{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/whorl/1198", "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": "whorl", "thread": { "id": 1198, "subject": "Heresy", "messages": 8, "voices": 5, "first": "2001-02-19T12:43:50+00:00", "last": "2001-02-28T09:16:50+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "BMeyer7", "address": "bmeyer7 at aol.com" }, "date": "2001-02-19T16:34:51+00:00", "subject": "(whorl) Heresy", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "OK, I'm sure I'll be the target of the wrath of many, but here goes. First, \nlet me set forth my background--I've been reading SF/F for my entire life \n(I'm 40), have read every published word of Wolfe, and, while not nearly as \nsophisticated as many on this list, am not a total Wolfe-dummy. I figured \nout lots of stuff (including what was going on in \"Fifth Head\") on my own, \nbefore such lists provided the insights of others. OK, reading this list, it \nis striking that after 7 books in this series, the very, very, smart people \nposting cannot come up with a consensus about what the hell is going on with \nrespect to key issues. Now a series of rhetorical questions: At what point \ndoes intentional obscurity on the part of an author become a self-indulgent \npretention that gets in the way of artistic expression? How much do we \nreally love Wolfe because he's a great writer and how much because it's fun \nto solve puzzles? Has Wolfe crossed the line from not giving all the answers \nto creating texts that must be pored over by talmudic scholars rather than \nactual readers of novels? Is Wolfe writing for a smaller, and smaller \naudience of expert Wolfe-interpreters? Discuss. " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Andre-Driussi", "address": "mantis at sirius.com" }, "date": "2001-02-19T12:43:50+00:00", "subject": "Re: (whorl) Heresy", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "BMeyer7 at aol.com wrote:\nOK, I'm sure I'll be the target of the wrath of many, but here goes. First,\nlet me set forth my background--I've been reading SF/F for my entire life\n(I'm 40), have read every published word of Wolfe, and, while not nearly as\nsophisticated as many on this list, am not a total Wolfe-dummy. I figured\nout lots of stuff (including what was going on in \"Fifth Head\") on my own,\nbefore such lists provided the insights of others. OK, reading this list,\nit\nis striking that after 7 books in this series, the very, very, smart people\nposting cannot come up with a consensus about what the hell is going on with\nrespect to key issues. Now a series of rhetorical questions: At what point\ndoes intentional obscurity on the part of an author become a self-indulgent\npretention that gets in the way of artistic expression? How much do we\nreally love Wolfe because he's a great writer and how much because it's fun\nto solve puzzles? Has Wolfe crossed the line from not giving all the answers\nto creating texts that must be pored over by talmudic scholars rather than\nactual readers of novels? Is Wolfe writing for a smaller, and smaller\naudience of expert Wolfe-interpreters? Discuss." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well BMeyer7, as you no doubt recall from the days of GEnie, if not before\nthen, it all boils down to \"you like it\" or \"you don't like it.\"\n\nCase in point: Henry Kaiser, in his review of RTTW for Amazon.com, I think\nmakes some of the same statements you are making, but he is making them\nfrom the clear position of \"I like it.\" For example, iirc, Henry says that\nWolfe is making it harder rather than easier on his readers, and Henry\n=likes= this detail, it amazes him that Wolfe may be writing for a smaller\ngroup.\n\nAt every step along Wolfe's career there have been those who felt he had\ncrossed some line: people who loved 5HC but found TBOTNS to be something of\na fakeout (I believe we can safely put Robert Silverberg in this \"New Sun\nis a fakeout\" category); people who loved TBOTNS but feel that URTH is a\nfakeout (witness recent revival of that chestnut); people who loved the\nUrth Cycle but didn't like TBOTLS (Christopher Culver is a gracious\nexample). Or people who like everything =but= when Wolfe gets\ncontemporary, as in CASTLEVIEW, THERE ARE DOORS, PANDORA, FREE LIVE FREE,\nLETTERS HOME (alga is the gracious example).\n\nYou probably remember more than most what my least favorite Wolfe novel is.\nEverybody has their own taste. The rest is just ferreting out the details\nof why we like or dislike something, and like I tried to illustrate above,\nthe same elements can be used for liking or disliking something. I myself\nam not too good at figuring out why I dislike something--it is too much\nlabor, whereas figuring out why I like something is an intoxicating joy\nthat I have done for free, regardless of the real cost.\n\n=mantis=\n\nSirius Fiction\nCatalog and errata sheet at http://www.sirius.com/~mantis/\n\n\n\n*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "William Ansley", "address": "wansley at warwick.net" }, "date": "2001-02-20T00:51:55+00:00", "subject": "Re: (whorl) Heresy", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At 11:34 AM -0500 2/19/01, BMeyer7 at aol.com wrote:\nOK, I'm sure I'll be the target of the wrath of many, but here goes. First,\nlet me set forth my background--I've been reading SF/F for my entire life\n(I'm 40), have read every published word of Wolfe, and, while not nearly as\nsophisticated as many on this list, am not a total Wolfe-dummy. I figured\nout lots of stuff (including what was going on in \"Fifth Head\") on my own,\nbefore such lists provided the insights of others. OK, reading this list, it\nis striking that after 7 books in this series, the very, very, smart people\nposting cannot come up with a consensus about what the hell is going on with\nrespect to key issues. Now a series of rhetorical questions: At what point\ndoes intentional obscurity on the part of an author become a self-indulgent\npretention that gets in the way of artistic expression? How much do we\nreally love Wolfe because he's a great writer and how much because it's fun\nto solve puzzles? Has Wolfe crossed the line from not giving all the answers\nto creating texts that must be pored over by talmudic scholars rather than\nactual readers of novels? Is Wolfe writing for a smaller, and smaller\naudience of expert Wolfe-interpreters? Discuss." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think you bring up some interesting issues. As I think my recent \nposts have indicated, I agree to a great degree with your implied \ncriticisms of TBotSS. I also strongly agree that I, as well, am not \nas sophisticated or as knowledgeable as many others who post to this \nlist. I find it very satisfying to have certain incidents in Wolfe's \nbooks made clear (or at least clearer) to me by someone who posts \nthe appropriate Biblical, mythical or historical reference and or \nanalysis. This was my motivation in posting my long series of \nmessages on the Oz references in \"The Eyeflash Miracles.\" I hope I \nprovided a bit of that satisfaction to someone else.\n\nDespite my satisfaction in revelations, I believe that a novel should \nbe entertaining on a surface level so that it can be enjoyed by \nsomeone who isn't aware of all the buried layers of meaning that may \nbe present, even if that enjoyment is shallow compared to the \"deep\" \nenjoyment of the reader who does make the extra effort to penetrate \nas many of the underlaying layers as he or she can.\n\nGiven my many carks and quibbles with RttW and the other SS books the \nfollowing opinion may surprise many readers of this list, but I think \nWolfe has succeeded in this with these books. Even though I was \ndisappointed in RttW as a source of clarification, I did enjoy \nreading it. Despite my complaints about Olivine's speech patterns, I \nwas moved by her plight and devoutly hope Marble will be reunited \nwith her and be able to make her whole (eyes excepted, of course). \nThat, to me, is the mark of a great writer.\n\nBut I worry because I also think that Wolfe has succeeded less in the \nSS books in providing both an accessible surface layer and a coherent \nframework for understanding the underlying layers. Wolfe should write \nwhat he wants to write, of course, but if he really is writing for a \nsmaller and smaller group with each book, how much longer will his \nbooks continue to be published? Publishers exist to make a profit, \nespecially now. Perhaps Wolfe's oft stated fears that his next \nsubmitted work will not be accepted for publication are more \nrealistic than we realize.\n\nI also have to admit that I enjoyed the SS books less than the LS \nbooks and those less than the NS books, If Wolfe does write another \nbook that continues the LS/SS series, I am going to have to think \nlong and hard before I decide whether I am going to read it. I really \nfeel that I would have understood and therefore enjoyed RttW better \nif I had re-read all of the LS and the previous two SS books \nimmediately beforehand. But I just didn't have time. To rephrase one \nof the questions above:\n\nHas Wolfe crossed the line from legitimately challenging his readers \nto asking far more of them than can reasonably be expected?\n\nI think he may have with these books for a great many potential \nreaders; I think he may have for me. For those of you who disagree \nwith this, by all means, enjoy your discussions.\n\nI still have more to say myself.\n\nWilliam Ansley\n\n*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2001-02-20T09:08:29+00:00", "subject": "Re: (whorl) Heresy", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "BMeyer7 at aol.com wrote:\nOK, reading this list, it\nis striking that after 7 books in this series, the very, very, smart people\nposting cannot come up with a consensus about what the hell is going on with\nrespect to key issues. Now a series of rhetorical questions: At what point\ndoes intentional obscurity on the part of an author become a self-indulgent\npretention that gets in the way of artistic expression? How much do we\nreally love Wolfe because he's a great writer and how much because it's fun\nto solve puzzles? Has Wolfe crossed the line from not giving all the answers\nto creating texts that must be pored over by talmudic scholars rather than\nactual readers of novels? Is Wolfe writing for a smaller, and smaller\naudience of expert Wolfe-interpreters? Discuss." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've worried before about the apparent impenetrability of some of Wolfe's\nmysteries, but I think your specific complaints here are a bit off base. In\nthe first place, it's a bit early to worry about the lack of any consensus.\nThe book's only been out for about a month, and few of us have had the\nchance to read it more than once. I'm more concerned about the inability of\nthe recent discussion on PEACE, which has been out for over two decades\n(iirc), to reach a conclusion on key issues.\n\nIn the second place, the fact that a few posters disagree doesn't in itself\ndemonstrate a lack of consensus. \"Mainstream\" literary criticism\ndemonstrates that any work, no matter how clear, can spawn wildly divergent\nreadings. For there to be a real lack of consensus on RTTW, the \"silent\nmajority\" of serious Wolfe readers would have to be as split as the few who\nhave taken positions so far; and we don't know that yet.\n\nIn the third place, speaking as one of the people involved in these\narguments, I don't particularly enjoy the puzzle-solving aspect of Wolfe's\nbooks, although I do enjoy his play with narrative conventions. I've never\nbeen engaged, for example, by the questions of who was buried in the\nmausoleum in TBOTNS or what caused the disturbance at the gate between\n_Shadow_ and _Claw_. Speaking as a biassed observer, while there are\nobscurities in TBOTSS, I don't believe they include the \"key issues\" we've\nbeen arguing about. I honestly think the evidence on these is clear, even\nthough intelligent readers disagree with my positions (but how many do we\ndon't know, as I said above; and if Wolfe really has failed to make the\nprotagonist's identity clear, then the book _is_ seriously flawed). Nor do\nI think that RTTW is the most obscure of Wolfe's books, or even second most.\n\n--Adam \n\n\n\n*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "William Ansley", "address": "wansley at warwick.net" }, "date": "2001-02-20T23:26:46+00:00", "subject": "Re: (whorl) Heresy", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At 12:43 PM -0800 2/19/01, Michael Andre-Driussi wrote:\nit all boils down to \"you like it\" or \"you don't like it.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "mantis,\n\nYou know, when I first read this I thought, \"How facile! This doesn't \nhelp us to understand anything.\" (Well, what I originally thought was \nmore like, \"Hah!\" But this translates as I indicate above.)\n\nBut after maundering on for a few messages trying to analyze \"what's \nwrong\" with TBotSS, I have come to realize you are right. It does \nboil down to the fact that I didn't like the series as much as I \nhoped I would. I think can give some reasons for this, but that \ndoesn't mean that there is anything \"wrong\" with the SS books, it \njust means I didn't like them.\n\nOK, so this is a revelation of the obvious. I tend to be a little \nslow, sometimes.\n\nWilliam Ansley\n\n*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Spectacled Bear", "address": "spectacled.bear at pobox.com" }, "date": "2001-02-27T14:51:59+00:00", "subject": "Re: (whorl) Heresy", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "At 11:34 2001-02-19 EST, BMeyer7 at aol.com wrote: " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "OK, reading this list, it \nis striking that after 7 books in this series, the very, very, smart people \nposting cannot come up with a consensus about what the hell is going on with \nrespect to key issues.\n<<<<\n..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " Has Wolfe crossed the line from not giving all the answers \nto creating texts that must be pored over by talmudic scholars rather than \nactual readers of novels? Is Wolfe writing for a smaller, and smaller \naudience of expert Wolfe-interpreters? Discuss. \n<<<<\n\nI strongly suspect that the inability to reach a consensus is *because*\nof the very smart scholars here, not despite it. There's too much\ninvention and over-interpretation going on in those fertile brains,\nand the straightforward interpretation is lost among the possibilies.\nIt's like quiz programs, where most people can answer questions like\n\"which species of white bear roams the unspoiled wastes of ...\" because\nthey have only ever heard of one kind of bear being white. Bear experts\nare less certain because they know black bears can be white, even without\nbeing albino.\n\nSpectacled Bear.\n\n\"...it represents for me all that monomaniacal fabric of argument, so\ntightly woven that not even the tiniest objection or spark of light can\nescape its net, in which human minds become enmeshed whenever the\nsubject is one in which no appeal to fact is possible\" - _Sword_, Ch. 38" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "William Ansley", "address": "wansley at warwick.net" }, "date": "2001-02-28T00:38:49+00:00", "subject": "Re: (whorl) Heresy", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I strongly suspect that the inability to reach a consensus is *because*\nof the very smart scholars here, not despite it. There's too much\ninvention and over-interpretation going on in those fertile brains,\nand the straightforward interpretation is lost among the possibilies.\nIt's like quiz programs, where most people can answer questions like\n\"which species of white bear roams the unspoiled wastes of ...\" because\nthey have only ever heard of one kind of bear being white. Bear experts\nare less certain because they know black bears can be white, even without\nbeing albino.\n\nSpectacled Bear.\n\n\"...it represents for me all that monomaniacal fabric of argument, so\ntightly woven that not even the tiniest objection or spark of light can\nescape its net, in which human minds become enmeshed whenever the\nsubject is one in which no appeal to fact is possible\" - _Sword_, Ch. 38" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "So, we're too darn smart for our own good, are we? Maybe.\n\nBut, I think the very smart, scholarly and fertile brain of Gene \nWolfe is as much responsible for the lack of straightforward \ninterpretation of his works as our collective brilliance.\n\nI would like to see a straightforward interpretation of any of Gene \nWolfe's novel or novella length works, or even some of his short \nstories. (Well, perhaps there are a few...)\n\nBut, Mr. Bear, you did come up with the perfect Wolfe quote to \nillustrate your point. Bravo!\n\nWilliam Ansley\n\n*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Spectacled Bear", "address": "spectacled.bear at pobox.com" }, "date": "2001-02-28T09:16:50+00:00", "subject": "Re: (whorl) Heresy", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "At 00:38 2001-02-28 -0500, William Ansley wrote:\n..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So, we're too darn smart for our own good, are we? Maybe.\n\nBut, I think the very smart, scholarly and fertile brain of Gene \nWolfe is as much responsible for the lack of straightforward \ninterpretation of his works as our collective brilliance.\n\nI would like to see a straightforward interpretation of any of Gene \nWolfe's novel or novella length works, or even some of his short \nstories. (Well, perhaps there are a few...)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think we sorted out a straightforward interpretation of \"Kevin Malone\"\nwhen we discussed that. That is *very* short, admittedly. How about\n_Pandora by Holly Hollander_? Although there's always the worry that the\nperson who wrote the blurb on the back knew more about it than I do (not\na foregone conclusion either way!) and that it is more than a simple\ndetective story. So perhaps you're right. But I still think that we do\noften read more into things than is actually there. Pike's ghost, for\ninstance." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But, Mr. Bear, you did come up with the perfect Wolfe quote to \nillustrate your point. Bravo!" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thank you! I've been saving it :-)\n\nSpectacled Bear." } ] } ] }