Urth Net
George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe
Nicholas Jost · 29 Apr 2015, 14:30
· from 2015-April.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: nickjost at yahoo.com (Nicholas Jost) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:30:15 +0000 (UTC) Subject: (urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe In-Reply-To: <mailman.2616.1430310325.32437.urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net> References: <mailman.2616.1430310325.32437.urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net> Message-ID: <690696901.594460.1430317815745.JavaMail.yahoo at mail.yahoo.com> "Yea... lets stop short of actual name calling. Dan'l has said nothing towarrant insult. I'm not a fan of moderation, but, it could be useful to boot out outside provocateurs who clearly just want to start trouble, mod and mod hard!" First, "outside provocateurs". ?While I do not comment here often I've been reading here for what I believe has been about five years. ?The moderator can feel free to check. ?If that is "outsider" than so be it. ?I comment infrequently because I am not as knowledgeable as many here. ?I am however a Puppy and I don't expect to come in and be treated with: "I could make a snide comment here about how the Puppies probably couldn't understand Wolfe anyway, but despite the snark I think there's some truth in the idea." That _is_ snark just passively-aggressively suggested. ?And that was Nick (not me but Nick Lee). ?Dan then responded and was equally snarky but my reply was not to him but to Nick though Dan did pile on. To Mo the vote was (RP's mostly voting): - Larry Niven, 222 votes, 21 percent - Neal Stephenson, 193 votes, 18 percent - Jerry Pournelle, 172 votes, 16 percent - Orson Scott Card, 167 votes, 16 percent - Gene Wolfe, 92 votes, 9 percent - John C. Wright, 63 votes, 6 percent - Robert Silverberg, 61 votes, 6 percent - Lois McMaster Bujold, 60 votes, 6 percent - China Mieville, 32 votes, 3 percent - Michael Flynn, 12 votes, 1 percent I thought Wolfe had taken 3rd he actually took 5th. ?My personal belief is that Stephenson and Niven need to move down at least a rank with?Stephenson?down several (probably 3-4) and Wolfe up enough to take first. ?That is hardly, "[not] understand[ing] Wolfe". ?It also reveals a tilt in the audience towards MilSF (which likely is why Card gets such a high ranking). So yes. ?Let's not claim that some people are dumb (puppies) or that they are outside provocateurs. ?I'd rather not catch up on my email to discover that I have overnight transformed into a mad bomber of mailing lists from a rather quiet participant. ?Most of which likely comes from the assumption that Puppies don't actually read SF. ?We do. Nicholas Jost From: "urth-request at lists.urth.net" <urth-request at lists.urth.net> To: urth at lists.urth.net Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 5:25 AM Subject: Urth Digest, Vol 128, Issue 50 Send Urth mailing list submissions to ??? urth at lists.urth.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit ??? http://lists.urth.net/listinfo.cgi/urth-urth.net or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ??? urth-request at lists.urth.net You can reach the person managing the list at ??? urth-owner at lists.urth.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Urth digest..." Today's Topics: ? 1. Re:? George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe (Charles Gillingham) ? 2. Re:? George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe (Mo Holkar) ? 3. Re:? George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe (Norwood, Frederick Hudson) ? 4. Re:? George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe (Norwood, Frederick Hudson) ? 5.? Adaptations? (Andreas Johansson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 22:26:21 -0700 From: Charles Gillingham <charlesgillingham at gmail.com> To: urth at lists.urth.net Subject: Re: (urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe Message-ID: ??? <CAMoqiH7RzhETqqNy_LakEeV=EnkWMMeDa0+N=Wn9cUAvXQKWgg at mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" "Stick it up your rear." Yea... lets stop short of actual name calling. Dan'l has said nothing to warrant insult. I'm not a fan of moderation, but, it could be useful to boot out outside provocateurs who clearly just want to start trouble, mod and mod hard! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20150428/4d953621/attachment-0001.htm> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:40:31 +0100 From: Mo Holkar <mo at holkar.net> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Subject: Re: (urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe Message-ID: <5536A5AF00E9277F at rgout02.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk> (added by ??? postmaster at btinternet.com) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 00:49 29/04/2015, Nick wrote: >(I believe he came third with top to Pournelle High praise indeed, to be deemed worthy of ranking alongside such a titan. I struggle to imagine who the two authors might have been who were thought superior to both of them. Mo ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:57:24 +0000 From: "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" <NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Subject: Re: (urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe Message-ID: <0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D02E0D1 at ETSUMB2.etsu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" The article in the link is reasonable and fair, does not try to push an agenda.? It seems much more likely that Wolfe hasn?t won a Hugo because some people see him as ?difficult?. Rick From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Nick Lee Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 11:31 AM To: urth Subject: (urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe http://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html Martin had a few kind words to say about Wolfe and the New Yorker piece. He also brought up the Hugos and the Puppies again. There's some irony in that, isn't there? The Puppies, both breeds, argue that conservative, religious authors don't have a chance with the Hugos because they've been "taken over" by a left-leaning, atheist conspiracy. They never bring up Wolfe, from what I've seen, and you would think he's the perfect example. He's obviously Catholic and conservative, to a degree. See arguments about this in the past of the List and recently on Reddit. He's never won a Hugo despite numerous other accolades. You would think he'd be their most damning evidence. So what gives? I could make a snide comment here about how the Puppies probably couldn't understand Wolfe anyway, but despite the snark I think there's some truth in the idea. A corollary to the Puppy argument is that more traditional SF, adventure stories essentially, are not winning awards anymore. On one hand, Wolfe does write stories with adventure: knights, wizards, secret agents, etc. He's also been writing for a long time. He doesn't write simple stories, though, and while he pays frequent homage to the classics of the genre does not write in their style. And what about those accolades? Wolfe has won numerous other awards; he's a Grand Master; other writers laud him frequently. In an interview from some time back, China Mi?ville noted Wolfe's talent while acknowledging a difference in political opinion. The reason Wolfe has never won a Hugo has nothing to do with his ideology and everything to do with the fact that he's a difficult writer. The fans vote for the Hugos, and they vote for what they're reading, most of which is more traditional and less literary than Wolfe's output. Wolfe is an embarrassing example for the Puppies because he doesn't fit into their narrative. I don't think he would play ball with them either because as Martin notes, he's "a class act." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20150429/ec11cb7a/attachment-0001.htm> ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 12:08:01 +0000 From: "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" <NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Subject: Re: (urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe Message-ID: <0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D02E10E at ETSUMB2.etsu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Enough with the sorting people into easy categories already!? "Liberal arts majors"!? Rick -----Original Message----- From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Sergei SOLOVIEV Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 2:22 PM To: The Urth Mailing List Subject: Re: (urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe A remark: it seems to me that Wolfe is trying to be historically accurate (in his historical novels, like Latro's cycle), and respect the "spirit" of the societies he imagines and describes in his SF and Fantasy. This may go absolutely against the "liberal arts programs" that often sacrifice "historically true" for "politically correct". Sergei Soloviev Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > Fair enough, Marc, but ... I honestly think there *is* a problem with > Wolfe's female characters. The only one I can think of who actively > engaged me _as a person_ (rather than as a foil for the [male] > protagonist) was ... and I'm going to blank on her name ... in _The > Land Across_. You know, her. > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at gmail.com > <mailto:marcaramini at gmail.com>> wrote: > >? ? One more thing I wanted to briefly reiterate, which I have said in >? ? part in my videos, but I DO think some of the criticism aimed at >? ? Wolfe is ideological in nature. When I think of an author >? ? objectifying women, I think of Henry Miller calling all of them >? ? c#$ts and interested in them purely for fleeting sexuality,of the >? ? same interest as a quarter on the floor (slightly more interesting >? ? because he will pick up the quarter AFTER he is done with the >? ? girl) ... but because of his bohemian, against "the man", >? ? anti-restraint image, the discussion of his work rarely involves >? ? the rampant denigration Wolfe's female characters get. For >? ? whatever reason, the sophisticated readers who gravitate towards >? ? liberal arts programs tend to be of a different political bent >? ? than someone who is more or less a traditionalist, albeit an >? ? extremely eccentric genius of one. > >? ? There is an ideological bias in terms of public reception, most >? ? certainly - though as far as a Hugo goes, as you said, Wolfe's >? ? difficulty is reason enough, I think. > >? ? On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Nick Lee >? ? <starwaterstrain at gmail.com <mailto:starwaterstrain at gmail.com>> wrote: > >? ? ? ? http://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html > >? ? ? ? Martin had a few kind words to say about Wolfe and the New >? ? ? ? Yorker piece. He also brought up the Hugos and the Puppies >? ? ? ? again. There's some irony in that, isn't there? The Puppies, >? ? ? ? both breeds, argue that conservative, religious authors don't >? ? ? ? have a chance with the Hugos because they've been "taken over" >? ? ? ? by a left-leaning, atheist conspiracy. > >? ? ? ? They never bring up Wolfe, from what I've seen, and you would >? ? ? ? think he's the perfect example. He's obviously Catholic and >? ? ? ? conservative, to a degree. See arguments about this in the >? ? ? ? past of the List and recently on Reddit. He's never won a Hugo >? ? ? ? despite numerous other accolades. You would think he'd be >? ? ? ? their most damning evidence. So what gives? > >? ? ? ? I could make a snide comment here about how the Puppies >? ? ? ? probably couldn't understand Wolfe anyway, but despite the >? ? ? ? snark I think there's some truth in the idea. A corollary to >? ? ? ? the Puppy argument is that more traditional SF, adventure >? ? ? ? stories essentially, are not winning awards anymore. On one >? ? ? ? hand, Wolfe does write stories with adventure: knights, >? ? ? ? wizards, secret agents, etc. He's also been writing for a long >? ? ? ? time. He doesn't write simple stories, though, and while he >? ? ? ? pays frequent homage to the classics of the genre does not >? ? ? ? write in their style. > >? ? ? ? And what about those accolades? Wolfe has won numerous other >? ? ? ? awards; he's a Grand Master; other writers laud him >? ? ? ? frequently. In an interview from some time back, China >? ? ? ? Mi?ville noted Wolfe's talent while acknowledging a difference >? ? ? ? in political opinion. > >? ? ? ? The reason Wolfe has never won a Hugo has nothing to do with >? ? ? ? his ideology and everything to do with the fact that he's a >? ? ? ? difficult writer. The fans vote for the Hugos, and they vote >? ? ? ? for what they're reading, most of which is more traditional >? ? ? ? and less literary than Wolfe's output. > >? ? ? ? Wolfe is an embarrassing example for the Puppies because he >? ? ? ? doesn't fit into their narrative. I don't think he would play >? ? ? ? ball with them either because as Martin notes, he's "a class >? ? ? ? act." > >? ? ? ? _______________________________________________ >? ? ? ? Urth Mailing List >? ? ? ? To post, write urth at urth.net <mailto:urth at urth.net> >? ? ? ? Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net > > > >? ? _______________________________________________ >? ? Urth Mailing List >? ? To post, write urth at urth.net <mailto:urth at urth.net> >? ? Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net > > > > > -- > Dan'l Danehy-Oakes > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > _______________________________________________ > Urth Mailing List > To post, write urth at urth.net > Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net _______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:25:24 +0200 From: Andreas Johansson <andreas.havok at gmail.com> To: urth at lists.urth.net Subject: (urth) Adaptations? Message-ID: ??? <CADAcD-P39ZMris=SPQpTXhx-cZcFQL1J-uFAqn7gAxYU4mBvUQ at mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi, First of all, a great thanks to all of you out there debating and analyzing the big and the small of all things Wolfean. It's severely enlightening, both for understanding Wolfe in many more layers, and literature in general. Now then, a question that arose recently as I began the BOTNS for I think a fourth time, while at the same time delving deep into Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim - how wonderful wouldn't a "sand box" type of videogame, set in Severian's Urth? - so my question was, has there been any kind of adaptations of any of Gene Wolfe's works? Graphic novels, theatre productions, short movies, anything? Given his massive output (more than fifty short stories, hehe), you'd think that somewhere, someone would've picked up the challenge. Of course, much of what makes Wolfe special is an inherent trait of the medium that would be lost in a visual adaptation that loses the 1st person perspective... but his worlds are so bloody vivid and beautiful that they would be a feast for any graphic artist to dig into, even if 70% of the in-text layers would be lost. Imagine a Moebius-style graphic novel based on Urth of the New Sun... or as mentioned moving freely through a 3d-rendered version of Nessus or Viron. Oh by the way, which entry-point to Lafferty would you fellows suggest? Haven't read anything by him but thought it might be time. yrs, Andreas Johansson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20150429/eaa6a5bb/attachment.htm> ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net ------------------------------ End of Urth Digest, Vol 128, Issue 50 ************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20150429/c5e91697/attachment-0001.htm>
An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net