Generic Considerations

Mike Sakasegawa · 24 Apr 2003, 20:07 · 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: Mike Sakasegawa <john.saxon at verizon.net>
Subject: Re: (urth) Generic Considerations
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:07:43 -0700
Message-ID: <urth-v0304-3313 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0304/3313.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Blattid wrote:
> This reverts to the subect/object orientation of SF/MF. SF expends
> much of it discursive energy on the level of the object, creating
> and analyzing things that do not exist in the "consensus" world. MF
> need not do this and uses more of its discursive energy creating
> and analyzing the subjectivity of characters. But the subjects of
> attention and analysis in MF are no more (or less) "real" than the
> objects of attention and analysis in SF; though one could reasonably
> claim, I suppose, that they represent a kind of thing that exists
> in the consensus world, where deliquescing doors and transporters
> do not ...
>=20

You talked about how an SF reader tends to decode the language used in diff=
erent ways from an MF reader, and here you talk about the focus of the writ=
er's discursive energy.  I'm still not sure I comp
I'm not an expert on genre criticism, especially in book form, but in film =
criticism, some critics define genres by the semantic and syntactic element=
s of the films which comprise it's body.  The sema
A lot of "soft" SF is mainly focused on the subjective experience and emoti=
onal state of the characters.  For example, most of the works of Orson Scot=
t Card.  True, he does spend some portion of each f MF and for "hard" SF, b=
ut I'm not sure that it includes "lighter" works into each genre that shoul=
d be included.

Unfortunately, it seems that what constitutes a genre depends highly on who=
 is asked, and should that be the case?  To me, Vonnegut _has_ written SF, =
even if he doesn't think so, because he uses certa
On a completely unrelated note, I've decided on a Whorl-type name for mysel=
f.  I picked the Japanese word for "Sheep," as that is the Japanese zodiac =
sign for the year in which I was born.  Thus:

-Hitsuji

--=20

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