Gene Wolfe is for Socialists

Lane Haygood · 20 Dec 2010, 03:15 · from 2010-December.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: lhaygood at gmail.com (Lane Haygood)
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:15:55 -0600
Subject: (urth) Gene Wolfe is for Socialists
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTing0uhqUtCswGEPq7RTSb0g6gaA8QkVYBSfAKrw at mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D0A90E8.7010006 at gmail.com>
	<000501cb9f58$21bb1bc0$65315340$@net.au>
	<COL105-W18A266C8E7DB54A9969E7885180 at phx.gbl>
	<AANLkTi=AUDuXrCSiSoFtk0tH1YOggD57+KNdGBf+h6eQ at mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTing0uhqUtCswGEPq7RTSb0g6gaA8QkVYBSfAKrw at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikPY8ZVNvPxjLf=+AK8Wg5h_C7gX31KMNuSZjOY at mail.gmail.com>

Mieville and I probably agree on quite a bit politically, but I have only
found a few of his stories palatable.  Then again, while I can respect his
talent and prose, I just find a lot of the New Weird "Oh look I have a funny
world with odd things and it's all very rundown and poor and disgusting but
we will revel in the degradation because it's soooo much of a biting social
critique" writers to be less than enthralling.

That said, all I took was that the list explored themes important to
socialists, not necessarily that these were books that advocated for any
sort of socialist position.

LH

2010/12/19 Ant?nio Marques <entonio at gmail.com>

> On 20 December 2010 02:23, Matthew Knight <jacobeiserman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm with Pedro on this one.  I think the list's author is finding
> something
> > of value in 5HOC when viewed through a socialist lens, despite
> recognizing
> > vast differences between Wolfe's perspective and his own.  Here's my own
> > sweeping generalization that is likely logically unprovable: most good
> art
> > can be appreciated from a variety of angles, insofar as the art reflects
> > something true about life and the angles from which the art is viewed are
> > able to discern some kind of truth, even if distorted.
>
> I don't know about others, but I enjoy reading people whose ideas are
> completely at odds with mine, provided they are well developed.
> (Of course, there is a world of difference between well developed and
> simply hypertrophied.)
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20101219/e12064ca/attachment.htm>

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