[big spoiler] Narrative technique in _Return_,

Adam Stephanides · 10 Feb 2001, 14:21 · from whorl-v0012.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: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: (whorl) [big spoiler] Narrative technique in _Return_,
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:21:13 +0000
Message-ID: <whorl-v0012-0172 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/whorl/archives/v0012/0172.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

on 2/8/01 6:13 PM, Spectacled Bear at spectacled.bear at pobox.com wrote:

> At 10:23 2001-02-08 +0000, Adamwrote:
> ...
>> why do the
>> editors keep up the ambiguity over the protagonist's identity until almo=
st
>> the end?  One possibility is that they don't want to admit that Horn is
>> dead, but there are a couple of problems with this: apparently Hide and =
Hoof
>> never did believe that the protagonist was Horn (see the start of Hoof's
>> narration on p. 337); and when the editors finally do name the protagoni=
st,
>> they unambiguously call him Silk.
>=20
> Well, they *are* writing a book, and you must admit it reads better
> this way. It's a dramatised account, not a dry history, so I think
> they did it for the same reason as Wolfe did.

In the first place, three of the editors are from an impoverished colony,
and at least two are from a family that's not well off; the fourth is a
servant.  Under these conditions it's unlikely that any of them would have
acquired much literary sophistication.  And I don't recall any indication
that any of them had a literary bent either.  So it seems unlikely to me
that they would have been interested in the sort of games with narration
that Wolfe plays. In the second place, they're not writing a novel, they're
compiling a non-fictional account of their father (or father-in-law) and of
the man he admired more than anybody else.  Even if they had an interest in
narrative mystification, I doubt they would indulge it here.

> Another case where the editors create a
>> mystery and I don't see why: it's clear that "Horn" gives an eye to Pig,=
 but
>> as far as I can recall this is never stated.
>=20
> You said it yourself: "it's clear". We can allow them a little
> literary licence, as long as it doesn't cause actual confusion.

I'm willing to "allow them" all the license they want.  I just want to know
why they did it.

(Incidentally, I had posted a second reply to Dan Schmidt on the authorship
of the third-person segments a couple days ago, but without my realizing it
my computer had reset the date to 1956, so it may have gotten lost on some
systems.)

--Adam

*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun.
*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.moonmilk.com/whorl/
*To leave the list, send "unsubscribe" to whorl-request at lists.best.com
*If it's Wolfe but not Long Sun, please use the URTH list: urth at lists.best.=
com

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