(urth) Agia's Weapons

[David Stockhoff]

On 12/21/2011 2:21 PM, Lee Berman wrote:
>>> Remember how Dorcas considers herself to be an unclean spirit?
>> Yes, but she doesn't try to enslave Urth.
> Is enslaving Urth a definition of evil? Isn't flooding the place and
> killing everybody a much worse evil? By human morality maybe.
>
> But Gene Wolfe has read the Bible and has had to figure out why Noah's
> Flood, which provided such a painful, unpleasant death to so many
> people (and innocent animals) was necessary. The Christian definition
> of evil is separation from God, yes? God had to wipe out earth (and
> Gene Wolfe had to wipe out Urth) because it was irretrievably separated
> from God.

Sure, but Dorcas didn't do that either.
>
>>>> if evil had a point source it would be a disease, not a moral choice.
>>> I think, to Wolfe, it is both.  By analogy, is alcoholism a disease or a choice?
>
>> It can't be both---they are utterly and diametrically opposed  conceptions of evil--
>> -but they can work in combination.
> I disagree. The view of "evil is a choice" is a humanistic view. We need to think
> that to inspire us to make good choices. But God (in the true Christian sense)
> cannot have any choices. Anything He does is the ultimate in good. No selection
> A or selection B for Him.

Of course. I'm not saying evil is a pure choice or even that moral 
choices exist outside theory or fiction. But how does God's moral 
context relate to human choices or lack of them? or do you mean all 
humans have the "evil" gene, period? if that's so, why do some 
characters abuse children and others do not?
>
> I think Gene Wolfe recognizes this (as do a few other inspired SF writers) and
> attempts the impossible task of helping us see the universe from God's point of
> view. Our "good" and "evil" choices are all made within a rigid, God-created
> framework. And sometimes, despite a lifetime of "good" choices a person will
> suffer pain and death through the evil actions of others. Happens every day.
>
> Why does God let that happen? Surely the only answer (as for the creation of
> Ushas) is that He often sacrifices innocents in the cause of some greater
> good which only He can understand. (as you might know, I, myself, am not religious).

Again, sure---but this is no different from suggesting that we make 
moral choices about alcohol within a genetic framework. (It occurs to me 
that I don't know of any fiction that tries to set up such a framework; 
usually it's a cultural/socioeconomic one. But all fiction puts such 
choices in some kind of context, since there are limits even to the good 
we can do.)
>
>> Your theory seems to move fluidly between "evil" and "corruption" in a way that I find
>> creepy but by the same token impossible to refute. Fiction is always about the worst
>> possible things one can imagine.
>
> "EVIL IS ALWAYS A DISTORTION OR AN EXAGGERATION OF SOMETHING THAT IS GOOD."
>
> Gene Wolfe, Dec 9, 1996: James Jordan interview.

I wonder what Wolfe would consider "good" in the area of genetics.