 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Personally, I don't even know where Kansas
> *is*! :-P
>
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/30_years_of_mans_life_disappear_in
Though the article is littered with cultural references like 'fly-over
states' it does still tell you a bit about the meaning of Kansas in pop
culture.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> I'd like to see some documents pertaining to the money reserved to pay
> the prize. I think I could get a loan for 200 tickets with that
> information. ;-)
Limit one per customer.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:23:10 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 18 Jun 2008 19:41:15 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>
>
>>> He was the most obvious when I googled Richard MacDuff but I could not
>>> see the relevance. But then I come from a place where MacDuff is not
>>> uncommon. I remember the local band, Fred MacDuff and the duffers :)
>>
>>There was no connection other than the name tripped that memory in my
>>mind. :-)
>>
>>
> Phew! That's a relief :)
It must've been (sorry, been away a few days on holiday - didn't go
anywhere, just unplugged for a few days).
>>>>At least I didn't say "Billy Boyd". :-)
>>>>
>>> The Northern Ireland Labour Party activist? No? The Scottish
>>> footballer? No? maybe the actor?
>>
>>Yes, the actor. ;-) Played Richard in the radio version of DGHDA. :-)
>>
>>
> As much as I like reading SF I don't really like watching it or
> listening to plays. They never live up to the promise :) I really liked
> DGHDA and was pissed off he died. As, no doubt, he was :)
Yes, I imagine he was. The thing about audio SF is that it leaves
everything to your imagination. One of the reasons, no doubt, for my
great disappointment in the H2G2 film was because it didn't live up to my
imagination. Except for the factory floor scene where the earth was
being built - that far exceeded my expectations.
But as Adams always was keen to say (paraphrasing), the brilliance of Sci-
Fi (or Sci-Fantasy, if you will) 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.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
*blink*
Wow, that's twisted.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> *blink*
>
> Wow, that's twisted.
Heee! I win!
Check out the most recent 3 or 4 comics. They've all been about dreams -
so yeah, they're damned weird!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24 Jun 2008 00:46:38 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
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 :)
>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 ;)
>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!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:13:36 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2008 00:46:38 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> That works as well, covers both genres. Most people conflate "Science
> Fiction" with "Science Fantasy".
I find there's a very easy distinction to make (that many don't).
Science Fiction explores the results on people or society of technology.
So, if you can recast it without the science/technology, it isn't SF. If
it's completely fantastic science, but the story is about the *science*,
then it's SF.
In that sense, Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court would be Science
Fiction, because it was primarily about what the Yankee did with modern
technology. Star Trek is (mostly) not science fiction.
Of course, the lines can still be blurry, but I personally don't think
"science fiction" is about whether it's "hard" or not, but about whether
the focus is science (or technology) or whether the focus is something
you could equally set in the Old West or Medieval Europe. (Indeed, Iron
Man presented as "the first guy to invent armor in 600 AD" would count
as "science fiction" by this definition.)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:59:23 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That works as well, covers both genres. Most people conflate "Science
>> Fiction" with "Science Fantasy".
>
> I find there's a very easy distinction to make (that many don't).
> Science Fiction explores the results on people or society of technology.
>
> So, if you can recast it without the science/technology, it isn't SF. If
> it's completely fantastic science, but the story is about the *science*,
> then it's SF.
I'd agree with the first paragraph you wrote - at least looking at it
from a hardcore Sci-Fi perspective. The other perspective, of course, is
that what most people call Sci-Fi is a "supergenre" (if you will) that
covers both this definition and Science Fantasy.
For the second, though, there's a blur between "fantastic science" and
"fantasy science".
> In that sense, Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court would be Science
> Fiction, because it was primarily about what the Yankee did with modern
> technology. Star Trek is (mostly) not science fiction.
Agreed. I would probably also put BSG in the "not science fiction"
category using that definition, because the story is more about the
characters and less about the technology. The science is quite good (one
of the few shows where I've seen actual thought put into spaceship
physics), but the story isn't about the technology, it's about the people
and their journey.
> Of course, the lines can still be blurry, but I personally don't think
> "science fiction" is about whether it's "hard" or not, but about whether
> the focus is science (or technology) or whether the focus is something
> you could equally set in the Old West or Medieval Europe. (Indeed, Iron
> Man presented as "the first guy to invent armor in 600 AD" would count
> as "science fiction" by this definition.)
True enough...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> For the second, though, there's a blur between "fantastic science" and
> "fantasy science".
Sure. I'm of the opinion you can have science fiction without credible
science, as long as the story is about the science. FTL? No problem.
Stasis fields? No problem.
> Agreed. I would probably also put BSG in the "not science fiction"
> category using that definition, because the story is more about the
> characters and less about the technology. The science is quite good (one
> of the few shows where I've seen actual thought put into spaceship
> physics), but the story isn't about the technology, it's about the people
> and their journey.
Right. Ask yourself if you could rewrite it as a giant ocean-liner
crossing the Atlantic in 1490, and see if the same basic plots still work.
Now, recast Niven's "Ringworld" without spaceships. Does it still work?
Or any of James Halperin's stuff, like The Truth Machine or Immortality?
How do you write a book about the affects on society of a perfect lie
detector if you don't incorporate the technology of a perfect lie detector?
Even something like "The Witling", a novel about earthmen accidentally
crashing a spaceship on a planet populated by people who can magically
teleport themselves and others would count as "SF" in my view. The story
just doesn't fly without the "magical technology" of the teleportation,
even tho it is completely unexplained how it works or why.
Of course, there's a fuzzy boundary.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
