{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/65",
    "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": 65,
    "subject": "sugar cookie",
    "messages": 1,
    "voices": 1,
    "first": "1997-06-21T17:45:44+00:00",
    "last": "1997-06-21T17:45:44+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0002-0107@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Joel Priddy",
        "address": "jpriddy at saturn.vcu.edu"
      },
      "date": "1997-06-21T17:45:44+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) sugar cookie",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "mantis:"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "Well obviously I'm at a loss if you decline to answer my\nspecific"
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "questions (about men and women) regarding your generalizations\n(about women).  So we'll just drop it.<<\n\n  I didn't respond to the specific list of women for two reasons:\n(1) I wanted to try and make myself clear on the general\nstatement. I think on a case-by-case basis there are going to be\nlots of cross-overs and exceptions, and I wanted to make the\nbroad strokes before differentiating the little ones; and (2) I'm\nadmittedly shakey on the details. I know that without details I'm\nmaking a weak argument, and I further admit to basically just\nthinking out loud on the two previous points.\n  My percepetion in this matter was the one tiny little grain\nthat sometimes colored my otherwise enormous enjoyment of Wolfe,\nand I wanted to know if it was all in my head or if others had\nthe same impression.\n Since some other people do seem to have at least some sympathy\nwith this idea, maybe we should get down to brass tacks, and\nstart discussing individual characters. See if it holds up."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "Re: Blackness. I'm not going to say anymore than point out that\nyour assertion \"he [Wolfe] never seems to mention ethnicity\nunless a"
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "character is `Black'\" conflicts with my tracking of \"Celtic\"\nethnicity within Wolfe's work.  Same books, different readers:\nThe End.<<\n\n  I readily concede the point.\n\n\nPeter Cash:"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "Well, Joel has _me_ convinced of Wolfe's misogyny. <<"
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": " \nI don't really think Wolfe is a misogynist, but, as I said, very\nmasculine in the worldview presented by a lot of his\nprotagonists. See Nutria's statements below...\n\nNutria:"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "One of the interesting things about Wolfe's fiction is"
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "that he takes the differences between men and women seriously.\nHis characters are often less than universal (unlike most of\nliterature), but rather are masculine or feminine. I suspect this\narises from his religious beliefs. It makes his fiction rather\nstartling in places. Severian becomes a more universal figure\nonly by incorporating a resurrected Thecla into himself.<<\n\nA statement that I wish I'd been articulate enough to say myself."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "One of my questions for Wolfe in my interview with him"
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "(and I don't think this went into the final version) was that I\ncould see that women could charge him with being anti-woman. I\nprovided illustrations: There seem to be a lot of bad women in\nhis books. He objected to this, and declared that he did not\nintend to distribute badness unevenly. <<\n\nI don't think that Wolfe spreads the badness unevenly,\nbut he just seems to have a little less variety in the way he\nspreads it when it comes to women.\n\n\nNow, to continue my series of controversal pronouncements on Gene\nWolfe patterns: Have you noticed the reoccurence of sugar cookies\nwith \"big raisins\" in the middle? I can immediately think of\n_Peace_ and _Free_Live_Free_, and at least one short story (was\nit \"the Man in the Pepper Mill?\") where these similarily\ndescribed cookies appeared. Are the big raisins Really big\nraisins, or are they dates? Do the big-raisin-sugar-cookies make\nmore appearances the \"big, greasy donuts\" that also crop up in\nPeace after Free Live Free? What could it all mean?\n\n-cephalothorax-"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}