This Week in Google Alerts: Will No One Rid Me Of This Troublesome Writer?

Jack Smith · 10 May 2011, 09:47 · from 2011-May.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: jack.smith.1946 at gmail.com (Jack Smith)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 05:47:47 -0400
Subject: (urth) This Week in Google Alerts: Will No One Rid Me Of This
 Troublesome Writer?
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=QFjx-ptyT=uf0ObA_4wxzSBobTA at mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=dQua4Hvxh0YtYxFsTq0EE3P=D3g at mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=QFjx-ptyT=uf0ObA_4wxzSBobTA at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=Fy_2h0LEXmmXwV3LfpXars=CZhw at mail.gmail.com>

Wolfe is derivative?  Yes, but so is Shakespeare.

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Lane Haygood <lhaygood at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is just demonstrably false to boot!  Vance's prose, his diction,
> and his writing style are highly distinct from Wolfe's.  I mean, the
> only line of intersection is that they each chose a certain thematic
> motif (a dying world) for a few of their stories.  But Wolfe's writing
> tends to be more dialogue-heavy and witty, whereas Vance eschews
> dialogue in favor of lyricism and structured prose.  The "Dying Earth"
> stories are lighter and more mythic (not to mention fairly
> straightforward), whereas Wolfe's tend to be labyrinthine and
> multi-layered.
>
> I enjoy both, but to compare Wolfe to Vance is to compare apples to
> oranges.
>
> That said, aren't all writers at least somewhat derivative?  Talk to
> any of them and they can list a whole line of authors that influenced
> their development. But there's a clear difference between, "Oh yeah,
> Borges was totally influential on my work" and "Hey guys, I totally
> rewrote a Borges story with spaceships and swords."
>
> LH
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just in time for Gene's birthday celebrations:
> >
> http://foreverness.createforumhosting.com/what-to-do-about-gene-wolfe-t337.html
> >
> >> This is driving me nuts. I'm far beyond my limit of tolerance for
> cover-jacket blurbs declaring Gene Wolfe to be "... the greatest writer in
> the English language alive today." and "... there is nobody who can even
> approach Gene Wolfe for brilliance of prose, clarity of thought, and depth
> in meaning." That's Michael Swanwick's embarrassing fawning, which has
> apparently become required promotional jibber-jabber for every book Wolfe
> gets published. Other literary critics who don't know anything about science
> fiction take this at face value, and occasionally regurgitate it with their
> own variations, completely oblivious to Jack Vance's work. And, readers new
> to science fiction (or speculative fiction if you prefer) are being grossly
> misled. They're amazed by the pebble but aren't told about the mountain.
> Don't get me wrong; I don't dislike Gene Wolfe's writing. I pounce on every
> new chunk of fiction he comes up with. I'll go so far as to say that his
> "The Book of the New Sun" i
> >  s required reading for anyone who believes that some sci-fi is serious
> literature equal to the best in mainstream fiction. But, Wolfe is
> derivative. He obviously used Vance as a starting point, whereas Vance
> developed his literary voice independently. Vance is authentic and original,
> and Wolfe is the brilliant student. It's true that Wolfe's most recent work
> seems to be moving in a direction that is more of Wolfe himself and less of
> Vance's style and technique. Hopefully, Wolfe's future works will be ships
> with a wind in their sails that flows from Wolfe's lungs alone. But we're
> still being pounded over the head with the uninformed blather of Swanwick,
> et al. What to do? Who will sound the trumpet for Vance? Who will illuminate
> Vance's status as the progenitor?
> >
> > --
> > gwern
> > http://www.gwern.net
> > _______________________________________________
> > Urth Mailing List
> > To post, write urth at urth.net
> > Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>



-- 
Best wishes,
Jack
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20110510/4a643b7e/attachment.htm>

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