Subject: Gene Wolfe: Book of the New Sun

From: Kim Helliwell <kim at analog.uucp>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1986 22:25:37 +0000

I've seen several kudos on this newsgroup for Gene Wolfe's Book of the New
Sun, and they nearly always prompt the following train of thought in my
mind:

What is it that you who love it (and read and re-read it avidly) see in it
that I am missing?  I've made it to the end of the second volume, the one
which ends with the invitation to journey further with the protagonist, but
does not blame the reader if he chooses not to--saying "it is no easy 
journey".  Even up to that point it is no easy journey, so I've paused long
to consider whether I want to go any further!

I must be missing some crucial point--is it something that will come clear
if I go on, or would the net advise me to abandon it because, "if you have
to  ask, you ain't never going to know!"

If someone could explain in his own words what it is that Wolfe is trying to
do with this work, it might help.

---

From: Michaelntz <krantz at csd2.uucp>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1986 02:03:00 +0000

> hplabs!analog!kim

What Wolfe is trying to do is raise science fiction to a higher degree
of literary value than has EVER EXISTED, beyond question.  I have read
a hell of a lot of SF and a hell of a lot more `serious' fiction than
that (I'm an MA in literature/writing), and all I can tell you, though
the Book Of The New Sun is too long and complex for your question to 
be answerable outside of an extended thesis (shit, I won't pretend I
really understand the damn books - they defy that), is that if you are
not blown away by now, at the end of the The_Claw_Of_The_Conciliator,
if you are not shaking your head at Wolfe's awesome scope, his dazzling
imagination, his miraculously skilled prose - well, man, go back to
clowns like Heinlein and Asimov. 

Gene Wolfe is, quite simply, the best novelist ever to write in the
science fiction genre.  His prose, his ideas - all of it.  The 
best.  Hands down.

- Michael Krantz

"The text reveals the process of its own production."

---

From: David desJardins <desj at brahms.berkeley.edu>
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1986 11:02:49 +0000

>science fiction genre.  His prose, his ideas - all of it.  The 

   I haven't read the books, and for all I know they are God's gift to
mankind, but however good the books are the above is the definition of
bullshit.  The writer presents the following as facts (not opinions):

1) These books have the most literary value of any SF ever written.
2) No one can even question this.
3) He has an MA in literature/writing but can't say why the books are good.
4) Nor does he understand the books; in fact they defy understanding.
5) If you didn't love the book you're an idiot.
6) Once again, Gene Wolfe is the best science fiction author ever.

I for one find this sort of garbage extremely offensive.  Is anyone out
there interested in answering the original question instead of lecturing
the rest of us on our stupidity?

   -- David desJardins

---

From: Paul Hahn <ph at wucec2.uucp>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1986 03:21:38 +0000

In article <194 at analog.UUCP> kim at analog.UUCP (Kim Helliwell          ) writes:
>that I am missing? . . .

	    I can't tell you what Wolfe is trying to do, but I can tell
	you what I, myself, enjoy about the work.  (I've only read it
	twice, but plan to reread it many more times in the future.)
	There are, basically, four things that really appeal to me about
	THE BOOK OF THE NEW SUN:
	(1) The world.  Wolfe has created a world in these books which
	has as much feeling of depth and reality as Middle-Earth or the
	Land or anything other created world of which I have read.  In
	addition, Urth has its own unique flavor, a distinctiveness that
	is perhaps unsurpassed in my experience.
	(2) The storytelling.  The beautiful, beautiful use of the
	English language in these books absolutely grips me, though I
	can understand that for some the difficulty of getting through
	it would negate its power.  Matter of taste, I guess.
	(3) The people.  As with the world they inhabit, Wolfe's
	characters are unusual and fascinating.  To follow Severian in
	his physical and spiritual (yech, I hate that word) journey is a
	joy.
	(4) The challenge.  Throughout most of the four volumes, as I
	marveled at the weird and wonderful images Wolfe showed me I was
	also thinking: What the blank is going on?  To a certain degree
	THE BOOK OF THE NEW SUN is a puzzle.  It involves time in
	several ways, which creates a profound sense of disorientation
	and confusion sometimes, but comes clear (for the most part,
	anyway) at the end if one is paying attention.  I will be the
	first to admit that I wasn't (I zipped through THE CITADEL OF
	THE AUTARCH during finals week), which was why many things which
	I should have gotten had to wait for my second reading.  I am
	still far from a complete understanding of the book, and doubt
	that I shall ever attain one, but I intend to keep trying and
	savoring.
	    Does that help?
						--pH
/*
 *	    "My pen halts, though I do not.  Reader, you will walk no
 *	more with me.  It is time we both take up our lives."
 */

---

From: Jim Gardner <jagardner at watmath.uucp>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1986 18:20:54 +0000

>the rest of us on our stupidity?

Once in a long while, you read a book and the clouds part and the
sun shines and your heart begins pumping and your eyes open and you
suddenly realize that all your previous notions of what literature
can do are feeble and limited.  This is an awesome experience...and
it's a pity that the word "awesome" has been so devalued in recent
years, because "awe" is just as strong and surprising as it was millennia
ago when the human race knew doodly-squat about anything.  As Eastern
(and Western) mystics have repeated down through the years, you can't
explain "awe" rationally and you can't forcefeed it into someone who
is not receptive to it.  Nevertheless, some things/events/works of art
are awe-inspiring and those who have felt their impact are changed by
the experience.

High-falutin' words, and being a child of the cool cynical 70's and
80's, I would normally gag at the paragraph I just wrote.  But I've
read the Book of the New Sun, and I have to call a masterpiece a
masterpiece.  In my opinion, the Book of the New Sun is the greatest
piece of literature ever produced by the English-speaking SF movement.
I can think of nothing that approaches it.  I can think of no other
book that would move me to such a trite-sounding contentious statement.

So the obvious question is, "Why?"  And it would be a lot easier for
all concerned if the question had an obvious answer.  It doesn't.
Even worse, I know that any answer I can give is going to trivialize
something that is deep and strong and wise.  But here are a variety of
attempts to say why the Book of the New Sun is awesome:

(1) It expands the limits of what SF can do.  Not only is the story
    carried forward by strict narrative, but by philosopical digressions,
    a play, stories told by characters, dream sequences, flashbacks,
    offhand remarks, and so on.  The structure is complex, and frankly,
    there are times when you don't know what the hell is going on (at
    least on first reading), but the result is much more satisfying
    than "First A happened, then B, then C."  As a reader, you have to
    work and you have to think.

(2) It breaks SF cliches.  This is a book with all the SF stock and trade
    turned inside out.  Yes, there is space travel, but no one on earth
    cares about it much anymore.  Yes, there is time travel (of a sort),
    but it is embodied in a very simple artifact and used for down-to-earth
    purposes.  We have a robot in love with a woman, but feeling unworthy
    of her because he has been injured and repaired with human parts, so
    is not a "whole" being.  The Frankenstein story is turned inside-out,
    none of the aliens behave the way you expect, the hero becomes Supreme
    leader of his commonwealth in a way that is _nothing_ like any SF
    cliche, the great duel that caps the first volume is fought with
    flowers, and on and on.

(3) The book depicts a complete, very human society that is nothing
    like ours.  This is often the goal of SF, but you don't realize
    how far short other books come until you read this one.  Religion,
    culture, art, cuisine, modes of thought, are all fully envisioned
    and _different_.  Simple example: by the time the book takes place,
    relativity and heliocentrism are firmly established in everyday
    life.  Therefore, the sun never sets; earth's horizon rises to
    cover the sun.  Wolfe never slips into 20th century thought.

(4) The book is rich with allusions, humour, and anything else you
    care to name.  Things that immediately come to mind are twists
    on things we would recognize: the hero's attempt at interpreting
    a painting which is actually a photo of Armstrong on the moon;
    a funny/serious recap of the temptations of Christ inside the
    head of a mountain that has been carved to resemble a deceased
    tyrant who isn't quite dead enough; the classic fairy tale romance
    told entirely in what sound like quotations from Chairman Mao.
    Heaven knows how many of these I missed -- I'm told there are a
    lot of allusions to Borges' work, but I didn't catch them.

(5) The prose style is flawless.  This doesn't matter to the general
    reader, but it fills the writer in me with envy.  Sentences are
    seamless, varied, always easy to understand, never draw attention
    to themselves, until you actually look at what he is pulling off.
    Yes, he uses a vast number of unfamiliar words...but they are
    all nouns for objects/people/institutions that have no present-day
    counterparts.  There is none of the Stephen R. Donaldson "use a
    $10 word in some awkward way just to sound more important" nonsense.

Does this answer the question?  Probably not -- if the point of the
work could be summarized in a few paragraphs, I wouldn't be raving
about the book being truly great.  It's like trying to explain why
cold juicy oranges are more satisfying than a Snickers bar; there's
nothing wrong with Snickers, but oranges at the right time and place
are blissful.

Will everyone like the Book of the New Sun?  Of course not.  Some
people are looking for different things in their reading material.
Will everyone understand the Book of the New Sun?  Not a chance.
Which I think is a bonus.  Anything I can understand completely at
first sight is nowhere near the heights to which humans can aspire,
right?  The world is complex, art is not immediately transparent 
(although it may seem very simple), and any work that really tries
to bite off a piece of immortality is going to have depths that
only unfold with thought and time.  Literature that fully engages
the capacity of an adult mind is not something you can assimilate
in quick skimming.  (IMPORTANT NOTE: I am not saying that a book
has to be inaccessible to be good; I don't like books that keep
me in a constant state of confusion.  I am saying that something I
can wring totally dry on first reading could well be an enjoyable
book, but dammit, we're grown-ups now, and a mature writer spending
months or years producing a piece of literature can put more
resonances/tricks/delights/ironies into a story than I can pull
out in a few hours of page turning.  There _are_ heights.  There
_are_ books that yield new pleasures and revelations every time you read
them.  Those show what writing can accomplish.)

Is anyone out there persuaded?  If I were someone who hadn't read
the books, I would be extremely skeptical of what I have just written.
But I hope some people are curious enough that they will go to their
local libraries (it's free!) and get the first volume (The Shadow of
the Torturer) to see what it's like.  Note that this is not a series,
but one book in four volumes, and you'll be lost if you don't read them
in order.

For those who have started the book and see no point in continuing,
so it goes.  Some people can look at the Grand Canyon and feel
awestruck, while others wonder why they drove all the way to Arizona
to see a big hole in the ground.  If the Book of the New Sun does
nothing for you, life's too short to waste your time slogging through
tens of thousands of words in the hope that it will all suddenly make
sense.  Look elsewhere for inspiration.

But it inspired me.  A lot.

			Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo

---

From: wfi <wfi at rti-sel.uucp>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1986 22:34:35 +0000

>science fiction genre.  His prose, his ideas - all of it.  The 

I'd also like to recommend (again) to net.sf-lovers readers the
excellent "Fifth Head Of Cerberus."

I think Wolfe's being the "best SF novelist ever" is debatable (probably
endlessly :-). Although Stanislaw Lem's books are uneven in quality,
at his best I think he's a match for Wolfe. Based, of course, on the
translations that are available of his work. Try the "Cyberiad" or
"Solaris," "Memoirs Found In A Bathtub" or "The Futurological
Congress". Or his stranger works like "A Perfect Vacuum."

                               -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly

---

From: Mark <ins_amap at jhunix.uucp>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1986 23:18:05 +0000

> the rest of us on our stupidity?

I'm another one of those people to whom Gene Wolf is like unto a god, but
I have to agree with Mr. desJardins on some of his points.  Others are a 
little less cut and dried.

Points 1) and 2) are by definition absurd, or at least unsupportable.  There's
been an awful lot of SF written, and a significant portion of that has had
literary aspirations.  All of Delaney's work, a lot of Ellison (although no
one should tell him that), Tanith Lee's stories, the ones by LeGuin, all
of those were stories written as something other than hack work.  So were most
of those by almost any other "name" author of the past 20 years.  And don't 
forget the small-time authors whose work, though well crafted, might have 
slipped by us.  Literary value isn't something that can be quantized.  Which 
brings me to point 3).

All I can say about point 3) is to go out and read _Zen and the Art of
Motorcycle Maintenance_.  The book won't tell you why Gene Wolf is god, but it
might help people understand why I can't tell you either.  There are novels
that are well crafted, that flow easily, that have good dialogue and
interesting plot, i.e. technically flawless books that simply aren't as
_good_ as _The Book of the New Sun_.  _Green Eyes_ by Lucius Sheperd comes
to mind.  That book was a first novel, and blew me away, but it still didn't
have the impact that the Wolf's novels have had.  There are things I
could point to in his books and say "Look, a perfectly crafted section",
indicating the allusions, the rythmm of the words, the play on the readers
point of view versus the narators, and still you'd be missing the Quality
of the piece.  In that area of art, nothing really has a name, only a presence
that either takes the viewer into a new state of being, or does not.  Which
brings me to my next point.

In number 5) the original author is paraphrased such that he comes across
as saying all non-Wolf-worshipers are stupid.  I wouldn't have read it quite
that harshly, believing there to have been more enthusiasm than spite behind the
words.  If Wolf's work hits you, it generally hits you hard.  If not, it's
stuff that's a chore to wade through.  I've tried to indoctrinate two
girlfriends to the Order, with no success.  I still like them both (well,
one of them) fine.  I wasn't trying to increase their intelligence.  I was
trying to give them something great and good.  There are snobs, even in SF.
One of them may be sitting sitting beside you right now, but realize that all
enthusiasts are also elitists.  Bear with the mania of thy neighbor.

Point 4).  "Understanding" a book is one thing to work for.  For most
people it comes easy with most books, and Wolf's books have a perfectly 
understandable plot line (until the end when things get hairy, but if you've
gotten that far you won't mind).  There are other things to work for as well.
Finding all the nuances in the books to be found, that's something no one will
ever do.  I think that's what the original poster had in mind when he said that
about understanding the books.  I think someone once defined art as that which
is always new.  Who can understand something that is forever new to them?  Who
would want to?

As to who's the best SF author ever, that remains to be seen, doesn't it?

									Mark!

---

From: jimb <jimb at ism780.uucp>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1986 15:32:00 +0000

> ...the Book Of The New Sun is too long and complex for your question to
> really understand the damn books - they defy that)...
>
> ...Wolfe's awesome scope, his dazzling imagination, his miraculously
> skilled prose...
>

I will straddle the fence (and probably incur anatomical difficulties as a
result).  The first two quotes above I agree with, though I do not associate
myself with some of the snotty tone in the sections I deleted.

As to the third quote, while I find it arguable, it *is* arguable, e.g.,
can't be dismissed out of hand.  The Book of the New Sun is not for plot
readers.  Wolfe's use of plot is almost completely centered on progressive
revelation and illumination of character, that kernel of all good fiction.

TBOTNS is one definition by example of tour de force.  He is using SF
convention and imagery combined with classical literary technique to portray
the life, conflicts, and character development of a fascinating individual in
a fascinating world.

TBOTNS is written with and to a different sensibility than most SF, and like
all literature, you must accept it on its own terms if it is going to "work"
for you.  If you don't, or for whatever reason can't, such is life.
Remember, concerning matters of taste, there is no disputing.  (An aphorism
that antedates my birth by a good couple of millenia.)

			-- from the musings of Jim Brunet

			   ihnp4/ima/ism780B
			   hao/ico/ism780B

	"In any large scale endeavor that has worked to the benefit of
mankind, there has been pain and sacrifice and loss.  We stand now at one of
the pivotal points in history.  We can say "no" to the unknown mysteries of
space, turn our backs, and announce our decline as a civilization.  Or we can
look at the stars, express our grief at the loss of CHALLENGER and its crew,
and then honor their lives by saying, 'We shall continue.'"

---

From: Tim Maroney <tim at hoptoad.uucp>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1986 07:59:42 +0000

The Book of the New Sun is in some ways a difficult work.  If you don't like
it, then by all means read something you will ike better.  However, since the
question was why others like it...

First, ignore the person who said the world is unique.  Wrong.  Jack Vance
used it frequently, though Wolfe's variation incorporates some Cordwainer
Smith as well (you know, when he says "Atomic Age" and it *really* sounds
like "Bronze Age").  Nonetheless, ity is fascinating to modern people to
explore a perspective from which we are not only relegated to a historical
junkpile, but completely forgotten and proven to have no significance
whatsoever in the overall history of the world.

The prose is stunningly crafted.  That in itself is not enough to make a
book enjoyable -- see William Gibson, who people will get sick of long
before 1988.  Nonetheless, at this level it is the best science fiction
ever: it almost attains the stature of an epic poem.

Related to thhe quality of the prose is the quality of the imagery, which
is peculiarly evocative.  All the grains and colors of a Wolfe scene leap
out with all the attribnutes of a vivid three-dimensional perception
remembered from childhood.  This is done without long, tedious description
or focusing on surface features.

The plots are what really make the series.  For some reason I have yet
to figure out, the characters and events really get into my brain and
reconfigure it into an Escher lithograph.  Their raw potency defies
description or summary.  If these are not moving you, I don't know what
to tell you.  Do they seem arbitrary?  Pointless?  Then you and I have
different worlds, or at least different ways of reading.

I hope this helps.  Try to read the Book as if it were an epic poem in
blank verse, and you may come to appreciate it more.

Tim Maroney

---

From: David C. Albrecht <dca at edison.uucp>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1986 13:37:33 +0000

> science fiction genre.  His prose, his ideas - all of it.  The 
Insert rasberry here.  I realize that many people believe that these
books are the greatest thing since sliced bread and I wish them all happiness
in their beliefs.  Me, I guess I will stick with clowns :-).  I read Shadow
of the Torturer and thought it was horrible.  After reading all the praise
for the books I gave them another chance and read the entire Book of the
New Sun set.  I wasn't particularly fascinated.  To me the characters were
not particularly interesting.  The books were a series of disconnected
vignettes that I found neither particularly interesting nor imaginative.
I didn't feel much purpose or direction anywhere.  No thanks.  We went
through the whole discussion of the subjectiveness of writing in this
group to the point of exhaustion.  In your opinion Gene Wolfe is the
finest writer in the genre, fine.  In my opinion he is not even close
to the best I would much rather read 'clowns' like Zelazny, McKillip,
Blish, Biggle, Silverberg, Eddings, Card, Fiest, even some Asimov or Heinlen.

David Albrecht

---

From: Charlie Martin <crm at duke.uucp>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1986 13:24:52 +0000

In article <1090 at watmath.UUCP> you write:
>...so it goes.  Some people can look at the Grand Canyon and feel
>to see a big hole in the ground.  
>
And some of us went to the Grand Canyon and found that the old,
wind-warped timberline pines were far more beautiful, even if the Grand
Canyon is pretty imressive.

I haven't read "Book of the New Sun" because some of the rest of
Wolfe's writing put me off rather badly, and I've only so many hours
in the day.  So maybe I'll try it -- Shadow etc is around here
someplace.  But DesJardins has a good point about the posting to
which he responded -- the general tone *was* "anybody who doesn't
think that Gene Wolfe is Ghod's gift to SF is a schmuck."  And I
think he was justly offened.  Your posting, while more complete
and a far better description of the book(s), *still* comes across
(in my humble opinion [Davis, stop giggling!]) as "if you don't
have a religious experience reading Book of the New Sun, there may be
something seriously wrong with your upbringing."

So cut those of us who prefer a style more like Hemingway a little
slack, okay?

---

From: jimb <jimb at ism780.uucp>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1986 15:12:00 +0000

Thought I'd jump back in again.  Jim Gardner's response (jagardner @ watmath)
is excellent.  I wish *I* had written it and I second practically everything
he said -- didn't see anything I wouldn't wholeheartedly agree with on one
read/think.  Thanks, Jim.

			   ihnp4/ima/ism780B
			   hao/ico/ism780B

---

From: Ned Danieley <ndd at duke.uucp>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1986 15:56:08 +0000

In article <651 at edison.UUCP> dca at edison.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) writes:
>Insert rasberry here...
.
.
.
>....  In my opinion he is not even close

I second David's opinion. I got through the books, but I'm not
sure why.

Ned Danieley

---

From: Guy M. Smith <guy at slu70.uucp>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1986 18:40:12 +0000

> book that would move me to such a trite-sounding contentious statement.

Ditto for me. In terms of a fully realized alternate world, the only book that
I know of that is in the same class as the New Sun is Lord of the Rings. I
wouldn't attempt to try to compare the two directly as the authors were trying
to do such different things. Someone else may be braver. As for Wolfe, anyone
who can make a sympathetic character out of a torturer has got to be good.

---

From: Barbara Jernigan <barb at oliven.uucp>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1986 22:58:33 +0000

>is always new.  Who can understand something that is forever new to them?  Who

If it makes the reader feel any better, sometimes authors are in the same boat.
To quote Jung:

   The secret of creativeness, like that of the freedom of the will, 
   is a transcendental problem which the psychologist cannot answer 
   but can only describe. . . . Art is a kind of innate drive that 
   seizes a human being and makes him its instrument.  The artist is 
   not a person endowed with free will who seeks his own ends, but 
   one who allows art to realize its purposes through him. . . . As 
   K. G. Carus says:  "Strange are the ways by which genius is 
   announced, for what distinguishes so supremely endowed a being is 
   that, for all the freedom of his life and the clarity of his 
   thought, he is everywhere hemmed round and prevailed upon by the 
   Unconscious, the mysterious god within him; so that ideas flow to 
   him -- he knows not whence; his is driven to work ant to create 
   -- he knows not to what end; and is mastered by an impulse for 
   constant growth and development -- he knows not whither."

In my own work, I have found myself unconsciously foreshadowing later events --
and was aware of the foreshadowing only within the second and third passes.
Is strange, remaining inexplicable (but pretty neat).  When the writer says,
"The book wrote itself," he/she is not lying or belittling his/her craft.
The ideas, hard as they are, are not the hardest part.  The *hard* part is
turning the idea into something readable.  But I digress.

> As to who's the best SF author ever, that remains to be seen, doesn't it?

"Best."  Do I know that word?                                         ;-)

Barb

---

From: David C. Albrecht <dca at edison.uucp>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1986 14:10:51 +0000

> can do are feeble and limited.... (lots more)

Though as I stated before I was not impressed by the Book of the New Sun,
I was impressed by this review.  It was obvious the author was very taken
by these books and to some degree he even managed to get across why.
Certainly it came light years closer to making me want to get down the
books and look at them than the original response.  Variety of taste
can, do, and hopefully always will exist.  Discussions of what really
struck you as profound or meaningful in a book might make others see
those things for themselves.  Impugning someone because they don't think
or feel exactly like you do usually just pisses them off (I know it does
me).  Thank you for an intelligent, well thought response to this query
it at least gave me more insight into what makes a number of people
so ecstatic about these books.

David Albrecht

---

From: Jim Gardner <jagardner at watmath.uucp>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1986 22:59:40 +0000

[...]

I'm not sure I want to become known as the resident Book of
the New Sun fanatic, so I'm hesitant to expand on my previous posting.
However, a few points:

	I took great pains to avoid saying anything patronizing
	to people who didn't like the book.  Heaven knows, I've
	had people tell me, "This book changed my life" and found
	that when I read it, I hated it.  I also took great pains
	not to say that Gene Wolfe is the greatest living SF writer.
	I don't like statements like that.  "Greatness" is made up
	of more things than writing one great book.

	For the people who were quick to write me and inform me
	that my attitude is full of shit, all I can say is "Not
	everything that SOUNDS like bullshit IS bullshit"

And some answers to questions.
In article <168 at ucdavis.UUCP> ccrrick at deneb.UUCP writes:
>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. 
If you trust an author, you say that irrational actions are hints to
something else.  In particular (SPOILER, SPOILER, SPOILER): Master
Palaemon notes that one other torturer fouled up and was banished for
a time from the guild.  In Citadel of the Autarch, it becomes clear
that the person in question was Palaemon himself and that he went
through many of the same places and experiences that Severian did.
(Severian notes early on that Palaemon is a complicated man attempting
to seem simple.)  In fact, the odds are good that Palaemon picked up
the sword in his travels in the outside world.  With this in mind,
the gift makes a great deal more sense.

The rationality of Dr. Talos, Baldanders and the stuttering
>man seem questionable to me as well.
Dr.Talos and Baldanders are indeed interesting characters, and
both somewhat more than human.  Many mysteries about them are solved in
Sword of the Lictor.
 
>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?
Severian himself claims this to be true in Citadel of the Autarch.
At the risk of bringing things down to SF cliches, you can look at
it this way (SPOILER, SPOILER, SPOILER): all possible futures exist
and people from those futures can return to their pasts.  In fact,
Severian meets at least two time-travellers, from mutually exclusive
futures.  They can both visit Severian's time, because their pasts
are solid and Severian is part of their past.  However, neither
time line is necessarily the one that Severian will experience.

In some other timeline, there was another Severian who experienced
similar things to the real Severian.  The various Powers who know
what happens on various time lines interceded at various points in
Severian's life to put him back on the pattern of events experienced
by the first Severian...until things flew too far apart for them to
be held together.  The first Severian went along his own time line
and became Autarch, just as the narrating Severian did; remember that
the first Severian experienced most of what the narrator did.  The
first Severian later became a time traveller and went back into his
own past.  This was also "our" Severian's past, so some of the things
that the first Severian did eventually affected "our" Severian.

Naturally, there are contradictions inherent in this view of time
travel, but every version of time travel has apparent contradictions,
and no one would ever accuse the Book of the New Sun of being "hard"
science fiction.

So there...a few answers to puzzling questions.  They're there if
you're inclined to search for them.

---

From: Pat Clancy <patcl at hammer.uucp>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1986 07:08:39 +0000

>Insert rasberry here...
>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: wfi <wfi at rti-sel.uucp>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1986 18:37:29 +0000

>a large and uncritical market for so much bad SF.

Horses__t. The "Wulf" cultists are simply people who appreciate a
particular work and are attempting to share their reasons for
appreciating it with the other readers of this group. What the h_ll
ELSE is this group supposed to be about???

If you DON'T like a discussion, use your 'N' key to skip over the 
articles pertaining to the discussion. I personally don't give a
hoot about the interminable Star Drek/Star Bores discussions, so I
skip over them. I certainly don't enter a discussion I have no obvious
interest in to tell the people involved they're "uncritical" or
"cultists" for caring about a topic.

If you think the Book of the New Sun was an "outstandingly bad novel"
or think the comments that have been made praising it are incorrect,
please defend your position. You are claiming here that those of us
who admire Wolfe's achievement are uncritical cultists (your words). I
can turn around and say that those who dismiss Wolfe are insensitive
clot-brains. WHAT THE H_LL DOES THIS KIND OF PERSONAL ATTACK PROVE?

Net.sf-lovers SHOULD represent a diversity of opinion and present its
readers with viewpoints and opinions. That's why I read net.sf-lovers:
to learn why people like/dislike the books I read, and maybe to learn
about books I'm not familiar with. I DON'T read net.sf-lovers to hear
name-calling and ten-word informationless dismissals of works many
people feel have extended the genre. If you can't say something with a
measurable information content, don't say anything at all.

                               -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly

---

From: Tim Maroney <tim at hoptoad.uucp>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1986 18:33:27 +0000

>a large and uncritical market for so much bad SF.

This "cult" happens to include more than half of the SFWA, the Science
Fiction Writers of America, as evidenced by the Nebula selections.  I would
hardly call the SFWA uncritical, or large for that matter.  Perhaps the
writers know something you don't?  (There, we're even insult for insult.)

Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot

---

From: ph <ph at wucec2.uucp>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1986 16:29:39 +0000

>a large and uncritical market for so much bad SF.

	    Oh, for [insert favorite messiah here]'s sake!  A little
	tolerance, PLEASE?!?  Whatever your opinion of WOlfE's work (or
	anyone else's for that matter), it's not that difficult (or
	doesn't have to be) to understand and admit that someone else's
	may well be different.  I like THE BOOK OF THE NEW SUN.  I fully
	realize that the reasons for which I like it may not apply to
	you.  If they don't, I may question you about it, and ask you to
	explain your position, but I will do my damnedest NOT to abuse
	you about it.  Can you do me the same courtesy?
							--pH
/*
 *	    "And what if I attempt to convince you otherwise?"
 *	    "You cannot convince us of anything, Socrates, if we refuse
 *	to listen."
 */

---

From: Charlie Martin <crm at duke.uucp>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1986 05:20:24 +0000

In article <527 at hoptoad.uucp> tim at hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
>{sun,ptsfa,ihnp4,well,yomama,frog}!hoptoad!tim

And also even, fallacy for fallacy.  This one is called "appeal
to authority."

--- and how are you liking the bay area?

---

From: Ben Lotto <lotto at brahms.berkeley.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1986 01:35:34 +0000

I shot Gene Wolfe yesterday.

-Ben

---

From: Charlie Martin <crm at duke.uucp>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1986 15:57:33 +0000

>I shot Gene Wolfe yesterday.

But WITH WHAT?  You've gotta be more specific!

---

From: Ben Lotto <lotto at brahms.berkeley.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1986 19:24:26 +0000

>			Charlie Martin
>			(...mcnc!duke!crm)

I wadded up a printout of all the articles that have been posted calling
him the greatest thing since Willie Mays and the Spawn of the Devil, and
then I catapulted it on top of him.

---

From: Steven K. Zoltan Brust <brust at starfire.uucp>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1986 20:56:53 +0000

*** You are not able to teleport at will ***

Okay, I'm finally moved to take up this gauntlet.  Whatever else has
happened, the original query ("What d'you guys see in this,
anyway?") was quite reasonable and deserves to be answered.

It is sad that I can't answer it.

I will, however, describe my experience with the books.  Okay.
I picked up SHADOW OF THE TORTURER and read about a third of it,
discovered that it hadn't grabbed me, and stopped reading it.  For
the next year, I kept hearing from friends I respected how much
they were enjoying the books.  In particular, I was hearing from
those who enjoyed the sounds of words, that is, the work of those
who are aware of the beauty of the language.

Well, okay, I like that stuff, too.  That's why I'm a Zelazny nut,
and why I like Orson Scott Card, Jane Yolen, Patricia McKillip, etc. etc.

So I decided to give the books another try, this time forcing myself
to read slowly and carefully.  It worked for me, and I am now very
glad that I did.  For those who enjoy the sound of English well
wrought, these books will tickle that.  For those who enjoy a good
story, it really is here, it just takes a while to realize it.  The
book is screamingly funny, without ever falling out of its
conceit (including a multi-page comparison of the art of torturing
to the art of writing; I almost hurt myself laughing.)  The book
had me close to tears at times, yet was never a tragady.  The part
of me that likes to play with ideas just as ideas was tickled all
the way through, but never quite in ways I expected.  On my next
few readings, when I start looking for "What is really going on
here; what is the author saying?"  there is enough meat that
I don't go away hungry.

Okay?  This certainly won't convince anyone who didn't like it
that he ought to, but maybe this will help whoever asked the initial
question to understand why some of us enjoy the books.

skzb