{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4256", "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": 4256, "subject": "everyone gets one good book", "messages": 6, "voices": 5, "first": "2004-11-30T23:15:47+00:00", "last": "2004-12-02T00:15:05+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<20041201071544.C822037CF1@sitemail.everyone.net>", "from": { "name": "turin", "address": "turin at hell.com" }, "date": "2004-11-30T23:15:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) everyone gets one good book", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Forgot to mention Dan'l, I was completely hundred percent thinking of Starship Troopers when you said military science fiction. How many times have we seen space marines since Heinlein? The film could have been a harsher juvenelian satire of Nazi germany than what it was, but it did an okay job I guess. Verhoeven drops the ball on it I think. \n\nI don't think Hyperion is as complex as Briah, but I really liked Hyperion, the other books get steadily worse, but The Canterbury Tales plus neuromancer, the terminator, star wars with any other bits of scientistically cool and grotesque things we expect from a space opera future. I would say it's the best space opera novel, but I haven't read any, and I dont know if any of you consider Wolfe to be space opera. I really like the way the Shrike pins everyone to his tree and jacks them into the matrix, William Gibson's term actually. Is that the first time people were forcibly inserted into the internet by machines?\n\n\nAlso I liked what Eric said about the Agon. That was a good metaphor, and not trying to reconstruct anyone's biography. The author and the person behind the author are different entities. Shakespeare's work says everything about Shakespeare the author and nothing about Shakespeare as a person. That is difficult distinction to make though, I've been talking about Tolkien's biography ad nauseam, but mostly about his letters. It is not that I think biography is irrelevant like Heidegger said when he said all he need to know about Aristotle is that he loved, wrote, and died, I see his point, but Derrida interprets Heidgeer in this way. He says rigorous interpretation of a philosopher's work is the truest biography over someone who knows the whole story. In other word's the best way to know a writer is to read his work, not that what we are doing isn't valuable, but it's secondary to reading.\n\nAnd finally, I think everyone only has one story and they keep telling it over and over again. Tolkien's story seems to be about the destruction of great civilizations. Yes I did use entropy, but when he talks about a fallen world, he is obsessed with the passage of time, and that reads arrow of time, heat death. For instance, in the future, elves will not have the energy to stay embodied in middle-earth and will be \"houseless spirits\". The rings slow time, less time passes in Lorien than in the rest of Middle-earth. It's like Rip Van Winkle, the world of faerie is about relativistic effects on time, usually time is fast here and slow there but not always. Wolfe employs this convention in The Wizard Knight, and Vallee talks about it as well in Passport to Magonia and ideas of \"missing time\". Galadriel call's history, a \"long defeat\". Or as Stephen Dedalus says in Ulysses, \"History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake\"\n\nWolfe's story is about finding God. He was angry when people though Severian was Christ, I know I did, and he said in an interview with a Protestant Christian book publisher or something like that, that Severian was a bad person trying to become a Christian. I thought it was kind of cool that Severian was Christ and Legion. T torturer metaphor made me think back to The Last Temptation and the Catholic occupation with suffering. Well, Mr. Wolfe, you could have fooled me. This is why I like letters but often distrust them. It seems that The Book of the Long Sun was a rewrite of the Book of the New Sun in which Silk was Severian only very moral and a priest rather than a savior or saint and is more overtly Catholic and Christian. Did Silk try to kill himself when Hyacinth died, is that why we has the knife and is covered with blood? I guess so, but this seems out of character for him in the Book of the Long Sun, except when he is about to jump off the airship. Severian also contemplates suicide a few times. Dan'l, it's true that Wolfe won't narrate the things the narrator does not want to witness. It can be a tease, sometimes it is pleasurable and sometimes annoying, but usually I like it. \n\nI don't see how Wolfe could top TBOTNS. I see how he has improved things and even developed a clearer writing style, but why would he want to top his own achievements in the same way? And I don't think his later books are pale images of his earlier work, like maybe the Stephen King ater the golden age in the late 70s and early 80s, but maybe some people feel that way about Wolfe too. I like the Wizard Knight, it's fun, and the man is 70s years old. It's a little late for a comeback, not that I think he needs to. He also writes about more likable characters. Most everyone in TBOTNS is a terrible person, Severian is only really less terrible. It's not like you could invite him to your house for coffee and cake. I wish I had a dog as good as Gylf. \n\nNot only do I think an author gets one true story, they only get one great book if any and one influential book but they don't have to be the same one. These are just some of my ideas about people we've talked about. Ulysses (at least in English, Finnegan's Wake is not in English), Lord of the Rings, The Book of the New Sun, Childhood's End ( for me but that's debatable I think), Hyperion. I can't decide with Gibson or Stephenson. Till We have Faces is Lewis's. I don't know for Chesterton or the rest of the Victorian fantascists. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep for Dick. My favorite Stephen King is Wizard and Glass, but I think the best book is The Shining, and the scariest Pet Semetary. I read a lot of Stephen King in high school. I haven't read the Lathe of Heaven. My favorite of Neil Gaiman's comics, which are very good, despite what I've said of him, is The Kindly Ones, Sandman 9, I also think it's his best work. Lord of Light for Zelazny. We can fight about all of these Is that better than the Left Hand of Darkness? What other authors do you guys talk about on this list besides Wolfe or have I been killing the mood with non Wolfe related material." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2004-12-01T11:22:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) everyone gets one good book", "in_reply_to": "<20041201071544.C822037CF1@sitemail.everyone.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The story you attribute to Tolkien is really a synthesis of mythologies, \nsome elements of which are more straightforward than others. The \"entropy\" \naspect you're talking about is an echo, at the very least, of the Old \nTestament and more generally, the Hebrew myths. Anybody familiar with the \nBible knows that the lifespans get shorter and shorter in succeeding \ngenerations. Fewer people are aware that in the myths, Abraham for example \nwas absurdly powerful and destroyed an entire army.\n\nI think the themes of broken civilizations and decline are simply inherent \nin the raw materials Tolkien is working with, particularly in the \nSilmarillion. In order to have a fertile mythology, you have to imagine that \nthings were once more fabulous and magical than they are now, which leaves \nyou the necessary problem of explaining why it's not that way now.\n\nI don't agree that Wolfe's story is about finding God in general, although \nit may well be impossible for him to not put that into his longer works \nsomewhere. The themes he returns to over and over are the problems of \nidentity and problems of memory (usually with the two bound tightly \ntogether). Try Fifth Head of Cerberus for a Wolfe story that has everything \nto do with these two issues, little or nothing to do with finding God.\n\nAs far as your take on Severian and torture, all I can say is that I don't \nsee Severian as a Christ-figure, because he doesn't have all the necessary \nelements - he lacks certain redemptive dimensions. Without delving too far \ninto qabbalistic oddities present in the New Sun series (which others here \nare more qualified to talk about than I), I would say that an examination of \nthe concept of \"geburah\" would help to understand better what Wolfe was \ngetting at with Severian - geburah is commonly translated as \"severity\", \nthough perhaps \"necessity\" would also be a helpful word.\n\nI do think if you're looking for truly grand scope, it's hard to beat BotNS \nand I don't expect he will even try to. But there are a lot of different \nkinds of story, and some of his simpler one-shot novels are just outstanding \nin their own right. As far as series, I have high hopes for the Soldier \nbooks, if he ever gets the time to finish them.\n\nTurin said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And finally, I think everyone only has one story and they keep telling it \nover and over again. Tolkien's story seems to be about the destruction of \ngreat civilizations. Yes I did use entropy, but when he talks about a \nfallen world, he is obsessed with the passage of time, and that reads arrow \nof time, heat death. For instance, in the future, elves will not have the \nenergy to stay embodied in middle-earth and will be \"houseless spirits\". \nThe rings slow time, less time passes in Lorien than in the rest of \nMiddle-earth. It's like Rip Van Winkle, the world of faerie is about \nrelativistic effects on time, usually time is fast here and slow there but \nnot always. Wolfe employs this convention in The Wizard Knight, and Vallee \ntalks about it as well in Passport to Magonia and ideas of \"missing time\". \nGaladriel call's history, a \"long defeat\". Or as Stephen Dedalus says in \nUlysses, \"History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake\"\n\nWolfe's story is about finding God. He was angry when people though \nSeverian was Christ, I know I did, and he said in an interview with a \nProtestant Christian book publisher or something like that, that Severian \nwas a bad person trying to become a Christian. I thought it was kind of \ncool that Severian was Christ and Legion. T torturer metaphor made me \nthink back to The Last Temptation and the Catholic occupation with \nsuffering. Well, Mr. Wolfe, you could have fooled me. This is why I like \nletters but often distrust them. It seems that The Book of the Long Sun \nwas a rewrite of the Book of the New Sun in which Silk was Severian only \nvery moral and a priest rather than a savior or saint and is more overtly \nCatholic and Christian. Did Silk try to kill himself when Hyacinth died, \nis that why we has the knife and is covered with blood? I guess so, but \nthis seems out of character for him in the Book of the Long Sun, except \nwhen he is about to jump off the airship. Severian also contemplates \nsuicide a few times. Dan'l, it's true that Wolfe won't narrate the things \nthe narrator does not want to witness. It can be a tease, sometimes it is \npleasurable and sometimes annoying, but usually I like it.\n\nI don't see how Wolfe could top TBOTNS. I see how he has improved things \nand even developed a clearer writing style, but why would he want to top \nhis own achievements in the same way? And I don't think his later books \nare pale images of his earlier work, like maybe the Stephen King ater the \ngolden age in the late 70s and early 80s, but maybe some people feel that \nway about Wolfe too. I like the Wizard Knight, it's fun, and the man is \n70s years old. It's a little late for a comeback, not that I think he \nneeds to. He also writes about more likable characters. Most everyone in \nTBOTNS is a terrible person, Severian is only really less terrible. It's \nnot like you could invite him to your house for coffee and cake. I wish I \nhad a dog as good as Gylf.\n\nNot only do I think an author gets one true story, they only get one great \nbook if any and one influential book but they don't have to be the same \none. These are just some of my ideas about people we've talked about. \nUlysses (at least in English, Finnegan's Wake is not in English), Lord of \nthe Rings, The Book of the New Sun, Childhood's End ( for me but that's \ndebatable I think), Hyperion. I can't decide with Gibson or Stephenson. \nTill We have Faces is Lewis's. I don't know for Chesterton or the rest of \nthe Victorian fantascists. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep for Dick. \nMy favorite Stephen King is Wizard and Glass, but I think the best book is \nThe Shining, and the scariest Pet Semetary. I read a lot of Stephen King \nin high school. I haven't read the Lathe of Heaven. My favorite of Neil \nGaiman's comics, which are very good, despite what I've said of him, is The \nKindly Ones, Sandman 9, I also think it's his best work. Lord of Light for \nZelazny. We can fight about all of these Is that better than the Left Hand \nof Darkness? What other authors do you guys talk about on this list \nbesides Wolfe or have I been killing the mood with non Wolfe related \nmaterial.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Eric Mattingly", "address": "eric_mattingly at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2004-12-01T20:21:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) One Good Book", "in_reply_to": "<20041201071544.C822037CF1@sitemail.everyone.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But first, Dan'l. I think you are right and if I was (and I was) obtuse, it \nwas my fault and was a result of the orgiastic rush to present the ideas I \nhad been sitting on for about two years. Maybe I can clarify my point \nbetter if I say that I believe Christianity to be a phenomenon that does not \nescape the bounds of history. So many things in human culture (like, for \ninstance, \"humanism\") cannot be explained outside of the actual processes \nthey exhibit. This, of course, is part of my general critique of the idea \nof transcendence. To put it simply: if a thing is transcendent we cannot \nknow it. If we know it has become immanent and thus has become part of the \n\"world\" which implies partiality, prejudice (in Gadamer's sense), \nlimitation, and, finally, definition in terms of the world. Even if there \nis a God that at one time existed outside of the cosmos, the fact that we \ncan even speculate on it means that he must have joined the cosmos. Anyway, \nto stay on point, Wolfe may accept the idea of transcendence but that \ndoesn't mean that it is justified. No one can truly be \"christian\" in the \nsense that \"Christianity\" implies unworldliness-- which cannot be expressed \n(or known, I would argue). I appreciate your comments, especially since \nthey helped me to clarify myself.\n\nAnd now, about the One Good Book. For Wolfe, I think that tBotNS is the \nframework from which he ironed out the other two series'. As I said in my \nother email, I interpret that novel (I will call the whole thing one novel, \nsince you did and I agree wholeheartedly) as a mythos toward gnosis and \nrestoration (which become one and the same-- salvation through knowledge, \nthe ultimate heresy in early Christianity). The succeeding two novels \nemphasize different aspects of the ascent-- like epicycles traveling around \ntheir original. The Book of the Long Sun is, I believe, a meditation on the \nspecific moment of knowing (\"Patera Silk received enlightenment on the \nballcourt: nothing could ever be the same\"), while the Book of the Short Sun \nis concerned with the struggle to conform oneself with the knowledge gained. \n The Book of the Short Sun is also the most personal thing of Wolfe's I've \nread since it concerns the struggle of a regular man to conform himself to \nan impossible ideal (the ideal held in his book, though not necessarily in \nCalde Silke). God, while obviously the idea to which all the heroes aspire, \nalso remains curiously distant. He remains always the outsider (see above \nre transcendence). I think that the Book of the New Sun is definately \nWolfe's one commanding book. But, I like the Book of the Long Sun better \nthan any fantasy/sci fi. I've read that's not Wolfe, Tokien, or Lewis, and I \nthink that The Book of the Short Sun is utterly fantastic (I am still \nreading Return To the Whorl, and that is impressing me more than the other \nbooks in the series). Also, we cannot forget about \"Fifth Head of \nCerberus.\"\n\nI agree with you on Joyce. For Chesterton, probably \"The Man who was \nThursday.\" Tolkien, yadda. Lewis, any one of the Chronicles of Narnia or \n\"Out of the Silent Planet\" (not a fan of the other two space novels at all). \nProust, yadda. Borges \"Ficciones.\" And it goes on.\n\nThis is great stuff. Has anyone read Borski's book yet? I think I might \nbuy it for myself for Christmas.\n\nDei, sive natura, give you good rest.\n\neric\n\n\n\nA heretic is a man who sees with his own eyes.\n\n-- Gotthold Ephraim Lessing" } ] }, { "message_id": "<032701c4d82d$ec310520$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2004-12-01T21:15:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) One Good Book", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"Out of the Silent Planet\" (not a fan of the other two space novels at all)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I gotta disagree about \"That Hideous Strength\". I found it to be an untamed\ngenre busting imagination-orgy of the sort that Wolfe has made his stock and\ntrade.\n\nThe head of a murderer set up by demon possessed scientists as their god,\nwho dig up Merlin in a war with Lords of the five planets (who are just like\ntheir Greco-Roman counterparts and have their actual elemental counterparts\non Earth). One of the scientists wants to mow down all the trees and cover\nthe Earth in stainless steel. The opposite side of the Moon (which when this\nnovel was written was still unseen and unchartered) is a paradise outside\nthe realm of the revolutionary lord of Earth; the Earth-side was blasted\nduring the war with that same revolutionary. The textual parallels to the\nKing Arthur legends *and* the book of Revelation....hot-diggedty! This one\nis a killer.\n\n~ Crush" } ] }, { "message_id": "<8135CA3C-442F-11D9-A0DB-0003939CE29C@earthlink.net>", "from": { "name": "Lisa Schaffer-Doggett", "address": "harlekin at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2004-12-01T21:58:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) everyone gets one good book", "in_reply_to": "<20041201071544.C822037CF1@sitemail.everyone.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tuesday, November 30, 2004, at 11:15 PM, turin wrote:\n\nForgot to mention Dan'l, I was completely hundred percent thinking of \nStarship Troopers when you said military science fiction. How many \ntimes have we seen space marines since Heinlein? The film could have \nbeen a harsher juvenelian satire of Nazi germany than what it was, but \nit did an okay job I guess. Verhoeven drops the ball on it I think." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Verhoeven's not satirizing Nazis. He's satirizing the Bush One (and \nscarily enough, Bush 2) administration and mocking the filmgoer at the \nsame time. I've said it to many people, we're living that film. Sorry \nfor heading further ot.\n\nDon" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2004-12-02T00:15:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) One Good Book", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've read Borski's book. He did some very good work with it, but it's hard \nnot to be frustrated with it - especially if you don't agree with his \ninterpretations. And a good portion of the time, I didn't. That said, he \nbrings up all sorts of references in the books that often you won't even \nremember... and he cites them, which provides a great prod for the reader to \ngo back and re-read that section of BotNS, which is always worthwhile.\n\nSo I'm somewhat torn: I think Borski's work should be supported, and I \nrespect the work he's done, but on the other hand I have a hard time \nrecommending it to read for its own sake. I guess what I'd suggest is that \nyou should buy it if you are planning on re-reading BotNS, and you can use \nBorski's book as you go." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But first, Dan'l. I think you are right and if I was (and I was) obtuse, \nit was my fault and was a result of the orgiastic rush to present the ideas \nI had been sitting on for about two years. Maybe I can clarify my point \nbetter if I say that I believe Christianity to be a phenomenon that does \nnot escape the bounds of history. So many things in human culture (like, \nfor instance, \"humanism\") cannot be explained outside of the actual \nprocesses they exhibit. This, of course, is part of my general critique of \nthe idea of transcendence. To put it simply: if a thing is transcendent we \ncannot know it. If we know it has become immanent and thus has become part \nof the \"world\" which implies partiality, prejudice (in Gadamer's sense), \nlimitation, and, finally, definition in terms of the world. Even if there \nis a God that at one time existed outside of the cosmos, the fact that we \ncan even speculate on it means that he must have joined the cosmos. \nAnyway, to stay on point, Wolfe may accept the idea of transcendence but \nthat doesn't mean that it is justified. No one can truly be \"christian\" in \nthe sense that \"Christianity\" implies unworldliness-- which cannot be \nexpressed (or known, I would argue). I appreciate your comments, \nespecially since they helped me to clarify myself.\n\nAnd now, about the One Good Book. For Wolfe, I think that tBotNS is the \nframework from which he ironed out the other two series'. As I said in my \nother email, I interpret that novel (I will call the whole thing one novel, \nsince you did and I agree wholeheartedly) as a mythos toward gnosis and \nrestoration (which become one and the same-- salvation through knowledge, \nthe ultimate heresy in early Christianity). The succeeding two novels \nemphasize different aspects of the ascent-- like epicycles traveling around \ntheir original. The Book of the Long Sun is, I believe, a meditation on \nthe specific moment of knowing (\"Patera Silk received enlightenment on the \nballcourt: nothing could ever be the same\"), while the Book of the Short \nSun is concerned with the struggle to conform oneself with the knowledge \ngained. The Book of the Short Sun is also the most personal thing of \nWolfe's I've read since it concerns the struggle of a regular man to \nconform himself to an impossible ideal (the ideal held in his book, though \nnot necessarily in Calde Silke). God, while obviously the idea to which \nall the heroes aspire, also remains curiously distant. He remains always \nthe outsider (see above re transcendence). I think that the Book of the \nNew Sun is definately Wolfe's one commanding book. But, I like the Book of \nthe Long Sun better than any fantasy/sci fi. I've read that's not Wolfe, \nTokien, or Lewis, and I think that The Book of the Short Sun is utterly \nfantastic (I am still reading Return To the Whorl, and that is impressing \nme more than the other books in the series). Also, we cannot forget about \n\"Fifth Head of Cerberus.\"\n\nI agree with you on Joyce. For Chesterton, probably \"The Man who was \nThursday.\" Tolkien, yadda. Lewis, any one of the Chronicles of Narnia or \n\"Out of the Silent Planet\" (not a fan of the other two space novels at \nall). Proust, yadda. Borges \"Ficciones.\" And it goes on.\n\nThis is great stuff. Has anyone read Borski's book yet? I think I might \nbuy it for myself for Christmas.\n\nDei, sive natura, give you good rest.\n\neric\n\n\n\nA heretic is a man who sees with his own eyes.\n\n-- Gotthold Ephraim Lessing\n\n_________________________________________________________________\nExpress yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! \nhthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] } ] }