[Mediterraneo10]

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.

[root_axis]

> 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]

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]

> 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]

> 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.

[th0br0]

> 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

This argument is at odds with the core idea of feminism of equality between genders. You are insinuating that a female reader would not be equipped to judge herself the "male fan's" comment.

[root_axis]

"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."

You say you didn't suggest it at all, but those words read to me like a subtle accusation of sexism by the author. Use of the term "oddly bent" as if to suggest there is no literary meaning behind the character's behavior and that it is perhaps better explained as a manifestation of the author's own sexist viewpoints projected onto his characters. Additionally the follow up of "that says something about the author" seems to suggest that "the thing being said" is a reflection of the author's personal views on women.

> 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.

Like I said, I am willing to discuss specifics about the story and I'm open to the idea that there might be a flaw in my reasoning, but I am not willing to concede the argument that the book is "problematic" or of diminished literary merit based solely on the idea that it makes some people feel uncomfortable.

> For a man to tell a woman that her discomfort with a book is based on her supposed misunderstanding of it

I would not attempt to argue the rationale that underpins an individual's discomfort; nobody needs to justify their own discomfort, but they do need to justify why their own discomfort translates into substantive criticism of artistic merit (in the context of a literary discussion).

> If it 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.

I want to emphasize again that I don't think "denying an experience" is necessary for a discussion, but frankly I think the outcome you describe would be worse. I know some people would disagree, but it seems intellectually insulting to presume that it is better to hold one's tongue rather than engage with a woman who has expressed criticism of literary work (of course, within the appropriate context; forcing a woman into a discussion she doesn't want to have is certainly wrong). This, in my view, would be a kind of "reverse mansplaining" and smacks of sexist undertones that suggest a woman is beneath explanation and is better served by having men defer to her emotions. I know you aren't suggesting that, my intention is only to point out how that outcome could be perceived.

> 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 misogynis

I have seen both perspectives expressed from both sexes and while I have read plenty of thoughtful Wolfe criticism, in my experience, the most aggressive brand of criticism always comes from men. It's true that I don't often find women having it out in a debate about Wolfe's misogyny, but I think this is more a consequence of the relative dearth of women in online sci-fi and fantasy (a problem that is thankfully changing with modern ideas around inclusiveness in sci-fi and fantasy) discussions rather than a statement about Wolfe's misogyny.

> lolita represents a dark element in Nabokov’s own psyche is frequently argued in scholarship

True, but a discussion of a "dark element" within Nabokov's psyche is different from suggesting that the work is flawed because the author was driven by a desire to write pedophile smut.

[emptysongglass]

This argument appears disingenuous if you have read any of Wolfe's other works. We must beware turning our beloved people into anything other than who they are, from the fictional to their human authors.

I cannot say I would have become quite the person I am today without Severian or Silk. Some part of them, like Severian's great love Thecla, lives in me always. All this in spite of Wolfe's prurient obsessions, which we do all of us a disservice by explaining away.

Not just sometime after but directly after the writing of New Sun Wolfe flings himself into abandon with such relentlessly hyper-sexualized and objectified characters as Chenille, nicknamed "Jugs" by her lover Awk, who flings off her clothes once taken possession of. This is never explained and appears to be a fan service that wouldn't be out of place in a teen anime. Silk's own inamorata, Hyacinth, herself a sex worker, becomes the star of one of Wolfe's most clever dick jokes [1].

This does not cease for all, or nearly all, of Wolfe's corpus. The naked nymphettes with bodies like boys' of his The Wizard-Knight is all too problematic; the vamp-babe Jahi of the Short Sun, the house of prostitution in Cerberus, I could go on and on until I reached his very last piece of writing.

There is nothing wrong with writing or talking about sex. It is so nuclear to ourselves and its repression leads to much worse than hauling it into the light. I myself will soon be married to a woman who works the trade Wolfe just can't seem to let go. The issue is in his treatment of women as mere devices to be ridden or otherwise used, or as paper paragons who indulge in themselves without explanation.

I find this a great shame marring a writer who I unabashedly declare to be my favorite author of all time. Wolfe was a devout Catholic and his treatment of the spiritual is so sublime it may have been what first struck the thirst in me that led me to so many monasteries.

I am terribly sad no one succeeded in convincing Wolfe of his error, it would have brought in many more female readers who might have also shared in the many selves of Severian.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/genewolfe/comments/8s8pq0/this_sums...

[root_axis]

I don't think hypersexualized characters in and of themselves are necessarily problematic. I'd also point out that Long Sun and Short Sun feature other deeply complex female characters that are critical to the story and are not hypersexualized such as Mucor, Mint, Marble, Rose, Saba, Syuif (and Trivigaunte's matriarchal society which has a gigantic impact on the entire story from Dr. Crane to the Airship). None of those characters could be accurately described as "mere devices to be ridden or otherwise used"

> hyper-sexualized and objectified characters as Chenille, nicknamed "Jugs" by her lover Awk

Awk is a poor, uneducated, petty criminal and thug; he is a somewhat sympathetic character, but clearly meant to be deeply flawed and his ultimate fate (the one revealed in Short Sun) is quite horrifying. Even still, Chenille and Auk are in a consensual sexual relationship, the fact that he has a sexualized nickname for her doesn't seem like a problem to me from a literary perspective.

> who flings off her clothes once taken possession of. This is never explained and appears to be a fan service that wouldn't be out of place in a teen anime

I don't remember an explicit explanation for why she takes off her clothes when possessed (though, that is how Scylla is typically depicted in mythology, do a google image search for Scylla) but her nudity is entirely non-sexual and the men on the boat regard her with absolute respect, fear, and deference without a hint of sexuality; her nudity wasn't "fan service" it was simply nudity.

> the vamp-babe Jahi

What's wrong with her? She is one of the scariest characters in Wolfe's lore and her sexuality is almost an afterthought compared to everything else that goes on with her. She most certainly doesn't qualify as "mere devices to be ridden or otherwise used".

> the house of prostitution in Cerberus

So what? Prostitution is a theme that exists in many stories by many authors. I don't think just listing off sexuality in writing makes a compelling case.

> Hyacinth, herself a sex worker, becomes the star of one of Wolfe's most clever dick jokes

Personally, I don't think it's that clever, nor is it a dick joke. That poster goes to great length to make a big deal out of what can be summarized by the final line: "As part of her advances, she tells him she could teach him where to put the round jewel of the azoth's pommel". Anyone can understand the innuendo there without knowing anything about the source text.

I don't think anyone is wrong for being uncomfortable with repeated use of sexuality in writing, but I am yet to be convinced by claims that reoccurring sexual themes means the author is sexist.

[muckrakerz]

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.