(urth) Short Sun blog review

[António Pedro Marques]

Matthew Knight wrote:
> And secondly, even if we accept the arbitrary division that literature
> refers to realistic and SF refers to (as yet) unrealistic (problematic
> for all sorts of reasons, but...yeah), who decides that only the
> realistic approach is legitimate?

Wolfe himself has answered that eloquently.

According to such clever 19th century definitions of 'Literature', the 
Odissey or Hamlet or pretty much anything in the history of Literature isn't 
'Literature'.