Subject: Re: (urth) Tut, tut, and a little history
From: Josh Geller 
Date: 29 Jul 2003 07:06:05 -0700

On Mon, 2003-07-28 at 22:26, Alice K. Turner wrote:

> It seems to me that there is enirely too much ad hominen squabbling going on
> here--if this list degenerates into Usenet, I, for one, will depart. Take it
> to e-mail if you want to insult one another, especially wrt race or
> religion.

Yes. Well. I find it interesting that the only person here who *really* 
has understood what I meant by my original, regrettable and regretted
remark has been Dan'l Danehy-Oakes himself, the target of my misdirected
barb, whose wife hales from this very district and in fact shares my
attitude towards people who disrespect mi barrio, esse?  

> Or sexual preference. Which reminds me...

> Let me give you a little bit of sf history. Back in the 70s, an experimental
> time in all sorts of ways, there was a small group of ambitious young sf
> people living in New York. They had been influenced by the New Wave, of
> course, and wanted to bust out of genre. Two of them, Samuel Delaney and Tom
> Disch, were out-of-the-closet homosexuals, as was Baird Searles, a prominent
> reviewer and bookseller. Crowley, a little younger than the others, was a
> good friend of Disch's. Spinrad and even Ben Bova{!!) were also around, but
> let's leave them out of it, except to note that Spinrad was also pushing the
> envelope wrt to explicit sexual writing. But I get ahead of myself.

Yes! Thank you!

I remember the time also. It was an exciting time. Thank you for writing
all of this historical stuff.

> Now about Delaney specifically. First, he is a very nice (by which I mean
> affable, amusing and generous), very intelligent man and a beloved teacher.

Yes, that is what I have been forgetting to mention. Chip Delany is one
of the sweetest people you could ever want to meet. I've met him, I
think, three times, and I can't imagine anyone meeting him and not
liking him. One of the only other people I have met who acts as nice 
as he does as consistently is Gene Wolfe. If the two of them have ever
met, it would surprise me if they did not get along well with each
other, at least on a personal level. I'd like to thank the person who
criticized my lame perception that GW might think SRD was a better
writer than he: as soon as I read the criticism I realized how
bogus that idea is. Considering the sociocultural gap between the
two men, that person's remarks about Wolfe not getting Delany's 
writings strike me as far more likely.

J.

___



--