(urth) George R. R. Martin on Gene Wolfe

[Dan'l Danehy-Oakes]

I'm  very bad with names.

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:35 AM, aaron <aaronsingleton at gmail.com> wrote:

> Wow. If she engaged you, would think you'd remember her name.
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Fair enough, Marc, but ... I honestly think there *is* a problem with
>> Wolfe's female characters. The only one I can think of who actively engaged
>> me _as a person_ (rather than as a foil for the [male] protagonist) was ...
>> and I'm going to blank on her name ... in _The Land Across_. You know, her.
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> One more thing I wanted to briefly reiterate, which I have said in part
>>> in my videos, but I DO think some of the criticism aimed at Wolfe is
>>> ideological in nature. When I think of an author objectifying women, I
>>> think of Henry Miller calling all of them c#$ts and interested in them
>>> purely for fleeting sexuality,of the same interest as a quarter on the
>>> floor (slightly more interesting because he will pick up the quarter AFTER
>>> he is done with the girl) ... but because of his bohemian, against "the
>>> man", anti-restraint image, the discussion of his work rarely involves the
>>> rampant denigration Wolfe's female characters get. For whatever reason, the
>>> sophisticated readers who gravitate towards liberal arts programs tend to
>>> be of a different political bent than someone who is more or less a
>>> traditionalist, albeit an extremely eccentric genius of one.
>>>
>>> There is an ideological bias in terms of public reception, most
>>> certainly - though as far as a Hugo goes, as you said, Wolfe's difficulty
>>> is reason enough, I think.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Nick Lee <starwaterstrain at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://grrm.livejournal.com/424135.html
>>>>
>>>> Martin had a few kind words to say about Wolfe and the New Yorker
>>>> piece. He also brought up the Hugos and the Puppies again. There's some
>>>> irony in that, isn't there? The Puppies, both breeds, argue that
>>>> conservative, religious authors don't have a chance with the Hugos because
>>>> they've been "taken over" by a left-leaning, atheist conspiracy.
>>>>
>>>> They never bring up Wolfe, from what I've seen, and you would think
>>>> he's the perfect example. He's obviously Catholic and conservative, to a
>>>> degree. See arguments about this in the past of the List and recently on
>>>> Reddit. He's never won a Hugo despite numerous other accolades. You would
>>>> think he'd be their most damning evidence. So what gives?
>>>>
>>>> I could make a snide comment here about how the Puppies probably
>>>> couldn't understand Wolfe anyway, but despite the snark I think there's
>>>> some truth in the idea. A corollary to the Puppy argument is that more
>>>> traditional SF, adventure stories essentially, are not winning awards
>>>> anymore. On one hand, Wolfe does write stories with adventure: knights,
>>>> wizards, secret agents, etc. He's also been writing for a long time. He
>>>> doesn't write simple stories, though, and while he pays frequent homage to
>>>> the classics of the genre does not write in their style.
>>>>
>>>> And what about those accolades? Wolfe has won numerous other awards;
>>>> he's a Grand Master; other writers laud him frequently. In an interview
>>>> from some time back, China Miéville noted Wolfe's talent while
>>>> acknowledging a difference in political opinion.
>>>>
>>>> The reason Wolfe has never won a Hugo has nothing to do with his
>>>> ideology and everything to do with the fact that he's a difficult writer.
>>>> The fans vote for the Hugos, and they vote for what they're reading, most
>>>> of which is more traditional and less literary than Wolfe's output.
>>>>
>>>> Wolfe is an embarrassing example for the Puppies because he doesn't fit
>>>> into their narrative. I don't think he would play ball with them either
>>>> because as Martin notes, he's "a class act."
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Urth Mailing List
>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Aaron Singleton
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>



-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20150428/ff2b7ab4/attachment-0002.htm>