From: kcalder@blueyonder.co.uk   
      
   In message , Sourcerer   
    writes   
   >In article <4qR7a5jBUc0$Ewhr@cableinet.co.uk>,   
   >Kevin Calder   wrote:   
   >>In message <3f551982_3@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com>, fish   
   >> writes   
      
      
      
   >(in another article to this thread, you quote:   
      
   >"example, when I taught Utopian/Dystopian Fiction"...)   
      
   >Back in the late 60s when sf made it into US English lit   
   >courses, the Utopian/Dystopian framework was adopted mainly   
   >because the only "scifi" the profs recognized were BNW and   
   >1984 (plus Verne and Wells, both of whom slotted easily   
   >into the framework). None of these books or authors are sf   
   >as genre. One reason for the academic success of Stranger In   
   >A Strange Land at the time was its juxtapositioning of utopian   
   >and dystopian themes.   
      
   I see room for Wells & Verne & Huxley & Orwell within Science Fiction,   
   in that they are part of the "fiction of science" and they are part of   
   and informed by scientific discourse.   
      
   What is the definition of genre science fiction?   
      
   >Besides a totally pomoized paper, your only choice is to   
   >discuss N in a dystopian framework.   
      
   This is true on the other side of the pond too.  There simply aren't any   
   other options for someone wanting to write on N, though there are now   
   plenty of options if you want to write on Huxley&Verne&Orwell&Wells.   
      
   > Actually, pomoization   
   >is pretty dystopic.   
      
   How come?   
      
   >My opinion (discussed on altcp seemingly endlessly and forever)   
   >is that N is not dystopic.   
      
   I agree, and this was in fact the conclusion of my high school paper.  I   
   think that Gibson is too into his future for it to be truly dystopic, I   
   think he relishes the details too much to preaching to the reader about   
   how "bad" this future is.  The reader might bring a value judgement to   
   the text, but I think that Gibson and N leave it very much open.  In   
   fact I think Gibson is almost leaning more toward it being a sort of   
   perverse utopia in terms of how much he seems to enjoy the descriptions   
   of decay i.e. "cracked plastic", "tarnished chrome" e.t.c. e.t.c.   You   
   know?  Everything is degraded and degrading and broken and chipped and   
   fake and plastic chipped and cracked and tarnished and stained and faded   
   and fading and he fucking loves it! :)   
      
   That's not exactly what I wrote.   
      
   Incidentally I scored rather badly on the highschool N essay, and before   
   the final submission deadline I replaced it with an essay on Dylan   
   Thomas which scored much better, even although it was very rushed and   
   badly researched.   
      
   >Trashing the utopian/dystopian framework of the course, I think   
   >would be gratifying, but maybe not the best strategy as to the   
   >grade it receives.   
      
   Hrmmm... Pomoism might come in handy there... Utopian\dystopian?  Is   
   that ever a binary opposition just begging to be deconstructed :)   
      
   Elsewhere you mention cp as a confluence of counter-culture.  Pomoism   
   can do confluence!  Pomoism loves confluence!  We just have to pretend   
   that the counter-cultures you are referring to are textual and we can   
   declare and explore and intertextuality!   
      
   Cmon guys!   
      
   Cyberpunk and pomoism!   
   Up a tree!   
   K-I-S-S-I-N-G   
   First comes love.   
   Then comes marriage.   
   Then comes a baby in a horse drawn carriage.   
      
   maybe that's not how it goes,   
   --   
   Kevin Calder   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)