gene wolfe's book of the NEWSUN!!!!! reading club

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnYoyCgFKSI&feature=related

oh he looks like a pretty chiil dude

he bones that chick, right?

no he forgot to carry around his badass sword

maybe next episode

both baldanders and typhon represent the folly of scientific materialism

y'know i think i hate books where something REPRESENTS something else. or maybe i just hate this book and there's a dozen counterexamples i can't think of.

late great -- don't get me wrong -- i do not dislike these books, and i will continue to read them and may even read the book of the long sun or w/e.

I do find the structure & flow of these books a bit difficult tho -- I understand that it's written as Sev's memoir and so of course there is a lot Wolfe can do with that and does do quite well w/r/t omission of detail etc but i still find it a bit tough to wade thru some of the less compelling adventures. Whether you want to blame that on Sev's lack of narrative skills or something else is up to the individual i guess.

I read books primarily for entertainment, though I do read a lot of biography as well. I also read books to stimulate my own thoughts and to become engaged in another world or a scenario that otherwise I would be unable to experience. I do not find Wolfe to be all that engaging--there are plenty of episodes in the books that are neat-o (stuff with Jonas I liked a lot, the botanical garden of crazy dimensions, the floating islands, the consumption of Thecla) but I also find long stretches where I am just waiting for something to happen. Idk.

re: Dorcas -- it just seems strange when you build someone up as one of the only other major characters in the book only for her to disappear for almost the entirety of one of the books. I think she was a good foil for Severian and their conversations were good reading, for me.

^ well, wolfe writes in such a way that there are a lot of stubs in sevarian's story. dorcas: she's a savior! she's a lover! she's sickly! she's resentful! she's just ... gone! she was the dead boatman's wife! is a nice little progression of events, but they don't feel like they add up to anything. it seems to me that there's an episodic quality to the novels' structure that undermines the carefulness of the presentation and the cogency of the world-building. what i mean to say is: there's no objective correlative for sevarian's internal issue, whatever it is. there isn't really an internal issue at all, that i can tell. robert penn warren talks eloquently of the 'yearn' at the heart of every great character, the inarticulable, inchoate, desire for some (x) that motivates the character like the virgin mary's immaculately burning heart and is expressed or denied in terms of the outside action in the narrative. but with sevarian....

now, not every story need follow so strict a path as warren says –– but sevarian's story is clearly, one about growth and an expanding understanding of the world, and the slow drip of information about humankind's fall and afterlife. but why? is sevarian especially curious? no – not based on anything i've read. in some chapters, as ian alludes to, he's a hollow shirtless navigator bumbling around and seeing A Thing and engaging The Thing and moving on. But, for many of the chapters, there's no thrill or contribution to the meaning. the village of mages? the fire salamander? the green man? they're interludes, but on the way to what? you can make an argument that together they are all blips in a pointillist painting that will make sense only upon completing the novel, but i'm not buying it. at least not now. many of the incidents don't contribute to the story (i.e. sevarian's journey; education; growth) nor the plot (his physical steps to becoming Whatever He Becomes), which, ideally, are entwined ends. they're just 'a funny thing happened on the way to return the claw'

like ian, i'll continue reading. and i'll continue enjoying. but i'm reserving my right to be critical.

also nobody seems to have a body, a la george martin

you're not reading carefully enough

severian's yearning is to bring things back to life

maybe that becomes clear later on, and he is always 'thinking about trying to use the claw' but tbh a much more motivating factor for him seems to be sex? with thecla and cyriaca especially, his lust causes him all sorts of problems and seems to motivate a lot of the major action in the book.

fwiw i just stumbled upon genewolfebookclub.com and it is pretty neat stuff i guess..

i would say the sex thing is fairly true to life ;-)

but then there's also triskele, and his childhood experiences in the crypt watching nature come to life, and his ambitions as a child to bring the new sun back to life and to restore humanity, etc etc

you're not reading carefully enough

is kind of ridiculous, v.

sorry :-(

hard to read closely when it's hard to tell what's gonna be relevant and what's just stage dressing imo. also tough to read closely when i am half in the bag and going to sleep.

tbf the book does end w/ severian telling you to go back and re-read again

how many times have you read this, TLG?

front to back four times over the last year

but i often dip back in and read a few chapters at a time

wow, four times in a year. that is impressive in some way.

eh, not really

i tend to get obsessed with a few books and read them over and over again rather than reading a broad range of stuff

some other ones i keep re-reading are engine summer, the cornelius chronicles (moorcock), stars in my pocket like grains of sand (delany), lovecraft's stories, etc

this is probably the first time in my adult life though i've got caught up in a multi-volume epic, it's kind of surprising because i really don't care for like tolkien or george martin

i think maybe i just relate very strongly to severian?

that is true actually, i feel a very strong kinship to severian

severian is kinda bipolar i guess in that he swings from feeling like an outcast, a traitor and a failure and feeling like king of the whole world and jesus' son

i can relate to that

interesting that stars in my pocket is on your reread list, late great. of all the delaney i've read (and i've read all of it except the nevèrÿon stuff, hogg, phallos, and mad men), it is the least fulfilling title in the catalogue. what do you like about it? if i think about it, i can see some tonal/formal similarities b/w it and newsun... and they're kind of evenly sprinkled on the attractor/repulsor matrix.

i think the main character in stars in my pocket (marq dyeth, not rat korga) has a very believable interior voice and i find it easy to relate to his thoughts and feelings ... for example, at the beginning, when he remembers a human hand and alien hand linked together in the dappled sunshine of a tree-shaded playground. i have memories and feelings like that too.

i also found the world (and universe) very believable, it felt three-dimensional and solid to me, like there are all sorts of little idiosyncrasies and bits of alien-ness but they don't feel alien, they just feel like a natural part of an alien world, not like classic sci-fi "oh here's a bit of futurism or theoretical physics and let me explain it to you", something a bit more whole and rounded than that.

i guess lovecraft is the same way? i relate pretty strongly to most of lovecraft's narrators (i guess because i'm an indoors-y neurotic bookworm too?) and the world he sketches is very atmospheric, with the fantastic details more often obscured than explained

i dunno though, none of what i'm writing here feels exactly right or like i'm doing justice to it

i promise i'll get back to this

front to back four times over the last year

wau

late great, have you read any clark ashton smith? king of atmospheric Weird Tales writers

a tiny sliver, only "white worm" and "out of space and time"

what else is good?

i often confuse august derleth and clark ashton smith. i know i am not crazy about derleth but i am pretty sure that's why i always pass on them, then later i remember he's lovecraft's friend, not his publisher.

but didn't he help w/ the dreamlands? and the king in yellow? or am i just super confused?

nope that's robert t. chambers

er w. chambers

maybe we should have a wyrd fiction thread.

^ yes

Dripping death astride a bacchanale of bats from nigh-black ruins of buried temples of Belial? Don't mind if I do (a weird fiction thread)

awesome

k so i've been thinking about what you guys said and i am going to make an admission

for awhile the third book was definitely my least favorite and i agree i was also taken aback by the sudden downshifting, so much so that i totally skimmed a lot of the thrax stuff. it was also one of the books that i found most improved by rereading. now i feel kind of silly for being so badly thrown by the transition because the same thing happened at the beginning of the second book.

so here's how i look at the books so far

shadow of the torturer - so the shadow stretches out before severian because it's the beginning of his journey, poisoning the things it falls across (thecla, agia / agilus, nessus, severian himself). at the same time his shadow falls across things more or less by chance. there is also the intimation of a shadow falling across him. there's the story about the angel that alludes to either doom or invincibility, baldanders, the atrium of time, malrubius' ghost, etc.

claw of the conciliator - after having caused so much misfortune in the first book, severian takes up his religious and mystical calling. he gives counsel to agilus, frees the man in green, tames the man-apes, turns the other cheek to agia, takes mass, nurses jonas, meets caesar, glimpses cacogens, nurses jolenta, meets witches and resurrects apu punchau. at this point it becomes clear that carrying the claw is a bit like carrying a cross or a crown of thorns. in contrast to this charity, he's actually abandoned by his companions more than once (jonas and talos)

sword of the lictor - so now the claw has lengthened into a big long sword and he has to learn to deal with the burden (remember the sword is actually described as looking like a cross) of heroism and authority. there's this strong contrast between traditional fantasy heroism and christian heroism. on both levels he is harshly tested. he succumbs to temptation with cyriaca. his faith is tested when he learns humanity is controlled by cacogens. he has another vision of hell. he does manage to resurrect a child but realizes he can't do anything about the squalor. dorcas doesn't accept her rebirth and leaves. he baptises the prisoners but can't save them. he can't save the family from the alzabo. he gets his adopted son killed. typhon is interesting because to defeat typhon he performs a mercy killing of an innocent. he meets the cacogens but barely understands their reassurances that they - the hierodules, anyway - treasure free will. he fights baldanders to a draw.

so i think also part of sword of the lictor is that it reflects a lot on the lengthening story and a lot of these episodes reflect back on the events of the first two books.

thrax is like an inversion of nessus, and now he is in charge of his own citadel. he descends into and back out of thrax as he does nessus. this whole bit reminded me a lot of proust taking the carriage down in the valley, etc etc. unlike severian at the nessus river, dorcas at the river rejects her rebirth. he leaves in exile again after repeating the whole thecla debacle with cyriaca. the alzabo thing is like a meditation on the thecla thing. he duels baldanders as he dueled agilus and again there's a miracle and his opponent flees. again, this is a bit of a debacle. there's a whole lot of mercy-killing going on here too. speaking of which, the baldanders thing completes the story that talos and baldanders have been telling since severian ran into them and severian is left again questioning what exactly being a hero is accomplishing.

anyway i'm kind of losing my train of thought.

hey LGG thanx for that post.
midway thru book 4 now and it seems like severian is trying himself to put perspective on all the things that have happened to him which is sort of a 'big moment' in terms of understanding the earlier books.

oh yeah, did that make sense?

i'm way, way behind because i, uh, lost the shadow of the torturer for a while there. i looked and looked but couldn't find it, so i read other things instead (amelia gray's threats is wonderful, btw, if crushingly sad). turns out it was in an old grocery bag. so...

i'm midway through the claw of the conciliator. i'm not sure i really like these books, tbh, but at least volume two has a bit more momentum than the first. my problem is that i don't find the prose, characters or plotting particularly engaging, and i'm not yet sure what i'm supposed to be reading for. i gather that the ostensible appeal, as the late great says, is that digression and atmosphere, but the writing only occasionally hooks me on that level (despite my love of both borges and lem). for instance, i was giddy with happiness of the suggestion, at the beginning of book two, that nessus' wall divides the world "as the mere line between their covers does two books." easy basket, maybe, but wonderful nonetheless. unfortunately, such moments are rare, at least so far.

have had the suspicion from the beginning that the series will resemble borges' "the approach to al-mu'tasim", attar's "the conference of the birds" and pamuk's the black book, with the seeker eventually becoming the thing he seeks. we'll see...

i also like how severian piously warns that if you're looking for gore, death and suffering, you won't find it here. then launches into a bunch more gore, death and suffering than the first book held. that sounds snarky, but i really do enjoy the occasional suggestions of unreliability in his narration.

oh i don't think it's too similar to lem.

it is similar to some borges, but not other stuff. for example, apu punchau vs circular ruins, sign of the compass vs the whole agia/autarch thing, etc.

the seeker eventually becoming the thing he seeks

no, i don't think so. severian is not the new sun, severian is the "white fountain" (hint hint) that cancels the black worm at the center of the sun.

severian's symbol is not the sun or the cross, it's the rose, the thorn (claw) and the fountain

thy sweet rose survived
while shone the morning sun, then drooped and died.

E. C. B.

now the rose symbolizes blood and martyrdom in a lot of cultures, but i'm going to argue that in christianity it is the thorn that symbolizes sacrifice (no one is martyred by the torturers)

the messianic male leader over every nation, serving as the only suitable replacement sacrifice to God in the place of all humanity, which had been sentenced to eternal death for their disobedience in the Garden of Eden... thus forshadowing the crown of thorns.

note though that he only carries one thorn. the real messianic leaders is ... the one character who gets martyred again and again, the autarch (not the same as severian)

so what about the rose, then?

i would argue it's the rosy cross

"the cross represents the human body and the rose represents the individual's unfolding consciousness ... to prepare a new phase ... to be used during the coming age now at hand, for as the world and man evolve so also must religion change"

severian is a sort of rrosicrrucian

according to eckert rosicrucians are "children of light, are opposed to darkness. They dislike mystification and secrecy; they are open and frank, have nothing to do with secret societies and with external ceremonies. They possess a spiritual temple, in which God is presiding"

from wikipedia

"As regeneration is the key to spiritual existence, they therefore founded their symbolism upon the rose and the cross, which typify the redemption of man through the union of his lower temporal nature with his higher eternal nature ... the rose female and the cross male, both universal phallic [...] As generation is the key to material existence"

albert pike

"But [the cross's] peculiar meaning is that given to it by the Ancient Egyptians ... represented on the oldest monuments ... it is the symbol of Life ... The ROSE, was anciently sacred to Aurora and the Sun. It is a symbol of Dawn, of the resurrection of Light and the renewal of life, and therefore of the dawn of the first day, and more particularly of the resurrection: and the Cross and Rose together are therefore hieroglyphically to be read, the Dawn of Eternal Life which all Nations have hoped for by the advent of a Redeemer."[20]"

severian is tested by four elemental beasts (salamander, slug, notules ... ascians?)

The four arms of the cross belong to the four elements and are colored accordingly. The white portion belongs to the Holy Spirit and the planets.

and this sounds like the magic mirrors of father inire

The petals of the rose refer to the twenty-two paths on the Tree of Life and the Twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet. It is the cross in Tiphareth, the receptacle and the center of the forces of the Sephiroth and the paths. The extreme center of the rose is white, the reflected spiritual brightness of Kether, bearing upon it the Red Rose of Five Petals and the Golden Cross of Six Squares; four green rays issue from around the angles of the cross. Upon the white portion of the lamen, below the rose, is placed the hexagram, with the planets.

five petals = five severians

six squares = oannes, eata, autarch, dorcas, thecla, sun

four green rays = green man, jonas, tzadkiel ... severian?

the planets would be:

- hierodules (barbatus, famulimus, ossipago, cumaen, inire, ?)

- sephirot (tzadkiel)

- undines and abaia (green man?!)

- arioch, scylla and the alzabo (the spice must flow)

- time (hethor, jonas, psychics, witches, torturers, baldanders, man-apes etc)

- mirror universe (where hethor and jonas and malrubius and triskele come back from)

not sure what the cross is, i think there are six caskets in the open tomb?

severian is not jesus, he's jesus' son

i'll take your word for it, i think

these guys are the six leftover gods

oannes - severian, death, dawn
dorcas - mother, life, moon
thecla - temptress, sex, moon
odilo - father, autarch, sun
the sun - god, life, sun
eata - atheist

i guess the six caskets are the five severians + the open casket of TIME

i like the way you think.
if i had any knowledge of the new testament at all (lol jews) would this stuff seem more apparent to me? because i wouldn't say much of this stuff is obvious on the surface to me.