(urth) Ending of The Knight

[Alan Lewis]

>The Wizard Knight series?  I consider this a single novel that is meant to
>be read that way. In a couple years it will no doubt be offered that way.
>Unlike the Latro books, I don't consider it a "series". Does anyone
>disagree with that? Does anyone think the books were intended to be
>ultimately read as self-standing novels?

Now that I have finally caught up, I can contribute to TWK discussion.  I 
take exception to the terms posed in this question.  Since Knight and Wizard 
the books in the same series, by no means should we expect them to read like 
self-standing novels.  If they were, then I would argue they are not so much 
books in a series, but books set in the same book-world, like Long Sun/Short 
Sun are.

Of course length of material inevitably has a part to play in this.  No 
doubt once Wolfe realized his story was going to take at least x many words, 
he would have realized he was probably looking to two books for all intents 
and purposes.  But I would argue he then wrote them that way, that there are 
fundamental differences between the two books.  For one thing, Able 
pre-Skai, and Able post-Skai are different characters.  In the first book he 
is the true neophyte, a complete outsider; in the second book he is (as 
essentially an Overcyn) the ultimate insider, a pro.  In Arthurian terms, in 
the first book he is Parsifal, and in the 2nd he is alternatively 
Lancelot/Arthur.  In each book he complains at different times that he's 
"just a kid."  In the first book we believe this is true, even though the 
other characters treat these statements as ironic self-reflection -- when he 
complains so in the Wizard, I think we take those statements the same way, 
and aren't buying him as a kid anymore.

Also the narrative structure is different in Wizard, with considerable 
narrative occurring outside his POV.

So I agree with GW on this one, even though it seems like I have little to 
no company.

Alan