Gene Wolfe (1931 - 2019)

Gene Wirchenko · 17 Apr 2019, 02:31 · from rec.arts.sf.written.2019.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: Gene Wirchenko <genew at telus.net>
Subject: Re: Gene Wolfe (1931 - 2019)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 19:31:36 -0700
Message-ID: <ln3dbela3a9uu0mcq6tbuvge0f3he5n7v3 at 4ax.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
References: <q92gj7$e8n$1 at reader2.panix.com> <43ad0685-05c7-41ab-902a-4928bc87cc9f at googlegroups.com> <acd4eb35-b105-4dfa-b912-c49bcead50d8 at googlegroups.com>

On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 12:47:26 -0700 (PDT), Ahasuerus
>[snip]
>> From Wikipedia:
>> 
>> When asked the "Most overrated" and "Most underrated" authors, Thomas
>> Disch identified Isaac Asimov and Gene Wolfe, respectively [snip]
>
>Disch calling Asimov overrated is a bit like a fillet knife calling an
>axe overrated. Where is the finesse?

     Since starting to read Asimov, I have always liked Asimov's work.
I really liked his very readable science writing.

     I never cared much for Wolfe's work.  What I tried was opaque to
me, and thereafter, I avoided it.  Since we are on a RIP thread, could
someone please point me and others to Wolfe works that we might like
along with some whys?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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