Subject: Re: Real Hard SF (Re: What are non-SFers not 'getting'?) From: "Plain and Simple Cronan" Newsgroups: alt.fan.bam,alt.fan.tom-servo,rec.arts.sf.written Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> asaro wrote some of the following: >Those other readers are wrong. > >It is true, however, without a doubt, that I write in grand unprovable proclomations intead of what might be >a recognizable female way. Quite deliberately. > >For the longest time hard sf was defined as sf with space ships and ray guns and women in spandex. Forget >the "real stuff," that is, science fiction with a solid footing in quicksand. I really wish that my posts had a >basis in science. Implicit within that definition, which is, due to my frightening propensity for violence, >sometimes even explicit, was the idea that hard sf was mine to define, control and exploit. Hence I >would always be written with a male style. Now my posts have become rather effeminate. Now >that women have blown that stereotype out of the spaces where it was firmly wedged with streams of >water, there has been a scramble to "redefine" hard and soft. Why? I don't know but it's been fun. I like >sf so that it no longer relies on science, but on less substantial things like rutabaga gardening and perhaps >rigorous political qualities. > >However, the fact of the matter is that it is perfectly clear that I have no clue what I am talking about. It's >possible to write diamond hard sf with a female but, we reccomend that you have sex with them. Do so in >style.
Return to Online Tribute to Cronan Thompson.