Subject: (urth) Re: the superb level of discourse here

From: Patri10629 <patri10629 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 09:32:47 +0000

In a message dated 11/2/99 12:43:53 AM, Mitchell Bailey writes:

<< As you probably can tell, I'm not a literature scholar. I'll have to
paraphrase Sev's line on this subject: if I sometimes manage to seem a
peer of the esteemed contributors to this list, or at least one whose
company does not shame them (perplexes? annoys?) it is to a significant
extent due to that erudition to which I've been exposed here.  >>

No, I couldn't tell, and, yes, I know *exactly* what you mean. If ever there 
was a forum which enhanced and increased my pleasure with Wolfe's work, why 
humbling me, this is it. What a privilege it is to eavesdrop. Hats off to 
you, mates.

Love Mr Ansley's Oz reference.

A sidenote: Responding to my constant complaint that parades are not 
organized in response to, and full-page New York Times reviews are not 
devoted to each new Wolfe book, (and a national holiday not declared 
specifically for a masterwork like ON BLUE'S WATERS), a friend replied: "With 
those godawful covers they slap on his books they're scaring off anybody with 
half a brain who doesn't already know he's great." Comments?

Actually the cover of OBW is sort of Wolfe in a nutshell--the siren's one 
grotesque feature is hidden from view, the animal's leg's too. What? What's a 
few limbs between friends?

I must say again: We are not all lit crit/ sci fi (uh-oh I said the naughty 
word)/intellectual giants (I mean besides Mantis and Alga), nerds and 
nerdettes obsessed with minutia  (I'll forgive the geographers for the 
moment). "Minutia." Hey! Maybe That could be my name! (sorry)  Is Wolfe so 
wrenchingly good? So demanding?  Am I naive  and alone in thinking that his 
art is ultimately accessible?

best,

Patrick O'Leary

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

---

From: Alex David Groce <alex_groce at gs246.sp.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 10:21:00 +0000

Patrick--

Well, part of my point in the whole modernism debate was that, because he
avoids their techniques, Wolfe is at the least pretty darn accessible for
a modernist.  While I like that kind of thing, I understand the people who 
throw ULYSSES and THE SOUND AND THE FURY down and never pick them back up.

The main thing with Wolfe is, you DO have to pay attention.  Which some readers
aren't very keen on.  FREE LIVE FREE and those darned morning glories catches
a lot of people sleeping (although if you don't figure out what's going on
before "all is revealed" anyway you are not paying attention on a much bigger
level).

I'm really not a fan of the OBW cover.  On the other hand, the Long Sun covers
were OK, if nothing spectacularly good.  But they all look like *gasp* Science
Fiction Book Covers, which is honest advertising but not too good for getting
random non-SF people who would enjoy Wolfe to read him.

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:32
--
Alex David Groce (agroce+ at cs.cmu.edu)
Ph.D. Student, Carnegie Mellon University - Computer Science Department
8112 Wean Hall (412)-268-3066
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~agroce

---

From: Daniel Fusch <dfusch at hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 19:09:51 +0000

Hello, Patrick!

I also am enjoying this forum.

About the covers...I couldn't agree more. When I read The Book of the New 
Sun in paperback, I kept thinking, "What horrible cover art!" Especially on 
Books II and III. Oh, I suppose the art isn't that bad...it's just 
incredibly cliche. It has "sword and sorcery/Conan/pulp fiction" written all 
over it, to use a cliche. No self-respecting lit professor would have books 
with those covers on his/her bookshelf!

The Tor/Orb editions (the two-volume edition, I mean) of The Book of the New 
Sun is a little better--the books are well put together, the covers look 
respectable, and they chose the two best samples of the cover art, at least. 
My advice--give THOSE editions to your friends.

Patrick--I don't think you are either naive or alone in thinking Wolfe's 
work ultimately accessible. I can only speak for the Urth cycle and for a 
few of his short stories, myself (still have to read 5HC and Dr.Death as 
soon as I get the chance--the time, that is), but I find his work very 
accessible. Severian's narrative voice--like, say, Ishmael's voice in Moby 
Dick--draws the reader right in.

(On the other hand, not every one finds Moby Dick accessible.)

I'm not certain why some people "don't get" Wolfe's work. Is it the science 
fiction element?

Anyway, that's all I had to say.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com