From: "Allan Lloyd" 
Subject: (urth) Re Other Authors
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:44:16 +0100

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_003E_01C30500.95BAEBE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I'm finding the discussion of Wolfe-like authors fascinating, mainly =
because most of the writers mentioned seem to me to be so vastly =
different from Wolfe. The whole thing reminds me of a beginners guide to =
science fiction that was published some years ago. It was arranged on =
the basis of "if you like ... then you will also like ..." and as an =
example, the follow-up to Wolfe would have been something like " you =
will also like Poul Anderson, Terry Pratchett and Samuel Delany because =
they all write fantasy."

Of the writers mentioned so far, I can think of few who are further from =
Gene Wolfe's view of the world than Alasdair Gray, brilliant though he =
is; and this made me consider my other favorites, and question why I =
like them.

John Fowles, Robertson Davies, Brian Aldiss, Michael Moorcock (in =
serious non-Elric mode), M. John Harrison and ,of course, John Crowley =
and Jonathan Carroll don't have that much in common, but none of them =
are Catholic ex-engineers, and all have very different preoccupations =
from Wolfe.

I've just finished Mike Harrison's "Light", which is a return to science =
fiction after a couple of excellent novels with only a slight fantasy =
content ("Course of the Heart" and "Signs of Life")  and the Viriconium =
books, and it is my contender for best book of the year already. =
Harrison's characters are deeply flawed, in this book, as in most of his =
works, yet he makes me care for them in a way that Wolfe rarely does.=20

Has anyone out there read John Fowles' "A Maggot"? It is my favorite of =
his books, and probably the most Wolfeian, with a convincing 17th =
Century setting, differing viewpoints from various not-very-reliable =
characters, and a climax which could be an alien abduction, a time warp, =
a vision of heaven, or a spiritual hallucination, all told in a perfect =
recreation of that period.

Aldiss makes a very interesting comparison with Wolfe, being of a =
similar age, and having done military service. Although I don't like all =
of his work, it is always challenging, and he varies his style to fit =
the content of his stories with consumate skill. His world-view is =
aetheistic, and I would love to see some-one with more talent than me do =
a comparison of his Helliconia books with the Books of the New Sun.

Robertson Davies is a God. His later books even have angels in them. He =
looked like an intellectual Santa Claus. Why did he die before he could =
complete that last trilogy?

And Mike Moorcock. Just read "King of the City" or "Mother London" to =
learn all there is to know about London since the war. Or "The Dancers =
at the End Of Time" stories for light-hearted fantasy. His Colonel Pyat =
sequence, due to be completed this year, is the story of this century as =
told by a mendacious, cowardly, self-glorifying Russian, cheating his =
way through the Russian revolution, the silent movie era, the =
concentration camps of Nazi Germany, ending up as a second-hand clothes =
dealer in London. And "Gloriana" is an alternate version of Elizabethan =
England.

All of these writers produce intelligent complex fictions but if there =
is a difference between them and Wolfe, I would say that they all write =
books which are character driven, whereas Wolfe's books possibly use the =
characters to promote or act out his ideas. This could be why I have =
lost some of my admiration for Wolfe's recent work, and I would agree =
with Alga about his more recent short stories, some of which seem =
lacking in content and obscure for the sake of obscurity. I still have =
enormous admiration for the man, but sometimes it makes more sense if =
you just say what you mean.

                                                Allan




-- 
------=_NextPart_000_003E_01C30500.95BAEBE0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








I'm finding the discussion of =
Wolfe-like authors=20
fascinating, mainly because most of the writers mentioned seem to me to =
be so=20
vastly different from Wolfe. The whole thing reminds me of a =
beginners=20
guide to science fiction that was published some years ago. It was =
arranged on=20
the basis of "if you like ... then you will also like ..." and as an =
example,=20
the follow-up to Wolfe would have been something like " you will also =
like Poul=20
Anderson, Terry Pratchett and Samuel Delany because they all write=20
fantasy."
 
Of the writers mentioned so far, I can =
think of few=20
who are further from Gene Wolfe's view of the world than Alasdair Gray,=20
brilliant though he is; and this made me consider my other favorites, =
and=20
question why I like them.
 
John Fowles, Robertson Davies, Brian =
Aldiss,=20
Michael Moorcock (in serious non-Elric mode), M. John Harrison and ,of =
course,=20
John Crowley and Jonathan Carroll don't have that much in common, but =
none of=20
them are Catholic ex-engineers, and all have very different=20
preoccupations from Wolfe.
 
I've just finished Mike Harrison's =
"Light",=20
which is a return to science fiction after a couple of excellent novels =
with=20
only a slight fantasy content ("Course of the Heart" and "Signs of =
Life") =20
and the Viriconium books, and it is my contender for best book of the =
year=20
already. Harrison's characters are deeply flawed, in this book, as in =
most of=20
his works, yet he makes me care for them in a way that Wolfe rarely =
does.=20

 
Has anyone out there read John Fowles' =
"A Maggot"?=20
It is my favorite of his books, and probably the most Wolfeian, with a=20
convincing 17th Century setting, differing viewpoints from various=20
not-very-reliable characters, and a climax which could be an alien =
abduction, a=20
time warp, a vision of heaven, or a spiritual hallucination, all told in =
a=20
perfect recreation of that period.
 
Aldiss makes a very interesting =
comparison with=20
Wolfe, being of a similar age, and having done military service. =
Although I=20
don't like all of his work, it is always challenging, and he varies his =
style to=20
fit the content of his stories with consumate skill. His world-view is=20
aetheistic, and I would love to see some-one with more talent than me do =
a=20
comparison of his Helliconia books with the Books of the New =
Sun.
 
Robertson Davies is a God. His later =
books even=20
have angels in them. He looked like an intellectual Santa Claus. Why did =
he die=20
before he could complete that last trilogy?
 
And Mike Moorcock. Just read "King of =
the City" or=20
"Mother London" to learn all there is to know about London since the =
war. Or=20
"The Dancers at the End Of Time" stories for light-hearted fantasy. His =
Colonel=20
Pyat sequence, due to be completed this year, is the story of this =
century as=20
told by a mendacious, cowardly, self-glorifying Russian, cheating his =
way=20
through the Russian revolution, the silent movie era, the concentration =
camps of=20
Nazi Germany, ending up as a second-hand clothes dealer in London. And=20
"Gloriana" is an alternate version of Elizabethan England.
 
All of these writers produce =
intelligent complex=20
fictions but if there is a difference between them and Wolfe, I would =
say that=20
they all write books which are character driven, whereas Wolfe's books =
possibly=20
use the characters to promote or act out his ideas. This could be why I =
have=20
lost some of my admiration for Wolfe's recent work, and I would agree =
with Alga=20
about his more recent short stories, some of which seem lacking in =
content and=20
obscure for the sake of obscurity. I still have enormous admiration for =
the man,=20
but sometimes it makes more sense if you just say what you =
mean.
 
          &nbs=
p;            =
;            =
             =

Allan
 
 

------=_NextPart_000_003E_01C30500.95BAEBE0--