Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?

Daniel Petersen · 14 Dec 2011, 14:20 · from 2011-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: danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com (Daniel Petersen)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:20:10 +0000
Subject: (urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?
In-Reply-To: <190BD2BA96EB46ED81D0DF39B7F706C8@Rover>
References: <20111213164613.30232.qmail at server281.com>
	<CAM0v-i6AOcERnP_dUq7jZmhEBcNyMvXKH9VoGO2oGSEMdZHiTw at mail.gmail.com>
	<871FD0B988794812B029032B38091DA0@Rover>
	<CADQR0GqCOY7VyWYh=MUAmr7sv7Y2SyBMmb2bQG6YBVTR8H1ZeQ at mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGB0RZ6sFDgYVmHfXA7LjRPEDFpAz6yOEW4icGQEFORDaLOWaQ at mail.gmail.com>
	<CADQR0Go5Wc0Dd3damtEZCyphG6ntP6dz+F-QmqNdY0OsKJBu5Q at mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGB0RZ6gec6H1rFT-1KpkC9nh2uz2ZUQq_mWvrrDZZbgyU4UZA at mail.gmail.com>
	<CADQR0GoLcEcnittL1k35dX8S9y9dvkhmuLrHBynB8u3REDw5Yg at mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGB0RZ4SOgZ4aDtRCqYj_1kEi+84_TLK_MYEjc-ZgTd0n28jtA at mail.gmail.com>
	<4EE88878.8030609 at gmail.com>
	<CAGB0RZ5FAYiGdeTujWFyAX1A37Q=YDuvZbqfuiJmcNjEP5tD1A at mail.gmail.com>
	<4EE89815.3020908 at gmail.com>
	<190BD2BA96EB46ED81D0DF39B7F706C8@Rover>
Message-ID: <CAGB0RZ6Xn9RiWVK0KQAb92g_36faLOa5O5M=mFd=7zX+5RUcHw at mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
Given that Wolfe is best on a re-read, it?s logical that there can?t really
be a ?best? order!

Em, there's no logic I can see there.  The first half of the sentence does
not entail (or even imply) the second half.  At any rate, 'first
impressions' are usually hugely important for a number of reasons - e.g.
they can determine whether one wants to go on with an author at all and
they can also experientially set the stage for subsequent reading and
re-reading.  Some of my first readings of Wolfe books are still resonating
roundly with me and are an important part of my overall aesthetic
experience of his work.  Indeed, given that Wolfe is best on a re-read, it
might be more plausible to think that certain pathways into his work will
actually have differing effects on those very re-readings.  Agreed that
there won't be a 'best' order - but there may be orders 'better' than
others.  The 'canonical' order has been offered for the solar cycle and I'm
sure a good case could be made for this preference.  I don't think the fact
of Wolfe's work being best at the multiple-readings level makes the issue
of what order to read them in as trivial as your statement makes it sound.

But perhaps you were being *jovial* rather than trivial and I've made
overmuch out of mere facetious hyperbole!

(I concur with your ranking of the novellas in FHoC by the bye - and also
your thoughts on the flaws of Long Sun.)

-DOJP
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111214/3f6de041/attachment.htm>

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