{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/6003", "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": 6003, "subject": "This Week in Google Alerts: Will No One Rid Me Of This\n\tTroublesome Writer?", "messages": 15, "voices": 12, "first": "2011-05-10T03:30:54+00:00", "last": "2011-05-10T18:58:37+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gwern Branwen", "address": "gwern0 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-05-10T03:30:54+00:00", "subject": "(urth) This Week in Google Alerts: Will No One Rid Me Of This\n\tTroublesome Writer?", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Just in time for Gene's birthday celebrations:\nhttp://foreverness.createforumhosting.com/what-to-do-about-gene-wolfe-t337.html" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This is driving me nuts. I'm far beyond my limit of tolerance for cover-jacket blurbs declaring Gene Wolfe to be \"... the greatest writer in the English language alive today.\" and \"... there is nobody who can even approach Gene Wolfe for brilliance of prose, clarity of thought, and depth in meaning.\" That's Michael Swanwick's embarrassing fawning, which has apparently become required promotional jibber-jabber for every book Wolfe gets published. Other literary critics who don't know anything about science fiction take this at face value, and occasionally regurgitate it with their own variations, completely oblivious to Jack Vance's work. And, readers new to science fiction (or speculative fiction if you prefer) are being grossly misled. They're amazed by the pebble but aren't told about the mountain. Don't get me wrong; I don't dislike Gene Wolfe's writing. I pounce on every new chunk of fiction he comes up with. I'll go so far as to say that his \"The Book of the New Sun\" is required reading for anyone who believes that some sci-fi is serious literature equal to the best in mainstream fiction. But, Wolfe is derivative. He obviously used Vance as a starting point, whereas Vance developed his literary voice independently. Vance is authentic and original, and Wolfe is the brilliant student. It's true that Wolfe's most recent work seems to be moving in a direction that is more of Wolfe himself and less of Vance's style and technique. Hopefully, Wolfe's future works will be ships with a wind in their sails that flows from Wolfe's lungs alone. But we're still being pounded over the head with the uninformed blather of Swanwick, et al. What to do? Who will sound the trumpet for Vance? Who will illuminate Vance's status as the progenitor?" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "gwern\nhttp://www.gwern.net" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Matthew Keeley", "address": "matthew.keeley.1 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-05-10T03:46:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) This Week in Google Alerts: Will No One Rid Me Of This\n Troublesome Writer?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What would happen if the post's writer discovered William Hope Hodgson's The\nNight Land, a novel about a world where the sun has *already* gone out?\n\n-Matt" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lane Haygood", "address": "lhaygood at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-05-10T05:22:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) This Week in Google Alerts: Will No One Rid Me Of This\n Troublesome Writer?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is just demonstrably false to boot! Vance's prose, his diction,\nand his writing style are highly distinct from Wolfe's. I mean, the\nonly line of intersection is that they each chose a certain thematic\nmotif (a dying world) for a few of their stories. But Wolfe's writing\ntends to be more dialogue-heavy and witty, whereas Vance eschews\ndialogue in favor of lyricism and structured prose. The \"Dying Earth\"\nstories are lighter and more mythic (not to mention fairly\nstraightforward), whereas Wolfe's tend to be labyrinthine and\nmulti-layered.\n\nI enjoy both, but to compare Wolfe to Vance is to compare apples to oranges.\n\nThat said, aren't all writers at least somewhat derivative? Talk to\nany of them and they can list a whole line of authors that influenced\ntheir development. But there's a clear difference between, \"Oh yeah,\nBorges was totally influential on my work\" and \"Hey guys, I totally\nrewrote a Borges story with spaceships and swords.\"\n\nLH" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:\nJust in time for Gene's birthday celebrations:\nhttp://foreverness.createforumhosting.com/what-to-do-about-gene-wolfe-t337.html" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "This is driving me nuts. I'm far beyond my limit of tolerance for cover-jacket blurbs declaring Gene Wolfe to be \"... the greatest writer in the English language alive today.\" and \"... there is nobody who can even approach Gene Wolfe for brilliance of prose, clarity of thought, and depth in meaning.\" That's Michael Swanwick's embarrassing fawning, which has apparently become required promotional jibber-jabber for every book Wolfe gets published. Other literary critics who don't know anything about science fiction take this at face value, and occasionally regurgitate it with their own variations, completely oblivious to Jack Vance's work. And, readers new to science fiction (or speculative fiction if you prefer) are being grossly misled. They're amazed by the pebble but aren't told about the mountain. Don't get me wrong; I don't dislike Gene Wolfe's writing. I pounce on every new chunk of fiction he comes up with. I'll go so far as to say that his \"The Book of the New Sun\" i\n?s required reading for anyone who believes that some sci-fi is serious literature equal to the best in mainstream fiction. But, Wolfe is derivative. He obviously used Vance as a starting point, whereas Vance developed his literary voice independently. Vance is authentic and original, and Wolfe is the brilliant student. It's true that Wolfe's most recent work seems to be moving in a direction that is more of Wolfe himself and less of Vance's style and technique. Hopefully, Wolfe's future works will be ships with a wind in their sails that flows from Wolfe's lungs alone. But we're still being pounded over the head with the uninformed blather of Swanwick, et al. What to do? Who will sound the trumpet for Vance? Who will illuminate Vance's status as the progenitor?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--\ngwern\nhttp://www.gwern.net\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jack Smith", "address": "jack.smith.1946 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-05-10T09:47:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) This Week in Google Alerts: Will No One Rid Me Of This\n Troublesome Writer?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Wolfe is derivative? Yes, but so is Shakespeare." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Lane Haygood wrote:\nThis is just demonstrably false to boot! Vance's prose, his diction,\nand his writing style are highly distinct from Wolfe's. I mean, the\nonly line of intersection is that they each chose a certain thematic\nmotif (a dying world) for a few of their stories. But Wolfe's writing\ntends to be more dialogue-heavy and witty, whereas Vance eschews\ndialogue in favor of lyricism and structured prose. The \"Dying Earth\"\nstories are lighter and more mythic (not to mention fairly\nstraightforward), whereas Wolfe's tend to be labyrinthine and\nmulti-layered.\n\nI enjoy both, but to compare Wolfe to Vance is to compare apples to\noranges.\n\nThat said, aren't all writers at least somewhat derivative? Talk to\nany of them and they can list a whole line of authors that influenced\ntheir development. But there's a clear difference between, \"Oh yeah,\nBorges was totally influential on my work\" and \"Hey guys, I totally\nrewrote a Borges story with spaceships and swords.\"\n\nLH\n\nOn Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Just in time for Gene's birthday celebrations:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "http://foreverness.createforumhosting.com/what-to-do-about-gene-wolfe-t337.html" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "This is driving me nuts. I'm far beyond my limit of tolerance for\ncover-jacket blurbs declaring Gene Wolfe to be \"... the greatest writer in\nthe English language alive today.\" and \"... there is nobody who can even\napproach Gene Wolfe for brilliance of prose, clarity of thought, and depth\nin meaning.\" That's Michael Swanwick's embarrassing fawning, which has\napparently become required promotional jibber-jabber for every book Wolfe\ngets published. Other literary critics who don't know anything about science\nfiction take this at face value, and occasionally regurgitate it with their\nown variations, completely oblivious to Jack Vance's work. And, readers new\nto science fiction (or speculative fiction if you prefer) are being grossly\nmisled. They're amazed by the pebble but aren't told about the mountain." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Don't get me wrong; I don't dislike Gene Wolfe's writing. I pounce on every\nnew chunk of fiction he comes up with. I'll go so far as to say that his\n\"The Book of the New Sun\" i\n s required reading for anyone who believes that some sci-fi is serious\nliterature equal to the best in mainstream fiction. But, Wolfe is\nderivative. He obviously used Vance as a starting point, whereas Vance\ndeveloped his literary voice independently. Vance is authentic and original,\nand Wolfe is the brilliant student. It's true that Wolfe's most recent work\nseems to be moving in a direction that is more of Wolfe himself and less of\nVance's style and technique. Hopefully, Wolfe's future works will be ships\nwith a wind in their sails that flows from Wolfe's lungs alone. But we're\nstill being pounded over the head with the uninformed blather of Swanwick,\net al. What to do? Who will sound the trumpet for Vance? Who will illuminate\nVance's status as the progenitor?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "--\ngwern\nhttp://www.gwern.net\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-05-10T11:17:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) This Week in Google Alerts: Will No One Rid Me Of This\n Troublesome Writer?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yeah, this just looks like a red herring to me. Wolfe is the 'brilliant\nstudent' of far more writers than Vance, many of the others being\n'mainstream'. Even if we were to only consider fantasy pre-cursors, just\nthe mere fact of mixing something of Vance with healthy doses of the likes\nof Hodgson and Lovecraft already creates something wonderfully new and fresh\n(something that some will far prefer to Vance it has to be said).\n\nIt's no secret that Wolfe almost never invents any new s.f/fantasy scenario\n- his originality is all in the exquisite craft and artistry of the prose\nitself, the utterly weird sleight-of-hand form of storytelling, and the\ndense depth of psychology and narratology (all of which have their\nderivations - but Wolfe truly sounds, in the thick of his narrative, like no\none else).\n\nHaving said that, I actually agree that the oft-repeated (re-bleated) blurbs\ncan be rather misleading. Gene Wolfe will live up to his praise in a way\nthat probably many (most?) people just won't 'get'. And I don't necessarily\nblame them. It just depends on your tastes and backgrounds. I think the\n'problem' is that some of us have been willing to follow Wolfe into and\nthrough his literary labyrinth and thereby been shown wonders that have\nresonated so deeply and lastingly that we can't heap enough praise on him.\nThis is understandable but perhaps unhelpful and misleading to the\nnon-initiate. Wolfe needs blurbs that will perhaps rather more cautiously\nentice readers into his rare brew if they they can be convinced to pay the\nfee (because, frankly, reading Wolfe is costly, as most of us will admit).\n\nThen again, all the outrageous praise from Gaiman and others totally roped\nme in and I'm not the least unthankful!\n\nDOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Jack Smith wrote:\nWolfe is derivative? Yes, but so is Shakespeare.\n\n\nOn Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Lane Haygood wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "This is just demonstrably false to boot! Vance's prose, his diction,\nand his writing style are highly distinct from Wolfe's. I mean, the\nonly line of intersection is that they each chose a certain thematic\nmotif (a dying world) for a few of their stories. But Wolfe's writing\ntends to be more dialogue-heavy and witty, whereas Vance eschews\ndialogue in favor of lyricism and structured prose. The \"Dying Earth\"\nstories are lighter and more mythic (not to mention fairly\nstraightforward), whereas Wolfe's tend to be labyrinthine and\nmulti-layered.\n\nI enjoy both, but to compare Wolfe to Vance is to compare apples to\noranges.\n\nThat said, aren't all writers at least somewhat derivative? Talk to\nany of them and they can list a whole line of authors that influenced\ntheir development. But there's a clear difference between, \"Oh yeah,\nBorges was totally influential on my work\" and \"Hey guys, I totally\nrewrote a Borges story with spaceships and swords.\"\n\nLH\n\nOn Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Just in time for Gene's birthday celebrations:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "http://foreverness.createforumhosting.com/what-to-do-about-gene-wolfe-t337.html" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "This is driving me nuts. I'm far beyond my limit of tolerance for\ncover-jacket blurbs declaring Gene Wolfe to be \"... the greatest writer in\nthe English language alive today.\" and \"... there is nobody who can even\napproach Gene Wolfe for brilliance of prose, clarity of thought, and depth\nin meaning.\" That's Michael Swanwick's embarrassing fawning, which has\napparently become required promotional jibber-jabber for every book Wolfe\ngets published. Other literary critics who don't know anything about science\nfiction take this at face value, and occasionally regurgitate it with their\nown variations, completely oblivious to Jack Vance's work. And, readers new\nto science fiction (or speculative fiction if you prefer) are being grossly\nmisled. They're amazed by the pebble but aren't told about the mountain." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Don't get me wrong; I don't dislike Gene Wolfe's writing. I pounce on every\nnew chunk of fiction he comes up with. I'll go so far as to say that his\n\"The Book of the New Sun\" i\n s required reading for anyone who believes that some sci-fi is serious\nliterature equal to the best in mainstream fiction. But, Wolfe is\nderivative. He obviously used Vance as a starting point, whereas Vance\ndeveloped his literary voice independently. Vance is authentic and original,\nand Wolfe is the brilliant student. It's true that Wolfe's most recent work\nseems to be moving in a direction that is more of Wolfe himself and less of\nVance's style and technique. Hopefully, Wolfe's future works will be ships\nwith a wind in their sails that flows from Wolfe's lungs alone. But we're\nstill being pounded over the head with the uninformed blather of Swanwick,\net al. What to do? Who will sound the trumpet for Vance? Who will illuminate\nVance's status as the progenitor?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "--\ngwern\nhttp://www.gwern.net\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DC9242B.8010703@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-05-10T11:40:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) This Week in Google Alerts: Will No One Rid Me Of This\n Troublesome Writer?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Writer _X_ is not derivative?\n\nWriter _Y_ is derivative?\n\nThis makes no sense. All writers derive." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 5/9/2011 11:30 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:\nJust in time for Gene's birthday celebrations:\nhttp://foreverness.createforumhosting.com/what-to-do-about-gene-wolfe-t337.html" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "This is driving me nuts. I'm far beyond my limit of tolerance for cover-jacket blurbs declaring Gene Wolfe to be \"... the greatest writer in the English language alive today.\" and \"... there is nobody who can even approach Gene Wolfe for brilliance of prose, clarity of thought, and depth in meaning.\" That's Michael Swanwick's embarrassing fawning, which has apparently become required promotional jibber-jabber for every book Wolfe gets published. Other literary critics who don't know anything about science fiction take this at face value, and occasionally regurgitate it with their own variations, completely oblivious to Jack Vance's work. And, readers new to science fiction (or speculative fiction if you prefer) are being grossly misled. They're amazed by the pebble but aren't told about the mountain. Don't get me wrong; I don't dislike Gene Wolfe's writing. I pounce on every new chunk of fiction he comes up with. I'll go so far as to say that his \"The Book of the New Sun\" i\n s required reading for anyone who believes that some sci-fi is serious literature equal to the best in mainstream fiction. But, Wolfe is derivative. He obviously used Vance as a starting point, whereas Vance developed his literary voice independently. Vance is authentic and original, and Wolfe is the brilliant student. It's true that Wolfe's most recent work seems to be moving in a direction that is more of Wolfe himself and less of Vance's style and technique. Hopefully, Wolfe's future works will be ships with a wind in their sails that flows from Wolfe's lungs alone. But we're still being pounded over the head with the uninformed blather of Swanwick, et al. What to do? Who will sound the trumpet for Vance? Who will illuminate Vance's status as the progenitor?" } ] }, { "message_id": "<139351.73410.qm@web114701.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-05-10T14:28:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) This Week in Google Alerts: Will No One Rid Me Of This\n\tTroublesome Writer?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: Lane Haygood " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This is just demonstrably false to boot! Vance's prose, his diction,\nand his writing style are highly distinct from Wolfe's. I mean, the\nonly line of intersection is that they each chose a certain thematic\nmotif (a dying world) for a few of their stories. But Wolfe's writing\ntends to be more dialogue-heavy and witty, whereas Vance eschews\ndialogue in favor of lyricism and structured prose." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I must have missed the lyricism in the Dying Earth series, but I do remember a \ngood deal of stylized dialogue." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The \"Dying Earth\"\nstories are lighter and more mythic (not to mention fairly\nstraightforward), whereas Wolfe's tend to be labyrinthine and\nmulti-layered." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And Wolfe brings in religion and philosophy, which are missing from the Dying \nEarth, and makes you feel that he's talking about a world instead of a sequence \nof stage sets.\n\nBut the most important difference to me is the characters. Wolfe's characters \nare varied and have many resemblances to people (robots, aliens, etc.). Almost \nall the characters in the Dying Earth books are simple mechanisms of selfishness \ndistinguished, if at all, by their different obsessions. That's why, when I \ntried to find out what people saw in those books, I had to force my way through \nthem." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I enjoy both, but to compare Wolfe to Vance is to compare apples to oranges.\n\nThat said, aren't all writers at least somewhat derivative? Talk to\nany of them and they can list a whole line of authors that influenced\ntheir development. But there's a clear difference between, \"Oh yeah,\nBorges was totally influential on my work\" and \"Hey guys, I totally\nrewrote a Borges story with spaceships and swords.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, I think Vance owes something to Dunsany and Cabell and probably others I \nhaven't read (A. Merritt?).\n\nJerry Friedman" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DC95045.3010204@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-05-10T14:48:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth) This Week in Google Alerts: Will No One Rid Me Of This\n Troublesome Writer?", "in_reply_to": "<4DC9242B.8010703@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "All *comprehensible* art is derivative. Language is metaphor and \nmetaphor is by definition derivative.\n\nIrony is derivative. Homage is derivative. Response is derivative. Humor \nis derivative. Genre is derivative. Surealism is derivative. Dadaism is \nderivative. Form is derivative.\n\nJ." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 5/10/2011 6:40 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:\nWriter _X_ is not derivative?\n\nWriter _Y_ is derivative?\n\nThis makes no sense. All writers derive.\n\nOn 5/9/2011 11:30 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Just in time for Gene's birthday celebrations:\nhttp://foreverness.createforumhosting.com/what-to-do-about-gene-wolfe-t337.html " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "This is driving me nuts. I'm far beyond my limit of tolerance for \ncover-jacket blurbs declaring Gene Wolfe to be \"... the greatest \nwriter in the English language alive today.\" and \"... there is \nnobody who can even approach Gene Wolfe for brilliance of prose, \nclarity of thought, and depth in meaning.\" That's Michael Swanwick's \nembarrassing fawning, which has apparently become required \npromotional jibber-jabber for every book Wolfe gets published. Other \nliterary critics who don't know anything about science fiction take \nthis at face value, and occasionally regurgitate it with their own \nvariations, completely oblivious to Jack Vance's work. And, readers \nnew to science fiction (or speculative fiction if you prefer) are \nbeing grossly misled. They're amazed by the pebble but aren't told \nabout the mountain. Don't get me wrong; I don't dislike Gene Wolfe's \nwriting. I pounce on every new chunk of fiction he comes up with. \nI'll go so far as to say that his \"The Book of the New Sun\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "i\n s required reading for anyone who believes that some sci-fi is \nserious literature equal to the best in mainstream fiction. But, \nWolfe is derivative. He obviously used Vance as a starting point, \nwhereas Vance developed his literary voice independently. Vance is \nauthentic and original, and Wolfe is the brilliant student. It's true \nthat Wolfe's most recent work seems to be moving in a direction that \nis more of Wolfe himself and less of Vance's style and technique. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Hopefully, Wolfe's future works will be ships with a wind in their \nsails that flows from Wolfe's lungs alone. But we're still being \npounded over the head with the uninformed blather of Swanwick, et al. \nWhat to do? Who will sound the trumpet for Vance? Who will illuminate \nVance's status as the progenitor?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "---\navast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.\nVirus Database (VPS): 110510-0, 05/10/2011\nTested on: 5/10/2011 7:40:27 AM\navast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software.\nhttp://www.avast.com\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DC953B9.3040308@irit.fr>", "from": { "name": "Sergei SOLOVIEV", "address": "soloviev at irit.fr" }, "date": "2011-05-10T15:03:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) This Week in Google Alerts: Will No One Rid Me Of This\n Troublesome Writer?", "in_reply_to": "<4DC9242B.8010703@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I read Vance partly because he was mentioned with great respect by Gene \nWolfe\nas one of the writers who influenced the New Sun series (with his \"Dying \nEarth\").\nHonestly, I was disappointed by literary quality of his work. The \ncharacters are\nin general very schematic, the language is sometimes interesting but \ndialogues\nare extremely artificial, nobody does speak like this, the composition \nvery linear\n(Vance does use most of the time \"travelogue\" plan - \"Ports of call\" and \ntravels\nof Cugel are typical examples). It doesn't mean that there is no \nimpressive episodes/ideas -\nand great deal of intelligent irony that I like. I liked \"Guyal of \nSphere\" for example.\n\nBest\n\nSergei" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Stockhoff wrote:\nWriter _X_ is not derivative?\n\nWriter _Y_ is derivative?\n\nThis makes no sense. All writers derive.\n\nOn 5/9/2011 11:30 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Just in time for Gene's birthday celebrations:\nhttp://foreverness.createforumhosting.com/what-to-do-about-gene-wolfe-t337.html " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "This is driving me nuts. I'm far beyond my limit of tolerance for \ncover-jacket blurbs declaring Gene Wolfe to be \"... the greatest \nwriter in the English language alive today.\" and \"... there is \nnobody who can even approach Gene Wolfe for brilliance of prose, \nclarity of thought, and depth in meaning.\" That's Michael Swanwick's \nembarrassing fawning, which has apparently become required \npromotional jibber-jabber for every book Wolfe gets published. Other \nliterary critics who don't know anything about science fiction take \nthis at face value, and occasionally regurgitate it with their own \nvariations, completely oblivious to Jack Vance's work. And, readers \nnew to science fiction (or speculative fiction if you prefer) are \nbeing grossly misled. They're amazed by the pebble but aren't told \nabout the mountain. Don't get me wrong; I don't dislike Gene Wolfe's \nwriting. I pounce on every new chunk of fiction he comes up with. \nI'll go so far as to say that his \"The Book of the New Sun\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "i\n s required reading for anyone who believes that some sci-fi is \nserious literature equal to the best in mainstream fiction. But, \nWolfe is derivative. He obviously used Vance as a starting point, \nwhereas Vance developed his literary voice independently. Vance is \nauthentic and original, and Wolfe is the brilliant student. It's true \nthat Wolfe's most recent work seems to be moving in a direction that \nis more of Wolfe himself and less of Vance's style and technique. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Hopefully, Wolfe's future works will be ships with a wind in their \nsails that flows from Wolfe's lungs alone. But we're still being \npounded over the head with the uninformed blather of Swanwick, et al. \nWhat to do? Who will sound the trumpet for Vance? Who will illuminate \nVance's status as the progenitor?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "---\navast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.\nVirus Database (VPS): 110510-0, 05/10/2011\nTested on: 5/10/2011 7:40:27 AM\navast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software.\nhttp://www.avast.com\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<20110510151043.DUUC32426.eastrmfepo102.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net>", "from": { "name": "James B. Jordan", "address": "jbjordan4 at cox.net" }, "date": "2011-05-10T15:10:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) This Week in Google Alerts: Will No One Rid Me Of This\n Troublesome Writer?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At 06:17 AM 5/10/2011, you wrote:\nYeah, this just looks like a red herring to me. Wolfe is the \n'brilliant student' of far more writers than Vance, many of the \nothers being 'mainstream'." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Certes. In the New Sun, there is a lot of Proust's In Search of Lost Time.\n\nJBJordan (formerly Nutria)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " Even if we were to only consider fantasy pre-cursors, just the \nmere fact of mixing something of Vance with healthy doses of the \nlikes of Hodgson and Lovecraft already creates something \nwonderfully new and fresh (something that some will far prefer to \nVance it has to be said).\n\nIt's no secret that Wolfe almost never invents any new s.f/fantasy \nscenario - his originality is all in the exquisite craft and \nartistry of the prose itself, the utterly weird sleight-of-hand form \nof storytelling, and the dense depth of psychology and narratology \n(all of which have their derivations - but Wolfe truly sounds, in \nthe thick of his narrative, like no one else).\n\nHaving said that, I actually agree that the oft-repeated \n(re-bleated) blurbs can be rather misleading. Gene Wolfe will live \nup to his praise in a way that probably many (most?) people just \nwon't 'get'. And I don't necessarily blame them. It just depends \non your tastes and backgrounds. I think the 'problem' is that some \nof us have been willing to follow Wolfe into and through his \nliterary labyrinth and thereby been shown wonders that have \nresonated so deeply and lastingly that we can't heap enough praise \non him. This is understandable but perhaps unhelpful and misleading \nto the non-initiate. Wolfe needs blurbs that will perhaps rather \nmore cautiously entice readers into his rare brew if they they can \nbe convinced to pay the fee (because, frankly, reading Wolfe is \ncostly, as most of us will admit).\n\nThen again, all the outrageous praise from Gaiman and others totally \nroped me in and I'm not the least unthankful!\n\nDOJP\n\nOn Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Jack Smith \n<jack.smith.1946 at gmail.com> wrote:\nWolfe is derivative? Yes, but so is Shakespeare.\n\n\nOn Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Lane Haygood \n<lhaygood at gmail.com> wrote:\nThis is just demonstrably false to boot! Vance's prose, his diction,\nand his writing style are highly distinct from Wolfe's. I mean, the\nonly line of intersection is that they each chose a certain thematic\nmotif (a dying world) for a few of their stories. But Wolfe's writing\ntends to be more dialogue-heavy and witty, whereas Vance eschews\ndialogue in favor of lyricism and structured prose. The \"Dying Earth\"\nstories are lighter and more mythic (not to mention fairly\nstraightforward), whereas Wolfe's tend to be labyrinthine and\nmulti-layered.\n\nI enjoy both, but to compare Wolfe to Vance is to compare apples to oranges.\n\nThat said, aren't all writers at least somewhat derivative? Talk to\nany of them and they can list a whole line of authors that influenced\ntheir development. But there's a clear difference between, \"Oh yeah,\nBorges was totally influential on my work\" and \"Hey guys, I totally\nrewrote a Borges story with spaceships and swords.\"\n\nLH\n\nOn Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Gwern Branwen \n<gwern0 at gmail.com> wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Just in time for Gene's birthday celebrations:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "http://foreverness.createforumhosting.com/what-to-do-about-gene-wolfe-t337.html" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "This is driving me nuts. I'm far beyond my limit of tolerance \nfor cover-jacket blurbs declaring Gene Wolfe to be \"... the \ngreatest writer in the English language alive today.\" and \"... " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "there is nobody who can even approach Gene Wolfe for brilliance of \nprose, clarity of thought, and depth in meaning.\" That's Michael \nSwanwick's embarrassing fawning, which has apparently become \nrequired promotional jibber-jabber for every book Wolfe gets \npublished. Other literary critics who don't know anything about \nscience fiction take this at face value, and occasionally \nregurgitate it with their own variations, completely oblivious to \nJack Vance's work. And, readers new to science fiction (or \nspeculative fiction if you prefer) are being grossly misled. \nThey're amazed by the pebble but aren't told about the mountain. \nDon't get me wrong; I don't dislike Gene Wolfe's writing. I pounce \non every new chunk of fiction he comes up with. I'll go so far as \nto say that his \"The Book of the New Sun\" i\n s required reading for anyone who believes that some sci-fi is \nserious literature equal to the best in mainstream fiction. But, \nWolfe is derivative. He obviously used Vance as a starting point, \nwhereas Vance developed his literary voice independently. Vance is \nauthentic and original, and Wolfe is the brilliant student. It's \ntrue that Wolfe's most recent work seems to be moving in a \ndirection that is more of Wolfe himself and less of Vance's style \nand technique. Hopefully, Wolfe's future works will be ships with a \nwind in their sails that flows from Wolfe's lungs alone. But we're \nstill being pounded over the head with the uninformed blather of \nSwanwick, et al. What to do? Who will sound the trumpet for Vance? \nWho will illuminate Vance's status as the progenitor?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "--\ngwern\nhttp://www.gwern.net\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<442D2B94-59F2-4F29-994C-841DCDBD0EED@yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-05-10T15:14:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) This Week in Google Alerts: Will No One Rid Me Of This\n\tTroublesome Writer?", "in_reply_to": "<4DC953B9.3040308@irit.fr>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Of course it's true that all writers \"derive\". But what people really mean (I assume) is that a writer is piggy-backing on an idea/style that another writer made popular or executed in a particularly excellent way.\n\nThe problem here is that the \"dying sun\" motif is only one part of New Sun, and it's not even what makes the book(s) exceptional. The opinion was obviously just written by someone who loves Vance, as do many of us on the list, and they're venting because Wolfe gets more praise. Understandable, even if the criticism is misplaced. I don't think anyone sees this as a valid criticism of Wolfe...the comments on that post seem to say as much, too." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On May 10, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote:\nI read Vance partly because he was mentioned with great respect by Gene Wolfe\nas one of the writers who influenced the New Sun series (with his \"Dying Earth\").\nHonestly, I was disappointed by literary quality of his work. The characters are\nin general very schematic, the language is sometimes interesting but dialogues\nare extremely artificial, nobody does speak like this, the composition very linear\n(Vance does use most of the time \"travelogue\" plan - \"Ports of call\" and travels\nof Cugel are typical examples). It doesn't mean that there is no impressive episodes/ideas -\nand great deal of intelligent irony that I like. I liked \"Guyal of Sphere\" for example.\n\nBest\n\nSergei\n\nDavid Stockhoff wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Writer _X_ is not derivative?\n\nWriter _Y_ is derivative?\n\nThis makes no sense. All writers derive.\n\nOn 5/9/2011 11:30 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Just in time for Gene's birthday celebrations:\nhttp://foreverness.createforumhosting.com/what-to-do-about-gene-wolfe-t337.html " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "This is driving me nuts. I'm far beyond my limit of tolerance for cover-jacket blurbs declaring Gene Wolfe to be \"... the greatest writer in the English language alive today.\" and \"... there is nobody who can even approach Gene Wolfe for brilliance of prose, clarity of thought, and depth in meaning.\" That's Michael Swanwick's embarrassing fawning, which has apparently become required promotional jibber-jabber for every book Wolfe gets published. Other literary critics who don't know anything about science fiction take this at face value, and occasionally regurgitate it with their own variations, completely oblivious to Jack Vance's work. And, readers new to science fiction (or speculative fiction if you prefer) are being grossly misled. They're amazed by the pebble but aren't told about the mountain. Don't get me wrong; I don't dislike Gene Wolfe's writing. I pounce on every new chunk of fiction he comes up with. I'll go so far as to say that his \"The Book of the New Sun\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "i\n s required reading for anyone who believes that some sci-fi is serious literature equal to the best in mainstream fiction. But, Wolfe is derivative. He obviously used Vance as a starting point, whereas Vance developed his literary voice independently. Vance is authentic and original, and Wolfe is the brilliant student. It's true that Wolfe's most recent work seems to be moving in a direction that is more of Wolfe himself and less of Vance's style and technique. Hopefully, Wolfe's future works will be ships with a wind in their sails that flows from Wolfe's lungs alone. But we're still being pounded over the head with the uninformed blather of Swanwick, et al. What to do? Who will sound the trumpet for Vance? Who will illuminate Vance's status as the progenitor?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "---\navast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.\nVirus Database (VPS): 110510-0, 05/10/2011\nTested on: 5/10/2011 7:40:27 AM\navast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software.\nhttp://www.avast.com\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lane Haygood", "address": "lhaygood at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-05-10T15:19:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) This Week in Google Alerts: Will No One Rid Me Of This\n Troublesome Writer?", "in_reply_to": "<442D2B94-59F2-4F29-994C-841DCDBD0EED@yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I find it odd that someone would assume Wolfe gets more praise than\nVance. Certainly when triple-A authors put out a Wolfe-inspired short\nstory collection somewhere along the lines of \"Songs of the Dying\nEarth\" then we can claim Vance isn't getting his due as a sf\nprogenitor.\n\nLH\n\n(In short, go read \"Songs of the Dying Earth,\" edited by George R.R. Martin!)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nOf course it's true that all writers \"derive\". But what people really mean (I assume) is that a writer is piggy-backing on an idea/style that another writer made popular or executed in a particularly excellent way.\n\nThe problem here is that the \"dying sun\" motif is only one part of New Sun, and it's not even what makes the book(s) exceptional. The opinion was obviously just written by someone who loves Vance, as do many of us on the list, and they're venting because Wolfe gets more praise. Understandable, even if the criticism is misplaced. I don't think anyone sees this as a valid criticism of Wolfe...the comments on that post seem to say as much, too.\n\nOn May 10, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I read Vance partly because he was mentioned with great respect by Gene Wolfe\nas one of the writers who influenced the New Sun series (with his \"Dying Earth\").\nHonestly, I was disappointed by literary quality of his work. The characters are\nin general very schematic, the language is sometimes interesting but dialogues\nare extremely artificial, nobody does speak like this, the composition very linear\n(Vance does use most of the time \"travelogue\" plan - \"Ports of call\" and travels\nof Cugel are typical examples). It doesn't mean that there is no impressive episodes/ideas -\nand great deal of intelligent irony that I like. I liked \"Guyal of Sphere\" for example.\n\nBest\n\nSergei\n\nDavid Stockhoff wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Writer _X_ is not derivative?\n\nWriter _Y_ is derivative?\n\nThis makes no sense. All writers derive.\n\nOn 5/9/2011 11:30 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Just in time for Gene's birthday celebrations:\nhttp://foreverness.createforumhosting.com/what-to-do-about-gene-wolfe-t337.html" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "This is driving me nuts. I'm far beyond my limit of tolerance for cover-jacket blurbs declaring Gene Wolfe to be \"... the greatest writer in the English language alive today.\" and \"... there is nobody who can even approach Gene Wolfe for brilliance of prose, clarity of thought, and depth in meaning.\" That's Michael Swanwick's embarrassing fawning, which has apparently become required promotional jibber-jabber for every book Wolfe gets published. Other literary critics who don't know anything about science fiction take this at face value, and occasionally regurgitate it with their own variations, completely oblivious to Jack Vance's work. And, readers new to science fiction (or speculative fiction if you prefer) are being grossly misled. They're amazed by the pebble but aren't told about the mountain. Don't get me wrong; I don't dislike Gene Wolfe's writing. I pounce on every new chunk of fiction he comes up with. I'll go so far as to say that his \"The Book of the New Sun\n?\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "i\n?s required reading for anyone who believes that some sci-fi is serious literature equal to the best in mainstream fiction. But, Wolfe is derivative. He obviously used Vance as a starting point, whereas Vance developed his literary voice independently. Vance is authentic and original, and Wolfe is the brilliant student. It's true that Wolfe's most recent work seems to be moving in a direction that is more of Wolfe himself and less of Vance's style and technique. Hopefully, Wolfe's future works will be ships with a wind in their sails that flows from Wolfe's lungs alone. But we're still being pounded over the head with the uninformed blather of Swanwick, et al. What to do? Who will sound the trumpet for Vance? Who will illuminate Vance's status as the progenitor?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "---\navast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.\nVirus Database (VPS): 110510-0, 05/10/2011\nTested on: 5/10/2011 7:40:27 AM\navast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software.\nhttp://www.avast.com\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DC95B81.7060700@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-05-10T15:36:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) This Week in Google Alerts: Will No One Rid Me Of This\n Troublesome Writer?", "in_reply_to": "<442D2B94-59F2-4F29-994C-841DCDBD0EED@yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Craig Brewer wrote (10-05-2011 16:14):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Of course it's true that all writers \"derive\". But what people really\nmean (I assume) is that a writer is piggy-backing on an idea/style that\nanother writer made popular or executed in a particularly excellent way.\n\nThe problem here is that the \"dying sun\" motif is only one part of New\nSun, and it's not even what makes the book(s) exceptional. The opinion\nwas obviously just written by someone who loves Vance, as do many of us\non the list, and they're venting because Wolfe gets more praise.\nUnderstandable, even if the criticism is misplaced. I don't think anyone\nsees this as a valid criticism of Wolfe...the comments on that post seem\nto say as much, too." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Moreover, Gene Wolfe doesn't ride on other people's themes' success. He\nwillfully reuses concepts and settings, but not for their success or for\nbeing unable to create his own.\n\nNor are those concepts and settings the reason people are drawn to his work, \nnor why some of them express strong admiration of it.\n\nAnd he's the first to point out the people he's indebted to." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DC960E6.6050509@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-05-10T15:59:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth) This Week in Google Alerts: Will No One Rid Me Of This\n Troublesome Writer?", "in_reply_to": "<4DC953B9.3040308@irit.fr>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Pleasure I get from The Dying Urth stories is the irony and subtle humor.\nIt's the way that whenever Cugel is about to be outsmarted, he refers to \nhimself as \"Cugel the Clever\". It's the way certain plot details are \ndescribed rather than explained.//////\nTerry Pratchett owes as much to Vance as Wolfe, but I can see that Wolfe \nlearned more from Vance than the plot element of a dying sun.\n\nJ." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 5/10/2011 10:03 AM, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote:\nI read Vance partly because he was mentioned with great respect by \nGene Wolfe\nas one of the writers who influenced the New Sun series (with his \n\"Dying Earth\").\nHonestly, I was disappointed by literary quality of his work. The \ncharacters are\nin general very schematic, the language is sometimes interesting but \ndialogues\nare extremely artificial, nobody does speak like this, the composition \nvery linear\n(Vance does use most of the time \"travelogue\" plan - \"Ports of call\" \nand travels\nof Cugel are typical examples). It doesn't mean that there is no \nimpressive episodes/ideas -\nand great deal of intelligent irony that I like. I liked \"Guyal of \nSphere\" for example.\n\nBest\n\nSergei" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4DC98ADD.50302@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-05-10T18:58:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth) This Week in Google Alerts: Will No One Rid Me Of This\n Troublesome Writer?", "in_reply_to": "<4DC960E6.6050509@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The Dying EARTH of course... heh heh" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 5/10/2011 10:59 AM, James Wynn wrote:\nPleasure I get from The Dying Urth stories [...]" } ] } ] }