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

António Pedro Marques entonio at gmail.com
Wed Jul 7 16:05:10 PDT 2010


James Wynn wrote (07-07-2010 22:42):
> On 7/7/2010 4:18 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> But *if* Wolfe had written Superman and the etxt didn't show
>>>> Superman and Clark were the same guy, our speculation that they
>>>> might be *would* lead to a richer reading. We would postulate they
>>>> were the same guy because that would take the story to a whole new
>>>> level, not because of some esoteric motivation for weaving the
>>>> alter ego theme into it.
>>>>
>>>> Whereas no one has yet explained just what the
>>>> considering-that-some-characters-in-the-BNS-are-Inire brings to
>>>> the table. Lee points to it enlightening Inire's nature and
>>>> motivations, but I find that sketchy. Could your camp do some more
>>>> sketching, perhaps?
>>>
>>> What's the narrative advantage of Dorcas being Severian's
>>> grandmother?
>>
>> I'm not talking about narrative advantage. I'm talking about
>> speculative advantage.
>>
>> And as a side note I'm against the idea of narrative advantage. I don't
>> see that real life employs it, why should fiction?
>
> Okay. What's the speculative advantage to Dorcas being Severian's
> grandmother?

That has been discussed to death.

> I remember when the grandmother theory was posed. There was no more
> textual evidence for it than this Hairy Inire theory. The only reason
> it's not sitting on the "Half-baked Theory" pile today is because Wolfe
> uncharacteristically confirmed it to a questioner.

It's probably the only 'puzzle' in the book that everyone gets. The only way
it could be more transparent would be if instead of Cas the boatman would
have called her Dorcas. It's not like the boatman calls her Fifi.

> I think the real test is: "Do the accumulated facts form a real pattern
> or only a perceived pattern?" Almost anything you say about Wolfe's
> fiction *could* be shunted with "who cares? This won't change my opinion
>  on the story." If you feel that way, fine. Go on to the next post. You
> have nothing to add. People post these theories because they see what
> looks like a deliberate pattern. They want someone to say "It couldn't
> work because..." or "Here's something else that fits that pattern...."

You're *again* trying to find patterns for patterns' sake. That's what's
wrong with it.

Patterns come by the dozens. In books as rich in detail as Wolfe's you can
get patterns out of anything. It's futile. You think you're clever because
you've found a pattern, when in fact the hard thing is not to find them.
For the umpteenth time, the *worth* of patterns is what's at stake. Not
their viability. To show a pattern is viable in a Wolfe book is like showing
there are stars in the sky. "It couldn't work because..." is all but
impossible - especially when all contrary evidence can be just ignored, as
in this Rudesind/Inire case - and "Here's something else that fits that
pattern...." is essentially gratis. The real test is 'that pattern is
interesting because...'. And what I've asked and haven't yet seen is what
follows in that ellipsis.



More information about the Urth mailing list