long time, no hear. The fault is mine. I've logged on to your page a few times, and even on a couple of occasions written to your letter-box. This time, I'm going to be a bit more lengthy, if you'll forgive me. The occasion, as you might already have guessed, is that somebody wrote to you about Michael Moorcock. I promise that it was on none of my deliberate inspiration whatsoever.
For the uninitianated and unincredibly uninformed, I'll just mention that I published, edited, and in the greater part wrote, a fanzine in the 1980's, called "Forum Fabulatorum". It certainly had it flaws; it had more than worth mentioning here.
For "Forum Fabulatorum", I deliberately chose two authors to be a sort of flagpoles for my vessel. One home-grown, and one foreign. To my great surprise, both of them turned out to be almost over-generous persons, and let me do almost all that I liked with their writings, so long as I didn't go behind their backs. I never did; why should I when I could I could do with their writings as I pleased with their blessing, if I only cleared it with them?
The home-grown author was Erwin Neutzsky-Wulff, the foreigner was Michael Moorcock. To my mind they have certain traits that unite them, and others that are in stark contrast. This certainly became evident when you looked at the men, and not at the authors. Both of them are strongly opinionated, and I suspect that that's what makes their stuff worth reading.
People are always asking, "Is this writer right?", or, "Is that writer wrong?". They act as if is they're in primary school and try to please their teachers all the time to get high grades. When some of them get to the University and past that, they still act as adolecents, trying to formulate the opinions that'll make censor and the publlic applaud.
The great tragedy of democracy and our times, is that sucking up really helps.
Moorcock and Neutzsky-Wulff have one trait in common, if none other: they don't just suck up to the current fashion.
Maybe we're just not very good at it ...