Subject: (urth) The Distant Suns of Gene Wolfe

From: Matthew King <automatthew at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 18:28:29 +0000

"The Distant Suns of Gene Wolfe", by John Farrell, is finally  
available in the online archives of First Things magazine.

Farrell makes the common mistake of identifying Jesus with the  
Conciliator, and he smears Gaiman and Stephenson by mentioning them  
in the same clause as Robert Jordan, but this is an otherwise worthy  
article.

--
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5466

Lots of novel readers from the highest brow to the lowest nod  
politely when the science-fiction writer Gene Wolfe is mentioned. But  
even among science-fiction fans, one gets the sense that they’re  
saying, “Yes, yes, we know how good he is, but we’d rather talk about  
such bestselling authors as Neil Gaiman or Robert Jordan, Laurel  
Hamilton or Neal Stephenson.” As Glenn Reynolds, the inveterate  
science-fiction enthusiast and popular blogger of Instapundit.com,  
recently wrote, “Gene Wolfe is a superb writer, but I’m not crazy  
about his storytelling.” I recently asked a veteran New York editor  
whether Wolfe could find a publisher today if he were just coming  
along as a young writer. “Probably not,” she admitted. His writing is  
too religious, too difficult, and too strange.

Both the Soldier cycle and the Book of the New Sun series reveal the  
problem and the promise of Gene Wolfe. The New Sun series, for  
instance, takes place in a world more than a million years in the  
future, where artifacts of Christ still have healing power, while the  
Soldier novels chronicle the life of a mercenary bedeviled by gods  
and goddesses in the Mediterranean world a few centuries before the  
birth of Jesus.

---

From: Daniel D Jones <ddjones at riddlemaster.org>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 11:26:29 +0000

> in the same clause as Robert Jordan, but this is an otherwise worthy

Worthy?  Really?  While the only factual error I can point to is the one you 
pointed out - the conflation of the Concilliator with Christ - I can't 
imagine a much more misleading summary of TBOTNS.  His descriptions of other 
works seem to completely miss the mark as well.  For a quick example, he 
says "Peace" is "...[Wolfe's] only mainstream novel (also one of his personal 
favorites), about a wealthy old man who builds museum-style rooms in his 
mansion to match the rooms from houses of his past life."  Again, factually 
accurate but that hardly describes the novel I read.  YMMV, of course.

---

From: Michael Straight <mfstraight at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 15:26:41 +0000

Over and over I read articles like this and I feel like the reviewers
aren't reading the same books I'm reading.

It almost makes me doubt my ability to read.  I'm I deluded?  Or is
this guy pretty much completely missing--I won't say "the point"
because I don't think there's a single point to any of Wolfe's
books--missing what's valuable and worthwhile about the books he
mentions?

I wonder how Wolfe feels.

---

From: Matthew King <automatthew at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 16:00:54 +0000

> accurate but that hardly describes the novel I read.  YMMV, of course.

Is the article illuminating for long-time readers of Wolfe?   
Decidedly not.  I do think it has worth, merit, or value, and is  
useful.  At a minimum, the article introduces Wolfe to an audience  
that I think would not normally stumble across his work.  Shall we  
brace ourselves for an onslaught of High Church conservatives? (First  
Things has always tried to be more ecumenical, and mostly succeeded,  
until the original editor stepped down last year.  The Wolfe article  
was published just after I let my subscription lapsed.  I try not to  
take this as a reprimand)

Some of my perception of the article may come from lowered  
expectations.  Outside of this list, I rarely come across any  
insightful discussions of Wolfe, as Michael Straight just wrote.

I do like the article's emphasis on the Soldier books.  _Mist_ is the  
book that hooked me for Wolfe, after _New Sun_ nearly chased me away.

---

From: Matthew King <automatthew at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 16:08:04 +0000

> books--missing what's valuable and worthwhile about the books he

These reviewers aren't equipped to read fiction in the way that we  
read Wolfe.  I wasn't so equipped when I began, and I'm still far too  
impatient to be much good at it.

Why do such readers enjoy paddling about with Wolfe, only vaguely  
aware, if at all, of the vasty deep below?

---

From: Craig Brewer <cnbrewer at yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 19:44:29 +0000

> books--missing what's valuable and worthwhile about

I'm curious what you might mention as valuable and
worthwhile when trying to convince people to read
Wolfe. I say this only partly to ask what you feel
this reviewer omits. But it's also because I've had
trouble myself summarizing all that I find compelling
about him when suggesting that others read him.

-Craig

--- Michael Straight <mfstraight at gmail.com> wrote:

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

____________________________________________________________________________________Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC

---

From: aaron <aaronsingleton at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 20:57:12 +0000

This is my first post here, although I have read the list for a couple of
years now. Anyway, I came across a website devoted to a podcast called
"Starship Sofa".  I saw that one of their shows was about Gene Wolfe, so
naturally, I was interested.  I clicked the link to listen and was amazed by
their sheer ignorance of anything pertaining to Wolfe.  One of the guys says
he's read Fifth Head and the other says nothing.  All of the info they had
was reproduced from the same old articles and interviews found on the web.
They had absolutely nothing new to add, and actually gave some negative
reviews of some of his work, which would be okay if they'd actually read
these works (which is doubtful) They should really try to do a better job,
IMO.  If you are interested in hearing this, just google the words "starship
sofa" and click the links as I can't remember the exact URL.  Just horrible
stuff, and yes, I want to share it all with you guys.  Sorry if there are
fans of the podcast here whom I have offended.  I meant no harm. On 5/29/07,
Craig Brewer <cnbrewer at yahoo.com> wrote:

> ____________________________________________________________________________________Take
> the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news,
> photos & more.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070529/778f7178/attachment.htm

---

From: Daniel D Jones <ddjones at riddlemaster.org>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 22:16:47 +0000

> take this as a reprimand)

I didn't expect any sort of illumination.  However, if I read that article and 
picked up the BOTNS expecting to read an uplifting story of redemption about 
a man who was raised as a torturer, found artifacts of Jesus Christ and 
worked miracles with them, and became king and abolished the evil torturers 
guild which spawned him, I'd be thoroughly confused and wondering if I'd 
picked up the wrong book.  Yes, all of these things happen (other than the 
JC/Concilliator confusion) but that doesn't change the fact that the summary 
is wildly misleading.  Assuming that the goal is to enlarge Wolfe's 
readership and appreciation, is it really helpful to spread such inaccuracies 
and set up expectations that will almost certainly be disappointed?

> insightful discussions of Wolfe, as Michael Straight just wrote.

Other than remote corners of cyberspace such as this one, I rarely come across 
any insightful discussion of any authors other than a handful of mainstream 
names.  There are authors who receive a great deal more press than Wolfe, but 
rarely is it insightful or illuminating.

> book that hooked me for Wolfe, after _New Sun_ nearly chased me away.

BOTNS was the first Wolfe series I read.  (It was almost the first Wolfe 
period.  I'd actually read "The Death of Doctor Island" in an anthology long 
before, but didn't recall the name of the author.)  That series led me to 
read everything by him I could get my hands on.  The Soldier series are good, 
but they wouldn't have inspired me to stock my bookshelves with his stuff.  
The Long and Short Sun series are also good, but I don't find the story near 
as compelling as the New Sun stuff.

---

From: Recursive Loop <recursive_loop at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:33:22 +0000

Now, **this** is funny:

"I recently asked a veteran New York editor whether Wolfe could find a publisher today if he were
just coming along as a young writer. ?Probably not, she admitted. His writing is too religious,
too difficult, and too strange."

Heaven forbid that we request readers to actually **think**, now! 

Why didn't she just say "He's conservative, I'm a hip left-leaning NY publisher and I can't see
past the end of my viewpoint!"

____________________________________________________________________________________
Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz

---

From: aaron <aaronsingleton at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:37:07 +0000

I also thought this was ridiculous.  One editor's opinion does little to
convince me.  I think Wolfe would be published no matter when he began
submitting.  The comment about his writing being too strange also kills me.
What about the guy who wrote Fight Club and Guts? (Can't remember his name
at the moment) I suppose this editor thinks that his stuff is normal.  And
as far as Wolfe's writing being too religious, I disagree.  I think for most
people, the religion in his work is there, but it is subtle and never
dominates.  If you go into Wolfe's work looking for examples of his beliefs,
then you will find them, IMO.  Then again, you could go into Wolfe's work
looking for examples of just about anything and most likely find it.  Just
my  $0.02

On 6/1/07, Recursive Loop <recursive_loop at yahoo.com> wrote:

> just coming along as a young writer. "Probably not," she admitted. His
> writing is too religious,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070601/036770dc/attachment.htm

---

From: JWillard <aldenweer at charter.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:25:00 +0000

Recursive Loop wrote:

>just coming along as a young writer. “Probably not, she admitted. His writing is too religious,
>Got a little couch potato” 
Yes, it must be an evil liberal at fault. Seems to me more likely that 
both ends of the political spectrum would reject it for the reasons 
given: it's difficult material. It's the nature of our world to dumb 
things down right now. And everyone wants an easy sale. (And easy 
answers: just blame it on those you don't agree with.)

---

From: David DiGiacomo <david at slack.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:55:59 +0000

I think the veteran New York editor is mistaken.  Maybe she would not be
able to sell her publisher on a young Gene Wolfe, but David Hartwell would
have no problem with it.

Hmm, it would be a good story... young Gene Wolfe travels in time from the
Korean War to 2007, and looks for a publisher.  There would be a scene
where he beats old Gene Wolfe with a stick, and learns a lesson.

---

From: JBarach at aol.com <jbarach at aol.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:00:53 +0000

In a message dated 6/1/2007 9:56:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time,  
david at slack.com writes:

But it's arguable that it's precisely the influence of writers like Wolfe  
that would prompt Hartwell to pick up "Wolfe" if he was writing today.  No  
past-Wolfe, no present market for Wolfe perhaps?
 
John

************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070601/c5f9224d/attachment.htm

---

From: Recursive Loop <recursive_loop at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:01:26 +0000

If Gene Wolfe is too difficult for readers, I hate to hear the reception that Young Herman
Melville or Young John Dos Passos or Young Philip K. Dick or Young Samuel R. Delany, etc., etc.,
etc. would meet in today's market.

Must every book today be of the weight of a Grisham or a Star Trek/Star Wars media tie-in or a
Harry Potter clone? 

Heck, I like easy books. But not all the time. I like challenging books. But not all the time. I
won't exclude either category entirely!

      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Luggage? GPS? Comic books? 
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz

---

From: Matthew King <automatthew at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:01:45 +0000

> where he beats old Gene Wolfe with a stick, and learns a lesson.

Then he would clone a series of David Hartwells, and send them off on  
slowships to found colonies where SF could thrive.

---

From: JBarach at aol.com <jbarach at aol.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:07:24 +0000

In a message dated 6/1/2007 10:02:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time,  
automatthew at gmail.com writes:

Nah.  He'd clone himself.  And that son would clone  HIMself.  And so on ... 
until one of those, living with his sister on  a French-speaking planet, has a 
son he calls "Number 5."
 
John

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070601/3988e421/attachment.htm

---

From: don doggett <kingwukong at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:14:24 +0000

I like to remain optimistic and think that a great
writer can find a market in any period. Were Wolfe
writing right (oh yeah) now as a young man he would
produce something entirely different than the pulp
informed, Tolkien and Graves influenced works we
appreciate. It's faulty logic to try to imagine his
past works as new releases in our present.

Don

p.s. Cry, Theanthropos, cry.

--- JBarach at aol.com wrote:

  No  
> past-Wolfe, no present market for Wolfe perhaps?

The Evangelists: a Lesser Apocrypha                                                                        http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=178109961

____________________________________________________________________________________
Get your own web address.  
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:52:16 +0000

On 6/1/07, aaron <aaronsingleton at gmail.com> wrote:
> convince me.

Though it is one editor's opinion, I think it is the opinion of an
editor who is clearly cognizant of the realities of the industry.
Things have changed significantly with the conglomeratization
of publishing; risky books don't get published as much.

> at the moment)

Chuck Pahlaniuk (sp?)

> And
> then you will find them, IMO.

Well, the first Wolfe I ever read was tBotNS, as it came out, and I knew
nothing about at the time. Halfway through the third volume (specifically,
at the "Temptation in the Wilderness" scene) I said, "This guy is a Christian."

I think that one misses a lot of what Wolfe is doing if one doesn't know
that he's a Catholic, with a strongly "incarnationalist" perspective.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant
-----
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer
http://www.danehyoakes.com
Soon, where Toon Town once stood will be a string of gas stations,
inexpensive motels, restaurants that serve rapidly prepared food. Tire
salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards
reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful.

---

From: Joel Sieh <joel.sieh at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:08:21 +0000

I'm glad I came back to read this thread after checking out that article.
It left me cold, and I was hoping I wasn't the only one.

New Sun is what got me into GW, and I discovered so much more when I started
reading this list years ago (just resubscribed and started reading it
again).  The Soldier books didn't hold me quite as well as all the Sun
books, but I really enjoyed Soldier of Sidon.

I've talked up Wolfe to a number of people, and I've come across some people
who just didn't get tBotNS....  I was originally confused by them, but I
guess it just comes down to how hard you want to think about what you're
reading.  For a while I thought that Gene Wolfe was a writer for writers.
I'm an aspiring sci-fi author, so this fit nicely with my world view.
However, when I tried to write like Wolfe in my creative writing classes in
college, I found that my fellow classmates and teachers missed all of the
clues in my stories that might imply an underlying idea or theme.  I
determined that I was being too subtle, or just writing poorly in general.
However, it's also possible that I was wrong about Gene Wolfe being a writer
for writers.  He's more than that.  He's a writer for puzzle solvers.  :)

--Joel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070601/0ae4046a/attachment.htm

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 22:49:53 +0000

Joel,

As another "aspiring writer" (a few short story sales to my name, some
years ago), I have also found Wolfe a problematic model. He's easy to
parody but hard to pastiche, if you see what I mean.

I'm not sure about him being a "writer for puzzle solvers" -- though I do
enjoy crosswords, anacrostics, sudoku, etc. I think he's a writer for people
who want their fiction to resemble the "real" world in its being both
overdetermined and underdetermined.

---

From: Daniel D Jones <ddjones at riddlemaster.org>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 01:11:39 +0000

On Friday 01 June 2007 08:33, Recursive Loop wrote:
> Now, **this** is funny:
>
> "I recently asked a veteran New York editor whether Wolfe could find a
> publisher today if he were just coming along as a young writer. ?Probably
> not, she admitted. His writing is too religious, too difficult, and too
> strange."
>
> Why didn't she just say "He's conservative, I'm a hip left-leaning NY
> publisher and I can't see past the end of my viewpoint!"

Because that has nothing to do with it.

The world today is very different from what it used to be.  Publishing today 
is a business, and solely a business.  Publishers publish books because they 
think they can sell enough of them to turn a profit.  Artistic considerations 
play little or no role in the decision of whom to publish.  There may be a 
few small exceptions out there, but they aren't significant in the publishing 
world.

It's not an insult to Wolfe to say that Wolfe does not have mainstream appeal.  
Even with the fact that he's been publishing for years and has a loyal, 
devoted and vocal fan club, his books don't do particularly well from the 
perspective of a publisher's bottom line.  Without the reputation he's built 
over the years, his books would sell even fewer copies.  How many people here 
can honestly say they'd have bought a copy of The Wizard and The Knight if 
they'd never heard of Wolfe and stumbled upon a blurb on Amazon or seen the 
book sitting in a bookstore?  I think it's doubtful that I would have.

I suspect that, even among Wolfe's fans, very few would describe one of his 
books as a fun read.  It's an intense, rewarding and often illuminating 
experience, but it's seldom enjoyable in the same sense as reading, say, 
George R R Martin or even fluff like David Eddings.  And reading today 
competes with video games and reality television and Ultimate Fighting 
matches for attention.  

If you wish to lament what the editor's comments say about the world we live 
in, I'll add my voice to the chorus.  But if you want to pretend it isn't 
accurate because you dislike those implications, I'll have to disagree.

---

From: Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:56:20 +0000

>as compelling as the New Sun stuff.

(Daniel D. Jones, in a subsequent post, has anticipated some of my points or
at least implied them, but I'll say this anyway.)

It's funny how tastes differ even among those who read Wolfe. As I've
probably said before, PEACE was my first read, twenty-five years ago. I
loved it. SHADOW was my second. It so thoroughly disgusted me all the way
around that I actually got rid of the book. When CLAW came out, I had to buy
SHADOW and read it again. My reaction mellowed, but if not for the
'redeeming' qualities of the other "mid-Western" novels (and some of the
short stories), I might not have bothered to finish the series. I've lost
track now of how many times I've read the series, but I still look down my
nose at Severian the World Savior.

I never liked the SOLDIER books (Wolfe's plots are hard enough to follow
without having the protagonist wake up in a new world every morning), and
I've stubbornly refused to read SIDON even though I've had it since it came
out, partly because I don't look forward to reading the first two books
again, and I would have to. I really wish that Wolfe, given his age, had not
taken up the series again, though I believe I am probably in the minority.

>>From time to time people here have lamented their lack of success in getting
friends and relatives to read Wolfe. My experience is the same. My wife has
read the majority of his work, but I wouldn't call her a fan. She read NEW
SUN and LONG SUN, but found the latter so boring she wouldn't even start
SHORT SUN. My older son finally read NEW SUN a few years ago but couldn't
finish URTH. My younger son read some of the mid-Western novels and some of
the short stories when he was in college, but wasn't impressed. And so it
goes.

Our sons grew up with reading parents in a house full of books, and my wife
and I have for many years had a practice of reading favorite books/authors
aloud. Both sons have fond memories of those readings. Wolfe's work does
not, generally speaking, lend itself well to being read out loud,
particularly the serial novels. I doubt that statement requires explication
in this forum. This want of fluid readability, coupled with the narrative
lacunae (such as the one between SHADOW and CLAW, or the twenty years that
lapsed for Able between KNIGHT and WIZARD), makes his work difficult to
follow without a lot of back tracking. Most people who read fiction read for
pleasure, and most people, I think, do not find reading Wolfe pleasurable.
That, in a nut shell, is why Wolfe fans have so much trouble turning other
people on to him. It is why his books do not sell particularly well even
within the genre.

-Roy

---

From: don doggett <kingwukong at yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 16:50:06 +0000

--- "Roy C. Lackey" <rclackey at stic.net> wrote:

 Most people
> who read fiction read for

This is the second time this has come up, and it just
hasn't felt quite right. I couldn't figure out why, so
I've been thinking about it and I believe I've at
least pinched it between two fingers if I haven't
quite grasped the answer. I read fiction solely for
pleasure as well. If a novel doesn't grab my interest,
it doesn't even get 50 pages of my attention anymore.
I enjoy Wolfe; he draws me into his world and it's
pleasurable to go there. The work comes when I'm
finished and have to figure out what's "really" going
on. Now, of course I'm not an expert, but I have
worked on and off in bookstores for about 19 years,
and from what I've seen, people read for comfort, not
pleasure. They like consistency and repetition, and
they like the illusion of feeling like they know
what's going on even before the author does. Maybe
that's pleasurable. It's certainly safe, and it
accounts for 90% of SF, Mystery, and Lit, and all of
Romance. There's very little comfort in Wolfe, and
what there is is fairly cold, whether it's in  the
plot itself, or in his narrative style. That's at
least part of the problem I think, if you want to call
it a problem. My 2 cents.

Don

Don't cry, Theanthropos. I'm back to bottom posting now.

 
____________________________________________________________________________________
It's here! Your new message!  
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/

---

From: Megan Bugge <srapollo at hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:26:59 +0000

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070602/357eb0e2/attachment.htm

---

From: Joel Sieh <joel.sieh at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:34:09 +0000

> few small exceptions out there, but they aren't significant in the publishing

So it goes with all forms of media nowadays, even video games.  Some
video game gems are relegated to cult status, either because they are
developed by a small company without the marketing clout of larger
companies, or they are too "different" to attract enough mainstream
gamers.  Even so, some of these manage to make money.

It's a good thing the internet exists, so we have a convenient way to
access alternate media.  The only problem is finding the good amongst
all the junk.  :)  That said, I can't say I've found too much
literature online that has caught my interest, save for old stuff on
project gutenberg, and that doesn't really count since it all was
traditionally published in the first place.

> competes with video games and reality television and Ultimate Fighting

I guess I must be one of those few.  Fun for me: epiphanies, engaging
style and description, some drama, and when characters do "cool"
things.  Some examples:

Style:  tBotNS hooked me in the first chapter at the bookstore,
because of the style.  The way Gene Wolfe uses words, and the old
language he includes, captures my attention.

Description:  The strange world Wolfe built kept me along through
Shadow and Claw, when some others I know got sick of the series.  It's
also part of what kept me going through Nightside the Long Sun, which
was an otherwise slow read.

Drama:  This is what made Sidon better for me than the first two
Soldier books, even though it was still sparse.  His interactions with
Myt'Ser'eu and his foster daughter engaged me.  The drama, pain,
tragedy, and love expressed in the Long and Short Sun books is what
made them entertaining for me.

"Cool" moments:  The fight scenes in tBotNS, Soldier books, and
Wizard/Knight.  They tend to be brief, but brutal and/or flashy, and
have the tendency to make the main character look like a bad-ass.  I
know this counts as "fluff", but I like it like I like a good action
movie.  These scenes, along with scenes such as Severian's various
resurrections, Able purposefully missing the target in the archery
contest only to cause an avalanche, Gylf's transformations, etc.

Epiphanies:  These are probably the best parts for me.  Dorcas
vomiting up the lead balls, Severian realizing Dorcas was his
grandmother, Severian realizing that the claw saved him in his fight
with Agilus, and then later Severian realizing that the claw was
really nothing special at all, everything Apu-Punchau, etc.  These
really entertained me.

I guess it's different for everyone.

---

From: Joel Sieh <joel.sieh at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:47:05 +0000

On the subject of Wolfe essays, a friend sent me a link to Neil
Gaiman's blog, where he linked to an essay he wrote about how to read
Gene Wolfe.  He also links to some other short essays by people that I
felt "got it."  One of the essays made me go find and read A Solar
Labyrinth.  My apologies if this has already been posted!

The link:  http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/2007/03/gene-wolves.html

--Joel

---

From: Joel Sieh <joel.sieh at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 19:03:15 +0000

Yeah, it's been posted.  Sorry about that.  And it makes sense that
they "get it," being that the essays were featured in the F&SF Wolfe
appreciation issue.

--Joel

---

From: Daniel D Jones <ddjones at riddlemaster.org>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 21:03:45 +0000

On Saturday 02 June 2007 14:34, Joel Sieh wrote:
> > The world today is very different from what it used to be.  Publishing
> > today is a business, and solely a business.  Publishers publish books
> > because they think they can sell enough of them to turn a profit. 
> > Artistic considerations play little or no role in the decision of whom to
> > publish.  There may be a few small exceptions out there, but they aren't
> > significant in the publishing world.
>

Like you, I haven't found much literature on line that is worth digging into.  
What I have found, however, are odd little back alleys and side streets off 
the information superhighway, like the one we're inhabiting here, where I can 
both increase my understanding of authors and works I'm already familiar with 
and glean recommendations and pointers to fantastic new stuff that I haven't 
yet discovered.  My knowledge and understanding of Wolfe has been increased 
exponentially by this list.

> > I suspect that, even among Wolfe's fans, very few would describe one of
> > his books as a fun read.  It's an intense, rewarding and often
> > illuminating experience, but it's seldom enjoyable in the same sense as
> > reading, say, George R R Martin or even fluff like David Eddings.  And
> > reading today competes with video games and reality television and
> > Ultimate Fighting matches for attention.
>

I'm sure that we all approach Wolfe a bit differently, but please don't 
misunderstand me to be saying that reading Wolfe isn't enjoyable.  It 
certainly is.  But I don't think that "enjoyable" and "fun" are synonyms.  I 
agree with pretty much everything you said above.  I love Wolfe's vocabulary 
and, well, call it "alternate word usage" in BOTNS.  I love his vision.  I 
originally picked up BOTNS because it was compared to Vance's "Dying Earth" 
series.  It turns out the comparison was quite weak - the only real 
similarity is that both take place in the far future when the sun is 
declining.  The _feel_ of the world in BOTNS is completely and utterly 
unique.  It captured me as very few works ever have and I immediately ordered 
everything by him I could locate.  But reading Wolfe is _work_.  It's a labor 
of love, but a labor none-the-less.  It means tracking down obscure words and 
then digging into their etymology to figure out what he means.  It requires 
noting minute details and figuring out how they tie together.  He demands  
thought and effort and attention.

Readers are becoming a distinct minority.  And for most of those who do cling 
to the habit, many or most of them use it as a means of escape and 
relaxation.  They don't want a writer who demands so much of them.  Those of 
us who enjoy literature which requires active participation are a minority 
within a minority.

---

From: David Duffy <david.duffy at qimr.edu.au>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 22:04:28 +0000

>> period.  I'd actually read "The Death of Doctor Island" in an anthology
>

I first read _The Fifth Head_ back in high school, and was blown away by 
the complexity and density of ideas.  I knew I didn't understand half of 
what was going on, but you can *taste* that there are layers.  I think the 
mental comparison I made at the time was with Borges.

Much more recently, I recommended tFHoC as a good introduction to Wolfe to 
my wife (actually I think we might have started reading it aloud), but she 
found it too cruel, and didn't continue.  He actually does write a lot of 
horror, mixed in with everything else.

I still think that if you are going to like Wolfe, you will like tFHoC, 
and it is short ;)

David Duffy.

---

From: Transentient <transentient at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 23:30:11 +0000

> style and description, some drama, and when characters do "cool"

Me too; I always find Wolfe's stories immensely satisfying and fun to  
read. I can't put them down.

GRRM bores me to tears and I haven't been able to finish a single  
novel of his.

---

From: Daniel D Jones <ddjones at riddlemaster.org>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:20:12 +0000

On Saturday 02 June 2007 17:03, Daniel D Jones wrote:
> Readers are becoming a distinct minority.  And for most of those who do
> cling to the habit, many or most of them use it as a means of escape and
> relaxation.  They don't want a writer who demands so much of them.  Those
> of us who enjoy literature which requires active participation are a
> minority within a minority.

Replying to my own post, but I recently ran across this blog which really 
brings home the point I was making.  It's a blog, so take it with a grain of 
salt but there's a link to a Slate article which backs up the essence of what 
it says (although not the actual figures quoted.)

http://newpairodimes.blogspot.com/2007/06/u.html

---

From: don doggett <kingwukong at yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:57:31 +0000

Sorry, I don't buy it. The guy got his stats from google, and I can tell you that our store, which I won't name, made 4 million dollars last year, two thirds of which were from book sales. People read; we're probably more literate as humans than at any other point in our history, but literacy doesn't equal critical thinking. It may make people feel good to think we're part of a dying breed as readers, the same way that celebrating banned books month makes people feel like they're fighting oppression (even though every book on that list is readily available everywhere in the US every day) but I personally don't believe it's that simple. Or maybe it's simply that the written word is so prevalent that it's not precious anymore. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Don

       
---------------------------------
Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070603/d8cc74fd/attachment.htm

---

From: Daniel D Jones <ddjones at riddlemaster.org>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 22:53:32 +0000

On Sunday 03 June 2007 16:57, don doggett wrote:
> Sorry, I don't buy it. The guy got his stats from google, and I can tell
> you that our store, which I won't name, made 4 million dollars last year,
> two thirds of which were from book sales. 
> People read; we're probably more 
> literate as humans than at any other point in our history, but literacy
> doesn't equal critical thinking. It may make people feel good to think
> we're part of a dying breed as readers, the same way that celebrating
> banned books month makes people feel like they're fighting oppression (even
> though every book on that list is readily available everywhere in the US
> every day) but I personally don't believe it's that simple. Or maybe it's
> simply that the written word is so prevalent that it's not precious
> anymore. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

According to the US Census Bureau, US book stores have about $16.5 billion in 
sales annually.  Not all of that is books, however.  Barnes and Noble, for 
instance, reports their sales at about $4.5 billion, about $2 billion of 
which is DVDs, CDs, coffee shop sales, etc.  Borders also has substantial 
non-book sales in their stores.  College bookstores are included in those 
figures, and they frequently sell as much or more in apparel as they do in 
books.  I'd say that estimating $10 billion annual sales in books is a 
generous estimate.  Books sales also include magazines, college textbooks, 
etc.  The US population is around 250 million.  That's, on average, $40 per 
person.  I spend that much or more per month on average.  That's my share and 
12  or 14 other people's share.    I'd guess that most people here spend 
significantly over the average as well.  (And for those that don't, it's 
likely more a matter of budget than desire.)  There are around 16 million 
students enrolled in US colleges and universities.  If they average $100 a 
year on text books (which certainly seems like a low figure to me), that's 
over one and a half billion of the pie there.  Take into account the sale of 
non-fiction book, including various manuals which are, like textbooks, 
substantially more expensive than novels.  And, of course, figure in how much 
of the total a small group of books  (Harry Potter, anyone?) account for and 
you're left with a small fraction of the population who spends money on 
fiction.

Sure, $4 million is a lot of money if it's sitting in your bank account.  It's 
not, however, necessarily indicative of a widespread and thriving book 
market.

---

From: Bob Miller <bob_bageera at hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 10:56:03 +0000

The gentlemen seem to have hit a "nerve" with the responses to the below:

"Readers are becoming a distinct minority.  And for most of those who do 
cling
to the habit, many or most of them use it as a means of escape and
relaxation.  They don't want a writer who demands so much of them.  Those of
us who enjoy literature which requires active participation are a minority
within a minority."

It has always been difficult to publish "thoughtful" books.  The best 
example (most popular?) was exemplified by an interview I saw with the 
original publisher of Lord of the Rings.  At the time he had taken over 
operations of the publisher from his father. His estimate was that 
publishing the books would bring them a net loss of 10,000 lb (sorry my 
keyboard doesn't have the pound symbol).  His father wired him back that if 
he truly thought it was a work of genius he had permission to lose 10,000 
lb.

At age 60 I have now been reading this same plaint/observation for more than 
45 years.

Thank you aghain for agitating the unused depths of my mind.

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t miss your chance to WIN $10,000 and other great prizes from Microsoft 
Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/aub0540003042mrt/direct/01/

---

From: Michael Straight <mfstraight at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:03:05 +0000

Sheesh.  Do we really have to pretend that liking Wolfe proves that
we're super-smart and that people who don't are just lazy, not willing
to do the "hard work" that we're willing to do?

Reading Wolfe requires a different kind of attention than reading some
other books, but I wouldn't call it work.  I enjoy that kind of
reading.  If I didn't, I wouldn't do it.  It doesn't make me morally
superior to someone who doesn't enjoy that kind of reading.

I don't enjoy skateboarding or skeet shooting, but it's not because
I'm too lazy to do the "work" (practice) it would take for me to do
those things well.  I'm just not interested

Rostrum

---

From: don doggett <kingwukong at yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:21:07 +0000

> those things well.  I'm just not interested

I agree. It's more that we're suffering from an
embarassment of riches. Increasing literacy is
probably the one thing our public schools have done
right. And even if the only books a person has read
are from primary school up through college, that's
still a third of a person's life spent reading. Not to
mention email, web pages, comics (many of which are
highly sophisticated- GW's a comics fan I believe.)
and the crap ton of magazines that come out every year
that ought to be online instead of in the landfill.
The sky hasn't fallen yet, I think.

Don

       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a vacation? Get great deals
to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
http://travel.yahoo.com/

---

From: Michael Straight <mfstraight at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 19:01:00 +0000

> about him when suggesting that others read him.

That's why this kind of review kinda bothers me, because I feel
somewhat at a loss myself to put my finger on why Wolfe is my favorite
writer.  I'll give it a try.  I'd welcome anyone else trying to
articulate "Why is Wolfe great?" or even just "Why I love Wolfe,"
especially geared toward people who haven't read him before.

Beauty to start with.  Wolfe is like one of those actors who could
read aloud from the phone book and have you on the edge of your seat.
Remember the scene where Auk explains to Silk how his needler works?
You've seen technology info-dumps a million times, and there's
certainly nothing new about an electromagnetic railgun, but passage is
a marvel of simplicity - it uses no scientific jargon but explains the
scientific principles involved in a way a child could understand, and
at the same time is very convincingly Auk's voice and perspective.

The last chapter of Soldier of Arete is like a jewel: in the sheer
beauty of Pindar's prose; in density so much is said with so few
words; and in flashes of light every other sentence illuminating whole
chapters of what has come before (or will come after).

And it's not just beautiful language, but beautiful events - the
Sidhe's dwindling flock of birds, Severian's matter-of-fact charity to
the Green Man, Marble's sacrifice for her adopted grand-daughter.
Wolfe's writing is full of these wonderful moments.

One aspect of that beauty is Wolfe's ability to suggest rather than
tell. His ability to plant these subtle bombs in the text that will
later explode into something weird or wonderful or both.  I'll never
forget the moment I noticed the significance of the elm tree falling
at the beginning of Peace.

Or the way he can so casually pull the rug out from under you. As when
Nadan mentions that he's gone back and changed stuff in the diary
you've been reading.

Wolfe's ability to make convincing a certain kind of miraculous wonder
is right up there with Tolkein.  He does this wonderful thing in the
New Sun books where you start out thinking you're reading a fantasy
novel.  But then he subtly convinces you that all these marvels you're
seeing have a scientific explanation.  And then once you've realized
that this is the sort of story where miracles don't happen, he shows
you one.  And so it seems like a genuine miracle, not just another bit
of fantasy magic.

I think that the games Wolfe plays with narrative voice offer a lot of
insight into the way we really know things, particularly for people
like me interested in issues of faith.  You're never going to to have
a third-person omniscient account of what happened to Silk or Severian
or Latro. No one ever knows things like that, even though we tell
ourselves those sorts of stories all the time. I think the Outsider is
real, not because Wolfe told me so, but because I believe Horn and
Nettle and their children.

I've also mentioned before that I think reading Wolfe's books is a
good school in the virtue that C.S. Lewis called "Preferring the
Given." Wolfe is constantly setting you up to expect a certain kind of
story, making think you're going to see, and want to see, certain
events.  Then he turns the corner and shows you something completely
different, gives you a very different story.  If you cling to your
expectations, you'll be frustrated and miss the good thing that's in
front of you because it's not the imagined good you were expecting.
Real life is like that a lot.

I also think Wolfe has a lot of interesting exploration of the meaning
and responsibilities of power.  His protagonists are, in general,
mightier than their foes, and their conflicts are often more about
struggling with the responsibility of strength than struggling against
the limitations of weakness.

Wolfe is able to depict Goodness, Kindness, Strangeness, Evil in ways
that seem very genuine and insightful to me.  I'd try to elaborate,
but then I'd never finish this.

And of course Wolfe is very intellectually stimulating.  For those
that enjoy that kind of reading, Wolfe is enormously fun and
satisfying.  (But, as I said in another post, let's not kid ourselves
and think that our taste for that kind of thing makes us somehow
better than people who don't care for it.)

Rostrum

---

From: Batrinque at aol.com <batrinque at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:58:03 +0000

In a message dated 6/4/2007 6:56:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
ddjones at riddlemaster.org writes:

Interesting take on what's been said.  I'm not sure why you  interpret it 
that 
way, as I don't recall anyone saying that those who  don't find Wolfe 
appealing were lazy or unwilling to work.  Perhaps  it was hidden in the 
text, 
a careful blend of hints and clues that  requires multiple readings to ferret 
out the hidden slur.  I would  have thought that reading Wolfe might have 
sensitized me to such  subtleties, but apparently I wasn't sufficiently 
perceptive to notice this  subtext.

Yes, we must be sensitive to the "unreliable narrator" technique ...  

Bruce  Trinque
Amston, CT

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070604/e1ce4434/attachment.htm

---

From: Daniel D Jones <ddjones at riddlemaster.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:00:34 +0000

> to do the "hard work" that we're willing to do?

Interesting take on what's been said.  I'm not sure why you interpret it that 
way, as I don't recall anyone saying that those who don't find Wolfe 
appealing were lazy or unwilling to work.  Perhaps it was hidden in the text, 
a careful blend of hints and clues that requires multiple readings to ferret 
out the hidden slur.  I would have thought that reading Wolfe might have 
sensitized me to such subtleties, but apparently I wasn't sufficiently 
perceptive to notice this subtext.

> superior to someone who doesn't enjoy that kind of reading.

Of course it's work.  Thinking requires effort and expends energy.  That's the 
very definition of work.

Despite our society's Puritanical heritage that might argue otherwise, work 
and enjoyment are not mutually exclusive.  Far from it.  A significant part 
of what I enjoy is work of some kind or another.  Whether it's crafting wood 
projects in my workshop or writing extensions for Firefox or rebuilding 
my '78 shovelhead or creating a new recipe, most of the activities which 
engage my time are work.  I find them quite enjoyable.

Essentially everyone here could make the same claim.  The particular types of 
work they might mention as examples would undoubtedly be quite different from 
my list.  That doesn't at all make me superior to them, nor them to me.  It 
simply makes us different.  Wonderful world, isn't it, that can encompass so 
much variety with scarcely any effort at all?

> those things well.  I'm just not interested

Fortunately, I"m not aware of any attempt to enforce either practice upon you.  
Absent such concerns as paying bills and putting food on the table and 
whatever other personal concerns drive your behavior, you're free to engage 
in whatever pursuits you find enjoyable.  One of them appears to be reading 
Wolfe.  That doesn't make you special in any significant sense, but it does 
put you in a rather small minority.  Book sales provide conclusive proof of 
that.

---

From: aaron <aaronsingleton at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:34:01 +0000

My definition of work: weight X distance X duration X temperature
My definition of pleasure: reading Wolfe or Vance on a long rainy day.
Any other Vance fans subscribe to the list?  It seems that many people who
read Wolfe also read Vance.  A generalization, I know, but true in my
experience.  Any comments?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070604/4501af3a/attachment.htm

---

From: Batrinque at aol.com <batrinque at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:52:49 +0000

In a message dated 6/4/2007 8:34:41 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
aaronsingleton at gmail.com writes:

Any  other Vance fans subscribe to the list? 

Yes, although it has been several years since I last read anything of his,  
except for an occasional re-read of his "The Last Castle" novella.  Hmm, I  
must dig out the Dying Earth and Demon Princes books for another read one of  
these days.

Bruce  Trinque
Amston, CT

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070604/9e0e4dd7/attachment.htm

---

From: Recursive Loop <recursive_loop at yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:59:26 +0000

"Any other Vance fans subscribe to the list?"

You tell me...

<http://texasbestgrok.mu.nu/archives/224757.php>

<http://texasbestgrok.mu.nu/archives/225838.php>

;)

"The Dying Earth" was, as Baen, Drake and Flint put it in a recent anthology, one of those things
that Turned the World Upside Down in terms of literary perspective. Great author! Wish I could
have afforded that Vance Integral Edition!

FPK3

____________________________________________________________________________________
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's 
Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. 
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222

---

From: aaron <aaronsingleton at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:34:29 +0000

I am glad to see some Vance readers around here.  I, too, wish I could
have purchased the VIE, and I still sometimes fantasize about having those
lovely volumes here on my bookshelf.  I have heard some negative comments
regarding these books, however (excepting the price).  The man who designed
the font used in the books was no pro at typefaces, but only an interested
amateur and Vance fan.  I have seen the font and I do not particularly like
it myself. It doesn't lend itself to long reading sessions and is somewhat
archaic in appearance.  Why they didn't go with an established and
easy-to-read font is anybody's guess.  Alas...
But seriously, I read The Dying Earth first, as many others did, then moved
on to his other work.  The man is just an amazing writer, but something of
an acquired taste, it seems.  I am a member of the Jack Vance MB, a really
great place to meet other Vance fans.  The folks there are so darn nice; two
members mailed me Vance novels that I hadn't read yet just so I could
discuss them on the board.  Free of charge and for keeps.  Anyway, I
discovered Wolfe through Vance I guess you could say.  I think a google
search of The Dying Earth produced a link to a review of TBotNS, and from
there I was hooked.  I also discovered that Wolfe is a big Vance fan
himself. Anyway, I went about a year or so reading nothing but Vance, then
another year reading Wolfe almost exclusively.  Now it seems like every
other author I attempt to read are mere beginners compared to these two
greats.  Now I wish I would have waited to read these two, and 'worked my
way up', so to speak.
     Also, the other day, I read about the author Michael Shea and how he
wrote a sequel to The Eyes of the Overworld.  He then went on to write a few
books about a character named Nifft the Lean who is said to be Cugel-esque.
I am intrigued and will probably try to locate a copy of this Nifft the
Lean.  Hopefully it will be worthwhile.  Any of you guys read Michael Shea?
Any good? Sorry for the long post guys.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070604/5967f195/attachment.htm

---

From: Tim Walters <walters at doubtfulpalace.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 02:06:19 +0000

aaron wrote:
> have purchased the VIE, and I still sometimes fantasize about 
> having those lovely volumes here on my bookshelf.  I have heard some 
> negative comments regarding these books, however (excepting the price).  

I ordered a copy of the sample volume as a gift for a friend, and it was 
so ugly I almost didn't give it to him. Eventually I came to my senses 
and realized that, like most people, he's not as much of a book design 
snob as I am and probably would like it fine. But I lost all interest in 
buying it for myself--I'd rather stick with my paperbacks.

Coincidentally, I re-read the Lyonesse trilogy last week, and enjoyed it 
quite a bit, with a couple of caveats:

--the last book is badly paced--it moves along langorously for the first 
three-quarters or so, then rushes to fit all the plot points in before 
the end, going so far as to dispose of a major character off-stage.

--Vance's highly artificial style, especially his dialog consisting 
largely of exquisitely euphemistic negotiations, gets a little tiresome 
over the course of a long trilogy. One begins to wish for characters 
capable of ordinary conversation.

>      Also, the other day, I read about the author Michael Shea and how 
> he wrote a sequel to The Eyes of the Overworld.  He then went on to 
> write a few books about a character named Nifft the Lean who is said to 
> be Cugel-esque.

The Nifft books are highly entertaining--not as well-crafted as Vance's, 
I would say, but even more bizarrely imaginative.

-- 

Tim Walters | The Doubtful Palace | http://doubtfulpalace.com

---

From: aaron <aaronsingleton at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 02:11:39 +0000

Who was it that said, "I like Vance except for his wooden dialogue." To
which the other man responded:
"Not wooden.  Carved."
But I can understand how it could wear thin on some readers after a long
trilogy.  Wolfe seems to be much more flexible with his writing than Vance
ever was.  That is another reason the two writers complement one another so
well.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070604/862d756a/attachment.htm

---

From: Tim Walters <walters at doubtfulpalace.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 02:23:07 +0000

aaron wrote:

> Wolfe seems to be much more flexible with his writing than 
> Vance ever was.

Lyonesse highlighted this as well, as there are several child 
characters... all of whom converse in Vance-speak just like the adults.

Not that I don't love it! But like P.G. Wodehouse or single-malt scotch, 
it's best in small doses.

--

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 07:12:10 +0000

> Any other Vance fans subscribe to the list?  

Vance can be very very good, when he takes himself seriously.   I first read 
him as a kid: my only access to SF books was my local library and the only 
Vance book in it was THE DYING EARTH.   For years I thought he was an 
unknown writer who had produced only one exquisite work. 

 - hartshorn 

http://www.thenightland.co.uk 

01273-488272 / 0777-214-9545

---

From: Joel Sieh <joel.sieh at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:34:35 +0000

> Any other Vance fans subscribe to the list?

Learned about Vance a few years ago from this list, but just started Tales
of the Dying Earth.  It's fun so far.  It doesn't have the complexity of
Wolfe's writing, but the language and descriptions are just as rich and
flavorful, if not more so.  When I envision the world Vance describes, it is
super-saturated with color and ornamented with strange debris.  I like it.

One observation....  I've heard that Tolkien's work was a large inspiration
for the Dungeon and Dragons tabletop games.  Just after reading about 100
pages of Tales of the Dying Earth, I'd say that it looks like the D&D
creators took a LOT of inspiration for their magic systems from it, much
more than anything they would have gotten from Tolkien.  Gandalf's magic was
much more organic, subtle, and undefined than the mechanisms and
descriptions (including spell names) I've seen in the book I'm currently
reading.

--Joel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070605/a7f13b70/attachment.htm

---

From: Recursive Loop <recursive_loop at yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:46:07 +0000

"One observation....  I've heard that Tolkien's work was a large inspiration for the Dungeon and
Dragons tabletop games."

There were a lot of things that inspired D&D. Vance is one, Tolkien is another. So is Leiber,
(Lin) Carter, (Edgar Rice) Burroughs and more. Even H.P. Lovecraft. His creations such as Cthulhu
and others showed up at one point, until TSR got a "cease and desist" order. Either Tolkien or his
estate did the same thing, so "hobbits" in early editions became "halflings" in later editions,
even though we all knew what they were...

FPK3

---

From: Rob Thornton <oblate777 at speakeasy.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:42:18 +0000

Funny that Vance and D&D are mentioned in the same post. I have heard that Vance is one of the influences on the wizard spells from the original AD&D and I believe them. 

The Prismatic Sphere and the Prismatic Spray are good examples, and I think another 9th level spell is actually taken from him -- can't remember the AD&D name but Vance called it the spell of Forlorn Encystment or something like that.

rob t.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Recursive Loop [mailto:recursive_loop at yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2007 02:46 PM
> To: 'The Urth Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: (urth) The Distant Suns of Gene Wolfe
> 
> Greetings:
>

---

From: Recursive Loop <recursive_loop at yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:48:34 +0000

This part of the Wikipedia entry on D&D matches my recollections from the mid-70's when I was
involved in gaming!

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_and_dragons#Sources_and_Influences_on_the_Development_of_D.26D>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow

---

From: don doggett <kingwukong at yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 16:40:56 +0000

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

  I first read 
> unknown writer who had produced only one exquisite

That's a wonderful and beautiful illusion. I felt that
way when I stumbled upon The Circus of Dr. Lao. After
reading it I realized it was entirely appropriate that
it should just drift into my possession.

Don

       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing.
http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php

---

From: Adam Thornton <adam at io.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 16:42:31 +0000

On Jun 5, 2007, at 9:34 AM, Joel Sieh wrote:
> One observation....  I've heard that Tolkien's work was a large  
> inspiration for the Dungeon and Dragons tabletop games.  Just after  
> reading about 100 pages of Tales of the Dying Earth, I'd say that  
> it looks like the D&D creators took a LOT of inspiration for their  
> magic systems from it, much more than anything they would have  
> gotten from Tolkien.  Gandalf's magic was much more organic,  
> subtle, and undefined than the mechanisms and descriptions  
> (including spell names) I've seen in the book I'm currently reading.

Gary Gygax says in the appendices to the AD&D v1 DMG (IIRC) that  
Dying Earth Magic was the immediate inspiration for the D&D magic  
system.  I think it's there that he says that DE and Lieber's Nehwon  
stories are the biggest influences.

There's also an article by Gygax talking about Vance's influence on  
D&D in _The Excellent Prismatic Spray_ issue II.  http:// 
www.dyingearth.com/mag.htm

I have not read it.

Adam

---

From: don doggett <kingwukong at yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 16:47:04 +0000

--- Recursive Loop <recursive_loop at yahoo.com> wrote:

 until TSR got a
> "cease and desist" order. Either Tolkien or his
> estate did the same thing, so "hobbits" in early
> editions became "halflings" in later editions,

Well, at the risk of being labelled a nitpick, they
are called halflings by the Gondorians. But it appears
that it's a "real" word that can't be copyrighted.

nerdily yours

Don

 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. 
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html

---

From: Recursive Loop <recursive_loop at yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 16:53:15 +0000

"Well, at the risk of being labelled a nitpick, they
are called halflings by the Gondorians. But it appears
that it's a "real" word that can't be copyrighted."

Nitpick away! You are exactly right. One word is the invention of the Professor. The other is a
"real world word".

Hence the deletion of "Cthulhu" and other words from the Monster Manual.

TSR had a good business relationship with Leiber and published supplements based on his works. I
don't know if they ever had a deal with Vance. Arkham House eventually sold the rights for gaming
in Lovecraft's worlds to Chaosium, who did a bang up job with their "Call of Cthulhu". LotR has
gone through multiple incarnations as a licensed property, under various helms.

(Nerdily? Here I am scouring eBay for copies of "En Garde!" to incorporate its quasi-roleplaying
aspects into a naval miniatures game called "Fire As She Bears". You can't get much nerdier!)

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:27:41 +0000

>   For years I thought he was an 
> That's a wonderful and beautiful illusion. 

Indeed. 

I also came across E C Tubb's THE WINDS OF GATH and believed the same thing 
about **that** book.   It's a fine work if you don't know about the 30-odd 
near-identical sequels 

But we drift off tropic. 

 - hartshorn

---

From: Daniel D Jones <ddjones at riddlemaster.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:58:18 +0000

On Tuesday 05 June 2007 12:53, Recursive Loop wrote:
> Nitpick away! You are exactly right. One word is the invention of the
> Professor. The other is a "real world word".
>

Although I haven't played in _years_, I still have the Monster Manual which 
includes creatures from Michael Moorcock's Elric/Immortal Champion series.  I 
don't recall which edition it is - I'm reasonably certain that it isn't the 
first - and I'd have to dig through a lot of boxes to find it.  But it's 
there.

> TSR had a good business relationship with Leiber and published supplements
> based on his works. 

I believe I also have a Lankhmar based campaign.

---

From: Adam Thornton <adam at io.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:03:38 +0000

> first - and I'd have to dig through a lot of boxes to find it.  But  

I suspect you're thinking of the first printing of Deities and  
Demigods, which contained both Melibone and Cthulhu Mythoi.  Since  
TSR never actually licensed the rights from Chaosium to do this,  
those two mythoi were removed from the second printing.

Adam

---

From: Daniel D Jones <ddjones at riddlemaster.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:32:33 +0000

> those two mythoi were removed from the second printing.

Ahh! You're right.  It is Deities and Demigods, not the Monster Manual.  I 
said that it had been years....

Thanks.

---

From: David Duffy <david.duffy at qimr.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 04:14:38 +0000

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, aaron wrote:

> I am glad to see some Vance readers around here. 
...
> Any good? Sorry for the long post guys.

Yes and yes.  I posted a long time ago that Wolfe has a quote from Shea 
(actually from Nifft the Lean) in ?Short Sun.

David Duffy.

---

From: Bob Miller <bob_bageera at hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 17:19:01 +0000

Good points and observations.  I haven't seen an interview with Dave 
Arneson, but Gary Gygax who is the author of most of the first couple 
generations of D&D books will tell you that LoTR and Vance's work was, at 
least. om the back of his mind.  Magic item Robe of Eyes in D&D directly 
related to one of the short stories.  Halflings were originally called 
hobbits and the Tolkien Estate made TSR change the name.

I guess I'm a minority person on Vance.  I always thought the Dying Earth 
stories relatively weak beside much, not all, of his other stuff.  Of 
course, I never did read anything from Cugel's Saga inclusive on.
Urth Mailing List
To post, write urth at urth.net
Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

_________________________________________________________________
Need a break? Find your escape route with Live Search Maps. 
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?ss=Restaurants~Hotels~Amusement%20Park&cp3.832922~-117.915659&style=r&lvl&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene18863&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01

---

From: Dave Lebling <dlebling at hyraxes.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 18:09:01 +0000

> course, I never did read anything from Cugel's Saga inclusive on.
Well, chacun a son gout, as the French folks say. I've always found 
Vance's fantasy stuff to be his best work (with the exception on the SF 
side of of the first couple of Demon Princes novels).

A couple of things to remember about the Dying Earth stories. First, 
they are just that; the "novel" is really just a story collection. The 
Cugel books are pretty episodic as well, and were broken up for 
publication; I don't know whether they started as a novel or as a bunch 
of stories. The later things (like "Fader's Waft") were also stories. As 
stories they stand pretty tall. Second, keep in mind when the original 
Dying Earth stories were published, and compare and contrast against 
what else was coming out in the fantasy genre: not much. It was 
post-Unknown, and F&SF was doing contemporary fantasy more than Cabell- 
or Lord Dunsany-influenced works. The only similar things that were 
happening were Leiber's Grey Mouser stories, also heavily influenced by 
Dunsany and Cabell. Howard was already in the past. Vance was a breath 
of fresh air. By today's standards he's a bit mannered, and if you read 
a huge chunk of his writing you see the same themes, even the same 
phrasings, pop up again and again.

In my opinion, D&D was influenced heavily by Vance, Leiber and Howard, 
and of course Tolkien. It goes without saying that contemporary fantasy 
computer games are utterly in their debt as well.

Dave Lebling, aka vizcacha

---

From: Tim Walters <walters at doubtfulpalace.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 18:22:50 +0000

Dave Lebling wrote:

> and of course Tolkien.

And Fletcher Pratt, who I think is less well known than he should be (G. 
G. Kay and G.R.R. Martin owe him plenty).

--

---

From: stilskin <acronus at yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 18:34:20 +0000

> G. Kay and G.R.R. Martin owe him plenty).

Let's not forget Michael Moorcock and Poul Anderson!

http://www.sff.net/people/stilskin

____________________________________________________________________________________
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go 
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail

---

From: Adam Thornton <adam at io.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 19:38:31 +0000

> computer games are utterly in their debt as well.

Not that you're, uh, exactly blameless on that score, eh?

Adam

---

From: Dave Lebling <dlebling at hyraxes.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 20:07:42 +0000

stilskin wrote:
>> And Fletcher Pratt, who I think is less well known
>> than he should be (G. G. Kay and G.R.R. Martin owe him plenty).
>>     
>
If we're going that far, we might as well include L. Sprague deCamp as 
well. The "Incomplete Enchanter" stories he wrote with Pratt were one of 
the highlights of the "Unknown" era. I for one always liked deCamp 
better than Pratt.

In any case, the magic system in D&D (and the one in the Zork computer 
games) was directly stolen from the Dying Earth stories, as was the 
grue. As the thief in the latter case, I can be sure of that.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070609/fbd1812a/attachment.htm

---

From: Adam Thornton <adam at io.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 00:05:42 +0000

On Jun 9, 2007, at 3:07 PM, Dave Lebling wrote:
>>> than he should be (G. G. Kay and G.R.R. Martin owe him  
>>> plenty).     Let's not forget Michael Moorcock and Poul Anderson!
> If we're going that far, we might as well include L. Sprague deCamp  
> as well. The "Incomplete Enchanter" stories he wrote with Pratt  
> were one of the highlights of the "Unknown" era. I for one always  
> liked deCamp better than Pratt.

But once we go this far then we need to start considering second-and- 
third order effects.  I mean, OK, so you have Moorcock.  Looking back  
you've got Mervyn Peake, and forward you have M. John Harrison and  
the whole British crowd of Moorcock-inspired genre authors.  Which  
would bring you to, say, China Mieville, on whom Vance is probably  
more of a second-order influence by way of Gygax.  But of course, to  
bring this back to Wolfe, Mieville is extremely Borges-influenced as  
well.  And also Lewis Carroll; I can't think offhand of anything  
specifically Carrollian in Wolfe, but I will be amazed if someone on  
this list can't immediately pipe up with something.  (Of course, you  
could get there via Jasper Fforde, since the Unitary Authority of  
Warrington (formerly Cheshire) Cat is in charge of the Library of  
Babel--and therefore is, of course Master Ultan, and since Cyby is  
Wolfe's self-insertion, that might make Thursday Next Gene Wolfe, and  
now my head has explodiated.

> In any case, the magic system in D&D (and the one in the Zork  
> computer games) was directly stolen from the Dying Earth stories,  
> as was the grue. As the thief in the latter case, I can be sure of  
> that.

Imagine my delight upon finding, early on in _Lolita_, that  
prostitutes were referred to as _grues_.  The Great Underground  
Empire will, I fear, never look quite the same to me.

Adam

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070609/7e249ad9/attachment.htm

---

From: Dave Lebling <dlebling at hyraxes.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 01:14:05 +0000

Adam Thornton wrote:
> prostitutes were referred to as _grues_.  The Great Underground Empire 
> will, I fear, never look quite the same to me.
Aha! The French "grue" is "crane" (both the bird and the lifting 
device). I suspect that's where Nabokov got it (the bird, I would 
suspect, though I suppose "lifting device" might apply as well).

Imagine my surprise when I first visited Montreal and found in the 
Yellow Pages "location des grues" ("crane rental"). One hopes they are 
rented only in daylight.

---

From: Joel Sieh <joel.sieh at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 02:04:23 +0000

At first, I was somewhat embarrassed at bringing up D&D on this list,
seeing how it was somewhat offtopic and derailed the conversation from
matters of Wolfe.  However, a lot of interesting posts have come out
of it (especially Adam's above)!  I have very little to add,
considering many of these authors are on my to-read list, but alas
have not yet been read.

---

From: Adam Thornton <adam at io.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:20:06 +0000

On Jun 9, 2007, at 8:14 PM, Dave Lebling wrote:

>> Empire

I imagine there's not a lot of repeat business if they aren't.

Now I must write a short work of IF, "La Grenouille", in which you  
play the eponym, just so that I can say (shamelessly pasted from  
Google Translate):

Vous ?tes susceptibles d'?tre mang?s par une grue.

Which gets us back to Carroll.  Found *what* advisable?  I'm afraid I  
can't find the bridge back to Wolfe, though.  What *did* the  
archbishop find?

Adam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070609/d2900abb/attachment.htm

---

From: Iorwerth Thomas <iorweththomas at hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:07:40 +0000

>considering many of these authors are on my to-read list, but alas

I wouldn't feel overly bad about it; a while back on this list I referenced 
an Ars Magica supplement in a discussion on the Kabbalah and Severian...

Iozz -- plush Cthulhu owner and appalling geek

_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk

---

From: Recursive Loop <recursive_loop at yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:22:27 +0000

A humorous look at the Tolkien-D&D links...111 installments worth!!!

<http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?cat=14>

FPK3

____________________________________________________________________________________
Finding fabulous fares is fun.  
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097