(urth) Father Inire Theory cont.

[Lee Berman]

I'm hoping I can be indulged in one last coda.  In the discussion of sexual weirdnesses
I had forgotten an anecdote from Roy C. Lackey that made me laugh. In analyzing the interlude
between Severian and Apheta, Roy observes her "larval" status, her glowworm belly and the butterfly
wings of her adult form and notes, "he is screwing an insect". Hah. Pretty funny. But I think the
weirdness of his attraction to her might be less if we accept the analogy of Greek Hero- that in 
genealogy he is partly god/fallen angel.  That and the incest curse would explain his mutual attraction
with Jurturna also
 
A good segue into the real purpose Wolfe had in writing BotNS and other books the way he did, which is
crystal clear to me.
 
Roy's interpretation of Apheta is humorous and a good one. Even Gene Wolfe would laugh. But is it complete?
Severian views the same experience as a cosmic wonder with metaphors of spurting stars and black hole
vaginas being filled with white fountain penises all around.
 
On the other hand, Apheta views the episode as entirely repulsive. She later admits she despised being
assigned to mate with an ancient (primate?) "monster" from another universe. So which is the right
interpretation, Roy's, Severian's or Apheta's?  Surely the answer is ALL of them together. If any were
missing we'd have a less rich understanding of the event.
 
In the James Jordan interview which inspired my theory, Gene Wolfe describes himself in the same terms 
that Rudesind does. As an advocate for the dead. He feels that ancient people are derided and disrespected
for their primitive views vis a vis our own advanced understanding. But they were just as intelligent as we 
are and they used the available tools to describe their world in the best way they could. We snicker at
gods, monsters, angels and magic and pat ourselves on the back for our science and modern socio-politcal 
analysis. But is our perspective, alone, really superior?
 
Many criticisms of my theory have been along these lines. "Why do we need shapeshifting if we can't see it?"
Why do we need gods if we have aliens? "Why do we need a devil if we have socio-literary metaphor?" And my 
answer has always been that we don't.  We don't need the fantastic but by embracing it we enrich our 
understanding.
 
Example from my Anthro education. I am aware of the chemically induced hallucinogenic effect of atropine
from the nightshade family. But I am also aware that Medieval women who used broomsticks to apply 
belladonna extract to their crotches experienced flight and erotic encounters with incubi and Great God Pan.
If I embraced only the science and dismissed the fantastic, how could I fully understand why these women
risked torture and execution to practice witchcraft and why certain men risked the same by wearing a goatskin
headdress and joining them. Gotta have both perspectives to more fully understand. (of course there are more..)
 
Gene wolfe urges us to treasure the classics and honor the ancient masters' perspective as equal to our own. 
Tzadkiel is such an advanced being that we can barely comprehend him/her and how he/she sees the universe. 
Yet, he/she reveres Severian. Can we do any less for our own ancient gods, heroes and legends?