Future passed in the New Sun

Paul Duggan22 Apr 2002, 13:51original

4 quoted lines · 1–2 deep

JJ: Is Briah our universe? Or is that a universe that resurrected saints have set up in the world to come as part of the cities that they made?

GW: No. I thought of it as a long past universe. Something that we are repeating rather than something that we are.

Wolfe said this? I'm quite surprised, even shocked. I'm pretty much of an intentionalist, but (without having reread all the books) this strikes me as a pointless complication with no textual warrant. The Appendix to SHADOW (the only one I have on hand at the moment) even says that the book takes place in the future. Of course, the "author" of the appendix could be wrong, but again this seems like a pointless complication. And didn't Wolfe say in another interview that the Commonwealth was South America?

But remeber, the text of the Book of the New Sun came into the hands of Gene Wolfe after Severian wrote it and threw it into space in the lead coffer. Wolfe is just the translator. So Severian wrote in the "distant past" prior universe and the manuscript survives the singularity (!) and Wolfe then gets it and tranlastes it All references to "the future" should just be taken as refering to how Severian is in the future of where "we are" in the past universe's timeline (since the timelines are amazingly similar). My only objection to this is theological, in that the theoanthropos then comes to save everybody at least 2 if not more times. But its just a novel... Paul Duggan

Adam Stephanides22 Apr 2002, 14:14original

↳ follows, by subject match Paul Duggan

4 quoted lines

on 4/22/02 8:51 AM, Paul Duggan at pduggan at Op.Net wrote: But remeber, the text of the Book of the New Sun came into the hands of Gene Wolfe after Severian wrote it and threw it into space in the lead coffer. Wolfe is just the translator. So Severian wrote in the "distant past" prior universe and the manuscript survives the singularity (!) and Wolfe then gets it and tranlastes it All references to "the future" should just be taken as refering to how Severian is in the future of where "we are" in the past universe's timeline (since the timelines are amazingly similar).

I have a hard time reconciling this reading with the references in the SHADOW appendix to "a tongue that has not yet achieved existence" (unless we are supposed to believe that the timelines are so similar that the exact same languages will develop) and "the posthistoric world." Also, we would have to accept that some artifacts and even buildings had survived the singularity, as well as Sev's manuscript.

1 quoted line

My only objection to this is theological, in that the theoanthropos then comes to save everybody at least 2 if not more times. But its just a novel...

This, OTOH, could be explained as the Incarnation "casting its shadow" into the past universe. --Adam

Michael Straight24 Apr 2002, 18:11original

↳ follows, by subject match Adam Stephanides

2 quoted lines

On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Adam Stephanides wrote: I have a hard time reconciling this reading with the references in the SHADOW appendix to "a tongue that has not yet achieved existence" (unless we are supposed to believe that the timelines are so similar that the exact same languages will develop) and "the posthistoric world." Also, we would have to accept that some artifacts and even buildings had survived the singularity, as well as Sev's manuscript.

I thought sure those comments in the Appendix were jokes. They made me laugh. -Rostrum

Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.