urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 5, Issue 15

I wouldn't go so far as to endorse this point of view whole-heartedly, but I was struck by how jarring the paeans to supply-side economics and universal gun ownership were in Exodus from the Long Sun. At the time they seemed so clumsily inserted that I wasn't sure if they were satire or GW's views.... Now I assume the latter? JL

What is exactly insulting Orwell’s opinion or my own? To whom is it insulting? Chesterton has been dead many for a long time. Why is it insulting? People has been denouncing religion and the church for a long time now, nothing new there, like Robert Burns said: Proud Priests and Bishops we'll translate And canonise as Martyrs; If not with swards than with words. If you find Orwell’s opinion (or mine) insulting to YOU than that, sir, is your problem.

Errr...I think the insulting part was not Orwell's opinion which was directed a Chesterton, but it was rather your own which was directed at the intellect of anyone considering converting to Catholicism. That's rather personal and not directed at some dead for nigh on a century. In short, it was inflammitory. ~ Crush

You can find the text of Orwell’s essay here: http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300011.txt

So anyone who expresses a view that does not confirm to your own (or certain members) views than he is bent on insulting? That must make it easy (very easy) to just dismiss anyone with a different view rather than engage them!

You read all that in a post that didn’t even mention Wolfe? No your interpretation is completely wrong.

I didn't think they were clumsily inserted. I think they were jarring because the plurality of SciFi writers are politically liberal. Thus, placing favorable views to gun-ownership and supply-side economics in the mouth of a very simpathic and (presented as) wise character might have caught you unaware if you did not previously know of Wolfe's conservative politics. ~ Crush

Yours. Specifically: "A man so lacking in thought and intellect he converted to Catholicism when in his 40's." While stated as a remark on Chesterton, it is in fact a general remark on the intellegence of anyone who converts to Catholicism, and especially in their 40s. (Which - by the way - does not take an apostrophe.)

To me and anyone else who voluntarily embraces Catholicism after a great deal of thought.

I refuse to insult you by assuming that you are too dim to figure it out yourself from teh clues given.

There is also a lengthy tradition of denouncing blacks as half-animals, jews as greedy Christ-killers, atheists as closed-minded bigots, etc. An insult repeated for a long time does not become less insulting thereby. --Dan'l

We must not be reading the same SF: Heinlein, Weber, Niven and/or Pournelle - well, I gave up on those two years ago... There is a long and rich tradition of conservatism in SF. Which doesn't make it right, of course. 8*) --Dan'l

That's why I said "the plurality of Sci-Fi writers" -- not even a majority. I have no way of ascertaining whether political liberals are in the majority, but having gone to my share of gatherings of SF writers and aspiring writers, I feel comfortable in saying that there were far more liberals than conservatives there. Or perhaps the liberals and conservatives only thought the liberals held an overwhelming majority there, and so were more vocal. However, it was, I didn't find Silk's opinions on gun-ownership any more or less jarring than the omnipresent villainous corporate heads in SF literature, or the benign and efficient socialist societies. ~ Crush

Bruce Franklin's collection of Vietnam war writing has a reprint from a 1968 issue of Galaxy, which includes two petitions on that war. One is a group of writers urging the United States to withdraw, while the other recommends the nation remain in the fighting. It's fascinating to read the two lists (which are roughly equal in size) - in fact, it would make a great teaching tool for science fiction history! -----Original Message----- From: urth-urth.net-bounces at lists.urth.net [mailto:urth-urth.net-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of James Wynn Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 4:25 PM To: The Urth Mailing List

That's why I said "the plurality of Sci-Fi writers" -- not even a majority. I have no way of ascertaining whether political liberals are in the majority, but having gone to my share of gatherings of SF writers and aspiring writers, I feel comfortable in saying that there were far more liberals than conservatives there. Or perhaps the liberals and conservatives only thought the liberals held an overwhelming majority there, and so were more vocal. However, it was, I didn't find Silk's opinions on gun-ownership any more or less jarring than the omnipresent villainous corporate heads in SF literature, or the benign and efficient socialist societies. ~ Crush

I am undecided on the supply-side economics bit, but I did not think that the gun-ownership bit was clumsily inserted either; it's quite to the point and a real concern in the particular political situation Silk found himself in. And ultimately it seemed to me like Silk's position on guns, at that point, was largely a matter of political pragmatism rather than universal principle. To me, the issue there wasn't "gun control" but rather the distribution of power to individuals in an unstable, revolutionary atmosphere. I am not sure that Wolfe could even have realistically avoided the subject.