(urth) Book of the New Sun won the contest!
danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com
Wed Aug 3 07:32:00 PDT 2011
Since the topic has turned slightly to Lafferty, I'd be remiss in not
mentioning I write the only blog on the net dedicated to him:
(It's been mentioned here before, but just in case present company didn't
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Antonin Scriabin
<kierkegaurdian at gmail.com>wrote:
> R. A. Lafferty is very good, but unfortunately I have only been able to
> find and read one of his novels (his first, *Past Master*). I definitely
> will keep my eye out for more. I had no idea "science fantasists" was a
> sub-genre, and one I enjoyed so much!
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Petersen <
> danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Marc Aramini marcaramini at yahoo.com to Urth:My favorites were probably
>> more likely to be labeled as science fantasists, Zelazny, Philip K Dick, R A
>> Lafferty, Abraham Davidson, Cordwainer Smith, etc. I liked Theodore Sturgeon
>> Nice list (including Bradbury) - throw in some Harlan Ellison, Brian
>> Aldiss, Michael Bishop, Le Guin, and, of course, Wolfe, and that's usually
>> my kind of brew. I still can't get past that 60s/70s 'New Wave' sort of
>> anthropological s.f. period. From the 80s I've enjoyed Dan Simmons, but I
>> really haven't read much s.f. beyond that. (Except Tim Powers, who spans
>> 70s to now, and whom I'm increasingly becoming a genuine fan of). I only
>> went backwards in time from there - Lovecraft, William Hope Hodgson, Arthur
>> Machen, Lord Dunsany, Robert E. Howard, etc. I'm really interested in
>> delving into more contemporary stuff from the likes of Michael Swanwick,
>> Wiliam Gibson, China Mieville, Charles Stross, Charles De Lint, John C.
>> Wright, etc. Still trying to fit it in whilst trying to read and write
>> about the entire oeuvres of Lafferty and Wolfe!
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com>wrote:
>>> --- On Tue, 8/2/11, Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
>>> > I'd say a lot of the most admired male authors before the
>>> > 70s--Heinlein, Asimov,
>>> > Van Vogt (who I don't like), Anderson, Bradbury, Pohl,
>>> > Kornbluth--were extremely
>>> > didactic, with pragmatic, realistic purposes. Clarke
>>> > might be an exception.
>>> It's funny, you named all my least favorite authors there except
>>> Bradbury, his summoning of innocence and the gathering its subtle but mature
>>> sinister loss always interested me. never liked most of those guys . . .
>>> tedious to me for some reason. I liked some of Clarke. I don't think those
>>> guys were really artists (call me a snob). Asimov I liked as a childrens
>>> author, and he had one or two works that surpassed his usual output.
>>> My favorites were probably more likely to be labeled as science
>>> fantasists, Zelazny, Philip K Dick, R A Lafferty, Abraham Davidson,
>>> Cordwainer Smith, etc. I liked Theodore Sturgeon though.
>>> Just personal opinion to some degree, I suppose, like preferring
>>> Dostoyevsky to Tolstoy or Sterne to Richardson.
>>> Urth Mailing List
>>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>> Urth Mailing List
>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Urth