Subject: (urth) King Jesus defense

From: Don Doggett <harlekin at earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 08:32:21 +0000

Hello!  Thanks to you all for your warm welcome.  I can't tell you how great
it is to talk about these works with people who are more than superficially
acquainted with them.  It's occurred to me that I may be operating on too
many fronts at once but we'll see.  Prudence dictates that I retreat from my
Severian/Ymar origin theory for lack of more than superficial evidence (so
far).  Rest assured it's not a surrender.  Now, I want to address Blattid's
criticisms.  Then I'll deal with Silk as Typhon in a separate post and last,
chime in with my two cents on the Blue/Ushas debate.  It may take a few
days.  But on to Blattid.
    Your primary contention seems the easiest for me to refute but,before I
do, let me clarify that I said NS is in SOME (sorry, I'm not sure how to
underline) ways a reworking of KJ, not in all or even most.  I've never
encountered an author who supersaturates his works with as many ideas and
references as Gene Wolfe.  It's nearly unbelievable.  That said, I could see
your point of Wolfe rejecting the worldview of King Jesus IF Severian were
conceived as an incarnation of Christ.  He is not and Mr. Wolfe has
definitively stated this.  He is merely a Christ like figure, a man
emulating that ideal (or trying to).  I would further argue that this very
fact that Severian does not equal Jesus allows Mr. Wolfe to play with the
ideas presented in Graves' work with little danger of himself slipping into
heresy.  In essence, much like Prof. Tolkien, he is engaging in an act of
sub creation, carefully engineered not to violate his Catholic worldview.
As always imho.
    Now, on to your point by point arguments:

1. The lameness and the wound.  The fact that these images are found all
over literature is not a refutation.  Graves borrows from all over the map
as does Wolfe.  The fact is, the two characters have similar markings which
Graves describes as signs of divine kingship.  Jesus is a king and Severian
is Autarch.  Even if you are unconvinced you must grant me plausibility.

2. Dorcas.  I don't care much about this.  I just thought it uncanny.  I
argue supersaturation.

3.  Manipulation of bloodlines.  Jesus' bloodlines in KJ are manipulated to
produce a messiah.  Severian's are manipulated to produce a New Sun.  Since
Severian is not Christ, Mr. Wolfe is off the hook, and your argument doesn't
hold.

4.  Severian in relation to Apollo.  Severian is the New Sun.  Apollo is the
Greek sun god.  There is also the strong association between Jesus and the
sun (Sol Invictus, the Unconquered Sun, who was Constantine's first god from
whom he made little differentiation regarding Jesus) and between Jesus and
Apollo (especially in art).

5. The female argument I yield to Mark Aramini's earlier post.  He's more
articulate on that than I.  (It's late)

6.  Typhon.  Before KJ I would have agreed that Typhon was primarily a Satan
figure.  Again, I argue supersaturation.

7.  Severian's self birth.  I am retreating for now, but I will argue that
there is no consensus on Severian's birth or parents.  His word is
untrustworthy.

8.  Jesus/Silkhorn/Arthur.  If it looks like a chicken and eats grain, it
might be a rabbit with feathers, but since they both taste like chicken, who
cares?  The parallels are there and both use Arthurian imagery.  The only
thing Jesus is lacking is an Azoth or a Terminus Est (though he does have
the cross-metaphorically speaking). Plausibility to a high degree.

Anyhow, thanks again for your welcome and for forcing me to exercise my
brain.  I look forward to more conversations.
Don

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 16:55:35 +0000

Dan (Doggett):

You wrote,

> Your primary contention seems the easiest for me to refute ...

I do not feel certain what, precisely, you consider my "primary 
contention," but as you do not (to me) appear to address (what 
I consider) my "primary contention," allow me to make it explicit:

First, I agree that G.W.'s basic working method involves what 
you call "supersaturating ... with ... many ideas and references." 
He seems nearly unique in the degree of this; I know of only two 
(SF) writers who come close: Theodore Sturgeon and A.E. van Vogt, 
who however do this in very different ways -- mostly ideas, far 
less references.

Second, I certainly do think it reasonable to perceive 
similarities between NS and KJ. However, as I said in my previous 
post, "This kind of surface connection can be found between almost 
any two rich and complex works of narrative literature" -- and, 
I would add, _especially_ two works which clearly play off the 
same basic template, in this case, the received story of Jesus the 
Christ. I think it might constitute an interesting exercise to 
compare NS with, for example, Dostoevski's THE IDIOT. On the other 
hand, I don't think it would prove all that interesting to compare 
NS with Heinlein's STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND, though it uses the 
Jesus-template rather extensively ... which probably says something 
about how I perceive the richness and complexity of SiaSL.

Third: But and however, given that one can find such similarities 
and connections between two such works, it does not follow that
the later-written in any way reworks or shows influence from the
earlier-written, in some sort of _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ way.
Thus my concern for a "smoking gun:" either a direct reference to
the earlier work (either internal to the later work or in some
external comment by the work's author), or else some complex of
details that we can't plausibly call it a "coincidence," a random
isomorphism in how the two writers treat similar material.

My "primary contention," then, is that -- even if I grant every
one of your points -- they constitute neither such a reference 
nor such a complex of details, leaving the question of whether 
KJ might help us to understand what Wolfe is doing in NS open at
best.

That said, I probably erred in the directions of "pointless"
and/or "misleading" in disputing your specific details one by
one.

--

---

From: Don Doggett <harlekin at earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 05:03:12 +0000

You are cruel Blattid, cruel. . . but you're right.  It seems I've ridden
this horse too hard and to fast with too little water and now it's dead.
Guess I should dismount and find a new ride.  By the way, I only just now
understood your reference to the bene gesserit in your original reply (slow,
slow). That is intriguing.

Don

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:20:59 +0000

> You are cruel Blattid, cruel. . . but you're right.  

If I expressed myself in a cruel manner, I apologize. I did
not intend it. I may seek truth and clarity, but not penance
(except in myself). 

> It seems I've ridden this horse too hard and to fast with
> too little water and now it's dead.

Gaaah. No. It seems rather thirsty, but hardly dead ... I
hoped, not to get you to drop your comparison, but to seek
that "smoking gun" - to prop it up with solider props, if
you can find such. 

We play the game that way ... certainly the other residents
of this list have challenged some of my wonky ideas in a
similar manner, and I've had to back off some, holding
others in reserve until I find more, better evidence ... 
I suspect your idea here should reside in the latter class.

> By the way, I only just now understood your 
> reference to the bene gesserit in your original reply (slow, 

Yeah ... it really took me by surprise, but Herbert strikes
me as the sort of person who almost certainly would use 
Graves as a resource (much as, say, Delany did in THE JEWELS
OF APTOR). But then, the Bene Gesserit manipulation of 
bloodlines has long stood as a basic pillar of my theory of 
DUNE as a fascist novel...

--