Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 02:07:37 -0400 From: drifter@stratos.net To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no>, Anatoly Vorobey <mellon@pobox.com>, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: internationalization Message-ID: <19980614020737.A4548@stratos.net> In-Reply-To: <19980613211430.51924@follo.net>; from Eivind Eklund on Sat, Jun 13, 1998 at 09:14:30PM %2B0200 References: <199806121443.HAA09471@mailgate.cadence.com> <199806121619.JAA08857@usr02.primenet.com> <19980613212837.A17939@doriath.org> <19980613211430.51924@follo.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ Sorry about the length.. some context quoting is necessary ]
On Sat, Jun 13, 1998 at 09:14:30PM +0200, Eivind Eklund wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 1998 at 09:28:37PM +0000, Anatoly Vorobey wrote:
> > You, Terry Lambert, were spotted writing this on Fri, Jun 12, 1998 at 04:19:35PM +0000:
> > > [ snip ]
> >
> > I definitely agree, but I do wonder at the choice of SciFi as the main
> > reading material (perhaps it isn't in your case, but it is in case of
> > most of reading programmers and hackers I know). It always struck me as
> > something weird that so many otherwise very intelligent people, who
> > are able to create amazingly clever and beautiful algorithms/programs/OSes,
> > spend so much of their time reading essentially trashy literature, not
> > much different in its average quality from detective stories or paperback
> > romance novels. They can explain to you subtle details of VM architecture,
> > or tell you the plots of all William Gibson novels, but ask them about
> > Flaubert or T.S.Eliott or Cortasar or Chaucer or Pushkin or Italo Calvino
> > and you mostly get blank looks in return.
>
> I believe you're missing the point of SF[1]. The point isn't to see
> how many layers of allegories and symbols one can create, or how
> clever one can be with words. The point is to evoke a sense of wonder
> ("sensawunda"), to show how people could react to changes, to make you
> aware of the infinite potential of technology and people, to paint a
> few brushstrokes at the edge of your imagination, showing what may yet
> become your (or your descendants) normal day.
Not all science fiction is trashy literature, but I think
Anatoly has a point. It seems to me that much of SciFi (or SF, or
whatever the hell you wanna call it) falls under one of several themes.
1) the "sensawunda" Eivind was talking about. Nothing wrong
with that, but nothing I can get really passionate about either.
2) cliche "woe-is-mankind-with-all-this-technology" plotlines.
3) in the year 2345, when there are no wars, no greed, no
disease, and everybody recycles.
Science fiction -- if not just a technological flight-of-fancy --
is often a tool for the author's social or political agenda.
I was a columnist for my college newspaper a few years
ago, and was no stranger to getting on political soapboxes :) But,
something about having ficticious characters speaking on behalf of
the author, rather than the author coming right out and saying what's
on his mind just annoys the hell out of me.
Admittedly, many of the best (usually) non-science fiction authors
historically have done this too. George Orwell comes to mind.
But somehow, non-science fiction writers pull it off better, possibly
because the characters are often more believable -- more real. I can
care about them and even identify with them.
Often, science fiction characters chase each other around
banks of blinking lights armed with phaser guns. That doesn't mean
science fiction won't cut it. I just personally prefer that
the technology should be the backdrop for good character development.
Several months ago, I saw Startrek IV (I know, it's a movie and
not a book) for the second time (the first time I think I was 13 or 14).
I could bearly make it through. The entire movie was filled with
cornball dialogue and incessent preaching about the environment.
As if blowing up planets, waging inter-galactic wars, and messing
around with the space-time continuum were enviro-friendly practices :)
Of course, this whole spiel is coming from a guy who actually
/enjoys/ watching C-SPAN, so maybe I have no place to talk.
Oh well, to each his own...
> We want to predict and shape, not
> read anout what fictional people could have done in the last century,
> unless it helps us understand the present or predict the future.
The past can often be a good indicator of the future. Times
change, as does technology. But human nature does not. Whether that
is a good or bad thing is a matter of personal opinion.
> [1] SF, not SciFi. SciFi is a word almost only used by the people
> that don't read SF - journalists and other lesser species ;-)
^^^^
Low blow ;-)
-Rob
--
drifter@stratos.nospam.net (remove nospam to send)
"Ever notice that in every commercial about the Internet, advertising
geniuses can't resist having a bunch of kids staring into a monitor, awe-
struck, looking at a whale jumping out of the ocean? Or is it just me?"
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980614020737.A4548>