{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4689", "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": 4689, "subject": "Re-reading, hoping for some discussion ;-)", "messages": 13, "voices": 6, "first": "2006-08-14T22:54:13+00:00", "last": "2006-08-20T09:35:15+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<20060814225413.GB23481@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>", "from": { "name": "Jonathon McKitrick", "address": "jcm at freebsd-uk.eu.org" }, "date": "2006-08-14T22:54:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re-reading, hoping for some discussion ;-)", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hi all,\n\nI was on the list some time ago, and now I'm re-reading BotNS,\nhoping to get 'Solar Labyrinth' in the mail soon.\n\nSo, for all you long-time hard-core fans, it will be the same questions you've\nheard before, but I'm hoping maybe someone with patience can help me sort this\nstuff out.\n\nFirst of all, after just reading a couple of today's posts about Severian's\nlineage... is there any reason to believe Gene Wolfe had this stuff planned\nout to provide all these details deliberately, and that he will take the final\nexplanation with him to his grave?\n\nJonathon McKitrick" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "My other computer is your Windows box." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370608141558u6b97dadaq8b32b114b396454@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-08-14T22:58:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re-reading, hoping for some discussion ;-)", "in_reply_to": "<20060814225413.GB23481@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 8/14/06, Jonathon McKitrick wrote:\nFirst of all, after just reading a couple of today's posts about Severian's\nlineage... is there any reason to believe Gene Wolfe had this stuff\nplanned out to provide all these details deliberately, and that he will\ntake the final explanation with him to his grave?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm reasonably sure that Wolfe did not create this complex, beautiful\nwork without a clear idea of what it all meant (I don't mean symbolically,\nat least not necessarily; I mean what was going on behind the scenes\nto cause the various mysterious goings-on). I'm fairly certain he knows\nwho Severian's parents and grandparents were.\n\nBut ... I suspect that we readers sometimes spend a lot of ingenuity\ncoming up with solutions to mysteries Wolfe never intended to be\nmysteries at all." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\n\"Shovels are essential to the fantasy genre.\nHowever, they are primarily used by the authors rather than the\ncharacters.\" -- Stephen R. Donaldson" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "b sharp", "address": "bsharporflat at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-08-15T11:21:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re-reading, hoping for some discussion ;-)", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370608141558u6b97dadaq8b32b114b396454@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Jonathon McKitrick asks:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "... is there any reason to believe Gene Wolfe had this stuff planned out to \nprovide all these details >deliberately, and that he will take the final \nexplanation with him to his grave?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "At the end of Citadel, I think, Gene Wolfe makes some comment about BotNS \nbeing the culmination of seven years of writing, re-reading, re-writing. So \nI think there are surely intentional mysteries in there. In one interview, \nGene Wolfe is asked about all the analyses and interpretations of BotNS and \nhe answers saying something to the effect that he is surprised by the \nexcessive attention to certain details he never considered important and to \nthe scant attention paid to other details he considered very important.\n\nWe've seen that different people magnify different parts of the story, \ndepending on the lens they use to view. Might be a Catholic or Marxist or \n(in my case) anthropological bias which makes some parts of the text stand \nout and other parts diminish. In reading Solar Labyrinth earlier this year, \nI wondered if Robert Borski might have a Jewish perspective (I don't know \nhis religious persuasion).\n\nSomeone recently asked if Wolfe might have notes or journals which would be \npublished after his death. Some felt that might happen but they would be as \nimpenetrable as his already published work. I get the feeling he builds his \nstories on a solid, clear foundation then he obscures it, so his notes would \nsolve many mysteries. But I don't think any notes will be released since \nWolfe hopes his work has the enduring quality to last much longer than his \nlifetime.\n\nIn the past, people in here have wondered why BotNS hasn't become an \nenduring classic which penetrates the cultural consciouness at large, such \nas Lord of the Rings, or Dune or Jurassic Park. I think it is partly \nbecause, since the 80's and the availability of the VCR and movie rentals, \nall Science Fiction/Fantasy classics are expected to be made into movies. \nIt would be sad to think Gene Wolfe's work would fade into obscurity in the \nfuture.\n\nBut I have mixed feelings about a BotNS movie. I'd like to see it, just \nbecause I love movies and I think current CGI technology could do it \njustice, visually. But a movie which didn't capture the tone and feeling of \nBotNS could actually hurt the popularity of the books, as I think the Dune \nmovies have done.\n\n-bsharp" } ] }, { "message_id": "<2da11e286cdba25d8ef58c2c8d3e77cd@cogsci.ucsd.edu>", "from": { "name": "Adrian Robert", "address": "arobert at cogsci.ucsd.edu" }, "date": "2006-08-15T13:23:29+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re-reading, hoping for some discussion ;-)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In the past, people in here have wondered why BotNS hasn't become an\nenduring classic which penetrates the cultural consciouness at large, \nsuch\nas Lord of the Rings, or Dune or Jurassic Park. I think it is partly\nbecause, since the 80's and the availability of the VCR and movie \nrentals,\nall Science Fiction/Fantasy classics are expected to be made into \nmovies.\nIt would be sad to think Gene Wolfe's work would fade into obscurity \nin the\nfuture." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Er, also the main character is a torturer? ;) Wandering around on his \nown account to boot. Not quite as family-friendly as hobbits, dwarves, \nand elves journeying merrily together to save the world.\n\nI don't see much reason to mention Jurassic Park and Dune / LoTR in the \nsame sentence. (Not wanting to start an argument -- they both have \nwide cultural appeal, just for very different reasons. ;)\n\nAnyhow, it's an interesting question as to whether Wolfe's work will \nlast. To do so it will not only have to stand out from other works of \nits time, but also continuously maintain some degree of readership. I \nthink these are a lot harder these days than, say, 100 or even 50 years \nago, if for no other reason than the sheer number of other works being \ncompeted against for reader's attention.\n\nAnd I feel like his work kind of falls between the cracks of different \naudiences. Most sci fi readers that I know have not heard of Gene \nWolfe. Same with most non-scifi readers. He's not mainstream sci fi \nand a bit difficult going if you're just looking for spaceships, laser \nguns, and/or AI. On the other hand people who read books for the \ncharacters and emotions are not necessarily going to even consider \nreading a sci fi work because they're conditioned to believe that genre \nfocuses on ideas at the expense of narrative elegance and character \ndevelopment. I suspect a lot of Wolfe fans happen to enjoy both types \nof works, they make up the exception rather than the rule among \nreaders. (I did manage to get a friend of mine to read _There are \nDoors_ once, but despite a positive reaction she balked at BotNS.)\n\nAnyhow, I guess I'd like to think Wolfe's work will last, but have \ntrouble convincing myself it can." } ] }, { "message_id": "<20060815141546.GA28084@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>", "from": { "name": "Jonathon McKitrick", "address": "jcm at freebsd-uk.eu.org" }, "date": "2006-08-15T14:15:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re-reading, hoping for some discussion ;-)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 07:21:42AM -0400, b sharp wrote:\n: out and other parts diminish. In reading Solar Labyrinth earlier this year, \n\nMine is on the way. Did you find it worth reading?\n\n: But I have mixed feelings about a BotNS movie. I'd like to see it, just \n: because I love movies and I think current CGI technology could do it \n\nNow we can degrade the list into polls on who should play Severian, et al.\n:-)\n\n: justice, visually. But a movie which didn't capture the tone and feeling of \n: BotNS could actually hurt the popularity of the books, as I think the Dune \n: movies have done.\n\nI was excited when the SciFi channel Dune came out, but I have mixed feelings\nabout it. Much better, in some ways, than the movie, but still empty in many\nother ways. Not sure if I want to rent/buy 'Children of Dune' out of\ncuriosity or not. I never did get around to reading the book.\n\n\nJonathon McKitrick" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "My other computer is your Windows box." } ] }, { "message_id": "<551314DE-AEA8-4AA6-AF06-12AACC648DEC@ntlworld.com>", "from": { "name": "HHR", "address": "hubert.rogers at ntlworld.com" }, "date": "2006-08-17T14:16:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re-reading, hoping for some discussion ;-)", "in_reply_to": "<2da11e286cdba25d8ef58c2c8d3e77cd@cogsci.ucsd.edu>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In my admittedly limited experience trying to persuade friends into \nreading New Sun, I've had no success. One friend read around 3 pages \nand seemed to think that the whole main character as a torturer story \nwas a gimmick, and couldn't accept statements near the beginning of \nthe book such as the one about women not being allowed in the guild \nbecause they could be too cruel.\n\nIt's a real shame, because all three people I've got to start reading \nNew Sun (and given copies of Shadow and Claw to), I know are the type \nwho would love the unsurpassed mysteries and adventure. I've always \nthought it was just a matter of getting people to just have the \npatience and open-mindedness to get past the first few chapters.\n\nOther times I've wondered if it could be that we who have read \n(multiple times) and loved every bit of TBotNS are somehow just \nobsessive freaks for thinking so highly of it. But to be honest I \ncan't accept that. I'm cautious not to come across as a crazy \nfanatic, and I know you can never please everyone and that there will \nalways be large proportions of the public who have no interest in a \ngiven style, but I do know that the Wolfe's New Sun is not anywhere \nnear being given its due regard.\n\nAs Bsharp suggested, I agree a lot of this is down to the complete \nlack of TV/cinema presence Wolfe has received.\nEven though the endless detail and wealth in minor characters and \nsubplots (and lack of a simple and obvious primary plot!) make it \npractically impossible for true justice to be done even in a trilogy \nof 3 hour epics such as. Still I think if the atmosphere of Urth was \ncaptured by a highly talented director (and great soundtrack and CGI \nteams!), and even if a great deal of the book was cut out, the result \ncould be amazing.\n\nThe problem is there is so little awareness to spark interest in \nmaking a cinema adaption. All we can do is our little part... put in \na good word wherever and whenever we can. I recently was looking up \nWolf related terms and characters on Wikipedia and it struck me that \ngood Wikipedia representation would be a great help to the cause. \nI've just made my attempt on Erebus... Abaia is up next :-)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 15 Aug 2006, at 14:23, Adrian Robert wrote:\n\nAnyhow, it's an interesting question as to whether Wolfe's work will\nlast. To do so it will not only have to stand out from other works of\nits time, but also continuously maintain some degree of readership. I\nthink these are a lot harder these days than, say, 100 or even 50 \nyears\nago, if for no other reason than the sheer number of other works being\ncompeted against for reader's attention.\n\nAnd I feel like his work kind of falls between the cracks of different\naudiences. Most sci fi readers that I know have not heard of Gene\nWolfe. Same with most non-scifi readers. He's not mainstream sci fi\nand a bit difficult going if you're just looking for spaceships, laser\nguns, and/or AI. On the other hand people who read books for the\ncharacters and emotions are not necessarily going to even consider\nreading a sci fi work because they're conditioned to believe that \ngenre\nfocuses on ideas at the expense of narrative elegance and character\ndevelopment. I suspect a lot of Wolfe fans happen to enjoy both types\nof works, they make up the exception rather than the rule among\nreaders. (I did manage to get a friend of mine to read _There are\nDoors_ once, but despite a positive reaction she balked at BotNS.)\n\nAnyhow, I guess I'd like to think Wolfe's work will last, but have\ntrouble convincing myself it can.\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Bob Miller", "address": "bob_bageera at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-08-18T02:55:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) BOTNS is a classic", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "While I personally love BOTNS, word used carefully, there are many who do \nnot like it at all. I well remember trying to loan the SotT to three \ndifferent people at work. The politeness of the response varied, but it was \nabout the same in all three instances, \"Why am I reading about these people \nthinking about robbing a graveyard and I don't think I like any of them?\" \nMy own opinion? Until I read the Wizard Knight, I thought it was the best \nbook I've read by a living author.\nGodspeed\n\nJonathon McKitrick asks:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "... is there any reason to believe Gene Wolfe had this stuff planned out \nto\nprovide all these details >deliberately, and that he will take the final\nexplanation with him to his grave?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "At the end of Citadel, I think, Gene Wolfe makes some comment about BotNS\nbeing the culmination of seven years of writing, re-reading, re-writing. So\nI think there are surely intentional mysteries in there. In one interview,\nGene Wolfe is asked about all the analyses and interpretations of BotNS and\nhe answers saying something to the effect that he is surprised by the\nexcessive attention to certain details he never considered important and to\nthe scant attention paid to other details he considered very important.\n\nWe've seen that different people magnify different parts of the story,\ndepending on the lens they use to view. Might be a Catholic or Marxist or\n(in my case) anthropological bias which makes some parts of the text stand\nout and other parts diminish. In reading Solar Labyrinth earlier this year,\nI wondered if Robert Borski might have a Jewish perspective (I don't know\nhis religious persuasion).\n\nSomeone recently asked if Wolfe might have notes or journals which would be\npublished after his death. Some felt that might happen but they would be as\nimpenetrable as his already published work. I get the feeling he builds his\nstories on a solid, clear foundation then he obscures it, so his notes would\nsolve many mysteries. But I don't think any notes will be released since\nWolfe hopes his work has the enduring quality to last much longer than his\nlifetime.\n\nIn the past, people in here have wondered why BotNS hasn't become an\nenduring classic which penetrates the cultural consciouness at large, such\nas Lord of the Rings, or Dune or Jurassic Park. I think it is partly\nbecause, since the 80's and the availability of the VCR and movie rentals,\nall Science Fiction/Fantasy classics are expected to be made into movies.\nIt would be sad to think Gene Wolfe's work would fade into obscurity in the\nfuture.\n\nBut I have mixed feelings about a BotNS movie. I'd like to see it, just\nbecause I love movies and I think current CGI technology could do it\njustice, visually. But a movie which didn't capture the tone and feeling of\nBotNS could actually hurt the popularity of the books, as I think the Dune\nmovies have done.\n\n-bsharp" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370608172213t158746fh12b3c4b799a81358@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-08-18T05:13:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) BOTNS is a classic", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 8/17/06, Bob Miller wrote:\nMy own opinion? Until I read the Wizard Knight, I thought it was the best\nbook I've read by a living author." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hooray! Someone who agrees with me about TWK!" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\n\"Shovels are essential to the fantasy genre.\nHowever, they are primarily used by the authors rather than the\ncharacters.\" -- Stephen R. Donaldson" } ] }, { "message_id": "<20060818123130.GA87823@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>", "from": { "name": "Jonathon McKitrick", "address": "jcm at freebsd-uk.eu.org" }, "date": "2006-08-18T12:31:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) BOTNS is a classic", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370608172213t158746fh12b3c4b799a81358@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:13:05PM -0700, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n: On 8/17/06, Bob Miller wrote:\n: > My own opinion? Until I read the Wizard Knight, I thought it was the best\n: > book I've read by a living author.\n: \n: Hooray! Someone who agrees with me about TWK!\n\nWow! So you guys think TWK is even better, eh? That's quite a compliment.\nI wouldn't rule it out, but I've never been very interested in fantasy. It\ntook me quite a while to give BotNS a chance, since it wasn't 'obviously' SF.\n\nJonathon McKitrick" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "My other computer is your Windows box." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370608180831l3a91f539lde1757ab4fcec81b@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-08-18T15:31:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) BOTNS is a classic", "in_reply_to": "<20060818123130.GA87823@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Wow! So you guys think TWK is even better, eh? That's quite a\ncompliment." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'll have to be a bit cautious about this: I found it far more _engaging_\nthan any of the Solar books (though Long Sun came close). I was\nprivileged to review THE KNIGHT for the NYRSF, and had trouble\nactually _writing_ the review, because I didn't want to stop reading\nand rereading the book -- the first time that had happened to me in\nover thirty years, since I first read LORD OF THE RINGS in sixth\ngrade." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\n\"Shovels are essential to the fantasy genre.\nHowever, they are primarily used by the authors rather than the\ncharacters.\" -- Stephen R. Donaldson" } ] }, { "message_id": "<20060818160734.GA88643@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>", "from": { "name": "Jonathon McKitrick", "address": "jcm at freebsd-uk.eu.org" }, "date": "2006-08-18T16:07:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth) BOTNS is a classic", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370608180831l3a91f539lde1757ab4fcec81b@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 08:31:27AM -0700, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n: I'll have to be a bit cautious about this: I found it far more _engaging_\n: than any of the Solar books (though Long Sun came close). I was\n: privileged to review THE KNIGHT for the NYRSF, and had trouble\n: actually _writing_ the review, because I didn't want to stop reading\n: and rereading the book -- the first time that had happened to me in\n: over thirty years, since I first read LORD OF THE RINGS in sixth\n: grade.\n\nIs it a true 'magic' book, sci-fi in disguise, or neither?\n\n\nJonathon McKitrick" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "My other computer is your Windows box." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370608181138g468d49dem7b4731fc597405ec@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-08-18T18:38:07+00:00", "subject": "(urth) BOTNS is a classic", "in_reply_to": "<20060818160734.GA88643@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Oh, it's fantasy all right. If you're just plain allergic to fantasy, skip\nit. If you like the very best (like LotR), grab it NOW." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 8/18/06, Jonathon McKitrick wrote:\nOn Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 08:31:27AM -0700, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n: I'll have to be a bit cautious about this: I found it far more _engaging_\n: than any of the Solar books (though Long Sun came close). I was\n: privileged to review THE KNIGHT for the NYRSF, and had trouble\n: actually _writing_ the review, because I didn't want to stop reading\n: and rereading the book -- the first time that had happened to me in\n: over thirty years, since I first read LORD OF THE RINGS in sixth\n: grade.\n\nIs it a true 'magic' book, sci-fi in disguise, or neither?\n\n\nJonathon McKitrick\n--\nMy other computer is your Windows box.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Bob Miller", "address": "bob_bageera at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-08-20T09:35:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) BOTNS is a classic", "in_reply_to": "<20060818123130.GA87823@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, I'm rereading a fair amount of Kipling now and when I've run this race \nI'm going to reread Eye of Cat and the WK again. I feel sure that my \nopinion of WK will only get stronger as my opinion of Eugene Sue continues \nto ever get weaker.\n\n\n: > My own opinion? Until I read the Wizard Knight, I thought it was the \nbest\n: > book I've read by a living author.\n:\n: Hooray! Someone who agrees with me about TWK!\n\nWow! So you guys think TWK is even better, eh? That's quite a compliment.\nI wouldn't rule it out, but I've never been very interested in fantasy. It\ntook me quite a while to give BotNS a chance, since it wasn't 'obviously' \nSF.\n\nJonathon McKitrick" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "My other computer is your Windows box." } ] } ] }