Subject: (urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 5, Issue 15

From: Jeffrey Lefstin <jeff.lefstin at stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:33:22 +0000

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

On Jan 11, 2005, at 11:16 AM, urth-urth.net-request at lists.urth.net 
wrote:

> I don't think Orwell crossed any kind of critical line
> in what he wrote about Chesterton here; he seems to
> attack him more on political than religious grounds
> anyway.  But it was clearly posted in the group as an
> insult to certain members, though I can't claim to
> understand why.  I mean, the religious views of most
> active members on this list are well known, as are
> Gene Wolfe's.  Is the poster implying that Wolfe's
> novels have become increasingly stale and polemical as
> his religious and/or political beliefs have found a
> more overt expression in his writing?
>

---

From: aqala at yahoo.com <aqala at yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:38:44 +0000

--- urth-urth.net-request at lists.urth.net wrote:

> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:57:56 -0800
> From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: (urth) Orwell on Chesterton
> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net>
> Message-ID: <1f76173705011110571de36a2f at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> 
> Aqala:
> 
> I am a great admirer of both Orwell and Chesterton, and a
> man who is converting to Catholicism in his 40s, after a
> great deal (more than ten years) of thought.May I ask why
> you feel it necessary to post something so inflammatorially
> insulting?
> 
> --Dan'l 

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.

		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

---

From: James Wynn <thewynns at earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:44:57 +0000

>What is exactly insulting Orwell's opinion or my own?
>If not with swards than with words. If you find Orwell's opinion (or mine)

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

---

From: aqala at yahoo.com <aqala at yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:46:13 +0000

>
>
>--- Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk> wrote:
>

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

>understand why.  I mean, the religious views of most

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!

>more overt expression in his writing?

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

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

---

From: James Wynn <thewynns at earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:52:21 +0000

>or GW's views.... Now I assume the latter?

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

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:55:05 +0000

> What is exactly insulting Orwell's opinion or my own?
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 whom is it insulting? 

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

> Why is it insulting? 

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

> People has been denouncing religion and the church
> for a long time now, 

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
-- 
www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer
Freedom has no barcode.
     --J.G. Ballard

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:56:41 +0000

> caught you unaware if you did not previously know of Wolfe's conservative

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

---

From: James Wynn <thewynns at earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:25:06 +0000

>rich tradition of conservatism in SF.

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

---

From: Alexander, Bryan <balexan at middlebury.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:37:06 +0000

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
Subject: Re: (urth) SciFi politics

>rich tradition of conservatism in SF.

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

_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
To post, write urth at urth.net
Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

---

From: Chris <rasputin_ at hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:25:06 +0000

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.