Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?

David Stockhoff · 18 Dec 2011, 01:50 · from 2011-December.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: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:50:49 -0500
Subject: (urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?
In-Reply-To: <9DC7581DE8B242049D6A8A31A25F9185@Rover>
References: <SNT123-W50A9FF8908A2C4EB5FA2CACFA30 at phx.gbl><37C4859FAD55407DBA8779047C8C609B@Rover><4EEAA211.7070705 at verizon.net><6A0F475423584142B0FA666A0E93F682@Rover><4EEAB8C6.100 at verizon.net><5054BA56E99A4B28A66D90C447EEEE44@Rover><4EED2143.9010706 at verizon.net><B313F102F2A041C7A3735F37FC4B34E4@Rover><4EED3115.20902 at verizon.net><D443B595307C4CB79D5809B6C766449C@Rover>
	<4EED383D.2070000 at verizon.net>
	<9DC7581DE8B242049D6A8A31A25F9185@Rover>
Message-ID: <4EED46F9.8080601 at verizon.net>

On 12/17/2011 8:04 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
> *From:* David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>
> > On 12/17/2011 7:34 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > Yes. To what enchantment do you refer?
> > > > > > That which kept her preserved and asleep for some 20 years. 
> (You can
> > > > > > argue that this did not happen, and I agree. But then there 
> are two
> > > > > > narratives here, aren't there? And one of them is informed by
> > > various
> > > > > > tales about preserving sleep underground, and women in lakes.)
> > > > > That?s a circular argument. ?Dorcas is like Sleeping Beauty.
> > > Therefore
> > > > > she was under an enchantment, rather than dead. Therefore she 
> is like
> > > > > Sleeping Beauty.?
> > > > "Dorcas is like Sleeping Beauty, in that she was apparently under an
> > > > enchantment, rather than dead." There---fixed it.
> > > At the cost of having to assume Severian?s power is something
> > > considerably different and weaker than what we thought ? i.e. when he
> > > resurrects someone it was because she was set up to be ?resurrected?.
>
> > You must read every other sentence, like a half-blind character out of
> > Borges. How did you miss when I said that's NOT what happened???
> Sure, but you seem to be saying that it IS what happened too. If 
> you?re not, what?s the point in your fix? What exactly is the status 
> of this ?other narrative? you mention, and what are Severian?s powers 
> like in it?

Yes, it IS what happened "too." The first read/surface story is that 
Dorcas was never dead and Severian has no powers (but may have the role 
of a fairy-tale hero to whom lucky things like this happen). The second 
read/understory is that Dorcas was dead and Severian raised her.

As has been said a million times, BNS draws from and subverts dozens of 
genres and narrative modes. Identifying those is part of the analysis. 
To some degree they cloak (as in "hide" but also "dress up") the 
understory. But they also tell us what's being subverted and thus a clue 
as to why. It's not a question of "if Dorcas is Sleeping Beauty, then 
who's the witch"? There is no poisoned apple. But if there is a witch, 
it's Severian.

But he is still a "lucky Fool" to whom things happen---otherwise, how to 
swallow the coincidence that his first Lazarus is his hot grandmother?

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