174 replies to this topic

[duckman]

Shryke, on Apr 29 2008, 14.10, said:

Can someone go through WHY Sevarian is an unreliable narrator? I mean, he's quite vague on details and such, but the only major thing I can think of that he neglected to mention was his relationship with Thecla, which wasn't mentioned till after she was dead.

The one passage that I can remember distinctly showing Severian's status as an 'unreliable narrator' is from The Claw of the Conciliator when he's speaking about his eidetic memory:

"The truth is that I am one of those who are cursed with what is called perfect recollection.  We cannot, as I have sometimes heard foolishly alleged, remember everything.  I cannot recall the ordering of the books on the shelves in the library of Master Ultan, for example.  But I can remember more than many would credit: the position of each object on a table I walked past when I was a child, and even that I have recalled some scene to mind previously, and how that remembered incident differed from the memory of it I have now."

He admits that sometimes he recalls the same events differently, which calls into question the rest of his narrative.  He also mentions somewhere that he believes he is going insane.  Those were the two examples that jumped out at me during a first reading of the series.  
His narrative can also be questioned due to the lack of details he gives for major events that take place during the story.  It's been a few years since I've read through the books and I can't remember the specifics, but I always felt that Severian was intentionally omitting certain details in his memoirs.  This leads the reader to question what it is he's hiding and how much they can actually trust to be the truth.

Edited by duckman, 29 April 2008 - 02:10 PM.

[Marcelo Rebelo Firqoralas]

I think one of the great strenghts of tBotNS is that it works on so many levels; you don't have to figure everything out to enjoy it. I first read the series when I was about eleven. I read it more or less completely straight, without figuring out many of the mysteries, but I still loved it just for the imagery and language. Now when I dug deeper into it I of course still think it's an amazing piece of work, even though I'm way overdue for a reread by now.

When it comes to Wolfe's other work, I'm not completely fond of The Book of the Long Sun. It starts out well, but it gets increasingly less interesting as it goes along. It seems to me that Wolfe lost inspiration after a while and just kept on grinding through. The only reason why I finished it was that I'd heard that the sequel The Book of the Short Sun is much better.

I much prefer the stuff he did in the seventies. The Fifth Head of Cerberus, Peace and The Island of Doctor Death and Other Stories and Other Stories are perhaps not quite as colourful as tBotNS, but they are still exquisite works of literature.

[Bellis]

Triskele, on Apr 29 2008, 12.27, said:

Could it be in part, because he does not, as he claims, remember everything and therefore his accounts are not entirely accurate?

I seem to recall, most obviously, that his relationship with Thecla gets progressively "embellished" with each reminisence, calling into question what exactly happened between them.

[Gormenghast]

Triskele, on Apr 29 2008, 17.17, said:

I did find something online about how Wolfe likes to use an "unreliable narrarator" or something like that.  Having just read the book, it totally escaped me that was the case.

Then it's not just me.

I continue to read expecting some revelations at some point that would see past things under a new light, some mysteries. But for now (pag 180) nothing at all.

If the author is supposed to be lying then there must be some evidence somewhere, or at least something that has a meaningful role in the book.

Right now it seems just a way for some readers to justify some incoherencies or absurdities in the book.

If you decide to lie, at least do it for something meaningful. Not just as as a way to entertain academics with empty speculations.

[Lord of Oop North]

Gormenghast, on Apr 29 2008, 15.12, said:

If the author is supposed to be lying then there must be some evidence somewhere, or at least something that has a meaningful role in the book.

There is definitely evidence, but it is very subtle. Quite a few contradictions in the story exist, although I'll have to do a re-read to point them out. Severian's memory is the most obvious evidence. As a mnemonist he is able to remember lots of detail but is not so good at deriving meaning out of that data. He is also bad at understanding the intentions and actions of other characters. Both of these make us call into question his recollection of events.

----

A few more things:

He is always reminding us of his perfect memory, so we are trusting his word. But there are certain occasions where this ability is contradicted. Or times when he intentionally leaves out information.

He is a womanizer, and every woman seems to throw herself at him. But the one sexual encounter we see, is basically a rape. It always seemed to me that he wanted to believe that all these women really wanted him, but that it was not necessarily so.

As the narrator, we only see Severian's perspective on events. Thus, there is already a built-in bias within the story.

Edited by Lord of Oop North, 29 April 2008 - 04:08 PM.

[Triskele]

Lord of Oop North, on Apr 29 2008, 16.34, said:

He is a womanizer, and every woman seems to throw herself at him. But the one sexual encounter we see, is basically a rape. It always seemed to me that he wanted to believe that all these women really wanted him, but that it was not necessarily so.

Which one?  

I hadn't thought about this, other than, as someone mentioned, his experience with Thecla seemed to be enhanced in his memory as time went on.  But I took everything else line and sinker in my first read.

Question.  Is "Dorcas" pronounced with a hard C like "Dork-as" or soft like "Dorse-as?"

[Lord of Oop North]

Triskele, on Apr 29 2008, 17.11, said:

Which one?

Uh, her name started with a J. I can't remember what it was! :lol:

Edit: I think it was Joletha? Jolenta? Something like that.

Quote

I hadn't thought about this, other than, as someone mentioned, his experience with Thecla seemed to be enhanced in his memory as time went on.  But I took everything else line and sinker in my first read.

Yes, there was that too.

Edited by Lord of Oop North, 29 April 2008 - 04:22 PM.

[Shryke]

So was his sexual relationship with Thecla real or not?

[Triskele]

LoON - You are right it's "Jolenta."  I remember that one, she's in a tent or something and he leaves Dorcas to go in with her.  She's the one who's been physically enhanced in some articifial way by Dr. Talos.

Shryke - Someone else needs to weigh, in but what it looks like to me is that he may have had a relationship with Thecla that was sexual, but that if he did, it was probably not like they were having sex all the time maybe just some touching here and there.  By the time he gives her the knife, I don't think we've had anything implied to us as far as a sexual relationship.  

But then he hints at it more and more as the story goes on.  I think that implies that there wasn't any, or that it was minimal and through his obsession with Thecla, he keeps enhancing it in his mind.

[Lord of Oop North]

Triskele, on Apr 29 2008, 17.26, said:

I think that implies that there wasn't any, or that it was minimal and through his obsession with Thecla, he keeps enhancing it in his mind.

This is the same impression that I had.

[Gormenghast]

I understand that the narrator is biased, and the elements he may be biased about.

The point is how relevant it is to the novel. Is this speculation useful to understand something meaningful? The moment you say the narrator is unreliable it means that you can argue and speculate over everything. So did he have a sexual relationship with Thecla?

I have no idea. Till the point I've read there's no reason to suspect of it. And believing it doesn't lead to any better understanding of the book.

Since the book isn't about a real living character, that would justify the curiosity to know what is real and what is not, the speculation must have some meaning. It is a fictional character, I'm gonna believe what the writer tells me because, as a work of fiction, he can write what the hell he wants. There isn't any real truth.

So, if there are lies, they must be justified and have a relevant role in the novel.

Are we really going to argue whether a fictional character had some "real" fictional sex or not?

[Plessiez]

Dylanfanatic, on Apr 29 2008, 06.51, said:

While I probably will write more later after work, click here if you want to see my detailed thoughts on Wolfe's stories as I re-read quite a few of his books last autumn.

You didn't ever get around to rereading the Long Sun/Short Sun books, then?  A shame, that - I was interested in seeing what you'd have to say about the former especially (I've not yet got around to reading the Short Sun books, though the first of them is at least close to hand).

Gormenghast, on Apr 29 2008, 20.12, said:

If the author is supposed to be lying then there must be some evidence somewhere, or at least something that has a meaningful role in the book.

There's a partial list of cases of Severian lying / contradicting himself here (though it obviously contains spoilers, for both the four volumes of BotNS and for UotNS).

[Shryke]

It's an interesting point. I mean, if the book supplies no answers, in some ways it's just a dumb question.

Did Severian and Thecla have a sexual relationship or is he just making it up in his head? Well, he seems to BELIEVE he did and since we only have his point of view, who knows what the truth is? It could easily go either way. The text easily supports both interpretations.

[Triskele]

Gormenghast, on Apr 29 2008, 16.45, said:

Are we really going to argue whether a fictional character had some "real" fictional sex or not?

I'm not really trying to argue one way or another, I'm just trying to understand since I invested so much in reading the series.  

I guess the idea of an unreliable narrarator isn't novel to this series, so I'm sure there's more information out there on what it means and why authors choose to employ one.

[Lord of Oop North]

Gormenghast, on Apr 29 2008, 17.45, said:

I understand that the narrator is biased, and the elements he may be biased about.

The point is how relevant it is to the novel. Is this speculation useful to understand something meaningful? The moment you say the narrator is unreliable it means that you can argue and speculate over everything. So did he have a sexual relationship with Thecla?

I have no idea. Till the point I've read there's no reason to suspect of it. And believing it doesn't lead to any better understanding of the book.

Since the book isn't about a real living character, that would justify the curiosity to know what is real and what is not, the speculation must have some meaning. It is a fictional character, I'm gonna believe what the writer tells me because, as a work of fiction, he can write what the hell he wants. There isn't any real truth.

So, if there are lies, they must be justified and have a relevant role in the novel.

Are we really going to argue whether a fictional character had some "real" fictional sex or not?

There are plenty of reasons to suspect he might not be telling the truth. Whether he is fictional or not is unimportant. Why do we analyze any piece of fiction, if it doesn't really matter? If you are going to argue against interpretation on that basis, then you might as well argue against the nature of literature itself. Think about it this way, it is not the writer who is narrating The Book of the New Sun, it is Severian. Should we not think about that when we are interpreting events that occur in the novel?

Edited by Lord of Oop North, 29 April 2008 - 05:16 PM.

[MattD]

There are many reasons authors in general use unreliable narration: it can reveal character; it can add drama and enable certain kinds of plots; it can force a reader to participate rather than being a passive receptor; it can give that (for some readers) pleasantly scary awareness of realizing we're not in control.

In the Book of the New Sun, there's another, unique reason for including unreliable narration: because it captures the process of the past and present being changed by the forces at play as they try to maneuver Severian.  That is, if at one point Severian reports that X happened at a certain time, and then later reports that Y happened at that time, this doesn't necessarily mean he is lying or mistaken.  Rather, this may be an artifact of the time travel paradox: he is in a sense overwriting his own memories.

What makes Wolfe so good is how cohesive his themes and writing are.  Individual objects like the Claw -- which incorporates both sun and rose symbolism -- capture Severian's unreliability in understanding what's really going on, the cause and effect paradox.  And yet seemingly unrelated statements showcase these plot points quite well; this line is from the "Lictor of Thrax" chapter, when Severian is awaiting his punishment:

Quote

It is said that it is the peculiar quality of time to conserve fact, and that it does so by rendering our past falsehoods true.

[Gormenghast]

The point is: if those tiny, tiny contradictions didn't exist, would the book be worse than it is?

What purpose those contradictions do serve? How they are meaningful? Which revelations they bring?

[Larry.]

Plessiez, on Apr 29 2008, 16.48, said:

You didn't ever get around to rereading the Long Sun/Short Sun books, then?  A shame, that - I was interested in seeing what you'd have to say about the former especially (I've not yet got around to reading the Short Sun books, though the first of them is at least close to hand).

There's a partial list of cases of Severian lying / contradicting himself here (though it obviously contains spoilers, for both the four volumes of BotNS and for UotNS).

No, I re-read them, but when I did, I was first extremely busy with 2-3 blog posts a day summarizing the Best of 2007 as I saw them (with entries for two dozen books) and then I was dealing with some personal issues.  Perhaps in a year or so I'll do that again, but I could do it for Castleview, which I bought last month and have yet to touch.

[Lord of Oop North]

Gormenghast, on Apr 29 2008, 19.32, said:

The point is: if those tiny, tiny contradictions didn't exist, would the book be worse than it is?

What purpose those contradictions do serve? How they are meaningful? Which revelations they bring?

I think they fit the purpose and themes of the story. The main idea of the book is the ability to seperate plot from story. To derive meaning out of facts. Eidetic memory gives Severian perfect recollection of the facts as he sees them, but it doesn't prevent him from mispercieving meaning. He often decieves himself by misinterpretting events. At the same time, he is being manipulated by outside powers, and his perception of reality may be colored by the paradoxes of time travel. The setting is in a very alien world, and certain events are bound to be misinterpretted by the reader. Something that doesn't make any sense to us, may make complete sense to Severian and he will neglect to explain it. Wolfe also uses words in unfamiliar ways, to try and convey the imperfection of translating a future alien language. The entire book is rife with deception.

The world of Urth, is one where the individual struggles with perception and misperception. A perfect recollection of events does not mean we have the ability to percieve the absolute truth about what is happening. Our understanding is hindered by an unreliable narrator and an alien world. We might be able to remember the plot, but not necessarily connect it together and attach any meaning to the events. We are purposely being made to pause and reflect on what we have been reading. To not accept everything at face value, and to think. The reader's perception of the world is turned into a constant struggle since nothing is absolute. We are encouraged to think critically about the text, and at the same time learn about the value of living that way. On both Earth and Urth, an individual who chooses not to is a prime target for deception.

I can't imagine the book without the theme of deception, as it is an integral part of it. It wouldn't be of near the same quality, and might never have been considered a 'masterwork'.

Edited by Lord of Oop North, 29 April 2008 - 08:05 PM.

[Triskele]

Another question I have that may or may not play into the concept of Severian as unreliable narrarator:

The effectiveness of the Claw.

It seems to work on and off.  He mentions some theory about how maybe it works when he was the one who caused the injury (like the man-ape) but I don't think we ever got a full explanation.  

With Dorcas, we don't know for sure that it was the Claw that revived her do we?

Seems clear with the man-ape.

Seems clear with the uhlan and "Miles" but then again, I wonder if perhaps Severian was unreliable and perhaps one of these guys was not actually dead?  

I think he tried it on Jolenta to no avail.

There was the sick child outside of Thrax who it appeared to work on.