Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:07:40 -0700
Subject: Re: (urth) Generic Considerations
From: Jason Ingram 

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

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

Examining the *function* of discourses might be helpful.  Sorry if I'm 
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 
fiction" as a designation.  I would feel like Terry Eagleton does when 
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 - 
>> apart
>> from the fictional narrative - maps exactly against the real and one 
>> 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 
> just
> what you mean by "real" anyway.)


--