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

OK so how was the History.......Channel??

Expand Messages
  • banmeac
    Greg Bear said.........what?? Please share!! Kim Stan Robinson isn t an interesting writer, I dont get it.
    Message 1 of 4 , Sep 29, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Greg Bear said.........what??

      Please share!!


      Kim Stan Robinson isn't an interesting writer, I dont get it.
    • Ignacio Viglizzo
      uh... er... I will, promise, I just pressed the rec button on the vcr and went back to study... :P I think I also owe you something on Slonczewski, right? ...
      Message 2 of 4 , Sep 29, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        uh... er... I will, promise, I just pressed the rec button on the vcr and went
        back to study... :P

        I think I also owe you something on Slonczewski, right?

        --- banmeac <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
        > Greg Bear said.........what??
        >
        > Please share!!
        >
        >
        > Kim Stan Robinson isn't an interesting writer, I dont get it.


        =====
        . Ignacio

        __________________________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
        http://sbc.yahoo.com
      • cladethree
        Hi, Overall, it was pretty good. The first hour covered the early history of SF, discussions of Mary Shelley, E. A. Poe, Verne and Wells dominated. That led to
        Message 3 of 4 , Sep 30, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi,
          Overall, it was pretty good. The first hour covered the early
          history of SF, discussions of Mary Shelley, E. A. Poe, Verne and Wells
          dominated. That led to the thirties, Gernsbach and the pulp era in the
          US. There was some good discussion of John W. Campbell's influence and
          the writers he introduced (Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke...).
          In the second hour they moved into the fifties, and from then on
          talked almost exclusively about movies and television and ignored the
          books and the writers. In the last fiver minutyes or so, they finally
          got back to noticing that books were still being written, and there was
          a qaick discussion of Neuromancer and mention of a few other titles.
          But anyone who isn't an SF reader could have come away with the
          impression that there wasn't anything important written between 1950
          and 1984.
          There was good commentary throughout the program from Greg Bear,
          Paul Levinson, Nalo Hopkinson, Majel Barret, Samuel Delaney, and
          others.
          My other complaint, besides the over-emphasis on SF in media, is
          there was no mention of Philip K. Dick, which in my mind is a bit like
          doing a documentary on nineteenth-century European music and leaving
          out Beethoven.
          Still, it was a respectful, factual look at SF, and worth
          watching. There was even a mention of why many readers hate the term
          sci-fi. If I was a teacher, I'd give it a B+.

          gj





          --- In sciencefictionclassics@y..., banmeac <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          > Greg Bear said.........what??
          >
          > Please share!!
          >
          >
          > Kim Stan Robinson isn't an interesting writer, I dont get it.
        • coleridgesque
          Totally agree. It is hard to believe that in a two hour special on science fiction, with most of the program focusing on the 20th century, that P.K. Dick
          Message 4 of 4 , Oct 2, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Totally agree. It is hard to believe that in a two hour special on
            science fiction, with most of the program focusing on the 20th
            century, that P.K. Dick wasn't mentioned once.

            --- In sciencefictionclassics@y..., cladethree <no_reply@y...> wrote:
            > Hi,
            > Overall, it was pretty good. The first hour covered the early
            > history of SF, discussions of Mary Shelley, E. A. Poe, Verne and
            Wells
            > dominated. That led to the thirties, Gernsbach and the pulp era in
            the
            > US. There was some good discussion of John W. Campbell's influence
            and
            > the writers he introduced (Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke...).
            > In the second hour they moved into the fifties, and from then
            on
            > talked almost exclusively about movies and television and ignored
            the
            > books and the writers. In the last fiver minutyes or so, they
            finally
            > got back to noticing that books were still being written, and there
            was
            > a qaick discussion of Neuromancer and mention of a few other
            titles.
            > But anyone who isn't an SF reader could have come away with the
            > impression that there wasn't anything important written between
            1950
            > and 1984.
            > There was good commentary throughout the program from Greg
            Bear,
            > Paul Levinson, Nalo Hopkinson, Majel Barret, Samuel Delaney, and
            > others.
            > My other complaint, besides the over-emphasis on SF in media,
            is
            > there was no mention of Philip K. Dick, which in my mind is a bit
            like
            > doing a documentary on nineteenth-century European music and
            leaving
            > out Beethoven.
            > Still, it was a respectful, factual look at SF, and worth
            > watching. There was even a mention of why many readers hate the
            term
            > sci-fi. If I was a teacher, I'd give it a B+.
            >
            > gj
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In sciencefictionclassics@y..., banmeac <no_reply@y...> wrote:
            > > Greg Bear said.........what??
            > >
            > > Please share!!
            > >
            > >
            > > Kim Stan Robinson isn't an interesting writer, I dont get it.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.