Wolfe at Readercon

Russ Allbery · 19 Jul 2009, 03:22 · from 2009-July.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: rra at stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 20:22:23 -0700
Subject: (urth) Wolfe at Readercon
In-Reply-To: <E8FCF0A4-660D-469A-AD8E-E1531D646EAB at io.com> (Adam Thornton's
	message of "Sat\, 18 Jul 2009 22\:13\:57 -0500")
References: <44fb53d10907181957w47bb39c6gb68a27efb5075066 at mail.gmail.com>
	<E8FCF0A4-660D-469A-AD8E-E1531D646EAB at io.com>
Message-ID: <874ot9fjbk.fsf at windlord.stanford.edu>

Adam Thornton <adam at io.com> writes:
> On Jul 18, 2009, at 9:57 PM, Matthew Keeley wrote:

>> The Plumly Thompson pick confused one of the other panelists; Wolfe
>> defended her merits over fellow Oz-writer L. Frank Baum.
>
> I respect Gene Wolfe a great deal, but he's JUST PLAIN WRONG on this
> one.

Yeah, I was going to say -- that's the first time I've ever heard anyone
say anything positive about Ruth Plumly Thompson's Oz books.  I'm now
*very* curious what he sees in them and what arguments he was making.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

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