lol what are you rambling about now. there is a huge academic interest in science-fiction - there always has been. i spoke about my own personal preference and my own absent-minded assumption about his work (in his off-time he also writes parodies; parody really is the lowest form of wit, in my opinion - they're cynical cash-in books for a man who already makes six-figures plus a year). i was wrong in my assumptions about the 'high' ambitions and tone of his works. i thought it was just pulp doggerel as a side-interest. turns out the writing gig is possibly his main interest, and academia is perhaps just his stable bread-winner.
nowhere, anywhere, did i suggest academia thinks sci-fi is crap. there's plenty of sci-fi studied in academia. fyi, as i'm sure you'll be overjoyed to know, i mentioned i liked william gibson's works - i studied his stuff, gasp!, under one of the world's top scholars of technology and modernism. sci-fi! in the academy! but, as the guardian article points out, though, historically sci-fi seems to have gone off the track a little in recent years and has devolved into a kind of staid, 'safe' form of genre fiction, i.e. no new formal or thematic progression. sci-fi, at its worst, is just another predictable category like the 'detective novel'. but that's a comment about contemporary trends and writing. it's pretty funny that you'll just rant seethlingly about academics over literally fucking
anything, hahaha. relax dilbert. you are categorically wrong, talking out of your ass. put the toys back in the pram. compose yourself. try not to look just so irrational in every single post you make.
oh yes, academics can't bear creativity! they just can't handle the immense creativity inherent in a work of sci-fi or speculative history! aaaargh! my little dweebish head! what's that? finnegan's wake? no problem. not creative at at all.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-02-16 03:37:51)