(urth) the Epitome

[Iorwerth Thomas]

>From: "Chris" <rasputin_ at hotmail.com>

>>Finally, if Wolfe didn't intend the destruction of Urth and the birth of
>>Ushas to be, in a religious sense, a good thing, why did he write it that
>>way? Why write it at all?
>>
>>-Roy
>
>Do authors intend every event they write about to be interpreted as a good 
>thing? Well, that's not quite what I mean. How about: does Wolfe present it 
>to us as a good thing, or is it *Severian* who presents it to us as a good 
>thing? Again I think this is a shortcut to avoid rationally examining our 
>reasons for thinking of the birth of Ushas to be a good thing. 
>Unquestioningly accepting the value judgments of the narrator does not 
>provide us with solid ground for an interpretation.
>

Particularly if Wolfe intends (in some ways) to provide a critical analysis 
of (from a Christian perspective) of both the adequacies and inadequacies of 
an Old Testament approach to things.  It'd thus be appropriate for there to 
be Christ imagery surrounding Severian, as in some ways he's an Old 
Testament prophetic figure, and thus (in some Christian views, I think) 
prefigures - or in this case, maybe postfigures him (off the cuff, I think 
Elijah or Elisha may be good analogues - despite the lack of bears eating 
unruly children in the narrative[1] - though I'll have to think about that, 
or possibly Joshua[2]).

In some sense, the whole thing could be an issuse of Severian mistaking a 
renewed Earth for the Kindom of God.  Or something.

The Long Sun/Short Sun books may be of some relevance to this - I'll have to 
reread the latter and finish reading the former, and think on that.  If this 
tentative outline of preliminary possible theory survives the first round of 
criticism, of course... :)

Iorwerth

[1] In some ways a pity.  I like bears, and think they should always be well 
fed.

[2] In the book of Joshua, the attainment of the Promised Land is achieved 
via genocide.  Not the best start for a nation.