(urth) Father Inire Theory

[Son of Witz]

On Dec 4, 2010, at 9:48 AM, Ryan Dunn <ryan at liftingfaces.com> wrote:

> 
> On Dec 4, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Lee Berman wrote:
> 
>>> M. ben Witz: Wait a sec. I JUST finished NewSun again and I can not remember the 
>>> old boatman in any other scenes besides the near drowning at the beginning and when 
>>> we meet him on the Lake of Birds.
>> 
>> That's an interest post to me Witz. Most do not think the boatman at the drowning is
>> the Boatman at the Lake of Birds. I think Borski suggests that the "drowning" old boatman
>> is Maxellindis' "Uncle", who is also a boatman, because they both speak of undines. Actually
>> all three of these boatmen speak of undines. I wrote it as Maxellindis' "Uncle" because 
>> Severian suspects it isn't really her uncle. Thus we have at least two of the boatmen showing
>> a creepy fascination for pubescent young women (some calculate Dorcas' age at 13-14 for her
>> first birth). So maybe add "creepy poppet fascination" to "monkeys", "old and bent" and "obscured 
>> eyes" as marks of a shapeshifter.
> 
> 
> To me, the simple clue of a random old man asking whether a man underwater was sure he didn't see a woman under there, would suggest the Boatman. Doesn't Gyoll flow into the Garden of Endless Sleep, anyway?
> 

Yes, I think this is the evidence that they could be the same. Works for me far better than monkeys and foreign name translations do to solve other identity problems.



> I don't recall the boatman at Gyoll asking after undines, just whether Severian was sure he didn't see a woman.
> 
> And regarding the boatman at the Botanic having a fascination for young girls, why couldn't the boatman have been of a similar age when she died? I thought the point of the boatman was to demonstrate just how long Dorcas had been submerged. Am I missing something?
> 
> ...ryan
> _______________________________________________

Yeah, there is nothing Pedophilic about him. He's looking for his wife, who was woman enough to have born two children.  

And, as a complete side note, and hopefully not to offensive one, is that our modern frame for pedophila doesn't hold in this context.  Only in the last hundred or so years could a 14-18 year old female capable of bearing children be considered an object of pedophillia. It's appropriate to our modern sense to say she might not yet be a woman in her mind and spirit, but let's be certain. If she can bear a child, her body is that of a woman's.  Can we stop calling men attracted to FERTILE young women pedophiles when it is a natural drive of our entire biological history.  A man should only be considered as a dirty pedophillic creep if he's attracted to pre-adolescent girls.

Also, sorry for my crappy spelling. I've been typing these fast on an iPad, which is easier to make mistakes, and doesn't seem to want to check my spelling without automatically "fixing" it, which me no like.