{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/6138", "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": 6138, "subject": "Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "messages": 138, "voices": 15, "first": "2011-12-13T16:46:13+00:00", "last": "2011-12-19T22:29:18+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<20111213164613.30232.qmail@server281.com>", "from": { "name": "Brian", "address": "brian at studiobl.com" }, "date": "2011-12-13T16:46:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "...Just wondering if that Linked-In request somehow threw the server for a\nloop, resulting in the lapse in activity. ...or if people actually have\nreal lives and it's close to Christmas..." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EE7822E.8060006@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-13T16:49:50+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<20111213164613.30232.qmail@server281.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Brian wrote (13-12-2011 16:46):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "...Just wondering if that Linked-In request somehow threw the server for\na loop, resulting in the lapse in activity. ...or if people actually have\nreal lives and it's close to Christmas..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Being close to Christmas we chose to take a break on insulting each other." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Antonin Scriabin", "address": "kierkegaurdian at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-13T16:56:14+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<20111213164613.30232.qmail@server281.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I vote for gummed-up works." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Brian wrote:\n...Just wondering if that Linked-In request somehow threw the server for a\nloop, resulting in the lapse in activity. ...or if people actually have\nreal lives and it's close to Christmas...\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<871FD0B988794812B029032B38091DA0@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-13T17:25:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Antonin Scriabin \n\nStandard lull, I reckon.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I vote for gummed-up works. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Brian wrote:" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " ...Just wondering if that Linked-In request somehow threw the server for a loop, resulting in the lapse in activity. ...or if people actually have real lives and it's close to Christmas..." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Larry Miller", "address": "decanus1284 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-13T19:04:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<871FD0B988794812B029032B38091DA0@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ill admit I have no life. I started reading Soldier in the Mist and\ndont even know where to begin discussing it. What the hell was with\nthat LinkedIn request anyway?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/13/11, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n\n\nFrom: Antonin Scriabin\n\nStandard lull, I reckon.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I vote for gummed-up works." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Brian wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " ...Just wondering if that Linked-In request somehow threw the server for a\nloop, resulting in the lapse in activity. ...or if people actually have real\nlives and it's close to Christmas..." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-13T19:35:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm half way through Soldier in the Mist, Larry. Glad to finally get round\nto this series that seems to be nearly as popular and central as the solar\ncycle. I shouldn't have started it yet, though, as I can only read it in\nfairly separated snatches. Because of its mellifluous nature (a\nbrilliantly achieved effect due to the narrator's constant memory loss), it\ncan lull you a bit. I suspect it should be read as quickly as possible,\nall in a weekend or a week or something. There have been some wonderfully\nmagic moments, both action-y (just a few) and visionary (lots). And just\nwhen it seemed it was going to merely be an extended meander, it seems to\npromise you might find out more about Latro's background and identity.\n\nI'm not good (or always especially interested) in the puzzle-solving\nWolfe's books require (I prefer to explore the themes in a literary\ncriticism sort of way - it takes all sorts though), but it looks fairly\nstrong to me that Latro is a werewolf. (What are that race called - starts\nwith an 'N'? Or have I already gotten hopelessly mixed up in the puzzle\npieces.)\n\nA cracking read all in, I think. (*Excellent *characterisation\ncompanion-piece to Severian. Ingenious on that level.)\n\n-DOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Larry Miller wrote:\nIll admit I have no life. I started reading Soldier in the Mist and\ndont even know where to begin discussing it. What the hell was with\nthat LinkedIn request anyway?\n\nOn 12/13/11, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From: Antonin Scriabin\n\nStandard lull, I reckon.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I vote for gummed-up works." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Brian wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": " ...Just wondering if that Linked-In request somehow threw the server\nfor a\nloop, resulting in the lapse in activity. ...or if people actually have\nreal\nlives and it's close to Christmas..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Antonin Scriabin", "address": "kierkegaurdian at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-13T19:39:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I am trying to decide when I should dive into the Soldier series. I still\nhave to read The Wizard (read The Knight) and the Short Sun series (read\nNew and Long). I remember reading somewhere that Soldier of Sidon ends on\nsomething of a cliff-hanger, and that there is a good chance there will be\na fourth (and final?) Latro book. Is this true? The truth in this matter\nwill likely decide what I read next!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Daniel Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:\nI'm half way through Soldier in the Mist, Larry. Glad to finally get\nround to this series that seems to be nearly as popular and central as the\nsolar cycle. I shouldn't have started it yet, though, as I can only read\nit in fairly separated snatches. Because of its mellifluous nature (a\nbrilliantly achieved effect due to the narrator's constant memory loss), it\ncan lull you a bit. I suspect it should be read as quickly as possible,\nall in a weekend or a week or something. There have been some wonderfully\nmagic moments, both action-y (just a few) and visionary (lots). And just\nwhen it seemed it was going to merely be an extended meander, it seems to\npromise you might find out more about Latro's background and identity.\n\nI'm not good (or always especially interested) in the puzzle-solving\nWolfe's books require (I prefer to explore the themes in a literary\ncriticism sort of way - it takes all sorts though), but it looks fairly\nstrong to me that Latro is a werewolf. (What are that race called - starts\nwith an 'N'? Or have I already gotten hopelessly mixed up in the puzzle\npieces.)\n\nA cracking read all in, I think. (*Excellent *characterisation\ncompanion-piece to Severian. Ingenious on that level.)\n\n-DOJP\n\nOn Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Larry Miller wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Ill admit I have no life. I started reading Soldier in the Mist and\ndont even know where to begin discussing it. What the hell was with\nthat LinkedIn request anyway?\n\nOn 12/13/11, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "From: Antonin Scriabin\n\nStandard lull, I reckon.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "I vote for gummed-up works." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Brian wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": " ...Just wondering if that Linked-In request somehow threw the server\nfor a\nloop, resulting in the lapse in activity. ...or if people actually have\nreal\nlives and it's close to Christmas..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-13T19:48:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hm, I read Wizard-Knight first, but that was actually the first thing\n(after attempting various others) that finally got me properly into Wolfe.\nTo do again, I would definitely go from New Sun to Soldier, then complete\nthe solar cycle and only then cap it out with Wizard-Knight. I've heard\nthe rumour too that there's a fourth Soldier novel, but I'm personally not\ncounting on it.\n\n-DOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Antonin Scriabin\nwrote:\nI am trying to decide when I should dive into the Soldier series. I still\nhave to read The Wizard (read The Knight) and the Short Sun series (read\nNew and Long). I remember reading somewhere that Soldier of Sidon ends on\nsomething of a cliff-hanger, and that there is a good chance there will be\na fourth (and final?) Latro book. Is this true? The truth in this matter\nwill likely decide what I read next!" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Larry Miller", "address": "decanus1284 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-13T21:46:32+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "While Im only a quarter of the way through Soldier Ive yet to find\nanything that npoints to Latro being a werewolf. Ive been on the\nlookout but Im sure I missed them (along with tons of other stuff).\nWhat have you found that would hint towards this?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/13/11, Daniel Petersen wrote:\nI'm half way through Soldier in the Mist, Larry. Glad to finally get round\nto this series that seems to be nearly as popular and central as the solar\ncycle. I shouldn't have started it yet, though, as I can only read it in\nfairly separated snatches. Because of its mellifluous nature (a\nbrilliantly achieved effect due to the narrator's constant memory loss), it\ncan lull you a bit. I suspect it should be read as quickly as possible,\nall in a weekend or a week or something. There have been some wonderfully\nmagic moments, both action-y (just a few) and visionary (lots). And just\nwhen it seemed it was going to merely be an extended meander, it seems to\npromise you might find out more about Latro's background and identity.\n\nI'm not good (or always especially interested) in the puzzle-solving\nWolfe's books require (I prefer to explore the themes in a literary\ncriticism sort of way - it takes all sorts though), but it looks fairly\nstrong to me that Latro is a werewolf. (What are that race called - starts\nwith an 'N'? Or have I already gotten hopelessly mixed up in the puzzle\npieces.)\n\nA cracking read all in, I think. (*Excellent *characterisation\ncompanion-piece to Severian. Ingenious on that level.)\n\n-DOJP\n\nOn Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Larry Miller wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Ill admit I have no life. I started reading Soldier in the Mist and\ndont even know where to begin discussing it. What the hell was with\nthat LinkedIn request anyway?\n\nOn 12/13/11, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "From: Antonin Scriabin\n\nStandard lull, I reckon.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "I vote for gummed-up works." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Brian wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": " ...Just wondering if that Linked-In request somehow threw the server\nfor a\nloop, resulting in the lapse in activity. ...or if people actually have\nreal\nlives and it's close to Christmas..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-13T21:53:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Oops, sorry for potential spoilers, Larry. I reckon you'll come on some\nhints in the second quarter. I doubt you've reached them yet. Werewolves\nare mentioned directly at least once. Also, watch the grave site scene\nclosely and see what you think.\n\n-DOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Larry Miller wrote:\nWhile Im only a quarter of the way through Soldier Ive yet to find\nanything that npoints to Latro being a werewolf. Ive been on the\nlookout but Im sure I missed them (along with tons of other stuff).\nWhat have you found that would hint towards this?" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EE7CB79.9000105@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2011-12-13T22:02:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/13/2011 1:04 PM, Larry Miller wrote:\nIll admit I have no life. I started reading Soldier in the Mist and\ndont even know where to begin discussing it. What the hell was with\nthat LinkedIn request anyway?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Apparently Tim opted to allow LinkedIn to rifle his address book and \nsend invites to each entry. It's sort of a gameless, pictureless \nFacebook for introducing your professional acquaintances to one another." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Larry Miller", "address": "decanus1284 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-13T22:12:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No worries. I heard about the werewolf theory years ago. Can you\nreally spoil a Wolfe novel anyway?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/13/11, Daniel Petersen wrote:\nOops, sorry for potential spoilers, Larry. I reckon you'll come on some\nhints in the second quarter. I doubt you've reached them yet. Werewolves\nare mentioned directly at least once. Also, watch the grave site scene\nclosely and see what you think.\n\n-DOJP\n\nOn Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Larry Miller wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "While Im only a quarter of the way through Soldier Ive yet to find\nanything that npoints to Latro being a werewolf. Ive been on the\nlookout but Im sure I missed them (along with tons of other stuff).\nWhat have you found that would hint towards this?" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-13T22:13:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EE7CB79.9000105@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Oh, you can have pictures on LinkedIn. And it helped me get my current\njob, so I'm all for it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:\nOn 12/13/2011 1:04 PM, Larry Miller wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Ill admit I have no life. I started reading Soldier in the Mist and\ndont even know where to begin discussing it. “What the hell was with\nthat LinkedIn request anyway”" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Apparently Tim opted to allow LinkedIn to rifle his address book and send\ninvites to each entry. It's sort of a gameless, pictureless Facebook for\nintroducing your professional acquaintances to one another.\n\n\n--\nJeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EE83948.4010806@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T05:51:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/13/2011 4:13 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nOh, you can have pictures on LinkedIn. And it helped me get my current\njob, so I'm all for it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sorry, I meant that I'm on LinkedIn without being subjected to the \nstream of allegedly-amusing pictures and other media like I am on Facebook." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T10:34:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Larry Miller wrote:\nCan you really spoil a Wolfe novel anyway?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ha, good point. Although, I have to say, I for some reason read On Blue's\nWaters first and only then went back and read Long Sun before starting over\nand completing Short Sun. As much as I* loved* Long Sun in many ways, a\nbit of the oomph was taken out by my hazy familiarity with some of the\ncharacters and set up. I think if I'd gone into the first volume of Long\nSun having NO IDEA what was coming, it would have just blown me away on the\nconceptual, framework level. It still did, but without quite as much of\nthe sense of mystery and surprise it probably would have without prior\nawareness.\n\nThen again, my first reading of On Blue's Waters will always remain an\nintensely magical moment for me as I was plunged into the midst of a richly\ndense storyworld already well-developed and a narrative far into its themes\nand trajectories. The effect was utterly intriguing, delightful, and\nawe-inspiring. I can still close my eyes and feel the strange, pleasantly\nbaffled, open-spaced wonder of first contact with Blue's flora and fauna\nand the glimpses of interstellar back story. To this day I don't know\nwhich is the better way to approach the whole thing. (John Clute wondered\nin his review of OBW whether it was the best place to start with Wolfe.\nI'm still wondering that.)\n\n-DOJP" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EE88878.8030609@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T11:28:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Daniel Petersen wrote (14-12-2011 10:34):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Larry Miller > wrote:\n\n Can you really spoil a Wolfe novel anyway?\n\nHa, good point. Although, I have to say, I for some reason read On Blue's\nWaters first and only then went back and read Long Sun before starting over\nand completing Short Sun. As much as I/loved/ Long Sun in many ways, a bit\nof the oomph was taken out by my hazy familiarity with some of the\ncharacters and set up." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Is it that different from reading The Silmarillion after tLotR?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think if I'd gone into the first volume of Long\nSun having NO IDEA what was coming, it would have just blown me away on the\nconceptual, framework level. It still did, but without quite as much of the\nsense of mystery and surprise it probably would have without prior awareness.\nThen again, my first reading of On Blue's Waters will always remain an\nintensely magical moment for me as I was plunged into the midst of a richly\ndense storyworld already well-developed and a narrative far into its themes\nand trajectories. The effect was utterly intriguing, delightful, and\nawe-inspiring. I can still close my eyes and feel the strange, pleasantly\nbaffled, open-spaced wonder of first contact with Blue's flora and fauna and\nthe glimpses of interstellar back story. To this day I don't know which is\nthe better way to approach the whole thing. (John Clute wondered in his\nreview of OBW whether it was the best place to start with Wolfe. I'm still\nwondering that.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think tIoDDaOSaOS or SftOH would be the best places to start, because you \nhave smaller bits to chew before you go into a 12 (500 pages) volume series. \nBut the 12 (500 pages) volume series should come next, and I honestly think \nthe 'canonical' order is the right one." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Larry Miller", "address": "decanus1284 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T12:07:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EE88878.8030609@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "On my next read Im going to read Long, then Short, then New/Urth as\nSeverians tale seems to begin after Horns ends. Maybe this will help\npuzzle out some connections between the series such as the connection\nbetween Horn and the ghost of Malrubius." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/14/11, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:\nDaniel Petersen wrote (14-12-2011 10:34):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Larry Miller > wrote:\n\n Can you really spoil a Wolfe novel anyway?\n\nHa, good point. Although, I have to say, I for some reason read On Blue's\nWaters first and only then went back and read Long Sun before starting\nover\nand completing Short Sun. As much as I/loved/ Long Sun in many ways, a\nbit\nof the oomph was taken out by my hazy familiarity with some of the\ncharacters and set up." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Is it that different from reading The Silmarillion after tLotR?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I think if I'd gone into the first volume of Long\nSun having NO IDEA what was coming, it would have just blown me away on\nthe\nconceptual, framework level. It still did, but without quite as much of\nthe\nsense of mystery and surprise it probably would have without prior\nawareness.\nThen again, my first reading of On Blue's Waters will always remain an\nintensely magical moment for me as I was plunged into the midst of a\nrichly\ndense storyworld already well-developed and a narrative far into its\nthemes\nand trajectories. The effect was utterly intriguing, delightful, and\nawe-inspiring. I can still close my eyes and feel the strange, pleasantly\nbaffled, open-spaced wonder of first contact with Blue's flora and fauna\nand\nthe glimpses of interstellar back story. To this day I don't know which\nis\nthe better way to approach the whole thing. (John Clute wondered in his\nreview of OBW whether it was the best place to start with Wolfe. I'm\nstill\nwondering that.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think tIoDDaOSaOS or SftOH would be the best places to start, because you\nhave smaller bits to chew before you go into a 12 (500 pages) volume series.\nBut the 12 (500 pages) volume series should come next, and I honestly think\nthe 'canonical' order is the right one.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T12:20:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EE88878.8030609@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Although, I have to say, I for some reason read On Blue's\nWaters first and only then went back and read Long Sun before starting over\nand completing Short Sun. As much as I/loved/ Long Sun in many ways, a bit\nof the oomph was taken out by my hazy familiarity with some of the\ncharacters and set up.\n\n2011/12/14 Ant?nio Pedro Marques: Is it that different from reading The\nSilmarillion after tLotR?\n\nOh dear, here's where I have to admit to my great chagrin that I've never\nread more than the first pages of the Silmarillion. But if I had to guess,\nI'd say, yes, it is different. If Wolfe had created a purely mythical\npiece that filled in the vast historical-cultural background to the solar\ncycle, it would be fine and probably proper to read it after reading the\nsequence itself. What I did in reading OBW before Long Sun was more\ncomparable to reading the Two Towers, then going back and re-starting at\nFellowship of the Ring.\n\n2011/12/14 Ant?nio Pedro Marques: I think tIoDDaOSaOS or SftOH would be\nthe best places to start, because you have smaller bits to chew before you\ngo into a 12 (500 pages) volume series. But the 12 (500 pages) volume\nseries should come next, and I honestly think the 'canonical' order is the\nright one.\nYes, you are probably right about all that. It was actually reading\nInnocents Aboard that really got me super-intrigued about Wolfe (after\nunsuccessfully reading through New Sun some years before). Only then did I\nhappen onto Wizard-Knight and devoured it and became hooked. Then OBW.\nAnd *finally *at that point I got wise and went right back to New Sun and\nread straight through all 12 volumes of the solar cycle. A weird path but\nI enjoyed it. However, I shouldn't try to make my experience a weird lab\nexperiment to recommend others to try. You're surely right that everyone\nshould go 'canonical' with the solar cycle after some more digestible\nintroductory text (I would add FHoC to your recommendations).\n\n-DOJP" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EE89815.3020908@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T12:35:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Daniel Petersen wrote (14-12-2011 12:20):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "2011/12/14 Ant?nio Pedro Marques: I think tIoDDaOSaOS or SftOH would be\nthe best places to start, because you have smaller bits to chew before\nyou go into a 12 (500 pages) volume series. But the 12 (500 pages) volume\nseries should come next, and I honestly think the 'canonical' order is\nthe right one.\n\nYes, you are probably right about all that. It was actually reading\nInnocents Aboard that really got me super-intrigued about Wolfe (after\nunsuccessfully reading through New Sun some years before). Only then did\nI happen onto Wizard-Knight and devoured it and became hooked. Then OBW.\nAnd /finally /at that point I got wise and went right back to New Sun and\nread straight through all 12 volumes of the solar cycle. A weird path\nbut I enjoyed it. However, I shouldn't try to make my experience a weird\nlab experiment to recommend others to try. You're surely right that\neveryone should go 'canonical' with the solar cycle after some more\ndigestible introductory text (I would add FHoC to your recommendations)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, I don't really think there is a Correct Way to read GW, of course. \nEveryone's experience will be different and rich in its own way.\nBut since you've mentioned it, I think tFHoC should come after the Sun books \n- I read it before and somewhat regret that - as it is a difficult work imo, \nhaving the GW complexity in almost its pure state. I have yet to read a lot \nof GW, but my impression is that tFHoC is the one book in which there is no \n'simple' reading to find solace in while you're not yet able to get the rest." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T12:57:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EE89815.3020908@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "*2011/12/14 Ant?nio Pedro Marques:*\n*Well, I don't really think there is a Correct Way to read GW, of course.\nEveryone's experience will be different and rich in its own way.\nBut since you've mentioned it, I think tFHoC should come after the Sun\nbooks - I read it before and somewhat regret that - as it is a difficult\nwork imo, having the GW complexity in almost its pure state. I have yet to\nread a lot of GW, but my impression is that tFHoC is the one book in which\nthere is no 'simple' reading to find solace in while you're not yet able to\nget the rest.\n*\nAh, well, here we do get into interesting reader-specific territory. I did\nindeed read Fifth Head after the solar cycle, so I can't say for sure how I\nwould have perceived it if I'd read it before that. Still, I suspect it\nwould have been a very good starting-point for me in the GW realm for these\nreader-specific reasons:\n\n1) I generally like traditional SF settings more than heroic fantasy\nsettings (i.e. the futuristic planetary romance of FHoC vs. the prima\nfacie sword and sorcery of BotNS).\n\n2) I was hooked by FHoC first and foremost for the (to me) gorgeous writing\n*style*, the exquisitely crafted syntax and prose itself. It stands out\nstarkly in a sea of 'good-but-not-great-ness'.\n\n3) All I need is wonderful storytelling and setting and complexity of\nthemes and I'm deeply happy without needing to 'solve' various material\n'riddles' the text throws up - the more philosophical or thematic questions\nof identity and alienness and cultural anthropology that the book explores\n(sometimes even by its very *form* - i.e. the second novella written in a\ntotally different mythical or folktale sort of style) just blow my mind and\nI really don't *ever* need to discover for sure who's who or what's what in\nthat tale.\n\nFor other readers I know that indeterminacy would be maddening. I'm fairly\nsure if I'd read Fifth Head first, I would have been in awe of what was\nclearly a brilliant writer and would've started hunting down all his\nstuff.\nI suppose all this just shows our individual intuitions about what to\nrecommend as a first reading of Wolfe are always going to help some and\nhinder others.\n\n-DOJP" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1323868451.41383.YahooMailClassic@web161801.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T13:14:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "When you're done I'll tell you my Latro theory. I agree, you can't really spoil it, though you can spoil certain key scenes the first time through (oh yeah, don't worry too much about all these people, 'cuz a flood will wipe them all out :) ) I think that would spoil it a bit, though eschatology and genesis more than hints at it on a second read through." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- On Tue, 12/13/11, Larry Miller wrote:\nFrom: Larry Miller \nSubject: Re: (urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Tuesday, December 13, 2011, 2:12 PM\nNo worries. I heard about the\nwerewolf theory years ago. Can you\nreally spoil a Wolfe novel anyway?\n\nOn 12/13/11, Daniel Petersen \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Oops, sorry for potential spoilers, Larry. I\nreckon you'll come on some\nhints in the second quarter. I doubt you've\nreached them yet. Werewolves\nare mentioned directly at least once. Also,\nwatch the grave site scene\nclosely and see what you think.\n\n-DOJP\n\nOn Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Larry Miller \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "While Im only a quarter of the way through Soldier\nIve yet to find\nanything that npoints to Latro being a\nwerewolf. Ive been on the\nlookout but Im sure I missed them (along with tons\nof other stuff).\nWhat have you found that would hint towards this?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1323868898.49319.YahooMailClassic@web161805.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T13:21:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "--- On Wed, 12/14/11, Daniel Petersen wrote:\n\n\nFrom: Daniel Petersen \nSubject: Re: (urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Wednesday, December 14, 2011, 4:57 AM\n\n\n\n\nAh, well, here we do get into interesting reader-specific territory. I did indeed read Fifth Head after the solar cycle, so I can't say for sure how I would have perceived it if I'd read it before that. Still, I suspect it would have been a very good starting-point for me in the GW realm for these reader-specific reasons: \n\n1) I generally like traditional SF settings more than heroic fantasy settings (i.e. the futuristic planetary romance of FHoC vs. the prima facie sword and sorcery of BotNS).\n\n2) I was hooked by FHoC first and foremost for the (to me) gorgeous writing *style*, the exquisitely crafted syntax and prose itself. It stands out starkly?in a sea of 'good-but-not-great-ness'.\n\n3) All I need is wonderful storytelling and setting and complexity of themes and I'm deeply happy without needing to 'solve' various material 'riddles' the text throws up - the more philosophical or thematic questions of identity and alienness and cultural anthropology that the book explores (sometimes even by its very *form* - i.e. the second novella written in a totally different mythical or folktale sort of style) just blow my mind and I really don't *ever* need to discover for sure who's who or what's what in that tale. \n\nFor other readers I know that indeterminacy would be maddening. I'm fairly sure if I'd read Fifth Head first, I would have been in awe of what was clearly a brilliant writer and would've started hunting down all his stuff. \n\nI suppose all this just shows our individual intuitions about what to recommend as a first reading of Wolfe are always going to help some and hinder others.\n\n-DOJP\n\n\nI read The book of the new sun in the fourth grade and really liked it, but I would definitely have listed, say, something easier like Zelazny as my favorite at the time, but when I re-read it in the seventh grade I saw the beautiful beautiful structure of so many things, the mythic resonance. But I was raised so very very Catholic that even in the fourth grade I saw Severian as a cool torturing kind of end times Jesus with a big sword, relaxed \"destruction based\" eschatological morals and uninhibited sexuality. I used to draw pictures of him on my textbooks in school, sword raised and the sun highlighting it so that its shadow was a cross. Probably get in big trouble for those drawings nowadays. Didn't read the rest of Wolfe until a few years after that. It is definitely the??perfect book of my childhood, though." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EE8A555.1050307@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T13:32:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Daniel Petersen wrote (14-12-2011 12:57):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "/2011/12/14 Ant?nio Pedro Marques:/\n/Well, I don't really think there is a Correct Way to read GW, of course.\nEveryone's experience will be different and rich in its own way.\nBut since you've mentioned it, I think tFHoC should come after the Sun books\n- I read it before and somewhat regret that - as it is a difficult work imo,\nhaving the GW complexity in almost its pure state. I have yet to read a lot\nof GW, but my impression is that tFHoC is the one book in which there is no\n'simple' reading to find solace in while you're not yet able to get the rest.\n/\n\nAh, well, here we do get into interesting reader-specific territory. I did\nindeed read Fifth Head after the solar cycle, so I can't say for sure how I\nwould have perceived it if I'd read it before that. Still, I suspect it\nwould have been a very good starting-point for me in the GW realm for these\nreader-specific reasons:\n1) I generally like traditional SF settings more than heroic fantasy\nsettings (i.e. the futuristic planetary romance of FHoC vs. the prima\nfacie sword and sorcery of BotNS)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Curious bit here: I've never got the 's&s' feeling from any of the Sun \nbooks, not even NS. Nor do I get much futuristic sense from tFHoC (I do get \nit from various of GW's short stories)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "2) I was hooked by FHoC first and foremost for the (to me) gorgeous writing\n*style*, the exquisitely crafted syntax and prose itself. It stands out\nstarkly in a sea of 'good-but-not-great-ness'.\n3) All I need is wonderful storytelling and setting and complexity of themes\nand I'm deeply happy without needing to 'solve' various material 'riddles'\nthe text throws up - the more philosophical or thematic questions of\nidentity and alienness and cultural anthropology that the book explores\n(sometimes even by its very *form* - i.e. the second novella written in a\ntotally different mythical or folktale sort of style) just blow my mind and\nI really don't *ever* need to discover for sure who's who or what's what in\nthat tale.\nFor other readers I know that indeterminacy would be maddening. I'm fairly\nsure if I'd read Fifth Head first, I would have been in awe of what was\nclearly a brilliant writer and would've started hunting down all his stuff." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't disagree with you - but imo you can't really read tFHoC without \nbeing drowned in 'riddles'. They're just too many and everywhere and too \ncomplex for me to abstract myself and just 'enjoy the tale'. It's not that I \nwant to 'solve' everything at every corner, rather the basic need to make \n_some_ sense of the events being told forces me to solve more than I can." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T13:32:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<1323868898.49319.YahooMailClassic@web161805.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Marc Aramini wrote:\n\nI read The book of the new sun in the fourth grade and really liked it,\nbut I would definitely have listed, say, something easier like Zelazny as\nmy favorite at the time, but when I re-read it in the seventh grade I saw\nthe beautiful beautiful structure of so many things, the mythic resonance.\nBut I was raised so very very Catholic that even in the fourth grade I saw\nSeverian as a cool torturing kind of end times Jesus with a big sword,\nrelaxed \"destruction based\" eschatological morals and uninhibited\nsexuality. I used to draw pictures of him on my textbooks in school, sword\nraised and the sun highlighting it so that its shadow was a cross.\nProbably get in big trouble for those drawings nowadays. Didn't read the\nrest of Wolfe until a few years after that. It is definitely the perfect\nbook of my childhood, though." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Precocious! I was reading Hobbit and LOTR during those years. Didn't\ndiscover Wolfe until my late twenties. I would've LOVED New Sun,\nespecially Severian, in my childhood and adolescence. I was greatly\nenamoured of tough guys with legendary swords. I wish I'd discovered it\nshortly after LOTR instead of being sidetracked by (*cringes to admit it!*)\nthe interminable world of Dragonlance (of which I can now remember\n*nothing* but a pair of twins, one a wizard and one a warrior).\n\n-DOJP" } ] }, { "message_id": "<190BD2BA96EB46ED81D0DF39B7F706C8@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T13:36:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EE89815.3020908@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Ant?nio Pedro Marques " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, I don't really think there is a Correct Way to read GW, of course. \nEveryone's experience will be different and rich in its own way.\nBut since you've mentioned it, I think tFHoC should come after the Sun books \n- I read it before and somewhat regret that - as it is a difficult work imo, \nhaving the GW complexity in almost its pure state. I have yet to read a lot \nof GW, but my impression is that tFHoC is the one book in which there is no \n'simple' reading to find solace in while you're not yet able to get the rest." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Given that Wolfe is best on a re-read, it’s logical that there can’t really be a “best” order!\nI would recommend the short stories to begin. Also, Peace and Fifth Head are probably his two best stand-alone novels, and whatever the complexity, they are less daunting than multi-volume series. Of course Fifth Head should never be given to anyone who has not already developed some degree of SF sophistication — but for those who have, I think it is okay for a first Wolfe. It was one of the first I read, a long time ago. (IIRC I liked the second part best, and didn’t have too much trouble interpreting it — the third part I found a bit dull and complicated, and didn’t bother much with. But the second part in particular always stuck in my memory.)\nThat said, Book of the New Sun can’t really be faulted as a starting point either. Long Sun would be okay too, but it is flawed by the longeurs of the second half. (The rushed ending will also irritate readers unused to Wolfe. I think he does it on purpose to give the reader a feeling of “hey, I must have missed something — I better go back to the start!” But in Long Sun it seems more rushed than usual, somehow. Maybe it’s the contrast between 200 pages of tunnels and 10 pages of Mainframe.)\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<5EBE7F313EEB4254A33C02526701808E@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T13:50:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EE8A555.1050307@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Ant?nio Pedro Marques " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Curious bit here: I've never got the 's&s' feeling from any of the Sun \nbooks, not even NS. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Same here. If you’ve read Vance (say) beforehand, you’ll know what’s going on (of course in _The Dying Earth_ magic did rather dominate tech, but at the same time the environment is recognisable). And Wolfe tells us very quickly anyway in the graveyard scene, where “there was a a shot” and we are instantly informed that Vodalus is using some kind of energy pistol. \n\nIt’s not really about the tech versus magic thing anyway, so much as the foregrounding of a way of thinking about the world. Vance’s magic is a kind of technology, even in Lyonesse. Conversely, Moorcock can go on all he wants about power rings or whatever, but he’s still writing swords and sorcery.\n\nI guess Wolfe might leave an option for the Increate or his chief minions to interfere with the physical underpinnings of the world — but for all lesser beings at least, magic is a name for technologies we don;t understand. The Cumaean says as much.\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T14:20:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<190BD2BA96EB46ED81D0DF39B7F706C8@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\nGiven that Wolfe is best on a re-read, it’s logical that there can’t really\nbe a “best” order!\n\nEm, there's no logic I can see there. The first half of the sentence does\nnot entail (or even imply) the second half. At any rate, 'first\nimpressions' are usually hugely important for a number of reasons - e.g.\nthey can determine whether one wants to go on with an author at all and\nthey can also experientially set the stage for subsequent reading and\nre-reading. Some of my first readings of Wolfe books are still resonating\nroundly with me and are an important part of my overall aesthetic\nexperience of his work. Indeed, given that Wolfe is best on a re-read, it\nmight be more plausible to think that certain pathways into his work will\nactually have differing effects on those very re-readings. Agreed that\nthere won't be a 'best' order - but there may be orders 'better' than\nothers. The 'canonical' order has been offered for the solar cycle and I'm\nsure a good case could be made for this preference. I don't think the fact\nof Wolfe's work being best at the multiple-readings level makes the issue\nof what order to read them in as trivial as your statement makes it sound.\n\nBut perhaps you were being *jovial* rather than trivial and I've made\novermuch out of mere facetious hyperbole!\n\n(I concur with your ranking of the novellas in FHoC by the bye - and also\nyour thoughts on the flaws of Long Sun.)\n\n-DOJP" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T14:24:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<5EBE7F313EEB4254A33C02526701808E@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n\n\n *From:* Ant?nio Pedro Marques " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Curious bit here: I've never got the 's&s' feeling from any of the Sun\nbooks, not even NS." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Same here. If you’ve read Vance (say) beforehand, you’ll know what’s\ngoing on (of course in _The Dying Earth_ magic did rather dominate tech,\nbut at the same time the environment is recognisable). And Wolfe tells us\nvery quickly anyway in the graveyard scene, where “there was a a shot” and\nwe are instantly informed that Vodalus is using some kind of energy pistol.\n\nIt’s not really about the tech versus magic thing anyway, so much as the\nforegrounding of a way of thinking about the world. Vance’s magic is a\nkind of technology, even in Lyonesse. Conversely, Moorcock can go on all\nhe wants about power rings or whatever, but he’s still writing swords and\nsorcery.\n\nI guess Wolfe might leave an option for the Increate or his chief minions\nto interfere with the physical underpinnings of the world — but for all\nlesser beings at least, magic is a name for technologies we don;t\nunderstand. The Cumaean says as much.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yeah, I saw right away it was 'science fantasy', but the sword, cloak, long\njourneys on foot, healings (and other 'miracles' I doubt are reducible to\n'technologies we don't understand'), monsters (even though you eventually\nrealise they're aliens), etc. all give a SnS *feel* I think. Surely others\nhave thought this? I thought it was kind of obvious, given, and sort of\ncelebrated. Hm.\n\n-DOJP" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T14:25:43+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That sounds like an awesome idea. Maybe I'll try it too.\n-DOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Larry Miller wrote:\nOn my next read Im going to read Long, then Short, then New/Urth as\nSeverians tale seems to begin after Horns ends. Maybe this will help\npuzzle out some connections between the series such as the connection\nbetween Horn and the ghost of Malrubius." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T14:36:50+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EE8A555.1050307@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "2011/12/14 Ant?nio Pedro Marques " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Curious bit here: I've never got the 's&s' feeling from any of the Sun\nbooks, not even NS. Nor do I get much futuristic sense from tFHoC (I do get\nit from various of GW's short stories)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hum on FHoC. Not even the fact that they colonised these planets by space\ntravel and an intelligent robot is a central character? If that's not\nfuturistic, what is? Perhaps you mean the fact that these elements are\ndownplayed or background and the baroque mansion and aristocratic childhood\nare the real focus of narrative? Yeah, Wolfe pretty much always does\nthat. I guess I'm just always keenly aware of that background. So, for\nexample, in Long Sun, even though the whole thing is kind of a medieval or\nancient society, I can never forget that they're flying through space in a\nmega generation starship! So it comes across more overtly 'SF' to me than\nNew Sun (even though that too is replete with SF background - I'd have to\nget more detailed to explain the difference to me)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't disagree with you - but imo you can't really read tFHoC without\nbeing drowned in 'riddles'. They're just too many and everywhere and too\ncomplex for me to abstract myself and just 'enjoy the tale'. It's not that\nI want to 'solve' everything at every corner, rather the basic need to make\n_some_ sense of the events being told forces me to solve more than I can." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yeah, I get you. I guess I felt I could just generally make some sense of\nit. Probably poor reading! But I'm the kind of guy who loves reading\nMilton's Paradise Lost and people always ask me, 'but how do you understand\nhis language?' and I just reply that I don't always. I just love letting\nthe epic-ness wash over me. (But again, even there, I'm partly just being\nself-effacing - it's not crazy hard to understand to me. More poor\nreading?)\n\n-DOJP" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T15:11:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Daniel Petersen " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Given that Wolfe is best on a re-read, it’s logical that there can’t really be a “best” order!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Em, there's no logic I can see there. The first half of the sentence does not entail \n(or even imply) the second half. [..]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But perhaps you were being *jovial* rather than trivial and I've made overmuch\nout of mere facetious " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "hyperbole!\nWhat I was trying to say was that in series that are best at a first read, the spoiler effects (and their opposite) that come with reading them out of order are likely to impinge greatly on the reader’s first reading experience (and in this case best reading experience).\nBut series that are better on a second read, which is the case with most Wolfe, clearly cannot have the second reading experience damaged in the same way by reading them out of order. So the bedst reading experience should still be available to a second-time reader who has “pre-read” in an eccentric sequence. \nMind you, I am probably not very spoiler sensitive to the majority of literature. Unless it is a book I greatly anticipate, or a thriller or something, I always open a book for the first time about a quarter of the way through. If I like what I read there, I start the book. I find openings a bit of a deterrent as a rule.\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T15:44:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If it's not already clear, I'm an experiential sort of reader. For me, the\n'problem' with reading Long Sun *after* I had already read OBW was that, to\nuse one example, I had already had the wonder-sensation of running into a\nuniquely drawn intelligent robot character like Maytera Marble and so that\ninitial aesthetic pleasure and strangeness were *behind* me when I\nencountered her being first introduced by Wolfe in his own canonical\nunfolding of the story. That's just really disappointing as a reader. It\ngave a certain 'worn-ness' to Long Sun that *shouldn't* be there. Your\nintuition about multiple readings is probably right in that I will no doubt\nlose sight of that initial disappointment with enough subsequent readings.\nBut it did make an important difference in the reading experience and thus\nit seems to me one's overall personal reading history with Wolfe *could* be\nbetter or worse, based on what order one reads his books in. There are\nprobably better and worse pathways to the 'best' (second and beyond)\nreadings. (And I still wonder if these very pathways will always colour\nthe later readings.)\n\n-DOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n\n\n *From:* Daniel Petersen \n\n > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n >\nGiven that Wolfe is best on a re-read, it’s logical that there can’t\nreally be a “best” order!\n\n >\nEm, there's no logic I can see there. The first half of the sentence does\nnot entail\n(or even imply) the second half. [..]\n\n >\nBut perhaps you were being *jovial* rather than trivial and I've made\novermuch\nout of mere facetious\nhyperbole!\n\n What I was trying to say was that in series that are best at a first\nread, the spoiler effects (and their opposite) that come with reading them\nout of order are likely to impinge greatly on the reader’s first reading\nexperience (and in this case best reading experience).\n\n But series that are better on a second read, which is the case with most\nWolfe, clearly cannot have the second reading experience damaged in the\nsame way by reading them out of order. So the bedst reading experience\nshould still be available to a second-time reader who has “pre-read” in an\neccentric sequence.\n\n Mind you, I am probably not very spoiler sensitive to the majority of\nliterature. Unless it is a book I greatly anticipate, or a thriller or\nsomething, I always open a book for the first time about a quarter of the\nway through. If I like what I read there, I start the book. I find\nopenings a bit of a deterrent as a rule.\n\n - Gerry Quinn\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EE8C8DB.4080805@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T16:03:39+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Daniel Petersen wrote (14-12-2011 14:24):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Gerry Quinn > wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "*From:* Ant?nio Pedro Marques " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Curious bit here: I've never got the 's&s' feeling from any of the\nSun books, not even NS." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Same here (...)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yeah, I saw right away it was 'science fantasy', but the sword, cloak,\nlong journeys on foot, healings (and other 'miracles' I doubt are\nreducible to 'technologies we don't understand'), monsters (even though\nyou eventually realise they're aliens), etc. all give a SnS *feel* I\nthink. Surely others have thought this? I thought it was kind of\nobvious, given, and sort of celebrated. Hm." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Maybe the *look* is there, obvious and given, at least in the first pages, \nbut for me the *feel* never sets in (and the more the story progresses, the \nleast chance it has, as even the look is torn early on)." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T16:10:32+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EE8C8DB.4080805@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "2011/12/14 Ant?nio Pedro Marques " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Maybe the *look* is there, obvious and given, at least in the first pages,\nbut for me the *feel* never sets in (and the more the story progresses, the\nleast chance it has, as even the look is torn early on)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " Yeah, I hear you as regards garb, but for me, I cannot merely 'see'\nmiracles, monsters, and long journeys on foot - they can only be 'felt'\n(except, of course, in the very worst of the worst pulp writing). For that\nreason and to that degree, BotNS feels like SnS for a good while to me.\nAdmittedly, this does fade off, possibly altogether by the end.\n\n-DOJP" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Larry Miller", "address": "decanus1284 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T17:06:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I too found Wolfe at an early age and began reading New Sun the summer\nbefore middle school (When I got to the Hut in the Jungle chapter I\nwas so lost I had to start over) but it wasnt until I got in to my\nlate teens and discovered the more Literary side of sf/fantasy (Peake,\nCrowely, Delany etc) did I really begin to appreciate Wolfe. New Sun\nwas my gateway into his work and would recommend that as a great place\nto start." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/14/11, Daniel Petersen wrote:\nOn Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Marc Aramini wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I read The book of the new sun in the fourth grade and really liked it,\nbut I would definitely have listed, say, something easier like Zelazny as\nmy favorite at the time, but when I re-read it in the seventh grade I saw\nthe beautiful beautiful structure of so many things, the mythic resonance.\nBut I was raised so very very Catholic that even in the fourth grade I saw\nSeverian as a cool torturing kind of end times Jesus with a big sword,\nrelaxed \"destruction based\" eschatological morals and uninhibited\nsexuality. I used to draw pictures of him on my textbooks in school,\nsword\nraised and the sun highlighting it so that its shadow was a cross.\nProbably get in big trouble for those drawings nowadays. Didn't read the\nrest of Wolfe until a few years after that. It is definitely the perfect\nbook of my childhood, though." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Precocious! I was reading Hobbit and LOTR during those years. Didn't\ndiscover Wolfe until my late twenties. I would've LOVED New Sun,\nespecially Severian, in my childhood and adolescence. I was greatly\nenamoured of tough guys with legendary swords. I wish I'd discovered it\nshortly after LOTR instead of being sidetracked by (*cringes to admit it!*)\nthe interminable world of Dragonlance (of which I can now remember\n*nothing* but a pair of twins, one a wizard and one a warrior).\n\n-DOJP" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Larry Miller", "address": "decanus1284 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T22:07:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<1323868451.41383.YahooMailClassic@web161801.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I would like to hear your theory Marc. You can tell me now if youd\nlike because as I said Im not worried about spoilers. That way as I\nread I can be on the lookout (as I am for anything hinting that Latro\nis a werewolf). So that you dont spoil anything for others on the\nlist send it to me offlist. You got me intrigued Marc." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/14/11, Marc Aramini wrote:\nWhen you're done I'll tell you my Latro theory. I agree, you can't really\nspoil it, though you can spoil certain key scenes the first time through (oh\nyeah, don't worry too much about all these people, 'cuz a flood will wipe\nthem all out :) ) I think that would spoil it a bit, though eschatology and\ngenesis more than hints at it on a second read through.\n\n--- On Tue, 12/13/11, Larry Miller wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From: Larry Miller \nSubject: Re: (urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Tuesday, December 13, 2011, 2:12 PM\nNo worries. I heard about the\nwerewolf theory years ago. Can you\nreally spoil a Wolfe novel anyway?\n\nOn 12/13/11, Daniel Petersen \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Oops, sorry for potential spoilers, Larry. I\nreckon you'll come on some\nhints in the second quarter. I doubt you've\nreached them yet. Werewolves\nare mentioned directly at least once. Also,\nwatch the grave site scene\nclosely and see what you think.\n\n-DOJP\n\nOn Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Larry Miller \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "While Im only a quarter of the way through Soldier\nIve yet to find\nanything that npoints to Latro being a\nwerewolf. Ive been on the\nlookout but Im sure I missed them (along with tons\nof other stuff).\nWhat have you found that would hint towards this?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T22:07:54+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No, no! On list!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Larry Miller wrote:\nI would like to hear your theory Marc. ?You can tell me — now if youd\nlike because as I said Im not worried about spoilers. ?That way as I\nread I can be on the lookout (as I am for anything hinting that Latro\nis a werewolf). ?So that you dont spoil anything for others on the\nlist send it to me offlist. ?You got me intrigued Marc.\n\nOn 12/14/11, Marc Aramini wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "When you're done I'll tell you my Latro theory. ?I agree, you can't really\nspoil it, though you can spoil certain key scenes the first time through (oh\nyeah, don't worry too much about all these people, 'cuz a flood will wipe\nthem all out :) ) I think that would spoil it a bit, though eschatology and\ngenesis more than hints at it on a second read through.\n\n--- On Tue, 12/13/11, Larry Miller wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "From: Larry Miller \nSubject: Re: (urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Tuesday, December 13, 2011, 2:12 PM\nNo worries. I heard about the\nwerewolf theory years ago. Can you\nreally spoil a Wolfe novel anyway?\n\nOn 12/13/11, Daniel Petersen \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Oops, sorry for potential spoilers, Larry. I\nreckon you'll come on some\nhints in the second quarter. I doubt you've\nreached them yet. Werewolves\nare mentioned directly at least once. Also,\nwatch the grave site scene\nclosely and see what you think.\n\n-DOJP\n\nOn Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Larry Miller \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "While Im only a quarter of the way through Soldier\nIve yet to find\nanything that npoints to Latro being a\nwerewolf. Ive been on the\nlookout but Im sure I missed them (along with tons\nof other stuff).\nWhat have you found that would hint towards this?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Larry Miller", "address": "decanus1284 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T22:10:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ok now youve got Dan'l intrigued too. Post it on list. (sorry Dan'l\njust looking out for those who havent read the books)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/14/11, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nNo, no! On list!\n\nOn Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Larry Miller wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I would like to hear your theory Marc. ?You can tell me — now if youd\nlike because as I said Im not worried about spoilers. ?That way as I\nread I can be on the lookout (as I am for anything hinting that Latro\nis a werewolf). ?So that you dont spoil anything for others on the\nlist send it to me offlist. ?You got me intrigued Marc.\n\nOn 12/14/11, Marc Aramini wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "When you're done I'll tell you my Latro theory. ?I agree, you can't\nreally\nspoil it, though you can spoil certain key scenes the first time through\n(oh\nyeah, don't worry too much about all these people, 'cuz a flood will wipe\nthem all out :) ) I think that would spoil it a bit, though eschatology\nand\ngenesis more than hints at it on a second read through.\n\n--- On Tue, 12/13/11, Larry Miller wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "From: Larry Miller \nSubject: Re: (urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Tuesday, December 13, 2011, 2:12 PM\nNo worries. I heard about the\nwerewolf theory years ago. Can you\nreally spoil a Wolfe novel anyway?\n\nOn 12/13/11, Daniel Petersen \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "Oops, sorry for potential spoilers, Larry. I\nreckon you'll come on some\nhints in the second quarter. I doubt you've\nreached them yet. Werewolves\nare mentioned directly at least once. Also,\nwatch the grave site scene\nclosely and see what you think.\n\n-DOJP\n\nOn Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Larry Miller \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "While Im only a quarter of the way through Soldier\nIve yet to find\nanything that npoints to Latro being a\nwerewolf. Ive been on the\nlookout but Im sure I missed them (along with tons\nof other stuff).\nWhat have you found that would hint towards this?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T22:29:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "a spoiler warning in the subject line should take care of it..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Larry Miller wrote:\nOk now youve got Dan'l intrigued too. Post it on list. (sorry Dan'l\njust looking out for those who havent read the books)\n\nOn 12/14/11, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "No, no! On list!\n\nOn Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Larry Miller \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I would like to hear your theory Marc. You can tell me now if youd\nlike because as I said Im not worried about spoilers. That way as I\nread I can be on the lookout (as I am for anything hinting that Latro\nis a werewolf). So that you dont spoil anything for others on the\nlist send it to me offlist. You got me intrigued Marc.\n\nOn 12/14/11, Marc Aramini wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "When you're done I'll tell you my Latro theory. I agree, you can't\nreally\nspoil it, though you can spoil certain key scenes the first time\nthrough\n(oh\nyeah, don't worry too much about all these people, 'cuz a flood will\nwipe\nthem all out :) ) I think that would spoil it a bit, though eschatology\nand\ngenesis more than hints at it on a second read through.\n\n--- On Tue, 12/13/11, Larry Miller wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "From: Larry Miller \nSubject: Re: (urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Tuesday, December 13, 2011, 2:12 PM\nNo worries. I heard about the\nwerewolf theory years ago. Can you\nreally spoil a Wolfe novel anyway?\n\nOn 12/13/11, Daniel Petersen \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "Oops, sorry for potential spoilers, Larry. I\nreckon you'll come on some\nhints in the second quarter. I doubt you've\nreached them yet. Werewolves\nare mentioned directly at least once. Also,\nwatch the grave site scene\nclosely and see what you think.\n\n-DOJP\n\nOn Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Larry Miller <\ndecanus1284 at gmail.com>\nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 7, "text": "While Im only a quarter of the way through Soldier\nIve yet to find\nanything that npoints to Latro being a\nwerewolf. Ive been on the\nlookout but Im sure I missed them (along with tons\nof other stuff).\nWhat have you found that would hint towards this?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-14T22:30:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Or else put it on the Web somewhere and just post a pointer to it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Daniel Petersen\n wrote:\na spoiler warning in the subject line should take care of it...\n\n\nOn Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Larry Miller \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Ok now youve got Dan'l intrigued too. ?Post it on list. ?(sorry Dan'l\njust looking out for those who havent read the books)\n\nOn 12/14/11, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "No, no! On list!\n\nOn Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Larry Miller \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "I would like to hear your theory Marc. ?You can tell me — now if youd\nlike because as I said Im not worried about spoilers. ?That way as I\nread I can be on the lookout (as I am for anything hinting that Latro\nis a werewolf). ?So that you dont spoil anything for others on the\nlist send it to me offlist. ?You got me intrigued Marc.\n\nOn 12/14/11, Marc Aramini wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "When you're done I'll tell you my Latro theory. “I agree, you can't\nreally\nspoil it, though you can spoil certain key scenes the first time\nthrough\n(oh\nyeah, don't worry too much about all these people, 'cuz a flood will\nwipe\nthem all out :) ) I think that would spoil it a bit, though\neschatology\nand\ngenesis more than hints at it on a second read through.\n\n--- On Tue, 12/13/11, Larry Miller wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "From: Larry Miller \nSubject: Re: (urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives”\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Tuesday, December 13, 2011, 2:12 PM\nNo worries. I heard about the\nwerewolf theory years ago. Can you\nreally spoil a Wolfe novel anyway?\n\nOn 12/13/11, Daniel Petersen \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 7, "text": "Oops, sorry for potential spoilers, Larry. I\nreckon you'll come on some\nhints in the second quarter. I doubt you've\nreached them yet. Werewolves\nare mentioned directly at least once. Also,\nwatch the grave site scene\nclosely and see what you think.\n\n-DOJP\n\nOn Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Larry Miller\n\nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 8, "text": "While Im only a quarter of the way through Soldier\nIve yet to find\nanything that npoints to Latro being a\nwerewolf. Ive been on the\nlookout but Im sure I missed them (along with tons\nof other stuff).\nWhat have you found that would hint towards this?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-15T13:48:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Antonio Pedro Marques: Curious bit here: I've never got the 's&s' feeling from any \nof the Sun books, not even NS. Nor do I get much futuristic sense from tFHoC (I do get\nit from various of GW's short stories)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I tend to agree. Especially on tFHoC. Of course my first few readings of that were the \nnovella only. Mr. Million and cloning aside, it felt like 19th Century France had been \ntransplanted somewhere else intact. The spacey, spooky stuff happens mostly in the \nsecond section of the full novel (hidden within a native American sort of venue, \nof course.\n \nIn my first reading of BotNS, I felt I was in for more of the same, which I actually\ndidn't like. Reading tFHoC always left me with a feeling of dread and being trapped\nand Severian's story was the same albeit in a medieval rather than Victorian era. \n \nBut, I was pleasantly surprised that with Severian's exile, his life and the story opened up \nnicely. It was gradual, but I remember at some point realizing, \"oh, a sword, a giant, a \nsleeping beauty, magic, palaces..now I know what sort of story I'm in!\". Funnily, the lack \nof a point on the end of Terminus Est was an effective disguise. It seems more like a tool \nthan a weapon for so much of the story. The sorcery is likewise disguised, by scientific\ntrappings. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-15T14:34:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Lee Berman " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 1:48 PM\nBut, I was pleasantly surprised that with Severian's exile, his life and the story opened up \nnicely. It was gradual, but I remember at some point realizing, \"oh, a sword, a giant, a \nsleeping beauty, magic, palaces..now I know what sort of story I'm in!\". " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Certainly there are fairy-tale elements. But we are also left in no doubt about the deep-future background against which these tropes must be interpreted. The logic of fairy-tales will be of limited application. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Funnily, the lack \nof a point on the end of Terminus Est was an effective disguise. It seems more like a tool \nthan a weapon for so much of the story. The sorcery is likewise disguised, by scientific\ntrappings. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I didn’t feel the same way about the point. The sword is as tall as Severian, after all, and very heavy — it is not a sword to lunge with. Few combat scenarios would be affected by the absence of a point.\n\nHowever, that is by-the-by. While genre categorisation arguments can get a bit silly, especially with a genre-mixing author like Wolfe, I would argue that BotNS is not really part of the “swords and sorcery” genre, even though it does indeed contain swords* and sorcery, and indeed certain episodes (e.g. the mine with the man-apes) that would fit comfortably into the genre. It’s not _about_ the swords and sorcery.\n\n[*] Not all that many sword, thoughs. Severian’s gets broken halfway through, and I don’t recall what weapon he uses in the war. Vodalus also carries a sword. I don’t remember any others, offhand. Still, we can agree that the sword is prominent, and they must be reasonably commonplace even if there is never a true swordfight.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEA0B98.7020802@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-15T15:00:40+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote (15-12-2011 14:34):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "However, that is by-the-by. While genre categorisation arguments can get a\nbit silly, especially with a genre-mixing author like Wolfe, I would argue\nthat BotNS is not really part of the “swords and sorcery” genre, even though\nit does indeed contain swords* and sorcery, and indeed certain episodes\n(e.g. the mine with the man-apes) that would fit comfortably into the\ngenre. It’s not _about_ the swords and sorcery." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Again curiously, the scene with the man-apes felt more like early sf or lost \nrace fiction to me." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1323962239.90026.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-12-15T15:17:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EEA0B98.7020802@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I convinced a friend of mine to read it, and he's not at all a genre/sf/fantasy guy. But his overall reaction was that many of the sections seemed like they were intentionally recalling and then undercutting his idea of genre \"stereotypes\": the early part in the Tower seemed like it was undercutting \"gothic\" fiction, once he leaves, it seemed like adventure stories (he'd read John Carter as a kid and said it reminded him of that). And on and on: ghost stories, haunted houses, American Indian tales, etc. I think there's something to that.\n\nIt strikes me as similar to the way Nick Gevers looks at Long Sun (with, admittedly, more sophisticated consequences). Each novel takes a kind of genre and plays with it: the first book plays off of detective stories, the second does spy thrillers, the 3rd does military/war story, and the fourth plays off of utopian fiction. \n\n\nBut all of the Sun books are incredibly self-conscious about their generic choices. I think it's less convincing to ever say that it simply IS really sf or fantasy or science-fantasy than it is to say that one of the series' main themes is using and breaking generic codes for extra-generic purposes.\n\nAfter all, the first excitement that most people get is when they realize that it *looks* like fantasy, but it's something else. The tower isn't a medieval-esque castle but a rocket ship, etc. It's not the ultimate classification that's important, but the trick of disrupting expectations.\n\n\n\n \nGerry Quinn wrote (15-12-2011 14:34):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "However, that is by-the-by. While genre categorisation arguments can get a\nbit silly, especially with a genre-mixing author like Wolfe, I would argue\nthat BotNS is not really part of the “swords and sorcery” genre, even though\nit does indeed contain swords* and sorcery, and indeed certain episodes\n(e.g. the mine with the man-apes) that would fit comfortably into the\ngenre. It’s not _about_ the swords and sorcery." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Again curiously, the scene with the man-apes felt more like early sf or lost race fiction to me." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEA1BCB.2020401@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-15T16:09:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<1323962239.90026.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think you said it all.\n\nCraig Brewer wrote (15-12-2011 15:17):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I convinced a friend of mine to read it, and he's not at all a\ngenre/sf/fantasy guy. But his overall reaction was that many of the\nsections seemed like they were intentionally recalling and then\nundercutting his idea of genre \"stereotypes\" (...) It's not the ultimate\n classification that's important, but the trick of disrupting\nexpectations." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-15T19:03:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EEA1BCB.2020401@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn: Certainly there are fairy-tale elements. But we are also \nleft in no doubt about the deep-future background against which these tropes \nmust be interpreted. The logic of fairy-tales will be of limited application." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nHeh. Well, I give you points for consistency, Gerry. As always, you see the\nyoung beauty in the optical illusion and ignore and/or dismiss the old crone.\nhttp://www.illusionspoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/hand-painted-optical-illusion-23.jpg\n \nThe \"limited application\" is all in your head. There is probably an anti-Gerry somewhere\nwho thinks the futuristic science aspects of the story are of \"limited application\".\nRegardless of personal bias, the fact remains that both elements are intrinsic and\nessential aspects of the book. There is no basis for diminishing either of them\nexcept for an individual reader's likes and dislikes." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Craig Brewer: ..overall reaction was that many of the\nsections seemed like they were intentionally recalling and then\nundercutting his idea of genre \"stereotypes\" (...) It's not the ultimate\n classification that's important, but the trick of disrupting\nexpectations." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Antonio: I think you said it all." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I tend to agree. \n \nIf we include UotNS as an equal partner, I think the part of BotNS which most disrupts the \ntypical sword/socerery aspect is the Flood. In what other work does the hero go through all \nhis trials and tribulations to save the world only to have the whole thing get washed away. \n(semi-inadvertently by Severian's command, no less)\n \n \nThe Bible (and Christ) are not typically a part of S & S. Like Tolkein and Lewis, Wolfe is a \nChristian writer. Why is his work so different from theirs? (I have some ideas but I'd like \nto hear those of others).\n \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-15T19:14:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Lee Berman wrote:\nThe Bible (and Christ) are not typically a part of S & S. Like Tolkein and Lewis, Wolfe is a\nChristian writer. “Why is his work so different from theirs” (I have some ideas but I'd like\nto hear those of others)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Here are a few quick thoughts from someone who is a huge fan of the Inklings.\n\n* Tolkien built a massive world that existed independently of any\ngiven story told in it, and labored to make it self-consistent,\nLewis's worldbuilding was slipshod (to the point where it offended\nJRRT at times). Wolfe falls in between, building worlds solid enough\nto stand as the understructure of his stories, but which don't live on\ntheir own.\n\n* Where Lewis explicitly included Christian \"lessons\" in his fiction,\nTolkien simply tried to keep his fantastic worlds from actually\ncontradicting Christian theology. Wolfe falls in between here also:\nhis worlds are inevitably in some way intended, ultimately, as\ncreations of the One True God, but He is rarely explicit in them;\ncontrariwise, his moral lessons are more explicit than Tolkien's but\nless so than Lewis's.\n\n* Here's a straightforward difference: Tolkien's worlds were born to\ngive his made-up languages a place to be spoken. Lewis's were born to\nexplain pictures he saw in his head. And Wolfe's seem to be built to\nhouse his characters. (Of course, all these are grotesque\noversimplifications.)\n\n* And here's another: Tolkien's and Lewis's characters are generally\n(I except Lewis's later novels) \"good\" people faced with explicit\n\"evil.\" Wolfe's characters are more morally ambiguous, as are the\nsituations they are placed in." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "<37C4859FAD55407DBA8779047C8C609B@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-15T19:23:32+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Lee Berman " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn: Certainly there are fairy-tale elements. But we are also \nleft in no doubt about the deep-future background against which these tropes \nmust be interpreted. The logic of fairy-tales will be of limited application." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The \"limited application\" is all in your head. There is probably an anti-Gerry somewhere\nwho thinks the futuristic science aspects of the story are of \"limited application\".\nRegardless of personal bias, the fact remains that both elements are intrinsic and\nessential aspects of the book. There is no basis for diminishing either of them\nexcept for an individual reader's likes and dislikes." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You said: “a sword, a giant, a sleeping beauty, magic, palaces”. But none of those are really much like their fairy-tale counterparts. The sword has no magic powers. Baldanders, fair enough, Severian even fights him in his castle, though not for gold. Dorcas isn’t really a sleeping beauty — we don’t know she was dead until she is already leaving the narrative. Magic is tech. Palaces... the House Absolute is underground.\n\nWhat we have learned of these things from fairy-tales doesn’t really help us here. They don’t mirror their fairy-tale counterparts. BotNS really isn’t a fairy-tale in any strong sense. Or so it seems to me.\n\nConversely, understanding magic as technology does help us see what’s going on.\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-15T19:35:25+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<37C4859FAD55407DBA8779047C8C609B@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:\nYou said: “a sword, a giant, a sleeping beauty, magic, palaces”. But none\nof those are really much like their fairy-tale counterparts. The sword has\nno magic powers. Baldanders, fair enough, Severian even fights him in his\ncastle, though not for gold. Dorcas isn’t really a sleeping beauty — we\ndon’t know she was dead until she is already leaving the narrative. Magic\nis tech. Palaces... the House Absolute is underground.\n\nWhat we have learned of these things from fairy-tales doesn’t really help us\nhere. They don’t mirror their fairy-tale counterparts. BotNS really isn’t\na fairy-tale in any strong sense. Or so it seems to me.\n\nConversely, understanding magic as technology does help us see what’s going\non." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Contraconversely, understanding technology as magic, a la Clarke's\nThird Law, _also_ helps us see what's going on. Wolfe goes out of his\nway to provide a pseudoscientific explanation for at least some of\nSeverian's miracles; but does anybody really believe that they are\n_not_ miracles? The clue for this is near the beginning of CLAW, where\nit is observed that the real miracle is that the laws of the Universe\nare such that the Cathedral of the Pelerines will rise\nnon-miraculously: Wolfe is reminding us that there will always be a\nway to \"explain away\" a miracle ... but that miracles happen,\nnonetheless. (This is also my understanding of Dr Crane's\n\"explanation\" of Silk's enlightenment, btw: plausible bullshit.)\n\ntBotNS is indeed a fairy story, a once-upon-a-time whisking away of\nthe reader to a land where miracles happen, giants (who somehow\nresembles Queequeg...) battle heroes, the dead walk, and monarchs live\nin invisible palaces. (Even the invisible palace hides an invisible\npalace!) If it questions the assumptions of the fairy story, and\nespecially the happy ending, well so too does it question the\nassumptions of classic science fantasy: and we cannot understand that\nquestioning unless we understand \"what we have learned of these things\nfrom fairy-tales.\"" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "<5292EBB8EB22429796ED409817105354@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-15T22:57:54+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "You said: “a sword, a giant, a sleeping beauty, magic, palaces”. But none\nof those are really much like their fairy-tale counterparts. The sword has\nno magic powers. Baldanders, fair enough, Severian even fights him in his\ncastle, though not for gold. Dorcas isn’t really a sleeping beauty — we\ndon’t know she was dead until she is already leaving the narrative. Magic\nis tech. Palaces... the House Absolute is underground." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "What we have learned of these things from fairy-tales doesn’t really help us\nhere. They don’t mirror their fairy-tale counterparts. BotNS really isn’t\na fairy-tale in any strong sense. Or so it seems to me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Conversely, understanding magic as technology does help us see what’s going\non." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Contraconversely, understanding technology as magic, a la Clarke's\nThird Law, _also_ helps us see what's going on. Wolfe goes out of his\nway to provide a pseudoscientific explanation for at least some of\nSeverian's miracles; but does anybody really believe that they are\n_not_ miracles? The clue for this is near the beginning of CLAW, where\nit is observed that the real miracle is that the laws of the Universe\nare such that the Cathedral of the Pelerines will rise\nnon-miraculously: Wolfe is reminding us that there will always be a\nway to \"explain away\" a miracle ... but that miracles happen,\nnonetheless. (This is also my understanding of Dr Crane's\n\"explanation\" of Silk's enlightenment, btw: plausible bullshit.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "tBotNS is indeed a fairy story, a once-upon-a-time whisking away of\nthe reader to a land where miracles happen, giants (who somehow\nresembles Queequeg...) battle heroes, the dead walk, and monarchs live\nin invisible palaces. (Even the invisible palace hides an invisible\npalace!) If it questions the assumptions of the fairy story, and\nespecially the happy ending, well so too does it question the\nassumptions of classic science fantasy: and we cannot understand that\nquestioning unless we understand \"what we have learned of these things\nfrom fairy-tales.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You are right about technology as magic, but I don’t think that BotNS maps well onto fairy stories. Not every story containing magic is a fairy story, or a sword and sorcery tale, or any particular genre of magical tale. I would see a typical fairy story as largely about personality (albeit often clinically insane personalities). A dysfunctional family is frequently the main driver of the plot. Baldanders is not so bad a fit as a fairy tale giant, but I don’t really see too many fairy tale tropes in BotNS. \n\nEven the fairies themselves don’t seem evident on Urth, and that is unusual for Wolfe. You might find fairies or fairy-like beings on Blue, or even on the Whorl - and perhaps they will return to Ushas - but on Urth they have been crushed under the weight of ages. There are new monsters, but no real fairies or ghosts. Anything even vaguely close is a consequence of technology or physics.\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n\n \n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-12-15T23:01:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<5292EBB8EB22429796ED409817105354@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I know what you mean. But Dr. Talos always seemed to borrow from the inscrutability of a fairy figure for me. Random dancing, riddling, otherworldly. I know his nature is \"explained\", but he still retains that sense for me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Dec 15, 2011, at 4:57 PM, \"Gerry Quinn\" wrote:\n \n \nFrom: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "You said: “a sword, a giant, a sleeping beauty, magic, palaces”. But none\nof those are really much like their fairy-tale counterparts. The sword has\nno magic powers. Baldanders, fair enough, Severian even fights him in his\ncastle, though not for gold. Dorcas isn’t really a sleeping beauty — we\ndon’t know she was dead until she is already leaving the narrative. Magic\nis tech. Palaces... the House Absolute is underground." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "What we have learned of these things from fairy-tales doesn’t really help us\nhere. They don’t mirror their fairy-tale counterparts. BotNS really isn’t\na fairy-tale in any strong sense. Or so it seems to me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Conversely, understanding magic as technology does help us see what’s going\non." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Contraconversely, understanding technology as magic, a la Clarke's\nThird Law, _also_ helps us see what's going on. Wolfe goes out of his\nway to provide a pseudoscientific explanation for at least some of\nSeverian's miracles; but does anybody really believe that they are\n_not_ miracles? The clue for this is near the beginning of CLAW, where\nit is observed that the real miracle is that the laws of the Universe\nare such that the Cathedral of the Pelerines will rise\nnon-miraculously: Wolfe is reminding us that there will always be a\nway to \"explain away\" a miracle ... but that miracles happen,\nnonetheless. (This is also my understanding of Dr Crane's\n\"explanation\" of Silk's enlightenment, btw: plausible bullshit.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "tBotNS is indeed a fairy story, a once-upon-a-time whisking away of\nthe reader to a land where miracles happen, giants (who somehow\nresembles Queequeg...) battle heroes, the dead walk, and monarchs live\nin invisible palaces. (Even the invisible palace hides an invisible\npalace!) If it questions the assumptions of the fairy story, and\nespecially the happy ending, well so too does it question the\nassumptions of classic science fantasy: and we cannot understand that\nquestioning unless we understand \"what we have learned of these things\nfrom fairy-tales.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \nYou are right about technology as magic, but I don’t think that BotNS maps well onto fairy stories. Not every story containing magic is a fairy story, or a sword and sorcery tale, or any particular genre of magical tale. I would see a typical fairy story as largely about personality (albeit often clinically insane personalities). A dysfunctional family is frequently the main driver of the plot. Baldanders is not so bad a fit as a fairy tale giant, but I don’t really see too many fairy tale tropes in BotNS. \n \nEven the fairies themselves don’t seem evident on Urth, and that is unusual for Wolfe. You might find fairies or fairy-like beings on Blue, or even on the Whorl - and perhaps they will return to Ushas - but on Urth they have been crushed under the weight of ages. There are new monsters, but no real fairies or ghosts. Anything even vaguely close is a consequence of technology or physics.\n \n- Gerry Quinn\n \n \n \n\n\n \n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<7ECFC1735E154E1EB9F0FC960B3238FF@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-15T23:27:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Craig Brewer \n\nTalos would be the best example of that category for me also.\n\nYou could argue for ghosts, but Ash and Apu Punchau are the products of time travel, and Malrubius et al have technological explanations.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I know what you mean. But Dr. Talos always seemed to borrow from the inscrutability \nof a fairy figure for me. Random dancing, riddling, otherworldly. I know his nature is \n\"explained\", but he still retains that sense for me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Dec 15, 2011, at 4:57 PM, \"Gerry Quinn\" wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Even the fairies themselves don’t seem evident on Urth, and that is unusual \nfor Wolfe. You might find > fairies or fairy-like beings on Blue, or even on the \nWhorl - and perhaps they will return to Ushas - but on Urth they have been \ncrushed under the weight of ages. There are new monsters, but no real fairies \nor ghosts. Anything even vaguely close is a consequence of technology or physics." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEA9DDC.1080800@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-16T01:24:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/15/2011 2:14 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n* Here's a straightforward difference: Tolkien's worlds were born to\ngive his made-up languages a place to be spoken. Lewis's were born to\nexplain pictures he saw in his head. And Wolfe's seem to be built to\nhouse his characters. (Of course, all these are grotesque\noversimplifications.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I like this oversimplification." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEAA211.7070705@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-16T01:42:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<37C4859FAD55407DBA8779047C8C609B@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/15/2011 2:23 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n*From:* Lee Berman " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry Quinn: Certainly there are fairy-tale elements. But we are also\nleft in no doubt about the deep-future background against which \nthese tropes\nmust be interpreted. The logic of fairy-tales will be of limited \napplication." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The \"limited application\" is all in your head. There is probably an \nanti-Gerry somewhere\nwho thinks the futuristic science aspects of the story are of \n\"limited application\".\nRegardless of personal bias, the fact remains that both elements are \nintrinsic and\nessential aspects of the book. There is no basis for diminishing \neither of them\nexcept for an individual reader's likes and dislikes." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You said: “a sword, a giant, a sleeping beauty, magic, palaces”. But \nnone of those are really much like their fairy-tale counterparts. The \nsword has no magic powers. Baldanders, fair enough, Severian even \nfights him in his castle, though not for gold. Dorcas isn’t really a \nsleeping beauty — we don’t know she was dead until she is already \nleaving the narrative. Magic is tech. Palaces... the House Absolute is \nunderground.\nWhat we have learned of these things from fairy-tales doesn’t really \nhelp us here. They don’t mirror their fairy-tale counterparts. BotNS \nreally isn’t a fairy-tale in any strong sense. Or so it seems to me.\nConversely, understanding magic as technology does help us see what’s \ngoing on.\n- Gerry Quinn" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What strikes me about the perspective amply revealed in this post is \nthat when others try to make one-to-one correspondences between Wolfe \nand myth this approach is derided, but when it's done to prove a \nnegative, it's OK. Look, 1:1 logic fails to work 100%, so there must be \nnothing there.\n\nYou'd have to be blind not to see it. Terminus Est DOES have \"magic\" \npowers that are clearly defined in the text. Dorcas IS a sleeping \nbeauty---so what if we don't understand what she is until long after we \nmeet her? Fairies live underground in barrows, just like the House \nAbsolute, indicating otherworldly power. The absence of \"mirroring,\" \ni.e., a direct and literal correspondence, doesn't indicate a lack of a \nrelation. It merely signifies an absence of identity. Wolfe's fictions \nare not fairy tales as we know them. Did anyone think they were?\n\nMany beings in BNS tend toward the angelic, but no one complains that \n\"angelic\" logic is useless. Who knows what angelic logic is---and isn't \nthat the point?\n\nIf it seems that \"the logic of fairy-tales will be of limited \napplication\" in BNS, then perhaps one's grasp of that logic and its uses \nis to blame. I totally sympathize with the feeling that fairies are \n\"clinically insane\" (see _Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell_) and accept \nthat apparently-insane fairy logic is stronger in obviously fairy-driven \nWolfe stories like _Sorcerer's House_, but knowing this is not much help \neven in those cases. We barely understand fairies, if at all, except to \nknow that they are bound by absolutes. And that IS the point.\n\nThe demonstrable facts remain that BNS uses fairy tale elements \n(alongside S&S and many others derived from fairy stories) and its \nuniverse, like Faerie, cares little for what individual humans think of \nit and its modes of reasoning. This is the essence of \"otherworldly.\"" } ] }, { "message_id": "<6A0F475423584142B0FA666A0E93F682@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T02:57:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EEAA211.7070705@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: David Stockhoff " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/15/2011 2:23 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "What we have learned of these things from fairy-tales doesn’t really \nhelp us here. They don’t mirror their fairy-tale counterparts. BotNS \nreally isn’t a fairy-tale in any strong sense. Or so it seems to me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What strikes me about the perspective amply revealed in this post is \nthat when others try to make one-to-one correspondences between Wolfe \nand myth this approach is derided, but when it's done to prove a \nnegative, it's OK. Look, 1:1 logic fails to work 100%, so there must be \nnothing there." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that fairy-tale logic seems to work in the region of 0%. That’s the opposite of one-to-one correspondence. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You'd have to be blind not to see it. Terminus Est DOES have \"magic\" \npowers that are clearly defined in the text. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What powers?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dorcas IS a sleeping \nbeauty---so what if we don't understand what she is until long after we \nmeet her? " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What does a purported correspondence between Dorcas and the Sleeping Beauty tell us, or add to the story? Dorcas was under no enchantment, Severian did not set out to find her, there was no wall of briars. She was beautiful, she got resurrected — that’s not enough to equate the stories." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Fairies live underground in barrows, just like the House \nAbsolute, indicating otherworldly power. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And that’s nothing to do with anything. Man-apes live underground. And miners. And worms. And who says all fairies live underground, or that fairies correspond to kings? You can’t just point to a random correspondence and claim it is significant. You need correspondences with meat on them. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If it seems that \"the logic of fairy-tales will be of limited \napplication\" in BNS, then perhaps one's grasp of that logic and its uses \nis to blame. I totally sympathize with the feeling that fairies are \n\"clinically insane\" (see _Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell_) and accept \nthat apparently-insane fairy logic is stronger in obviously fairy-driven \nWolfe stories like _Sorcerer's House_, but knowing this is not much help \neven in those cases. We barely understand fairies, if at all, except to \nknow that they are bound by absolutes. And that IS the point." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No, that’s not even *a* point, unless you can point to a real correspondence in the particular story at issue." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The demonstrable facts remain that BNS uses fairy tale elements \n(alongside S&S and many others derived from fairy stories) and its \nuniverse, like Faerie, cares little for what individual humans think of \nit and its modes of reasoning. This is the essence of \"otherworldly.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It uses elements of bakery too — Severian and other characters eat bread. That doesn’t mean that bakery is particularly relevant to understanding it. Even if mould on bread cares little for what humans think. \n\nAll I’m saying is that if you want to make a viable case for fairy tales, you need to do more than say there is a girl in the story who was dead, which is a bit like being under an enchanted sleep, and she looked okay, and therefore it’s about the Sleeping Beauty. Buffy the Vampire Slayer was also pretty and blonde and dead and got resurrected — so was Series 6 of Buffy about the Sleeping Beauty too? No more so than BotNS, in my opinion. It’s too easy to find endless random coincidences of that sort in any large work.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEAB8C6.100@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-16T03:19:35+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<6A0F475423584142B0FA666A0E93F682@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/15/2011 9:57 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n*From:* David Stockhoff \nOn 12/15/2011 2:23 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "What we have learned of these things from fairy-tales doesn’t really\n\nhelp us here. They don’t mirror their fairy-tale counterparts. BotNS\n\nreally isn’t a fairy-tale in any strong sense. Or so it seems to me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What strikes me about the perspective amply revealed in this post is" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "that when others try to make one-to-one correspondences between Wolfe" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "and myth this approach is derided, but when it's done to prove a" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "negative, it's OK. Look, 1:1 logic fails to work 100%, so there must be" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "nothing there.\nThat’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that fairy-tale logic \nseems to work in the region of 0%. That’s the opposite of one-to-one \ncorrespondence." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That's exactly what I said. It doesn't work for you 100%, so it's a \ntotal failure. You see zero correspondence. But I'm also addressing the \nfact that you use the 100% correspondence test at all, while not \nallowing others to do so even experimentally." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "You'd have to be blind not to see it. Terminus Est DOES have \"magic\"\npowers that are clearly defined in the text." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What powers?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm sorry, I thought you had read \"the text.\" Did you not know about the \nsword's \"magical\" provenance and construction?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Dorcas IS a sleeping\nbeauty---so what if we don't understand what she is until long after we\nmeet her?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What does a purported correspondence between Dorcas and the Sleeping \nBeauty tell us, or add to the story? Dorcas was under no enchantment, \nSeverian did not set out to find her, there was no wall of briars. She \nwas beautiful, she got resurrected — that’s not enough to equate the \nstories." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"Equate\"? What is this \"equate\"? I did not know literary criticism was \nabout equations.\n\nAnd what do you mean, \"Dorcas was under no enchantment\"? Did you read \nthe book?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Fairies live underground in barrows, just like the House\nAbsolute, indicating otherworldly power." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And that’s nothing to do with anything. Man-apes live underground. And \nminers. And worms. And who says all fairies live underground, or that \nfairies correspond to kings? You can’t just point to a random \ncorrespondence and claim it is significant. You need correspondences \nwith meat on them." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I didn't point to a random correspondence. Someone else did---except it \nwasn't random, it was a good example.\n\nIf you don't know fairies live underground, then you know nothing of the \ntopic upon which you so boldly discourse." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "If it seems that \"the logic of fairy-tales will be of limited\napplication\" in BNS, then perhaps one's grasp of that logic and its \nuses\nis to blame. I totally sympathize with the feeling that fairies are\n\"clinically insane\" (see _Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell_) and accept\nthat apparently-insane fairy logic is stronger in obviously \nfairy-driven\nWolfe stories like _Sorcerer's House_, but knowing this is not much \nhelp\neven in those cases. We barely understand fairies, if at all, except to\nknow that they are bound by absolutes. And that IS the point." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "No, that’s not even *a* point, unless you can point to a real \ncorrespondence in the particular story at issue." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The point went whooshing past you with the speed of a feathered arrow \nshot at a bounding white stag by an aged king who has become separated \nfrom his companions in an unfamiliar part of the forest he had roamed \nsince he was a child. Oh ... right. Never mind." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The demonstrable facts remain that BNS uses fairy tale elements\n(alongside S&S and many others derived from fairy stories) and its\nuniverse, like Faerie, cares little for what individual humans think of\nit and its modes of reasoning. This is the essence of \"otherworldly.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It uses elements of bakery too — Severian and other characters eat \nbread. That doesn’t mean that bakery is particularly relevant to \nunderstanding it. Even if mould on bread cares little for what humans \nthink.\nAll I’m saying is that if you want to make a viable case for fairy \ntales, you need to do more than say there is a girl in the story who \nwas dead, which is a bit like being under an enchanted sleep, and she \nlooked okay, and therefore it’s about the Sleeping Beauty. Buffy the \nVampire Slayer was also pretty and blonde and dead and got resurrected \n? so was Series 6 of Buffy about the Sleeping Beauty too? No more so \nthan BotNS, in my opinion. It’s too easy to find endless random \ncoincidences of that sort in any large work." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "All you're saying, Gerry, and with as much eloquence and force and \nconviction as you can muster, is that you're an illiterate know-nothing. \nThis is the entirety of your argument, and it is overwhelming.\n\nI salute you." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T03:21:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EEAB8C6.100@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-oakes: tBotNS is indeed a fairy story, a once-upon-a-time whisking away of\nthe reader to a land where miracles happen, giants..battle heroes, the dead walk, and " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "monarchs live in invisible palaces. (Even the invisible palace hides an invisible\npalace!) " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If it questions the assumptions of the fairy story, and especially the happy ending, well " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "so too does it question the assumptions of classic science fantasy: and we cannot " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "understand that questioning unless we understand \"what we have learned of these things\nfrom fairy-tales.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nWow, Dan'l. Outstanding post, both for content and eloquence.\n\n \n\nAlso, I agree with all you say about Tolkien and Lewis and Wolfe in your earlier post. I\n\nmight only debate one issue, that being the implication that Tolkein's moral lessons are\n\nnot explicit. I would agree with you in regard to religious morality. \n\n \n\nBut there is a social-cultural morality Tolkien displays which I find not so very hard to\n\ncatch, including the intrinsic value of hearth and home and the unquestioned assumption\n\nthat blood (genetics) runs true and determines the worth of a man. Not a shocking moral \n\nstance for an Englishman of the early 20th century but still, it is there.\n\n \n\nI think, by todays standards, Tolkien's geo-social biases might not be considered so\n\npolicially correct. I mostly mean his implication that those dark-skinned types from the \n\nsouth and east are evil and not to be trusted. Conversely that north and west are the \"good\" \n\ndirections, not to mention those wonderful (american) eagles who always fly in at the last \n\ncrucial moment to save the day. If he'd used falcons it just wouldn't have worked the same, \n\nI think. (not that I'm being really critical of Tolkien; I\"m sure he was a good and honorable\n\nman but also a product of his times. And aren't we all?) \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<1324005920.51984.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T03:25:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) fairy stories, was: Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\n\nHas Wolfe ever spoken at length about Lord Dunsany? I can think of a few mentions, but nothing significant. That might be an interesting way into the question of \"fairy stories.\"\n\n(And, yes, I asked a question without searching urth.net...mainly to shift the conversation.)\n\n\n\n________________________________" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " From: Lee Berman \nTo: urth at urth.net \nSent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 9:21 PM\nSubject: (urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?\nDan'l Danehy-oakes: tBotNS is indeed a fairy story, a once-upon-a-time whisking away of\nthe reader to a land where miracles happen, giants..battle heroes, the dead walk, and " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "monarchs live in invisible palaces. (Even the invisible palace hides an invisible\npalace!) " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If it questions the assumptions of the fairy story, and especially the happy ending, well " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "so too does it question the assumptions of classic science fantasy: and we cannot " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "understand that questioning unless we understand \"what we have learned of these things\nfrom fairy-tales.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Wow, Dan'l. Outstanding post, both for content and eloquence.\n\n\n\nAlso, I agree with all you say about Tolkien and Lewis and Wolfe in your earlier post. I\n\nmight only debate one issue, that being the implication that Tolkein's moral lessons are\n\nnot explicit. I would agree with you in regard to religious morality. \n\n\n\nBut there is a social-cultural morality Tolkien displays which I find not so very hard to\n\ncatch, including the intrinsic value of hearth and home and the unquestioned assumption\n\nthat blood (genetics) runs true and determines the worth of a man. Not a shocking moral \n\nstance for an Englishman of the early 20th century but still, it is there.\n\n\n\nI think, by todays standards, Tolkien's geo-social biases might not be considered so\n\npolicially correct. I mostly mean his implication that those dark-skinned types from the \n\nsouth and east are evil and not to be trusted. Conversely that north and west are the \"good\" \n\ndirections, not to mention those wonderful (american) eagles who always fly in at the last \n\ncrucial moment to save the day. If he'd used falcons it just wouldn't have worked the same, \n\nI think. (not that I'm being really critical of Tolkien; I\"m sure he was a good and honorable\n\nman but also a product of his times. And aren't we all?) ??? ??? ??? ? ??? ??? ? " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T05:17:01+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Lee Berman wrote:\nWow, Dan'l. Outstanding post, both for content and eloquence." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thank you." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Also, I agree with all you say about Tolkien and Lewis and Wolfe in your earlier post. I\nmight only debate one issue, that being the implication that Tolkein's moral lessons are\nnot explicit. I would agree with you in regard to religious morality." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You are absolutely correct, I meant \"religious morality\" and should\nhave said so explicitly." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But there is a social-cultural morality Tolkien displays which I find not so very hard to\ncatch, including the intrinsic value of hearth and home and the unquestioned assumption\nthat blood (genetics) runs true and determines the worth of a man. Not a shocking moral\nstance for an Englishman of the early 20th century but still, it is there.\n\nI think, by todays standards, Tolkien's geo-social biases might not be considered so\npolicially correct. I mostly mean his implication that those dark-skinned types from the\nsouth and east are evil and not to be trusted. Conversely that north and west are the \"good\"\ndirections, not to mention those wonderful (american) eagles who always fly in at the last\ncrucial moment to save the day. If he'd used falcons it just wouldn't have worked the same,\nI think. (not that I'm being really critical of Tolkien; I\"m sure he was a good and honorable\nman but also a product of his times. And aren't we all?)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I can't argue with this. I like to think Tolkien was in real life a\nbit more nuanced than this -- his letters seem to say so -- but, yes,\nhe was a product of his times. In a late essay Tolkien seems to worry\nabout whether orcs _can_ be redeemed. (I note that Lewis seems to have\ncome out better on that scale: he at least makes clear that\nCalormenes, the brown-skinned people to the South of Narnia, have the\npotential to be saved if they worship their idol in a wholesome and\nrighteous manner.)" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T11:23:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<1323962239.90026.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Dang it. This thread totally got away from me. Since I started the\ncurrent genre discussion with a comment to the effect that BotNS has a\n'feel' of SnS (at first), let me just remind those who saw that comment\nthat I rather clearly said that this is just a feel and NOT that the series\nIS SnS (in whole or in part). I still think I'm right that it has a\nsignificant SnS genre element in some of its contours - at least for a\nwhile.\n\nAlso, I want to chime in with the 'Amen' chorus on Craig Brewer's excellent\ncomments. He really nailed it. I agree with a fair bit of what Stockhoff\nand Danehy-Oakes's are saying. However, I don't agree with Stockhoff's\nharsh belittling of Quinn (yet I do find the latter frustrating in what\ndoes indeed seem to be a rather obtuse attitude that could do with more\nnuance and the ability to try to see from within others' worldviews - not\nleast, Wolfe's own).\n\nI have to say I always feel C. S. Lewis gets nearly zero justice in these\ndiscussions. He's just not the overbearing, moralistic, proselytising,\nsimplistically allegorical or didactic writer these (admitted)\noversimplifications of his works imply. He's just not. But I'm not going\nto get into it. (And yes, I know I'm partly talking to one or two of his\n'fans' - but I still don't think you're doing him justice.) Still, it's an\ninteresting and surely at least partly fruitful perspective to see Wolfe\nsomewhere between Lewis and Tolkien in certain respects. I also just think\nhe's probably a *tertium quid* altogether in other respects (rather than a\n'middle way'). (Very similar comparisons and classifications could be said\nof Lafferty and Powers also.)\n\nFinally, as regards genre, though Wolfe seems to airily (and amusingly!)\ndismiss it in interviews, having recently studied it a bit more myself, I\ndo think Magical Realism is a useful lense on aspects of his work also (a\nrecognition and application of which might go some ways toward refuting\nreductionistic interpretations of Wolfe ala G.Q.).\n\n-DOJP" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEB3876.3020202@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T12:24:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EEAA211.7070705@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "David Stockhoff wrote (16-12-2011 01:42):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The absence of \"mirroring,\" i.e., a direct and literal correspondence,\ndoesn't indicate a lack of a relation. It merely signifies an absence of\nidentity. Wolfe's fictions are not fairy tales as we know them. Did anyone\nthink they were?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The discussion was about what it looked like on the _surface_. If you only \nfind out at the end of the story that a character seems to fit a fairy tale, \nthen the fairytaleness isn't really part of the scenery, is it?\n\nAs to what the work really is, surface plus the rest, I think all will agree \nit is many things." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEB3C22.6060904@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T12:40:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EEAB8C6.100@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Look, David, we're all interested in reading what you have to say about \nfairies, magic, the otherworld, literary tradition and, yes, the structure \nof argumentation. I think it would be far more worthwhile if, whenever you \nget the feeling the other bloke doesn't master one of those subjects, you'd \nelaborate on it (the subject)." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEB3E1C.1080706@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T12:48:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Daniel Petersen wrote (16-12-2011 11:23):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dang it. This thread totally got away from me. Since I started the current\ngenre discussion with a comment to the effect that BotNS has a 'feel' of SnS\n(at first), let me just remind those who saw that comment that I rather\nclearly said that this is just a feel and NOT that the series IS SnS (in\nwhole or in part). I still think I'm right that it has a significant SnS\ngenre element in some of its contours - at least for a while." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I was the one who replied to that, and I was not saying you were saying that \nit WAS s&s. I was saying I didn't get even the surface feeling of s&s from \nit. I get more of it from The Malacia Tapestry or Lord Valentine's Castle. \nThat's not anyone's fault. Maybe for me s&s is a more restricted thing than \nfor others. I think of Conan the Barbarian rather than LotR as the \nprototype. I'm not even sure I find LotR all that s&s, given the serious \n'historical' feeling I get from it, nor the Hobbit, given its (deceivingly) \nchildren's-tale style." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T13:30:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EEB3E1C.1080706@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: You are absolutely correct, I meant \"religious morality\" and should\nhave said so explicitly." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nAh, well, not really. I understood but I'll confess that I just wanted an excuse to \nfurther discuss Tolkien with someone who knows more than I do about the subject. :- )" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Antonio Pedro Marques: The discussion was about what it looked like on the _surface_. If \nyou only find out at the end of the story that a character seems to fit a fairy tale, \nthen the fairytaleness isn't really part of the scenery, is it?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nScenery! That's an interesting point. For me, it was fairly early in BotNS that the S & S/\nfairy tale aspects hit me. What came later (much later) was the recognition of real religious\ncontent in the story, albeit with an intensely gnostic flavor. \n \nFor years I had wondered why Wolfe put \"gnostic symbols\" in the Witches Tower. The problem\nwas my own limited knowledge of gnosticism. The impact of Alexander's brief but mighty \nempire on all levels of Western culture can't be ignored, including religion. Our legends of\nwitches, vampires, manbeasts shapeshifting gods, monsters etc. can be traced back to that time \nperiod, in that part of the world.\n \nBut anyway, does the fact that my realization of the religious aspect of BotNS came later mean\nit is not a religious story? Or even that religious trappings are not part of the scenery?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Maybe for me s&s is a more restricted thing than for others. I think of Conan the Barbarian \nrather than LotR as the prototype. I'm not even sure I find LotR all that s&s, given the serious \n'historical' feeling I get from it, nor the Hobbit, given its (deceivingly) children's-tale style." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nGreat observation and recognition Antonio. Perhaps I am not alone in having assumed that LotR was\nmore of a prototype or archetype of S & S while Conan is more of a cheap comic book derivative.\nA cultural bias? Conan (like Tarzan) is a European character created by an American, while LotR seems\nsomehow more authentic and refined- high brow British characters created by an Englishman.\n \nBut, a check online about Robert Howard, the creator of Conan (and who pre-dates Tolkien), produces \nthis blurb:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "With Conan and his other heroes, Howard created the genre now known as sword and sorcery, spawning \na wide swath of imitators and giving him an influence in the fantasy field rivaled only by J. R. R. \nTolkien and Tolkien's similarly inspired creation of high fantasy." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1324043220.50356.YahooMailNeo@web121005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T13:47:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Lee wrote:\nGreat observation and recognition Antonio. Perhaps I am not alone in having assumed that LotR was" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "more of a prototype or archetype of S & S while Conan is more of a cheap comic book derivative.\nA cultural bias? Conan (like Tarzan) is a European character created by an American, while LotR seems\nsomehow more authentic and refined- high brow British characters created by an Englishman." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "To me, the generic markers of \"s&s\" vs. \"Tolkienesque\" usually break down like this:\n\ns&s - adventure tales where action and \"marvels\" are what drives the story. (The magazine _The Black Gate_ is trying to revive this right now.)\nTolkienesque - fantasy that tries to inspire a sense of scope and \"history\" and is infused with moralisms (\"good vs. evil,\" maturation and \"coming of age\" stories, religious/mythic allegory, etc.)\n\nSome people certainly try to imply markers of quality in the definitions, but I've heard both terms used as praise and derision. I don't think it's integral to the terms." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T13:50:39+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<1324043220.50356.YahooMailNeo@web121005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Daniel Petersen: However, I don't agree with Stockhoff's harsh belittling \nof Quinn (yet I do find the latter frustrating in what does indeed seem to \nbe a rather obtuse attitude that could do with more nuance and the ability \nto try to see from within others' worldviews - not least, Wolfe's own)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI really think you are missing something Daniel, though you would not be\nalone in it. Isn't it possible to use the nuanced perception through which\nwe understand Gene Wolfe's work also to understand each other?\n \nMany (including myself) have expressed dismay at the vitriol and extended\nlength of some of the argument/debates in here. But there is one person \nwho has never expressed this dismay: Gerry Quinn. Is he really an object of\npity?\n \nI don't think so. This is a very complex and multi-layered human being. It is\nclear he is not content to discuss Wolfe in a dry, dispassionate, purely\nintellectual manner. His posts are designed to elicit emotional responses as \nwell. And who can deny that he is adept at doing so? Not an object of pity at\nall. Perhaps admiration of a skilled social operator at work is the more \nappropriate sentiment.\n\nThis is not to suggest that those who engage with Gerry are helpless, mindless\npuppets under his control. When David, James, I or others debate with Gerry we\nunderstand, at some level, that he needs emotional content to be a part of\nhis discourse, and we provide it.\n \nThe calls for censure of the combatants are surely valid and express the true\nfeelings of the callers. But shouldn't they be tempered with a recognition of\nhuman diversity? A knowledge that different people have different emotional \nneeds which shouldn't be summarily dismissed in the interest of dispassionate\nsameness. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<5054BA56E99A4B28A66D90C447EEEE44@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T14:02:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EEAB8C6.100@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: David Stockhoff " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 12/15/2011 9:57 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\nThat’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that fairy-tale logic \nseems to work in the region of 0%. That’s the opposite of one-to-one \ncorrespondence." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That's exactly what I said. It doesn't work for you 100%, so it's a \ntotal failure. You see zero correspondence. But I'm also addressing the \nfact that you use the 100% correspondence test at all, while not \nallowing others to do so even experimentally." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I *don’t* us a 100% test. I explicitly brought up the idea of gradations in the degree of correspondence. The point I making is that the supposed fairy-tale correspondences that have been mentioned do not seem to be, to put it mildly, very high grade." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "You'd have to be blind not to see it. Terminus Est DOES have \"magic\"\npowers that are clearly defined in the text." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "What powers?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm sorry, I thought you had read \"the text.\" Did you not know about the \nsword's \"magical\" provenance and construction?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I have read the text. The sword was Palaemon’s — it is an executioner’s sword. It is valuable, made by a famous weapon smith of the Commonwealth. It is fit for its purpose, with an ingenious and expressly technological weighting method to aid with decapitations. The inscription “Terminus Est” provides an appropriate pun for its purpose, and is also an appropriate reference to Severian’s destiny.\n\nHowever, it has no obvious magical or even “magical” powers; the only time we might ascribe such things to it is when Baldander’s energy mace is shattered (as is the sword) in striking it. The only fairy-tale-like element, really, is the sword being there for use at the right time; and it’s hard to think of any story involving adventure that such things don’t happen. We might wonder whether previous Severians got smashed by Baldander’s mace.\n\nIt’s a hero’s sword more than a magic sword, IMO. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "What does a purported correspondence between Dorcas and the Sleeping \nBeauty tell us, or add to the story? Dorcas was under no enchantment, \nSeverian did not set out to find her, there was no wall of briars. She \nwas beautiful, she got resurrected — that’s not enough to equate the \nstories." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And what do you mean, \"Dorcas was under no enchantment\"? Did you read \nthe book?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes. To what enchantment do you refer? " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Fairies live underground in barrows, just like the House\nAbsolute, indicating otherworldly power." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "And that’s nothing to do with anything. Man-apes live underground. And \nminers. And worms. And who says all fairies live underground, or that \nfairies correspond to kings? You can’t just point to a random \ncorrespondence and claim it is significant. You need correspondences \nwith meat on them." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If you don't know fairies live underground, then you know nothing of the \ntopic upon which you so boldly discourse." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I know some fairies live underground, as do some men, and some other creatures. Are you saying that all fairies live underground? Pardon me if I ask for a reference. \n\nAnd even if all fairies live underground, I ask again, how does this constitute a significant correspondence with the House Absolute?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "All I’m saying is that if you want to make a viable case for fairy \ntales, you need to do more than say there is a girl in the story who \nwas dead, which is a bit like being under an enchanted sleep, and she \nlooked okay, and therefore it’s about the Sleeping Beauty. Buffy the \nVampire Slayer was also pretty and blonde and dead and got resurrected \n? so was Series 6 of Buffy about the Sleeping Beauty too? No more so \nthan BotNS, in my opinion. It’s too easy to find endless random \ncoincidences of that sort in any large work." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "All you're saying, Gerry, and with as much eloquence and force and \nconviction as you can muster, is that you're an illiterate know-nothing. \nThis is the entirety of your argument, and it is overwhelming." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "All you are saying here, David, with all the bluster and pomp you can summon, is that you have no answer to the point I have raised. Let us suppose every story to be a thread in a large multi-dimensional space of story elements. A couple of points on the thread of Dorcas’s story lie relatively close to a couple of points on the Sleeping Beauty thread, where “relatively close” includes “dead” as being close to “under an enchanted sleep”. As I’ve pointed out, we could find many similarly close threads in all kinds of works; I just mentioned an example at random.\n\nWe could even find more examples in BotNS! Does Valeria not also have some correspondences to Sleeping Beauty? And what about Typhon? Shall I waffle on about how in the Typhon scene Wolfe mashes up Sleeping Beauty and Beauty and the Beast, with Severian taking the part of the Prince in the former and Beauty in the latter?\n\nGetting back to Dorcas: suppose you argue that even though the correspondence is weak, it is of some significance. Then it should enhance our understanding of the story in some way other than just being there. In what way do you think it enhances it? What does it tell us about Dorcas or Severian or events? I can’t think of anything. \n\nThere has to be some element of rigour in the analysis even of fairy-tales, otherwise we just end up with a silly jumble of so-called correspondences and allusions based on nothing but noise. No, we will never get 100% correspondences — but 1% so-called correspondences are worthless.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<6B52FE0D6CA84D76A71660A4CA79C92D@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T14:28:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Lee Berman " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Daniel Petersen: However, I don't agree with Stockhoff's harsh belittling \nof Quinn (yet I do find the latter frustrating in what does indeed seem to \nbe a rather obtuse attitude that could do with more nuance and the ability \nto try to see from within others' worldviews - not least, Wolfe's own)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Many (including myself) have expressed dismay at the vitriol and extended\nlength of some of the argument/debates in here. But there is one person \nwho has never expressed this dismay: Gerry Quinn. Is he really an object of\npity?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The fox expressed dismay when the scorpion stung him halfway across the river. A wiser fox would have recognised the scorpion for what he was and treated him with wariness, thus removing the cause for dismay." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't think so. This is a very complex and multi-layered human being. It is\nclear he is not content to discuss Wolfe in a dry, dispassionate, purely\nintellectual manner. His posts are designed to elicit emotional responses as \nwell. And who can deny that he is adept at doing so? Not an object of pity at\nall. Perhaps admiration of a skilled social operator at work is the more \nappropriate sentiment." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is not the first time you have accused me of the kind of machinations you indulge in.\n\n\nWith regard to Daniel’s point: I do attempt to see the worldviews of others, and I question elements of those worldviews, or the analyses based on those worldviews, that seem to me ineffective with regard understanding Wolfe. If my understanding of these worldviews were so poor, would my observations incur so much resentment?\n\nI am not proposing that absolute rigour is a necessary or useful virtue in literary criticism, but I do see arguments posted that seem to me so devoid of rigour as to constitute little more than noise. Lee would, I think, prefer if the list resembled a workshop overseen by Forlesen’s bosses, where “creating creativity” is the only activity and the only result, and is praised to the heavens.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T14:31:48+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ah, Lee, I kind of sympathise sometimes with some of the things you seem to\nbe saying on this list, but mostly I don't understand you very well and\nyour comments directed to me here are of that latter variety. I thought I\nthat 'to use the nuanced perception through which we understand Gene\nWolfe's work also to understand each other' was precisely what I was\nrecommending.\n\nI simply don't understand you very well, Lee, and Quinn I feel I do\nunderstand to some degree but find his seeming obstinacy about seeing the\npossible value in certain other interpretations than his own (literary vs.\nliteral is what I'd call it - Quinn being literal) to be rather onerous. I\nsuppose to follow my own stated values here I need to try see these matters\nfrom within each of your own (world)views to what degree I can. I just\nwant Quinn to do the same rather than being what seems to me unnecessarily\nobtuse and dismissive about some of the other theories.\n\nI don't really know what you're talking about with Quinn being an 'object\nof pity' and all that. Nor do I think my comments (nor those calling for\n'censure) betrayed that I was (they were) 'missing something', especially\nnot 'a recognition of human diversity'. I am (they are) calling for just\nsuch recognition and celebration of human diversity - belligerence and\n'over-stubbornness' do not facilitate this.\n\n-DOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Daniel Petersen: However, I don't agree with Stockhoff's harsh belittling\nof Quinn (yet I do find the latter frustrating in what does indeed seem to\nbe a rather obtuse attitude that could do with more nuance and the ability\nto try to see from within others' worldviews - not least, Wolfe's own)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I really think you are missing something Daniel, though you would not be\nalone in it. Isn't it possible to use the nuanced perception through which\nwe understand Gene Wolfe's work also to understand each other?\n\nMany (including myself) have expressed dismay at the vitriol and extended\nlength of some of the argument/debates in here. But there is one person\nwho has never expressed this dismay: Gerry Quinn. Is he really an object of\npity?\n\nI don't think so. This is a very complex and multi-layered human being. It\nis\nclear he is not content to discuss Wolfe in a dry, dispassionate, purely\nintellectual manner. His posts are designed to elicit emotional responses\nas\nwell. And who can deny that he is adept at doing so? Not an object of pity\nat\nall. Perhaps admiration of a skilled social operator at work is the more\nappropriate sentiment.\n\nThis is not to suggest that those who engage with Gerry are helpless,\nmindless\npuppets under his control. When David, James, I or others debate with\nGerry we\nunderstand, at some level, that he needs emotional content to be a part of\nhis discourse, and we provide it.\n\nThe calls for censure of the combatants are surely valid and express the\ntrue\nfeelings of the callers. But shouldn't they be tempered with a recognition\nof\nhuman diversity? A knowledge that different people have different emotional\nneeds which shouldn't be summarily dismissed in the interest of\ndispassionate\nsameness.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T14:35:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "My second sentence should read: 'I though that \"to recommend...\"' (i.e.\nerase the second 'I' - a typo)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Daniel Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:\nAh, Lee, I kind of sympathise sometimes with some of the things you seem\nto be saying on this list, but mostly I don't understand you very well and\nyour comments directed to me here are of that latter variety. I thought I\nthat 'to use the nuanced perception through which we understand Gene\nWolfe's work also to understand each other' was precisely what I was\nrecommending.\n\nI simply don't understand you very well, Lee, and Quinn I feel I do\nunderstand to some degree but find his seeming obstinacy about seeing the\npossible value in certain other interpretations than his own (literary vs.\nliteral is what I'd call it - Quinn being literal) to be rather onerous. I\nsuppose to follow my own stated values here I need to try see these matters\nfrom within each of your own (world)views to what degree I can. I just\nwant Quinn to do the same rather than being what seems to me unnecessarily\nobtuse and dismissive about some of the other theories.\n\nI don't really know what you're talking about with Quinn being an 'object\nof pity' and all that. Nor do I think my comments (nor those calling for\n'censure) betrayed that I was (they were) 'missing something', especially\nnot 'a recognition of human diversity'. I am (they are) calling for just\nsuch recognition and celebration of human diversity - belligerence and\n'over-stubbornness' do not facilitate this.\n\n-DOJP\n\n\nOn Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Daniel Petersen: However, I don't agree with Stockhoff's harsh belittling\nof Quinn (yet I do find the latter frustrating in what does indeed seem\nto\nbe a rather obtuse attitude that could do with more nuance and the\nability\nto try to see from within others' worldviews - not least, Wolfe's own)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I really think you are missing something Daniel, though you would not be\nalone in it. Isn't it possible to use the nuanced perception through which\nwe understand Gene Wolfe's work also to understand each other?\n\nMany (including myself) have expressed dismay at the vitriol and extended\nlength of some of the argument/debates in here. But there is one person\nwho has never expressed this dismay: Gerry Quinn. Is he really an object\nof\npity?\n\nI don't think so. This is a very complex and multi-layered human being.\nIt is\nclear he is not content to discuss Wolfe in a dry, dispassionate, purely\nintellectual manner. His posts are designed to elicit emotional responses\nas\nwell. And who can deny that he is adept at doing so? Not an object of\npity at\nall. Perhaps admiration of a skilled social operator at work is the more\nappropriate sentiment.\n\nThis is not to suggest that those who engage with Gerry are helpless,\nmindless\npuppets under his control. When David, James, I or others debate with\nGerry we\nunderstand, at some level, that he needs emotional content to be a part of\nhis discourse, and we provide it.\n\nThe calls for censure of the combatants are surely valid and express the\ntrue\nfeelings of the callers. But shouldn't they be tempered with a\nrecognition of\nhuman diversity? A knowledge that different people have different\nemotional\nneeds which shouldn't be summarily dismissed in the interest of\ndispassionate\nsameness.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T14:56:01+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<6B52FE0D6CA84D76A71660A4CA79C92D@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n\nThis is not the first time you [Lee Berman] have accused me of the kind of\nmachinations you indulge in." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'd actually have to agree with Gerry here." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "With regard to Daniel’s point: I do attempt to see the worldviews of\nothers, and I question elements of those worldviews, or the analyses based\non those worldviews, that seem to me ineffective with regard understanding\nWolfe. If my understanding of these worldviews were so poor, would my\nobservations incur so much resentment?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, first of all, as to your rhetorical question, it doesn't at all\nfollow from the fact that your 'observations' evoke resentment that this is\ndue to the strength or quality of your observations. It could be precisely\nthe fact that they are 'poor' (in any of a number of senses) that is\nincurring the annoyance and resentment of others. You strike me as perhaps\nfancying yourself as a bit of a positivist logician or something? But I\nfind your logic often to be very poor or confused (or merely\nill-communicated?) like this. Indeed, you seem to often speak from a more\nintuitive sort of place whilst trying to always break down any kind of\nintuitive interpretation of Wolfe. A (perceived) inconsistency like this\nis what I personally find at first baffling and then annoying in your\ncomments. When you are rather obstinately persistent in this (perceived)\ninconsistency, I am tempted to be resentful. You see how there are more\noptions for explaining resentment in response to you than the single one\nyou seem to blithely recommend as the only or best one?\n\nAs to questioning others' worldviews as ineffectively interpreting Wolfe:\n go for it. Of course. But I don't perceive you as really accepting\nWolfe's own worldview (as being his own). Why do you try to interpret a\nCatholic writer on a strictly materialist basis? If you want to *argue\nwith* his worldview, great. But to try to represent him as saying\nsomething other than he himself professes to believe (in the fiction, it\nseems to me, as well as outside it), seems disingenuous to say the least.\n I even find a materialistic take on Wolfe fascinating and invaluable. But\nthe way you go about it often seems wrongheaded to me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I am not proposing that absolute rigour is a necessary or useful virtue in\nliterary criticism, but I do see arguments posted that seem to me so devoid\nof rigour as to constitute little more than noise.\n- Gerry Quinn" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, rigour in literary criticism is good. Please use more in your own.\n Thanks,\n\nDOJP" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Antonin Scriabin", "address": "kierkegaurdian at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T14:57:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EEB3E1C.1080706@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Like Ant?nio, I never actually got much of a s&s feel from *The Book of the\nNew Sun*. Part of the reason might be that even from the beginning, one\ngets a sense of the immense age of Urth. I kind of wish I had read the\nbooks without any pre-existing notions, since that might have been why I\nleft the first few chapters with a clear impression that the story was\nfar-future science fiction. Darn dust jackets!\n\n2011/12/16 Ant?nio Pedro Marques " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Daniel Petersen wrote (16-12-2011 11:23):\n\n Dang it. This thread totally got away from me. Since I started the\ncurrent\ngenre discussion with a comment to the effect that BotNS has a 'feel' of\nSnS\n(at first), let me just remind those who saw that comment that I rather\nclearly said that this is just a feel and NOT that the series IS SnS (in\nwhole or in part). I still think I'm right that it has a significant SnS\ngenre element in some of its contours - at least for a while." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I was the one who replied to that, and I was not saying you were saying\nthat it WAS s&s. I was saying I didn't get even the surface feeling of s&s\nfrom it. I get more of it from The Malacia Tapestry or Lord Valentine's\nCastle. That's not anyone's fault. Maybe for me s&s is a more restricted\nthing than for others. I think of Conan the Barbarian rather than LotR as\nthe prototype. I'm not even sure I find LotR all that s&s, given the\nserious 'historical' feeling I get from it, nor the Hobbit, given its\n(deceivingly) children's-tale style.\n\n______________________________**_________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T15:03:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<1324043220.50356.YahooMailNeo@web121005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Good points again, Craig. But I wonder if Tolkien is to some degree High\nBrow Sword & Sorcery, and Conan and the like are Low Brow Heroic Fantasy?\n Wolfe, would again perhaps fall between these.\n\n-DOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nLee wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Great observation and recognition Antonio. Perhaps I am not alone in\nhaving assumed that LotR was\nmore of a prototype or archetype of S & S while Conan is more of a cheap\ncomic book derivative.\nA cultural bias? Conan (like Tarzan) is a European character created by\nan American, while LotR seems\nsomehow more authentic and refined- high brow British characters created\nby an Englishman." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "To me, the generic markers of \"s&s\" vs. \"Tolkienesque\" usually break down\nlike this:\n\ns&s - adventure tales where action and \"marvels\" are what drives the\nstory. (The magazine _The Black Gate_ is trying to revive this right now.)\nTolkienesque - fantasy that tries to inspire a sense of scope and\n\"history\" and is infused with moralisms (\"good vs. evil,\" maturation and\n\"coming of age\" stories, religious/mythic allegory, etc.)\n\nSome people certainly try to imply markers of quality in the definitions,\nbut I've heard both terms used as praise and derision. I don't think it's\nintegral to the terms.\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1324049526.56006.YahooMailNeo@web121005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T15:32:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yeah, I think that's fair to say. Tolkien does get called \"high\" fantasy and s&s is a term more often associated with the pulps.\n\n\nLike all these terms, though, they really only work as reliable categories in the abstract or with very early examples. But I think where they are useful is in looking at how people (like Wolfe) challenge them. You say, for example, that Wolfe is in between them, and I think he is, too. But it's important to say how/why: his surface can often look like s&s (a gothic dude with a big sword wandering the countryside) but it serves the purposes of \"high\" fantasy (he's on a quest to save the earth, he encounters allegorical figures, etc.). And what that looks like in the end when you discover that \"fantasy\" is a thin veil over a \"sf\" story that's might also be a veil over a religious story/allegory/\"fantasy\"/gospel (?), then you're in another realm altogether. But you get there by moving through the genres and playing them off against each other.\n\n\nAnd it works with other people, too: is George R.R. Martin and those like him (Steve Erikson, Glen Cook, Joe Abercrombie, etc.) \"high\" or \"low\"? They're not just s&s because their doing a more \"cinema verite\" thing, and the scale of their world-creation often reaches for the \"Tolkienesque.\" But the thematic approach takes the violent world of s&s and places it in the realm of politics and even religion/philosophy. These are worlds where politics is \"real politik\" and where no one, not even the supposedly \"idealistic\" characters, are really any better than Conan. There are no Gandalfs or figures of Good and Evil in the sky to provide the world a compass. So you get what often looks like the surface of high fantasy (huge empires with long histories and complicated mythologies), but the ultimate impact is like taking Conan seriously as a nihilistic philosopher. :)\n\nIn other words, I think generic categories are necessary and useful. But they're necessary and useful as *jumping off points*, not as conclusions about a piece of work." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Antonin Scriabin", "address": "kierkegaurdian at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T15:41:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<1324049526.56006.YahooMailNeo@web121005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"In other words, I think generic categories are necessary and useful. But\nthey're necessary and useful as *jumping off points*, not as conclusions\nabout a piece of work.\"\n\nI second this, Craig. I have gotten embroiled in many genre spats over\ntime, and bringing up writers like Wolfe, Lafferty, and Pynchon (three of\nmy favorites) always ends up showing you how thin the genre lines are.\nGenre distinctions are useful, for example, when it comes to shelving books\nin a bookstore, or recommending something to a friend (\"if you like X\nbooks, try Y or Z!\"), or tracking down the history of a fictional idea. As\na way of classifying, hard and fast, however, it isn't as useful. Like\nmost things, if you analyze a book and its supposed genre long enough, you\nsee the walls break down. The book itself is never going to be \"contained\"\nby genre terms; genre terms are simply broad generalizations that have been\nextracted from specific and infinitely variable instances of fiction to\nsuit some convenience (shelving, etc.)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nYeah, I think that's fair to say. Tolkien does get called \"high\" fantasy\nand s&s is a term more often associated with the pulps.\n\nLike all these terms, though, they really only work as reliable categories\nin the abstract or with very early examples. But I think where they are\nuseful is in looking at how people (like Wolfe) challenge them. You say,\nfor example, that Wolfe is in between them, and I think he is, too. But\nit's important to say how/why: his surface can often look like s&s (a\ngothic dude with a big sword wandering the countryside) but it serves the\npurposes of \"high\" fantasy (he's on a quest to save the earth, he\nencounters allegorical figures, etc.). And what that looks like in the end\nwhen you discover that \"fantasy\" is a thin veil over a \"sf\" story that's\nmight also be a veil over a religious story/allegory/\"fantasy\"/gospel (?),\nthen you're in another realm altogether. But you get there by moving\nthrough the genres and playing them off against each other.\n\nAnd it works with other people, too: is George R.R. Martin and those like\nhim (Steve Erikson, Glen Cook, Joe Abercrombie, etc.) \"high\" or \"low\"?\nThey're not just s&s because their doing a more \"cinema verite\" thing, and\nthe scale of their world-creation often reaches for the \"Tolkienesque.\" But\nthe thematic approach takes the violent world of s&s and places it in the\nrealm of politics and even religion/philosophy. These are worlds where\npolitics is \"real politik\" and where no one, not even the supposedly\n\"idealistic\" characters, are really any better than Conan. There are no\nGandalfs or figures of Good and Evil in the sky to provide the world a\ncompass. So you get what often looks like the surface of high fantasy (huge\nempires with long histories and complicated mythologies), but the ultimate\nimpact is like taking Conan seriously as a nihilistic philosopher. :)\n\nIn other words, I think generic categories are necessary and useful. But\nthey're necessary and useful as *jumping off points*, not as conclusions\nabout a piece of work.\n\n ------------------------------\n*From:* Daniel Petersen " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEB6804.6080903@irit.fr>", "from": { "name": "Sergei SOLOVIEV", "address": "soloviev at irit.fr" }, "date": "2011-12-16T15:47:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sergei Soloviev wrote:\n\nas I already tried to make a point, it is not (to my mind) the \nopposition between\n\"materialist\" and \"spiritualist\" view, it is much more serious opposition\nwithin religious approach - between \"false\" and \"true\" miracles. I often\nfeel that Gerry is very critical to bold theories of others because he\nwants to distinguish between these - to find \"true message\". A very\ncritical view of \"ready made\" miracles is (to give an example) in\na brilliant way expressed by G. K. Chesterton in his Father Brown stories.\nI often agree with Gerry because I think that Wolfe's stories are subtle\nand deep enough to look for this message, and deserve careful reading\n(without jumping to far reaching conclusions) more than the role of \nstarting point\nfor promoting theories based on few details out of context.\n\nI should confess also that I am rather scandalized by accusations \naddressed to\nGerry in neglecting the text - I think the accusers are more guilty in that.\n\nregards\n\nS." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Daniel Petersen wrote:\nOn Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Gerry Quinn > wrote:\n\n\n This is not the first time you [Lee Berman] have accused me of the\n kind of machinations you indulge in.\n\n\nI'd actually have to agree with Gerry here.\n \n\n \n With regard to Daniel’s point: I do attempt to see the worldviews\n of others, and I question elements of those worldviews, or the\n analyses based on those worldviews, that seem to me ineffective\n with regard understanding Wolfe. If my understanding of these\n worldviews were so poor, would my observations incur so much\n resentment?\n\n\nWell, first of all, as to your rhetorical question, it doesn't at all \nfollow from the fact that your 'observations' evoke resentment that \nthis is due to the strength or quality of your observations. It could \nbe precisely the fact that they are 'poor' (in any of a number of \nsenses) that is incurring the annoyance and resentment of others. You \nstrike me as perhaps fancying yourself as a bit of a positivist \nlogician or something? But I find your logic often to be very poor or \nconfused (or merely ill-communicated?) like this. Indeed, you seem to \noften speak from a more intuitive sort of place whilst trying to \nalways break down any kind of intuitive interpretation of Wolfe. A \n(perceived) inconsistency like this is what I personally find at first \nbaffling and then annoying in your comments. When you are rather \nobstinately persistent in this (perceived) inconsistency, I am tempted \nto be resentful. You see how there are more options for explaining \nresentment in response to you than the single one you seem to blithely \nrecommend as the only or best one?\n\nAs to questioning others' worldviews as ineffectively interpreting \nWolfe: go for it. Of course. But I don't perceive you as really \naccepting Wolfe's own worldview (as being his own). Why do you try to \ninterpret a Catholic writer on a strictly materialist basis? If you \nwant to *argue with* his worldview, great. But to try to represent \nhim as saying something other than he himself professes to believe (in \nthe fiction, it seems to me, as well as outside it), seems \ndisingenuous to say the least. I even find a materialistic take on \nWolfe fascinating and invaluable. But the way you go about it often \nseems wrongheaded to me.\n\n \n I am not proposing that absolute rigour is a necessary or useful\n virtue in literary criticism, but I do see arguments posted that\n seem to me so devoid of rigour as to constitute little more than\n noise. \n - Gerry Quinn\n \n\n\nYes, rigour in literary criticism is good. Please use more in your \nown. Thanks,\n\nDOJP \n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEB6E98.4040102@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T16:15:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EEB6804.6080903@irit.fr>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote (16-12-2011 15:47):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "A very\ncritical view of \"ready made\" miracles is (to give an example) in\na brilliant way expressed by G. K. Chesterton in his Father Brown stories." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "'The honour of Israel Gow' came to my mind frequently when I had the \npatience to read these discussions!" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEB71C9.9070302@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-16T16:28:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/15/2011 10:21 PM, Lee Berman wrote:\nI think, by todays standards, Tolkien's geo-social biases might not be considered so\n\npolicially correct. I mostly mean his implication that those dark-skinned types from the\n\nsouth and east are evil and not to be trusted. Conversely that north and west are the \"good\"\n\ndirections, not to mention those wonderful (american) eagles who always fly in at the last\n\ncrucial moment to save the day. If he'd used falcons it just wouldn't have worked the same,\n\nI think." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Dead on. Much of our Western myths, and as they are perpetuated today by \nHollywood, involve the brave and capable few who are besieged by the \nweak and cowardly many. This has little basis in reality, of course, and \nit has always struck me as a bit pathological. And so often the few are \nblond and big and the many dark and small. So too with Tolkien.\n\nIt may have started with the Romans and their legendary (and real) \nability to defeat armies many times larger (armies that often included \npeasants and slaves). But you see it in Roland, and in any mention of \nthe Huns (whose forces may have been large but never as large as \nEuropeans thought), and in the Edda, and so on, right on through to \nAmericans' persistent attempt to impose this template on WW2---where in \nfact the Wehrmacht was much better trained, more experienced, and better \nequipped than the Americans who outnumbered them and had air superiority \nto boot. (Never mind that the Russians were in much the same position \nbut fought a much bigger war.)\n\nTolkien at least tries to rationalize this by making his orcs subhuman, \ncreated slaves who use powerful technology (so reminiscent of Arab siege \nengines, themselves descended from Roman and Chinese technology), \nmonsters, and poisons. It's no wonder they can't sustain a shock---they \nhave zero morale. But it's more than a bit creepy, since in the real \nworld some of these generalizations have been applied to native peoples \nfrom Asians to Africans to Native Americans." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1324053247.9611.YahooMailNeo@web114710.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T16:34:07+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: Lee Berman severiansola at hotmail.com" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-oakes: tBotNS is indeed a fairy story, a once-upon-a-time whisking away of\nthe reader to a land where miracles happen, giants..battle heroes, the dead walk, and \nmonarchs live in invisible palaces. (Even the invisible palace hides an invisible\npalace!) " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "One of those instances of \"is\". If your definition of \"fairy story\" is that it has elements such as those, then yes. If it's that the story has no scientific explanations of the strange events, then no, Wolfe said there's no magic in BotNS. One might say instead that there are resemblances to fairy stories, including the sort of thing you say below." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "If it questions the assumptions of the fairy story, and especially the happy ending, well \nso too does it question the assumptions of classic science fantasy: and we cannot \nunderstand that questioning unless we understand \"what we have learned of these things\nfrom fairy-tales.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Wow, Dan'l. Outstanding post, both for content and eloquence.\n\nAlso, I agree with all you say about Tolkien and Lewis and Wolfe in your earlier post. I\nmight only debate one issue, that being the implication that Tolkein's moral lessons are\nnot explicit. I would agree with you in regard to religious morality. \n\nBut there is a social-cultural morality Tolkien displays which I find not so very hard to\ncatch, including the intrinsic value of hearth and home and the unquestioned assumption\nthat blood (genetics) runs true and determines the worth of a man." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree, and might mention the nostalgic conservatism that Wolfe praised in \"The Best Introduction to the Mountains\"--praised so strangely, if anyone wants to know my opinon." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Not a shocking moral \nstance for an Englishman of the early 20th century but still, it is there.\n\nI think, by todays standards, Tolkien's geo-social biases might not be considered so\npolicially correct." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "They're not, by some." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I mostly mean his implication that those dark-skinned types from the \nsouth and east are evil and not to be trusted. Conversely that north and west are the \"good\" \ndirections," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A great deal has been said on both sides about this, of course. If you don't know about it and you're interested, the Wikipedia article on Tolkien will get you started." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "not to mention those wonderful (american) eagles who always fly in at the last \ncrucial moment to save the day. If he'd used falcons it just wouldn't have worked the same, \nI think." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've seen the suggestion that the eagles are American, and feel fairly sure without evidence that it would have horrified Tolkien. It strikes me as far too much like the allegory he detested. With less probability, I wonder whether one of the sources of his fantasy was the image of being able to sail west to a land that wasn't the United States." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "(not that I'm being really critical of Tolkien; I\"m sure he was a good and honorable\nman but also a product of his times. And aren't we all?)???????????????????????? " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Jerry Friedman" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEB73F9.4040401@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T16:38:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EEB71C9.9070302@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "David Stockhoff wrote (16-12-2011 16:28):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Much of our Western myths, and as they are perpetuated today by Hollywood,\ninvolve the brave and capable few who are besieged by the weak and cowardly\nmany. This has little basis in reality, of course, and it has always struck\nme as a bit pathological. And so often the few are blond and big and the\nmany dark and small. So too with Tolkien." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There are all too many unsympathetic characters among Elves and Western Men, \nand the Dwarves aren't blond and big at all. Nor are the hobbits.\n\nAre the Dwarves jewish? I don't think so. I think Tolkien took known races \nwith known traits and built a world with them. The Elves are the exception, \nas they have little to do with classic elves (though maybe the classic elves \nare what Tolkien thought the Avari might have evolved into)." } ] }, { "message_id": "<6B8947DBFE8E411D9E5E4954F7463F07@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T16:59:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EEB71C9.9070302@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: David Stockhoff " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dead on. Much of our Western myths, and as they are perpetuated today by \nHollywood, involve the brave and capable few who are besieged by the \nweak and cowardly many. This has little basis in reality, of course, and \nit has always struck me as a bit pathological. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It does form a good basis for a thrilling story, with unequivocally virtuous characters for the audience to identify with, and villains who may be despatched in interesting ways without invoking feelings of guilt, or decreasing the villain supply. I suspect such stories have been popular in most cultures.\nEven the Ascians can enjoy the story of a lone hero who wins out by his persistence in the face of vicissitudes from the multitude.\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Larry Miller", "address": "decanus1284 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T17:01:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Dont forget that sword and sorcery also has roots in the planetary\nromances of burroughs who we know Wolfe was aware of. There was also\nthe Jirel of Joiry and the Zothique stories that are the earliest\nsword and sorcery tales. Or the Worm Ouroborous. They all predate\nTolkien. And Conan being a cheap comic book derivative? Come on!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/16/11, Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: You are absolutely correct, I meant \"religious\nmorality\" and should\nhave said so explicitly." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ah, well, not really. I understood but I'll confess that I just wanted an\nexcuse to\nfurther discuss Tolkien with someone who knows more than I do about the\nsubject. :- )" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Antonio Pedro Marques: The discussion was about what it looked like on the\n_surface_. If\nyou only find out at the end of the story that a character seems to fit a\nfairy tale,\nthen the fairytaleness isn't really part of the scenery, is it?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Scenery! That's an interesting point. For me, it was fairly early in BotNS\nthat the S & S/\nfairy tale aspects hit me. What came later (much later) was the recognition\nof real religious\ncontent in the story, albeit with an intensely gnostic flavor.\n\nFor years I had wondered why Wolfe put \"gnostic symbols\" in the Witches\nTower. The problem\nwas my own limited knowledge of gnosticism. The impact of Alexander's brief\nbut mighty\nempire on all levels of Western culture can't be ignored, including\nreligion. Our legends of\nwitches, vampires, manbeasts shapeshifting gods, monsters etc. can be traced\nback to that time\nperiod, in that part of the world.\n\nBut anyway, does the fact that my realization of the religious aspect of\nBotNS came later mean\nit is not a religious story? Or even that religious trappings are not part\nof the scenery?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Maybe for me s&s is a more restricted thing than for others. I think of\nConan the Barbarian\nrather than LotR as the prototype. I'm not even sure I find LotR all that\ns&s, given the serious\n'historical' feeling I get from it, nor the Hobbit, given its (deceivingly)\nchildren's-tale style." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Great observation and recognition Antonio. Perhaps I am not alone in having\nassumed that LotR was\nmore of a prototype or archetype of S & S while Conan is more of a cheap\ncomic book derivative.\nA cultural bias? Conan (like Tarzan) is a European character created by an\nAmerican, while LotR seems\nsomehow more authentic and refined- high brow British characters created by\nan Englishman.\n\nBut, a check online about Robert Howard, the creator of Conan (and who\npre-dates Tolkien), produces\nthis blurb:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "With Conan and his other heroes, Howard created the genre now known as\nsword and sorcery, spawning\na wide swath of imitators and giving him an influence in the fantasy field\nrivaled only by J. R. R.\nTolkien and Tolkien's similarly inspired creation of high fantasy." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \t\t \t \t\t\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEB7A6F.7010402@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-16T17:05:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EEB73F9.4040401@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/16/2011 11:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:\nDavid Stockhoff wrote (16-12-2011 16:28):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Much of our Western myths, and as they are perpetuated today by \nHollywood,\ninvolve the brave and capable few who are besieged by the weak and \ncowardly\nmany. This has little basis in reality, of course, and it has always \nstruck\nme as a bit pathological. And so often the few are blond and big and the\nmany dark and small. So too with Tolkien." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "There are all too many unsympathetic characters among Elves and \nWestern Men, and the Dwarves aren't blond and big at all. Nor are the \nhobbits." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ah, but dwarves and hobbits are not Men. And their small size only \nemphasizes their great strength and/or bravery, which the orcs (who \nactually come in 2 sizes, Small and Large) lack. I didn't say it was \nsimple.\n\nThe Elves, OTOH, are better than men---their untrusting view of Men was \nsometimes much like Europeans' view of Others, and rightly. There are \neven fewer of them and they are stronger, wiser, and better looking.\n\n\"Unsympathy\" has zero to do with it. In fact, it's quite predictable \nthat the only way the West can fall to the East is by betrayal, \nwitchery, squabbling, greed, making deals with the devil, and being \nlazy. (See Third Reich, anti-Semitic propaganda of.) All these things \nhappen, thanks especially to certain Men, which is what leads to \nadventure, war, rearguard actions, and glorious victories." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Are the Dwarves jewish? I don't think so. I think Tolkien took known \nraces with known traits and built a world with them. The Elves are the \nexception, as they have little to do with classic elves (though maybe \nthe classic elves are what Tolkien thought the Avari might have \nevolved into)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm not sure what you mean by this. Tolkien basically took a few \ncharacters out of the Nibelunglied (and related works, as well as some \nchildren's/folk tales in the case of The Hobbit) and ran with them. I \ndon't think there were many \"races\" in literature before him. He was \nkind of a bright counterpart to Lovecraft in this respect---Lovecraft \nalso wrote of races of beings rather than, Oh, here's a little elf, and \nthere's a mean dwarf." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEB7DFF.3070202@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-16T17:21:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<1324049526.56006.YahooMailNeo@web121005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Let's also keep in mind a useful distinction between novels and short \nstories, which at least can be said to hold for literary fiction: that \nshort stories are about what happens, while novels are about characters. \nMuch of pulp was written for publication in periodicals and thus is by \ndefinition short.\n\nBut even longer sf/s&s works are often episodic, eroding this \ndistinction so that they are as much about process/genre expectations as \nthey are about characters. Worlds are developed as much as or more than \ncharacters, and even long-running characters (Elric, Conan) max out as \nwell-developed caricatures at best.\n\nRarely are characters as developed as Severian, who interposes himself \nbetween the reader and the created world so that no matter how carefully \nworked out, it is never the main interest." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/16/2011 10:32 AM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nYeah, I think that's fair to say. Tolkien does get called \"high\" \nfantasy and s&s is a term more often associated with the pulps.\n\nLike all these terms, though, they really only work as reliable \ncategories in the abstract or with very early examples. But I think \nwhere they are useful is in looking at how people (like Wolfe) \nchallenge them. You say, for example, that Wolfe is in between them, \nand I think he is, too. But it's important to say how/why: his surface \ncan often look like s&s (a gothic dude with a big sword wandering the \ncountryside) but it serves the purposes of \"high\" fantasy (he's on a \nquest to save the earth, he encounters allegorical figures, etc.). And \nwhat that looks like in the end when you discover that \"fantasy\" is a \nthin veil over a \"sf\" story that's might also be a veil over a \nreligious story/allegory/\"fantasy\"/gospel (?), then you're in another \nrealm altogether. But you get there by moving through the genres and \nplaying them off against each other.\n\nAnd it works with other people, too: is George R.R. Martin and those \nlike him (Steve Erikson, Glen Cook, Joe Abercrombie, etc.) \"high\" or \n\"low\"? They're not just s&s because their doing a more \"cinema verite\" \nthing, and the scale of their world-creation often reaches for the \n\"Tolkienesque.\" But the thematic approach takes the violent world of \ns&s and places it in the realm of politics and even \nreligion/philosophy. These are worlds where politics is \"real politik\" \nand where no one, not even the supposedly \"idealistic\" characters, are \nreally any better than Conan. There are no Gandalfs or figures of Good \nand Evil in the sky to provide the world a compass. So you get what \noften looks like the surface of high fantasy (huge empires with long \nhistories and complicated mythologies), but the ultimate impact is \nlike taking Conan seriously as a nihilistic philosopher. :)\n\nIn other words, I think generic categories are necessary and useful. \nBut they're necessary and useful as *jumping off points*, not as \nconclusions about a piece of work.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n*From:* Daniel Petersen " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T17:21:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, and there is plenty of \"high\" fantasy that precedes JRRT also --\nnotably William Morris." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Larry Miller wrote:\nDont forget that sword and sorcery also has roots in the planetary\nromances of burroughs who we know Wolfe was aware of. “There was also\nthe Jirel of Joiry ?and the Zothique stories that are the earliest\nsword and sorcery tales. ?Or the Worm Ouroborous. ?They all predate\nTolkien. ?And Conan being a cheap comic book derivative” Come on!\n\nOn 12/16/11, Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: You are absolutely correct, I meant \"religious\nmorality\" and should\nhave said so explicitly." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Ah, well, not really. I understood but I'll confess that I just wanted an\nexcuse to\nfurther discuss Tolkien with someone who knows more than I do about the\nsubject. :- )" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Antonio Pedro Marques: The discussion was about what it looked like on the\n_surface_. If\nyou only find out at the end of the story that a character seems to fit a\nfairy tale,\nthen the fairytaleness isn't really part of the scenery, is it?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Scenery! That's an interesting point. For me, it was fairly early in BotNS\nthat the S & S/\nfairy tale aspects hit me. What came later (much later) was the recognition\nof real religious\ncontent in the story, albeit with an intensely gnostic flavor.\n\nFor years I had wondered why Wolfe put \"gnostic symbols\" in the Witches\nTower. The problem\nwas my own limited knowledge of gnosticism. The impact of Alexander's brief\nbut mighty\nempire on all levels of Western culture can't be ignored, including\nreligion. Our legends of\nwitches, vampires, manbeasts shapeshifting gods, monsters etc. can be traced\nback to that time\nperiod, in that part of the world.\n\nBut anyway, does the fact that my realization of the religious aspect of\nBotNS came later mean\nit is not a religious story? Or even that religious trappings are not part\nof the scenery?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Maybe for me s&s is a more restricted thing than for others. I think of\nConan the Barbarian\nrather than LotR as the prototype. I'm not even sure I find LotR all that\ns&s, given the serious\n'historical' feeling I get from it, nor the Hobbit, given its (deceivingly)\nchildren's-tale style." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Great observation and recognition Antonio. Perhaps I am not alone in having\nassumed that LotR was\nmore of a prototype or archetype of S & S while Conan is more of a cheap\ncomic book derivative.\nA cultural bias? Conan (like Tarzan) is a European character created by an\nAmerican, while LotR seems\nsomehow more authentic and refined- high brow British characters created by\nan Englishman.\n\nBut, a check online about Robert Howard, the creator of Conan (and who\npre-dates Tolkien), produces\nthis blurb:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "With Conan and his other heroes, Howard created the genre now known as\nsword and sorcery, spawning\na wide swath of imitators and giving him an influence in the fantasy field\nrivaled only by J. R. R.\nTolkien and Tolkien's similarly inspired creation of high fantasy." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T17:23:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EEB7A6F.7010402@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Stockhoff wrote:\nI don't think there were many \"races\" in literature before [Tolkien]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "koff koff< Edda? >koff koff<" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEB7EAB.6020404@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-16T17:23:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And Dunsany and Wilde." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/16/2011 12:21 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nYes, and there is plenty of \"high\" fantasy that precedes JRRT also --\nnotably William Morris.\n\nOn Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Larry Miller wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Dont forget that sword and sorcery also has roots in the planetary\nromances of burroughs who we know Wolfe was aware of. There was also\nthe Jirel of Joiry and the Zothique stories that are the earliest\nsword and sorcery tales. Or the Worm Ouroborous. They all predate\nTolkien. And Conan being a cheap comic book derivative? Come on!\n\nOn 12/16/11, Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: You are absolutely correct, I meant \"religious\nmorality\" and should\nhave said so explicitly." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Ah, well, not really. I understood but I'll confess that I just wanted an\nexcuse to\nfurther discuss Tolkien with someone who knows more than I do about the\nsubject. :- )" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Antonio Pedro Marques: The discussion was about what it looked like on the\n_surface_. If\nyou only find out at the end of the story that a character seems to fit a\nfairy tale,\nthen the fairytaleness isn't really part of the scenery, is it?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Scenery! That's an interesting point. For me, it was fairly early in BotNS\nthat the S& S/\nfairy tale aspects hit me. What came later (much later) was the recognition\nof real religious\ncontent in the story, albeit with an intensely gnostic flavor.\n\nFor years I had wondered why Wolfe put \"gnostic symbols\" in the Witches\nTower. The problem\nwas my own limited knowledge of gnosticism. The impact of Alexander's brief\nbut mighty\nempire on all levels of Western culture can't be ignored, including\nreligion. Our legends of\nwitches, vampires, manbeasts shapeshifting gods, monsters etc. can be traced\nback to that time\nperiod, in that part of the world.\n\nBut anyway, does the fact that my realization of the religious aspect of\nBotNS came later mean\nit is not a religious story? Or even that religious trappings are not part\nof the scenery?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Maybe for me s&s is a more restricted thing than for others. I think of\nConan the Barbarian\nrather than LotR as the prototype. I'm not even sure I find LotR all that\ns&s, given the serious\n'historical' feeling I get from it, nor the Hobbit, given its (deceivingly)\nchildren's-tale style." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Great observation and recognition Antonio. Perhaps I am not alone in having\nassumed that LotR was\nmore of a prototype or archetype of S& S while Conan is more of a cheap\ncomic book derivative.\nA cultural bias? Conan (like Tarzan) is a European character created by an\nAmerican, while LotR seems\nsomehow more authentic and refined- high brow British characters created by\nan Englishman.\n\nBut, a check online about Robert Howard, the creator of Conan (and who\npre-dates Tolkien), produces\nthis blurb:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "With Conan and his other heroes, Howard created the genre now known as\nsword and sorcery, spawning\na wide swath of imitators and giving him an influence in the fantasy field\nrivaled only by J. R. R.\nTolkien and Tolkien's similarly inspired creation of high fantasy." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T17:30:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EEB7DFF.3070202@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "My good friend David Bratman, who is one of the world's leading\nexperts on Tolkien (he writes the annual review of the JRRT secondary\nliterature), posits that a primary difference between \"high\" fantasy\nand S/S is that \"high\" fantasy is \"about\" the milieu, where S/S is\n\"about\" the character.\n\nI don't know if I accept this distinction, but I notice it in\nmarketing -- high fantasy series tend to be called by the name of\ntheir world (even crappy high fantasy like \"the Shannara series\") or\nsomething about it (\"the Wheel of Time\"), while S/S series tend to be\ncalled by the name of their main character (the Conan series, the\nFafhrd-and-the-Grey-Mouser series, etc.)\n\nAt any rate, if real, it suggests that Wolfe's character-centric\nscience fantasy definitely owes summat to S/S." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEB8097.4060600@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-16T17:32:07+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<6B8947DBFE8E411D9E5E4954F7463F07@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/16/2011 11:59 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n*From:* David Stockhoff \nDead on. Much of our Western myths, and as they are perpetuated \ntoday by" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Hollywood, involve the brave and capable few who are besieged by the" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "weak and cowardly many. This has little basis in reality, of course, and" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "it has always struck me as a bit pathological.\nIt does form a good basis for a thrilling story, with unequivocally \nvirtuous characters for the audience to identify with, and villains \nwho may be despatched in interesting ways without invoking feelings of \nguilt, or decreasing the villain supply. I suspect such stories have \nbeen popular in most cultures.\nEven the Ascians can enjoy the story of a lone hero who wins out by \nhis persistence in the face of vicissitudes from the multitude.\n- Gerry Quinn" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Absolutely. However, I don't share your suspicion in the slightest.\n\nI'm no expert but I've never seen this convention figure so strongly \nanywhere in any non-European literature in all of history. It may as \nwell not exist outside Europe.\n\nI should have said that the oldest such stories are Greek, and some of \nthem are true. Tolkien's generation knew them well." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEB8104.5090700@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-16T17:33:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) fairy stories, was: Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<1324005920.51984.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "He wrote a couple of Dunsany pastiches---one about Man and the Computer, \nmore or less. I don;t know what Wolfe has said about him, though." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/15/2011 10:25 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\n\n\nHas Wolfe ever spoken at length about Lord Dunsany? I can think of a \nfew mentions, but nothing significant. That might be an interesting \nway into the question of \"fairy stories.\"\n\n(And, yes, I asked a question without searching urth.net...mainly to \nshift the conversation.)\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n*From:* Lee Berman \n*To:* urth at urth.net\n*Sent:* Thursday, December 15, 2011 9:21 PM\n*Subject:* (urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-oakes: tBotNS is indeed a fairy story, a \nonce-upon-a-time whisking away of\nthe reader to a land where miracles happen, giants..battle heroes, \nthe dead walk, and" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "monarchs live in invisible palaces. (Even the invisible palace hides \nan invisible\npalace!)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "If it questions the assumptions of the fairy story, and especially \nthe happy ending, well" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "so too does it question the assumptions of classic science fantasy: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "and we cannot" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "understand that questioning unless we understand \"what we have \nlearned of these things\nfrom fairy-tales.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Wow, Dan'l. Outstanding post, both for content and eloquence.\n\n\n\nAlso, I agree with all you say about Tolkien and Lewis and Wolfe in \nyour earlier post. I\n\nmight only debate one issue, that being the implication that Tolkein's \nmoral lessons are\n\nnot explicit. I would agree with you in regard to religious morality.\n\n\n\nBut there is a social-cultural morality Tolkien displays which I find \nnot so very hard to\n\ncatch, including the intrinsic value of hearth and home and the \nunquestioned assumption\n\nthat blood (genetics) runs true and determines the worth of a man. Not \na shocking moral\n\nstance for an Englishman of the early 20th century but still, it is there.\n\n\n\nI think, by todays standards, Tolkien's geo-social biases might not be \nconsidered so\n\npolicially correct. I mostly mean his implication that those \ndark-skinned types from the\n\nsouth and east are evil and not to be trusted. Conversely that north \nand west are the \"good\"\n\ndirections, not to mention those wonderful (american) eagles who \nalways fly in at the last\n\ncrucial moment to save the day. If he'd used falcons it just wouldn't \nhave worked the same,\n\nI think. (not that I'm being really critical of Tolkien; I\"m sure he \nwas a good and honorable\n\nman but also a product of his times. And aren't we all?)\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T18:27:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EEB7EAB.6020404@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I tend to think of Robert Howard and Tolkien as two differing and\ninteresting streams that find their mutual source in Dunsany (at least in\nso far as each of the former embody modern S&S). Again, it's as if these\ntwo streams reunite into one at Wolfe. (You can also do this sort of 'flow\nchart' from Dunsany with Lovecraft and Tolkien as the two streams reunited\nin Wolfe - this time in relation to horror.)\n\n-DOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 5:23 PM, David Stockhoff wrote:\nAnd Dunsany and Wilde.\n\n\nOn 12/16/2011 12:21 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Yes, and there is plenty of \"high\" fantasy that precedes JRRT also --\nnotably William Morris.\n\nOn Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Larry Miller\n wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Dont forget that sword and sorcery also has roots in the planetary\nromances of burroughs who we know Wolfe was aware of. There was also\nthe Jirel of Joiry and the Zothique stories that are the earliest\nsword and sorcery tales. Or the Worm Ouroborous. They all predate\nTolkien. And Conan being a cheap comic book derivative? Come on!\n\nOn 12/16/11, Lee Berman>\n wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: You are absolutely correct, I meant \"religious\nmorality\" and should\nhave said so explicitly." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Ah, well, not really. I understood but I'll confess that I just wanted\nan\nexcuse to\nfurther discuss Tolkien with someone who knows more than I do about the\nsubject. :- )\n\n Antonio Pedro Marques: The discussion was about what it looked like on\nthe\n_surface_. If\nyou only find out at the end of the story that a character seems to\nfit a\nfairy tale,\nthen the fairytaleness isn't really part of the scenery, is it?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Scenery! That's an interesting point. For me, it was fairly early in\nBotNS\nthat the S& S/\n\nfairy tale aspects hit me. What came later (much later) was the\nrecognition\nof real religious\ncontent in the story, albeit with an intensely gnostic flavor.\n\nFor years I had wondered why Wolfe put \"gnostic symbols\" in the Witches\nTower. The problem\nwas my own limited knowledge of gnosticism. The impact of Alexander's\nbrief\nbut mighty\nempire on all levels of Western culture can't be ignored, including\nreligion. Our legends of\nwitches, vampires, manbeasts shapeshifting gods, monsters etc. can be\ntraced\nback to that time\nperiod, in that part of the world.\n\nBut anyway, does the fact that my realization of the religious aspect of\nBotNS came later mean\nit is not a religious story? Or even that religious trappings are not\npart\nof the scenery?\n\n Maybe for me s&s is a more restricted thing than for others. I think of\nConan the Barbarian\nrather than LotR as the prototype. I'm not even sure I find LotR all\nthat\ns&s, given the serious\n'historical' feeling I get from it, nor the Hobbit, given its\n(deceivingly)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "children's-tale style." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Great observation and recognition Antonio. Perhaps I am not alone in\nhaving\nassumed that LotR was\nmore of a prototype or archetype of S& S while Conan is more of a cheap\n\ncomic book derivative.\nA cultural bias? Conan (like Tarzan) is a European character created by\nan\nAmerican, while LotR seems\nsomehow more authentic and refined- high brow British characters\ncreated by\nan Englishman.\n\nBut, a check online about Robert Howard, the creator of Conan (and who\npre-dates Tolkien), produces\nthis blurb:\n\n With Conan and his other heroes, Howard created the genre now known as\nsword and sorcery, spawning\na wide swath of imitators and giving him an influence in the fantasy\nfield\nrivaled only by J. R. R." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "Tolkien and Tolkien's similarly inspired creation of high fantasy." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "______________________________**_________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T18:28:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EEB6E98.4040102@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ha, 'The Honour of Israel Gow' applied to this list. Spot on! -DOJP\n\n2011/12/16 Ant?nio Pedro Marques " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote (16-12-2011 15:47):\n\n A very\ncritical view of \"ready made\" miracles is (to give an example) in\na brilliant way expressed by G. K. Chesterton in his Father Brown stories." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "'The honour of Israel Gow' came to my mind frequently when I had the\npatience to read these discussions!\n\n______________________________**_________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T18:30:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Daniel Petersen: I simply don't understand you very well, Lee, and Quinn I feel I do\nunderstand to some degree but find his seeming obstinacy about...." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nYou seem like a gentle, considerate soul Daniel, which I think is great. But do you \nbelieve in the adage, \"it takes one to know one\"? Gerry and I understand each other very well. \nI recognize him as a social manipulator and his retort to that is to accuse me of the same.\nGerry, in his desire to win every debate, cannot admit to this shortcoming but I appreciate\nhis honesty in not trying to deny his own mechinations.\n \nI freely admit to it. My explicitly stated goal in rejoining this list a couple years ago\nwas to restore a sense of freedom of expression, the lack of which had previously stifled the \nlist for a number of years. I have employed various strategems to achieve this goal. Have I \nsuceeded at all?\n \nI think your confusion about Gerry is that you underestimate and oversimplify him. You wonder\nwhy he employs certain strategies when they seem counterproductive to what he is trying to \nachieve. But, as I said, I don't consider him an object of pity. Is it possible Gerry is\ngetting exactly what he wants from this list? Why else would he continue his very consistent\npattern of communication? Gerry also has goals for this list. What are they? (I'll let him \nanswer) Has he succeeded?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Nor do I think my comments betrayed that I was 'missing something', especially\nnot 'a recognition of human diversity'. I am (they are) calling for just such recognition and \ncelebration of human diversity - belligerence and'over-stubbornness' do not facilitate this." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI think I understand your point of view Daniel. It is a wonderful one. Belligerence and pig-head\nstubborness do cause a lot of problems in this world and it might be a better place without them.\nNo fighting, no killing, no hate.\n \nBut the truth is, if we managed to eliminate those things, the world would be a less diverse place.\nCurrently, aggression IS a part of the human experience and a pervasive, influential one at that.\nMuch of my professional experience has been in what some might call the \"dregs\" of society and I\nhave thus been quite familiarized with the dark side of human nature.\n \nThough I've always preached a message of peace and understanding in my work, I also came to know \nthat there are some people who are inherently aggressive. You simply cannot reach such people\nwith a message of peace and understanding. It doesn't register. So what should we do?\n \nThe answer is what societies throughout history have done with such people. Channel the aggression\ntoward productive or at least harmless activities. Sports and other competitions are a good\nexample.\n \nSo, I hope you can see what I'm saying. For some people, preaching the use of respectful, considerate\nlanguage here is a lost cause. Instead, embrace the conflict. Encourage the expression of hostility\nin a place like this instead of in the real world. Not only does the energy of competition drive\nsome people to do intense scholastic research they might not otherwise do; it just might be making\nthe real world a more peaceful place by reducing domestic violence, pub fights and perhaps even war.\n \n \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T18:48:07+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thanks for your generous interpretation of my comments, Lee. I actually am\nwell known among family and friends as being the aggro one at times - I\nhave to fight hard with myself to be civilised in debate, as I'm naturally\na passionate, opinionated, snarky person (half the time). Some nasty scrap\nand scrape in a forum like this is indeed a very good and healthy and\nenjoyable thing. I have zero problem with some feisty intellectual\npunch-ups happening here. It's when the insults start to sound pretty dark\nand vitriolic that I worry it's no longer 'useful' and certainly not fun.\n I may well have misinterpreted, for example, Stockhoff calling Quinn and\n'illiterate know-nothing' and this is good debating-buddy language they use\nwith each other all the time (I have friends I argue with like that -\nsometimes it crosses the line and we swear off each other for a while, then\nmake up and go at it again).\n\nAnyway, at least as much as that, I have problems with a more intellectual\nobstinacy and obnoxiousness I sometimes see evident here. It's\nunfortunate, Lee, that I often have to just skim over or skip the (usually\nlengthy) comments made by you and Gerry. But that's what I do rather than\ncalling for you guys to be debarred.\n\nTwo final notes: I seriously doubt letting off steam on the internet\nprevents it happening in real life. I imagine there are complex studies\ninto these kinds of notions that show the whole thing is dubiously\nunpredictable. But that's merely an aside.\n\nThe second thing is that I feel fairly uncomfortable with the idea of\npeople having 'goals' for this list. What in the world? (Like my sanitary\nversion of wtf?) The list has a simple and stated purpose: to discuss\nWolfe's works. Let's leave it at that and be busy with it - not trying to\nmanipulate others and the 'community' toward further ends we've concocted.\n That's just weird. Not in the good 'weird fiction' way. It's... creepy.\n\n-DOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Daniel Petersen: I simply don't understand you very well, Lee, and Quinn\nI feel I do\nunderstand to some degree but find his seeming obstinacy about...." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You seem like a gentle, considerate soul Daniel, which I think is great.\nBut do you\nbelieve in the adage, \"it takes one to know one\"? Gerry and I understand\neach other very well.\nI recognize him as a social manipulator and his retort to that is to\naccuse me of the same.\nGerry, in his desire to win every debate, cannot admit to this shortcoming\nbut I appreciate\nhis honesty in not trying to deny his own mechinations.\n\nI freely admit to it. My explicitly stated goal in rejoining this list a\ncouple years ago\nwas to restore a sense of freedom of expression, the lack of which had\npreviously stifled the\nlist for a number of years. I have employed various strategems to achieve\nthis goal. Have I\nsuceeded at all?\n\nI think your confusion about Gerry is that you underestimate and\noversimplify him. You wonder\nwhy he employs certain strategies when they seem counterproductive to what\nhe is trying to\nachieve. But, as I said, I don't consider him an object of pity. Is it\npossible Gerry is\ngetting exactly what he wants from this list? Why else would he continue\nhis very consistent\npattern of communication? Gerry also has goals for this list. What are\nthey? (I'll let him\nanswer) Has he succeeded?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Nor do I think my comments betrayed that I was 'missing something',\nespecially\nnot 'a recognition of human diversity'. I am (they are) calling for just\nsuch recognition and\ncelebration of human diversity - belligerence and'over-stubbornness' do\nnot facilitate this." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think I understand your point of view Daniel. It is a wonderful one.\nBelligerence and pig-head\nstubborness do cause a lot of problems in this world and it might be a\nbetter place without them.\nNo fighting, no killing, no hate.\n\nBut the truth is, if we managed to eliminate those things, the world would\nbe a less diverse place.\nCurrently, aggression IS a part of the human experience and a pervasive,\ninfluential one at that.\nMuch of my professional experience has been in what some might call the\n\"dregs\" of society and I\nhave thus been quite familiarized with the dark side of human nature.\n\nThough I've always preached a message of peace and understanding in my\nwork, I also came to know\nthat there are some people who are inherently aggressive. You simply\ncannot reach such people\nwith a message of peace and understanding. It doesn't register. So what\nshould we do?\n\nThe answer is what societies throughout history have done with such\npeople. Channel the aggression\ntoward productive or at least harmless activities. Sports and other\ncompetitions are a good\nexample.\n\nSo, I hope you can see what I'm saying. For some people, preaching the use\nof respectful, considerate\nlanguage here is a lost cause. Instead, embrace the conflict. Encourage\nthe expression of hostility\nin a place like this instead of in the real world. Not only does the\nenergy of competition drive\nsome people to do intense scholastic research they might not otherwise do;\nit just might be making\nthe real world a more peaceful place by reducing domestic violence, pub\nfights and perhaps even war.\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T19:21:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Many have expressed dismay at the vitriol and extended\nlength of some of the argument/debates in here. But there is one person \nwho has never expressed this dismay: Gerry Quinn. Is he really an object of\npity?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn: The fox expressed dismay when the scorpion stung him halfway across the \nriver. A wiser fox would have recognised the scorpion for what he was and treated \nhim with wariness, thus removing the cause for dismay." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nExcellent post and analogy, Gerry. I had actually thought it was a frog carrying the\nscorpion but an internet search shows both animals are used. I understand your choice.\nThe fox is less sympathetic than the frog and he SHOULD be crafty enough to know \nwhom he is ferrying.\n\nLikewise, anyone here who ventures into a debate with you has had ample history to \nknow what they are getting into. You will never give in and you will always have the\nlast word. In one version of the story:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Fox cried out, \"How could you sting me we shall both drown now?\" \nScorpion replied, \"It is better we should both perish than that my enemy should live" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEB9C80.8050205@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-16T19:31:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes. Although Howard touched a bit on horror too, it was never the main \npoint, and Howard, Burroughs, and Fritz Lieber codified the s&s genre \n(which was often enough swords VS sorcery) more than anyone.\n\nToo bad Lovecraft never wrote about a lone swordsman---that would really \nhave been something. He'd have to be a madman who never gets close \nenough to the creeping horror to kill it. Kind of like a detective who \nis always too drunk to solve murders but somehow has an interesting \ncareer nevertheless." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/16/2011 1:27 PM, Daniel Petersen wrote:\nI tend to think of Robert Howard and Tolkien as two differing and \ninteresting streams that find their mutual source in Dunsany (at least \nin so far as each of the former embody modern S&S). Again, it's as if \nthese two streams reunite into one at Wolfe. (You can also do this \nsort of 'flow chart' from Dunsany with Lovecraft and Tolkien as the \ntwo streams reunited in Wolfe - this time in relation to horror.)\n\n-DOJP\n\nOn Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 5:23 PM, David Stockhoff \n> wrote:\n\n And Dunsany and Wilde.\n\n\n On 12/16/2011 12:21 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n\n Yes, and there is plenty of \"high\" fantasy that precedes JRRT\n also --\n notably William Morris.\n\n On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Larry\n Miller>\n wrote:\n\n Dont forget that sword and sorcery also has roots in the\n planetary\n romances of burroughs who we know Wolfe was aware of.\n There was also\n the Jirel of Joiry and the Zothique stories that are the\n earliest\n sword and sorcery tales. Or the Worm Ouroborous. They\n all predate\n Tolkien. And Conan being a cheap comic book derivative?\n Come on!\n\n On 12/16/11, Lee Berman> wrote:\n\n Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: You are absolutely correct, I\n meant \"religious\n morality\" and should\n have said so explicitly.\n\n Ah, well, not really. I understood but I'll confess\n that I just wanted an\n excuse to\n further discuss Tolkien with someone who knows more\n than I do about the\n subject. :- )\n\n Antonio Pedro Marques: The discussion was about\n what it looked like on the\n _surface_. If\n you only find out at the end of the story that a\n character seems to fit a\n fairy tale,\n then the fairytaleness isn't really part of the\n scenery, is it?\n\n Scenery! That's an interesting point. For me, it was\n fairly early in BotNS\n that the S& S/\n\n fairy tale aspects hit me. What came later (much\n later) was the recognition\n of real religious\n content in the story, albeit with an intensely gnostic\n flavor.\n\n For years I had wondered why Wolfe put \"gnostic\n symbols\" in the Witches\n Tower. The problem\n was my own limited knowledge of gnosticism. The impact\n of Alexander's brief\n but mighty\n empire on all levels of Western culture can't be\n ignored, including\n religion. Our legends of\n witches, vampires, manbeasts shapeshifting gods,\n monsters etc. can be traced\n back to that time\n period, in that part of the world.\n\n But anyway, does the fact that my realization of the\n religious aspect of\n BotNS came later mean\n it is not a religious story? Or even that religious\n trappings are not part\n of the scenery?\n\n Maybe for me s&s is a more restricted thing than\n for others. I think of\n Conan the Barbarian\n rather than LotR as the prototype. I'm not even\n sure I find LotR all that\n s&s, given the serious\n 'historical' feeling I get from it, nor the\n Hobbit, given its (deceivingly)\n children's-tale style.\n\n Great observation and recognition Antonio. Perhaps I\n am not alone in having\n assumed that LotR was\n more of a prototype or archetype of S& S while Conan\n is more of a cheap\n\n comic book derivative.\n A cultural bias? Conan (like Tarzan) is a European\n character created by an\n American, while LotR seems\n somehow more authentic and refined- high brow British\n characters created by\n an Englishman.\n\n But, a check online about Robert Howard, the creator\n of Conan (and who\n pre-dates Tolkien), produces\n this blurb:\n\n With Conan and his other heroes, Howard created\n the genre now known as\n sword and sorcery, spawning\n a wide swath of imitators and giving him an\n influence in the fantasy field\n rivaled only by J. R. R.\n Tolkien and Tolkien's similarly inspired creation\n of high fantasy.\n\n\n _______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEB9E32.3020801@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-16T19:38:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually 'illiterate know-nothing' was a clinical assessment. ;)\n\nBut if you look closely, I was pointing out that Gerry uses his own \nilliteracy as evidence for his arguments. He really does. This \nobservation is substantively different from an /ad hominem/ approach \nthat would rightly be considered to degrade discussion." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/16/2011 1:48 PM, Daniel Petersen wrote:\nThanks for your generous interpretation of my comments, Lee. I \nactually am well known among family and friends as being the aggro one \nat times - I have to fight hard with myself to be civilised in debate, \nas I'm naturally a passionate, opinionated, snarky person (half the \ntime). Some nasty scrap and scrape in a forum like this is indeed a \nvery good and healthy and enjoyable thing. I have zero problem with \nsome feisty intellectual punch-ups happening here. It's when the \ninsults start to sound pretty dark and vitriolic that I worry it's no \nlonger 'useful' and certainly not fun. I may well have \nmisinterpreted, for example, Stockhoff calling Quinn and 'illiterate \nknow-nothing' and this is good debating-buddy language they use with \neach other all the time (I have friends I argue with like that - \nsometimes it crosses the line and we swear off each other for a while, \nthen make up and go at it again).\n\nAnyway, at least as much as that, I have problems with a more \nintellectual obstinacy and obnoxiousness I sometimes see evident here. \n It's unfortunate, Lee, that I often have to just skim over or skip \nthe (usually lengthy) comments made by you and Gerry. But that's what \nI do rather than calling for you guys to be debarred.\n\nTwo final notes: I seriously doubt letting off steam on the internet \nprevents it happening in real life. I imagine there are complex \nstudies into these kinds of notions that show the whole thing is \ndubiously unpredictable. But that's merely an aside.\n\nThe second thing is that I feel fairly uncomfortable with the idea of \npeople having 'goals' for this list. What in the world? (Like my \nsanitary version of wtf?) The list has a simple and stated purpose: \n to discuss Wolfe's works. Let's leave it at that and be busy with it \n- not trying to manipulate others and the 'community' toward further \nends we've concocted. That's just weird. Not in the good 'weird \nfiction' way. It's... creepy.\n\n-DOJP\n\nOn Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Lee Berman > wrote:\n\n\n >Daniel Petersen: I simply don't understand you very well, Lee,\n and Quinn I feel I do\n >understand to some degree but find his seeming obstinacy about....\n\n You seem like a gentle, considerate soul Daniel, which I think is\n great. But do you\n believe in the adage, \"it takes one to know one\"? Gerry and I\n understand each other very well.\n I recognize him as a social manipulator and his retort to that is\n to accuse me of the same.\n Gerry, in his desire to win every debate, cannot admit to this\n shortcoming but I appreciate\n his honesty in not trying to deny his own mechinations.\n\n I freely admit to it. My explicitly stated goal in rejoining this\n list a couple years ago\n was to restore a sense of freedom of expression, the lack of which\n had previously stifled the\n list for a number of years. I have employed various strategems to\n achieve this goal. Have I\n suceeded at all?\n\n I think your confusion about Gerry is that you underestimate and\n oversimplify him. You wonder\n why he employs certain strategies when they seem counterproductive\n to what he is trying to\n achieve. But, as I said, I don't consider him an object of pity.\n Is it possible Gerry is\n getting exactly what he wants from this list? Why else would he\n continue his very consistent\n pattern of communication? Gerry also has goals for this list.\n What are they? (I'll let him\n answer) Has he succeeded?\n\n >Nor do I think my comments betrayed that I was 'missing\n something', especially\n >not 'a recognition of human diversity'. I am (they are) calling\n for just such recognition and\n >celebration of human diversity - belligerence\n and'over-stubbornness' do not facilitate this.\n\n I think I understand your point of view Daniel. It is a wonderful\n one. Belligerence and pig-head\n stubborness do cause a lot of problems in this world and it might\n be a better place without them.\n No fighting, no killing, no hate.\n\n But the truth is, if we managed to eliminate those things, the\n world would be a less diverse place.\n Currently, aggression IS a part of the human experience and a\n pervasive, influential one at that.\n Much of my professional experience has been in what some might\n call the \"dregs\" of society and I\n have thus been quite familiarized with the dark side of human nature.\n\n Though I've always preached a message of peace and understanding\n in my work, I also came to know\n that there are some people who are inherently aggressive. You\n simply cannot reach such people\n with a message of peace and understanding. It doesn't register. So\n what should we do?\n\n The answer is what societies throughout history have done with\n such people. Channel the aggression\n toward productive or at least harmless activities. Sports and\n other competitions are a good\n example.\n\n So, I hope you can see what I'm saying. For some people, preaching\n the use of respectful, considerate\n language here is a lost cause. Instead, embrace the conflict.\n Encourage the expression of hostility\n in a place like this instead of in the real world. Not only does\n the energy of competition drive\n some people to do intense scholastic research they might not\n otherwise do; it just might be making\n the real world a more peaceful place by reducing domestic\n violence, pub fights and perhaps even war.\n\n\n _______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T19:48:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EEB9E32.3020801@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sergei Soloviev: I should confess also that I am rather scandalized by accusations \naddressed to Gerry in neglecting the text - I think the accusers are more guilty in that." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Is it the accusation or the actual fact of not reading the text which scandalizes you? I'm\nthinking it is the latter as Gerry's frequent accusations of others not reading the text\nhave not apparently not scandalized you. In my opinion, we have all read the text, we all\nhave varying interpretations and we all have memory lapses. Accusations of not reading the\ntext seems an echo of some college professor lecturing his delinquent students. I would be\nhappy if such accusations cease." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Larry Miller: And Conan being a cheap comic book derivative? Come on!" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Now, Larry :- ). That was a mea culpa on my part. My introduction to Conan was from Marvel \nComic Books. They were okay but not my favorite. I had no interest in the Schwarzenegger\nmovie. I was pleased to find the online reference which supported Antonio in his perception\nof Conan as the prototype of S & S. I just didn't know!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Andrew Mason: West is certainly a good direction. North less so - in the first age\nmaterial the North is the seat of evil (and it's not Tolkien's fault that wasn't published \nfirst). By the time of LOTR the region has been devastated." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Good observation, Andrew! Yes, the Silmarillion is quite clear about the history of the North.\nSome have likened Sauron as allegory to the Germans (both WWI and II I guess). Is it possible\nthe Silmarillion stuff was inspired in part by the devastation of the Norse barbarians to the \nBritish Isles? They did more damage there than the Germans ever did. (okay, 'fess up. Who here\nis a red head ;- )) \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEBA2FD.4090003@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-16T19:58:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 12/16/2011 2:48 PM, Lee Berman wrote:\nAndrew Mason: West is certainly a good direction. North less so - in the first age\nmaterial the North is the seat of evil (and it's not Tolkien's fault that wasn't published\nfirst). By the time of LOTR the region has been devastated." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Good observation, Andrew! Yes, the Silmarillion is quite clear about the history of the North.\nSome have likened Sauron as allegory to the Germans (both WWI and II I guess). Is it possible\nthe Silmarillion stuff was inspired in part by the devastation of the Norse barbarians to the\nBritish Isles? They did more damage there than the Germans ever did. (okay, 'fess up. Who here\nis a red head ;- )) \t\t \t \t\t" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I discount any connection of LOTR to WW2, but it simply is not possible \nto ignore the direct impact of WW1 on English literature. And since the \ndevastation visited upon northern France in that war was probably much \nworse---visibly, at least, as well as in casualties over a small \narea---than any other devastation aside from that of Stalingrad, the \nnuked Japanese cities, and endgame Nazi Germany itself, I think that is \nsufficient to inspire visions of Thangorodrim!\n\nThe Hobbit, OTOH, goes no further than the \"satanic mills\" of the \ngoblins. Very Victorian and MacDonaldian." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEBA46C.2030808@irit.fr>", "from": { "name": "Sergei SOLOVIEV", "address": "soloviev at irit.fr" }, "date": "2011-12-16T20:05:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, Lee, I think the accusations should be more moderate, if people \nlike fencing\nwith each other - then for the sake of others -\n\nSergei" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Lee Berman wrote:\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Sergei Soloviev: I should confess also that I am rather scandalized by accusations \naddressed to Gerry in neglecting the text - I think the accusers are more guilty in that.\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Is it the accusation or the actual fact of not reading the text which scandalizes you? I'm\nthinking it is the latter as Gerry's frequent accusations of others not reading the text\nhave not apparently not scandalized you. In my opinion, we have all read the text, we all\nhave varying interpretations and we all have memory lapses. Accusations of not reading the\ntext seems an echo of some college professor lecturing his delinquent students. I would be\nhappy if such accusations cease.\n \n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Larry Miller: And Conan being a cheap comic book derivative? Come on!\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Now, Larry :- ). That was a mea culpa on my part. My introduction to Conan was from Marvel \nComic Books. They were okay but not my favorite. I had no interest in the Schwarzenegger\nmovie. I was pleased to find the online reference which supported Antonio in his perception\nof Conan as the prototype of S & S. I just didn't know!\n \n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Andrew Mason: West is certainly a good direction. North less so - in the first age\nmaterial the North is the seat of evil (and it's not Tolkien's fault that wasn't published \nfirst). By the time of LOTR the region has been devastated.\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Good observation, Andrew! Yes, the Silmarillion is quite clear about the history of the North.\nSome have likened Sauron as allegory to the Germans (both WWI and II I guess). Is it possible\nthe Silmarillion stuff was inspired in part by the devastation of the Norse barbarians to the \nBritish Isles? They did more damage there than the Germans ever did. (okay, 'fess up. Who here\nis a red head ;- )) \t\t \t \t\t \n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEBA4E7.7010408@irit.fr>", "from": { "name": "Sergei SOLOVIEV", "address": "soloviev at irit.fr" }, "date": "2011-12-16T20:07:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) rappprt", "in_reply_to": "<4EEBA46C.2030808@irit.fr>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T20:19:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) rappprt", "in_reply_to": "<4EEBA4E7.7010408@irit.fr>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ok, Sergei, I give up. Why did you send this to the list?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote:\n\n\n_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T20:21:01+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EEB9E32.3020801@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "To be honest, David, I was completely sympathetic with you in your response\nto Gerry. I even knew that's what you were getting at. I was just worried\nthe derisive-seeming shorthand could be easily misunderstood by Gerry as\nwell as those observing the exchange.\n\n-DOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 7:38 PM, David Stockhoff wrote:\nActually 'illiterate know-nothing' was a clinical assessment. ;)\n\nBut if you look closely, I was pointing out that Gerry uses his own\nilliteracy as evidence for his arguments. He really does. This observation\nis substantively different from an /ad hominem/ approach that would rightly\nbe considered to degrade discussion.\n\nOn 12/16/2011 1:48 PM, Daniel Petersen wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Thanks for your generous interpretation of my comments, Lee. I actually\nam well known among family and friends as being the aggro one at times - I\nhave to fight hard with myself to be civilised in debate, as I'm naturally\na passionate, opinionated, snarky person (half the time). Some nasty scrap\nand scrape in a forum like this is indeed a very good and healthy and\nenjoyable thing. I have zero problem with some feisty intellectual\npunch-ups happening here. It's when the insults start to sound pretty dark\nand vitriolic that I worry it's no longer 'useful' and certainly not fun.\n I may well have misinterpreted, for example, Stockhoff calling Quinn and\n'illiterate know-nothing' and this is good debating-buddy language they use\nwith each other all the time (I have friends I argue with like that -\nsometimes it crosses the line and we swear off each other for a while, then\nmake up and go at it again).\n\nAnyway, at least as much as that, I have problems with a more\nintellectual obstinacy and obnoxiousness I sometimes see evident here.\n It's unfortunate, Lee, that I often have to just skim over or skip the\n(usually lengthy) comments made by you and Gerry. But that's what I do\nrather than calling for you guys to be debarred.\n\nTwo final notes: I seriously doubt letting off steam on the internet\nprevents it happening in real life. I imagine there are complex studies\ninto these kinds of notions that show the whole thing is dubiously\nunpredictable. But that's merely an aside.\n\nThe second thing is that I feel fairly uncomfortable with the idea of\npeople having 'goals' for this list. What in the world? (Like my sanitary\nversion of wtf?) The list has a simple and stated purpose: to discuss\nWolfe's works. Let's leave it at that and be busy with it - not trying to\nmanipulate others and the 'community' toward further ends we've concocted.\n That's just weird. Not in the good 'weird fiction' way. It's... creepy.\n\n-DOJP\n\nOn Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Lee Berman >> wrote:\n\n\n >Daniel Petersen: I simply don't understand you very well, Lee,\n and Quinn I feel I do\n >understand to some degree but find his seeming obstinacy about....\n\n You seem like a gentle, considerate soul Daniel, which I think is\n great. But do you\n believe in the adage, \"it takes one to know one\"? Gerry and I\n understand each other very well.\n I recognize him as a social manipulator and his retort to that is\n to accuse me of the same.\n Gerry, in his desire to win every debate, cannot admit to this\n shortcoming but I appreciate\n his honesty in not trying to deny his own mechinations.\n\n I freely admit to it. My explicitly stated goal in rejoining this\n list a couple years ago\n was to restore a sense of freedom of expression, the lack of which\n had previously stifled the\n list for a number of years. I have employed various strategems to\n achieve this goal. Have I\n suceeded at all?\n\n I think your confusion about Gerry is that you underestimate and\n oversimplify him. You wonder\n why he employs certain strategies when they seem counterproductive\n to what he is trying to\n achieve. But, as I said, I don't consider him an object of pity.\n Is it possible Gerry is\n getting exactly what he wants from this list? Why else would he\n continue his very consistent\n pattern of communication? Gerry also has goals for this list.\n What are they? (I'll let him\n answer) Has he succeeded?\n\n >Nor do I think my comments betrayed that I was 'missing\n something', especially\n >not 'a recognition of human diversity'. I am (they are) calling\n for just such recognition and\n >celebration of human diversity - belligerence\n and'over-stubbornness' do not facilitate this.\n\n I think I understand your point of view Daniel. It is a wonderful\n one. Belligerence and pig-head\n stubborness do cause a lot of problems in this world and it might\n be a better place without them.\n No fighting, no killing, no hate.\n\n But the truth is, if we managed to eliminate those things, the\n world would be a less diverse place.\n Currently, aggression IS a part of the human experience and a\n pervasive, influential one at that.\n Much of my professional experience has been in what some might\n call the \"dregs\" of society and I\n have thus been quite familiarized with the dark side of human nature.\n\n Though I've always preached a message of peace and understanding\n in my work, I also came to know\n that there are some people who are inherently aggressive. You\n simply cannot reach such people\n with a message of peace and understanding. It doesn't register. So\n what should we do?\n\n The answer is what societies throughout history have done with\n such people. Channel the aggression\n toward productive or at least harmless activities. Sports and\n other competitions are a good\n example.\n\n So, I hope you can see what I'm saying. For some people, preaching\n the use of respectful, considerate\n language here is a lost cause. Instead, embrace the conflict.\n Encourage the expression of hostility\n in a place like this instead of in the real world. Not only does\n the energy of competition drive\n some people to do intense scholastic research they might not\n otherwise do; it just might be making\n the real world a more peaceful place by reducing domestic\n violence, pub fights and perhaps even war.\n\n\n ______________________________**_________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<6E921A413E7B431FB44CCB3668352728@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T20:31:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EEB9E32.3020801@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: David Stockhoff " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Actually 'illiterate know-nothing' was a clinical assessment. ;)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But if you look closely, I was pointing out that Gerry uses his own \nilliteracy as evidence for his arguments. He really does. This \nobservation is substantively different from an /ad hominem/ approach \nthat would rightly be considered to degrade discussion." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You’ve accused me of illiteracy twice recently, if I recall correct. On both occasions, you were attempting to make far-fetched correspondences between fairy lore and elements of the Solar Cycle (which in fact uses fairy lore less than most Wolfe). When I refused to discuss the Neighbours as if they were literally fairies (because they are different from them in numerous ways), you accused me of illiteracy. And today, you claimed that the House Absolute is a fairy palace, and accused me of illiteracy when I demurred.\n\nOn neither occasion were you able to elaborate your contentions into anything meaningful. Hence, I suppose, the descent into insults.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEBACAC.3050904@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-16T20:40:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<6E921A413E7B431FB44CCB3668352728@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/16/2011 3:31 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n*From:* David Stockhoff \nActually 'illiterate know-nothing' was a clinical assessment. ;)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But if you look closely, I was pointing out that Gerry uses his own" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "illiteracy as evidence for his arguments. He really does. This" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "observation is substantively different from an /ad hominem/ approach" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "that would rightly be considered to degrade discussion.\nYou’ve accused me of illiteracy twice recently, if I recall correct. \nOn both occasions, you were attempting to make far-fetched \ncorrespondences between fairy lore and elements of the Solar Cycle \n(which in fact uses fairy lore less than most Wolfe). When I refused \nto discuss the Neighbours as if they were literally fairies (because \nthey are different\nfrom them in numerous ways), you accused me of illiteracy.\nAnd today, you claimed that the House Absolute is a fairy palace, and \naccused me of illiteracy when I demurred.\nOn neither occasion were you able to elaborate your contentions into \nanything meaningful. Hence, I suppose, the descent into insults.\n- Gerry Quinn" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No. I was simply pointing out that you seem to know nothing about \nFaerie, being unable to recognize it when it appears, but feel free to \nbehave as though you do, and yet also to abuse anyone who brings it up \nin discussing Wolfe. And you seem fairly proud of this and determined to \nmaintain both your position and your ignorance by whatever means \nnecessary. I think that's pretty clearly about what I said, persecution \nfantasies notwithstanding.\n\nThe rest of your post is lies, distortions, and exaggerations, as anyone \ncan see.\n\nExcept this: \"the Solar Cycle ... in fact uses fairy lore less than most \nWolfe ... \" And I already said that as well." } ] }, { "message_id": "<35EB6F0005CA4ED980DA1FFC110F04A8@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T20:51:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Lee Berman " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You seem like a gentle, considerate soul Daniel, which I think is great. But do you \nbelieve in the adage, \"it takes one to know one\"? Gerry and I understand each other very well. \nI recognize him as a social manipulator and his retort to that is to accuse me of the same.\nGerry, in his desire to win every debate, cannot admit to this shortcoming but I appreciate\nhis honesty in not trying to deny his own mechinations." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You should consider my lack of denial an expression of contempt for the accusations, rather than an admission of malfeasance. I recognise your tactics, certainly, and occasionally call you on them. Mostly when you have made baseless accusations against me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I freely admit to it. My explicitly stated goal in rejoining this list a couple years ago" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "was to restore a sense of freedom of expression, the lack of which had previously stifled the \nlist for a number of years. I have employed various strategems to achieve this goal. Have I \nsuceeded at all?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Am I to understand from this that you consider that the \ntorrent of largely nonsensical “theories” you post here is in some sense for the betterment of the group? That it encourages others to post equally nonsensical theories, and that this is good? Candidly, I have always suspected it. My offence, then, is not so much “social manipulation” so much as making the list a less comfortable environment for nonsense?\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T21:05:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EEBACAC.3050904@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: David Stockhoff " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/16/2011 3:31 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n*From:* David Stockhoff mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "You’ve accused me of illiteracy twice recently, if I recall correct. \nOn both occasions, you were attempting to make far-fetched \ncorrespondences between fairy lore and elements of the Solar Cycle \n(which in fact uses fairy lore less than most Wolfe). When I refused \nto discuss the Neighbours as if they were literally fairies (because \nthey are different\nfrom them in numerous ways), you accused me of illiteracy.\nAnd today, you claimed that the House Absolute is a fairy palace, and \naccused me of illiteracy when I demurred.\nOn neither occasion were you able to elaborate your contentions into \nanything meaningful. Hence, I suppose, the descent into insults." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "No. I was simply pointing out that you seem to know nothing about \nFaerie, being unable to recognize it when it appears, but feel free to \nbehave as though you do, and yet also to abuse anyone who brings it up \nin discussing Wolfe. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I have never abused anyone for bringing it up (it must require a hard neck for you to accuse me of abuse in this thread). What I have done is asked you to be specific with regard to what you are arguing. In the case of the Neighbours, for example, in the context of what a Neighbour whose consciousness had entered that of a man would notice as odd, you demanded that I answer in terms not of Neighbour characteristics, but in terms of fairy lore. The absurdity of this can be pointed up by considering the question of whether he would miss his wings.\nOr how about his underground life? Because *today*, of course, it seems that fairies live underground, in accordance with your ill-thought out argument du jour. Do the Neighbours live underground? If not, where does that leave your argument on that occasion? Wingless and buried, it would seem.\nYour accusation of illiteracy is a transparent device to divert the discussion from the works of Gene Wolfe, into some nebulous body of extra-textual material which need never be defined.\n- Gerry Quinn\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEBBAA9.3020105@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-16T21:39:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/16/2011 4:05 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n*From:* David Stockhoff \nOn 12/16/2011 3:31 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "*From:* David Stockhoff mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You’ve accused me of illiteracy twice recently, if I recall correct." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On both occasions, you were attempting to make far-fetched\n\ncorrespondences between fairy lore and elements of the Solar Cycle\n\n(which in fact uses fairy lore less than most Wolfe). When I refused\n\nto discuss the Neighbours as if they were literally fairies (because\n\nthey are different\n\nfrom them in numerous ways), you accused me of illiteracy.\n\nAnd today, you claimed that the House Absolute is a fairy palace, and\n\naccused me of illiteracy when I demurred.\n\nOn neither occasion were you able to elaborate your contentions into\n\nanything meaningful. Hence, I suppose, the descent into insults." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "No. I was simply pointing out that you seem to know nothing about" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Faerie, being unable to recognize it when it appears, but feel free to" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "behave as though you do, and yet also to abuse anyone who brings it up" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "in discussing Wolfe.\nI have never abused anyone for bringing it up (it must require a hard \nneck for you to accuse me of abuse in this thread). What I have done \nis asked you to be specific with regard to what you are arguing. In \nthe case of the Neighbours, for example, in the context of what a \nNeighbour whose consciousness had entered that of a man would notice \nas odd, you demanded that I answer in terms not of Neighbour \ncharacteristics, but in terms of fairy lore. The absurdity of this can \nbe pointed up by considering the question of whether he would miss his \nwings." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ha! You demonstrate my thesis with your very first lunge. \"Fairies have \nwings, therefore the defense must prove that his client has wings, else \nhe be no fairy and must hang.\" But some of us have actually read books, \nGerry, /without the Disney logo on them./ And we know that true fairies \nlack wings. Except, of course, when they don't." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Or how about his underground life? Because *today*, of course, it \nseems that fairies live underground, in accordance with your \nill-thought out argument du jour. Do the Neighbours live underground? \nIf not, where does that leave your argument on that occasion? Wingless \nand buried, it would seem." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The Sidhe were always associated with barrows. Other, more literary and \nVictorian fairies tend to disdain burial mounds and live in glens. Yet \nothers are matronly women who live in cottages, while others dwell in \nshining towers. Perhaps this confuses you. It confused me until I \nrealized that the literature of fairies, like that of the gods, is \ncomplex and contradictory and is derived from many different sources and \nhas been put to many different uses." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Your accusation of illiteracy is a transparent device to divert the \ndiscussion from the works of Gene Wolfe, into some nebulous body of \nextra-textual material which need never be defined." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It's not just the fact that you have never read any literature, even the \nliterature Wolfe has demonstrably read and deliberately echoes. It's \nthat you insist on the very actual and concrete relationships that \nintertextual literature cannot offer. You cannot seem to imagine more \nthan one sense of the word \"is.\"\n\nIt's this aggressive insistence on a childish literalness that makes it \nvery difficult for the rest of us to discuss the literature of Gene \nWolfe in your presence. I never said the Neighbors were *actually* \nfairies, but your pretense that I did gave you an excuse to mock the \nvery observation that they behave in Wolfe's mythological schema very \nmuch as fairies. And yet you demand that I stick to pointing out \nconcrete, 1:1 relationships that simply do not and cannot exist outside \nof textbooks. You hobble us, Gerry.\n\nYou're like a playground bully who has been held back so many times he \nhas a beard in third grade and is twice the size of his classmates, and \nwho says, \"Beat me in arm wrestling or I'll take your lunch.\" Since no \none can do this you fancy yourself the king of the playground." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T22:16:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EEBBAA9.3020105@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: David Stockhoff " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/16/2011 4:05 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Ha! You demonstrate my thesis with your very first lunge. \"Fairies have \nwings, therefore the defense must prove that his client has wings, else \nhe be no fairy and must hang.\" But some of us have actually read books, \nGerry, /without the Disney logo on them./ And we know that true fairies \nlack wings. Except, of course, when they don't." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Or how about his underground life? Because *today*, of course, it \nseems that fairies live underground, in accordance with your \nill-thought out argument du jour. Do the Neighbours live underground? \nIf not, where does that leave your argument on that occasion? Wingless \nand buried, it would seem." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The Sidhe were always associated with barrows. Other, more literary and \nVictorian fairies tend to disdain burial mounds and live in glens. Yet \nothers are matronly women who live in cottages, while others dwell in \nshining towers. Perhaps this confuses you. It confused me until I \nrealized that the literature of fairies, like that of the gods, is \ncomplex and contradictory and is derived from many different sources and \nhas been put to many different uses." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In which case demanding that I express my thoughts on what an amnesiac Neighbour consciousness inserted into a human body might sense as odd in terms of fairies, rather than what we know of the Neighbours, is a bit stupid, isn’t it? Given that the sort of fairies they were supposed to like was not ever defined. Yet you even demanded references to literature about fairies." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Your accusation of illiteracy is a transparent device to divert the \ndiscussion from the works of Gene Wolfe, into some nebulous body of \nextra-textual material which need never be defined." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It's not just the fact that you have never read any literature, even the \nliterature Wolfe has demonstrably read and deliberately echoes. It's \nthat you insist on the very actual and concrete relationships that \nintertextual literature cannot offer. You cannot seem to imagine more \nthan one sense of the word \"is.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I have no problem with various senses of various words, so long as it is made clear what sense is being used. As for the issue that was under discussion then, which was to do with James’s theory about what happened Horn in the pit and what Horn might have been expected to experience thereafter, I don’t recall you contributing anything regarding it.\n\nAs for literature, I may not have read as much as you, but perhaps I read it better. Now I recall it, there was another time you accused me of illiteracy: when I disputed your characterisation of the “Hunter of the east” as Orion. My offence was to read the poem itself, rather than churn out a risibly mechanical correspondence between “hunter” and ?Orion?, ignoring the clear Sun metaphor in the poem itself. If the latter is what constitutes “knowledge of literature” in your mind, I’ll pass. \n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEBF780.2090708@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-17T01:59:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/16/2011 5:16 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n*From:* David Stockhoff \n*> *On 12/16/2011 4:05 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Ha! You demonstrate my thesis with your very first lunge. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"Fairies have\nwings, therefore the defense must prove that his client has \nwings, else\nhe be no fairy and must hang.\" But some of us have actually read \nbooks,\nGerry, /without the Disney logo on them./ And we know that true \nfairies\nlack wings. Except, of course, when they don't." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Or how about his underground life? Because *today*, of course, it\nseems that fairies live underground, in accordance with your\nill-thought out argument du jour. Do the Neighbours live underground?\nIf not, where does that leave your argument on that occasion? " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Wingless\nand buried, it would seem." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The Sidhe were always associated with barrows. Other, more literary and\nVictorian fairies tend to disdain burial mounds and live in glens. Yet\nothers are matronly women who live in cottages, while others dwell in\nshining towers. Perhaps this confuses you. It confused me until I\nrealized that the literature of fairies, like that of the gods, is\ncomplex and contradictory and is derived from many different sources \nand\nhas been put to many different uses." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In which case demanding that I express my thoughts on what an amnesiac \nNeighbour consciousness inserted into a human body might sense as odd \nin terms of fairies, rather than what we know of the Neighbours, is a \nbit stupid, isn’t it? Given that the sort of fairies they were \nsupposed to like was not ever defined. Yet you even demanded \nreferences to literature about fairies." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I asked you to cite any evidence outside your own head." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Your accusation of illiteracy is a transparent device to divert the\ndiscussion from the works of Gene Wolfe, into some nebulous body of\nextra-textual material which need never be defined." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "It's not just the fact that you have never read any literature, even \nthe\nliterature Wolfe has demonstrably read and deliberately echoes. It's\nthat you insist on the very actual and concrete relationships that\nintertextual literature cannot offer. You cannot seem to imagine more\nthan one sense of the word \"is.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I have no problem with various senses of various words, so long as it \nis made clear what sense is being used. As for the issue that was \nunder discussion then, which was to do with James’s theory about what \nhappened Horn in the pit and what Horn might have been expected to \nexperience thereafter, I don’t recall you contributing anything \nregarding it.\nAs for literature, I may not have read as much as you, but perhaps I \nread it better. Now I recall it, there was another time you accused me \nof illiteracy: when I disputed your characterisation of the “Hunter of \nthe east” as Orion. My offence was to read the poem itself, rather \nthan churn out a risibly mechanical correspondence between “hunter” \nand “Orion”, ignoring the clear Sun metaphor in the poem itself. If \nthe latter is what constitutes “knowledge of literature” in your mind, \nI’ll pass." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It's impossible to \"read better\" if you haven't read enough. I don't \nhold it against you." } ] }, { "message_id": "<65F22D8B707544018C42F752C05170F7@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-17T15:52:14+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EEBF780.2090708@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: David Stockhoff " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/16/2011 5:16 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "The Sidhe were always associated with barrows. Other, more literary and\nVictorian fairies tend to disdain burial mounds and live in glens. Yet\nothers are matronly women who live in cottages, while others dwell in\nshining towers. Perhaps this confuses you. It confused me until I\nrealized that the literature of fairies, like that of the gods, is\ncomplex and contradictory and is derived from many different sources \nand has been put to many different uses." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But I wasn’t confused. Whatever my state of literacy, I was well aware that faerie lore is nebulous and contradictory." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "In which case demanding that I express my thoughts on what an amnesiac \nNeighbour consciousness inserted into a human body might sense as odd \nin terms of fairies, rather than what we know of the Neighbours, is a \nbit stupid, isn’t it? Given that the sort of fairies they were \nsupposed to like was not ever defined. Yet you even demanded \nreferences to literature about fairies." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I asked you to cite any evidence outside your own head." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What *actually* happened is that I made a few suggestions about what such an amnesiac Neighbour would see as odd: I suggested, for example, that having only four limbs might seem strange to him. I mentioned an affinity with trees. I based my suggestions on what we know about Neighbours, which is admittedly slight.\n\nYou then jumped down my throat and started babbling about Faerie and demanding references. Let me quote a direct exchange from that thread (a while after I had made my suggestions about what an amnesiac Neighbour in a human body might feel):\n\n******************************************************\nMe [trying to talk about Neighbours, and replying to your accusation that I made up my suggestions about multiple limbs and affinity with trees out of my head]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "You've been going on about Faerie. Everyone agrees they [Neighbours] like trees \n(Mark thinks they ARE trees). The Neighbours seem to live in an \nadjacent dimension. They have eight limbs. Is your question serious?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Where is the evidence that people who hang with fairies like trees, see \nother dimensions, and feel like limbs are missing? The page numbers \ndon't need to be in BSS. I have read about Faerie from age 7 through \ngraduate school and these are not familiar to me. Show me." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "*************************************************************\n\nHow do people expect me to respond to this kind of stuff? I’m fine with the notion that Neighbours share some characteristics with fairies [they share not specific characteristics so much, I think, as a certain kind of mystery]. But what you say has no relation to Neighbours or what I was saying or even to James’s original proposal, which was *nothing whatsoever* to do with “people who hang with fairies”. What people are you even talking about?\n\nIt’s the same on this new thread. We start discussing swords and sorcery and high fantasy in BotNS, genres to which most people agree it has overt resonances. Lee said that it was magic swords and giants and sleeping beauties that told him what kind of story BotNS is, presumably meaning that it has elements of fairy stories. I pointed out that some of the connections are tenuous and the logic of fairy tales is likely to be of limited application in understanding BotNS. Then you jumped in and started talking about Faeries (Faerie lore is *not* the same genre as fairy-tales, incidentally, and even you admit that BotNs is thin on fairies anyway) and pretty soon you were insulting me again when I didn’t agree with you.\n\nIf something in the body of Faerie-related literature with which you are familiar is relevant to BotNS, why not post it, rather than gibber insults?\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1324137882.93284.YahooMailNeo@web114713.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-12-17T16:04:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Lee Berman severiansola at hotmail.com\n..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I freely admit to it. My explicitly stated goal in rejoining this list a couple years ago\nwas to restore a sense of freedom of expression, the lack of which had previously stifled the \nlist for a number of years. I have employed various strategems to achieve this goal. Have I \nsuceeded at all?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "...\n\nIf you ask about your contributions to the list, the only way I can answer is by insulting you, and there have been more than enough insults.\n\nJerry Friedman" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1324139215.730.YahooMailNeo@web114715.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-12-17T16:26:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<1324137882.93284.YahooMailNeo@web114713.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: Jerry Friedman \nFrom: Lee Berman severiansola at hotmail.com\n..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I freely admit to it. My explicitly stated goal in rejoining this list a couple years ago\nwas to restore a sense of freedom of expression, the lack of which had previously stifled the \nlist for a number of years. I have employed various strategems to achieve this goal. Have I \nsuceeded at all?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "...\n\nIf you ask about your contributions to the list, the only way I can answer is by insulting you, and there have been more than enough insults." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'd better clarify that. Though I disagree with much of what you say about Wolfe, the only things that tempt me to personal abuse are your stratagems.\n\nJerry Friedman" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-17T21:03:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<1324139215.730.YahooMailNeo@web114715.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jerry Friedman: If you ask about your contributions to the list, the only way " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I can answer is by insulting you, and there have been more than enough insults..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'd better clarify that. Though I disagree with much of what you say about Wolfe, " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "the only things that tempt me to personal abuse are your stratagems." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nHeh, yep. The threat of an insult is about the same as an insult. But don't worry\n\nJerry. No need to mince words with me. It should be clear by now that I invest no\n\npride in my contributions here. My choice in \"strategem\" is dictated by the result\n\nachieved. The crowd in here represents a unique and unusual subset of humanity, god\n\nbless them. If I feel pushed to play the role of fool or asshole it is a shame but \n\nso be it. Feel free to call me on it. It won't bother me at all. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-17T21:21:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Lee Berman " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If I feel pushed to play the role of fool or asshole it is a shame but \nso be it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In Wolfe, those who play roles tend to become what they play. \n\n- Gerry Quinn\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EED2143.9010706@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-17T23:09:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<5054BA56E99A4B28A66D90C447EEEE44@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I just saw this..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/16/2011 9:02 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n*From:* David Stockhoff \nOn 12/15/2011 9:57 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that fairy-tale logic\nseems to work in the region of 0%. That’s the opposite of one-to-one\ncorrespondence." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "That's exactly what I said. It doesn't work for you 100%, so it's a\ntotal failure. You see zero correspondence. But I'm also addressing the\nfact that you use the 100% correspondence test at all, while not\nallowing others to do so even experimentally." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I *don’t* us a 100% test. I explicitly brought up the idea of \ngradations in the degree of correspondence. The point I making is that \nthe supposed fairy-tale correspondences that have been mentioned do \nnot seem to be, to put it mildly, very high grade." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sure. They're ALL 1% to you. Yet you dive in ...." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "You'd have to be blind not to see it. Terminus Est DOES have \"magic\"\npowers that are clearly defined in the text." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "What powers?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I'm sorry, I thought you had read \"the text.\" Did you not know about \nthe\nsword's \"magical\" provenance and construction?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I have read the text. The sword was Palaemon’s — it is an \nexecutioner’s sword. It is valuable, made by a famous weapon smith of \nthe Commonwealth. It is fit for its purpose, with an ingenious and \nexpressly technological weighting method to aid with decapitations. \nThe inscription “Terminus Est” provides an appropriate pun for its \npurpose, and is also an appropriate reference to Severian’s destiny." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Technological. Yes. \"Magical\" too (note the notation). Huh." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "However, it has no obvious magical or even “magical” powers; the only \ntime we might ascribe such things to it is when Baldander’s energy \nmace is shattered (as is the sword) in striking it. The only \nfairy-tale-like element, really, is the sword being there for use at \nthe right time; and it’s hard to think of any story involving \nadventure that such things don’t happen. We might wonder whether \nprevious Severians got smashed by Baldander’s mace.\nIt’s a hero’s sword more than a magic sword, IMO." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No question. It runs against the cliche, but carries it through \nnevertheless. Just as Elric's sword marks, determines, and hurts and \neven betrays him, so does Severian's.\n\nInterestingly, in _Viriconium_, a hero has a \"plain steel sword.\" WIth \nall the Vancean technological \"magic\" of his world, this sword seems \nalmost magical in its unmagicalness. But like any Elven blade, when it \nis broken it is forged anew, with no more powers than before.\n\nI would call this a powerful \"fairy\" reference, but not a deep one. It \nechoes certain conventions and signals what the author is doing \nstylistically with the character and his world, but does not \"reveal\" \nanything deep about the universe. Why should it? How could it? No \nfictional universe is deeper than its author---something we might do \nwell to remember." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "What does a purported correspondence between Dorcas and the Sleeping\nBeauty tell us, or add to the story? Dorcas was under no enchantment,\nSeverian did not set out to find her, there was no wall of briars. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "She\nwas beautiful, she got resurrected — that’s not enough to equate the\nstories." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "And what do you mean, \"Dorcas was under no enchantment\"? Did you read\nthe book?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yes. To what enchantment do you refer?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That which kept her preserved and asleep for some 20 years. (You can \nargue that this did not happen, and I agree. But then there are two \nnarratives here, aren't there? And one of them is informed by various \ntales about preserving sleep underground, and women in lakes.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Fairies live underground in barrows, just like the House\nAbsolute, indicating otherworldly power." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "And that’s nothing to do with anything. Man-apes live underground. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And\nminers. And worms. And who says all fairies live underground, or that\nfairies correspond to kings? You can’t just point to a random\ncorrespondence and claim it is significant. You need correspondences\nwith meat on them." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "If you don't know fairies live underground, then you know nothing of \nthe\ntopic upon which you so boldly discourse." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I know some fairies live underground, as do some men, and some other \ncreatures. Are you saying that all fairies live underground? Pardon me \nif I ask for a reference." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Again? Try the Mabinogion." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And even if all fairies live underground, I ask again, how does this \nconstitute a significant correspondence with the House Absolute?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I already stated this. But to expand briefly, putting the House \nunderground is not just explained---is not even primarily explained---by \nthe threat of air/space attack, just as a threat from the sea \ninadequately explains the Wall.\n\nWhat do you mean by \"significant\"? I'm getting the idea that your \ndefinition is fairly unique. BNS doesn't hold the secret of the \nuniverse, you know. Not everything discussed on this forum has to be a \nKey to a Mystery. If that's what you're looking for, you're not going to \nget high readings here." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "All I’m saying is that if you want to make a viable case for fairy\ntales, you need to do more than say there is a girl in the story who\nwas dead, which is a bit like being under an enchanted sleep, and she\nlooked okay, and therefore it’s about the Sleeping Beauty. Buffy the\nVampire Slayer was also pretty and blonde and dead and got \nresurrected\n? so was Series 6 of Buffy about the Sleeping Beauty too? No more so\nthan BotNS, in my opinion. It’s too easy to find endless random\ncoincidences of that sort in any large work." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "All you're saying, Gerry, and with as much eloquence and force and\nconviction as you can muster, is that you're an illiterate \nknow-nothing.\nThis is the entirety of your argument, and it is overwhelming." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "All you are saying here, David, with all the bluster and pomp you can \nsummon, is that you have no answer to the point I have raised. Let us \nsuppose every story to be a thread in a large multi-dimensional space \nof story elements. A couple of points on the thread of Dorcas’s story \nlie relatively close to a couple of points on the Sleeping Beauty \nthread, where “relatively close” includes “dead” as being close to \n“under an enchanted sleep”. As I’ve pointed out, we could find many \nsimilarly close threads in all kinds of works; I just mentioned an \nexample at random." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You're comparing Buffy to Wolfe? Is there a question?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "We could even find more examples in BotNS! Does Valeria not also have \nsome correspondences to Sleeping Beauty? And what about Typhon? Shall \nI waffle on about how in the Typhon scene Wolfe mashes up Sleeping \nBeauty and Beauty and the Beast, with Severian taking the part of the \nPrince in the former and Beauty in the latter?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Now you're getting it! Yes, Valeria is a princess in a tower. Typhon is \na king sleeping under a mountain. But these don't quite work, do they? \nHmm. Hmm. Maybe they aren't supposed to, quite. But given how little we \nknow of Valeria, it's a sound pattern if not a solid data point. \nWhatever could it mean?\n\nIf you have serious thoughts about Wolfe and Disney, lay them out \nhere---don't save them for your therapist." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Getting back to Dorcas: suppose you argue that even though the \ncorrespondence is weak, it is of some significance. Then it should \nenhance our understanding of the story in some way other than just \nbeing there. In what way do you think it enhances it? What does it \ntell us about Dorcas or Severian or events? I can’t think of anything." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Of course you can't. This is like explaining color to a cave fish. Some \nthings are best learned on our own." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "There has to be some element of rigour in the analysis even of \nfairy-tales, otherwise we just end up with a silly jumble of so-called \ncorrespondences and allusions based on nothing but noise. No, we will \nnever get 100% correspondences — but 1% so-called correspondences are \nworthless." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree. When will you start? or at least leave others alone to do this?" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-17T23:54:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EED2143.9010706@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: David Stockhoff " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 12/16/2011 9:02 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\nHowever, it has no obvious magical or even “magical” powers; the only \ntime we might ascribe such things to it is when Baldander’s energy \nmace is shattered (as is the sword) in striking it. The only \nfairy-tale-like element, really, is the sword being there for use at \nthe right time; and it’s hard to think of any story involving \nadventure that such things don’t happen. We might wonder whether \nprevious Severians got smashed by Baldander’s mace.\nIt’s a hero’s sword more than a magic sword, IMO." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "No question. It runs against the cliche, but carries it through \nnevertheless. Just as Elric's sword marks, determines, and hurts and \neven betrays him, so does Severian's." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It doesn’t betray him — it is destroyed saving him. But that’s by the by." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "And what do you mean, \"Dorcas was under no enchantment\"? Did you read\nthe book?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Yes. To what enchantment do you refer?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That which kept her preserved and asleep for some 20 years. (You can \nargue that this did not happen, and I agree. But then there are two \nnarratives here, aren't there? And one of them is informed by various \ntales about preserving sleep underground, and women in lakes.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That’s a circular argument. “Dorcas is like Sleeping Beauty. Therefore she was under an enchantment, rather than dead. Therefore she is like Sleeping Beauty.” " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "If you don't know fairies live underground, then you know nothing of \nthe topic upon which you so boldly discourse." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I know some fairies live underground, as do some men, and some other \ncreatures. Are you saying that all fairies live underground? Pardon me \nif I ask for a reference." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Again? Try the Mabinogion." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You already admitted in another post that fairies can live almost anywhere, depending on the particular complex of legends." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": " Let us \nsuppose every story to be a thread in a large multi-dimensional space \nof story elements. A couple of points on the thread of Dorcas’s story \nlie relatively close to a couple of points on the Sleeping Beauty \nthread, where “relatively close” includes “dead” as being close to \n“under an enchanted sleep”. As I’ve pointed out, we could find many \nsimilarly close threads in all kinds of works; I just mentioned an \nexample at random." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You're comparing Buffy to Wolfe? Is there a question?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Why shouldn’t I? Both Buffy and BotNS are large works that play with elements of many fantasy genres; in that at least they are very alike. They are similar in that you can find episodes that are weakly like Sleeping Beauty, but not strongly so — I don’t recall any strong SB reference in Buffy either, though I could have forgotten or missed one. The point is that any such work will have threads passing near to points in a very large volume of story space, and therefore the fact that a thread passes near a point is not in itself of much significance." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "We could even find more examples in BotNS! Does Valeria not also have \nsome correspondences to Sleeping Beauty? And what about Typhon? Shall \nI waffle on about how in the Typhon scene Wolfe mashes up Sleeping \nBeauty and Beauty and the Beast, with Severian taking the part of the \nPrince in the former and Beauty in the latter?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Now you're getting it! Yes, Valeria is a princess in a tower. Typhon is \na king sleeping under a mountain. But these don't quite work, do they? " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No more than Dorcas quite works." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Hmm. Hmm. Maybe they aren't supposed to, quite. But given how little we \nknow of Valeria, it's a sound pattern if not a solid data point. \nWhatever could it mean?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "For me, three Sleeping Beauties, none of which quite work, means the Sleeping Beauty detector is oversensitive and yielding false positives." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If you have serious thoughts about Wolfe and Disney, lay them out \nhere---don't save them for your therapist." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "When I think of Sleeping Beauty, I think of the fairy tale, probably versions I read in childhood. I’m not even sure I’ve seen the film (I do remember Snow White).\n\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EED3115.20902@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-18T00:17:25+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/17/2011 6:54 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n*From:* David Stockhoff \nOn 12/16/2011 9:02 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "However, it has no obvious magical or even “magical” powers; the only\ntime we might ascribe such things to it is when Baldander’s energy\nmace is shattered (as is the sword) in striking it. The only\nfairy-tale-like element, really, is the sword being there for use at\nthe right time; and it’s hard to think of any story involving\nadventure that such things don’t happen. We might wonder whether\nprevious Severians got smashed by Baldander’s mace.\nIt’s a hero’s sword more than a magic sword, IMO." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "No question. It runs against the cliche, but carries it through\nnevertheless. Just as Elric's sword marks, determines, and hurts and\neven betrays him, so does Severian's." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It doesn’t betray him — it is destroyed saving him. But that’s by the by." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Subjective, innit?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "And what do you mean, \"Dorcas was under no enchantment\"? Did you \nread\nthe book?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Yes. To what enchantment do you refer?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "That which kept her preserved and asleep for some 20 years. (You can\nargue that this did not happen, and I agree. But then there are two\nnarratives here, aren't there? And one of them is informed by various\ntales about preserving sleep underground, and women in lakes.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That’s a circular argument. “Dorcas is like Sleeping Beauty. Therefore \nshe was under an enchantment, rather than dead. Therefore she is like \nSleeping Beauty.”" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"Dorcas is like Sleeping Beauty, in that she was apparently under an \nenchantment, rather than dead.\" There---fixed it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "If you don't know fairies live underground, then you know \nnothing of\nthe topic upon which you so boldly discourse." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I know some fairies live underground, as do some men, and some other\ncreatures. Are you saying that all fairies live underground? " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Pardon me\nif I ask for a reference." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Again? Try the Mabinogion." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You already admitted in another post that fairies can live almost \nanywhere, depending on the particular complex of legends." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Glad you're keeping up! I never said \"all fairies live underground.\" \nOnly the queens do. Quit smoking that stuff." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Let us\nsuppose every story to be a thread in a large multi-dimensional space\nof story elements. A couple of points on the thread of Dorcas’s story\nlie relatively close to a couple of points on the Sleeping Beauty\nthread, where “relatively close” includes “dead” as being close to\n“under an enchanted sleep”. As I’ve pointed out, we could find many\nsimilarly close threads in all kinds of works; I just mentioned an\nexample at random." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "You're comparing Buffy to Wolfe? Is there a question?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Why shouldn’t I? Both Buffy and BotNS are large works that play with \nelements of many fantasy genres; in that at least they are very alike. \nThey are similar in that you can find episodes that are weakly like \nSleeping Beauty, but not strongly so — I don’t recall any strong SB \nreference in Buffy either, though I could have forgotten or missed \none. The point is that any such work will have threads passing near to \npoints in a very large volume of story space, and therefore the fact \nthat a thread passes near a point is not in itself of much significance." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I didn't say you shouldn't, at all. But you may want to keep your own \nstandards in mind. What have you enhanced here? How many times will you \nstate the obvious before you realize there's no prize for it?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "We could even find more examples in BotNS! Does Valeria not also have\nsome correspondences to Sleeping Beauty? And what about Typhon? Shall\nI waffle on about how in the Typhon scene Wolfe mashes up Sleeping\nBeauty and Beauty and the Beast, with Severian taking the part of the\nPrince in the former and Beauty in the latter?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Now you're getting it! Yes, Valeria is a princess in a tower. Typhon is\na king sleeping under a mountain. But these don't quite work, do they?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "No more than Dorcas quite works." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Exactly!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Hmm. Hmm. Maybe they aren't supposed to, quite. But given how little we\nknow of Valeria, it's a sound pattern if not a solid data point.\nWhatever could it mean?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "For me, three Sleeping Beauties, none of which quite work, means the \nSleeping Beauty detector is oversensitive and yielding false positives." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Of course it does. Because you appear to be a human Geiger counter." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-18T00:34:25+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EED3115.20902@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: David Stockhoff " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "On 12/17/2011 6:54 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\nYes. To what enchantment do you refer?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "That which kept her preserved and asleep for some 20 years. (You can\nargue that this did not happen, and I agree. But then there are two\nnarratives here, aren't there? And one of them is informed by various\ntales about preserving sleep underground, and women in lakes.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "That’s a circular argument. “Dorcas is like Sleeping Beauty. Therefore \nshe was under an enchantment, rather than dead. Therefore she is like \nSleeping Beauty.”" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"Dorcas is like Sleeping Beauty, in that she was apparently under an \nenchantment, rather than dead.\" There---fixed it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "At the cost of having to assume Severian’s power is something considerably different and weaker than what we thought — i.e. when he resurrects someone it was because she was set up to be “resurrected”.\nThat’s one way of recognising bad ideas — taking their implications seriously does violence to the storyline and characters.\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EED383D.2070000@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-18T00:47:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/17/2011 7:34 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n*From:* David Stockhoff \nOn 12/17/2011 6:54 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "Yes. To what enchantment do you refer?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "That which kept her preserved and asleep for some 20 years. (You can\nargue that this did not happen, and I agree. But then there are two\nnarratives here, aren't there? And one of them is informed by \nvarious\ntales about preserving sleep underground, and women in lakes.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "That’s a circular argument. “Dorcas is like Sleeping Beauty. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Therefore\nshe was under an enchantment, rather than dead. Therefore she is like\nSleeping Beauty.”" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "\"Dorcas is like Sleeping Beauty, in that she was apparently under an\nenchantment, rather than dead.\" There---fixed it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At the cost of having to assume Severian’s power is something \nconsiderably different and weaker than what we thought — i.e. when he \nresurrects someone it was because she was set up to be “resurrected”." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You must read every other sentence, like a half-blind character out of \nBorges. How did you miss when I said that's NOT what happened???" } ] }, { "message_id": "<9DC7581DE8B242049D6A8A31A25F9185@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-18T01:04:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EED383D.2070000@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: David Stockhoff " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/17/2011 7:34 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "Yes. To what enchantment do you refer?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "That which kept her preserved and asleep for some 20 years. (You can\nargue that this did not happen, and I agree. But then there are two\nnarratives here, aren't there? And one of them is informed by \nvarious\ntales about preserving sleep underground, and women in lakes.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "That’s a circular argument. “Dorcas is like Sleeping Beauty. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Therefore\nshe was under an enchantment, rather than dead. Therefore she is like\nSleeping Beauty.”" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "\"Dorcas is like Sleeping Beauty, in that she was apparently under an\nenchantment, rather than dead.\" There---fixed it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "At the cost of having to assume Severian’s power is something \nconsiderably different and weaker than what we thought — i.e. when he \nresurrects someone it was because she was set up to be “resurrected”." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You must read every other sentence, like a half-blind character out of \nBorges. How did you miss when I said that's NOT what happened???" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sure, but you seem to be saying that it IS what happened too. If you’re not, what’s the point in your fix? What exactly is the status of this “other narrative” you mention, and what are Severian’s powers like in it?\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-18T01:27:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Omigawd.\n\nI agree with something Gerry said." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n\n\nFrom: Lee Berman" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "If I feel pushed to play the role of fool or asshole it is a shame but\nso be it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In Wolfe, those who play roles tend to become what they play.\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EED46F9.8080601@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-18T01:50:49+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<9DC7581DE8B242049D6A8A31A25F9185@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/17/2011 8:04 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n*From:* David Stockhoff \nOn 12/17/2011 7:34 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 7, "text": "Yes. To what enchantment do you refer?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "That which kept her preserved and asleep for some 20 years. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "(You can\nargue that this did not happen, and I agree. But then there \nare two\nnarratives here, aren't there? And one of them is informed by\nvarious\ntales about preserving sleep underground, and women in lakes.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "That’s a circular argument. “Dorcas is like Sleeping Beauty." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Therefore\nshe was under an enchantment, rather than dead. Therefore she \nis like\nSleeping Beauty.”" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "\"Dorcas is like Sleeping Beauty, in that she was apparently under an\nenchantment, rather than dead.\" There---fixed it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "At the cost of having to assume Severian’s power is something\nconsiderably different and weaker than what we thought — i.e. when he\nresurrects someone it was because she was set up to be “resurrected”." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "You must read every other sentence, like a half-blind character out of\nBorges. How did you miss when I said that's NOT what happened???" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sure, but you seem to be saying that it IS what happened too. If \nyou’re not, what’s the point in your fix? What exactly is the status \nof this “other narrative” you mention, and what are Severian’s powers \nlike in it?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, it IS what happened \"too.\" The first read/surface story is that \nDorcas was never dead and Severian has no powers (but may have the role \nof a fairy-tale hero to whom lucky things like this happen). The second \nread/understory is that Dorcas was dead and Severian raised her.\n\nAs has been said a million times, BNS draws from and subverts dozens of \ngenres and narrative modes. Identifying those is part of the analysis. \nTo some degree they cloak (as in \"hide\" but also \"dress up\") the \nunderstory. But they also tell us what's being subverted and thus a clue \nas to why. It's not a question of \"if Dorcas is Sleeping Beauty, then \nwho's the witch\"? There is no poisoned apple. But if there is a witch, \nit's Severian.\n\nBut he is still a \"lucky Fool\" to whom things happen---otherwise, how to \nswallow the coincidence that his first Lazarus is his hot grandmother?" } ] }, { "message_id": "<8101814B5E9B4CB18A26CADF6D32487E@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-18T02:15:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EED46F9.8080601@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: David Stockhoff " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 12/17/2011 8:04 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\nSure, but you seem to be saying that it IS what happened too. If \nyou’re not, what’s the point in your fix? What exactly is the status \nof this “other narrative” you mention, and what are Severian’s powers \nlike in it?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yes, it IS what happened \"too.\" The first read/surface story is that \nDorcas was never dead and Severian has no powers (but may have the role \nof a fairy-tale hero to whom lucky things like this happen). The second \nread/understory is that Dorcas was dead and Severian raised her." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The first read is that a mystery woman appears at the lake. The second read is that Severian raised her. Neither read involves an enchantment. There is no read that she was enchanted and never dead: there is a vague resonance with the story of Sleeping Beauty, and the idea that she was enchanted and never dead comes from taking that seriously. That idea interferes destructively with character and narrative, and so it fails to exist in the story. To put it another way, it didn’t happen, any more than Talos stabbed Baldanders in the back when he was about to kill Severian. Just because I thought of that last thing doesn’t mean it’s really there." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As has been said a million times, BNS draws from and subverts dozens of \ngenres and narrative modes. Identifying those is part of the analysis. \nTo some degree they cloak (as in \"hide\" but also \"dress up\") the \nunderstory. But they also tell us what's being subverted and thus a clue \nas to why. It's not a question of \"if Dorcas is Sleeping Beauty, then \nwho's the witch\"? There is no poisoned apple. But if there is a witch, \nit's Severian." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The story of Sleeping Beauty involves witches and poisoned apples now? It only remains for Lee to propose that Father Inire is all of the Seven Dwarfs. But anyway, that error is not important, but it points to the real error: you neither know nor care whether you are talking about Sleeping Beauty or Snow White, because you are just riffing on stuff in your head which has completely lost contact with the text.\n\nTo say Dorcas reminds you of Sleeping Beauty is one thing. But you have to recognise that the correspondences that would justify a real connection simply aren’t there. And so “they also tell us what's being subverted and thus a clue as to why” is meaningless. Because only things with real connections tell us that." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But he is still a \"lucky Fool\" to whom things happen---otherwise, how to \nswallow the coincidence that his first Lazarus is his hot grandmother?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually, his first Lazarus was a bit of a dog.\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EED55BC.4040200@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-18T02:53:48+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<8101814B5E9B4CB18A26CADF6D32487E@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/17/2011 9:15 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n*From:* David Stockhoff \nOn 12/17/2011 8:04 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Sure, but you seem to be saying that it IS what happened too. If\nyou’re not, what’s the point in your fix? What exactly is the status\nof this “other narrative” you mention, and what are Severian’s powers\nlike in it?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Yes, it IS what happened \"too.\" The first read/surface story is that\nDorcas was never dead and Severian has no powers (but may have the role\nof a fairy-tale hero to whom lucky things like this happen). The second\nread/understory is that Dorcas was dead and Severian raised her." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The first read is that a mystery woman appears at the lake. The second \nread is that Severian raised her. Neither read involves an \nenchantment. There is no read that she was enchanted and never dead: \nthere is a vague resonance with the story of Sleeping Beauty, and the \nidea that she was enchanted and never dead comes from taking that \nseriously. That idea interferes destructively with character and \nnarrative, and so it fails to exist in the story. To put it another \nway, it didn’t happen, any more than Talos stabbed Baldanders in the \nback when he was about to kill Severian. Just because I thought of \nthat last thing doesn’t mean it’s really there." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Exactly! You're a fine student. Of course, we must be careful, since \nneither is really \"there\" at all." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "As has been said a million times, BNS draws from and subverts dozens of\ngenres and narrative modes. Identifying those is part of the analysis.\nTo some degree they cloak (as in \"hide\" but also \"dress up\") the\nunderstory. But they also tell us what's being subverted and thus a \nclue\nas to why. It's not a question of \"if Dorcas is Sleeping Beauty, then\nwho's the witch\"? There is no poisoned apple. But if there is a witch,\nit's Severian." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The story of Sleeping Beauty involves witches and poisoned apples now? \nIt only remains for Lee to propose that Father Inire is all of the \nSeven Dwarfs. But anyway, that error is not important, but it points \nto the real error: you neither know nor care whether you are talking \nabout Sleeping Beauty or Snow White, because you are just riffing on \nstuff in your head which has completely lost contact with the text." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You keep getting stuck on this, Gerry. There is no poisoned apple in \nBNS, therefore there is nothing to clearly reference either story. The \nwitch and the sleeping woman are the key parts. There is no 1:1 \nrelationship." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "To say Dorcas reminds you of Sleeping Beauty is one thing. But you \nhave to recognise that the correspondences that would justify a real \nconnection simply aren’t there. And so “they also tell us what's being \nsubverted and thus a clue as to why” is meaningless. Because only \nthings with real connections tell us that." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Gerry, do you perhaps write technical documentation for Windows users \nfor a day job? Because I think you've got the aptitude for it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But he is still a \"lucky Fool\" to whom things happen---otherwise, \nhow to\nswallow the coincidence that his first Lazarus is his hot grandmother?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Actually, his first Lazarus was a bit of a dog." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And therefore no Lazarus at all, since Lazarus was human, but have it \nyour way." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-18T15:51:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EED55BC.4040200@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: David Stockhoff " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/17/2011 9:15 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "But they also tell us what's being subverted and thus a clue\nas to why. It's not a question of \"if Dorcas is Sleeping Beauty, then\nwho's the witch\"? There is no poisoned apple. But if there is a witch,\nit's Severian." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The story of Sleeping Beauty involves witches and poisoned apples now? \nIt only remains for Lee to propose that Father Inire is all of the \nSeven Dwarfs. But anyway, that error is not important, but it points \nto the real error: you neither know nor care whether you are talking \nabout Sleeping Beauty or Snow White, because you are just riffing on \nstuff in your head which has completely lost contact with the text." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You keep getting stuck on this, Gerry. There is no poisoned apple in \nBNS, therefore there is nothing to clearly reference either story. The \nwitch and the sleeping woman are the key parts. There is no 1:1 \nrelationship." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You are flailing desperately, in my opinion. Severian was certainly not responsible for Dorcas’s death, so placing him as the witch (or wicked fairy, in the canonical version of Sleeping Beauty) is absurd. If you want to change every aspect of the story, and even what story it is, what is the point of your argument? When you say “there is no 1:1\" relationship”, then, given the sort of relationships you are apparently willing to propose, you are tacitly admitting that there is no relationship at all. Because admitting the sort of relationships you are proposing now would imply that every book should be discussed as if it reconstituted the Library of Babel.\nThere is a vague resonance with Sleeping Beauty when a beautiful woman is resurrected. Just as there is a vague resemblance between Dr. Talos and a stuffed fox. Discussing the stuff that you are suggesting is meaningful — for example the “enchantment” you claimed Dorcas is under — is the equivalent of discussing the horsehair Talos is stuffed with, and what colour horse it came from. \n- Gerry Quinn\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEE104B.3070305@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-18T16:09:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/18/2011 10:51 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n*From:* David Stockhoff \nOn 12/17/2011 9:15 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "But they also tell us what's being subverted and thus a clue\nas to why. It's not a question of \"if Dorcas is Sleeping Beauty, \nthen\nwho's the witch\"? There is no poisoned apple. But if there is a \nwitch,\nit's Severian." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "The story of Sleeping Beauty involves witches and poisoned apples \nnow?\nIt only remains for Lee to propose that Father Inire is all of the\nSeven Dwarfs. But anyway, that error is not important, but it points\nto the real error: you neither know nor care whether you are talking\nabout Sleeping Beauty or Snow White, because you are just riffing on\nstuff in your head which has completely lost contact with the text." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "You keep getting stuck on this, Gerry. There is no poisoned apple in\nBNS, therefore there is nothing to clearly reference either story. The\nwitch and the sleeping woman are the key parts. There is no 1:1\nrelationship." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You are flailing desperately, in my opinion." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Says the little man behind the curtain." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Severian was certainly not responsible for Dorcas’s death, so placing \nhim as the witch (or wicked fairy, in the canonical version of \nSleeping Beauty) is absurd." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Christ, Gerry. He raised her from the dead. No one said he was wicked." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If you want to change every aspect of the story, and even what story \nit is, what is the point of your argument? When you say “there is no \n1:1\" relationship”, then, given the sort of relationships you are \napparently willing to propose, you are tacitly admitting that there is \nno relationship at all. Because admitting the sort of relationships \nyou are proposing now would imply that every book should be discussed \nas if it reconstituted the Library of Babel." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Please be specific, or no one will know what you mean." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "There is a vague resonance with Sleeping Beauty when a beautiful woman \nis resurrected. Just as there is a vague resemblance between Dr. Talos \nand a stuffed fox. Discussing the stuff that you are suggesting is \nmeaningful — for example the “enchantment” you claimed Dorcas is under \n? is the equivalent of discussing the horsehair Talos is stuffed with, \nand what colour horse it came from." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Have you ever considered introducing the concept of figurative language \nto your programming? You are a marvel of AI engineering, but your \ninsistence on tackling literature that your analytical routines can't \nhandle betrays you. Or are you just trying to become human, like Data on \nStar Trek?" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-18T16:32:50+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EEE104B.3070305@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn: It only remains for Lee to propose that Father Inire is all of " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "the Seven Dwarfs." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nHeh. Tired of arguing with David and hoping to draw me in? Sorry, not interested." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In Wolfe, those who play roles tend to become what they play." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nA good admonition. Consider taking it. :- ) \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEE1B25.7000302@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-18T16:56:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/18/2011 11:32 AM, Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry Quinn:\n\n\n\nIn Wolfe, those who play roles tend to become what they play." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "A good admonition. Consider taking it. :- ) \t\t \t \t\t" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Are you thinking of The Billy Goats Gruff, like I am?" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-18T20:04:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EEE104B.3070305@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: David Stockhoff " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 12/18/2011 10:51 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\nSeverian was certainly not responsible for Dorcas’s death, so placing \nhim as the witch (or wicked fairy, in the canonical version of \nSleeping Beauty) is absurd." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Christ, Gerry. He raised her from the dead. No one said he was wicked." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Then trying to make a correspondence between him and the witch in the story (either story) is ridiculous." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "If you want to change every aspect of the story, and even what story \nit is, what is the point of your argument? When you say “there is no \n1:1\" relationship”, then, given the sort of relationships you are \napparently willing to propose, you are tacitly admitting that there is \nno relationship at all. Because admitting the sort of relationships \nyou are proposing now would imply that every book should be discussed \nas if it reconstituted the Library of Babel." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Please be specific, or no one will know what you mean." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It is you who are failing to be specific. You don’t even know what fairy tale you’re talking about." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "There is a vague resonance with Sleeping Beauty when a beautiful woman \nis resurrected. Just as there is a vague resemblance between Dr. Talos \nand a stuffed fox. Discussing the stuff that you are suggesting is \nmeaningful — for example the “enchantment” you claimed Dorcas is under \n? is the equivalent of discussing the horsehair Talos is stuffed with, \nand what colour horse it came from." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Have you ever considered introducing the concept of figurative language \nto your programming? You are a marvel of AI engineering, but your \ninsistence on tackling literature that your analytical routines can't \nhandle betrays you. Or are you just trying to become human, like Data on \nStar Trek?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There’s a difference between figurative language and un-thought-out nonsense. I’m sorry if it discomfits you that I can distinguish between them.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEE5EFC.2020001@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-18T21:45:32+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/18/2011 3:04 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n*From:* David Stockhoff \nOn 12/18/2011 10:51 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Severian was certainly not responsible for Dorcas’s death, so placing\nhim as the witch (or wicked fairy, in the canonical version of\nSleeping Beauty) is absurd." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Christ, Gerry. He raised her from the dead. No one said he was wicked." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Then trying to make a correspondence between him and the witch in the \nstory (either story) is ridiculous." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ah, I see. You did not know witches come in both black and white." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "If you want to change every aspect of the story, and even what story\nit is, what is the point of your argument? When you say “there is no\n1:1\" relationship”, then, given the sort of relationships you are\napparently willing to propose, you are tacitly admitting that \nthere is\nno relationship at all. Because admitting the sort of relationships\nyou are proposing now would imply that every book should be discussed\nas if it reconstituted the Library of Babel." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Please be specific, or no one will know what you mean." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It is you who are failing to be specific. You don’t even know what \nfairy tale you’re talking about." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I was never talking about \"a\" fairy tale. Nor was Wolfe. Why are you?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "There is a vague resonance with Sleeping Beauty when a beautiful \nwoman\nis resurrected. Just as there is a vague resemblance between Dr. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Talos\nand a stuffed fox. Discussing the stuff that you are suggesting is\nmeaningful — for example the “enchantment” you claimed Dorcas is \nunder\n? is the equivalent of discussing the horsehair Talos is stuffed \nwith,\nand what colour horse it came from." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Have you ever considered introducing the concept of figurative language\nto your programming? You are a marvel of AI engineering, but your\ninsistence on tackling literature that your analytical routines can't\nhandle betrays you. Or are you just trying to become human, like \nData on\nStar Trek?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "There’s a difference between figurative language and un-thought-out \nnonsense. I’m sorry if it discomfits you that I can distinguish \nbetween them." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Literature must all look like nonsense to you, no matter how well \n\"thought out.\" No, it saddens me that you are unable to understand the \nbooks you spend so much time trying to reduce to codes and formulas. But \nit saddens me more that you are bent on preventing others from having a \nconversation unbound by those codes and formulas.\n\nI'm going to let you have the last word here, because clearly your \nprogramming insists on it. I was a fool to hope you might have any \nhigher goal than that. From now on, all your posts will be deleted from \nmy mailbox before I see them." } ] }, { "message_id": "<479CCB8D04174E449696347D24B6308F@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-18T22:31:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<4EEE5EFC.2020001@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: David Stockhoff " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/18/2011 3:04 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n*From:* David Stockhoff \nOn 12/18/2011 10:51 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Severian was certainly not responsible for Dorcas’s death, so placing\nhim as the witch (or wicked fairy, in the canonical version of\nSleeping Beauty) is absurd." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Christ, Gerry. He raised her from the dead. No one said he was wicked." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Then trying to make a correspondence between him and the witch in the \nstory (either story) is ridiculous." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ah, I see. You did not know witches come in both black and white." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Neither Sleeping Beauty nor Snow White was raised by a witch (at best, a good fairy ameliorated the spell on Sleeping Beauty). And white witches don’t wear fuligin. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "There’s a difference between figurative language and un-thought-out \nnonsense. I’m sorry if it discomfits you that I can distinguish \nbetween them." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Literature must all look like nonsense to you, no matter how well \n\"thought out.\" No, it saddens me that you are unable to understand the \nbooks you spend so much time trying to reduce to codes and formulas. But \nit saddens me more that you are bent on preventing others from having a \nconversation unbound by those codes and formulas." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Literature doesn’t look like nonsense to me. This argument of yours, however, is plainly nonsense. Requiring that an argument make sense is not an excessive demand, even if you find it restrictive." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From now on, all your posts will be deleted from \nmy mailbox before I see them." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " If you actually cared whether your arguments made sense, you would read challenges to them even if you chose not to respond. I guess that pretty much shows us what your concept of literary analysis amounts to in the end.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-19T00:36:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "<479CCB8D04174E449696347D24B6308F@Rover>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Stockhoff: Are you thinking of The Billy Goats Gruff, like I am?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nHeh! Clever segue from the fairy tale theme David.\n\n \n\nAmusingly, when I first started hearing the term \"troll\" on internet, in addition\n\nto the fairy tale reference, I thought of the fishing meaning of the word, as\n\nin \"trolling for an argument\". FWIW, your prediciton of the overwhelming need to\n\nhave the \"last word\" did prove correct. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "David Duffy", "address": "david.duffy at qimr.edu.au" }, "date": "2011-12-19T00:46:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Suzanne Delage again, kind of", "in_reply_to": "<479CCB8D04174E449696347D24B6308F@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Adam Robert's _Land of the Headless_ (2007) has his protagonist fall \nheavily for _Siuzan Delage_. Some have thought it a nod to Proust, but \nthe plot I think is more a riff on Wolfe (among other things).\n\nCheers, David Duffy." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-19T01:21:39+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Lee Berman " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Amusingly, when I first started hearing the term \"troll\" on internet, in addition\nto the fairy tale reference, I thought of the fishing meaning of the word, as\nin \"trolling for an argument\". " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That *is* the actual meaning of the word; the reference to fairy-tale trolls is a back formation." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "FWIW, your prediciton of the overwhelming need to\nhave the \"last word\" did prove correct. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In his own mind, David has had the last word, even if it looks to the rest of us like “la-la-la, I can’t hear you”. But someone has to, anyway. Accusing someone else of having to have the last word is a cheap way to avoid conceding that one has been posting utter nonsense.\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEEB96D.60600@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-19T04:11:25+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/18/2011 7:36 PM, Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "David Stockhoff: Are you thinking of The Billy Goats Gruff, like I am?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Heh! Clever segue from the fairy tale theme David.\n\n\n\nAmusingly, when I first started hearing the term \"troll\" on internet, in addition\n\nto the fairy tale reference, I thought of the fishing meaning of the word, as\n\nin \"trolling for an argument\". FWIW, your prediciton of the overwhelming need to\n\nhave the \"last word\" did prove correct. \t\t \t \t\t" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That is actually where the term for \"asshole on the Internet\" comes \nfrom, and it fits when people are paid to disrupt online conversations.\n\nBut when I encounter the incorrigibly antisocial types, I always think \nof the old Norse word for \"demon,\" whence comes the name for the \nfamiliar denizen of under-bridges. Brutal, aggressive, bone-stupid ... \nit just fits." } ] }, { "message_id": "<2C05608CA4454E0486837C942C51E3B5@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-19T13:47:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Suzanne Delage again, kind of", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: David Duffy " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Adam Robert's _Land of the Headless_ (2007) has his protagonist fall \nheavily for _Siuzan Delage_. Some have thought it a nod to Proust, but \nthe plot I think is more a riff on Wolfe (among other things)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Roberts has reviewed Wolfe extensively — I think it’s a safe bet that he *knows* Wolfe’s _Suzanne Delage_, and that that will have informed his work. Whether it’s likely to be a homage, exactly, I’m not so sure. Roberts? review of _An Evil Guest_ is scathing about Wolfe’s portrayal of women, although some of Robert’s “Wolfe is rubbish at portraying women” may be entangled with “I don’t like Wolfe’s politics on the subject of women”. \nThat said, I don’t think it is likely to be any sort of direct assault either, simply because a character who appears offstage in a short story isn’t much of a jumping ground for any kind of assault. I wouldn’t be surprised, though, if there is some implication that the idealisation of women is a form of oppression. Pure speculation, though, as I haven’t read it.\n[I’ve read _On_ and _Salt_ by Roberts. _On_ was okay but a bit too consciously postmodern and clever. I liked _Salt_ a lot, though.]\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "David Duffy", "address": "david.duffy at qimr.edu.au" }, "date": "2011-12-19T22:29:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Suzanne Delage again, kind of", "in_reply_to": "<2C05608CA4454E0486837C942C51E3B5@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, 19 Dec 2011, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n\n\nFrom: David Duffy" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Adam Robert's _Land of the Headless_ (2007) has his protagonist fall\nheavily for _Siuzan Delage_. Some have thought it a nod to Proust, but\nthe plot I think is more a riff on Wolfe (among other things)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Roberts has reviewed Wolfe extensively. I think it's a safe bet that \nhe *knows* Wolfe's _Suzanne Delage_\n...\n That said, I don't think it is \nlikely to be any sort of direct assault either, simply because a \ncharacter who appears offstage in a short story isn't much of a jumping \nground for any kind of assault. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if \nthere is some implication that the idealisation of women is a form of \noppression. Pure speculation, though, as I haven't read it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No. The protagonist is an apparently sincere follower of a future \nsyncretic monotheistic (\"Biblqur'an\") religion in a Islamic style culture \nwith some segregation of the sexes. Suizan is a \"zealot\" who assists \nreleased criminals, and spends time unchaperoned with such low-life as the \nnarrator." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "[I've read _On_ and _Salt_ by Roberts. _On_ was okay but a bit too \nconsciously postmodern and clever. I liked _Salt_ a lot, though.] - \nGerry Quinn" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I have bounced off a couple of his books, but generally enjoy his writing \n(his blog has some snot-producingly funny reviews eg from his push to read \nthe _Wheel of Time_ straight through).\n\nCheers, David Duffy." } ] } ] }