<html>
<body>
<font size=3>At 06:17 AM 5/10/2011, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Yeah, this just looks like a red
herring to me. Wolfe is the 'brilliant student' of far more writers
than Vance, many of the others being 'mainstream'.
</font></blockquote><br>
Certes. In the New Sun, there is a lot of Proust's <i>In Search of Lost
Time.<br><br>
JBJordan (formerly Nutria)<br><br>
</i><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=3> Even if
we were to only consider fantasy pre-cursors, just the mere fact of
mixing something of Vance with healthy doses of the likes of Hodgson and
Lovecraft already creates something wonderfully new and fresh (something
that some will far prefer to Vance it has to be said). <br><br>
It's no secret that Wolfe almost never invents any new s.f/fantasy
scenario - his originality is all in the exquisite craft and artistry of
the prose itself, the utterly weird sleight-of-hand form of storytelling,
and the dense depth of psychology and narratology (all of which have
their derivations - but Wolfe truly sounds, in the thick of his
narrative, like no one else). <br><br>
Having said that, I actually agree that the oft-repeated (re-bleated)
blurbs can be rather misleading. Gene Wolfe will live up to his
praise in a way that probably many (most?) people just won't 'get'.
And I don't necessarily blame them. It just depends on your tastes
and backgrounds. I think the 'problem' is that some of us have been
willing to follow Wolfe into and through his literary labyrinth and
thereby been shown wonders that have resonated so deeply and lastingly
that we can't heap enough praise on him. This is understandable but
perhaps unhelpful and misleading to the non-initiate. Wolfe needs
blurbs that will perhaps rather more cautiously entice readers into his
rare brew if they they can be convinced to pay the fee (because, frankly,
reading Wolfe is costly, as most of us will admit). <br><br>
Then again, all the outrageous praise from Gaiman and others totally
roped me in and I'm not the least unthankful!<br><br>
DOJP<br><br>
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Jack Smith
<<a href="mailto:jack.smith.1946@gmail.com">
jack.smith.1946@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd>Wolfe is derivative? Yes, but so is Shakespeare.<br><br>
<br>
<dd>On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Lane Haygood
<<a href="mailto:lhaygood@gmail.com">lhaygood@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>This is just demonstrably false to boot! Vance's prose, his
diction,<br>
<dd>and his writing style are highly distinct from Wolfe's. I mean,
the<br>
<dd>only line of intersection is that they each chose a certain
thematic<br>
<dd>motif (a dying world) for a few of their stories. But Wolfe's
writing<br>
<dd>tends to be more dialogue-heavy and witty, whereas Vance eschews<br>
<dd>dialogue in favor of lyricism and structured prose. The
"Dying Earth"<br>
<dd>stories are lighter and more mythic (not to mention fairly<br>
<dd>straightforward), whereas Wolfe's tend to be labyrinthine and<br>
<dd>multi-layered.<br><br>
<dd>I enjoy both, but to compare Wolfe to Vance is to compare apples to
oranges.<br><br>
<dd>That said, aren't all writers at least somewhat derivative?
Talk to<br>
<dd>any of them and they can list a whole line of authors that
influenced<br>
<dd>their development. But there's a clear difference between, "Oh
yeah,<br>
<dd>Borges was totally influential on my work" and "Hey guys, I
totally<br>
<dd>rewrote a Borges story with spaceships and swords."<br>
<font size=3 color="#888888"><br>
<dd>LH<br>
</font><br>
<dd>On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Gwern Branwen
<<a href="mailto:gwern0@gmail.com">gwern0@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<dd>> Just in time for Gene's birthday celebrations:<br>
<dd>>
<a href="http://foreverness.createforumhosting.com/what-to-do-about-gene-wolfe-t337.html">
http://foreverness.createforumhosting.com/what-to-do-about-gene-wolfe-t337.html</a>
<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>>> This is driving me nuts. I'm far beyond my limit of
tolerance for cover-jacket blurbs declaring Gene Wolfe to be "...
the greatest writer in the English language alive today." and
"... there is nobody who can even approach Gene Wolfe for brilliance
of prose, clarity of thought, and depth in meaning." That's Michael
Swanwick's embarrassing fawning, which has apparently become required
promotional jibber-jabber for every book Wolfe gets published. Other
literary critics who don't know anything about science fiction take this
at face value, and occasionally regurgitate it with their own variations,
completely oblivious to Jack Vance's work. And, readers new to science
fiction (or speculative fiction if you prefer) are being grossly misled.
They're amazed by the pebble but aren't told about the mountain. Don't
get me wrong; I don't dislike Gene Wolfe's writing. I pounce on every new
chunk of fiction he comes up with. I'll go so far as to say that his
"The Book of the New Sun" i<br>
<dd>> s required reading for anyone who believes that some
sci-fi is serious literature equal to the best in mainstream fiction.
But, Wolfe is derivative. He obviously used Vance as a starting point,
whereas Vance developed his literary voice independently. Vance is
authentic and original, and Wolfe is the brilliant student. It's true
that Wolfe's most recent work seems to be moving in a direction that is
more of Wolfe himself and less of Vance's style and technique. Hopefully,
Wolfe's future works will be ships with a wind in their sails that flows
from Wolfe's lungs alone. But we're still being pounded over the head
with the uninformed blather of Swanwick, et al. What to do? Who will
sound the trumpet for Vance? Who will illuminate Vance's status as the
progenitor?<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> --<br>
<dd>> gwern<br>
<dd>> <a href="http://www.gwern.net">http://www.gwern.net</a><br>
<dd>> _______________________________________________<br>
<dd>> Urth Mailing List<br>
<dd>> To post, write
<a href="mailto:urth@urth.net">urth@urth.net</a><br>
<dd>> Subscription/information:
<a href="http://www.urth.net">http://www.urth.net</a><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Urth Mailing List<br>
<dd>To post, write <a href="mailto:urth@urth.net">urth@urth.net</a><br>
<dd>Subscription/information:
<a href="http://www.urth.net">http://www.urth.net</a><br><br>
</dl><br><br>
<br>
<dd>-- <br>
<dd>Best wishes,<br>
<dd><font size=3 color="#888888">Jack<br>
</font><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Urth Mailing List<br>
<dd>To post, write <a href="mailto:urth@urth.net">urth@urth.net</a><br>
<dd>Subscription/information:
<a href="http://www.urth.net">http://www.urth.net</a><br><br>
</dl><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></body>
</html>