(urth) Seawrack and the Mother

[António Pedro Marques]

No dia 23/09/2012, às 14:47, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> escreveu:

> On 9/23/2012 12:13 AM, Lee Berman wrote:
>> Just a few loose ends to (perhaps) wrap up this thread. I think a
>> good case has been made to support the idea of Seawrack losing her
>> arm via Babbie rather than Horn's shot. It isn't a crucial point
>> for me though. More crucial is recognizing the black pirate ship
>> and the green island as expressions of the Mother.
>> 
>> Wolfe takes the trouble to note that the pirate ship does not come
>> from any town but from a freshwater inlet. Horn seems to be on a
>> rather lonely journey, not one following established shipping lanes.
>> Why would pirates hang out in the middle of nowhere

This is a ponderous observation. (Notice though that Abaia has independent 'agents', so Seawr... Scyll... er... the Mother may have as well. 

>> just to prey on
>> such rare and slim pickings as Horn's boat?
>> 
>> Regarding the crew, Horn muses about them later and how perhaps they
>> were hiding below the deck or something. But when he actually sees
>> the boat he notes a crew of 8-9, "mostly women". What kind of pirate
>> ship is crewed by mostly women? Why would Wolfe present us with this
>> odd situation in the beginning of this series then have it disappear
>> with no later significance? Like Chekhov's gun, (Wolfe's own stated
>> rule), something/someone from that pirate ship has to appear later in
>> the story.
>> 
>> By viewing that ship as the Mother, a crew of women actually starts to
>> make sense. It hearkens to Great Scylla and that crop of women growing
>> on her back. And maybe to Abaia and the undines?
> 
> Where does the "crop of women" occur?
> 
>> 
>> One thing that might be evidence against the pirate ship as the Mother
>> and some Seawracks is that one of the women on board yells at Horn to
>> "Haul down!". Doesn't sound much like Seawrack talking. But it is sailor
>> talk and the Mother and Seawrack certainly have some experience with
>> sailors.
> 
> They've eaten a few, yes. Hmm . . . .
> 
>> 
>>> David Stockhoff: It is certainly true that gender is a big problem for
>>> anyone trying to understand the divine with only his/her two hands and 5
>>> senses. If humans are the purpose of the universe, and humans are gendered,
>>> then the universe and/or its creator(s) logically must be gendered as well.
>> This could be the basis for why the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God is indubitably
>> male, though I think cultural factors are a strong component. The people of
>> the Middle East are so vigorously patrifocal in their social structure.
>> 
>> Contrast this with Hinduism where I think Brahma, though most often called "he",
>> is essentially considered genderless.  Though modern India is rather patrifocal,
>> probably due to Muslim influence, ancient India was far less so.
>> 
>> I still think incest is a key distinguishing factor. Egyptian deities and the
>> cognate gods of surrounding areas were incestuous, probably echoing the
>> incestuous pharaonic families. The God of the ancient Hebrews gained
>> a significant moral superiority by being both One and self-created and thus
>> incapable of incest.
>> 
>> I still wonder if the incest which lurks in the shadows of Severian's story
>> is meant to reference only Oedipus or is actually addressing the more general
>> incest problem of the ancient gods. A shame Gene Wolfe will never tell me. Heh.
> 
> Yes, I had meant to include a passing comment on that as well. If the universe is double-sexed (dioecious?)

di + oikos = two dwellings = two kinds of individuals, male and female.

> like us, it must be either hermaphroditic or dyadic. Either way it must mate with itself to produce or create or even to become itself.
> 
> If it is single-sexed (monoecious),

one dwelling = only one kind of individual, with the implication that it possesses both sexes (I.e. hermaphrodite; in botany, one usually reserves this latter term to mean that the flowers themselves have both sexes, instated of the individual having male and female flowers). 

> then I guess we're just supposed to forget about the missing sex. (In the same way, we're not supposed to notice that Eve's offspring either mated with others or mated with one another.)

I don't know that we are; the Good Book doesn't dwell on the issue, but biblical literature has, since forever. There are even names for Cain's sisterwives. Incest, like a lot of other things, only became unlawful at Sinai, and only some of the things that were unlawful at Sinai were mentioned to always having been unlawful. Lot's daughters' aren't condemned at all. 

It turns out that sex is a big part of religious thought. It's hardly surprising that it's prominent in Wolfe's writings.