I thought the idea of these discussions was to actually have some independent, original thoughts and ideas about specific books and to back them up with quotes. Obviously I was wrong.
Any original ideas I have tend to be shot down in flames because I obviously "haven't read the book", or they just get unfairly dismissed out of hand because "It doesn't say so on L-Space".
What's the point?
When I first mentioned Buggerup could be a gay joke, this was immediately dismissed out of hand and equivalent to saying Foul Ole Ron was gay. I then provided 5 pieces of evidence;
1. According to Tony, UA has lots of gay references about "back passages" etc, thus setting a precedent.
2. Buggerup is a parody of Sydney, yet in keeping with the rest of the book, no pun is obvious. Clancy would have been a better name.
3. The Galeh is a parody of the Gay Pride festival.
4. Dibbler is overtly homophobic.
5. Someone says Buggerup is full of "Pooftahs".
Tony then said it might be true, and as far as I was concerned, that particular discussion was over.
Then Del sticks her big oar in and starts it up again, so I have to defend my position.
Then DJ puts a different version of Foul Ole Ron being gay comment.
Then SW says I'm obsessed with sex?
And SW says I have no knowledge of Australia.
Which is pretty rich coming from somebody who completely failed to understand the book despite reading it at least twice.
I give up.