{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/sflovers/95", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "sflovers", "thread": { "id": 95, "subject": "Gene Wolfe (Was: Re: Mercedes Lackey)", "messages": 11, "voices": 9, "first": "1992-03-27T17:20:18+00:00", "last": "1992-04-04T02:35:52+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Doug Merritt", "address": "doug at netcom.com" }, "date": "1992-03-27T17:20:18+00:00", "subject": "Re: Gene Wolfe (Was: Re: Mercedes Lackey)", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "science fiction and fantasy. Oh, for a few score more Gene Wolfes!]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Someone actually wants _more_ Gene Wolfes?!? What a painful thought!\nReading his Torturer stuff was one of the most painful things I've ever\ndone. There was no point, very little plot, and way too much\nforeshadowing." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It's true that there wasn't a lot of plot by usual standards, and at first\nI found this disappointing, too. But as I went on I discovered that the\n\"miscellaneous random background elements\" (I'm quoting what I might have\ncalled them after 30 pages of the first book) were actually the whole\npoint.\n\nIt's a mood piece, it's about the psychology of a very odd man, by way of\ncontrast it's about the psychology of the common man, it's a thoughtful\nwork about ethics and mores (a torturer as hero??? Even Donaldson used an\nanti-hero for what little point he had to make in book 1), and there are a\nlot of parts that are brilliantly written in terms of style and visual\nevocativeness. It's also interesting in an exotic-world tour guide sense,\nbut that's more minor, although again very well done in spots. And last but\nnot least, vast pieces of it add up to a dark but moderately ineffable\ncomment about the last days of the world.\n\nThere were also some spots where I found it a bit slow paced even so, but\ngiven the rest, I decided that he was probably doing that on purpose in\norder to maintain the rhythm and pace (they were noticeably regular) in\nprecisely the intended way.\n\nNow, if you're in the mood for bang-'em-up adventure (which I sometimes am,\nI don't mean that as a flame), then this is going to be a dreary and dull\nset of books.\n\nIf you take them on their own merits, you can discover that Wolfe has\ncreated something so different that it's pretty much in a class by itself.\nIt's not quite like anything ever done before.\n\nAnd whether you happen to like it or not, that deserves high praise.\n\n(Some people liked Urth of the New Sun best, but I thought he fell apart on\nthat one, sort of throwing in all the exciting adventure and answers to\nunanswerable questions that he'd left out of the early ones. I don't mind\nsuch things if they're done well, or sometimes if they're the whole point,\nbut they seemed weak by comparison with his previous approach.)\n\nThis is not to say I want to see people imitate this series. I probably\nwouldn't like the results. I'm sure I wouldn't have liked the original\nseries if anyone but Wolfe had done it. It wasn't what he did, but *how* he\ndid it that was great.\n\nIt *is* possible to say, \"He did a great job at doing it, but that sort of\nthing just isn't to my tastes,\" you know. Saying that it's \"dreck\" just\nexposes that you don't pay attention to those aspects of books that you\ndon't personally care for no matter how well done they may be, surely the\nvery definition of provincialism.\n\nOr to be more charitable, I could assume you're simply taking a\nHumpty-Dumpty stance in meaning \"dreck\" to say \"I *really* didn't like it.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It was a collection of images which went from unusual to completely\nwhacked-out. Why anyone would seek out more of this dreck is completely\nbeyond me." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "As usual it's important to separate personal taste from questions of\ncraftsmanship. I can see why a lot of people wouldn't care for it, but that\ndoesn't mean that it's \"dreck\". (Yiddish for \"shit\", btw... it's a rather\nharsh put-down).\n\nDoug Merritt" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Mike Rogers", "address": "mike at maths.tcd.ie" }, "date": "1992-03-27T19:48:23+00:00", "subject": "Re: Gene Wolfe (Was: Re: Mercedes Lackey)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "gac2 at midway.uchicago.edu wrote:\nSomeone actually wants _more_ Gene Wolfes?!? What a painful thought!\nReading his Torturer stuff was one of the most painful things I've ever\ndone. There was no point, very little plot, and way too much\nforeshadowing. It was a collection of images which went from unusual to\ncompletely whacked-out. Why anyone would seek out more of this dreck is\ncompletely beyond me." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think that the first line being \"it is possible that I already had some\npresentiment of my future\" is a dead giveaway as regards foreshadowing.\n\nFor me, the series didn't really gel until I'd read The Urth of the New\nSun. Sure, once I finished TBotNS I knew I'd read *something* special, but\nI am such an inattentive reader that I'd have had to reread them a couple\nof times to pick up on the self-referential bits. But TUoftNS just *blew*\nme away. That solar sail! Wow!\n\nWhatever turns you on.\n\nMike Rogers\nBox 6, Regent Hse\nTCD,EIRE\nmike at maths.tcd.ie" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "K R Maxson", "address": "maxson at cerl.uiuc.edu" }, "date": "1992-03-27T19:58:07+00:00", "subject": "Re: Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "gac2 at ellis.uchicago.edu (Geoffrey A. Coulter) writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Someone actually wants _more_ Gene Wolfes?!? What a painful thought!\nReading his Torturer stuff was one of the most painful things I've ever\ndone. There was no point, very little plot, and way too much\nforeshadowing. It was a collection of images which went from unusual to\ncompletely whacked-out. Why anyone would seek out more of this dreck is\ncompletely beyond me." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Gene Wolfe is perhaps the best science fiction / fantasy author writing\ntoday. Although I enjoyed his Torturer series, I do not think it showcases\nhis talents as well as There Are Doors, The Death of Doctor Island, or many\nof the short stories reprinted in Endangered Species.\n\nThere are several things about Wolfe's writing that makes me enjoy it a lot\nmore than Lackey's.\n\nThere is no kitsch or melodrama in Wolfe's prose. His writing is spare,\nconcise, and it grabs you with the ideas it presents rather than trying to\nenmesh you in purple language. There is no color for the sake of color, no\npassages of filler description in sad and misguided emulation of JRRT or\nPeake.\n\nWolfe does not explain, as a narrator, how each of his characters are\nfeeling at any given moment, and why they feel that way, and then explain\nto the reader how just and correct those feelings are and that if you don't\nempathize with them you are a shallow, callous, and uneducated reader.\nRather, he sketches a genuine picture and allows his readers to explore it\nfor themselves, trusting that their intelligence and humanity will allow\nthem to interpret it.\n\nWolfe's writing is fabular; it resonates with culturally rich images, and\naddresses aspects of life that are, I hope, important to the vast majority\nof thinking beings. He does not generally write adventure stories,\nalthough there is adventure in them; he does not write with the goal of\napplying some personal moral perception to your forehead with a\nsledgehammer, as SOME authors do; his stories attempt to share strange and\nalmost indescribable personal discoveries about life, to speak about things\nthat are difficult if not impossible to describe with the overly concrete\nsymbols of language, things that must be explored at a higher level of\nabstraction.\n\nNot only that, but his stories are a lot of fun. Gripping and suspensful\nin a way that \"evil invasions by evil guys from way up north\" just never\nturn out to be. Wolfe writes from a history and context that is, by and\nlarge, REAL, and hence his stories are vastly more engaging, moving, and\nmeaningful than stories that are based in a cartoonish fantasyworld.\n\nWolfe has written several books that could keep good company with something\nlike The Crying of Lot 49 or Magnetic Field(s). I know he is not terribly\npopular - despite making a bid for mainstream sf/f audiences with his\nTorturer series - and that is really unfortunate. I think that most of his\nbooks should be sold as fiction although there isn't that great a market\nfor good fiction these days, either.\n\nOh, well.\n\nJust to address more specifically what was said about the Torturer series:\nno point, little plot, too much forshadowing. Now, I cannot deny that you\nmay have seen no point and little plot. Presumably, you could see a point\nto the Herald-Mage books? The Torturer series is about a quest for\nrebirth, a search through decay for life. I suppose since it isn't about\nbad guys from up north, some people might have a hard time figuring out\nthat there is, in fact, a plot. I guess it might be difficult for certain\npeople to recognize a plot in The Bear, or The Baron in the Trees, or\nAnthills of the Savanna.\n\nI know Gene Wolfe doesn't appeal to a lot of people because he is not easy\nto understand; he doesn't hold his readers by the hand, and forces them to\nactually think for themselves. Some people think this is a weakness - you\ncan acid-test them by asking them if they liked Lem's The Investigation.\nAnd I agree that there are boundaries which some writers wander across,\nafter which they are more engaged in literary masturbation than in\nmeaningful communication (Gravity's Rainbow comes to mind, although a lot\nof people disagree with me). But I haven't read a story by Wolfe yet that\ncame close to that boundary just as I haven't read a story by Mercedes\nLackey that wasn't careful to tell you exactly what your reaction should be\nto everything that she was writing." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "David Eppstein", "address": "eppstein at wormwood.ics.uci.edu" }, "date": "1992-03-27T21:41:01+00:00", "subject": "Re: Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "maxson at cerl.uiuc.edu (K R Maxson) writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Not only that, but his stories are a lot of fun. Gripping and suspensful\nin a way that \"evil invasions by evil guys from way up north\" just never\nturn out to be. [...] Just to address more specifically what was said\nabout the Torturer series: Now, I cannot deny that you may have seen\nlittle plot." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I have seen this assertion several times now, and I am tired of letting it\npass. There is enormous quantities of plot in the Torturer series.\nIncluding \"boy from nowhere grows up to be emperor\", \"evil invasion from up\nnorth\", and various other standard subplots. You just don't notice it\nbecause there's so much else going on. Like the claim of no foreshadowing,\nthe supposed lack of plot is easily refuted. Those people not liking Wolfe\nmust be doing so for some other reason than the reasons they are claiming.\n\nDavid Eppstein\nInfo & Computer Science \nUC Irvine" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Geoffrey A. Coulter", "address": "gac2 at ellis.uchicago.edu" }, "date": "1992-03-29T02:28:29+00:00", "subject": "Re: Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "doug at netcom.com (Doug Merritt) writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It's a mood piece, it's about the psychology of a very odd man, by way of\ncontrast it's about the psychology of the common man, it's a thoughtful\nwork about ethics and mores (a torturer as hero??? Even Donaldson used an\nanti-hero for what little point he had to make in book 1), and there" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, but Donaldson was at least enjoyable. Indeed, so was Wolfe...at\nfirst. His premise held a lot of promise, but he crippled his efforts by\nmaking the series into a set of increasingly bizarre vignettes. When I\nstarted the series, I had a lot of hope for it, but as it progressed I came\nto feel that Wolfe felt he had to write of stranger and stranger scenes to\nhold the interest of the audience. This really turned me off." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "There were also some spots where I found it a bit slow paced even so, but\ngiven the rest, I decided that he was probably doing that on purpose in\norder to maintain the rhythm and pace (they were noticeably regular) in\nprecisely the intended way." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't question his intentions, but I personally didn't like the result." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Now, if you're in the mood for bang-'em-up adventure (which I sometimes\nam, I don't mean that as a flame), then this is going to be a dreary and\ndull set of books." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ironically, I thought the books had _too_ much `bang-'em up adventure.' It\ndistracted from the character development; much of it seemed gratuitous.\nAlmost every conflict the aliens could have been done away with with little\nloss." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If you take them on their own merits, you can discover that Wolfe has\ncreated something so different that it's pretty much in a class by itself.\nIt's not quite like anything ever done before." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree, and was a litle surprised when a came across a comparision with\nMercedes Lackey in the first post on this sub-thread. The two writers\nsimply cannot be compared (No, I'm not saying one is better than the other,\nnecessarily :-) )." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This is not to say I want to see people imitate this series. I probably\nwouldn't like the results. I'm sure I wouldn't have liked the original\nseries if anyone but Wolfe had done it. It wasn't what he did, but *how*\nhe did it that was great.\n\nIt *is* possible to say, \"He did a great job at doing it, but that sort of\nthing just isn't to my tastes,\" you know. Saying that it's \"dreck\" just\nexposes that you don't pay attention to those aspects of books that you\ndon't personally care for no matter how well done they may be, surely the\nvery definition of provincialism." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It comes down to what a reader sees him as trying to do/doing. I'm not\nsure he did a great job because I think he let his ideas run away from him.\nAs I said earlier, I liked his premise, but he seems to have lost control.\nPerhaps if he had used some of his subsequent ideas in _different_ works, I\nwould not have felt I was reading a long series of non sequiters." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Or to be more charitable, I could assume you're simply taking a\nHumpty-Dumpty stance in meaning \"dreck\" to say \"I *really* didn't like\nit.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Bingo." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "It was a collection of images which went from unusual to completely\nwhacked-out. Why anyone would seek out more of this dreck is completely\nbeyond me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As usual it's important to separate personal taste from questions of\ncraftsmanship." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "As I just said, however, I question the craftsmanship.\n\nGeoffrey Coulter" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Stephen Harker", "address": "phs172m at vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au" }, "date": "1992-04-02T07:43:40+00:00", "subject": "Re: Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Someone actually wants _more_ Gene Wolfes?!? What a painful thought!\nReading his Torturer stuff was one of the most painful things I've ever\ndone. There was no point, very little plot, and way too much\nforeshadowing. It was a collection of images which went from unusual to\ncompletely whacked-out. Why anyone would seek out more of this dreck is\ncompletely beyond me." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "[Quite a bit of stuff deleted] " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gene Wolfe is perhaps the best science fiction / fantasy author writing\ntoday. Although I enjoyed his Torturer series, I do not think it\nshowcases his talents as well as There Are Doors, The Death of Doctor\nIsland, or many of the short stories reprinted in Endangered Species.\n\nThere is no kitsch or melodrama in Wolfe's prose. His writing is spare,\nconcise, and it grabs you with the ideas it presents rather than trying\nto enmesh you in purple language. There is no color for the sake of\ncolor, no passages of filler description in sad and misguided emulation\nof JRRT or Peake." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " I find this opinion hard to believe. I have tried to read a number of\nbooks by Gene Wolfe at various times. He is one of very few \"acclaimed\"\nauthors who I have found unreadable. I cannot believe that anyone would\ncall his writing \"spare\". The only description that I can think that is\nvaguely appropriate is my old first form English teacher's worst comment\n\"verbal diarrhea\".\n\n This certainly shows a massive difference in taste from the above\ncomments.\n\nStephen Harker\nMonash University" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Toshi Takeuchi", "address": "tt at wag.caltech.edu" }, "date": "1992-04-02T23:59:10+00:00", "subject": "Re: Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The first time I read Shadow of the Torturer, I whipped through the book\nlike I read most science fiction books and I thought the book sucked.\n\nWell, The Claw of the Conciliator won the Nebula, so I thought all right\nI'll give the book another try.\n\nThe next time I read the book slowly and I LOVED it. His writing carried\nme away. His plot is so-so, but his writing is wonderful.\n\nRead Gene Wolfe, but read slowly. (a suggestion to those who think he\nsucks.)\n\nToshi" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Albatross", "address": "alberti at mudhoney.micro.umn.edu" }, "date": "1992-04-03T16:47:31+00:00", "subject": "Re: Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Someone actually wants _more_ Gene Wolfes?!? What a painful thought!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gene Wolfe is perhaps the best science fiction / fantasy author writing\ntoday. There is no kitsch or melodrama in Wolfe's prose. His writing\nis spare," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I find this opinion hard to believe...\"verbal diarrhea\". \n\nThis certainly shows a massive difference in taste from the above\ncomments." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " Well, at least I think we can agree that Gene Wolfe's works are\n\"arguably the best\", with emphasis on \"arguably\".\n\n An important point is that Wolfe adhere's to a style of writing similar\nto Sucharitkul, MacAvoy, or some of Tepper's earlier works: storytelling.\nWolfe is first a storyteller, and second a science-fiction/fantasy writer.\nHe is NOT a space-opera writer, adventure writer, or intrigue writer.\n Since storytelling is probably the least-common structure for a science\nfiction novel, it will seem, well, alien to many science-fiction readers.\nThus the sharply different opinions as to whether or not his writing is\n\"good\".\n\n Since my tastes have always run to strong characterization and clear\ndescription, I enjoy Wolfe's works. However, I always keep in mind the\ndistinction between his storytelling style and the style of most other\nscience fiction authors. To do otherwise results in Wolfe being lumped in\nwith Heinlein, Card or Brin, resulting in absurd comparisons.\n\n Storytelling is storytelling, adventure is adventure. Each can contain\nelements of the other (each must, really), but to try to compare two\nclearly different styles makes no sense. Gene Wolfe his one of the best\nstorytellers we have, behind only Richard Adams (IMHO). He does what he\ndoes very well.\n\n You may simply not have a taste for that style.\n\nBob Alberti\nComputer & Information Services \nU of MN" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Peter Cash", "address": "cash at convex.com" }, "date": "1992-04-03T20:31:37+00:00", "subject": "Re: Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "phs172m at vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Stephen Harker) writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I find this opinion hard to believe. I have tried to read a number of\nbooks by Gene Wolfe at various times. He is one of very few \"acclaimed\"\nauthors who I have found unreadable. I cannot believe that anyone would\ncall his writing \"spare\". The only description that I can think that is\nvaguely appropriate is my old first form English teacher's worst comment\n\"verbal diarrhea\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've read a couple of his books - FREE LIVE FREE and SOLDIER OF THE MIST. I\nenjoyed both until the end. While the writing style didn't set me on fire,\nI thought the characters were interesting and well-drawn, and the plot\nmoved along OK but, this guy just does not know how to end a book. There\nare lots of intriguing situations and tantalizing mysteries but, they all\ncome to nothing in the end. FLF just falls apart the solution is totally\nunbelievable and trivial. SotM sets you up by making you care about the\ncharacters, then treats them shabbily (setting up for a sequel I'll never\nread).\n\nNo, I don't like Gene Wolfe either, and I won't read anything else by him.\n\nPeter Cash" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Peter Cash", "address": "cash at convex.com" }, "date": "1992-04-03T20:45:32+00:00", "subject": "Re: Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "alberti at mudhoney.micro.umn.edu (Albatross) writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "An important point is that Wolfe adhere's to a style of writing similar to\nSucharitkul, MacAvoy, or some of Tepper's earlier works: storytelling.\nWolfe is first a storyteller, and second a science-fiction/fantasy writer.\nHe is NOT a space-opera writer, adventure writer, or intrigue writer.\n\nSince storytelling is probably the least-common structure for a science\nfiction novel, it will seem, well, alien to many science-fiction readers.\nThus the sharply different opinions as to whether or not his writing is\n\"good\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Storytelling is storytelling, adventure is adventure. Each can contain\nelements of the other (each must, really), but to try to compare two\nclearly different styles makes no sense. Gene Wolfe his one of the best\nstorytellers we have, behind only Richard Adams (IMHO). He does what he\ndoes very well." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I find this hard to understand. I had always thought that the common thread\nthat runs through all science fiction and fantasy writing is\n_story-telling_. Aren't these all stories? Isn't plot the decisive element\nin this whole genre? And how can you say that writing about \"adventure\" is\nnot story-telling? I'm puzzled.\n\nPeter Cash" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Doug Merritt", "address": "doug at netcom.com" }, "date": "1992-04-04T02:35:52+00:00", "subject": "Re: Gene Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "phs172m at vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Stephen Harker) writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I find this opinion hard to believe. I have tried to read a number of\nbooks by Gene Wolfe at various times. He is one of very few \"acclaimed\"\nauthors who I have found unreadable." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I find *quite* a few recent acclaimed and award winning writers to be\nunreadable.\n\nBut I do like Wolfe. I think you're *both* right. There are times when his\nprose borders on the purple, and other times when it is spare.\n\nI really don't think he's always at either extreme.\n\nDoug Merritt" } ] } ] }