Bibbero.PMSDMKT@sri-unix.UUCP (06/14/83)
Please add my voice to the advocates of Gene Wolf. As a professional writer and sf-lover from well before Doc Smith era, I think he is the best thing that has come over the pike since "Canticle for Liebowitz" and is at least the equal of Tolkien. I realize much of this has been already said but it is worth emphasizing. I seldom buy a hard-cover sf book but I could not wait for the "Citidel of the Autarch" to come out in paperback. (Unfortunately, the last of the series though still excellent, is the least satisfying, probably because most of the mysteries are cleared up.) I hope Wolf carries through with his New Sun and gives us some more of his fantastic universe. Bob Bibbero (Bibbero.PMSDMKT at HI-MULTICS)
ins_amap@jhunix.UUCP (Mark ) (02/04/86)
> I haven't read the books, and for all I know they are God's gift to > mankind, but however good the books are the above is the definition of > bullshit. The writer presents the following as facts (not opinions): > > 1) These books have the most literary value of any SF ever written. > 2) No one can even question this. > 3) He has an MA in literature/writing but can't say why the books are good. > 4) Nor does he understand the books; in fact they defy understanding. > 5) If you didn't love the book you're an idiot. > 6) Once again, Gene Wolfe is the best science fiction author ever. > > I for one find this sort of garbage extremely offensive. Is anyone out > there interested in answering the original question instead of lecturing > the rest of us on our stupidity? > > -- David desJardins I'm another one of those people to whom Gene Wolf is like unto a god, but I have to agree with Mr. desJardins on some of his points. Others are a little less cut and dried. Points 1) and 2) are by definition absurd, or at least unsupportable. There's been an awful lot of SF written, and a significant portion of that has had literary aspirations. All of Delaney's work, a lot of Ellison (although no one should tell him that), Tanith Lee's stories, the ones by LeGuin, all of those were stories written as something other than hack work. So were most of those by almost any other "name" author of the past 20 years. And don't forget the small-time authors whose work, though well crafted, might have slipped by us. Literary value isn't something that can be quantized. Which brings me to point 3). All I can say about point 3) is to go out and read _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_. The book won't tell you why Gene Wolf is god, but it might help people understand why I can't tell you either. There are novels that are well crafted, that flow easily, that have good dialogue and interesting plot, i.e. technically flawless books that simply aren't as _good_ as _The Book of the New Sun_. _Green Eyes_ by Lucius Sheperd comes to mind. That book was a first novel, and blew me away, but it still didn't have the impact that the Wolf's novels have had. There are things I could point to in his books and say "Look, a perfectly crafted section", indicating the allusions, the rythmm of the words, the play on the readers point of view versus the narators, and still you'd be missing the Quality of the piece. In that area of art, nothing really has a name, only a presence that either takes the viewer into a new state of being, or does not. Which brings me to my next point. In number 5) the original author is paraphrased such that he comes across as saying all non-Wolf-worshipers are stupid. I wouldn't have read it quite that harshly, believing there to have been more enthusiasm than spite behind the words. If Wolf's work hits you, it generally hits you hard. If not, it's stuff that's a chore to wade through. I've tried to indoctrinate two girlfriends to the Order, with no success. I still like them both (well, one of them) fine. I wasn't trying to increase their intelligence. I was trying to give them something great and good. There are snobs, even in SF. One of them may be sitting sitting beside you right now, but realize that all enthusiasts are also elitists. Bear with the mania of thy neighbor. Point 4). "Understanding" a book is one thing to work for. For most people it comes easy with most books, and Wolf's books have a perfectly understandable plot line (until the end when things get hairy, but if you've gotten that far you won't mind). There are other things to work for as well. Finding all the nuances in the books to be found, that's something no one will ever do. I think that's what the original poster had in mind when he said that about understanding the books. I think someone once defined art as that which is always new. Who can understand something that is forever new to them? Who would want to? As to who's the best SF author ever, that remains to be seen, doesn't it? Mark!
barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) (02/08/86)
>Finding all the nuances in the books to be found, that's something no one will >ever do. I think that's what the original poster had in mind when he said that >about understanding the books. I think someone once defined art as that which >is always new. Who can understand something that is forever new to them? Who >would want to? If it makes the reader feel any better, sometimes authors are in the same boat. To quote Jung: The secret of creativeness, like that of the freedom of the will, is a transcendental problem which the psychologist cannot answer but can only describe. . . . Art is a kind of innate drive that seizes a human being and makes him its instrument. The artist is not a person endowed with free will who seeks his own ends, but one who allows art to realize its purposes through him. . . . As K. G. Carus says: "Strange are the ways by which genius is announced, for what distinguishes so supremely endowed a being is that, for all the freedom of his life and the clarity of his thought, he is everywhere hemmed round and prevailed upon by the Unconscious, the mysterious god within him; so that ideas flow to him -- he knows not whence; his is driven to work ant to create -- he knows not to what end; and is mastered by an impulse for constant growth and development -- he knows not whither." In my own work, I have found myself unconsciously foreshadowing later events -- and was aware of the foreshadowing only within the second and third passes. Is strange, remaining inexplicable (but pretty neat). When the writer says, "The book wrote itself," he/she is not lying or belittling his/her craft. The ideas, hard as they are, are not the hardest part. The *hard* part is turning the idea into something readable. But I digress. > As to who's the best SF author ever, that remains to be seen, doesn't it? > Mark! "Best." Do I know that word? ;-) Barb