{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/829", "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": 829, "subject": "Wolfe's politics; BOOK and URTH", "messages": 2, "voices": 2, "first": "1998-06-18T15:40:31+00:00", "last": "1998-06-18T17:00:47+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "adam louis stephanides", "address": "astephan at students.uiuc.edu" }, "date": "1998-06-18T15:40:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe's politics; BOOK and URTH", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: Dan Parmenter \nSubject: Wolfe's politics\n\nIt's hard for me to imagine Wolfe as entirely \"anti-PC\"; after all, I\nthink that 5HC is essentially a critique of colonialism." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Wolfe attacking PC doesn't surprise me at all, given his frequent populist\nand anti-academic remarks.\n\n(Which rouse a certain irritation in me, I confess. Despite\nhis sneers at academic critics, it's Wolfe, even more than James Joyce who\ncoined the phrase, who requires \"an ideal reader suffering from an ideal\ninsomnia,\" as this list demonstrates.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: CRCulver at aol.com\nSubject: Re: (urth) New Sun miscellany\n\n[Me]: \n<5) My final question is one that probably only Wolfe can answer, though\nthe answer may be in some interview. We know that _Urth of the New Sun_\nwas not part of Wolfe's original intention, but was written as a\ncompromise with his editor. And _Urth_ makes explicit a number of matters\nhighly relevant to BotNS, but which are much more obscure there, and would\noften probably have gone unsuspected without _Urth_. My question is\ntwofold: In doing the final revisions of BotNS, did Wolfe have the\neventual existence of _Urth_ in mind? In other words, would these matters\nthat are made explicit in _Urth_ have been equally explicit in BotNS, had\nWolfe gained his first preference and not written _Urth_? " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Okay, this one I should have known. In CoD p. 417 (the same passage which\ntold me Wolfe had not originally planned to write _Urth_), Wolfe describes\nhis compromise with David Hartwell as follows: \"David would publish _The\nCitadel of the Autarch_ *exactly as I had written it*, provided that I\nwould write another book in which Severian recounted his trip to the\nuniverse next door.\" [emphasis added] In other words, Wolfe's own plan\nhad been to publish the four volumes of BotNS, as we have them, and\nnothing else (setting aside BotLS, BotSS, and the various Urth-related\nshort stories).\n\nWhat this means is that either such major plot elements as Severian's\n\"trial\" being no trial, his predecessor's trial being a put-up job, and\nSeverian himself being the Conciliator were not part of Wolfe's original\nscheme, or he intended them to remain entirely unguessed-at. As someone\nwho would like to believe that the mysteries of Wolfe's fiction must\neventually yield to careful reading, I find this a dispiriting reflection." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "[Me]: And to what\nextent can we assume that Wolfe's vision of the New Sun universe is the\nsame in _Urth_ as it was in BotNS?>\n\n[Christopher R. Culver]:\nIt is certain there are some things in the BotNS that would make no sense and\nhave no observable purpose if Wolfe didn't already have some elements of UotNS\nplanned. The first thing that springs to mind is the winged Tzadkiel in the\nAutarch's book." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nTo be sure, Wolfe must have had much of what is in _Urth_ plotted out as\nbackground when he wrote BotNS (this doesn't mean, as I say above, that he\nintended to let us in on it). But can we assume that he didn't change his\nmind about any of it between completing BotNS and writing _Urth_?\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "straight at email.unc.edu" }, "date": "1998-06-18T17:00:47+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Wolfe's politics; BOOK and URTH", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, adam louis stephanides wrote:\nWolfe attacking PC doesn't surprise me at all, given his frequent populist\nand anti-academic remarks.\n\n(Which rouse a certain irritation in me, I confess. Despite\nhis sneers at academic critics, it's Wolfe, even more than James Joyce who\ncoined the phrase, who requires \"an ideal reader suffering from an ideal\ninsomnia,\" as this list demonstrates.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The difference being that Wolfe seems to have great affection for popular,\nless demanding science-fiction and its readers, both of which get sneers\nfrom academic critics. He's just sneering at the sneerers. \n\n(Which sounds a bit like the critique of \"PC\" folks that they're\nintolerant of the intolerant...) \n\nAnyway, I don't think it's elitist to write very demanding fiction if you\ndon't pretend that people who enjoy it are better than people who don't.\n\n-Rostrum" } ] } ] }