Where's the Gene Wolfe thread?Book of the New SunHorrible book coversEtc.I describe the appeal of these books as being imperfect accounts of unfamiliar worlds. A strong reflection on identity, consciousness, and spirituality. The way in which a tower becomes a spaceship, or even the extra work required to decipher interpersonal relationships that aren't as clear as presented. All of this in service to the faults of humanity on display, whether through the cruel societies presented in New Sun or certain elements in Short Sun. A harsh but satisfying uncertainty. Of course, these same qualities can be seen as frustrating and unnecessarily opaque
>wolfeYikes>Overall, I found nothing unique in Wolfe. Perhaps it's because I've read quite a bit of odd fantasy; if all I read was mainstream stuff, then I'd surely find Wolfe unpredictable, since he is a step above them. But compared to Leiber, Howard, Dunsany, Eddison, Kipling, Haggard, Peake, Mieville, or Moorcock, Wolfe is nothing special.>Perhaps I just got my hopes up too high. I imagined something that might evoke Peake or Leiber (at his best), perhaps with a complexity and depth gesturing toward Milton or Ariosto. I could hardly imagine a better book than that, but even a book half that good would be a delight--or a book that was nothing like that, but was unpredictable and seductive in some other way.>I kept waiting for something to happen, but it never really did. It all plods along without much rise or fall, just the constant moving action to make us think something interesting is happening. I did find some promise, some moments that I would have loved to see the author explore, particularly those odd moments where Silver Age Sci Fi crept in, but each time he touched upon these, he would return immediately to the smallness of his plot and his annoying prick of a narrator. I never found the book to be difficult or complex, merely tiring. the unusual parts were evasive and vague, and the dull parts constant and repetitive.>The whole structure (or lack of it) does leave things up to interpretation, and perhaps that's what some readers find appealing: that they can superimpose their own thoughts and values onto the narrator, and onto the plot itself. But at that point, they don't like the book Wolfe wrote, they like the book they are writing between his lines.
>>24962522>Then there is the fact that every character you meet in the story turns up again, hundreds of miles away, to reveal that they are someone else and have been secretly controlling the action of the plot. It feels like the entire world is populated by about fifteen people who follow the narrator around wherever he goes. If the next two books continue along the same lines, then the big reveal will be that the world is entirely populated by no more than three superpowered shapeshifters.>Everyone in the book has secret identities, secret connections to grand conspiracies, and important plot elements that they conveniently hide until the last minute, only doling out clues here and there. There are no normal people in this world, only double agents and kings in disguise. Every analysis I've read of this book mentions that even the narrator is unreliable.>This can be an effective technique, but in combination with a world of infinite, unpredictable intrigue, Wolfe's story begins to evoke something between a soap opera and a convoluted mystery novel, relying on impossible and contradictory scenarios to mislead the audience. Apparently, this is the thing his fans most appreciate about him--I find it to be an insulting and artificial game.>I agree with this reviewer that there is simply not enough structure to the story to make the narrator's unreliability meaningful. In order for unreliable narration to be effective, there must be some clear and evident counter-story that undermines it. Without that, it is not possible to determine meaning, because there's nowhere to start: everything is equally shaky.>At that point, it's just a trick--adding complexity to the surface of the story without actually producing any new meaning. I know most sci fi and fantasy authors seem to love complexity for its own sake, but it's a cardinal sin of storytelling: don't add something into your story unless it needs to be there. Covering the story with a lot of vagaries and noise may impress some, but won't stand up to careful reading.
I tried to find out about the short sun covers a few weeks ago and clicked on a reddit post first. They were saying they were bad but they mostly thought they were bad because there's a nude woman on the cover and that it made them uncomfortable, so I gave up my endeavour immediately. I didn't even look elsewhere.
>The thread is so inactive the negro couldn't wait.
bump
>>24962571Horn violently beats and rapes her. One of Wolfe's best novels.
>>24962182I have the UK edition hardcovers of New Sun, the single-volume of Short Sun, but I stopped short of collecting Wolfe hardcovers when it came to getting the Long Sun ones. Really nice covers on all of those.
>>24962571I wish Yoshitaka Amano did long and short sun covers
I hate how there's always the same guy who spams his copypasta about BOTNS in every thread even when no one has mentioned it. I refuse to give him a (you). I personally like Long Sun the best. Right now I'm in the third and final Latro book. I enjoy the formula and the short chapters make it easy to sneak into my daily routine. I will probably read Wizard/Knight" next. Then I have a bunch of his short story books to get to, probably starting with either "Fifth head of Cerberus" or "The Island of Doctor Death, and other stories (and other stories)".
>>24962182gene wolfe sucks
>>24965183The originator of the copypasta (J G Keely) was such an insufferable, tasteless Reddit faggot too, I’ve always wondered if the people posting it are aware of where it came from.
>>24966357>redditGene wolfe is the epitome of reddit. Go listen to more alazbo soup or whatever trash you listen to you tasteless surface level midwit
>>24966557we get it dude, you read a small part of one of his books and think you know everything about him. I might take you more seriously if you had tried some of his short stories, or attempted to read any of his other books, or had any of your own criticisms. Actually, after considering it, there is no reason to take you seriously. thanks for bumping the thread though
>>24968281>no response>seethesWhy should I have to read thousands of pages of a book series to have an opinion of a book? Why isn't the first book good enough? Why do wolfefags pretend to be literary when they're no different from any other fantasy fanboy reading their ten part slop epic?And i've read multiple wolfe short stories you absolute retard. they're good but hardly what i would consider past genre fiction
>>24968722It is genre fiction, but it's on a level above the typical. There are a few points that can be raised to place the Solar Cycle on a level above something like the Wheel of Time series. In short this is demonstrated in the depth beyond plot. 1. The many references to mythology and history, like the story of Theseus and the Minotaur getting mixed up with the Monitor of the battle of Hampton roads to form a new garbled future mythology. This demonstrates more than surface-level storytelling, it's thematic depth and rewards careful reading. 2. The ambiguity of a firsthand account with implicit meanings and detailed use of language is in contrast to the usual straightforward presentation in service to the plot often seen in this genre 3. Literature loves talking about identity, consciousness, spirituality, the condition of being human. That's exactly what these books focus on, the connection to the reader's own emotions rather than the events of the world being important for their own sake.
>>24966357I always read that pasta as a satire on a pseud bungling his way through an attempt at literary criticism. Surprised that this was someone's sincere post.
>>24968722Good luck finding something even remotely similar to the Latro books, or Peace, or There are Doors. Even his genre fiction, like Pirate Freedom, is great
>>24968747>>24969143Wolfe's obviously better than your usual sanderson rothfuss eddings wheel of time fantasy slop. Nobody denies that. But his work doesn't even hold a candle to literary fiction. It's good genre fiction. Nothing more.>depthIt's babby's first deep story. a mundane genre story (young muscular man who is good at sword fighting) who uses's babby's first literary techniques (unreliable narrator, ambiguity, rare and obscure words). It's why /lit/cel midwits love BOTNS so much. Too smart for sanderson slop yet too dumb for actual literary fiction, poetry, drama? Just read BOTNS. It lets you LARP as an intellectual while not actually being one.
>>24969189I enjoy most of the books I read. All fiction might be called slop. Some of it is more thought provoking than others, and that's okay. Sometimes I want an easygoing comfy book, so I'll read something for young adults like a light novel. There are other times where I want something with layers that have to be unraveled, so I might go for something more like George Gurdjieff's "Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson" or Aleister Crowley's "Moonchild". I'll often read a dense nonfiction book at the same time, because they are best absorbed by reading slowly and letting the subconscious mind reflect on them. Right now I'm reading Mary Anne Atwood's "A suggestive Inquiry into the Hermetic Mystery" and it's very dense. I would put Wolfe's Solar Cycle series somewhere in the middle in regards to difficulty. It's an enjoyable read the first time through, and upon subsequent re-reads it's very likely to unravel details and notice details that were probably missed or obscured in the first read. I don't understand your criticism of it being for "midwits". Do you only ever read very difficult books? Do you believe that a book is only as good as it is complicated? It seems like your desire for literary elitism has left you out of touch with the essence of the vast majority of writing; simply an enjoyable story. I think "The Hobbit" is a fantastic example, being a great story while also written with the intention to read to children one chapter at a time. I know that you probably have no intention of having an earnest discussion about such things and you're mostly just looking for an excuse to shit on Gene Wolfe every time you see him mentioned, but I hope some of the things I've mentioned resonate with you and allow you to enjoy a greater range of stories, even if you never come to like Wolfe. That's okay. Have a Merry Christmas, and remember that we read to enjoy ourselves, friend
>>24969189Thanks for the new recs.
>>24969189Trying too hard, anon. Anyone with a genuine literary mind, whatever fault they might find with Wolfe, would not bring up those tired, shallow criticisms based on a superficial and incomplete reading of botns. Nobody's buying that you're a keen connoisseur of "literary fiction"... you sound like you just started with the Greeks the other week or so. Keep at it!
>>24969233>>24969293BOTNS isn't really difficult. It's "difficulty" comes from when vidya brained 4channers who get into BOTNS because it's like le dark souls or because they saw it on le based /lit/ charts encounter basic literary techniques and have difficulty with them. Of course somebody's who's only played videogames all their life and only read a book because they were forced to in high school will find wolfe difficult but literati don't.It's good genre fiction. This is something i've never denied. Wolfe is a good genre writer. He's in the top 10% of sff writers. But he isn't literary. he isn't better than proust and shakespeare (as wolfe fans have claimed). He isn't the greatest writer of the 20th century. And wolfe fans are delusional in their treatment of wolfe as equivalent to joyce
>>24969302>he isn't better than proust and shakespeare (as wolfe fans have claimed).citation needed
