Gene Wolfe, 'magnificent' giant of science fiction, dies aged 87(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Gene Wolfe, 'magnificent' giant of science fiction, dies aged 87
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/apr/16/gene-wolfe-science-fiction-author-dies-aged-87
19 コメント
This was the first book I read of his, and it blew me away. Gene Wolfe has been my favorite author ever since. His writing was at just the right level of sophistication where it was still accessible to me (I couldn't finish Ulysses) while being thoroughly enjoyable. His attention to detail and casually tying off loose-ends is pretty stunning when examined carefully. And he is one of the few authors whose books make me feel like I'm having a lucid dream.
I second that recommendation of Latro in the Mist!
Wolfe wrote some incredible masterpieces. The Fifth Head of Cerberus, Peace, and some of his 1970s short stories deserve a place in 20th-century serious literature in general. The Book of the New Sun stunned me as a teenage reader, and I fondly reread the book every few years (that said, Severian’s habit of shagging everyone he meets doesn’t hold up well in this day and age, and I have seen female readers call The Book of the New Sun a risible male fantasy).
However, there is no doubt that Wolfe’s powers declined over time, and homages to him inevitably focus on the works from decades ago. Besides their intricate plots, those early works had incredible prose, just as rich as Proust, Nabokov, or Faulkner. Once the 1980s came in, suddenly Wolfe’s prose became plainer, more workaday. Then, his novels increasingly started to milk the “unreliable narrator” gimmick but without much else to them. Furthermore, it is not even clear that readers are appropriately given all clues to figure out the real action and themes. I have spoken to multiple Wolfe superfans who worry that A Land Across, for example, ultimately turned out to be turgid and impenetrable, and that Wolfe’s publisher accepted it just on blind faith that readers got earlier Wolfe novels, so surely there was something to this one too.
(I know the principle of de mortus nil nisi bonum and I don’t want to be too harsh about the man, but this is probably the only opportunity for a long time that the Hacker News community will get to discuss his work.)
However, there is no doubt that Wolfe’s powers declined over time, and homages to him inevitably focus on the works from decades ago. Besides their intricate plots, those early works had incredible prose, just as rich as Proust, Nabokov, or Faulkner. Once the 1980s came in, suddenly Wolfe’s prose became plainer, more workaday. Then, his novels increasingly started to milk the “unreliable narrator” gimmick but without much else to them. Furthermore, it is not even clear that readers are appropriately given all clues to figure out the real action and themes. I have spoken to multiple Wolfe superfans who worry that A Land Across, for example, ultimately turned out to be turgid and impenetrable, and that Wolfe’s publisher accepted it just on blind faith that readers got earlier Wolfe novels, so surely there was something to this one too.
(I know the principle of de mortus nil nisi bonum and I don’t want to be too harsh about the man, but this is probably the only opportunity for a long time that the Hacker News community will get to discuss his work.)
I recently reread Book of the New Sun for the first time in more than twenty years, and yeah, it makes a different impression at 54 than it did at 17, not least because it was familiar now and new then. The characters, especially Severian, quite often act in ways that are not admirable, and I can be pretty sure that Gene intended that we see some of the not admirable traits as actual flaws. He is not, for instance, suggesting that sleeping with your grandmother is a good idea. He wasn't going to make it that easy for us.
But Peace and Fifth Head of Ceberus, and much of his short fiction remain classic.
But Peace and Fifth Head of Ceberus, and much of his short fiction remain classic.
He is not, for instance, suggesting that sleeping with your grandmother is a good idea.
Well, that is how Fry was able to save the universe from the Brain Spawn.
Well, that is how Fry was able to save the universe from the Brain Spawn.
Yep he did do the nasty in the past-y.
Oh My.
Oh My.
This misses the character of Severian as others here note. A character need not be a paragon of modern virtue to be good in his setting.
What bothers those female readers is not the behaviour of the morally flawed protagonist in itself. Rather, it is that the author seems oddly bent on making his protagonist use women for sex time after time, and that says something about the author. Furthermore, the work lacks a female voice that would serve as a corrective to Severian and put his actions in a clearer moral light.
Now, one might disagree with all that criticism, and I remain a fan of the The Book of the New Sun myself. But one cannot deny that within 1970s and 1980s science fiction and fantasy, there is a huge difference between Wolfe and the feminist writers of those decades like Ursula K. LeGuin, Storm Constantine, and Samuel R. Delaney. In our modern age, when critics and ordinary readers have often come to expect the gender concerns introduced by those feminist authors, Wolfe's work can strike some readers as problematic.
Now, one might disagree with all that criticism, and I remain a fan of the The Book of the New Sun myself. But one cannot deny that within 1970s and 1980s science fiction and fantasy, there is a huge difference between Wolfe and the feminist writers of those decades like Ursula K. LeGuin, Storm Constantine, and Samuel R. Delaney. In our modern age, when critics and ordinary readers have often come to expect the gender concerns introduced by those feminist authors, Wolfe's work can strike some readers as problematic.
> the author seems oddly bent on making his protagonist use women for sex time after time, and that says something about the author
All writings say something about their author, so that statement doesn't tell us much. Just because an author writes a flawed character does not mean that they are endorsing the character's flawed traits. There is also narrative meaning behind Severian's sexual behavior. This reasoning is like suggesting that Vladimir Nabokov was a pedophile because he wrote Lolita. I will also point out (as noted in the article) that LeGuin has praised BOTNS as a masterpiece.
> there is a huge difference between Wolfe and the feminist writers of those decades like Ursula K. LeGuin, Storm Constantine, and Samuel R. Delaney.
Differences exist between authors, this is not a surprise and not undesirable.
> the work lacks a female voice that would serve as a corrective to Severian and put his actions in a clearer moral light.
This is intentional. One of the book's primary themes is the exploration of Severian's amoral and immoral behavior and the sterile and sophisticated justifications delivered as a 1st person narrative as a way to explain away his horrifying decisions to the reader; he is a rapist, torturer, and executioner that ascends to the highest levels of power while wrestling with the flaws that are revealed through his own masculinity. Severian's repeated sexual trysts culminate in his near castration as a direct rebuttal to his self-embodied caricature of masculinity and as a representation for all of humanity. A "corrective female voice" would bludgeon us with what we're supposed to extract through analysis of the story. A choice quote from the books:
> Love is a long labor for torturers; and even if I were to dissolve the guild, Eata would become a torturer, as all men are, bound by the contempt for wealth without which a man is less than a man, inflicting pain by his nature, whether he willed it or not.
It is a fictional autobiography of a bad man who is forced to come to terms with his own toxic masculinity in order to bring the new sun (or be castrated and relegated to the ash heap of history)
All writings say something about their author, so that statement doesn't tell us much. Just because an author writes a flawed character does not mean that they are endorsing the character's flawed traits. There is also narrative meaning behind Severian's sexual behavior. This reasoning is like suggesting that Vladimir Nabokov was a pedophile because he wrote Lolita. I will also point out (as noted in the article) that LeGuin has praised BOTNS as a masterpiece.
> there is a huge difference between Wolfe and the feminist writers of those decades like Ursula K. LeGuin, Storm Constantine, and Samuel R. Delaney.
Differences exist between authors, this is not a surprise and not undesirable.
> the work lacks a female voice that would serve as a corrective to Severian and put his actions in a clearer moral light.
This is intentional. One of the book's primary themes is the exploration of Severian's amoral and immoral behavior and the sterile and sophisticated justifications delivered as a 1st person narrative as a way to explain away his horrifying decisions to the reader; he is a rapist, torturer, and executioner that ascends to the highest levels of power while wrestling with the flaws that are revealed through his own masculinity. Severian's repeated sexual trysts culminate in his near castration as a direct rebuttal to his self-embodied caricature of masculinity and as a representation for all of humanity. A "corrective female voice" would bludgeon us with what we're supposed to extract through analysis of the story. A choice quote from the books:
> Love is a long labor for torturers; and even if I were to dissolve the guild, Eata would become a torturer, as all men are, bound by the contempt for wealth without which a man is less than a man, inflicting pain by his nature, whether he willed it or not.
It is a fictional autobiography of a bad man who is forced to come to terms with his own toxic masculinity in order to bring the new sun (or be castrated and relegated to the ash heap of history)
Look, when a lot of female readers have expressed discomfort with The Book of the New Sun, we need to at least take that into consideration and respect that viewpoint even if we ourselves like the book. To go on about "But that’s what Wolfe intended!" is just going to come across to those female readers as mansplaining.
> This reasoning is like suggesting that Vladimir Nabokov was a pedophile because he wrote Lolita.
And that is a pretty commonly encountered position in lit circles.
> This reasoning is like suggesting that Vladimir Nabokov was a pedophile because he wrote Lolita.
And that is a pretty commonly encountered position in lit circles.
> Look, when a lot of female readers have expressed discomfort with The Book of the New Sun, we need to at least take that into consideration and respect that viewpoint even if we ourselves like the book.
I do take it into consideration and I do respect the perspective that informs the viewpoint, even if I think the viewpoint is incorrect. I am not trying to argue with anyone's "expressed discomfort", I am disagreeing with your subtle suggestion that Wolfe is sexist because he wrote a sexist character.
> But that’s what Wolfe intended!" is just going to come across to those female readers as mansplaining.
I'm sorry but "mansplaining" is not an argument. I'm not saying that the phenomenon of mansplaining doesn't exist (a man condescendingly explaining something to a woman that she already understands), but a discussion of meaning in literature does not qualify as "mansplaining" just because I am a man who disagrees with a woman. Additionally, there are plenty of women who will make the same argument, so unless you're suggesting that my opinion is only invalid because I'm a man, I fail to see how mansplaining is at all relevant. I am happy to engage in specific examples of the text which someone might point to as evidence for a flaw in my reasoning, but summarizing my response with a flippant "mansplaining" dismissal is very disingenuous.
> And that is a pretty commonly encountered position in lit circles.
And also overwhelmingly rejected as an absurd way to view literature based on countless examples.
I do take it into consideration and I do respect the perspective that informs the viewpoint, even if I think the viewpoint is incorrect. I am not trying to argue with anyone's "expressed discomfort", I am disagreeing with your subtle suggestion that Wolfe is sexist because he wrote a sexist character.
> But that’s what Wolfe intended!" is just going to come across to those female readers as mansplaining.
I'm sorry but "mansplaining" is not an argument. I'm not saying that the phenomenon of mansplaining doesn't exist (a man condescendingly explaining something to a woman that she already understands), but a discussion of meaning in literature does not qualify as "mansplaining" just because I am a man who disagrees with a woman. Additionally, there are plenty of women who will make the same argument, so unless you're suggesting that my opinion is only invalid because I'm a man, I fail to see how mansplaining is at all relevant. I am happy to engage in specific examples of the text which someone might point to as evidence for a flaw in my reasoning, but summarizing my response with a flippant "mansplaining" dismissal is very disingenuous.
> And that is a pretty commonly encountered position in lit circles.
And also overwhelmingly rejected as an absurd way to view literature based on countless examples.
> I am disagreeing with your subtle suggestion that Wolfe is sexist because he wrote a sexist character.
I didn’t suggest that at all. Again, I myself am a fan of the book. I only wished to point out that The Book of the New Sun has been so problematic for many female readers, and today with more awareness of the female perspective it may increasingly strike audiences in general as problematic. So, when we want to consider what is Wolfe’s best work, it might be better to point to his other 1970s works, as those may have aged better.
> a discussion of meaning in literature does not qualify as "mansplaining" just because I am a man who disagrees with a woman.
For a man to tell a woman that her discomfort with a book is based on her supposed misunderstanding of it, is definitely going to be seen by many women as offensive and mansplaining. If it is indeed the case that that female reader misunderstands the book, it would be better for a male fan of the book to just hold his tongue and not try to deny that female reader’s experience.
> Additionally, there are plenty of women who will make the same argument
If you actually look at discussions about The Book of the New Sun and sexism on book fora, you tend to find that women who like the book are not eager to jump in and defend Wolfe when another woman feels that Wolfe is misogynist. Those female fans of Wolfe tend to be more accepting of another woman’s viewpoint. It is almost always male readers who post to tell the female reader that she is wrong.
> And also overwhelmingly rejected as an absurd way to view literature based on countless examples.
No, that Lolita represents a dark element in Nabokov’s own psyche is frequently argued in scholarship. Not all critics agree with that position, of course, but it is one of the mainstream views.
I didn’t suggest that at all. Again, I myself am a fan of the book. I only wished to point out that The Book of the New Sun has been so problematic for many female readers, and today with more awareness of the female perspective it may increasingly strike audiences in general as problematic. So, when we want to consider what is Wolfe’s best work, it might be better to point to his other 1970s works, as those may have aged better.
> a discussion of meaning in literature does not qualify as "mansplaining" just because I am a man who disagrees with a woman.
For a man to tell a woman that her discomfort with a book is based on her supposed misunderstanding of it, is definitely going to be seen by many women as offensive and mansplaining. If it is indeed the case that that female reader misunderstands the book, it would be better for a male fan of the book to just hold his tongue and not try to deny that female reader’s experience.
> Additionally, there are plenty of women who will make the same argument
If you actually look at discussions about The Book of the New Sun and sexism on book fora, you tend to find that women who like the book are not eager to jump in and defend Wolfe when another woman feels that Wolfe is misogynist. Those female fans of Wolfe tend to be more accepting of another woman’s viewpoint. It is almost always male readers who post to tell the female reader that she is wrong.
> And also overwhelmingly rejected as an absurd way to view literature based on countless examples.
No, that Lolita represents a dark element in Nabokov’s own psyche is frequently argued in scholarship. Not all critics agree with that position, of course, but it is one of the mainstream views.
> it would be better for a male fan of the book to just hold his tongue and not try to deny that female reader’s experience
This argument is at odds with the core idea of feminism of equality between genders. You are insinuating that a female reader would not be equipped to judge herself the "male fan's" comment.
This argument is at odds with the core idea of feminism of equality between genders. You are insinuating that a female reader would not be equipped to judge herself the "male fan's" comment.
"it is that the author seems oddly bent on making his protagonist use women for sex time after time, and that says something about the author."
You say you didn't suggest it at all, but those words read to me like a subtle accusation of sexism by the author. Use of the term "oddly bent" as if to suggest there is no literary meaning behind the character's behavior and that it is perhaps better explained as a manifestation of the author's own sexist viewpoints projected onto his characters. Additionally the follow up of "that says something about the author" seems to suggest that "the thing being said" is a reflection of the author's personal views on women.
> today with more awareness of the female perspective it may increasingly strike audiences in general as problematic. So, when we want to consider what is Wolfe’s best work, it might be better to point to his other 1970s works, as those may have aged better.
Like I said, I am willing to discuss specifics about the story and I'm open to the idea that there might be a flaw in my reasoning, but I am not willing to concede the argument that the book is "problematic" or of diminished literary merit based solely on the idea that it makes some people feel uncomfortable.
> For a man to tell a woman that her discomfort with a book is based on her supposed misunderstanding of it
I would not attempt to argue the rationale that underpins an individual's discomfort; nobody needs to justify their own discomfort, but they do need to justify why their own discomfort translates into substantive criticism of artistic merit (in the context of a literary discussion).
> If it indeed the case that that female reader misunderstands the book, it would be better for a male fan of the book to just hold his tongue and not try to deny that female reader’s experience.
I want to emphasize again that I don't think "denying an experience" is necessary for a discussion, but frankly I think the outcome you describe would be worse. I know some people would disagree, but it seems intellectually insulting to presume that it is better to hold one's tongue rather than engage with a woman who has expressed criticism of literary work (of course, within the appropriate context; forcing a woman into a discussion she doesn't want to have is certainly wrong). This, in my view, would be a kind of "reverse mansplaining" and smacks of sexist undertones that suggest a woman is beneath explanation and is better served by having men defer to her emotions. I know you aren't suggesting that, my intention is only to point out how that outcome could be perceived.
> you tend to find that women who like the book are not eager to jump in and defend Wolfe when another woman feels that Wolfe is misogynis
I have seen both perspectives expressed from both sexes and while I have read plenty of thoughtful Wolfe criticism, in my experience, the most aggressive brand of criticism always comes from men. It's true that I don't often find women having it out in a debate about Wolfe's misogyny, but I think this is more a consequence of the relative dearth of women in online sci-fi and fantasy (a problem that is thankfully changing with modern ideas around inclusiveness in sci-fi and fantasy) discussions rather than a statement about Wolfe's misogyny.
> lolita represents a dark element in Nabokov’s own psyche is frequently argued in scholarship
True, but a discussion of a "dark element" within Nabokov's psyche is different from suggesting that the work is flawed because the author was driven by a desire to write pedophile smut.
You say you didn't suggest it at all, but those words read to me like a subtle accusation of sexism by the author. Use of the term "oddly bent" as if to suggest there is no literary meaning behind the character's behavior and that it is perhaps better explained as a manifestation of the author's own sexist viewpoints projected onto his characters. Additionally the follow up of "that says something about the author" seems to suggest that "the thing being said" is a reflection of the author's personal views on women.
> today with more awareness of the female perspective it may increasingly strike audiences in general as problematic. So, when we want to consider what is Wolfe’s best work, it might be better to point to his other 1970s works, as those may have aged better.
Like I said, I am willing to discuss specifics about the story and I'm open to the idea that there might be a flaw in my reasoning, but I am not willing to concede the argument that the book is "problematic" or of diminished literary merit based solely on the idea that it makes some people feel uncomfortable.
> For a man to tell a woman that her discomfort with a book is based on her supposed misunderstanding of it
I would not attempt to argue the rationale that underpins an individual's discomfort; nobody needs to justify their own discomfort, but they do need to justify why their own discomfort translates into substantive criticism of artistic merit (in the context of a literary discussion).
> If it indeed the case that that female reader misunderstands the book, it would be better for a male fan of the book to just hold his tongue and not try to deny that female reader’s experience.
I want to emphasize again that I don't think "denying an experience" is necessary for a discussion, but frankly I think the outcome you describe would be worse. I know some people would disagree, but it seems intellectually insulting to presume that it is better to hold one's tongue rather than engage with a woman who has expressed criticism of literary work (of course, within the appropriate context; forcing a woman into a discussion she doesn't want to have is certainly wrong). This, in my view, would be a kind of "reverse mansplaining" and smacks of sexist undertones that suggest a woman is beneath explanation and is better served by having men defer to her emotions. I know you aren't suggesting that, my intention is only to point out how that outcome could be perceived.
> you tend to find that women who like the book are not eager to jump in and defend Wolfe when another woman feels that Wolfe is misogynis
I have seen both perspectives expressed from both sexes and while I have read plenty of thoughtful Wolfe criticism, in my experience, the most aggressive brand of criticism always comes from men. It's true that I don't often find women having it out in a debate about Wolfe's misogyny, but I think this is more a consequence of the relative dearth of women in online sci-fi and fantasy (a problem that is thankfully changing with modern ideas around inclusiveness in sci-fi and fantasy) discussions rather than a statement about Wolfe's misogyny.
> lolita represents a dark element in Nabokov’s own psyche is frequently argued in scholarship
True, but a discussion of a "dark element" within Nabokov's psyche is different from suggesting that the work is flawed because the author was driven by a desire to write pedophile smut.
This argument appears disingenuous if you have read any of Wolfe's other works. We must beware turning our beloved people into anything other than who they are, from the fictional to their human authors.
I cannot say I would have become quite the person I am today without Severian or Silk. Some part of them, like Severian's great love Thecla, lives in me always. All this in spite of Wolfe's prurient obsessions, which we do all of us a disservice by explaining away.
Not just sometime after but directly after the writing of New Sun Wolfe flings himself into abandon with such relentlessly hyper-sexualized and objectified characters as Chenille, nicknamed "Jugs" by her lover Awk, who flings off her clothes once taken possession of. This is never explained and appears to be a fan service that wouldn't be out of place in a teen anime. Silk's own inamorata, Hyacinth, herself a sex worker, becomes the star of one of Wolfe's most clever dick jokes [1].
This does not cease for all, or nearly all, of Wolfe's corpus. The naked nymphettes with bodies like boys' of his The Wizard-Knight is all too problematic; the vamp-babe Jahi of the Short Sun, the house of prostitution in Cerberus, I could go on and on until I reached his very last piece of writing.
There is nothing wrong with writing or talking about sex. It is so nuclear to ourselves and its repression leads to much worse than hauling it into the light. I myself will soon be married to a woman who works the trade Wolfe just can't seem to let go. The issue is in his treatment of women as mere devices to be ridden or otherwise used, or as paper paragons who indulge in themselves without explanation.
I find this a great shame marring a writer who I unabashedly declare to be my favorite author of all time. Wolfe was a devout Catholic and his treatment of the spiritual is so sublime it may have been what first struck the thirst in me that led me to so many monasteries.
I am terribly sad no one succeeded in convincing Wolfe of his error, it would have brought in many more female readers who might have also shared in the many selves of Severian.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/genewolfe/comments/8s8pq0/this_sums...
I cannot say I would have become quite the person I am today without Severian or Silk. Some part of them, like Severian's great love Thecla, lives in me always. All this in spite of Wolfe's prurient obsessions, which we do all of us a disservice by explaining away.
Not just sometime after but directly after the writing of New Sun Wolfe flings himself into abandon with such relentlessly hyper-sexualized and objectified characters as Chenille, nicknamed "Jugs" by her lover Awk, who flings off her clothes once taken possession of. This is never explained and appears to be a fan service that wouldn't be out of place in a teen anime. Silk's own inamorata, Hyacinth, herself a sex worker, becomes the star of one of Wolfe's most clever dick jokes [1].
This does not cease for all, or nearly all, of Wolfe's corpus. The naked nymphettes with bodies like boys' of his The Wizard-Knight is all too problematic; the vamp-babe Jahi of the Short Sun, the house of prostitution in Cerberus, I could go on and on until I reached his very last piece of writing.
There is nothing wrong with writing or talking about sex. It is so nuclear to ourselves and its repression leads to much worse than hauling it into the light. I myself will soon be married to a woman who works the trade Wolfe just can't seem to let go. The issue is in his treatment of women as mere devices to be ridden or otherwise used, or as paper paragons who indulge in themselves without explanation.
I find this a great shame marring a writer who I unabashedly declare to be my favorite author of all time. Wolfe was a devout Catholic and his treatment of the spiritual is so sublime it may have been what first struck the thirst in me that led me to so many monasteries.
I am terribly sad no one succeeded in convincing Wolfe of his error, it would have brought in many more female readers who might have also shared in the many selves of Severian.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/genewolfe/comments/8s8pq0/this_sums...
I don't think hypersexualized characters in and of themselves are necessarily problematic. I'd also point out that Long Sun and Short Sun feature other deeply complex female characters that are critical to the story and are not hypersexualized such as Mucor, Mint, Marble, Rose, Saba, Syuif (and Trivigaunte's matriarchal society which has a gigantic impact on the entire story from Dr. Crane to the Airship). None of those characters could be accurately described as "mere devices to be ridden or otherwise used"
> hyper-sexualized and objectified characters as Chenille, nicknamed "Jugs" by her lover Awk
Awk is a poor, uneducated, petty criminal and thug; he is a somewhat sympathetic character, but clearly meant to be deeply flawed and his ultimate fate (the one revealed in Short Sun) is quite horrifying. Even still, Chenille and Auk are in a consensual sexual relationship, the fact that he has a sexualized nickname for her doesn't seem like a problem to me from a literary perspective.
> who flings off her clothes once taken possession of. This is never explained and appears to be a fan service that wouldn't be out of place in a teen anime
I don't remember an explicit explanation for why she takes off her clothes when possessed (though, that is how Scylla is typically depicted in mythology, do a google image search for Scylla) but her nudity is entirely non-sexual and the men on the boat regard her with absolute respect, fear, and deference without a hint of sexuality; her nudity wasn't "fan service" it was simply nudity.
> the vamp-babe Jahi
What's wrong with her? She is one of the scariest characters in Wolfe's lore and her sexuality is almost an afterthought compared to everything else that goes on with her. She most certainly doesn't qualify as "mere devices to be ridden or otherwise used".
> the house of prostitution in Cerberus
So what? Prostitution is a theme that exists in many stories by many authors. I don't think just listing off sexuality in writing makes a compelling case.
> Hyacinth, herself a sex worker, becomes the star of one of Wolfe's most clever dick jokes
Personally, I don't think it's that clever, nor is it a dick joke. That poster goes to great length to make a big deal out of what can be summarized by the final line: "As part of her advances, she tells him she could teach him where to put the round jewel of the azoth's pommel". Anyone can understand the innuendo there without knowing anything about the source text.
I don't think anyone is wrong for being uncomfortable with repeated use of sexuality in writing, but I am yet to be convinced by claims that reoccurring sexual themes means the author is sexist.
> hyper-sexualized and objectified characters as Chenille, nicknamed "Jugs" by her lover Awk
Awk is a poor, uneducated, petty criminal and thug; he is a somewhat sympathetic character, but clearly meant to be deeply flawed and his ultimate fate (the one revealed in Short Sun) is quite horrifying. Even still, Chenille and Auk are in a consensual sexual relationship, the fact that he has a sexualized nickname for her doesn't seem like a problem to me from a literary perspective.
> who flings off her clothes once taken possession of. This is never explained and appears to be a fan service that wouldn't be out of place in a teen anime
I don't remember an explicit explanation for why she takes off her clothes when possessed (though, that is how Scylla is typically depicted in mythology, do a google image search for Scylla) but her nudity is entirely non-sexual and the men on the boat regard her with absolute respect, fear, and deference without a hint of sexuality; her nudity wasn't "fan service" it was simply nudity.
> the vamp-babe Jahi
What's wrong with her? She is one of the scariest characters in Wolfe's lore and her sexuality is almost an afterthought compared to everything else that goes on with her. She most certainly doesn't qualify as "mere devices to be ridden or otherwise used".
> the house of prostitution in Cerberus
So what? Prostitution is a theme that exists in many stories by many authors. I don't think just listing off sexuality in writing makes a compelling case.
> Hyacinth, herself a sex worker, becomes the star of one of Wolfe's most clever dick jokes
Personally, I don't think it's that clever, nor is it a dick joke. That poster goes to great length to make a big deal out of what can be summarized by the final line: "As part of her advances, she tells him she could teach him where to put the round jewel of the azoth's pommel". Anyone can understand the innuendo there without knowing anything about the source text.
I don't think anyone is wrong for being uncomfortable with repeated use of sexuality in writing, but I am yet to be convinced by claims that reoccurring sexual themes means the author is sexist.
I've found that people that complain about this often gloss over the fact that Baldanders is stealing bodies and making grotesqueries of children that he rapes. Plenty of bad things happen in those books.
I might doubt your doubt somewhat. As often with Gene Wolfe, it's not clear to me that it is his powers which have waned, or that it is my own folly in not rising to the challenge of the puzzle. There's so very often something lurking in the shadows after all, and (in my incomplete experience) his works always benefit from a re-read.
For one more recent work with more workaday prose, The Sorcerer's House, it helps to follow a 'superfan' and consider it a rewriting of the lamia of Corinth. There certainly is so much more there than meets the eye; as dense as BoTNS. I find it more fruitful to take the ostensible lack of clues to figure out the 'real' deal as challenge for us (or the braver readers of the future) to rise up to.
There's plenty good in late Wolfe, just deeper hidden, perhaps.
For one more recent work with more workaday prose, The Sorcerer's House, it helps to follow a 'superfan' and consider it a rewriting of the lamia of Corinth. There certainly is so much more there than meets the eye; as dense as BoTNS. I find it more fruitful to take the ostensible lack of clues to figure out the 'real' deal as challenge for us (or the braver readers of the future) to rise up to.
There's plenty good in late Wolfe, just deeper hidden, perhaps.
I read some of The Book of the New Sun many years ago, and was mostly just disgusted by the story of an executioner becoming a tyrant. Is it worth taking another look?
I don't think that summary is accurate. The Book of the New Sun is deep, heady, high literature, not an indulgent fantasy adventure. It reads like a bit like a mythological holy book, authored by the supposed prophet - and you kind of have to read it like one, to get anything out of it - as if you're doing a deep textual exegesis. Its not A Game of Thrones.
It was definitely an interesting story, though it could be a chore to get through at some points, and I'm still kind of trying to figure out if I actually like it or not, or how much I actually really understood. It definitely won't appeal to many or even most people, I'd say. Its a heavy, somber experience, very little humor.
I will say, upon starting a re-read, it felt like nearly every word/sentence/paragraph in its initial chapters were impressively thick with double meanings, foreshadowings, and themes that only really become clear after finishing the story.
PS - the audiobooks are really well done - the narrator is just perfect.
It was definitely an interesting story, though it could be a chore to get through at some points, and I'm still kind of trying to figure out if I actually like it or not, or how much I actually really understood. It definitely won't appeal to many or even most people, I'd say. Its a heavy, somber experience, very little humor.
I will say, upon starting a re-read, it felt like nearly every word/sentence/paragraph in its initial chapters were impressively thick with double meanings, foreshadowings, and themes that only really become clear after finishing the story.
PS - the audiobooks are really well done - the narrator is just perfect.
That's fair. Like I said, it was a long time ago, and I didn't finish the series. I just remember it often being a chore to read, with a loathsome main character. Maybe it made a larger point that I missed at the time, but I was a kid reading David Eddings.
PS - I'll check out the audiobooks. I hope they're as good as Rob Inglis' reading of The Lord of the Rings. It may not count as "deep, heady, high literature," but he does an incredible job.
PS - I'll check out the audiobooks. I hope they're as good as Rob Inglis' reading of The Lord of the Rings. It may not count as "deep, heady, high literature," but he does an incredible job.
It is a bit of a chore to read if you want to get anything out of it; like most good literature it makes demands of you and you only get out what you put in. The main character is loathsome, in a bizarrely innocent kind of way -- he's a torturer, he was raised a torturer, it's a good honest living that makes people say, "oh we need one of those, I didn't know they still existed", like a dishwasher repairman. You're not supposed to like him, and it's crucial to understanding the story that you don't believe everything he says.
It's not for everyone but if you enjoy figuring out all the lies and misdirections and mistakes the narrator makes, it's quite an experience.
It's not for everyone but if you enjoy figuring out all the lies and misdirections and mistakes the narrator makes, it's quite an experience.
It might or might not be worth it, but whatever it is, merely having a story about "an executioner becoming a tyrant" won't be the reason...
Absolutely. That might seem to be the surface story, but it very much isn't. The story might seem more intriguing once you realize -- and it's not immediately obvious -- that some of the characters are aliens, and there is even one minor character who seems to be traveling through time in reverse. The surface elements -- the torturer's guild, the Autarch, even the Claw of the Conciliator (an ironic McGuffin) -- are fantasy tropes that Wolfe uses to tell a much richer, more complex story. Even the title might be a pun; New Sun/New Son, the story of a prophesied saviour.
If the premise is enough to ruin your enjoyment of the book then you shouldn't read it.
This is a great loss. When I was quite young I made the mistake of joining the Science Fiction Bookclub, unaware that it's intent and purpose was to mislead kids into over-buying books they didn't want. At the time, one of the books they sent me was Gene Wolfe's "Urth of the New Sun", and it bewildered me and fascinated me so much that I reread it in college, and realized it was part of a much longer tale. I went on to read virtually everything he ever wrote. Unlike so much science fiction (and fantasy, on occasion), Wolfe's uses tremendous texture and nuance; reading his work feels incredibly dream-like to me, even though there's nothing overtly trippy. As I get older, and recognize so much of what I once enjoyed as the same juvenile power fantasy told over with slightly different mechanics, Wolfe is (was) one of those rare genre authors who was doing something very different.
For anyone who wants to try a Wolfe book, the most accessible one is "The Wizard Knight", IMHO. It's still quite good, and has that gauzy, dreamy style and unreliable narrator Wolfe is known for, but is rather more straight-forward than, say, the Torturer series (which is actually part of the series in which Urth of the New Sun played a role). Ironically (to me) this is also the closest he got to "juvenile power fantasy" but ends up deconstructing the bildungsroman in a really beautiful, even loving way. Highly, highly recommended.
Also, I remember reading somewhere that he was a working engineer while he wrote some of his first novels; I presume he was writing full-time later. I think that's cool, too.
For anyone who wants to try a Wolfe book, the most accessible one is "The Wizard Knight", IMHO. It's still quite good, and has that gauzy, dreamy style and unreliable narrator Wolfe is known for, but is rather more straight-forward than, say, the Torturer series (which is actually part of the series in which Urth of the New Sun played a role). Ironically (to me) this is also the closest he got to "juvenile power fantasy" but ends up deconstructing the bildungsroman in a really beautiful, even loving way. Highly, highly recommended.
Also, I remember reading somewhere that he was a working engineer while he wrote some of his first novels; I presume he was writing full-time later. I think that's cool, too.
> Also, I remember reading somewhere that he was a working engineer while he wrote some of his first novels;
You are correct - he was an industrial engineer. I'm not sure if he was working on a team, or just by himself, but he helped to design the machinery that creates Pringles (potato chip). He was also the editor for a trade magazine on industrial engineering.
You are correct - he was an industrial engineer. I'm not sure if he was working on a team, or just by himself, but he helped to design the machinery that creates Pringles (potato chip). He was also the editor for a trade magazine on industrial engineering.
Do you happen to have any references for that? I in no way doubt you, but I hope to use this fact to dazzle a child when I get home; and maybe persuade her to read some top class sci-fi.
He also discusses it in an interview I scanned the other week: https://www.gwern.net/docs/fiction/2002-wolfe-locusinterview...
And a link in that uses the phrase surreal bildungsroman, which makes me feel like I've been validated by the New Yorker. :)
https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/sci-fis-difficul...
https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/sci-fis-difficul...
It's in this article! You can dig through philk10's link to find the interview, which is in the google books link. There is also an internet archive link on his wikipedia page which contains the same interview. He made the part of the machine that cooks the chips.
"Peace" is a true masterpiece. When you reach the end, you start thinking what was this book about. Suddenly you will figure it out and you want to read it again, armed with this knowledge. And you might need a few iterations before you will be finally satisfied.
Obligatory Neil Gaiman quote: "Peace really was a gentle Midwestern memoir the first time I read it. It only became a horror novel on the second or the third reading."
The Fifth Head of Cerberus is such a delight. Made me finally understand the concept of an unreliable narrator. It made me a better reader and expanded my attitudes around colonization. It is a great example of how science fiction can teach us about our modern lives.
> expanded my attitudes around colonization.
It is a remarkable thing that Wolfe, whose views were conservative and who occasionally voiced suspicion of modern academia with its focus on race and gender, wrote decades ago a work that really does mesh with modern post-colonial studies. I keenly recommended The Fifth Head of Cerberus to a friend of mine who is a scholar in that field, but sadly the robot on the cover of the Orb Books edition made him assume it was just goofy sci-fi.
It is a remarkable thing that Wolfe, whose views were conservative and who occasionally voiced suspicion of modern academia with its focus on race and gender, wrote decades ago a work that really does mesh with modern post-colonial studies. I keenly recommended The Fifth Head of Cerberus to a friend of mine who is a scholar in that field, but sadly the robot on the cover of the Orb Books edition made him assume it was just goofy sci-fi.
His work, which I came across in my early teenage years, was mind expanding. I am grateful for and to him.
Wolfe was also one of the authors that really made genre fiction academically respectable, without hiding in shame about what and who he was (cough Atwood cough). Entire future generations of writers - and students - owe him a thank you.
Wolfe was also one of the authors that really made genre fiction academically respectable, without hiding in shame about what and who he was (cough Atwood cough). Entire future generations of writers - and students - owe him a thank you.
I can't count the number of times I've re-read The Book of New Sun. Absolute masterpiece.
Wolfe's books are truly mind altering and forever change the way you think about science fiction and life in general.
Wolfe's books are truly mind altering and forever change the way you think about science fiction and life in general.
A tremendous loss, his science fiction and fantasy novels are some of the best out there. Others have mentioned other books of his, but my favorite is still Book of the Long Sun. Patera Silk is a great character, and The Whorl is a marvelous setting.
On Blue's Waters is a masterpiece. The narrative structure is temporally very complex, but coherent, and alternates between wistful contemplation of the past by the protagonist (often times about things that have not yet happened yet), and and an account of that protagonist's search for Silk. On the whole it is a dream like experience.
I found the first-person narration of On Blue’s Waters emotionally devastating. Wolfe endowed that narrator with so much pain, bitterness, regret, and loss. I got On Blue’s Waters as soon as it came out and was eager for the following volumes, but I must admit that the rest of that trilogy really disappointed me, namely: 1) Wolfe’s putting characters’ dialogue in annoying thick dialect of various sorts, 2) mapping the distant planet’s various cultures to silly ethnic stereotypes of our planet’s Italians, Indians, and Dutch, and 3) gratuitously bringing the action back to The Book of the New Sun which didn’t add much to the plot and felt like a cheap commercial tie-in.
I agree that the other two were disappointments.
Also when reading on blues waters, I hadn't yet read the previous series. but the references were made all the more mysterious because of it.
Also when reading on blues waters, I hadn't yet read the previous series. but the references were made all the more mysterious because of it.
Terminus Est.
He was the first author I read where I couldn't get away with my typical habit at-the-time of skimming the boring bits, rather than paying close attention to the text, and which was interesting enough to warrant reading more carefully. A great writer. I'll have to pick up what I missed of his work.
a woe below woe!
the sun into darkness was thrown,
over all a dim shadow had flown,
and my heart sorrowed deep and alone
at the foot of that empty throne.
--
nec novitas solis
nec figura solis
gravitatem tuam lucemque effinget.
volumen necesse non est:
memoria tua tenemus.
pius dominus tibi requiem donet.
die post idus aprilis.Sad to see another of my favorite authors pass away. Those who aren't into fantasy may enjoy his last novel, A Borrowed Man.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Borrowed_Man
RIP
RIP
It gets lost in his other excellent books, but I really liked Pirate Freedom. A guy from the near future finds himself sent back in time to the golden age of piracy, and Wolfe does a masterful job of tying the plot threads together at the end.
I also loved that, and love that it's something I can recommend without hesitation to readers who aren't ready for his more genre-heavy stuff.
I cannot recommend his collections of short stories and novellas enough. I love his novels, but I love his short stories even more.
Some of them are so well done they still haunt me years after reading.
Some of them are so well done they still haunt me years after reading.
The book of the new sun is probably my favorite series bar none. Wolfe will be remembered as one of the greats I think. Very sad to see him go.
[deleted]
If you want to read a series about a time traveling torturer that becomes king of the planet earth and replaces the dying sun while raising the dead, eating the dead, avoiding death, all while working as a carnifex. Then read the Book of the New Sun and The Urth of the New Sun.
Spoilers!
Pretty sure that was a vague enough description.
>> that becomes king of the planet earth and replaces the dying sun
To me this was his most 'approachable' novel by virtue of the fact that I could cross-reference the names with historical resources like Thucydides -- I also highly recommend the Landmark series for their detailed annotations.
Fifth Head of Cereberus is, of course, the best way to start with him, and I re-read it every few years. If you have never read Wolfe before, I would start with Fifth Head. It will give you an early sense for whether Wolfe is your cup of tea.