Subject: The Snootiness of Gene Wolfe

From: Josh <if.you.want.to.email at visit.joshbrain.tripod.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:43:02 +0000

I've read a lot of Gene Wolf (the complete Sun and Urth sequences plus a 
short story collection who's title currently escapes me), generally with 
great interest, the two Latros novels being a notable exception (I only 
skimmed the second). Therefore I feel somewhat qualified to make this 
observation: Mr. Wolfe is a snooty elitist author.

I feel that his approach has been misconstrued by the SF community at 
large as being profound and insightful, rather than the empty display of 
erudition that it is. The appeal of his work is to the readers own sense 
of hubris - at least it was in my case. The comments I've read here don't 
contradict that.

Of course, I really should offer support for this assertion. (Well, 
sudden realization anyway). Consider that the entire justification for 
Severian was that Wolfe wanted to write a character who would make a good 
halloween costume (this was revealed in an interview). The plot, etc was 
layed on as thin veneer with elements sprinkled from Wolfe's 
extraordinarily broad knowledge of literature and myth, and mined with 
subtle puzzles that amused Wolfe. Taken on it's face, this series is 
muddied, conflicted, and unbelievable. Severian himself is never fleshed 
out.

The elitism is not justified. All three first person narratives I've read 
from Wolfe have used the same voice - precise, subtly flawed, infinitely 
patient, and maddeningly loquacious. Severian, Silk, Latros are the same 
person to me. Urth, the Ship + Green + Blue, the mediterannean of 
antiquity are all the same places (well, Green was a bit different). So 
at least when it comes to "range" Wolfe does not have anything to brag 
about.

The implicit question in any post is, why am I posting? In this case its 
mainly to share my thoughts, perhaps finding resonance with others, and 
also to give anyone who's willing a chance to tell me I'm wrong. I kind 
of want to be wrong, as I've invested a lot of time (and money) on Wolfe 
and I would prefer not to think that it was all essentially misspent 
vanity.

---

From: Miles Bader <miles at gnu.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 01:25:04 +0000

Josh <if.you.want.to.email at visit.joshbrain.tripod.org> writes:
> Therefore I feel somewhat qualified to make this 
....
> also to give anyone who's willing a chance to tell me I'm wrong.

Ok:  You're wrong.

[Also, I suppose, a troll, but whatever.]

-Miles
-- 
`Life is a boundless sea of bitterness'

---

From: SpaceGirl <nospacespamgirl at subhuman.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:08:14 +0000

"Miles Bader" <miles at gnu.org> wrote in message
news:878yim1xu7.fsf at tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp...
> ...

You have to admit, a fairly eloquent troll, if that is indeed what that post
was :)

I've not read any Wolfe, so can't comment beyond that!

---

From: Matt Hughes <mhughes at mars.ark.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:12:49 +0000

Josh <if.you.want.to.email at visit.joshbrain.tripod.org> wrote in message news:<Xns949D9FE6F929Difyouwanttoemailvisi at 199.45.49.11>...

[a lot of contentious and pretentious twaddle]

Did you really write this or did you get some snooty, elitist, English
majoring friend to draft it for you?

Gene Wolfe is one of the finest writers sf has produced.  That's that.
Troll off.

Matt Hughes
http://mars.ark.com/~mhughes/

Current story:  Mastermindless (F&SF, March)
Next story:  A Little Learning (F&SF, June)
Next novel:  Black Brillion (Tor, November)

---

From: Lawrence Person <lawrence at io.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:24:15 +0000

In article <Xns949D9FE6F929Difyouwanttoemailvisi at 199.45.49.11>,
 Josh <if.you.want.to.email at visit.joshbrain.tripod.org> wrote:

> erudition that it is.

For the moment, just for the sake of arguement, let's pretend you're not a troll.

You are, however, part of a long line of posters to RAFSW (get thee to Google 
for details) who make the same fundamental categorical error about Gene Wolfe: 
"I don't understand his work, therefore his work isn't capable of being 
understood, therefore he's a fraud/pretentious/snooty/whatever."

Instead of presenting carefully constructed logical arguements as to why your 
subjective impression is mistaken (truly a fool's task anywhere, but especially 
on Usenet), I'll try another tact.

Of all the people making the "I don't understand Wolfe so he's not any good" 
arguement, there seems to be a constant: none were professional writers (and 
certainly not professional SF writers). I am wagering that this obeservation 
applies to you well.

And the reason none of them was professional writers is that it is obvious none 
realized just how hard the effects Wolfe achieves are to carry off, and just how 
effortlessly he does so. I am. I do. And you're wrong.

However, rather than depending on my thus far fairly minor reputation as an SF 
writer (I often observe that I'm the 10th most famous SF writer in Austin, 
Texas), let's take a look at a short list of far more luminous scribblers who 
think Wolfe is a genius:

Neil Gaiman
Roger Zelazny
Ursula K. Le Guin
Theodore Sturgeon
Damon Knight
James Tiptree, Jr.
Greg Bear
Lucius Shepard
Michael Swanwick
James P. Blaylock
Patrick O'Leary
George R. R. Martin
Thomas M. Disch
Michael Bishop
Kim Stanley Robinson
Jonathon Carroll
Brain Stableford
Orson Scott Card
Algis Budrys
Ian Watson

Now, that's a pretty impressive and diverse list, united only in their fame in 
the field, and their belief in Wolfe's brilliance. And that's just a quick scan 
through the cover blurbs on his books and a few other printed sources; if you 
did a comprehensive survey of SFWA, it would no doubt be easy to compile a list 
10 (if not 50) times as long. Are we to believe that "snooty" Wolfe has pulled 
the wool over ALL their eyes? Or that all of the above are "elitists?"

It's as if you said that J. S. Bach was "boring," and Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler, 
Strauss, Stravinsky, Gershwin, Copeland, Bernstein, Sodheim, Glass, Jimi 
Hendrix, Elvis Presley, Paul McCartney, Peter Gabriel, and Louis Armstrong all 
said you were wrong. We can believe you, or we can believe the dozen experts in 
the field who say you're wrong.

Occum's Razor suggests that you're full of it.

---

From: jere7my tho?rpe <j7y at liws.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:59:55 +0000

> observation: Mr. Wolfe is a snooty elitist author.

     I would have a hard time thinking of an author who is more 
down-to-earth, kind, and straightforward than Gene Wolfe.  He's a Texas 
gentleman, with all that that implies.

     He certainly doesn't see his work as elitist; he writes that way 
because that's the way he writes.  My personal theory is that he cut his 
teeth on mysteries, in which readers are meant to piece together 
scattered and well-hidden clues to determine the identity of the 
murderer, and simply applies the same technique to SFnal worldbuilding.  
Rather than telling you flat-out that Severian's companion is a robot, 
he offers clues which you are meant to piece together.  He expects that 
this will be fun and rewarding for you, as it is for fans of mysteries.

> halloween costume (this was revealed in an interview).

     Inspiration != justification.  Stephen R. Donaldson said he got the 
inspiration for the most powerful scene in _The Power That Preserves_ 
from a can of Lysol in a gas station restroom.

> Severian, Silk, Latros are the same 

     Perhaps you should read _Peace_.  Perhaps, also, you should 
consider that Severian and Silk have similar narrative voices because 
(Wolfe believes) everyone sees their own actions as reasonable and 
proper, and we're witnessing the events from inside their heads.  If you 
see past the unreliability of their narration, you'll see that they are 
very different people.

                                                       ----j7y

-- 
**************************************************************************
jere7my tho?rpe / 734-769-0913      "There is no spoon."  "SPOON!"  "There
    >>>  j7y at liws.org  <<<           is no spoon."  "SPOON!"  "There is no 
invert liws to reply via email       spoon."  "SPOON!" -- The Tick vs. Neo

---

From: Mike Williams <mike@nospam4me>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 08:26:13 +0000

Ouch!

---

From: Josh <if.you.want.to.email at visit.joshbrain.tripod.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:41:15 +0000

>> large as being profound and insightful, rather than the empty display
>> of erudition that it is.
> 

Thanks, I appreciate that. I don't think I am, but that's a matter of 
opinion, in the end.

> 
> You are, however, part of a long line of posters to RAFSW (get thee to
> Google for details) who make the same fundamental categorical error
> about Gene Wolfe: "I don't understand his work, therefore his work
> isn't capable of being understood, therefore he's a
> fraud/pretentious/snooty/whatever." 

Um, no. If you read my post you will see that I do, in fact, understand 
him (or at least, think I understand him) and his appeal to me. The fact 
is that his appeal to me (and to you, apparently) rests in the quality of 
difficulty that you brandish so proudly here.

Thats the thing that perhaps wasn't clear enough in my first post: I 
really *liked* Wolfe because of his opacity. I *liked* the fact that his 
stories weren't blatantly obvious and the payoff not immediate. I *liked* 
the fact that I knew that the majority of readers wouldn't get half the 
stuff. I *liked* the feeling of self-importance when someone saw me 
reading Wolfe.

Indeed, for the very reason you mention, Wolfe is snooty! (Or at least, 
his work is. Apparently he's a very nice man, which I find very easy to 
believe. But when I say he's snooty, I mean his work. Perhaps I should 
have titled this thread "The Snootiness of Gene Wolfe's Work".)

> Instead of presenting carefully constructed logical arguements as to
> why your subjective impression is mistaken (truly a fool's task
> anywhere, but especially on Usenet), I'll try another tact.

Yes, I suppose I should have stuck with my objective impressions, but 
subjective will have to do. But that goes for you, too, I'm afraid!

> Of all the people making the "I don't understand Wolfe so he's not any
> good" arguement, there seems to be a constant: none were professional
> writers (and certainly not professional SF writers). I am wagering
> that this obeservation applies to you well.

Well, first off I'm not making that assertion. See above. Second off, 
that's even *more* grist for my mill, so to speak. I mean, the 
*definition* of elitist work is that it can only be enjoyed by a few 
elite...those with special knowledge, abilities, etc. Professional SF 
writers, for instance.

> 
> And the reason none of them was professional writers is that it is
> obvious none realized just how hard the effects Wolfe achieves are to
> carry off, and just how effortlessly he does so. I am. I do. And
> you're wrong. 

You are? You do? I am? How interesting!

> However, rather than depending on my thus far fairly minor reputation
> as an SF writer (I often observe that I'm the 10th most famous SF
> writer in Austin, Texas), let's take a look at a short list of far
> more luminous scribblers who think Wolfe is a genius:

Never said anything about his intelligence, nor even his ability as a 
writer. I'm firmly in the "snooty" camp. The only shot I fired across the 
bow of his ability was a percieved lack of variety in character and 
setting.

> Ian Watson

Oh, and by the way, argument from authority *is* a fallacy, after all.

> Now, that's a pretty impressive and diverse list, united only in their
> fame in the field, and their belief in Wolfe's brilliance. And that's
> just a quick scan through the cover blurbs on his books and a few
> other printed sources; if you did a comprehensive survey of SFWA, it
> would no doubt be easy to compile a list 10 (if not 50) times as long.
> Are we to believe that "snooty" Wolfe has pulled the wool over ALL
> their eyes? Or that all of the above are "elitists?" 

Forgive me for observing that you appear to be suffering from a strong 
dose of hero worship. Indeed, it blinds you from my central premise:

When Wolfe appeals, he appeals to our hubris.

Let me say that again:

When Wolfe appeals, he appeals to our hubris.

Perhaps I was wrong to infer that this makes him "snooty". Maybe I would 
be more correct in saying that it makes his fans snooty.

Which brings me round to the original question of why I posted this at 
all: because I had an idea, I posted it in an ill-formed manner, got some 
nice juicy feedback that helped me to focus the idea further. Thanks.

And apologies to Gene if he ever reads this: in the quest for interesting 
self-expression, I made a bad inference. I will change the subject line 
right...now!

> 
> It's as if you said that J. S. Bach was "boring," and Mozart,
> Beethoven, Mahler, Strauss, Stravinsky, Gershwin, Copeland, Bernstein,
> Sodheim, Glass, Jimi Hendrix, Elvis Presley, Paul McCartney, Peter
> Gabriel, and Louis Armstrong all said you were wrong. We can believe
> you, or we can believe the dozen experts in the field who say you're
> wrong.
> 

OK. But you're attacking the wrong assertion, which, I freely admit I 
poorly presented in my initial post. (I might add that even if you were 
attacking the right assertion, argument from authority *is* a fallacy, 
after all.)

Cheers.

---

From: Josh <if.you.want.to.email at visit.joshbrain.tripod.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:42:40 +0000

"SpaceGirl" <NoSpaceSpamGirl at subhuman.net> wrote in
news:c1rhej$1mm1dc$1 at ID-129131.news.uni-berlin.de: 

> You have to admit, a fairly eloquent troll, if that is indeed what
> that post was :)

Thanks Space Girl. Actually, I think I understand why he thought I was a 
troll. See my response to Lawrence Person (SF author extradenaire who was 
so kind as to participate in this thread) for a clarification of what I'm 
asserting.

---

From: Josh <if.you.want.to.email at visit.joshbrain.tripod.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:49:02 +0000

"jere7my tho?rpe" <j7y at liws.org> wrote in
news:j7y-80EFC8.02595529022004 at visonmassif.rs.itd.umich.edu: 

>> I've read a lot of Gene Wolf (the complete Sun and Urth sequences
>> plus a short story collection who's title currently escapes me),
>> generally with great interest, the two Latros novels being a notable
>> exception (I only skimmed the second). Therefore I feel somewhat
>> qualified to make this observation: Mr. Wolfe is a snooty elitist
>> author. 
> 
> down-to-earth, kind, and straightforward than Gene Wolfe.  He's a
> Texas gentleman, with all that that implies.

You say this with such feeling that I can't help but believe you. And it 
highlights the fact that I made a poor inference and expressed it in a 
too-aggressive manner. Really, I have no idea if Wolfe is Snooty. On 
further reflection, I believe that his *fans* are Snooty, myself being 
but one of many, and my primary inspiration for the sweeping indictment.

> because that's the way he writes.  My personal theory is that he cut
> his teeth on mysteries, in which readers are meant to piece together 
> murderer, and simply applies the same technique to SFnal
> worldbuilding.  Rather than telling you flat-out that Severian's
> companion is a robot, he offers clues which you are meant to piece
> together.  He expects that this will be fun and rewarding for you, as
> it is for fans of mysteries. 

>> sudden realization anyway). Consider that the entire justification
>> for Severian was that Wolfe wanted to write a character who would
>> make a good halloween costume (this was revealed in an interview).
> 

Not to mention the fact that such an inspiration is hardly snooty now is 
it? (I'm starting to consider this group as an oven where half-baked 
ideas can become, if not delicious, then at least palatable).

>> antiquity are all the same places (well, Green was a bit different).
>> So at least when it comes to "range" Wolfe does not have anything to
>> brag about.
> 
> proper, and we're witnessing the events from inside their heads.  If
> you see past the unreliability of their narration, you'll see that
> they are very different people.

How do they differ? I can list a variety of ways in which they are the 
same, but I forgot all the details.

---

From: Mike Williams <mike@nospam4me>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:22:50 +0000

"Josh" <if.you.want.to.email at visit.joshbrain.tripod.org> wrote in message 
news:Xns949E112EE9E9Aifyouwanttoemailvisi at 199.45.49.11...

> have titled this thread "The Snootiness of Gene Wolfe's Work".)

I'm wondering what *you* mean by snooty"". I don't think anything you have 
said speaks to his work being aloof, haughty or exclusive. It's possible 
you're meaning something different and you're getting a reaction to your 
personal definition of snootiness.

> When Wolfe appeals, he appeals to our hubris.

I think I'd like to hear your definition of' hubris' too.

---

From: Doug <trike at cinci.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:46:35 +0000

Lawrence Person <lawrence at io.com> wrote ...
> 
> 
> And the reason none of them was professional writers is
> that it is obvious none realized just how hard the effects
> Wolfe achieves are to carry off, and just how 
> Beethoven, Mahler, Strauss, Stravinsky, Gershwin, Copeland,
> Bernstein, Sodheim, Glass, Jimi Hendrix, Elvis Presley, Paul
> McCartney, Peter Gabriel, and Louis Armstrong all said you
> were wrong. We can believe you, or we can believe the dozen
> experts in the field who say you're wrong.

I'm not a fan of Wolfe's.  To continue your analogy -- and I do love a
good analogy -- Wolfe for me is like the musician Richard Thompson.

I can appreciate his talent, and I get why other professionals in his
field hold him in such high esteem, but the work just doesn't do
anything for me.

It's not a case of right or wrong, it's a case of taste, and we each
respond to different flavors in different ways.

I feel the same way about Howard Waldrop, too... and he's even written
one of my all-time favorite SF stories, "The Ugly Chickens."

http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/classics/classics_archive/waldrop/waldrop1.html

Doug

---

From: Michael Grosberg <preacher_mg at hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:59:43 +0000

> muddied, conflicted, and unbelievable. Severian himself is never fleshed 

Funny, I could say the same thing about LOTR, a book created to
provide a background for a couple of artificial languages, full of
ancient obscure words and myths. Frodo is never fleshed out, the book
is muddled (Tom Bombadil. what is he doing there? and why all the
songs?) and unbelievable (magic rings? giving the world's most
imprtant artifact to a small halfling to carry? I mean, really...).

Maybe Wolfe does this too intentionally. But the thing is - he
succeeded. I only read the Book of the New Sun so far, but I'm
definately looking fot the others (I already have the Long Sun books,
but I'm trying to find _Urth_ first).
Even on the most basic level of creating a good, readable yarn, TBOTNS
works. And of course there's so much more to it (others will be better
than I am at expanding on the meaning of TBOTNS). I didn't feel it was
too "literary", although I'm sure there's a ton of stuff I'm missing,
and I certainly didn't need to use a dictionary to read it - all the
obscure words are MEANT to stay obscure, after all.
And as for Severian, he is very well fleshed out, and very human. I
especially liked the fact that even as he was having great adventures,
his mind was always going back to the one thing on the mind of all
teenagers: girls :-)

---

From: Josh <if.you.want.to.email at visit.joshbrain.tripod.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:16:31 +0000

"Mike Williams" <mike@nospam4me> wrote in
news:4041bd80$0$28871$afc38c87 at news.optusnet.com.au: 

> "Josh" <if.you.want.to.email at visit.joshbrain.tripod.org> wrote in
> message news:Xns949E112EE9E9Aifyouwanttoemailvisi at 199.45.49.11...
> 
>> Indeed, for the very reason you mention, Wolfe is snooty! (Or at
>> least, his work is. Apparently he's a very nice man, which I find
>> very easy to believe. But when I say he's snooty, I mean his work.
>> Perhaps I should have titled this thread "The Snootiness of Gene
>> Wolfe's Work".) 
> 
> I'm wondering what *you* mean by snooty"". I don't think anything you
> have said speaks to his work being aloof, haughty or exclusive. It's
> possible you're meaning something different and you're getting a
> reaction to your personal definition of snootiness.

I meant something like http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=snooty

I've already revamped my assertion, which you quoted below (so I assume 
you've read it), so you're attacking something I've already retracted. 
Jeremy Thorpe spoke eloquently for Wolfe's character and in so doing 
helped me to realize that I had made an inference error. Namely that 
snootiness of the fanbase implies snootiness of the artist. This is not 
always the case!

Wolfe is kind of like modern day opera. The sense I get is that, although 
there are undoubtadly those who really enjoy opera for it's artistry and 
fundamental merit, there is a larger portion of the fan base that likes 
it because it is opera, and by liking it one shows one's sophistication 
and taste. Perhaps even better examples would be people who (say they) 
like 12 tone symphonies or reading Immanuel Kant. My guess is that 4 out 
of 5 of such people like the *idea* of enjoying such haughty 
entertainments more than the entertainments themselves. Does this mean 
Shoenberg or Kant are themselves snooty? Not necessarily. Maybe they were 
just down-to-earth artists who were trying to be as straight-forward as 
possible, and were just taken up by the wrong crowd. (Or maybe not.)

Anyway, I think such pretense is bad (I was going to write "without 
merit" but then realized...), and I don't want to be that way. Now that 
I'm aware of it perhaps I can enjoy reading Wolfe and enjoy him all the 
more for what he has written, rather than how he is percieved. One thing 
is certain: posting this comment has been a tremendous catharsis and I 
appreciate the feedback immensely.

> I think I'd like to hear your definition of' hubris' too.

 http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hubris does the trick.

---

From: Mike Williams <mike@nospam4me>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 23:29:00 +0000

"Josh" <if.you.want.to.email at visit.joshbrain.tripod.org> wrote in message 
news:Xns949E5E5FE4919ifyouwanttoemailvisi at 199.45.49.11...
> I meant something like http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=snooty

I as you may have noticed used the same reference, which is why I don't 
think you justified your assertion that Wolfe's work is "aloof, haughty or 
exclusive".

> you've read it), so you're attacking something I've already retracted.

I quoted your correction that the work was snooty, and that's why I asked 
you to justofy it in terms of the definition of snooty.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hubris does the trick.

Yep, and with that definition I don't see any justification for the 
assertion. (ooo 3 "-tion"words in one sentence). It seems to me to be a very 
curious statement.

---

From: Miles Bader <miles at gnu.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 23:40:41 +0000

> but one of many, and my primary inspiration for the sweeping indictment.

Well I suppose you've aptly demonstrated that point in this thread...

But the original accusation remains completely silly -- Wolfe's work is
actually very readable whether or not you bother to figure out what
everything `means'.  His prose-style in particular is lovely without
being obscure.

-Miles
-- 
[|nurgle|]  ddt- demonic? so quake will have an evil kinda setting? one that
            will  make every christian in the world foamm at the mouth?
[iddt]      nurg, that's the goal

---

From: Thomas Womack <twomack at chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 23:41:26 +0000

>but I'm trying to find _Urth_ first).

I have read BOTNS and am half-way through Urth; I'm not sure that the
term to describe Wolfe's style isn't "infuriating".  Lots of it reads
rather like the perspicacity-demonstrating scenes from Sherlock Holmes,
but cheating in that the reader hasn't seen sufficient of the clues
(particularly when the clue is that an alien species sounds odd for its
kind, it being the only exemplar of its kind we've seen).

I think really I find that life is too short to read very much written
in first-person by that unreliable a narrator.  The incluing process
doesn't work because we only see Severian reaching conclusions, rather
than particularly acquiring the ability to reach the conclusions
ourselves; shortage of infodumps is as much of a problem as excess of
infodumps, at least for me.  For me, invoking a world by a
well-described character's reactions to it worked much better in
something like _The King's Peace_.

The book that's really impressed me recently is Dorothy Dunnett's
"Niccolo Rising"; absolutely superb pacing, and a really compelling
environment, quite substantially thanks to everything being told in
a well-calibrated omniscient third-person.

Tom

---

From: Nancy Lebovitz <nancy at unix5.netaxs.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 00:11:32 +0000

In article <Xns949E112EE9E9Aifyouwanttoemailvisi at 199.45.49.11>,
>stuff. I *liked* the feeling of self-importance when someone saw me 

It's plausible that part of Wolfe's appeal is that he engages the feeling
of being intelligent, and even that he engages the feeling that one is
more intelligent than other people.

It's rather harder to prove that Wolfe doesn't offer anything else, though.

I'm not a tremendous Wolfe fan, but I think there's something fine and
pulpy about duelling with poisonous hypnotic flowers, or beaches so old
that their sand is all specs of broken glass, or (a bit more subtly) 
people living out their lives in a palace waiting room.`
-- 
   Nancy Lebovitz    nancy at netaxs.com  www.nancybuttons.com  
                       Now, with bumper stickers

Using your turn signal is not "giving information to the enemy"

---

From: Richard Horton <rrhorton at prodigy.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 02:39:22 +0000

On 29 Feb 2004 18:45:20 -0800, mhughes at mars.ark.com (Matt Hughes)
wrote:

>Thomas Womack <twomack at chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message news:<+tv*P4jeq at news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>...
>To me it's odd that you would find Wolfe's unreliable narrator
>infuriating but you're not bothered by Dunnett's practice of having
>vitally important matters take place offstage then having the
>characters refer to them as if the reader ought to know what they're
>talking about.  Gradually, of course, the reader clues in.  I enjoy
>the teasing, but I've known readers who find the plot lacunae so
>annoying they refuse to read Dunnett.
>
>The Niccolo books just get better and better, by the way.  Dunnett was
>as good a historical novelist as Cecilia Holland, and that's saying
>something.

Indeed.  

For what it's worth, I prefer Dunnett's earlier series, which is
linked to the Niccolo books: The Chronicles of Lymond.  Beginning with
The Game of Kings.  (Which is not to say that the Niccolo books aren't
quite good themselves.)

Fabulously colourful, adventurous, complex, twisty, emotionally
wracking -- HF doesn't get any better.

-- 
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard.horton at sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)

---

From: Matt Hughes <mhughes at mars.ark.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 02:45:20 +0000

Matt Hughes

---

From: Mike Ward <m at d.w>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 03:33:23 +0000

Miles Bader <miles at gnu.org> wrote in
news:87r7wdzc7a.fsf at tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp: 

>> You say this with such feeling that I can't help but believe you. And
>> it highlights the fact that I made a poor inference and expressed it
>> in a too-aggressive manner. Really, I have no idea if Wolfe is
>> Snooty. On further reflection, I believe that his *fans* are Snooty,
>> myself being but one of many, and my primary inspiration for the
>> sweeping indictment. 
> 
> But the original accusation remains completely silly -- Wolfe's work
> is actually very readable whether or not you bother to figure out what

I loved Book of the New Sun even though the entire time I was reading it I 
was thinking this ought to be terrible.  I still don't know why I found it 
so good, but I did.

I can barely remember Urth the the New Sun.  I posted a request for someone 
to remind me what happened in it not long ago. I got my memory jogged a 
bit, but I still can't recall much about or if it was any good or not.

The Fifth Head of Cerberus was absolutely amazing.  I appreciate the fact 
the Wolfe has enough faith in his reader to assume that he can figure it 
out on his own and not have be told point black what's happened.

Perhaps what comes across as snootiness to some is actually the respect 
Wolfe shows his reader by his refusal to dumb down the material.  

Mike

---

From: Htn963 <htn963 at peoplepc.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 06:10:47 +0000

> term to describe Wolfe's style isn't "infuriating". 

     I liked BOTNS, but, yeah, that's an apt description of the effect
his style usually has on me.

> in first-person by that unreliable a narrator.

     Ditto.  I haven't been tempted to read anything else by Wolfe
after _Urth_, an overlong, rambling, pointless (and methinks
self-indulgent*) exercise in religious-philosophical jigsaw assembling
which detracts from the vividness and panache of the previous BOTNS
book.

*And that's how I would describe Wolfe himself -- not snooty.  The OP
is welcome to overstate his case, of course.

--
Ht

---

From: jere7my tho?rpe <j7y at liws.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 06:10:58 +0000

In article <Xns949E128161373ifyouwanttoemailvisi at 199.45.49.11>,

> You say this with such feeling that I can't help but believe you.

     Well, good.  :)=  I say it with feeling because I've spent some 
time with him at cons, and I like him personally; he was unfailingly 
welcoming and kind and personable to me, when he had no real reason to 
be.  This might mean I can't be exactly objective wrt his writing, but I 
hope I can.

> >Perhaps, also, you should 

     Well, the big one is in their empathy with others.  Severian has no 
empathy, except that inspired by selfish infatuation; he was raised to 
be a torturer, and can barely perceive others' pain in any other way 
than professionally.  Silk has too much, such that he often has to 
overcome his empathy to be effective.

                                                       ----j7y

---

From: jere7my tho?rpe <j7y at liws.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 06:21:27 +0000

> which detracts from the vividness and panache of the previous BOTNS

     _Urth_ is atypical Wolfe, in that it's all about explaining rather 
than mystifying, and I didn't much like it; I think the _Long Sun_ and 
_Short Sun_ books are worlds better than _Urth_.  And they're both more 
accessible than _New Sun_, imho.

                                                     ----j7y

---

From: Thomas Womack <twomack at chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 08:59:33 +0000

>The Game of Kings.  (Which is not to say that the Niccolo books aren't

I gave up on the Game of Kings after getting totally frustrated with
what felt like a plethora of asides in untranslated Norman French; I'm
planning to try again after finishing the Niccolo books.  Merchants in
Bruges are for me a much more appealing setting than feuding clans in
Scotland, though (if only from titles) I'm aware that Lymond is likely
to get out of Scotland at some point.

Tom

---

From: Thomas Womack <twomack at chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 09:04:59 +0000

>talking about.  Gradually, of course, the reader clues in.

I rather like that approach, in Dunnett and in GG Kay (with writers
that good using it, it must have something to commend itself); it
keeps my poor brain from atrophying, and offers an interestingly
different sort of dramatic irony.  I'm much more convinced that there
is a Big Story of which the characters we're reading know parts than I
am from Wolfe.

>as good a historical novelist as Cecilia Holland, and that's saying

I'm looking forward to the next ones, as soon as the library's
catalogue server comes back on-line and I can actually order them ...
_Niccolo Rising_ I proselytised enthusiastically about, and lent out
to a friend the day I'd finished it.

Who's Cecilia Holland?  Georgette Heyer's real name, or some other
writer I've not yet had the privilege to encounter?

Tom

---

From: Richard Horton <rrhorton at prodigy.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 13:03:43 +0000

On 01 Mar 2004 08:59:33 +0000 (GMT), Thomas Womack
<twomack at chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>what felt like a plethora of asides in untranslated Norman French;

There are translations for all of them somewhere -- not sure if they
are on the web.  Elaine Thompson would know.

I was able to enjoy the book despite not being able to read any of the
asides. But, yeah, it's a bit offputting.

> I'm

And it's not really a spoiler to mention that Niccolo ends up spending
some considerable time in Scotland.

(Dunnett, of course, was Scottish.)

---

From: Richard Horton <rrhorton at prodigy.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 13:08:37 +0000

On 01 Mar 2004 09:04:59 +0000 (GMT), Thomas Womack

>writer I've not yet had the privilege to encounter?

Another wonderful historical fiction writer.  I prefer Dunnett
slightly, but many people prefer Holland.  Not much like Heyer at all.
(Though I like Heyer too. (I think Georgette Heyer was her real maiden
name, her married name was something like Rougier.))

Holland as also written one unambiguous SF novel: _Floating Worlds_,
from 1975 or so, set in a future in which the Solar System is pretty
much fully colonized, and Earth is something of a backwater.  An Earth
woman gets involved in the rather gothic politics of some heavy planet
folks.  I liked it a lot, thought it read very much like Historical
Fiction.  It was nominated for a Nebula but Holland withdrew the
nomination in favor of the paperback edition, with then did not get
nominated.

Holland's other novels include Great Maria, The Earl, The Firedrake,
The Bear Flag, and lots more.  No series that I know of.

---

From: Ron Henry <ronhenry at blahblahblah.clarityconnectcom>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 16:36:29 +0000

"Josh" <if.you.want.to.email at visit.joshbrain.tripod.org> wrote in
message news:Xns949D9FE6F929Difyouwanttoemailvisi at 199.45.49.11...

> I've read a lot of Gene Wolf

Um. You're so familiar with his work that you mis-spell his name in the
first line of your post? Sigh.

Hint: let's say you're not simply a random troll-like troublemaker (I
don't feel like scrutinizing your post closely enough for clues to
tell) -- be careful about obvious and egregious mis-spellings, since
they are the sure mark of a random jerk who is just trying to incite
people.

> observation: Mr. Wolfe is a snooty elitist author.

[bulk snipped]

> I kind of want to be wrong,

Well, that's very fortunate.

Ron Henry

---

From: Elaine Thompson <elaine at kethompson.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 20:14:47 +0000

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 13:03:43 GMT, Richard Horton

>are on the web.  Elaine Thompson would know.

Not necessarily, I can't keep up with everything.  But I am aware of
Nancy Wright's efforts, which are on paper - see

http://www.dorothydunnettreadingaids.com/

And the Dunnett Companions, of course.  I think they're OOP, though,
and Nancy's work is offered at her cost.

-- 
Elaine Thompson <Elaine at KEThompson.org>

---

From: William December Starr <wdstarr at panix.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 20:47:34 +0000

> I'm not a tremendous Wolfe fan, but I think there's something fine
> and pulpy about duelling with poisonous hypnotic flowers, or
> beaches so old that their sand is all specs of broken glass, or (a
> bit more subtly) people living out their lives in a palace waiting
> room.

Huh.  I thought that that last one was probably the _least_ subtle,
most in-your-face farcical suspension-of-disbelief breaker in the
whole Book of the New Sun series.

---

From: William December Starr <wdstarr at panix.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 20:52:59 +0000

In article <j7y-80EFC8.02595529022004 at visonmassif.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
"jere7my tho?rpe" <j7y at liws.org> said:

> [Gene Wolfe] certainly doesn't see his work as elitist; he writes
> that way because that's the way he writes.  My personal theory is
> that he cut his teeth on mysteries, in which readers are meant to
> piece together scattered and well-hidden clues to determine the
> identity of the murderer, and simply applies the same technique to
> SFnal worldbuilding.  Rather than telling you flat-out that
> Severian's companion is a robot, he offers clues which you are
> meant to piece together.  He expects that this will be fun and
> rewarding for you, as it is for fans of mysteries.

Of course, often in those mysteries there's a point near the end in
which the detective gathers all the suspects together in the drawing
room and Explains It All for the benefit of us mere mortals who
haven't figured it out...

---

From: Christopher J. Henrich <chenrich at monmouth.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:35:35 +0000

In article <Xns949D9FE6F929Difyouwanttoemailvisi at 199.45.49.11>, Josh

> observation: Mr. Wolfe is a snooty elitist author.
I am surprised that you have read so much of Wolfe if you really
dislike his writing. 
> [snip]
>  Consider that the entire justification for 

Wolfe has said somewher that he has a sense of humor which makes strong
men faint and women reach for weapons.  Maybe the interviewer got a
taste of it here.  Four volumes is a bit much for upstaging Darth
Vader.

-- 
Chris Henrich
The wonderful thing about not planning, is that failure comes as a complete
surprise, and is not preceded by a period of worry or  depression.
                           -- "Kiltannen"

---

From: Brian Palmer <bpalmer at rescomp.stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:40:14 +0000

> Texas), let's take a look at a short list of far more luminous scribblers who 

Without speaking more about the merits of the original poster's case,
I just have to say this is a very silly argument by authority. In some
cases, argument by authority is valid; but whether an author is snooty
or not, or has a broad range, I don't think so.

It's even sillier when that authority is also based on on cover
blurbs, given the general accuracy and relevance of such blurbs,
-- 
I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard.

---

From: Ryan Klippenstine <ryank at cogeco.ca>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 02:38:55 +0000

On 1 Mar 2004 15:47:34 -0500, wdstarr at panix.com (William December
>whole Book of the New Sun series.

Oh, come now, there's no way that's worse than the Ascian "language."
And as for subtle, how about Typhon and Piaton? I wonder what *that*
could be about?

-- 
Ryan Klippenstine

---

From: David Kennedy <dave at dkennedy.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 03:56:00 +0000

Richard Horton <rrhorton at prodigy.net> wrote:
> [Cecelia] Holland [h]as also written one unambiguous SF novel: _Floating Worlds_,

It's still in print as I bought the bright yellow Gollancz edition
just over a year ago.  I bounced off it hard. I gave it another
month or so, then had another go before deciding that while
many people like this novel, I'm not one of them.
-- 
David Kennedy
www.dkennedy.org

---

From: Richard Horton <rrhorton at prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 04:21:22 +0000

>many people like this novel, I'm not one of them.

I will say that I read it back then, when I was 16 or so, and not
since.  A couple of years later, my then girlfriend, also an SF fan*,
remarked only slightly caustically that much of my enjoyment probably
stemmed from a certain scene towards the middle.  (The main character
has been made a concubine of one of the heavy planet rulers.  (I can't
remember which planet.)  She takes the opportunity to initiate another
concubine into, well, the pleasures available to the concubines who
aren't currently in their master's bed.)

*(This woman was a bookstore manager.  She used her authority to keep
copies of Gene Wolfe's _The Fifth Head of Cerberus_ on the shelves of
her bookstore, which happened to be quite close to Barrington, IL,
well past the date when it should have been stripped.  One day she
noticed a middle aged man browsing the book, with, as she put it,
great emotion -- tears even.  The man was Gene Wolfe.)

---

From: Htn963 <htn963 at peoplepc.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 10:56:18 +0000

Richard Horton <rrhorton at prodigy.net> wrote in message news:<6ZT0c.20551$aH.16733 at newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>...
> >many people like this novel, I'm not one of them.

    Hmm, coincidentally, I just got a copy today on a whim from a
clearance rack outside my local Half bookstore, never having heard of
it.  (And this happened to be the first newsgroup thread I read after
getting home from the bookstore.)
 
> aren't currently in their master's bed.)

    It'll probably take a bit more than just sex in heavy g's to get
me to enthusiastically crack this big sucker open. [Notice all the
double entendres]  But at least the author being a predominantly
historical novelist sounds interesting.

> great emotion -- tears even.  The man was Gene Wolfe.)

    This better have happened when Wolfe was just starting out or
it'll be just maudlin rather than moving.

--
Ht

---

From: Richard Horton <rrhorton at prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 12:57:21 +0000

>it'll be just maudlin rather than moving.

It would have been in 1976 or so, before Wolfe had had much (if any)
in the way of commercial success, though after he was established as a
major writer in the SF field.
-- 
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard.horton at sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)

---

From: wthyde <wthyde at godzilla.acpub.duke.edu>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 17:42:23 +0000

> many people like this novel, I'm not one of them.

        To me (way back in 1977) it seemed like an inferior
        rewrite of her novel "Until the sun falls", about the
        mongol empire (which I liked a great deal).

        I don't insist on radically hard SF, or, at all, on
        realistic battle descriptions (whatever that means),
        but I thought that with respect to the former
        she had no concept of Newton's laws, and as
        to the latter that Mongol battle plans couldn't
        work in just the same way on a three dimensional
        battlefield.

        I've always meant to give it another try, as I really
        like her historical novels.  I may have been expecting
        too much from FW, which was highly touted when it
        was published.

William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University

---

From: Peter Shor <peterwshor at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 23:49:04 +0000

wthyde at godzilla.acpub.duke.edu wrote in message news:<yv7zeksbno1s.fsf at godzilla.acpub.duke.edu>...
>         too much from FW, which was highly touted when it

When I read it (many years ago) it seemed like a mirror image of 
Great Maria, which is my favorite of her novels.  The events are 
parallel, but the meaning is reversed.  

Peter Shor

---

From: G Klinedinst <g_klinedinst at hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 00:08:25 +0000

Josh <if.you.want.to.email at visit.joshbrain.tripod.org> wrote in message news:

<snip>

Josh,
I am not a regular here I just happened across this and wanted to see
if I could clarify why some people, including myself, love Gene
Wolfe(not in a Severian-Jolenta way). :-) First off with regards to
hubris, I think you are judging a very large community on the basis of
a few individuals. Gene Wolfe is far bigger than RASFW, just as we are
all much larger than this NG too.

> halloween costume (this was revealed in an interview). 

This was probably said half-jokingly. Many artists like to play with
interviewers, especially with regards to the "cookie-cutter" questions
they ask. I would take that with a grain of salt.

> The plot, etc was 

I disagree 100%. Everything you could ever want to know about Severian
is shown in his actions. I think this is the core problem why you are
having these conflicting feelings about his writing. When I first read
the _New Sun_ series I was boggled by Severian. Why doesn't he say, "I
was really sad when X happened", or "So and so really scared me", etc.
I thought he had no emotions or else very little emotion, almost like
a robot, or a poorly fleshed out character, as you suggest. Upon
further readings and also quite a bit of reflection I realized that
his actions speak louder than words ever could. He simply isn't
introspective. You have to put yourself in Severians place, imagine
what you would feel, what you would think, etc. Gene Wolfe is the
ultimate "show, don't tell" author. He hints at the motives and
feelings of the characters but doesn't explicitly say them too often.
Part of the fun and excitement about reading Gene Wolfe is trying to
figure out all of the characters motivations. I don't think when he
writes like this he is trying to be difficult or obtuse because he is
snotty, but more because he enjoys it and he knows that there are many
fans out there that enjoy it.

That being said, Wolfe probably isn't for everyone. To continue an
analogy someone made earlier, I know that Bach was a genius but I
don't personally enjoy his music and I'm not going to try to force
myself to. You are perfectly reasonable to not like Wolfe. All I'm
saying is that there is something very wonderful there enjoyed by many
people.

-Greg

---

From: wthyde <wthyde at godzilla.acpub.duke.edu>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 18:49:04 +0000

> parallel, but the meaning is reversed. 

        That's one of hers I have not read.  Now to find a
        copy...

William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University

---

From: Ron Henry <ronhenry at blahblahblah.clarityconnectcom>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 13:55:55 +0000

> > sudden realization anyway). Consider that the entire justification
for
> they ask. I would take that with a grain of salt.

Well, I think Wolfe was sincere that he flashed on an image while
thinking about costume balls at cons, and that this gave him ideas that
led to the look of the torturers' guild -- but the real problem here is
misrepresentation and overstatement by the original poster. To say that
"the entire justification for Severian" was an idea for a "Halloween
costume" is to grossly misrepresent Wolfe's comments. I read the
interview he's referring to, and it's just a case of when Wolfe got a
germ of an idea that, over time, evolved into a character. Long
consideration of that character, in turn, lead to Wolfe beginning the
New Sun books.

To call this the "entire justification" blithlely ignores Wolfe's
obvious interest in classic sf motifs that he reworks within the series,
his serious conisderation of morality and good/evil dichotomies, and not
least the curious twisting and re-fashioning of imagery and symbology
from historical Christian sources that all help propel the narrative.

Ron Henry

---

From: Mike Williams <mike@nospam4me>
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 13:40:27 +0000

"jere7my tho?rpe" <j7y at liws.org> wrote in message 
news:j7y-80EFC8.02595529022004 at visonmassif.rs.itd.umich.edu...

> Rather than telling you flat-out that

< Big spoiler>

---

From: Chris Thompson <cet1 at cus.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 21:21:34 +0000

In article <c27chc$6ac$1 at news01.cit.cornell.edu>,
>consideration of that character, in turn, lead to Wolfe beginning the

Wolfe also tells the story about the masquerade in "Helioscope" 
(originally written for _Empire_, but reprinted in _The Castle of 
the Otter_). It needs to be read in context, of course. But perhaps 
the most relevant comment is Wolfe's own (also in TCotO):

GW> You've now read two quite different pieces describing the way in 
GW> which _The Book of the New Sun_ came to be written. I wasn't lying 
GW> in either---writing's a complex process, and if I wanted to I could
GW> do a third piece giving quite different explanations. They, also,
GW> would be true.

Chris Thompson
Email: cet1 [at] cam.ac.uk