|
clockwork orange (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Chimney |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Chim, :)
|
Trust me when I say, hand on my heart, that I'm blushing in this very moment. |
|
|
| Lira |
I take that's a positive reaction :p
Now go get those books and show who's going to ace the test! |
|
|
| Chimney |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
:p
Now go get those books and show who's going to ace the test! |
Actually, it's powerpoint, and I kinda feel like watching Seinfeld. :o |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Chimney
Actually, it's powerpoint, and I kinda feel like watching Seinfeld. :o |
And that's what I call Powerpoint abuse!
Please write everything in the test with block letters and using as many colours as possible - that's probably how they like their answers :p |
|
|
| Chimney |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
And that's what I call Powerpoint abuse!
Please write everything in the test with block letters and using as many colours as possible - that's probably how they like their answers :p |
Only 20 multiple answer question. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Lira |
:wtf:
In that case, just check each box in a different colour. That's the best I can think of :p |
|
|
| Chimney |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
:wtf:
In that case, just check each box in a different colour. That's the best I can think of :p |
Just because you're so nice, I'll give you a FLAC track of your choice <3 |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Indeed.
By the way, Jack, I do know I hold a very deflationary view of art (It's just art!) and I'm often knocking big names (with few exceptions: I still haven't found a flaw in Dostoevsky), but that's precisely because I love it and I do that because I hold the opinion that taking anything too seriously stifles creativity (if you read my other posts, I do just the same in science and philosophy - and I'm a PhD candidate in a topic that involves both fields; and, hell, why do you think I never finished that novel? If I really didn't care about literature either, I'd have finished it ages ago :p). I don't know if you refrained from writing that earlier based on this iconoclasm of mine, but I do want to let you know that I do care about your opinions, and that you've never wasted a minute of yours writing something for me :)
Even when I knew what the argument would be (such as Star Wars being fantasy rather than science fiction), it's always nice to see a different way to structure the same ideas. |
You see no problems in The Brothers K? :wtf:
Also, I'm looking for an essay I wrote a couple years ago for an English class about what makes something Science Fiction. Might interest you (if I can find it). |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
You see no problems in The Brothers K? :wtf: |
Haven't read that one yet.
I read "The Idiot", "Notes from Underground" and a bit of "Crime and Punishment" which I did finish for some reason I can't remember. When I say I haven't found a flaw, it's because I've enjoyed all his books so far, not that I've read them all :p
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Also, I'm looking for an essay I wrote a couple years ago for an English class about what makes something Science Fiction. Might interest you (if I can find it). |
It does :)
| quote: | Originally posted by Chimney
Just because you're so nice, I'll give you a FLAC track of your choice <3 |
Thank you! Heh, no need, but if you want, you can pick something you like and share with me :) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Okay, the cut down version:
Science fiction is a fantastic (IE: non-realist) genre, and like all fantasy genres the textual universe is characterised by points of difference from our own reality. In SF these points of difference (or nova) are rationalised through a pseudo-scientific discourse. Star Wars is a science fiction/fantasy hybrid, much like Dune, because many of its nova are pseudo-scientific: TIE fighters, alien species, blaster weapons. The science is never explained, but the language of science is used around the film: light speed, proton torpedoes, ion cannon hyperspace, implying there is an advanced level of science that makes everything we see possible, we just don't understand it yet. SF profitably utilises the thinking encapsulated by Arthur C Clarke's famous quote: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"... in other words, we're surrounded by technology we don't understand anyway, so if men in white coats told us deflector shields and X-Wings were possible, we'd believe them.
In this sense, Star Wars is science fiction. However, it contains other points of difference (namely, the Force) that are not rationalised through pseudo-science. The Force isn't rationalised at all, so it becomes magical, spiritual, some mystical force. That's a pure fantasy element - although George Lucas infamously tried to recalibrate it as science fiction through that disastrous "midichlorians" idea in The Phantom Menace. Note how different it feels, despite acting exactly the same within the plot - from spiritual essence permeating all living things in the universe to the side-effects of weird bacteria. Science fiction is a despiritualised genre, one where fantasy and escapism are possible, but they are rooted strictly in a godless, scientific perception of reality.
So Star Wars is basically a science fiction/fantasy hybrid. Another example of this would be Dune. It's sort of implied in Dune that all the visions and prophecies and religious aspects are side-effects of melange consumption, but there's no attempt at rationalising why.
There are obviously various levels of science fiction, based on how much they want to say. The "softest" science fiction operates just like fantasy, it's purely escapist and uses science only as a plot device to justify unrealistic features. The hardest science fiction is extremely rigorous in its pseudo-science. It doesn't mean it's necessarily accurate - Larry Niven's Ringworld made it to print with some massive errors in its mathematics, but hard science fiction is much more concerned with the maximum amount of science and the minimum of fanciful extrapolation. The science fiction critics love the most tends to be allegorical, its nova becoming metonymical devices in a metaphorical text that comments back on our own reality. That, by the way, doesn't necessarily make that kind of SF better than the rest, but critics tend to like something more if they can write an essay about it. Godzilla is an extremely potent piece of allegory, and so is much-lauded even today, but it's quite a ty film in all honesty. |
Thanks! And agreed completely. Well, except for the metonymical part, but probably would agree did I know what it meant. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
By the way, Paul, Star Wars isn't science fiction because of the plot: with little effort you can remove the characters from that galaxy far far away and put them somewhere in Medieval times with just a few adaptations (forcesabers that feed on human spirit instead of lightsabers, for example) the story can go on. Science fiction, on the other hand, is porn for geeks. Everything revolves around science and how scientific endeavours make us (or themselves) awesome and/or catastrophic in the long run. Just take the one of the grandaddies of all science fiction: Jules Verne. The guy describes what an exploration to the centre of Earth would be like - and a professor guides the expedition rather than, let's say, a charismatic leader with no relationship to academia.
I'm sure Syst can fix any inconsistencies in this paragraph for you, but I'm sure something similar to this is the core of the argument. It does seem to explain the plot of the only science fiction I like (Torchwood). |
That star wars follows a well-established mythic narrative does not preclude it from being science fiction. In 2011, something is science fiction if it has robots and spaceships. Scifi is more than just a genre now; is also a setting. The major difference between hard and soft scifi is hard spends much more time attempting to suspend your disbelief with “realistic” explanations.
Torchwood is no more science fiction than star wars. It essentially does what system-j alluded to- use science as a narrative device to create fantastic nonsense. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
In this sense, Star Wars is science fiction. However, it contains other points of difference (namely, the Force) that are not rationalised through pseudo-science. The Force isn't rationalised at all, so it becomes magical, spiritual, some mystical force. That's a pure fantasy element - although George Lucas infamously tried to recalibrate it as science fiction through that disastrous "midichlorians" idea in The Phantom Menace. Note how different it feels, despite acting exactly the same within the plot - from spiritual essence permeating all living things in the universe to the side-effects of weird bacteria. Science fiction is a despiritualised genre, one where fantasy and escapism are possible, but they are rooted strictly in a godless, scientific perception of reality. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell#Film
I think that a lot of sci-fi writers try to cast these kind of pseudospiritual magical things as actually a super-advanced form of technology. In a lot of scifi, mastery of the psyche tends to be the highest form of technology, usually employed or owned by the 'aliens', and often it represents the point at which man meets his maker, ultimate knowledge. i can think of dozens of sci fi stories in which this kind of spiritual and psychic stuff is portrayed as advanced alien technology and super intelligence.
Because of this I don't agree that this kind of science fiction is really different than any 'despiritualized' science fiction. |
|
|
|
|
