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

[Dan'l Danehy-Oakes]

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20150428/7182930e/attachment-0003.htm>