Father Inire Theory

Jeff Wilson · 07 Dec 2010, 04:44 · from 2010-December.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: jwilson at io.com (Jeff Wilson)
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 22:44:46 -0600
Subject: (urth) Father Inire Theory
In-Reply-To: <SNT123-W55857571D947390AB41DE6CF2B0 at phx.gbl>
References: <SNT123-W55857571D947390AB41DE6CF2B0 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4CFDBBBE.5030100 at io.com>

On 12/6/2010 6:34 AM, Lee Berman wrote:
>
>
>> Jeff Wilson: It is very Wolfean for Typhon to be patterned after Alexander. But saying that a similar
>> likeness of Tzadkiel and Inire to Alexadner's gods makes it believable that Inirie is his own legion of
>> shape shifters who are never seen to change shape is as useful as saying it is believable that Wolfe implies
>> that Alexander was also a space tyrant, just one that was never seen to employ spaceships.
>
> I see clues that Inire is patterned after Pan who could create his own legion of helpers. Why is this so
> much less plausible than a character patterned after Alexander? Are you suggesting WOlfe would never put
> a pagan god into his stories?

It's less plausible because Inire himself is already a created helper of 
a higher power, intentionally less capable than his master(s) so that 
they can spread their influence wider.

> "as useful" to whom? Do you mean useful to yourself or are you speaking for all Wolfe readers?

Useful to anyone who takes up Wolfe's challenge to solve the puzzles in 
his stories.

>
> I continue to find the adjective "believeable" an odd choice for a work of fiction. We may have different
> levels of rigidity in our perception of the real world. But it is my opinion that our perceptions of fiction
> are best kept fluid and flexible.

I was not referring to the fictional content but to the process of the 
author.

> We never see Tzadkiel change shape either (only size). Do you have any skepticism that the succession of
> creatures that Severian sees are all Tzadkiel? If you are 100% skeptical of various versions of Inire by
> the absence of being shown the process, I'd think you'd be at least 50% skeptical of Tzadkiel's versions.
> I am curious as to your level of doubt regarding Inhumi shapeshifting. Also for Abaia, The Mother (on Blue)
> and Great Scylla. 		 	   		

LS and SS will have to wait for after graduation.

Tzadkiel's shapeshifting is necessary to explain Tzadkiel's partition of 
the fingerling, of the parallel existence of the tinkerbell, and of 
Tzadkiel's copping to have been the apport and Zak with demonstrated 
knowledge of happenings from their viewpoint.  Inire's alleged 
shape-shifting and duplication is not required to explain any of the 
puzzling passages in the Book, there are other explanations just as good 
and less improbable.

-- 
Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com
Computational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana
< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >

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