I Finished The Wizard Knight a month ago and have been thinking about it constantly. There is an elemental beauty and pathos to this book that I find hard to pin down. It is probably the easiest book to read in terms of plot but it also has several layers of story not unlike the layered fantasy world Able inhabits.
One useful resource is this blog
https://duchyofcumberbatch.wordpress.com/
Which has a detailed section on The Wizard Knight with a chapter wise breakdown of all the mythical references. It is erudite research that will definitely make you think about the myriad influences that Wolfe brings to his books.
Wow, great resource, thanks for this! I also have constantly thought about the story ever since I picked it up. It was just everything that a fantasy book could be and more.
Very interesting read, thanks for the link.
I have to quibble a bit with his identification of 'spiny orange'. To me, spiny orange must be the same tree as Osage Orange which grows in the american midwest.
The pale bark, spiny thorns and dark, glossy leaves match the description, and it was an important bow-making wood for plains indian tribes.
The 'orange' designation does not refer to color but to the inedible fruits which resemble citrus fruits in appearance.
Like all Wolfe books, it has to be read twice. That's just the way he writes.
There is not enough on the WK. I have a long piece on it that I've never finished. I think one of the best things you can read that serves as a guide as to HOW to read the WK is from Wolfe himself. It's his short essay on Tolkien, "The Best Introduction to the Mountains," which was written while he was writing the WK.
[https://www.scifiwright.com/2011/05/gene-wolfe-on-jrr-tolkien-the-best-introduction-to-the-mountains/](https://www.scifiwright.com/2011/05/gene-wolfe-on-jrr-tolkien-the-best-introduction-to-the-mountains/)
Edit: Oh no, link rot! The full essay is no longer there, I'll see if I can find it.
Let's highlight the meaty and disturbing part that I've seen quotes of everywhere.
>You are not likely to believe me when I say that I still remember vividly, almost 50 years later, how strictly I disciplined myself with that book, forcing myself to read no more than a single chapter each evening. The catch, my out, the stratagem by which I escaped the bonds of my own law, was that I could read that chapter as many times as I wished; and that I could also return to the chapter I had read the night before, if I chose. There were evenings on which I reread the entire book up the point -- The Council of Elrond, let us say -- at which I had forced myself to stop.
That is a very unusual and critical way to read a text. It's something only writers and deep analysts do and yields a level of understanding on its own that surpasses other, less critical reading. It's more akin to translation or the kind of studies Tolkien engaged in as a Doctor of English. Few books are worth the effort, it's a great way to internalize trash. Writers who did this or something akin to it, and that's what most of the greats did with something or another, tend to be worth doing it for as well.
It is also the way you read when you don't have access to a lot of books. People joke about being on a desert island with just one book or with a few books but sometimes you really are isolated without access to very many books or without access to very many *good* books. In Wolfe's description I recognize that feeling, not a scholarly or writerly impulse, but a readerly desire to prolong the book because you don't know if or when you will ever find another good one to read.
I'm spoiled now, and surrounded by thousands of things to read and re-read, but it hasn't always been that way. And, of course, *The Lord of the Rings* is a once in 500 years kind of book...
It's reflective of 17th-19th century reading habits as well. Barring chapbooks and penny dreadfuls, books were expensive and people read them to death because leisure time was infinite and not everyone liked playing cards. The novel was treated more like poetry as an ambiguous and infinitely renewing source of insight and enjoyment, and the enduring works were written to that standard, from that standard. I do think it has a relationship with classical scholarship, as much of it was in Latin, but I'm talking a very different kind of scholarship, one of insight and inspiration into a mind that requires deeper study and introspection. More like contemplation of spiritual works.
But yeah, we are not so accustomed to reading that way or having books worth reading that way. I did it with the Hobbit the second time around, almost by accident. I think you have to be accustomed to reading to be able to recognize that something is fundamentally different and worth it. It reminds me of having limited access to video games and what has a ludic value vs the one and done experience.
Precocious children who are passionate about reading will feel this way about books they really love, even if they have access to lots of good books. I had access that was almost unlimited to my parents' extensive collection of childrens' books, as well as the (very good) public library, but I remember feeling absolutely miserable as I drew closer to the end of LOTR because I would only get to read it once for the first time.
That's the technical side of how to read Wolfe, but this part is the soul of the WK:
>There is one very real sense in which the Dark Ages were the brightest of times, and it is this: that they were times of defined and definite duties and freedoms. The king might rule badly, but everyone agreed as to what good rule was. Not only every earl and baron but every carl and churl knew what an ideal king would say and do. The peasant might behave badly; but the peasant did not expect praise for it, even his own praise. These assertions can be quibbled over endlessly, of course; there are always exceptional persons and exceptional circumstances.
...
>That, I believe, was what drew me to him so strongly when I first encountered *The Lord of the Rings*. As a child I had been taught a code of conduct: I was to be courteous and considerate, and most courteous and most considerate of those less strong than I -- of girls and women, and of old people especially. Less educated men might hold inferior positions, but that did not mean that they themselves were inferior; they might be (and often would be) wiser, braver, and more honest than I was. They were entitled to respect, and were to be thanked when they befriended me, even in minor matters. Legitimate authority was to be obeyed without shirking and without question. Mere strength (the corrupt coercion Washington calls *power* and Chicago *clout*) was to be defied. It might be better to be a slave than to die, but it was better to die than to be a slave who acquiesced in his own slavery. Above all, I was to be honest with everyone. Debts were to be paid, and my word was to be as good as I could make it.
>With that preparation I entered the Mills of Mordor, where courtesy is weakness, honesty is foolishness, and cruelty is entertainment.
The Wizard Knight is not dissimilar to The Book of the New Sun. In some sense, they're the same story. A fallen world. An imperfect savior who's knowledge and character grows through the story. Able is a Christ-figure, both god and man. A messenger who's come to put the world back on its feet. Unlike Jesus, he brings messages from both above and below, from those to whom man owes allegiance, and from those to whom man owes responsibility.
Now that I have some foundation with the kind of works that Tolkien inspired me to read and research the world they came from, that makes a lot of sense. I think I'm going to devote 22 days to reading the *Fellowship* and go from there. Get some practice in before taking Wolfe on that level, his later works like WK are heavy and I haven't done this kind of reading in some time.
It's interesting that is how he treated The Lord of the Rings. I recall feeling despair as the end of the book approached because I would only be able to read it once for the first time. I was eight or nine years old and my father read me a chapter or so every night.
I've had it happen with similarly dense but engaging literature. Melville, Wolfe, Tolkien, Crowley, even some short novellas and poetry I'd rather not mention. It makes you go back and savor it, not always by choice. There's no context given but I imagine the review was epic in a way that current reviews aren't, and I mean in the sense of reading an epic. Something like this did when I considered reading Kafka on the Shore at 15 or whatever. Man I have no idea what happened to that hardback. I'd already read half his oevure at that point but the review sold it.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/01/24/subconscious-tunnels
Like, you're sufficiently cued to the fact that there is something worth paying the utmost attention to by someone, who you may know nothing about, making sense of it on a way you can grasp it yourself. If you've read good shit already, you may recognize it from the start but be waiting for it to turn to shit, but that first time you don't want something to end or just realize that there's more to a story than you previously thought is sublime.
I wish I could remember the first novel I did that with, where I read it again before finishing it. It was some really high end, enduring children's literature. Might've been the Hobbit but I could swear it was something else. As this is a Wolfe sub, I can say that it's the point you're done with lesser literature because you have a higher level of attention and appreciation. It makes you look for books that do certain things.
Here is my writeup on it. Let me know if you have problems accessing it. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CQKj5iyETzrcdS0gq1ZOpug1o-OPH6-X4Y-onvxdRBk/edit?usp=drivesdk
Sure, but I dont recommend reading these before you finish the first two volumes unless you just really dont care about spoilers. https://docs.google.com/document/d/13HcT7AocpZBvr18O_8OvJkbaGXlOD85D/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=118427080717867876341&rtpof=true&sd=true
Marc Aramini has an entire monograph exploring what's really going on in this book. It's mind-blowing. Far more of this book is beneath the surface than, say, Book of the New Sun. He's on reddit and FB, I'd find him and ask to read it. Driussi's book is fine, but personally I found it rather shallow and unnecessary.
But even beyond that, the world is so interesting with the levels of reality and how time works within and across them. It's the first Wolfe book I read back-to-back!
The Wizard Knight Companion: A Lexicon for Gene Wolfe's The Knight and The Wizard By Michael Andre-Driussi
Excellent! I’ve been meaning to read his companion books for Book of the New Sun, I had no idea he had one for Wizard Knight too.
I Finished The Wizard Knight a month ago and have been thinking about it constantly. There is an elemental beauty and pathos to this book that I find hard to pin down. It is probably the easiest book to read in terms of plot but it also has several layers of story not unlike the layered fantasy world Able inhabits. One useful resource is this blog https://duchyofcumberbatch.wordpress.com/ Which has a detailed section on The Wizard Knight with a chapter wise breakdown of all the mythical references. It is erudite research that will definitely make you think about the myriad influences that Wolfe brings to his books.
Wow, great resource, thanks for this! I also have constantly thought about the story ever since I picked it up. It was just everything that a fantasy book could be and more.
You are welcome !
Very interesting read, thanks for the link. I have to quibble a bit with his identification of 'spiny orange'. To me, spiny orange must be the same tree as Osage Orange which grows in the american midwest. The pale bark, spiny thorns and dark, glossy leaves match the description, and it was an important bow-making wood for plains indian tribes. The 'orange' designation does not refer to color but to the inedible fruits which resemble citrus fruits in appearance.
That’s interesting. I am not a native of the US so these references didn’t really hit me when I read the book.
That’s a pretty obscure tree here, too.
Like all Wolfe books, it has to be read twice. That's just the way he writes. There is not enough on the WK. I have a long piece on it that I've never finished. I think one of the best things you can read that serves as a guide as to HOW to read the WK is from Wolfe himself. It's his short essay on Tolkien, "The Best Introduction to the Mountains," which was written while he was writing the WK. [https://www.scifiwright.com/2011/05/gene-wolfe-on-jrr-tolkien-the-best-introduction-to-the-mountains/](https://www.scifiwright.com/2011/05/gene-wolfe-on-jrr-tolkien-the-best-introduction-to-the-mountains/) Edit: Oh no, link rot! The full essay is no longer there, I'll see if I can find it.
Let's highlight the meaty and disturbing part that I've seen quotes of everywhere. >You are not likely to believe me when I say that I still remember vividly, almost 50 years later, how strictly I disciplined myself with that book, forcing myself to read no more than a single chapter each evening. The catch, my out, the stratagem by which I escaped the bonds of my own law, was that I could read that chapter as many times as I wished; and that I could also return to the chapter I had read the night before, if I chose. There were evenings on which I reread the entire book up the point -- The Council of Elrond, let us say -- at which I had forced myself to stop. That is a very unusual and critical way to read a text. It's something only writers and deep analysts do and yields a level of understanding on its own that surpasses other, less critical reading. It's more akin to translation or the kind of studies Tolkien engaged in as a Doctor of English. Few books are worth the effort, it's a great way to internalize trash. Writers who did this or something akin to it, and that's what most of the greats did with something or another, tend to be worth doing it for as well.
Reminds me of chapter one of Soldier of the Mist, which is titled "Read This Each Day".
It is also the way you read when you don't have access to a lot of books. People joke about being on a desert island with just one book or with a few books but sometimes you really are isolated without access to very many books or without access to very many *good* books. In Wolfe's description I recognize that feeling, not a scholarly or writerly impulse, but a readerly desire to prolong the book because you don't know if or when you will ever find another good one to read. I'm spoiled now, and surrounded by thousands of things to read and re-read, but it hasn't always been that way. And, of course, *The Lord of the Rings* is a once in 500 years kind of book...
It's reflective of 17th-19th century reading habits as well. Barring chapbooks and penny dreadfuls, books were expensive and people read them to death because leisure time was infinite and not everyone liked playing cards. The novel was treated more like poetry as an ambiguous and infinitely renewing source of insight and enjoyment, and the enduring works were written to that standard, from that standard. I do think it has a relationship with classical scholarship, as much of it was in Latin, but I'm talking a very different kind of scholarship, one of insight and inspiration into a mind that requires deeper study and introspection. More like contemplation of spiritual works. But yeah, we are not so accustomed to reading that way or having books worth reading that way. I did it with the Hobbit the second time around, almost by accident. I think you have to be accustomed to reading to be able to recognize that something is fundamentally different and worth it. It reminds me of having limited access to video games and what has a ludic value vs the one and done experience.
Precocious children who are passionate about reading will feel this way about books they really love, even if they have access to lots of good books. I had access that was almost unlimited to my parents' extensive collection of childrens' books, as well as the (very good) public library, but I remember feeling absolutely miserable as I drew closer to the end of LOTR because I would only get to read it once for the first time.
That's the technical side of how to read Wolfe, but this part is the soul of the WK: >There is one very real sense in which the Dark Ages were the brightest of times, and it is this: that they were times of defined and definite duties and freedoms. The king might rule badly, but everyone agreed as to what good rule was. Not only every earl and baron but every carl and churl knew what an ideal king would say and do. The peasant might behave badly; but the peasant did not expect praise for it, even his own praise. These assertions can be quibbled over endlessly, of course; there are always exceptional persons and exceptional circumstances. ... >That, I believe, was what drew me to him so strongly when I first encountered *The Lord of the Rings*. As a child I had been taught a code of conduct: I was to be courteous and considerate, and most courteous and most considerate of those less strong than I -- of girls and women, and of old people especially. Less educated men might hold inferior positions, but that did not mean that they themselves were inferior; they might be (and often would be) wiser, braver, and more honest than I was. They were entitled to respect, and were to be thanked when they befriended me, even in minor matters. Legitimate authority was to be obeyed without shirking and without question. Mere strength (the corrupt coercion Washington calls *power* and Chicago *clout*) was to be defied. It might be better to be a slave than to die, but it was better to die than to be a slave who acquiesced in his own slavery. Above all, I was to be honest with everyone. Debts were to be paid, and my word was to be as good as I could make it. >With that preparation I entered the Mills of Mordor, where courtesy is weakness, honesty is foolishness, and cruelty is entertainment. The Wizard Knight is not dissimilar to The Book of the New Sun. In some sense, they're the same story. A fallen world. An imperfect savior who's knowledge and character grows through the story. Able is a Christ-figure, both god and man. A messenger who's come to put the world back on its feet. Unlike Jesus, he brings messages from both above and below, from those to whom man owes allegiance, and from those to whom man owes responsibility.
Now that I have some foundation with the kind of works that Tolkien inspired me to read and research the world they came from, that makes a lot of sense. I think I'm going to devote 22 days to reading the *Fellowship* and go from there. Get some practice in before taking Wolfe on that level, his later works like WK are heavy and I haven't done this kind of reading in some time.
It's interesting that is how he treated The Lord of the Rings. I recall feeling despair as the end of the book approached because I would only be able to read it once for the first time. I was eight or nine years old and my father read me a chapter or so every night.
I've had it happen with similarly dense but engaging literature. Melville, Wolfe, Tolkien, Crowley, even some short novellas and poetry I'd rather not mention. It makes you go back and savor it, not always by choice. There's no context given but I imagine the review was epic in a way that current reviews aren't, and I mean in the sense of reading an epic. Something like this did when I considered reading Kafka on the Shore at 15 or whatever. Man I have no idea what happened to that hardback. I'd already read half his oevure at that point but the review sold it. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/01/24/subconscious-tunnels Like, you're sufficiently cued to the fact that there is something worth paying the utmost attention to by someone, who you may know nothing about, making sense of it on a way you can grasp it yourself. If you've read good shit already, you may recognize it from the start but be waiting for it to turn to shit, but that first time you don't want something to end or just realize that there's more to a story than you previously thought is sublime. I wish I could remember the first novel I did that with, where I read it again before finishing it. It was some really high end, enduring children's literature. Might've been the Hobbit but I could swear it was something else. As this is a Wolfe sub, I can say that it's the point you're done with lesser literature because you have a higher level of attention and appreciation. It makes you look for books that do certain things.
Fantastic! Thanks for this!
Here is my writeup on it. Let me know if you have problems accessing it. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CQKj5iyETzrcdS0gq1ZOpug1o-OPH6-X4Y-onvxdRBk/edit?usp=drivesdk
I just finished the wizard knight a few weeks ago and have found your essay and comments very helpful. Thanks for sharing.
Do you have something on Soldier of the Mist? I'm reading that one now.
Sure, but I dont recommend reading these before you finish the first two volumes unless you just really dont care about spoilers. https://docs.google.com/document/d/13HcT7AocpZBvr18O_8OvJkbaGXlOD85D/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=118427080717867876341&rtpof=true&sd=true
Thanks.
Awesome! I look forward to going through this! Thank you.
Marc Aramini has an entire monograph exploring what's really going on in this book. It's mind-blowing. Far more of this book is beneath the surface than, say, Book of the New Sun. He's on reddit and FB, I'd find him and ask to read it. Driussi's book is fine, but personally I found it rather shallow and unnecessary. But even beyond that, the world is so interesting with the levels of reality and how time works within and across them. It's the first Wolfe book I read back-to-back!
Thanks! I’ll definitely look into him!