(urth) What's So Great About Ushas

[b sharp]

Paul B, I'm not sure if your last post clarified things for me. I don't begrudge you
dodging my nosy question about your faith but I am still not sure if you
are saying you don't think Gene Wolfe intended Hierogrammates to be angels or if
it is your opinion they are not a good representation of what angels should be like.

John Watkins explicitly states he intends to present arguments for Gene Wolfe's intentions 
and gives a list of pros and cons. I think there is a glaring omission in the list of pros and a
mistake in the list of cons which is continually repeated in this discussion.

Missing in the list of pros is that the only Hierogrammate we see (Apheta and Venant and 
the other larvae are named Hierarchs) is named "Tzadkiel". This name, like Michael or 
Gabriel IS the name of a judeo-christian arch-angel.  I don't see how much less 
circumstantial the evidence could be. I suppose Wolfe could have called them "Angels" 
all through the text instead of Hierogrammates but I can't think he'd ever stoop to hitting
his readers over the head with such a blunt instrument as that. The name Tzadkiel seems
already more obvious than his usual.

The mistake in the list of cons is to say that the Hierogrammates cannot be angels or connected 
to God because they engage in the "morally dubious, if not outright evil" behavior such as 
genocide (I presume). How can it be ignored that God and angels commit genocide left and right in the 
Bible? The Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the 10th Plague, the Red Sea on the Egyptian army, 
Jericho, the Midianites, the Amorites, the Phillistines, the list goes on and on. How can God and
angels be re-defined as being incapable of genocide when that's one of the main things they do?

I think only a secular humanist could redefine them as gentle caretakers of precious human life
(which is why it would be more interesting if Paul B was Christian or Jewish).  I see no evidence
that Gene Wolfe is a secular humanist and I find it really hard to conceive that he meant 
Hierogrammates to represent anything but angels.  They look like angels, they act like angels 
they are named like angels, they live in a higher, heavenly plane like angels.....
ah well. Perhaps it's just me that sees it.

-bsharp




>I don't know about Paul, but I'd be more interested if we focus on the
question of whether the Hierogrammates are intended to be (unfallen) angels
by Gene Wolfe.  Without my books at hand, the argument for this appears to
be:

1)  "Holy" is part of their name.

2)  Tzadkiel has a winged form that Severian identifies as an angel.

3)  Severian thinks Hierogrammates serve the Increate.

4)  Wolfe referred to Tzadkiel as an "angel" in an interview.

The argument against the Hierogrammates being angels, as I understand it, is

1)  Catholic theology posits that angels are perfectly moral, but the
Hierogrammates frequently engage in morally dubious if not outright evil
behavior.

2)  Hierogrammates, unlike angels, are not direct creations of God.

3)  Most of the arguments that Hierogrammates are angels are hearsay.

I think these are both colorable arguments, but I come down on the "not"
side.  The Hierogrammates are obviously *spoken of *as angels, but they are
just as obviously not two things that are *essential *to the meaning of the
word "angel.">




_________________________________________________________________
Keep your kids safer online with Windows Live Family Safety.
http://www.windowslive.com/family_safety/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_family_safety_072008