{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/usenet/34", "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": "usenet", "thread": { "id": 34, "subject": "Gene Wolfe flames and reviews", "messages": 3, "voices": 3, "first": "1986-02-07T00:19:32+00:00", "last": "1986-02-14T11:11:09+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<1603@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>", "from": { "name": "T Cox", "address": "benn at sphinx.uchicago.uucp" }, "date": "1986-02-07T00:19:32+00:00", "subject": "Gene Wolfe flames and reviews", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "[]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": " I haven't read the books, and for all I know they are God's gift to\nmankind, but however good the books are the above is the definition of\nbullshit. The writer presents the following as facts (not opinions):" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " [biased paraphrases here]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I for one find this sort of garbage extremely offensive. Is anyone out\nthere interested in answering the original question instead of lecturing\nthe rest of us on our stupidity?\n\n -- David desJardins" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm another one of those people to whom Gene Wolf is like unto a god, but\nI have to agree with Mr. desJardins on some of his points. Others are a \nlittle less cut and dried.\n.\n.\n.\nAs to who's the best SF author ever, that remains to be seen, doesn't it?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMark!" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "First, may the Powers forgive me for all this included text. \nSecond, may the elementals of fire hear me, for I do their work.\n\nFlame on.\n\nYou total bozos. I really cannot understand such gross stupidity in \npeople who would otherwise strike me as bright: readers of SF/Fantasy\nstories. You amaze me.\n\tYou can swallow spiders on Mars. You can read the future\nhistory of the Earth a million hears hence without blinking. You can\nhandle the twisting and writhing of every physical law of the universe.\nAnd then, then you fall flat on your collective faces when someone uses\nstrong rhetoric. This is too much.\n\tThe original poster, whose article has long since vanished \nfrom my site, said things like \"there never has been, nor ever could\nbe, an author as gifted as this one.\" Do you think he was serious?\nOf course not! Great horned toads of Jupiter! This is called, now\nread slowly here, e x a g g e r a t i o n. Everyone catch that?\nHe was overstating the case for dramatic effect. Something any\nauthor can do through the mouth of a character without surprising\nany one of you. But let someone make a sweeping generalization\non the net, and everyone jumps down his throat. Stupid, stupid, stupid.\n\tNow we're going to have a little test here. I am going to\nwrite something that will be an exaggeration. I will do it for\ndramatic effect. Ready? Take your time. Don't get excited; it's\nonly exaggeration. It's just a rhetorical device. Now brace yourselves.\n\n\tNot one of you is worthy of posting to sf-lovers, you\n\tnarrow-minded, gullible GITS! How literal-minded and\n\tdense can a human being be?!? You are not worthy of \n\teven READING this newsgroup! I banish you all forth-\n\twith to the purgatory of net.philosophy, net.religion.\n\tchristian, net.women, and net.cooks! Begone!\n\nThere, that wasn't so bad, was it? A little warm, but hardly\nthreatening to the discriminating reader. \n\nFlame off. May the elementals of fire be appeased.\n\nPlease, fellow readers, next time someone uses strong language\nthe way the original poster did, to make an obviously silly \nsweeping generalization, remember that there are people in\nthe world who use that kind of phrasing all the time, in normal\nconversation. Just because you don't, that doesn't mean others\ncannot. And if it gets under your skin, that is not the other\nguy's fault. If the original poster had been a green-tentacled\nalien from, say, Planet 10, you'd not have reacted that way.\nShame on you all.\n\n\"oh, lighten up, Tom!\"\n\nSorry." } ] }, { "message_id": "<6892@duke.UUCP>", "from": { "name": "Charlie Martin", "address": "crm at duke.uucp" }, "date": "1986-02-10T04:02:58+00:00", "subject": "Re: Gene Wolfe flames and reviews", "in_reply_to": "<1603@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In article <1603 at sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> benn at sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (T Cox) writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And then, then you fall flat on your collective faces when someone uses\nstrong rhetoric. This is too much." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Grrrh! The \"strong retoric\" isn't really the problem: the problem is\nthe amazing, utter, complete and total lack of respect for the\nintellectual capacities of people who don't like Gene Wolfe, and the use\nof the time-worn, tried and true, ad hominem abusive fallacy. (If you\ndon't know what it is, for Ghod's sake look it up -- we're supposed to\nbe at least partailly educated people here.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Now we're going to have a little test here. I am going to\nwrite something that will be an exaggeration. I will do it for\ndramatic effect. Ready? Take your time. Don't get excited; it's\nonly exaggeration. It's just a rhetorical device. Now brace yourselves.\n\nNot one of you is worthy of posting to sf-lovers, you\nnarrow-minded, gullible GITS! How literal-minded and\ndense\n ... et cetera ..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And you, sirrah, are the diseased result of five hundred years of\ninbreeding followed by a supposed education in a hovel of higher\nlearning. In addition, I suspect it is true: you do have carnal\nintercourse with elder female relatives whose congress is not permitted\nyou by either custom or law.\n\nOh, not fair, you say? We shouldn't be personal, you say? And what\ndoes your mother have to do with it anyway? Why, don't get excited;\nit's only exaggeration. It's just a rhetorical device.\n\nAnd what's a Git?" } ] }, { "message_id": "<11860@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>", "from": { "name": "David desJardins", "address": "desj at brahms.berkeley.edu" }, "date": "1986-02-14T11:11:09+00:00", "subject": "Re: Gene Wolfe flames and reviews", "in_reply_to": "<1603@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In article <1603 at sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> benn at sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (T Cox)\nwrites [in reply to my reply to a reply to a query about the Book of the\nNew Sun, in which I criticized the one who replied for insulting those\nwho didn't consider it the best SF novel ever written (best I can do; if\nyou missed the original posting just give up...)]:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Flame on." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You total bozos. I really cannot understand such gross stupidity in \npeople who would otherwise strike me as bright: readers of SF/Fantasy\nstories. You amaze me.\nYou can swallow spiders on Mars. You can read the future\nhistory of the Earth a million hears hence without blinking. You can\nhandle the twisting and writhing of every physical law of the universe.\nAnd then, then you fall flat on your collective faces when someone uses\nstrong rhetoric. This is too much." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " We are talking about two different things here. One is suspension of\ndisbelief when reading fiction. All of us clearly accept this or we would\nnot read SF. But this has nothing to do with the case we are discussing.\nThe original poster noted that he had not particularly enjoyed the first\ntwo volumes of BONS, and asked what other people saw in it. The reply\nsaid nothing about what was good about the book, just that everyone should\nthink that it is the best SF ever written and insulted those who didn't\n(clearly including the original poster, since he had already stated that\nhe didn't particularly appreciate the book)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The original poster, whose article has long since vanished \nfrom my site, said things like \"there never has been, nor ever could\nbe, an author as gifted as this one.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The actual quote which you are paraphrasing was:\nIn article <3840005 at csd2.UUCP> krantz at csd2.UUCP (Michaelntz) writes:\n\"Gene Wolfe is, quite simply, the best novelist ever to write in the\nscience fiction genre. His prose, his ideas - all of it. The \nbest. Hands down.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " Do you think he was serious?\nOf course not! Great horned toads of Jupiter! This is called, now\nread slowly here, e x a g g e r a t i o n. Everyone catch that?\nHe was overstating the case for dramatic effect. Something any\nauthor can do through the mouth of a character without surprising\nany one of you. But let someone make a sweeping generalization\non the net, and everyone jumps down his throat. Stupid, stupid, stupid." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " Your paraphrase is clearly an exaggeration. The original quote is\nnot. It and the rest of the reply can all be taken as meaning exactly\nwhat they say: heaped praise on BONS and insults for those who do not\nappreciate it. Frankly, I consider it the responsibility of the poster\nto tell us if he doesn't mean what he says, or better yet not to post at\nall. If for some reason you are not willing to say what you mean, I think\nmost people would prefer that you just keep your mouth shut instead of\nmaking a fool of yourself." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Now we're going to have a little test here. I am going to\nwrite something that will be an exaggeration. I will do it for\ndramatic effect. Ready? Take your time. Don't get excited; it's\nonly exaggeration. It's just a rhetorical device. Now brace yourselves.\n\nNot one of you is worthy of posting to sf-lovers, you\nnarrow-minded, gullible GITS! How literal-minded and\ndense can a human being be?!? You are not worthy of \neven READING this newsgroup! I banish you all forth-\nwith to the purgatory of net.philosophy, net.religion.\nchristian, net.women, and net.cooks! Begone!\n\nThere, that wasn't so bad, was it? A little warm, but hardly\nthreatening to the discriminating reader. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " The OED defines rhetoric as \"The art of using language to persuade or\ninfluence others....\" The above does neither; it only insults. If you\nwrote the above in a context in which it could be taken seriously I *would*\ntake it seriously, which means that, as its author, I would cease to take\n*you* seriously." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Flame off. May the elementals of fire be appeased." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Please, fellow readers, next time someone uses strong language\nthe way the original poster did, to make an obviously silly \nsweeping generalization, remember that there are people in\nthe world who use that kind of phrasing all the time, in normal\nconversation. Just because you don't, that doesn't mean others\ncannot. And if it gets under your skin, that is not the other\nguy's fault. If the original poster had been a green-tentacled\nalien from, say, Planet 10, you'd not have reacted that way.\nShame on you all." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " I say what I mean. Each person has the right, and the responsibility,\nto say whatever he wants. If he chooses to say something other than what\nhe means, is it our responsibility to decide what he \"really\" meant?\n And, no matter how the original reply was meant (which I maintain it is\nnot my responsibility to decipher), my objection remains. To reply to a\nposting which says, \"I didn't like X much, but I would like to hear why\nother people liked it,\" with statements insulting those who dislike X\ninstead of describing what you like about X (as others have done in this\ncase) is completely unacceptable to me.\n\n -- David desJardins" } ] } ] }