You have the wrong creation you ninny - eschatology and genesis

Gerry Quinn · 10 Sep 2014, 17:02 · from 2014-September.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: gerry at bindweed.com (Gerry Quinn)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 18:02:58 +0100
Subject: (urth) You have the wrong creation you ninny - eschatology and
 genesis
In-Reply-To: <BLU175-W3170102A3DEC49FDC42F2FCFCF0 at phx.gbl>
References: <BLU175-W3170102A3DEC49FDC42F2FCFCF0 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <54108442.30508 at bindweed.com>

On 10/09/2014 17:04, Lee wrote:
> This is tautology. You are saying beings from another universe were 
> mentioned when beings from another universe were mentioned. It is a 
> diversion from the topic of the this thread which is whether Urth is a 
> future version of planet Earth or whether Urth is a previous universal 
> iteration of Earth. The James Jordan-Gene Wolfe quotes which inspired 
> this thread are: 

Well, you did ask what could be the purpose of introducing an iterated 
universe, and this is an in-text reason for it.

>> JJ: This universe that you set in Briah, or part of it--is that our universe?

>> GW: No. I thought of it as a long past universe. Something that we are repeating rather than something that we are....

> To me this is an explicit, detailed and unequivocal statement by Wolfe 
> that he intended Briah and Urth to be seen as a previous universe, not 
> our own universe nor our own Earth. 

I would agree, at least to the extent that he makes it clear that this 
is the sort of idea that he was considering.  I don't think it 
necessarily establishes that he intended it to be unambiguously 
determinable from the text.  I don't see anything much in the text that 
pushes us towards understanding it as a past iteration, unless you 
attempt to align it with theology or some other criterion, and determine 
that Severian's Urth is an inferior creation to ours.

> Marc has suggested this was a casual, self-ret-con of Wolfe own work 
> to pander to Protestant sensibilities and to post facto justify the 
> occurrence of a second Flood on Earth in violation of the Covenant. 
> With due respect to Marc, I find this to be an unbelievable 
> explanation of such specific and detailed words from Mr. Wolfe .

Leaving something ambiguous can achieve several functions at once. I 
certainly don't think Wolfe would ret-con it for an interview.  It 
doesn't seem impossible that he might, while writing the book, have 
thought "well, at least this iteration concept means it'll be hard for 
people to throw theological brickbats at me!"

Personally, I've always tended to the view that Urth might be a past, 
present or future iteration.  If Wolfe says it's a past iteration that's 
fine with me.

He might have chosen this to avoid contrasting the Conciliator with a 
past Incarnation.  If so, though, it seems to me he changed his mind 
between New Sun and Long Sun.  [One could postulate, of course, that New 
Sun and Long Sun are set in different iterations - they have only two 
characters in common, after all.  But that seems a stretch...]

- Gerry Quinn

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