Subject: (whorl) Heresy

From: BMeyer7 <bmeyer7 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 16:34:51 +0000

OK, I'm sure I'll be the target of the wrath of many, but here goes. First, 
let me set forth my background--I've been reading SF/F for my entire life 
(I'm 40), have read every published word of Wolfe, and, while not nearly as 
sophisticated as many on this list, am not a total Wolfe-dummy.  I figured 
out lots of stuff (including what was going on in "Fifth Head") on my own, 
before such lists provided the insights of others.  OK, reading this list, it 
is striking that after 7 books in this series, the very, very, smart people 
posting cannot come up with a consensus about what the hell is going on with 
respect to key issues. Now a series of rhetorical questions:  At what point 
does intentional obscurity on the part of an author become a self-indulgent 
pretention that gets in the way of artistic expression?  How much do we 
really love Wolfe because he's a great writer and how much because it's fun 
to solve puzzles? Has Wolfe crossed the line from not giving all the answers 
to creating texts that must be pored over by talmudic scholars rather than 
actual readers of novels?  Is Wolfe writing for a smaller, and smaller 
audience of  expert Wolfe-interpreters?  Discuss.

---

From: Michael Andre-Driussi <mantis at sirius.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:43:50 +0000

>audience of  expert Wolfe-interpreters?  Discuss.

Well BMeyer7, as you no doubt recall from the days of GEnie, if not before
then, it all boils down to "you like it" or "you don't like it."

Case in point: Henry Kaiser, in his review of RTTW for Amazon.com, I think
makes some of the same statements you are making, but he is making them
from the clear position of "I like it."  For example, iirc, Henry says that
Wolfe is making it harder rather than easier on his readers, and Henry
=likes= this detail, it amazes him that Wolfe may be writing for a smaller
group.

At every step along Wolfe's career there have been those who felt he had
crossed some line: people who loved 5HC but found TBOTNS to be something of
a fakeout (I believe we can safely put Robert Silverberg in this "New Sun
is a fakeout" category); people who loved TBOTNS but feel that URTH is a
fakeout (witness recent revival of that chestnut); people who loved the
Urth Cycle but didn't like TBOTLS (Christopher Culver is a gracious
example).  Or people who like everything =but= when Wolfe gets
contemporary, as in CASTLEVIEW, THERE ARE DOORS, PANDORA, FREE LIVE FREE,
LETTERS HOME (alga is the gracious example).

You probably remember more than most what my least favorite Wolfe novel is.
Everybody has their own taste.  The rest is just ferreting out the details
of why we like or dislike something, and like I tried to illustrate above,
the same elements can be used for liking or disliking something.  I myself
am not too good at figuring out why I dislike something--it is too much
labor, whereas figuring out why I like something is an intoxicating joy
that I have done for free, regardless of the real cost.

=mantis=

Sirius Fiction
Catalog and errata sheet at http://www.sirius.com/~mantis/

*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun.
*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.moonmilk.com/whorl/
*To leave the list, send "unsubscribe" to whorl-request at lists.best.com
*If it's Wolfe but not Long Sun, please use the URTH list: urth at lists.best.com

---

From: William Ansley <wansley at warwick.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:51:55 +0000

>audience of  expert Wolfe-interpreters?  Discuss.

I think you bring up some interesting issues. As I think my recent 
posts have indicated, I agree to a great degree with your implied 
criticisms of TBotSS. I also strongly agree that I, as well, am not 
as sophisticated or as knowledgeable as many others who post to this 
list. I find it very satisfying to have certain incidents in Wolfe's 
books made clear (or at least clearer)  to me by someone who posts 
the appropriate Biblical, mythical or historical reference and or 
analysis. This was my motivation in posting my long series of 
messages on the Oz references in "The Eyeflash Miracles." I hope I 
provided a bit of that satisfaction to someone else.

Despite my satisfaction in revelations, I believe that a novel should 
be entertaining on a surface level so that it can be enjoyed by 
someone who isn't aware of all the buried layers of meaning that may 
be present, even if that enjoyment is shallow compared to the "deep" 
enjoyment of the reader who does make the extra effort to penetrate 
as many of the underlaying layers as he or she can.

Given my many carks and quibbles with RttW and the other SS books the 
following opinion may surprise many readers of this list, but I think 
Wolfe has succeeded in this with these books. Even though I was 
disappointed in RttW as a source of clarification, I did enjoy 
reading it. Despite my complaints about Olivine's speech patterns, I 
was moved by her plight and devoutly hope Marble will be reunited 
with her and be able to make her whole (eyes excepted, of course). 
That, to me, is the mark of a great writer.

But I worry because I also think that Wolfe has succeeded less in the 
SS books in providing both an accessible surface layer and a coherent 
framework for understanding the underlying layers. Wolfe should write 
what he wants to write, of course, but if he really is writing for a 
smaller and smaller group with each book, how much longer will his 
books continue to be published? Publishers exist to make a profit, 
especially now. Perhaps Wolfe's oft stated fears that his next 
submitted work will not be accepted for publication are more 
realistic than we realize.

I also have to admit that I enjoyed the SS books less than the LS 
books and those less than the NS books, If Wolfe does write another 
book that continues the LS/SS series, I am going to have to think 
long and hard before I decide whether I am going to read it. I really 
feel that I would have understood and therefore enjoyed RttW better 
if I had re-read all of the LS and the previous two SS books 
immediately beforehand. But I just didn't have time. To rephrase one 
of the questions above:

Has Wolfe crossed the line from legitimately challenging his readers 
to asking far more of them than can reasonably be expected?

I think he may have with these books for a great many potential 
readers; I think he may have for me. For those of you who disagree 
with this, by all means, enjoy your discussions.

I still have more to say myself.

William Ansley

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:08:29 +0000

BMeyer7 at aol.com wrote:
>OK, reading this list, it

I've worried before about the apparent impenetrability of some of Wolfe's
mysteries, but I think your specific complaints here are a bit off base.  In
the first place, it's a bit early to worry about the lack of any consensus.
The book's only been out for about a month, and few of us have had the
chance to read it more than once.  I'm more concerned about the inability of
the recent discussion on PEACE, which has been out for over two decades
(iirc), to reach a conclusion on key issues.

In the second place, the fact that a few posters disagree doesn't in itself
demonstrate a lack of consensus.  "Mainstream" literary criticism
demonstrates that any work, no matter how clear, can spawn wildly divergent
readings.  For there to be a real lack of consensus on RTTW, the "silent
majority" of serious Wolfe readers would have to be as split as the few who
have taken positions so far; and we don't know that yet.

In the third place, speaking as one of the people involved in these
arguments, I don't particularly enjoy the puzzle-solving aspect of Wolfe's
books, although I do enjoy his play with narrative conventions.  I've never
been engaged, for example, by the questions of who was buried in the
mausoleum in TBOTNS or what caused the disturbance at the gate between
_Shadow_ and _Claw_.  Speaking as a biassed observer, while there are
obscurities in TBOTSS, I don't believe they include the "key issues" we've
been arguing about.  I honestly think the evidence on these is clear, even
though intelligent readers disagree with my positions (but how many do we
don't know, as I said above; and if Wolfe really has failed to make the
protagonist's identity clear, then the book _is_ seriously flawed).  Nor do
I think that RTTW is the most obscure of Wolfe's books, or even second most.

--Adam

---

From: William Ansley <wansley at warwick.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:26:46 +0000

At 12:43 PM -0800 2/19/01, Michael Andre-Driussi wrote:
>it all boils down to "you like it" or "you don't like it."

mantis,

You know, when I first read this I thought, "How facile! This doesn't 
help us to understand anything." (Well, what I originally thought was 
more like, "Hah!" But this translates as I indicate above.)

But after maundering on for a few messages trying to analyze "what's 
wrong" with TBotSS, I have come to realize you are right. It does 
boil down to the fact that I didn't like the series as much as I 
hoped I would. I think  can give some reasons for this, but that 
doesn't mean that there is anything "wrong" with the SS books, it 
just means I didn't like them.

OK, so this is a revelation of the obvious. I tend to be a little 
slow, sometimes.

William Ansley

---

From: Spectacled Bear <spectacled.bear at pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:51:59 +0000

At 11:34 2001-02-19 EST, BMeyer7 at aol.com wrote: 
respect to key issues.
<<<<
...
 Has Wolfe crossed the line from not giving all the answers 
to creating texts that must be pored over by talmudic scholars rather than 
actual readers of novels?  Is Wolfe writing for a smaller, and smaller 
audience of  expert Wolfe-interpreters?  Discuss.  
<<<<

I strongly suspect that the inability to reach a consensus is *because*
of the very smart scholars here, not despite it. There's too much
invention and over-interpretation going on in those fertile brains,
and the straightforward interpretation is lost among the possibilies.
It's like quiz programs, where most people can answer questions like
"which species of white bear roams the unspoiled wastes of ..." because
they have only ever heard of one kind of bear being white. Bear experts
are less certain because they know black bears can be white, even without
being albino.

Spectacled Bear.

"...it represents for me all that monomaniacal fabric of argument, so
tightly woven that not even the tiniest objection or spark of light can
escape its net, in which human minds become enmeshed whenever the
subject is one in which no appeal to fact is possible" - _Sword_, Ch. 38

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by the 
MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit
http://www.messagelabs.com/stats.asp

---

From: William Ansley <wansley at warwick.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:38:49 +0000

>subject is one in which no appeal to fact is possible" - _Sword_, Ch. 38

So, we're too darn smart for our own good, are we? Maybe.

But, I think the very smart, scholarly and fertile brain of Gene 
Wolfe is as much responsible for the lack of straightforward 
interpretation of his works as our collective brilliance.

I would like to see a straightforward interpretation of any of Gene 
Wolfe's novel or novella length works, or even some of his short 
stories. (Well, perhaps there are a few...)

But, Mr. Bear, you did come up with the perfect Wolfe quote to 
illustrate your point. Bravo!

William Ansley

---

From: Spectacled Bear <spectacled.bear at pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:16:50 +0000

At 00:38 2001-02-28 -0500, William Ansley wrote:
...
>stories. (Well, perhaps there are a few...)

I think we sorted out a straightforward interpretation of "Kevin Malone"
when we discussed that. That is *very* short, admittedly. How about
_Pandora by Holly Hollander_? Although there's always the worry that the
person who wrote the blurb on the back knew more about it than I do (not
a foregone conclusion either way!) and that it is more than a simple
detective story. So perhaps you're right. But I still think that we do
often read more into things than is actually there. Pike's ghost, for
instance.

>illustrate your point. Bravo!

Thank you! I've been saving it :-)

Spectacled Bear.