Skip to main content

Autarch

The autarch in Book of the New Sun has always grated on me. Severian insists on his being a good man, the best overall autarch, but I think his account is over-fond of a man who to me is more readily despicable than either Typhon or Ash (the truths Ash inflicts on Severian are read as massively wounding to him; Typhon gives overt room to hate his guts), in that he is left as someone who, even as he admits... while always scaling way above the little truths women share with one another, to no knowledge of Truth, pretty much knows everything as much as anyone can.
And what does he know? That there is something called "human nature," and that his expertise in it allows him to manipulate and manage every one of his subjects so they're always kept under control... "happy enough with their careers to continue, and discontented enough with their fates..." The text doesn't allow us to want to see him -- this guy who sounds like the most cynical sort of capitalist overlord here, who uses behavioural science, total knowledge of "you," to keep everyone fated to his brand -- as someone we want to see, not due to be killed, but who should be "killed"... perhaps in much the same way Typhon is killed, for sheer insufferable ignorance and willed desire to keep people low for, ostensibly, their own good, because it insists on him as someone who always smiles so fatherly at Severian and who is ok in his being displaced as ruler of a small universe by him. The guy whom we should leave prepared to accuse as using "human nature" to justify his own surveillance/total management of people, his own desire to close down all the roads of potential human growth, we can't -- just instead participate in the close-proximity of maybe coming to be as wise as he is one day, ultimately able to sum up everyone else around you in a way that diminishes them (Dorcas turned out to be one of those who...) and implicitly exults yourself.
He probably also garners authority, righteousness, for the calm assurance of his ability to daunt Thecla back into the recesses of Severian's mind, when it suddenly manifests, for his need to talk to Severian, now, alone. He's the patriarch who floats over everyone else's sinful nature in "Free, Live Free," and we're baited into not making much of a query of it because... he's fated to die, after all. Severian is maddened, maddened, at Ash for his not being aware of how his "truths" settle on someone who'll be afflicted by them. Why weren't we allowed to feel this way with the autarch?... or, that is, why weren't we allowed to feel JUSTIFIED, as we weren't quite with Ash, if we felt rage at him, for Severian does get maddened at him for having sent him to war without knowing anything of it, but the autarch is permitted in response, total and complete rebuttal. Why does the autarch have greater stature, than even angels (I'm thinking Melito's tale)... for he alone being someone who's considered everything, and who really can't now be questioned? Because he, unlike the angels, knows to administrate down his self-presentation -- from the start -- when talking to someone... is that it, only?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump

Too late -- WE SAW your boobs

I think we're mostly familiar with ceremonies where we do anointing. Certainly, if we can imagine a context where humiliation would prove most devastating it'd probably be at a ceremony where someone thought themselves due an honor -- "Carrie," "Good Fellas." "We labored long to adore you, only so to prime your hope, your exposure … and then rather than a ladder up we descended the slops, and hoped, being smitten, you'd judged yourself worthless protoplasm -- a nothing, for letting yourselves hope you might actually be something -- due to be chuted into Hades or Hell." Ostensibly, nothing of the sort occurred during Oscars 2013, where the host, Seth Macfarlane, did a number featuring all the gorgeous Oscar-winning actresses in attendance who sometime in their careers went topless, and pointed this out to them. And it didn't -- not quite. Macarlane would claim that all obscenity would be directed back at him, for being the geek so pathe