<div>Wolfe definitely considered himself a significant step below Laff.<br> <br>I can only attribute this to modesty and a failure to outgrow youthful enthusiasm (much as I haven't outgrown Tolkien). </div><br><br>I don't think it was 'youthful' for Wolfe - they both had their first stuff published in the 1960s - Wolfe just barely behind Laff. If I set aside my hyperbole (and my personal preference for Lafferty overall over Wolfe overall), then I'd say they actually match for me in terms of literary greatness - they both have their incredible highs and lows and if I place the very best of each right next to each other - it can be pretty close at times. (Lafferty's still a level above.) Hey! How'd that get there? Can't control my parenthetical thoughts just now.<div>
<br></div><div>-DOJP<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Jerry Friedman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jerry_friedman@yahoo.com">jerry_friedman@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
>On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Marc Aramini <a href="mailto:marcaramini@yahoo.com">marcaramini@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>--- On Tue, 4/17/12, Daniel Petersen <a href="mailto:danielottojackpetersen@gmail.com">danielottojackpetersen@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>And Tim Powers, two steps below Laff literarily, and ONE BELOW Wolfe,<br>
<br>
Oh no no. Lafferty has "beautiful moments and bad quarters of an hour."<br>
<br>
>>>I think is very worth checking out for another highly original Catholic writer of wonderfully bizarre fiction.<br>
<br>
I did like /Last Call/ a great deal. Not /On Stranger Tides/ so much.<br>
<br>
>>Oh my! Well, I will admit Lafferty is a genius, but his failure to sustain a long narrative<br>
<br>
Or even a short narrative.<br>
<br>
>>of such consistently high quality definitely leads me to the opinion that Wolfe is the more disciplined and consistent writer. Perhaps some of his stylistic explorations were more mundane, but ...........<br>
>><br>
>>okay, different strokes for different folks.<br>
<br>
Apparently.<br>
<br>
>From: Daniel Petersen <<a href="mailto:danielottojackpetersen@gmail.com">danielottojackpetersen@gmail.com</a>><br>
><br>
>Heh, heh, knew I'd raise some hackles. I totally agree that Wolfe is the more disciplined writer (maybe also more consistent)<br>
<br>
No, Lafferty's pretty consistent, at least on the scale of fifteen minutes or more.<br>
<br>
> - it's just that Lafferty's fiction, at its best, speaks forth like something primal<br>
<br>
I'd have said the other way around.<br>
<br>
>- his main roots are oral and I think that might be what makes the main difference - that being the voice for his wildly unbelievable and amazing worldview. Also, though, the more you read him the more you realise the INCREDIBLE verbal control he often has - his best fiction is very tight and disciplined and exquisitely well honed and crafted - really surpassing the best of Wolfe I think. Wolfe definitely considered himself a significant step below Laff.<br>
<br>
I can only attribute this to modesty and a failure to outgrow youthful enthusiasm (much as I haven't outgrown Tolkien).<br>
<br>
>However, I have no qualms with people thinking them equal or reversed. I can't expect everyone to have the gifted insight into literature I (and Wolfe) possess.<br>
<br>
And Damon Knight, apparently.<br>
><br>
>-DOJP<br>
>:)<br>
<br>
Yep.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"> <br>
Jerry Friedman<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Urth Mailing List<br>
To post, write <a href="mailto:urth@urth.net">urth@urth.net</a><br>
Subscription/information: <a href="http://www.urth.net" target="_blank">http://www.urth.net</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>