Generic Considerations

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 24 Apr 2003, 20:19 · 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: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <katbarx at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: (urth) Generic Considerations
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:19:47 -0700
Message-ID: <urth-v0304-3315 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0304/3315.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hitsuji,

This looks like an interesting post. Alas, the lines are truncated
sufficiently to make it unreadible. I believe this is a "feature"
of the list reflector. Can you repost with carriage returns breaking
the lines?






>From: Mike Sakasegawa <john.saxon at verizon.net>
>Reply-To: urth at urth.net
>To: <urth at urth.net>
>Subject: Re: (urth) Generic Considerations
>Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:07:43 -0700
>
>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 ...
> >
>
>You talked about how an SF reader tends to decode the language used in=20
>different ways from an MF reader, and here you talk about the focus of the=20
>writer'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=20
>criticism, some critics define genres by the semantic and syntactic=20
>elements of the films which comprise it's body.  The sema
>
>A lot of "soft" SF is mainly focused on the subjective experience and=20
>emotional state of the characters.  For example, most of the works of Orso=
n=20
>Scott Card.  True, he does spend some portion of each
>f MF and for "hard" SF, but I'm not sure that it includes "lighter" works=20
>into each genre that should be included.
>
>Unfortunately, it seems that what constitutes a genre depends highly on wh=
o=20
>is asked, and should that be the case?  To me, Vonnegut _has_ written SF,=20
>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=20
>myself.  I picked the Japanese word for "Sheep," as that is the Japanese=20
>zodiac sign for the year in which I was born.  Thus:
>
>-Hitsuji
>
>
>--


_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* =20
http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/junkmail


--=20

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