Subject: (urth) A very interesting interview indeed

From: Adam Thornton <adam at io.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 19:36:38 +0000

I was reading the recently-posted Larry McCaffery interview, in which  
the mystery of 5HC is "given away" (http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/ 
interviews/wolfe46interview.htm)

There's the following quotation in it too:

"The fact that you stand there and let someone hit you in the face  
doesn't do anything to eliminate violence (it may even contribute to  
further violence) ?which is one of the underlying themes in The Book  
of the New Sun."

That seems a very explicit repudiation of one of the more memorable  
passages in a book that's generally considered to be a pretty huge  
influence on Wolfe's work generally and BotNS in particular.

Adam

---

From: Matthew King <automatthew at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 20:28:18 +0000

> influence on Wolfe's work generally and BotNS in particular.

I take this to be a reference to Matthew 5:39 (and parallel  
passages), the famous "turn the other cheek" instruction.

Wolfe's statement above could be seen as a repudiation of Mt 5:39, if  
you assume that the scope of the instruction is universal, that it  
applies to all men at all times.  I think this is a dangerous  
assumption to make about a passage in a document that was written for  
a specific and narrow group of men.  GW has shown in his work a deep  
consideration for narrative context, and I think it unlikely that he  
would give the New Testament documents any less thought.

I've been reading Malina and Rohrbaugh's _Social-Science Commentary  
on the Synoptics_ lately, in which they apply the sociological  
research of the Context Group to Matthew, Mark, and Luke.  Valuable  
reading, though I don't find it wholly convincing.  Here's a bit of  
their take on Matthew 5:39

---
What the scenes described in these antitheses offer is a way out of  
the honor-shame impasse that requires taking satisfaction. . . .  
[They] all describe having one's entitlements infringed on in a  
humiliating way:  being struck on the right cheek by a backhand slap  
is an insult, as humiliating as being successfully sued in court or  
being forced to carry military gear for a mile.  All such humiliating  
behavior required defense of one's honor.  The advice given is to put  
up with the dishonor and cede what one was entitled to!  The key to  
imagining the scenarios here is to realize that all of them presume  
an audience.  In the Mediterranean world no one fights in public  
without others intervening to break it up. . . . Should someone be  
publicly insulted, the bystanders are sure to intervene.  The real  
question raised by the image here is whether an insulted person  
should seek to defend his own honor or let another person defend  
him.  Allowing others to come to one's defense enables one to be  
reconciled later with the one who dishonored and not proceed to a  
demand for satisfaction and feuding.
---

---

From: Mo Holkar <lists at ukg.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 20:34:46 +0000

At 20:36 07/09/2006, Adam wrote:
>"The fact that you stand there and let someone 
>hit you in the face  doesn't do anything to 
>eliminate violence (it may even contribute 
>to  further violence) ?which is one of the 
>underlying themes in The Book  of the New Sun."
>
>That seems a very explicit repudiation of one of 
>the more memorable  passages in a book that's 
>generally considered to be a pretty 
>huge  influence on Wolfe's work generally and BotNS in particular.

Mm, I picked up on that too. Perhaps a synthesis 
of that passage with the one about coming not in 
peace but with a sword. I guess that may be part 
of what he means when he says later in the 
interview "I am a practicing Catholic, although I 
don't think that designation would give people 
much of an idea about what my beliefs are"...

Mo

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 05:23:47 +0000

> influence on Wolfe's work generally and BotNS in particular.

Do you mean the Bible? Particularly, "turn the other cheek"?

---

From: thalassocrat at nym.hush.com <thalassocrat at nym.hush.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 11:04:37 +0000

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 05:36:38 +1000 Adam Thornton <adam at io.com> 

>influence on Wolfe's work generally and BotNS in particular.

The most striking manifestation of this to me is Sev's behavior 
when he's arrested in UOTNS. He messes up  bunch of soldiers, and 
then he kills the prison governess almost immediately upon meeting 
her. If I were a Christian, I'd find those pretty disturbing events 
in Sev's "ministry". 

I can never make up my mind whether (a) Wolfe thinks Jesus was a 
wuss & that Sev is showing how a non-wuss handles this kind of 
situation (b) it's another indication that the universe of New Sun 
isn't ours, in line with theories I've posted previously (c) Wolfe 
thinks the Bible got it wrong and that, in fact, Jesus went down 
fighting (d) some other damn thing.

---

From: Joel and Rachel Wilhelm <eleysium at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 23:47:40 +0000

The central message of the Church is that man is saved by grace from  
God - not due to moral perfection. Wolfe has deeply flawed characters  
who nevertheless are used by the Divine - not unlike Biblical  
characters (David for example). I see no contradiction.

Joel W.

---

From: Daniel D Jones <ddjones at riddlemaster.org>
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 13:22:41 +0000

> fighting (d) some other damn thing.

I think seeing Sev as a direct parallel to Jesus is a mistake.  Certainly, he 
is in some sense a Messiah figure but I think that's he's both more and less.  
More, in that there are a great many other themes and issues being addressed 
than solely a Messiah, and less in that Sev certainly isn't in any sense a 
perfect representative as Christ was supposed to be.  If you're a Christian, 
you're supposed to use Christ's actions as a model on which to base your own.  
It's become a trite phrase but that's exactly what WWJD means.  I don't think 
Wolfe ever intended anyone to ask WWSD, so trying to draw critiques of 
Christ's actions from Sev's actions is, I think, missing the mark.