ENGINE SUMMER: Why? (fwd)

eli+ · 27 Apr 2001, 17:09 · from urth-v0030.mbox · original

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: eli+ at gs211.sp.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: (urth) Re: ENGINE SUMMER: Why? (fwd)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:09:08
Message-ID: <urth-v0030-0353 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0030/0353.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

(fwd of the message that only Adam got.)

Adam Stephanides wrote:
> Michael raises an important question: why have Rush tell his story?

I like your sharpening of this point, and I think your theory -- that
it's to extend the host's Rush experience by keeping Rush stable -- is
well supported, especially considering the amount of evidence
available.  (Let's ignore the meta answer that Rush's telling his
story constitutes the book.)  A possible variant is that being Rush
telling his story is what the host is after.

> and she replies "Only to see...to see how strong you are.  I mean
> whether the story will change, depending on who..." [ellipses Crowley's].
> But her hesitant speech here, which is not at all typical of her, makes me
> suspect she is being evasive.  And in any case, her explanation is weak:
> with 298 copies of the story on file already, the angels should know how
> much variability there is in Rush's story without needing a 299th.

The 299th recording wouldn't tell them much new about variability, but
more than that, it's not apparent it would tell them much new at all.
I agree the angel's being shady, but I can't see what the real answer
would have to be to sound convincing.

Um.  You know when you go... bungee-jumping or something?  And they
offer you a videotape of your jump, as a souvenir?

> The other clues fit in with the suspicion aroused by this one.  Near the
> start of the fifth facet of the second crystal, Rush asks "Do you know th=
is
> story better than I do?" and the angel replies: "Go on.  It's not for my
> sake you tell it."

The variant on your interpretation: it could be that Rush's telling is
for the host's sake, but not because Rush breaks down without it --
instead, because the Rush experience that the host is after is the
experience of telling the story.  Of being a truthful speaker.  ("We
are truthful speakers too", indeed.)  Well, to be precise, the memory
of that experience.

I do think that 2.1 "Go on with your story; it's less confusing.  It's
best just to tell the story beginning to end--that's something we know
about you." does support your variant better, but it could mean that
the host is after a "truthful speaking" trip rather than one about
tangled identity games.

> I began with, the angel told the truth in the first sentence.  They record
> the sessions with Rush to see how strong Rush is, literally: to make sure
> they aren't putting more strain on him than he can endure.

Hmm, expand on this for me?  How do the recordings let them do this?

> Michael will probably be pleased that I'm arguing, not only that the angel
> knows in advance that she will be inflicting pain on Rush, but that she l=
ies
> outright to him (no truthful speaker she!).  But in partial extenuation of
> the angels, if the sphere is just a recording, and so feels nothing, then
> the only entity really suffering is Rush's host, who knew what he was
> letting himself in for.

I feel like there's another person here, a Rush-in-the-host.  He's
doing the suffering.  The host will come back later and take the
memories.  There's certainly a lot of pain tangled up -- my reading
was that David's use of "rape" was in reference to Rush's pain here,
and Michael's recent use was to the host's.

When Rush gets his letter from Dr. Boots: "And then there came the
time that I must tell you of, but can't; the time when Boots was
there, and I was not.  When I was not in Rush that Speaks, and Boots
was; when Boots lived; when she was Rush and I was not; when I was not
at all."  (A precise description of the(?) mystical experience,
according to traditions that interpret it as possession by an Eternal,
but I bet none of them ever figured the Eternal was a stray cat.)
Doesn't sound like the host is there at all.  But in that case the
host didn't remember anything afterwards, while in this case he will.
Whether that makes a difference is a psychological question too deep
for me.

Tangentially: after the letter, there is a distinction made between
"Rush" and "I".  For months, if I remember right, until the
`confusion'?  I wonder if the Rush-sphere has this effect, or only
Boots, or whether the lingering depersonalization is a drug-anecdote
without general implications for the physics of the story.

More tangentially: _ES_ mixed with Hoban's _The Medusa Frequency_
forms an admirable confusion.

DON'T THINK OF ME.  IF YOU THINK OF ME I MAY BE REAL.  LET ME NOT BE REAL.
says the Kraken, the giant squid in that netsuke with the girl and the
giant squid, Orpheus.

Is there a story of me? I asked myself.  Am I in it?

--=20
     Eli Brandt  |  eli+ at cs.cmu.edu  |  http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~eli/

*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/

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