Subject: (urth) Yes he is! No he isn't! Yes he is...

From: Nigel Price <nigel.a.price at virgin.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 15:29:06 +0000

Also Sprach Zibethicus:

>>Nothwithstanding this, I think that my
>>point about retaining a cautious distinction
>>between theological and fictional intentions
>>is still, possibly, a partially valid one.

I've always been fascinated by the perplexing business of what Wolfe
actually believes and what he puts into his stories simply because he
happens to find it interesting.

When I first encountered his books and before I knew anything about Wolfe
the man, I remember thinking, "Gosh, I wonder whether the person who wrote
this is a Christian?" Looking at the evidence as I read first TBotNS and
then FLF and various other volumes, I was alternately going to myself, "Yes,
he must be!" and "No! He can't be!"

I know a little more about Wolfe now, but I still don't think I've got to
the bottom of the matter. It's complicated. He genuinely seems to like
playing about with odd theological ideas that he's come across, teasing out
their implications and extrapolating them very much in the way that more
traditional SF authors treat speculative scientific and technological ideas.
As a typically uptight and repressed Protestant Evangelical, Wolfe's
dabbling with speculative philosophical and theological ideas makes my
(admittedly scant) hair stand on end. =:O)> Of course, just because Wolfe
puts an idea in one of his stories doesn't necessarily mean that he thinks
that it's true.

But then again, he just might. By his own account, Wolfe is not entirely
orthodox in his Catholicism. I know about some of his individual quirks and
eccentricities, but by no means all. Contributors to this list sometimes
say, "Wolfe is a Catholic and therefore he believes such and such," or
"Wolfe is a Christian and therefore believes this thing and that." When I
read such assertions, I'm usually sitting there mumbling, "Maybe," and
"Possibly!"

For the record, my guess is that "Westwind" and "The Detective of Dreams"
are among the most explicit fictional expressions of Wolfe's personal faith.
But I could be wrong...

Nigel

--

---

From: James Jordan <jbjordan4 at cox.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:30:30 +0000

At 09:29 AM 1/19/2003, you wrote:

>By his own account, Wolfe is not entirely

Well, since my interview and conversations around that time centered on 
Wolfe's religious beliefs, I can chime in a bit. Wolfe sees himself as a 
thoroughly orthodox RC, but with a bit more thrown in. He has said things 
in interviews like, "I'm an RC, but don't think you know what that means" 
-- which is certainly true enough these days. It does not mean "I'm RC, but 
on a quasi-heretical fringe." It just means most people don't really know 
much about RC.
         I think he's a kind of post-Vatican II conservative. That is, not 
a reactionary, but not a liberal at all either. He's happy to say that 
protestants like you and me are true brothers, not hellbound apostates. And 
he holds to theistic evolution, of a Lamarkian sort. He's read Aquinas, but 
I think the main religious influences on him are probably C.S.Lewis and 
Chesterton. He's a fan of both, and claims to have read everything by them. 
That's pretty "mainstream Christian."
         "Westwind" and "Detective" often come up on short lists of his 
personal favorites. And they're very orthodox.
         Where Wolfe might be "off" from Catholicism, in general, would be 
in secondary areas, such as his belief in the reality of ghosts. But when 
he writes a story about Lilith as Adam's first wife, it's pure fiction. 
Wolfe's Catholicism lets him toy with a (created) neoplatonic universe, as 
in the Urth cycles, but as a Calvinist I can also toy with that worldview 
in fiction also. How much such toying reflections what Wolfe actually 
thinks might be so is another question.
         But I don't think Wolfe strays far from the tradition in his 
personal beliefs.
         FWIW.

Nutria

--

---

From: Ryan Thistlethwaite <shintemaster at hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:47:58 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nigel Price" <nigel.a.price at virgin.net>
To: <urth at urth.net>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 2:29 AM
Subject: (urth) Yes he is! No he isn't! Yes he is...

> are among the most explicit fictional expressions of Wolfe's personal
faith.

Not really a rivetting expose of a post I'm throwing in, but I felt a good
"Hear, Hear!" was due for Nigel's post.
Maybe you could say that the sum of the parts equals the whole, but the
whole does not necessarily equal the sum of the parts.
I have also been of the mind for a long time that an artist's(read:
person's) work is not necessarily the living embodiment of their beliefs and
thoughts... except in a round-a-bout philosophical way. "It's his so it must
represent his thoughts even if not intended...."
Sometimes we say things we regret. Sometimes we write things we don't
believe. Sometimes we don't know what we believe. Sometimes we need 100 more
words to finish a story, ANY 100. Sometimes something looks pretty so we use
it.
A bit vague I guess, but the point I'm trying to make as regards to Nigel's
post is that the membership in an organisation of any type does not mean we
agree or even think about the Dogma of that organisation. How many of you
passionately agree with everything your company's employee handbook has to
say... Oh look, 2 CEO's....

Peace

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 23:25:48 +0000

Ryan writes ...

> membership in an organisation of any type does not mean we 
> agree or even think about the Dogma of that organisation. How 
> many of you passionately agree with everything your company's 
> employee handbook has to say... Oh look, 2 CEO's....

It seems to me that membership in an organization and belief
in a religious faith are two quite different things. Obviously
it is possible to be a Catholic and not believe in each and 
every dogma of the Catholic church -- indeed, it's obvious
enough that there's a name for it: "Cafeteria Catholics," those
who take the meat and potatoes and dessert but not the yucchy
vegetables, as it were. "I'll have some of that and some of that,
but none of _that_ please." Note that the term is considered
disparaging within Catholic culture.

On the other hand, and this is the real point, what someone
believes, deep down, will definitely have a powerful influence
on their decision-making process -- including, but not limited
to, their creative decisions. Those odd hundred words needed
to finish the story -- well, assuming that Wolfe managed to
get himself into a position where he needed to fill out a story
by a hundred words, I think we can feel pretty certain he
_wouldn't_ do it by adding a kung-fu scene where Satan opens
a can of whup-ass on Jesus. If you see what I mean.

--

---

From: Alex David Groce <alex_groce at forlesen.modck.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:31:22 +0000

Ryan Thistlethwaite wrote:

> A bit vague I guess, but the point I'm trying to make as regards to
> Nigel's post is that the membership in an organisation of any type
> does not mean we agree or even think about the Dogma of that
> organisation. How many of you passionately agree with everything
> your company's employee handbook has to say... Oh look, 2 CEO's....

True, but from his fiction it seems unlikely that Wolfe has the same
relationship to the Catholic Church that most people have to their
employers.  Wolfe clearly does think about Dogma, and in temperament
seems to me unlikely to find himself comfortable with being Catholic
while disagreeing with much of Catholic dogma.  On the other hand,
orthodoxy on core points declared by the Church leaves a great deal of
room for "oddity."  Nutria's example of ghosts comes to mind--Russell
Kirk and Gene Wolfe can believe in ghosts and be quite orthodox
Catholics.  As could G. K. Chesterton.  And I suspect R. A. Lafferty
was both about as orthodox as you get and believed what most people
(and most Catholics) would call six impossible things before
breakfast.

I'm rereading SHORT SUN now, by the way, but so far I have absolutely
nothing to say to the list about it other than "I still like these
books, and I still don't understand most of the things I didn't
understand the first time."

--
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:32
--
Alex David Groce (agroce+ at cs.cmu.edu)
Ph.D. Student, Carnegie Mellon University - Computer Science Department
8112 Wean Hall (412)-268-3066
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~agroce

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:18:13 +0000

Alex David Groce wrote:
> On the other hand, orthodoxy on core points declared by the
> Church leaves a great deal of room for "oddity."  Nutria's
> example of ghosts comes to mind--Russell Kirk and Gene Wolfe
> can believe in ghosts and be quite orthodox Catholics.  As
> could G. K. Chesterton.  

[...etc...]

Yes: Chesterton once observed that -- paraphrasing from 
memory -- "Catholics agree about everything; it is only 
everything else we disagree about." A Catholic's approach
to the dogmas of the Church is generally, well, dogmatic;
however, despite what such fine minds as Jack Chick have
"proven" over and over again, that still leaves a huge 
range of play for individual opinions on a wide variety 
of topics ...

Wolfe has never, to the best of my knowledge, written
anything that so much as suggests that he is anything
but an orthodox Catholic. His approach to things like
pagan gods, in books like "Doors" and "Soldier of Foo,"
seem to me remniscent of -- and here's that C* F* thing
again -- Tolkien's approach to the Valar: not in detail,
but in the attitude of, "well, if the Universe we live
in is _thus_, what room does it leave for these beings
the ancients called 'gods?' How can I write about them,
assuming their actual existence, without denying the 
truth of the faith?" Tolkien's answer was to make the
Valar angelic beings; Wolfe seems to have answered the
question in ... other ... ways.

--