Book of the New Sun won the contest!

Daniel Petersen · 03 Aug 2011, 14:32 · from 2011-August.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com (Daniel Petersen)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 15:32:00 +0100
Subject: (urth) Book of the New Sun won the contest!
In-Reply-To: <CAM0v-i6dFYVdTatCDMoH_6Bv9HTh-CsPQLQchUD7K5Wf7YcACQ at mail.gmail.com>
References: <1312326094.60046.YahooMailRC at web114702.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<1312336245.34374.YahooMailClassic at web161809.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
	<CAGB0RZ7VoF2tYwKzFEoodS2HNkadg7D7LzQMNQpLc05eqAYXHA at mail.gmail.com>
	<CAM0v-i6dFYVdTatCDMoH_6Bv9HTh-CsPQLQchUD7K5Wf7YcACQ at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGB0RZ7XMuPNe=PCRc+aawQ71D4Aj=oNonYa9hdHpqxpBXVoYg at mail.gmail.com>

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:

http://antsofgodarequeerfish.blogspot.com/

(It's been mentioned here before, but just in case present company didn't
know that...)

-DOJP


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!
>
> -K
>
>
> 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
>> though.
>>
>>
>> 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!
>>
>> -DOJP
>>
>> 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...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20110803/4a15bcc2/attachment.htm>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net