call me big papa
off topic, but an odd bird, Vlad

Definitely, and not a particularly appealing (though entertaining) personality - at least when pontificating about literature. (I've read a lot of his interviews, and wrote my UG dissertation on 'Lolita'.) His 'Lectures on Literature' are eccentric but brilliant - also seek out his book on Gogol. He definitely wouldn't have used that cliche 'human nature', apologies to his shade for that one. (I think another of his quarrels with Freud is that Freud turned the mind into a collection of symbols and systems - of cliches, in other words.)

On the subject of time, I was listening to this last night an interview with a physicist, talking about how there's no such thing as 'now'.

Incidentally, I'm not sure his opinions on sci-fi are the same as Ballard's, but I recall reading Ballard talking about how science fiction of the space-race variety was now anachronistic, that sci-fi would only get anywhere by exploring 'inner space', etc.
Last edited:


Well-known member
So the question is: why, in the mid-to-late-19th century, do we see the coupling of fantasy with the past, and science fiction with the future?

A wild guess, could have something to do with accelerated technical and scientific innovation and socio-cultural change.


Well-known member
just realised that what bahti thinks as 94 are actually late 93 dubs. unparalleled year of creativity. not comparable to late 92.