Gene Wolfe

Gene Wolfe's publisher that he passed away today at the age of 87.

Wolfe was one of the greatest speculative fiction writers of all time, penning The Book of the New Sun, The Wizard-Knight and the Latro series amongst many, many other wonderful, beguiling and strange books of the imagination.

An absolute gut-punch.

Hello! I am looking for a book or series to gift to my boyfriend. He pulled me into fantasy novels again after I had grown frustrated with the genre's offerings marketed to women and had finished reading the big classics. So I want to help him find something new to love since he has read his favorites five times over.

his favorites are:

• The Black Company

• The Book of the New Sun

• earlier Wheel of Time

elements I know he likes:

• detailed castles and sieges

• time travel (this is a big one, he loves science fantasy)

• imperfect narrators / protags

• inventive, emersive language

• philosophy

• anything with an audiobook is a huge bonus

• edit to add: foreshadowing and clues for the reader to work out what will happen for themselves

things I know he doesn't like:

• Sanderson

• Patrick Rothfuss

• cruelty to and mistreatment of animals

I don't think he has a Reddit but in case he does... hi darling :)

So I got into reading heavily a few years ago and since then I've read ~200 books based on reddit recommendations. I'm mostly into Sci fi and fantasy but enjoy general fiction as well. I very much like philosophical, deep stories, especially with religious\spiritual\psychological themes or general existential questions. Also, the darker the better. Basically a good book, to me, is a book that introduces into my head thoughts I never had before, or challenges me with new ideas or ways of seeing the world and people. Lately, however, I feel like nothing impresses me anymore, it either feels generic, or just "been there read that".

My favorites:

• Second Apocalypse by Scott Bakker

• Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe

• Hyperion by Dan Simmons

• Blindsight by Peter Watts

• Valis by Philip K Dick

• Diaspora by Greg Egan

• Dune by Frank Herbert

• Solyaris by Stanislam Lem

• 3 Body problem Trilogy by Liu Cixin

I would really love to get some recommendations from people who also read (and enjoyed) these books, since they are so unique I feel like only someone who read them will understand what I'm looking for.
I probably already read most of the recommendations I will be given, but maybe something new that I missed will come up!

Here are frequent recommendations that I actually did not like that much.

• Gormenghast - Sure the prose is great but prose for me is secondary and I didn't feel like there was anything else here.

• Ursula le Guin - I read a bunch, The Dispossessed was really great, the rest were okay+.

• China Mieville - I read perdido and the scar. Kind of like Gormenhast , in that they are very imaginative and well written but almost feel like Chat GPT was prompted for a string of events to form a plot, but no convincing emotional or philosophical punch behind them.

• Malazan - If I wanted to invest my time in reading history books I would just read real history books. I need more depth in characters personally.

No offense to anyone who likes these, I can definitely appreciate the works, just not what I am looking for.
Thanks in advance if you read this and suggest some recommendations.

Just as the title said, i am currently for the first time reading The book of the new sun (im just started claw of the conciliator) and while im reading i get really confused. ofcourse ive heard that is veey normal as gene wolfe is (as ive heard) not very “on the nose” with his story telling, so Ive searched up things while ive read to maybe clear up with my confusion. but it only makes me more confused… i found this blog where a girl is talking chapter to chapter about the things in the chapters (and this is her like idk 15th reread or something) and she talks about spaceships and aliens and gods and magicians and up until now that has blown STRAIGHT over my head. my question right now is… am i dumb? i get that i shouldnt GET everything on my first read but right now i feel like im bot getting anything, ive searched up art online and the art ive found is wayy more sci fi than i have imagined, am i reading these books wrong? or do i just need to read more to eventually get it in a eureka moment? or is there never an eureka moment and just gonna be this feeling for ever?

I've been reading print science fiction since the 1970s and was immersed enough in the genre in the '80s to have read Card, Brin, Benford and Bear as they were publishing their best known works. Yet I have no real memory of Gene Wolfe during the same period and The Book of the New Sun really didn't hit my radar screen until several years ago, as a result of this sub-reddit. Was it just me missing him in the '80s or has the appreciation for his work really grown in the intervening years? The Book of the New Sun is so good, it feels to me like it could reach Dune or Lord of the Rings status in the future.

I’ll be honest, I don’t really understand book of the new sun. I love these books and I guess I’m just wondering has anyone felt a push towards spirituality/religion after reading Gene Wolfe. I noticed after a while I felt what kept me pushing further through these books besides the mysteries and the beautiful prose, was the many references to the increate, pancreator, and the conciliator. These parts specifically always captivated me. To be honest I was reluctant to make this post, perhaps because I thought it may face backlash. I just want to clarify I don’t have an agenda to push religion onto anyone on this sub I’m just curious. Also I’m currently reading long sun so please no spoilers.

So I got into reading heavily a few years ago and since then I've read ~200 books based on reddit recommendations. I'm mostly into Sci fi and fantasy but enjoy general fiction as well. I very much like philosophical, deep stories, especially with religious\spiritual\psychological themes or general existential questions. Also, the darker the better. Basically a good book, to me, is a book that introduces into my head thoughts I never had before, or challenges me with new ideas or ways of seeing the world and people. Lately, however, I feel like nothing impresses me anymore, it either feels generic, or just "been there read that".

My favorites:

• Second Apocalypse by Scott Bakker

• Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe

• Hyperion by Dan Simmons

• Blindsight by Peter Watts

• Valis by Philip K Dick

• Diaspora by Greg Egan

• Dune by Frank Herbert

• Solyaris by Stanislam Lem

• 3 Body problem Trilogy by Liu Cixin

I would really love to get some recommendations from people who also read (and enjoyed) these books, since they are so unique I feel like only someone who read them will understand what I'm looking for.
I probably already read most of the recommendations I will be given, but maybe something new that I missed will come up!

Here are frequent recommendations that I actually did not like that much.

• Gormenghast - Sure the prose is great but prose for me is secondary and I didn't feel like there was anything else here.

• Ursula le Guin - I read a bunch, The Dispossessed was really great, the rest were okay+.

• China Mieville - I read perdido and the scar. Kind of like Gormenhast , in that they are very imaginative and well written but almost feel like Chat GPT was prompted for a string of events to form a plot, but no convincing emotional or philosophical punch behind them.

• Malazan - If I wanted to invest my time in reading history books I would just read real history books. I need more depth in characters personally.

No offense to anyone who likes these, I can definitely appreciate the works, just not what I am looking for.
Thanks in advance if you read this and suggest some recommendations.

He's arguably one of, if not the best science fiction writer/s. He also does absolutely fantastic fantasy as well. He's got a very dense style that can be difficult to get into, and his books are meant as rereads. Give them a try though, you won't regret it.

His work on The Book of the new sun tetralogy (cycle?) Is beyond inspiring. He creates a world which is something more than it seems at first description. Every seems both a lie and the truth at the same time, does the main character really reverse death or was the recipient really dead, or merely wounded? Plus the world building is magical, Urth a planet with a sun so close to death the stars are visible in the daytime sky. It's fantastic.

His fantasy works like The WizardKnight, and Latro in the Mist are beyond good as well. So if you're not down with sci fi a good Arthurian tale my be just what you need. Or a story of a Roman soldier who loses his memory after a head wound but gains the ability to see God's and mythical creatures.

Also the man invented the process to cook Pringles, so we owe him some respect regardless.

Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun was published in four parts, as , , , and . It tells the story of Severian, an apprentice of the torturers' guild, who undertakes a long and undulating journey through the bizarre lands of Urth. Totalling a little over 1000 pages, the books are written in the style of a memoir with a notoriously unreliable narration.

The story is about many things, but what I noticed most of all were compelling ideas about memory, truth, identity, and time. Right from the start, Severian claims to have a perfect memory, but does he really recall everything as they were? If not, is he lying to us? This is a sticking point for most readers, and, combined with some crazy warping of identity and time, makes for a marvellously disorienting and psychedelic experience.

The Book of the New Sun doesn't seem to be discussed much outside of a few enclaves of hardcore SF/F readers, probably due to its reputation of being dense, labyrinthine, and outright incomprehensible at times. Characters are often described as one-dimensional and bewildering, and the plot, when it can be followed, as one of many straightforward instances of the hero's journey. Fairly or otherwise, Wolfe has earned comparisons to Melville and Joyce.

There is truth in all that has been said, but my experience as someone who hasn't read any Gene Wolfe - or much SF/F, for that matter - has been overwhelmingly positive. I felt lost, enthralled, frustrated, and repulsed, often all at once. I was shocked to realise I'd finished the whole thing in two weeks.

These books are frequently described as literary puzzles; in order to make any sense of the story, one must presumably analyse every word in painstaking detail, cross-reference them with musty lexicons, and take copious notes, preferably on a Crazy Wall. This is a gross exaggeration. While Wolfe peppers his story with many, many archaic terms, the surface plot is easy to follow, and most events are eventually explained by Severian. The story as told by Severian is enjoyable on its own, but when you notice glaring inconsistencies and unspoken details, you start to pay closer attention and peer between the lines. Some books need to be re-read to be enjoyed, but this isn't one of them. If you re-read this, it's only because you already like it enough on the first time to dive in and discover all the nitty-gritty details you missed.

The prose itself is elegant but simple, and the archaic words lend their own distinctive charm. Many of them are taken straight from ancient Greek, and they say a lot about the Urth of Severian's era. I got the impression that none of the words are made up, and even the ones that don't appear in standard dictionaries have clear roots in the languages and mythologies of our own world. The is a valuable supplement with definitions for these obscure words, but it also contains spoilers, which may not be ideal on a first read; I found a simple Google search to suffice whenever I was desperate to look up a particular term.

I was hooked from the beginning by the unique setting. The lines between fantasy and sci-fi are blurry at best here, if they even exist. While this kind of science fantasy setting isn't uncommon, it's so seamless and authentic that it feels like a living, breathing world that we've been dropped into. The atmosphere is hauntingly beautiful, with lush and vivid scenery belying a sense of decay and finality. The series is sometimes compared to , not just in storytelling style, but also in terms of ambience and tone.

Perhaps more difficult for me than the archaic terminology and obtuse narration was Severian's misogyny. It's important to distinguish between the author and their characters, and I also know nothing about Wolfe's personal views in this matter. However, that doesn't make it easier to read about Severian's reprehensible thoughts and actions towards the women he encounters. I say this not to criticise, but to give any potential readers fair warning, because while the misogyny isn't very graphic, it rears its ugly head throughout all four parts of the story.

That aside, it's clear that Severian is a complex and layered character whose narration colours the entire story, and isn't necessarily a hero we should root for, insofar as there are heroes in this story. I found the other characters equally intriguing and even more enigmatic, and it's a real joy to puzzle out their backstories and motivations.

Some advice from a first-time reader of The Book of the New Sun to potential readers: don't worry about missing details. The story holds up really well even if you don't spot them all. Be patient, and most questions will be answered in time. It's easy to put down the book for a while and pick it up again, thanks to the short chapters. This series is divisive and isn't for everyone. Despite loving it, it has also been a somewhat exhausting experience. I highly recommend trying and finishing at least that; if you dislike it, it's safe to say you wouldn't enjoy the rest of The Book of the New Sun.

Whilst I take a break from Gene Wolfe, I plan to check out the and the , which I've had to force myself to stay away from in fear of spoilers. I haven't fallen down a rabbit hole this deep in a while.

Note: I've also posted brief, spoiler-free thoughts on this sub about , , and if you want to check them out.

Just curious, but I have seen an uptick of discussion about Gene Wolfe's works on places like for example. Warms my heart, I have nobody to discuss him in person, but at least there is a thriving community online.

I play planesxape torment, a couple rounds of Warhammer and some old school rpg games like Diablo and baldur’s gate. I can’t help but think that Wolfe wrote in the golden age of sci fi which influenced gaming culture in the 90s but do you think he played old school MUDs like Zork? He was an engineer and me being one I just know that if the man was my age he’d have a discord group.

Hello everyone! I am Marc Aramini, author of Between Light and Shadowand the upcoming (like next week) Beyond Time and Memory, critical works about Gene Wolfe. I also have a YouTube series on Gene Wolfe, which can be accessed here:

Please don’t watch any of those which you haven’t already read, as I go beyond spoilers (and I DO believe it is possible to spoil a first reading). Feel free to ask me any question about Wolfe or his works. If you can’t identify a Wolfe story but remember the plot, chances are I can name it for you. I have completed essays on everything he wrote, including every short story, thoughLand Acrossand Interlibrary Loanare not quite done.

Feel free to ask me questions about my twisty professional career (which included time working for a Spanish speaking circus, with a handstand act and all), my hobbies, my weight, how many one-handed pushups I can still do, my favorite sports, whatever. I promise to dodge less questions than Wolfe ever did!

If you want to ask my opinion on any Wolfe readings from another critical or analytical source, I am also happy to do so, with the understanding that any disagreements about interpretation are friendly and part of an ongoing dialogue. I have appeared on both Rereading Wolfeand the Gene Wolfe LiteraryPodcast and actually consider Craig, James, Glenn, and Brandon friends, so they know how I am. You can also find some of my essays on Ultan’s Library, and its curators, Nigel and Jonathan, have recently been releasing articles on Wolfe and Wolfe-adjacent material again.

I hope we can have some fun together as I check these throughout the day, and thanks for your time!

I, like many here, have come to appreciate Wolfe's incredible worldbuilding that sits in a league of its own. As an aspiring writer, I want to hear from people how it's possible and what are some steps that can be taken to craft worlds with such intricacy as Wolfe, and particularly with BOTNS.

I want to draw a distinction between pure worldbuilding and plot elements, such as foreshadowing, though Wolfe often accomplishes both at the same time. But I'm more thinking about his grasp of the world's history and cultures, which he seems to have such a complete understanding of that he knows where and how to omit details for the reader's own sense of discovery.

One thing I imagine is the way to go is to just start writing and let the world come out naturally from that, but I'm just wondering how someone like Wolfe goes about it, since his worlds feel entirely complete from the first page, which lends to a more complete and thorough story.

I posted a couple of weeks ago or so about starting Long Sun without reading New Sun and if I was missing any background. I had previously tried reading New Sun like five times and end up bouncing off it really hard each time. A commenter mentioned a person with two heads and I was so intrigued I decided to try New Sun again after I finished Nightside the Long Sun.

This time I tried reading it with the Podcast Alzabo soup and I cannot tell you what a difference it made! I would listen to a chapter and immediately listen to them break it down and explain it to me. I'm now fully onboard the hype train for this series and excited to start Claw of the Conciliator.

I guess I made this post to say if there are any Gene Wolfe fans that are struggling with reading his masterpiece then to try it with a podcast. Maybe everyone around here knows about it but is was new to me. I don't know if the creators are on the Reddit but I'm excited to see you finish the entire cycle and maybe try the Wizard Knight Next? I think I'm not smart enough to read Wolfe without your help😅

(In this post/essay I'm going to be saying some stuff about the Silmarillion that might be controversial, but please, in the spirit of open discussion among fellow Tolkien fans, don't take anything I end up suggesting as an attack on or even dislike of the Silmarillion.)

Part 1: A theory

When I read the Lord of the Rings (and certain other books), I’m struck by a certain feeling; a combination of the magical sense of the reality of the world and the feeling of tantalizing mystery that hidden details or connections within that world are just out of reach or even hiding in plain sight in the text. If this doesn’t make sense, I’ll give some examples of what I mean later.

I’m going to call the literary device that creates these feelings verisimilar (perspectivic) obfuscation. It’s a mouthful, yeah. But, to put it as simply as I can, it’s:

• a feeling of mystery to which answers lie just out of reach (obfuscation)

• that follows from having the narrator stick very close to the knowledge of relatively ignorant characters (perspectivic)

• which is both the result of and a cause of the narrative seemingly simulating an actual place with reality independent of the story (verisimilitude)

  • in which the characters are but small players among many others

  • and in which events operate “independently” of the story (i.e., not fully understood by the characters)

Verisimilar obfuscation leads to a reading experience of trying to unravel tantalizing mysteries by treating the world as real, by paying attention to seemingly insignificant details or by relying on background knowledge learned so far. The reader must work. For this detective work the writer often provides a number of clues, sometimes very explicitly.

An example of versimilar obfuscation

To give an example. When Frodo and Aragorn see light flashing in the distance and neither they nor we know what is happening. The first clue is given when we see Weathertop and it is blasted by fire. Especially for people who have read the Hobbit this might be a telling clue. Then Aragorn proposes that Gandalf was there. Later in Rivendell Gandalf confirms that the flashes were his battle with the Ringwraiths. An omniscient narrator could have told us “they saw light flashing in the distance, and they did not yet know that this was the power of Gandalf striving against the Black Riders”. Even in the fiction of the Red Book of Westmarch Frodo could have written this. But this information was obfuscated from us by sticking to the perspective of Frodo and Aragorn’s knowledge, and this gives a feeling of verisimilitude. The story is a description of real events that can remain unknown -- it’s not a constructed story that bends over backwards to keep you, the reader, in the loop. You must WORK for it.

Obfuscation and irony

This can lead to some really fascinating reading experiences. It can lead to “dramatic irony” (although I’m not sure the term fully applies here), where we as readers understand something or see a connection that is (initially) hidden from the characters themselves. To give an example. When Pippin looks into the Palantír, he and Gandalf are immediately beset by a Nazgûl. Gandalf says this Nazgûl was sent to check on Saruman, but that Sauron will indeed be sending another one immediately now that he has spoken with Pippin, and they run off on Shadowfax. Later in the novel, when Frodo and Sam are approaching the Black Gate over the Battle Plain, one Nazgûl, and several hours another with incredible speed fly over. Gollum is terrified that they have been seen. But we as readers (perhaps on a reread) go “aha! Those are the Nazgûl sent to Saruman and to seize Pippin.” And indeed a glance at the timeline shows that these events happen at the same time. We weren’t told this; it was obfuscated by sticking to the perspective of Frodo, Sam, and Gollum, who know nothing of what is going on in Rohan, giving a feeling of verisimilitude - all these developments are happening simultaneously, independent of each other and independent of an artificial “story structure”.

But we, as readers, are in a position to ascend above the characters to which our perspective is bound because we are offered other perspectives as well. We can figure out that these are the Nazgûl spoken of by Gandalf. This is a reading experience I greatly enjoy (it is used a lot and delightfully in A Song of Ice and Fire as well, which makes great use of its many different close third person perspectives to create this effect).

There’s also examples of verisimilar obfuscation that we quite literally can’t know on an initial reading and that only later information (or a straight up reveal) can explain. This does not lead to any kind of dramatic irony unless you are a genius, or you are rereading. For example, Frodo’s experience on Amon Hen, when the will of Sauron and the Ring strive to have him reveal himself and another will comes out of nowhere, calls him a fool and tells him to take the Ring off. On an initial read, we have no idea who or what this is. I think the use of the word “fool” is a very subtle hint, however. It is only much later that Gandalf tells Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli, that he “strove with the Dark Tower” in about that timeframe, which is still not immediately connected to Frodo’s experience. Then it is straight up explained by the narrator when Frodo and Sam go to the Black Gate, telling us “[Gandalf's] thought was ever upon Frodo and Samwise, over the long leagues his mind sought for them in hope and pity. Maybe Frodo felt it, not knowing it, as he had upon Amon Hen, even though he believed that Gandalf was gone, gone for ever…”

Another example of such obfuscation with what I would call reverse dramatic irony is the confrontation with the Mouth of Sauron, when we, on an initial reading, are confronted with undeniable evidence that Frodo has been captured by the forces of Sauron. We know he has been captured (because that is how the Two Towers ends), but this seemingly suggests that Sam was also captured and indeed there has been no escape and that Sauron has the Ring. It is only our experience with stories in the background that goes “that can’t be true, can it?” But, of course, this is the result of versimilar obfuscation by sticking to the perspectives of the captains of the west. Except Gandalf! Close observation of Gandalf in this scene shows us that Gandalf is not so sure: when he asks that Frodo be delivered to them, he is entirely focused on the Mouth of Sauron, and the Mouth of Sauron seems to be confused for a sliver of a moment. Then Gandalf more or less tells him to piss off. All others, including Pippin, to whom the perspective shifts, think that this is where they will bravely die in one last defiance against the victory of the Dark Lord. Of course, later we learn that Frodo and Sam have escaped. Gandalf’s behaviour however was already a hint towards the reality of the situation: he realized Frodo was not in captivity by how the Mouth of Sauron reacted when he demanded Frodo be brought forth.

More examples can be thought of. Denethor turning out to have a Palantír, the mysterious hunters in black clothing being the wraiths of legend, Saruman having spies and connections in the Shire… Sauron’s entire refusal to appear in the story is an example of this as well. He wouldn’t, so we never see him.

Part 2: Verisimilar obfuscation and “lore”

Now, I don’t like the word “lore” as it is used in internet (video game) discourse today. But it is a very fitting (and short) word for what I want to discuss now; let’s take “lore” as the “body of knowledge and stories about a specific setting.” The “lore” of a setting is simply the information of the metaphysics and historical events of a setting. For example, the existence of Ainur, the distinction between Maiar and Valar, the story of Túrin; these facts are all part of the “lore”.

I’m going to say something weird now. The Lord of the Rings is, despite its many songs, names, places, histories, a pretty lore-averse novel. By which I mean: vast swathes of its “lore” are completely unexplained. The word “Maia” is not mentioned once. The “Valar” are mentioned only three times outside of the Appendices. “Morgoth” is a mysterious name mentioned by Legolas once in relation to the Balrog. The Balrog itself is a bizarre occurrence. The Noldor are named exactly once, in relation to the Palantíri. Eru is not named. We don’t know why Sauron is evil; we don’t understand Sauron’s motivations.

Why does the Lord of the Rings, a book so steeped in secondary-world history and “lore”, not tell us that Sauron and Gandalf are Maiar, what exactly the Ring was made for and why Sauron took that decision, why Sauron became such a destructive force, who has the Three Rings, how Númenor came to fall, that the Valar are (probably) responsible for sending dreams to Faramir, for sending favourable winds during the Battle of the Pelennor fields, et cetera?

It does so because it is practicing verisimilar perspectivic obfuscation on a setting-wide level. We don’t know those things because the characters don’t know them, except Gandalf, who wisely shuts up. People used to ask “recommend me a book like Dark Souls”; meaning all sorts of things, but also meaning the mysterious and vague nature in which information critical to the setting is revealed piecemeal and ambiguously. That book is the Lord of the Rings.

The central experience of the “lore” of Middle-Earth while reading the Lord of the Rings is one of not knowing.

Part 3: Pay no attention to the Megatherian behind the curtain

There’s a book I’m gonna recommend to all of you. It’s called “The Book of the New Sun”. It’s a fantasy/science fiction novel written by Gene Wolfe. It’s very good, and like Tolkien’s work, infused with Catholic themes. It is a very bizarre and demanding novel, with a lot of layers, literary allusions, and hidden meanings. On a surface level and initial reading, it appears to be a picaresque adventure novel in which a young man rolls from one bizarre non-sequitur adventure into the next. But if you pay attention, you will pick up… Loomings. Hints. Details that suggest that something else entirely is going on. That the events of this novel aren’t a coming-of-age adventure at all, but something of far, far deeper significance and with much higher stakes.

The Book of the New Sun is an extreme example of verisimilar perspectivic obfuscation. Not only does it stick tightly to the (first person) perspective of its main character, this character also claims to have perfect memory, but may be lying. What is beyond question however is that he himself does not even understand what is going on. Information that is absolutely critical to figuring out the “true” or “larger” narrative of The Book of the New Sun is offered as throwaway unimportant detail by the narrator, because he himself does not understand its significance.

The obfuscation of The Book of the New Sun is such that it at first it actually doesn’t lend verisimilitude. The world seems absurd, haphazard. But on rereads you understand that what The Book of the New Sun does is similar to what LotR does when it never shows Sauron.

(I’m now going to make a comparison between The Book of the New Sun and an imaginary version of the Lord of the Rings to illustrate what The Book of the New Sun does. However, this comparison in itself might already be a SPOILER. Please, if you are interested in this book after what I wrote on it, DO NOT click on this spoiler tag and just go and read the book.) Now imagine that Frodo was manipulated by a less moral Gandalf into his quest, who never explained to him what the Ring was, who Sauron was, or how they related to each other. Frodo would be absorbed in trivialities and misunderstandings. Critical events would appear as coincidences. Sauron might be mentioned as a bare fact of the world, intriguing background information but not relevant at the moment (like the Necromancer in the Hobbit!). And then to you, dear reader, the task of figuring out what is going on and what this book is about.

The Book of the New Sun is an extreme example compared to LOTR, but only by degree, not quality. Both obfuscate events and “lore” based on the perspective of characters for versimilitude and other literary effects. The Book of the New Sun has a dedicated fandom that to this day are figuring out answers to mysteries and creating endless new theories and interpretations.

But here’s the kicker.

The Book of the New Sun has no Silmarillion.

There’s no posthumous edited collection of a book that reveals all the obfuscated “lore”, that explains to us exactly how this structure got built, where this strange character came from, what the motivations are of background figures, what events certain texts or songs refer to.

Now, I think The Book of the New Sun is vastly improved by its lack of “Silmarillion”. The mystery of its obfuscation is so central to the work, it allows for so many rereads and theories and new discoveries, that any “Silmarillion” would turn this masterpiece of ambiguity, mystery, and shifting meanings into a misrepresentation of a list of bare facts. I truly believe that the availability of such an explanatory and expanding volume to The Book of the New Sun would diminish the novel.

And now we get to a difficult, potentially provocative point. Is the same true for the Lord of the Rings? One the one hand, I adore the Silmarillion and the History of Middle-Earth; I can’t get enough of Middle-Earth and I wish there was more. But on the other hand, given how reliant Lord of the Rings is, stylistically, on perspectivic obfuscation -- does the Silmarillion, in some sense, rob us of the more rewarding (though maddening) not knowing, theorycrafting, clue-teasing, et cetera? Of course, we still do this (see this subreddit), but the questions that must have been, pre-Silmarillion, tantalizing, like “what is Gandalf” and “what is Sauron” are answered beyond any doubt. With the Silmarillion available, has reading the Lord of the Rings become similar to playing a demanding puzzle game with the walkthrough right there on your desk?

This point is not meant to be an attack on the Silmarillion or the work of Christopher Tolkien. Please do not take it as such; I'm just interested in a discussion on the literary qualities and techniques of the Lord of the Rings, and how this relates to posthumous publications.

This is also not the argument that the Silmarillion robs the Lord of the Rings of “the illusion of depth”, which Christopher Tolkien addresses in the introduction to the Silmarillion (or was it the History of Middle Earth) by saying that the depth of the setting is real depth, and remains so even when you see it fully. I agree with that entirely. But disregarding depth and taking the perspective of this versimilar perspectivic obfuscation (on the level of “lore”, that is, not plot -- in other words, the mysteries you can’t conclusively solve within the same book), the enjoyment one gets from reading is tied up not with suggested depth but with tantalizing mystery. And this the Silmarillion most definitely takes away at least in part. Doesn't this in some sense undermine the central experience of not knowing when it comes to Middle-Earth "lore" in The Lord of the Rings?

This is not to say that I’m sad the Silmarillion exists; it is one of my favourite books. However, I do feel somewhat sad that I never experienced the early fandom before its publication; the experience of reading these books knowing that there were no easy answers, the urge to theorize and understand and discuss. As such, I think that people new to Tolkien might profit from leaving the Silmarillion unread for a while, CERTAINLY while still reading the Lord of the Rings. Because not knowing, deducing, connecting, inferring -- these are central aspects of reading the Lord of the Rings, and if you run to TolkienGateway every second to see what the Silmarillion had to say about Gondolin for example, you are missing a massive part of the reading experience.

That’s on the level of “lore” or background/metaphysical information. On the level of plot, the same goes for movie adaptations. Really deft feats of obfuscation and irony - such as the confrontation with the Mouth of Sauron - don’t work if you have seen the Jackson films before.

Part 4: Conclusion

Moving on from all the stuff on the Silmarillion I might get flak for, let’s return to the stylistic device of verisimilar obfuscation. Knowing that Tolkien had a lot of information about things left vaguely in the background, or on the connection between different storylines in the Lord of the Rings, his dedication to versimilar obfuscation shows a remarkable restraint and a remarkable empathic ability. The resulting narrative is truly a joy to read. The versimilitude created by this device is truly engrossing, almost magical, as if you see a wax doll come alive before you eyes. The detective-work it engenders is also a joy to engage in. Even when you’ve read these books multiple times, I still find new things that had previously been hidden from me - this reread it was the connection between the Nazgûl at Isengard and those seen by Frodo and Sam.

To end with a question. Does anyone know if there is already an existing term within literary criticism to describe this technique? And can anyone recommend any good books that use it?