(urth) Bloodsport

[Kevin J. Maroney]

I read it, quite recently. I thought it was lovely and, for Wolfe,
surprisingly anti-Royalist, but then on examination not surprising at
all. 

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:28:09 -0600, James Wynn wrote:
>1) On a literary level, when Lurn, as a pawn, queened herself she 
>restarted the game. In doing so, the Valorius' (the Knight's) 
>obligations were set in stone. He had to take her out. This is not 
>determinism. This was a course of action that she consciously chose for 
>the purpose of gaining power.

I like this observation tremendously. Under the rules that Lurn
herself is trying to reestablish, Valorius as an opposing knight is
obligated to continue the game and kill her. But it's also clear that
his experiences after the interruption of the game made him doubt the
justice of the game at all, so he is simultaneously destroying the
game while upholding it. 

>You say power corrupting absolutely is not a common Wolfe theme. That's 
>true. But opposing Power for its Own Sake (that is, tyranny) is a common 
>Wolfe theme. Silk is a revolutionary. The Rajan is a revolutionary. Able 
>meets and defeats (or reforms) several tyrants.

Severian becomes the unopposable tyrant of his land, but the first act
of his power is to dissolve the Order which raised him. Wolfe only
supports *good* kings. 

-- 
Kevin J. Maroney | kjm at panix.com | www.maroney.org
Games are my entire waking life.