Hermeneutic Crocagators

Jason Ingram · 02 May 2001, 21:32 · 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: Jason Ingram <jingram at usc.edu>
Subject: Re: (whorl) Hermeneutic Crocagators
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 21:32:42
Message-ID: <whorl-v0012-0761 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/whorl/archives/v0012/0761.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It seems that I was being overly simplistic in my attempt to portray=20
Blattid as nit-picking over semantics.  I'm glad that I provoked him=20
to present a valuable hermeneutic analysis.  I might add another=20
category: scenes which the editors present based upon their private=20
conversations with the narrator (roughly half of _Return_).  Here we=20
have reconstructed scenes based upon statements by the narrator,=20
which the narrator seemingly didn't have a chance to edit; a sort of=20
camera obscura corroboration that is itself questionable.

I should preface my comments below by stressing that I don't really=20
disagree with Dan'l's conclusions.

Regarding Occam's razor and bilocation: (quoting Blattid)

>Perhaps the Narr is able to bilocate only after Horn's
>transmigration into Silk's body, and then only with the (witting
>or un-) assistance of an inhum*, precisely _because_ he is not a
>Neighbor? To put it differently: the question is not "why is he
>able to do this only under these circumstances," but "why is he
>able to do it at all," and the circumstances under which he can
>do it should then be regarded as clues rather thanr restrictions.

I agree with this method; it seems more parsimonious to argue that=20
the narrator has the same ability to bilocate as the Neighbors, and=20
that the inhumi are prerequisite for both.  Otherwise we have to find=20
a new reason to explain why the Neighbors took inhumi along with=20
them.  There are plenty of other reasons, but why needlessly multiply=20
explanations? (Of course, the Neighbors were able to transmit Horn's=20
consciousness into Silk's body with the aid of their ring, but the=20
narrator's ability to bilocate afterwards only strengthens my=20
conviction that the inhumi act as 'amplifiers' for abilities=20
possessed and bestowed by the Neighbors.)

Blattid:

>I don't wish to be difficult,
>but I'm against erecting towers of speculation when simpler
>explanations are or even _might be_ available; and I think it's
>clear that we're too "young" in exploring these books to be
>able to say that we've exhausted the simple explanations.

I think it would be difficult to find any simple explanation that=20
fits the available evidence.  Believing that the inhumi can only=20
breed on Green implies that the Neigbors have to return to replenish=20
their "stock," or that they have found some other workaround.  (Maybe=20
they didn't want to take inhumi along but ended up doing so anyway;=20
this would introduce turbulence into other readings.)   I'm reluctant=20
to press this point, but it occurs to me that *if* Green were the=20
only breeding ground for inhumi, then a number of inhumi infused with=20
Neighbor-abilities (whatever those are) would likely be running=20
around.  Intriguing notion . . .

(next I quote  blattid then myself; skirting both Heideggerian=20
discussions of the difference between "seems to be 'must'" and=20
"might" and Hegelian debate about "appearance" and the value of=20
speculation)

>  > Again, the question here is-- if Quetzal was born on Green,
>>  by what means did he make his way to the Loganstone.=20
>
>Failing evidence otherwise, I see no reason to dismiss the
>Neighbor's statement cited earlier. Have you any specific
>_textual_ reason to doubt that Q was brought there by the
>Neighbors?

I must have been confused about the nature of the Neighbor's=20
statement.  I didn't think that they had claimed to have dropped an=20
inhum* off upon the Whorl.  If they did, could someone please cite a=20
page number?

I'll endorse the rest of Dan'l's post, and refrain from speculatin'=20
in public . . .

Jason--I'll adopt the nom de whorl of 'Sepia', if it's available.

*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