Subject: _The Wizard_ by Gene Wolfe - too much like previous Wolfe

From: JavaJosh <javajosh at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 13:23:00 +0000

_The Wizard_ is volume two of "The Wizard Knight" saga. It trades
engenue magic for the magic of erudition - a dissapointment since
Wolfe's work is repleat with the latter, short on the former, and all
things being equal innovation would be preferred. Indeed, the plotting,
pacing, and most importantly the voice returned to Severian and Silk in
force.

Much time is spent away from Able in the beginning of this book, and
instead follows Toug. Able returns after about 100 pages 20 subjective
years from Skai, where he's been feasting and fighting with the
Valfather and his Overcyn children, but only a short time has passed on
Mythregar. In addition, much time is spent in Jotunland, the land of
the Frost Giants, and truth be told this place isn't nearly as
interesting as the many varied places in _The Knight_. It is cold,
rocky, and filled with miserable people, and we spend about 200 pages
there. The last 200 pages are an almost surreal battle with the
Osterlings.

The strange, revelatory Wolfe-gene shows itself much more strongly in
this book. There are several of the frustratingly opaque turns of plot
and dialogue which, to my mind, only serve to alienate the reader and
remove him from the action. At least *I* feel alienated when I come to
a full stop and ask myself, "What on earth was *that*, and why did that
happen?"

These Wolfian revelations seem to all take on the same pattern - the
protagonist is in one place, and another major character enters with
some urgent information, and is interrupted by the entrance of another
major character who begins to confess something, when the protagonist
must call for a fourth major character to confess something of his own,
but as soon as the fourth character enters, the protagonist quite
coldly states that they wish to kill the first character, but that it
must wait, and finally the protagonist leaves the room to go do
something, with all 4 major characters presumably staring at each other
wondering what the hell just happened. Mix in a lot of metaphysical
confusion and even issues of mundane identity and you get a bitter,
choking draught of a scene.

This happened only twice in _The Knight_ and it certainly wasn't as bad
as in, most especially, _The Book of the New Sun_ when any lengthy
passage with Severian acting rationally came as a relief.

It may occur to someone reading this to deride me for my lack of
comprehension and inability to either anticipate these episodes, or
failing that, understand them after the fact. While this is possible
from your perspective, it is not from mine. It is clear to me that
Wolfe enjoys createing tension from half-truths and incomplete
communication, and that these scenes describe crescendos of such
tension and are something that he enjoys writing. Sometimes peices are
wrapped up later, sometimes not. The problem is not that, as a reader,
I disagree with the actions of the protagonist, it is that the protag's
action is completely incomprehensible, alien and inconsistent with past
actions.

It didn't help that Able's voice in this book crept even closer to
Severian's and Patera Silk's, when it was already so very close. What
was really startling was that Toug's voice moved perceptibly in that
direction as well. Toug was Sir Able's squire, and while its possible
in that position he'd start talking like his master, it didn't read
like that.

I'm not sure what Wolfe's sources were for this - probably Lord
Dunsany, which I haven't yet read. Maybe _A Once and Future King_. For
all its problems, it's a thinking man's romp through faerie to be sure,
but _The Knight_ was the better romp by far.

Reading this review, I realize that it's fairly poor as it is a first
draft. But frankly, I doubt I'll have time or the inclination to write
it again, so this will have to do. While reading _The Wizard_ many
questions and ideas came up for me, but now that the novel is ended I
find that my interest has already waned and those questions forgotten.
Maybe if I find a magical stream to restore my memory...

---

From: Ron Henry <ronhenry at clarityconnect.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 17:22:04 +0000

> At least *I* feel alienated when I come to

It's amazing you've every made it through anything he's written... ;-)

Ron Henry

---

From: Elaine Thompson <elaine at kethompson.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 19:55:03 +0000

>pacing, and most importantly the voice returned to Severian and Silk in

I remember reading at least two of the Torturer books, but remember
absolutely nothing about them except that I eventually realized I
wasn't getting anything out of the reading.  So I couldn't identify
the voice issues you have.

snip

>choking draught of a scene.

snip

>failing that, understand them after the fact. 

No.  I don't remember being bothered by them as much as you although I
certainly found them odd.  Not standard novel technique.  Which leads
to what *I* thought Wolfe's sources were.

I had tried several Wolfe books but kept bouncing off.  I only picked
these up because several people (here and elsewhere) said they were
more accessible.  They were.

snip

>Dunsany, which I haven't yet read. 

I have and I didn't get Dunsany echoes much in the reading.  I got
Malory echoes.  In both characterization - or lack of - style, the way
events get half started then dropped/interrupted and something else
goes on...  The non-standard-novel stuff.

Although it's been a *very* long time since I've read Malory.

-- 
Elaine Thompson <Elaine at KEThompson.org>

---

From: JavaJosh <javajosh at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 22:43:01 +0000

I'm a bad speller.

JavaJosh wrote:
> engenue

ingenue

> magic for the magic of erudition - a dissapointment

disappointment 

> since
> Wolfe's work is repleat

replete

---

From: JavaJosh <javajosh at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 22:45:17 +0000

> It's amazing you've every made it through anything he's written... ;-)

He's the most original writer alive. Of course I've read him, and I
like him a lot. My review was, on the whole, negative but then I didn't
spend much time describing what I did like, only what I didn't. The
number one thing I love about Gene Wolfe is that he encourages the
reader to savor an experience, be it a battle or a meal or a good
conversation. That is unique and to be treasured.

---

From: JavaJosh <javajosh at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 22:54:23 +0000

> the voice issues you have.

Able sounds much older in the second book, and has an academics voice,
much as Severian's and Silk's.

> I have and I didn't get Dunsany echoes much in the reading.

_The Knight_'s dedication is "Dedicated with the greatest respect to
Yes Meynard, author of _The Book of Knights_".

The epigraph is a poem called "The Riders" by Lord Dunsany.

_The Wizard_'s dedications and epigraphs are reversed: "Dedicated with
love and respect to Lord Dunsany, the author of 'The Riders'". The
epigraph is an excerpt from _The Book of Knights_.

There are strong Arthurian echos, especially in the names of
characters: King Arnthor and his sister Morcaine. Disiri reminds me of
the Lady in the Lake. The Isle of Glas could certainly be Avalon.

> I got

Haven't read him. I'm a bad Josh.

---

From: JavaJosh <javajosh at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 01:58:46 +0000

JavaJosh wrote:
> _The Wizard_ is volume two of "The Wizard Knight" saga....

I have to admit that I'm a little suprised that these reviews haven't
sparked more conversation. Is the subject uninteresting? Is my review
really that badly done that it doesn't inspire any critical thoughts?

Just curious (and I haven't and won't take offence if there are no
replies to this, either. :)

---

From: Mike Schilling <mscottschilling at hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 02:07:19 +0000

> replies to this, either. :)

If you want more replies, say that RAH favored the sale of automatic weapons 
to the unborn..

---

From: Konrad Gaertner <kgaertner at worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 02:34:25 +0000

> really that badly done that it doesn't inspire any critical thoughts?

You're not alone; google my posts for "responses".

I did read your review, and all I can say is, "thank you for 
justifying my decision to not read this book."

-- 
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - - - email: gaertk at aol.com
http://www.livejournal.com/users/kgbooklog/
"I don't mind hidden depths but I insist that there be a surface."
                          -- James Nicoll

---

From: JavaJosh <javajosh at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 02:47:00 +0000

> justifying my decision to not read this book."

LOL. No my intention; I'm just now realizing how one-sided I've been.
Everything I wrote is true, but it's by no means the whole story.

> "I don't mind hidden depths but I insist that there be a surface."

Very appropriate for Wolfe. Luckily, there is plenty of surface in "The
Wizard Knight".

---

From: JavaJosh <javajosh at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 02:47:48 +0000

> If you want more replies, say that RAH favored the sale of automatic weapons

RAH favored the sale of automatic weapons to the unborn.

---

From: Howard Brazee <howard at brazee.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 03:12:57 +0000

>really that badly done that it doesn't inspire any critical thoughts?

I tended to agree with them.   So I didn't have much to say.

---

From: JavaJosh <javajosh at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 09:36:13 +0000

> I tended to agree with them.   So I didn't have much to say.

What is it about Wolfe that fails to spark controversy?

---

From: Thomas Lindgren <***********@*****.***>
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 15:27:31 +0000

> What is it about Wolfe that fails to spark controversy?

A lurking fear that one has failed to Get It?

Religion is sometimes a good topic, so maybe discussing his work and his
catholicism could be more inflammatory? Or is he just a too reasonable
fellow for that?

Best,
                        Thomas
-- 
Thomas Lindgren
"It's becoming popular? It must be in decline." -- Isaiah Berlin

---

From: Wayne Throop <throopw at sheol.org>
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 19:06:02 +0000

: A lurking fear that one has failed to Get It?

I don't have that fear at all.  I *know* I don't get it.

Wayne Throop   throopw at sheol.org   http://sheol.org/throopw

---

From: Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith at svpal.org>
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 19:12:56 +0000

> If you want more replies, say that RAH favored the sale of automatic weapons

Could be a good story about twins or triplets in there. "I've got a
source for some Thompson submachine guns, see, and when I get 'em I'm
busting out of here. Are ya with me?"

---

From: Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith at svpal.org>
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 19:15:45 +0000

Wayne Throop wrote:
> :: What is it about Wolfe that fails to spark controversy?
>

So is GRRM more controversial because people think they do get it, but
just aren't sure they want it? Or is there more a tendency to proclaim
"like this book, or else" with him than with Wolfe?

---

From: Andrew Plotkin <erkyrath at eblong.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 20:20:51 +0000

> I don't have that fear at all.  I *know* I don't get it.

It's not so much a *lurking* fear as a fear that jumps into your lap
as you read, butts your arm gently with its forehead, curls up, and
begins purring.

--Z

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
I'm still thinking about what to put in this space.

---

From: Howard Brazee <howard at brazee.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 23:56:59 +0000

>What is it about Wolfe that fails to spark controversy?

Our favorite authors like him better than we do.

---

From: Thomas Lindgren <***********@*****.***>
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 11:55:19 +0000

> What is it about Wolfe that fails to spark controversy?

After a bit of rummaging about, I've (re-)found what seems to be an
active mailing list on Wolfe's work.

http://www.urth.net/

I think I'll go dig out what they thought about The Knight / The
Wizard myself; I just _might_ have missed a couple of things.

Best,
                            Thomas

---

From: Steve Simmons <scs at not.di.these.org.words>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:00:50 +0000

> I don't have that fear at all.  I *know* I don't get it.

For some reason, people who don't get Wolfe seem to realize that there's
something in there that they just didn't get.  Most other authors that
people don't get they don't get that they don't get.
-- 
Realize that life is a situation comedy that will never be canceled.  A
laugh track has been provided, and the reason why we are put in the
material world is to get more material. 
     From "Swami Beyondananda's Guidelines for Enlightenment"

---

From: Thomas Lindgren <***********@*****.***>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:17:46 +0000

> people don't get they don't get that they don't get.

You wouldn't be looking for a post as Secretary of Defense, would you?

Best,
                        Thomas

---

From: Mike Schilling <mscottschilling at hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:21:10 +0000

"Thomas Lindgren" <***********@*****.***> wrote in message 
news:m3pspc549s.fsf at localhost.localdomain...
> You wouldn't be looking for a post as Secretary of Defense, would you?

Dammit, you evaluate an author with the preconceptions you've got, not the 
ones you'd like to have.

---

From: JavaJosh <javajosh at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:40:19 +0000

> people don't get they don't get that they don't get.

Yeah, there is that nagging feeling that whenever a character is
behaving in some unfathomably random way that this was a fully
intentional breach. Wolfe's tight control of the narration gives that
feeling, and the fact that, if you read his stories twice you realize
how incredibly detailed his knowledge of the world was even at the
beginning. He is the master of subtle forshadowing.

That and the fact that he so patiently scans a relatively narrow
viewpoint over his invariably rich worlds makes you feel like he's in
control, at least of himself. Most other authors can't contain their
exuberance and, like an inexperienced stripper, show everything much
too fast. Wofe is patient. And now I think that was an unfortunate
simile. :)

But I believe that you can't hide behind reputation forever, and that
even the best writers flub their scenes. :)

---

From: JavaJosh <javajosh at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:52:39 +0000

> "like this book, or else" with him than with Wolfe?

I'm not sure what GRRM controversy of which you speak, but he's a much
different writer. He takes the almost-omniscient-loose-following POV
character approach, which is a more common voice and so more
accessible. GRRM is artistically very straightforward; the problems are
mostly matters of plot. Wolfe seems to enjoy the fantasy genre in its
own right, but, like Herbert, seems to be concerned about issues of
conciousness, identity, and imagination (this is much plainer in "The
Wizard Knight" than his previous works). Wolfe's work has a dream-like
patina over it - the narrator sounds like he doesn't talk about things
not because he didn't think of them, but because they really don't
matter.

GRRM's _Song_ is a much plainer tale of simply motivated creatures
interacting with each other in a complicated game of thrones. He
doesn't tweak your perspective like Wolfe does. There are more concrete
things to talk about with Martin. There are plenty of questions about
"The Wizard Knight", such as, what really happened to Able the first
time he went to Aelfrice, who is Parka and why was Able so
unquestioning about the whole thing? What did his bowstring signify?
How come young Able was so violent, albeit in an amiable way? How did
he adapt so easily to Mythregar? _Song_ questions tend to be more of
the "who's gonna kill whom and when" sort.

---

From: Andrew Wheeler <acwheele at optonline.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:53:28 +0000

> replies to this, either. :)

I had a reaction somewhat similar to yours. I read the two novels
back-to-back, though, and I've wondered since then if the fact that
_Knight_ was set in type and _Wizard_ was in manuscript made it feel
like the latter was slower and less interesting. But you seem to have
had a very similar reading experience, without the format issues.

As you say, Wolfe is the master of the scene in which things almost
happen, but don't quite do so. Sometimes (as in "Book of the New Sun" or
"Book of the Short Sun"), the things that *don't* happen are important
and clear and stunning. I didn't feel that way with _Wizard_; I got lost
with Young Knight #1 narrating the stories of Young Knight #2 and Young
Knight #3, and I thought, as you seem to, that the extended
murder-mystery plot among the giants didn't help anything.

It's a shame, because I *really* wanted the sequel to _The Knight_ I
thought I was about to get.

-- 
Andrew Wheeler
-- 
I have fallen to the dark side:
http://antickmusings.blogspot.com

---

From: Andrew Plotkin <erkyrath at eblong.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:24:59 +0000

> not because he didn't think of them, but because they really don't

My one-line review of _The Wizard Knight_ is: Having mastered and then
deconstructed the idea of the unreliable narrator, Wolfe has now moved
on to the *incompetent* narrator.

--Z

---

From: (unknown) <>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:23:14 +0000

> really that badly done that it doesn't inspire any critical thoughts?

I've just been too busy.
Not only too busy to comment on anything extensively, but actually too 
busy to finish my copy of _Wizard_.  But over Thanksgiving, I'm planning 
on rereading _Knight_ and then diving into _Wizard._

-- 
John S. Novak, III
The Humblest Man On The Net

---

From: viv <darkbloom at ru.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:01:04 +0000

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:53:28 -0500, Andrew Wheeler
<acwheele at optonline.com> wrote:

>and clear and stunning. 

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

Do you mean certain events or plot threads never materialize the way
we anticipate or that they "occur" off-stage, behind the main
narrative, like a puppeteer's hand movements, and we must therefore
infer them?

An example perhaps would be edifying...

viv

---

From: Robert Hutchinson <servoid at hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 03:44:17 +0000

Mike Schilling says...
> Thomas Lindgren wrote ...
> > Steve Simmons writes:

Did we read the novel? Yes. 
Was there something there to be gotten? Yes. 
Did we get it? No. 

-- 
Robert Hutchinson | "Audiences won't soon forget when the 
                  |  thing-we-didn't-know-what-it-was was put into
                  |  the helicopter by the guy we didn't know."
                  |    -- Servo, MST3K, 810, Giant Spider Invasion

---

From: JavaJosh <javajosh at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 05:50:04 +0000

> on to the *incompetent* narrator.

That's funny. Inaccurate, but funny.

I think the key is in the epigraph poem by Lord Dunsany. These things
exist only in the twilight of dream, and the Wizard Knight is half
dreaming during his adventure and indeed while penning his experiences.

---

From: JavaJosh <javajosh at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 06:26:29 +0000

> An example perhaps would be edifying...

Interrupted action. As fiction readers we've learned to anticipate
certain things. For example, if you were to read:

"She had been aching for a slice of pie for so long her eye lids
fluttered at the mere thought. A cherry pie, apple pie, boston cream
pie - they all swam langoriously in front of her, tempting her.

But of course there was no pie; the pie famine of '68 made sure of
that. The word was without pie and more's the pity. So she had to make
due with cake and ice cream and she tried to forget pie by whistling
tunelessly and thinking about boys. But they were all second to pie.

She made her living spearing apricots with a dainty silver utensil made
for the purpose. One day at work she noticed a windowsill in the
distance. But this was no ordinary window sill - this window sill  was
*steaming*. And being no fool, she knew that steam in a window sill
could mean *pie*.

Pocketing her gracefully turned apricot spearer into its special velvet
pouch, she loped through the apricot grove and over the grassy hill to
the little cottage with the steaming windowsill. Her back now against
the cottage, she sidled up to the pie, wondering if the owner would be
mad if she had a little piece.

"Who goes there!" bellowed a deep voice from around the corner. "I can
smell 'ye smellin' me pie. Begone! There ain't none fer ye, so
skiddadle!"

Terrified of that booming voice, she fumbled with her apricot spearer,
and with a sudden spurt of gumption, walked around the corner to
confront the owner of that booming voice.

Much to her suprise, the man was Maddy Mudwinner, an uncle on her
mother's side, and always a hoot at the family get-togethers and a mad
scrabble player. "Maddy!" she said, laughing, "How on earth did you
make a pie? If you love your niece you will give me some!"

Upon seeing his niece, Maddy's coarse face relaxed and wiping his
mitten hands on his greasy white apron explained with a smile, "Oh my,
well hello little darling! How is the apricot spearing business?"

She sighed with ennui, "It's the same as ever, spearing day in, day
out. My technique has gotten quite good. Watch!" with that she flicked
her wrist and pinned one of Maddy's apron strings to the rough wooden
door standing open behind him.

Hooting with pleasure, Maddy made gestures to come inside, "Oh, it's
been too long little one. Come on in and have some pie."

"But uncle", the girl said pulling her utensil out of the door, "there
is something I haven't been honest with you about, and I just wouldn't
feel right eating your pie without telling you. Do you remember Aunt
Margaret?"

Maddy frowned. "Yes. Of course. What about her?"

"You never knew this but it was I who cut off her left index finger
during the Lemon festival of '69, you know the one right after the pie
famine. She never told you because she knew I was your favorite niece,
and then when her head was crushed by Farmer Moony's giant summer
squash, it didn't seem like the right time to tell you."

"Bless your heart little one, I forgive you, of course. I've been
meaning to tell you something too. I've got a new love, and she's right
there next to your foot."

Looking down, she noticed a mole looking up at her, it's blind eyes
looking up at the sun and warm wet nose brushing her ankle.

"Uncle, she's a mole!"

"Well, yes." Maddy looked a little abashed. "But love knows no bounds,
your mother used to say. Do you think she'll think less of me for
loving a mole?"

Wihtout a word the girl flung her apricot spear at the ball of brown
fur at her feet. With a sickening thud, the spear stuck out the head of
the mole, now lying motionless on the ground.

"I hate moles" she said coldly, wiping her tiny spear, and walked back
to her apricot tree to continue her day's work. The sound of Maddy's
sobs drifted away.

---

From: alexey_r <alexey_r at mail.ru>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 15:55:40 +0000

> You wouldn't be looking for a post as Secretary of Defense, would you?

Sorry, he is clearly already contracted for the Prime Minister of
Russia :)

---

From: Brian Palmer <bpalmer at rescomp.stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 19:20:55 +0000

> certain things. For example, if you were to read:
[snip]

Bravo!

-- 
I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard.

---

From: Dave Conrad <nightman at io.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 04:51:13 +0000

> in that position he'd start talking like his master, it didn't read

I thought that Silk's voice was rather different from Severian's.  I 
found the Urth books to be a bit of a slog the first time I tried to 
read them, but found the Long Sun books much more accessible.  I enjoyed 
the Urth books much more when I went back to them after a few years.  I 
picked up the short sun books as a SFBC omnibus, but found them 
difficult to start - I'll give them another try sometime later.

I think of Gene Wolfe as being like literary fudge - they're hick and 
rich and great if you're in the mood for them, but at other times, 
they're just too thick and heavy.

Dave

---

From: Ted Nolan <tednolan> <ted at loft.tnolan.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 05:37:05 +0000

>I think of Gene Wolfe as being like literary fudge - they're hick and 

Probably the first criticism of Gene Wolfe's style involving the word "hick".

				Ted

---

From: Dave Conrad <nightman at io.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 10:43:21 +0000

> Probably the first criticism of Gene Wolfe's style involving the word "hick".
yes, that should have been thick.

---

From: JavaJosh <javajosh at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 19:26:03 +0000

> yes, that should have been thick.

Heh. I read "hick" as being similiar to "tony".