Lupiverse(es)
David Stockhoff · 15 Mar 2012, 19:26
· from 2012-March.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: dstockhoff at verizon.net (David Stockhoff) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:26:33 -0400 Subject: (urth) Lupiverse(es) In-Reply-To: <CAGB0RZ7E8EE3e_kUjTQK2Q-5QiZkQRKzAFoq2+-22tuZMFbCOQ at mail.gmail.com> References: <SNT123-W51B170E1E982B63882B931CF590 at phx.gbl> <1331737802.36157.YahooMailNeo at web121001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4F60CA8B.8060407 at gmail.com> <1331744686.23213.YahooMailNeo at web121005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <CAGB0RZ4OB_A_tagJfoNZ4vid4iF+Mu3QL8cjKq3di3xDFA1L1g at mail.gmail.com> <BD0E4F6B-40FC-4081-B258-E011D29B1C15 at gmail.com> <CAGB0RZ7E8EE3e_kUjTQK2Q-5QiZkQRKzAFoq2+-22tuZMFbCOQ at mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4F624269.8000802 at verizon.net> On 3/15/2012 2:52 PM, Daniel Petersen wrote: > It's ridiculous that I have to spell out 'permission' for Wolfe or any > other writer this way - but I know for a fact that a whiff of any > *definite* Christian belief in fiction turns many readers off - my > creative writing instructor just last night expressed her disdain for > Narnia once she discovered that the wonderful fantasy she'd read as a > child turned out to be Christian in theme. If she had a beef with the > artistry that would be completely understandable, but her critique was > couched only in terms of the 'religious faith' the works evinced. In > my opinion, that is not a good reason to dislike a work. I'll say it > again, I love some atheist writing because it is so well written AND > because their 'message' is powerfully wrought and challenging (NOT > because there is no message at all or because it is barely discernible > and I can easily ignore it if I want to) - and I abhor other atheist > writing because the craft is poor and/or the 'message' is smug and/or > brow-beating and/or lacks nuance and rich 'embodiment'. If a work of > art is an overt, beautiful, powerful statement of the artist's > worldview and a deep challenge to my own - why should I shrink from > that? Why should any of us? I think you're saying that "pointing" or expressing an ideology does not play a zero-sum game with artistry. I agree, and Wolfe proves that. However, art involves asking honest questions. Historically, that has meant questioning received wisdom of various kinds, and even today we find it easier to swallow novels that tell us to watch out for illiberalism (Orwell; Atwood; Lessing; Le Guin) than the reverse. But I don't think it's just an accident: either you came by your beliefs honestly and you invite the reader into an attractive and rewarding game of questions with a level playing field, or you didn't and you don't. Failure in one is failure in the other. And so it is that we do not discuss the novels of L. Ron Hubbard. (That and pacing and dialogue and ...) Narnia disappointed me in the same way at the same age. This was partly because I already had developed an antipathy toward received wisdom of all kinds, which included my parents' Presbyterianism, and partly because once you "get it," nearly all the books after the first (or first three at least) turn to cardboard. Only the first is consistently told with a level of artistic ambiguity an adult can appreciate or tries (successfully) to capture the wonder of a child discovering literature and its intrinsic worth. By the time I reached the end of the last book, I was angry at Lewis for treating the dwarves the way he did simply because the rigid blueprint for his story needed scapegoats: if you have a Last Judgment, you have to have some bodies to throw into the flaming pit. Fuck that. So maybe your creative writing teacher is actually judging Lewis on his artistic merits after all, not just her culturally-programmed aversion response. It may be difficult for her to tell the difference, herself. But do you really think Lewis's main strengths (or intentions) were literary? No more than Tolkien's, I think. i am quite sure Wolfe does not get high or condone the use of recreational drugs. But I'd like to see him write a story that would meet a drug czar's requirements for a suitable antidrug message! I would read it anyway, but it would never happen---and if it did, the joke would be on them, I'm sure.
An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net