![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cimoreneI mentioned yesterday having just finished Gene Wolfe's 1987 fantasy classic, Soldier of the Mist, and the epithets and place names in it that I had trouble identifying. Last night I found this great article, which essentially solved the issue, providing the reasons for all the most significant place names:
Place Names in Gene Wolfe’s Soldier of the Mist, by Scott Wowra – Ultan's Library
Ironically, it was my curiosity about the last couple of bookmarked epithets I was trying to track down after this article (for the record, "Island of Liars", which is Crete, although I didn't find out why, and Horseland, which is Thessaly) that made me follow the author's top two linked sources to another article, Some Greek Themes in Gene Wolfe’s Latro novels by Jeremy Crampton, which opens with a fascinating discussion of Wolfe's reputation as a more difficult, sophisticated, or highbrow author:
Ironically, I say, because another ten or fifteen minutes with Google and Wikipedia after skimming through the parts of this article that didn't look spoilery, I finished defining all the references in the text I hadn't understood. Obviously, this doesn't dispute that you have to know "something about the Classical world"; it's one of my past monomanias (Edith Hamilton's Mythology, aged 11-14ish), but it's still a childhood monomania. I've never finished another book on Greek myth or history as long as the Hamilton, and most of the times my adult interest has intersected the field was from random Wikipedia spirals.
I've certainly never read Herodotus or Homer, and the point is, you don't have to read primary sources to have a good idea of the history they cover! To be an expert, yes, but to know the history? No! A pretty good idea of the world in question is what you need: to know what to look up and how to find it.
And the world is so different now! It's so much easier to fill in the gaps and find synopses and quick definitions by highlighting and websearching a word or phrase in the book you're reading; obviously, nothing like I've done would've been possible in the late 1980s.
BUT... if I had finished the book without Google/Wikipedia and just left with a list of epithets with question marks beside them, I could still have found them at a university reference library (possibly not without a reference librarian's assistance, but that's what they're for).
And if I hadn't looked them up, I wouldn't have learned as many new place names and extra tidbits about history, but I wouldn't have been failing to comprehend the story in any significant way... so ultimately, I really think this claim is rather overblown. (And it's said as the lead-in to the writer's conclusion that Wolfe is NOT just for readers with expert knowledge, but rather can be enjoyed on multiple levels. But that's after you already asserted that Herodotus was a minimum requirement.)
Place Names in Gene Wolfe’s Soldier of the Mist, by Scott Wowra – Ultan's Library
“Hundred Eyed,” “Redface Island,” — Gene Wolfe’s (1986) Soldier of the Mist is awash with charming place names that evoke wonder and puzzlement. This essay uses the lens of toponymy, the formal study of place names, to explores how the protagonist Latro generates these intriguing and idiosyncratic labels.
Ironically, it was my curiosity about the last couple of bookmarked epithets I was trying to track down after this article (for the record, "Island of Liars", which is Crete, although I didn't find out why, and Horseland, which is Thessaly) that made me follow the author's top two linked sources to another article, Some Greek Themes in Gene Wolfe’s Latro novels by Jeremy Crampton, which opens with a fascinating discussion of Wolfe's reputation as a more difficult, sophisticated, or highbrow author:
When it came to The Book of the New Sun most readers were on the same starting line, and how far you delved into the book was largely an extent of your liking for the author and your own proclivities. With the Latro books, it is no longer so. Accusations, or at least warnings, have gone out (with justification), that if you want to go beyond the surface of these books, you have to know something about the Classical world.7 Herodotus seems to be a minimum requirement, particularly for Soldier of the Mist (hereafter Mist). It can be supplemented by modern commentaries on the Persian wars, cults and religion, Pindar’s Odes, Robert Graves on myths and legends...
Ironically, I say, because another ten or fifteen minutes with Google and Wikipedia after skimming through the parts of this article that didn't look spoilery, I finished defining all the references in the text I hadn't understood. Obviously, this doesn't dispute that you have to know "something about the Classical world"; it's one of my past monomanias (Edith Hamilton's Mythology, aged 11-14ish), but it's still a childhood monomania. I've never finished another book on Greek myth or history as long as the Hamilton, and most of the times my adult interest has intersected the field was from random Wikipedia spirals.
I've certainly never read Herodotus or Homer, and the point is, you don't have to read primary sources to have a good idea of the history they cover! To be an expert, yes, but to know the history? No! A pretty good idea of the world in question is what you need: to know what to look up and how to find it.
And the world is so different now! It's so much easier to fill in the gaps and find synopses and quick definitions by highlighting and websearching a word or phrase in the book you're reading; obviously, nothing like I've done would've been possible in the late 1980s.
BUT... if I had finished the book without Google/Wikipedia and just left with a list of epithets with question marks beside them, I could still have found them at a university reference library (possibly not without a reference librarian's assistance, but that's what they're for).
And if I hadn't looked them up, I wouldn't have learned as many new place names and extra tidbits about history, but I wouldn't have been failing to comprehend the story in any significant way... so ultimately, I really think this claim is rather overblown. (And it's said as the lead-in to the writer's conclusion that Wolfe is NOT just for readers with expert knowledge, but rather can be enjoyed on multiple levels. But that's after you already asserted that Herodotus was a minimum requirement.)
