(urth) Urth Digest, Vol 57, Issue 13

Sat May 16 19:27:35 PDT 2009

It strikes me as fascinating that Wolfe has his finger to the pulse of
the country so strongly.  I do believe Wolfe to be a friend of
authoritarianism, and like Plato, he longs for the good king who can
destroy and create with a Christ-like wisdom, a wisdom borne of a deep
humanity and humility. (Wolfe might be willing to let the artists stay
in Athens, though . . .)

But I don't think Wolfe will ever be so fast as to to endorse this paragraph:

I suspect Wolfe does not believe socialism deserves a trial. The reason
> socialism is understood "as robbing from the rich to give to the poor" in
> the US is because the country was founded on the ideals of private property.
> Excepting slavery and the treatment of the Indians, there was never a time
> of clearly defined "class" -- of a "place" in society that one is expected
> to know. Actually, "rob from the rich" is a nicer way to put it than Kipling
> did: "They promised abundance for all/By robbing proverbial Peter to pay
> proverbial Paul". In order to get from here to there (socialism/welfare
> state), the advocates of the shift have always framed it as taking from
> those who "don't need it" in order to fund "the community".

America is an idea, one molded from lots of different peoples, not
exclusively from the godlike founding fathers.  Private property is
absolutely essential in understanding past and contemporary America,
but Wolfe is too smart in my opinion to embrace any kind of oligarchy,
which is what the founding fathers were.  Denying class in America is
a shibboleth now.  No Wolfe story leaves class absent, in fact, and
insofar as his best protagonists often embrace the best aspects of
Christianity, they militate against inequity in all forms.

Socialism is about equity.  It's about diminishing the gap between
rich and poor.  I would say this is an attractive idea to Wolfe,
insofar as he does valorize so many Christ-like figures who fight
various forms of injustice, while sometimes perpetuating other forms
of it, either knowingly or unknowingly.

You are absolutely right, however, that socialism is about taking
wealth from the few to fund the needs of the group, thus perpetuating
a diminished rich/ poor gap, which most democracies consider essential
for their survival.  Your scare quotes around "community" are
troubling indeed.  I take your point that the "community" is a broad
term, and it is often misused by politicians when what they really
mean is "a few of my good buddies."  But revolution comes when that
rich/ poor gap gets too high.  And revolutions have very, very high
costs.  Wolfe knows that too, I bet.

-Robin Dunn

P.S.
Again I think it's a real tribute to Wolfe that his stories are so
rich, varied, and in the end, non-ideological, that many different
political philosophies can be tolerated in his fictional universe. ;)

On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 2:08 PM,  <urth-request at lists.urth.net> wrote:
> Send Urth mailing list submissions to
>        urth at lists.urth.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://lists.urth.net/listinfo.cgi/urth-urth.net
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        urth-request at lists.urth.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        urth-owner at lists.urth.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Urth digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1.   The Devil in a Forest (David Stockhoff)
>   2. Re:  The Devil in a Forest (James Wynn)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 09:13:11 -0400
> From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net>
> Subject: (urth)  The Devil in a Forest
> To: urth at lists.urth.net
> Message-ID: <4A0EBBE7.5030109 at verizon.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> I don't recall the novel well, but I'm skeptical that one can so confidently read direct criticism of socialism and bureaucratic government in it. They are modern ideas that may be roughly linked but can't actually be represented in this milieu. Naturally Wolfe doesn't like them, because they are inferior to the rule of a good king. So I'd like to see more citations specifically supporting that theory. Unless, of course, you meant it only in a general or indirect sense.
>
> First of all, by the time you've equated socialism with "robbing from the rich and giving to the poor," you've already hanged socialism without a trial, because that means you don't know what it is. Though I will grant that it is commonly understood in that way in the US, and that the requirement of ignorance does not rule out Wolfe's understanding it that way too.
>
> Second, in what way does a feudal figure resemble modern big government? Again, punitive overtaxing---a practice that was perfected by the Medicis, not by the IRS, by any stretch---and being corrupt and evil bears no particular relation to big government as we know it. Rather, it's business as usual for imperial/authoritarian orders of the kind our big government replaced.
>
> If anything, the story sets---if I can again put it in the terms of past debates---'good' king vs 'bad' king. Bad kings tax and kill freely and destroy all that is not theirs; good kings try to improve things but also tax and kill with restraint. Nobility should behave in a certain way, according to a code, as a knight. Neither the sheriff nor Wat is a nobleman, and thus cannot be either. Clearly Wat is misguided, but it wouldn't be the first time a Wolfe protagonist is misguided.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 08:31:57 -0500
> From: "James Wynn" <crushtv at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: (urth) The Devil in a Forest
> To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
> Message-ID: <26082D4CA6CD4E83A88223747DCF7E57 at eMachinePC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>        reply-type=response
>
>
>> > Don Doggett:
>> >Sorry James, I've read The Devil in a Forest,
>>
>  >but I was pretty underwhelmed by it, so I never dug very deep.
>
> Look, this is no great work, but it is a very "well-constructed" work; to a
> degree that it's worth examining for that reason alone. Most people are
> unaware of the story of the evil abbess who poisons, blinds, and kills Robin
> Hood. Wolfe has combined the abbess, Baba Yaga, and Hansel & Gretel's witch
> into a single character.
>
> The story has lots of interesting, filled-out characters. The abbe' is an
> early Silk as well as a kind of Friar Tuck.
>
> Thematically Wat/Robin Hood is an interesting exemplar of the corrupting
> nature of socialism while the Ganelon/Sherriff of Nottingham is an exemplar
> of the ambiguous but cruel nature of big, bureaucratic government.
>
> I've read much worse novels, even by Wolfe.
>
>
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 090515-0, 05/15/2009
> Tested on: 5/16/2009 9:13:13 AM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 14:58:15 -0500
> From: "James Wynn" <crushtv at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: (urth) The Devil in a Forest
> To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
> Message-ID: <B49BF768AA574119B6F83C5B6C1B752E at eMachinePC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>        reply-type=response
>
>>David Stockhoff said: I don't recall the novel well, but I'm skeptical that
>>one
>>can so confidently read direct criticism of socialism and bureaucratic
>>government in it. So I'd like to see more citations specifically supporting
>>that theory. Unless, of course, you meant it only in a general or indirect
>>sense.
>
> I do think it's done in a more indirect sense. This novel is "about" many
> things, but the shadow of economic/social commentary lies long and dark over
> it. Wolfe starts with a hero of folklore known for "robbing the rich to give
> to the poor". But he starts the story from the perspective of "the rich".
> For starters, we get an old peddler, who is also a very clever salesman that
> manages to get housewives to spend more than they planned to. Wat shoots him
> dead with an arrow and robs him.  Later he justifies it (he quite good a
> justifying everything he does) saying:
>
> "I put my second-best shaft in his neck. I don't like the breed--nasty,
> whining creatures that cry and say you're taking their last farthing when
> they've half a dozen of gold in one shoe and a thousand more, like as not,
> in the mattress at home."
>
> Then we meet the Villagers--the rest of "the rich"--all of whom are
> tradesmen. They start with a plan to form a private militia to root out Wat,
> but Wat is a clever corrupter. Before things get far along, he has convinced
> a sizable chunk of the tradesmen to join him in a plot to rob a nobleman
> (someone who is rich from the tradesmen's POV).  But, actually, no nobleman
> will ever get skinned because Wat's real plan is to rob one of the
> tradesmen.
>
> Only after we meet the rich, are we introduced to "the poor". The Poor are
> the charcoal burners in the forest. Wat's relationship with them is to buy
> them off. There is no time in the story when Wat's relationship with them is
> chummier than that. They can't go to the authorities even if they were
> inclined to because their own livelihood is technically illegal. But Wat
> knows that they might turn him in for a reward so he is never among them in
> trust.
>
> There are no speeches about liberty or the rights of property, but Wolfe
> effectively demolishes  the whole philosophical structure of forcibly taking
> from "the rich" for purposes of benevolence.  It simply does not happen
> here.
>
>>...in what way does a feudal figure resemble modern big government?
>
> If this isn't a fable about the foolishness of depending on the beneficence
> of  the government, I can't imagine what would be. In order to protect
> themselves from thievery, members of the village seek the help of the
> government. But once they have let the camel's nose under the tent, they
> find that people actually performing those duties are not interested in
> "rescuing" them, but in following the letter of the law as it has been
> defined to them, and feathering their own well-being as much as they're
> permitted within the strict definition of their duties. In short, the Law
> (the government from the POV of the villagers), is a bigger marauder than
> Wat. They treat all the villagers as a potential law-breakers, and in deed
> Philip the Cobbler and Gloin the Weaver are defined technically as "Wat's
> men" even though they never robbed anyone, even though there was never
> anyone to rob.
>
>> If anything, the story sets---if I can again put
>>it in the terms of past debates---'good' king vs 'bad' king. Bad kings tax
>>and kill freely and destroy all that is not theirs; good kings try to
>>improve things but also tax and kill with
>>restraint. Nobility should behave in a certain way, according
>>to a code, as a knight. Neither the sheriff nor Wat is a nobleman,
>>and thus cannot be either. Clearly Wat is misguided, but it
>>wouldn't be the first time a Wolfe protagonist is misguided.
>
> Wat is not presented as "misguided". He's a ruthless murderer and thief, and
> as clever a corrupter of those around him as the Devil himself. He's also
> not in his right mind. He's totally controlled by Mother Cloot.
>
> There is no "good king" and no "bad king" in this story. Wat is both the
> highwayman AND the sheriff (there's a metaphor for you). There is a king at
> the end who provides information to tie up lose ends, but he doesn't punish
> the soldiers for what they did to Mark's village as a "good king" would. He
> doesn't attempt to arrive at a higher justice for Phillip and Gloin. Mark
> tells the king that the soldier's promised to release them if he led them to
> Wat, and the king just waved it away. The abbe' tells Mark they are sure to
> be hanged in a very short time. Nor is the king presented as a ravager. He's
> just an amiable old guy. It's not clear what he would have done if he'd
> known how often Mark went willingly through the forest with Wat.
>
>>First of all, by the time you've equated socialism with "robbing
>>from the rich and giving to the poor," you've already hanged
>>socialism without a trial, because that means you don't know
>>what it is. Though I will grant that it is commonly understood
>>in that way in the US, and that the requirement of ignorance
>>does not rule out Wolfe's understanding it that way too.
>
> I suspect Wolfe does not believe socialism deserves a trial. The reason
> socialism is understood "as robbing from the rich to give to the poor" in
> the US is because the country was founded on the ideals of private property.
> Excepting slavery and the treatment of the Indians, there was never a time
> of clearly defined "class" -- of a "place" in society that one is expected
> to know. Actually, "rob from the rich" is a nicer way to put it than Kipling
> did: "They promised abundance for all/By robbing proverbial Peter to pay
> proverbial Paul". In order to get from here to there (socialism/welfare
> state), the advocates of the shift have always framed it as taking from
> those who "don't need it" in order to fund "the community".
>
>
> J.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
> End of Urth Digest, Vol 57, Issue 13
> ************************************
>