3 ms·
Also I must add that the assertion in itself is plainly wrong. Look at "Gene Wolfe" entries in the New York Review of Books and you will find none. Gene Wolfe m
by soufron 6y ago
Also I must add that the assertion in itself is plainly wrong. Look at "Gene Wolfe" entries in the New York Review of Books and you will find none. Gene Wolfe might be considered as "High Art" by his fans, but that only means they don't read the New York Review of Books - and don't know much about literature for most of them.
- watwut 6y agoYou have to be in New York Review to be considered high art? When did they became arbiter of it all? > Gene Wolfe might be considered as "High Art" by his fans, but that only means they don't read the New York Review of Books - and don't know much about literature for most of them This is super odd implication.
- soufron 6y agoIndeed, the idea of "High Art" seems stupid in itself.