(urth) (no subject)

[Craig Brewer]

>I think BotNS explores many deeply felt philosophical
>ideas of ideas of it's author.
>If  you don't, make of it what you will.  There are some
>neat action scenes  and weird characters to be found
>amidst all the endless philosophical  and theological
>musings if you don't think that stuff matters.

I don't think anyone really doubts that angle. There may be plenty of doubt 
about WHICH philosophical ideas he's working with, but we all like the books 
because of that depth, I'd imagine.

I think there's an important distinction, though, between recognizing that the 
books explore philosophical aspects of ideas that Wolfe is heavily invested in 
and the idea that all of his works have to straightforwardly reflect his actual 
beliefs.

So, for example: what if New Sun is Wolfe exploring a world where there never 
was a Christ, as was suggested by one of the interview quotes that came up 
yesterday? Such a possibility might well be compatible with the "atheist" 
reading of New Sun that was bandied about when we were talking about Peter 
Wright's book awhile back. Then you'd have Wolfe writing a "what-if" book where 
the overt cosmology was opposed to what he actually believed at some level, even 
if it was also informed by his actual beliefs about how fallen such a world 
might actually be. Or Wizard Knight: one way to read that book is to say that 
it's a book about a kid/guy trying to be good when he doesn't have a strong 
Christian model to follow. It doesn't, of course, mean that Wolfe actually 
believes in a cosmology of seven levels without a Christian God behind it all, 
etc.

I've said this a lot lately, and I'm starting to bore myself, so one last time 
and then I'll shut up: but I'm skeptical of the perspective that sees Wolfe as 
creating an intricate cosmology, where buried behind his fictions is his actual 
outline of how the universe works where the Greek gods line up in a hierarchy 
with Christian theology and multiple universes co-exist in such and such a way, 
etc. Instead, I find Wolfe to be using all of these ideas (some of which he 
might actually believe, some of which he might not) in order to explore 
philosophical and existential consequences of his beliefs. And, for me, the most 
interesting and relevant aspect of those ideas have to do with what it means for 
how his characters live their lives, and less about what Wolfe's particular 
theological or "supernatural" beliefs might be. For me, it's always a much more 
interesting question to ask, say, "In what way is Severian like and unlike 
Christ, and how hard is it for him to be a good man in the situation in which he 
finds himself?" than it is to spend a lot of mental effort trying to figure out 
whether he actually is a Christ or whether his universe is related to ours as a 
parallel or previous universe with or without an actual moment of salvation, 
etc.

The latter kinds of questions turn Wolfe into an esoteric, if fascinating, 
myth-maker -- but I don't believe the same myths and, so, ultimately his ideas 
would simply be curiosities to me. But it also seems to lose a certain human 
focus for me since the questions start to become more about what Wolfe himself 
believes than about what we might learn about the consequences of his ideas. 
Severian's story has always mattered to me in a very personal and even moral way 
apart from whatever cosmological puzzles lie behind it. All of the world and 
cosmology-building is fascinating, but it's not why I've always liked Wolfe.

Mini-rant over. I should go back to semi-lurking. :)