7 ms·

This misses the character of Severian as others here note. A character need not be a paragon of modern virtue to be good in his setting.

Mediterraneo10 7y ago
What bothers those female readers is not the behaviour of the morally flawed protagonist in itself. Rather, it is that the author seems oddly bent on making his protagonist use women for sex time after time, and that says something about the author. Furthermore, the work lacks a female voice that would serve as a corrective to Severian and put his actions in a clearer moral light. Now, one might disagree with all that criticism, and I remain a fan of the The Book of the New Sun myself. But one cannot deny that within 1970s and 1980s science fiction and fantasy, there is a huge difference between Wolfe and the feminist writers of those decades like Ursula K. LeGuin, Storm Constantine, and Samuel R. Delaney. In our modern age, when critics and ordinary readers have often come to expect the gender concerns introduced by those feminist authors, Wolfe's work can strike some readers as problematic.
- muckrakerz 7y ago
  I've found that people that complain about this often gloss over the fact that Baldanders is stealing bodies and making grotesqueries of children that he rapes. Plenty of bad things happen in those books.
- root_axis 7y ago
  > the author seems oddly bent on making his protagonist use women for sex time after time, and that says something about the author All writings say something about their author, so that statement doesn't tell us much. Just because an author writes a flawed character does not mean that they are endorsing the character's flawed traits. There is also narrative meaning behind Severian's sexual behavior. This reasoning is like suggesting that Vladimir Nabokov was a pedophile because he wrote Lolita. I will also point out (as noted in the article) that LeGuin has praised BOTNS as a masterpiece. > there is a huge difference between Wolfe and the feminist writers of those decades like Ursula K. LeGuin, Storm Constantine, and Samuel R. Delaney. Differences exist between authors, this is not a surprise and not undesirable. > the work lacks a female voice that would serve as a corrective to Severian and put his actions in a clearer moral light. This is intentional. One of the book's primary themes is the exploration of Severian's amoral and immoral behavior and the sterile and sophisticated justifications delivered as a 1st person narrative as a way to explain away his horrifying decisions to the reader; he is a rapist, torturer, and executioner that ascends to the highest levels of power while wrestling with the flaws that are revealed through his own masculinity. Severian's repeated sexual trysts culminate in his near castration as a direct rebuttal to his self-embodied caricature of masculinity and as a representation for all of humanity. A "corrective female voice" would bludgeon us with what we're supposed to extract through analysis of the story. A choice quote from the books: > Love is a long labor for torturers; and even if I were to dissolve the guild, Eata would become a torturer, as all men are, bound by the contempt for wealth without which a man is less than a man, inflicting pain by his nature, whether he willed it or not. It is a fictional autobiography of a bad man who is forced to come to terms with his own toxic masculinity in order to bring the new sun (or be castrated and relegated to the ash heap of history)
  - Mediterraneo10 7y ago
    Look, when a lot of female readers have expressed discomfort with The Book of the New Sun, we need to at least take that into consideration and respect that viewpoint even if we ourselves like the book. To go on about "But that’s what Wolfe intended!" is just going to come across to those female readers as mansplaining. > This reasoning is like suggesting that Vladimir Nabokov was a pedophile because he wrote Lolita. And that is a pretty commonly encountered position in lit circles.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      > Look, when a lot of female readers have expressed discomfort with The Book of the New Sun, we need to at least take that into consideration and respect that viewpoint even if we ourselves like the book. I do take it into consideration and I do respect the perspective that informs the viewpoint, even if I think the viewpoint is incorrect. I am not trying to argue with anyone's "expressed discomfort", I am disagreeing with your subtle suggestion that Wolfe is sexist because he wrote a sexist character. > But that’s what Wolfe intended!" is just going to come across to those female readers as mansplaining. I'm sorry but "mansplaining" is not an argument. I'm not saying that the phenomenon of mansplaining doesn't exist (a man condescendingly explaining something to a woman that she already understands), but a discussion of meaning in literature does not qualify as "mansplaining" just because I am a man who disagrees with a woman. Additionally, there are plenty of women who will make the same argument, so unless you're suggesting that my opinion is only invalid because I'm a man, I fail to see how mansplaining is at all relevant. I am happy to engage in specific examples of the text which someone might point to as evidence for a flaw in my reasoning, but summarizing my response with a flippant "mansplaining" dismissal is very disingenuous. > And that is a pretty commonly encountered position in lit circles. And also overwhelmingly rejected as an absurd way to view literature based on countless examples.
      - Mediterraneo10 7y ago
        > I am disagreeing with your subtle suggestion that Wolfe is sexist because he wrote a sexist character. I didn’t suggest that at all. Again, I myself am a fan of the book. I only wished to point out that The Book of the New Sun has been so problematic for many female readers, and today with more awareness of the female perspective it may increasingly strike audiences in general as problematic. So, when we want to consider what is Wolfe’s best work, it might be better to point to his other 1970s works, as those may have aged better. > a discussion of meaning in literature does not qualify as "mansplaining" just because I am a man who disagrees with a woman. For a man to tell a woman that her discomfort with a book is based on her supposed misunderstanding of it, is definitely going to be seen by many women as offensive and mansplaining. If it is indeed the case that that female reader misunderstands the book, it would be better for a male fan of the book to just hold his tongue and not try to deny that female reader’s experience. > Additionally, there are plenty of women who will make the same argument If you actually look at discussions about The Book of the New Sun and sexism on book fora, you tend to find that women who like the book are not eager to jump in and defend Wolfe when another woman feels that Wolfe is misogynist. Those female fans of Wolfe tend to be more accepting of another woman’s viewpoint. It is almost always male readers who post to tell the female reader that she is wrong. > And also overwhelmingly rejected as an absurd way to view literature based on countless examples. No, that Lolita represents a dark element in Nabokov’s own psyche is frequently argued in scholarship. Not all critics agree with that position, of course, but it is one of the mainstream views.

Mediterraneo10 7y ago

What bothers those female readers is not the behaviour of the morally flawed protagonist in itself. Rather, it is that the author seems oddly bent on making his protagonist use women for sex time after time, and that says something about the author. Furthermore, the work lacks a female voice that would serve as a corrective to Severian and put his actions in a clearer moral light. Now, one might disagree with all that criticism, and I remain a fan of the The Book of the New Sun myself. But one cannot deny that within 1970s and 1980s science fiction and fantasy, there is a huge difference between Wolfe and the feminist writers of those decades like Ursula K. LeGuin, Storm Constantine, and Samuel R. Delaney. In our modern age, when critics and ordinary readers have often come to expect the gender concerns introduced by those feminist authors, Wolfe's work can strike some readers as problematic.

muckrakerz 7y ago
I've found that people that complain about this often gloss over the fact that Baldanders is stealing bodies and making grotesqueries of children that he rapes. Plenty of bad things happen in those books.
root_axis 7y ago
> the author seems oddly bent on making his protagonist use women for sex time after time, and that says something about the author All writings say something about their author, so that statement doesn't tell us much. Just because an author writes a flawed character does not mean that they are endorsing the character's flawed traits. There is also narrative meaning behind Severian's sexual behavior. This reasoning is like suggesting that Vladimir Nabokov was a pedophile because he wrote Lolita. I will also point out (as noted in the article) that LeGuin has praised BOTNS as a masterpiece. > there is a huge difference between Wolfe and the feminist writers of those decades like Ursula K. LeGuin, Storm Constantine, and Samuel R. Delaney. Differences exist between authors, this is not a surprise and not undesirable. > the work lacks a female voice that would serve as a corrective to Severian and put his actions in a clearer moral light. This is intentional. One of the book's primary themes is the exploration of Severian's amoral and immoral behavior and the sterile and sophisticated justifications delivered as a 1st person narrative as a way to explain away his horrifying decisions to the reader; he is a rapist, torturer, and executioner that ascends to the highest levels of power while wrestling with the flaws that are revealed through his own masculinity. Severian's repeated sexual trysts culminate in his near castration as a direct rebuttal to his self-embodied caricature of masculinity and as a representation for all of humanity. A "corrective female voice" would bludgeon us with what we're supposed to extract through analysis of the story. A choice quote from the books: > Love is a long labor for torturers; and even if I were to dissolve the guild, Eata would become a torturer, as all men are, bound by the contempt for wealth without which a man is less than a man, inflicting pain by his nature, whether he willed it or not. It is a fictional autobiography of a bad man who is forced to come to terms with his own toxic masculinity in order to bring the new sun (or be castrated and relegated to the ash heap of history)
- Mediterraneo10 7y ago
  Look, when a lot of female readers have expressed discomfort with The Book of the New Sun, we need to at least take that into consideration and respect that viewpoint even if we ourselves like the book. To go on about "But that’s what Wolfe intended!" is just going to come across to those female readers as mansplaining. > This reasoning is like suggesting that Vladimir Nabokov was a pedophile because he wrote Lolita. And that is a pretty commonly encountered position in lit circles.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    > Look, when a lot of female readers have expressed discomfort with The Book of the New Sun, we need to at least take that into consideration and respect that viewpoint even if we ourselves like the book. I do take it into consideration and I do respect the perspective that informs the viewpoint, even if I think the viewpoint is incorrect. I am not trying to argue with anyone's "expressed discomfort", I am disagreeing with your subtle suggestion that Wolfe is sexist because he wrote a sexist character. > But that’s what Wolfe intended!" is just going to come across to those female readers as mansplaining. I'm sorry but "mansplaining" is not an argument. I'm not saying that the phenomenon of mansplaining doesn't exist (a man condescendingly explaining something to a woman that she already understands), but a discussion of meaning in literature does not qualify as "mansplaining" just because I am a man who disagrees with a woman. Additionally, there are plenty of women who will make the same argument, so unless you're suggesting that my opinion is only invalid because I'm a man, I fail to see how mansplaining is at all relevant. I am happy to engage in specific examples of the text which someone might point to as evidence for a flaw in my reasoning, but summarizing my response with a flippant "mansplaining" dismissal is very disingenuous. > And that is a pretty commonly encountered position in lit circles. And also overwhelmingly rejected as an absurd way to view literature based on countless examples.
    - Mediterraneo10 7y ago
      > I am disagreeing with your subtle suggestion that Wolfe is sexist because he wrote a sexist character. I didn’t suggest that at all. Again, I myself am a fan of the book. I only wished to point out that The Book of the New Sun has been so problematic for many female readers, and today with more awareness of the female perspective it may increasingly strike audiences in general as problematic. So, when we want to consider what is Wolfe’s best work, it might be better to point to his other 1970s works, as those may have aged better. > a discussion of meaning in literature does not qualify as "mansplaining" just because I am a man who disagrees with a woman. For a man to tell a woman that her discomfort with a book is based on her supposed misunderstanding of it, is definitely going to be seen by many women as offensive and mansplaining. If it is indeed the case that that female reader misunderstands the book, it would be better for a male fan of the book to just hold his tongue and not try to deny that female reader’s experience. > Additionally, there are plenty of women who will make the same argument If you actually look at discussions about The Book of the New Sun and sexism on book fora, you tend to find that women who like the book are not eager to jump in and defend Wolfe when another woman feels that Wolfe is misogynist. Those female fans of Wolfe tend to be more accepting of another woman’s viewpoint. It is almost always male readers who post to tell the female reader that she is wrong. > And also overwhelmingly rejected as an absurd way to view literature based on countless examples. No, that Lolita represents a dark element in Nabokov’s own psyche is frequently argued in scholarship. Not all critics agree with that position, of course, but it is one of the mainstream views.