From: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes"
Subject: Re: (urth) Generic Considerations Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 10:41:20 -0700 Blattid: > >Can you show me a fictive universe which maps exactly against the real? > >If so, how can you know it does? Matthew: >When a character in a Ruth Rendell thriller walks a London street near my >home I can too. When Graves' Claudius refers to the Sybiline prophesies I >can recall the cave complex of the Cumean Sybil I visited in February. >Taking a plane or driving car are possible. > >While character and narrative might in varying degrees be creations of the >author their milieu is something we can experience. It seems to me that you are saying here that persons (characters) and events (narrative) are not part of "the real," but places (streets and caves) and inanimate objects (planes and cars) are. Am I understanding you correctly in this? >But tracing Severian's walk through Nessus, buying a copy of A Lancre >Witch's Cookbook direct from the Guild of Engravers, getting to work by >transporter or taking a holiday on a GSV... these are somewhat out of >reach. > >Worlds with deliquescing doors and worlds with hinges ... 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 ... --Blattid _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail --