FIND in
<--prev V301 next-->
From: "Ryan Thistlethwaite" 
Subject: Re: (urth) Yes he is! No he isn't! Yes he is...
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:47:58 +1100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nigel Price" 
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 2:29 AM
Subject: (urth) Yes he is! No he isn't! Yes he is...

> Also Sprach Zibethicus:
> >>Nothwithstanding this, I think that my
> >>point about retaining a cautious distinction
> >>between theological and fictional intentions
> >>is still, possibly, a partially valid one.
> I've always been fascinated by the perplexing business of what Wolfe
> actually believes and what he puts into his stories simply because he
> happens to find it interesting.
> When I first encountered his books and before I knew anything about Wolfe
> the man, I remember thinking, "Gosh, I wonder whether the person who wrote
> this is a Christian?" Looking at the evidence as I read first TBotNS and
> then FLF and various other volumes, I was alternately going to myself,
> he must be!" and "No! He can't be!"
> I know a little more about Wolfe now, but I still don't think I've got to
> the bottom of the matter. It's complicated. He genuinely seems to like
> playing about with odd theological ideas that he's come across, teasing
> their implications and extrapolating them very much in the way that more
> traditional SF authors treat speculative scientific and technological
> As a typically uptight and repressed Protestant Evangelical, Wolfe's
> dabbling with speculative philosophical and theological ideas makes my
> (admittedly scant) hair stand on end. =:O)> Of course, just because Wolfe
> puts an idea in one of his stories doesn't necessarily mean that he thinks
> that it's true.
> But then again, he just might. By his own account, Wolfe is not entirely
> orthodox in his Catholicism. I know about some of his individual quirks
> eccentricities, but by no means all. Contributors to this list sometimes
> say, "Wolfe is a Catholic and therefore he believes such and such," or
> "Wolfe is a Christian and therefore believes this thing and that." When I
> read such assertions, I'm usually sitting there mumbling, "Maybe," and
> "Possibly!"
> For the record, my guess is that "Westwind" and "The Detective of Dreams"
> are among the most explicit fictional expressions of Wolfe's personal
> But I could be wrong...
> Nigel

Not really a rivetting expose of a post I'm throwing in, but I felt a good
"Hear, Hear!" was due for Nigel's post.
Maybe you could say that the sum of the parts equals the whole, but the
whole does not necessarily equal the sum of the parts.
I have also been of the mind for a long time that an artist's(read:
person's) work is not necessarily the living embodiment of their beliefs and
thoughts... except in a round-a-bout philosophical way. "It's his so it must
represent his thoughts even if not intended...."
Sometimes we say things we regret. Sometimes we write things we don't
believe. Sometimes we don't know what we believe. Sometimes we need 100 more
words to finish a story, ANY 100. Sometimes something looks pretty so we use
A bit vague I guess, but the point I'm trying to make as regards to Nigel's
post is that the membership in an organisation of any type does not mean we
agree or even think about the Dogma of that organisation. How many of you
passionately agree with everything your company's employee handbook has to
say...? Oh look, 2 CEO's....



<--prev V301 next-->