urth-urth.net-request at lists.urth.net11 Jan 2005
missing from the archive
The list delivered this and never kept it. What survives is
what the reply below quoted of it.
I don't think Orwell crossed any kind of critical line
in what he wrote about Chesterton here; he seems to
attack him more on political than religious grounds
anyway. But it was clearly posted in the group as an
insult to certain members, though I can't claim to
understand why. I mean, the religious views of most
active members on this list are well known, as are
Gene Wolfe's. Is the poster implying that Wolfe's
novels have become increasingly stale and polemical as
his religious and/or political beliefs have found a
more overt expression in his writing?
I wouldn't go so far as to endorse this point of view whole-heartedly, but I was struck by how jarring the paeans to supply-side economics and universal gun ownership were in Exodus from the Long Sun. At the time they seemed so clumsily inserted that I wasn't sure if they were satire or GW's views.... Now I assume the latter?
JL
1 quoted line
On Jan 11, 2005, at 11:16 AM, urth-urth.net-request at lists.urth.net wrote: I don't think Orwell crossed any kind of critical line in what he wrote about Chesterton here; he seems to attack him more on political than religious grounds anyway. But it was clearly posted in the group as an insult to certain members, though I can't claim to understand why. I mean, the religious views of most active members on this list are well known, as are Gene Wolfe's. Is the poster implying that Wolfe's novels have become increasingly stale and polemical as his religious and/or political beliefs have found a more overt expression in his writing?
--- urth-urth.net-request at lists.urth.net wrote:
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:57:56 -0800
From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: (urth) Orwell on Chesterton
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net>
Message-ID: <1f76173705011110571de36a2f at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Aqala:
I am a great admirer of both Orwell and Chesterton, and a
man who is converting to Catholicism in his 40s, after a
great deal (more than ten years) of thought.May I ask why
you feel it necessary to post something so inflammatorially
insulting?
--Dan'l
What is exactly insulting Orwell’s opinion or my own?
To whom is it insulting? Chesterton has been dead many for a long time. Why is it insulting? People has been denouncing religion and the church for a long time now, nothing new there, like Robert Burns said: Proud Priests and Bishops we'll translate And canonise as Martyrs; If not with swards than with words. If you find Orwell’s opinion (or mine) insulting to YOU than that, sir, is your problem.
What is exactly insulting Orwell's opinion or my own?
To whom is it insulting? Chesterton has been dead many for a long time. Why is it insulting? People has been denouncing religion and the church for a long time now, nothing new there, like Robert Burns said: Proud Priests and Bishops we'll translate And canonise as Martyrs; If not with swards than with words. If you find Orwell's opinion (or mine) insulting to YOU than that, sir, is your problem.
Errr...I think the insulting part was not Orwell's opinion which was directed a Chesterton, but it was rather your own which was directed at the intellect of anyone considering converting to Catholicism. That's rather personal and not directed at some dead for nigh on a century.
In short, it was inflammitory.
~ Crush
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:16:12 -0800 (PST)
From: stilskin <acronus at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: (urth) Orwell on Chesterton
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net> Message-ID: <20050111191612.83372.qmail at web20021.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
--- Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk> wrote:
I don't think Orwell crossed any kind of critical line
in what he wrote about Chesterton here; he seems to
attack him more on political than religious grounds
anyway. But it was clearly posted in the group as an
insult to certain members, though I can't claim to
understand why. I mean, the religious views of most
So anyone who expresses a view that does not confirm to your own (or certain members) views than he is bent on insulting? That must make it easy (very easy) to just dismiss anyone with a different view rather than engage them!
5 quoted lines
active members on this list are well known, as are
Gene Wolfe's. Is the poster implying that Wolfe's
novels have become increasingly stale and polemical as
his religious and/or political beliefs have found a
more overt expression in his writing?
You read all that in a post that didn’t even mention Wolfe? No your interpretation is completely wrong.
I wouldn't go so far as to endorse this point of view whole-heartedly, but I was struck by how jarring the paeans to supply-side economics and universal gun ownership were in Exodus from the Long Sun. At the time they seemed so clumsily inserted that I wasn't sure if they were satire or GW's views.... Now I assume the latter?
I didn't think they were clumsily inserted. I think they were jarring because the plurality of SciFi writers are politically liberal.
Thus, placing favorable views to gun-ownership and supply-side economics in the mouth of a very simpathic and (presented as) wise character might have caught you unaware if you did not previously know of Wolfe's conservative politics.
~ Crush
What is exactly insulting Orwell's opinion or my own?
Yours.
Specifically:
"A man so lacking in thought and intellect he converted to
Catholicism when in his 40's."
While stated as a remark on Chesterton, it is in fact a general remark on the intellegence of anyone who converts to Catholicism, and especially in their 40s. (Which - by the way - does not take an apostrophe.)
1 quoted line
To whom is it insulting?
To me and anyone else who voluntarily embraces Catholicism
after a great deal of thought.
1 quoted line
Why is it insulting?
I refuse to insult you by assuming that you are too dim to figure it out yourself from teh clues given.
2 quoted lines
People has been denouncing religion and the church
for a long time now,
There is also a lengthy tradition of denouncing blacks as
half-animals, jews as greedy Christ-killers, atheists as
closed-minded bigots, etc. An insult repeated for
a long time does not become less insulting thereby.
--Dan'l
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:52:10 -0500, James Wynn <thewynns at earthlink.net> wrote: I didn't think they were clumsily inserted. I think they were jarring because the plurality of SciFi writers are politically liberal.
Thus, placing favorable views to gun-ownership and supply-side economics in the mouth of a very simpathic and (presented as) wise character might have caught you unaware if you did not previously know of Wolfe's conservative politics.
We must not be reading the same SF: Heinlein, Weber, Niven and/or Pournelle - well, I gave up on those two years ago... There is a long and rich tradition of conservatism in SF.
Which doesn't make it right, of course. 8*)
--Dan'l
We must not be reading the same SF: Heinlein, Weber, Niven and/or Pournelle - well, I gave up on those two years ago... There is a long and rich tradition of conservatism in SF.
That's why I said "the plurality of Sci-Fi writers" -- not even a majority. I have no way of ascertaining whether political liberals are in the majority, but having gone to my share of gatherings of SF writers and aspiring writers, I feel comfortable in saying that there were far more liberals than conservatives there. Or perhaps the liberals and conservatives only thought the liberals held an overwhelming majority there, and so were more vocal.
However, it was, I didn't find Silk's opinions on gun-ownership any more or less jarring than the omnipresent villainous corporate heads in SF literature, or the benign and efficient socialist societies.
~ Crush
Bruce Franklin's collection of Vietnam war writing has a reprint from a 1968 issue of Galaxy, which includes two petitions on that war. One is a group of writers urging the United States to withdraw, while the other recommends the nation remain in the fighting. It's fascinating to read the two lists (which are roughly equal in size) - in fact, it would make a great teaching tool for science fiction history!
-----Original Message-----
From: urth-urth.net-bounces at lists.urth.net [mailto:urth-urth.net-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of James Wynn Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 4:25 PM To: The Urth Mailing List
2 quoted lines
Subject: Re: (urth) SciFi politics
We must not be reading the same SF: Heinlein, Weber, Niven and/or Pournelle - well, I gave up on those two years ago... There is a long and rich tradition of conservatism in SF.
That's why I said "the plurality of Sci-Fi writers" -- not even a majority. I have no way of ascertaining whether political liberals are in the majority, but having gone to my share of gatherings of SF writers and aspiring writers, I feel comfortable in saying that there were far more liberals than conservatives there. Or perhaps the liberals and conservatives only thought the liberals held an overwhelming majority there, and so were more vocal.
However, it was, I didn't find Silk's opinions on gun-ownership any more or less jarring than the omnipresent villainous corporate heads in SF literature, or the benign and efficient socialist societies.
~ Crush
I am undecided on the supply-side economics bit, but I did not think that the gun-ownership bit was clumsily inserted either; it's quite to the point and a real concern in the particular political situation Silk found himself in. And ultimately it seemed to me like Silk's position on guns, at that point, was largely a matter of political pragmatism rather than universal principle. To me, the issue there wasn't "gun control" but rather the distribution of power to individuals in an unstable, revolutionary atmosphere.
I am not sure that Wolfe could even have realistically avoided the subject.
8 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
I wouldn't go so far as to endorse this point of view whole-heartedly, but I was struck by how jarring the paeans to supply-side economics and universal gun ownership were in Exodus from the Long Sun. At the time they seemed so clumsily inserted that I wasn't sure if they were satire or GW's views.... Now I assume the latter?
I didn't think they were clumsily inserted. I think they were jarring because the plurality of SciFi writers are politically liberal.
Thus, placing favorable views to gun-ownership and supply-side economics in the mouth of a very simpathic and (presented as) wise character might have caught you unaware if you did not previously know of Wolfe's conservative politics.
~ Crush
_______________________________________________
Urth Net