(urth) Agia's Weapons

[Lee Berman]

>Daniel Petersen: On this note, I want to weigh in on something I've wanted to comment on for
>a while.  Surely Wolfe sees all other heroes and legends and divinities and rites and so on 
>finding their fulfilment in Christ as understood by the Catholic Church.  He certainly 
>allusively invites us to feel resonances with Hercules or Dionysus or whoever... but surely 
>these summed up, centred, and superseded in Christ?  (For Wolfe.  And his fiction.).....
>rather than Christ simply destroying and replacing all other 'pagan rivals', he fulfills what 
>is best in them.  This idea seems intimately woven right through Wolfe's works to me.)
 
I agree completely. From Wolfe interviews, I get the impression his personal philosophy is based 
on the following logic: "the ancients were as intelligent as we are. They were not going to 
build mighty monuments and temples over wisps of imagination. Thus the pagan gods were real, in 
some way. Being real, they were part of God's plan and must have served a useful purpose in getting 
us where we are now."
 
On the other hand, I am struck by how so much of Wolfe's work shows a glaring absence of Christ. I 
don't doubt his faith but I perhaps he finds a direct mention of Jesus/Christianity as antithetical 
to his brand of fiction. Too real? Too constricting?
 
[I rarely do this here, but on a personal note, I will disagree with Wolfe a little. If future 
archaeologists excavated Disney World they would be likely to get a false sense of how real we 
consider Mickey Mouse and Star Wars and Muppets to be. We humans are willing to invest a lot of
time and effort into enshrining what we know or suspect to be revered fiction. Same principle applies
to the D.C. Mall and other political shrines around the world.  The amusement parks and temples and 
monuments aren't really about gods. They are about us and what we want/need.]
 
>Gerry Quinn: I suspect Wolfe does not exclude the possibility of a continuing Revelation – i.e. 
>that in some future, Christ might also be superseded, or that the Trinity might expand beyond three 
>persons, or that an alien equivalent of Christ be incarnated.  That is to say, I don’t think he would 
>consider the doctrines of Rome to be set in stone for eternity.
 
I tend to agree. Not sure if Dan'l would. :- )