(urth) Plausibility

[Scott Wowra]

Able (not Abel) is a young teenager transformed into the body of a man.
Think about how well you wrote as a teenager. Did you understand all of your
motivations and have perfect insight into your actions? I know I didn't. In
contrast, Severian has the wisdom of multitudes. Given that, Sev certainly
has more book-smarts and insight into his motivations...he can view his
behavior from 1000s of different perspectives. Comparing their abilities to
self-reflect is a stretch and ultimately will make Able look like a dunce.

Someone commented that Able was a "brute and a bully." Not sure that
characterization holds water by the end of "The Wizard." He seems to be
fairly mature and certainly not a bully like he was early in The Knight. His
ultimate choice of desire over duty may not be heroic, but I tend to think
many of us would have made the same choice.

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 8:59 PM, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net>wrote:

> That makes sense. Does it explain why Abel is so hard to follow? Certainly
> his material is bound to be looser, less subject to "modern" analysis. I was
> struck by Abel's lack of interest in his surroundings---it's very American
> in a way, and yet it fits the milieu.
>
> I think Severian's narrative is strengthened by a couple of other factors
> that tie into the plausibility principle but are separate from it. Mainly,
> he's Autarch, with a very clear place in the world and a biography that is
> more like a history or a hagiography. Every detail counts, as we know, and
> he knows it too. Wolfe may well have precise knowledge of Abel's comings and
> goings, but we don't necessarily need to.
>
> However, I can't argue that Severian has a better sense of the structure of
> his universe than Abel does. He may be better read, and probably learned a
> lot more as Autarch than he knew during his travels. But both characters
> have a distinctly medieval point of view. Severian attempts to explain what
> happened to him. Does Abel?
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:23:56 +0100
> From: adamattman <adamattman at gmail.com>
> To: urth at lists.urth.net
> Subject: Re: (urth) Urth Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5
> Message-ID: <4AF9E7FC.30607 at googlemail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
>
> that's plausible.
>
> and it reminds me of this: (taken from:
> http://mysite.verizon.net/~vze2tmhh/wolfeint.html<http://mysite.verizon.net/%7Evze2tmhh/wolfeint.html>
> )
>
> Q: What is the difference between science fiction and fantasy?
>
> GW: Plausibility, really. Science fiction is what you can make people
> believe; fantasy is what people have to suspend disbelief for. Many
> physicists believe that there will never be a faster-than-light drive --
> it's impossible. But you can make people believe in one, since they don't
> know much physics. And there are some physicists who believe it is possible.
> If you talk about somebody genetically engineering unicorns, it's probably
> fantasy, because people don't believe in it. But it's so close that you can
> almost touch it; we're almost at the point where we can make a unicorn.
>
> So it's all a matter of plausibility. Do people think, "The future might be
> like this?" If so, it's science fiction. If they think, "This could never
> happen," that's fantasy.
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>



-- 
Scott Wowra, PhD
639 Brooks Avenue
West Columbia, SC 29169
803 834 6796
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20091112/8c467f9b/attachment-0004.htm>