Why I don't like TBOTSS

Steve Strickland · 26 May 2002, 13:52 · 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: "Steve Strickland" <SSTRICKLAND at satx.rr.com>
Subject: Re: (urth) Re: [urth] Why I don't like TBOTSS
Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 08:52:10 -0500
Message-ID: <urth-v0205-1088 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0205/1088.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

TBOTSS is my favorite of all Wolfe's works.  Though I can't claim to have
solved every mystery the books have to offer, I don't think the "grand
design" is nearly as difficult to grasp as some of the posts claim.  I can't
even begin to describe how rewarding these titles have been for me.

I cast my vote in favor of the SS.


Steve Strickland


----- Original Message -----
From: "William Ansley" <wansley at warwick.net>
To: <urth at urth.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: (urth) Re: [urth] Why I don't like TBOTSS


> At 11:20 PM +0100 5/25/02, Andy Robertson wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Allan Lloyd
> >
> >>     Is it just me feeling particularly grumpy tonight, or does everyone
> >else feel that
> >>  these are justified ways of provoking thought and reflection on a
story?
> >
> >
> >It's just you feeling grumpy.  ;-)
> >
> >No.  I can see it.   I have even had the experience of reading the SS
books
> >and having it come out like that.  They are hard books to read and they
take
> >a lot of effort, continual effort, to read.
> >
> >     hartshorn
>
> I agree with Allan. I didn't care for the Short Sun books and I still
don't.
>
> Andy Robertson, in his passage above, suggests I have not put enough
> effort into reading the books. This may be true. In fact, it is very
> likely.
>
> But writing is a two way street; I expect to get some kind of return
> for the effort I put into reading something, some kind of
> satisfaction. I have gotten that from most of what Gene Wolfe has
> written, enough, at least, so that I feel that I was part of a fair
> exchange. (And in many cases, the return I have gotten from reading
> Wolfe's work was much more than fair.) But I don't feel that way with
> the Short Sun books. They seem a bit slip shod, between mysteries
> being piled on mysteries and the seemingly unnecessary shoe-horning
> of the Urth of the Old Sun into the final volume. It may be that I am
> totally missing the grand design. But if that's the case I doubt I
> will ever see it; I am not likely to re-read the series.
>
> Of course, someone on this list could post a revelatory message that
> makes me see the light, but I haven't been convinced by any attempts
> so far.
> --
>
> William Ansley
>
> --


--=20

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