(urth) Pike's ghost

[Gerry Quinn]

From: Lee Berman 


> > Gerry has a point, however, in saying that Typhon did not have two penises.

 
> The only point made by this observation is that this is meant as a work of art 
> not a photographic portrait. The two penises are clearly a reference to Typhon's
> two heads (I think it might be auctorial error on WOlfe's part to give Pas two 
> heads, as we all know Typhon's two heads were a deeply kept secret). It may also
> reflect the Typhon family's snake-like nature. Many snakes have two penises and
> my impression from his work is that Wolfe's zoological knowledge is sufficient 
> for him to know this.

This argument is just silly.  Why would the artist put in two penises to refer to the two heads, when he has also drawn the two heads, and twice over? 

As for snakes, maybe the inhumi have two penises, and it’s not at all unlikely that the Neighbours and the other large animals of Blue have.  But Typhon doesn’t.  Severian would have noticed; one imagines he would have found it even more alarming than the heads.


> Moreover, there are giant phallic images surrounding Typhon in the painting. 
> Campion renders them as trees (Trees as phallic symbols, is this of interest to
> James and Marc? ;- )). So yes, this is a work of art.

Campion’s painting is largely allegorical, but certain of the items surrounding Typhon are based on the real construction of the Whorl.  The “butter yellow” of the taluses is a clear nod from Wolfe to the modern'-day reader that the ‘taluses’ are actually bulldozers.  And that is another indication that Campion’s painting, rather than the brothel drape (which is said to be one of several such drapes), is the original.

 

> A work of art depicting Typhon on Urth. The connections to what we learn from 
> Severian are pretty hard to ignore. Should we really think that WOlfe used the 
> term "nursing an erection" twice in reference to the same (or a derived) character 
> by accident or happenstance, as Gerry is suggesting? Is Wolfe really so oblivious
> to his own previous writing?

It actually tells us in the text that it is set on the whorl!  “In the original painting, two of Pas’s taluses [..] were still at work upon the whorl.”  Campion is showing the culmination of the construction of the Whorl, symbolised by the enthronement of a physical as well as a spiritual Pas.  The physical Pas in the original can probably be understood as Typhon.  We are not told if he was nude in it, but if he was he only had one penis (again, this is clearly indicated in the text, which contrasts the brothel picture with the original).

As for the phrase “nursing an erection”, it is not that uncommon, and I see no reason why Wolfe should have attempted to find a circumlocution just for the sake of confounding intentionally obtuse readings. 


> The whorl during Silk's life does not have monarchs sitting on thrones. 
> The rulers of the Whorl are Caldes or Ayuntamientos or Generals who surely 
> would not be caught publicly masturbating as Severian tells us Typhon is willing
> to do.

And Campion’s painting does not depict the whorl during Silk’s life.

[It probably *does* have monarchs – the Rajan of Whorl-Gaon is surely one, and may well have a throne.  But in Gaon they admire Echidna, so I guess public masturbation would be a no-no there.  Whether it is permitted or encouraged in some cities, we are not told.]


> Pas is a computer program who, whenever he appeared, did so in a screen. I don't 
> think he was sitting in a throne, masturbating in his screen appearances. The 
> painting is clearly not inspired by anything occurring on the Whorl. Through the 
> Severian connection and Typhon's depicted status as a throne-sitting monarch, the 
> painting clearly depicts a scene from Urth.

At the time of Campion’s painting, he may not even have appeared yet, for all we know, though I should imagine he probably had.  Campion’s painting is inspired by the construction of the Whorl – it was doubtless commissioned to celebrate it, just as the painting by Blood’s unknown artist was commissioned, long after with absolute clarity that the scene is from the Whorl.


> So, Gerry made a mistake here. No big deal. He is right about many things and has
> no need to feel ashamed about this particular misreading. I don't even begrudge him
> a bit of pride-salvaging if he would like to continue ignoring the reference to
> Severian's Typhon encounter and instead argue that WOlfe put the painting into 
> his story to simply to add a splash of color and some gratuitous porn in a brothel. 

> Perhaps that really is how Gerry sees Wolfe as a author. 


There is no reference to Severian – that is an utterly absurd reading.  And the statement about “a splash of colour and some gratuitous porn” demonstrates, sadly, a complete inability or unwillingness to interpret a typical example of one of Wolfe’s greatest skills in action.  He describes the scene in the brothel – with, indeed, lots of local colour – and at the same time he tells us about events three hundred years before, showing us heavy equipment at work on the whorl, the commissioning of a celebratory painting, and the foundation/reinforcement of the cult of Pas on the Whorl, as the spiritual Pas takes over from the physical Pas/Typhon on his physical throne.  Anyone who can read Wolfe can correctly read this short passage.

This is how Wolfe works as an author.  It is a shame that you cannot or will not see it, and instead spend your time grasping at ridiculous irrelevancies in order to promote bizarre and perverse misreadings of Wolfe’s work.

- Gerry Quinn
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111130/633eaac2/attachment-0004.htm>