URTH |
From: Kieran Mullen <kieran@phyast.nhn.ou.edu> Subject: (whorl) Re: Digest whorl.v001.n052 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:34:27 [Posted from Whorl, the mailing list for Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun] First, there are at least two Kieran's on this list. I don't want to cause problems for the other one with my incendiary comments below. There seems to be a certain uniform admiration for the intricacy of Wolfe's writing on this list. I feel that while admirable, this intricacy is secondary to Wolfe's sense of story. In a nutshell, the New Sun and Long Sun books are well written *stories* that also have hidden connections in them. I dislike some of Wolfe's work where the "puzzle" aspect overwhelms the story. A few initial comments. First, of course Wolfe can write any damn way he pleases. He's under no obligation to make me happy. Second, of course Wolfe is more demanding on the reader than the average writer, and that's great. Third, of course Wolfe can turn out prose that is elegant, sonorous, and paints amazing images; his imagination sparkles. I think he is one of the best writers alive. (For me others include Stansilaw Lem, and Mark Helprin.) The problem is that what I am calling "intricacy" is not an absolute good. It is one of many. For example, a fine storyline is not sufficient either, if the prose is dull and leaden. Sometimes it seems that Wolfe's intricacy can make a story, for me, unenjoyable. I still find _The Fifth Head of Cerebus_ to be a depressing and confusing, and ultimately (*for me*) an unenjoyable book. _Castleview_ succeeds (*for me*) largely on the basis of the characters; the Arthurian subtext is subsubsubtext. Sure you can tease it out of the plotline, but much of it is fleeting and obscured. I can hear outraged readers crying out in Wolfe's defense that he is more demanding of his readers, his goals more sophisticated, and basically, I'm plain lazy. All of these are true. But if you want intricacy, I can weave a haiku based on anagrams of first words of famous stories, and send it to you encrypted. What? You don't want to spend your time on it? What are you - lazy? Don't you realize how I'm pulling on the images of the entire stories by using only their first words? Don't you see how the DES encryption code generated strings that when uuencoded produced symbols from the periodic table? It would be *unreasonable* to expect you to spend time on such a boring task. For me, Wolfe's New and Long Sun stories work because his stories have a sliding scale of connections, from very obscure to obvious, and his stories are fundamentally enjoyable whether you see all these levels or not. For me _Fifth Head_ was just not as good a _story_. In his _Endangered Species_ collection he has three short stories that don't make much sense when read separately, but were originally published separately. Here the story has been lost. The prose may be well written, but I don't *care* about what's going on. This reminds me of some modern composers with whom I have talked. Their music is incredibly intricate, and if you understand all the internal and external references, very elegant. It just sounds like crap, that's all. Now Wolfe can do whatever he wants. In addition he's a damn fine writer. When I'm dead and long gone people will still be reading his works. But I'm willing to bet on which ones they'll enjoy the most. Of course this list will naturally spend more time teasing out the connections in Wolfe's writings. It's natural, and it's often what I find most interesting in the list. I just feel a little uncomfortable sometimes that everyone thinks what I would call obscurantism is a Good Thing. Kieran Mullen Kieran Mullen email: kieran@phyast.nhn.ou.edu Dept. of Physics and Astronomy phone: (405) 325-3961 The University of Oklahoma FAX: (405) 325-7557 Norman, OK 73019, USA http://www.nhn.uoknor.edu/~kieran/ Questions or problems to whorl-owner@lists.best.com