(urth) Abaia and the undines

[Son of Witz]

On Dec 5, 2008, at 10:35 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:

>> Does anyone thing a Believer in Christ would write a story this  
>> full of Christian
>> symbolism just to yank the rug out from under you and say "sucker,  
>> you're faith is all a lie"?
>
> There's an interview where Wolfe says that he was obviously  
> concerned with "working out" some of his beliefs as a Catholic. But  
> I don't see why "working out" can't mean giving a fictional account  
> of, say, a monstrous version of what you believe in order to clarify  
> it by contrast. The alzabo/eucharist is a case in point: there we're  
> given an incredibly ambiguous version of communion which is an  
> ongoing "what if" take on communion throughout the whole book: "what  
> if" it were literally becoming another (non-divine) person? In that  
> case, Severian achieves a union with Thecla he never could  
> otherwise, but it's also something he struggles with throughout the  
> books, suffering identity crises, revulsion at the corruption of  
> traditional "union" (as well as simple disgust towards cannibalism),  
> etc. In fact, to me, so much of the emotional impact of Severian's  
> Thecla-ness comes as a result of its being a corruption of a more  
> holy kind of communion. There's a
> beautiful tragedy inherent in it.
>
> So why couldn't New Sun be a story of a corrupted second coming? Why  
> couldn't it be a story about all the ugliness inherent when  
> ultimately worldly, material  powers try to act out a sacred myth?  
> To me, that makes Severian the Sleeper seem particularly compelling:  
> the Conciliator's true mediation is still sleeping, waiting for  
> further and better expressions/incarnations in later times, other  
> words, etc. After all...didn't "Wolfe" find this "manuscript" as if  
> it was written in our "far" past. Maybe telling a story now about a  
> Christ figure that didn't live up to Christ makes the real Christ  
> all the more wonderful?
>
> Maybe. I'm not convinced that any of that's what IS going on, but I  
> think it's certainly a reasonable option.
>
> Just because Wolfe professes his faith openly doesn't restrict his  
> freedom to write imaginative fiction that, in the end, may not line  
> up with doctrine. In fact, as someone who apparently seems like an  
> very thoughtful and inquisitive believer, I wouldn't be surprised if  
> much of his fiction is as much exploratory as it is orthodox.


I agree, and it is a valid reading, and to not acknowledge that the  
text suggests it is to miss the boat to some degree.
but on the flip side, to not acknowledge the potential that it could  
all be the workings of the Increate, and that the text supports that  
reading, is to also miss the boat.

One of the key things here is doubt.
and neither BotNS, or say, the Bible, prove anything beyond a doubt.
I think what Wolfe has done with the ambiguity here is key.  What we  
make of this mythical territory is personal to our souls and psyche.

I think we can all probably agree that Wolfe has written a messianic  
tale using warped reflections of solar deity myths - such as Christ's  
and including others- to explore the nature of Death and Resurrection  
and mankinds's relationship to 'higher' powers.

He's given us a question, not an answer, which is why we're here 20  
odd years after the fact still arguing over these basic facets of the  
work.

Realizing this will help me make my own fiction more interesting.  
Instead of trying to answer anything, I'll just ask questions and not  
try to know the answers myself.  Its much more fertile territory this  
way.  It's focusing my attention on the fact that these are the sorts  
of stories that stick with me, the ones where you could argue the  
meaning many ways.  A recent film example of this would be Pan's  
Labyrinth.  Whether you see the ending as positive or negative is up  
to you. the film provides enough fodder for either (and other) takes.   
Yet, again, to deny that either view is valid is to not see the whole  
picture very well.