Vancean influence on Wolfe

James Jordan · 20 May 2002, 19:43 · from urth-v0205.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: James Jordan <jbjordan4 at cox.net>
Subject: Re: (urth) Vancean  influence on Wolfe
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 14:43:04 -0500
Message-ID: <urth-v0205-1018 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0205/1018.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

At 02:30 PM 5/20/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Nutria wrote:
> > Vance in general is a Mozart to Wolfe's Bach, stylistically;
>
>Care to expand on that?  It rings true to me, but I'm not sure why. :)
>Perhaps just because Wolfe's writing is quite fugal in nature?  Is there a
>quality judgement in that statement?
>
>Thanks,
>Jason Voegele

         'Twas just a thought. Mozart is transparent compared with Bach's=20
density. Mozart is more sunny; Bach more serious. Mozart more=20
straightforward; Bach more complex.
         The comparison works for me and you; maybe not for everyone here.
         Not a quality judgment. Two different geniuses. I love Vance. I'm=20
a subscriber to the Compleat Vance.

Nutria


--=20

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