Moorcock

Alice K. Turner · 18 Apr 2003, 16:17 · from urth-v0304.mbox · original

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: "Alice K. Turner" <aturner6 at nyc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: (urth) Moorcock
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:17:24 -0400
Message-ID: <urth-v0304-3234 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0304/3234.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=46rom Dan'l. quoting somebody:

> >(As an aside, did anyone ever write worse about sex than Heinlein.
>
> Yep. Asimov. But not _much_ worse.
>
>
> >My wife still won't believe that anyone could call nipples "those
> >twin spiggots of desire" or claim that one woman's "nipples went
> >spung").
>
> These are classic, aren't they ... Up there with "five minutes of
> squelching noise."

Wrong. No one ever, ever, including hack porn writers, EVER, EVER wrote
worse sex than Heinlein. With possibly the momentary exception of a
long-forgotten 9-day wonder of the 60s or 70s called -The Harrad
Experiment-. And I am something of an expert here. I should probably say,
for members of this group, that IMO Sturgeon wrote bad sex too, though not,
by leagues, in the same abysmal class.

-alga

--=20

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