Pig as godling

William Ansley · 22 Feb 2001, 00:09 · 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: William Ansley <wansley at warwick.net>
Subject: Re: (whorl) Re: Pig as godling
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:09:04
Message-ID: <whorl-v0012-0332 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/whorl/archives/v0012/0332.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

At 5:01 PM -0600 2/21/01, Robert Borski wrote:
>Patrick O'Leary having written:
>
><3. Pig is not a godling. Think of difference between the two: One an
>artificial being (a combo of
>chem and Super Talus, I'd say) and a three dimensional human character. If
>the godlings' mission is to proclaim the will of Passilk to the whorl does
>it make any sense for them to speak in an strange difficult to parse diale=
ct
>like Pig, or the slow, easily understood child speak of the godling.
>Structurally, think of how awkward it is to have TWO godlings in the same
>place (Blood's
>palace).  It lacks all the elegance and engineering soundness we find
>continually in Wolfe's fiction. It
>makes no sense to me.>
>
>If I read you correctly, Patrick, you seem to be denying the possibility of
>even small godlings in general, whereas Wolfe at least mentions them twice.
>
>The first comes in OBW: "It may be that our gods did not come among us
>except by enlightenment and possession because they were too large to do s=
o;
>even the godlings that they send among the people now are, *for the most
>part,* immense." [Italics mine.]

Wow, Robert! This is most impressive. Wolfe mentioned godlings in OBW=20
and I had totally forgotten it until you mentioned it. Could you give=20
the page number for this passage, please?

>The second mention is more implied than cited, but comes courtesy of the
>corn farmer and his wife. When the former suggests that the source of Horn=
's
>wounds may be a godling, the latter avers that "a godling would have killed
>him," only to have her husband further amend this to, "*Big one* would've."
>[Ditto.]
>
>Think Chekhov's gun here. Why have two differently-sized godlings if you're
>not going to use them? It belies the very elegance and engineering soundne=
ss
>you cite. Or do you have another candidate in mind for a smaller godling?
>Only Pig of all the characters we meet is intermediate in size, if scaled =
to
>more human dimensions. And I can't see Wolfe being this coincidentally
>sloppy.
>
>As for Pig's dialect being too difficult to parse for a godling, you're
>being too parochial. There are many dialects and tongues on the Whorl.
>Surely, the godling who's sent among, say, the Whorl equivalent of Dorp
>would communicate in the fractured yoda-speak they use. Pig--who claims he=
's
>been on the road for over a year and is thus far from home--might therefore
>be quite easily understood in cities and towns that speak his same dialect.

I agree with your reasoning here completely, Robert.

Wolfe has done this kind of thing before, too. Remember the the "baby=20
undine" in TUotNS? Her name was Idas. She was masquerading as a tall=20
man, but she was really just a young girl.

And you have left out what, for me, is the clincher. The ears!=20
Godlings have "bestial, pointed ears" (RttW, p. 53). When Horn=20
refuses to allow Pig to return to Blue with him, Pig first assumes=20
that it is because Horn had seen his ears ("Seen me h'ears" is what=20
Pig says on p. 372.) What in the whorl can this mean except that Pig=20
*is* a small godling. (Now exactly why Pig assumes that this would=20
make Horn refuse to take him along, I can't say.) If Wolfe doesn't=20
intend this reading, why does he give the godlings pointed ears? It=20
seems, to me, like an atypical touch for him. What else could have=20
been special about Pig's ears?

Plus we are told that godlings have claws on p. 139, and Pig's nails=20
are described as claw-like several times. You take take this as=20
evidence for some sort of Pig-Babbie identity; I just think it is=20
another "Pig is a little godling" clue.

Now I don't buy the Pig-Tartaros or Pig-Babbie connection and I don't=20
think Pig killed Silk, but I am right with you on "Pig is a goldling."

Hey guys! If Robert and I can agree on something, how can anyone else doubt=
 it?

William Ansley

*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