From: Richard Horton <rrhorton@prodigy.net>
Subject: (urth) Re: Digest urth.v028.n185
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:22:47 

On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 08:10:10 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

>I don't think "contemporary scholarship" is that monolithic.  A lot of
>those authorship debates seem to me to be based on too little evidence.
>Some of the arguments I've seen for that position could be used to prove
>that the Gene Wolfe who wrote the New Sun books is not the same person who
>wrote the Long Sun books (significant stylistic differences, a large chunk
>of vocabulary unique to one series or the other, different tehological
>ideas and concerns, etc.)

Fair enough, though I'd be interested in seeing what lexical analysis
of the sort used to address authorship questions of Biblical books
would do with New Sun/Long Sun.  On the face of it, the styles are
profoundly different: no one can have failed to notice this.  I
wouldn't be surprised, however, if underlying similarities were
detected.

I confess I don't really know enough about these techniques to say
much more than : "I've read the articles".

We should note that (unlike for instance some of the Epistles now felt
by many not to have been written by Paul) there is no attribution
within Revelation to John the Apostle.


-- 
-- 
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard.horton@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.sfsite.com/tangent)

*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/