Moorcock

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 20 Apr 2003, 01:27 · 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: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <katbarx at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: (urth) Moorcock
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 18:27:21 -0700
Message-ID: <urth-v0304-3244 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0304/3244.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Oh, good lord, I remember THE HARRAD EXPERIMENT. Leon Urine,
wasn't it? Or packaged to look like his stuff anyway (I remember
seeing it on the racks next to MILA-somethingteen). My parents
tended to buy a lot of schlocky novels of the sort at that time
-- I guess that's why they were bestsellers, eh? -- and I'd
sneak them. My introduction to the Giants, as the Trek movie
put it ... Suzanne, Robbins, etc. (On the other hand, I sneak-
read THE GODFATHER the same way, and that's not a half bad
read.)

I guess what defines bad sex writing is partly what you're
looking for ... I don't think RAH (or Asimov for that matter)
was trying to write stiffener stuff, the way (say) Delany
sometimes does. But they both managed to write sex scenes
that were gratutitous, dull, and offensive at the same time
... something of an accomplishment, actually.

Sturgeon? Well, yeah, but then, with Sturgeon, sex ain't
nothing but love misspelled, and he could write _about_ sex
(from "If All Men Were Brothers..." to GODBODY to SOME OF
YOUR BLOOD to ...), even if he couldn't write sex scenes.

--Blattid






>From: "Alice K. Turner" <aturner6 at nyc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: urth at urth.net
>To: <urth at urth.net>
>Subject: Re: (urth) Moorcock
>Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:17:24 -0400
>
>
>>From 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
>
>
>
>--


_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* =20
http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/junkmail


--=20

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