Czja’s brain doesn’t melt down despite slogging through THE DICHOTOMOUS SUBVERSIVE:
I read your chapter in The Anthology at the End of the World. As I just said over at Ranting Room, I have put off reading this not because I wasn’t curious, but because I don’t know the first thing about Hitchhiker and I wanted to familiarize myself with that before picking up the Anthology. I’m glad I didn’t wait any longer because it is not necessary to have read Hitchhiker in order to enjoy your analysis – although I’m sure it would be much more meaningful if you did.
You are extremely fun to read no matter what the topic.You really have that in your corner. The hypothetical you posited about Thatcher and Friedman was hysterical and set up your analysis – or whatever you call it – well. I thought it was excellent to get a defence of limited government out of a S.F. book. I wonder, were you chosen, because of your political columns, to write about that particular aspect of Hitchhiker or did they give you an free reign and you decided to emphasize Adam’s “libertarian” leanings on your own?
Thanks very much and all that. In answer to your question, I was originally contacted as an SFWA writer – even though my fellow members would almost surely vote me out if given half a chance – but I was given free reign to write about whatever I wanted, subject to the editor’s approval. If you consider how Jacqueline Carey devoted her essay to assuring the reader that she gets English humor, it should be readily apparent that the bar is not an overly elevated one.
That being said, I’m rather pleased with how it turned out. The book’s been out long enough that I’ll post my essay here one of these days.