Subject: Re: Re: (urth) Messianic

From: Ori Kowarsky <orik at sprint.ca>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:51:17 +0000

The interpretive powers of the cabbalists of the Urth list are subtle indeed
if the plain meaning of the text of TBOTNS requires a defense!

I urge anyone with eyes to see to open up Citadel of the Autarch, chapter
34, "The Key to the Universe", and read page 242 of the Timescape hardcover:
Biologically engineered beings.  Intra-dimensional travel.  Breeding humans
as their "repayment and their revenge".  Any attempt to characterize this as
"divine" represents either wishful thinking or an attempt to apotheosize raw
brute power, neither of which trends are strangers to the development of
religions generally, especially if you believe that you are one of the
select few Urthlings who will be supplied with waterwings.

Beyond a purely textual approach, however, the primary argument against the
divinity of these powers is the poverty of their (final) solution to the Old
Sun;  killing a great many people with advanced technology is not a
particulalry miraculous or novel approach.  In fact, when faced with a
Pancreator who cannot correct His creation without slaughtering the mass of
it, you have to wonder which is the more wretched:  Him or His apologists.

Ori

*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/

---

From: Ron Hale-Evans <rwhe at apocalypse.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 17:12:14 +0000

At 04:51 PM 11/19/99 -0800, Ori wrote:

>In fact, when faced with a

I have often thought about this myself. If our universe or multiverse were
ruled by a personal Creator God, I think I would agree with you. (Hitler
created the death camps, but God, let's say, created Hitler, and invented
pain and suffering to boot.)

Fortunately (IMHO) this is not the case in the "real" world. But in Wolfe's
pocket universes (Briah, Yesod, etc.) it is the case. Wolfe has explicitly
told us that TBOTNS is an extended meditation on the ways in which his God
shapes Creation through pain and suffering.

If you believe us to live in that sort of universe, then your quarrel is
with God, among others. But if you do not, then your quarrel is with Wolfe
himself.

Ron H-E

--
Ron Hale-Evans: rwhe at apocalypse.org  ... <http://www.apocalypse.org/~rwhe/>
Center for Ludic Synergy:        <http://www.ludism.org/>
Kennexions GBG artgame:          <http://kennexions.ludism.org/>
Hexagram-8 I Ching Mailing List: <http://www.apocalypse.org/~rwhe/hex8.html>
Positive Revolution FAQ:         <http://www.ludism.org/posrev/>

---

From: Ori Kowarsky <orik at sprint.ca>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 18:31:29 +0000

>with God, among others. But if you do not, then your quarrel is with Wolfe

I think my quarrel, if you can call it that, is with people who invert the
plain meaning of a text without providing a cogent analysis which supports
their view.  Interviews with Gene Wolfe are proof of nothing except the
strings of words that came out of Gene Wolfe's mouth in the course of the
interview.  If an author said "I wrote this book to be a masterpiece" are we
therefore bound to accept his word above all of our critical faculties and
declare it a masterpiece despite the self-evident qualities of said book?
If Wolfe wrote TBOTNS to show how God works through suffering, then that
might have been his intention (or his intention ex post facto;  I remember
his original intention being to write a book about blackmail), but I would
argue that in that case he has failed, because he has failed to provide
within the text a through-line which connects the sufferings of the people
of Urth with any divine power;  perhaps he was being too coy, or assumed
that each reader would provide his or her own bridge to cross that river and
so failed to provide one within the book itself (a mistake which he perhaps
recognizes in Urth of the New Sun where he throws in a variety of broad
hints which serve to muddy his own theological waters and make the book less
interesting to boot).  My argument, therefore, is that if Wolfe did indeed
have these intentions while writing the four books of TBOTNS, and, as I
argue, failed in doing so, in the process of that failure created a superb
work about the exact opposite -- perhaps that's where all the mirrors come
in.

---

From: Alex David Groce <alex_groce at gs246.sp.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 15:46:16 +0000

>work about the exact opposite -- perhaps that's where all the mirrors come

Well, you can interpret BOTNS in this manner, but I think you've failed to
provide an argument that convinces those who believe Wolfe succeeded in doing
what he set out to do that he in fact failed.  Obviously, of course, we haven't
succeeded in convincing you, but I at least don't claim that there is only one
"plain meaning" of BOTNS, or of any interesting Wolfe text for that matter.
Although Wolfe is, like Chesterton or Lewis, in some ways a Christian
apologist, he is almost infinitely more subtle about it.  Wolfe's created
worlds, like our real world, admit different interpretations--unlike some
writers with theological concerns who create worlds in which "faith" as such
is meaningless, as atheism or anger at God is untenable for a reasonable 
inhabitant, Wolfe's worlds always allow the "Dr. Crane hypothesis"--Silk's
enlightenment is a brain anuerism, the numerous points at which Severian's
story takes on a semblance of the Gospel narratives are purely coincidental,
and the inhabitants of Yesod are what Ori believe of them.  BUT, it is simply
a distortion of the "plain meaning of the text" to say that there are no
hints of a theological explanation that is describable as precisely "how God
works through suffering."  Those of us who find this in the text are in no way
guilty of ignoring the meaning of the book; that the other explanation is also
not utterly dismissed is what separates Wolfe's fiction from simple theodicy.
He is subtle and does not dismiss the problems of pain and destruction.  But to
claim that he doesn't succeed at all in BOTNS is to ignore much of the subtext
of the book--the read only the most obviously stated things, and with a willful
avoidance of what does not agree with one's philosophy.  I don't LIKE Thomas
Hardy's explanation of the universe, but I don't deny that he presents it well.
Wolfe had a lot of intentions in writing BOTNS, like any author--he succeeded
in some (a charcter with great costume potential, for instance), and failed
in others (I don't see a story about blackmail coming through at all).  But
to say he failed in this one is akin to saying that because I/you don't ACCEPT
Plato's philosophical arguments that he failed to even present them.

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:32
--
Alex David Groce (agroce+ at cs.cmu.edu)
Ph.D. Student, Carnegie Mellon University - Computer Science Department
8112 Wean Hall (412)-268-3066
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~agroce

---

From: Ori Kowarsky <orik at sprint.ca>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 15:22:41 +0000

Alex David Groce wrote:

"Well, you can interpret BOTNS in this manner, but I think you've failed to
provide an argument that convinces those who believe Wolfe succeeded in
doing
what he set out to do that he in fact failed.  Obviously, of course, we
haven't
succeeded in convincing you, but I at least don't claim that there is only
one
"plain meaning" of BOTNS, or of any interesting Wolfe text for that matter."

I am not claiming that there is any one plain interpretation of the text,
nor am I intending to push a single interpretation on anyone else;  I *am*
arguing that the text says certain things very clearly which make a
theological or theosophical interpretation problematical to say the least,
and if I can't convince you that chapter 34 of Citadel reads as it reads
then perhaps you own a different edition than I do.

"Wolfe's worlds always allow the "Dr. Crane hypothesis"--Silk's
enlightenment is a brain anuerism, the numerous points at which Severian's
story takes on a semblance of the Gospel narratives are purely coincidental,
and the inhabitants of Yesod are what Ori believe of them.  BUT, it is
simply
a distortion of the "plain meaning of the text" to say that there are no
hints of a theological explanation that is describable as precisely "how God
works through suffering."  "

The intrustions of the divine (well, divine for you, "divine" for me) in the
text take three primary forms:
1.  Cultural artifacts and institutions which bring to mind religions known
in the 20th century;
2.  Events which would be miraculous to us;
3.  Severain's thoughts and feelings.

In terms of #1, there are a variety of artifacts from earlier cultures and
religions within our own religions.  Does the fact that Christmas falls on
the 25th of December mean that Christianity is a cipher for Mithraism or it
is just an assimilated fragment from an earlier belief put to the service of
another system?  If a reader approaches TBOTNS with the belief that
Christianity is the central fact of the universe and everything which came
before it is its prelude and everything which comes after it is its echo
(assuming Christ appeared in Briah) then it is reasonable to look at these
echoes and say "Aha!  Christianity!";  but if a reader does not, then these
Christain elements are, frankly, just part of the mulch after so many
millenia.

In terms of #2, it is established in TBOTNS that every single miracle (or
"miracle") which Severain effects with or without the Claw is a feat which
the Hierodule's masters are shown to be able to do quite easily with their
technology.  This leads to my assumption that they are watching him,
following him around, and shuttling him and everyone else he "resurrects" up
and down the Corridors of Time.  This is an impressive trick, but its done
with technology and therefore is nothing more than a trick, and calling it
evidence of divinity is like saying my flipping on a light switch is
evidence of *my* divinity.  Given the extreme discombobulation and amnesia
this effect has on most people, it leads me to guess that Severain is
"chosen" by these powers because he has an eidetic memory which allows his
numerous resurrections to occur without making him a basket case -- kind of
like having infinite lives in "Doom".

Keeping on with #2, let's examine the one miracle the Claw effects which
does not appear to involve the Corridors of Time;  the changing of water
into wine.  Now, if I recall correctly, when Jesus turned water into wine at
the wedding in Galilee this was a useful miracle which improved people's
lives on the material plane and also has obvious spiritual and symbolic
value.  Turning water meant for washing in with no benefit (if you can call
it benefit -- it ruins Sev's washing) to anyone except for Jonas and Sev
seems like a pointless, slapstick accident -- like Jove's thunderbolt
misfiring or Moses' bath water splitting when he tries to sit down in it.
As another poster pointed out it seem to have at most two purposes -- a
meta-fictional Christological flag planted by Wolfe, a possibility which is
so inelegant I would prefer to discount it for his sake, or else an attempt
by the Yesodites to trigger some half-remembered cultural fragment in Sev's
education which will lead him down the path of believing in his own
Messiahship.  Either way, it's cheap.

On to #3, Sev has certain thoughts and feelings regarding his connection
with the Increate and the Increate's connection with the world.  These
thoughts, though, are entirely subjective and you can either say "Yeah, I
dig that!" or "No, I don't dig that!" or "Those words are mighty purty but I
don't think the world works that way" but either way they are determinative
proof of nothing except Sev's own impressions of what's going on around him,
and he's been shown to be wrong before.

"Those of us who find this in the text are in no way
guilty of ignoring the meaning of the book; that the other explanation is
also
not utterly dismissed is what separates Wolfe's fiction from simple
theodicy.
He is subtle and does not dismiss the problems of pain and destruction.  But
to
claim that he doesn't succeed at all in BOTNS is to ignore much of the
subtext
of the book--the read only the most obviously stated things, and with a
willful
avoidance of what does not agree with one's philosophy."

I disagree with you.  I am attempting a reading of the text which takes into
account what is in the text and does not invlove a willful imposition of
one's philosophy, whether that philosophy is extra-textually shared with the
author or not.

"But to say he failed in this one is akin to saying that because I/you don't
ACCEPT
Plato's philosophical arguments that he failed to even present them."

I am saying that if Wolfe has said in interviews that TBOTNS is an exercise
in theodicy then in that case he has failed.  Why?  because he presents a
story which *on its face* is about nothing more than the degradation and
genocide of the people of a planet for no discernable moral purpose.  If the
reader is contractually obliged to read this and say, "Well, in some
mysterious and unfathomable way this is all for the best" then the reader is
being asked to do the author's work for him and so the promised theodicy
never even shows up.  Which is where the book gets interesting.

For me, at least.

---

From: Alex David Groce <alex_groce at gs246.sp.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 19:18:16 +0000

Ok, it's not that we're reading Chapter 34 differently, as far as what it says.
It's that the meaning "behind" those things is something we approach very
differently.  First of all, probably in part because of the hints of the 
numinous, I simply don't accept that this is just a pointless genocide, EVEN
IF ONE REJECTS a religious interpretation for events.  You can say it is, but
I think your evidence is fairly weak.  I prefer to give Yesod benefit of the
doubt--I have no reason to think there is a BETTER solution to the problem of
the Old Sun than the arrival of the New Sun.  We know from Typhon's day that
a simple gift of energy with no other changes would probably bring back the
days of mankind as emotionless scourge of the universe, conquering all within
his domain.  (In one sense, the Briah crew are anti-colonialists, 5HC? having
been formed, IIRC, under the scourge of humanity's world-shaking days).  In
fact, it seems to me that you're thinking the hieros to be more Divine than I
am, in that you assume that because they have impressive technology they could,
of course, come up with a solution to things that doesn't involve any pain or
suffering or destruction for anyone--this reminds me of Wellsian scientific
utopianism--"given good tech, there are really NO problems."  This is not what
Wolfe believes, and while you can hate his premises, it's hard to assault the
actions of beings in a fictional world where your premises are almost certainly
false.  In other words, you doubt the premise that "if Severian and the Briah
crew don't bring the New Sun, destructive as it is, then comes Ragnarok."  If
you don't grant that, then their methods are certainly suspect--but I take it
as a granted fact of the fiction, because there seems to be nothing in the text
to suggest this assumption is doubtful--Severian's visit to Master Ash isn't
presented as a "trick" of his masters (contrast:  WATCHMEN where the entire 
story is built around questioning the "do this awful thing or everyone will
die" assumption).  Given that, just because the techniques used are
manipulative and described as "revenge" (in an ironic sense--painful though it
was, the humans' "wronging" of the hieros made them better--and they intend
to "return the favor") doesn't necessarily mean what you seem to think it does.
I'm NOT saying the hieros are Divine or that Tzad is actually a literal
archangel--they use technological methods and means, and seem to have limits
to their knowledge; I doubt that the Increate sends down orders every day to
them, myself.  But I have no problem ascribing the action of Providence to
human actions, even those of highly flawed humans.  When the priest celebrates
Mass, Wolfe & I would say he is acting in the place of Christ, doing something
God wants him to do, the instrument of a Divine action--but not that Father Bob
IS GOD, or may not drink too much or throw away his money betting on a bad 
horse.  After all, in Wolfe's view, Erebus and Abaia are also doing the will 
of the Increate, they just don't like it.

In the end: 

>Why?  because he presents a story which *on its face* is about nothing more 
>than the degradation and genocide of the people of a planet for no discernable
>moral purpose.

I certainly don't think you or I or any of the others on this list deal with
a Wolfe story as what it is *on its face*.  We are always trying to peel off
the mask.  And I think you have to go considerably beneath the mask (the wrong
way, IMO) to get to the conclusion that this has "no discernable moral 
purpose"; you have to start radically doubting everything Severian comes to
believe to decide this, and you have to reach deep enough to doubt the basic
assumption about the New Sun/Green Man/Master Ash.  That's hardly what I would
call the obvious interpretation any reasonable person would take--considering
it shows a deep involvement in BOTNS, but I think a deeper understanding leads
to rejecting it as possible but highly unlikely.

I suspect in the end our disagreement may come down to questions of extra-
textual references.  Without SOME kind of extra-textual reference, I can't
even prove BOTNS is anything but a stream of random ASCII characters.  I'm
willing to go pretty far in extra-textuality, and throw in Wolfe's statements
in interviews, etc., as useful in deciding which interpretations to give more
weight, especially as these are the interpretations that I, as a reader, found
before I'd read the interviews, although the interviews added depth to some
of the ideas.  Anyone is free to interpret a book any way they want--but if
an interpretation is radically different than the one that (A) readers who come
from points-of-view at all similar to the author's arrive at without any help
from the author and (B) the author claims he intended, THEN it's curious to
blame the author because those who disagree with his premises fail, after
reading his book, to share his conclusions.

>one's philosophy, whether that philosophy is extra-textually shared with the

This is, indeed where we disagree--you give YOUR assumptions (that events
recapturing Christian elements in a story are in NO WAY EVER to be read as
hints of divine involvement) ground zero value (pure-text reading) and make
my assumption (events recaputing Christian elements in a world that doesn't
seem to have any Christian institutions surviving in a recognizable form,
although some may survive--the Pelerines, for example--are HIGHLY suggestive
of divine involvement) evidence of extra-textual imposition of philosophy.
There IS no ground zero--in a text like this, you can't interpret it at all
without SOME kind of metaphysics, unless you really want to miss the whole 
point.

At any rate, I think the author's beliefs are kosher in book-interpretation
as well.  I'm sure there's some way to pull a Christian interpretation out of
"No Exit," but I think Sartre & his interpreters have a right to dismiss it
more than I have a right to dismiss the atheistic-existentialist 
interpretation.

Actually, I think we could probably just go and copy our old arguments out of
the archives here, I doubt either of us is going to convince the other
(or anybody else who's taken a side)--I think we're at a genuine impasse on 
this, just like the last time this thread showed up, and my lengthy arguments
are mostly signs that I don't want to work on this program for my research
advisor.

---

From: Ori Kowarsky <orik at sprint.ca>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 17:46:21 +0000

Ordinarily, Alex, I'd be happy to give you the last word and happily walk
away from this debate, which has been recycled a few time before.  However,
something which you wrote makes me think that I've failed to make myself
clear about what I'm saying, in particular where you wrote:

"In other words, you doubt the premise that "if Severian and the Briah
crew don't bring the New Sun, destructive as it is, then comes Ragnarok."
If
you don't grant that, then their methods are certainly suspect--but I take
it
as a granted fact of the fiction, because there seems to be nothing in the
text
to suggest this assumption is doubtful--Severian's visit to Master Ash isn't
presented as a "trick" of his masters"

I wish to clarify that I certainly do not doubt that Ragnarok is the
inevitable outcome of the failure of the New Sun to appear.  Nor do I doubt
that human expansion into the universe prior to the darkening of the sun was
violent and imperialistic.  If Gene Wolfe's premise is that humanity is bad
news, irremediable, and must be destroyed for the good of everyone else,
then, yes, as you point out, I can disagree with that but all I would be
doing is railing against the author's point of view.  However, if it is
correct that Gene Wolfe's premise is that the human urge to conquer and
dominate is incorrigible, then why do the Hieros leave the humans on other
planets to work their will as they may?  If humans cannot be trusted with
the energy of this one particular star in a galaxy of billions and must be
exterminated as a species and replaced by the Green Man *but on that planet
alone*, what is the difference between Ragnaok and Ushas?  What evidence do
we have -- other than giving Yesod the "benefit of the doubt" -- that this
bloody bioengineering program is at all justifiable?  And at the end of the
day, how can you logically say that the wholesale replacement of humanity by
a different type of lifeform constitutes the *redemption* of humanity?

Alex, you can rely on your own interpretation and the interpretation of
others who agree with you;  you can rely on authorial decree;  you can make
appeals to the gallery.  None of that changes the fact that in the entire
text of TBOTNS you cannot find a single instance where the Diety is
explicity a determinative factor in anything that is going on;  everything
has a rationalist explanation.  If you say that you believe in Providence
that's great, but the simple, unproven assertion that everything that
happens happens for the best does not constitute the justification of the
ways of God to man, and if belief in Providence constitutes the whole of
TBOTNS as theodicy, then perhaps its time to look at Yesod and Ushas in a
new light.

Ori

Ori

---

From: Jim Henley <jlhenley at erols.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 21:33:10 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: urth-errors at lists.best.com [mailto:urth-errors at lists.best.com]On
> Behalf Of Ori Kowarsky
>
> However, if it is
> planets to work their will as they may?

An excellent question! It relates to a new thread I'll want people's views
on soon.

> What evidence do

Now wait a second - this seems to require the following:

1) That _everybody_ dies when the New Sun comes.

2) That the Green Man's race was engineered by the heiros.

3) That the Green Man directly succeeds the exterminated humans of Urth.

Or failing all that,

4) That the Green Guys kill off all the pink, tan and brown guys in short
order.

I may well have missed something, but

1) I don't assume that everyone (except for the two chicks and the fat guy)
on every Urth continent perished in the deluge. While _someone_ certainly
landed two new humans, it beggars belief that something so -- macroscopic
as a flood could be relied on to get every last one of the bastards.

2) I read the Green Man's account of himself as suggesting something that
humanity (eventually) does to/for itself.

3) The guy Sev meets on his return to Ushas at the very end of Urth seems
to be not the least bit green. This supports the idea that the
"replacement" of human by "verdant" is no direct thing.

4) This just isn't what Green Guys are about, is it?

FWIW, yet another appearance in SF of the "humankind is a pollution on the
cosmos" bit sticks in my craw. Seems oddd to find it in even the most
"eccentrically" conservative, heirarchical and grave author. But Wolfe
never asked if I was going to like it ahead of time.

Best,

Jim
 *****************************************
"We can't be certain who the villains are
cause everyone's so pretty"
              -- Sheryl Crow

---

From: Alex David Groce <alex_groce at gs246.sp.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 22:01:20 +0000

>never asked if I was going to like it ahead of time.

Well, I like to think it's more complex than that--we sure were a pain to have
around, apparently, but the hieros (IMO) like us enough to do us a favor in
spite of all.  I think the Green Man is, definitely, Man.  Man changed in many
ways, but Man.  I mean, I can't imagine that the other folks in the universe
enjoyed Typhon's empire, but I never got that they were doing anything other
than a (two-sided and short-term disastrous) favor.  I'm sure I'd see things
more Ori's way if I thought we actually got exterminated as a species in URTH. 
Yikes.

We still don't know for sure who put that Black Hole there, but humanity's 
collapse seems to have been a matter of getting tired of empire (as a race,
not that Typhon would have tired) in general, so I think the other planets 
may be playgrounds for the rich, or guard-posts, but that they're as "burnt
out" as Urth.

---

From: Jim Henley <jlhenley at erols.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 22:31:52 +0000

> Behalf Of Alex David Groce
>
>
> collapse seems to have been a matter of getting tired of empire

Which brings up another question: Did someone have to _put_ the black hole
there? Might it not have just happened?

Puts me in mind of one of Niven's Louis Wu stories (darned if I know which
one, it's been twenty years) in which he meets an alien whose species
assumes that absolutely any bad thing that happens is a result of hostile
action. Or was it a Beowulf Schaffer story? And did I spell "Schaffer"
right? And isn't it interesting that "Neutron Star" could never happen, and
what does that imply about "hard" SF? And am I full of questions tonight or
what?

Best,

Jim
 ******************************************
"What fades in time        Costello/
will hurt much more"  Bacharach, "My Thief"

---

From: Jim Jordan <jbjordan at gnt.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 09:30:13 +0000

At 05:46 PM 11/20/99 -0800, you wrote:
>doing is railing against the author's point of view.

	I think Wolfe's premise is that before the coming of Christ, the world was
ruled by violent and imperialistic empires. In the ancient world context,
Alexander's Hellenistic Empire (which was not very kind to the non-Greeks
they subdued), and Rome. Later on, the various imperia that give way to the
Gospel. 
	Along these lines, and recalling Wolfe's interest in history, consider the
fact that such imperia do not collapse into the peacefulness of "let each
esteem the other better than himself" overnight. In fact, we see in the
conversion of Constantine, and that of rulers in Northern Europe, that
there is an initial transition, followed by a long time of outworking.
Consider that the initial transition is marked by something very simple:
the adoption of the AD chronology. The older way of counting years, back to
the founding of Rome, etc., changes to a new way of counting years. Urth to
Ushas? But it is a long time before the "green man" arrives, the man who is
restored to Eden. The process starts with a definitive break from the old
history, and often with a great judgment (such as a plague), but takes
centuries/millennia to work out. This kind of construction is what I would
impute as background to Wolfe's narrative, since it lines up with his own
beliefs and interests.
	Continuing to tease out Wolfe's premises: The culture on Urth has
forgotten the Gospel, and has collapsed back into tyranny and imperialism.
Typhon is an example. A more modified form is in the Commonwealth,
Byzantium, which has a dictator, but also an opposition, keeping it in a
kind of tense balance that cannot endure for very long. 
	But the Gospel is still there. It's underground -- where Severian
encounters the missionaries near the underground sea, where people are
buried -- catacombs? It survives in garbled form, as in Dr. Talos's play,
as it survives in garbled form in the Long Sun. Pelerines also. (Hey, is
Silk, who is tall, the Long SON, as Severian is the New SON?)
	Perhaps it's been discussed here already, but Severian descends
underground several times. Each of these could be a death-resurrection
sequence. Does he not bring people back to life each time? Are these stages
along the way of his entering into his calling?
	At any rate, we have a frozen, perverse, and tyrannical society.
Accordingly, a judgment day arrives. No, it's not the last one. No, it's
not brought by Jesus, or even by a very good copy of him. But it is brought
by "angels" working with/through a man who is predestined for this purpose.
And it is an "application" of the Gospel, which when it first came was
attended by the destruction of Old Jerusalem and then of the Beast-Roman
Empire.
	As for the other planets in the human starry empire, well, the Long Sun
Narrative shows us that the Increate has not left them alone, either. The
story of Urth is the story of ... Urth. Wolfe is not obliged to show how
the outworking of the New Creation comes to every other planet in the
universe, but it seems that he is doing a bit of that in the Long Sun.
	This may well be going too far, but the Bible declares that judgment
"starts" at the house of God, meaning the Church. But Wolfe can do the
same, with a flood and resurrection of the original earth (Urth-Ushas), the
implications of which then flow out to the rest of the human imperium. 
	Does such a construction make sense to you?

Nutria (JBJordan)

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 08:15:25 +0000

> Messiahship.  Either way, it's cheap.

You're touching on my main gripe about URTH.  I wasn't convinced that the
stuff Severian did in his "career" as the Concilator was enough for him to
be remembered all the way to Severian's original time.  It's just a bunch
of Jesus-mimicking wonder working without any apparent purpose to it all.
There's no set of memorable teaching to be passed on; there's no sense
that his actions have some Greater Purpose that would make him significant
to subsequent followers.  It all seemed too perfunctory, too brief.  If
the Concilator was such a powerful historical figure, his career deserves
at least an entire book--if not four.

-Rostrum

---

From: Jim Jordan <jbjordan at gnt.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 09:10:54 +0000

>at least an entire book--if not four.

	Perhaps Severian's hohum earlier career has been conflated with the career
of the real Conciliator over time, and that is why the myth exists in such
a powerful way.

Nutria

---

From: Tony Ellis <tony.ellis at futurenet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 17:55:17 +0000

Rostrum wrote:

> to subsequent followers.  It all seemed too perfunctory,
> too brief.

As I understand it, what we see of Sev's Conciliator career
is just the start. He can travel the Corridors of time, so
he can pop back any time he likes to visit pre-deluge Urth,
and we're given at least two clear hints that he does.
Dorcas, asked by Sev about the Conciliator, says that he
used to appear and disappear unexpectedly. And then Sev says
of the Chowder Pot:

"Often I have dreamed of going back, and perhaps sometime I
shall. Certainly more guests came to our aid when Zama broke
our door  than there were any reason to expect, and I would
like to think that one or even several of them were myself.
Indeed it sometimes seems to me that I caught a glimpse of
my own face in the candlelight that night." Urth XXXII.

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 15:53:43 +0000

> my own face in the candlelight that night." Urth XXXII.

This is cool, but doesn't really address my point, which I didn't make
clear, so here it is again.  It's not so much that there isn't enough
quantity to Sev's career as Conciliator, but that the quality that seems
lacking.  What's he going to do, other than wander around healing people
and turning water to wine that will make him such a mythic figure?  Not
that miracles aren't notable, but most of the world's religious figures
are remembered for something more than a bunch of magic tricks.

-Rostrum

---

From: Urash, Tom <turash at firstam.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 15:51:19 +0000

Rostrum writes:

 "This is cool, but doesn't really address my point, which I didn't make
> are remembered for something more than a bunch of magic tricks." 
> 
 I think I have a sense what he's going to do: make a promise - not unlike
another alleged miracle worker making the rounds in these discussions made a
promise some 2000 years ago. One promises a new sun to replace the dying sun
wreaking havoc in the lives of most of the population; another promises,
amongst other things, a way to everlasting life to those without hope -
again, a pretty big chunk of the population. 

tom urash
 
> works
> ranjit at best.com
> whorl at lists.best.com

---

From: Jim Jordan <jbjordan at gnt.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 00:48:13 +0000

>again, a pretty big chunk of the population. 

You're probably on to something here. Simply going around predicting what
is going to happen, and giving hope to the oppressed, would fill the bill
quite nicely. Rostrum?

Nutria

---

From: Ori Kowarsky <orik at sprint.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 23:28:12 +0000

Nutria wrote:

>ruled by violent and imperialistic empires.

...As opposed to the last two thousand years of European and world history?

>as it survives in garbled form in the Long Sun.

Please explain to me how it survives, where we see evidence of this.

Ori

---

From: Tony Ellis <tony.ellis at futurenet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 10:37:42 +0000

Rostrum wrote:

> lacking.
Well, maybe it was me not making -my- point clear :-). The
thing is, we don't -know- what Sev does on those subsequent
visits to the past, but since TUOTNS ends with him finally,
comfortably, settled into his role as a godling, it seems a
reasonable assumption that he could now start giving sermons
on mounts or whatever.

> Not
Hmm, how do I say this nicely? Most of the world's religious
figures -are- remembered for a bunch of magic tricks. Most
of the saints are nothing -but- a collection of magic
tricks, with a unique and implausibly nasty death thrown in
to make it really stick in the mind. Jesus? We remember him
-now-, 2000 years after the event, for his teachings, but
look at the paintings and relics in any medieval cathedral
and it's the miracles that spread and sustained the religion
during the hundreds and hundreds of years when only an
educated elite could actually read the Bible or understand a
latin sermon. And especially that Uber-miracle: the
resurrection.

Don't forget, too, that Severian leaves behind a Book, which
if it bears any resemblance to the BOTNS we know is chock
full of thought and philosophy. If Severian had appeared
2000 years ago instead of Christ, today we'd be going to
church to hear "Dearly Beloved, we believe that we invent
our symbols. The truth is that they invent us..."

---

From: Jim Jordan <jbjordan at gnt.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 10:29:42 +0000

>...As opposed to the last two thousand years of European and world history?

	Did it not write fairly clearly that after an initial change the Gospel
only gradually changes things? I thought I made that clear, from my
perspective.
>Please explain to me how it survives, where we see evidence of this.

	I thought I just did. The reference to the Theoanthropos would be another
example. It's there, but buried.

Nutria