(urth) The mystery of the image of an astronaut cleaned by Rudesind
brunians at brunians.org
brunians at brunians.org
Wed Jul 7 16:30:30 PDT 2010
What the hell do you expect from a protestant?
> James Wynn wrote (07-07-2010 22:42):
>> On 7/7/2010 4:18 PM, AntÃ³nio 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
>>> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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.
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
More information about the Urth