{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/1865",
    "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": "urth",
  "thread": {
    "id": 1865,
    "subject": "more on modernism (fair warning!)",
    "messages": 1,
    "voices": 1,
    "first": "1999-10-26T23:26:35+00:00",
    "last": "1999-10-26T23:26:35+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0028-0258@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Daniel Fusch",
        "address": "dfusch at hotmail.com"
      },
      "date": "1999-10-26T23:26:35+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) more on modernism (fair warning!)",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Alex,\n\nThanks for clarifying that. You're right; \"Ulysses\" and \"The Sound and the \nFury\" are the most frequently taught works of modernist fiction, although we \nshould probably add \"Light in August\" and make it a threesome.\n\n(snip)\n\"It is certainly possible to be a Modernist and a science fiction writer, \nand because of these concerns it is where Wolfe is probably best \ncategorized. But, for purposes of analysis, I actually think that how little \nhe uses the tools commonly associated with modernism is interesting.\"\n\nI'll keep on insisting that the tools that one can use in modernism are as \nvariable as the individual authors are--and that the most often seen \nexamples (Ulysses and The Sound and the Fury) are simply the most extreme \nexamples of modernist experimentation. Faulkner has been known to write \nbooks with normal sentence structure. And, of course, there are the plethora \nof other modernist writers whose sentences are normal but whose styles of \nnarration are not. So to speak of how little Wolfe uses the tools commonly \nassociated with modernism is only to speak of how Wolfe does not sound like \nJoyce or Faulkner. But Joyce and Faulkner are not the only modernist \nwriters.\n\nTherefore, a modernist criticism of Wolfe can still be very insightful. Or \nat least a criticism of the metafiction; I just find it hopelessly \ninteresting to examine Wolfe's investigation of the art of storytelling.\n\nBut having said all that, I realize I am probably arguing a moot point. \nAfter all, I don't seem to be trying to convince anyone of anything other \nthan the fact that a modernist perspective on Wolfe's work can be \nparticularly interesting. But that is subjective; it may that a modernist \nperspective is not particularly interesting to everyone else.\n\nSo...my apologies for torturing everyone with this long-winded discussion of \nmodernism. And my apologies (to echo alga) if I seem pompous.\n\nAs for Borges...I will seek out his work at once!\n\nNow...what's this about racism?\n\nDaniel"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}