modernism

Daniel Fusch · 26 Oct 1999, 20:01 · from urth-v0028.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: "Daniel Fusch" <dfusch at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: (urth) modernism
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 13:01:19 PDT
Message-ID: <urth-v0028-0250 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0028/0250.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Jim,

(snip)
"I add this (depressing) thought:
	Wolfe's writing may be so complex, and so dependent on the tropes of SF,=20
that he will never make it into a "canon." It is hard to imagine non-SF=20
people reading it and thinking much of it, save that it is "weird and
well-written, but what on earth is he talking about?"
	Anybody have anything more positive to put out against such a negative=20
thought?"

Mind if I put out something positive against that negative thought?=20
Actually, I'm not sure whether it is positive or not. But here goes....

I think you could define me as a technically non-SF person. That is to say,=20
I have read relatively little science fiction--mostly that which has made i=
t=20
up into the upper "literary" spheres of the academic universe. I can't=20
profess to be very familiar with the teeming ocean beneath--just as I canno=
t=20
profess to be very familiar with the truly vast genre of Victorian mystery,=20
despite my familiarity with those authors who broke the surface and caused=20
such a disturbance that they remain to this day.

(Having said that, I hope you all don't decide to stone me!)

Also, so far as I know, there are a great many people who enjoy science=20
fiction but who do not enjoy Wolfe; science fiction is not traditionally=20
modernist (there I go bringing up modernism again!)

Anyway, when I said that Wolfe was unlikely to receive much critical=20
attention for some time to come, I actually had two reasons in mind:

A. Like you say, Wolfe can be categorized on SF (although I would argue wit=
h=20
that word "dependent" -- if I were in a nasty and nitpicky mood). Back in=20
the 40s, science fiction was unfortunately identified with pulp and comic=20
books--even though Mary Shelley, H.G. Wells, Rudyard Kipling, and many othe=
r=20
"literary" authors had experimented with the form in the previous century.=20
This prejudice lasts to this day. The truth of the matter, of course, is=20
that there are both notable and un-notable authors in ALL genres--mainstrea=
m=20
or otherwise.

B. "The Book of the New Sun" is less than twenty years old. Since Wolfe has=20
not enjoyed the instant popularity of Tolkien or Dickens, he has not=20
received immediate attention. --Remember, also, that Moby Dick went=20
unnoticed for decades. Time is a factor.

Well, I suppose all that wasn't very positive after all. I suppose my point=20
is: give it a few decades.

Daniel

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

*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