(urth) (no subject)

[Gerry Quinn]

From: "Lee Berman" <severiansola at hotmail.com>
>
>>Gerry Quinn: So we have both Dionysus and Allah mentioned in similar 
>>contexts.  Both are
>>forgotten (nobody even remembers the name of the son of Thyone), while the 
>>Outsider is nearly
>>forgotten on the Whorl.
>
> So if the Outsider is our God, the creator of all universes, then Wolfe is 
> saying that worshippers
> of Allah and Dionysus are all worshipping the same God that Catholics 
> worship. Just differently
> named. No quarrel from me, but there might be from others.

Insofar as they are worshipping the god of gods, yes.  I don't think this is 
especially theologically controversial, certainly not in the case of Allah.


>>There remains the question of Jesus.  I think this aspect of the Increate 
>>is strongly emphasised in
>>the persona of the Outsider.  Allah and Dionysus, not so mucxh.
>
> Well, first you need to distinguish Jesus from Christ. With two universes 
> there is an argument that there
> can be one without the other.

I don't see any grounds in the text for such a distinction.  We do see 
evidence for Jesus in the text, and we also see evidence for an aspect of 
the Outsider that matches the teachings of Jesus.


> Allah is mentioned once. Jesus-figures a couple times. Dionysus as Wine 
> God..and other gnostic references
> like "Abraxas" and "Demiurge" are mentioned a lot more and a lot more 
> explicitly than those other two in the
> Sun series. Methinks your elevation of Jesus above the other two derives 
> not from the text but from your
> society/culture.

We have a number of clear Jesus references - culminating in a sort of 
Eucharist in which the lion lays down with the lamb.  Gene Wolfe certainly 
likes to throw in gnostic names and concepts (and names and concepts from 
many other sources) - but Christian concepts are everywhere too, even if not 
always mentioned by name.  The whole Conciliator concept, for example - this 
has obvious Christian analogues.

[One could even formulate a hypothesis that it is the unnamed concepts that 
are fundamental; the named ones always misleading or incomplete.]


>>So I don't see the necessity for making great interpretational leaps just 
>>because it is not mentioned.
>
> Given your society/culture it may be difficult for you to realize that you 
> are making the great interpretational
> leap by assuming Christ is in the story even though neither he nor 
> salvation is mentioned. Others who do not insert
> Christ into the Sun series are being conservative, parsimonious and more 
> true to the text.

Wolfe has himself called Severian "a Christian figure".  But it was Jesus I 
said was in the story, which quite clearly *is* the case.  That is beside 
the point; it is always a leap to assume that absence of evidence 
constitutes evidence of absence.

But certainly, let us assess these ideas in terms of what the text says.

- Gerry Quinn