(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?

[Gerry Quinn]

From: David Stockhoff 

On 12/15/2011 9:57 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:

> > That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that fairy-tale logic 
> > seems to work in the region of 0%. That’s the opposite of one-to-one 
> > correspondence.

> That's exactly what I said. It doesn't work for you 100%, so it's a 
> total failure. You see zero correspondence. But I'm also addressing the 
> fact that you use the 100% correspondence test at all, while not 
> allowing others to do so even experimentally.
I *don’t* us a 100% test.  I explicitly brought up the idea of gradations in the degree of correspondence.  The point I making is that the supposed fairy-tale correspondences that have been mentioned do not seem to be, to put it mildly, very high grade.


> > > You'd have to be blind not to see it. Terminus Est DOES have "magic"
> > > powers that are clearly defined in the text.

> > What powers?

> I'm sorry, I thought you had read "the text." Did you not know about the 
> sword's "magical" provenance and construction?

I have read the text.  The sword was Palaemon’s – it is an executioner’s sword.  It is valuable, made by a famous weapon smith of the Commonwealth.  It is fit for its purpose, with an ingenious and expressly technological weighting method to aid with decapitations.  The inscription ‘Terminus Est’ provides an appropriate pun for its purpose, and is also an appropriate reference to Severian’s destiny.

However, it has no obvious magical or even “magical” powers; the only time we might ascribe such things to it is when Baldander’s energy mace is shattered (as is the sword) in striking it.  The only fairy-tale-like element, really, is the sword being there for use at the right time; and it’s hard to think of any story involving adventure that such things don’t happen.  We might wonder whether previous Severians got smashed by Baldander’s mace.

It’s a hero’s sword more than a magic sword, IMO. 


> > What does a purported correspondence between Dorcas and the Sleeping 
> > Beauty tell us, or add to the story? Dorcas was under no enchantment, 
> > Severian did not set out to find her, there was no wall of briars. She 
> > was beautiful, she got resurrected – that’s not enough to equate the 
> > stories.

> And what do you mean, "Dorcas was under no enchantment"? Did you read 
> the book?

Yes.  To what enchantment do you refer? 


> > > Fairies live underground in barrows, just like the House
> > > Absolute, indicating otherworldly power.

> > And that’s nothing to do with anything. Man-apes live underground. And 
> > miners. And worms. And who says all fairies live underground, or that 
> > fairies correspond to kings? You can’t just point to a random 
> > correspondence and claim it is significant. You need correspondences 
> > with meat on them.

> If you don't know fairies live underground, then you know nothing of the 
> topic upon which you so boldly discourse.

I know some fairies live underground, as do some men, and some other creatures.  Are you saying that all fairies live underground?  Pardon me if I ask for a reference.  

And even if all fairies live underground, I ask again, how does this constitute a significant correspondence with the House Absolute?


> > All I’m saying is that if you want to make a viable case for fairy 
> > tales, you need to do more than say there is a girl in the story who 
> > was dead, which is a bit like being under an enchanted sleep, and she 
> > looked okay, and therefore it’s about the Sleeping Beauty. Buffy the 
> > Vampire Slayer was also pretty and blonde and dead and got resurrected 
> > – so was Series 6 of Buffy about the Sleeping Beauty too? No more so 
> > than BotNS, in my opinion. It’s too easy to find endless random 
> > coincidences of that sort in any large work.

> All you're saying, Gerry, and with as much eloquence and force and 
> conviction as you can muster, is that you're an illiterate know-nothing. 
> This is the entirety of your argument, and it is overwhelming.

All you are saying here, David, with all the bluster and pomp you can summon, is that you have no answer to the point I have raised.  Let us suppose every story to be a thread in a large multi-dimensional space of story elements.  A couple of points on the thread of Dorcas’s story lie relatively close to a couple of points on the Sleeping Beauty thread, where ‘relatively close’ includes ‘dead’ as being close to ‘under an enchanted sleep’.  As I’ve pointed out, we could find many similarly close threads in all kinds of works; I just mentioned an example at random.

We could even find more examples in BotNS!  Does Valeria not also have some correspondences to Sleeping Beauty?  And what about Typhon?  Shall I waffle on about how in the Typhon scene Wolfe mashes up Sleeping Beauty and Beauty and the Beast, with Severian taking the part of the Prince in the former and Beauty in the latter?

Getting back to Dorcas: suppose you argue that even though the correspondence is weak, it is of some significance.  Then it should enhance our understanding of the story in some way other than just being there.  In what way do you think it enhances it?  What does it tell us about Dorcas or Severian or events?  I can’t think of anything. 

There has to be some element of rigour in the analysis even of fairy-tales, otherwise we just end up with a silly jumble of so-called correspondences and allusions based on nothing but noise.  No, we will never get 100% correspondences – but 1% so-called correspondences are worthless.

- Gerry Quinn




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111216/0a0ddc1a/attachment-0004.htm>