Jules Verne Forum

<jvf@Gilead.org.il>

JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec 19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009

Re: Resolving Alleged Chronological Discrepancies In L'Ile Mysterieuse

From: thomas mccormick <tom_amity~at~hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 02:00:31 +0000
To: jvf~at~Gilead.org.il

Ralf says -

>Your attempt to resolve the chronological discrepancies means (if I'm
>not wrong) a formal resolution (that is what obviously missed when
>reading your first message) by introducing a kind of "chronological
>sliding scale" made up of a "large-scale TIME line" (intervals,
>backgrounds, tendencies, "flow of time") with one or several
>"small-scale TIME lines" (made up of exact dates and "fixed points
>of time") shiftable against the "flow of time".

Not exactly. I meant to say that there are two, and only two, timelines in
Nemo's narrative. One of the timelines uses fixed dates (1829, 1857, and two
dates in "1866-67" [a slip of the sort that is frequent in MI, this one
being a slip for 1867-68]). The other timeline uses expressions like "for
thirty years", "sixteen years ago", "from the age of 10 to 30", "sixty years
old", and "for six years". Neither of the two chronologies involves
"small-scale time lines", if I understand your phrase correctly. Either
timeline is consistent with itself, but inconsistent with the other ( e.g.,
the two give us a 20-year discrepancy in Nemo's age, and a 14- to 15-year
discrepacy in the date of Arronax's arrival on the Nautilus); further,
either timeline is clearly distinguishable from the other, since either uses
an idiom distinct from that of the other.

Verne tells us emphatically in his "Editor's Note" to disregard the dates in
20TL, even as he proceeds to cite those dates in the text of Nemo's
narrative, presumably for reasons of continuity or for their "historical"
interest. (That doesn't alter the fact that he simultaneously warns us not
to take the dates seriously.) It follows that Verne likewise wishes us to
disregard the two dates (1829 and 1857) extrapolated from the two 20TL
dates he cites, which as we know contradict the other timeline.

We must assume that Verne means what he says when he tells us in his "Note"
that the "old dates" are wrong and that he is now giving us the correct
ones, just as in the case of Ayrton's narrative.

If so, the timeline that he establishes for Nemo's narrative by means of
expressions such as "for thirty years" etc. is correct, since these are the
"new dates" that he introduces here.

Therefore, it seems to me that there is no internal inconsistency in the
fictional world of MI. The simple solution is that the dates given in 20TL
and CGC, and by implication the 1829 and 1857 dates extrapolated from the
former, are "wrong", and that the new dates he assigns to the events of the
two former novels are "the correct dates".

Obeying Verne's directive to disregard the "old" timeline has two great
advantages in addition to removing any apparent internal inconsistency in
Nemo's narrative. First, it removes the puzzling postulate that 1866-67,
when Nemo was supposedly voyaging with a full crew and three guests, was a
different period than 1866-67, when Nemo was living on Lincoln Island and
interacting with the American colonists. Secondly, it makes understandable
the statement that Smith and Spilett knew of Nemo's and Aronnax's
adventures, having read 20TL.

In that case, the only uncomfortable detail (which is nonetheless not a
contradiction) is the necessary assumption that 20TL not only contains wrong
dates and anachronisms - (e.g. the name of the ship Abraham Lincoln,
scarcely possible in 1852-53, as per the "true dates" - but was set in a
time period which was, at that time, the future.

Verne also anticipates the question "In that case, why the devil were the
wrong dates given in the first place?" by promising us, in the "Editorial
Note" appended to Ayrton's narrative, that we will know the answer "later".
I have no idea what he meant by that! After all. he could scarcely have
meant "After Dumas, Butcher, etc. have studied the MSS and explained why
Hetzel censored me".
He said "later", but didn't say when.

Sorry if my point was unclear.

Tom McCormick

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Received on Sat 10 Jun 2006 - 05:00:43 IDT

JV.Gilead.org.il
Copyright © Zvi Har’El
$Date: 2009/02/01 22:36:11 $$