NPR taking suggestions for The Best Science Fiction and

Greg Bates wrote: That was incredibly difficult. I wish it was five fantasy and five sci fi.

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Andrew Mason < andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com> wrote: Greg Bates wrote:

That was incredibly difficult. I wish it was five fantasy and five sci fi.

Of course, that would cause demarcation problems in some cases - and in no case more than with Wolfe. I think the Sun cycle, taken as a whole, has to be read as both SF and fantasy - it has some distinctive features which ar sceintific or technological, and others which are magical or supernatural. _______________________________________________

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:09 PM, <entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

Ha. The Book of the Long Sun is so much better!

I agree. But is it better if you haven't read "Short Sun?" (I think it is anyway, but I haven't experienced it in that order.)

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Andrew Mason <andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com> wrote: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:09 PM, ?<entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

Ha. The Book of the Long Sun is so much better!

I agree. But is it better if you haven't read "Short Sun?" (I think it is anyway, but I haven't experienced it in that order.)

You read Short Sun first? Was that not a rather puzzling experience? _______________________________________________

wrote:

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:09 PM, <entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

Ha. The Book of the Long Sun is so much better!

I agree. But is it better if you haven't read "Short Sun?" (I think it is anyway, but I haven't experienced it in that order.)

You read Short Sun first? Was that not a rather puzzling experience? _______________________________________________

At 17:31 23/06/2011, you wrote: You know, I actually did read On Blue's Waters, then stopped and went back and read Long Sun before then re-reading Blue and the rest of Short Sun. It was indeed a very, very strange experience - but hugely enticing. Unfortunately it took away some of the mystery I think I would have encountered in reading Long Sun if I had had no or little clue what was coming. I think John Clute wondered in a review whether jumping right into Wolfe at Blue might be the best way. I've always wondered the same. DOJP

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:09 PM, ?<entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

Ha. The Book of the Long Sun is so much better!

I agree. But is it better if you haven't read "Short Sun?" (I think it is anyway, but I haven't experienced it in that order.)

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:09 PM, ?<entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

Ha. The Book of the Long Sun is so much better!

I agree. But is it better if you haven't read "Short Sun?" (I think it is anyway, but I haven't experienced it in that order.)

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com>wrote: You could read Long Sun before New or Short Sun, but starting at Short Sun just ruins so many little cool things, like the whole "I caught the ball, I won the game" thing at the end of On Blue's Water, Horn talking about "his" dancing toy, things that undeniably let you know there is something of Silk running around in that narrator. I like the published order, but Long and New should both be read before Short. If you don't have a thorough understanding of the positive outlook of Silk and his "out of character" suicidal impulse Short Sun could never make full sense. --- On *Thu, 6/23/11, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>*wrote: From: Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> Subject: Re: (urth) NPR taking suggestions for The Best Science Fiction and To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net> Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011, 9:31 AM You know, I actually did read On Blue's Waters, then stopped and went back and read Long Sun before then re-reading Blue and the rest of Short Sun. It was indeed a very, very strange experience - but hugely enticing. Unfortunately it took away some of the mystery I think I would have encountered in reading Long Sun if I had had no or little clue what was coming. I think John Clute wondered in a review whether jumping right into Wolfe at Blue might be the best way. I've always wondered the same. DOJP On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Andrew Mason < andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com<http://us.mc1618.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com> wrote: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:09 PM, <entonio at gmail.com<http://us.mc1618.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=entonio at gmail.com>> wrote:

Ha. The Book of the Long Sun is so much better!

I agree. But is it better if you haven't read "Short Sun?" (I think it is anyway, but I haven't experienced it in that order.)

You read Short Sun first? Was that not a rather puzzling experience? _______________________________________________

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Daniel Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: You're probably right, Marc. But being plunged into all that mystery through the wonders of Short Sun is still quite exciting and inviting. I sometimes feel people on this board are far more into solving little (and huge) puzzles than they are into a sense of wonder, awe, magic, thrill, humanity, divinity, great writing, and so on in Gene Wolfe. I know the puzzles are integral to his art - but I just don't feel like the other aspects get much air time. DOJP On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com>wrote:

You could read Long Sun before New or Short Sun, but starting at Short Sun just ruins so many little cool things, like the whole "I caught the ball, I won the game" thing at the end of On Blue's Water, Horn talking about "his" dancing toy, things that undeniably let you know there is something of Silk running around in that narrator. I like the published order, but Long and New should both be read before Short. If you don't have a thorough understanding of the positive outlook of Silk and his "out of character" suicidal impulse Short Sun could never make full sense. --- On *Thu, 6/23/11, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>*wrote: From: Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> Subject: Re: (urth) NPR taking suggestions for The Best Science Fiction and To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net> Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011, 9:31 AM You know, I actually did read On Blue's Waters, then stopped and went back and read Long Sun before then re-reading Blue and the rest of Short Sun. It was indeed a very, very strange experience - but hugely enticing. Unfortunately it took away some of the mystery I think I would have encountered in reading Long Sun if I had had no or little clue what was coming. I think John Clute wondered in a review whether jumping right into Wolfe at Blue might be the best way. I've always wondered the same. DOJP On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Andrew Mason < andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com<http://us.mc1618.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com> wrote: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:09 PM, <entonio at gmail.com<http://us.mc1618.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=entonio at gmail.com>> wrote:

Ha. The Book of the Long Sun is so much better!

I agree. But is it better if you haven't read "Short Sun?" (I think it is anyway, but I haven't experienced it in that order.)

You read Short Sun first? Was that not a rather puzzling experience? _______________________________________________

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Jordon Flato <jordonflatourth at gmail.com>wrote: Well, they picked their list. Not having read many of them, I can't comment, but of course I think it's ridiculous to not include New Sun. http://www.npr.org/2011/06/30/137003853/mind-bending-sci-fi-books-for-a-fantastical-summer On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Daniel Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:

You're probably right, Marc. But being plunged into all that mystery through the wonders of Short Sun is still quite exciting and inviting. I sometimes feel people on this board are far more into solving little (and huge) puzzles than they are into a sense of wonder, awe, magic, thrill, humanity, divinity, great writing, and so on in Gene Wolfe. I know the puzzles are integral to his art - but I just don't feel like the other aspects get much air time. DOJP On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com>wrote:

You could read Long Sun before New or Short Sun, but starting at Short Sun just ruins so many little cool things, like the whole "I caught the ball, I won the game" thing at the end of On Blue's Water, Horn talking about "his" dancing toy, things that undeniably let you know there is something of Silk running around in that narrator. I like the published order, but Long and New should both be read before Short. If you don't have a thorough understanding of the positive outlook of Silk and his "out of character" suicidal impulse Short Sun could never make full sense. --- On *Thu, 6/23/11, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> * wrote: From: Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> Subject: Re: (urth) NPR taking suggestions for The Best Science Fiction and To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net> Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011, 9:31 AM You know, I actually did read On Blue's Waters, then stopped and went back and read Long Sun before then re-reading Blue and the rest of Short Sun. It was indeed a very, very strange experience - but hugely enticing. Unfortunately it took away some of the mystery I think I would have encountered in reading Long Sun if I had had no or little clue what was coming. I think John Clute wondered in a review whether jumping right into Wolfe at Blue might be the best way. I've always wondered the same. DOJP On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Andrew Mason < andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com<http://us.mc1618.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com> wrote: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:09 PM, <entonio at gmail.com<http://us.mc1618.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=entonio at gmail.com>> wrote:

Ha. The Book of the Long Sun is so much better!

I agree. But is it better if you haven't read "Short Sun?" (I think it is anyway, but I haven't experienced it in that order.)

You read Short Sun first? Was that not a rather puzzling experience? _______________________________________________

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Jordon Flato <jordonflatourth at gmail.com>wrote: Let me rephrase that 'many' to 'any'. On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Jordon Flato <jordonflatourth at gmail.com>wrote:

Well, they picked their list. Not having read many of them, I can't comment, but of course I think it's ridiculous to not include New Sun. http://www.npr.org/2011/06/30/137003853/mind-bending-sci-fi-books-for-a-fantastical-summer On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Daniel Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:

You're probably right, Marc. But being plunged into all that mystery through the wonders of Short Sun is still quite exciting and inviting. I sometimes feel people on this board are far more into solving little (and huge) puzzles than they are into a sense of wonder, awe, magic, thrill, humanity, divinity, great writing, and so on in Gene Wolfe. I know the puzzles are integral to his art - but I just don't feel like the other aspects get much air time. DOJP On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com>wrote:

You could read Long Sun before New or Short Sun, but starting at Short Sun just ruins so many little cool things, like the whole "I caught the ball, I won the game" thing at the end of On Blue's Water, Horn talking about "his" dancing toy, things that undeniably let you know there is something of Silk running around in that narrator. I like the published order, but Long and New should both be read before Short. If you don't have a thorough understanding of the positive outlook of Silk and his "out of character" suicidal impulse Short Sun could never make full sense. --- On *Thu, 6/23/11, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com * wrote: From: Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> Subject: Re: (urth) NPR taking suggestions for The Best Science Fiction and To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net> Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011, 9:31 AM You know, I actually did read On Blue's Waters, then stopped and went back and read Long Sun before then re-reading Blue and the rest of Short Sun. It was indeed a very, very strange experience - but hugely enticing. Unfortunately it took away some of the mystery I think I would have encountered in reading Long Sun if I had had no or little clue what was coming. I think John Clute wondered in a review whether jumping right into Wolfe at Blue might be the best way. I've always wondered the same. DOJP On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Andrew Mason < andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com<http://us.mc1618.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com> wrote: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:09 PM, <entonio at gmail.com<http://us.mc1618.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=entonio at gmail.com>> wrote:

Ha. The Book of the Long Sun is so much better!

I agree. But is it better if you haven't read "Short Sun?" (I think it is anyway, but I haven't experienced it in that order.)

You read Short Sun first? Was that not a rather puzzling experience? _______________________________________________

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote: It's clearly a list based on what's currently new on the stands. Given that, it isn't a bad list. On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Jordon Flato <jordonflatourth at gmail.com>wrote:

Let me rephrase that 'many' to 'any'. On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Jordon Flato <jordonflatourth at gmail.com>wrote:

Well, they picked their list. Not having read many of them, I can't comment, but of course I think it's ridiculous to not include New Sun. http://www.npr.org/2011/06/30/137003853/mind-bending-sci-fi-books-for-a-fantastical-summer On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Daniel Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:

You're probably right, Marc. But being plunged into all that mystery through the wonders of Short Sun is still quite exciting and inviting. I sometimes feel people on this board are far more into solving little (and huge) puzzles than they are into a sense of wonder, awe, magic, thrill, humanity, divinity, great writing, and so on in Gene Wolfe. I know the puzzles are integral to his art - but I just don't feel like the other aspects get much air time. DOJP On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com>wrote:

You could read Long Sun before New or Short Sun, but starting at Short Sun just ruins so many little cool things, like the whole "I caught the ball, I won the game" thing at the end of On Blue's Water, Horn talking about "his" dancing toy, things that undeniably let you know there is something of Silk running around in that narrator. I like the published order, but Long and New should both be read before Short. If you don't have a thorough understanding of the positive outlook of Silk and his "out of character" suicidal impulse Short Sun could never make full sense. --- On *Thu, 6/23/11, Daniel Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>* wrote: From: Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> Subject: Re: (urth) NPR taking suggestions for The Best Science Fiction and To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net> Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011, 9:31 AM You know, I actually did read On Blue's Waters, then stopped and went back and read Long Sun before then re-reading Blue and the rest of Short Sun. It was indeed a very, very strange experience - but hugely enticing. Unfortunately it took away some of the mystery I think I would have encountered in reading Long Sun if I had had no or little clue what was coming. I think John Clute wondered in a review whether jumping right into Wolfe at Blue might be the best way. I've always wondered the same. DOJP On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Andrew Mason < andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com<http://us.mc1618.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com> wrote: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:09 PM, <entonio at gmail.com<http://us.mc1618.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=entonio at gmail.com>> wrote:

Ha. The Book of the Long Sun is so much better!

I agree. But is it better if you haven't read "Short Sun?" (I think it is anyway, but I haven't experienced it in that order.)

You read Short Sun first? Was that not a rather puzzling experience? _______________________________________________

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Jordon Flato <jordonflatourth at gmail.com>wrote: Having billed it as a 'best of all time' list, I'd say it's pretty lame. It is highly likely that this is a related but separate list. I'm hoping so. On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>wrote:

It's clearly a list based on what's currently new on the stands. Given that, it isn't a bad list. On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Jordon Flato <jordonflatourth at gmail.com>wrote:

Let me rephrase that 'many' to 'any'. On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Jordon Flato <jordonflatourth at gmail.com>wrote:

Well, they picked their list. Not having read many of them, I can't comment, but of course I think it's ridiculous to not include New Sun. http://www.npr.org/2011/06/30/137003853/mind-bending-sci-fi-books-for-a-fantastical-summer On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Daniel Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:

You're probably right, Marc. But being plunged into all that mystery through the wonders of Short Sun is still quite exciting and inviting. I sometimes feel people on this board are far more into solving little (and huge) puzzles than they are into a sense of wonder, awe, magic, thrill, humanity, divinity, great writing, and so on in Gene Wolfe. I know the puzzles are integral to his art - but I just don't feel like the other aspects get much air time. DOJP On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com>wrote:

You could read Long Sun before New or Short Sun, but starting at Short Sun just ruins so many little cool things, like the whole "I caught the ball, I won the game" thing at the end of On Blue's Water, Horn talking about "his" dancing toy, things that undeniably let you know there is something of Silk running around in that narrator. I like the published order, but Long and New should both be read before Short. If you don't have a thorough understanding of the positive outlook of Silk and his "out of character" suicidal impulse Short Sun could never make full sense. --- On *Thu, 6/23/11, Daniel Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>* wrote: From: Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> Subject: Re: (urth) NPR taking suggestions for The Best Science Fiction and To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net> Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011, 9:31 AM You know, I actually did read On Blue's Waters, then stopped and went back and read Long Sun before then re-reading Blue and the rest of Short Sun. It was indeed a very, very strange experience - but hugely enticing. Unfortunately it took away some of the mystery I think I would have encountered in reading Long Sun if I had had no or little clue what was coming. I think John Clute wondered in a review whether jumping right into Wolfe at Blue might be the best way. I've always wondered the same. DOJP On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Andrew Mason < andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com<http://us.mc1618.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com> wrote: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:09 PM, <entonio at gmail.com<http://us.mc1618.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=entonio at gmail.com>> wrote:

Ha. The Book of the Long Sun is so much better!

I agree. But is it better if you haven't read "Short Sun?" (I think it is anyway, but I haven't experienced it in that order.)

You read Short Sun first? Was that not a rather puzzling experience? _______________________________________________

On Jul 5, 2011, at 5:42 PM, "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <danldo at gmail.com> wrote: It's clearly a list based on what's currently new on the stands. Given that, it isn't a bad list. On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Jordon Flato <jordonflatourth at gmail.com> wrote: Let me rephrase that 'many' to 'any'. On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Jordon Flato <jordonflatourth at gmail.com> wrote: Well, they picked their list. Not having read many of them, I can't comment, but of course I think it's ridiculous to not include New Sun. http://www.npr.org/2011/06/30/137003853/mind-bending-sci-fi-books-for-a-fantastical-summer On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: You're probably right, Marc. But being plunged into all that mystery through the wonders of Short Sun is still quite exciting and inviting. I sometimes feel people on this board are far more into solving little (and huge) puzzles than they are into a sense of wonder, awe, magic, thrill, humanity, divinity, great writing, and so on in Gene Wolfe. I know the puzzles are integral to his art - but I just don't feel like the other aspects get much air time. DOJP On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com> wrote: You could read Long Sun before New or Short Sun, but starting at Short Sun just ruins so many little cool things, like the whole "I caught the ball, I won the game" thing at the end of On Blue's Water, Horn talking about "his" dancing toy, things that undeniably let you know there is something of Silk running around in that narrator. I like the published order, but Long and New should both be read before Short. If you don't have a thorough understanding of the positive outlook of Silk and his "out of character" suicidal impulse Short Sun could never make full sense. --- On Thu, 6/23/11, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: From: Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> Subject: Re: (urth) NPR taking suggestions for The Best Science Fiction and To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net> Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011, 9:31 AM You know, I actually did read On Blue's Waters, then stopped and went back and read Long Sun before then re-reading Blue and the rest of Short Sun. It was indeed a very, very strange experience - but hugely enticing. Unfortunately it took away some of the mystery I think I would have encountered in reading Long Sun if I had had no or little clue what was coming. I think John Clute wondered in a review whether jumping right into Wolfe at Blue might be the best way. I've always wondered the same. DOJP On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Andrew Mason <andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com> wrote: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:09 PM, <entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

Ha. The Book of the Long Sun is so much better!

I agree. But is it better if you haven't read "Short Sun?" (I think it is anyway, but I haven't experienced it in that order.)

You read Short Sun first? Was that not a rather puzzling experience? _______________________________________________

Jordon Flato wrote: Well, they picked their list. Not having read many of them, I can't comment, but of course I think it's ridiculous to not include New Sun. http://www.npr.org/2011/06/30/137003853/mind-bending-sci-fi-books-for-a-fantastical-summer

Jordon Flato wrote: Well, they picked their list. Not having read many of them, I can't comment, but of course I think it's ridiculous to not include New Sun. http://www.npr.org/2011/06/30/137003853/mind-bending-sci-fi-books-for-a-fantastical-summer

On Jul 6, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Jordon Flato <jordonflatourth at gmail.com> wrote: Yes. Yesterday I ate the requisite amount of crow

On Jul 6, 2011 8:12 AM, "Nick Lee" <starwaterstrain at gmail.com> wrote: Jordon Flato wrote: Well, they picked their list. Not having read many of them, I can't comment, but of course I think it's ridiculous to not include New Sun. http://www.npr.org/2011/06/30/137003853/mind-bending-sci-fi-books-for-a-fantastical-summer It's no surprise you haven't read any of those books. They're new books (all from 2011) NPR is suggesting we read this summer. It's not the "Best Of" List. _______________________________________________

From: Nick Lee <starwaterstrain at gmail.com> Subject: (urth) NPR taking suggestions for The Best Science Fiction and To: urth at lists.urth.net Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2011, 8:11 AM Jordon Flato wrote:

Well, they picked their list. Not having read many of them, I can't...

_______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth....