(urth) More on Frog and Fish

[Lee Berman]

>Andrew Mason: it seems reasonable to try to
>interpret 'Frog' in the light of stories extant now; and in fact
>almost everything in it can be so explained. The bits that don't fit
>Romulus can be explained by reference to Mowgli, and the bits that
>don't fit Mowgli can be explained by reference to Romulus.
 
I agree with this approach for many of WOlfe's mysteries. We have a story 
with many gaps left unexplained but we are provided with multiple source
materials. Where one source does not explain, another can often be found
which does. Where mythology fails, the Bible may step in, etc.
 
 
>I think the Romulus and Mowgli stories are to be seen as
>pointing to Severian. Not only was he brought up by 'wolves' and
>became a ruler, but his mother, it seems, was a virgin priestess, and
>he had a twin.  Also as a baby he was carried in a basket. (It's not
>clear why that would be important, but Wolfe seems to think it is - he
>mentions baskets repeatedly.)  On the face of it, he's a better fit
>for Frog than Ymar was. But of course the story isn't a record of his
>life; it's a myth that looks forward to him.
 
Great insight, Andrew. Perhaps Severian should be considered the foremost
subject of the myth. Still, especially with UotNS, there is much to suggest
Ymar can be considered as a "little" or "first" version of Severian. And, 
as I noted in another post, the Tale of the Boy Called Frog is told to a
character named Little Severian. The legends are said to reverberate both 
forward and backward in the corridors of time.