(urth) Fairies and Wolfe

[David Stockhoff]

On 4/2/2012 12:59 PM, Lee Berman wrote:
>> David Stockhoff: That term [Pancreator] occurs in embedded stories
>> rather than in Severian's mouth at least half the time, which has
>> led me to consider it a kind of secondary belief, i.e., perhaps
>> folkloric. Note that in your quote Severian sees the Pancreator with
>> a hand, unlike the Increate, so it is in a way a specifically human
>> understanding or extension of the Increate's being. As such it must
>> fall short.
>
> Unless...going back to previous discussions, unless the text is viewed
> from a gnostic point of view in which there is a creative demiurge who
> is at least partially distinct from the true, Christian God. Perhaps
> this is the reason Wolfe uses both the terms "Increate" and "Pancreator".
> I think a writer trying to convey the modern monistic Christian view of
> God would use only "the Increate".
>
> Maybe it would be possible to argue it from the Catholic point of view:
> that Pancreator, Theanthropos and Increate correspond to Father, Son and
> Holy Spirit. But as James has noted, though the Sun Series shows glimpses
> of Christian symbology, it is far more explicitly a pagan/gnostic sort of
> universe being depicted, full of gods, monsters, witches, vampires and
> pagan rites.
>
> I like David's observation that The Pancreator is largely presented in a
> folkloric context in BotNS. For me this corresponds to the gnostic earthly
> belief in a Dionysian possibly Satanic creative demiurge, stories of whom
> are highly folkloric in today's world. 		 	   		

Exactly my thought(s). BTNS seems soaked in Hellenistic philosophy. I wanted to be cautious on the gnostic aspect here, but it's not far off.

I've wondered if Severian's account owes any debt to the memoirs of 
Marcus Aurelius, which I've never read. Has anyone here?

I