) to life?

Or we could try the Sith Lord Teneb from Star wars, that might work better with the gods of Mainframe. 

You may think these are laughable, but with a bit of effort I could find better syllables everywhere.  If I boned up on ancient mythology, I could do just as well as googling for nerd mythology.

> You may not realize it but you are actually formulating a separate 
> theory here, based on nothing visible, that says "why we should reject 
> particular data as evidence." It's the intellectual opposite of "all 
> noise (i.e., linkage) is evidence."

What theory do you think I?m formulating, exactly?  I?ll allow that syllabic evidence like this might in principle mean something in some cases.  I?m pointing out that in assessing it you must realise how much similar stuff can be found in random noise ? I think people underestimate that.

Do we have cases where the syllables clearly mean something in terms of a particular seemingly unconnected referent?

- Gerry Quinn

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111105/cc9fff63/attachment.htm>

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