Subject: (urth) Horn and Silk

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 16:51:03 +0000

I'm tossing some ideas around here for play. Toss 'em back if you 
don't like 'em; play with 'em yourself if you do.

I think one thing that needs to be addressed is the nature of the 
relationship of tBotSS to tBotLS, and I think the best model is the
relationship between the Gospels and the other books of the New
Testament.

It has recently been suggested by several persons on this forum that 
Silk directly inspires LONG, thus giving it a greater level of veracity 
or accuracy than SHORT, or at least than those parts of SHORT that deal 
with Horn prior to his becoming bleshed with Silk (and possibly some 
nameless inhumu). Now, it seems to me that, given that Silk is very much 
a messianic figure for the people of the Short Sun Whorls, and that Horn 
is the author of one, but not the only, account of the deeds of Silk,
we need to look at the Apostles for our models of Horn. 

My first inclination is to look at St. Paul. Quite aside from the obvious
Odyssey parallel, one could easily see SHORT as in some ways paralleling
the missionary voyages of Paul - complete with shipwrecks, the insistence
of the principal on earning his way when the local people want to give him
all he needs, etc., etc. There is, however, a very serious objection to 
the use of Paul as a model for Horn: Paul's (well, Saul's) persecution of 
the early Church, prior to his conversion, is a stark contrast to Horn's 
position as possibly Silk's first convert, and certainly a convert prior 
to the founding of the Silk cult.

The next choice would seem to be Peter. I don't recall anything in LONG
that would parallel Peter's moment of doubt - but then, there's nothing
in LONG that really parallels the Crucifixion either: perhaps a less
literal approach is required here. At that point, things become a little
more promising. Horn, like Peter, is the first to recognize the unique
nature of his Master. Horn stays at home (well, new-home) with his people
until at last he sets out on a journey which results in his death.

But that really doesn't work either. Another option would be John, and
indeed one can see some parallels to John's apocalyptic visions in the
Narr's experiences on Green and the Whorl.

But to be honest, I think in the end any such search for specific 
parallels is going to fall apart, because Horn isn't any of them - he
is a unique character, in a very different situation from first-century
Judaea: and at the same time, he amalgamates aspects of at least these
three, and perhaps several others of the Apostles and Evangelists. And
the voyages of Paul thus become relevant and interesting again 
(especially if we think of Krait as a possible parallel to Luke ...
horrors!). We then see that Silk, as a result of his experiences on
his voyage, ultimately is indwelt by the Spirit of Silk ... or is it
that Silk is indwelt by the spirit of Horn? This becomes complex and
confusing.

Comments? Sneers?

--

---

From: James Jordan <jbjordan4 at home.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 17:47:39 +0000

and there. Certainly the Long Sun is based roughly on the gospels, though I 
think *Exodus* has some of Acts in it, and the end of *Exodus* is 
apocalyptic, like Revelation: the Whorl is coming to an end in fire.
         In Long Sun, Auk is most like Peter, the "stumbling, bumbling 
Peter" of the gospels (in common mythology anyway). But I think you are on 
target in suggesting Horn as something new as well as something old (just 
as Silk is both new and old, but like and unlike Jesus). Maybe the voyages 
have something to do with Paul, though Paul went out as an evangelist and 
Horn's mission is quite different -- a pilgrimage to the Holy Land (see 
below). As you write, Horn was already a disciple, a kind of Mark (the very 
young man who grew up to write a gospel). But if we superimpose Peter on 
Horn, then his voyage to horrible Green can be seen as Peter's journey to 
Rome, where he died -- though this is not in the New Testament, and 
protestants like me don't believe it happened, yet it is a central part of 
Wolfe's Roman Catholic committments.
         Horn's actual mission, to bring Silk back, and "corn-silk" for a 
new world, might be a spin on the Revelation to St. John, which climaxes 
with the return of Christ and a new heavens and earth. But I think it is 
more a pilgrimage to bring back powerful relics (see below).
         But for the triple political transformations that occur in the 
narrative, we would have to move beyond the New Testament into the 
political effects of the Christian gospel on the Roman Empire, on the 
tribes of northern Europe, etc. Also, the "incorporation" of a transformed 
version of pagan deities and myths is part of Roman Catholic history 
(rejected by us protestants, in the main). Wolfe believes there is much to 
this RC tradition. Thus, in Short Sun we start to get hints of Pas & Co. 
being somehow incorporated and transformed into the new "religion." And 
think of the "Mother." The old Earth Mother became united to the mother of 
Jesus and became a lot of the popular stuff about the Perpetually Virgin 
Mary of Roman Catholicism. Wolfe accepts this as part of the gathering and 
transforming effect of the Christian gospel. I suspect that in Short Sun 
he's spinning on this kind of thing, in its beginning stages. Eventually 
the Mother will become linked with the mother(s) of Messiah Silk. (?)
         The inhumi are kind of like the unconverted gentiles, who were 
dominated by demons before the gospel came. They have to be blended with 
the "Jews" into the new Church. Don't we see the beginning of this kind of 
process in the Short Sun, ESPECIALLY if the human-plant hybrid hypothesis 
is correct?
         With the Silk narrative as "inspired" while the Horn-Silk 
narrative is NOT "inspired," I think we are mostly moving beyond the New 
Testament as a whole and into the early Church. As I mentioned above, it 
looks like the Long Sun goes clear through Acts to Revelation.
         So, while were speculating: Maybe in part Horn's trip to the Whorl 
is like a medieval pilgrimage to the Holy Land to acquire relics to bring 
back home. Along the way, we encounter gentile Muslims (inhumi),  and when 
we get to the Holy Land, things are really bad there: It has fallen into 
bad shape and into bad hands. At the end, does Silkhorn return as a kind of 
Crusader to retake the Whorl?
         In all, I think that there are allusions, but Wolfe has 
constructed a new narrative that is not just an allegory -- though there 
are more allegorical elements in Long Sun than I've seen in Short Sun. 
Allusion rather than allegory would be the ticket, I think.
         At any rate, I think you are right on track with ONE aspect of the 
narratives.

Patera Nutria

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 19:32:39 +0000

Nutria,

Thanks for the thoughtful (and, by-and-large, supporting) remarks.

I see your point about _Exodus_ having some aspects of Acts and of
Rev.; but even if I thought those aspects were stronger than I do,
there's nothing in LONG that in any way parallels the Epistles. I 
guess the point that really tipped it over for me, and then I forgot
to mention it in my previous post, was the the observation that much 
of SHORT is written in a sort of extended epistolary form. The first 
two books, and the first "I" sections of the third, are a huge letter 
home. Further, there is the interesting parallel between the letters, 
like Hebrews, that seem not to have actually been written by Paul but 
by someone writing in (so to speak) his voice: I think this bears 
some looking at in regard to the authorship of the Book of Horn,and 
especially of RttW. 

I hadn't thought of adding Matthew to the mix, but he's an interesting
choice. (Was it him or Mark who started out as a tax collector? Can't
recall off hand. At any rate, I don't see much relevance to that...)

The interesting thing is that, though he isn't consciously evangelizing,
wherever he goes, the Narrator spreads and adds to the myth of Silk. 
He makes clear early on, though he never says it, that the people of
Gaon think he's Silk - I believe the way he puts it is that he is the
only person in Gaon who doesn't know where Silk is.

What I am suggesting, though, is not that we should "superimpose Peter 
on Horn," or that we look at Horn as a parallel to Paul, Peter, or any 
of the other particular Apostles and Evangelists, but rather as a sort 
of parallel to all of them - that is, in much the way that Silk and 
especially Severian play so much of the role of Christ's life without 
_being_ him, so too I think Horn is profitably seen as playing out a 
role that could be called "apostle-and-evangelist," but not as actually 
repeating or replaying the life of any specific Apostle or Evangelist. 
My own stumbling and bumbling through various details about Peter and 
Paul, in other words, wasn't aimed at saying "Which is he like?" so 
much as "He's like one of them."

All of which should teach me that I'd best not try to express this sort 
of thing at unGodly hours of the morning.

I really can't see the Narr's travels as a "pilgrimage to the Holy Land"
or anything to parallel the Crusades - primarily because I really can't 
see the "Church of Silk" having arrived at anything near the medieval 
stage in the short time the exodants have been on the Short Sun Whorls. 
I do see your point about the effect of the Gospel on the various tribes;
and while there is no overarching Empire of the sort that conditioned
and informed the travels of Paul and other early missionaries, the 
situation reminds me more of these than it does that of the early-medieval
missionaries like Augustine and Cyril. I'm willing to be convinced,
though.

But I think we have here a situation at roughly the stage where Peter 
and Paul are just beginning to realize, and to tell the others, that 
the Goyim have to be let into the church - a fair parallel to the 
inspir(it)ed Narrator's somewhat mysterious insistence on treating 
Jahlee and Fava as people (because of the Secret Of The Inhumi). So
your comments about the "unconverted Gentiles" are in fact right on
the mark, but militate for an earlier parallel. (Historically, though,
I can't think of anything that might parallel the Secret. The Secret
of the Gentiles? Puh-leeze.)

That this may add some nuances to our thoughts about the way(s) in which 
Silk and Horn are present in each other. Horn has quite literally become 
incorporated into the Body of Silk; but he is enabled to act, and granted 
his wisdom, through the power of the Spirit of Silk. H'mmmm... I wonder 
if these books are ultimately going to prove to be quite inaccessible to 
anyone unwilling to really think from a Christian-Catholic point of view?

Interesting comments about "the Mother"/Silk's Mother/the Earth Mother/
the BVM.  Yes, Catholicism does a great deal of syncretism (incorporation 
of local mythology) - on, I believe, the assumption that these mythologies 
were God's way of preparing the various peoples of the world to receive 
Christ. But historically, the reverence of the BVM goes back very early 
indeed; and while this would not be, from the Protestant PoV, an argument 
for reverence of the BVM, it _is_ an argument, from the Catholic (i.e.,
Wolfe's) PoV for not thinking that said reverence of the BVM comes from
this sort of syncretism.

Still and all: if we accept LONG as being the "parallel" to the _entire_
NT, then perhaps it's worth looking at SHORT as a hagiographic legend?
Certainly a number of these involved apparitions of Christ.

Obviously Wolfe has constructed a "new narrative that is not just an
allegory"; but the same can be said even of books of any quality (e.g.,
Lewis's Narnian tales) that blatantly _are_ allegories: that is, they 
are not _just_ allegories.

Side note, from Dan'l to James: You wrote:

> his voyage to horrible Green can be seen as Peter's journey to Rome,
> where he died -- though this is not in the New Testament, and
> protestants like me don't believe it happened, yet it is a central part
> of Wolfe's Roman Catholic committments.

I've never quite understood this, btw - most Protestants believe many 
things that aren't in the Bible (i.e., "Cannibalism and polygyny are
wrong," "Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo," "The Gospel according to
Matthew is divinely inspired, but the Gospel according to Thomas is
not," etc.) - why do so many Protestants feel so strongly about rejecting
this particular bit of historical trivia? I mean, it isn't as if this
is in any material way the basis of the claims of the Papacy.

--D

--

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 20:48:33 +0000

I've mentioned before another way in which the Long Sun books remind me of
the book of Acts.

Acts is written in third person for the first 75% of the book, then it
suddenly shifts to first person for a bit (the writer suddenly starts
talking about what "we" did and where "we" went).

-Rostrum

--