(urth) interview questions

[Ryan Dunn]

More specifically, the interviewer (Gevers) is not actually interested in Wolfe as a human being and accomplished writer, he is interested in Gene as a decoder ring for books he liked. It's wildly missing the point. To be in the presence of a great author, and only be trying to desperately "go for broke" to get answers to intentional mysteries is more than disrespectful, it's achingly naive.

...ryan


On Dec 25, 2010, at 6:51 PM, Marc Aramini wrote:

> Well, as far as the interviews go, I think sometimes Wolfe is more open than others.  I agree, Jordan rubbed him the right way as someone whose world view Wolfe respected, Gevers just wants the quick and easy solution and tries to trap Gene into an answer by his "comprehensive" list of options so that Gene can't get away with any answer, becuase evasion will just look like affirmation. 
>  
> There is a reason Wolfe writes the way he does, and sometimes mysteries should be left open. Questionable interview tactics, honestly, and showing what I feel to be a real lack of respect for the writer's aesthetic goal.  I have a feeling Gene thought, I want to write a story where it will be very hard to answer the normal questions: who, what, when, where, why, but one where the didactic message is plain and exposed, an inverted novel.  And to just kind of throw that question in there with those permutations seems disrespectful in a way, but he forgot Urth/Yesod, Urth/Verthandi, etc, but I still think Wolfe did not appreciate the question and became intentionally terse.
>  
> I put no stock in what he tells Gevers, and great stock in what he shares with Jordan.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20101225/29d42a41/attachment-0004.htm>