Subject: (urth) Thoughts;Realism;Devine

From: Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 03:40:29 +0000

I resent being pigeonholed or painted with a broad brush, even
indirectly. I wasn't in school in the '70's and never heard of "classic
realism". Fortunately, I wasn't there in the '90's either, and shudder to
think that my children were. For any of those who might have wondered why
Wolfe, from time to time, raises his slingshot against the ivied halls of
Academe, I recommend the above post.

David Duffy wrote:

>>Part of the rules of the game is that both the allegory and the surface
story must be completely self-consistent, especially if one is creating
puzzles.  Wolfe does bother to make up plausible reasons for what happens.
So we are allowed to argue about androids -- I think Jonas is made of
highly advanced light materials, but is not hollow.  The Ship of UotNS is
not the only vehicle that has ever undertaken star travel (we have the
Whorl as one counterexample), and Jonas's knowledge seems to date him to a
much earlier period (perhaps conventional relativistic processes have
brought him so far forward in time).  If he is the Tin Man, who's the
Cowardly Lion? (And has anyone mentioned _Of Mice and Men_ re Baldanders
and the Dr?)<<

And Potto wrote:

>>Our discussion of the religious or non-religious nature of Wolfe's
work has certainly become complexly and compulsively interesting.
Noting Jonathan Laidlow's comments on TBOTNS as a text not to be taken
too concretely or literally: I don't quite agree. To reiterate
something I've said before: although Wolfe's subject matter is
primarily religious and so symbolic or non-literal, he does play a
vast, subtle game of clues. Wolfe's God is in the subtle, precise,
insinuated details of his work; deciphering those details is crucial
to a proper, complex understanding of that work. When Robert Borski
engages in close, literal literary detective work, or when people
debate the precise nature of Jonas' and Sidero's physical character,
they are doing precisely what Wolfe intends: drawing out the myriad
details out of which the shape of God can be discerned.<<

    To both of you: As an unbeliever, all I can say is--thank God!

    I am to be allowed to continue to unravel the Wolfean knots, despite the
would-be Alexanders.

    Oh, and Ori, I sympathize with you. My reading of the _New Sun_ seems to
be pretty much in accord with yours, but the religious aspects of Wolfe's
works are too numerous to be ignored. But I learned many years ago that
religious arguments are fruitless. Believers believe because what they
believe cannot be proven, else it would not be a matter of faith.

Roy

*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/