Genre prejudice

Ian W. Riddell iwriddell at charter.net
Wed Jul 16 08:52:04 EDT 2003


>On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 12:21:36PM +0100, Hallie O'Donovan wrote:
>
>>Sorry, Robyn, I'm not so clear on Margaret Atwood: do you mean that
>>she's harder to defend as not fitting with the broad theory
>>(Wolverton's, right?), or harder to keep within the category of
>>literary fiction because of her usual speculative fiction
>>classification?
>
>There's an argument for considering authorial intention invalid, if you
>like: Atwood claims, at great length, that she is _not_ writing science
>fiction because _her_ work is _serious_ and doesn't have those nasty
>rocket ships in it.

Does Atwood say this or do others say it about her work?

If she does, it's rather ironic then that a couple of reviews of her 
latest "Oryx and Crake" dismiss it for being science fiction.

widdy
-- 
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Political language--and with variations this is true of all political 
parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists--is designed to make lies 
sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of 
solidity to pure wind.
George Orwell: "Politics and the English Language"
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ian W. Riddell
iwriddell at charter.net
--
To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/



More information about the Dwj mailing list