{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/sflovers/53", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "sflovers", "thread": { "id": 53, "subject": "Gene Wolfe: Book of the New Sun (Spoilers possible)", "messages": 3, "voices": 3, "first": "1986-02-09T03:40:11+00:00", "last": "1986-03-24T15:42:34+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Rick", "address": "ucdavis!ccrrick at caip.rutgers.edu" }, "date": "1986-02-09T03:40:11+00:00", "subject": "Re: Gene Wolfe: Book of the New Sun (Spoilers possible)", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I have read _The_Shadow_of_the_Torturer_, (first volume of\n_The_Book_of_the_New_Sun), but in almost a year have yet to continue\nwith the rest of the book. In general, I found the writing murky\nand the tale rather disconnected. I found that I learned very\nlittle of the political system, social classes, economic systems or\neven recent history. This failure of Wolfe's to adequately inform\nvaries directly with my failure to be interested in his tale.\n\nThis seems to me to be particularly true in a story like this where\nso many of the characters seem to be insane and therefore take\nactions that appear illogical: Master Palaemon gives an extremely\nvaluable sword to a man who never seemed to interest him and who\nought to be sentenced to death. Agia and Agilus are insanely\ngreedy, consider the bizarre excuses Agilus gives in the prison cell\nwhen he argues to be spared. The boatman is in a crazed state and\nDorcas suffers from amnesia. The rationality of Dr. Talos,\nBaldanders and the stuttering man seem questionable to me as well.\n\nI understand that Wolfe wrote this book while employed at another\njob and typically wrote during the early morning hours, shortly\nafter having awakened. This probably accounts for the dreamlike\nnature of the work, which many people seem to admire highly. I am\nless than enthusiastic about it; on the other hand, only reading the\nfirst book is probably tantamount to turning off Beethoven's 5th\nsymphony in the middle of the second movement in terms of being fair\nto the author's complete message... But on the first hand, the\nauthor has the responsibility to make the first story accessible\nenough that the others will be read... In time, I may re-read the\nfirst book and give it another chance...\n\nOne thing that intrigues me is the theory that Severian has lived\nthis life before and that all the events depicted have been\nexperienced by Severian not once, but twice. Anyone have any\nthoughts or theories on this? What made someone think of this\nrather unique thought in the first place? What evidence is there\nfor it?\n\nrick heli" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michaelntz", "address": "csd2!krantz at caip.rutgers.edu" }, "date": "1986-03-17T16:06:00+00:00", "subject": "Re: Gene Wolfe: Book of the New Sun (Spoilers possible)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "patcl at hammer.UUCP (Pat Clancy) writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I read Shadow of the Torturer and thought it was horrible." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'll second that! This was an outstandingly bad novel. Yet it\nseems that every year or so the Wulf-cultists must issue forth onto\nthe net to demonstrate why there's such a large and uncritical\nmarket for so much bad SF." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Heiny.henr", "address": "heiny.henr at xerox.com" }, "date": "1986-03-24T15:42:34+00:00", "subject": "Re: Gene Wolfe: Book of the New Sun (Spoilers possible)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"This was an outstandingly bad novel. ...every year or so the\nWulf[sic]-cultists must issue forth ... to demonstrate why there's\nsuch a large ... market for so much bad SF.\"\n\nAnd every year the people who didn't like the books come out and\ninsult those who do. This happens with just about every author:\nWolfe, Moorcock, Heinlein & Laumer are the ones who come to mind as\nrecent examples.\n\nIt seems like every conversation on SFL degenerates to \"I liked this\nbook.\" - \"I didn't, so there.\" - \"Oh, yeah? Well, I did.\" - \"I\ndidn't, nyah nyah nyah.\" - \"Did.\" - \"Didn't\" - \"Did.\" - \"Didn't\" -\n\"DidDidDidDid.\" - \"Didn'tDidn'tDidn'tDidn't\".... No participant in\nthis part of the conversation bothers to tell us WHY they did or\ndidn't like it. It's as if their opinion was an invariable fact,\nculmination of some mathematical proof (which is intuitively obvious\nand left as an exercise to the student).\n\nWithout an explanation of why a book is so flawed or so wonderful or\nso average, any messages such as the one quoted above are as\nmeaningful as \"Reagan Sucks\" graffiti. Messages that simply parrot\nan opinion stated in another have even less meaning [why do do you\nagree? Is it fashionable? Do you feel guilty if you say no? Are\nyour reasons similar, or was it for some other cause?].\n\nAnother thing to recall is that SFL (like most similar lists) can be\ndivided into two groups: The Permanents (people with a steady, long\nterm access, such as myself - I've been reading it for some years\nnow) and The Transients (people who may have access only briefly or\nintermittently, such as students, part time employees, consultants,\netc). What may be old hat to the Permanents could be brand new to\nthe Transients (witness the regular recurrence of discussions such\nas Music in SF, Dune, Star Trek Inconsistencies, and the Book of the\nNew Sun) [there's thesis material for someone in here...]. It would\nbe nice if the Permanents could let the Transients have their say\nwithout ridiculing them: \"Oh THAT - that was said in V2#47. It's\nOLD stuff.\" Surely you have occasionally said something that has\nbeen said before - it would be nice if the Transients had the same\nprivilege.\n\nIt comes down to this: If you aren't willing to tell us why you feel\nthe way you do and you aren't willing to let others speak without\ninsulting them, then your message is only slightly more meaningful\nthan random bits.\n\nChris Heiny\n\nPS This was not directed solely to the author of the message above\nthat message was simply a stellar example of the problem." } ] } ] }