# Ending of The Knight *The Urth list — 9 messages, 7 voices, 11 Jan 2005* > 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. --- ### Kieran Mullen *11 Jan 2005, 11:57* 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 --- ### James Wynn *11 Jan 2005, 12:05 · in reply to Kieran Mullen* > Do we have a list of FAQ (perhaps even with a few answers...) for > 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? --- ### Gregg *11 Jan 2005, 15:39 · follows James Wynn* > Message: 9 > Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:05:05 -0500 > From: "James Wynn" > Subject: Re: (urth) Ending of The Knight > To: "The Urth Mailing List" > Message-ID: <00d601c4f818$d8d4e130$4c1e4b0a at vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > 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? 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. --- ### James Wynn *11 Jan 2005, 15:57 · in reply to Gregg* > 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. 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 --- ### Gregg *12 Jan 2005, 15:11 · follows James Wynn* > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:57:31 -0500 > From: "James Wynn" > Subject: Re: (urth) Ending of The Knight > To: "The Urth Mailing List" > Message-ID: <016501c4f839$505134a0$4c1e4b0a at vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> 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. > 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 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? --- ### stilskin *12 Jan 2005, 15:23 · in reply to Gregg* >> --- Gregg wrote: > 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? 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 --- ### Alan Lewis *13 Jan 2005, 05:00 · in reply to Gregg* > 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? 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 --- ### Thomas Bitterman *13 Jan 2005, 06:37 · in reply to stilskin* > stilskin wrote: > > --- Gregg wrote: > >> 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? >> >> > I wouldn't be so quick to accept Wolfe's statements at > 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 --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *13 Jan 2005, 10:10 · in reply to Alan Lewis* > On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:00:44 -0500, Alan Lewis wrote: > So I agree with GW on this one, even though it seems like I have little to > no company. Definitely not "no" - I completely agree with your reasoning and your conclusion. ``` www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer Freedom has no barcode. --J.G. Ballard ``` ---