(urth) Severian as reverse Christ (or something)

Jordon Flato jordonflato at gmail.com
Fri Nov 21 10:41:15 PST 2008


I'm a long time Lurker/first time poster, so, I'll begin with the requisite
apologies for form here.
I beg forgiveness in advance.

I can claim responsibility for unleashing SonOfWitz on this board, as I
introduced him to the books,
and am pleased to have found such an erudite companion in my enjoyment of
these masterworks.

Anyway, this is such a fascinating discussion.  I feel I have something to
add here, and hopefully
can do so in a coherent fashion.

First off, I think it's fairly safe to say that Severian IS the Conciliator,
no? I mean, Urth establishes that
without doubt in my mind.  Now, of course, that is in the historical sense.
He is the origin of the Conciliator
mythos in Severians original time (Guild years).  The myth has taken on
dimensions of its own, of course.

One important thing to think about, for me, in regards to this is that the
Conciliator is Severian after he has gone
through all of the events in BotNS and most of UotNS.  The actions and
character of the Conciliator are
a direct result of the experiences of Severian in BotNS.

Why does this matter?  Well, when it comes to this issue of whether Sev's
life is manipulated to the degree
that it's inevitable that he become the New Sun, or whether it is more a
matter of a man trying to make the choice of good
in a world gone bad, which eventually leads to him becoming the New Sun, I
don't think we need look at these two things as
incompatible.

It seems undeniable to me that there are forces working in favor and in
opposition to Severian as the New Sun, from the very
beginning.   However, Sev himself is unaware of these forces, largely, for
most of the books.  At every turn, when confroted
with a situation, he has to make his choices out of his own character.  I
don't think you can argue that his choices, or
his moral character and direction are in anyones control.  But, many of the
events he encounters are manipulations.  Many, but not all.
Did anyone engineer his meeting with Typhon?  Probably not.  Does it fit the
archytype of a Christ figure?  Certainly.  On that level,
one can almost sense two or three levels of 'manipulation' here (without
turning to the most obvious manipulation:  that of the
author wanting to make a point about Christ).  On the one hand, figures like
Inire and the Hierodules, or Baldanders and the forces of
Abaia/Erebus are constantly meddling in Severians journey trying to lead him
in one or the other direction.  That is, in a very lofty sense,
still on the level of the Ploughman's meaning.  Yet, as the Angel in the
story of the Cock and the Angel admits, even he is infinitely far from
understanding the will of the Increate.  So, the increates hand can be here
in shaping the events of Sev's life, with such
archtypal and NECESSARY events such as the meeting with Typhon, aka the
temptation of Sev on the mount.  This becomes even
more interesting to me when you think that the Conciliators confrontation
with Typhon, which is mythic and cathartic for all of Urth, could
not have happened without this first (for Sevs timeline) confrontation with
Typhon, which in Urth's timeline actually comes second.
The Conciliator could not have shaped the destiny of earth, or reconciled
man with the increate, without all of these important and
archytypal events which happen to Severian in BotNS.  There is something
very important, for me, in recognizing that Sev's journey in
BotNS not only tests and prepares him to be the New Sun, but also the
Conciliator.  It's all to easy to keep thinking of the Conciliator as prior
to Severian,
when in fact, he is the relust of the events in the New Sun.

In this sense, Severian becomes much much more than just a man who finds
good in himself in a world of evil, and is found to be worthy of being the
New Sun,
he becomes a real agent of the increate by following an archtypal path in
which even the enemies of the increate ultimatley serve his purpose by
providing the needed events in Severians life to shape his character and
create in him the Conciliator, and even Apu Pinchau.  Severian in a very
real sense
shapes the world he comes to be born in, and the entire future of Urth (not
even considering here the flood.)

I don't see that there has to be a conflict in the idea of a 'good' man who
makes his choices in a world gone bad, ultimately becoming the New Sun of
his
own free will, while at the same time having his journey 'manipulated' by
both ploughmans and trancendental forces, which help to develop
his inherent character in such a way that the agreggate of the choices he
makes eventually makes of him the Conciliator.

I don't know that I've said this as well as I want to.  Perhaps later I can
parse it out better.

Also, I know I'm saying nothing new! :)


-Jordon

>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org>
> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:26:30 -0800
> Subject: Re: (urth) Severian as reverse Christ (or something)
> by the way,
> this Reverse Christ bit, while funny, has nothing to do with my views.
> I'm NOT talking about an antichrist.
> just to be clear.
>
>
>
>
>
> but it did make me laugh
> :)
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Craig Brewer <cnbrewer at yahoo.com>
> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:10:26 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: Re: (urth) Severian as reverse Christ (or something)
> Son of Witz,
>
> I think our difference may have less to do with "ethics" or "religion"
> and more to do with how we see the symbols operating in the book.
> You're absolutely correct that Severian is covered with Christ imagery
> and is often related to the Conciliator. In other words, I agree with
> every citation you made in that post. (Which, by the way, I saved
> because you pointed to most of the good stuff...nice to have all that
> in one place.)
>
> Our difference seems to be how we understand
> those symbols to operate. To me, they stay figurative, i.e.,
> non-literal, even WITHIN the plot. Severian's role in the plot
> essentially carries out, in literal terms, the trajectory of what the
> Conciliator represented symbolically. But does that mean that Severian
> *is* the Conciliator who, at least according to Urth's legends, was a
> divine figure? Or does he do in a "worldly" sense what the Conciliator
> did in a "supernatural" sense?
>
> I've never been convinced that
> Urth of the New Sun proves that there was anything supernatural about
> Severian. Another way to put it is that there was plenty there that was
> "science fiction-y" but not "fantasy," if we take "fantasy" here to
> mean supernatural. One can construe the plot in completely
> "science-fiction"-y terms that don't rely on divinity at all: The
> Hieros created a situation in which humans would evolve to a point
> where they, the humans, would create the Hieros (who live backwards in
> time...and here I take it that time travel and time weirdness isn't
> necessarily a "divine" thing). Bringing about the New Sun is one
> complicated pre-requisite for that, and the Hieros needed to know that
> humanity was ready, so they tested various "Severians" that they'd
> engineered. Our Severian happens to be the best, and so he "saves"
> humanity by convincing the Hieros that it's time to dump that
> white-hole back into the sun and change the course of human history.
> (Pardon my likely faulty summary here...it's off the cuff and, admittedly,
> been at least a year since I last read _Urth_.)
>
> Now,
> nowhere in all of that does Severian have to be divine. What he
> certainly *is* is living out a story that, in metaphor, tells a story
> of humanity's supernatural salvation. But I take it as something very
> similar to Silk's epiphany: Silk had a single moment of divine insight,
> but everything that happened afterward, while it followed a divine
> symbolism, did not actually have supernatural consequences. Learning
> the truth did not bring Silk to heaven...it just got him out of the Whorl.
> So there were two transcendences: the real one was also the most
> symbolic, as in Silk being granted truth from the Outsider. The
> transcendence of the story was "worldly", though: he led the people
> from their prison in the Whorl and their false gods to something better.
>
> So
> did Severian have to be divine, within the context of the story, to be
> the New Sun? Or was he doing, in a "worldly" sense, what the
> Conciliator did, or was supposed to have done, in a divine sense?
>
> I
> have to say that your talk about the LOGOS might in the end be a way of
> not having to make the divine/worldly distinction I'm hung up on. And,
> for that, I've got to say thanks. (And, to be honest, the more I push this
> distinction, the less sure I am it's appropriate.)
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org>
> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:00:58 -0800
> Subject: Re: (urth) Severian as reverse Christ (or something)
> Craig,
> First of all, let me say that I do agree with your ideas here.
> everything you put works within the confines of the story. I think your
> reading is valid and apt.
>
> however, I feel they fall roughly into the category of "plowman's meaning"
> do you remember the 3 meanings bit? if not I'll dig up the text (I found
> txt docs online for searching. I'm a geek, I freely admit)
> anyway, The cow by the road is chewing grass. the cow is real, the grass is
> real. the chewing is real.
> all of the religious imagery is cloaked in at least one layer of scifi
> disguise.
>
> (I'll admit here that I've not read much sci fi OR scripture for that
> matter.  I'd add, Thank God Wolfe cloaked his SciFi in many layers of dusty
> medieval trappings.)
>
> The single best post I've found on the Urth list falls roughly into the
> "Soothsayer's meaning".  it speaks about the world around us, ourselves and
> the connections between us.
> http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0011/0069.shtml
> which can more or less be summed up with this excerpt:
> "the first 3 and a half books seem to deal with the theme of
> Severian becoming his own man and casting off other authorities' hold on
> him.  Every authority that is, except that of the Increate."
>
> and it's here that just about everyone is right about Severian. He's
> Christ-LIKE. He's picked up the cross and tried to become a good man doing
> the will of God.
> He's shaking off false authorities: Guild, Typhon, Teenage Rebellion
> (vodalus), Autarch (father figure) etc.
> he's also defeating Foes of God: Baldanders (storming the heavens,
> prometheus, Omega Point), Sorcerers (dark arts aimed at denying God),
> Zooanthropes (those who would consciously abandon their duty to become fully
> human), Ascian (godless communists), etc.
> He reforms the guild and generally demonstrates mercy at all times when he
> has a choice.
>
> Great stuff that does not yet put him into the divine category.
> All these interpretations are very much there in the symbols, and are as
> true as the straightforward plot elements.
> It's at this level of meaning  that the thing gets really interesting to
> me.  I didn't really like the books plotting all that much until I started
> getting a whiff of this. (I loved the writing though)
>
> Most of the stuff I'm arguing for falls into the "Transcendental meaning"
> and I think I've argued those points fairly well, so I won't repeat it
> here.
> but it's at this level that it becomes a great story for me.
> but that's probably just me. I've always gravitated to the abstract mystic
> side of spiritual matters.
> it's no surprise that most people don't because it's been almost bred out
> of us, and Religion has shunted this stuff into the corners with the Sufis,
> Qabalists, and Gnostics.
> the sorts of things that resonate with me about Religion and Christianity
> in particular aren't for most people. (I'm NOT saying I'm wise and elite and
> better, understand me please)
> it's just that notions of sin and guilt mean nothing to me.  But the idea
> of being both Human(mundane) and Divine, crucified on the crossroads of Time
> and Eternity (Kronos x Kairos) speaks DIRECTLY to what I feel in my soul in
> every moment of every day.  that crossroads is more or less at Christ's
> heart, not his brain, and most Christian doctrine is from the heart.
> That sort of notion is impractical to most people, so a different reading
> is more useful to them.
> but my heart explodes when I come to understand Christ as ALL MANKIND in
> that situation, which we all ARE.
>
> Now I've also had my doses of Armageddon fever. (it's been going around a
> lot this decade, if you haven't noticed).  Millennialism.
> I think humanity is on a suicidal course in many ways and I have little
> faith in us.  sometimes I only find hope in the notion of Apocatastasis.
> RESET. Wipe the slate clean. start over.
> We're in Kali Yuga, and she'll be coming with that flaming sword any day I
> suppose. It will be flaming death for most of us, but a new Golden Age will
> be reborn.
> So I take the Story of Severian being the bearer of the Sword that Cuts and
> the Sword that Heals very much to heart.  The deluge of Earth becomes the
> baptism of Ushas.
>
> If I've sounded like I've been scoffing in my posts, it's because I do find
> it sort of strange to prefer the mundane answers.
> I mean, who the hell cares who Severa is if it doesn't speak to anything
> besides plotting?
> It's nothing personal to anyone here. I'm thrilled that people are excited
> about these books and parsing them out so thoroughly.
> If my propositions are thorny, well, they should be. People look at
> everything to literally. it's a curse in the age of Mythbusters.  That
> "Myth" means "false legend" to most people is a TRAVESTY.
> but I mean any provocative comments in the best spirit and I hate to think
> I offend or step on anyones toes.
>
> and since I probably have stepped on some toes, I'll say that I just now
> realized the quest for Catherine is very interesting in light of the notion
> of Goddess or Mother of God.
> I don't know much about it, but humanity was evidently Goddess worshipping
> for a long time, and that stuff is like a lost mystery.  If I'm not mistaken
> Allat, a Goddess was worshipped before Allah, and she is preserved in the
> emblem of Islam in the Crescent moon.  As far as I've heard the Church tried
> to minimize the role of Mary, but people would not stop celebrating and
> worshiping the Mother of God.  (and well they shouldn't I suppose).  So
> perhaps Wolfe's obfuscation of Catherine is meant to speak to this  Missing
> or Lost Mother Goddess figure.  Her identity is NOT the mystery, it would
> seem, but what her Absence implies that becomes interesting.
>
> anyway, I ramble on.
> thanks for engaging my ideas, Craig.
>
> ~Witz
>
> On Nov 20, 2008, at 11:10 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:
>
> Son of Witz,
>
> I think our difference may have less to do with "ethics" or "religion"
> and more to do with how we see the symbols operating in the book.
> You're absolutely correct that Severian is covered with Christ imagery
> and is often related to the Conciliator. In other words, I agree with
> every citation you made in that post. (Which, by the way, I saved
> because you pointed to most of the good stuff...nice to have all that
> in one place.)
>
> Our difference seems to be how we understand
> those symbols to operate. To me, they stay figurative, i.e.,
> non-literal, even WITHIN the plot. Severian's role in the plot
> essentially carries out, in literal terms, the trajectory of what the
> Conciliator represented symbolically. But does that mean that Severian
> *is* the Conciliator who, at least according to Urth's legends, was a
> divine figure? Or does he do in a "worldly" sense what the Conciliator
> did in a "supernatural" sense?
>
> I've never been convinced that
> Urth of the New Sun proves that there was anything supernatural about
> Severian. Another way to put it is that there was plenty there that was
> "science fiction-y" but not "fantasy," if we take "fantasy" here to
> mean supernatural. One can construe the plot in completely
> "science-fiction"-y terms that don't rely on divinity at all: The
> Hieros created a situation in which humans would evolve to a point
> where they, the humans, would create the Hieros (who live backwards in
> time...and here I take it that time travel and time weirdness isn't
> necessarily a "divine" thing). Bringing about the New Sun is one
> complicated pre-requisite for that, and the Hieros needed to know that
> humanity was ready, so they tested various "Severians" that they'd
> engineered. Our Severian happens to be the best, and so he "saves"
> humanity by convincing the Hieros that it's time to dump that
> white-hole back into the sun and change the course of human history.
> (Pardon my likely faulty summary here...it's off the cuff and, admittedly,
> been at least a year since I last read _Urth_.)
>
> Now,
> nowhere in all of that does Severian have to be divine. What he
> certainly *is* is living out a story that, in metaphor, tells a story
> of humanity's supernatural salvation. But I take it as something very
> similar to Silk's epiphany: Silk had a single moment of divine insight,
> but everything that happened afterward, while it followed a divine
> symbolism, did not actually have supernatural consequences. Learning
> the truth did not bring Silk to heaven...it just got him out of the Whorl.
> So there were two transcendences: the real one was also the most
> symbolic, as in Silk being granted truth from the Outsider. The
> transcendence of the story was "worldly", though: he led the people
> from their prison in the Whorl and their false gods to something better.
>
> So
> did Severian have to be divine, within the context of the story, to be
> the New Sun? Or was he doing, in a "worldly" sense, what the
> Conciliator did, or was supposed to have done, in a divine sense?
>
> I
> have to say that your talk about the LOGOS might in the end be a way of
> not having to make the divine/worldly distinction I'm hung up on. And,
> for that, I've got to say thanks. (And, to be honest, the more I push this
> distinction, the less sure I am it's appropriate.)
>
> Craig
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net>
> To: urth at lists.urth.net
> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:16:09 -0500
> Subject: (urth) Severian as reverse Christ (or something)
>  My attempt at clarification may have gotten lost because I mistitled my
> second post. I'll try one more time.
>
> I've read very little about Wolfe, or Wolfe's ideas about Wolfe, or other
> people's ideas about Wolfe---I have only read all of Wolfe. So I am happy to
> be corrected or told that I don't have a new idea. I'll assert it more
> forcefully this time:
>
> Tertullian is a direct source of the character Severian. (See the footnotes
> I added below.)
>
> Wolfe did not come up with a torturer Christ (and let's face it, Christ is
> a fictional character, so it makes little difference whether Severian IS or
> IS NOT "Christ" although it makes for an interesting discussion) because he
> was reading Hannah Arendt about the banality of evil, or about the Nuremburg
> trials, or the crimes of Beria or Stalin or Tiberius or whoever. He came up
> with the torturer Christ in part because he read these passages of
> Tertullian.
>
> That is my theory and it is mine. (Wish I knew how to apply formatting.)
>
> David
>
>
> *A1. Tertullian (3rd century).* This early representative of patristic
> thought follows the radically pacifist tendency of not a few Christians at
> that time who tended to take the Gospel's 'counsels of perfection' as
> universally binding precepts. Certainly, in Tertullian's judgment, any
> complicity in torture ? either ordering it or personally applying it ? is
> definitely ruled out for a disciple of Jesus. Arguing that no soldier, after
> converting to Christianity, should continue in the army, especially given
> its pagan character, he asks rhetorically,
>
> "[S]hall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become
> him even to sue at law? And shall *he* apply the chain, and the prison, *and
> the torture*, and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own
> wrongs?"*1
>
> In similar vein, discussing "what offices a Christian man may hold", he
> refers to a recent case wherein a Church member had the opportunity to
> receive high public office as a magistrate. Tertullian argues that it would
> be morally impossible for this man to satisfy both the Gospel's demands and
> those of Roman law, for that would require him to abstain not only from all
> public pagan sacrifices, oaths, etc., but also from "sitting in judgment on
> anyone's life or character, . . . neither condemning nor fore-condemning;
> binding no one, imprisoning *or torturing no one*".*2
> * These are the earliest known explicit Christian statements on the
> morality of torture.
>
>
> 1. *De Corona,* 11, emphasis added.
>
> 2. *De Idololatria*, 17, emphasis added.
>
>
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:15:08 -0500
> From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> <dstockhoff at verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: (urth) Urth Digest, Vol 51, Issue 44
> To: urth at lists.urth.net
> Message-ID: <4925D35C.1040409 at verizon.net> <4925D35C.1040409 at verizon.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
>
> Let me clarify my thought.
>
> I meant that it's almost as though Wolfe read Tertullian (or the debate
> he was part of) and and responded to him by deliberately constructing a
> character according to those severe Christian prohibitions /as though
> they were precise specifications/: a Christ figure who is everything
> Christ's followers cannot be. Why these specifications and not others?
>
> I think this goes beyond "sin" and repugnance, neither of which is
> mentioned here. It's a question of temporal  authority vs spiritual
> authority, at least. But we knew that.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> avast! Antivirus <http://www.avast.com>: Outbound message clean.
>
> Virus Database (VPS): 081120-0, 11/20/2008
> Tested on: 11/21/2008 8:16:10 AM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2008 ALWIL Software.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20081121/4dd51627/attachment-0004.htm>


More information about the Urth mailing list