The Book of the New Sun First Read and Re-read project [spoilers]

[matt b]

41 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

How often does Wolfe use his "intelligences" in TBofNS to effectively frame his ideas and story progressions?

For me, constantly, but YMMV.

[Jo498]

I think Wolfe has a different strategy. Aristotle's concepts were developed on the Greek tragedy and this sometimes fits shorter prose like the Nero Wolfe crime novellas quite well. Because for crime/mystery anagnorisis is really the main point after all. The bickering between Nero and Archie, Nero Wolfe's stilted style, excentric habits and gourmet cooking, Archie's flirting etc. are just for atmosphere, most of the time only loosely connected to the plot.

In BotNS I think one point of those embedded stories, digressions etc. is to show how odd this world is but at the same time that it is still a distant future of our world (disregarding possible problems with eternally recurrent worlds or parallels). So I agree that their function for the narrative in a narrow sense is secondary or maybe missing. But they are for atmosphere, like the silly quarrels between Nero Wolfe and the cook Fritz about some herb.

One problem is that some things are just to easy to miss or require too much background knowledge to understand. Even more than 40 years since a man set foot on the moon, everybody recognize that picture of the astronaut with the flag. Many people will also recognize the myth of Theseus where a bunch of youths have to be delivered as tribute to some monster etc. I do not know enough about research on ancient myths but I think Wolfe does a good job to show how a myth might develop and get mixed up in some distant future.

For me it would have been virtually impossible to spot the puns/allusions on "thesis - Theseus" and "Minotaur - Monitor" (because I had never read of that ship). But I do not think that this is important as long as I get that there is some odd mixup and recognize some elements of the original myth.

In some respects, it is necessary for that particular atmosphere that not everything is completely explained. Because Severian and the others do not understand it themselves. What was the purpose of the Wall of Nessus? Defense against what? If it's in there, I missed it.

There is a similarity with Lord of the Rings. It has often been pointed out that some of the "depth" of LotR comes from the many layers of ME history that are often only hinted at or only partially explained because our perspective is that of the Hobbits who only know a little about these things and mainly marvel at them. Whereas the explicit telling of the Myths in the Silmarillion is just some made-up Mythology. It lacks that depth because everything is told explicitly (and the atmosphere is due to an archaic style).

[Iskaral Pust]

I think Gaiman wildly exaggerates his praise for Wolfe, whether from personal bias, the fun of colorful, hyperbolic prose, or sheer marketing puff piece is open to subjective judgment. 

[Wilbur]

OK, new idea:  Why can't Severian hang onto his sword?  In the first two books, the guy loses, drops, or has taken Terminus Est on numerous different occasions.  Given that it was the one thing that his kindly master gave to him, that it is the key tool of his profession, and that numerous outside parties clearly indicate to him that it is highly valuable, what is he thinking by consistently and repeatedly failing to secure it?

[Iskaral Pust]

I'm in the middle of the really long story-within-story in vol 3.  I'll have to reread to see what clever mutations I've overlooked. 

[Jo498]

I don't get the complaint. He is completely obsessed with the stupid sword. When does he lose it except in the lake finding Dorcas? Does he drop it in that mine fighting the ape-men?

The sword is one of the features I dislike the most. If anything annoyed me more than the zillions of obscure words and the weird recounted stories, it was that bloody sword...

Starting with the pretentious name, it's ridiculous in so many ways: A beheading sword would not be good for fighting, one can carry, but not draw a sword worn on the back, a sword would never be razor sharp (useless and way too fine an edge) and it would be pretty impossible to shave with a sword with a 3+ foot long blade regardless of the edge.

I wonder it there is some deeper symbolism in that an obviously phallic symbol (it also stands for his guild heritage and his office/burden) is always referred to by the female pronoun.

I don't even remember a longer story in book 3 - about that painter?

[matt b]

Heroes have swords. Its kind of a thing.

[Jo498]

Yeah, it is known. But one could have subverted it ironically (maybe this is meant with making it a headman's sword) instead of fetishizing it...

[Wilbur]

11 hours ago, Jo498 said:

I don't get the complaint. He is completely obsessed with the stupid sword. When does he lose it except in the lake finding Dorcas? Does he drop it in that mine fighting the ape-men?

Instances of lost possession of Terminus Est in the first two books:

1. During the collision of the fiacre into the altar with Agia

2. Falling into the waters of the Botanical Garden

3. Handing it to Dorcas in the fight with the septentrion

4. Hidden in the room of the inn at the storming of the house at the Saltus Fair

5. Fighting with the man-apes in the caves

6. Taken away when captured by the representatives of the Liege of the Leaves

7. Seized by the praetorians upon capture and held by the soldiers

8. Carried by Dorcas when he carries Jolenta

9. Swamped and buried in sand by the rise of the undine

Given the frustratingly circuitous route that the story takes, it is easy to forget the multiple times that Severian loses control of Terminus Est, but my own compulsive urges cause my flesh to crawl every time it is out of his grasp.  And as I mentioned previously, it seems like Severian is generally careless in his personal conduct in general, associating with a wide range of Random Strangers, and specifically with his sword.

[Jo498]

13 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

Instances of lost possession of Terminus Est in the first two books:

1. During the collision of the fiacre into the altar with Agia

2. Falling into the waters of the Botanical Garden

3. Handing it to Dorcas in the fight with the septentrion

4. Hidden in the room of the inn at the storming of the house at the Saltus Fair

5. Fighting with the man-apes in the caves

6. Taken away when captured by the representatives of the Liege of the Leaves

7. Seized by the praetorians upon capture and held by the soldiers

8. Carried by Dorcas when he carries Jolenta

9. Swamped and buried in sand by the rise of the undine

I don't follow you. I'd have to re-read some of the scenes but the only "careless" occasions of those seem 2 and 9. He could not do anything about the fiacre crash. He had to give it up during the duel and Dorcas was the most trustworthy person around (although I wonder why not an attendant of the duelling referee could have taken care of it). He does not lose it at 4, if I am not mistaken, 5 is an extreme situation in the darkness (and I think it's just done that way to make it more exciting), 6 and 7 are against overwhelming force - what could he have done? 8 is again no problem as Dorcas is his devote girlfriend and a smallish slightly build woman of ca. 16-20 who even with a traitorous attempt would be too weak and untrained to surprise or fight him, neither could she outrun him if she tried to steal it.

It's about 4 ft long or more with hilt, it's a bloody nuisance to run around with something like that on one's back. I don't want to spoil anything but it is also more or less a red herring of mostly symbolic value, so you are right that it seems very important for him not to lose it and especially the scene in Gardens is triggered by this. Also his search in the House Absolute. I fail to see any larger significance in the other ones.

[Iskaral Pust]

17 hours ago, Jo498 said:

I don't even remember a longer story in book 3 - about that painter?

Severian reads a bedtime story to little Severian from Thecla's book.  It's a mutated version of the myth of Remus & Romulus conflated with Kipling's Jungle Book.  All the key points of R&R are there, infused with some characters from the Jungle Book: Mowgli (Frog), Sher Khan, Bagheera and Baloo, for example, are all recognizable. 

The two stories have been conflated from their common foundation of babies adopted by wolves.  

[Iskaral Pust]

I just finished vol 3.  I'm looking forward to some discussion of the motivation of the cacogens. 

[Wilbur]

I hope that FragileBird has not been sent to debtor's prison in order to settle with the tax man.

[Iskaral Pust]

I always wondered if Ascians was a mutation of Asians, and now in vol 4 we finally meet an Ascian who describes an authoritarian collectivist society. 

[Jo498]

The extreme collectivism with a language or way of speaking changed even more than in Orwell's 1984 newspeak yields quite hilarious conversations. But the Ascians apparently rule the northern part of this future South America (the contested region where the fighting takes place seems still south of the equator) and probably North America as well, so it may as well come from "Americans". The Southern Commonwealth apparently lacks any other name or adjective.

It is hinted that intercontinental/ocean travel is about as hard as space travel in the setting so the Ascian Empire does not seem to span several continents but encompasses mainly central and probably North America (with advancing glaciers most of North America might be covered by ice or fairly useless tundra)

[Gasp of Many Reeds]

On 4/24/2016 at 4:14 AM, Iskaral Pust said:

I always wondered if Ascians was a mutation of Asians, and now in vol 4 we finally meet an Ascian who describes an authoritarian collectivist society. 

'Ascians' means 'people without a shadow', i.e. equatorial peoples, and was taken by Wolfe from a term used by ancient Greek geographers. He chose it to reflect the people of the Commonwealth's ignorance of the extent of land that lay to their north, i.e. they do not realise that there is a whole 'nother continent to the north, they just think these are the people of the equatorial tropics they are fighting. Wolfe apparently in no way intended Ascian be read as 'Asian' and was therefore very bemused when readers inferred that the Ascians with their Correct Thought were far future Maoist Chinese. See towards the end of the interview linked below (very good, if fairly spoilerish for new readers).

http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/interviews/wolfe46interview.htm

Here's the relevant quote: 

Quote

LM: What kind of research was involved in The Book of the New Sun?

Wolfe: The main research was on Byzantium and the Byzantine Empire, which was a stagnant political entity that had outlived its time in much the same way that the Urth of the Commonwealth had. One of the things that bothered me about the reviews I got on The Book of the New Sun was how often they compared my world with that of Medieval Europe. Insofar as I was trying to create any kind of parallels with an actual historical period here on Earth—and obviously I wasn't aiming at developing an exact analogy—I was thinking of Byzantium. Incidentally, I also got into trouble with some reviewers over my presentation of the Ascians, who were my equivalent of the Turks. If you read the book carefully, it's clear that the action is taking place in South America and that the invading Ascians are actually North Americans. What I didn't anticipate was that nine tenths of my readers and reviewers would look at the word "Ascian" and say, "Oh, these guys are Asians!" This confusion got me accused of being an anti Asian racist—which I'm not. Actually, the word "ascian" literally means "people without shadows." It was a word used in the Classical world for people who lived near the Equator, where the Sun is dead overhead at noon and thus produces no shadow. I felt it would be an interesting touch to show that the ordinary man in the street in the Southern Hemisphere wasn't even conscious that their attackers are coming down from the Northern Hemisphere (they aren't even aware that there is another hemisphere).

 

[Wilbur]

How many of you on the re-read find Severian to be a likable or charismatic character?  Can you identify or sympathize with him?

 

I find him to be pretty problematic because of his inconstancy and hypocrisy.

- He is a loyal torturer for the state - no, wait, he is a supporter of Vodalus...

- He is a lover of Dorcas - no, wait, he is unfaithful with Agilia, and Jolenta, and Cyriaca, and...

- He is going to Thrax - no, wait, he is looking for the Pelerines, no, wait, he is in a traveling theater...

Because he constantly changes his goals and his ideals and his loyalties, I don't really like Severian very much.

[matt b]

As a person I can't say I like him much, but as a character I find him endlessly intriguing.

[Iskaral Pust]

I don't think Severian the character is likable or even particularly interesting or well developed.  His major point of interest is as an unthinking vessel for the author to deliver disconnected episodes.

[Iskaral Pust]

Did Severian unknowingly resurrect and heal Triskele before he ever had the Claw?

If Severian/Severa are twin names, like Algia/Algius, have we met Severa?  Was that her in the time vault beside the Matachin Tower?