The Snootiness of Gene Wolfe

Lawrence Person · 29 Feb 2004, 07:24 · from rec.arts.sf.written.2004.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: Lawrence Person <lawrence at io.com>
Subject: Re: The Snootiness of Gene Wolfe
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 01:24:15 -0600
Message-ID: <lawrence-43D2DE.01241529022004 at news-central.ash.giganews.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
References: <Xns949D9FE6F929Difyouwanttoemailvisi at 199.45.49.11>

In article <Xns949D9FE6F929Difyouwanttoemailvisi at 199.45.49.11>,
 Josh <if.you.want.to.email at visit.joshbrain.tripod.org> wrote:

> Therefore I feel somewhat qualified to make this 
> observation: Mr. Wolfe is a snooty elitist author.
> 
> I feel that his approach has been misconstrued by the SF community at 
> large as being profound and insightful, rather than the empty display of 
> erudition that it is.

For the moment, just for the sake of arguement, let's pretend you're not a troll.

You are, however, part of a long line of posters to RAFSW (get thee to Google 
for details) who make the same fundamental categorical error about Gene Wolfe: 
"I don't understand his work, therefore his work isn't capable of being 
understood, therefore he's a fraud/pretentious/snooty/whatever."

Instead of presenting carefully constructed logical arguements as to why your 
subjective impression is mistaken (truly a fool's task anywhere, but especially 
on Usenet), I'll try another tact.

Of all the people making the "I don't understand Wolfe so he's not any good" 
arguement, there seems to be a constant: none were professional writers (and 
certainly not professional SF writers). I am wagering that this obeservation 
applies to you well.

And the reason none of them was professional writers is that it is obvious none 
realized just how hard the effects Wolfe achieves are to carry off, and just how 
effortlessly he does so. I am. I do. And you're wrong.

However, rather than depending on my thus far fairly minor reputation as an SF 
writer (I often observe that I'm the 10th most famous SF writer in Austin, 
Texas), let's take a look at a short list of far more luminous scribblers who 
think Wolfe is a genius:

Neil Gaiman
Roger Zelazny
Ursula K. Le Guin
Theodore Sturgeon
Damon Knight
James Tiptree, Jr.
Greg Bear
Lucius Shepard
Michael Swanwick
James P. Blaylock
Patrick O'Leary
George R. R. Martin
Thomas M. Disch
Michael Bishop
Kim Stanley Robinson
Jonathon Carroll
Brain Stableford
Orson Scott Card
Algis Budrys
Ian Watson

Now, that's a pretty impressive and diverse list, united only in their fame in 
the field, and their belief in Wolfe's brilliance. And that's just a quick scan 
through the cover blurbs on his books and a few other printed sources; if you 
did a comprehensive survey of SFWA, it would no doubt be easy to compile a list 
10 (if not 50) times as long. Are we to believe that "snooty" Wolfe has pulled 
the wool over ALL their eyes? Or that all of the above are "elitists?"

It's as if you said that J. S. Bach was "boring," and Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler, 
Strauss, Stravinsky, Gershwin, Copeland, Bernstein, Sodheim, Glass, Jimi 
Hendrix, Elvis Presley, Paul McCartney, Peter Gabriel, and Louis Armstrong all 
said you were wrong. We can believe you, or we can believe the dozen experts in 
the field who say you're wrong.

Occum's Razor suggests that you're full of it.

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