Comments on: The nature of the catastrophe

By: dsquared

dsquared — Tue, 16 Sep 2003 11:45:46 +0000

Thanks for the heads up, Henry. Worry not, 23 September will not be entirely silent on CT, as I have now selected that day to explain, at length, exactly why I hate science fiction, in the knowledge that I will not be gainsaid.

By: Raoul Mitgong

Raoul Mitgong — Thu, 11 Sep 2003 06:57:38 +0000

I hereby sentence “Quayle” to watching the film of Ballard’s “The Atrocity Exhibition” for a period not to exceed the remainder of Bush 1.5’s term. Gotta wonder just what he thinks the “speculative” in speculative fiction’s about. Sometimes the best way to comment on the present is to use, in John Shirley’s phrase, “a mirror you can edit”. ps: Good item on Disch a while back.

By: Avinash

Avinash — Thu, 11 Sep 2003 05:13:11 +0000

“I thought so too, until I read “The Kindness of Women”. ” – absolutely. The ‘Kindness of women’ tends to be highly underrated. its one of his best.

By: avinash

avinash — Thu, 11 Sep 2003 05:10:59 +0000

>>I thought so too, until I read “The Kindness of Women”.

By: Shai

Shai — Thu, 11 Sep 2003 01:22:49 +0000

I was thinking about how quayle’s position resembles aspects of plato’s overly negative view of art and literature and came across this amusing essay. warning: it’s nothing like Plato scholarship.

By: carla

carla — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:05:57 +0000

Loved Crytonomicon, but can see that not everyone would. More to the point, though, the course that I always wanted to teach (but now won’t get to) would have juxtaposed works of fiction with works of political theory/philosophy. Essentially, both fiction writers and people like Hobbes or Rousseau or Marx or whomever are answering a particular kind of “what if?” question, and they all have to ground their answers in a set of assumptions about human nature, human possibility, etc. Lots of potential there, and I always thought it’d be a great way to introduce students to the concepts and analytic foundations of political theory. (For one example, Brave New World poses interesting problems precisely because its inhabitants really are pretty happy. They do work that they find satisfying, etc., and dissenters can always go off to the Falklands (!), which isn’t the same as being executed, for example. Anyway, I do wish someone would teach that class . . .

By: Harry Tuttle

Harry Tuttle — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:46:30 +0000

If you like Ballard and Stephenson, check out Rudy Rucker.

By: Dexter Descarte

Dexter Descarte — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:40:06 +0000

Reading all the philosophy, history, economics, social science isn’t enough? I just don’t see where you have the time to work all this fiction in as well. Philosophy, history, economics and social science are fiction. If you disagree, please provide mathematical proofs.

By: Russell L. Carter

Russell L. Carter — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 16:30:03 +0000

“His language is (deliberately) flat, and his imagery repetitive – abandoned swimming pools; empty wastes of sand; rusting launch platforms.” I thought so too, until I read “The Kindness of Women”.

By: Henry

Henry — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 15:23:15 +0000

Quayle Let me pretend for the sake of argument that you’re not a troll, and that you have a serious point. First of all, are you really claiming, as you seem to be (a) that fiction has no insights to offer into human society, and (b) that academics should be confined to reading academic works and academic works alone? Both of those arguments are self-evidently ridiculous. Second – no first string academics in the blogosphere? Why don’t you take yourself over to Brad de Long’s href=”http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/” rel=”nofollow”>http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/ site and check out what he’s been up to in the profession. Read through his postings over the last couple of months while you’re at it – he too seems to have an unfortunate tendency to be distracted by fiction. It doesn’t seem to have held him back much. I believe that Eugene Volokh may have a couple of academic accomplishments too; another academic who has the poor taste to read non-academic books. I mightn’t agree with much of Amitai Etzioni’s work – but he’s a major figure in the field. And those are just a few of the more obvious candidates. Or perhaps you should just crawl back into your hole, and pull it back in after you. You’re not worth arguing with – and I don’t think you’re interested in argument anyway – just in provoking a response. Now you’ve gotten one. You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

By: Scott Martens

Scott Martens — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 14:05:58 +0000

Ballard has long been on my list of people to read more often – ever since I got my hands on Empire of the Sun. As for Stephenson… I didn’t like Cryptonomicon that much. The pay-off from a book ought to be at least proportionate to its length. His new book is on the “not until it’s out in paperback” list.

By: quayle

quayle — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 12:04:00 +0000

Shai, I’m not talking about the reader of Ballards book, I’m talking about the way Ballard reads the world. This is the ‘muddy thinking’ that picks off on argument with a first intuition, denies or fails to pay attention to its real content, and cannibalizes it for literary fame.

By: William Burns

William Burns — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 12:03:52 +0000

They didn’t burn witches at Salem; they hanged them.

By: Shai

Shai — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:57:54 +0000

Right. I clicked again to post that. I sometimes confuse you and Henry because you write on similar topics (politics, political philosophy, etc) that are greek to me, even if I enjoy reading them.

By: chris

chris — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:52:39 +0000

Thanks Shai, but the honour goes to Henry, not me!