BOOK OF THE NEW SUN SPOILERS AHEAD




I accept that suspension of disbelief is an absolute necessary and I also agree that there is a strong theme of the allegorical about the book. This is why the nature of coincidence for me is a significant inclusion as opposed to something that has merely been used as a literary device to make the book cohesive.

I appreciate it has been a while since you have read this but in the section of the book I am currently reading, Severian's arrival at the army camp with fever we have the following significant coincidences. 1) The re-emergence of Jonas 2) Ava the Pelerine who witnessed Severians duel with Agilius 3) the Pelerine man-slave who was whipped by Palaemon, Severian's teacher. The whole series runs like this.

Now Severian is an unreliable narrator, his recollection of things change throughout the series, for example, his interactions with women and I'm sure a second read through would identify many more instances. I wonder to what extent the plot and characters (coincidences) are skewed by the narrators unreliability. We know from the very beginning that the story is of his own ascent to the throne. Myth is an important feature of the novel, how much of Severian's own text is myth? It's like a metafictional subtext, really quite clever and it's got me thinking a lot.

Well, that's sort of what I was saying before; it's not important how these various characters have made their reappearances, but rather that they have reappeared; much like in a dream it's not the logic of the events that's important, but rather the juxtaposition of the various elements culled from memory. The characters, at least to a certain degree, are these symbols incarnate, and the coincidence of him meeting them again is trivial compared to the fact of their meeting and what goes on during it (there's a pivotal scene from The Urth of the New Sun which capitalizes on this and may actually answer some of your questions, but I won't spoil it for you). With each meeting, the symbols take on new meaning from new bits of information and their rearrangement in regards to each other, and that's the thing you ought to be thinking about. Now, it has been a while since I've read the books and I can't remember them well enough to tell you the particular significance of the scene you described (though I do know the one you're talking about). You'll just have to draw your own conclusions, but I agree with your earlier statement that Gene Wolfe is a good enough author that we can delve this deeply into his works and not risk over-analyzing them. Whatever happens, you can bet it happens for a reason.

While we are on the subject of the reappearance of bizarre and phantasmagorical characters from the past, I see Fungicide is back.

Anyway, thanks for your comments. I'll plow on with the books and keep thinking about it. I really like what you have said about characters as symbols (?are you implying something similar to a Jungian archetype).

Yeah, I was thinking of something like that, but obviously Wolfe has created archetypes that are to a large degree original. After all, you mentioned earlier that it's a lot like a myth, and myths are filled with such archetypes.

That is one hell of a review, and you quoted a lot of my favourite lines from the book as well. I've passed my copy of this book to so many people now it's probably going to fall apart soon, but very few seem too have connected with it so much. The ambiguity and the terrible message contained in the ending keeps me thinking about the book constantly, even a couple of years after reading it.

More later, maybe when I"m not at work.

Well, I think Vance is one author who does playfulness extremely well. You won't see any diminuition of his extravagant prose, that's for sure! I may be biased, but I'd read the "DYing Earth" stuff in order, starting with the first book of short stories, which, incidentally, is the least playful of the lot.

Argh, ok, now I really need too read the second half of Book of the new Sun ... "Bleak House" suddenly seems incredibly long.

Now I'm on some sort of Cervantes Saavedra fever, so I've finished "Don Quixote" and I'm on "Novelas Ejemplares" (exemplar, indeed, literary and aesthetically) and "Viaje del Parnaso" (the ironies and mocking are endless). Also, I'm re-reading Ende's "The neverending story" (really, the story of my life) and Rostand "Cyrano de Bergerac" (one of the most beautiful display of love discourse).

Good for you. I am reading the first part of Anthony Burgess' autobiography at the moment, "Big God and Little Wilson", which is the literary equivalent of savouring a really good bottle of Nero d'Avola. If you like the English language, you'll like this book (and its sequel, I am to suppose, which I bought at the same time and will read subsequently). Having read DQ is something of a litmus test for Burgess: many claim to have read it, but few have. He claimed to have read it four times, of course. I've managed about 80%. It's there on the bookshelf, tauting me, with the bookmark still in it. I categorize it with Sterne, Rabelais and Melville on every count other than the fact that I've been able to finish the former, but not the latter. Not yet, that is.

Burgess' reckoning of the integrity of those who assert their having read Cervantes (and I salute once again your not falling into this category) is not dissimilar to Oscar Wilde's repost to those who claimed to have been writing a novel, namely (and I paraphrase): "I'm not doing that, too".

Edit: it's an autobiography.

I'll take a chance and ask you guys a recommendation... I'm currently looking for a book that's rather dark in which love is also a central theme. A little bit how love was really important in The Crow (the graphic novel by James O'Barr, the movie was a bit different and less deep imo) and how it was really the fuel behind Eric's actions. Anything that also has philosophy or deep meaning behind it is very welcome. Basically, just something very dark in any genre though.

I've read some Terry Goodkind and my main problem with it is that it's too "light" and cliche-d. I've also read some Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms, my problem with both of them is they seem to be for kids which kinda bugs me. I prefer something a little bit more mature. That's one thing I liked about Terry Goodkind's writing but in general I wasn't really wowed by the first Sword o Truth book (it was good though) and I'm halfway through the second one and to be honest it's really starting to bug me.

Thanks in advance

How about Bulgakov's "The Master and Margarita"? I wrote about it earlier in the thread, so you can read more about it there. It's a love story that also involves Satan and his minions wreaking havoc in 1930s Moscow. Awesome writing.

I've never read Terry Goodkind, but I've been told by reliable people that he's precisely the sort of fantasist I want to stay away from. Keep looking at this thread; there are a lot of great recommendations here. The fantasy masterworks collection that BM_DM posted a linkk to earlier is filled with some absolutely wonderful books. Hey, why isn't Gormenghast on there? Oh well!

Coincidently I just begun reading The Master and Margarita and I am enjoying it so far. A Danish translation from Russian was recently published here and it seems to be excellent. What is good about the book is that it is actually entertaining, unlike other classics I have read. This winter I read Céline's Journey to the End of the Night and while the writing and style was outstanding, it also seemed a chore at times. Might have the relentless negativity, I don't know. I suspect that while others might have found it morbidly funny, I thought it was rather depressing. Superior prose does not enjoyable reading make.

Other things I am reading include John Fowles - The French Lieutenant's Women and Karen Blixen - Seven Gothic Tales. To the extent that I have favourite books, Fowles' The Collector has to be one of them. The French Lieutenant's Women is something very different - a post-modern, metaesque historical novel, but that engaging Fowlesque insight and thoroughness is still present. Seven Gothic Tales is the first book I have picked up by Blixen in spite of the fact that she is one of Denmark's most renowned authors, domestically and internationally. To me, the first story, "The Roads Round Pisa", seemed a bit bloated and, dare I say, banal. Sentimental might be the word I am looking for. I enjoy some writers with a bloated, old-timey style like Poe or Lovecraft but this is something else. Perhaps it is because it is in my own language. I just found all the talk of truth, romance and beauty(all that beauty!) irritating.

Yeah, I've been poking around that list now and then, and I noticed they have "The Iron Dragon's Daughter" by Michael Swanwick listed, which I don't think I've seen anyone mention on this board. I read it a couple of years ago, and it was definitely a neat fantasy with a definitely original take on world-building; imagine elves and dwarves etc. in England during the industrial revolution with child labor, elf aristocrats, and pretty much everyone else (such as dwarves) being second-class citizens. There's also some cool technology/magic style stuff, with the dragons essentially being ultra-powerful sentient fighter planes that are manufactured in giant factories and use missiles as well as magic. It's really quite good, even if the little tidbits I described might sound a little gimmicky. The story is very dark and dystopian, which makes a lot of it more gritty and disturbing than whimsical, as it might otherwise seem.

That sounds absolutely bonkers, and as a consequence goes straight to the top of the slush pile for my commute subsequent to my having finished Gene Wolfe's Peace. As the title suggest, the former is indeed a very quiet read, and I'll need something a little more high octane to balance things out. Missile-toting dragons sound just the ticket.

Although the setting is interesting I really have my doubts about this... It doesn't sound dark at all but I might check it out more. I'll look into the Master and Margarita as it sounds really interesting. Thanks!

Well, I obviously didn't go into many of the parts that make it dark, as doing so in detail would ruin many of those dark moments. Suffice to say it's a pretty hopeless story, and a lot of people die.

Goodkind is one of the worst writers ever. Stay away from him, seriously. Unless you like clichés, shitty prose, Mary Sue protagonists who can do no wrong, in-your-face libertarian/objectivist propaganda in the form of pages-long speeches by the protagonist and "messages" full of strawmen with the subtlety of a sledgehammer, and the same story (filled with almost-rape, gratuitous violence and goofy villains) repeated in every single book. And I am not even remotely exaggerating.


A Song of Ice and Fire doesn't have (romantic) love as its main theme, but it's very dark (and romantic love does play a part in the story and motivation of some of the main characters) and gritty.

For philosophy and meaning, there's always Dune, of course, assuming you haven't read it. I also may be repeating myself again but Hyperion and Fall of Hyperion also fit the bill, some of the best sci-fi I've ever read. If it helps, love is one of the themes too, but again, not quite as central as what you described.

I know not to whom I'm responding, but try Solaris by Stanislaw Lem.

Hey, I haven't read this book, but I must say that Michael Swanwick is pretty cool and even though I think he may be a bit of a moral high-ground kind of guy (judging from some of his short stories) his stuff does usually seem to have quite a dark feeling and mood. There was one I read recently that was just absolutely crazy and involved time travel, really hyper-advanced and emotionless humans fighting a war and programming travellers from the past, etc .. really over the top and pretty cool, kind of like the modern take on A. E. Van Vogt's "I'll throw every crazy concept at you so fast you won't have any idea what the hell is going on but you'll damn well enjoy it!" style of SF writing.

Coincidentally, I just finished reading Wolfe's Free Live Free the day before yesterday. It's definitely not his best, but it was still certainly very good. The book is about four flat broke people living in a US slum in the 80s, who just started boarding with some weird old man who doesn't charge them rent. Anyway, the house is condemned, so he enlists their help in trying to stop it from getting knocked down. The house is partially demolished, the old guy disappears, and the four boarders start looking for him. Along the way they start catching hints of vast conspiracies and strange, paranormal-style stuff, but never anything conclusive and it's fairly slow moving (focusing mostly on character development) until about the last 75 pages or so which include perhaps the most confusing shit I have ever read (in a good way). Definitely recommended if you like Gene Wolfe, though with its real-world setting I kinda feel that Wolfe's amazing aptitude at world-building is more or less wasted. I still rate The Fifth Head of Cerberus, The Book of the New Sun series, and The Wizard Knight series as his best (though I have yet to read everything he's written).


The Iron Dragon's Daughter actually isn't really moralizing at all, the main character (Jane) is actually quite amoral and looks out for herself before all else most of the time. It does throw crazy concepts at you, though not terribly regularly. More like periods of craziness and upheaval followed by periods of rest, as Jane gets used to the new state of affairs. Repeat that a few times and you'll have a good idea of the pacing of the book. Some people have complained about it, but it makes perfect sense, as that kind of thing is a big part of growing up (changing schools, moving, making new friends, losing old ones, etc., all of which happens during the book).

Finished reading Borislav Pekic's "Besnilo" (Rabies). Highly recommended , though this seems to be the only place with english translation.

Today, I'll start reading Mark Danielewski's "House of Leaves". Heard great things about it, so I can't wait to get home.

I finished Peace. When I shut the book, I concluded that I didn't think much of it. One of Wolfe's trademarks is his indeterminate, open-ended style, but on having immediately finished the work I thought it to be just plain vague rather than multifaceted. However, the more I thought about it, the more I liked it.

I'm a third of the way through Michael Swanwick's The Iron Dragon's Daughter. I'm enjoying the steampunk elements and the concepts associated with the dragon technology (also, the description of the grimoire was wonderful), but much of it reads like a bad YA emo-fest with swearing, and the heavy-handed social commentary is sticking in the craw somewhat.

Nevertheless, I'll press on, failsafeman! Thanks for the steer.

I don't know about the heavy-handed social commentary, I mean sure it had like a "class" system and such, but depicting that doesn't necessarily equate social commentary. I mean, when fantasy novels depict serfs and such that's not social commentary, it's a part of the feudal lifestyle. Now, it has been a while since I read it, so maybe there was some social commentary angle I missed (I have a real tendency to block out bad parts of books the first time through, if I like certain other aspects enough). As for the YA aspect, the protagonist IS a young adult, so that similarity will be inevitable on some level. I do remember it getting better as it went on, though. Regardless, it's definitely one of those books which has some real faults, but some real great parts that make up for them. It gets better as it goes on, too. The part with the gargoyle later on is pretty good, you'll know the one I mean when you read it.

I'm reading Anton Chekov at the moment. Good stuff, I've long been fascinated with Russia and this feeds my obsession.

I recently read the first four books of A Song of Ice and Fire, and I can't wait for the next one. What amazes me about it is the amount of moral ambiguity, political scheming, and incest.

I'm particularly fond of the character Sandor Clegane.

Sandor Clegane is a very well crafted character. Given the relatively little amount of spotlight he gets within the series, he seems to interest me more than many of the main characters. Tyrion is also a great character, and I'm fond of Jon as well.

Osmium:




Honestly (and I know I'm a fangirl but bear with me) ASoIaF is deeper than many give it credit for. It's not just a good plot with good characters, but it has serious character studies and thematics of dualism, deep loss and rebirth, honour vs family, and so on.

Jon is admirable, but I feel that he's a bit more straightforward than some of the others (such as Sandor, Tyrion, Jaime). He's kind of the well-meaning protagonist who sometimes must perform scurrilous deeds for the greater good. I can't wait 'til the little prick Robert Arryn dies a horrible, painful death. His mother was rightfully defenestrated and I feel it is only fair that he receive similar treatment.

Yes, but that is something that I find really neat about him. He has a very strong sense of honor passed on to him by Eddard, and has humility due to his bastard station (and of course even more reinforced by his training with the Night's Watch). Straightforward, yes. But then again so is Sandor

I think that's part of the point: shitty station, shitty life, yet he actually turns out to have stronger morals than most other characters, but with the ability to be flexible in the face of necessity, whereas Eddard was too rigid and paid the price. Of course, it still remains to be seen how things turn out

Well I'm not so sure he had a shitty life. I just think by constantly being reminded of his place in the family he had to earn his respect, something that Robb never did much of.

I'm not sure about "shitty life", but that reminds me again of the dualism. A lot of the characters can be compared in this way. Examples:

Jon vs Theon: two young men, strangers in their own home, who both seek acceptance from their family. One eventually decided to stop vying for this acceptance and left the household to join the Night Watch. Yet in the end, he earned the respect and approval of his peers. The other wanted so badly to "fit in", that went so far as to betray his foster family and commit horrible deeds - and in the end he is rejected by all.

Jaime vs Theon - two attractive, arrogant, talented noblemen of great families - at least that's our early impressions. Yet we realize that deep down Jaime does have honour, and he bears the burden of being despised for his actually noble actions. He seeks to regain some of this honour. Yet Theon, as stated above, has no honour and will commit great crimes just to try to gain respect from his peers. A quote I saw somewhere summarized it well: "Jaime effectively gives up being Lord Lannister to be true to himself, while Theon gives up being true to himself to try to be King Greyjoy."

There are more like that... Asha/Arianne, Arya/Sansa, Cersei/Daenerys, probably many others.

His life as a bastard did seem decent from a practical standpoint, but he was constantly put in that inferior position that could have easily made him jealous and even "evil". Still, when I said "shitty", I mostly meant his life as shown to us in the books, as a part of the Night Watch etc. After all, he's only just now growing into a man, so it's still quite a formative time for him.


Well, that's the thing; it was taken for granted that the reader knew this, but in this day and age (what with Nazis and the like) people are encouraged to think about what they're being ordered to do and not just follow things blindly, and "honor" is pretty much a foreign concept, and it's easy to misunderstand just HOW important honor was to knights. It could be you already know this, but as killing/betraying his king is essentially the absolute MOST dishonorable thing Jaime could have done, a cardinal sin, that it doesn't matter whether or not it was the "right" thing to do from a moral standpoint because honor is supposed to come before personal morals (obviously I would've done the same thing in his shoes, but that's not the point). Even if every knight knew WHY Jaime had killed the king, it wouldn't matter for shit because he still would have irreparably stained his honor and they'd still all look down on him, which I think is why he hasn't tried explaining it to anyone; if they didn't believe him, it would seem like he was making lame excuses, and if they did, it probably wouldn't make too much difference. Of course as the reader will obviously care more about morals than honor, Jaime looks much better when we find out why he killed the king, as before it just seemed like opportunism. And in this part of the story he's essentially leaving his duties again; I think the point of his character is that he's a great swordsman (maybe even with just one hand), a shitty knight, but actually a decent person after all. What with the loss of his sword hand and essentially having to re-learn how to fight, I think that deflated his ego and he's realizing that he's not the only person in the world anymore.

I think you misunderstand me, but perhaps I wasn't clear. When I said he was a man with honour, I did not mean the Westerosi concept of honour, but rather our modern one, where being honourable is essentially equivocated with doing "the right thing".
Clearly, killing the man you had sworn an oath to protect is hugely dishonourable for a knight, especially for the Kingsgard. Just like a fanatical Bangladeshi's daughter holding hands with a man from another faith is hugely dishonourable for her father... even though this concept of honour is beyond warped to us.

Also, I am not entirely certain that -every- knight would still condemn him if they knew the truth. Brienne is (was?) certainly a shining example of a true, honourable knight, and she seems to accept his explanation in the end. But maybe it's because she just has this huge crush on him. Or maybe because she understands that sometimes you have to break an oath in order to fulfil another.

I think this is true

I didn't misunderstand you, the way you put it was just ambiguous and I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. My point also was that it's not about what WE think is "the right thing", it's about what THEY think is "the right thing", which for us is personal morals but for knights especially is honor (which essentially means following the personal morals of the guy above you without question, along with a certain etiquette). That's why everyone was pissed when the former head of the Kingsguard (Barristan, something like that) was forced into retirement, because it was hugely dishonorable and as they said had never happened in the organization's history. Cersei of course didn't give a crap.


Here again you seem to understand the concept, but not the degree of seriousness; I'm sure the only thing keeping Jaime from losing his position on the Kingsguard, his knighthood, and possibly even his life is the fact that he was the brother of the queen and politics are stronger than honor (in this case).


Well, that's up for debate, and Brienne is hardly an orthodox knight. Regardless, it's not about what actually would have happened, but what Jaime thought would happen, and he wasn't exactly Mr. Popular even without that Kingslayer crap anyway. Be pretty funny if he just made the story up and GRRM were setting us up to like Jaime, only to have him turn out be an asshole after all. Besides all that, he did totally leave his position and ditch his sister/queen, which is not what he should have done if he were thinking as a knight. I guess none of the Lannisters really hold honor in high regard.

Chekov's short stories are great, indeed. They always make me feel that life is shitty and pointless .. as grim as a Russian winter among the peasants. He lacks the humour of Gogol but has all the humanity, if you know what I mean. I've heard that the plays are worth reading/seeing as well, but I don't know much about those.

Steven Erikson shits on 'George RR Martin'. Most of the Martin books are filler, with only a couple of decent charaters. However, his novel the Fevre Dream is a true classic criminally ignored by fantasy fans simply because its about vampires.

Huh? I understand it just fine. I think it's you who doesn't understand that Martin is showing us that knighthood really doesn't mean shit. As the Hound said, Gregor Clegane is a knight. Now what does that say of the worth of knighthood?


On the contrary, Jaime was highly popular and respected before he slew Aerys. Why else do you think he was accepted into the Kingsguard so young? The only one who resented him was Tywin, because joining the Kingsguard made Jaime ineligible to inherit Casterly Rock.


Oh, I think not. Seems like you are the one conflating Westerosi honour with our modern one, what with thinking he may turn "asshole" and all. But Jaime's path is one of redemption after he lost his hand. He rescued Brienne, and when he returned to King's Landing, he took command of the Kingsguard with honour (that word again), gave Brienne the sword and sent her to find Sansa to keep his oath to Catelyn (an oath made at swordpoint, let's not forget), he freed his brother, he became alienated by his whore sister and left her, and while he made a nasty bluff to Edmure Tully (all contributing to his reputation as a monster with "shit for honour"), he did take Riverrun without bloodshed. Jaime lost his ability to fight, and is losing his sense of knighthood, but he's becoming a better man.

I just hope he is the valonqar who will strange Cersei.


Fevre Dream IS great, but your description of ASoIaF couldn't be more off.

I'm currently reading A Voyage to Arcturus. So far it sounds like an LSD-induced fantasy (yes, I know LSD wasn't around when it was written). Does the story ever go anywhere? I'm at the part where Maskull just killed Oceaxe's husband.
Also, the prose is... Too many passive voices.

And you were the one talking about spoilers in the movie thread