Subject: (urth) Baldanders, Delany, Blattid

From: Michael Andre-Driussi <mantis at siriusfiction.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 19:48:41 +0000

In an attempt to calm the waters (not without some risk), I'd like to shift
the topic a bit.

A week ago Josh asked/made his statement about Baldanders being based on
Delany as clearly to him (Josh) as Ultan is based on Borges.

Blattid is our Designated Delany expert, and I would like him to address
Josh's notion.  Others can chime in as well.

=mantis=

--

---

From: Andrew Bollen <abollen at internode.on.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:09:34 +0000

> Josh's notion.  Others can chime in as well.

Pedophilia? One slim pornographic work by Delany which was chock full of it;
can't remember the name.

--

---

From: Josh Geller <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:06:45 +0000

> Pedophilia? One slim pornographic work by Delany which was chock full of it;

You are probably thinking of 'Hogg'. Delany, BTW, questions its
appellation as 'pornography'. He said, if I recall correctly,
that people read pornography to become sexually excited, and he
didn't know anyone who read 'Hogg' to become sexually excited. He
described it as a realistic novel about sex and violence. I have
not read 'Hogg', but I have read Delany's other so-called 
'pornographic' work, 'The Mad Man'. This is the only Delany that I
have not been able to read multiple times. It is the opposite of
slim. It is brilliantly written, like everything he writes, but it 
is strong and disturbing. Without getting too confessional here, 
I can say that most sexual things that freak out men in my 
demographic don't bother me, but there was stuff in 'The Mad Man' 
that bothered me. I believe I will read it again, sometime. Not
for a while.

You see, I suspect that Gene Wolfe considers Borges and Delany both
to be better writers than he is. I don't know if I would agree with 
that, but it is my perception of his perception, and like all such
things could be totally wrong. I don't normally talk about this kind
of thing, and ask your kind indulgences if I am in any way unclear.

Master Ultan stands head and shoulders above Severian. Baldanders is
gigantic, monstrous, larger than Severian in all ways. Baldanders is 
up to no good. Still, Severian can't help but like and respect 
Baldanders, although they look at things very differently. Severian 
can't even bring himself to believe that Baldanders was boofing his 
force grown boyfriend, there. Why not? This is a man who eviscerates 
women and puts them under bell jars, after all.

These are some of my thoughts on the matter. There are others. Why did
the innkeeper call Baldanders Baldy? He's not bald. 

May the hour of my silence return.

.

--

---

From: Matt Weber <mweber at library.berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:01:18 +0000

>Pedophilia? One slim pornographic work by Delany which was chock full of it;

I think that's EQUINOX, yes?  I don't think it was especially 
pedophiliac, though--pretty much any perversity that Delany could 
think up seemed to have been included.

Matt

Go, for they call you, Shepherd, from the hill.
	Matthew Arnold (1822-1888), The Scholar-Gipsy

--

---

From: Josh Geller <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:41:09 +0000

> think up seemed to have been included.

I don't think I've even heard of that one.

As I say, I have not read 'Hogg'. I am given to understand, however,
that one of the main characters (perhaps the viewpoint) is a seven
year old prostitute.

I don't recall 'The Mad Man' containing any pedophilia. I don't believe
that it did. However, it did contain a lot of other stuff.

Folks, Samuel R. Delany is a homosexual man who, by his own account, has
been sexually active since the early fifties. I wouldn't assume that he
does, has done, or even likes the idea of doing all of the sexual things
that he describes in his fiction. But that he has certain knowledge of a
lot of things that would disturb many, perhaps most of the readers on 
this list (not excluding myself) can be taken for granted. 

I am really sort of sorry that I ever brought this up.

.

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <katbarx at hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 21:26:04 +0000

A yuge correspondance later ... I finally seed this ...

>Josh's notion.  Others can chime in as well.

Well, I have to admit that _I_ can't undersee it, but have to add that Josh 
reasings
in a key outside the strange of my hearing. I just don't get Qaballa.

Baldanders and Dr T* have seemed to me from my first purrousal of _Shadow_ 
to
be a marvelous ploy withon the Mad Scientist And His Monster archetrope. 
While
playing with such things does have a nouvaguely Delanish aire, many aothrs 
pley
dissimularly, enrough so that, widdowt some more spacific detrayal (than a 
scrabbled
latter pizzle) I woodink it a coincidance.

--Blah Ted

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

--