Generic Considerations

Jason Ingram · 23 Apr 2003, 19:07 · from urth-v0304.mbox · original

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: Jason Ingram <j_ingram at mac.com>
Subject: Re: (urth) Generic Considerations
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:07:40 -0700
Message-ID: <urth-v0304-3298 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0304/3298.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I think there are problems with fetishizing the "real" in this=20
sense--reading old anthropology, or even contemporary historical=20
accounts, presents interpretations of reality that are less true in=20
some respects than fiction.  Fiction might provide a better account of=20
subjective experiences than the technical discursive style employed in=20
much non-fictional writing (e.g. attempts to use stream of=20
consciousness writing to "map" the process of thought with more=20
fidelity than journalistic descriptions or historical 'black box'=20
accounts).

Of course, fiction *is* fictional, and usually doesn't purport to be an=20
accurate description of something that has actually happened, but I=20
don't think that positing the possibility of a one-to-one=20
correspondence with some reality (whether transcendent or immanent) is=20
a good starting point.

Examining the *function* of discourses might be helpful.  Sorry if I'm=20
being cryptic; I'm frantically trying to finish up a project.

  (I don't exactly have a dog in this fight, but I prefer "speculative=20
fiction" as a designation.  I would feel like Terry Eagleton does when=20
he tries to define "literature" were I to attempt to define SF.)

Sepia

On Wednesday, April 23, 2003, at 09:29 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:

> Matthew inquires:
>
>> Is there a practical difference between a fictive universe which -=20
>> apart
>> from the fictional narrative - maps exactly against the real and one=20
>> that
>> does not?
>
> Can you show me a fictive universe which maps exactly against the real?
>
> If so, how can you know it does?
>
> (Note that I am, with courage and restraint, refraining from asking=20
> just
> what you mean by "real" anyway.)

--=20

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