<html>
<body>
<font size=3>Wolfe believes, as a "libertarian," that the way
to bring more equality between rich and poor is to get the state out of
the redistribution business and back into the contract-enforcement
business. The poor can rise when contracts are honored and they can count
on pay. They can also rise when the state refuses to grant monopolistic
privileges to the "haves" against the "have nots."
Anyway, without going into economic theory, that's how Wolfe would see
it. Yes, the goal is for the poor to rise and more equality to ensue; the
means to that end, however, is never socialism or fascism or monopoly
capitalism, because inevitably the state (i.e., certain men and women)
then decides who wins and who loses. <br><br>
The USA today is a looooong way from the kind of "servant
capitalism" that someone like Wolfe believes in.<br><br>
Nutria<br><br>
At 09:27 PM 5/16/2009, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">It strikes me as fascinating
that Wolfe has his finger to the pulse of<br>
the country so strongly. I do believe Wolfe to be a friend of<br>
authoritarianism, and like Plato, he longs for the good king who can<br>
destroy and create with a Christ-like wisdom, a wisdom borne of a
deep<br>
humanity and humility. (Wolfe might be willing to let the artists
stay<br>
in Athens, though . . .)<br><br>
But I don't think Wolfe will ever be so fast as to to endorse this
paragraph:<br><br>
I suspect Wolfe does not believe socialism deserves a trial. The
reason<br>
> socialism is understood "as robbing from the rich to give to
the poor" in<br>
> the US is because the country was founded on the ideals of private
property.<br>
> Excepting slavery and the treatment of the Indians, there was never
a time<br>
> of clearly defined "class" -- of a "place" in
society that one is expected<br>
> to know. Actually, "rob from the rich" is a nicer way to
put it than Kipling<br>
> did: "They promised abundance for all/By robbing proverbial
Peter to pay<br>
> proverbial Paul". In order to get from here to there
(socialism/welfare<br>
> state), the advocates of the shift have always framed it as taking
from<br>
> those who "don't need it" in order to fund "the
community".<br><br>
<br>
America is an idea, one molded from lots of different peoples, not<br>
exclusively from the godlike founding fathers. Private property
is<br>
absolutely essential in understanding past and contemporary America,<br>
but Wolfe is too smart in my opinion to embrace any kind of
oligarchy,<br>
which is what the founding fathers were. Denying class in America
is<br>
a shibboleth now. No Wolfe story leaves class absent, in fact,
and<br>
insofar as his best protagonists often embrace the best aspects of<br>
Christianity, they militate against inequity in all forms.<br><br>
Socialism is about equity. It's about diminishing the gap
between<br>
rich and poor. I would say this is an attractive idea to
Wolfe,<br>
insofar as he does valorize so many Christ-like figures who fight<br>
various forms of injustice, while sometimes perpetuating other forms<br>
of it, either knowingly or unknowingly.<br><br>
You are absolutely right, however, that socialism is about taking<br>
wealth from the few to fund the needs of the group, thus
perpetuating<br>
a diminished rich/ poor gap, which most democracies consider
essential<br>
for their survival. Your scare quotes around "community"
are<br>
troubling indeed. I take your point that the "community"
is a broad<br>
term, and it is often misused by politicians when what they really<br>
mean is "a few of my good buddies." But revolution comes
when that<br>
rich/ poor gap gets too high. And revolutions have very, very
high<br>
costs. Wolfe knows that too, I bet.<br><br>
<br>
-Robin Dunn<br><br>
<br>
P.S.<br>
Again I think it's a real tribute to Wolfe that his stories are so<br>
rich, varied, and in the end, non-ideological, that many different<br>
political philosophies can be tolerated in his fictional universe.
;)<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 2:08 PM,
<urth-request@lists.urth.net> wrote:<br>
> Send Urth mailing list submissions to<br>
> urth@lists.urth.net<br>
><br>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
>
<a href="http://lists.urth.net/listinfo.cgi/urth-urth.net" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.urth.net/listinfo.cgi/urth-urth.net</a><br>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
>
urth-request@lists.urth.net<br>
><br>
> You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
>
urth-owner@lists.urth.net<br>
><br>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
specific<br>
> than "Re: Contents of Urth digest..."<br>
><br>
><br>
> Today's Topics:<br>
><br>
> 1. The Devil in a Forest (David
Stockhoff)<br>
> 2. Re: The Devil in a Forest (James Wynn)<br>
><br>
><br>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
><br>
> Message: 1<br>
> Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 09:13:11 -0400<br>
> From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff@verizon.net><br>
> Subject: (urth) The Devil in a Forest<br>
> To: urth@lists.urth.net<br>
> Message-ID: <4A0EBBE7.5030109@verizon.net><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed<br>
><br>
> I don't recall the novel well, but I'm skeptical that one can so
confidently read direct criticism of socialism and bureaucratic
government in it. They are modern ideas that may be roughly linked but
can't actually be represented in this milieu. Naturally Wolfe doesn't
like them, because they are inferior to the rule of a good king. So I'd
like to see more citations specifically supporting that theory. Unless,
of course, you meant it only in a general or indirect sense.<br>
><br>
> First of all, by the time you've equated socialism with
"robbing from the rich and giving to the poor," you've already
hanged socialism without a trial, because that means you don't know what
it is. Though I will grant that it is commonly understood in that way in
the US, and that the requirement of ignorance does not rule out Wolfe's
understanding it that way too.<br>
><br>
> Second, in what way does a feudal figure resemble modern big
government? Again, punitive overtaxing---a practice that was perfected by
the Medicis, not by the IRS, by any stretch---and being corrupt and evil
bears no particular relation to big government as we know it. Rather,
it's business as usual for imperial/authoritarian orders of the kind our
big government replaced.<br>
><br>
> If anything, the story sets---if I can again put it in the terms of
past debates---'good' king vs 'bad' king. Bad kings tax and kill freely
and destroy all that is not theirs; good kings try to improve things but
also tax and kill with restraint. Nobility should behave in a certain
way, according to a code, as a knight. Neither the sheriff nor Wat is a
nobleman, and thus cannot be either. Clearly Wat is misguided, but it
wouldn't be the first time a Wolfe protagonist is misguided.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<br>
><br>
> Message: 4<br>
> Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 08:31:57 -0500<br>
> From: "James Wynn" <crushtv@gmail.com><br>
> Subject: Re: (urth) The Devil in a Forest<br>
> To: "The Urth Mailing List"
<urth@lists.urth.net><br>
> Message-ID: <26082D4CA6CD4E83A88223747DCF7E57@eMachinePC><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";<br>
> reply-type=response<br>
><br>
><br>
>> > Don Doggett:<br>
>> >Sorry James, I've read The Devil in a Forest,<br>
>><br>
> >but I was pretty underwhelmed by it, so I never dug very
deep.<br>
><br>
> Look, this is no great work, but it is a very
"well-constructed" work; to a<br>
> degree that it's worth examining for that reason alone. Most people
are<br>
> unaware of the story of the evil abbess who poisons, blinds, and
kills Robin<br>
> Hood. Wolfe has combined the abbess, Baba Yaga, and Hansel &
Gretel's witch<br>
> into a single character.<br>
><br>
> The story has lots of interesting, filled-out characters. The abbe'
is an<br>
> early Silk as well as a kind of Friar Tuck.<br>
><br>
> Thematically Wat/Robin Hood is an interesting exemplar of the
corrupting<br>
> nature of socialism while the Ganelon/Sherriff of Nottingham is an
exemplar<br>
> of the ambiguous but cruel nature of big, bureaucratic
government.<br>
><br>
> I've read much worse novels, even by Wolfe.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ---<br>
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.<br>
> Virus Database (VPS): 090515-0, 05/15/2009<br>
> Tested on: 5/16/2009 9:13:13 AM<br>
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.<br>
>
<a href="http://www.avast.com/" eudora="autourl">http://www.avast.com</a>
<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<br>
><br>
> Message: 2<br>
> Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 14:58:15 -0500<br>
> From: "James Wynn" <crushtv@gmail.com><br>
> Subject: Re: (urth) The Devil in a Forest<br>
> To: "The Urth Mailing List"
<urth@lists.urth.net><br>
> Message-ID: <B49BF768AA574119B6F83C5B6C1B752E@eMachinePC><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";<br>
> reply-type=response<br>
><br>
>>David Stockhoff said: I don't recall the novel well, but I'm
skeptical that<br>
>>one<br>
>>can so confidently read direct criticism of socialism and
bureaucratic<br>
>>government in it. So I'd like to see more citations specifically
supporting<br>
>>that theory. Unless, of course, you meant it only in a general or
indirect<br>
>>sense.<br>
><br>
> I do think it's done in a more indirect sense. This novel is
"about" many<br>
> things, but the shadow of economic/social commentary lies long and
dark over<br>
> it. Wolfe starts with a hero of folklore known for "robbing the
rich to give<br>
> to the poor". But he starts the story from the perspective of
"the rich".<br>
> For starters, we get an old peddler, who is also a very clever
salesman that<br>
> manages to get housewives to spend more than they planned to. Wat
shoots him<br>
> dead with an arrow and robs him. Later he justifies it (he
quite good a<br>
> justifying everything he does) saying:<br>
><br>
> "I put my second-best shaft in his neck. I don't like the
breed--nasty,<br>
> whining creatures that cry and say you're taking their last farthing
when<br>
> they've half a dozen of gold in one shoe and a thousand more, like
as not,<br>
> in the mattress at home."<br>
><br>
> Then we meet the Villagers--the rest of "the rich"--all of
whom are<br>
> tradesmen. They start with a plan to form a private militia to root
out Wat,<br>
> but Wat is a clever corrupter. Before things get far along, he has
convinced<br>
> a sizable chunk of the tradesmen to join him in a plot to rob a
nobleman<br>
> (someone who is rich from the tradesmen's POV). But, actually,
no nobleman<br>
> will ever get skinned because Wat's real plan is to rob one of
the<br>
> tradesmen.<br>
><br>
> Only after we meet the rich, are we introduced to "the
poor". The Poor are<br>
> the charcoal burners in the forest. Wat's relationship with them is
to buy<br>
> them off. There is no time in the story when Wat's relationship with
them is<br>
> chummier than that. They can't go to the authorities even if they
were<br>
> inclined to because their own livelihood is technically illegal. But
Wat<br>
> knows that they might turn him in for a reward so he is never among
them in<br>
> trust.<br>
><br>
> There are no speeches about liberty or the rights of property, but
Wolfe<br>
> effectively demolishes the whole philosophical structure of
forcibly taking<br>
> from "the rich" for purposes of benevolence. It
simply does not happen<br>
> here.<br>
><br>
>>...in what way does a feudal figure resemble modern big
government?<br>
><br>
> If this isn't a fable about the foolishness of depending on the
beneficence<br>
> of the government, I can't imagine what would be. In order to
protect<br>
> themselves from thievery, members of the village seek the help of
the<br>
> government. But once they have let the camel's nose under the tent,
they<br>
> find that people actually performing those duties are not interested
in<br>
> "rescuing" them, but in following the letter of the law as
it has been<br>
> defined to them, and feathering their own well-being as much as
they're<br>
> permitted within the strict definition of their duties. In short,
the Law<br>
> (the government from the POV of the villagers), is a bigger marauder
than<br>
> Wat. They treat all the villagers as a potential law-breakers, and
in deed<br>
> Philip the Cobbler and Gloin the Weaver are defined technically as
"Wat's<br>
> men" even though they never robbed anyone, even though there
was never<br>
> anyone to rob.<br>
><br>
>> If anything, the story sets---if I can again put<br>
>>it in the terms of past debates---'good' king vs 'bad' king. Bad
kings tax<br>
>>and kill freely and destroy all that is not theirs; good kings
try to<br>
>>improve things but also tax and kill with<br>
>>restraint. Nobility should behave in a certain way,
according<br>
>>to a code, as a knight. Neither the sheriff nor Wat is a
nobleman,<br>
>>and thus cannot be either. Clearly Wat is misguided, but it<br>
>>wouldn't be the first time a Wolfe protagonist is misguided.<br>
><br>
> Wat is not presented as "misguided". He's a ruthless
murderer and thief, and<br>
> as clever a corrupter of those around him as the Devil himself. He's
also<br>
> not in his right mind. He's totally controlled by Mother Cloot.<br>
><br>
> There is no "good king" and no "bad king" in
this story. Wat is both the<br>
> highwayman AND the sheriff (there's a metaphor for you). There is a
king at<br>
> the end who provides information to tie up lose ends, but he doesn't
punish<br>
> the soldiers for what they did to Mark's village as a "good
king" would. He<br>
> doesn't attempt to arrive at a higher justice for Phillip and Gloin.
Mark<br>
> tells the king that the soldier's promised to release them if he led
them to<br>
> Wat, and the king just waved it away. The abbe' tells Mark they are
sure to<br>
> be hanged in a very short time. Nor is the king presented as a
ravager. He's<br>
> just an amiable old guy. It's not clear what he would have done if
he'd<br>
> known how often Mark went willingly through the forest with
Wat.<br>
><br>
>>First of all, by the time you've equated socialism with
"robbing<br>
>>from the rich and giving to the poor," you've already
hanged<br>
>>socialism without a trial, because that means you don't know<br>
>>what it is. Though I will grant that it is commonly
understood<br>
>>in that way in the US, and that the requirement of ignorance<br>
>>does not rule out Wolfe's understanding it that way too.<br>
><br>
> I suspect Wolfe does not believe socialism deserves a trial. The
reason<br>
> socialism is understood "as robbing from the rich to give to
the poor" in<br>
> the US is because the country was founded on the ideals of private
property.<br>
> Excepting slavery and the treatment of the Indians, there was never
a time<br>
> of clearly defined "class" -- of a "place" in
society that one is expected<br>
> to know. Actually, "rob from the rich" is a nicer way to
put it than Kipling<br>
> did: "They promised abundance for all/By robbing proverbial
Peter to pay<br>
> proverbial Paul". In order to get from here to there
(socialism/welfare<br>
> state), the advocates of the shift have always framed it as taking
from<br>
> those who "don't need it" in order to fund "the
community".<br>
><br>
><br>
> J.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Urth Mailing List<br>
> To post, write urth@urth.net<br>
> Subscription/information:
<a href="http://www.urth.net/" eudora="autourl">http://www.urth.net</a>
<br>
><br>
> End of Urth Digest, Vol 57, Issue 13<br>
> ************************************<br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Urth Mailing List<br>
To post, write urth@urth.net<br>
Subscription/information:
<a href="http://www.urth.net/" eudora="autourl">http://www.urth.net</a>
</blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
James B. Jordan<br>
Director, Biblical Horizons<br>
Box 1096<br>
Niceville, FL 32588<br>
<a href="http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com</a></font></body>
</html>