The Snootiness of Gene Wolfe's fans

Josh · 29 Feb 2004, 09:41 · 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: Josh <if.you.want.to.email at visit.joshbrain.tripod.org>
Subject: Re: The Snootiness of Gene Wolfe's fans
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:41:15 GMT
Message-ID: <Xns949E112EE9E9Aifyouwanttoemailvisi at 199.45.49.11>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
References: <Xns949D9FE6F929Difyouwanttoemailvisi at 199.45.49.11> <lawrence-43D2DE.01241529022004 at news-central.ash.giganews.com>

> 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. 

Thanks, I appreciate that. I don't think I am, but that's a matter of 
opinion, in the end.

> 
> 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." 

Um, no. If you read my post you will see that I do, in fact, understand 
him (or at least, think I understand him) and his appeal to me. The fact 
is that his appeal to me (and to you, apparently) rests in the quality of 
difficulty that you brandish so proudly here.

Thats the thing that perhaps wasn't clear enough in my first post: I 
really *liked* Wolfe because of his opacity. I *liked* the fact that his 
stories weren't blatantly obvious and the payoff not immediate. I *liked* 
the fact that I knew that the majority of readers wouldn't get half the 
stuff. I *liked* the feeling of self-importance when someone saw me 
reading Wolfe.

Indeed, for the very reason you mention, Wolfe is snooty! (Or at least, 
his work is. Apparently he's a very nice man, which I find very easy to 
believe. But when I say he's snooty, I mean his work. Perhaps I should 
have titled this thread "The Snootiness of Gene Wolfe's Work".)

> 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.

Yes, I suppose I should have stuck with my objective impressions, but 
subjective will have to do. But that goes for you, too, I'm afraid!

> 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.

Well, first off I'm not making that assertion. See above. Second off, 
that's even *more* grist for my mill, so to speak. I mean, the 
*definition* of elitist work is that it can only be enjoyed by a few 
elite...those with special knowledge, abilities, etc. Professional SF 
writers, for instance.

> 
> 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. 

You are? You do? I am? How interesting!

> 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:

Never said anything about his intelligence, nor even his ability as a 
writer. I'm firmly in the "snooty" camp. The only shot I fired across the 
bow of his ability was a percieved lack of variety in character and 
setting.

> 
> 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

Oh, and by the way, argument from authority *is* a fallacy, after all.

> 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?" 

Forgive me for observing that you appear to be suffering from a strong 
dose of hero worship. Indeed, it blinds you from my central premise:

When Wolfe appeals, he appeals to our hubris.

Let me say that again:

When Wolfe appeals, he appeals to our hubris.

Perhaps I was wrong to infer that this makes him "snooty". Maybe I would 
be more correct in saying that it makes his fans snooty.

Which brings me round to the original question of why I posted this at 
all: because I had an idea, I posted it in an ill-formed manner, got some 
nice juicy feedback that helped me to focus the idea further. Thanks.

And apologies to Gene if he ever reads this: in the quest for interesting 
self-expression, I made a bad inference. I will change the subject line 
right...now!

> 
> 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.

OK. But you're attacking the wrong assertion, which, I freely admit I 
poorly presented in my initial post. (I might add that even if you were 
attacking the right assertion, argument from authority *is* a fallacy, 
after all.)

Cheers.

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