<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Come in no. 27, your time is up</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ballardian.com/come-in-no-27-your-time-is-up/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ballardian.com/come-in-no-27-your-time-is-up</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:59:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rômulo</title>
		<link>http://www.ballardian.com/come-in-no-27-your-time-is-up/comment-page-1#comment-1336</link>
		<dc:creator>Rômulo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:34:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballardian.com/come-in-no-25-your-time-is-up#comment-1336</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d put Ballard among the top ten.
But, either way, the Time&#039;s guy doesn&#039;t seem to know what he&#039;s talking about - I found this text a bit strange. Did he ever read any of Ballard&#039;s early novels?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d put Ballard among the top ten.<br />
But, either way, the Time&#8217;s guy doesn&#8217;t seem to know what he&#8217;s talking about &#8211; I found this text a bit strange. Did he ever read any of Ballard&#8217;s early novels?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Simon Sellars</title>
		<link>http://www.ballardian.com/come-in-no-27-your-time-is-up/comment-page-1#comment-1330</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon Sellars</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:11:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballardian.com/come-in-no-25-your-time-is-up#comment-1330</guid>
		<description>Chuck, you give the Times too much credit...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chuck, you give the Times too much credit&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuck</title>
		<link>http://www.ballardian.com/come-in-no-27-your-time-is-up/comment-page-1#comment-1331</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:13:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballardian.com/come-in-no-25-your-time-is-up#comment-1331</guid>
		<description>H-bomb as sexual climax?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>H-bomb as sexual climax?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuck</title>
		<link>http://www.ballardian.com/come-in-no-27-your-time-is-up/comment-page-1#comment-1332</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2008 16:33:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballardian.com/come-in-no-25-your-time-is-up#comment-1332</guid>
		<description>Best I can come up with is Jim&#039;s fascination with the wrecked Zero.  The airplane as phallic symbol?  I&#039;m trying.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Best I can come up with is Jim&#8217;s fascination with the wrecked Zero.  The airplane as phallic symbol?  I&#8217;m trying.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Coulthart</title>
		<link>http://www.ballardian.com/come-in-no-27-your-time-is-up/comment-page-1#comment-1335</link>
		<dc:creator>John Coulthart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2008 04:31:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballardian.com/come-in-no-25-your-time-is-up#comment-1335</guid>
		<description>Funny that dreary Anita Brookner is below Ballard in the list yet they recommend her novel which beat Empire for the Booker.

Larkin at no. 1? Bollocks to that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Funny that dreary Anita Brookner is below Ballard in the list yet they recommend her novel which beat Empire for the Booker.</p>
<p>Larkin at no. 1? Bollocks to that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Simon Sellars</title>
		<link>http://www.ballardian.com/come-in-no-27-your-time-is-up/comment-page-1#comment-1334</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon Sellars</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2008 03:59:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballardian.com/come-in-no-25-your-time-is-up#comment-1334</guid>
		<description>Thanks, Peter. I&#039;ve changed the post accordingly. It&#039;s an immutable law of the universe that when you are highlighting mistakes in other people&#039;s writing, you will surely make one of your own.

All the same, I&#039;d still like to know where this &#039;sexual fetishising of technology&#039; occurs in Empire. Any clues? The writer also seems to make the mistake of equating the book with &#039;realism&#039;. I find it as &#039;hallucinatory&#039; as any of his novels.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, Peter. I&#8217;ve changed the post accordingly. It&#8217;s an immutable law of the universe that when you are highlighting mistakes in other people&#8217;s writing, you will surely make one of your own.</p>
<p>All the same, I&#8217;d still like to know where this &#8216;sexual fetishising of technology&#8217; occurs in Empire. Any clues? The writer also seems to make the mistake of equating the book with &#8216;realism&#8217;. I find it as &#8216;hallucinatory&#8217; as any of his novels.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Cooper</title>
		<link>http://www.ballardian.com/come-in-no-27-your-time-is-up/comment-page-1#comment-1333</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Cooper</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2008 03:34:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballardian.com/come-in-no-25-your-time-is-up#comment-1333</guid>
		<description>He&#039;s actually at #27.. sorry!

That said, that&#039;s one sloppy piece of writing you&#039;ve highlighted there. Not what I&#039;d expect of The Times. The whole list seems a little bogus to me though; Philip Larkin at #1? Rowling at #42? I don&#039;t know.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>He&#8217;s actually at #27.. sorry!</p>
<p>That said, that&#8217;s one sloppy piece of writing you&#8217;ve highlighted there. Not what I&#8217;d expect of The Times. The whole list seems a little bogus to me though; Philip Larkin at #1? Rowling at #42? I don&#8217;t know.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

