Re: Star Wars Models ...

RMMDC@jazz.ucc.uno.edu writes:
@:) joachim wrote:
@:) 
@:) "Most science fiction authors, from Tolkien on..."
@:) 
@:) Hey, Tolkien's great, but he ain't science fiction, he's fantasy.

  Obviously true.  What I probably should have said, and what
hopefully I meant to say was "most fantasy authors (including most
science fiction authors)..." because I see most science fiction as a
subset of fantasy.  Oh, I know, fantasy has magic and elves and people
getting their heads split open by eighty pound battle axes.  Yes yes
science fiction has hyperwarp drive and laser guns and smartass
computers.  Fine.  But, while some science fiction (let's see... I
just read Zodiac by Neal Stephenson) is obviously firmly grounded in
the real world, some (also just read Diamond Age by same) is
indistinguishable from fantasy.  If it looks like a magic duck, and
quacks like a magic duck, it's a magic duck, even if it turns out it's
powered by a micro black hole and not by an enchanted crystal.

@:) Heck in a fantasy anything can happen.  In SciFi, however, I
@:) expect some degree of realism.  You know, "science" ie. facts, not
@:) wishful thinking.

  I agree, but again there's plenty of science fiction stuff with no
science in it at all.  Unless you count stuff like gravity, which they
usually have in fantasy novels as well.

@:) Fantasy and Science Fiction are definitely two separate genres.
@:) Why do none of the bookstores understand this?  What I absolutely
@:) can not stand is when Horror is mixed in too.  (shudder) Why not
@:) just throw Westerns in, while you're at it?

  Well, although I basically agree about horror, the fact is that a
great deal of horror is also fantastic literature.  Some Lovecraft is
no more fantastic than, say, the Narnia books or Thomas Covenant.  On
the other hand, horror books have not only developed a seperate
personality from fantasy books, but they've also got a different
reader base.  I think that's less true for science fiction and
fantasy.  Anyway I read all three (less and less) so for me it's more
or less convenient when they're all on the same shelf.

@:) Please don't compare apples to oranges.  In other words, I can
@:) live with hobbits beating up on a group of men (a much smaller and
@:) less-well equipped group by the way, so I'm not sure the reference
@:) is valid in the first place), _but_ teddy bears with rocks
@:) defeating armored, blaster-equipped men in a _Science_ Fiction
@:) movie did grate on the nerves just a tad.

  It was more the heroic efforts of Bilbo and Frodo to defeat, in
turn, one of the most terrifying creatures ever invented and a close
relative of God (the evil side of the family) that seemed a little far
fetched to me.	But honestly it's not Tolkien that bothers me as much
as the copycat authors (what, maybe 50% of what's on the fantasy
bookshelves now) who felt compelled to retell the "boy becomes a man
and saves the world along the way" story.  I am really sick of that
story and I wish somebody would tell something else.  I tend to be
quite appreciative of science fiction and fantasy that deal with more
interesting topics.  Similarly, Star Wars was fine (especially since I
was 5 when I first saw it - terrified of Darth Vader by the way), but
Willow was just dumb.

@:) Sorry, had to vent. 

  Yeah - me too.  I've become so distressed about the lack of quality
scifi/fantasy (even horror) literature out there that I've started
reading books like "The French Foreign Legion: an Agonizingly Slow
Examination of Their One Hundred and Sixty Year History With No
Pictures" and similar works.  Depressing :(

-joachim