{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4128", "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": 4128, "subject": "delany, etc.", "messages": 3, "voices": 3, "first": "2003-07-29T06:15:11+00:00", "last": "2003-07-29T18:55:12+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "maa32", "address": "maa32 at dana.ucc.nau.edu" }, "date": "2003-07-29T06:15:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) delany, etc.", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I had to comment on one statement that was made -\nthat Wolfe might think that Borges and Delany are better writers than him? I \nhave the suspicion that Wolfe doesn't like Delany's writing that much - he \nsaid he couldn't get through Dhalgren and much preferred Report on Probability \nA by Aldiss. I'm sure he admires Borges, but I wonder how much of his \nhumility is at times fake: \"Everything I write is wonderful\" - I know he said \nthat at a convention. If I had to go out on a limb and say that Wolfe felt \nlike a lesser writer than anyone, it would probably be Dickens, Proust, \nShakespeare, or Chesterton - who were kind of prolific. And I don't think he \nreally believes that.\n\nYes, it was absolutely awful how Mr. Wolfe was treated at Odyssey. People \ntake their manuscripts personally. Having read just about everything Wofle \nhas written except perhaps 10 stories, I have come to the conclusion that \nthere is one reason that I might find Wolfe a difficult teacher: he really \ndoesn't like to explain himself. I was blessed some time ago: Mr. Wolfe \nperused one of my manuscripts. He said, \"You have a wonderful idea here. \nMany wonderful ideas. But you will have to get much better at writing before \nyou can do justice to them. You explain yourself way too much.\"\n\nI was infinitely grateful for his input - and I regard it as extremely \npositive - yet here is the rub: everyone who has ever read my work says I need \nto explain more, because it doesn't make sense - that I make too many quantum \nleaps that should be explained.\n\nI'm sure Wolfe is a wonderful teacher. On the other hand, I knew many \nbrilliant research scientists at my undergraduate college who weren't as good \nat teaching as some high school or community college teachers because they \ncouldn't simplify in terms that a student could parse and digest. I maintain \nthat some people are too brilliant to be teachers, because those who can't do, \nteach. Like me!:) Unfortunately, talent isn't a contagious disease. I wish \nit were.\n\nMarc Aramini" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lisa Schaffer-Doggett", "address": "harlekin at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2003-07-29T07:04:38+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) delany, etc.", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "On Monday, July 28, 2003, at 11:15 PM, maa32 wrote:\n \"You have a wonderful idea here." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Many wonderful ideas. But you will have to get much better at writing \nbefore\nyou can do justice to them. You explain yourself way too much.\"\n\nI was infinitely grateful for his input - and I regard it as extremely\npositive - yet here is the rub: everyone who has ever read my work \nsays I need\nto explain more, because it doesn't make sense - that I make too many \nquantum\nleaps that should be explained." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Don butts in with two maybe three comments:\n\nHaving never read anything you've written I would instinctively say \nthat Mr. Wolfe's advice will give you critical longevity and \"everyone\" \nelse's advice will give you more marketability. I'm a less is more \nwriter myself (and chronically unpublished, critically unnoticed, etc - \nMy only hope is that when the Apocalypse comes the airtight seal on the \ntime capsule will hold and I'll win by attrition : )\n\nBy the by, there was no excuse for what those students did. They \ndidn't even have the guts to complain to Mr. Wolfe in person. Besides, \nwe are all rational (usually, sometimes, potentially) beings who have \nthe ability to study criticism and accept or ignore it to whatever \ndegree we wish. How often do you think Mr. Wolfe lets someone talk him \nout of a \"bad\" story idea? It's his confidence in HIS story that we \nlove as much as his skill in presenting it. IMHO.\n\nI think I'm over my limit." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2003-07-29T18:55:12+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) delany, etc.", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Monday, July 28, 2003, at 11:15 PM, maa32 wrote:\n \"You have a wonderful idea here." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Many wonderful ideas. But you will have to get much better at writing \nbefore\nyou can do justice to them. You explain yourself way too much.\"\n\nI was infinitely grateful for his input - and I regard it as extremely\npositive - yet here is the rub: everyone who has ever read my work says I \nneed\nto explain more, because it doesn't make sense - that I make too many \nquantum\nleaps that should be explained." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Don butts in with two maybe three comments:\n\nHaving never read anything you've written I would instinctively say that \nMr. Wolfe's advice will give you critical longevity and \"everyone\" else's \nadvice will give you more marketability. I'm a" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Perhaps it's a certain confusion of terms. It sounds like your \"everyone \nelse's\" advice is telling you that they don't understand what the story is \ngetting at, and what they really want is more information to be able to work \nit out. But what Wolfe is telling you is that you should give them this \ninformation in more subtle ways than outright explaining it to the reader \nwith the voice-of-god: give them circumstancial clues, pieces from which \nthey can infer what you want them to know.\n\nI haven't read your writing either so please don't take offense if I'm \nguessing wrong. But the reason I guess this is because Wolfe has, on other \noccasions, said that the tendency of a writer to try and \"explain\" things \nexplicitly is one of the main things a potential writer has to overcome. So \nit sounds like just the kind of thing he would caution you against.\n\nCivet" } ] } ] }