No one deserves Bruce Sterling! No one!

Awww, man, why you gotta hate on Bruce? He even answered one of my emails once.

Well, that's cool of him. But I have never enjoyed one of his books, and tend to finish them only when trapped on a trans-Atlantic flight. I find him a bit pompous.

If you're hearing a manifesto as if you're being hectored in a bar at a sci-fi con then a combative tone is going to feel boorish.

You speak as if I haven't had this happen. Even when it happens along lines I vaguely agree with, it's still boorish.

I don't think manifestos succeed as persuasion. It's not a matter of preaching to anybody. I think they just clarify points of divergence.

Clarifying points of divergence -- analyzing a situation -- is easily done without boorishness! I do it all the fricken time! I just somehow fail to sneer, and it works!

You speak as if I haven't had this happen.

Actually, I chose that example specifically because I figured you had experienced that.

Clarifying points of divergence -- analyzing a situation -- is easily done without boorishness! I do it all the fricken time! I just somehow fail to sneer, and it works!

I'm not pro-boorish. And some things are sneer worthy.

Late to the conversation, but...

Looking at the "punk" part of the phrase, focus more on the Do-It-Yourself ethic of American Hardcore and Indie Rock than say the comic dopeyness of the Ramones.

My favorite example is how William Gibson set it up in Johnny Mnemonic:

I put the shotgun in an Adidas bag and padded it out with four pairs of tennis socks, not my style at all, but that was what I was aiming for: If they think you're crude, go technical; if they think you're technical, go crude. I'm a very technical boy. So I decided to get as crude as possible. These days, thought, you have to be pretty technical before you can even aspire to crudeness. I'd had to turn both those twelve-gauge shells from brass stock, on the lathe, and then load then myself; I'd had to dig up an old microfiche with instructions for hand-loading cartridges; I'd had to build a lever-action press to seat the primers--all very tricky. But I knew they'd work.

See all this talk of manifestos reminds me of what USED to be my credo, vis-a-vis music (this is high school through the first few years of college) and, less consciously, movies:

If you don't like what I like, you're stupid; if you like what I don't like you're an asshole.

Then, through friends who loved stuff I initially REALLY seriously hated, I began to change to a more "I should figure out what people I respect love about this music, and, if I can't go there, just agree to disagree".

I also had a few recommendations of movies I loved backfire in a big way - specifically BLUE VELVET for which friends who hated it (well, and friends who also liked it, cause how could you resist?) tormented me with the immortal line "Why are there people like FRANK??!??!?".

So basically, I got SERIOUSLY zen about other people's likes and dislikes.

That said, there are movies and music and books that people like that I am going to rain complete and utter contempt all over, no matter how much I respect the likee.

I also had a few recommendations of movies I loved backfire in a big way

You should've seen what happened when I took people to see "Tank Girl".

And now, back to The Theoretical Basis for the Natural Approach.

Hmm. I gotta add Tank Girl to my Netflix queue, and high.

Okay, back to book talk.

God, I love that movie. Er, and the comic book. Does that help make it literary?

Do other people consider Pullman steampunk?

Edited to remove the appeal to presumed authority.

Does that help make it literary?

Who cares. I'm all for blurring the bright lines. pointed comment