Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?

Daniel Petersen · 14 Dec 2011, 15:44 · 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 15:44:21 +0000
Subject: (urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?
In-Reply-To: <ED72CE7B42264ADCA32235AF342E4ED6@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>
	<CAGB0RZ6Xn9RiWVK0KQAb92g_36faLOa5O5M=mFd=7zX+5RUcHw at mail.gmail.com>
	<ED72CE7B42264ADCA32235AF342E4ED6@Rover>
Message-ID: <CAGB0RZ49qNTBee_MX1=ePQ9Jd1c+5AWOY9A8t-drkfS_U7xAMQ at mail.gmail.com>

If it's not already clear, I'm an experiential sort of reader.  For me, the
'problem' with reading Long Sun *after* I had already read OBW was that, to
use one example, I had already had the wonder-sensation of running into a
uniquely drawn intelligent robot character like Maytera Marble and so that
initial aesthetic pleasure and strangeness were *behind* me when I
encountered her being first introduced by Wolfe in his own canonical
unfolding of the story.  That's just really disappointing as a reader.  It
gave a certain 'worn-ness' to Long Sun that *shouldn't* be there.  Your
intuition about multiple readings is probably right in that I will no doubt
lose sight of that initial disappointment with enough subsequent readings.
But it did make an important difference in the reading experience and thus
it seems to me one's overall personal reading history with Wolfe *could* be
better or worse, based on what order one reads his books in.  There are
probably better and worse pathways to the 'best' (second and beyond)
readings.  (And I still wonder if these very pathways will always colour
the later readings.)

-DOJP

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:

>
>
>  *From:* Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at 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.  [..]
>
>  >
> But perhaps you were being *jovial* rather than trivial and I've made
> overmuch
> > out of mere facetious
> hyperbole!
>
>  What I was trying to say was that in series that are best at a first
> read, the spoiler effects (and their opposite) that come with reading them
> out of order are likely to impinge greatly on the reader?s first reading
> experience (and in this case best reading experience).
>
>  But series that are better on a second read, which is the case with most
> Wolfe, clearly cannot have the second reading experience damaged in the
> same way by reading them out of order.  So the bedst reading experience
> should still be available to a second-time reader who has ?pre-read? in an
> eccentric sequence.
>
>  Mind you, I am probably not very spoiler sensitive to the majority of
> literature.  Unless it is a book I greatly anticipate, or a thriller or
> something, I always open a book for the first time about a quarter of the
> way through.  If I like what I read there, I start the book.  I find
> openings a bit of a deterrent as a rule.
>
>  - Gerry Quinn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111214/ac42fce8/attachment.htm>

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