Gene Wolfe interview in Locus

Doug Merritt · 04 Jun 1991, 04:20 · from rec.arts.sf-lovers.1991.mbox

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: doug at netcom.COM (Doug Merritt)
Subject: Re: Gene Wolfe interview in Locus
Date: 4 Jun 91 04:20:49 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Jun4.042049.16200 at netcom.COM>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers
References: <1991May30.233326.5041 at tc.fluke.COM> <1991Jun2.015734.14702 at netcom.COM> <1991Jun3.163555.25853 at watdragon.waterloo.edu>

In article <1991Jun3.163555.25853 at watdragon.waterloo.edu> vehaag at crocus.waterloo.edu (Viktor Haag) writes:
>Perhaps your reporting of the situation is misleading, but from you satement
>three paragraphs above it seems that Wolfe does not claim that FLF is SF but
>rather that it has a SFional element in the ending.

Perhaps; the original text is actually quite open to intepretation: "I also
get a lot of flak saying, 'It reads like a mainstream novel until you get
to the end and it turns out to be science fiction.' There were something like
a dozen planted clues as to what was going on through the story."

You *could* read that in a variety of subtly differing ways, but it seems to
me clear that he agrees that it reads like a mainstream novel for the
most part, but also has clues all the way along that the ending is going
to be science fiction. And the publisher labelled it "TOR Science Fiction",
so there's no question from anyone about what it's supposed to be.

Support for *your* position can be found in Orson Scott Card's "How to
Write Science Fiction and Fantasy", pg 11: "...even though they aren't
really science fiction or fantasy in the publishing-category sense or
the community sense (there are neither rivets nor trees, neither science
nor magic, and they certainly aren't what readers were consciously looking
for) their stories are nevertheless strange, in ways that editors outside
the field of sf and fantasy find quite threatening." Card calls this
the "What SF Writers Write is SF" category (actually "boundary") of SF.

I won't argue with Card (I'd be shot down with ad hominem arguments), but
nonetheless even he points out that such things "certainly aren't what
readers were consciously looking for". Good point.

I didn't say Card shouldn't write things like FLF, and I didn't say it
was a bad book. I *did* say that it was false advertising to call it
SF. Card and Wolfe would both argue with me about that, but equally
clearly, they would be quite keenly aware of what I meant.

As far as literary freedom goes, Wolfe is on firm ground. He has the
artistic right to write what he likes, and Card has given him reason to
allow the labelling "science fiction".

But they're both aware that some people may be in a mood to read something
that *feels* like science fiction, and may be disappointed if a book
does *not* feel that way. I said that would impact sales, and I'm sure
they would agree, and further say that such was the price of artistic
license, and that it's worth it. Neither Card nor Wolfe can be accused
of commercialism! That doesn't affect what I said, though.

>Oh yes, you had better be on the lookout.  I mean, Wolfe might try and
>expand your horizons a little bit by sneaking a story past you that doesn't
>meet your twelve step guidelines for the existance of an SF novel.

Oh, fuck you. Who are you to get up on your high horse and say things
like that? Jim Mann disagreed quite extremely and forcefully with me,
yet managed to do it politely. You should follow his example.

>Of course, I will have to read the actual aritcle myself before commenting 
>further,

Thanks for that much.

>but I will say that you seem to be one of those people who spend their
>time whining ...

On the basis of that single complaint of mine. Riiiggghht.

>...that the 'purity of the art form is being besmirched' by horrible
>people who are being intellectually dishonest by stretching the medium a bit.
>God forbid that we should invite creativity or innovation into the hallowed 
>halls of **SF**.

Completely uncalled for, totally rude. What a dweeb. I'm sure you're a
complete master of all the classics and all of modern literature and are
a superb judge of art in its most hallowed forms. I grovel at your feet.
Say hi to the Muses for me.
	Doug

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