# opinion of pandora *The Urth list — 1 messages, 1 voices, 15 Apr 2002* > 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. --- ### Gage Kerrigan *15 Apr 2002, 00:28* Lord ESN here... first e-mail to urthnet since switching accounts... so i thought a heads-up was in order. but anyways... Why was pandora under-appreciated? (sincere question, not rhetorical) I didn't like it, but I don't know why. I think it was because I was familiar with nearly all of Wolfe's vastly published works, and it was a LARGE divergence from said other works. But why didn't I like it? I've never noticed a personal aversion to literary diversity before in my life, and I quite enjoyed many well writen mystery novels, so what made Pandora's Box darn near unenjoyable to read? My only hypothesis is that the style of writing did not match the plot or other Wolfe. Was this intentional, serving as a method to further define Holly Hollander as an amateur writer? I don't know. Does anyone else have a distinct recolection of what turned them off when reading Pandora? (assumming that it did) One more question: How could a bad (my opinion) Wolfe novel stimulate my curiosity as much as it has, Possibly as much as deep story elements of well-written Wolfe novels? «Lord ESN» ---