/lit/ - Literature

I found Shadow of the Torturer pretty forgettable and still haven't gotten around to the rest of the series. Titus Groan was just unpleasant to read and I dropped it halfway through. Tolkien is the only one of the three that stuck with me.

>>23454642
>Agree?
No. Wolfe should not be part of the discussion really

>>23454642
>Overall: Peake>Tolkien>Wolfe
Fixed

>>23454642
Peake is shallow, there are no “themes” in his books, only aesthetics.

>>23454978
That ridiculous. Gormanghast is all about the relationship between the individual and society. The aging traditions of the first two books stifle the main characters. They long to be free of their social roles. In the third book, Peake looks at the societies that constrain us also give us our identity and meaning. The be cast out of a society(not matter how constraining) is to loss yourself.

You may not like the theme or how its explored, but there's clearly a theme.

>>23455005
>aging traditions
>blaming society for your problems
That’s some atheistic commie shit right there. Peake is shallow.

>>23455029
You didn't read my post. The third book flips all this on its head and explores what happens when one runs away from tradition and society. Do better anon.

>>23454642
Peake and Wolfe are essentially irrelevant in serious discussions their respective genres. Neither had any major influence until they were dug out of the trash bin in the past 10 years or so. They are only fawned over by online dweebs. Both are painfully empty of substance once you trudge through them.

>>23455029
>commie
Go back, boomer.

>>23455117
>muh influence muh fame
Reddit moment

>>23454642
Wolfe is probably peak prose in terms of complication, intricacy, etc. the likes of Neil Gaiman have said you can't remove a single sentence because each one matters. He didn't waste a single one.

Ursula Le Guin called him "[Science Fiction's] Melville".

>>23454667
If you haven't completed The Book of the New Sun you're not equipped to comment on it, because only after reaching the end do you realize that the entire thing is something completely different than what you thought you were reading. There are so many subtle links and hints in the book that you could read it a dozen times and still not catch them all.

>>23455117
>Wolfe are essentially irrelevant in serious discussions their respective genres. Neither had any major influence until they were dug out of the trash bin in the past 10 years or so

Wolfe has been described by other authors as "your favorite author's favorite author" for decades. It's absurdly ignorant to declare that Wolfe hasn't been relevant this entire time.

>Both are painfully empty of substance once you trudge through them.
You've outed yourself. Wolfe GAINS substance the more you "trudge" through his work because he wrote in intricate layers and with immense subtlety.

There's one major reveal that fans didn't catch for years that only got discovered because he used one specific archaic word to describe something about two different characters in different books in the BotNS series. He only used that word in those two places. Pulling on that single thread unraveled a series of similarly delicate links that ended up proving that the two characters were actually related.

I have yet to hear somebody talk up BotNS or Peake who doesn't turn out to be an absolutely rabid Dark Souls and/or anime fan. Safe to assume they aren't worth reading. They seem to be for people with underdeveloped or generally juvenile artistic sensibilities

>>23455117
>They are only fawned over by online dweebs. Both are painfully empty of substance once you trudge through them.

Anthony Burges called Gormanghast "uniquely brilliant in all of English literature. C.S Lewis wrote Peake gushing fan letters over the books and helped get the third one published. Graham Greene thought it visionary and helped get the first book published. Harold Bloom had Peakes work in the Western Canon.

When it comes to Wolfe, he considered the greatest write by near all of his contemporaries. Le Guin, Martin, Gaiman, Miéville, Simmons, ect..

I think you just got filtered.

>>23455195
Peake is pretty good. I don't play gaymes nor watch anime btw.

>>23455197
>Bloom[...] Le Guin, Martin, Gaiman, Miéville, Simmons
Pretty bleak list

>>23455204
>nu/lit/ turning against Bloom
yea, it's over.

>>23455189
>Wolfe has been described by other authors as "your favorite author's favorite author" for decades.
For maybe one decade, and then only by the misinformed.
>You've outed yourself. Wolfe GAINS substance the more you "trudge" through his work because he wrote in intricate layers and with immense subtlety.

>There's one major reveal that fans didn't catch for years that only got discovered because he used one specific archaic word to describe something about two different characters in different books in the BotNS series. He only used that word in those two places. Pulling on that single thread unraveled a series of similarly delicate links that ended up proving that the two characters were actually related.
The whole con falls apart when you realize all these silly tricks and games are not in support of some greater substance, to Wolfe they ARE the substance. From what I've read of his, Wolfe only wrote one good work in all his years, and that one I can assume was accidental.

>>23455221
>Wolfe only wrote one good work in all his years, and that one I can assume was accidental.
There Are Doors

>>23455204
>only online dweebs like Wolfe.
>every sucesfull genre writer thinks hes the best
>oh. well, I don't like them so that doesn't count.

kek. Interesting that you ignored Lewis, Greene, and Burges.

>>23455229
I have plenty to say about Burges and Lewis, but this didn't seem the place. Including them up would just stir up the masses and distract from the real conversation here.

>>23455117
Wolfe's botns was very well talked about back in the day. As was Peake

>>23455189
>Wolfe is probably peak prose in terms of complication, intricacy, etc.

Mabey. But Peake is more poetical with his writing. The atmosphere he's able to create is unique is pretty much all of genre fiction.

>>23455239
Actually Wolfe is conspicuously absent from most interviews of his contemporaries, and never got serious consideration from any of the major awards (back then they meant something, and at the very least reflected the tastes of the time)

>>23455238
>have plenty to say about Burges and Lewis

doesn't really matter. The fact that Peake got such literary figures as stylistically different as Lewis, Greene, and Burges overshadows anything some midwit anon who doesn't like description has to say.

>>23455221
>For maybe one decade, and then only by the misinformed.
To be clear, you're bashing authors like Le Guin and Gaiman here. They're better than you, so why should we care what you think?

>The whole con falls apart when you realize all these silly tricks and games are not in support of some greater substance, to Wolfe they ARE the substance. From what I've read of his, Wolfe only wrote one good work in all his years, and that one I can assume was accidental.

People get their PhDs analyzing the substance of his work these days. The layers of allegory and symbolism are substance whether you're bright enough to understand them or not.

>>23455251
>Actually Wolfe is conspicuously absent from most interviews of his contemporaries, and never got serious consideration from any of the major awards (back then they meant something, and at the very least reflected the tastes of the time)

picrel
knock it off

>>23455275
Come on anon, don't be disingenuous. It's not hard to see that he had nowhere near the recognition that his contemporaries got. You don't need to spin it.

>>23455292
Not that anon, but the point is he was recognized. And what would that matter anywhere? Melville was largely unrecognized in his day. Are we going to pretend that Hawthorne and Cooper were better? Of course not. As time goes on, the best work rises. Wolfe is rising because he was the best.

>No one relevant liked him
>Okay but those don't count because I don't like them
why are you like this? goal post moving queen

>>23455292
Don't move the goalposts. He was nominated for major awards and won several. Each book in BotNS won something notable. You can claim he wasn't as publicly notable but that's a far cry from saying he made no impact or went unknown until recently. He absolutely influenced his contemporaries and at least the people who nominate and vote for major literary awards recognized him.

>>23454642
>>23455189
>>23455197
>>23455239
>>23455275
>>23455308
Imagine comparing the masterpieces that are Gormenghast and the Lord of the Rings to the middling Book of the New Sun
>Overall, I found nothing unique in Wolfe. Perhaps it's because I've read quite a bit of odd fantasy; if all I read was mainstream stuff, then I'd surely find Wolfe unpredictable, since he is a step above them. But compared to Leiber, Howard, Dunsany, Eddison, Kipling, Haggard, Peake, Mieville, or Moorcock, Wolfe is nothing special.
>Perhaps I just got my hopes up too high. I imagined something that might evoke Peake or Leiber (at his best), perhaps with a complexity and depth gesturing toward Milton or Ariosto. I could hardly imagine a better book than that, but even a book half that good would be a delight--or a book that was nothing like that, but was unpredictable and seductive in some other way.
>I kept waiting for something to happen, but it never really did. It all plods along without much rise or fall, just the constant moving action to make us think something interesting is happening. I did find some promise, some moments that I would have loved to see the author explore, particularly those odd moments where Silver Age Sci Fi crept in, but each time he touched upon these, he would return immediately to the smallness of his plot and his annoying prick of a narrator. I never found the book to be difficult or complex, merely tiring. the unusual parts were evasive and vague, and the dull parts constant and repetitive.
>The whole structure (or lack of it) does leave things up to interpretation, and perhaps that's what some readers find appealing: that they can superimpose their own thoughts and values onto the narrator, and onto the plot itself. But at that point, they don't like the book Wolfe wrote, they like the book they are writing between his lines.

>>23455362
>Every character you meet in the story turns up again, hundreds of miles away, to reveal that they are someone else and have been secretly controlling the action of the plot. It feels like the entire world is populated by about fifteen people who follow the narrator around wherever he goes. If the next two books continue along the same lines, then the big reveal will be that the world is entirely populated by no more than three superpowered shapeshifters.
>Everyone in the book has secret identities, secret connections to grand conspiracies, and important plot elements that they conveniently hide until the last minute, only doling out clues here and there. There are no normal people in this world, only double agents and kings in disguise. Every analysis I've read of this book mentions that even the narrator is unreliable.
>This can be an effective technique, but in combination with a world of infinite, unpredictable intrigue, Wolfe's story begins to evoke something between a soap opera and a convoluted mystery novel, relying on impossible and contradictory scenarios to mislead the audience. Apparently, this is the thing his fans most appreciate about him—I find it to be an insulting and artificial game.
>There is simply not enough structure to the story to make the narrator's unreliability meaningful. In order for unreliable narration to be effective, there must be some clear and evident counter-story that undermines it. Without that, it is not possible to determine meaning, because there's nowhere to start: everything is equally shaky.
>At that point, it's just a trick—adding complexity to the surface of the story without actually producing any new meaning. I know most sci-fi and fantasy authors seem to love complexity for its own sake, but it's a cardinal sin of storytelling: don't add something into your story unless it needs to be there. Covering the story with a lot of vagaries and noise may impress some, but won't stand up to careful reading.

>>23455362
>but each time he touched upon these, he would return immediately to the smallness of his plot and his annoying prick of a narrator
Ahahaha. This retard walked down a hall, saw door after door after door leading into the labyrinth of Wolfe's themes, judged the doors based on how they looked, then declared that they didn't understand the complexity and thus there was none.

>The whole structure (or lack of it) does leave things up to interpretation
There is one distinct structure. The pleasure of reading Wolfe is discovering it despite the fact that it's virtually invisible the first time you read it. This is another observation that reveals this person to be a moron.

>>23455368
>It feels like the entire world is populated by about fifteen people who follow the narrator around wherever he goes.
He comes shockingly close to grasping an important part of the structure, then throws a tantrum and runs away. Like he wants all books to be written for 8th graders.

>Wolfe's story begins to evoke something between a soap opera and a convoluted mystery novel
There's a good reason for this, related to Wolfe's catholic background and the Christian symbolism in the book, but this moron wouldn't grasp it even with an hour-long class from Neil Gaiman on the subject.

>There is simply not enough structure to the story to make the narrator's unreliability meaningful. In order for unreliable narration to be effective, there must be some clear and evident counter-story that undermines it.
There is. You just have to see it by using the narrator as a filter or a lens. You have to pay attention to the negative space around the narrator, his companions, etc.

>Covering the story with a lot of vagaries and noise may impress some, but won't stand up to careful reading.
This idiot didn't do any "careful reading". It sounds like he reads on the same level as a teenager and expects everything to be spoonfed to him.

Now that I think of it, isn't this Keely guy most well known for being a failed author that copes by ridiculing others? Isn't he known for his absolute shit takes on most popular series?

>>23455362
>>23455368

You do realize that the douche your quoting dislikes Tolkien just as much as Wolfe right? He's just one of these try-hards "I hate God so let me devalue all literature by Christian theme authors" reviewers. That is literally the only consistency in his reviews. His reviews are peak midwitters. I'd give him props for praising Peake, but his reviews of Peake are not even the best on goodreads.

>>23454642
How can you be this much of a boring faggot? I love Wolfe, but the genre is enormous. Talk about Tanith Lee or something, I don't know, just talk about anyone else than the same faggots over and over.

>>23455454
>>t feels like the entire world is populated by about fifteen people who follow the narrator around wherever he goes.

>He comes shockingly close to grasping an important part of the structure, then throws a tantrum and runs away. Like he wants all books to be written for 8th graders.

Wolfes critics on this board continually show a inability to understand surreal literature. Chesterton is Wolfes most obvious influence and BotNS very much reads like Chesterton's version of Dune. Character reappearing over and over again and the geography of the world seeming to fold back in on itself is what creates the surrealness of the story. Severian returning home at the end of journey (despite no intention and supposedly travelling the world) is a direct parallel to Chesterton's Manalive where a characters leaves his home so that he can travel the world and approach his home home from the back.

>>23454642
Missing Bakker, who wins all three.

>>23455489
reddit tier woke bait.

>>23455464
>read Tanith Lee
>checks out the authors Wikipedia page
>"Lee's writing frequently featured nonconformist interpretations of fairy tales, vampire stories, myths, and the fantasy genre;[24] as well as themes of feminism and sexuality.[1][30] She also wrote lesbian fiction under the pseudonym Esther Garber"
>"Themes of homophobia, racism, and sexism are seen in Lee's sequence The Blood Opera, and The Venus Cycle features themes of love, loss, and revenge".

Nice try anon. I read some samples from Death's Master and I'll admit the prose seems very poetical. But don't try and shill this woke stuff here.

>>23455489
Fits thematically with Peake and Wolfe, since it's grimdark slop.

>>23455454
>>23455456
>>23455479

>>23455545
This meme is so dumb. Everyone loves those authors. But those are either a series of short stories or a single novel. The thread is about a book series.

>>23455489
Truth shines brother!

>>23455532
Peake isn't grimdark nor slop. It's gothic and artistic.

>>23455368
Are all the anti-wolfe posting here just Keely seething about how he got filtered by the guy who invented pringles?

>>23455189
>There's one major reveal that fans didn't catch for years that only got discovered because he used one specific archaic word
What the hell are you even talking about?

>>23455514

>>23454642
Peake's prose is just a worse Edgar Allen Poe, better than Tolkien but definitely not better than Wolfe

>>23456859
Peakes writing is better then Poes. Its also not that similar. His writing is most similar to Dickens. Its not as good as Dickens, but Dickens is top 3 English prose stylists of all time.

>>23455189
>confusing lore vagueness with thematic depth

>>23455950
Why do wolfefags boast about their favorite shitty author inventing goyslop?
>>23455562
Wolfefags continue to get filtered by based vance smith and hodgson

>>23454667
I found Claw to be a lot better than Shadow, although I still prefer Wolfe's other work to BOTNS.