{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/2795",
    "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": 2795,
    "subject": "Lotsa Stuff",
    "messages": 1,
    "voices": 1,
    "first": "2001-08-21T09:43:16+00:00",
    "last": "2001-08-21T09:43:16+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0030-0654@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes",
        "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com"
      },
      "date": "2001-08-21T09:43:16+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) Lotsa Stuff",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "boy, go away for a week and see what happens...\n\nQuestions asked about Hamilton's \"Night's Dawn\" and answered quite \nthoroughly. The one thing I would add: _not_ for (a) the weak of\nstomach (there are some scenes very worthy of Clive Barker) or \n(b) those who are easily offended by the theologically incorrect, \nso to speak. This is decidedly not a Christian book, if you follow \nme, but my Ghod what a read... which leads me to something that \nwill have to be a separate post.\n\n---------------------\n\nGene Wolfe's favorite Nero Wolfe novels: I admit that FER-DE-LANCE\nis relatively weak. I disagree about THE BLACK MOUNTAIN, but its\nstrength is most apparent in a serial reading (or rereading) of\nmany Wolfe books, because it's simply _different_ from the others\nin some deep and radical ways, and provides a kind of relief from\nthem. And his \"best\" list is excellent but leaves out what is surely\nmy all-time fave, TOO MANY COOKS, probably the funniest of the bunch.\n\n---------------------\n\nThe \"Notes toward a Lupine Aesthetic\": Fabulous. Excellent \"intro\nto Wolfe\" fodder.\n\n---------------------\n\nAlga: You wrote, '...I am unalterably hostile to Lewis for what he\ndid to Susan.\" I came across Lewis rather late, maybe in my teens or \n20s, and never forgave him for that cool, thoughtless misogyny.\"\n\nNow, I wonder _what_ in that is misogynistic? He had decided, \napparently, that one of the characters had to \"fall away,\" if only\nto show the possibility _of_ \"falling away.\" Who, then? Eustace and\nPolly, as the primary \"children\" in this novel were non-candidates.\nDigory/The Professor had already been shown as still \"believing in \nNarnia\" in adulthood. \n\nOf the four, original Lucy, of course, is the primary hero of the \nseries, and to have Edumund fall away would waste much of the impact \nof his redemption. That leaves Peter, Susan, and Polly Plummer; of \nthese, Peter is probably the worst choice, because of his symbolic \nvalue as the High King (a Messianic \"figure\"), leaving the two women. \nAnd Susan _had_ been portrayed (in PRINCE CASPIAN) as a bit of a \ngrump and doubter -- viz. her reaction to Lucy's sighting of the\nLion in the wood, which is distinctly different from Peter's and\nEdmund's."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "I wondered, later on, if Joy, his wife, ever tackled him on\nthat."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Well, quite aside from whether or not Susan's falling-away is \n\"misogynistic,\" which I think can come only from the assumption\nthat anything done to a woman must be done from sexist motives,\nI can refer you to Lewis' late novel (which he considered his\nbest), TILL WE HAVE FACES."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}