Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11070Re: [SFC] newly discovered tidbit about sex from Clarke

Expand Messages
  • Aleus Mundi
    Dec 4, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Don't forget all characters in Ballard novels are called from or have an
      uncanny similarity to the *real* Ballard...

      On 12/4/06, hectopede <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
      >
      > --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com<sciencefictionclassics%40yahoogroups.com>,
      > "Aleus Mundi"
      > <novovacuum@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Artie Clarke is not a Hard SF author, those who write under his pen
      > name
      > > are.
      > >
      > > On 11/21/06, cherylllr <no_reply@yahoogroups.com<no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>
      > wrote:
      >
      > > > Many critics consider J.G.
      > > > Ballard's 'Crush' (1973), in which he interweaves images of
      > technology
      > > > and sex to comment on the alienation of technological society, the
      > > > most distinguished example of "pornographic" science
      > > > fiction.
      >
      > Ballard's "Crush" was a good one ;) Actually, "Crash". His "The
      > Unlimited Dream Company" is highly erotic. The most repetitive thing
      > he has written, no wonder. Most Ballard's characters are a bit like
      > Borat, they love sex and keep getting "swollen" all the time.
      >
      > I can't agree that Arhtur C. Clarke is soft SF. How define hard SF? I
      > thought that the distance from real science makes SF hard: the closer
      > the harder. Of all the writers Arthur C. Clarke's predictions in
      > science and technology are the closest to reality. How can one be
      > more hard in SF?
      >
      > Andri
      >
      >
      >



      --
      The Transmundial rules all


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 23 messages in this topic