Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:36:16 -0500
From: James Jordan 
Subject: Re: (urth) Generic considerations revisited


>Nutria:
>
>>A difference between a fictive universe that the author intends 
>>to >correspond to the real world, and a fictive universe that 
>>introduces >things that are not at present in the real world

 From the Archdeacon:

>I suspect that all literature is the consequence of a process of selection 
>and elimination - at story is told which does not and cannot correspond to 
>any 'real' events which may be their basis.
>
>This, firstly, because 'real' life is distinctly plotless and, frequently, 
>motiveless, and, secondly, because 'real' life cannot be narrated in its - 
>oh, say its 'raw' form - for exactly that reason.

         I'd say so. Art abstracts from life in order to enhance and/or 
analyze-discuss some aspect of life. True of all art. I think that's what 
Blattid is getting at with his subjective/objective schema: What is it that 
is primarily being abstracted from life and being analyzed in some way?
         I would ask: What is the aspect of life that is unique to SF that 
is somehow present in SF works and not in others? It would seem to be 
speculations of some sort about or involving science and technology that 
does not presently "exist" in our present world. Such speculations can be 
merely present and not the main thing, an SF element in what Blattid would 
put as MF; or they can be the overriding factor, in what Blattid would 
consider SF.
         I don't know if this advances the discussion any. It's fun, though.

Nutria



--