(urth) The mystery of the image of an astronaut cleaned by Rudesind

[Lee Berman]

>Jane Delawny- Was intending to ask about this on list but Tim got 
>in there ahead of me - making me wonder if there might be a 'consensus'
>regarding Borski ... if he's on this list I have missed him, Ohai Robert
>if you're out there, I have read your stuff with huge amounts of interest
>but also some skepticism!
 
Yeah, Borski was on this list, before my time, in the early 2000's I think
it was. I think there is sort of a concensus that he took some of his ideas
and ran with them so far and so fast that they are difficult for anyone else
to follow. And that he left the list because he couldn't stand the criticism.
Still I appreciate his efforts to publish his ideas and get them out there.
Some of the other old grand masters hold their cards too close to the vest, 
perhaps also fearing such criticism. This doesn't allow us to pick their 
brains or participate in the interactive process which I enjoy.
 
>David Stockhoff- Any thoughts on the question of Fechin having painted Inire
>as a little boy, thus proving that he is Rudesind, who was painted by Fechin
>as a little boy?

I don't think I'd ever hope to prove something but rather find suggestions. And
in that scenario, Rudesind says a great artist visited him, when he was a boy 
artist, to see his work. "It was Fechin, Fechin himself!". Was Fechin, the
great artist or the boy? Naturally we jump to the conclusion that the great
artist was Fechin. But the painting of the boy included paint brushes 
(and a tangerine). Many famous artists have done their own self-portrait 
depicting themselves with brushes (including Picasso, Van Gogh, Rembrandt, 
Chagall AND Nicolai Fechin) so that could be a sly way of hinting that the boy, 
Rudesind, was Fechin, not just as subject, but artist also. 
 
>A.P. Marques- But what's interesting about it?.. That's what I've been asking
>all along. You only see coincidences because you want to. As Horn or someone 
>said, everything is connected to everything else. By lowering the bar for 
>connectedness as has been done here, one can find coincidences everywhere. 
>But the 'incidence' part of the coincidences is entirely of yallr own 
>making. You are connecting dots that you have put there yourselves. That 
>could be interesting if it lead to something, but to what does it lead?
 
A nice metaphor as we see Severian on his back, looking at stars and making
connections into constellations (including, preciently, a peryton/Hethor 
spying on him). I have not created the dots any more than Severian has created
all the stars (well, maybe he created one). Gene Wolfe created all the dots. The
question is which, if any, should be connected.
 
For example, we have Father Inire's mirrors, Hethor's mirrors and mirror sails
on Tzadkiel's ship. Three dots. Should we connect them? I think most would say 
yes, they all seem to work as teleporters, sometimes for weird creatures. 
 
Father Inire is an alien. Hethor was a sailor on an interstellar/universal 
spaceship. Both show suggestions of an unhealthy attraction to young human women.
Should we connect these two characters based on that and the mirror connection? 
Or should we not connect them because it disrupts our image of Father Inire and 
doesn't fit with the story we know and love?
 
FWIW I find much of Greek mythology to have a similar weird understructure. Was Zeus
the mighty, heroic god that I (and Gene Wolfe?) admired as a child, who defeated the 
monstrous Titans, including Typhon, and ruled among the clouds with fatherly grace?
Or was he a creepy guy who killed his father and married his sister and spent his 
spare time using his power to seduce/rape young girls and boys like Europa and 
Ganymede? He is both, right? But I had to mature as a reader and as a person before
I could see both sides. 

For me, BotNS is built (NOT coincidentally) like House Absolute. There is a main
structure and a second, secret house which has been built co-extensively within it.
As the Secret House was constructed by Father Inire, I find it appropriate to think
the secret structure of BotNS is centered on that character. If you don't think there
are undiscovered mysteries in the story or don't find the search enjoyable I can 
understand that. The main story is really great and I spent years enjoying it on that
level alone. But I always felt there was more.
 
 

  		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3