Subject: (urth) pandora

From: maa32 <maa32 at dana.ucc.nau.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 06:28:37 +0000

It was mentioned that the reasons Pandora by Holly Hollander was an 
unenjoyable reading experience seemed undiscernable to some on the list.

For me, I think Wolfe's one weakness is his portrayal of female characters - 
I'm just being honest.  However, that doesn't really matter to me (please 
don't stone me Alga; I'm talking about literary great-making qualities - not 
feminism).  I really don't think Wolfe is good at a first person female 
perspective - and especially a first person, pot-smoking, mother hating, 
"liberated" female like Holly - as far as possible from the tortured but 
ultimately physically powerful Silk and Severian (Silk is even pretty handy 
with a staff into his geritol-stage thanks to his superior (engineered? 
surely) genetics).  If I'm not mistaken, there is a quote in Pandora which 
states that Larry Lief is a "dreamboat" (or something to that effect).

Let's be honest - Wolfe's oppositional themes (perfect memory/end of the world 
vs. no memory/dawn of history) are usually fabulously pulled off from work to 
work, but Pandora is too different.  Even though I think you can find hints 
that Holly's flying horse (you think I'm kidding, eh?) was complicit in the 
death of Larry Lief, you can also find some big German special forces 
conspiracy hints dropped all over the place, too.  And Holly knows a lot about 
what masks the scent of pot for someone who claims she won't write about 
smoking it for the first time in her introduction; it seems as if she already 
has throughout the text - and her mom confronts her about "smoking", too; a 
smoking that is never directly narrated by Holly in any other scene.  I don't 
trust that girl.

In any case, I think that there are two big factors involved here in the 
general ill repute in which Pandora by Holly Hollander is held: your average 
reader of Wolfe appreciates the absolutely amazing technical skill he has "in 
spite" of his depiction of women (I know I'm generalizing; please forgive me); 
also, Wolfe is notoriously ambiguous in many respects, yet I find little 
ambiguity in his treatment of women.  It just so happens that having a female 
narrator, while to an amazing degree subverting this picture of weak and 
accepting or duplicitious and conniving women, reaffirms the stark dichotomy 
and emphasizes it at the same time (in my mind, Holly really wants to get rid 
of her mother and is just as culpable as whoever really did commit the 
murders; perhaps Wolfe wanted to present her as an opposite of ideality (a 
real word, by the way, or at least a word I read in a recent piece of 
criticism on Borges) - we were meant not to like her narrative since it 
reflects some of her undesirable traits - but this is too devious and I cannot 
imagine Wolfe composing something that he envisioned as a "failed" narrative 
from the beginning, simply for the purpose of challenging the liberal 
convictions of its narrator.)

Marc Aramini

--

---

From: Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 00:26:18 +0000

Marc wrote:

>>For me, I think Wolfe's one weakness is his portrayal of female
characters - I'm just being honest.<<

I won't argue with that, because I can't; you're right.

>>(Silk is even pretty handy with a staff into his geritol-stage
 thanks to his superior (engineered? surely) genetics).<<

Geritol-stage? Damn it, Marc, at the end of RTTW Silk is only about twenty
years older than you are!! Geritol-stage? Sheesh. <g>

>>Let's be honest - Wolfe's oppositional themes (perfect memory/end of the
world
vs. no memory/dawn of history)<<

Uh, what Nutria said.

>>And Holly knows a lot about
what masks the scent of pot for someone who claims she won't write about
smoking it for the first time in her introduction; it seems as if she
already
has throughout the text - and her mom confronts her about "smoking", too; a
smoking that is never directly narrated by Holly in any other scene.  I
don't
trust that girl.<<

If by "smoking" you mean cigarettes, Holly does smoke in the text. In the
hospital, near the end of chapter 8, page 66 of the hardback. And it was her
mother who gave her the cigarette.

-Roy

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 14:10:37 +0000

Interesting post by Marc.  I didn't find any of the subtleties in PANDORA
that Marc did; the few "clues" I did notice seemed to me to be just
affectations leading nowhere.  It struck me as being basically just a murder
mystery, and not a particularly good one, either.  Furthermore, I was
repelled by the misogyny in the portrayal of Holly's mother (unlike Marc, I
wasn't put off by Holly, but she didn't erase the bad taste left by her
mother).  If it hadn't been written by Wolfe, I might have filed it away in
my mind as "mildly diverting"; as it was, it was a severe disappointment.

The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (iirc) said there had been speculation
that PANDORA was actually written early in Wolfe's career.  Can anyone
confirm or deny this?

--Adam

--

---

From: Endy9 <endymion91 at attbi.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 00:22:05 +0000

mantis wrote:
>What does it matter what =anybody= else says?  You hate it.  That is your
>opinion.  Tried and tested.  Do you want people to tell you that you are an
>idiot?  Do you want people to brow-beat you into reading it again until you
>like it?  Do you want people to tell you that you are a genius for "seeing
>through all the drivel," for being the brave fellow who says that the
>emperor has no clothes?

What is your reason for writing anything to this mailing list?  Do you want
people to tell you that you are an idiot for any opinion you post here?  Do
you want people to brow-beat you into changing your opinion if they disagree
with you?  Do you want people to tell you that you are a genius for "seeing
things" that other's were not intelligent enough to catch?

Do you really want to attack my motives for writing instead of simply
agreeing or disagreeing and open yourself to the same inspection?

Now to attempt to honestly answer your questions:

I do not look upon myself as the ultimate genius of this world and value
other's opinions.  I might gain insight into why others liked the story and
even though I might not enjoy the story, I would better understand why other
people like it.  I enjoy getting to know other people and what they like and
don't like and why.  That is probably the main reason I post to any message
board.

I also claim my right to like or dislike any work of literature and to state
my reasons why without the motive of trying to change anyone else's
opinions.  If I find a consensus that 99% of people like a work that I hate,
when a friend asks my opinion of said work I will usually respond.  I didn't
like it but many people seem to so you might.

BTW, my apology to the group for forgetting to change HTML to Plain Text in
the last message I wrote.
--
Dennis/Endy
http://home.attbi.com/~phleblori1/endy9/index.htm
--
Be more concerned with your character than with your reputation. Your
character is what you really are while your reputation is merely what others
think you are. (John Wooden)
--

--

---

From: Michael Andre-Driussi <mantis at siriusfiction.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 00:48:35 +0000

>agreeing or disagreeing and open yourself to the same inspection?

Did I attack?

Did I attack your motives for writing?

I tried to make it clear that I wouldn't touch your opinion, but I took
umbrage at your hurtful words that, imho, verge on flaming. The bile that
leaks out and spoils the diplomacy of discourse: not the content of what
you said, but the aggressive and antagonistic way in which you said it.  I
thought I said as much before, and you have yet to retract or apologize, or
even acknowledge the offense.

Did I attack your semi-flaming?  Perhaps I did.

=mantis=

--