(urth) Gene Wolfe is for Socialists

[Matthew Keeley]

My politics are very far from Mieville's, though I admired the one Mieville
story I've read so far. And Mieville admits that not all the writers he
cites are anywhere near socialist, or even on the left. Consider his
comments on Keith Roberts' Pavane:

These linked stories take place in a present day where Elizabeth I was
assassinated and Spain took over Britain. This examines life in a world
where a militant feudal Catholicism acts as a fetter on social and
productive functions. Though Roberts was no lefty at all, and you could
probably power France on the energy from his spinning grave at being
included in this list.

-Matt

On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Matthew Knight <jacobeiserman at gmail.com>wrote:

> I'm with Pedro on this one.  I think the list's author is finding something
> of value in 5HOC when viewed through a socialist lens, despite recognizing
> vast differences between Wolfe's perspective and his own.  Here's my own
> sweeping generalization that is likely logically unprovable: most good art
> can be appreciated from a variety of angles, insofar as the art reflects
> something true about life and the angles from which the art is viewed are
> able to discern some kind of truth, even if distorted.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Pedro Pereira <domus_artemis at hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I don't see why is it wishful thinking on the part of the blog author
>> (it's not even the author, this is a list by Mielville for the
>> blog site). Mielville didn't claim Wolfe was Socialist or that his work was
>> socialist bent. What he says is this:
>>
>> Refering to the Fiht Head of Cerberus:
>> *Wolfe is a religious Republican, but his tragico-Catholic perspective
>> leads to a deeply unglamorized and unsanitized awareness of social reality.
>> This book is a very sad and extremely dense, complex meditation on
>> colonialism, identity and oppression.*
>> **
>> Now, everyone interprets Wolfe's work according to his own views, and that
>> is pretty clear in this Urth List too. Mielville may certainly see the work
>> as emphasizing a speculation on colonialism, identy and oppression (since
>> those are possibly the things that most ring a bell to him and touch him)
>> but nowhere do I see any hint that Mielville sees this work as "Socialist",
>> as you seem to imply.
>>
>> Pedro
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20101219/daee231f/attachment-0004.htm>