Wow. He really has the best prose in all of Science Fiction. Le Guin, Peake, the "big 3", etc.
He should be considered part of the Western Canon.
Wow. He really has the best prose in all of Science Fiction. Le Guin, Peake, the "big 3", etc.
Wow. He really has the best prose in all of Science Fiction. Le Guin, Peake, the "big 3", etc.
He should be considered part of the Western Canon.
No! The western canon can't include fiction because.. because..
You mean Fantasy?
Yeah I'm glad Harold Bloom was against such drivel.
>Bloom's one attempt at writing is a failure
>Ebert's one screenplay was a failure
>The western canon can't include fiction
Well then there is no western canon since the Iliad the literal foundation of western canon was ficition, Moby dick is widely considered to be a part of western canon and thats ficiton, Wolfe, lovecraft, GRRM, Tolkien, Herbert are all part of it imo. They're ideas are too influential to not be
All those things actually happened.
>Illiad
>fiction
lmao
the Iliad emerged from the fall of the Hittite empire and then shifted to being Troy, with the greeks united aganist Troy and its allies as an epic poetry founding myth and religious belief. Like the israelites with Moses freeing slaves in Egypt its total bullshit. BUt at least the greek city states did war with Troy during the fall of the Hittite empire which is why the story shifted to being just about that seige.
Do you believe in Greek gods?
Would you piss them off by saying you "don't believe in them"?
>he doesn't know
Greek god realism poster stay winning (read Latro!!!)
Moorwiener is pure slop. Muh big black sword. Lol
This is yr brain on analytic phil
Ppl are stupid. That's why they buy philosophy books and then read one chapter and quit
Peake has better prose.
I think you meant genre fiction*
>Peake has better prose.
Yes. But that's not a dig at Wolfe. Who in genre fiction has better prose then Peake? Mabey Dunsany?
>Dunsany
>Peake
>Wolfe
>Le Guin
Have people on IQfy only read 4 authors of genre fiction? Why is it always the same 4 fricking names? Read someone new ffs.
>Claims people haven't read enough authors.
>Proceeds to not name any.
>I'm incapable of using a search engine. You better list a bunch of examples like a redditor so I can pretend to have read those authors and tell you they're shit and you have no taste.
Anyone can use a search engine, even you. The point is that you haven't read any significant authors and are only pretending.
That or you're a coward
Wouldn't the best writers inevitably rise to the top in mentions?
Name some Black person.
I'll admit genre fiction is not my forte. I also like Dumas, Stevenson and Doyle, though.
The OGs are GOATS: Stevenson, Rice Burroughs, Kipling, etc.
E.R. Burroughs was a creative genius, but he was a mediocre writer and his stories are formulaic and repetitive. He's still worth reading despite that, but he's kind of hard to recommend to people since his shortcomings will be hard to tolerate for some readers.
I like Wells, too.
Yeah he's great.
I've read plenty of genre slop. What do you want to talk about? Harry Harrison? Theodore Sturgeon? One of those Doctor Who novels I read that was actually kind of okay?
Like, all of that stuff is fine, but Wolfe is better.
LOTR belongs in the western canon.
His prose is terrible, I can't get through a chapter of any of his books I've tried. Have you read any good genre-tier authors like Lem, Le Carre, Cornwell, Mantel, or Druon before?
>first person perspective
>best prose
YA dogshit lmao
>TIL Moby Dick and Jane Eyre is YA dogshit
Are morons now saying that 1st person is bad now? I mean, I know there's no reason behind it and befire it was much more specific (1st person present tense) but come on
>Wow. He really has the best prose in all of Science Fiction
i dunno, just seemed like regular slop to me. post an excerpt that "wowed" you
>Overall, I found nothing unique in Wolfe. Perhaps it's because I've read quite a bit of odd fantasy; if all I read was mainstream stuff, then I'd surely find Wolfe unpredictable, since he is a step above them. But compared to Leiber, Howard, Dunsany, Eddison, Kipling, Haggard, Peake, Mieville, or Moorwiener, Wolfe is nothing special.
>Perhaps I just got my hopes up too high. I imagined something that might evoke Peake or Leiber (at his best), perhaps with a complexity and depth gesturing toward Milton or Ariosto. I could hardly imagine a better book than that, but even a book half that good would be a delight--or a book that was nothing like that, but was unpredictable and seductive in some other way.
>I kept waiting for something to happen, but it never really did. It all plods along without much rise or fall, just the constant moving action to make us think something interesting is happening. I did find some promise, some moments that I would have loved to see the author explore, particularly those odd moments where Silver Age Sci Fi crept in, but each time he touched upon these, he would return immediately to the smallness of his plot and his annoying prick of a narrator. I never found the book to be difficult or complex, merely tiring. the unusual parts were evasive and vague, and the dull parts constant and repetitive.
>The whole structure (or lack of it) does leave things up to interpretation, and perhaps that's what some readers find appealing: that they can superimpose their own thoughts and values onto the narrator, and onto the plot itself. But at that point, they don't like the book Wolfe wrote, they like the book they are writing between his lines.
I’ve heard of Leibeber but never so highly. I certainly never heard him and Peake mentioned together. Is his writing like Peakes? Give me a pitch for him.
He's a third of the reason why DnD exists
Wolfe is peak prose and literally the only ppl who disagree are plebs who have not studied latin and greek and get filtered by archaic words.
Also:
>dat copypasta
Lmao. Imagine pretending Moorwiener is anything special.
>dunsany
Machen is better
>leguin
Ugly femoid seething with ressentiment
>eddison, peake, delaney
Influential but hardly the best. Tolkien is more influential. And better. But that's also a bad thing since he is therefore ripped off furthermost
>herbert
Lmao. Fat frick fetishist writing goyslop. New movies was kino tho
> Imagine pretending Moorwiener is anything special
He is
>Machen is better
Nah
> Ugly femoid seething with ressentiment
Ad hominem (non-argument)
> Tolkien is more influential. And better
Influential, yes. Better than Peake as literature? Not really.
I'm not sure how you "get filtered" by the words.
It's like visiting a new country. Sometimes you'll hear things you don't understand, but you intuit through context. I assume that's why the book is written that way.
I don't know what a "sabretache" is, but through context, I can assume it's some kind of sheath for a sword, that features a carrying pouch for other items.
Who actually gets lost reading this stuff? It's self-explanatory.
Pps:
>mieville
Lol. Literally a marxist cuckold
Not an argument
Is this Wolfe?
Dr. Robotnik?
had to read left hand of darkness for a college course and i will never read anything by her