(urth) Re: Crush on trial

[Matt Tillman]

maru wrote:

> Matt Tillman wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Tony Ellis wrote:
>>
>>> In the post you're quoting from, the question was whether the mere
>>> preservation of future generations could be used to justify Severian's
>>> mass-murder *at all*. To which the answer is still "No".
>>>
>>> In the wider context, I don't see why the ability of the Urth to
>>> produce, or not to produce, a certain number of humans, should be the
>>> 'essential' question.
>>>
>>> 'Why did so many innocents have to be sacrificed in the first place?'
>>> seems a more important question to me.
>>>  
>>>
>> A question worth asking is whether the population was considered 
>> innocent.  Not by us mind you, but by the Increate.  Remember that 
>> the antedeluvian world was not innocent, and the best solution at the 
>> time was a cleansing of the global palate.  Much the same can be said 
>> of Sodom and Gomorrah, where, even today debate rages over the sin 
>> that was grounds for their destruction.  Even in this case, the sin 
>> is irrelevant to humanity, it was a sin in the eyes of God.
>
>
> In other words, is the flood of Noah the right analogy?
>
>
I don't presuppose that the analogy to *The Flood* is flawed, as it is 
certainly an obvious choice, with much the same results.  However, in 
the more cosmic sense, there are some nice parallels to Sodom and 
Gomorrah.  Remember that in that part of Genesis (which I am certainly 
not a scholar of), God destroys the sinful cities while he spares the 
rest of humanity (e.g. killing the denizens of Urth but not touching the 
rest of mankind's diaspora).  Recall also that the cities were destroyed 
with a rain of fire and brimstone, perhaps a stretch but that sort of 
sounds like a literal interpretation of "white fountain".  If someone 
could look up this verse(G 19:24) in Hebrew that would be wonderful to 
see what the original wording was prior to the butcherous translation 
into English.

Along the lines of something that might just be an absolute coincidence 
(but might not), the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah has always been used to 
condemn homosexuality, and the first century saw Philo referring to 
"servile, lawless and unseemly pederasty."  When I read that on 
Wikipedia, it caught my eye because I recalled Severian using that exact 
word in wondering what Baldanders was doing in his castle.  Wolfe used 
many obscure words, but I won't discount this as sure serendipity.

If we carry this S&G analogy one step further, Severian clearly assumes 
the role of Lot in the BotNS.  He deals with the angels in the same way 
(as agents of God/Increate) and is found to be "worthy".  While Lot is 
allowed to leave and warned never to look back, Sev is spared and is 
given hegemony over the future.

Just a thought, it would not be out of line for Wolfe to throw a curve 
ball big enough to flood the world.