{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/6754", "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": 6754, "subject": "Wolfe vs Trollope", "messages": 4, "voices": 3, "first": "2015-04-29T16:32:21+00:00", "last": "2015-04-29T23:28:47+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andrew Bollen", "address": "jurisper at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-29T16:32:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe vs Trollope", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Last week saw the 200th anniversary of the birth of Anthony Trollope,\nprobably not a big anniversary for most Wolfe readers, given that on most\nmeasures the two are about as different as novelists can be.\n\nIt wouldn't surprise me much to learn that I am the only read-everything\nfan of one who is also a read-everything fan of the other. But from this\nperspective I've come to the conclusion that Wolfe would be a better writer\nif he were sometimes more like Trollope.\n\nTrollope is pretty much an anti-Wolfe. Plots are entirely secondary to\ncharacter. Most of his characters are intentionally unremarkable, drawn\nfrom a narrow spectrum of upper-middle-class to upper-class mid-Victorian\nEnglish life. Their stories are about money, wills, marriage and honor,\naffecting nobody outside a narrow circle. His characters are not required\nto save or destroy any universes beyond their own domesticity. He is a\nmaster of the dull and uneventful setting, as a background against which\nthe small events driving his characters and their small reactions stand\nout.\n\nTrollope writes as his own reliable & omniscient narrator with full insight\ninto his characters' thoughts, emotions & motivations, which he shares with\nthe reader in detail. The reader is his customer and Trollope thinks it's\nkind of dishonest to hold back anything he knows about the character or the\nplot, after the reader has paid for the book. Sometimes he will make an\nattempt to start a story in media res without first describing his\ncharacters, their family situations, their incomes and an outline of what\nis going to happen to them in the rest of the book - but after a while\nhe'll confess that he finds this too difficult and perhaps a bit of a\ntrick, and will then revert to a totally linear narrative style, assuring\nthe reader that nothing much unexpected will happen from now on. The\nconcept of \"spoiler\" doesn't really apply to a Trollope novel.\n\nWhat makes all this work is Trollope's extraordinary ability with\ncharacter. He's like a puppeteer who shows his audience how he has put his\npuppets together, how he makes them move, where the wires go - and then\nmagically brings them to life, all in full view. The characters are just\n\"ordinary\" people confronting \"ordinary\" situations, but as mirrors and\nillustrators of human nature they have no equal in anything else I've read,\nwhen Trollope is writing at his best.\n\nIn this respect he makes Dickens seem very shallow - there's always a\nDickens-surrogate on a pedestal with a bunch of grotesques capering around\nit. In Trollope, there's (usually) no Trollope-surrogate, no grotesques,\njust people. And versus Wolfe, Trollope would seldom hobble a character's\nliving individuality by making him or her an exemplar of some idea or\nphilosophy, which I think Wolfe does, too often.\n\nPerhaps one explanation of Trollope is that he really loves his (best\nwritten) characters, just as they are, in a very selfless way, and so in a\nfashion he partakes a little of some modest essence of divinity with\nrespect to his modest worlds.\n\nMy paradigmatic Trollope is one of his lesser-read works, \"Miss Mackenzie\".\nShe's a dowdy mid-30's spinster who has spent most of her life looking\nafter an invalid brother - no social life, one brief tiny flicker of\nromance years before, thought of by the few people who know her as an old\nmaid worthy of little notice or respect. The brother dies; she inherits a\nmodest fortune. Determined to see some life while still possessing a\nfragment of youth, she moves to a fictional version of Bath (made smaller\nand duller than the real Victorian Bath). She navigates the rocks and\nshoals of which church group to join, grasping relatives and proposals from\nneedy bachelors attracted by her modest charms and bank balance. Eventually\nit's discovered that she wasn't actually entitled to the inheritance, and\n destitution looms. But it all works out OK because the actual inheritor is\none of the needy bachelors whom she has in fact come to love, in a modest\nkind of way, despite the contempt of his family and his own rather dull &\nlimited character and circumstances. So they marry.\n\nI'm sure this will sound entirely unpromising to most readers of Wolfe but\nin Trollope's hands this dowdy spinster is more real and as heroic as any\nfigure of fantasy struggling to pursue an ethical course through a world of\ndemons and angels - while remaining a dowdy spinster living in a world if\nanything duller than reality. Quite remarkable.\n\nAnyway, tying back to Wolfe: I think one overlap between Trollope and\nWolfe, besides both being male English-language novelists and my liking,\n is that both at the end of the day are very (or perhaps mainly) concerned\nwith personal ethics. Wolfe approaches this from an \"idea\" perspective and\nwithin a genre which tends to demand a lot of action and sensation. Versus\nTrollope's \"character\" perspective and down-playing of action and sensation\nto allow smaller, more real effects to manifest themselves.\n\nIn my view, Wolfe has a notable ability to do character well, quite often,\ndespite what seems sometimes to be an overload of formalism, demands on\nreaders to think the story for themselves for & gaudy genre trappings. I\ncould wish that he had tried his hand at a more character-driven approach -\nwhich IMO is what makes for the greatest literature.\n\n(As a side note, I get the impression that Wolfe has probably read little\nif any Trollope. As far I can recall, he mentions Trollope just once, in\nPEACE: Eleanor Bold says that Mr Macafee sometimes comes to their house for\ndinner and discusses Dickens and Trollope with her father.)" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1898068097.631635.1430327456894.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "DAVID STOCKHOFF", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2015-04-29T17:10:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe vs Trollope", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thanks for the superb descriptions. Trollope is one of those many Victorian authors you think will bore you to death until you read him, and then he winds up sticking around. I should read more of him myself.\nA.S. Byatt's Frederica Potter novels are similar, but far more grim. \n\n\n On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 12:32 PM, Andrew Bollen wrote:\n \n \n\n Last week saw the 200th anniversary of the birth of Anthony Trollope, probably not a big anniversary for most Wolfe readers, given that on most measures the two are about as different as novelists can be.\nIt wouldn't surprise me much to learn that I am the only read-everything fan of one who is also a read-everything fan of the other. But from this perspective I've come to the conclusion that Wolfe would be a better writer if he were sometimes more like Trollope.\nTrollope is pretty much an anti-Wolfe. Plots are entirely secondary to character. Most of his characters are intentionally unremarkable, drawn from a narrow spectrum of upper-middle-class to upper-class mid-Victorian English life. Their stories are about money, wills, marriage and honor, affecting nobody outside a narrow circle. His characters are not required to save or destroy any universes beyond their own domesticity. He is a master of the dull and uneventful setting, as a background against which the small events driving his characters and their small reactions stand out.\nTrollope writes as his own reliable & omniscient narrator with full insight into his characters' thoughts, emotions & motivations, which he shares with the reader in detail. The reader is his customer and Trollope thinks it's kind of dishonest to hold back anything he knows about the character or the plot, after the reader has paid for the book. Sometimes he will make an attempt to start a story in media res without first describing his characters, their family situations, their incomes and an outline of what is going to happen to them in the rest of the book - but after a while he'll confess that he finds this too difficult and perhaps a bit of a trick, and will then revert to a totally linear narrative style, assuring the reader that nothing much unexpected will happen from now on. The concept of \"spoiler\" doesn't really apply to a Trollope novel.\nWhat makes all this work is Trollope's extraordinary ability with character. He's like a puppeteer who shows his audience how he has put his puppets together, how he makes them move, where the wires go - and then magically brings them to life, all in full view. The characters are just \"ordinary\" people confronting \"ordinary\" situations, but as mirrors and illustrators of human nature they have no equal in anything else I've read, when Trollope is writing at his best.\nIn this respect he makes Dickens seem very shallow - there's always a Dickens-surrogate on a pedestal with a bunch of grotesques capering around it. In Trollope, there's (usually) no Trollope-surrogate, no grotesques, just people. And versus Wolfe, Trollope would seldom hobble a character's living individuality by making him or her an exemplar of some idea or philosophy, which I think Wolfe does, too often.\nPerhaps one explanation of Trollope is that he really loves his (best written) characters, just as they are, in a very selfless way, and so in a fashion he partakes a little of some modest essence of divinity with respect to his modest worlds.\nMy paradigmatic Trollope is one of his lesser-read works, \"Miss Mackenzie\". She's a dowdy mid-30's spinster who has spent most of her life looking after an invalid brother - no social life, one brief tiny flicker of romance years before, thought of by the few people who know her as an old maid worthy of little notice or respect. The brother dies; she inherits a modest fortune. Determined to see some life while still possessing a fragment of youth, she moves to a fictional version of Bath (made smaller and duller than the real Victorian Bath). She navigates the rocks and shoals of which church group to join, grasping relatives and proposals from needy bachelors attracted by her modest charms and bank balance. Eventually it's discovered that she wasn't actually entitled to the inheritance, and ?destitution looms. But it all works out OK because the actual inheritor is one of the needy bachelors whom she has in fact come to love, in a modest kind of way, despite the contempt of his family and his own rather dull & limited character and circumstances. So they marry.\nI'm sure this will sound entirely unpromising to most readers of Wolfe but in Trollope's hands this dowdy spinster is more real and as heroic as any figure of fantasy struggling to pursue an ethical course through a world of demons and angels - while remaining a dowdy spinster living in a world if anything duller than reality. Quite remarkable.\nAnyway, tying back to Wolfe: I think one overlap between Trollope and Wolfe, besides both being male English-language novelists and my liking, ?is that both at the end of the day are very (or perhaps mainly) concerned with personal ethics. Wolfe approaches this from an \"idea\" perspective and within a genre which tends to demand a lot of action and sensation. Versus Trollope's \"character\" perspective and down-playing of action and sensation to allow smaller, more real effects to manifest themselves.\nIn my view, Wolfe has a notable ability to do character well, quite often, despite what seems sometimes to be an overload of formalism, demands on readers to think the story for themselves for & gaudy genre trappings. I could wish that he had tried his hand at a more character-driven approach - which IMO is what makes for the greatest literature.\n(As a side note, I get the impression that Wolfe has probably read little if any Trollope. As far I can recall, he mentions Trollope just once, in PEACE: Eleanor Bold says that Mr Macafee sometimes comes to their house for dinner and discusses Dickens and Trollope with her father.)" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-29T18:53:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe vs Trollope", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, he named Eleanor Bold from the Barchester books, no?\n\nI think some of Wolfe's shorts are very much low mimesis near future SF and\ncharacter driven in the basic manner of Trollope with extra eccentricity\nand more prostitution ... but these are his least memorable in terms of\nanything actually happening (Going to the Beach, It's Very Clean, Sweet\nForest Maid, Beautyland, or Sonya, Crane Wessleman, and Kitty kind of\nspring to mind) - let's be honest, Wolfe often has more memorable high\nmimesis or mythic characters like Latro or Severian ... no one would\nprobably say Mr. Green is one of his better characters. I think Wolfe needs\nthe hint of grand, histrionic, or narcissistic characters to really show\nhis best dramatic force. Silk would be pretty flat at times without the\ndrama of a polar opposite love interest ..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Andrew Bollen wrote:\nLast week saw the 200th anniversary of the birth of Anthony Trollope,\nprobably not a big anniversary for most Wolfe readers, given that on most\nmeasures the two are about as different as novelists can be.\n\nIt wouldn't surprise me much to learn that I am the only read-everything\nfan of one who is also a read-everything fan of the other. But from this\nperspective I've come to the conclusion that Wolfe would be a better writer\nif he were sometimes more like Trollope.\n\nTrollope is pretty much an anti-Wolfe. Plots are entirely secondary to\ncharacter. Most of his characters are intentionally unremarkable, drawn\nfrom a narrow spectrum of upper-middle-class to upper-class mid-Victorian\nEnglish life. Their stories are about money, wills, marriage and honor,\naffecting nobody outside a narrow circle. His characters are not required\nto save or destroy any universes beyond their own domesticity. He is a\nmaster of the dull and uneventful setting, as a background against which\nthe small events driving his characters and their small reactions stand\nout.\n\nTrollope writes as his own reliable & omniscient narrator with full\ninsight into his characters' thoughts, emotions & motivations, which he\nshares with the reader in detail. The reader is his customer and Trollope\nthinks it's kind of dishonest to hold back anything he knows about the\ncharacter or the plot, after the reader has paid for the book. Sometimes he\nwill make an attempt to start a story in media res without first describing\nhis characters, their family situations, their incomes and an outline of\nwhat is going to happen to them in the rest of the book - but after a while\nhe'll confess that he finds this too difficult and perhaps a bit of a\ntrick, and will then revert to a totally linear narrative style, assuring\nthe reader that nothing much unexpected will happen from now on. The\nconcept of \"spoiler\" doesn't really apply to a Trollope novel.\n\nWhat makes all this work is Trollope's extraordinary ability with\ncharacter. He's like a puppeteer who shows his audience how he has put his\npuppets together, how he makes them move, where the wires go - and then\nmagically brings them to life, all in full view. The characters are just\n\"ordinary\" people confronting \"ordinary\" situations, but as mirrors and\nillustrators of human nature they have no equal in anything else I've read,\nwhen Trollope is writing at his best.\n\nIn this respect he makes Dickens seem very shallow - there's always a\nDickens-surrogate on a pedestal with a bunch of grotesques capering around\nit. In Trollope, there's (usually) no Trollope-surrogate, no grotesques,\njust people. And versus Wolfe, Trollope would seldom hobble a character's\nliving individuality by making him or her an exemplar of some idea or\nphilosophy, which I think Wolfe does, too often.\n\nPerhaps one explanation of Trollope is that he really loves his (best\nwritten) characters, just as they are, in a very selfless way, and so in a\nfashion he partakes a little of some modest essence of divinity with\nrespect to his modest worlds.\n\nMy paradigmatic Trollope is one of his lesser-read works, \"Miss\nMackenzie\". She's a dowdy mid-30's spinster who has spent most of her life\nlooking after an invalid brother - no social life, one brief tiny flicker\nof romance years before, thought of by the few people who know her as an\nold maid worthy of little notice or respect. The brother dies; she inherits\na modest fortune. Determined to see some life while still possessing a\nfragment of youth, she moves to a fictional version of Bath (made smaller\nand duller than the real Victorian Bath). She navigates the rocks and\nshoals of which church group to join, grasping relatives and proposals from\nneedy bachelors attracted by her modest charms and bank balance. Eventually\nit's discovered that she wasn't actually entitled to the inheritance, and\n destitution looms. But it all works out OK because the actual inheritor is\none of the needy bachelors whom she has in fact come to love, in a modest\nkind of way, despite the contempt of his family and his own rather dull &\nlimited character and circumstances. So they marry.\n\nI'm sure this will sound entirely unpromising to most readers of Wolfe but\nin Trollope's hands this dowdy spinster is more real and as heroic as any\nfigure of fantasy struggling to pursue an ethical course through a world of\ndemons and angels - while remaining a dowdy spinster living in a world if\nanything duller than reality. Quite remarkable.\n\nAnyway, tying back to Wolfe: I think one overlap between Trollope and\nWolfe, besides both being male English-language novelists and my liking,\n is that both at the end of the day are very (or perhaps mainly) concerned\nwith personal ethics. Wolfe approaches this from an \"idea\" perspective and\nwithin a genre which tends to demand a lot of action and sensation. Versus\nTrollope's \"character\" perspective and down-playing of action and sensation\nto allow smaller, more real effects to manifest themselves.\n\nIn my view, Wolfe has a notable ability to do character well, quite often,\ndespite what seems sometimes to be an overload of formalism, demands on\nreaders to think the story for themselves for & gaudy genre trappings. I\ncould wish that he had tried his hand at a more character-driven approach -\nwhich IMO is what makes for the greatest literature.\n\n(As a side note, I get the impression that Wolfe has probably read little\nif any Trollope. As far I can recall, he mentions Trollope just once, in\nPEACE: Eleanor Bold says that Mr Macafee sometimes comes to their house for\ndinner and discusses Dickens and Trollope with her father.)\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andrew Bollen", "address": "jurisper at gmail.com" }, "date": "2015-04-29T23:28:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe vs Trollope", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Marc Aramini wrote:\nWell, he named Eleanor Bold from the Barchester books, no?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Doh!\n\nNow I'm going to spend far too much time wondering if there are any other\nTrollope references in PEACE that I've missed." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think some of Wolfe's shorts are very much low mimesis near future SF\nand character driven in the basic manner of Trollope with extra\neccentricity and more prostitution ... but these are his least memorable in\nterms of anything actually happening (Going to the Beach, It's Very Clean,\nSweet Forest Maid, Beautyland, or Sonya, Crane Wessleman, and Kitty kind of\nspring to mind)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've never really gotten into short stories, even Wolfe's - can't recall\nreading any of these." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "- let's be honest, Wolfe often has more memorable high mimesis or mythic\ncharacters like Latro or Severian ... no one would probably say Mr. Green\nis one of his better characters. I think Wolfe needs the hint of grand,\nhistrionic, or narcissistic characters to really show his best dramatic\nforce. Silk would be pretty flat at times without the drama of a polar\nopposite love interest .." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I suppose that's my point, more or less.\n\nOne of my favorite Wolfe characters is Horn in OBW - before he becomes\ntouched by any particular specialness. I think Wolfe can do this stuff. On\nthe other hand, the thought of Trollope trying to do Wolfe ..." } ] } ] }