Subject: (urth) Ending of The Knight

From: Kieran Mullen <kieran at ou.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:57:34 +0000

Is this the right venue for discussions of The Wizard-Knight series?

    Very minor spoilers:

    A small note about the ending of "The Knight."    Able/Art ends up 
with Disiri in Aelfrice when Michael comes to call.  I think this is a 
reference to the story of Arthur ending up in Avalon, ready to return 
to England when the Land is under a great threat.  (Admittedly Able is 
not simply equivalent to Arthur.)

    Do we have a list of FAQ (perhaps even with a few answers...) for 
the series?  I have a few.

   Kieran Mullen

---

From: James Wynn <thewynns at earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:05:14 +0000

>the series?  I have a few.

Welcome Kieren,

You'll find everything said recently about The Wizard Knight at:
http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/urth-urth.net/

If you have a FAQ, please post it. :-)

The Wizard Knight series?  I consider this a single novel that is meant to
be read that way. In a couple years it will no doubt be offered that way.
Unlike the Latro books, I don't consider it a "series". Does anyone disagree
with that? Does anyone think the books were intended to be ultimately read
as self-standing novels?

---

From: Gregg <gwbest328 at rcn.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:39:48 +0000

>Unlike the Latro books, I don't consider it a "series". Does anyone
>disagree with that? Does anyone think the books were intended to be
>ultimately read as self-standing novels?

Mr. Wolfe said at Windycon this past year that he considers The Wizard
Knight to be two books, but he conceded that "everyone else" considers it to
be one book. Another case of his intentions being misunderstood, it would
seem.

---

From: James Wynn <thewynns at earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:57:34 +0000

>be one book. Another case of his intentions being misunderstood, it would

Hm. Well, okay. The Knight ends rather precipitously and unsatisfactorily
for a stand-alone and the "series" is called "The Wizard Knight" which the
opposite of the actual order. What can I say? Should I presume "everyone
else" includes his editor? ;-)

~ Crush

---

From: Gregg <gwbest328 at rcn.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:11:06 +0000

>>Knight to be two books, but he conceded that "everyone else" considers it
>>to be one book. Another case of his intentions being misunderstood, it
>>would seem.

>~ Crush

He didn't offer a definition of who "everyone else" is to him. He didn't
seem particularly happy or unhappy that he is the only one who thinks The
Wizard Knight is two books, either. It just seemed obvious to him, but we
aren't getting it. A familiar situation for us, eh?

---

From: stilskin <acronus at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:23:28 +0000

> aren't getting it. A familiar situation for us, eh?

I wouldn't be so quick to accept Wolfe's statements at
face value here (or anywhere else, for that matter). 
Wolfe, like Able, holds loyalty to be a prime virtue,
and whatever went on between him and TOR in the
process of bringing TWK to publication, he is likely
to regard it as private, and would probably not say
anything publically that might seem, whether to him or
to others, disloyal to his longtime editor and friend,
David Hartwell.  But it seems unlikely to me that an
artist of Wolfe's caliber could consider The Wizard to
be a book capable of standing on its own, without The
Knight.  What I believe to be the case is that Tor
split this book in two for commercial reasons, as they
have done with a number of other books they consider
too long (many of which, coincidentally or not, are
also edited by Mr. Hartwell).  And let's not forget
his role in the expansion of Wolfe's original Torturer
ms.

paul

=====
http://www.sff.net/people/stilskin

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! 
http://my.yahoo.com

---

From: Alan Lewis <alanarc at frontiernet.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 05:00:51 +0000

>ultimately read as self-standing novels?

Now that I have finally caught up, I can contribute to TWK discussion.  I 
take exception to the terms posed in this question.  Since Knight and Wizard 
the books in the same series, by no means should we expect them to read like 
self-standing novels.  If they were, then I would argue they are not so much 
books in a series, but books set in the same book-world, like Long Sun/Short 
Sun are.

Of course length of material inevitably has a part to play in this.  No 
doubt once Wolfe realized his story was going to take at least x many words, 
he would have realized he was probably looking to two books for all intents 
and purposes.  But I would argue he then wrote them that way, that there are 
fundamental differences between the two books.  For one thing, Able 
pre-Skai, and Able post-Skai are different characters.  In the first book he 
is the true neophyte, a complete outsider; in the second book he is (as 
essentially an Overcyn) the ultimate insider, a pro.  In Arthurian terms, in 
the first book he is Parsifal, and in the 2nd he is alternatively 
Lancelot/Arthur.  In each book he complains at different times that he's 
"just a kid."  In the first book we believe this is true, even though the 
other characters treat these statements as ironic self-reflection -- when he 
complains so in the Wizard, I think we take those statements the same way, 
and aren't buying him as a kid anymore.

Also the narrative structure is different in Wizard, with considerable 
narrative occurring outside his POV.

So I agree with GW on this one, even though it seems like I have little to 
no company.

Alan

---

From: Thomas Bitterman <tom at bitterman.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 06:37:35 +0000

>face value here (or anywhere else, for that matter). 
I took this as a joke.  "Everyone else" thinks it's one book for 
literary reasons.
He thinks it's two books because, well, physically there are two books.

>paul
Enamel

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:10:12 +0000

> So I agree with GW on this one, even though it seems like I have little to

Definitely not "no" - I completely agree with your reasoning and your
conclusion.

-- 
www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer
Freedom has no barcode.
     --J.G. Ballard