I'm starting to rethink Jameson's take on SF after having read Political Unconscious. In the second chapter, he discusses what he alternatively calls 'magical' storytelling or 'the Romances' in comparison to the 18th-century novel. The argument, in its broad strokes, is that both 'opened' new possibilities of discussing the world in their time, but eventually were bogged-down by the sheer weight of their own generic necessities.
His analysis of P. K. Dick in Postmodernism: The Logic of Late Capitalism, he seems to say precisely the opposite of what he says in PC, which tells me I might have simply missed his point. Jameson is certainly fond of off-handedly mentioning Gibson and Neuromancer in Pomo, so I'm not sure what to think of him on SF at this point and I will have to get back to that.
The blinkered quality comes from my general pet peeve, using literature to 'prove' a theory or justify a political stance. It always seemed to me that we ought instead to derive our politics and our theories fromwhat we study (literature, culture, language, etc.). Perhaps I am naive in this?
Posted by orion at July 10, 2006 3:05 PM