Urth Net

Index · 3 messages · 3 voices · 16 Mar 2012

The Lupiverse(es)

Download this conversation
Lee Berman16 Mar 2012, 00:42as archived
The Lupiverse(es)
↰ answers Craig Brewer · by quotation
2 quoted lines
Craig Brewer: I tend to agree with you. After all, an author can say what he attempted
to do. He can't always claim that he was successful or in as much control as he thought.
Heh, yep. Reminds me of David and my discussions on author as demiurge. You can create everything in a world but you can't control the free will of the residents/audience.
2 quoted lines
After all, Milton came up earlier: people love PL because they think it's a profoundly
Christian work AND because they think it's secretly subversive of that.
Hm, I think WOlfe's work resembles this. SF is a genre which has been a historic breeding ground for atheistic thought. Good portions of it have been devoted to explaining away religious beliefs and God's creation using science. Wolfe's work might be called profoundly SF (he has certain collected enough SF awards) but I think he uses his work to secretly subvert SF by explaining it away with religion. That overstates it of course. Wolfe seems to want science and religion to coexist in some sort of simultaneous harmony. But in a literary world populated by Dr. Cranes, that could be seen as a form of subversion.
3 quoted lines
If Wolfe said on his deathbed that it was all a clever front for a revival of Confucianism,
it would affect more than just my interpretation, but also how I chose, decoded, etc., what
actually happened in the story itself.
Thanks for this answer. It seems like a response which required some self-contemplation and is a realistic (as opposed to idealistic) prediction of your reaction to my hypothetical scenario.
Craig Brewer16 Mar 2012, 01:06as archived
↳ in reply to Lee Berman · new subject
And now for something...
Can we change the subject? How about this: whoever's going to the dinner, ask him if anything magical ever really happened in The Sorcerer's House, or if it was all just a fancy epistolary con. (I'm so jealous of you people...I have to be at, not even in, a wedding for my wife's friend. Sometimes marriage isn't quite worth it...)
David Stockhoff16 Mar 2012, 01:39as archived
↳ in reply to Lee Berman
5 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On 3/15/2012 8:42 PM, Lee Berman wrote: After all, Milton came up earlier: people love PL because they think it's a profoundly Christian work AND because they think it's secretly subversive of that.
Hm, I think WOlfe's work resembles this. SF is a genre which has been a historic breeding ground for atheistic thought. Good portions of it have been devoted to explaining away religious beliefs and God's creation using science. Wolfe's work might be called profoundly SF (he has certain collected enough SF awards) but I think he uses his work to secretly subvert SF by explaining it away with religion. That overstates it of course. Wolfe seems to want science and religion to coexist in some sort of simultaneous harmony. But in a literary world populated by Dr. Cranes, that could be seen as a form of subversion.
Possibly. It's true that many of the Golden Age SF writers were Jewish. But look at how many fantasy writers were overtly Christian. Perhaps there is more of an argument to be made that Wolfe subverts SF by bringing fantasy into it.

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