{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/usenet/50", "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": 50, "subject": "Gene Wolfe interview in Locus", "messages": 11, "voices": 8, "first": "1991-05-30T23:33:26+00:00", "last": "1991-06-06T15:01:05+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<1991May30.233326.5041@tc.fluke.COM>", "from": { "name": "Brian McElhinney", "address": "mce at tc.fluke.com" }, "date": "1991-05-30T23:33:26+00:00", "subject": "Gene Wolfe interview in Locus", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The latest issue of Locus (6/91) has an interesting interview with Gene\nWolfe. Some of the better tidbits:\n\n\t\"What I see is that evil has a place in every human being. I don't\n\tmean it holds that place by rights, but it's in occupation. The\n\thero at some point is at least capable of acting badly, and the\n\tvillain at least capable of acting well.\" [Pretty obvious from his\n\tnovels, but I like the way he puts it]\n\n\tThe inspiration for the \"Soldier\" books came from an article about\n\ta certain type of brain injury that produces the kind of memory\n\tloss that Latro has. [Glad he stumbled upon that article!]\n\n\tWolfe frequently writes two books at the same time. During \"The\n\tBook of the New Sun\" he was also writing FREE LIVE FREE. [Talk\n\tabout a contrast; my most and least favorites]\n\n\tFREE LIVE FREE was an attempt to get away from \"Severian, Severian,\n\tSeverian\" and create \"one character that everyone likes, but what I\n\tactually seem to have done is give everybody one character to\n\tdislike.\"\n\n\t\"The one I like the best is THERE ARE DOORS. I wrote exactly the\n\tbook that I wanted to write, and I think I was touching on things\n\tthat have been very little touched on in general in fiction.\" [He\n\tgoes on to mention \"the Casper Hauser phenomenon -- the people that\n\twho appear and disappear tracelessly.\" Anyone know what he's\n\ttalking about?]\n\n\tOn the difference between science fiction and and fantasy:\n\n\t \"Science fiction is stuff that the average reader feels is\n\t possible, and fantasy is stuff that the average reader feels is\n\t impossible. He doesn't really know what's possible any more\n\t than I do, or a nuclear physicist does. When we get out into\n\t speculative areas, we certainly do not know.\"\n\nSPOILER warning. The best stuff was last, talking about his present work,\n\"a large science fiction novel called NIGHT SIDE OF THE LONG SUN\" and how\nthe stories themselves set the length of his novels/series.\n\f\n\n\tNIGHT SIDE OF THE LONG SUN is a generation ship novel. \"What I was\n\treally fascinated with was computer worship. It seemed to me that\n\tif we took the kind of reverence that people today have for the\n\tcomputer as an almighty thinking machine -- all of which I think is\n\tnonsense at this point -- suppose we put the computer in a sense in\n\twhich it could do truly godlike things, and we gave it a\n\tpersonality, which need not even be conscious. We don't have to\n\tsay the computer has a soul, whatever a soul is. We don't have to\n\tsay it is self-conscious. We only need for it to act in that way.\n\tI ended up with the self-contained world, a hollowed-out asteroid,\n\trun by Mainframe, the big computer, with terminals scattered around\n\tvarious places. This was built by a future tyrant who took his\n\tpersonality and the personalities of his wife and his children\n\tand certain favorites of his, and put them into Mainframe. He set\n\tthings up in such a way that he and his wife and the others are the\n\tgods of this generation ship. I'm dealing with that situation.\"\n\n\t\"It's now looking like it's going to be a trilogy or series. The\n\toriginal novel has just grown by leaps and bounds, out of all\n\tproportion. I hate it when people say, 'All that you write are\n\tthese endless series.' I hate it mostly because it's not true.\n\tWhen I wrote SHADOW OF A TORTURER, it was originally intended as a\n\tnovella. It grew to the point where it was a novel, and then by\n\tthat time I really had my feet into it. Then I got definite -- it\n\twas going to be a trilogy. The problem was that I ended up with a\n\tthird volume that was about twice as thick as the first two. So\n\tit became a tetrology.\" His editor, David Hartwell, convinced him\n\tto add something about Severian going offworld and saving Earth.\n\t\"So I ended up with this pentalogy in which the fifth volume was\n\tpublished by a different publisher.\"\n\n\t\"I like to write every story at the length at which it seems to me\n\tit should be told. PANDORA was almost a novella, and that's fine.\n\tPresumably, I will eventually hit something that requires 25\n\tmillion words, and I will spend the rest of my life writing Chapter\n\tOne.\"\n\nSo we have another major science fiction series coming from Wolfe. Best news\nI've heard in a long time!\n \n \nBrian McElhinney \"Defining the line where art becomes a subset of\nmce at tc.fluke.com entertainment is so intensely personal that I'm not at\n\t\t all sure what use it is to others. Rather like opinions\nabout the nature of God, favorite sexual positions, and whether or not to have\nthat piece of pecan pie after a bowl of Gumbo Creole.\" --Jeff Meyer" } ] }, { "message_id": "<10723@castle.ed.ac.uk>", "from": { "name": "P W Stephenson", "address": "pws at castle.ed.ac.uk" }, "date": "1991-05-31T13:45:21+00:00", "subject": "Re: Gene Wolfe interview in Locus", "in_reply_to": "<1991May30.233326.5041@tc.fluke.COM>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "mce at tc.fluke.COM (Brian McElhinney) writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "[quoting interview with GW: lots of juicy titbits from the great man\n deleted]\n\"The one I like the best is THERE ARE DOORS. I wrote exactly the\nbook that I wanted to write, and I think I was touching on things\nthat have been very little touched on in general in fiction.\" [He\ngoes on to mention \"the Casper Hauser phenomenon -- the people that\nwho appear and disappear tracelessly.\" Anyone know what he's\ntalking about?]" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Casper [?Kaspar?] Hauser was a young man who appeared out of nowhere in\nGermany (Baden, I think) in the last century (or two); he couldn't\nremember who he was and could only say `I want to be a cavalry officer\nlike my father'; he died quite young. There's a theory he was some\ninconvenient illegitimate child of a noble or royal family. Is there anything\nWolfe doesn't know?\n\nBy the way, the quotes from the interview (I suppose I'm going to have\nto buy the magazine now) don't mention my second favourite book, after\nB.o.t.N.S., which is `Peace' --- even my mother thinks this is one of\nthe best recent books she's read (and my mother is not heavily into SF,\nto say the least).\n\nFinally, while we're at it, I've only seen the first of the `Soldier'\nbooks in the U.K. --- though the second may have been around in hardback\n--- is (1) there a third anywhere (2) the second likely to arrive here\nin paperback shortly --- anyone know?\n\nPeter\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nPeter Stephenson | pws at uk.ac.liv.amtp.s-a |\nDAMTP, Univ of Liverpool | PW5 at UK.AC.LIV | Arthur: Sounds ghastly.\nPO BOX 147, Liverpool | PWS@UKACRL (BITNET) | Marvin: It is.\nL69 3BX, UK | pws at uk.ac.ed.castle |" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1991Jun2.015734.14702@netcom.COM>", "from": { "name": "Doug Merritt", "address": "doug at netcom.com" }, "date": "1991-06-02T01:57:34+00:00", "subject": "Re: Gene Wolfe interview in Locus", "in_reply_to": "<1991May30.233326.5041@tc.fluke.COM>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In article <1991May30.233326.5041 at tc.fluke.COM> mce at tc.fluke.COM (Brian McElhinney) writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Book of the New Sun\" he was also writing FREE LIVE FREE. [Talk\nabout a contrast; my most and least favorites]\n\nFREE LIVE FREE was an attempt to get away from \"Severian, Severian,\nSeverian\" and create \"one character that everyone likes, but what I\nactually seem to have done is give everybody one character to\ndislike.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yeah. He also said everyone complained it wasn't science fiction, but\nhe rebuts that by saying that he planted clues all the way along that\npointed towards the science fictional element in the end.\n\nThat really irked me; as if we dumb readers must not have seen those\nclues, else we wouldn't say it wasn't SF. Wrong...I saw the clues all\nthe way along. They were pretty obvious, after all, and furthermore\nabout the only thing that kept some of us reading (albeit with a lot\nof yawning and grimacing).\n\nBut he should know what every aspiring SF writer is lectured about in\nthe \"how-to's\" and in editorial columns & comments: a touch\nof window dressing does *not* make a story science fiction. Only the\nmost extreme definitions of SF include things that just happen to have\na tiny bit of (completely non-essential!) SF background.\n\nI don't blame him for wanting a change of pace, but I deplore the lack\nof intellectual honesty that he displays in failing to call a spade\na spade. Or insisting that his screwdriver should be called a spade.\nIt means that I'll have to be on my guard about his books, instead of\njust buying them on sight, as I was happily doing with him (and very\nfew other authors) for a while.\n\nDoing that to your readers means an impact on sales. Tsk.\n\tDoug" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1991Jun3.163555.25853@watdragon.waterloo.edu>", "from": { "name": "Viktor Haag", "address": "vehaag at crocus.waterloo.edu" }, "date": "1991-06-03T16:35:55+00:00", "subject": "Re: Gene Wolfe interview in Locus", "in_reply_to": "<1991Jun2.015734.14702@netcom.COM>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Book of the New Sun\" he was also writing FREE LIVE FREE. [Talk\nabout a contrast; my most and least favorites]\n\nFREE LIVE FREE was an attempt to get away from \"Severian, Severian,\nSeverian\" and create \"one character that everyone likes, but what I\nactually seem to have done is give everybody one character to\ndislike.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yeah. He also said everyone complained it wasn't science fiction, but\nhe rebuts that by saying that he planted clues all the way along that\npointed towards the science fictional element in the end.\n\nThat really irked me; as if we dumb readers must not have seen those\nclues, else we wouldn't say it wasn't SF. Wrong...I saw the clues all\nthe way along. They were pretty obvious, after all, and furthermore\nabout the only thing that kept some of us reading (albeit with a lot\nof yawning and grimacing).\n\nBut he should know what every aspiring SF writer is lectured about in\nthe \"how-to's\" and in editorial columns & comments: a touch\nof window dressing does *not* make a story science fiction. Only the\nmost extreme definitions of SF include things that just happen to have\na tiny bit of (completely non-essential!) SF background." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Perhaps your reporting of the situation is misleading, but from you satement\nthree paragraphs above it seems that Wolfe does not claim that FLF is SF but\nrather that it has a SFional element in the ending." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't blame him for wanting a change of pace, but I deplore the lack\nof intellectual honesty that he displays in failing to call a spade\na spade. Or insisting that his screwdriver should be called a spade.\nIt means that I'll have to be on my guard about his books, instead of\njust buying them on sight, as I was happily doing with him (and very\nfew other authors) for a while." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Oh yes, you had better be on the lookout. I mean, Wolfe might try and\nexpand your horizons a little bit by sneaking a story past you that doesn't\nmeet your twelve step guidelines for the existance of an SF novel.\n\nOf course, I will have to read the actual aritcle myself before commenting \nfurther, but I will say that you seem to be one of those people who spend their\ntime whining that the 'purity of the art form is being besmirched' by horrible\npeople who are being intellectually dishonest by stretching the medium a bit.\nGod forbid that we should invite creativity or innovation into the hallowed \nhalls of **SF**.\n\nbarf" } ] }, { "message_id": "<5938@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>", "from": { "name": "Jim Mann", "address": "jmann at vineland.pubs.stratus.com" }, "date": "1991-06-03T19:15:05+00:00", "subject": "Re: Gene Wolfe interview in Locus", "in_reply_to": "<1991Jun2.015734.14702@netcom.COM>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In article <1991Jun2.015734.14702 at netcom.COM> doug at netcom.COM (Doug Merritt) \nwrites:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yeah. He also said everyone complained it wasn't science fiction, but\nhe rebuts that by saying that he planted clues all the way along that\npointed towards the science fictional element in the end.\n\nThat really irked me; as if we dumb readers must not have seen those\nclues, else we wouldn't say it wasn't SF. Wrong...I saw the clues all\nthe way along. They were pretty obvious, after all, and furthermore\nabout the only thing that kept some of us reading (albeit with a lot\nof yawning and grimacing)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "So you would only read it if it were SF? If the SF material wan't there,\nyou'd quit reading. (That's what your last sentence DOES say.) Good \nfiction is good fiction. Gene Wolfe writes good fiction, that happens,\nmost of the time, to have SF or fantasy elements. But if it didn't,\nI'd read it anyway." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But he should know what every aspiring SF writer is lectured about in\nthe \"how-to's\" and in editorial columns & comments: a touch\nof window dressing does *not* make a story science fiction. Only the\nmost extreme definitions of SF include things that just happen to have\na tiny bit of (completely non-essential!) SF background." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sounds to me like the problem isn't Wolfe's fiction but our insistent on\ncategories. \"This is SF, this isn't.\" That's not what matters. What matters\nis \"This is good, this isn't.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't blame him for wanting a change of pace, but I deplore the lack\nof intellectual honesty that he displays in failing to call a spade\na spade. Or insisting that his screwdriver should be called a spade.\nIt means that I'll have to be on my guard about his books, instead of\njust buying them on sight, as I was happily doing with him (and very\nfew other authors) for a while." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You'll have to \"be on [your] guard about his books\"? Why? Because he\nmight sneak in something that isn't \"really SF\"? In fact, I agree with\nyou on one point. I sometimes wish that Wolfe's books wouldn't always be \nlabeled as \"SF\" since there are lots of folks out there who would like\nmuch of what he writes, but don't ever see it. Many mainstream readers are\nas silly as many SF readers. SF readers guard against books that \"really\naren't SF.\" Mainstream readers guard themselves against books that are \"really\nSF.\"\n\nJim Mann jmann at vineland.pubs.stratus.com \nStratus Computer\n\n Not since Cromwell's troops, their puritan sensibilities offended by beauty, \n went around smashing decorative art in churches has there been an act \n of folly comparable to the abandonment and destruction of Forbes Field, \n the Pirates' home for generations. \n -- George F. Will, from Men at Work: The Craft of Baseball" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1991Jun4.041203.14967@netcom.COM>", "from": { "name": "Doug Merritt", "address": "doug at netcom.com" }, "date": "1991-06-04T04:12:03+00:00", "subject": "Re: Gene Wolfe interview in Locus", "in_reply_to": "<5938@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": " They [the clues] were pretty obvious, after all, and furthermore\nabout the only thing that kept some of us reading (albeit with a lot\nof yawning and grimacing)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So you would only read it if it were SF? If the SF material wan't there,\nyou'd quit reading. (That's what your last sentence DOES say.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No, it doesn't! My last sentence says that I found it boring, except for\nthe tidbits that kept me going. The reason they kept me going was that\nthey lent *suspense* to something otherwise incredibly dull. The reductio\nad absurdum to your interpretation is that would imply I would keep\nreading *anything* that had lots of juicy SF elements, no matter how\nboring, and clearly I said nothing of the sort (nor is it true; I've\ngiven up on lots of F&SF that was pure genre yet boring). You're reading\ntoo much into what I said." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Good fiction is good fiction. Gene Wolfe writes good fiction, that happens,\nmost of the time, to have SF or fantasy elements. But if it didn't,\nI'd read it anyway." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree partially, except that I defy anyone to claim that Free Live Free\nis a great novel under any category at all. Let's say it was published\nas mainstream: it's still dull. The most you can say for it is that it\nis a character study that teases without fully revealing the characters.\nThat might be interesting in an 8000 word vignette, but Wolfe did not\npull it off in the full length novel. Or have I missed reviewers who\nthought it was great? I haven't seen such that might indicate that my\ntake on it was narrow minded, although I admit of the possibility.\n\nYou guys who think that anyone who complains about \"supposed SF\" not \nreally being SF must therefore perforce be incredibly shallow are just\nknee-jerk reacting." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sounds to me like the problem isn't Wolfe's fiction but our insistent on\ncategories. \"This is SF, this isn't.\" That's not what matters. What matters\nis \"This is good, this isn't.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Fair enough, except that I claim that FLF is not worth novel-length\ntreatment regardless of criteria, in or out of genre." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " In fact, I agree with\nyou on one point. I sometimes wish that Wolfe's books wouldn't always be \nlabeled as \"SF\" since there are lots of folks out there who would like\nmuch of what he writes, but don't ever see it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, except that Free Live Free is not one of the ones that I would recommend\nto mainstream readers. If we were talking about something else, that\nwould be a good reason for the soapbox.\n\nI was about to counter-flame someone much, much less polite than you, but\nI thought that a calm difference of opinions deserved priority. Now on\nto the flame. ;-)\n\tDoug" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1991Jun4.042049.16200@netcom.COM>", "from": { "name": "Doug Merritt", "address": "doug at netcom.com" }, "date": "1991-06-04T04:20:49+00:00", "subject": "Re: Gene Wolfe interview in Locus", "in_reply_to": "<1991Jun3.163555.25853@watdragon.waterloo.edu>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In article <1991Jun3.163555.25853 at watdragon.waterloo.edu> vehaag at crocus.waterloo.edu (Viktor Haag) writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Perhaps your reporting of the situation is misleading, but from you satement\nthree paragraphs above it seems that Wolfe does not claim that FLF is SF but\nrather that it has a SFional element in the ending." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Perhaps; the original text is actually quite open to intepretation: \"I also\nget a lot of flak saying, 'It reads like a mainstream novel until you get\nto the end and it turns out to be science fiction.' There were something like\na dozen planted clues as to what was going on through the story.\"\n\nYou *could* read that in a variety of subtly differing ways, but it seems to\nme clear that he agrees that it reads like a mainstream novel for the\nmost part, but also has clues all the way along that the ending is going\nto be science fiction. And the publisher labelled it \"TOR Science Fiction\",\nso there's no question from anyone about what it's supposed to be.\n\nSupport for *your* position can be found in Orson Scott Card's \"How to\nWrite Science Fiction and Fantasy\", pg 11: \"...even though they aren't\nreally science fiction or fantasy in the publishing-category sense or\nthe community sense (there are neither rivets nor trees, neither science\nnor magic, and they certainly aren't what readers were consciously looking\nfor) their stories are nevertheless strange, in ways that editors outside\nthe field of sf and fantasy find quite threatening.\" Card calls this\nthe \"What SF Writers Write is SF\" category (actually \"boundary\") of SF.\n\nI won't argue with Card (I'd be shot down with ad hominem arguments), but\nnonetheless even he points out that such things \"certainly aren't what\nreaders were consciously looking for\". Good point.\n\nI didn't say Card shouldn't write things like FLF, and I didn't say it\nwas a bad book. I *did* say that it was false advertising to call it\nSF. Card and Wolfe would both argue with me about that, but equally\nclearly, they would be quite keenly aware of what I meant.\n\nAs far as literary freedom goes, Wolfe is on firm ground. He has the\nartistic right to write what he likes, and Card has given him reason to\nallow the labelling \"science fiction\".\n\nBut they're both aware that some people may be in a mood to read something\nthat *feels* like science fiction, and may be disappointed if a book\ndoes *not* feel that way. I said that would impact sales, and I'm sure\nthey would agree, and further say that such was the price of artistic\nlicense, and that it's worth it. Neither Card nor Wolfe can be accused\nof commercialism! That doesn't affect what I said, though." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Oh yes, you had better be on the lookout. I mean, Wolfe might try and\nexpand your horizons a little bit by sneaking a story past you that doesn't\nmeet your twelve step guidelines for the existance of an SF novel." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Oh, fuck you. Who are you to get up on your high horse and say things\nlike that? Jim Mann disagreed quite extremely and forcefully with me,\nyet managed to do it politely. You should follow his example." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Of course, I will have to read the actual aritcle myself before commenting \nfurther," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thanks for that much." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "but I will say that you seem to be one of those people who spend their\ntime whining ..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "On the basis of that single complaint of mine. Riiiggghht." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "...that the 'purity of the art form is being besmirched' by horrible\npeople who are being intellectually dishonest by stretching the medium a bit.\nGod forbid that we should invite creativity or innovation into the hallowed \nhalls of **SF**." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Completely uncalled for, totally rude. What a dweeb. I'm sure you're a\ncomplete master of all the classics and all of modern literature and are\na superb judge of art in its most hallowed forms. I grovel at your feet.\nSay hi to the Muses for me.\n\tDoug" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1991Jun4.174051.6210@tc.fluke.COM>", "from": { "name": "Brian McElhinney", "address": "mce at tc.fluke.com" }, "date": "1991-06-04T17:40:51+00:00", "subject": "Re: Gene Wolfe interview in Locus", "in_reply_to": "<10723@castle.ed.ac.uk>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "pws at castle.ed.ac.uk (P W Stephenson) writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "By the way, the quotes from the interview don't mention my second\nfavourite book, after B.o.t.N.S., which is `Peace'" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "After discussing people giving him flak for the ending of LIVE FREE LIVE,\nWolfe goes on to say:\n\n\t\"Similarly in PEACE I strongly imply early on as to what's going\n\ton. I don't get as many complaints about it, because fewer people\n\tare reading it, although I think it's one of my best books.\"\n\nPerhaps some publisher should re-issue it! The *only* copy I have ever seen\nwas an autographed hardback (and boy was I happy when I came across it!).\n\nPerhaps the reason many people dislike LIVE FREE LIVE is not that it is such\na bad novel, but that it is not a great novel, and Gene Wolfe has set us up\nto expect greatness. That would be unfortunate, because to create great\nworks of art you have to take risks, and you will not always succeed\nbrilliantly. Ah, but when you do...\n \n \nBrian McElhinney \"The locked and rusted gate that stood before us, with wisps\nmce at tc.fluke.com of river fog threading its spikes like the mountain paths,\n\t\t remains in my mind now as a symbol of my exile.\"--Gene Wolfe" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1991Jun4.224440.2345@leland.Stanford.EDU>", "from": { "name": "Janet M. Lafler", "address": "repnomar at leland.stanford.edu" }, "date": "1991-06-04T22:44:40+00:00", "subject": "Free Live Free (was Re: Gene Wolfe interview in Locus)", "in_reply_to": "<1991Jun2.015734.14702@netcom.COM>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Various people have been complaining about and, alternatively, defending \nGene Wolfe's _Free Live Free_. I really liked this book, though I don't \nthink it's his best and I certainly wouldn't recommend it to someone who\nhadn't read anything by Wolfe before. My sense of it was that it was a\nlong, entertainingly told, very funny shaggy dog story. I had this figured\nfrom very early on. Now, this kind of thing is definitely an acquired \ntaste, and I can understand why a lot of people might feel cheated by it,\njust as we all generally feel cheated by shaggy dog stories. (I happen to\nlike them if they're well told.) Wolfe's story-telling style is very cir-\ncuitous, and he often doesn't bother to deliver just what he promised. I\nenjoy this, but unless you like this for its own sake, and trust him to make \nit worth your while to read, you're not going to like Wolfe. He's a writer\nthat I like very much, but I can understand why some readers find him in-\nfuriating, because sometimes, when he goes too far (for me), I get annoyed too.\n\n/Janet" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4358@polari.UUCP>", "from": { "name": "Brian Matthews", "address": "6sigma2 at polari.uucp" }, "date": "1991-06-05T06:36:33+00:00", "subject": "Re: Gene Wolfe interview in Locus", "in_reply_to": "<1991Jun4.174051.6210@tc.fluke.COM>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In article <1991Jun4.174051.6210 at tc.fluke.COM> mce at tc.fluke.COM (Brian McElhinney) writes:\n|Perhaps the reason many people dislike LIVE FREE LIVE is not that it is such\n|a bad novel, but that it is not a great novel, and Gene Wolfe has set us up\n|to expect greatness.\n\nI've always thought this was the problem too. I happen to like\nFree Live Free, but readily admit it's not nearly as good as Book of\nthe New Sun, for instance. On the other hand, I've read very few\nthings as good as BotNS..." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1991Jun6.150105.26982@gdr.bath.ac.uk>", "from": { "name": "S H L G Bisson", "address": "eesshlgb at gdr.bath.ac.uk" }, "date": "1991-06-06T15:01:05+00:00", "subject": "Re: Gene Wolfe interview in Locus", "in_reply_to": "<4358@polari.UUCP>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "|Perhaps the reason many people dislike LIVE FREE LIVE is not that it is such\n|a bad novel, but that it is not a great novel, and Gene Wolfe has set us up\n|to expect greatness.\n\nI've always thought this was the problem too. I happen to like\nFree Live Free, but readily admit it's not nearly as good as Book of\nthe New Sun, for instance. On the other hand, I've read very few\nthings as good as BotNS..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I tend to think that the most unsatisfying thing about _Free Live Free_ was\nthat it came across in the back blurb as another _Winter's Tale_ (by Mark\nHelprin) and unfortunately was only a pale shadow of it. A pity that, for\nthe genre needs more books like _Winter's Tale_, and now that Helprin no\nlonger writes genre (or almost genre!) fiction it seems that there will be\nno more (unless John Crowley becomes more productive...).\n\n---\nSimon H Le G Bisson...net.jerriais...bibliophile, climber, and FORTRAN hacker...---" } ] } ] }