<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Science 1, Realism 0</title>
	<link>http://www.sellingwaves.com/2005/12/01/science-1-realism-0/</link>
	<description>A graduate student in mathematics and a modern languages major take on politics and culture with the following aspirational motto: ‘Deregulate your mind.’</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:28:37 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Curt</title>
		<link>http://www.sellingwaves.com/2005/12/01/science-1-realism-0/#comment-1684</link>
		<author>Curt</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:49:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.sellingwaves.com/2005/12/01/science-1-realism-0/#comment-1684</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Right, but a) I was critiquing realism, not post-modernism and b) you've just answered the question as to why the average "metafiction" is not a very good solution to the realist conundrum.  While post-modernists may be free of realist dogma (usually), they still labor under the Romantic illusion that whatever they, as the divinely inspired artist, have to say will be, or at any rate should be, infinitely interesting to the lowly audience.  The result is of course usually extremely self-indulgent.  As a matter of fact, the only reason I felt a critique of realism to be at all pertinent at this point is that a number of writers have been trying to revive realism as part of a reaction against post-modernism.  It's sort of like a bunch of physicists deciding that quantum physics is just too damn messy, and that they are therefore going heneforth embrace the classical elegance and predictability of classical mechanics.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Right, but a) I was critiquing realism, not post-modernism and b) you&#8217;ve just answered the question as to why the average &#8220;metafiction&#8221; is not a very good solution to the realist conundrum.  While post-modernists may be free of realist dogma (usually), they still labor under the Romantic illusion that whatever they, as the divinely inspired artist, have to say will be, or at any rate should be, infinitely interesting to the lowly audience.  The result is of course usually extremely self-indulgent.  As a matter of fact, the only reason I felt a critique of realism to be at all pertinent at this point is that a number of writers have been trying to revive realism as part of a reaction against post-modernism.  It&#8217;s sort of like a bunch of physicists deciding that quantum physics is just too damn messy, and that they are therefore going heneforth embrace the classical elegance and predictability of classical mechanics.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: shonk</title>
		<link>http://www.sellingwaves.com/2005/12/01/science-1-realism-0/#comment-1677</link>
		<author>shonk</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2005 06:15:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.sellingwaves.com/2005/12/01/science-1-realism-0/#comment-1677</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Therefore, writers ought to carry on their projects of entertaining and inspiring in the awareness of their own subjectivity.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Isn't that the whole conceit of post-modernism/metafiction?  &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Okay, maybe you have to leave out words like "entertaining" and "inspiring", but still.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Therefore, writers ought to carry on their projects of entertaining and inspiring in the awareness of their own subjectivity.</i></p>

<p>Isn&#8217;t that the whole conceit of post-modernism/metafiction?  </p>

<p>Okay, maybe you have to leave out words like &#8220;entertaining&#8221; and &#8220;inspiring&#8221;, but still.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
