(urth) This Week in Google Alerts: R.A. Lafferty

[Daniel Petersen]

Heh, heh, knew I'd raise some hackles.  I totally agree that Wolfe is the
more disciplined writer (*maybe* also more consistent) - it's just that
Lafferty's fiction, at its best, speaks forth like something primal - his
main roots are oral and I think that might be what makes the main
difference - that being the voice for his wildly unbelievable and amazing
worldview.  Also, though, the more you read him the more you realise the
INCREDIBLE verbal control he often has - his best fiction is very tight and
disciplined and exquisitely well honed and crafted - really surpassing the
best of Wolfe I think.  Wolfe definitely considered himself a significant
step below Laff.  However, I have no qualms with people thinking them equal
or reversed.  I can't expect everyone to have the gifted insight into
literature I (and Wolfe) possess.

-DOJP
:)

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> --- On *Tue, 4/17/12, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>*wrote:
>
>
>
> And Tim Powers, two steps below Laff literarily, and ONE BELOW Wolfe, I
> think is very worth checking out for another highly original Catholic
> writer of wonderfully bizarre fiction.
>
> -DOJP
>
> Oh my! Well, I will admit Lafferty is a genius, but his failure to sustain
> a long narrative of such consistently high quality definitely leads me to
> the opinion that Wolfe is the more disciplined and consistent writer.
> Perhaps some of his stylistic explorations were more mundane, but
> ...........
>
> okay, different strokes for different folks.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120417/19535ef7/attachment-0003.htm>