Christopher Buza asked Christopher Paolini:

I'm really interested in reading Gene Wolfe's work. I've heard people call his prose beautiful, but I've also heard the words "archaic" and "sexist" thrown around. I read your review of "Shadow and Claw," which is where I aim to start, and I was wondering what your take on these critiques is. Nonsense? Unfortunate reality? (I'm a Lovecraft fan, so I'm experienced with having to look past problematic author traits.)

Christopher Paolini ‘Archaic' isn’t a problem for me when it comes to fantasy. The genre is inherently conservative, so a certain amount of archaism is to be expected. As for ‘sexist’ . . . I’d say Lovecraft is probably more obviously offensive in that regard (he’s many things as a writer, but subtle ain’t one of them). Wolfe is primarily concerned with the use of language and with unreliable narrators. As a result, he gives short shrift to all characters outside his narrator, including of course, the women. Honestly, I haven’t read enough of his work to be able to give you a definitive answer. In fact, I feel as if I don’t entirely understand "The Book of the New Sun." It’s a densely wrought, enormously complicated hall of mirrors, and I’m still trying to decide how much to trust the main character. So . . . yeah. If you like puzzles, go for it (the language is awesome). Just realize most of the female characters aren’t going to have a whole lot of agency. But then, few people do in Wolfe’s world. For comparison, I would highly recommend "The Worm Ouroboros," by Eddison.

flag