Posts by Rich Lock
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I may be wrong but I do not think 1984 and the Handmaid's Tale are Sci-Fi
Sorry, but you are wrong. If I had a dollar for every time I'd heard that particular argument, I might not be able to retire, but I'd certainly have enough for a bloody good night out.
I'm afraid you can't change the data if you don't like the results - you can't create your own reality*.
For me scifi is writing where a self-contained imaginary reality is created, detached from our present and historical experience.
Rich, that won't fly. Since you mentioned Asimoc, we could consider two of his works:
and
The Foundation Series which you yourself mentioned.
Both clearly Sci-Fi. The second easily fits your definition of 'detached from our present and historical experience'. The first cannot be bent to fit - it's a world that is quite clearly extraplated from where we are now, and which clearly draws heavily on 'our present and historical experience'.
.
.
.
.
.
*man, I really am enjoying this multi-layered irony cake. Do ya see what I did there? Quoted this infamous bush aide quote, in a discussion about sci-fi! By definitation a made-up reality! And I did it in a discussion with a guy who wants us to concentrate less on sci-fi and more on a discussion of US politics! Am I good or what? -
When you add riders about having outgrown sci-fi and comics, you imply that genre fiction as a whole is generally less legitimate. It's really not.
Not actually what I said, tho, Lucy. What I said was: "Generally speaking, my sci-fi and comic book days are long behind me."
I grew up with two twin passions: music and the normal geek boy stuff - sci-fi, fantasy, etc. As I got older, my interest broadened. And I've realised, that despite all the hype surrounding whatever heartbreaking work of staggering genius has been released this week, most of it sucks.
Benjamin Button? Meh. The Dark Knight? Meh. There will be blood? Meh. Juno? Lost? Firefly? The Sarah Connor chronicles? Give me a break...
I used to have time to spend hours sifting the sludge for the gold. Now I don't. So I tend to wait until the knocking on the door is too loud to ignore. I didn't start watching BSG until late 2008. It's been running since 2003. I didn't start watching 'The Wire' until this year. It's been running since 2002.
So: ""Generally speaking, my sci-fi and comic book days are long behind me." As are my days of searching out new obscure releases from the latest indie/rock/techno act du jour, or whatever. Don't have the time, don't have the money. So someone else can do all the hard work, and i'll live on the word-of-mouth.
@Paul: I can't be bothered trawling back through 11 pages of comments, but I don't recall you doing anything except complain that the conversation was not to your liking.
However, your partly appeared to be inferring that those who are passive observers of politics, and yet still expect change initiated externally are bound to be disappointed, and don't have the right to complain.
So those who only passively participate in a conversation, and yet are disappointed in the direction which the conversation goes are.....what, exactly?
Russell has made a valient attempt to jumpstart a parallel conversation about the state of American politics and the economy. Would you care to chat about that?
-
I agree about the oasis and I am prepared to tolerate people going on and on and on about their fantasy fetishes. I just wish they would not hijack discussions about more important matters, as has happened here.
At ease, soldier. What bothers me is folk who think their preferred allegory is so important and so true that no further action is required: the truth as revealed by this season's space opera is so self-evident that the Government surely will fall. The neo-cons did not do allegory (or satire, for that matter). They just lied and made people believe them. What was needed to make them fall was concerted political action, not leisure activities.
I actually tend to agree more or less totally with both of those points.
The only piece of art I'm aware of which has (very) arguably ever caused a sea change in public thinking is Krzysztof Kieślowski's 'a short film about killing'.
This film is 'supposed to have been instrumental in the abolition of the death penalty in Poland', a bald statement of fact I'm a little dubious about without seeing any further evidence.
We could also use 1984 as a tired example. Both 'left' and 'right' claim it for thier own. People will read whatever they want into whatever they read or see, and there's not much we can do to change that.
BSG is something a bit different, though. Generally speaking, my sci-fi and comic book days are long behind me. I wouldn't watch any of the various Star Trek spin-offs or similar unless you paid me (not much, I'm fairly cheap...). And generally, my wife will curl her lip at anything that even remotely resembles sci-fi. But she's a fan of BSG. That's how good it is.
-
Oh, and I for one have a plan.
A plan to eat pre-baked and rewarmed foodstuffs smeared with high fat dairy products.
-
Babylon 5 too was all about the allegory, and I've been in therapy trying to forget having watched it ever since. It might be the thing that keeps me from watching BSG, although I'm sure I'll eventually get round to it
Babylon 5 bad. BSG good.
Rinse. Repeat.
-
I'm not one to rain on anyone's parade, but what is it with this BSG lovefest? Sure it may be a great show (though I've never watched it, so wouldn't have a clue), but are people maybe just reading too much into it?
In a nutshell, yes. People will take what they need/want to take from it - it's not going to change the world or cause a revolution.
You should, however, immediately rush out to JB Hi-Fi on Queen St and buy the entire series. DO IT NOW!
-
Depressing.
I'm off to re-read Kafka's 'The Trial'.
If memory serves, Josef K ends up completely exonerated and marries the judges daughter after a humerous interlude in court involving ladies underwear, strangely-shaped vegetables and trousers that keep falling down.
That should cheer me up.
-
I think the point of the matter is that people in DC were not watching Battlestar Galactica; they were watching Fox News. They were probably relieved that the liberals were watching sci-fi sagas and reading comic books (sorry, graphic novels) rather than doing anything that threatened authority. Doubtless, allegory is a wonderful thing, but it does not change anything.
Paul, Rusell linked to an excellent Vanity Fair article on Icelandic banking. Intelligent, in-depth, detailed, and all that other good stuff that we want from our reporting.
I like Vanity Fair - I've read a lot of good articles in there over the last few years of a quality that I haven't seen repeated anywhere else. But it pains me a lot that that half of Vanity Fair which pays for the decent reporting is given over to shallow hollywood and fashion reporting, and lifestyle accessories of the super-rich. You really do have to sieve hard through 200-odd pages to get to the good stuff.
All of which is a roundabout way of coming to two points:
Firstly, as has been pointed out before, PAS is something of an oasis of intelligent debate. If you have to put up with a few Star Trek references to get to the gold, then that's the price you're going to have to pay.
Secondly, the two things aren't mutually exclusive. I can enjoy BSG and be fairly clued up on the state of global politics. Or am I never allowed to relax from my eternally vigilent status as gatekeeper of freedom?
-
Maybe, just maybe, if people were more interested in history than fantasy then we might not be in this mess.
Paul, your downer on all of this geeky fanboy stuff is very early '90's.
It's mainstream now, I'm afraid.
Besides which, its not like we're discussing Star Trek fantasy furpile orgies, or anything.
-
how do you fight a monkey?