Lupiverse(s)

Andrew Mason · 12 Mar 2012, 21:48 · from 2012-March.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: andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com (Andrew Mason)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:48:19 +0000
Subject: (urth) Lupiverse(s)
Message-ID: <CAM3O41LWhj9gAdvSUHz28q7v8KAJj0jA3JZuQ=fHuMH2=Ng7VA at mail.gmail.com>

Gerry Quinn said:

(much that I agree with, but...)

> We are told that it is unknown whether Urth is in a past or future iteration, or in our own:
>
> ?From that vantage point they look both forward and back, and in so looking they have discovered us. Perhaps we are no more than a race like that who shaped them. Perhaps it was we who shaped them?or our sons?or our fathers. Malrubius said he did not know, and I believe he told the truth.?

What that seems to say is that it's unknown whether Urth is in a past
or future iteration _from that in which the Hierogrammates were
formed_ - not from our own, of which (as such) Malrubius knows
nothing.

I don't think there is anything in the text that actually fixes Urth
as past or future, but the very last bit of the translator's note to
COTA, suggesting that the power of certain beings to travel in time
may really just be their power to transcend the limits of the
universe, might be taken to hint at it.

I also think there may be something in Lee's theory about the
significance of 'Urth' - as you say, it isn't necessary, as the
meaning of 'Urth' is made clear and explained in the text, but there
might also be a secondary meaning for the reader.

Another piece of evidence that may be relevant is 'The God and his
Man' - published, I think, before _New Sun_, the very first work to
mention Urth - which begins 'A long time ago, when the world was old',
suggesting that the story comes from a previous cycle.

On the other hand  I don't think coming to a later decision about
something left indeterminate in the text (especially about a universe
one is still working on) constitutes lying.

The bit about surviving centuries of futurity, and buildings _from_
that period _still_ standing in our own day, don't seem to me to make
literal sense on any reading, and I suspect a bit of humour here.

I agree that theology doesn't actually force a particular reading; and
I'm a bit puzzled by the thought that Wolfe had to arrange things a
particular way because of God's promise to Noah, which, not being a
biblical literalist, he does not need to accept as something that
actually happened at a time.

>
> Where does Dionysus fit in? ?He is just one more god or concept of god, primitive and flawed in some respects, but no less real a god. ?He can be a form of the Outsider, no more and no less than can Severian, or Silk, or Kypris, or Pas, or Jesus.

All gods, in so far as they are gods at all, are the Outsider; but not
all gods are gods to the same extent. Kypris, Quadrifons and Thyone's
son are forms of the Outsider; so is Severian (assuming he's not
Quadrifons). I don't think Pas is (at least before he becomes unified
with Silk); Echidna, Scylla and their cohorts certainly aren't.
Thelxiepeia, explicitly, isn't one yet but might become one. ?There
must be something about Dionysus in particular which fits him for this
role.

>
> Dionysus gets referred to as the son of Thyone. ?I don;t recall him actually doing anything in the story. ?i don?t even know if he was just mentioned in old stories of the Chrasmological Writings, or whether there was a Whorl Dionysus, a mate of Typhon?s who took that name.

He's said to be a son of Pas. I'm pretty sure he is a genuine Whorl god.

>I don?t believe Dionysus is of any particular importance; that is to say, if there had been no references at all, or references to some other ancient god, I don?t know how that would cause me to read the books differently.

I think he must be significant somehow. It's partly through him, I
think, that the Rajan becomes aware of the way in which gods can be
forms of the Outsider; but he could have become aware of that simply
through Kypris and Quadrifons, so he must have been added to the story
for some reason. I totally agree that the passage isn't telling us who
the Outsider really is - that's been established by lots of references
- if anything, it's telling us who Dionysus really is. But Wolfe seems
to attach importance to it for some reason. Perhaps because his
connection with wine makes him a prefiguring of Christ? It may be that
it was he who inspired Silk to use wine in the worship of the
Outsider.

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