Subject: (urth) DOORS: The Hero, The Otherworld, The Ending

From: Michael Andre-Driussi <mantis at siriusfiction.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 21:53:21 +0000

So far people have been mainly wondering about the hero's name (singular).
This is valid, of course, and could lead to something, but it seems at the
moment to be a (perhaps temporary) dead end.

Since "identity" is such a strong part of TAD, and since the goddess
clearly has so many names, it seems like an unnecessary straitjacket to
identify a single name as the hero's.  Better to list the various names, I
think, and look at how they may or may not represent different aspects of
the same character.

THERE ARE DOORS is, I think, an interesting take on the work of Robert
Graves: the most Gravesean work Wolfe has ever done.  But it also strikes
me as having the structure and tone of Chesterton's THE MAN WHO WAS
THURSDAY, including the ending, with twists along the way.  I cannot
comment on the Kafka content, since I still have not read THE CASTLE which
is even mentioned in the text ("Das Schloss"), but I can detect some Kafka
anyway (beyond the "Herr Kay").

THE HERO

I am struck by the sense of continuity between the men who are lovers of
the goddess, but I don't know if it is exclusively the "Wolfe
reincarnation" theme or the "Wolfe spirit possession" theme.  That is to
say, is Green a reincarnation of Captain Billy?  Perhaps (and thus the
interest he has in the Captain's desk is more than just the lure of the
hidden locket showing the goddess: he had that desk in a previous life),
and yet we also have the direct evidence/opinion that the hero is "Kay"
because he is a "reincarnation" of the not-yet-dead Herr Klamm, which
suggests that for Klamm the possessing spirit of "goddess's lover" has
moved on, from Klamm to the hero.

This bears another note: Klamm is now "step-father" to the goddess, a role
he enjoys but not without some pain.  It seems as though a man's biological
age is the central factor: Klamm is now too old to be the lover, and is
thus reduced to a supporting role as step-father.  If this holds true, then
the Other World ("Fatherless World"?) has something that looks like male
menopause -- that is to say, men there have a biological clock with regards
to the goddess.

THE OTHERWORLD

How does Otherworld regard the goddess?  At first one might think that they
are all goddess worshippers, but it actually seems quite different.
Goddess worship seems to be a religion among men only: they dedicate
themselves to her and thus to a life of chastity, rather than having sex
one time and dying like salmon/drones.  Men who marry give up their dolls.
The women seem to tolerate this worship, but they break out in violence at
times (attacking men, destroying dolls).  It seems that the women are not
on good terms with the goddess.

So what is Otherworld society like?  It is human but with aspects of the
social insect world.  The following is unstated in the novel, but I suspect
it is true: Otherworld women carry the burden of society, since the men are
all dying drones (no doubt here); like insects, society is divided into the
mass of sterile female workers and super-fertile queens (little doubt
here), and as such, every non-impregnated woman is seeking fertilization as
a way to vault up from worker to queen level (somewhat speculative).  Every
"Pawn" wants to become a "Queen."  If this is granted, then reproduction
for Otherworld women is a Power trip rather than a Love trip (which seems
pretty clear when the wife must convince her husband to die in order for
her to have his children).

William North is trying to overthrow the government, if not the whole
civilization.  He is all about Power.  He seems to be trying to create a
masculinist movement or subvert existing ones in order to shake things up.
His taking on the name "William" may be an attempt on his part to lure the
goddess into pistol range.  More than a rabble-rouser, more than an
iconoclast, he may be a wannabe goddess-killer.  (Thus the battle seen by
Graves between the goddess and the usurping thunder god.)

THE ENDING

Wow, what an ending!  It seems like a happy ending to a romantic comedy:
when the hero escapes the clutches of the loveless reproductive enslaver, a
female version of the "breed farmer" found in such different films as
"Shakespeare in Love" and "How The West Was Won" (men who are trying to buy
the heroine based on her birthing capacity, whereas she is already in love
with another man), we cheer for him as we cheer for
she-who-gets-away-to-follow-Love.

And yay, the hero will not fall into the age-trap that Herr Klamm fell
into!  He will follow without fear!

But when the cheering dies down, we come to understand that the hero is
going to his death, with a smile (however "archaic" a smile) on his lips
and a song in his heart.  He may get to see the goddess one more time, but
he might not: it is death to go to Overwood, the physical land of the
goddess somewhere out west, and he is going to Overwood.  He will not be
like Klamm because he will be dead; he will not age into her step-father
because he will be dead.

In making this choice, while he is being true to himself and his dream, he
is also paradoxically conforming to Overworld: where men die for Love.  The
choice that Fanny gave him, to live with her and live through the sex act,
would make him like a god in Overworld -- more specifically, he would be an
embodiment of those potent stag fertility gods.  As such he would be an
equal to the goddess, at least in the way that she travels to Visitor World
(our world) and acts like a goddess.  He would be Power, which is the polar
opposite of Love.  But William North is Power (thundering temper,
thundering guns), and the hero rejects that.

=mantis=

--

---

From: cilluff1 at optonline.net <cilluff1 at optonline.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 23:29:36 +0000

Mantis wrote:

<<Since "identity" is such a strong part of TAD, and since the goddess
clearly has so many names, it seems like an unnecessary straitjacket to
identify a single name as the hero's.....

I am struck by the sense of continuity between the men who are lovers of
the goddess, but I don't know if it is exclusively the "Wolfe
reincarnation" theme or the "Wolfe spirit possession" theme.  That is to
say, is Green a reincarnation of Captain Billy?>>>

This was my take on it.  In support of this, the goddess supplies the name
Adam for the hero, making me think that he is the "first man" for her split
again and again through all these worlds/lives.  Also, she does not comment
or reply to his comment that she is drawn to men name William.  Of course,
North and Klamm both are Williams, and the hero obviously is not them --
although perhaps I should just say he does not seem to be them.  I guess
the fact that he meets them does not preclude them really being the "same"
person from different worlds.  In fact, this would explain why Klamm calls
the hero "Herr Kay," which is his own name.  

The only wrinkle in the "hero as reincarnated Cpt. Billy" theory is Lara's
bread test, where he must drop the piece of bread into the wine and if it
sinks he can follow her.  Why would he need to do this if he really were
the same man that Lara herself has been "following" (or at least "finding")
again and again?  Of course, the dropping the bread into the wine obviously
conjures up the Catholic sacrement of Communion, and suggests that the hero
is in a sense being brought from the dead or reborn.

<<<William North is trying to overthrow the government, if not the whole
civilization.  He is all about Power.  He seems to be trying to create a
masculinist movement or subvert existing ones in order to shake things up.
His taking on the name "William" may be an attempt on his part to lure the
goddess into pistol range.  More than a rabble-rouser, more than an
iconoclast, he may be a wannabe goddess-killer.>>

Interesting take that North is not really Wiliam, but takes it on to lure
the goddess.  I do like your reasoning though, but am not sure how he would
know the goddess likes Bills.

<<In making this choice, while he is being true to himself and his dream, he
is also paradoxically conforming to Overworld: where men die for Love.>>

I'm not sure why he would die.  He can have sexual relations with a woman
and live even in the other world -- Fanny herself remarked as such.  So why
would it be death to follow the goddess?  I have only read TAD once but
must have missed that part, I trust your keen eye to have picked it up but
where is this reference?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

--

---

From: Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 07:47:14 +0000

mantis wrote:
>Graves: the most Gravesean work Wolfe has ever done.

Oh, no! Not you, too! <g>

>Graves between the goddess and the usurping thunder god.)

You have noted Graves' position vis-a-vis earth and sky; needless to say,
Graves' sympathies were with the goddess. Wolfe's, needless to say, are with
the other side. That being so, North, the wannabe goddess-killer, would be,
in effect, in the service of the God of the Bible. Green, following the
goddess, would be lusting after the very sort of figure that the Old
Testament prophets were forever railing against.

That would make North a good guy, Green a bad guy, in Wolfe's cosmology,
wouldn't it? How can this reading square with Wolfe's known religious views,
and his own opinion that THERE ARE DOORS is his best book?

-Roy

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:54:13 +0000

on 1/14/03 5:29 PM, cilluff1 at optonline.net at cilluff1 at optonline.net wrote:

> Of course, North and Klamm both are Williams, and the hero obviously is not
> them --

Klamm calls the hero "Herr Kay" because Klamm is a character from Kafka's
THE CASTLE, and the protagonist of that book is always referred to as K.  I
don't know why Klamm says K. "was myself also," though. (303, hc)  Nor do I
know why he calls K. "an old friend": in THE CASTLE Klamm never speaks to
K., nor is there any hint that Klamm has any personal interest in K.

Mantis's suggestion that Klamm is modelled on Kissinger is an intriguing
one, which hadn't occurred to me; but I would imagine Wolfe would be likely
to loathe Kissinger, both for being "soft on Communism" and for his amoral
approach to foreign policy (the polar opposite of the Narrator's
"statecraft" in TBOTSS).

--Adam

--

---

From: cilluff1 at optonline.net <cilluff1 at optonline.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 14:41:36 +0000

Adam wrote:

<<Klamm calls the hero "Herr Kay" because Klamm is a character from Kafka's
THE CASTLE, and the protagonist of that book is always referred to as K.  I
don't know why Klamm says K. "was myself also," though. (303, hc)  Nor do I
know why he calls K. "an old friend": in THE CASTLE Klamm never speaks to
K., nor is there any hint that Klamm has any personal interest in K.>>

The Kafka reference is straightforward, you are certainly right there, but
Wolfe must have had something else in mind other than a thinly veiled (if
veiled at all) reference to someone else's story.  Without a doubt the
names are an homage, but I think it doesn't go far enough simply to detect
references to others' works in Wolfe's stories, and simply because it is a
reference to Kafka doesn't mean there is a reason within TAD's universe for
why Klamm calls him Herr Kay, or that TAD's Klamm is little more than a
transplant to TAD's universe of Kafka's Klamm.  

<<<Mantis's suggestion that Klamm is modelled on Kissinger is an intriguing
one, which hadn't occurred to me; but I would imagine Wolfe would be likely
to loathe Kissinger, both for being "soft on Communism" and for his amoral
approach to foreign policy (the polar opposite of the Narrator's
"statecraft" in TBOTSS).>>

Well, that critcism assumes that GW views Klamm sympathetically as he would
not if Klamm=Kissinger.  Kissinger is soft on communism, and Klamm is soft
on the matriarchal, paganist society of the goddess: perhaps GW views both
as, and intended both to be, unsympathetic, soft characters.   

--

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at hotpop.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 21:15:30 +0000

Roy responding to Mantis:

Crush butts in:
I'd say at this point, Wolfe enchantment by Graves' White Goddess is a
foregone conclusion -- trackable over several novels and series. So the
question is rather "What does Graves' White Goddess mean to Wolfe
considering his Christianity".

Soooo, here I go:

Wolfe almost always presents the Goddess stand-ins as generally in league
with his protagonists (in the Soldier series there's some ambiguity here).
In the Long Sun, the Goddess' aspect as Love (Kypris/Aphrodite) is the
Vironese/Pagan image of the Outsider/Christian God --- the image selected by
the Outsider for himself.

Now, consider that Wolfe himself came to Christianity by **first** falling
in love with his eventual wife, Rosemary.

Perhaps Wolfe believes that the true God drew him to Himself through
something so sublunary (note the pun) as romantic love. Perhaps that is the
story he is telling over and over through Graves' White Goddess.

-- Crush

--

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:11:08 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Wynn" <crushtv at HotPOP.com>

> the Outsider for himself.

I think we have to look to what seems to be that traditional mode of
Catholic Fabulation, the creation of "little gods".

To put it baldly, Catholicism came from the imposition of a male-centered
Semitic religion on top of a dyarchical male/female European pantheon.
The Goddess keeps on bubbling back up - as Mary, as Theresa - and the Little
Gods start reappearing as Saints.

In Catholic Fabulation, the Little Gods (the remains of the old male/female
aryan pantheon) pop up again and again.

You see this in Lewis, with his eldils, and in Tolkien with his Valar: in
Chesterton's Sunday: and you see it in Laffery with his numerous
trickster-gods and demons.

And of course in Wolfe, you see if NOT with say the gods of mainframe (who
are not simply false images of God, but false replicas of the Little Gods)
but in the numerous lost and fugitive images of ambiguous sub-divinity -
Tzadkiel, and the Mother, for example.

(I had a point somewhere, but , . .  )

The goddess in "There are doors" seems to me to be a conscious but
unsuccessful attempt to address this *directly*.  Wolfe is addressing the
"little god" theme directly, rather than subconsciously, and it does not
really work.  Which is why it is not a very satisfying book, full of loss
and emptyness.

    hartshorn

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:00:04 +0000

Hartshorn declaimed:

> In Catholic Fabulation, the Little Gods (the remains of the 
> old male/female aryan pantheon) pop up again and again.

Well, that's _one_ way of looking at it. A Catholic perspective
might be a bit different -- either mumbling about "foreshadowing,"
or, more constructively, suggesting that the pantheon was there 
because the structure of the True Faith[tm] is deep in the human
psyche and so we naturally create mythologies that resemble it.
(A particularly extreme Catholic might simply deny that there was
any connection at all.) And some - this is the direction I tend
- would claim that in taking up the "good" of the local religions,
Catholicism essentially "baptises" them, viz. St Brigid.

> You see this in Lewis, with his eldils, and in Tolkien with 
> his Valar: in Chesterton's Sunday: and you see it in Laffery 
> with his numerous trickster-gods and demons.

Whoa. Hee-haw. Hey. HOLD IT.

1. Lewis wasn't a Catholic and would have been very annoyed
at you for suggesting he was.

2. The Eldila and the Valar are not "local gods"; they're 
angelic powers, pure and simple. 
   Tolkien uses the term "gods" of the Valar to make clearer
the difference in power between them and the Children of Ilúvatar.
I strongly suspect that, if he had ever published the Silm., he
might have deleted that word.
   Lewis's Eldila ... well, it's a bit more complex, but the
short version is (1) Each planet has its governing spirit,
or _oyarsa_; (2) each of these has a sort of miniature version
or reflection on each of the other planets; (3) the _oyarsa_ 
of Earth is, of course, Satan; (4) the mini-oyarses of Earth,
fallen with their master, fool humans into thinking that they
are the gods of mythology. In short, the old explanation that
the "gods" are demons (fallen angels) tricking humanity.

3. Friday is pretty clearly not a "little god" but God.

4. I haven't read Lafferty in a dog's age...

--

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:25:30 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <ddanehy at siebel.com>

>> at you for suggesting he was.

No, he was a Mere Christian.  But he wrote CATHOLIC FABULATION.   Which is
essentially science fiction that presumes the Catholic God really,
objectively, exists, and sort of goes on from there.

>>  angelic powers, pure and simple.

Within the constraints of CF this is the only possibility.  There is only
one God.   But the lesser angels start looking like little gods.

You will find that Lewis attributes the term "god" to his Oyarses in full
knowledge of the fact that the medaeval syncretists did exactly the same -
calling each tutelary angel a "god" and identifying it with the classical
figure.

It is really illuminating to consider Wolfe's work and in particular his
treatment of "gods" through the prism of Tolkien and Lewis

Sunday, surely?     Well, maybe you are right there.

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:39:01 +0000

> >> 1. Lewis wasn't a Catholic and would have been very annoyed at you 
> >> for suggesting he was.
> 
> No, he was a Mere Christian. 

No, he was a high-church Anglican. He wrote about "mere 
Christianity" because he (correctly) regarded the "basics"
of the Christian faith as more important than the differences
between the various denominations. (In fact, he had somewhat
hostile attitudes towards Catholicism, though _not_ towards 
Catholics.)

> But he wrote CATHOLIC FABULATION.   Which is
> essentially science fiction that presumes the Catholic God 
> really, objectively, exists, and sort of goes on from there.

You here conflate the terms "Catholic" and "Christian." While
"Catholic" is a sub-set of "Christian," it does not therefore
follow that all Christian fabulation is Catholic. 

> >> 2. The Eldila and the Valar are not "local gods"; they're  angelic 
> >> powers, pure and simple.
> 
> Within the constraints of CF this is the only possibility.  
> There is only one God.   But the lesser angels start looking
> like little gods.

... if little gods is what you are inclined to see, yes. I
believe that you are viewing these Christian fabulists through
the spectacles of your own inclinations, whatever those may
be.

> You will find that Lewis attributes the term "god" to his 
> Oyarses in full knowledge of the fact that the medaeval 
> syncretists did exactly the same - calling each tutelary 
> angel a "god" and identifying it with the classical figure.

Mmm. I don't know enough about "tutelary angels" to answer
this. I am quite certain, however, that Lewis's use of the
term "gods" wrt the Oyarses was not intended to suggest that
they were gods, but that humans would take them for gods. A
niggling difference, perhaps, from where you sit; from where
Lewis sat, it would seem quite important - the difference
between harmless or even "wholesome" fabulation and heresy, 
in fact. -- note that I do not argue that your point of view
is "wrong," only that one shouldn't attribute its views and
conclusions to Lewis (Tolkien, etc.).

> It is really illuminating to consider Wolfe's work and in 
> particular his treatment of "gods" through the prism of 
> Tolkien and Lewis

With this, at least, I have no quarrel -- even agree. Wolfe
_is_ working in a kind of tradition that would include all
four of the writers you name.

> Sunday, surely?     Well, maybe you are right there.

Duuuh. Terminal brainfart. Yes, Sunday.

--Dan'l

--

---

From: Matthew Weber <mweber at library.berkeley.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:40:24 +0000

> >> at you for suggesting he was.

You could say he was a "small-c" catholic.  The Apostles' and the Nicene 
Creed (both of which are features of the Anglican Church's Morning Prayer & 
Communion services) each include a line professing belief in "the holy 
catholic church".  Obviously, he had doctrinal differences with the Church 
of Rome, but it didn't prevent him from accepting them as fellow Christians.

>objectively, exists, and sort of goes on from there.

Lewis was an Anglican, and not just because of the accident of his having 
been born in England.  There's no indication in any of his devotional or 
didactic writings that he disagreed with any of the teachings of the C. of E.

MERE CHRISTIANITY should be understood, not as an explication of the 
totality of Lewis' beliefs and sympathies, but--as the title states--the 
"bottom line" of Christian belief and practice; i.e., what all Christian 
sects, denominations, and divisions hold in common despite their doctrinal 
and practical differences.  I don't have a copy handy, but I'm fairly sure 
it was intended as a primer for non-Christians, or non-practicing Christians.

Matthew Weber
Curatorial Assistant
Music Library
University of California, Berkeley

Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him.
         The Holy Bible (The Old Testament):  _The Book of Job_, chapter 
13, verse 15

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:52:11 +0000

> Lewis was an Anglican, and not just because of the accident 
> of his having been born in England.  

Northern Ireland, actually...

> There's no indication in any of his devotional or 

Well, there's a quibble, and one that shows him to be very
High Church indeed: in "Letters to Malcolm" he indicates,
if not a belief, at least a _desire_ to believe, in Purgatory.

(who is beginning to think he knows far more about CSL than he should)

--

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:03:14 +0000

---- Original Message -----
To: <urth at urth.net>

this. I am quite certain, however, that Lewis's use of the
term "gods" wrt the Oyarses was not intended to suggest that
they were gods, but that humans would take them for gods.

I should explain that reading C S Lewis's books converted me to Christianity
when I was young (but I got better) , and I was an obsessive fan of Lewis,
Tolkien and the Inklings for years.

I think, however, that you are fearing a word here.

When Lewis wrote (at the triumphant climax of PERELANDRA) that his hero was
no longer going to regard Malacandra and Perelandra as eldilia, but as "Mars
and Venus" I believe he fully understood everything that you are worried
about and more.

I invite you to reread that bit.

Whether or not this is heresy does not concern me, much.   I am an
Asatruistic pagan nowadays :).

What I am trying to explain by the coinage "Catholic Fabulation" is that
there is a tradition of storytelling that runs along these lines.

It includes the Inklings' work (Williams too) but does NOT  include such
unambiguously religious works  as, for example,  A CANTICLE FOR LEIBOWIZT

The difference lies in the treatment of the supernatural.

CF embraces the supernatural and **enables** it:

It occurs in the stories, but in drag, in disguise.

The keynote is that angels or demons or gods pop up and they pretend to be
aliens.  God pops up, but he pretends to be The Increate or The Emperor Over
The Sea.

I believe Wolfe is writing WITHIN that tradition.

I furthur believe it goes back a long way - and that it is a very European
tradition, enforced by the historical fact that the ancient giants and gods
and fairies had to be fitted into a dominating Semitic/Christian framework.

It occurs in many Arthurian romances, for example, where the ancient Celtic
legends have to be jammed ino the framework of Christian explanation:  and
so in Beowulf.

Tolkien reflexed back on this - he was in love with "The Northern Thing"
like Lewis, but he had to fit it within "The Southermn Thing" -
Christianity - as a worldview.      Wolfe is doing the same thing and may be
taking both Tolkien and Lewis as mentors.

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:43:36 +0000

> I should explain that reading C S Lewis's books converted me 
> to Christianity when I was young (but I got better) , and I 
> was an obsessive fan of Lewis, Tolkien and the Inklings for years.

Those books, and especially "Mere Christianity," preserved me in 
Christian faith at a time when I was particularly prone to falling
off. I find them far less, ah, persuasive now, but they served
their purpose at the time.

> I think, however, that you are fearing a word here.

Perhaps. I think, rather, that I am attempting to use words 
clearly. Words tend to get in between us and "reality," but 
we can minimize that by using them carefully (and remembering
not to let them use us).

> When Lewis wrote (at the triumphant climax of PERELANDRA) 
> that his hero was no longer going to regard Malacandra and 
> Perelandra as eldilia, but as "Mars and Venus" I believe he 
> fully understood everything that you are worried about and more.
> 

Well, I agree with what you say, and while I disagree with
your interpretation of it, I don't think the list at large
probably cares very much, so I'll drop it at this point.

> Whether or not this is heresy does not concern me, much. 

This was not my point; nor do I (as a practicing Catholic)
necessarily consider it heresy. My point was that _Lewis_,
who was far more conservative than I, would have considered
it heresy, and so a liberal dose of caution is indicated 
prior to attributing such a view to him.

> I am an Asatruistic pagan nowadays :).

And I don't even know what that means. Neither the dictionary
nor Google helped me any.

> What I am trying to explain by the coinage "Catholic 
> Fabulation" is that there is a tradition of storytelling that 
> runs along these lines.
> 
> It includes the Inklings' work (Williams too) but does NOT  
> include such unambiguously religious works  as, for example,  
> A CANTICLE FOR LEIBOWIZT

I suppose I'm quibbling about the word "Catholic" because
it seems confining - you point out Williams, and I agree;
I might add Tim Powers and James Blaylock as writers who 
have worked in this tradition. Possibly Connie Willis, but
that may be pushing your intent. 

And the point of my quibble is that the word "Catholic" is
so strongly associated, in most peoples' minds, with the
Roman Catholic church that -- well, that I didn't even feel
a need to say "Roman" when I identified my own denominational
association above. It seems better to use the word (mere) 
Christian to avoid confusion - for, again, clarity.

> The keynote is that angels or demons or gods pop up and they 
> pretend to be aliens.  God pops up, but he pretends to be The 
> Increate or The Emperor Over The Sea.
> 

Nothing here I'd even begin to disagree with. You've identified
the elements of a tradition that (as you say) goes back a long
way. However, this ...

> I furthur believe it goes back a long way - and that it is a 
> very European tradition, enforced by the historical fact that 
> the ancient giants and gods and fairies had to be fitted into 
> a dominating Semitic/Christian framework.

while related, seems to be almost the reverse process: where 
CF (I like the initials, they're usefully ambiguous 8*) ) 
disguises Christian entities as "naturalistic" entities -- 
eg, angels as aliens -- the older syncretism disguised non-
Christian entities as Christian entities -- e.g, a goddess
as St. Brigid.

> It occurs in many Arthurian romances, for example, where the 
> ancient Celtic legends have to be jammed ino the framework of 
> Christian explanation:  and so in Beowulf.

I think what's going on in Beowulf is a bit more complex --
if you've read "The Monsters and the Critics?" To do with
the poetic expression of a transitional period when the 
culture had nominally adopted Christianity but was still 
largely pagan in outlook, language, and traditions.

> Tolkien reflexed back on this - he was in love with "The 
> Northern Thing" like Lewis, but he had to fit it within "The 
> Southermn Thing" - Christianity - as a worldview.      Wolfe
> is doing the same thing and may be taking both Tolkien and
> Lewis as mentors.

Again, I should not be the least surprised. He could do
far worse.

--

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:39:09 +0000

OK.  Do you have a better term than "Catholic fabulation?"  It seems that
would resolve our remaining differences.

----- Original Message -----

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:52:45 +0000

> OK.  Do you have a better term than "Catholic fabulation?"  
> It seems that would resolve our remaining differences.

I guess I don't understand why "Christian Fabulation" won't
do here, which is why I like the idea of just calling it "CF"
and leaving the "C" semi-ambiguous. Though "CatFab" has a nice
ring to it.

Your use of the word Catholic seems to stem from the 
proposition that "Catholicism came from the imposition of 
a male-centered Semitic religion on top of a dyarchical 
male/female European pantheon." While this is accurate enough
from one point of view, it seems to me that, at the time and 
in the place where this occurred, the words "Catholic" and
"Christian" were essentially synonymous ... and since the
Orthodox church inherits much of the same thing, the primary
function of saying "Catholic" here would be to exclude
"Protestant" Christianity. Yet members of Protestant sects
definitely seem to write this sort of thing ... 

I also understand that you want a word which would exclude,
say, A CANTICLE FOR LIEBOWITZ. (H'mmm ... would you include
A CASE OF CONSCIENCE, or HYPERION?) It seems to me that the
word "fabulation" does that fairly effectively. Or perhaps
"Christian Mythopoieic Fantasy," which would be accurate but
ugly ...

--

---

From: Matthew Weber <mweber at library.berkeley.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:02:57 +0000

At 11:52 AM 1/17/03 -0700, Dan'l wrote:

>male/female European pantheon."

Dan'l, I think I'm getting your posts before Andy's, so excuse me for 
reacting to him through you.

Anyway, what exactly is this "dyarchical male/female European 
pantheon"?  Are we talking about the Horned God & Lady thing?  I thought it 
had been pretty well established that the so-called Old Religion was mostly 
invented by Gerald Gardner.  There were multitudes of local practices and 
beliefs across the whole of Europe, and lots of them were similar, but 
Wotan is not Zeus is not Lud.

Oh, and to answer your question, Asatru is a contemporary revival of Old 
Norse pre-Christian religion.

Matthew Weber
Curatorial Assistant
Music Library

--

---

From: Matthew Weber <mweber at library.berkeley.edu>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 02:54:12 +0000

>Northern Ireland, actually...

Coorect, of course.

>if not a belief, at least a _desire_ to believe, in Purgatory.

Although it's true that the 39 Articles pooh-pooh Purgatory, it's 
important to remember that they were written by Puritans.  Modern 
Anglo-Catholic practice and belief tramples all over them.

I think Lewis' A-C tendencies have been overstated by the Hooper wing 
of Lewisites, just as the Wheaton College wing has overstated his 
evangelical leanings.  The reality of Lewis is more complex than 
either (see A. N. Wilson's biography for a fairly balanced portrayal).

Matt

To many people Victorian wit and humor is summed up by Punch, whose 
every joke is supposed to end with "Collapse of Stout Party", though 
this phrase tends to be as elusive as "Elementary, my dear Watson" in 
the Sherlock Holmes sagas.
	R. Pearsall, Collapse of Stout Party (1975), Introduction

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 15:39:03 +0000

> and his own opinion that THERE ARE DOORS is his best book?

I can't comment on the Graves angle.  But my reading of the book, for what
it's worth, is that it takes off from a certain view of gender relations
which around that time, iirc, had been popularized by George Gilder's book
SEXUAL SUICIDE, though I doubt it originated with him.  As I understand it
(not having read Gilder), this view asserts that men are naturally predatory
and violent, and that it is women who keep civilization going by luring men
into going against their nature and becoming husbands and fathers.  (Gilder
went on to say that the "bait" with which women lured men was the role of
patriarchal superiority in the home, and hence feminism would destroy
civilization by removing the incentive for men to become family men; but I
don't see this part as being reflected in TAD.)  Whether or not Wolfe
believes this, it seems to me that in TAD he is dramatizing this view by
pushing it to the extreme.  In Otherworld, the survival of humanity itself
depends upon women persuading men to give up, not their unbridled
masculinity, but their very lives.  This persuasion is what North is
rebelling against: the male conspirators in the play North's group puts on
have apparently taken vows of celibacy.  If North were to succeed, the
result would not be patriarchy but extinction; so it's not inconsistent of
Wolfe to prefer the Goddess over North.

--Adam

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:03:23 +0000

> transplant to TAD's universe of Kafka's Klamm.

Klamm is a transplant to TAD's universe of Kafka's Klamm, although older.
TAD's Klamm is "a crag-faced old man with long, pointed mustaches dyed jet
black and cheeks pulled flaccidly downward by the weight of years." (96)  In
THE CASTLE, Klamm's "face was still smooth, but his cheeks were already
somewhat flabby with age.  His black moustache had long points..." (Chap. 3,
Muir translation)

While I don't understand the connection between TAD and THE CASTLE, I have
no doubt that the explanation for Klamm's calling Green Herr Kay lies there.

--Adam

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:03:26 +0000

> I believe Wolfe is writing WITHIN that tradition.

I confess that I'm not quite clear on this.  Wolfe's fiction is full of gods
and goddesses explicitly identified as such.  And in TBOTNS, God is no more
"pretending" to be the Increate than Earth is pretending to be Urth: "the
Increate" is how the Commonwealth refers to God.  As for cases like Tzadkiel
and the Mother, here it's a matter of interpretation whether they're gods
and angels pretending to be aliens, or aliens pretending to be gods and
aliens.  I don't remember UotNS too well, but in the case of the Mother my
money would be on the latter.

Lafferty, who you mentioned in an earlier post, seems to fit even less well,
though I haven't read him in a long time either.  While many of his
characters are extraordinary in various ways, I'd say that they are nearly
all clearly human (even when they're aliens or ktestic machines).  The only
gods I can recall offhand in his works are Snuffles (from the story of the
same name) and Anteros (from "Continued on Next Rock").

I don't know Lewis or Tolkien well enough to comment.  But in general, is
there anything specifically "Christian" about the use of gods in fantasy?
It seems to me to be virtually ubiquitous, from Dunsany (where it's clearly
pagan in inspiration) to Gaiman's "Sandman" series to the run-off-the-mill
ersatz-Tolkien trilogy.

--Adam

--

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:12:38 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Stephanides" <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
To: <urth at urth.net>

>  As for cases like Tzadkiel
> aliens.

The whole point of Catholic Fabulation is this.

"One thinks in one mood, for example, of fairies, elves and goblins - and in
quite another of Mr Wells' Selenites or his  Martians.  But whenever one is
forced to recognise a creature in either class as *real*, the distinction
becomes blurred.   And in the case of the eldils, it vanishes altogether .
.."

C S Lewis, quoted very inaccurately, from PERELANDRA

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:51:45 +0000

on 1/14/03 3:53 PM, Michael Andre-Driussi at mantis at siriusfiction.com wrote:

> like insects, society is divided into the
> here)

Could you elaborate?  It's been a long time since I've read the novel, but I
don't recall any indications of this.

--Adam

--