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

James Wynn · 10 May 2011, 14:48 · 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: crushtv at gmail.com (James Wynn)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 09:48:37 -0500
Subject: (urth) This Week in Google Alerts: Will No One Rid Me Of This
 Troublesome Writer?
In-Reply-To: <4DC9242B.8010703 at verizon.net>
References: <BANLkTi=dQua4Hvxh0YtYxFsTq0EE3P=D3g at mail.gmail.com>
	<4DC9242B.8010703 at verizon.net>
Message-ID: <4DC95045.3010204 at gmail.com>

All *comprehensible* art is derivative. Language is metaphor and 
metaphor is by definition derivative.

Irony is derivative. Homage is derivative. Response is derivative. Humor 
is derivative. Genre is derivative. Surealism is derivative. Dadaism is 
derivative. Form is derivative.

J.

On 5/10/2011 6:40 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:
> Writer _X_ is not derivative?
>
> Writer _Y_ is derivative?
>
> This makes no sense. All writers derive.
>
> On 5/9/2011 11:30 PM, Gwern Branwen 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?
>>
>
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 110510-0, 05/10/2011
> Tested on: 5/10/2011 7:40:27 AM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

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