|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:13:36 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2008 00:46:38 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>
>>It must've been (sorry, been away a few days on holiday - didn't go
>>anywhere, just unplugged for a few days).
>>
>>
> A rest can be as good as a change :)
Indeed. And the rest was good, think I might go and shoot some things in
Perfect Dark again this evening.
>>But as Adams always was keen to say (paraphrasing), the brilliance of
>>Sci- Fi (or Sci-Fantasy, if you will)
>
> What I will is SF, actually ;)
That works as well, covers both genres. Most people conflate "Science
Fiction" with "Science Fantasy". Hardcore Sci-Fi people will tell you
that something like H2G2 isn't Sci-Fi because it doesn't include a basis
in science - it's basis is humour, set in space.
(I used to moderate a forum years and years ago on Science Fiction - very
interesting mix of people).
>>is that it bypasses the optic nerve
>>entirely, meaning you can do *whatever* you want; if it's written well
>>enough, the audience can imagine it better than any SFX house could do
>>it.
>>
> My opinion exactly!
:-)
I must've misunderstood what you said (not uncommon for me), but I
thought you said you didn't like radio drama...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |