Lotsa Stuff

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 21 Aug 2001, 09:43 · from urth-v0030.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: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Subject: (urth) Lotsa Stuff
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 09:43:16
Message-ID: <urth-v0030-0654 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0030/0654.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

boy, go away for a week and see what happens...

Questions asked about Hamilton's "Night's Dawn" and answered quite=20
thoroughly. The one thing I would add: _not_ for (a) the weak of
stomach (there are some scenes very worthy of Clive Barker) or=20
(b) those who are easily offended by the theologically incorrect,=20
so to speak. This is decidedly not a Christian book, if you follow=20
me, but my Ghod what a read... which leads me to something that=20
will have to be a separate post.

---------------------

Gene Wolfe's favorite Nero Wolfe novels: I admit that FER-DE-LANCE
is relatively weak. I disagree about THE BLACK MOUNTAIN, but its
strength is most apparent in a serial reading (or rereading) of
many Wolfe books, because it's simply _different_ from the others
in some deep and radical ways, and provides a kind of relief from
them. And his "best" list is excellent but leaves out what is surely
my all-time fave, TOO MANY COOKS, probably the funniest of the bunch.

---------------------

The "Notes toward a Lupine Aesthetic": Fabulous. Excellent "intro
to Wolfe" fodder.

---------------------

Alga: You wrote, '...I am unalterably hostile to Lewis for what he
did to Susan." I came across Lewis rather late, maybe in my teens or=20
20s, and never forgave him for that cool, thoughtless misogyny."

Now, I wonder _what_ in that is misogynistic? He had decided,=20
apparently, that one of the characters had to "fall away," if only
to show the possibility _of_ "falling away." Who, then? Eustace and
Polly, as the primary "children" in this novel were non-candidates.
Digory/The Professor had already been shown as still "believing in=20
Narnia" in adulthood.=20

Of the four, original Lucy, of course, is the primary hero of the=20
series, and to have Edumund fall away would waste much of the impact=20
of his redemption. That leaves Peter, Susan, and Polly Plummer; of=20
these, Peter is probably the worst choice, because of his symbolic=20
value as the High King (a Messianic "figure"), leaving the two women.=20
And Susan _had_ been portrayed (in PRINCE CASPIAN) as a bit of a=20
grump and doubter -- viz. her reaction to Lucy's sighting of the
Lion in the wood, which is distinctly different from Peter's and
Edmund's.

> I wondered, later on, if Joy, his wife, ever tackled him on
> that.

Well, quite aside from whether or not Susan's falling-away is=20
"misogynistic," which I think can come only from the assumption
that anything done to a woman must be done from sexist motives,
I can refer you to Lewis' late novel (which he considered his
best), TILL WE HAVE FACES.

*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