{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/1895", "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": 1895, "subject": "the superb level of discourse here", "messages": 3, "voices": 3, "first": "1999-11-02T09:32:47+00:00", "last": "1999-11-02T19:09:51+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Patri10629", "address": "patri10629 at aol.com" }, "date": "1999-11-02T09:32:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: the superb level of discourse here", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In a message dated 11/2/99 12:43:53 AM, Mitchell Bailey writes:\n\n<< As you probably can tell, I'm not a literature scholar. I'll have to\nparaphrase Sev's line on this subject: if I sometimes manage to seem a\npeer of the esteemed contributors to this list, or at least one whose\ncompany does not shame them (perplexes? annoys?) it is to a significant\nextent due to that erudition to which I've been exposed here. >>\n\nNo, I couldn't tell, and, yes, I know *exactly* what you mean. If ever there \nwas a forum which enhanced and increased my pleasure with Wolfe's work, why \nhumbling me, this is it. What a privilege it is to eavesdrop. Hats off to \nyou, mates.\n\nLove Mr Ansley's Oz reference.\n\nA sidenote: Responding to my constant complaint that parades are not \norganized in response to, and full-page New York Times reviews are not \ndevoted to each new Wolfe book, (and a national holiday not declared \nspecifically for a masterwork like ON BLUE'S WATERS), a friend replied: \"With \nthose godawful covers they slap on his books they're scaring off anybody with \nhalf a brain who doesn't already know he's great.\" Comments?\n\nActually the cover of OBW is sort of Wolfe in a nutshell--the siren's one \ngrotesque feature is hidden from view, the animal's leg's too. What? What's a \nfew limbs between friends?\n\nI must say again: We are not all lit crit/ sci fi (uh-oh I said the naughty \nword)/intellectual giants (I mean besides Mantis and Alga), nerds and \nnerdettes obsessed with minutia (I'll forgive the geographers for the \nmoment). \"Minutia.\" Hey! Maybe That could be my name! (sorry) Is Wolfe so \nwrenchingly good? So demanding? Am I naive and alone in thinking that his \nart is ultimately accessible?\n\nbest,\n\nPatrick O'Leary" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Alex David Groce", "address": "alex_groce at gs246.sp.cs.cmu.edu" }, "date": "1999-11-02T10:21:00+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Re: the superb level of discourse here", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Patrick--\n\nWell, part of my point in the whole modernism debate was that, because he\navoids their techniques, Wolfe is at the least pretty darn accessible for\na modernist. While I like that kind of thing, I understand the people who \nthrow ULYSSES and THE SOUND AND THE FURY down and never pick them back up.\n\nThe main thing with Wolfe is, you DO have to pay attention. Which some readers\naren't very keen on. FREE LIVE FREE and those darned morning glories catches\na lot of people sleeping (although if you don't figure out what's going on\nbefore \"all is revealed\" anyway you are not paying attention on a much bigger\nlevel).\n\nI'm really not a fan of the OBW cover. On the other hand, the Long Sun covers\nwere OK, if nothing spectacularly good. But they all look like *gasp* Science\nFiction Book Covers, which is honest advertising but not too good for getting\nrandom non-SF people who would enjoy Wolfe to read him.\n\n\n\"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.\" John 8:32" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Alex David Groce (agroce+ at cs.cmu.edu)\nPh.D. Student, Carnegie Mellon University - Computer Science Department\n8112 Wean Hall (412)-268-3066\nhttp://www.cs.cmu.edu/~agroce" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Fusch", "address": "dfusch at hotmail.com" }, "date": "1999-11-02T19:09:51+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Re: the superb level of discourse here", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hello, Patrick!\n\nI also am enjoying this forum.\n\nAbout the covers...I couldn't agree more. When I read The Book of the New \nSun in paperback, I kept thinking, \"What horrible cover art!\" Especially on \nBooks II and III. Oh, I suppose the art isn't that bad...it's just \nincredibly cliche. It has \"sword and sorcery/Conan/pulp fiction\" written all \nover it, to use a cliche. No self-respecting lit professor would have books \nwith those covers on his/her bookshelf!\n\nThe Tor/Orb editions (the two-volume edition, I mean) of The Book of the New \nSun is a little better--the books are well put together, the covers look \nrespectable, and they chose the two best samples of the cover art, at least. \nMy advice--give THOSE editions to your friends.\n\nPatrick--I don't think you are either naive or alone in thinking Wolfe's \nwork ultimately accessible. I can only speak for the Urth cycle and for a \nfew of his short stories, myself (still have to read 5HC and Dr.Death as \nsoon as I get the chance--the time, that is), but I find his work very \naccessible. Severian's narrative voice--like, say, Ishmael's voice in Moby \nDick--draws the reader right in.\n\n(On the other hand, not every one finds Moby Dick accessible.)\n\nI'm not certain why some people \"don't get\" Wolfe's work. Is it the science \nfiction element?\n\nAnyway, that's all I had to say." } ] } ] }