Re Other Authors

Allan Lloyd · 17 Apr 2003, 15:44 · from urth-v0304.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: "Allan Lloyd" <allan-lloyd at lineone.net>
Subject: (urth) Re Other Authors
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:44:16 +0100
Message-ID: <urth-v0304-3209 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0304/3209.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003E_01C30500.95BAEBE0"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_003E_01C30500.95BAEBE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I'm finding the discussion of Wolfe-like authors fascinating, mainly =
because most of the writers mentioned seem to me to be so vastly =
different from Wolfe. The whole thing reminds me of a beginners guide to =
science fiction that was published some years ago. It was arranged on =
the basis of "if you like ... then you will also like ..." and as an =
example, the follow-up to Wolfe would have been something like " you =
will also like Poul Anderson, Terry Pratchett and Samuel Delany because =
they all write fantasy."

Of the writers mentioned so far, I can think of few who are further from =
Gene Wolfe's view of the world than Alasdair Gray, brilliant though he =
is; and this made me consider my other favorites, and question why I =
like them.

John Fowles, Robertson Davies, Brian Aldiss, Michael Moorcock (in =
serious non-Elric mode), M. John Harrison and ,of course, John Crowley =
and Jonathan Carroll don't have that much in common, but none of them =
are Catholic ex-engineers, and all have very different preoccupations =
from Wolfe.

I've just finished Mike Harrison's "Light", which is a return to science =
fiction after a couple of excellent novels with only a slight fantasy =
content ("Course of the Heart" and "Signs of Life")  and the Viriconium =
books, and it is my contender for best book of the year already. =
Harrison's characters are deeply flawed, in this book, as in most of his =
works, yet he makes me care for them in a way that Wolfe rarely does.=20

Has anyone out there read John Fowles' "A Maggot"? It is my favorite of =
his books, and probably the most Wolfeian, with a convincing 17th =
Century setting, differing viewpoints from various not-very-reliable =
characters, and a climax which could be an alien abduction, a time warp, =
a vision of heaven, or a spiritual hallucination, all told in a perfect =
recreation of that period.

Aldiss makes a very interesting comparison with Wolfe, being of a =
similar age, and having done military service. Although I don't like all =
of his work, it is always challenging, and he varies his style to fit =
the content of his stories with consumate skill. His world-view is =
aetheistic, and I would love to see some-one with more talent than me do =
a comparison of his Helliconia books with the Books of the New Sun.

Robertson Davies is a God. His later books even have angels in them. He =
looked like an intellectual Santa Claus. Why did he die before he could =
complete that last trilogy?

And Mike Moorcock. Just read "King of the City" or "Mother London" to =
learn all there is to know about London since the war. Or "The Dancers =
at the End Of Time" stories for light-hearted fantasy. His Colonel Pyat =
sequence, due to be completed this year, is the story of this century as =
told by a mendacious, cowardly, self-glorifying Russian, cheating his =
way through the Russian revolution, the silent movie era, the =
concentration camps of Nazi Germany, ending up as a second-hand clothes =
dealer in London. And "Gloriana" is an alternate version of Elizabethan =
England.

All of these writers produce intelligent complex fictions but if there =
is a difference between them and Wolfe, I would say that they all write =
books which are character driven, whereas Wolfe's books possibly use the =
characters to promote or act out his ideas. This could be why I have =
lost some of my admiration for Wolfe's recent work, and I would agree =
with Alga about his more recent short stories, some of which seem =
lacking in content and obscure for the sake of obscurity. I still have =
enormous admiration for the man, but sometimes it makes more sense if =
you just say what you mean.

                                                Allan




-- 
------=_NextPart_000_003E_01C30500.95BAEBE0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
I'm finding the discussion of =
Wolfe-like authors=20
fascinating, mainly because most of the writers mentioned seem to me to =
be so=20
vastly different from Wolfe. The whole thing reminds me of a =
beginners=20
guide to science fiction that was published some years ago. It was =
arranged on=20
the basis of "if you like ... then you will also like ..." and as an =
example,=20
the follow-up to Wolfe would have been something like " you will also =
like Poul=20
Anderson, Terry Pratchett and Samuel Delany because they all write=20
fantasy."
 
Of the writers mentioned so far, I can =
think of few=20
who are further from Gene Wolfe's view of the world than Alasdair Gray,=20
brilliant though he is; and this made me consider my other favorites, =
and=20
question why I like them.
 
John Fowles, Robertson Davies, Brian =
Aldiss,=20
Michael Moorcock (in serious non-Elric mode), M. John Harrison and ,of =
course,=20
John Crowley and Jonathan Carroll don't have that much in common, but =
none of=20
them are Catholic ex-engineers, and all have very different=20
preoccupations from Wolfe.
 
I've just finished Mike Harrison's =
"Light",=20
which is a return to science fiction after a couple of excellent novels =
with=20
only a slight fantasy content ("Course of the Heart" and "Signs of =
Life") =20
and the Viriconium books, and it is my contender for best book of the =
year=20
already. Harrison's characters are deeply flawed, in this book, as in =
most of=20
his works, yet he makes me care for them in a way that Wolfe rarely =
does.=20

 
Has anyone out there read John Fowles' =
"A Maggot"?=20
It is my favorite of his books, and probably the most Wolfeian, with a=20
convincing 17th Century setting, differing viewpoints from various=20
not-very-reliable characters, and a climax which could be an alien =
abduction, a=20
time warp, a vision of heaven, or a spiritual hallucination, all told in =
a=20
perfect recreation of that period.
 
Aldiss makes a very interesting =
comparison with=20
Wolfe, being of a similar age, and having done military service. =
Although I=20
don't like all of his work, it is always challenging, and he varies his =
style to=20
fit the content of his stories with consumate skill. His world-view is=20
aetheistic, and I would love to see some-one with more talent than me do =
a=20
comparison of his Helliconia books with the Books of the New =
Sun.
 
Robertson Davies is a God. His later =
books even=20
have angels in them. He looked like an intellectual Santa Claus. Why did =
he die=20
before he could complete that last trilogy?
 
And Mike Moorcock. Just read "King of =
the City" or=20
"Mother London" to learn all there is to know about London since the =
war. Or=20
"The Dancers at the End Of Time" stories for light-hearted fantasy. His =
Colonel=20
Pyat sequence, due to be completed this year, is the story of this =
century as=20
told by a mendacious, cowardly, self-glorifying Russian, cheating his =
way=20
through the Russian revolution, the silent movie era, the concentration =
camps of=20
Nazi Germany, ending up as a second-hand clothes dealer in London. And=20
"Gloriana" is an alternate version of Elizabethan England.
 
All of these writers produce =
intelligent complex=20
fictions but if there is a difference between them and Wolfe, I would =
say that=20
they all write books which are character driven, whereas Wolfe's books =
possibly=20
use the characters to promote or act out his ideas. This could be why I =
have=20
lost some of my admiration for Wolfe's recent work, and I would agree =
with Alga=20
about his more recent short stories, some of which seem lacking in =
content and=20
obscure for the sake of obscurity. I still have enormous admiration for =
the man,=20
but sometimes it makes more sense if you just say what you =
mean.
 
          &nbs=
p;            =
;            =
             =

Allan
 
 </BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_003E_01C30500.95BAEBE0--
An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net