Subject: (urth) Wintry thoughts on Wolfe

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 14:02:27 +0000

Last month, Nigel Price suggested that the "theologies" implicit in Wolfe's
fictions aren't necessarily the same as the theology Wolfe believes is true
in reality.  This is a good point, which can be extended beyond theological
specifics to basic world-views.  Behind many of the posts here which seek to
provide a "Christian" interpretation of Wolfe, there lurks the belief that
because Wolfe is a believing traditional Christian, all his works must
relate to Christ's redemption of humanity, and therefore must ultimately
provide some sort of redemption.  But in most of Wolfe's major works, there
is either no redemption at all -- PEACE, 5HC, "The Island of Doctor
Death...," "The Death of Doctor Island," "Forlesen" -- or what redemption
there is fails to outweigh the horrors that have preceded -- UOTNS, BOTLS,
BOTSS.  One could argue that the lack of redemption is due to the
characters' lack of faith; but even when Christianity is mentioned in these
works, as at the end of PEACE, the works as a whole don't present redemption
through faith as a real possibility.  If one reads Wolfe's works purely for
what is in them, he's one of the bleakest authors I know; perhaps bleaker
than he consciously intends.

Something else that contributes to my sense of Wolfe's bleakness is the
absence of love from his works.  Does any of his major novels have a
protagonist who is genuinely capable of loving another individual (as
distinct from compassion)?  The closest, perhaps, are Green in TAD and Silk
in BOTLS, but there's something obsessive about both these loves: neither
Green nor Silk really knows the woman he "loves," and I don't think either
of them is really interested in knowing her as a person.  (Though it's been
a long time since I've read BOTLS.)  Horn's love for Nettle is unconvincing,
and his feelings for Seawrack and Jahlee are more like lust than love; and
Severian, Weer, and the protagonists of 5HC all seem incapable of love.
Wolfe is a great writer, but his emotional range is limited.

--Adam

--

---

From: James Jordan <jbjordan4 at cox.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 21:38:06 +0000

At 08:02 AM 2/16/2003, Adam wrote:
>provide some sort of redemption.

         I know this is not pointed at me (Pat the Nut) above anyone else, 
Adam, but I certainly don't think "all" his works are put in a Christian 
worldview. And of those that are, I don't think all include the notion of 
redemption. Like you, I tend to think Wolfe is more at home displaying the 
horror of sin and/or of human failings and their consequences. If there is 
salvation, it's off the page, something maybe reading this or that story 
might make the reader desire.
         On the other hand, however, in terms of a general Christian 
worldview, not the specifics of redemption, I do think one sees this 
throughout Wolfe's major works. *Peace* has something to do with either 
hell or purgatory. TAD shows Mama & the Italian Restaurant interested in 
redeeming Lara and the goddess-world from itself. Christian sacramental 
allegories/images are all over the "Sun" dodekology. Ben Free is a 
semi-Christ (a sort of "American Messiah") in FLF, and the characters get a 
new birth via time travel self-remaking. A pre-Christian world is displayed 
in the *Soldier* novels -- not a friendly pagan world, but a world in 
desparate need of something better. As for *Castleview,* I'll give it a pass.
         But Wolfe likes to write about worlds and worldviews. The clash of 
religious worldviews, and their possible reconciliation in Christianity, is 
thematic in TAD and the *Soldier* books, and perhaps most notably in the 
*Long Sun,* where idolatry is a major theme.
         I think it is mainly in his shorter fiction that Wolfe plays games 
in other gardens outside this worldview. And of course, occasionally his 
shorter fiction is rather explicitly Christian ("To the Seventh," 
"Westwind," "Detective of Dreams").

>  But in most of Wolfe's major works, there
>works, as at the end of PEACE, the works as a whole don't present 
>redemption through faith as a real possibility.  If one reads Wolfe's 
>works purely for what is in them, he's one of the bleakest authors I know; 
>perhaps bleaker than he consciously intends.

         I tend to agree. I think a tragic sense pervades much of Wolfe, 
and as John Clute pointed out during his brief sojourn here, the Christian 
worldview is comedic. Wolfe likes Chesterton, but he sure ain't Chesterton. 
Redemption is present only as glints and glimmers. Characters fail 
frequently. I do think all these glints and glimmers and failings and very 
partial salvations are designed to point outside the text and, within the 
text, to an eschaton.
         I do get the impression that fewer of Wolfe's later works are 
horrific than his earlier ones.

>absence of love from his works.

         Yeah. When I first read Wolfe many years ago, I thought "He's a 
lot like Cordwainer Smith, except that Smith wrote one love story after 
another, and Wolfe writes one horror story after another."
         I have come to think this, though. Wolfe may not be very good at 
writing about love, and so does not try very much. But he does give "glints 
and glimmers" of it, and if this is part of his craft (maybe making good of 
his weakness), then it is much like what he does with redemption and 
salvation.
         Wolfe may be a Thomist, but he seems to function with an extremely 
Augustinian and Calvinian conception of human depravity. Human beings can 
and do ruin everything. They aren't much good at love. Human love is 
questionable, and is linked up with appalling selfishness. I think this, 
again, "points off the page" to the need for a better Lover and a better Love.

Patera Nutria

--

---

From: Michael Andre-Driussi <mantis at siriusfiction.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 22:46:15 +0000

>Wolfe is a great writer, but his emotional range is limited.

It would be easier (or should that be "possible"?) to approach this if I
had some examples of a few authors inside and outside of genre who write
fiction about love (monolithic or otherwise).  Fictions that you find
convincing.

=mantis=

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 01:51:10 +0000

on 2/16/03 4:46 PM, Michael Andre-Driussi at mantis at siriusfiction.com wrote:

>> distinct from compassion)?
[snip]

> fiction about love (monolithic
do you mean monogamous?
> or otherwise).  Fictions that you find
> convincing.

Well, the paragraph you quote was triggered by my rereading Patrick
O'Leary's THE IMPOSSIBLE BIRD, which, while it may not be "about love," does
contain convincing depictions of love.  So do John Crowley's works.  As for
non-genre authors, none spring to mind immediately.  (Obviously, there are
many who've written about love, but none that I've read recently enough, or
recall well enough, to be able to say definitely that I find them
convincing.)

But I'm not sure why you need this information to "approach" my claim.  If
you believe Wolfe's protagonists are capable of genuine love, why not say
so?

--Adam

--

---

From: Michael Andre-Driussi <mantis at siriusfiction.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:37:56 +0000

>you believe Wolfe's protagonists are capable of genuine love, why not say

Because I don't know what you are "pointing at" when you say "genuine
love."  If I don't know this, then my approach is limited to a shrug.  I
cannot comment if I do not grasp the context.

>contain convincing depictions of love.  So do John Crowley's works.

So then, here is a start: which scenes from which John Crowley books
(barring THE TRANSLATOR) spring to your mind as convincing depictions of
"genuine love"?

=mantis=

--

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:56:24 +0000

> you believe Wolfe's protagonists are capable of genuine love, why not say

Because this sort of thing is so subjective.  You say Horn's love for
Nettle is "unconvincing" (Meaning Wolfe failed to convince you the
characters were real?  or failed to convince you that Horn really loved
her? Or that Horn is unconvinced?).  I didn't have that reaction.

You point to Crowley.  I've only read Little, Big and while the romance at
the very beginning between Smoky and Alice was wonderful, every other
relationship in the rest of the book (including Smoky and Alice's
marriage) seemed incomprehensible to me, like I was reading and trying to
understand a Martian romance novel.  Which I guess was part of the point,
that the fairies are *other*, so maybe this is atypical of Crowley's art.

-- Rostrum

--

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at hotpop.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:51:41 +0000

You didn't say you were limiting this discussion to romantic love so I'll
list characters who are not too damaged or crabbed to be genuinely
emotionally connected to another person:

V.R.T. (FhoC) hunting his mother across too planets
Dorcas (BotNS) she seemed to genuinely love Severian
Agia (BofNS) violently in love with her brother
Latro (SoA) was genuinely in love his Amazon girlfriend
Auk (BotLS) in love with Chenille and Tartaros

How is that for starting list of broadly known characters?

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Stephanides [mailto:adamsteph at earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 7:51 PM
To: urth at urth.net
Subject: Re: (urth) Wintry thoughts on Wolfe

[snip]

do you mean monogamous?

--Adam

--

--

---

From: Alice K. Turner <aturner6 at nyc.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 21:08:30 +0000

> (barring THE TRANSLATOR) spring to your mind as convincing depictions of

Gosh, I  think it would be difficult to find a book of any genre that
portrays domestic love more eloquently than LITTLE, BIG. Sure Smoky strays
with Sophie, but can anyone doubt his long-term devotion to Daily Alice? And
as for short-term romantic obsession, well, holy Toledo, who in the hell
beats Rush with Once a Day, Auberon with Sylvie, Pierce with Rose, even,
more diffidently Spofford with Rosie? Mantis, you are having a frigid
winter-chill indeed. Watch an episode of The Simpsons, with Homer and Marge,
for heavens' sake.

Alice

--

---

From: Michael Andre-Driussi <mantis at siriusfiction.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 22:40:51 +0000

To begin, I did not intend to badger Adam Stephanides at all, and if that
is how it was taken by anybody then I apologize.

Alga wrote:
>more diffidently Spofford with Rosie?

Of course I thought of these examples, too, but I thought that, for
example, Rush and Once a Day (of ENGINE SUMMER) might be already ruled out
by Adam's knock against "obsessive love" wrt TAD and TBOTLS.  In fact, I
sense that the situation in TAD might be very much like the situation in
not only ENGINE SUMMER but also LITTLE, BIG.

>Wolfe is a great writer, but his emotional range is limited.

If by using "genuine love" Adam means "domestic love," that would be an
important step to establish (and it could well be the case, given the
particular singling out of Horn and Nettle).  Yes, this would rule out
ENGINE SUMMER, pretty much, and LITTLE, BIG would probably be king.

I think it was Crush who offered a list of mainly supporting characters
(except for Latro) showing love: they may be good examples, but Adam is
talking specifically about main characters.  A possible strike against
Latro might well be the lack of domesticity; the fact that he only loves
her for one of the two books; or any number of reasons I couldn't hope to
enumerate.

But you know?  It really =is= easier to just say, "'Every man to his
taste,' as the farmer said when he kissed the cow."  Or just shrug and move
on.

=mantis=

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:17:38 +0000

> Auk (BotLS) in love with Chenille and Tartaros

I haven't read the Soldier books in a long time, and my memory of them is
dim, so you may well be right about Latro.  But V.R.T. is searching for the
truth about himself, not for his mother, at least as I read it.

As for the other three, I did originally say "protagonists."  Especially in
Wolfe's books, it's the viewpoint character who dominates the reader's
experience.  The effect on the reader of being tied to the consciousness of
a man unable to love won't be dispelled by observing from afar other
characters who love.

Having said this, I must confess with embarrassment that I'd forgotten when
I wrote my original post about Severian's relationship with Thecla.
(Interesting that nobody brought this up in reply.)  Though I haven't reread
TBOTNS in a while either, I'd be willing to concede this as a counterexample
to my original claim.  But note how gingerly Wolfe handles the
Severian-Thecla relationship: not until long after Thecla's death do we
learn there was any sexual component to it, and even then we only learn of
this in brief allusions.  And Severian's final judgment on Thecla is rather
clinical, iirc.

Rostrum wrote:

> Because this sort of thing is so subjective.

Not so much so.  My point had been, not that Wolfe does a poor job of
portraying what I confusingly called "genuine love," but that, for whatever
reasons, he generally chooses not to portray it.  (See my other reply for an
attempt to clarify what I meant.)

And if it were subjective, so what?  Responses to literature are inherently
subjective; that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to talk about them.

(The work of explication done on this list is very valuable; but it
sometimes seems to me that in the process we give short shrift to Wolfe's
work as literature (and I include myself in that "we")).

> You say Horn's love for

Meaning that Horn failed to convince me he really loved her.  Or, strictly
speaking, the Narrator.  He says he loves her, but his behavior isn't
consistent with this imo.  His betrayal of her to Krait in the pit can
perhaps be excused as simple human weakness (it occurs to me that this scene
is very reminiscent of the Room 101 scene from 1984).  And his adultery with
Seawrack can be excused by the Mother's spell.  But Jahlee didn't place him
under a spell; nor did his wives in Gaon.  (Smoky's brief affair with Sophie
hardly compares to Horn's serial adultery.)  And, while Horn leaves a great
deal out of his written narrative, he includes his betrayal and his
adulteries in an accouont he knows Nettle will read, and be hurt by.  These
do not seem to me the actions of a man who loves his wife.

Whether Wolfe intended to convey that Horn genuinely loved Nettle or not, I
don't know.

--Adam

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:17:40 +0000

> is how it was taken by anybody then I apologize.

No problem.  I just wasn't clear where you were coming from.

> not only ENGINE SUMMER but also LITTLE, BIG.

To clarify what I was talking about with TAD and TBOTLS (and, rereading what
I wrote, I see I was unclear), what I was trying to point to was not the
obsessive nature of Green and Silk's loves, but that each of them seemed
uninterested in relating to his inamorata as a person, in having a
"communion of souls," so to speak (and I realize this is still pretty vague,
but it's the best I can do right now).  Green doesn't seem to need a
relationship at all; he's happy just to be near Lara.  He's not at all
perturbed when she tells him that she can only love him as she would love a
dog.  As for Silk, my memory of TBOTLS is not that good, as I said; but my
recollection was that the "Hyacinth" Silk loves is largely a creation of his
imagination.  Both Rush and Smoky, on the other hand, do seem to want to
relate to their beloveds as people, to go beyond the images that they have
of them in their mind and really know them; though you could argue that they
both fail.

--Adam

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:09:44 +0000

A couple of days ago, Mantis wrote:

> It would be easier (or should that be "possible"?) to 
> approach this if I had some examples of a few authors inside 
> and outside of genre who write fiction about love (monolithic 
> or otherwise).  Fictions that you find convincing.

Really, I'm surprised nobody's mentioned either of the 
obvious in-genre examples:

Sturgeon. Almost anything after about 1950 by Sturgeon.

But even more: 

Le Guin. Especially TEHANU, but lots of her other stuff too 
-- even LEFT HAND is, in an oblique way, a love story; and 
there's a powerful love story driving THE DISPOSSESSED. In 
fact, her fiction is in many ways a better example than 
Sturgeon's, because Sturgeon was so busy analyzing and 
dissecting love that, at times, the actual portrayal suffered; 
plus, he was busy with "variations on the theme," while Le 
Guin simply writes about people and those people sometimes 
love each other.

(I find myself thinking "Surely Connie Willis," but, oddly, 
I honestly can't think of a good example -- and ditto for
Octavia Estelle Butler.)

--