(urth) Ceryx (answer to Lee)

[Sergei SOLOVIEV]

I certainly respect your point of view but I am not convinced -

Best regards

Sergei

Lee Berman wrote:
>   
>> Sergei SOLOVIEV:  To me, in Wolfe's books is very important the brilliant rendering of 
>> human psychology and human existential problems. The presence of aliens, miracles, strange
>> world serve this purpose. What you are trying to do, is to transform  everything
>> into myth about demi-gods, aliens etc and if you push it to the extreme, it will
>> have for me no human interest.
>>     
>  
> This is a very personal objection to my view, Sergei and I respect it. I wouldn't try to 
> diminish your enjoyment of Wolfe's work by insisting my view is in any way superior to 
> yours or others.
>  
> I will say this. I spent quite a few years enjoying BotNS simply as a wonderful SF/Fantasy 
> story and a pleasant excursion within the thoughts of a passably bright heroic figure who
> only partially understands what is going on around him as he engages in a series of planetary 
> and cosmic adventures. But I always felt there was more to it, which is why I came to this 
> List.
>  
> The ideas found here and in a study of Gene Wolfe interviews have also lead me to view the 
> story from a psychological perspective. But not my personal psychology nor some generic
> view of the psychology of all humanity.  Aside from my initial enjoyment of this story, my
> interest is very specifically in the psychology of Gene Wolfe. What motivated him to write
> this story (and others) the way he did? Though I don't expect all other to agree with my 
> conclusions, I think my posts are best interpreted if my true goal is understood.
>  
> My broad conclusions are that Gene Wolfe is a very religious man, but not in the traditional
> Catholic sense. I think he (like Rudesind) is an advocate for the dead, meaning that he 
> considers the ancients to have been just as smart and aware of reality as we are today. Thus
> the mythology of the past was simply the best way our ancestors had to describe their world
> and our current religions (including Catholocism) are neither better nor worse than Greek or 
> Norse mythology in describing cosmic/divine reality. Thus the pagan gods are, in some sense, 
> real.
>  
> I believe (again, from interviews) that Wolfe did not intend Urth to be Earth but rather sort
> of a parallel place a..."gnostic parody of Earth" is how David recently put it.  A place where
> there was no Jesus, resulting in the primacy of mythological sorts of beings rather than 
> Christianity. I think it is meant to be unclear whether Earth legends of people like "Typhon" 
> are the result of earthian analogs or the leaking of mythology from Urth to Earth. Doesn't 
> matter. They are real somewhere.
>  
> Does it diminish human psychology and experience if we find there are longer-lived, more 
> powerful, more intelligent, more sighted, perceptive beings than we? I don't think so, nor does 
> Wolfe, I think. It isn't that "aliens" have no psychology. But rather that their thinking is 
> both too different and too superior for humans to grasp. I think we get enough conversation from
> Inire, The Cumaean, B, F and O, and Tzadkiel (and The Mother, and Neighbors and Inhumi) to grasp 
> a bit of their psychology.  But if the idea ruins BotNS for you, then it is an idea you should 
> scrap.
>  
>  
> Okay, specifics objections-
>  
>   
>> Sergei: Look - the old guy looking for Cas is interesting because it is a poor old guy, living in 
>> a slum and looking for his lost wife and love all fifty years or so. If he is father Inire in 
>> disguise - it is not interesting.
>>     
>
> Well, tastes differ. The Gene Wolfe quote below suggests to me that it would be interesting to him
>  
>   
>> GW: in fact there is one place in the Acts where Paul and another one of the apostles are mistaken...
>> for Zeus and Hermes in human form because people in those days expected that you could see Zeus and 
>> Hermes in human form. I am not so sure they were wrong. I am not convinced that they were wrong. We 
>> love to think how much smarter we are than people of ancient times or biblical times or so forth but 
>> I am very dubious about that.
>>     
>  
>  
>   
>> Sergei: The Old Autarch is interesting because he is a weak old guy castrated by aliens and he suffers. 
>> He failed as a representative of Humankind. He would be not interesting, if he would himself be an alien.
>>     
>  
> The failure of the old Autarch is never really explained. He seems be everything Severian is: a servant to
> the Throne elevated to Autarch, he has the memories of all the previous Autarchs, he is a kindly and decent
> good-hearted guy. He fights the Ascians, he cooperates with Father Inire. Why does he fail?
>  
> My explanation is that he is too human to be the New Sun. To be the New Sun one needs a super-human
> capacity for energy, which Severian shows. And one needs to be both Son of Man and Son of God(s). A
> half-breed as I think Severian, like other Conciliators of legend, is.
>
>   
>> Sergei- And with all his (Inire's) power he cannot find Dorcas (who, as you believe, was his wife!).
>>     
>  
> No. Just the opposite. I think Inire knows exactly where Dorcas' body is. He has arranged this meeting
> with a purpose. No accident that another seeker of dead bodies is also there (Hildegrin). Of all the 
> thousands of bodies which might float up and be resurrected by Severian, the one that arrives
> is Dorcas? Not a coincidence. What I think Inire (like Ceryx, like Tzadkiel even) cannot do is a true
> resurrection. That power is reserved for a Christ-figure. And I think Inire hopes to both use Severian's
> nascent power of resurrection on his long-dead wife and to learn how to use it himself.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>   		 	   		  
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>