{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3561", "note": "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.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 3561, "subject": "King Jesus defense", "messages": 4, "voices": 2, "first": "2002-11-13T08:32:21+00:00", "last": "2002-11-15T16:20:59+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Don Doggett", "address": "harlekin at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2002-11-13T08:32:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) King Jesus defense", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hello! Thanks to you all for your warm welcome. I can't tell you how great\nit is to talk about these works with people who are more than superficially\nacquainted with them. It's occurred to me that I may be operating on too\nmany fronts at once but we'll see. Prudence dictates that I retreat from my\nSeverian/Ymar origin theory for lack of more than superficial evidence (so\nfar). Rest assured it's not a surrender. Now, I want to address Blattid's\ncriticisms. Then I'll deal with Silk as Typhon in a separate post and last,\nchime in with my two cents on the Blue/Ushas debate. It may take a few\ndays. But on to Blattid.\n Your primary contention seems the easiest for me to refute but,before I\ndo, let me clarify that I said NS is in SOME (sorry, I'm not sure how to\nunderline) ways a reworking of KJ, not in all or even most. I've never\nencountered an author who supersaturates his works with as many ideas and\nreferences as Gene Wolfe. It's nearly unbelievable. That said, I could see\nyour point of Wolfe rejecting the worldview of King Jesus IF Severian were\nconceived as an incarnation of Christ. He is not and Mr. Wolfe has\ndefinitively stated this. He is merely a Christ like figure, a man\nemulating that ideal (or trying to). I would further argue that this very\nfact that Severian does not equal Jesus allows Mr. Wolfe to play with the\nideas presented in Graves' work with little danger of himself slipping into\nheresy. In essence, much like Prof. Tolkien, he is engaging in an act of\nsub creation, carefully engineered not to violate his Catholic worldview.\nAs always imho.\n Now, on to your point by point arguments:\n\n1. The lameness and the wound. The fact that these images are found all\nover literature is not a refutation. Graves borrows from all over the map\nas does Wolfe. The fact is, the two characters have similar markings which\nGraves describes as signs of divine kingship. Jesus is a king and Severian\nis Autarch. Even if you are unconvinced you must grant me plausibility.\n\n2. Dorcas. I don't care much about this. I just thought it uncanny. I\nargue supersaturation.\n\n3. Manipulation of bloodlines. Jesus' bloodlines in KJ are manipulated to\nproduce a messiah. Severian's are manipulated to produce a New Sun. Since\nSeverian is not Christ, Mr. Wolfe is off the hook, and your argument doesn't\nhold.\n\n4. Severian in relation to Apollo. Severian is the New Sun. Apollo is the\nGreek sun god. There is also the strong association between Jesus and the\nsun (Sol Invictus, the Unconquered Sun, who was Constantine's first god from\nwhom he made little differentiation regarding Jesus) and between Jesus and\nApollo (especially in art).\n\n5. The female argument I yield to Mark Aramini's earlier post. He's more\narticulate on that than I. (It's late)\n\n6. Typhon. Before KJ I would have agreed that Typhon was primarily a Satan\nfigure. Again, I argue supersaturation.\n\n7. Severian's self birth. I am retreating for now, but I will argue that\nthere is no consensus on Severian's birth or parents. His word is\nuntrustworthy.\n\n8. Jesus/Silkhorn/Arthur. If it looks like a chicken and eats grain, it\nmight be a rabbit with feathers, but since they both taste like chicken, who\ncares? The parallels are there and both use Arthurian imagery. The only\nthing Jesus is lacking is an Azoth or a Terminus Est (though he does have\nthe cross-metaphorically speaking). Plausibility to a high degree.\n\nAnyhow, thanks again for your welcome and for forcing me to exercise my\nbrain. I look forward to more conversations.\nDon" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2002-11-13T16:55:35+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) King Jesus defense", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan (Doggett):\n\nYou wrote," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Your primary contention seems the easiest for me to refute ..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I do not feel certain what, precisely, you consider my \"primary \ncontention,\" but as you do not (to me) appear to address (what \nI consider) my \"primary contention,\" allow me to make it explicit:\n\nFirst, I agree that G.W.'s basic working method involves what \nyou call \"supersaturating ... with ... many ideas and references.\" \nHe seems nearly unique in the degree of this; I know of only two \n(SF) writers who come close: Theodore Sturgeon and A.E. van Vogt, \nwho however do this in very different ways -- mostly ideas, far \nless references.\n\nSecond, I certainly do think it reasonable to perceive \nsimilarities between NS and KJ. However, as I said in my previous \npost, \"This kind of surface connection can be found between almost \nany two rich and complex works of narrative literature\" -- and, \nI would add, _especially_ two works which clearly play off the \nsame basic template, in this case, the received story of Jesus the \nChrist. I think it might constitute an interesting exercise to \ncompare NS with, for example, Dostoevski's THE IDIOT. On the other \nhand, I don't think it would prove all that interesting to compare \nNS with Heinlein's STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND, though it uses the \nJesus-template rather extensively ... which probably says something \nabout how I perceive the richness and complexity of SiaSL.\n\nThird: But and however, given that one can find such similarities \nand connections between two such works, it does not follow that\nthe later-written in any way reworks or shows influence from the\nearlier-written, in some sort of _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ way.\nThus my concern for a \"smoking gun:\" either a direct reference to\nthe earlier work (either internal to the later work or in some\nexternal comment by the work's author), or else some complex of\ndetails that we can't plausibly call it a \"coincidence,\" a random\nisomorphism in how the two writers treat similar material.\n\nMy \"primary contention,\" then, is that -- even if I grant every\none of your points -- they constitute neither such a reference \nnor such a complex of details, leaving the question of whether \nKJ might help us to understand what Wolfe is doing in NS open at\nbest.\n\nThat said, I probably erred in the directions of \"pointless\"\nand/or \"misleading\" in disputing your specific details one by\none." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Don Doggett", "address": "harlekin at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2002-11-15T05:03:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) re: King Jesus Defense", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You are cruel Blattid, cruel. . . but you're right. It seems I've ridden\nthis horse too hard and to fast with too little water and now it's dead.\nGuess I should dismount and find a new ride. By the way, I only just now\nunderstood your reference to the bene gesserit in your original reply (slow,\nslow). That is intriguing.\n\nDon" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2002-11-15T16:20:59+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) re: King Jesus Defense", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You are cruel Blattid, cruel. . . but you're right. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If I expressed myself in a cruel manner, I apologize. I did\nnot intend it. I may seek truth and clarity, but not penance\n(except in myself). " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It seems I've ridden this horse too hard and to fast with\ntoo little water and now it's dead." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Gaaah. No. It seems rather thirsty, but hardly dead ... I\nhoped, not to get you to drop your comparison, but to seek\nthat \"smoking gun\" - to prop it up with solider props, if\nyou can find such. \n\nWe play the game that way ... certainly the other residents\nof this list have challenged some of my wonky ideas in a\nsimilar manner, and I've had to back off some, holding\nothers in reserve until I find more, better evidence ... \nI suspect your idea here should reside in the latter class." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "By the way, I only just now understood your \nreference to the bene gesserit in your original reply (slow, \nslow). That is intriguing." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yeah ... it really took me by surprise, but Herbert strikes\nme as the sort of person who almost certainly would use \nGraves as a resource (much as, say, Delany did in THE JEWELS\nOF APTOR). But then, the Bene Gesserit manipulation of \nbloodlines has long stood as a basic pillar of my theory of \nDUNE as a fascist novel..." } ] } ] }