<div>I have been interested the discussion of evolution, but I'm not</div>
<div>sure if a convincing case has been made for "chivalry is biology."<br>Evolution "says" that society can't allow men to kill fertile women</div>
<div>wantonly. But evolution has no problem with men beating and</div>
<div>humiliating their wives, or raping and enslaving strangers. </div>
<div>These actions don't interfere with reproduction so evolution</div>
<div>wouldn't seem to "have an opinon" on them.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That's an interesting side-discussion, but more closely </div>
<div>regarding Wolfe and his attitudes:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Jeff Wilson said:</div>
<div>> Moral context is truly important, but if you constantly write about </div>
<div>> rape and mistreatment of women over and over again, then there would s</div>
<div>> seem to be some kind of over-infatuation going on. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>> I think that's pretty much what the argument is, and I've seen little </div>
<div>> regarding moral context, since only a couple of people have pointed to a</div>
<div>> actual examples.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Perhaps few have addressed the argument because it seems so</div>
<div>absurd on the face of it. It's so very easy to say that there are countless</div>
<div>authors, in literary and pulp fiction, that describe horrid behavior toward</div>
<div>women in obsessive detail - what about Samuel Delany's _Dhalgren_,</div>
<div>for one example? Wolfe doesn't even come close. Someone </div>
<div>already mentioned Stephen King and Clive Barker, "but they write </div>
<div>horror, so it's okay.." Unlike a million counter-examples, </div>
<div>most of the rapes and tortures in Wolfe are alluded to, </div>
<div>not described in detail.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I have always thought of Wolfe as one of the most humane SF</div>
<div>authors. He seems like the last SF author I would have thought</div>
<div>guilty of misogyny. Although maybe he put himself at risk by</div>
<div>failing to write thinly veiled political tracts about womens' and</div>
<div>gay rights (ala John Varley).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It appears that you, Jeff, are not immediately going to</div>
<div>condemn Wolfe, and I'm glad. So you ask:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>> It's not quanity of violence against women, it's the moral </div>
<div>> context. Is it presented as a crime? spoils of war? just </div>
<div>> desserts? pretext to arranged marriage? harmless fun? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I'm glad you are asking these questions. We could go over</div>
<div>this thing on a case by case basis, and I'd try to be openminded</div>
<div>about the possiblity that I'm wrong about Wolfe, although I'm</div>
<div>not sure I'd succeed. It's probably difficult to be objective about</div>
<div>your favorite author.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In one respect Wolfe's</div>
<div>work IS similar to horror authors like Lawrence Block and</div>
<div>Clive Barker. The Bad Guys quite often "win."</div>
<div>I won't deny that sometimes this causes me to </div>
<div>feel sick or disgusted when I'm reading Wolfe. Perhaps if </div>
<div>I had a different intellectual background, I'd think </div>
<div>that Wolfe was jaded and perverse (or misogynistic?) to</div>
<div>write like this. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Or maybe he's trying to make a point: true victories are </div>
<div>not made from killing Bad Guys or saving damsels in distress. </div>
<div>Sure, we should try to do what we can to right the world, but if </div>
<div>we fall short, are we to despair? If we only</div>
<div>recognize temporal succes, are we not setting ourselves up</div>
<div>for failure? True victories are victories of the heart.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Or, to paraprase _Lictor_, </div>
<div>"They say you are a great warrior who has</div>
<div>killed many," said the chief of the Island people to </div>
<div>Severian. "I am warrior, but not great," said Severian.</div>
<div>"For a man is made great not by killing others, but by</div>
<div>killing parts of himself."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Of course, this is just my own personal interpretation</div>
<div>of what Wolfe is trying to say. Others have a completely</div>
<div>different take on it, and who's to say they're not more correct?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That's the beauty of Gene Wolfe. He doesn't hit you over the head</div>
<div>with a moral message, like many authors do (Heinlein, anone?)</div>
<div>There's no Wise Old Man to explain what lessons you "should" </div>
<div>be learning from this scene or that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Perhaps that's why _The Book Of The New Sun_ is beloved by</div>
<div>devout christians and confirmed atheists alike.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>