Skip to main content

The Inexplicables, Post 1

I've blogged a bit recently here about BONESHAKER, a steampunk-fantasy novel by Cherie Priest, set in an alternative-history late 19th century Seattle and its outskirts.

That novel set off her CLOCKWORK CENTURY series. Most of the other books in the series are only loosely related to BONESHAKER.

They take place in other parts of the alt-history US, have little overlap in characters or plot with the original, etc.

But THE INEXPLICABLES is a true sequel. We're back the northwest, mostly within the city wall (yes, in these stories there's a tall wall around Seattle, although enterprising folk can and do get in and out), and the character/plot overlap is large.

The protagonist of THE INEXPLICABLES is Rector Sherman, a young man who has just been kicked out of the orphanage in the Outskirts of Seattle after having reached 18. He was a minor character in BONESHAKER.

Rector is neither a hero nor an anti-hero, though somewhat closer to the latter than the former. He is a drug dealer and user, someone who (like Scarface) uses his own deadly product. Part of his very mixed motivation for going over the wall into Seattle proper is the fact that Seattle is the source of the [fictional] drug involved here: both as dealer and as user he wants to get closer to the source.  But there is a lot else involved.

You'll find no spoilers here: just a brief quote and I'm done.

Inside the wall, Zeke serves as a sort of guide for Rector -- they had been friends on the outskirts -- and Zeke was one of the two principal protagonists of the earlier novel. The following passage shows the sometimes complicated/indirect narrative style. Zeke, with Rector standing behind him, pokes his head into a room where three men are standing:

----------------------

"'Frank, Willard. And Ed?' Zeke said. He seemed unsure of the third man's name. 'You fellows think you can wrap it up down here and come up to Maynard's? Miss Angeline's calling a meeting, and it's real important.'

"Frank, if Rector had gauged the greetings correctly, jabbed the point of a long, thin knife into the wooden countertop. 'Real important, you say?'

"'No, that's what the princess says,' Zeke grinned. 'So it's up to you whether you come or not. But if I was you, I'd be there.'"

-------------------

I'll discuss what I like about that passage in a follow-up posting.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak