(urth) This Week in Google Alerts: Will No One Rid Me Of This Troublesome Writer?

[Jack Smith]

Wolfe is derivative?  Yes, but so is Shakespeare.

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Lane Haygood <lhaygood at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is just demonstrably false to boot!  Vance's prose, his diction,
> and his writing style are highly distinct from Wolfe's.  I mean, the
> only line of intersection is that they each chose a certain thematic
> motif (a dying world) for a few of their stories.  But Wolfe's writing
> tends to be more dialogue-heavy and witty, whereas Vance eschews
> dialogue in favor of lyricism and structured prose.  The "Dying Earth"
> stories are lighter and more mythic (not to mention fairly
> straightforward), whereas Wolfe's tend to be labyrinthine and
> multi-layered.
>
> I enjoy both, but to compare Wolfe to Vance is to compare apples to
> oranges.
>
> That said, aren't all writers at least somewhat derivative?  Talk to
> any of them and they can list a whole line of authors that influenced
> their development. But there's a clear difference between, "Oh yeah,
> Borges was totally influential on my work" and "Hey guys, I totally
> rewrote a Borges story with spaceships and swords."
>
> LH
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just in time for Gene's birthday celebrations:
> >
> http://foreverness.createforumhosting.com/what-to-do-about-gene-wolfe-t337.html
> >
> >> This is driving me nuts. I'm far beyond my limit of tolerance for
> cover-jacket blurbs declaring Gene Wolfe to be "... the greatest writer in
> the English language alive today." and "... there is nobody who can even
> approach Gene Wolfe for brilliance of prose, clarity of thought, and depth
> in meaning." That's Michael Swanwick's embarrassing fawning, which has
> apparently become required promotional jibber-jabber for every book Wolfe
> gets published. Other literary critics who don't know anything about science
> fiction take this at face value, and occasionally regurgitate it with their
> own variations, completely oblivious to Jack Vance's work. And, readers new
> to science fiction (or speculative fiction if you prefer) are being grossly
> misled. They're amazed by the pebble but aren't told about the mountain.
> Don't get me wrong; I don't dislike Gene Wolfe's writing. I pounce on every
> new chunk of fiction he comes up with. I'll go so far as to say that his
> "The Book of the New Sun" i
> >  s required reading for anyone who believes that some sci-fi is serious
> literature equal to the best in mainstream fiction. But, Wolfe is
> derivative. He obviously used Vance as a starting point, whereas Vance
> developed his literary voice independently. Vance is authentic and original,
> and Wolfe is the brilliant student. It's true that Wolfe's most recent work
> seems to be moving in a direction that is more of Wolfe himself and less of
> Vance's style and technique. Hopefully, Wolfe's future works will be ships
> with a wind in their sails that flows from Wolfe's lungs alone. But we're
> still being pounded over the head with the uninformed blather of Swanwick,
> et al. What to do? Who will sound the trumpet for Vance? Who will illuminate
> Vance's status as the progenitor?
> >
> > --
> > gwern
> > http://www.gwern.net
> > _______________________________________________
> > Urth Mailing List
> > To post, write urth at urth.net
> > Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>



-- 
Best wishes,
Jack
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20110510/4a643b7e/attachment-0004.htm>