Short Sun books inaccessible?

William Ansley · 20 Feb 2001, 22:59 · from whorl-v0012.mbox · original

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: William Ansley <wansley at warwick.net>
Subject: Re: (whorl) Short Sun books inaccessible?
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:59:59
Message-ID: <whorl-v0012-0315 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/whorl/archives/v0012/0315.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

At 11:39 AM -0600 2/20/01, Adam Stephanides wrote:

>I agree that RTTW's surface layer is less immediately enjoyable than that =
of
>some of his other works, but I don't think it's because of too many "buried
>layers of meaning"; I think it's because of the arbitrariness I mentioned =
in
>an earlier post, and the number of subplots he leaves dangling.  (Of cours=
e,
>it's possible that these reflect some hidden meaning that I've missed.)
>

Adam,

I think you are exactly right. I was confusing complexity/obscurity=20
of plot with  'multiplexity'/obscurity of layers of meaning. I hope=20
that if I do re-read the LS and SS books all in a row that they will=20
seem less arbitrary and some of the dangling subplots will turn out=20
not to be dangling after all. But I am not likely to re-read these=20
books any time soon and it is not a strong hope.

>As I said earlier, I don't think RTTW is the most obscure of Wolfe's books;
>nor do I think any of the SS books are among the most obscure.

Again, I have to agree with you, now that I really think about it. It=20
actually just seems incomplete to me, which is why I so strongly=20
suspect that Wolfe is going to write a sequel. (Not that I expect the=20
sequel, if there is one, will provide a complete sense of closure!)

>  > I also have to admit that I enjoyed the SS books less than the LS
>>  books and those less than the NS books,
>
>I would rank the New Sun books first, the Short Sun books second, and the
>Logn Sun books third.

I rank the LS and SS books well below NS and very close together. It=20
is really a toss up between the two newer series. I remember that I=20
was in no great hurry to buy the final volume of LS and the reason=20
that I got a copy of RttW as quickly as I did was so that I could=20
continue to follow the discussion here. Oh yeah, and a forlorn hope=20
that Wolfe would provide answers. Well he did provide *some* answers,=20
I have to admit that, although some of them were answers I didn't=20
like.

William Ansley

*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun.
*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.moonmilk.com/whorl/
*To leave the list, send "unsubscribe" to whorl-request at lists.best.com
*If it's Wolfe but not Long Sun, please use the URTH list: urth at lists.best.=
com

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