4 ms·

Lol, far from 'hallucinating', I am inferring your position by your regression to the common tropes used to diminish the genre - e.g. 'influential but not liter

Lol, far from 'hallucinating', I am inferring your position by your regression to the common tropes used to diminish the genre - e.g. 'influential but not literature', 'unexplained techno-babble'. I even specified objective over subjective reasoning to avoid the whole goalpost shift of it being a matter of 'taste', and your best retort was to call me triggered and tell me to DYOR? Not the level of discourse I'd expect from HN tbh. I'm sorry I engaged.

eru 2y ago
Huh? You are hallucinating even more now, it seems. Who said it's not 'literature'? I just said it's not good, but I never claimed it ain't literature. And I didn't complain about the unexplained techno-babble, that's actually part of its charm. (You seem to be under the impression that I dislike 'genre-fiction', and that I am a 'literary snob' or something? Far from it! Btw, just because we disagree with literary snobs, doesn't mean that all their critiques are always all wrong. To give a crass analogy: did you know that the Nazis passed some of the first animal protection laws and were some of the first administrations to take the health risks of smoking serious? We can see those two things as good, without agreeing with the National Socialists in general. I don't think your average 'literary fiction' is any better than Neuromancer, either.) > I even specified objective over subjective reasoning to avoid the whole goalpost shift of it being a matter of 'taste', and your best retort was to call me triggered and tell me to DYOR? What's DYOR? Where do you see any trigger? I'm not sure how you can measure literature 'objectively'. You suggested more subjective criteria, like judging the 'Thematic Motif'. (Subjective criteria are fine by me!) It's fine for you to like Neuromancer.

4 ms·

Lol, far from 'hallucinating', I am inferring your position by your regression to the common tropes used to diminish the genre - e.g. 'influential but not liter

by piltdownman 2y ago

eru 2y ago
Huh? You are hallucinating even more now, it seems. Who said it's not 'literature'? I just said it's not good, but I never claimed it ain't literature. And I didn't complain about the unexplained techno-babble, that's actually part of its charm. (You seem to be under the impression that I dislike 'genre-fiction', and that I am a 'literary snob' or something? Far from it! Btw, just because we disagree with literary snobs, doesn't mean that all their critiques are always all wrong. To give a crass analogy: did you know that the Nazis passed some of the first animal protection laws and were some of the first administrations to take the health risks of smoking serious? We can see those two things as good, without agreeing with the National Socialists in general. I don't think your average 'literary fiction' is any better than Neuromancer, either.) > I even specified objective over subjective reasoning to avoid the whole goalpost shift of it being a matter of 'taste', and your best retort was to call me triggered and tell me to DYOR? What's DYOR? Where do you see any trigger? I'm not sure how you can measure literature 'objectively'. You suggested more subjective criteria, like judging the 'Thematic Motif'. (Subjective criteria are fine by me!) It's fine for you to like Neuromancer.