extra-textual material

maa32 · 11 Mar 2003, 18:15 · from urth-v0303.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: maa32 <maa32 at dana.ucc.nau.edu>
Subject: (urth) extra-textual material
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:15:28 -0700
Message-ID: <urth-v0303-3053 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0303/3053.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am very interested in the possibility that Silk is a clone of Typhon (or=20
Malrubius) and that Severian and Ymar are genetically related.  However, I=20
think ascribing too much weight to details in "King Jesus" might be=20
potentially misleading.  Has Wolfe even read it?  Myths tend to survive in=20
fragments that are often changed and undergo misprision - perhaps the creat=
ive=20
misreadings of these old ideas experienced something resembling convergent=20
evolution, and the archetypal figures simply resemble each other since they=20
are spawned from a common source instead of from a direct progression from=20
Graves to Wolfe

Obviously a historical text like Soldier in the Mist can be better understo=
od=20
with the real historical documents in hand - like Herodutus, who I believe=20
Wolfe mentions in his dedication.  However, the Sun books are not truly=20
historical works - (but they are still mythical, if that makes any sense).

If Wolfe had inscribed "for Robert Graves" or given some other direct evide=
nce=20
that he had been toying with the ideas of King Jesus explicitly, then we co=
uld=20
gladly make the comparison and use the earlier work to make intertextual=20
interpretations possible, perhaps even likely.

Which is not to say that the relationships you see aren't really there - it=
's=20
just that I don't think we can make use of one novel to make definitive cla=
ims=20
on the interpretation of another without careful consideration.  Remember t=
hat=20
Wolfe is, first and foremost, a writer - and a writer needs to write an=20
interesting, creative story more than he needs to look up ways to rip off=20
descriptions from an earlier writer.  Remember that somewhere in there Wolf=
e=20
creates new things - some of his descriptions are made up on the spot, or e=
lse=20
he is simply enacting the task of Pierre Menard, rewriting the story of the=20
man whose very life has become a dream of the stories that he reads.

Marc Aramini

--=20

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