Utter agreement

Jonathan Laidlow · 07 May 1999, 12:39 · from urth-v0026.mbox · original

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: "Jonathan Laidlow" <LAIDLOJM at hhs.bham.ac.uk>
Subject: (urth) Utter agreement
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 12:39:21 GMT
Message-ID: <urth-v0026-0095 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0026/0095.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ah Nigel, as I'm off to join the Ascians on Sunday and will not be on=20
Urth again until June, I thought I'd offer a revision of my last=20
comments to you.=20

Don't worry - I haven't been driven off by the frightening reaction=20
to my 'infamous' posts. not really. I just need a holiday.

I don't think you need to refute my posts on modernism/. I'm entirely=20
in agreement with you. I don't think that modernism suggests a=20
disassociation with the 'real' in any way. Rather, it's an attempt to=20
reconnect with it in a new and interesting way. 'Realist' fiction=20
presupposes an easy connection with exterior reality. Modernist=20
fiction sees that any connection with reality is problematic, and=20
attempts to find a new solution.

By stating that he was a Modernist I really wanted to draw the=20
discussion away from analysing the cryptic surface details (important=20
though they are) and towards the implications of these details on teh=20
greater story. When I stated that I couldn't picture Severian I was=20
trying to argue that the actual details of his appearance are less=20
important than the resonances of the way he is described, and the=20
things he actually does.

I think one of the mistakes in Peter Wright's Foundation essay=20
(despite my agreement with him on many points) on Wolfe's God-Games=20
is that while proposing that the BotNS plays with metafictional games=20
he then approaches the hieros family behind those games in a=20
quasi-realist way: they are JUST aliens messing with Urth's=20
collective head. He can't accept the implications of the religious=20
imagery, or the story about the cock and the archangel (who is closer=20
to God, but knows no more than the animals what his intentions are):=20
that, as you so correctly say 'the possibility remains that it may=20
still serve a greater, divine, purpose.'

I intend to write some kind of longer essay for the website or=20
elsewhere on what I really mean by Wolfe's Modernism. i seem to have=20
been so misunderstood because of my ill-chosen words that I ought to=20
clarify it with a full examination of theories of modernism in SF.

Have a great May everyone, talk to you all in June.

Jonathan

Carry on Torturer
Frankie Howerd IS the Autarch

********************************************************

Jonathan Laidlow
Modern Languages Office - Muirhead Tower 408
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston
Birmingham
B15 2TT, England
0121 414 5976

*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/

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