(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS

[Antonin Scriabin]

Sorry to chime in kind of late, but I just wanted to say that, like Gerry,
I am content to leave notions of the soul (and many other things) as mostly
mysterious in Wolfe's books.  Wolfe tends to avoid writing "hard science
fiction" or straight allegory and never (at least, as far as the books I
have read go) offers explicit scientific or spiritual explanation for some
things.  The explanation of deep space travel that Father Inire gives is as
much mystical as scientific, for example; whatever the "truth" is, it is so
well hidden behind the motives and understanding of Inire, Severian, and
the other speakers / narrators that it probably can't be uncovered.
Personally, I get more out of the story *not* knowing or pursuing the ins
and outs of the scientific or theological explanations that might hold for
a given phenomenon.  There is something distinctly otherworldly about the *New
Sun *books that makes trying to force the events therein into the confines
of 20th century physics or Catholic theology inconsequential to my
enjoyment of them.

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:

>
>
>  *From:* Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
>
>  > Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
> > > I don’t think Wolfe talks much about souls as such.  I’m not sure we
> can
> > > flatly state that he is postulating that they are an entirely separate
> thing
> > > from the mind and its connection to the universe.
>
> > ...but I think that talking about Lupine fiction, and _especially_ the
> > Briah cycle, without seeing souls everywhere, is akin to Dr. Crane's
> > explanation of Silk's enlightenment as a cerebral accident. It is
> > self-contained and in its way complete, but it misses the point. To
> > insist that everything be "scientifically" explicable is reasonable;
> > to say that this is the true explanation is to cut oneself off from
> > entire layers of meaning.
>
> >
> > And the sad thing is that Crane cannot even conceive of what he is
> > cutting himself off from. Is that true of you also?
>
>  I don’t think *everything* has to be scientifically explicable.  Silk’s
> enlightenment seems to be, in essence, a kind of miracle.
>
>  What I’m not convinced by is your particular dualistic understanding of
> the soul; I’m not sure what it adds to the story.  I’m content to leave the
> concept of the soul as a little mysterious.  Perhaps that makes me in your
> mind like Crane.
>
>  - Gerry Quinn
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111222/3c4354ba/attachment-0004.htm>