The Snootiness of Gene Wolfe's fans

Mike Williams · 29 Feb 2004, 23:29 · 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: "Mike Williams" <mike@nospam4me>
Subject: Re: The Snootiness of Gene Wolfe's fans
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:29:00 +1100
Message-ID: <404275be$0$16103$afc38c87 at news.optusnet.com.au>
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> <Xns949E5E5FE4919ifyouwanttoemailvisi at 199.45.49.11>

"Josh" <if.you.want.to.email at visit.joshbrain.tripod.org> wrote in message 
news:Xns949E5E5FE4919ifyouwanttoemailvisi at 199.45.49.11...
> "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 as you may have noticed used the same reference, which is why I don't 
think you justified your assertion that Wolfe's work is "aloof, haughty or 
exclusive".

 > 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.

I quoted your correction that the work was snooty, and that's why I asked 
you to justofy it in terms of the definition of snooty.
>>> 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.

Yep, and with that definition I don't see any justification for the 
assertion. (ooo 3 "-tion"words in one sentence). It seems to me to be a very 
curious statement.

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