 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> And it is also a movie that I really, really hate.
>
> So you've seen it, but you don't think you'd recognise the music to it?
> And if person A called person B a "wicked witch of the west", you
> wouldn't know what they're talking about?
I'd recognise several of the musical numbers that happen during the
film, just not the particular bit you mentioned. I hadn't noticed that
particular correlation.
To know what "the wicked witch of the west" means, I doubt it's
necessary to have seen the film at all! :-P
> (FWIW, American Film Institute (the folks who bring you the Oscars) had
> a show yesterday of the top-10-top-10 movies. Wizard of Oz was the #1
> fantasy movie of all times. So, yeah, it's part of the culture, I'd
> think. :-)
Part of *who's* culture? Personally, I don't even know where Kansas
*is*! :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:31:36 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom>
did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_(TV_series)
>
> Yep. *That* is the plot summary I remember. :-)
Worrying at the time as I thought Tripitaka* was cute and the character
kept being referred to as a male; that's the sort of thing that can screw
up a young lad :-P
*http://www.infonauta.net/postmortem/url/2.htm
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Oedipus, eat your heart out....
It could be worse:
http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1041
Or even
http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1047
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18 Jun 2008 19:41:15 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
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 :)
>>>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
:)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:43:35 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>In this particular instance something like 'My Lord doth doff his cap' I
>think it was just an attempt to show that unless you lived at that time
>and in that culture you can't truely appreciate the plays to their fullest.
>
True I see
>> THISBY. I kiss the wall's hole, not your lips at all.
>
>and of course almost anything that Mercutio utters in R&J :-)
>
I've never noticed that but I'm bad at quotes.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> To know what "the wicked witch of the west" means, I doubt it's
> necessary to have seen the film at all! :-P
That's because of culture. :-)
> Part of *who's* culture? Personally, I don't even know where Kansas
> *is*! :-P
That's kind of the point. :-) It's a "nowhere" kind of place even in the
USA, to people who live on the coasts. Calling someplace "Kansas" is
saying there's nothing of interest there.
--
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 13:21:21 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>
>That's kind of the point. :-) It's a "nowhere" kind of place even in the
>USA, to people who live on the coasts. Calling someplace "Kansas" is
>saying there's nothing of interest there.
He he, I take it you're not from Kansas, Toto ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Or any game, really, that's rigged so the house wins most of the time.
>
> Same thing applies, tho. I win most of the time. I lose bigger, but I
> win most of the time.
>
> Losing $1 just doesn't hurt as much as losing $1,000,000. It's not all
> the numbers in the game. It's also the numbers outside the game.
>
Where is there a lottery that offers 1/100 odds for a 1,000,000 times
return?
Now, would you play a lottery that cost $1 with 1/100 odds, that offered
you a share of $10,000 divided between all the winners?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Where is there a lottery that offers 1/100 odds for a 1,000,000 times
> return?
Sure. Fifty billion dollar buy-in. Let me know when you're ready to go.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> Where is there a lottery that offers 1/100 odds for a 1,000,000 times
>> return?
>
> Sure. Fifty billion dollar buy-in. Let me know when you're ready to go.
>
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. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] nospamcom> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24 Jun 2008 18:59:36 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
wrote:
>Indeed. And the rest was good, think I might go and shoot some things in
>Perfect Dark again this evening.
>
Go for it! :)
>>>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 don't know about that. I consider myself a "Hard SF" fan and think
that H2G2 is SF. Mainly because it takes the use of science or
technology to demolish the Earth. Scaling up zoning laws is acceptable
in my view.
As for using humour as a basis to discount a story as SF. Well the
good doctor was renowned for his humour.
"Who the hell cares what happens to a sabre tooth tiger" or "It takes
a pair of jacks to open" :)
>(I used to moderate a forum years and years ago on Science Fiction - very
>interesting mix of people).
>
I bet.
>
>I must've misunderstood what you said (not uncommon for me), but I
>thought you said you didn't like radio drama...
>
My problem is that I can seldom follow a serial as I live such a
disjointed life.
I like radio drama and often listen to recordings when driving. I
generally prefer spoken work books ītho'.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible schrieb:
> It could be worse:
>
> http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1041
>
> Or even
>
> http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1047
>
Great, now you've got me hooked on yet another webcomic. Damn!
Manuel
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Manuel Kasten wrote:
> Great, now you've got me hooked on yet another webcomic. Damn!
Addictive, much? ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:52:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 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.
I personally tend towards that as well - pushing the boundaries of
science is what it's about; Jurassic Park was science fiction, even
though that technology doesn't exist today. It's something that's
possible.
I think one of the hallmarks of good Science Fiction is that the author
does some research into the field he's writing about.
>> 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.
Yep. And I think they would.
> Now, recast Niven's "Ringworld" without spaceships. Does it still work?
I actually haven't read Ringworld. Need to do that one of these days.
> 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.
Well, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:13:20 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2008 18:59:36 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>Indeed. And the rest was good, think I might go and shoot some things
>>in Perfect Dark again this evening.
>>
> Go for it! :)
Oh, I did. Got quite good with the sniper rifle, in fact. :-)
>>>>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 don't know about that. I consider myself a "Hard SF" fan and think
> that H2G2 is SF. Mainly because it takes the use of science or
> technology to demolish the Earth. Scaling up zoning laws is acceptable
> in my view.
I think of H2G2 more as a social commentary/space comedy. There are
elements of Science Fiction in it - but it's a long ways from what Adams
originally was thinking of for the story. ISTR he originally had planned
on calling it something like "The Ends of the Earth", in which each
episode ended with the destruction of the planet. The name "Hitchhiker's
Guide to the Galaxy", of course, came from "Hitchhiker's Guide to Europe"
and books of that nature, and that title occurred to him well before the
concept of the story did. Some would say (and I would count myself in
this group) that he didn't really have the concept of the story down
until *after* what is now known as the "primary and secondary" phases had
been completed.
> As for using humour as a basis to discount a story as SF. Well the good
> doctor was renowned for his humour. "Who the hell cares what happens to
> a sabre tooth tiger" or "It takes a pair of jacks to open" :)
Oh, I wouldn't say that humour alone discounts a story as SF.
>>(I used to moderate a forum years and years ago on Science Fiction -
>>very interesting mix of people).
>>
> I bet.
One of the more interesting discussions was about whether or not Star
Wars was Science Fiction. One member pointed out that it is in fact a
messiah story, with elements of being a story of redemption. More
religion than sci-fi.
>>I must've misunderstood what you said (not uncommon for me), but I
>>thought you said you didn't like radio drama...
>>
>>
> My problem is that I can seldom follow a serial as I live such a
> disjointed life.
> I like radio drama and often listen to recordings when driving. I
> generally prefer spoken work books ´tho'.
Ah, I see now. I have a similar issue, don't get a lot of time to listen
to things. I'm working my way through some old CBS Radio Mystery Theater
recordings from the early 70's, but the stories are self-contained.
Conveniently, they are as long as my drive to the office is - but I only
make the trip once or twice a week, so I only get about 4 stories in on
any given week. I've got about 1400 recordings in total to get through
(9 years' worth). Going to take some time, I think.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I personally tend towards that as well - pushing the boundaries of
> science is what it's about; Jurassic Park was science fiction, even
> though that technology doesn't exist today. It's something that's
> possible.
To me, it doesn't matter if it's actually possible or not. It's whether
you can tell the story without the science. Saying "Imagine a movie just
like Jurassic park, but without dinosaurs" makes no sense. There is no
story there but for the dinosaurs. Or "Imagine back to the future,
without a time machine."
Could you tell the Terminator story without the science? Yeah, almost
kinda. All you need is someone who is really, really hard to kill. You
could imagine it as some super-strong dude in the centuries where
weapons that killed effortlessly weren't around, or a really smart
gunslinger in the old west who took a dislike to somebody. Sort of like
the Black Knight kind of story, or Beowulf.
I certainly prefer "hard" science, myself.
> I think one of the hallmarks of good Science Fiction is that the author
> does some research into the field he's writing about.
Yep. Depends, of course, on what they're trying to express, tho.
I'm reading a novel right now called "star farers", basically about the
people who get on close-to-lightspeed ships, and how it affects them,
and how the societies react to them as they show up hundreds of years
apart. It's 95% talking between characters, and 0.3% science, just
enough in the beginning to let you know there's science, with lots of
quantum mumbo-jumbo about the new inertia free drive that lets you get
up to high tau. But it's still science fiction, because it's about the
time dialation, and it wouldn't make sense to tell the story without that.
> I actually haven't read Ringworld. Need to do that one of these days.
I quite enjoyed it. The ones after were much less interesting, IMO.
--
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 Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:21:21 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I personally tend towards that as well - pushing the boundaries of
>> science is what it's about; Jurassic Park was science fiction, even
>> though that technology doesn't exist today. It's something that's
>> possible.
>
> To me, it doesn't matter if it's actually possible or not. It's whether
> you can tell the story without the science. Saying "Imagine a movie just
> like Jurassic park, but without dinosaurs" makes no sense.
Sure it does; instead of genetically cloning dinosaur DNA, make it a
mastadon instead. Or a sabre-toothed tiger.
> There is no
> story there but for the dinosaurs. Or "Imagine back to the future,
> without a time machine."
That one would be a bit more difficult. It wouldn't have to be a
DeLorean, but yeah, that one would be hard without the science.
> Could you tell the Terminator story without the science? Yeah, almost
> kinda. All you need is someone who is really, really hard to kill.
IOW, let's say, Predator or Rambo.
> You
> could imagine it as some super-strong dude in the centuries where
> weapons that killed effortlessly weren't around, or a really smart
> gunslinger in the old west who took a dislike to somebody. Sort of like
> the Black Knight kind of story, or Beowulf.
That'd work as well.
> I certainly prefer "hard" science, myself.
Same here; though it depends on my mood, too. Sometimes I just want to
watch stuff blow up.
>> I think one of the hallmarks of good Science Fiction is that the author
>> does some research into the field he's writing about.
>
> Yep. Depends, of course, on what they're trying to express, tho.
Absolutely.
> I'm reading a novel right now called "star farers", basically about the
> people who get on close-to-lightspeed ships, and how it affects them,
> and how the societies react to them as they show up hundreds of years
> apart. It's 95% talking between characters, and 0.3% science, just
> enough in the beginning to let you know there's science, with lots of
> quantum mumbo-jumbo about the new inertia free drive that lets you get
> up to high tau. But it's still science fiction, because it's about the
> time dialation, and it wouldn't make sense to tell the story without
> that.
I would classify it as Science Fiction for that reason, hardcore or not.
>> I actually haven't read Ringworld. Need to do that one of these days.
>
> I quite enjoyed it. The ones after were much less interesting, IMO.
I've heard that about the later ones.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Sure it does; instead of genetically cloning dinosaur DNA, make it a
> mastadon instead. Or a sabre-toothed tiger.
Let me rephrase that. Jurassic park wouldn't be the same story without
the *cloning*.
>> Could you tell the Terminator story without the science? Yeah, almost
>> kinda. All you need is someone who is really, really hard to kill.
>
> IOW, let's say, Predator or Rambo.
Yeah, pretty much, now that you mention it. :-)
>> I certainly prefer "hard" science, myself.
>
> Same here; though it depends on my mood, too. Sometimes I just want to
> watch stuff blow up.
Oh, hard science in novels. Movies, sure, whatever floats.
> I would classify it as Science Fiction for that reason, hardcore or not.
Right, exactly.
>>> I actually haven't read Ringworld. Need to do that one of these days.
>> I quite enjoyed it. The ones after were much less interesting, IMO.
>
> I've heard that about the later ones.
It also helps if you read it around the time you read some of the
others. Otherwise, you miss a bunch of stuff the aliens do. In other
words, there's several novels full of aliens and Louis Wu, of which
Ringworld gives you a slice. If you don't remember the other slices, the
slice that Ringworld gives is going to be less interesting.
--
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 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:12:02 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Sure it does; instead of genetically cloning dinosaur DNA, make it a
>> mastadon instead. Or a sabre-toothed tiger.
>
> Let me rephrase that. Jurassic park wouldn't be the same story without
> the *cloning*.
OK, that I'd agree with.
>> Same here; though it depends on my mood, too. Sometimes I just want to
>> watch stuff blow up.
>
> Oh, hard science in novels. Movies, sure, whatever floats.
I think the medium does sometimes make a difference.
>>>> I actually haven't read Ringworld. Need to do that one of these
>>>> days.
>>> I quite enjoyed it. The ones after were much less interesting, IMO.
>>
>> I've heard that about the later ones.
>
> It also helps if you read it around the time you read some of the
> others. Otherwise, you miss a bunch of stuff the aliens do. In other
> words, there's several novels full of aliens and Louis Wu, of which
> Ringworld gives you a slice. If you don't remember the other slices, the
> slice that Ringworld gives is going to be less interesting.
That's good to know.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
