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

[Daniel Petersen]

Wolfe definitely considered himself a significant step below Laff.

I can only attribute this to modesty and a failure to outgrow youthful
enthusiasm (much as I haven't outgrown Tolkien).


I don't think it was 'youthful' for Wolfe - they both had their first stuff
published in the 1960s - Wolfe just barely behind Laff.  If I set aside my
hyperbole (and my personal preference for Lafferty overall over Wolfe
overall), then I'd say they actually match for me in terms of literary
greatness - they both have their incredible highs and lows and if I place
the very best of each right next to each other - it can be pretty close at
times.  (Lafferty's still a level above.)  Hey!  How'd that get there?
 Can't control my parenthetical thoughts just now.

-DOJP

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>wrote:

> >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,
>
> Oh no no.  Lafferty has "beautiful moments and bad quarters of an hour."
>
> >>>I think is very worth checking out for another highly original Catholic
> writer of wonderfully bizarre fiction.
>
> I did like /Last Call/ a great deal.  Not /On Stranger Tides/ so much.
>
> >>Oh my! Well, I will admit Lafferty is a genius, but his failure to
> sustain a long narrative
>
> Or even a short 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.
>
> Apparently.
>
> >From: Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>
> >
> >Heh, heh, knew I'd raise some hackles.  I totally agree that Wolfe is the
> more disciplined writer (maybe also more consistent)
>
> No, Lafferty's pretty consistent, at least on the scale of fifteen minutes
> or more.
>
> >  - it's just that Lafferty's fiction, at its best, speaks forth like
> something primal
>
> I'd have said the other way around.
>
> >- 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.
>
> I can only attribute this to modesty and a failure to outgrow youthful
> enthusiasm (much as I haven't outgrown Tolkien).
>
> >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.
>
> And Damon Knight, apparently.
> >
> >-DOJP
> >:)
>
> Yep.
>
> Jerry Friedman
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e1d2eb34/attachment-0003.htm>