 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Super Auph to the rescue ! posted by john dem on November 29, 2001 at 22:07:17:
>>> "Would that all SF fans know who a plebeian was." <<<It might surprise you to learn that many do.
>>> "Would that all SF fans bother to read something more challenging than an extended comic sans graphics..." <<<
And what crystal ball informed you that they don't?
Literary stereotyping is just another form of racial profiling (i.e., determining class from preconceived notions about behavior).
>>> "You may take umbrage, and a petty insult about a 'limited imagination' is weak- save your pity for those that are impressed with the imagination displayed on Star Trek." <<<
Why should I pity those who have imagination enough to see beyond the narrow confines of a mundane reality? Star Trek is no more than a speck of sand on a vast beach of imaginative fiction, but at least it strives to inspire and nourish the dreamer. Science fiction, taken as a whole, is just as sophisticated as much of what passes for mainstream literature.
>>> "Just put on your tights and go save us from the evil SeriousLiterature Man!!!!!" <<<
You betcha! Of course, in the guise of mid mannered John Dem you like Lost in Space, so who knows what mainstream drivel the high-falootin' SeriousLiterature Man might defend! ;^)
Regards,
Your friendly neighborhood AuPh-man
Follow Ups:
"It might surprise you to learn that many do."It would astound me. I could just take your word for it, but that really would be science fiction.
"And what crystal ball informed you that they don't?"
The same one that you use, except yours is rose- colored.
"Literary stereotyping is just another form of racial profiling (i.e., determining class from preconceived notions about behavior)".
No it isn't. Unable to even defend one silly TV show, you first resort to personal insults, and now you try and establish that critics of SF are morally equivalent to racists.
Pathetic, just plain low and puerile. ( OH, wait a minute, this is a discussion about an SF TV show after all)
"but at least it strives to inspire and nourish the dreamer."
Star Trek nourishes what ? There is evidence of this "nourishment where exactly ? It strives to inspire the dull, dim- witted audience to keep their sets tuned to a particular station, the evidence of which is used in surveys to determine revenue potential and ultimately "nourish" TV executive salaries.
"Science fiction, taken as a whole, is just as sophisticated as much of what passes for mainstream literature."That's what I said.
> > > "Unable to defend even one silly TV show..." < < <Actually, I defended it sufficiently and moved on to the more troubling topic of your SF genre bashing.
> > > "... you first resort to personal insults, and now you try and establish that critics of SF are morally equivalent to racists." < < <
Wow! Sorry if I hurt the poster's feelings, but I'm amazed that making an assertion about limited imagination has penetrated the hide of such an unflappable critic! The latex applications actors wear when portraying aliens on Star Trek is a thicker skin.
As for my supposed efforts at painting SF's critics as being the moral equivalent of racists, that's a stretch. Yes, there are parallels with unreasonable genre bashing and racist-like behavior, but it isn't the same and I'm not making moral comparisons. When armchair SF critics condemn genre fiction they often resort to prejudicial comments about it's inferiority and the lack of sophistication of it's audience. They do this not out of the intuitiveness of their perception, but as a means of ridiculing that which they don't understand nor desire to understand, much less appreciate.
> > > "(Science fiction taken as a whole, is just as sophisticated as much of what passes for mainstream literature.) That's what I said." < < <
The difference is that my statement is intended as complimentary of the SF genre; your's, OTOH, implies that there's something inherently wrong with all of it.
My glass is at least half-full; how about yours?
AuPh
"Actually, I defended it sufficiently and moved on to the more troubling topic of your SF genre bashing."Why is "SF genre bashing" troubling ?
Again you attach a special status to SF. You said nothing about Star Trek - go back and read your own posts.
"Wow! Sorry if I hurt the poster's feelings, but I'm amazed that making an assertion about limited imagination has penetrated the hide of such an unflappable critic!"
Yeah.....riiiiight. (That was 2 posts ago Auph, what's wrong ? Can't summon enough imagination to continue the personal insults ?) Again you try and create facts from your own opinion. What is obvious is that people who lack imagination tend to seek out even the most modest and superficial display of it- like SF.
"As for my supposed efforts at painting SF's critics as being the moral equivalent of racists, that's a stretch."
It might be a stretch for a feeble mind, but that's precisely the inference you made.
"...I'm not making moral comparisons."
You mean you tried, but you didn't get away with it and lacked the skills in discourse to take the point further.
"When armchair SF critics..."
Now that's funny. I suppose there are other types of SF critics who fly about in their super- duds.
"but as a means of ridiculing that which they don't understand nor desire to understand, much less appreciate."
Sure Auph,SF is SO beyond ridicule because it is SO special,SF is SO hard to understand, Star Trek is SO hard to understand- nonsense. What did I say about SF ?
-"SciFi is mostly about making money from adolescents, and those who have not left adolescence."- to which you took umbrage, remember ?"The difference is that my statement is intended as complimentary of the SF genre; your's, OTOH, implies that there's something inherently wrong with all of it."
I said nothing of the kind.
"My glass is at least half-full; how about yours?"
Do you think greeting cards have nice poetry as well ?
... move on and avoid the friction; after all, I'm not the one who's being anally retentive.Live long and prosper!
Regards,
AuPhPS: My apology for not responding earlier. As an AT&T/Excite @home subscriber I've been without internet access for two days.
Hi,
at the end of it, what remains is that you know painfully little about Star Trek; and even less of scifi. In most circles that is called ignorance. My favorite TNG episode puts Data on trial to determine if he is property of Star Fleet. I think it's Rodenberry's finest effort by far; and the moment of epiphany gives me chills every damn time. I have written here about that episode a number of times. It is what i call a meta-intersection; issues of law, morality, religion, and individuality come crashing together in a contest of conflicting priorities. The moment that goves me chills is when Guinan ( who is, after all black)says to the Captain there could be thousands, millions of Datas doing the work that was too dangerous or boring for humans. The Captain replies, 'Guinan, you're talking about slavery, that is what this is really all about, isn't it'. One subject that is a perennial, is how do you talk to an alien. There has even been a little scientific work done in this direction, but not much. While ST usually dodges the problem; one episode took the theme. That is my 2nd favorite episode, where 2 races, utterly alien, struggle to find a way to communicate. "Shaka, when the walls fell". Another TNG episode starts with an archelogical artifiact. It looks like the Russian toy that is a series of identical hollow dolls each smaller than the last, and each fits inside the larger. In the show, the artifact symbolises the idea that each person has several people, personalities perhaps, inside them. The show then goes on to cleverly illustrate the idea. There have been a few hundred Trek episodes, the really good ones can be counted without running out of fingers. But for me, getting there is half the fun. I enjoy seeing things come to pass; on the rare occasion they do. What you call cell phones, Star Trek called Communicators.
Another scifi perennial is tv on the wall; to tell the truth, I had thought I wouldn't see that one. Btw, my Mother was a Star Trek fan, held an engineering degree, was an avid amateur astronomer, was a school teacher of mathematics, a chess club coach, and a reader of Scientific American.
Still think this comes under the heading of what, I believe in serious literary circles was called an exemplum which translates loosely as "moral tale."In any event, we are talking value judgments here and; whether one likes it or not -- the orginal ST and NG had, on occasion a seriousness of purpose beyond the usual TV fare. Whether you like the embodiment of the purpose, the vehicle chosen for it, etc. or whether it succeeds is another matter.
A TV audience is quite unlikely to read Dostoevsky for fun. In fact, most readers are quite unlikely to read Dostoevsky for fun.
That seems to be the essence of JD's point.
Next big discovery please!! I can hardly wait for another revelation of such blinding insight.
JD is offended that 'Phlouder makes claims for Sci-fi as a serious literary genre.
Ok.
None of us knows whether sic-fi will make it into the canon or not. Most of it is too new; and we will not live long enough for the filter of time to do its work.
But I can mention some "serioius work" that offends me as being rather empty behind a fabric of wordplay, literary allusions and insider jokes:
Anybody remember "Trout Fishing in America" by Richard Brautigan; "The Universal Baseball Club" by Robert Coover?
Then there are the Great Literary Works that are virtually incomprehensible. Examples: "Finnegan's Wake" by James Joyce and a number of lesser imitators, e.g. "Gravity's Rainbow" by Thomas Pynchon. (I did not attempt the former and failed to get through the latter.)
And finally, there is everything written by John Updike, a literary man who has made a career of verbalizing his ruminations on sex and aging in a nice package that Barnard English majors can avoid feeling guilty about reading. "Rabbit Run" was an interesting, orginal work. Soon, JU figured out that he couldn't write anything else; but as any Hollywood mogul can tell you, there is a market for sequels to hits. So JU has been writing sequels to "RR" ever since.
The last really vital serious American author that I know of who's written a significant body of work is Saul Bellow.
The rest of it is dessicated, academic stuff, written by people who wish they were poets and whose principal object seems to be a flashy display of their erudition.
Not surprisingly, nobody reads it.
BTW, Patrick Stewart said performing "Shaka when the walls fall" was a completely bizarre experience. I remember seeing that one; it was "different" to say the least. I'm afraid it appeared to me to be an incomprehensible play about incomprehensibility. There are many, many works about incomprehension, even among people who speak the same language -- viz., "Romeo and Juliet" -- that, I think, make the point better. However, the idea of taking a shot at that theme on TV is worth a point or two, at least.
You guys be nice to each other, you hear!!
Hi Bruce,
As a card carrying Moral Relativist (or whatever double talk the neocons are using these days)....I don't worry too much about the Canon. No doubt Romeo + Juliet is great stuff; but i think we have a need to wonder. I mean. how the heck would you communicate with an alien? Not a problem we have to face anytime soon I would imagine; but it's a fascinating problem. Some schiolars think that a race that is sufficiently different from us would be impossible to communicate with. That gold plaque we sent out of the solar system used a pictorial system in the hopes an laine would understand the pictures. But what if they don't see quite the way we do? Science Fiction is often a speculation on the effects of technology; and winds up becoming dated after a while. Kirk's Communicator becomes your cellphone. So we can forget about posterity, by and large.
Loved the line about 'dessicated, academic stuff'. I am not surprised you and Stewart had trouble with that one. it's real scifi.
As was pointed out in the story, a translator looks for points of reference. With a real alien language; that could be impossible. It is almost certainly difficult, and likely to take years
in the best of circumstances. With the race in that episode, they used language in an interesting way; they only spoke in metaphor. I have no idea how you could develop a technological civilisation that way; but that is the premise. So there is no way to do a simple I am John you are....The other guy wouldn't understand a subject/object sentence.
"Timba, at rest"
"at the end of it, what remains is that you know painfully little about Star Trek; and even less of scifi"You're guessing, or are you pretending to be Q and added mind- reading to your many obvious talents ?
"My favorite TNG episode blah blah blah...and the moment of epiphany gives me chills...blah blah blah.... law, morality, religion, and ....blah blah blah says to the Captain there could be thousands,blah blah blah blah, you're talking about slavery,blah bla blah."
That's right Late, in Star Trek you will find the deepest questions for mankind, so eloquently expressed and communicated to the viewer that its epiphanous nature is unavoidable.
"There have been a few hundred Trek episodes, the really good ones can be counted without running out of fingers".
I agree with you. Star Trek fans can often be recognized by the fact that they use their fingers for counting.
"What you call cell phones, Star Trek called Communicators"
No shit, Sherlock. Did The Federation go back in time and give this technology to Al Gross when he invented the walkie- talkie in 1938 ?
"Btw, my Mother was a Star Trek fan, held an engineering degree, was an avid amateur astronomer, was a school teacher of mathematics, a chess club coach, and a reader of Scientific American."
I'm sure she is very nice, and probably thinks Star Trek is a lot of fun- with which I would have no argument.
Hi,
reduced to it's essence, your argument says Star trek can be fun; but no more. It cannot inspire, educate, or create wonder. As we have been pointing out, it can,has, and does. You lose.
"It cannot inspire, educate, or create wonder"Perhaps in children, though you might be wise to first give them the ability to experience wonderment in the universe outside of TV.
"You lose."
Spoken like a true 6 year old, but you forgot the obligatory "Na- Na, Na-Na-Naaaaaaa"
Hi,
so now I have the intellectual maturity of a child. I provided a counterexample; and you provide this. Let you in on a secret....as a school bus driver; I get insulted fairly regularly. Over the years, something obvious finally occurred to me. When someone offers an insult; they are usually talking about themselves; or at least something they fear may be true.
"so now I have the intellectual maturity of a child."No,I suspect you've had it for some time.
"Let you in on a secret....as a school bus driver;(Do you say "Engage!" when you start 'er up ?- just trying to get back on topic) I get insulted ......"
If the kids are insulting you, let me let you in on some common knowledge: it's not possible to feel offense or be somehow damaged by the mere words of children, unless there's another meaning to the word "insult" you've invented. Maybe the kids just don't like you.
If there's adults insulting you, maybe they don't like you either.
"......fairly regularly."
No surprises there.
"When someone offers an insult; they are usually talking about themselves; or at least something they fear may be true."
IKYABWAI doesn't work outside of a school bus, Late.
(Do you have a "I stop for Borg Cubes" sticker on the back of the bus ?)
-
Hi Auph,
for me, it happened like this.....I was young, trying to be an intellectual.....when one day I began a highly prasied work of laht..rah..tchurrrr. It began with a detailed description of a new garbage truck; ran the whole page. It occurred to me, that I didn't like that, that I did not have to like that. Much later I ran across the idea of class distinction. The problem for the upper middles is that school bus drivers have essentially the same things they do. So in their desperate need to display class distinction; they form a market for goods that that are distinctive. Ofttimes they are less desirable,
or uglier, or marginally effective. If they can maintain the distinction, that is enough. I extended this thought to include caste distinctions. The great unwashed mob of Homer Simpsons (that would be me) enjoys a scope of entertainment that is breathtaking. If you look beyond scifi; there is a wealth of goodies. To offer one example, I like detective fiction; the best gives you the delicious opportunity to get a little taste of life on the Bayou (The Confederate Dead in the Electric Mist) or among the High Plains Indians. I just love the way Raymond Chandler uses the language.Anyway, back to my sordid tale. As the mob, and it's tastes, have expanded; the English Professors, their caste if you will, have retreated to maintain their distinctiveness. What is left is a
sorry excuse for writing.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
