The Snootiness of Gene Wolfe's fans

Josh · 29 Feb 2004, 17:16 · 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 17:16:31 GMT
Message-ID: <Xns949E5E5FE4919ifyouwanttoemailvisi 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> <Xns949E112EE9E9Aifyouwanttoemailvisi at 199.45.49.11> <4041bd80$0$28871$afc38c87 at news.optusnet.com.au>

"Mike Williams" <mike@nospam4me> wrote in
news:4041bd80$0$28871$afc38c87 at news.optusnet.com.au: 

> "Josh" <if.you.want.to.email at visit.joshbrain.tripod.org> wrote in
> message news:Xns949E112EE9E9Aifyouwanttoemailvisi at 199.45.49.11...
> 
>> 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".) 
> 
> I'm wondering what *you* mean by snooty"". I don't think anything you
> have said speaks to his work being aloof, haughty or exclusive. It's
> possible you're meaning something different and you're getting a
> reaction to your personal definition of snootiness.

I meant something like http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=snooty

I've already revamped my assertion, which you quoted below (so I assume 
you've read it), so you're attacking something I've already retracted. 
Jeremy Thorpe spoke eloquently for Wolfe's character and in so doing 
helped me to realize that I had made an inference error. Namely that 
snootiness of the fanbase implies snootiness of the artist. This is not 
always the case!

Wolfe is kind of like modern day opera. The sense I get is that, although 
there are undoubtadly those who really enjoy opera for it's artistry and 
fundamental merit, there is a larger portion of the fan base that likes 
it because it is opera, and by liking it one shows one's sophistication 
and taste. Perhaps even better examples would be people who (say they) 
like 12 tone symphonies or reading Immanuel Kant. My guess is that 4 out 
of 5 of such people like the *idea* of enjoying such haughty 
entertainments more than the entertainments themselves. Does this mean 
Shoenberg or Kant are themselves snooty? Not necessarily. Maybe they were 
just down-to-earth artists who were trying to be as straight-forward as 
possible, and were just taken up by the wrong crowd. (Or maybe not.)

Anyway, I think such pretense is bad (I was going to write "without 
merit" but then realized...), and I don't want to be that way. Now that 
I'm aware of it perhaps I can enjoy reading Wolfe and enjoy him all the 
more for what he has written, rather than how he is percieved. One thing 
is certain: posting this comment has been a tremendous catharsis and I 
appreciate the feedback immensely.

> 
>> When Wolfe appeals, he appeals to our hubris.
> 
> I think I'd like to hear your definition of' hubris' too.

 http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hubris does the trick.

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