{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/whorl/141", "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": 141, "subject": "Digest whorl.v001.n052", "messages": 2, "voices": 2, "first": "1997-02-28T11:34:27+00:00", "last": "1997-02-28T15:31:56+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Kieran Mullen", "address": "kieran at phyast.nhn.ou.edu" }, "date": "1997-02-28T11:34:27+00:00", "subject": "(whorl) Re: Digest whorl.v001.n052", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " First, there are at least two Kieran's on this list. I don't want\nto cause problems for the other one with my incendiary comments below.\n\n There seems to be a certain uniform admiration for the intricacy of\nWolfe's writing on this list. I feel that while admirable, this intricacy\nis secondary to Wolfe's sense of story. In a nutshell, the New Sun and\nLong Sun books are well written *stories* that also have hidden\nconnections in them. I dislike some of Wolfe's work where the \"puzzle\"\naspect overwhelms the story. \n\n A few initial comments. First, of course Wolfe can write any damn way\nhe pleases. He's under no obligation to make me happy. Second, of course\nWolfe is more demanding on the reader than the average writer, and that's\ngreat. Third, of course Wolfe can turn out prose that is elegant,\nsonorous, and paints amazing images; his imagination sparkles. I think he\nis one of the best writers alive. (For me others include Stansilaw Lem,\nand Mark Helprin.) \n\n The problem is that what I am calling \"intricacy\" is not an absolute\ngood. It is one of many. For example, a fine storyline is not sufficient\neither, if the prose is dull and leaden. Sometimes it seems that Wolfe's\nintricacy can make a story, for me, unenjoyable. I still find _The Fifth\nHead of Cerebus_ to be a depressing and confusing, and ultimately (*for\nme*) an unenjoyable book. _Castleview_ succeeds (*for me*) largely on the\nbasis of the characters; the Arthurian subtext is subsubsubtext. Sure you\ncan tease it out of the plotline, but much of it is fleeting and obscured.\n\n I can hear outraged readers crying out in Wolfe's defense that he is\nmore demanding of his readers, his goals more sophisticated, and basically,\nI'm plain lazy. All of these are true. But if you want intricacy, I can \nweave a haiku based on anagrams of first words of famous stories, and send\nit to you encrypted. What? You don't want to spend your time on it? What\nare you - lazy? Don't you realize how I'm pulling on the images of the\nentire stories by using only their first words? Don't you see how the DES\nencryption code generated strings that when uuencoded produced symbols from\nthe periodic table?\n\n It would be *unreasonable* to expect you to spend time on such a\nboring task. For me, Wolfe's New and Long Sun stories work because his\nstories have a sliding scale of connections, from very obscure to\nobvious, and his stories are fundamentally enjoyable whether you see all\nthese levels or not. For me _Fifth Head_ was just not as good a\n_story_. In his _Endangered Species_ collection he has three short stories\nthat don't make much sense when read separately, but were originally\npublished separately. Here the story has been lost. The prose may be well\nwritten, but I don't *care* about what's going on.\n\n This reminds me of some modern composers with whom I have talked.\nTheir music is incredibly intricate, and if you understand all the internal\nand external references, very elegant. It just sounds like crap, that's\nall. \n\n Now Wolfe can do whatever he wants. In addition he's a damn fine\nwriter. When I'm dead and long gone people will still be reading his works.\nBut I'm willing to bet on which ones they'll enjoy the most.\n\n Of course this list will naturally spend more time teasing out the\nconnections in Wolfe's writings. It's natural, and it's often what I\nfind most interesting in the list. I just feel a little uncomfortable\nsometimes that everyone thinks what I would call obscurantism is a Good\nThing.\n\n Kieran Mullen\n\n\n Kieran Mullen email: kieran at phyast.nhn.ou.edu\n Dept. of Physics and Astronomy phone: (405) 325-3961\n The University of Oklahoma FAX: (405) 325-7557\n Norman, OK 73019, USA http://www.nhn.uoknor.edu/~kieran/\n\nQuestions or problems to whorl-owner at lists.best.com" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Doug Eigsti", "address": "douge at nti.com" }, "date": "1997-02-28T15:31:56+00:00", "subject": "Re: (whorl) Re: Digest whorl.v001.n052", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Keiran Mullen,\n\n\tI emphathize with your views on the \"story vs. puzzle\" Wolfe. I,\ntoo, appreciate a good story more than searching for hidden clues. I have\nstated on these pages that I think Wolfe is magical in his ability to put\nthoughts in one's head without directly telling the reader every little\ndetail. The counterpoint is that his work does reside on both the story\nand puzzle level. Finding arcane tidbits in a story one has grown to love\nis rewarding, especailly now that we have this forum to broadcast our \nideas.\n\t In LONG SUN Wolfe has surpassed even his earlier works in that the\nbackground information pieced together from NEW SUN allows the reader to\nplay with possible Whorl scenarios that fit together to form a story in\nand of itself. Each reader can come up with his own favorite explanation.\nInteractive fiction. \n\tI sometimes think that Wolfe is writing for a reader that doesn't\nexist. He has to build his audience up from people who have read his \nstuff once already. It is the 2nd pass reader he is really after. I can't \nsay I am a fan of everything he writes. CASTLEVIEW left me confused, and \nI still don't see the point of Dr. Talos' play other than for symbolic \nclues. Maybe someone out there can enlighten me on this; help me find a \nway to like it. I always get the feeling, in every Wolfe story, that I'm\nmissing something important. But I keep coming back for more. It's a \nwelcome addiction.\n\n=Talon=\ndouge at nti.com\n\nP.S. Perhaps you would like to adopt a Vironese name to avoid the Kieran\nconfusion.\n\n\nQuestions or problems to whorl-owner at lists.best.com" } ] } ] }