(urth) Problematic element in chronology

[Gerry Quinn]

-
From: "António Pedro Marques" <entonio at gmail.com>
> No dia 28/05/2011, às 19:42, "Gerry Quinn" <gerryq at indigo.ie> escreveu:
>> From: "António Marques" <entonio at gmail.com>
>>> Gerry Quinn wrote:

>>>> On Blue, SilkHorn explains to prospective astral travellers that they
>>>> can, if they peer for some time, see a dim red star - this is of course
>>>> Sol, etiolated by the black hole inside it.
>>>
>>> But we only have the narrator's word for it, and the narrator isnt 
>>> omniscient.
>>
>> True enough... but in most Wolfe including all of the Solar Cycle, we 
>> only have the narratopr's word for *everything*.  One has to ask why he 
>> should lie, or make a mistake?  And if he hasn't seen the star, why 
>> should he say it is visible, whereas if he has, why should he mistake a 
>> particular star for Sol?
>
> I think it's reasonably obvious: he visited a red sun, he saw a red sun in 
> the sky, bingo, he thinks they're the same. That's just one possible 
> explanation which I find more plausible than a GW oversight.

I find it hard to see why he would pick on a particular red star.


>> I think he either (1) didn't think of this point,
>
> Not in character.

I disagree, it is not a very obvious point.


>> (2) supports a 350-year chronology between Typhon and Severian,
>
> Makes no sense to me.

Hard to know.  I don't think he does either, but then again 350 years is 
plenty time for a lot of autarchs.  Overall I do think the Whorl was 
intended to travel relativistically, and the Urth time since launch is 
between 1000 and 2000 years, but I don't think 350 years is impossible (and 
it would solve the problem of why Typhon, with the energy to drive the Whorl 
relativistically at his disposal, did not use a fraction of this energy to 
replace the diminished heat of the Sun!)


>> or (3) thought it would be cool to have Sol visible even if the physics 
>> doesn't work.
>
> ...and thought to himself there would be no dearth of possible 
> explanations so let's do it. Mirrors? Folded space-time?

There's quite a dearth of explanations arising naturally out of the story! 
We know of know sun-like stars that we just happen to see at twenty times 
the distance they wuld normally be visible.


>>  I think Wolfe is quite happy to gloss over lots of dodgy science if it 
>> fits the story (realistically, it's obvious - leaving aside physics for 
>> the moment, absorbing not just memories but *memories coordinated into a 
>> personality* by eating corpses is obviously impossible.
>
> So we think, but then again it's not like we've much of a portfolio to 
> show as a species.

I think that Wolfe knows this is not really possible but happily wrote it 
anyway.  I think he strives for scientific versimilitude when he can, but 
such versimilitude is far from perfect.  And why should it be - he is 
writing science fiction stories, not science textbooks. If the science were 
correct readers could reasonably ask for their money back!.

- Gerry Quinn