Sev's not-so-perfect memory

matthew.malthouse · 11 Jul 2003, 06:54 · from urth-v0307.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: matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk
Subject: Re: (urth) Sev's not-so-perfect memory
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 07:54:12 +0100
Message-ID: <urth-v0307-3654 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0307/3654.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 11/07/2003 01:50:42 James Wynn wrote:

>I'm not sure I understand your point, O Leggy One. I don't think Roy=20
favored
>one incident over another. The point is that Severian tells one version=20
at
>one point and another elsewhere -- frequently just at the point where he
>brags about his flawless memory. The point is that one or both versions=20
must
>be wrong. No, Severian doesn't "edit" out the discrepancy. The conceit=20
seems
>to be that he doesn't edit his book at all -- relying on his inerrant=20
memory
>to carry him through at all times.
>
>Or perhaps his memory IS flawless (this is a Wolfe novel after all so it
>would make sense if the narrator's lies were to be somehow true), and his
>memory is "reconsitituted" continuously as he says on page 2 of tSotT=20
just
>before making his first error. So every version is somehow true.  I do=20
think
>that curly-wurly sentence is somehow (although I don't KNOW how) a true
>explanation of Severian's "memory" (if it can realistically be called=20
that).

Random thought:  What is the process for creating a new Severian when the=20
old one carellesly dies?  Occasionally we see a corpse, but more often=20
not.  If the heirodules are tampering with time in order to produce the=20
"right" result might _both_ reccollections be true?  True that is for the=20
current incarnation of Severian?

Thus Severian's claim to perfect memory could be accurate but it's=20
different worlds that he's remembering.

Now the obvious flaw in this is that it isn't third person historical=20
narrative but the conceit of the book is that he writes - or copies from=20
memory - the manuscript that we are supposedly reading between boarding=20
the Ship and casting the casket overboard.  How many times does he die in=20
that time?  Not at all as far as I can remember but certainly not a=20
sufficient number of times to account for all the discrepencies thus far=20
noted.  How many times might he have died in the course of writing the=20
original manuscript?  We can't tell because his life as Autarch isn't in=20
the narative.

Which trangentially brings up something else.  Are there not at least two=20
and possibly more mechanisms by which Severain is incarnated?  From memory=20
it seems that we only get embarrasing bodies left behind after Severian=20
boards the Ship.  Thus the reincarnation is explicit whereas before it had=20
to be inferred.  Possibly a third mechanism might exists post-trial,=20
during his return along the stream of time.

Matthew

--=20

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