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

Tue Apr 17 16:08:00 PDT 2012

Don't get me wrong - I don't encounter 'lows' in Wolfe terribly often.
 Maybe 'mids' a bit more.

I think one 'low' or 'mid' would be when his narrative loses its drive -
last book of Long Sun is surely a classic example (a series I totally love
regardless of that - and the very ending picks up again).  I haven't
analysed how or why this happens.

Another low or mid would be the 'coldness' that many have remarked in
Wolfe's viewpoint or voice or something - it's alienating somehow to the
reader.  E.g.:
http://examinedlife.typepad.com/johnbelle/2003/10/gene_wolfe.html.

To some degree this is just something to get used to - or was for me, and
then I actually began to feel a lot of warmth in certain ways at certain
times - most especially from the likes of Silk and Horn.  Anyway, it's not
really a low or a flaw - it's more a 'trade off' for other marvels and joys
Wolfe gives.  Not every writer can achieve every literary effect.

I just finished *Castleview* the other day and some of the dialogue in
there is a true low in Wolfe to me.  (Many highs are in there as well.)  In
fact, dialogue and the way people speak tend to be proving grounds in
Wolfe's craft where he either shines in genius and skill or practically
falls on his face.

-DOJP

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Sergei SOLOVIEV <soloviev at irit.fr> wrote:

> What are the "lows" of Wolfe, to your opinion?
>
> Sergei Soloviev
>
> Daniel Petersen wrote:
>
>> 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<mailto:
>> jerry_friedman at yahoo.**com <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>>
>>    >On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Marc Aramini
>>    marcaramini at yahoo.com <mailto:marcaramini at yahoo.com>**> wrote:
>>    >>--- On Tue, 4/17/12, Daniel Petersen
>>    danielottojackpetersen at gmail.**com <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>
>>    <mailto:danielottojackpetersen**@gmail.com<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<danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>
>>    <mailto:danielottojackpetersen**@gmail.com<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 <mailto: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
>>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> 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/20120418/b78b9f3e/attachment-0004.htm>