Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:19:04 -0500
From: James Jordan 
Subject: Re: (urth) Shadowy reflections on an amazing article

--=====================_2399019==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

A few Nutricious thoughts on an excellent essay:

At 07:27 AM 4/17/2002, Nigel wrote:

>Let me put my question another way: do you think that "A Solar Labyrinth" is
>in some way an allegory or metaphor for Wolfe's methods as a writer? I think
>that that would be my current interpretation. Although, on reading the
>story, the initial temptation is to make the obvious connection between the
>story's narrator and its author, I think that the maze builder in the story
>is also in some sense Wolfe, who uses materials drawn from diverse sources
>to construct his labyrinthine tales. There remains the possibility, however,
>that the maze builder stands also in some sort of symbolic relationship with
>God, the cunning author of the created world.

         It's both, surely. Man is the image of God. Think of "The Last 
Thrilling Wonder Story" (is that right?). I like the idea that this story 
is designed to say something about Wolfe as well as something about God. 
Makes sense.

>  (And yes, I reject
>Wright's suggestion that Severian's mission is wholly sham and solely a
>front for the entirely Machiavellian manipulations of hideous Hierodules.)

         Yes, surely. This interpretation makes sense only if Sev. is some 
kind of antichrist in an antiuniverse made by an antigod -- which is what I 
thought the first time through. But Wolfe has made it plain that this is 
not the case at all, and the thesis does not stand up on rereading.

>To take another example: at the end of TBotLS, it seemed to me for a moment
>that Blue and Green stood in polar opposition as possible destinations for
>the colonists. The Whorl was a false world from which life must ultimately
>pass,

         Partly false, but partly the "Old Testament," right? Not evil per 
se, but a womb that must be forsaken for life in the outer world.

>  but the next world could be either heaven (Blue) or hell (Green). Such
>a stark contrast is considerably moderated by TBotSS, where Blue is revealed
>to be much less heavenly, although it is debatable as to whether Green is
>actually less hellish. (Life and love are at least possible there, albeit
>under appalling conditions.) But the overall pattern in TBotSS is
>tripartite, not binary, and the simple heaven-hell dichotomy of the
>destinations in TBotLS is no longer applicable.
>
>It does seem to me that meanings shift in Wolfe's stories, just as the
>shadows shift in his fictional solar labyrinth.

         Not sure I buy this scheme. I don't think Blue and Green are 
heaven and hell so much as alternative possibilities in the "New Covenant" 
world outside the womb of the archaic world of the Whorl. I'm not trying to 
overlay the Roman Empire into which the Church went onto the Blue/Green 
situation, just saying that this kind of model makes more sense to me. The 
inhumi are at one level like the pagan gentiles who need to be brought into 
the new covenant world by the humans. But when the humans (like the Church) 
behave badly, one can hardly expect the inhumi-gentiles to behave well. So, 
I don't think Blue/Green are heaven/hell but the new situation in the new 
post-archaic world.
         And thus I'm not sure the imagery really shifts. Returning to the 
Whorl is like returning to the womb of the past to recover things that were 
valuable but have been left behind.
         Where the imagery does seem to shift is right at the end, when 
Silkhorn goes back to the Whorl for a new journey. Yet, since this "imagery 
model" is far from everything that Wolfe has put into the LS-SS narrative, 
this is not so much a shift of imagery as a fulfilling of another zone of 
imagery. Or, perhaps (and I'll bet this is part of it), Wolfe is suggesting 
that moving from archaic (under lesser gods/angels) to "humanist" ("mankind 
come of age" under the One God without angels) is something that happens 
over and over in history as an application of the basic shift from the 
original archaic Ur-world to the New Covenant by the Theoanthropos. Or, 
maybe even, as the heirogrammates were the humans of an earlier creation 
who now are acting like angels in Briah, so Silkhorn goes to the Whorl with 
his family to be a new Pas & Co. superintending the next archaic phase. 
(Maybe it wasn't the heirogrammates but some other Yesod bunch; I can't 
recall.)


>My second query about the Washington Post article is of a somewhat different
>nature. In the article, words following colons have their initial letters in
>upper case. Is this common practice in the States, or is it a typographical
>ideosyncrasy of the Washington Post? Normally, at least in the UK, unless
>the next item is a proper noun, colons are followed by all lower case,
>unless, for example, a colon is used to introduce a quotation or tabular
>list in which the first element is a sentence in its own right. But this use
>is essentially for a table or a set of bullet points, not for a
>conventional, continuous sentence. Sorry if this is "off topic", but it is
>of professional interest to some of us. Any thoughts, any one?

         As an editor, I can tell you that the US practice is to capitalize 
after a colon if what follows is a complete sentence, and not to do so if 
what follows is merely a list or not a full sentence. E.g.,
         This is what I meant: Blue and Green are not heaven and hell.
         This is what I bought: apples, oranges, and pears.

Nutria


-- 
--=====================_2399019==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


A few Nutricious thoughts on an excellent essay:


At 07:27 AM 4/17/2002, Nigel wrote:


Let me put my question another way=
:
do you think that "A Solar Labyrinth" is

in some way an allegory or metaphor for Wolfe's methods as a writer? I
think

that that would be my current interpretation. Although, on reading
the

story, the initial temptation is to make the obvious connection between
the

story's narrator and its author, I think that the maze builder in the
story

is also in some sense Wolfe, who uses materials drawn from diverse
sources

to construct his labyrinthine tales. There remains the possibility,
however,

that the maze builder stands also in some sort of symbolic relationship
with

God, the cunning author of the created world.


        It's both,
surely. Man is the image of God. Think of "The Last Thrilling Wonder
Story" (is that right?). I like the idea that this story is designed
to say something about Wolfe as well as something about God. Makes sense.



 (And yes, I
reject

Wright's suggestion that Severian's mission is wholly sham and solely
a

front for the entirely Machiavellian manipulations of hideous
Hierodules.)


        Yes,
surely. This interpretation makes sense only if Sev. is some kind of
antichrist in an antiuniverse made by an antigod -- which is what I
thought the first time through. But Wolfe has made it plain that this is
not the case at all, and the thesis does not stand up on
rereading.


To take another
example: at the end of TBotLS, it seemed to me for a moment

that Blue and Green stood in polar opposition as possible destinations
for

the colonists. The Whorl was a false world from which life must
ultimately

pass,


        Partly
false, but partly the "Old Testament," right? Not evil per se,
but a womb that must be forsaken for life in the outer world.


 but the next
world could be either heaven (Blue) or hell (Green). Such

a stark contrast is considerably moderated by TBotSS, where Blue is
revealed

to be much less heavenly, although it is debatable as to whether Green
is

actually less hellish. (Life and love are at least possible there,
albeit

under appalling conditions.) But the overall pattern in TBotSS is

tripartite, not binary, and the simple heaven-hell dichotomy of the

destinations in TBotLS is no longer applicable.


It does seem to me that meanings shift in Wolfe's stories, just as
the

shadows shift in his fictional solar labyrinth.


        Not sure I
buy this scheme. I don't think Blue and Green are heaven and hell so much
as alternative possibilities in the "New Covenant" world
outside the womb of the archaic world of the Whorl. I'm not trying to
overlay the Roman Empire into which the Church went onto the Blue/Green
situation, just saying that this kind of model makes more sense to me.
The inhumi are at one level like the pagan gentiles who need to be
brought into the new covenant world by the humans. But when the humans
(like the Church) behave badly, one can hardly expect the inhumi-gentiles
to behave well. So, I don't think Blue/Green are heaven/hell but the new
situation in the new post-archaic world.

        And thus
I'm not sure the imagery really shifts. Returning to the Whorl is like
returning to the womb of the past to recover things that were valuable
but have been left behind. 

        Where the
imagery does seem to shift is right at the end, when Silkhorn goes back
to the Whorl for a new journey. Yet, since this "imagery model"
is far from everything that Wolfe has put into the LS-SS narrative, this
is not so much a shift of imagery as a fulfilling of another zone of
imagery. Or, perhaps (and I'll bet this is part of it), Wolfe is
suggesting that moving from archaic (under lesser gods/angels) to
"humanist" ("mankind come of age" under the One God
without angels) is something that happens over and over in history as an
application of the basic shift from the original archaic Ur-world to the
New Covenant by the Theoanthropos. Or, maybe even, as the heirogrammates
were the humans of an earlier creation who now are acting like angels in
Briah, so Silkhorn goes to the Whorl with his family to be a new Pas
& Co. superintending the next archaic phase. (Maybe it wasn't the
heirogrammates but some other Yesod bunch; I can't recall.)




My second query abo=
ut
the Washington Post article is of a somewhat different

nature. In the article, words following colons have their initial letters
in

upper case. Is this common practice in the States, or is it a
typographical

ideosyncrasy of the Washington Post? Normally, at least in the UK,
unless

the next item is a proper noun, colons are followed by all lower
case,

unless, for example, a colon is used to introduce a quotation or
tabular

list in which the first element is a sentence in its own right. But this
use

is essentially for a table or a set of bullet points, not for a

conventional, continuous sentence. Sorry if this is "off
topic", but it is

of professional interest to some of us. Any thoughts, any
one?


        As an
editor, I can tell you that the US practice is to capitalize after a
colon if what follows is a complete sentence, and not to do so if what
follows is merely a list or not a full sentence. E.g.,

        This is
what I meant: Blue and Green are not heaven and hell.

        This is
what I bought: apples, oranges, and pears.


Nutria



--=====================_2399019==_.ALT--