To James Tata,
Beginning Richard Powers, Echo Maker... I catch the cognitive dissonance. What I objected to in your objection, your (partial) exclusion of Powers, your more convinced exclusion of Hazzard... differed with you in your difference... ?
From the "Formalist" escape (transcendence? avoidance? divergence?...) from "realism."
What is the formalist formula for, if not to overturn the former?
... the former version of the "real?
We're back to the problem of memesis... the question of what it is we're imitating, what it is we're representing.
False notion: "Realism" is never, can never be, a conservative force.
Conservatives hate the real. They want only the last version, only what's already been turned to Common Coin... the better to cash in on it's Caché.
It's only the conservation of old notions of what is real... Is release from those restrictions ever made in the name of anything other than a more real version of the real?
Even if the most real version of reality finds at the heart of the real nothing but an Absense? A blank?
Nobaaddy... the Big Other who never was?
You're on to something important, Mr. Tata... but it has nothing to do with a distinction between the Formal and the Real... or its mimesis.
Need a sounder critical foundation. Not what you see in the publishers bias that's the problem... but the Formulation... a merely formal problem all along?
Or something more... for which the formula... the Formata... is merely servant?