Short Sun blog review

António Pedro Marques · 22 Sep 2010, 01:00 · from 2010-September.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: entonio at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ant=F3nio_Pedro_Marques?=)
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 02:00:22 +0100
Subject: (urth) Short Sun blog review
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin-VnZ1a_iePCERmm3mGx34fey3Y08PtVU29WCN at mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim0QF+QNuyhzZ45pkR_DgUULvh_W-2HMk+sL25F at mail.gmail.com>	<369471.63258.qm at web37605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<AANLkTin-VnZ1a_iePCERmm3mGx34fey3Y08PtVU29WCN at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4C995526.1050109 at gmail.com>

Matthew Knight wrote:
> And secondly, even if we accept the arbitrary division that literature
> refers to realistic and SF refers to (as yet) unrealistic (problematic
> for all sorts of reasons, but...yeah), who decides that only the
> realistic approach is legitimate?

Wolfe himself has answered that eloquently.

According to such clever 19th century definitions of 'Literature', the 
Odissey or Hamlet or pretty much anything in the history of Literature isn't 
'Literature'.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net