Wolfe at the Beach: Two Reviews

Stuart Hamm · 29 Aug 2007, 01:43 · from 2007-August.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: hammstu at sbcglobal.net (Stuart Hamm)
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: (urth) Wolfe at the Beach: Two Reviews
In-Reply-To: <1188347805.8973.1207772981 at webmail.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <749213.85172.qm at web81406.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Amen to the Gibson plug...I loved "Spook..." although not quite as much as "Pattern Recognition"
  Philip K Dick meets Paul Auster
  I just wish he was as prolific as GW and I didn't have to wait so long between releases

Rex Lycanthrosaurus <lycanthrosaurus at fastmail.fm> wrote:
  Apologies to both mantis and Peter Wright if "errors" was deliberate and
a puckish attempt at humor. I thought for sure from the phrasing and
context that "errors" had been substituted for "entries." My bad.

As for Nick Gever's gentle counter-assertion that there are indeed sfnal
elements in the book, he's right, but they play such an insubstantial
part in the narrative, that Pirate Freedom would be no different without
them. I still certainly have my doubts about the book being "Fantasy"
although oddly enough I'll probably vote for Gibson's Spook Country as
being one of my top sf novels for the year.

One should also keep in mind that Gene Wolfe is a writer of consummate
grace, regardless of marketing categories.

> I forwarded Rex's post to mantis, who wrote:
> >Right. Well, given the context, I share Rex's pain at typos--from 
> >both sides (reader and publisher), or more sides, if possible.
> >
> >Setting that aside, the "blunder" attributed to Wright is actually 
> >100% accurate. That is, I said it, or wrote it, and he is repeating 
> >it verbatim, with perhaps too straight a face.
> 
> mantis went on to add:
> >Again, I understand how he could have taken it as a blunder since he 
> >was being irritated by real typos, so I'm not being critical of Rex. 
> >And I can also see how a self-deprecating remark given by myself 
> >might lose humor when repeated by another, and even seem deprecating 
> >or condescending (if not a flat out blunder).
> >
> >=Michael=
-- 
Rex Lycanthrosaurus
lycanthrosaurus at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users:
http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html

_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
To post, write urth at urth.net
Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

Stuart Hamm 
1235B 7th Ave 
San Francisco, CA 94122 
415 786 3624
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070828/48c7e41f/attachment.htm

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net