Comments on: Defending wonder http://www.talkingsquid.net/archives/266 Scientific Romances and Other Curiosities from the Antipodes Mon, 16 Jan 2012 03:33:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: dave's not here http://www.talkingsquid.net/archives/266/comment-page-1#comment-24329 dave's not here Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:51:36 +0000 http://www.talkingsquid.net/archives/266#comment-24329 I'll defend wonder, too, indeed even the definition that posits trauma and wonder as inseparable. If I understand the heart of the matter here: both trauma and wonder arise from some wounding by the Real that can never be represented, but only got at through aesthetics. Some would say this is what psychoanalysis does. This could mean a wonder at what beauty is wrought through pain and suffering and vice versa, but it might also mean a wonder at how capricious the universe can be. Critical judgment of a story, then, depends on what the story/book wonders about and if it wonders about the same thing or many different things. Or do I have it all wrong? Either way, I'll look forward to the next issue of Borderlands. I’ll defend wonder, too, indeed even the definition that posits trauma and wonder as inseparable. If I understand the heart of the matter here: both trauma and wonder arise from some wounding by the Real that can never be represented, but only got at through aesthetics. Some would say this is what psychoanalysis does. This could mean a wonder at what beauty is wrought through pain and suffering and vice versa, but it might also mean a wonder at how capricious the universe can be. Critical judgment of a story, then, depends on what the story/book wonders about and if it wonders about the same thing or many different things. Or do I have it all wrong? Either way, I’ll look forward to the next issue of Borderlands.

]]> By: Homie Bear http://www.talkingsquid.net/archives/266/comment-page-1#comment-24195 Homie Bear Sat, 29 Sep 2007 20:07:04 +0000 http://www.talkingsquid.net/archives/266#comment-24195 Although I've only read your side of the argument, I think I'm in complete agreement- this hits the nail squarely on the head: "The real is real, all right, but what we <i>think</i> is real is not so steadfast" Although I’ve only read your side of the argument, I think I’m in complete agreement- this hits the nail squarely on the head:

“The real is real, all right, but what we think is real is not so steadfast”

]]>