Subject: Re: Gene Wolfe: Book of the New Sun (Spoilers possible)

From: Rick <ucdavis!ccrrick at caip.rutgers.edu>
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1986 03:40:11 +0000

I have read _The_Shadow_of_the_Torturer_, (first volume of
_The_Book_of_the_New_Sun), but in almost a year have yet to continue
with the rest of the book.  In general, I found the writing murky
and the tale rather disconnected.  I found that I learned very
little of the political system, social classes, economic systems or
even recent history.  This failure of Wolfe's to adequately inform
varies directly with my failure to be interested in his tale.

This seems to me to be particularly true in a story like this where
so many of the characters seem to be insane and therefore take
actions that appear illogical: Master Palaemon gives an extremely
valuable sword to a man who never seemed to interest him and who
ought to be sentenced to death.  Agia and Agilus are insanely
greedy, consider the bizarre excuses Agilus gives in the prison cell
when he argues to be spared.  The boatman is in a crazed state and
Dorcas suffers from amnesia.  The rationality of Dr. Talos,
Baldanders and the stuttering man seem questionable to me as well.

I understand that Wolfe wrote this book while employed at another
job and typically wrote during the early morning hours, shortly
after having awakened.  This probably accounts for the dreamlike
nature of the work, which many people seem to admire highly.  I am
less than enthusiastic about it; on the other hand, only reading the
first book is probably tantamount to turning off Beethoven's 5th
symphony in the middle of the second movement in terms of being fair
to the author's complete message...  But on the first hand, the
author has the responsibility to make the first story accessible
enough that the others will be read...  In time, I may re-read the
first book and give it another chance...

One thing that intrigues me is the theory that Severian has lived
this life before and that all the events depicted have been
experienced by Severian not once, but twice.  Anyone have any
thoughts or theories on this?  What made someone think of this
rather unique thought in the first place?  What evidence is there
for it?

rick heli

---

From: Michaelntz <csd2!krantz at caip.rutgers.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1986 16:06:00 +0000

patcl at hammer.UUCP (Pat Clancy) writes:
>I read Shadow of the Torturer and thought it was horrible.

I'll second that!  This was an outstandingly bad novel.  Yet it
seems that every year or so the Wulf-cultists must issue forth onto
the net to demonstrate why there's such a large and uncritical
market for so much bad SF.

---

From: Heiny.henr <heiny.henr at xerox.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1986 15:42:34 +0000

"This was an outstandingly bad novel. ...every year or so the
Wulf[sic]-cultists must issue forth ... to demonstrate why there's
such a large ... market for so much bad SF."

And every year the people who didn't like the books come out and
insult those who do.  This happens with just about every author:
Wolfe, Moorcock, Heinlein & Laumer are the ones who come to mind as
recent examples.

It seems like every conversation on SFL degenerates to "I liked this
book." - "I didn't, so there." - "Oh, yeah? Well, I did." - "I
didn't, nyah nyah nyah." - "Did." - "Didn't" - "Did." - "Didn't" -
"DidDidDidDid." - "Didn'tDidn'tDidn'tDidn't"....  No participant in
this part of the conversation bothers to tell us WHY they did or
didn't like it.  It's as if their opinion was an invariable fact,
culmination of some mathematical proof (which is intuitively obvious
and left as an exercise to the student).

Without an explanation of why a book is so flawed or so wonderful or
so average, any messages such as the one quoted above are as
meaningful as "Reagan Sucks" graffiti.  Messages that simply parrot
an opinion stated in another have even less meaning [why do do you
agree?  Is it fashionable?  Do you feel guilty if you say no?  Are
your reasons similar, or was it for some other cause?].

Another thing to recall is that SFL (like most similar lists) can be
divided into two groups: The Permanents (people with a steady, long
term access, such as myself - I've been reading it for some years
now) and The Transients (people who may have access only briefly or
intermittently, such as students, part time employees, consultants,
etc).  What may be old hat to the Permanents could be brand new to
the Transients (witness the regular recurrence of discussions such
as Music in SF, Dune, Star Trek Inconsistencies, and the Book of the
New Sun) [there's thesis material for someone in here...].  It would
be nice if the Permanents could let the Transients have their say
without ridiculing them: "Oh THAT - that was said in V2#47.  It's
OLD stuff."  Surely you have occasionally said something that has
been said before - it would be nice if the Transients had the same
privilege.

It comes down to this: If you aren't willing to tell us why you feel
the way you do and you aren't willing to let others speak without
insulting them, then your message is only slightly more meaningful
than random bits.

Chris Heiny

PS This was not directed solely to the author of the message above
that message was simply a stellar example of the problem.