Vintage NS

[m31andy]

As you may (or may not) have noticed, I've been taking the royal pee out of newscientist for several years on this blog. The premise being that New Scientist was once a respectable mainstream science magazine.

This view has now been challenged, as I came across this: Feedback, February 1993

Some people become so devoted to the creations of film and TV that they spend their time writing stories set in those fictional universes. And some go even further. Feedback learns that there is - in America, again - an underground subculture devoted to publishing magazines which describe in vivid detail the imaginary sexual exploits of the characters in film and TV soaps and dramas.

There is even a sub-subculture of primarily female authors who concentrate on sexual encounters between male characters from their favourite serials.

Most popular of all, apparently, is Star Trek. Very strange . . .

Er, why is a popular, mainstream Science magazine concerning itself about slash? Or is has there always been a bent for science fiction in the mag?

Hmm.

Comments

[draycevixen.livejournal.com]

On top of everything else I also like the way they're reporting it in 1993 like it's new. *g*

[kimboosan.livejournal.com]

Excuse me but slash is VERY scientific. Just think of all the research that we have to put into things like, uh, positions. And, uhm, lubricant. Lube is very scientific! Important research here!

Yeah. *cough cough*