/lit/ - Literature

It's p cool. It starts off pretty dry and slowly (probably what they meant about the Ulysses comment) but it picks up and is quite entertaining.

Personally I thought it slightly pretentious (as it tries to be this sort of high flown fantasy) and fairly boring most the time. But most of /lit/ seems to love it.

I've read them all and honestly it's some of the best sc-fi I've ever read.

The way this man writes, he forces to approach the real world from the perspective of someone who has no idea what they're looking at, even if he's describing tools and landscapes you'd recognize, reading the book you'd never know without really, really thinking about it.

He's a bonafide genius, if the prose is a little drawn-out, and more dense than it needs to be.

I hope you like it.

>>3090782
I think you'd find that the "high-flown" aspects of it are directly in line with what he's trying to do. I don't want to reveal too much for OPs sake, but hardly of the words he uses are made up, and the only ones that are stem from real words.

As I write this I get the feeling you might not have really understood the book.

It's the literary equivalent of masturbation.

>>3090747
not true, it's not Ulysses of SF, it's very good, multilayered series

>>3090809
>It's the literary equivalent of masturbation

Author's masturbation, or reader's? Two very different metaphors.

>>3090807

I got what the author was trying to do and I understand the position of the narrator too but it all came across as a bit try hard for me. It just didn't click in the way that something like Gormenghast does for me.

>>3090747
> Ulysses of SF

Not really. Wolfe wrote more than one novel.

BOTNS is a novel of innumerable fractal complexity, but the real fun is in reading Wolfe's complete works and figuring out the overarching themes.

>>3090812

Authors.

And I have to say that I completely fail to see how the phrase, 'It's the literary equivalent of masturbation' could be construed to apply to the readers. Masturbation is effectively playing with oneself for satisfaction. As the literary equivalent of masturbation I'm implying that the author has purely written it for self gratification. If I had said, 'It's the literary equivalent of mutual masturbation,' then the reader could also be associated with the metaphor. I think you're just being pedantic.

>>3090807
This.

I read The Book of the New Sun based on /lit/'s recommendations and I loved it and quickly became obsessed with it. I kept having dreams in Urth for weeks and it was freaky as hell.

At first I found the prose a little dry (and surely it is dryish) and maybe too dense. It was a slow read, really. The vocabulary is exquisite and thought inducing. And that's the whole point, isn't it?. You must put yourself in the frame of mind of the guy who's writing his own story. Perhaps it's a gimmick, but why not approach a piece of fiction in such a way so you can fully enjoy it?

Anyway, it was an amazing trip. It has a dream-like quality to it at all times, like a short story written by Borges (and Wolfe acknowledged Borges was a big influence on him). There were lots of powerful images in these books, mostly caused by the sheer scale of the whole thing.

You'll learn to not trust the main character's observations at face value because from time to time he's as clueless as you are, which I found extremely charming. Some things won't make any sense, there are little pieces here and there, and eventually everything will fit in place. Or most of it, anyway.

I'd suggest you have a dictionary of middle English (the Kindle's dictionary was extremely helpful for 70% of the words) or you can Google them. Just beware of spoilers, specially if you consult the 'Urthus Lexicon' which is a glossary to better understand the series.

>>3090823
>innumerable fractal complexity

>>3090823
>innumerable fractal complexity

>>3090809
>>3090837
So many empty phrases. What the hell does that even mean? You could say the same thing about dozens of writers and they all produced amazing works of art. How is 'Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius' not obviously masturbatory? And yet it's an amazing story.


OP, I forgot to mention you probably won't like the way he pictures women (mostly objectified and uni-dimensional characters), and you may not like some of the obvious religious references. Wolfe was a Catholic and I, as an ex-catholic, found it interesting but not too weird.

>>3090861
>>3090866
DMT, niggas.

>>3090807
>>3090853
Samefagging detected. Posts ignored.

>>3090875
I only posted twice in this thread
>>3090868
>>3090853.

>>3090868

Art's only art if it arouses emotion or thought within the recipient. This book meanders pointlessly, the characters are one dimensional, the plot is contrived, the setting is dull. In short it is drivel written by the author for the express pleasure of the author. This book is the worst type of book written, it is boring.

This book is pseudo-literary bullshit over-hyped by the sort of pretentious twat who enjoys a book where fuck all happens for five hundred pages and then ends.


If it's art, it's the sort of art that one looks at and thinks, 'What the fuck is this thing doing here in amongst all other good works of art?'

It's a shit book and you should feel bad for liking it.

>>3090903
>over-hyped
>pretentious
>pseudo-literary
>other good works of art

Oh, how deep and edgy of you.

You say it doesn't arouse emotion nor thoughts, that it's boring and the setting is dull.
Good for you, anon. But just don't go around imposing your opinions and passing them as facts. It just shows how much of a teen you are.
Just admit you're butthurt because you didn't like it and other people did and let's leave it at that.

>>3090903
In any case, which are your favorite authors?

>>3090868
>OP, I forgot to mention you probably won't like the way he pictures women (mostly objectified and uni-dimensional characters

You're confusing the narrator's voice for the author's.

Don't do that, it's plebeian as fuck.

>>3090903

> "This book meanders pointlessly, the characters are one dimensional, the plot is contrived, the setting is dull."

> Can't unto unreliable narrator
> Reads only at a surface, action-driven "world-building" level.

Why are you on this board again? Shouldn't you be reading comic books instead?

>>3090903
>setting dull
you overdid it

I have to admit I was hugely impressed with The Book of the New Sun. I won't read fantasy or science fiction, but I made an exception here because my dad insisted I read it. This was particularly unusual, considering my dad reads non-fiction almost exclusively. Apparently, he read it in college and it made a big impression on him. Anyway, I was immediately curious so I picked it up. Again, I found it very impressive.

I have little to compare it to since I've read almost no fantasy or science fiction, but I think it's certainly a gem of fiction.

While we are at it,
Do you guys have any working PDF
copies of this book?

All I find on the net is a blank PDF.
(Prolly some DRM-locked copy.)

That'd be awesome.

>>3091037
AFAIK, there are none. Also, I don't think the blank PDF is a DRM'd book, maybe it's just some fake file to get hits.

You can read some parts of it on Google Books though. Some weeks ago I had too much free time and thought of ripping it (there's an extension) but there were too few pages and quickly lost interest.

>>3090820
I just started Gormenghast.

Thus far, compared with some of its literary predecessors in the British grotesque (Dickens, Great Expectations, Bleak House), it's rather poorly written with horrible sentences and excessive, poorly handled expositions between well crafted images. The use of the adverb 'seemingly' is really amateur writing. I'm writing this side by side with Tolstoy in translation which has seamless prose.

>>3091111
reading*

>>3090923

When OP asked for opinions on the book I didn't know it was a closed session for fanboys. If this is a circle jerk just say so and I'll leave you to it

>>3090962

Unreliable narrator my backside. More like author substitution.

>>3090972

Far future, dying earth, technology so advanced it's magic.

Jack Vance did it earlier and better.

what the hell. my posts have been deleted.

>>3092156
is this some rogue janitor, script/spam prevention, or what?

>>3090853
>>3090868
>>3090889
>>3090923
>>3090927
>>3091092
http://fuuka.warosu.org/lit/thread/3090747

;_;

>>3092176
>>>/q/255894

Bring your hate

>>3091962
But everything you've just said is amazingly incorrect. Author substitution? Really. I mean seriously? Fuck that's an idiotic thing to say. I almost can't believe it.

That alzabo scene was some of the creepiest shit I've ever read.

How does it compare to the long sun series? Better? Worse?

I finished the first one a few weeks ago. I'll say reading it was a bit of a challenge, but highly worth it. I'm going to start on the second one here pretty soon.

>>3092361

I haven't seen one refutation of any of the allegations I made so far, just simple statements that I'm wrong. That's fucking idiotic.

Author substitution, like self-insertion and surrogation is a fairly frequent occurrence in most poor writing especially fan fiction. You can tell it's occurring when nothing really bad happens to the character, or when something bad does happen it is twisted around to become a boon. The new sun series is rife with this, there is a complete lack of obstacle and when there is it is quickly surmounted and turned into an advantage. The character never actually encounters any real danger or suffers any negative effects, only positive ones.

Although I haven't tackled this one before I may as well do so now. The primary reason given, that I can see so far, for people liking the book is the analogy one sifts from the written word, i.e. the dense prose and stilted dialogue. Now, forgive me here if i'm being "stupid" but I would consider it a much greater achievement if the book was not only full of written analogy, and clever linguistic gimmicks, but also interesting to read. As Nostradamus proved allegory, metaphor and analogy can be lifted from any text extravagantly ornate enough and that is exactly what this is. In the end it may contain nice sets of sentences but it completely fails to entertain because it lacks exactly what I have said before.

>>3092870
>>3092870
i really don't think you 'got' what was going on in Book of the New Sun, because none of those things really apply to the series. you have to understand, this is actually a series where the narrator actually is unreliable in specific ways that you can identify and analyze - this isn't Name of the Wind where the unreliability of the narrator is a flimsy covering for his perfect bad-assness.

And the thing is, Severian, first of all, isn't a good guy - if nothing else, he's a rapist - and, second of all, he goes through a number of hugely traumatic experiences, none of which are good, all of which impact him deeply, and all of which are TREMENDOUSLY important for his character and for the entire manner in which he tells the story - in particular, I would say, the trauma of the death of that one girl, his sharing of her consciousness, his visitations by the various extra-human intelligences, and especially his becoming Autarch, which is both traumatic and something that completely eliminates the possibility of him being a reliable narrator.

I know you're trolling, so, good job getting me to respond. But the thing is that the things you're saying about the book bear no relation to the actual text - it's just not true that in Book of the New Sun there are "no obstacles" and when there are Severian turns them to his advantage, or that Severian never suffers any positive effects. It looks that way on the surface, and certainly Severian PRESENTS it that way, but that doesn't mean it IS that way.

>>3091111
>it's rather poorly written with horrible sentences and excessive, poorly handled expositions between well crafted images.

You DO realise the writing of Gormenghast reflects the nature of the setting and its habitants?

>I'm writing this side by side with Tolstoy in translation which has seamless prose.

Wow, Tolstoy has good prose? Who'd have thought?! It's great that you're reading such an esteemed author. Thank you for the relevant information.

>>3092870

The novel is ostensibly written through Severian's voice, not Wolfe's.

_Of course_ a book written by Severian would be a clusterfuck of self-aggrandization, elision, boasting and misogyny.

And of course, this is done by Wolfe on purpose, as a kind of sly social commentary.

>>3092886

I really think that you're giving the author far too much merit because all of those things do apply to the series. There are a great many books where the unreliable narrator, as a narrative tool, is used to great effect. In the new sun it is not. My personal opinion is that, Severian as an unreliable narrator, is entirely a fabrication created by the devotees of the book, or author, to explain away the serious flaws in the work. Even if it was intentional (which I do not believe) it arrives at so late a point of the narrative that I would seriously consider it an attempt, by the author, to fool the reader into believing it intentional from the start.

It's funny that you use Name of the Wind as an example of what New Sun is not because I consider them to both be as bad as each other.

>>3092905

There's nothing ostensible about it. It's blatantly authorial wish fulfilment.

>>3092973
...All right. Clearly you haven't read these books. And certainly you've never read anything else by Gene Wolfe.

5/10: People actually spent some time responding to you despite the total vapidity of your positions and the transparency of your trolling. That's decent work, for a troll.

Now go be stupid somewhere else.

>>3093281
i'm someone different and agree with the other dude. absolutely nowhere in the first book is there any hint that the narrator is unreliable. you could guess at these things since the guy is the autarch or whatever, but there is nothing given by the author or the writer to suggest that the narrator is unreliable. please cite one example within the first book where it does not require a jump in logic that the narrator is lying to you

>ib4 it's obvious he raped that girl
no it's not

>>3093281

In other words you can't refute the point and so you're just going to attack my character. That's mighty big of you and awfully clever, if rather fallacious.

But you are correct in one respect, I have never read anything else by Gene Wolfe, but the question is, do I want to? If the New Sun is anything to go by I don't and, luckily enough, I'm mature enough now to resist the urge to read a piece of shit just to say that I did.

>>3093313
>absolutely nowhere in the first book is there any hint that the narrator is unreliable.

_Every_ narrator is unreliable, moron. The idea of a 'perfect narrator' is a silly modern conceit of genre fiction.

>you could guess at these things since the guy is the autarch or whatever, but there is nothing given by the author or the writer to suggest that the narrator is unreliable. please cite one example within the first book where it does not require a jump in logic that the narrator is lying to you

The part right at the beginning where he claims to have perfect and infallible memory should have clued you on.

>>3093426

Rubbish. You're tarring all fiction with the same brush which is not only unrealistic but wrong. Whilst it's true in reality that every person observes their own set of events, and colours them by their own perception, in fiction, because the narrative is written by one author. The default, especially in the first person, is that the author is presenting the narration unbiased. If the author decides that the narrator is biased then he has to write the narrative to exemplify that. Gene Wolfe, if he intended to do this, failed much in the same that Agatha Christie failed when she wrote The Murder of Roger Ackroyd.

The only benefit I have gained from this argument is that I have found a considerable number of websites that point out the "obvious" uses of the unreliable narrator. It's like watching an evangelist scrape the old testament for justification of his bigotry. And all of them find but a few contrived sentences from the first book