Subject:    Re: Real Hard SF (Re: What are non-SFers not 'getting'?)
From:      "Plain and Simple Cronan"
Newsgroups: alt.fan.bam,alt.fan.tom-servo,rec.arts.sf.written
Date:       Mon, 7 Sep 1998
Message-ID: <6svm3m$fmp$1@camel21.mindspring.com>


asaro wrote some of the following
>Those other readers are wrong.
>
>It is true, however, without a doubt, that I write in
grand unprovable proclomations intead of what might be
>a recognizable female way.  Quite deliberately.
>
>For the longest time hard sf was defined as sf with
space ships and ray guns and women in spandex. Forget
>the "real stuff," that is, science fiction with a solid
footing in quicksand. I really wish that my posts had a
>basis in science.  Implicit within that definition,
which is, due to my frightening propensity for violence,
>sometimes even explicit, was the idea that hard sf
was mine to define, control and exploit. Hence I
>would always be written with a male style.  Now
my posts have become rather effeminate. Now
>that women have blown that stereotype out of the
spaces where it was firmly wedged with streams of
>water, there has been a scramble to "redefine" hard
and soft. Why? I don't know but it's been fun. I like
>sf so that it no longer relies on science, but on less
substantial things like rutabaga gardening and perhaps
>rigorous political qualities.

>However, the fact of the matter is that it is perfectly
clear that I have no clue what I am talking about. It's
>possible to write diamond hard sf with a female
but, we reccomend that you have sex with them. Do so in
>style.


P&SC

Return to the Wackylace Page

To the Right Loop

To the Crossthreads

To the Left Loop

Web site contents are Copyright © Captain Infinity Productions.
All Usenet posts reproduced herein are the copyrighted intellectual property of the poster named in the "From" header.