Good stuff here. Sorry if I sound a bit ranty but I think it is also important for people to know that just because a book is generally treated as a masterpiece it does not mean you have to like it.
For me the Shadow of the Torturer fails because of the following reasons:
- Severian is inconsistent in almost every way and mostly a passive MC. Sometimes he randomly exerts command and tries to dominate others but most of the time he basically just lets things happen to him with barely any reaction
-The characters don't behave like humans. I could not tell you of any character that pops up because of their personality. All characters are dull and feel more like functions for the poem. Yes I said poem because saying this is a story would be a stretch.
-All the interesting world building is in the background and it just comes and goes like an inconsistent magic system. You are left to scrounge up details and see if you can put together how the world works.
With all that said. I know that the things I mentioned above are completely subjective. Some people are looking for narratives like that. However I just wanted to leave this comment so that you know what you are getting yourself into.
"just because a book is generally treated as a masterpiece it does not mean you have to like it."
Well said, sir--and zero need to apologize! I appreciate the way you outline your perspective. I myself am a "ranty" iconoclast with many, many (MANY) "classics"--they just don't work for me...and for some I'd argue they don't work at all (I'm looking at you, James Joyce). For me, New Sun is not one of those--I found it brilliant :)
Wolfe's writing prowess is impossible to understate. The series ended about the same time McCarthy's Blood Meridian was published. Wolfe every bit as good as McCarthy and certainly more versatile.
Interesting--thank you for spotlighting the connection between Wolfe and McCarthy. I enjoy both very much, for differing reasons. I'd love to see someone more familiar with them than I compare and contrast the two. You couldn't go far wrong spending a great amount of time with either author.
McCarthy is tough to read, bleak and brutal with only a tiny glimmer of redemption or hope. Not so with Wolfe. That is why one can read his books again and again. He is our Tolkien and Lewis in one regard and our Melville in another. Of course McCarthy is also a Melville of sorts, a superior craftsman, high quality. But with quality like that, who needs depression?
This review of The Book of the New Sun reminds me a little, at least in its use of defamiliarizing vocabulary and its future sci-fi setting masquerading as fantasy (at least at first), of Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern series, although its world sounds a good deal darker - and the novel maybe deeper - than Pern.
While I absolutely adore the Dragonriders of Pern series, this one sounds a little more demanding than I currently have the time and attention for... but perhaps I'll eventually get to it, as I eventually (25 years later) got to and loved Tad William's Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn series. Sounds like it would be worth it. Thank you for putting it on my radar!
I haven't read Pern since I was in high school in the mid-80s--and I don't remember much of it, other than liking it. I would say you are correct, though, that Wolfe is more demanding (and, for me, very rewarding :)
I have Williams' trilogy on my TBR list--book one sits on my bedside table as I type this. You've given me the motivation to hop to it!
If you do get through Williams' trilogy, I'll be very interested to hear what you think of it. While I loved it, there were also aspects of it that were... I don't want to say unsatisfying, but, well, let's just say Tolkien did a better job of resolving everything.
Fair enough! But I was actually thinking more about Tolkien’s ability to resolve the significance of all the events in his plot threads in satisfying and meaningful ways. Don’t get me wrong here. Williams does a good job here, especially as he described his trilogy as a “bloated epic” - just not as good as Tolkien. In terms of prose, Williams is sometimes more poetic than Tolkien, and his characterization is rich, though his characters are more frequently annoying than Tolkien’s - although that also makes sense, given that they are younger. In terms of world-building… well, Williams is good, but of course in that respect no one can ever match Tolkien!
That's a fantastic question! I'll let others weigh in who are better versed in Wolfe than I am, also being a new fan.
In fact, I myself am considering whether I want to read Urth at all. That probably sounds counterintuitive, as I enjoyed BOTNS so much...but I'm so satisfied with it I want to bask in the glow for awhile. Plus, I have a lot more thinking to do about it (years' worth)--not to mention a second read.
So, someday I'll likely crack open Urth, but not just yet :)
I'm sure you're right. I watched a video where the Wolfe fan was adamant that BOTNS is a 5-part book, not four, and that Urth was planned all along--or at least, so well executed by Wolfe years later that it's as good as planned all along. It appears that Urth not only explains and deepens, but actually recontextualizes material from the first four books. I'm sure you'll love it!
Good stuff here. Sorry if I sound a bit ranty but I think it is also important for people to know that just because a book is generally treated as a masterpiece it does not mean you have to like it.
For me the Shadow of the Torturer fails because of the following reasons:
- Severian is inconsistent in almost every way and mostly a passive MC. Sometimes he randomly exerts command and tries to dominate others but most of the time he basically just lets things happen to him with barely any reaction
-The characters don't behave like humans. I could not tell you of any character that pops up because of their personality. All characters are dull and feel more like functions for the poem. Yes I said poem because saying this is a story would be a stretch.
-All the interesting world building is in the background and it just comes and goes like an inconsistent magic system. You are left to scrounge up details and see if you can put together how the world works.
With all that said. I know that the things I mentioned above are completely subjective. Some people are looking for narratives like that. However I just wanted to leave this comment so that you know what you are getting yourself into.
"just because a book is generally treated as a masterpiece it does not mean you have to like it."
Well said, sir--and zero need to apologize! I appreciate the way you outline your perspective. I myself am a "ranty" iconoclast with many, many (MANY) "classics"--they just don't work for me...and for some I'd argue they don't work at all (I'm looking at you, James Joyce). For me, New Sun is not one of those--I found it brilliant :)
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment!
Wolfe's writing prowess is impossible to understate. The series ended about the same time McCarthy's Blood Meridian was published. Wolfe every bit as good as McCarthy and certainly more versatile.
Interesting--thank you for spotlighting the connection between Wolfe and McCarthy. I enjoy both very much, for differing reasons. I'd love to see someone more familiar with them than I compare and contrast the two. You couldn't go far wrong spending a great amount of time with either author.
McCarthy is tough to read, bleak and brutal with only a tiny glimmer of redemption or hope. Not so with Wolfe. That is why one can read his books again and again. He is our Tolkien and Lewis in one regard and our Melville in another. Of course McCarthy is also a Melville of sorts, a superior craftsman, high quality. But with quality like that, who needs depression?
"But with quality like that, who needs depression?"
Hahaha! Thanks for the lol moment! Well said, sir, well said.
I have about one a week. All downhill from here
I somehow doubt that!
This review of The Book of the New Sun reminds me a little, at least in its use of defamiliarizing vocabulary and its future sci-fi setting masquerading as fantasy (at least at first), of Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern series, although its world sounds a good deal darker - and the novel maybe deeper - than Pern.
While I absolutely adore the Dragonriders of Pern series, this one sounds a little more demanding than I currently have the time and attention for... but perhaps I'll eventually get to it, as I eventually (25 years later) got to and loved Tad William's Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn series. Sounds like it would be worth it. Thank you for putting it on my radar!
Thanks for commenting, Fr. Justin.
I haven't read Pern since I was in high school in the mid-80s--and I don't remember much of it, other than liking it. I would say you are correct, though, that Wolfe is more demanding (and, for me, very rewarding :)
I have Williams' trilogy on my TBR list--book one sits on my bedside table as I type this. You've given me the motivation to hop to it!
If you do get through Williams' trilogy, I'll be very interested to hear what you think of it. While I loved it, there were also aspects of it that were... I don't want to say unsatisfying, but, well, let's just say Tolkien did a better job of resolving everything.
Well, compared to Tolkien, who really holds up well? ;)
Fair enough! But I was actually thinking more about Tolkien’s ability to resolve the significance of all the events in his plot threads in satisfying and meaningful ways. Don’t get me wrong here. Williams does a good job here, especially as he described his trilogy as a “bloated epic” - just not as good as Tolkien. In terms of prose, Williams is sometimes more poetic than Tolkien, and his characterization is rich, though his characters are more frequently annoying than Tolkien’s - although that also makes sense, given that they are younger. In terms of world-building… well, Williams is good, but of course in that respect no one can ever match Tolkien!
That's a fantastic question! I'll let others weigh in who are better versed in Wolfe than I am, also being a new fan.
In fact, I myself am considering whether I want to read Urth at all. That probably sounds counterintuitive, as I enjoyed BOTNS so much...but I'm so satisfied with it I want to bask in the glow for awhile. Plus, I have a lot more thinking to do about it (years' worth)--not to mention a second read.
So, someday I'll likely crack open Urth, but not just yet :)
I'm sure you're right. I watched a video where the Wolfe fan was adamant that BOTNS is a 5-part book, not four, and that Urth was planned all along--or at least, so well executed by Wolfe years later that it's as good as planned all along. It appears that Urth not only explains and deepens, but actually recontextualizes material from the first four books. I'm sure you'll love it!
Wolfe does inspire confidence, that's for sure!
Would you let me know what you think of it when you're done?