posted on Feb, 20 2021 @ 03:06 PM
Despite the fact that it's claimed by Yanagihara in my OP clip above that fiction owes nothing to science, I have a nagging feeling that a text's
relationship to believable/documented science has a very important role to play on whether it's currently included in the postmodern canon, and how
the academy evaluates texts deemed "proper" for study.
After all, there are all kinds of texts that had massive popular appeal, and even fueled mass hysterias with a few pseudo-scientific claims (the
Satanic-panic type books, for example).
But these low-brow abuses of science and fiction will never be part of the academic canon.
Maybe only as artifacts of social history, and fare for religious fundamentalists.
So I'd argue that scientific inclusion in texts as a part of their fictional believability (and we all like a narrative with at least some factual
crumbs) is actually very important as to how texts are currently treated and evaluated.
Suffice to say that fiction owes "nothing" to science is bit of a disingenuous statement.
Without the mixture well done, the author might be on another panel (maybe on a church or a Sci-Fi convention panel), but they would probably know
they'd be ignored by the academic discourse.
I mean, the 1900's notion that the study of literature should be about purely evaluating morals, the nature of human evil or moral complexity has
indeed faded as the sole criteria for evaluating "great" literature.
edit on 20-2-2021 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)