(urth) Agia's Weapons

[David Stockhoff]

On 12/21/2011 11:36 AM, Lee Berman wrote:
>
> I am proposing that what WOlfe has done is take one (very large) character and
> split it into various sub-characters. The synecdoche of this is Tzadkiel who appears in guises
> as varied as hairy blob, monkey, troglodyte, adonis-man, giant serious angel and little laughing
> fairy. Compared to that, are Inire and Hethor (and others) really so different?
>
> Consider also the mythological basis. As Daniel has recently alluded and has previously been
> discussed, there is a religious school of thought that considers Dionysus (or some ancient
> god/being) to be in a continuous pattern of splitting up into portioned gods then reuniting
> into a monotheistic God which explains his part in the origin of Christianity and the Trinity
> etc. (of course we see this pattern in Long/Short Sun with Pas and others). Could divine
> splitting be how Wolfe views Baptists and Mormons and Christian Scientists, etc.?
>
> Continuing the thought, Dionysus had aspects of himself as diverse as drunken Silenus, serene
> Silvanus and lecherous Inuus. (Another aspect, Aegipan is associated with the body part
> reunification of Zeus and thus also associated with the Osiris story).
>
> As has also been discussed in the past, Tzadkiel says he has been an acolyte of Severian's in a
> previous iteration. This could mean he was hanging around the Conciliator in Typhon's time I guess
> but that is such a dead end. I don't see evidence of him/her (excecpt maybe in Ceryx).  If we take
> that comment by Tzadkiel in conjunction with Hethor's assertion that he considers Severian to be his
> "Master" I think it makes a lot more sense. To me, Hethor seems truly sincere in his obeisance to
> Severian.


Truly, the theory is too strong for me. It explains so much that it's a 
slippery slope with no return. Once one accepts further (asymptotic, in 
your phrase) Inire identities on the principle of "always more and 
smaller Inires," how and where do you stop? I don't ask this to mock, 
because I'm more interested in exploring the real practical and thematic 
consequences of pan-Inireism than my own prejudices.
>
> If Hethor (and Inire, etc.) knows what Severian really is (much more than Severian himself knows),
> trying to kill him over and over can be viewed in a different light. If Hethor knows Severian can't
> be killed, then this series of tests of the "Master" can be seen as a series of lessons for Hethor.
> A view of a divine power which is beyond his own.

Is this your answer to Jerry's question---that the manipulation is 
intended to kill Severian over and over? if so, what counts/would have 
counted as success? Severian always comes back but (presumably) stops 
being killed. There is an endpoint; if the purpose was to kill him as 
repeatedly as winter kills spring, then the plan failed.

One can imagine a series of episodes in which a hero---perhaps one with 
all the weight of an ancient prophecy behind him---repeatedly faces 
decisions to risk his life or not. Both angels and devils are watching, 
with the angels perhaps hoping he sacrifices himself and the devils the 
reverse. The Yesodii's test of autarchs is the very model of this.

If this model applies overall here, then Severian, by dying over and 
over, passes the big test for the angels and fails it for the devils. Of 
course he fails to die at many points too. There are many possible 
variations: the hero decides to stay home, he passes some tests and 
fails others, or the positions of the angels/devils are reversed so that 
the angels want him to stay home because the violence of his heroic acts 
does more harm than good. It seems counterintuitive because you'd expect 
that a hero would need to live to succeed---but we know better.

How might Inire or Hethor derive personal benefit from whatever they 
find Severian to be, if their desire is immortality?