Boatman as Inire

Lee Berman · 08 Aug 2010, 03:14 · from 2010-August.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: severiansola at hotmail.com (Lee Berman)
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:14:16 -0400
Subject: (urth) Boatman as Inire
Message-ID: <SNT123-W345A40774C588A6556AE83CF930 at phx.gbl>

>Roy C. Lackey: 
>This is what I meant about some Grand Unified Theory to which many of your
>suppositions are subordinate.

Roy, I think you've hit the nail on the head! (hammer pun, intended, heh, heh)
Perhaps before I've suggested that solving the puzzle(s) of BotNS feels like 
solving a jigsaw puzzle. Perhaps you agree or perhaps not. But I think most would
agree that solving a jigsaw involves two complementary skills: fitting small pieces
together and being aware of the big picture which evolves.

Now, I think you've made it clear that in regards to BotNS, you consider fitting
the small pieces together perfectly as most important. The big picture perhaps not
so important. I've no objection to your approach and I appreciate any insight you might
offer from it.

For me, the opposite is true. Unlike a jigsaw puzzle, we are not dealing with real,
3-dimensional objects which need to be fitted together perfectly. The clues and hints
of BotNS are all symbolic. Mental constructs. Different in every person's head 
(including Gene Wolfe's) and thus impossible to fit together seamlessly,
like jigsaw pieces.

I think the big picture might be more achievable than spending a lifetime trying for a 
perfect fit of the small bits. So, absolutely, I do feel that once you've assembled the 
small bits of BotNS into a rough outline, then the big picture becomes the dominant puzzle 
solving strategy to which the remaining loose, small bits become subordinate.

Of the published authors on the topic that I've read,  I've noticed a distinct lack of 
Grand Unified Theory attempts, this includes Clute, Andre-Driussi and Borski. I do 
applaud Peter Wright's attempt at it though his seems to be filtered through his own
atheistic, socialist views. I am more interested in Gene Wolfe's views which I don't
think are atheistic or socialist. So, my own feeble attempts at understanding Gene Wolfe
are documented here. I (of course) have no interest in publishing.

Attempts to steer me away from mistakes are appreciated. But attempts to dissuade me
from even making attempts will continue to have little impact. Nothing would please
me more than for someone to compose a Grand Unified Theory which is far better than mine.
Perhaps my crappy attempts will inspire someone more gifted to try.

I must say that I don't find compelling, the assertion that BotNS is just a simple story 
about some guy who became king and his vizier who helped him fix the sun. I need reasons
Gene Wolfe used the names Typhon, Arioch, Inire, Mandragora, Talos etc. etc. My current 
theory does give them. But better answers will always be appreciated.

Take John Watkins' recent attempt at linking Inire's name to Fenrir. I like the wolf(e) 
reference and connection to Gyoll, urth, skuld, etc. I like the conceptual connection to 
Moses and Mt Nebo. I don't like the anagram issue nor the diversion from Latin names. So 
I see pluses and minuses to it.

I'm not seeing enough connections to the rest of the story for it to replace my 
own theory yet. Perhaps it will in time. But I'm certainly not going to deride the guy for 
trying or nag him over the fact that we never actually see Father Inire chained to a rock 
in the text or stuff like that. I'd like to see where he eventually goes with it.

Paradise Lost and Lucifer? Lordy, where does that come from? Not me, anyway. Aside from
Arioch I think the most likely fallen angel alluded is Azazel who, along with his peacock
wings and other fallen angel stuff, was highly into getting human women to do 
beautification techniques. I love seeing the possibility that whole khaibit/Jolenta/Thecla's 
belladonna eyes/Merryn's facelift aspect of the BotNS is grounded in our earthly mythology.

But, anyone who has read my posts in recent months has seen me mention, along with Azazel,
Hermes, Hephaestus, Pan/Faunus, Typhon-Set, Prometheus, Pazuzu, Jurupari, monkey gods Hanuman 
and Sun Wukong, etc. as possible contributors to the character of Father Inire and other 
aliens on Urth. I really enjoy comparative mythology and I suspect Gene Wolfe does also. Still 
I find it quite obvious that he is not only drawing from mythic influences but creating his own 
art, not simply retelling old stories in disguise.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net