Subject: (urth) Re-reading, hoping for some discussion ;-)

From: Jonathon McKitrick <jcm at freebsd-uk.eu.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:54:13 +0000

Hi all,

I was on the list some time ago, and now I'm re-reading BotNS,
hoping to get 'Solar Labyrinth' in the mail soon.

So, for all you long-time hard-core fans, it will be the same questions you've
heard before, but I'm hoping maybe someone with patience can help me sort this
stuff out.

First of all, after just reading a couple of today's posts about Severian's
lineage... is there any reason to believe Gene Wolfe had this stuff planned
out to provide all these details deliberately, and that he will take the final
explanation with him to his grave?

Jonathon McKitrick
--
My other computer is your Windows box.

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:58:52 +0000

On 8/14/06, Jonathon McKitrick <jcm at freebsd-uk.eu.org> wrote:
> lineage... is there any reason to believe Gene Wolfe had this stuff
> planned out to provide all these details deliberately, and that he will
> take the final explanation with him to his grave?

I'm reasonably sure that Wolfe did not create this complex, beautiful
work without a clear idea of what it all meant (I don't mean symbolically,
at least not necessarily; I mean what was going on behind the scenes
to cause the various mysterious goings-on). I'm fairly certain he knows
who Severian's parents and grandparents were.

But ... I suspect that we readers sometimes spend a lot of ingenuity
coming up with solutions to mysteries Wolfe never intended to be
mysteries at all.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant
-----
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer
"Shovels are essential to the fantasy genre.
However, they are primarily used by the authors rather than the
characters." -- Stephen R. Donaldson

---

From: b sharp <bsharporflat at hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:21:42 +0000

Jonathon McKitrick asks:

>... is there any reason to believe Gene Wolfe had this stuff planned out to 
>provide all these details >deliberately, and that he will take the final 

At the end of Citadel, I think,  Gene Wolfe makes some comment about BotNS 
being the culmination of seven years of writing, re-reading, re-writing.  So 
I think there are surely intentional mysteries in there.  In one interview, 
Gene Wolfe is asked about all the analyses and interpretations of BotNS and 
he answers saying something to the effect that he is surprised by the 
excessive attention to certain details he never considered important and to 
the scant attention paid to other details he considered very important.

We've seen that different people magnify different parts of the story, 
depending on the lens they use to view.  Might be a Catholic or Marxist or 
(in my case) anthropological bias which makes some parts of the text stand 
out and other parts diminish.  In reading Solar Labyrinth earlier this year, 
I wondered if Robert Borski might have a Jewish perspective (I don't know 
his religious persuasion).

Someone recently asked if Wolfe might have notes or journals which would be 
published after his death.  Some felt that might happen but they would be as 
impenetrable as his already published work.  I get the feeling he builds his 
stories on a solid, clear foundation then he obscures it, so his notes would 
solve many mysteries.  But I don't think any notes will be released since 
Wolfe  hopes his work has the enduring quality to last much longer than his 
lifetime.

In the past, people in here have wondered why BotNS hasn't become an 
enduring classic which penetrates the cultural consciouness at large, such 
as Lord of the Rings, or Dune or Jurassic Park.  I think it is partly 
because, since the 80's and the availability of the VCR and movie rentals, 
all Science Fiction/Fantasy classics are expected to be made into movies.  
It would be sad to think Gene Wolfe's work would fade into obscurity in the 
future.

But I have mixed feelings about a BotNS movie.  I'd like to see it, just 
because I love movies and I think current CGI technology could do it 
justice, visually.  But a movie which didn't capture the tone and feeling of 
BotNS could actually hurt the popularity of the books, as I think the Dune 
movies have done.

-bsharp

---

From: Adrian Robert <arobert at cogsci.ucsd.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:23:29 +0000

> It would be sad to think Gene Wolfe's work would fade into obscurity 

Er, also the main character is a torturer?  ;)  Wandering around on his 
own account to boot.  Not quite as family-friendly as hobbits, dwarves, 
and elves journeying merrily together to save the world.

I don't see much reason to mention Jurassic Park and Dune / LoTR in the 
same sentence.  (Not wanting to start an argument -- they both have 
wide cultural appeal, just for very different reasons. ;)

Anyhow, it's an interesting question as to whether Wolfe's work will 
last.  To do so it will not only have to stand out from other works of 
its time, but also continuously maintain some degree of readership.  I 
think these are a lot harder these days than, say, 100 or even 50 years 
ago, if for no other reason than the sheer number of other works being 
competed against for reader's attention.

And I feel like his work kind of falls between the cracks of different 
audiences.  Most sci fi readers that I know have not heard of Gene 
Wolfe.  Same with most non-scifi readers.  He's not mainstream sci fi 
and a bit difficult going if you're just looking for spaceships, laser 
guns, and/or AI.  On the other hand people who read books for the 
characters and emotions are not necessarily going to even consider 
reading a sci fi work because they're conditioned to believe that genre 
focuses on ideas at the expense of narrative elegance and character 
development.  I suspect a lot of Wolfe fans happen to enjoy both types 
of works, they make up the exception rather than the rule among 
readers.  (I did manage to get a friend of mine to read _There are 
Doors_ once, but despite a positive reaction she balked at BotNS.)

Anyhow, I guess I'd like to think Wolfe's work will last, but have 
trouble convincing myself it can.

---

From: Jonathon McKitrick <jcm at freebsd-uk.eu.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:15:46 +0000

On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 07:21:42AM -0400, b sharp wrote:
: out and other parts diminish.  In reading Solar Labyrinth earlier this year, 

Mine is on the way.  Did you find it worth reading?

: But I have mixed feelings about a BotNS movie.  I'd like to see it, just 
: because I love movies and I think current CGI technology could do it 

Now we can degrade the list into polls on who should play Severian, et al.
:-)

: justice, visually.  But a movie which didn't capture the tone and feeling of 
: BotNS could actually hurt the popularity of the books, as I think the Dune 
: movies have done.

I was excited when the SciFi channel Dune came out, but I have mixed feelings
about it.  Much better, in some ways, than the movie, but still empty in many
other ways.  Not sure if I want to rent/buy 'Children of Dune' out of
curiosity or not.  I never did get around to reading the book.

Jonathon McKitrick

---

From: HHR <hubert.rogers at ntlworld.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:16:27 +0000

In my admittedly limited experience trying to persuade friends into  
reading New Sun, I've had no success. One friend read around 3 pages  
and seemed to think that the whole main character as a torturer story  
was a gimmick, and couldn't accept statements near the beginning of  
the book such as the one about women not being allowed in the guild  
because they could be too cruel.

It's a real shame, because all three people I've got to start reading  
New Sun (and given copies of Shadow and Claw to), I know are the type  
who would love the unsurpassed mysteries and adventure. I've always  
thought it was just a matter of getting people to just have the  
patience and open-mindedness to get past the first few chapters.

Other times I've wondered if it could be that we who have read  
(multiple times) and loved every bit of TBotNS are somehow just  
obsessive freaks for thinking so highly of it. But to be honest I  
can't accept that. I'm cautious not to come across as a crazy  
fanatic, and I know you can never please everyone and that there will  
always be large proportions of the public who have no interest in a  
given style, but I do know that the Wolfe's New Sun is not anywhere  
near being given its due regard.

As Bsharp suggested, I agree a lot of this is down to the complete  
lack of TV/cinema presence Wolfe has received.
Even though the endless detail and wealth in minor characters and  
subplots (and lack of a simple and obvious primary plot!) make it  
practically impossible for true justice to be done even in a trilogy  
of 3 hour epics such as. Still I think if the atmosphere of Urth was  
captured by a highly talented director (and great soundtrack and CGI  
teams!), and even if a great deal of the book was cut out, the result  
could be amazing.

The problem is there is so little awareness to spark interest in  
making a cinema adaption. All we can do is our little part... put in  
a good word wherever and whenever we can. I recently was looking up  
Wolf related terms and characters on Wikipedia and it struck me that  
good Wikipedia representation would be a great help to the cause.  
I've just made my attempt on Erebus... Abaia is up next :-)

On 15 Aug 2006, at 14:23, Adrian Robert wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

---

From: Bob Miller <bob_bageera at hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 02:55:23 +0000

While I personally love BOTNS, word used carefully, there are many who do 
not like it at all.  I well remember trying to loan the SotT  to three 
different people at work.  The politeness of the response varied, but it was 
about the same in all three instances, "Why am I reading about these people 
thinking about robbing a graveyard and I don't think I like any of them?"   
My own opinion?  Until I read the Wizard Knight, I thought it was the best 
book I've read by a living author.
Godspeed

-bsharp

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 05:13:05 +0000

> book I've read by a living author.

Hooray! Someone who agrees with me about TWK!

---

From: Jonathon McKitrick <jcm at freebsd-uk.eu.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:31:30 +0000

On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:13:05PM -0700, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
: On 8/17/06, Bob Miller <bob_bageera at hotmail.com> wrote:
: > My own opinion?  Until I read the Wizard Knight, I thought it was the best
: > book I've read by a living author.
: 
: Hooray! Someone who agrees with me about TWK!

Wow!  So you guys think TWK is even better, eh?  That's quite a compliment.
I wouldn't rule it out, but I've never been very interested in fantasy.  It
took me quite a while to give BotNS a chance, since it wasn't 'obviously' SF.

Jonathon McKitrick

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:31:27 +0000

> Wow!  So you guys think TWK is even better, eh?  That's quite a

I'll have to be a bit cautious about this: I found it far more _engaging_
than any of the Solar books (though Long Sun came close). I was
privileged to review THE KNIGHT for the NYRSF, and had trouble
actually _writing_ the review, because I didn't want to stop reading
and rereading the book -- the first time that had happened to me in
over thirty years, since I first read LORD OF THE RINGS in sixth
grade.

---

From: Jonathon McKitrick <jcm at freebsd-uk.eu.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:07:34 +0000

On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 08:31:27AM -0700, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
: I'll have to be a bit cautious about this: I found it far more _engaging_
: than any of the Solar books (though Long Sun came close). I was
: privileged to review THE KNIGHT for the NYRSF, and had trouble
: actually _writing_ the review, because I didn't want to stop reading
: and rereading the book -- the first time that had happened to me in
: over thirty years, since I first read LORD OF THE RINGS in sixth
: grade.

Is it a true 'magic' book, sci-fi in disguise, or neither?

Jonathon McKitrick

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:38:07 +0000

Oh, it's fantasy all right. If you're just plain allergic to fantasy, skip
it. If you like the very best (like LotR), grab it NOW.

---

From: Bob Miller <bob_bageera at hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 09:35:15 +0000

Yes, I'm rereading a fair amount of Kipling now and  when I've run this race 
I'm going to reread Eye of Cat and the WK again.  I feel sure that my 
opinion of WK will only get stronger as my opinion of Eugene Sue continues 
to ever get weaker.

: > My own opinion?  Until I read the Wizard Knight, I thought it was the 
best
: > book I've read by a living author.
:
: Hooray! Someone who agrees with me about TWK!

Wow!  So you guys think TWK is even better, eh?  That's quite a compliment.
I wouldn't rule it out, but I've never been very interested in fantasy.  It
took me quite a while to give BotNS a chance, since it wasn't 'obviously' 
SF.

Jonathon McKitrick

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/