Todd Mason wrote:
> > > Subtlety is not common in any kind of fiction, but is
> > > tougher in SF and historical fiction
> > Did you mean "alternate history fiction"?
> As usual, Helge, if I'd meant "alternate history fiction," I
> would've written that. I meant what I wrote. The passage you
> continue to quote below should've made that clear.
Well, no, apparently.
> > particularly since the author has to produce an inherently
> > different world,
In historical fiction? I suppose we disagree on what "inherently
different world" means. But I think I see now what you meant.
I think that most historical fiction is more clearly escapist
than most SF, actually, but, of course, I have no numbers to
back up my impression.
> > Clearly change is not inherently political, though there's no
> > reason why any given change can't be seen from a political
> > perspective.
> [...] all change in society has at least a political
> dimension. Change is inherently political, or else it isn't
> change.
I don't think that you disagree with me. I pointed out that one
might ignore that political dimension, not that the political
dimension doesn't exist. As to "inherently," I think that the
way people react to change is likely to include politics, but
change itself isn't necessarily political.
For example, global warming is not political. How we deal with it
is very political, though it doesn't have to be. Politics enter
the picture because of conflicting interests and perceptions.
> You'll find that all writers have to make assumptions about
> society in any fiction, if you read it closely.
Of course. People write because they have something to say. The
point made at the outset was that it seemed to me that more
often than not you don't need to read SF closely to get that.
---
Helge Moulding
mailto:[log in to unmask] Just another guy
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1401 with a weird name
_______________________________________________________
Get your free, private email at http://mail.excite.com/
|