Gene Wolfe: The Book of the New Sun
I've been meaning to write on this series/book for years, but because I'm less than enthusiastic about it, I haven't quite had the impetus. Thinking back on it now, there are striking bits and pieces that have stayed with me, but the work as a whole has not. But because Gene Wolfe is praised to the skies by many "intellectual" sci-fi fans while being ignored by everyone else, I think he represents a position that is worth exploring. I.e., why is Wolfe still occupying a marginal place in literature in spite of praise from the likes of John Clute and Michael Swanwick, while Philip K. Dick, Neal Stephenson, and William Gibson have made it into the mainstream canon?
I think there are discernible reasons for this. Wolfe may not be any worse than Stephenson or Gibson, but his particular weaknesses are much more problematic for non-sf readers than theirs. This is mostly for the sake of people who have already read the book, since I'll be referring to lots of things not apparent until the very end of the book, if then. For those who haven't read it, I suggest reading "The Death of Doctor Island," a brilliant story that bests anything else I've read by Wolfe. The Fifth Head of Cerberus is also rather good (read all three novellas, not just the first) and deserves inclusion with other highlights of post-colonial literature.
On to the massive, ambitious, creative, and flawed The Book of the New Sun: first, there's the style. Wolfe tends to employ a somewhat high-falutin' style using words that appear to be neologisms but are anything but, drawn directly or indirectly from archaic words and usages, often Latin-derived. Some people I know find the resulting style insufferably pompous and awkward; I don't, but nor do I find it to be one of Wolfe's particular strengths. It does, however, serve its purpose, which is to evoke strangeness while preserving a depth of meaning, and I give Wolfe credit for this. Creating effective neologisms is very, very hard. (cf. "whuffie.") What it doesn't do is make the writing beautiful, which is one big minus in being accepted by the mainstream. Dick's style is clunky but doesn't call attention to itself; Wolfe's is clunky, and it can't be ignored.
The next issue is the plot. Wolfe is very fond of elision and narrative unreliability. Central plot points are skipped over and only referred to in retrospect. Others are presented in a highly misdirecting manner. And others are simply never cleared up. Because Wolfe's ideas manifest themselves primarily through plot machinations, this is more of a problem than it would be in, for instance, a Faulkner novel. In so far as the entire series revolves around an obliquely laid out science-fiction scenario having to do with installing a white hole into the sun, it's necessary to derive the plot sequence properly in order to make sense of the layers of (mostly Christian) symbolism and allegory that Wolfe has quite definitely laid into the series. And often just to figure out what has actually happened. A flurry of significant answers are delivered at the very end of the series, but these following questions, as far as I could tell, do not have apparent answers:
- Why does the Claw only work sometimes?
- Why does Hethor want to kill Severian?
- Is Little Severian just coincidentally a little boy with the same name, or is he the next Severian, or Severian himself?
- Does Typhon have any significance outside of the section in which he appears?
- Was Severian raised in the prisoner/starship cave?
- Who is Severian's sister?
- Isn't it, like, really dangerous to have the autarch pass from one body to the next, relying on the alzabo-esque transition to keep the line going, when the autarch tends to behave in wildly unsafe ways?
- What other characters are "projections" of the machines of the hierodules? Dorcas?
- Is Severian the conciliator?
But where the book most seriously fails in its ambitions is on a more fundamental level, which is that in the stability of the text itself. We know that Severian is a liar quite early on. We also know that what he is writing is destined for public consumption by people in his world, and that Wolfe claims to be acting as a translator of Severian's manuscript which has traveled long and far, without knowing anything about that audience. These two facts cause the book to be underdetermined with regard to Severian's motives and to the purpose of the text itself. Because we do not know what intent may be behind Severian's lies, we can't derive from the whole what the meaning of any particular piece is, because we do not have the whole context. If Severian were known to be telling the truth, we could inductively grasp the meaning of his history in the world. But because both are uncertain, the book loses sense structurally. This is not a matter of obscurity; rather, it is an intentional choice that indicates a serious failure on the part of Wolfe to push his book past the realm of entertainment. Without our being able to grasp the deeper sense of Severian's words other than as a maybe-true story, he reduces the book to decontextualized apocrypha, a gnostic gospel without an accompanying authoritative text.
For all their faults, the other writers mentioned above make their metaphysics and their internal structures quite clear. Even the underrated Christopher Priest, who has made an art of unreliable narrators, is sure to place them within a determinate (or determinately indeterminate) context. But Wolfe uses these devices without appearing to have a larger sense of what they might mean; like the lesser Oulipo novels, they're just a game. And it is this myopia that I think is his greatest debt to the flaws of science-fiction, and the reason why his crossover remains unlikely.
Comment
Erich Auerbach on Words and Concepts | The Mad Gardener's Song
Wow, I think that really nailed why I never got into Wolfe and felt like he wasn’t really making an effort – even though he was so plainly making a HUGE effort.
— mrs gaw · Nov 25, 08:02 PM · #
Just FYI, the follow-up volume Urth of the New Sun seems to exist to make explicit the answers to many of the questions you had, that are only hinted at in the first four volumes.
The structural point is a good one, although I always thought a) some element of the truth can be found by thinking about what “the public” that Severian is writing for would know and be able to contradict if Severian was to lie about it, and b) some element of Severian’s character and motives can then be discerned by what we know he does lie about.
Great blog, BTW — just discovered it via a link on sfsignal, and as someone who enjoys the ideas behind literature, I’m already exclaiming in delight as I look through your list of recent essays.
— MattD · Nov 28, 11:55 AM · #
I’m not sure I get it. When James\Cortazar do “The Fantastic” (it the Todorov sense) we also don’t know whether the world is like this or like that, and by implication don’t know what’s the proper context to interpret the narration by. I mean, every unreliable narration always entails an indeterminate fictional context to match, no?
— peli grietzer · Dec 2, 11:02 PM · #
Interesting analysis. BTW, it turns out the Hethor puzzle is one of the few Wolfe solves for us. Hethor is Agia’s suitor and a tool in her revenge plot.
— JE · Dec 21, 08:47 AM · #
Ok, color me naive but how do we know Severian is an unreliable narrator aka a liar? When did you first get wind of that?
— Ed Summers · Dec 21, 05:29 PM · #
There are two things about the New Sun and Wolfe in general that I think are worth noting: 1) Argentina in the 70s. 2) Chesterton, “It is the agricultural labourer who calls a spade a spade who also calls a spirit a spirit.”
Beyond that, I would also note that it seems that Wolfe thought The Urth of the New Sun superfluous, strictly speaking. That is, he thought that what it describes was inferable from the four. If you’ve read it and he wasn’t joking, the problem is far worse (or the wonder is greater) than it seems.
— Jonathan · Jan 7, 02:06 AM · #
MattD: Thanks for the kind words. I think that (a) is unanswerable. John Clute argued that the whole thing is a put-on to justify Severian taking power. This seems unlikely, but without any greater context than Severian’s words, Severian’s intent and the ‘truth’ is underdetermined. I haven’t read Urth.
Ed Summers: between the elisions, subtle inconsistencies, and deliberate withholding of information, Severian is not to be trusted. (In addition, I have to push hard on my memory to find a reliable narrator in Wolfe’s work.)
peli: I tried to answer your quesiton in my follow-up post.
Jonathan: (1) is a very good point, though to reinforce my take on the book, I never would have figured out that it was set in South America on my own. I don’t know what quite to make of that parallel, though it could well gibe with what I know of Wolfe’s politics. I’ve seen Wolfe say that Urth was only conceived after the original quartet was completed, so I don’t believe he was joking…and again, I think this is in line with my reading of the book.
On a much smaller level, I think the problems of BOTNS are encapsulated neatly in “Seven American Nights,” a highly-praised story of Wolfe’s that for me falls apart due to similar narrative instability.
— Mr. Waggish · Jan 7, 02:50 AM · #
I think there are authors who express ideas using clear and simple expression. Hemmingway, Phillip K. Dick and Raymond Chandler are three immediate examples.
Gene Wolfe has attempted to write using a complex style, expansive english and has reused several key ideas and themes from earlier SF and Fantasy works. There is nothing wrong with this approach for ideas and themes are too few for all books to be completely original and often books that utilise complex sentences and style make the reader concentrate.
Unfortunately, Gene Wolf left many unanswered questions, and often drifted off into new ideas when he had yet to wrap up the previous scene or mention why the scene was important to the story.
The last two chapters were without merit for new ideas or story twists but seemed to be nothing more than a wrap-up in the shortest number of words possible.
Why was Aeta invited to join Severian in the second last chapter when there were other journeymen, older and far more experienced that could have ventured from the citadel – other than because we were familiar with Aeta from the earlier chapters. I find that I could write for many hours about similar weaknesses in these books.
Overall, I am very disappointed by Gene Wolfe’s books.
— Mark Gregory · Jan 18, 12:26 AM · #
Interesting post. The thesis of my reply is that GW’s work is not as accessible because the text requires a commitment from readers who are accustomed to getting the goods easy. This requirement is not a weakness, but a strength. The Usual Suspects is less accessible as a movie than Ocean’s Eleven, but is far more rewarding.
Of course, in a first person narrative the style should not be attributed to the author as much as to the voice of the character, who in this case is writing after the events and thus with the knowledge and vocabulary not just of an apprentice turned autarch, but also of a chatelaine and a long line of autarchs before him. Thus his recounting would seem false to me if it weren’t high falutin. I humbly submit that the reason many may find it awkward and pompous is that it may demand more from them as readers. One gains whuffie’s meaning from context on a first read. When readers come across a term like atrox or fulgurator they can get a taste from context, but the tickling lure of more information behind a real word might make you put a bookmark in and head for the OED. Couple with that the feeling that you may be missing out on something and it can generate annoyance. If on the other hand you already knew it, or looked it up on the spot there is a corresponding burst of pleasure, at least in this reader. This author trusts me as a reader and doesn’t overexplain or spoonfeed me. It makes the auctorial voice that much more confident and makes me feel smarter, and included. And of course Severian would not assume that he needs to explain what an Arctother is to people who have lived in fear of them. There’s my two bits on style.
For plot let me say that I don’t think including mysteries is a weakness. I do not believe the plot is putting the white fountain into the sun(that doesn’t until Urth of the New Sun) From my 2 readings the plot of New Sun is the rise of Severian from failed torturer to autarch and possible savior. Like the definitions of the archaic words, the mysteries are invitations for the reader to take part on a deeper level. For those who only want to read it once and don’t want to think back on them it is no surprise many remain unsolved, though for me sometimes answers come of their own, days after reading, delayed detonations of pleasure and meaning if you will. But the clues are there. Often the clues are present before the mystery is apparent and things my mind skipped right over jump out on a second read. The first time through I recognized that Dorcas was the ‘Cas that the boatman was looking for one scene previous. The next time I read the book I realized he shows up earlier, at Severian’s almost drowning asking: “Who’s that?” The boatman holds Roche but looks at Severian and he says: “Not a woman?” Plainly he thought Severian might be his Cas back from the water. The clue is an integral part of the story so it doesn’t stand out, until a second reading when you know there is a mystery. Then there is that burst of recognition. The pleasure – I know what that means! It is more satisfying than the most imaginative eyeball kick for me. The mysteries cause distress, which is the root of all learning. If I don’t follow up on that I can be annoyed, but if the clues are there and I don’t search for them I cannot call it a weakness in the book. Rather it is a weakness in my commitment to the mystery. The student who says ‘math is stupid, I hate it’ really means ‘it’s hard and I don’t feel like putting the effort in.’ That is why people say that the story can be enjoyed without ferreting out the mysteries. It is like a role playing game – you can play straight through beating all the bosses, or you can complete every side quest. Your level of commitment will determine the amount of enjoyment you get out of it. These are not weaknesses but mighty strengths for readers that are worthy of them. Gene thinks you worthy, do you?
1 The Claw only seems to work on people that are human. It’s true power is in the future when Severian is the New Sun, the distance may funk with its abilities.
2 Agia has Hethor whipped. Thank your stars the book wasn’t from Hethor’s POV, talk about high falutin’
3Coincidence, but he reinforces the mystery that Severian was a twin.
4 Typhon plays in later serieses Long and Short Suns. I believe he is the one that screwed up space travel for the rest of humanity with his Imperialism.
5 Severian was raised in the rocket ship known as the Matachin tower.
6 Indeed. . . guesses have been Merryn and others, I favor Borski’s answer. “Solar Labyrinth”
7 Yes
8 Malrubius and Triskele, possibly Miles, after reading Urth, possibly Severian himself! A child’s skull is found in the bed of Gyoll.
I believe Dorcas is Severian’s dead grandmother raised to life.
9 Undoubtedly so, He’s also Apu Punchau.
I, like Ed, am unsure that he lies in his narrative. Severian is unreliable to me in that while he may remember all, he certainly only reports it as he sees it without explaining the inferences he may have had, leaving out things that we wish he would explain. In my readings it does not seem that Severian expects a vast readership. He commits one manuscript to the vastness of Ultan’s library and the other he releases into hyperspace (presumably the ms GW received.) At the end of each book he commiserates with the reader that may not wish to travel farther with him. It seems to me his reasons for writing are his own. Thus I trust him to tell me in the truth insofar as Severian understands it. Here is the true source of the unreliability and honestly, is there any human who can be considered a reliable narrator, who completely understands everything that happened to them?
Unreliable narrators make the mysteries that add so much fun and depth possible. But just because I may not have a larger sense of what the devices might mean, I dare not confuse that with GW not having that sense. If you want the ins without spending the noodle time, or if any have spent a lot of energy on this series and want to test their theories I recommend Robert Borski’s Solar Labyrinth. He has read the series 12 times as of the writing of that book, so you don’t have to.
Sorry for the long post. I like this blog, I just felt like one of my heroes was getting picked on.
— Jonathan Rock · Jan 21, 01:08 PM · #
I came across this and just wanted to add these two cents to consider: Severian writes from the point of view of one with eidetic memory, ie one who always has all available information at waiting at his fingertips. Availability within the mind can easily lead to scarcity at the fingertips, due to the author taking his internal wealth of information for granted. Of course these considerations are all occurring under a veil, since behind Severian’s fictitious authorship there lies Wolfe’s own. My interpretation would be that Severian occasionally omits detail that discomforts him, but never utilizes outright mistruth.
That said I don’t think it would ruin the books to have a timeline appendix for us to refer to. Tolkien’s popularity comes not just from his story-writing but from the intensive world-building that he reveals afterwards.
— Ben · Mar 16, 12:39 PM · #
No one seems to have noticed this, but the point of Severian being a liar is in fact very valid, as he says it himself in the third chapter of the first book, when he explains how he’s realized he’s partly insane. He literally tells us that he lies to such a degree that, despite his photographic memory, he’s not totally certain of the truth himself sometimes.
— Ryan G · Mar 29, 12:16 AM · #
All of your questions can be deduced from the text. You very obviously did not read this work very closely. And you are basically saying that any work with an unreliable narrator cannot rise higher than entertainment. Entertainment is the reason I read fiction. What more do you want from the books? To learn a new language? The entertainment comment is ridiculous. It is obvious to me that you do not care for Wolfe’s style, and that is fine, but my question is this: If you did not like the books, why on Earth did you read all four of them? I don’t waste my time on books that I don’t like. BTW, as Wolfe has said in interviews: Everyone is an unreliable narrator. The fact that Severian is one also, just adds realism to the work. I suppose you don’t like Borges either.
— aaron singleton · Apr 1, 05:12 PM · #