<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTin84uXqFFkL+Hf90OV7p3ghuKxSxA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-text-plain" wrap="true" style="font-family:
-moz-fixed; font-size: 14px;" lang="x-western">
<pre wrap="">Andrew Mason:
I'm not sure why June is OK for Juno, but March is not OK for Mars.
(We're asking what a redactor of the myth might think. What
associations the name might have outside the story, what symbolic
value Wolfe might give it, is another question.)
</pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Because the "redactors" are not sloppy. That's the beauty of what
Wolfe has done here. It is possible to imagine an intelligent
scholar translating Juno as "Early Summer" and Rhea Silvia as
"woodland bird" or Bird of the Woods. The name for the bird was
chosen from the name of the goddess.<br>
"March Winds" is possibly a fine stand-in for Zephyr. But the word
March is a direct translation of 'Mars'. Mars is not associated with
the _winds_ that arise during that time period. The object is
different for each one. Do you see that one of these things is not
like the others?<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTin84uXqFFkL+Hf90OV7p3ghuKxSxA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-text-plain" wrap="true" style="font-family:
-moz-fixed; font-size: 14px;" lang="x-western">
<pre wrap="">
Regarding the evidence of dates: every bit of it can be answered.
Severian may be wrong about the date of the Conciliator. Cyriaca may
be wrong about the book - she's certainly wrong about some things. (I
was wrong, in any case, to say she says the book was several chiliads
old; she says no one has looked at it for a chiliad, though that
implies it's considerably earlier than that.) A lot of early autarchs
may have had short reigns, which allowed the mountains to be carved
quickly. (It's the number of autarchs, rather than the time it takes
to carve a mountain, which is the problem.) </pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Why should we assume that only autarchs carved their forms into
mountains? I don't believe it is said so. Isn't that something any
authority would do if he had the means?<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTin84uXqFFkL+Hf90OV7p3ghuKxSxA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-text-plain" wrap="true" style="font-family:
-moz-fixed; font-size: 14px;" lang="x-western">
<pre wrap="">Thus, Wolfe was able to
make Typhon just a chiliad earlier without direct contradiction - its
not as if he had made Typhon say 'I was born five thousand eight
hundred and forty-three years ago'. But a lot of people get the feel
of a much earlier Typhon - all the bits of evidence seem naturally to
point to it. and are confused when, in <span class="moz-txt-underscore"><span class="moz-txt-tag">_</span>Short Sun<span class="moz-txt-tag">_</span></span>, the gap seems to
be much shorter.
</pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
At the time, I had the feeling that Ymar's history was quite distant
as well. I found the date of 1000 years since Ymar to be quite
jarring.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTikY_HhuaUvGcyZ92fka3R57vdw2vg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<pre wrap="">James Wynn:
<span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>But we know more about Severian than anyone else in the book, yet beyond
<span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>very broad outlines (in some cases), he doesn't seem to map or be
<span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>mappable. The whole bit about the Butcher and the wolves...and just
<span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>can't see how to force him into it. And there are elements that don't
<span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>really seem to work at all. Even after Urth of the New Sun, the
<span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>end-story doesn't look like Severian at all. That flood would be hard to
<span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>miss.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">But I don't think the myth has to be applicable in every detail. The
myths which are applied to Jesus don't fit him in every detail;
<span class="moz-txt-underscore"><span class="moz-txt-tag">_</span>Frankenstein<span class="moz-txt-tag">_</span></span> doesn't fit Baldanders in every detail (though, come to
think of it, his backward influence may explain why so many people
confuse the creator with the monster).</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
This not the same as either of those. Those are merely references
(one of them uniquely declared as a reference). This is more -- or
at least quite different. Wolfe didn't have anyone retell the story
of Frankenstein badly. Because that would be stupid. By the same
token, I just don't believe Wolfe would tell this story as you say
he is. This is like Severian finding the Lunar Landing portrait with
Rudisen. He doesn't recognize the character (at least not at the
time), but _we_ are expected to divine *some* of its meaning from
details in the story. This is a story told in intricate detail in
the characters are merely thrice-removed in narration. The story
must be able to fit in every detail or explain why it doesn't. For
example, I recognize that Typhon's mother's name was not "June " or
"Juno" or anything like it. The same is true for "Bird of the
Woods". Those name were applied to those characters BECAUSE the
compilers didn't have their actual names and believed, wrongly, that
the story Romulus was an alternated telling of the same
story--because the stories ARE so similar. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTikY_HhuaUvGcyZ92fka3R57vdw2vg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The story follows the myths so
closely (counting <span class="moz-txt-underscore"><span class="moz-txt-tag">_</span>The Jungle Book<span class="moz-txt-tag">_</span></span> as a myth, as it will be by then),
that I don't think it can apply in detail to any future person,
unless his life bore an incredibly close resemblance to the myths.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I keep using people who equate Jesus with Dionysus or Mithras.
Additionally, the other dying gods who St. Justin argued against
equating with Jesus in the 2nd century. Wolfe's opinion is not like
Justin's. It's closer to CS Lewis'. Wolfe believes that the myths
come to us from an eternal pattern and, presumably, he believes
Jesus is the fulfillment of that pattern. That we are hard-wired to
detect that eternal pattern because it is "real". Lee mentions
Alexander. Alexander and King Arthur were real people whose deeds
were seen as fitting that pattern as well, and therefore Alexander
became a character of myth, and Arthur of legend.<br>
<br>
By the same token, the high-points of the story birth of Frog was,
based on evidence, close enough to the story of Romulus that an
intellectually honest scholar could conclude they were the same.
It's the same situation as the Frankenstein analogy (which might or
might not be genuine; I mean, how much could Dr. Talos be expected
to know about temporal ESP, after all). <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTin84uXqFFkL+Hf90OV7p3ghuKxSxA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-text-plain" wrap="true" style="font-family:
-moz-fixed; font-size: 14px;" lang="x-western">
<pre wrap="">Is that relevant, though? The gap the characters are trying to
determine is between Rigoglio's departure (Typhon's time) and his
return (Severian's time) - both on Urth. What the Rajan's home time
is, on Blue, is another issue.</pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Is it necessary that the period at which Rigoglio dies be the same
as the one where they meet Severian? Aren't those separate trips?<br>
<br>
J.<br>
</body>
</html>