{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/usenet/35",
    "note": "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.",
    "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'"
  },
  "archive": "usenet",
  "thread": {
    "id": 35,
    "subject": "Reply to Rick Heli about Gene Wolfe",
    "messages": 2,
    "voices": 2,
    "first": "1986-02-10T19:59:49+00:00",
    "last": "1986-02-12T13:03:35+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<58@druri.UUCP>",
      "from": {
        "name": "TuckerDH",
        "address": "dht at druri.uucp"
      },
      "date": "1986-02-10T19:59:49+00:00",
      "subject": "Reply to Rick Heli about Gene Wolfe",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "I have read _The_Shadow_of_the_Torturer_, (first volume of\n_The_Book_of_the_New_Sun), but in almost a year have yet to continue\nwith the rest of the book.  In general, I found the writing murky and\nthe tale rather disconnected.  I found that I learned very little of\nthe political system, social classes, economic systems or even recent\nhistory.  This failure of Wolfe's to adequately inform varies directly\nwith my failure to be interested in his tale."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Perfectly understandable - what got me interested in the rest of the novel\nwas his writing style, primarily. Your criticisms are all true, to a small\nextent, and it most definitely *is* a difficult book to follow, written in\na deliberately dense and ponderous style that (as I have said before) forces\nthe reader to slow down from the usual 1980's breakneck pace. I disagree that\nthe writing is \"murky\" - this implies an involuntary lack of clarity that I\ndo not think is in the work - certainly Wolfe obscures the truth and asks\nthat the reader spend time puzzling things out for himself, sometimes crucially\nimportant things. But he does not do this idly, as William F. Buckley does\nwhen he speaks. Wolfe, above all, is communicating the act of dreaming (or\nat least that's my humble interpretation - stop laughing, Charlie...). Dreams\nare impenetrable, sometimes, even after we wake up and can realize what was\ngoing on in them - sometimes there is nothing that we recognize, nothing\nthat we can understand. This would explain the disconnection of the work,\nwhich is also a large component of dreams - although I must add that the\nsubsequent volumes explain the previous ones, while they themselves beg\nmore explanation. The disconnectedness does mitigate, though, to a sort\nof not-so-free association. This could just be the result of reading all\nof them, that the reader grows used to the style and doesn't ask questions\nin the hope that they will be answered later.\n\nAs to your complaint that Wolfe did not inform well enough, you are asking\nof him the things that you would ask of a hack writer. Didn't you *feel*\nthat you were in another world? Didn't you *feel* that you didn't know what\nwas going on, just like Severian? Didn't you *feel* an incredible decay?\nThe Book Of The New Sun wants you to ask questions and search for answers -\nit is not a pat sociology, or a future history. It is not dry and it is \nnot going to give in to dryness of the sort that is so often necessary in\nnovels which build worlds. At the heart, Urth is not the central point of\nreading this book - Severian is. What you will learn of Urth is what you\ncan learn through Severian's eyes and wits, and if sometimes it leaves you\nhungry, well that's usually the way it is in real life, and in dreams. Wolfe\ndoes not need to give you the social rank of every character, to explain\nwhy his world works the way it does - to do so would be to cheat you of\nthe rare experience of seeing such a complex, strange, and different place\nthrough someone else's eyes, a crowning achievement for any writer. Severian\nis not so wise or so observant either, and the murk that you complain about\nmay just be the murk that comes as the beginning of self-awareness. This\nis not to say that as you progress through the novel things become \"clearer\",\nthat Severian in some way \"comes to his senses\" - quite the contrary. But\nhe does grow up, and he does see what is wrong and right with Urth, and he\ndoes learn the things we all learn as we grow older and a little wiser. It\nis *this* that is important, not how many legions the Autarch has, or how\nmany people are on Vodalus' side, what their economic interrelations are,\nwho pays the bills, etc. Leave that kind of thing to Herbert and Heinlein\n(who do it quite well), and leave the dreams and the self-realization to\nWolfe."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "This seems to me to be particularly true in a story like this where so\nmany of the characters seem to be insane and therefore take actions\nthat appear illogical:  Master Palaemon gives an extremely valuable\nsword to a man who never seemed to interest him and who ought to be\nsentenced to death.  Agia and Agilus are insanely greedy, consider the\nbizarre excuses Agilus gives in the prison cell when he argues to be\nspared.  The boatman is in a crazed state and Dorcas suffers from\namnesia.  The rationality of Dr. Talos, Baldanders and the stuttering\nman seem questionable to me as well."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "I think you are projecting 20th Century notions of rationality and sanity\nonto characters who are very much not products of the 20th Century. This\nis a common fault, and most writers of science fiction do not really change\ntheir characters' personalities and faults and foibles to reflect the times\nthat they live in - too many are merely 20th Century dudes in some other\nplace and time, using starships like cars and teleportation like phones.\nBuck Rogers is an archetype for science fiction characters, almost the norm.\nCertainly *some* of the characters are insane; but they are not the ones\nthat you think are. Wolfe pulls some interesting twists later on. Dorcas\nsuffers from amnesia for a very good reason, which I won't spoil for those\nwho are interested - her story is a very, very strange and fascinating one.\nBut remember that Urth at this time is a world in turmoil, a world of duels\nand high emotions and melodramatic flourishes, and certainly not cool rational-\nity. Read Hugo, Dickens, and Dostoevsky - their times were similar, and their\ncharacters were sometimes histrionic, ranting lunatics in the light of later,\ncalmer times. Master Palaemon was not acting illogically nor was he acting\nwithout good motivation - if you reread the text leading up to this point,\nyou will see that the Master is portrayed sort of like the gruff schoolmaster\nwith the heart of gold underneath, and that while he wants to uphold the law\nthat would condemn Severian, he spends considerable time trying to find a \nloophole to save his life. In this context, the Master is acting out of\nkindness, as a father-figure to a wayward son, not irrationally. Remember his\nspeech about the loving relationship between torturer and \"client\"? He is\nnot a man without emotion, for all that believing in such a relationship\nmay seem insane to *us* - certainly such beliefs have been held before, and\nexplained in novels (I am especially reminded of works about the French\nRevolution).\n\nAgia, you have correctly indicated, *is* insane, at least on the subject of\nmoney and Severian. Insane people often make great characters, especially\nones who are sane except on a few points - many of Shakespeare's most memor-\nable characters (Lear, Richard III, MacBeth, Hamlet, Iago) were somewhat\ninsane, by modern definition. They are just difficult to follow, and they\ndo not do things by accepted literary manners. They explode conventions in\nsome works, they confront, they confuse, and they stay vivid. As for Dr.\nTalos and Baldanders, well... their portion of the story is fantastic.\nThey are not insane, or at least not insane in any way you would recognize\nas insane. I can't say anymore."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "...having awakened.  This probably accounts for the dreamlike nature of\nthe work, which many people seem to admire highly.  I am less than\nenthusiastic about it; on the other hand, only reading the first book\nis probably tantamount to turning off Beethoven's 5th symphony in the\nmiddle of the second movement in terms of being fair to the author's\ncomplete message...  But on the first hand, the author has the\nresponsibility to make the first story accessible enough that the\nothers will be read...  In time, I may re-read the first book and give\nit another chance..."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Well, I am one of those who admire this dreamlike quality, and I grant you\nit isn't everyone's cup of tea. I am not so sure that if you didn't feel\ncaptivated by \"The Shadow Of The Torturer\" that it would be worth your\ntime to read the other three volumes - in other words, Wolfe isn't telling\nyou any lies - this is the way the rest of the novel will continue, with\nthe same feel and the same complications that you find, so don't think\nthat he made the first work more inaccessible than the others. By this\nyardstick, they're all somewhat inaccessible (\"*SOMEwhat*?!!\" I hear\nCharlie scream). \n\nAs to the author's responsibility - booshwah. Authors don't have any\nresponsibility. That's why they're authors and not insurance salesmem\nor high school teachers. If you look at the history of authors in the\nwestern world, you will see that it is a history of irresponsibility,\na history of little white lies and some damn big ones, of alcoholism and\ndrug abuse, of suicide, murder, and compulsive gambling, a history of\nbackbiting and sniping at their fellow authors with a vitriol suited \nfor lighting houses on fire. Generally speaking, as soon as an author\nstarts thinking about \"responsibility\" toward his audience, he's already\nceased writing anything very good, or at least ceased writing the kinds\nof things that got him his audience in the first place (hacks are excluded\nhere, as they are thinking about responsibility from the start). The only\nthing an author is responsible for is to type neatly, get his pages in \norder, to avoid misspelling and bad grammar, and to return calls from his\nagent. And a lot of them don't even do that. "
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "One thing that intrigues me is the theory that Severian has lived this\nlife before and that all the events depicted have been experienced by\nSeverian not once, but twice.  Anyone have any thoughts or theories on\nthis?  What made someone think of this rather unique thought in\nthe first place?  What evidence is there for it?"
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "There is a profound sense of deja vu running through the book. Severian\nhimself, repeatedly, refers to this feeling of having been through this\nbefore - not all of the book, but some portions that strike him with that\nfeeling. He indicates in his narrative that the act of writing this down\nis jogging his memory even as he writes, so that he is bound to feel that\nhe is repeating himself (which is essentially what a first-person narrative\nis). Also, remember that Severian has a photographic, or a holographic\nmemory - he forgets nothing. With such a gift or a curse, it is impossible\nto avoid the resonance of previous acts and emotions and sensations with\nthose of the present. A past that we may know nothing about, incidentally.\nAs to the significance of this, there could be many things - it allows\nWolfe to flesh out each scene in aching detail that a normal narrative\nmight skip over, as his main character remembers everything. But I think\nit goes beyond this, as many first-person narrative novels often act as\nif the narrator remembers everything (When's the last time a narrator said\n\"I'm not too sure about this...\" or \"I don't really remember...\"?). Wolfe\nwants to get us inside the head of a man who remembers everything, but\nwho isn't exactly the smartest guy running around Urth with a badass sword.\nIt's a fascinating juxtaposition - we always assume that those with perfect\nmemories are intelligent, just because they can remember everything. Severian\nis like a bird, flooded by so much sensory input that his ability to think\nis sometimes clouded by his ability to remember, to sense. He's almost a\nwalking tape recorder, without the appearance of volition. And don't you\noften feel that way in dreams? That everything reeks of your past, that\nyou have done all this before, and better, but that now you have no control,\nyou are just acting out your part in your little play? Generally in dreams\nwhat people remember is how they feel, how they sense - such as they common\ndream of running around naked in a public place, looking for your clothes.\nPerhaps that is the purpose of Severian's sense of deja vu - and it comple-\nments the the reader's own sense of deja vu, such as in a previously men-\ntioned vignette where Severian tries to describe a picture of Armstrong\nwalking on the moon, or a story told later that is a strange reworking of\nthe Theseus myth. \n\nGiven your questions, and your underlying interest in the sanity and \nmotives of the characters, whose names you still remember after a year, \nperhaps your memory and your curiosity are trying to tell you something. \nAnother read of \"The Shadow Of The Torturer\" might help you decide about \nThe Book Of The New Sun once and for all. If you have any questions, ask \nJim Gardner - he knows it better than I.\n\nDavis Tucker"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "message_id": "<6902@duke.UUCP>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Charlie Martin",
        "address": "crm at duke.uucp"
      },
      "date": "1986-02-12T13:03:35+00:00",
      "subject": "Re: Reply to Rick Heli about Gene Wolfe",
      "in_reply_to": "<58@druri.UUCP>",
      "reply_link": "header",
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Ghod, Davis, give us a break !\n\nAt least an occasional *paragraph* break.  Us old folks have\ntrouble reading those multiscreen paragraph-like blocks.\n\nAnd I don't scream -- I can't: I'm a double-bass."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}