info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
there's a fifth dimension
88 views
Skip to first unread message
arth...@yahoo.com
Dec 13, 2015, 4:40:10 AM12/13/15
to
1) There's a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man.
That is the opening line from the TV series 'The Twilight Zone'. I am pretty sure everybody here knows it. I must have heard it over a few thousand times, but I suddenly found it a bit strange!
I think the comma is absolutely necessary.
Would you say that grammatically it corresponds to:
1a) There's a fifth dimension, WHICH IS beyond that which is known to man.
or to:
1b) Beyond that which is known to man, there's a fifth dimension.
In other words, would you say 'beyond that which is known to man' is a sentence adverbial, or an adjectival phrase postmodifying 'a fifth dimension'?
Gratefully,
Navi.
That is the opening line from the TV series 'The Twilight Zone'. I am pretty sure everybody here knows it. I must have heard it over a few thousand times, but I suddenly found it a bit strange!
I think the comma is absolutely necessary.
Would you say that grammatically it corresponds to:
1a) There's a fifth dimension, WHICH IS beyond that which is known to man.
or to:
1b) Beyond that which is known to man, there's a fifth dimension.
In other words, would you say 'beyond that which is known to man' is a sentence adverbial, or an adjectival phrase postmodifying 'a fifth dimension'?
Gratefully,
Navi.
Peter T. Daniels
Dec 13, 2015, 8:40:46 AM12/13/15
to
most effective for his purpose.
The latter interpretation, of course. Commas have nothing to do with it.
You've been obsessing over commas for weeks now. What happened in your
life to bring about this obsession?
Don Phillipson
Dec 13, 2015, 10:08:21 AM12/13/15
to
<arth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9a98cd0f-1e6d-4126...@googlegroups.com...
> 1) There's a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man.
>
> That is the opening line from the TV series 'The Twilight Zone'. I
> am pretty sure everybody here knows it. I must have heard it
> over a few thousand times, but I suddenly found it a bit strange!
>
> I think the comma is absolutely necessary.
This sentence was spoken, not written (except as a script for
the continuity announcer) so the comma does not exist for the
TV audience. This precludes judging it "necessary."
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
news:9a98cd0f-1e6d-4126...@googlegroups.com...
> 1) There's a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man.
>
> That is the opening line from the TV series 'The Twilight Zone'. I
> am pretty sure everybody here knows it. I must have heard it
> over a few thousand times, but I suddenly found it a bit strange!
>
> I think the comma is absolutely necessary.
the continuity announcer) so the comma does not exist for the
TV audience. This precludes judging it "necessary."
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Robert Bannister
Dec 13, 2015, 10:20:10 PM12/13/15
to
--
Robert Bannister
Perth, Western Australia
Dr. HotSalt
Dec 13, 2015, 11:22:14 PM12/13/15
to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If3SXJeZzMQ
Searching for "Twilight Zone Introduction" yields many text examples of the {first season) introduction with no comma, and few with:
https://www.google.com/search?q=twilight+zone+introduction&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
I can see how some might infer a comma there, but I think the pause is just to allow listeners to very briefly ponder the concept of a fifth dimension before Rod enlarged upon it.
Incidentally, I just discovered that he originally said "sixth":
http://twilightzone.wikia.com/wiki/Where_Is_Everybody%3F
In any case, we've ignored the OP's question, which was:
> In other words, would you say 'beyond that which is known to man' is a
> sentence adverbial, or an adjectival phrase postmodifying 'a fifth
> dimension'?
Dr. HotSalt
Ross
Dec 14, 2015, 12:02:46 AM12/14/15
to
but I don't get much of a corresponding difference in meaning for
the sentence, particularly with a "there" existential, which craves
association with a location. I would see (1a), the adjectival
reading, as the most likely.
Don Phillipson
Dec 14, 2015, 9:49:29 AM12/14/15
to
"Dr. HotSalt" <alie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0de5d19e-d42a-4d8d...@googlegroups.com...
>> > 1) There's a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man.
>> >
>> > That is the opening line from the TV series 'The Twilight Zone'. . . .
> Incidentally, I just discovered that he originally said "sixth":
>
> http://twilightzone.wikia.com/wiki/Where_Is_Everybody%3F
This is a valuable reminder how TV works: the medium dictates
some of the words that may not or must be said. (I.e. Marshall
McLuhan was at least partly right as early as 1964, however
he struggled to say it.)
I learned this the first time I wrote a TV documentary. The initial
plan was to say "These four things are fundamental . . . " but we
could find film footage concerning only three of these topics: so
we had to change the script to say "These three things are . . . "
news:0de5d19e-d42a-4d8d...@googlegroups.com...
>> > 1) There's a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man.
>> >
> Incidentally, I just discovered that he originally said "sixth":
>
> http://twilightzone.wikia.com/wiki/Where_Is_Everybody%3F
some of the words that may not or must be said. (I.e. Marshall
McLuhan was at least partly right as early as 1964, however
he struggled to say it.)
I learned this the first time I wrote a TV documentary. The initial
plan was to say "These four things are fundamental . . . " but we
could find film footage concerning only three of these topics: so
we had to change the script to say "These three things are . . . "
RH Draney
Dec 14, 2015, 2:13:21 PM12/14/15
to
On 12/14/2015 7:48 AM, Don Phillipson wrote:
>
> I learned this the first time I wrote a TV documentary. The initial
> plan was to say "These four things are fundamental . . . " but we
> could find film footage concerning only three of these topics: so
> we had to change the script to say "These three things are . . . "
There are three kinds of people in this world: those who can count, and
>
> I learned this the first time I wrote a TV documentary. The initial
> plan was to say "These four things are fundamental . . . " but we
> could find film footage concerning only three of these topics: so
> we had to change the script to say "These three things are . . . "
those who can't....r
grammar...@gmail.com
Dec 14, 2015, 2:19:11 PM12/14/15
to
On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 1:40:10 AM UTC-8, arth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> 1) There's a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man.
>
> That is the opening line from the TV series 'The Twilight Zone'. I am pretty sure everybody here knows it. I must have heard it over a few thousand times, but I suddenly found it a bit strange!
>
> I think the comma is absolutely necessary.
>
> Would you say that grammatically it corresponds to:
>
> 1a) There's a fifth dimension, WHICH IS beyond that which is known to man.
> or to:
> 1b) Beyond that which is known to man, there's a fifth dimension.
>
I'd say it corresponds to (1a). Another way of paraphrasing
> 1) There's a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man.
>
> That is the opening line from the TV series 'The Twilight Zone'. I am pretty sure everybody here knows it. I must have heard it over a few thousand times, but I suddenly found it a bit strange!
>
> I think the comma is absolutely necessary.
>
> Would you say that grammatically it corresponds to:
>
> 1a) There's a fifth dimension, WHICH IS beyond that which is known to man.
> or to:
> 1b) Beyond that which is known to man, there's a fifth dimension.
>
that reading is to use "lying" instead of "which is." The
comma is still important: "There is a fifth dimension, LYING
beyond that which is known to man."
Suppose Mr. Serling hadn't used a comma/pause there: "There is
a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man." I think we
could add "too" to the end of that sentence: "There is a fifth
dimension beyond that which is known to man, too."
That would have to be be the _ninth_ dimension, wouldn't it? :)
Sneaky O. Possum
Dec 14, 2015, 4:08:13 PM12/14/15
to
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:f8ba8d4d-41a8-4d00...@googlegroups.com:
> On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 4:40:10 AM UTC-5, arth...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
>> 1) There's a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man.
>>
>> That is the opening line from the TV series 'The Twilight Zone'. I am
>> pretty sure everybody here knows it. I must have heard it over a few
>> thousand times, but I suddenly found it a bit strange!
>>
>> I think the comma is absolutely necessary.
>>
>> Would you say that grammatically it corresponds to:
>>
>> 1a) There's a fifth dimension, WHICH IS beyond that which is known to
>> man. or to:
>> 1b) Beyond that which is known to man, there's a fifth dimension.
>>
>> In other words, would you say 'beyond that which is known to man' is
>> a sentence adverbial, or an adjectival phrase postmodifying 'a fifth
>> dimension'?
>
> Mr. Serling was a very good writer. He used the form that would be
> most effective for his purpose.
Wouldn't a very good writer have realized that 'dimension' refers to
spatial measurement (and, by extension, to temporal measurement)?
Referring to an unknown place where reality works differently as 'a fifth
dimension beyond that which is known to man' is silly: there could be any
number of dimensions in addition to the four that are commonly used to
describe the location of points, lines, and physical objects in space,
but those dimensions would also be used to describe the locations of
things in space.
Some people apparently freaked out by the thought that time could be
considered a fourth dimension, presumably because time is invisible, and
therefore mysterious. It seems they didn't think about it long enough to
realize that 'time can be considered a fourth dimension' boils down to
'objects regularly change position over time.' Big fuckin' deal.
--
S.O.P.
news:f8ba8d4d-41a8-4d00...@googlegroups.com:
> On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 4:40:10 AM UTC-5, arth...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
>> 1) There's a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man.
>>
>> That is the opening line from the TV series 'The Twilight Zone'. I am
>> pretty sure everybody here knows it. I must have heard it over a few
>> thousand times, but I suddenly found it a bit strange!
>>
>> I think the comma is absolutely necessary.
>>
>> Would you say that grammatically it corresponds to:
>>
>> 1a) There's a fifth dimension, WHICH IS beyond that which is known to
>> man. or to:
>> 1b) Beyond that which is known to man, there's a fifth dimension.
>>
>> In other words, would you say 'beyond that which is known to man' is
>> a sentence adverbial, or an adjectival phrase postmodifying 'a fifth
>> dimension'?
>
> Mr. Serling was a very good writer. He used the form that would be
> most effective for his purpose.
spatial measurement (and, by extension, to temporal measurement)?
Referring to an unknown place where reality works differently as 'a fifth
dimension beyond that which is known to man' is silly: there could be any
number of dimensions in addition to the four that are commonly used to
describe the location of points, lines, and physical objects in space,
but those dimensions would also be used to describe the locations of
things in space.
Some people apparently freaked out by the thought that time could be
considered a fourth dimension, presumably because time is invisible, and
therefore mysterious. It seems they didn't think about it long enough to
realize that 'time can be considered a fourth dimension' boils down to
'objects regularly change position over time.' Big fuckin' deal.
--
S.O.P.
Horace LaBadie
Dec 14, 2015, 4:23:37 PM12/14/15
to
In article <XnsA57083E4F727Asn...@213.239.209.88>,
"There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a
dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle
ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and
it lies between the pit of mans fears, and the summit of his knowledge.
This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call ...
The Twilight Zone. "
dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle
ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and
it lies between the pit of mans fears, and the summit of his knowledge.
This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call ...
The Twilight Zone. "
bill van
Dec 14, 2015, 5:15:39 PM12/14/15
to
fantasy and horror to an audience that for the most part wasn't familiar
with any of those genres. The intro was hokum - as was some of the
content - and, 56 years later, doesn't bear close examination,
particularly by a highly educated group of readers, writers and usage
experts such as is gathered here in aue. I'd just take with a grain or
three of sea salt from those pink mountains in south Asia.
--
bill
Sneaky O. Possum
Dec 14, 2015, 6:33:38 PM12/14/15
to
bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote in
news:billvan-838B96...@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net:
What audience would that have been - people released after decades in
solitary confinement? Popular culture was rife with science fiction,
fantasy, and horror in the 1950s. Network executives would hardly have
given Serling the green light if they'd thought most of the potential
audience for /The Twilight Zone/ was unfamiliar with the genres it
represented.
> The intro was hokum - as was some of the content - and, 56 years
> later, doesn't bear close examination, particularly by a highly
> educated group of readers, writers and usage experts such as is
> gathered here in aue. I'd just take with a grain or three of sea salt
> from those pink mountains in south Asia.
The intro didn't bear close examination 56 years ago, either. It worked,
though, thanks to Serling's narration: his dry, matter-of-fact vocal
delivery was a wonderfully appropriate vehicle for his writing, which
tended to sound absurdly overblown in the mouths of actors stuck with the
impossible task of making it sound like natural dialogue. (Fortunately
for the show, Serling wrote very few of the episodes.)
--
S.O.P.
news:billvan-838B96...@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net:
solitary confinement? Popular culture was rife with science fiction,
fantasy, and horror in the 1950s. Network executives would hardly have
given Serling the green light if they'd thought most of the potential
audience for /The Twilight Zone/ was unfamiliar with the genres it
represented.
> The intro was hokum - as was some of the content - and, 56 years
> later, doesn't bear close examination, particularly by a highly
> educated group of readers, writers and usage experts such as is
> gathered here in aue. I'd just take with a grain or three of sea salt
> from those pink mountains in south Asia.
though, thanks to Serling's narration: his dry, matter-of-fact vocal
delivery was a wonderfully appropriate vehicle for his writing, which
tended to sound absurdly overblown in the mouths of actors stuck with the
impossible task of making it sound like natural dialogue. (Fortunately
for the show, Serling wrote very few of the episodes.)
--
S.O.P.
Horace LaBadie
Dec 14, 2015, 7:18:52 PM12/14/15
to
In article <XnsA5709C7402A89sn...@213.239.209.88>,
hundred fifty six episodes.
"Sneaky O. Possum" <sneaky...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (Fortunately
> for the show, Serling wrote very few of the episodes.)
You have an unusual definition of few. He wrote ninety two of the one
> (Fortunately
> for the show, Serling wrote very few of the episodes.)
hundred fifty six episodes.
Peter Moylan
Dec 14, 2015, 7:27:52 PM12/14/15
to
On 2015-Dec-15 08:05, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> Wouldn't a very good writer have realized that 'dimension' refers to
> spatial measurement (and, by extension, to temporal measurement)?
> Referring to an unknown place where reality works differently as 'a fifth
> dimension beyond that which is known to man' is silly: there could be any
> number of dimensions in addition to the four that are commonly used to
> describe the location of points, lines, and physical objects in space,
> but those dimensions would also be used to describe the locations of
> things in space.
When a friend of my brother discovered that I was going to university,
> Wouldn't a very good writer have realized that 'dimension' refers to
> spatial measurement (and, by extension, to temporal measurement)?
> Referring to an unknown place where reality works differently as 'a fifth
> dimension beyond that which is known to man' is silly: there could be any
> number of dimensions in addition to the four that are commonly used to
> describe the location of points, lines, and physical objects in space,
> but those dimensions would also be used to describe the locations of
> things in space.
he asked "Is there really a fourth dimension?". I started to answer, and
then realised that the question was unanswerable given the assumptions
he was bringing to the question.
As a systems theorist for most of my career, I'm completely comfortable
with the idea that a mathematical model of a physical system can require
many dimensions. The dimensions can be things like voltage, speed,
temperature, and numerous other things. Spatial dimensions, if they're
needed at all for the problem at hand, come in almost as an
afterthought. From that point of view, the answer is "there are as many
dimensions as you need".
A physicist would most likely nominate time as the fourth dimension, and
would no doubt add the curled-up spatial dimensions that are features of
some models of reality. Again, we have a point of view that includes
more than three dimensions, but I don't think it would be an answer that
would have satisfied my brother's friend.
Those of us who think in terms of mathematical modelling of spaces think
of a dimension as an axis, itself one-dimensional, along which something
is measured. The Twilight Zone sort of dimension is something else
entirely. The word "dimension" is in fact badly chosen for the concept
they have in mind. What they're talking about is not another dimension,
but another reality or perhaps a parallel universe.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
bill van
Dec 14, 2015, 8:37:39 PM12/14/15
to
In article <XnsA5709C7402A89sn...@213.239.209.88>,
"For most of its existence as an identifiable genre ... science fiction
has been a popular literature enjoyed by a relatively few intensely
involved readers."
"It was (a genre) which could exist only on the margins of the literary
and economic worlds."
-- James Gunn in the foreword of his 1988 first edition of The New
Encyclopedia of Science Fiction.
The so-called Golden Age of science fiction spanned the 1930s through
1946, but its readers were Gunn's "relatively few". The 1950s started
well, but the pulp magazines that kept the SF publishing business afloat
collapsed one by one and only a fraction of them survived into the late
1950s.
SF movies did well in the 1950s, but with titles such as The Day the
Earth Stood Still, Radar Men From the Moon and It Came From Outer Space,
they created a market for the kind of hokum that Serling was selling in
1959.
SF didn't start to reach mass markets until the baby boom began to
consume it in numbers in the 1960s. The so-called New Wave movement in
SF arrived around 1968, helping to set off a huge sales boom.
Fantasy had only a small presence until Tolkien's LotR opened the
floodgates. Horror was also a marginal genre until Stephen King and his
contemporaries arrived.
> Network executives would hardly have
> given Serling the green light if they'd thought most of the potential
> audience for /The Twilight Zone/ was unfamiliar with the genres it
> represented.
Their familiarity was much more with the hokey movies of the 1950s than
with written SF.
"Sneaky O. Possum" <sneaky...@gmail.com> wrote:
> bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote in
> news:billvan-838B96...@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net:
> >
> bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote in
> news:billvan-838B96...@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net:
> >
> > It was 1959, and Serling was trying to bring a mix of science fiction,
> > fantasy and horror to an audience that for the most part wasn't
> > familiar with any of those genres.
>
> What audience would that have been - people released after decades in
> solitary confinement? Popular culture was rife with science fiction,
> fantasy, and horror in the 1950s.
How far back does your familiarity with these genres go?
> > fantasy and horror to an audience that for the most part wasn't
> > familiar with any of those genres.
>
> What audience would that have been - people released after decades in
> solitary confinement? Popular culture was rife with science fiction,
> fantasy, and horror in the 1950s.
"For most of its existence as an identifiable genre ... science fiction
has been a popular literature enjoyed by a relatively few intensely
involved readers."
"It was (a genre) which could exist only on the margins of the literary
and economic worlds."
-- James Gunn in the foreword of his 1988 first edition of The New
Encyclopedia of Science Fiction.
The so-called Golden Age of science fiction spanned the 1930s through
1946, but its readers were Gunn's "relatively few". The 1950s started
well, but the pulp magazines that kept the SF publishing business afloat
collapsed one by one and only a fraction of them survived into the late
1950s.
SF movies did well in the 1950s, but with titles such as The Day the
Earth Stood Still, Radar Men From the Moon and It Came From Outer Space,
they created a market for the kind of hokum that Serling was selling in
1959.
SF didn't start to reach mass markets until the baby boom began to
consume it in numbers in the 1960s. The so-called New Wave movement in
SF arrived around 1968, helping to set off a huge sales boom.
Fantasy had only a small presence until Tolkien's LotR opened the
floodgates. Horror was also a marginal genre until Stephen King and his
contemporaries arrived.
> Network executives would hardly have
> given Serling the green light if they'd thought most of the potential
> audience for /The Twilight Zone/ was unfamiliar with the genres it
> represented.
with written SF.
>
> > The intro was hokum - as was some of the content - and, 56 years
> > later, doesn't bear close examination, particularly by a highly
> > educated group of readers, writers and usage experts such as is
> > gathered here in aue. I'd just take with a grain or three of sea salt
> > from those pink mountains in south Asia.
>
> The intro didn't bear close examination 56 years ago, either. It worked,
> though, thanks to Serling's narration: his dry, matter-of-fact vocal
> delivery was a wonderfully appropriate vehicle for his writing, which
> tended to sound absurdly overblown in the mouths of actors stuck with the
> impossible task of making it sound like natural dialogue. (Fortunately
> for the show, Serling wrote very few of the episodes.)
--
bill
> > The intro was hokum - as was some of the content - and, 56 years
> > later, doesn't bear close examination, particularly by a highly
> > educated group of readers, writers and usage experts such as is
> > gathered here in aue. I'd just take with a grain or three of sea salt
> > from those pink mountains in south Asia.
>
> The intro didn't bear close examination 56 years ago, either. It worked,
> though, thanks to Serling's narration: his dry, matter-of-fact vocal
> delivery was a wonderfully appropriate vehicle for his writing, which
> tended to sound absurdly overblown in the mouths of actors stuck with the
> impossible task of making it sound like natural dialogue. (Fortunately
> for the show, Serling wrote very few of the episodes.)
--
Horace LaBadie
Dec 14, 2015, 10:12:01 PM12/14/15
to
In article <n4nmlc$8ed$1...@dont-email.me>,
There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a
dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle
ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and
it lies between the pit of man零 fears, and the summit of his knowledge.
Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> The word "dimension" is in fact badly chosen for the concept
> they have in mind. What they're talking about is not another dimension,
> but another reality or perhaps a parallel universe.
Actually, the dimension was the imagination.
> The word "dimension" is in fact badly chosen for the concept
> they have in mind. What they're talking about is not another dimension,
> but another reality or perhaps a parallel universe.
There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a
dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle
ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and
David Kleinecke
Dec 14, 2015, 11:12:51 PM12/14/15
to
course, they were little known by the general public - but within their
circles they were loved.
I remember being taken by a mutual friend to admire Forrest Ackerman's
collection of Weird Tales back in 1945.
Sneaky O. Possum
Dec 15, 2015, 2:55:30 PM12/15/15
to
bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote in
news:billvan-DA133A...@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net:
> In article <XnsA5709C7402A89sn...@213.239.209.88>,
> "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneaky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote in
>> news:billvan-838B96...@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net:
>> >
>> > It was 1959, and Serling was trying to bring a mix of science
>> > fiction, fantasy and horror to an audience that for the most part
>> > wasn't familiar with any of those genres.
>>
>> What audience would that have been - people released after decades in
>> solitary confinement? Popular culture was rife with science fiction,
>> fantasy, and horror in the 1950s.
>
> How far back does your familiarity with these genres go?
> "For most of its existence as an identifiable genre ... science
> fiction has been a popular literature enjoyed by a relatively few
> intensely involved readers."
>
> "It was (a genre) which could exist only on the margins of the
> literary and economic worlds."
>
> -- James Gunn in the foreword of his 1988 first edition of The New
> Encyclopedia of Science Fiction.
>
> The so-called Golden Age of science fiction spanned the 1930s through
> 1946, but its readers were Gunn's "relatively few". The 1950s started
> well, but the pulp magazines that kept the SF publishing business
> afloat collapsed one by one and only a fraction of them survived into
> the late 1950s.
media. Serling wanted viewers, not readers. Horror movies had been widely
popular in the United States from the 1930s onwards, and science-fiction
movies and television programs were common during the 1950s.
> SF movies did well in the 1950s, but with titles such as The Day the
> Earth Stood Still, Radar Men From the Moon and It Came From Outer
> Space, they created a market for the kind of hokum that Serling was
> selling in 1959.
were more thoughtful than most of the science-fiction movies made during
the 1950s, and they still hold up fairly well. Their titles are hardly
representative of their content: the original /Invasion of the Body
Snatchers/ has a very silly title, but the movie is an effective
examination of Cold War fears through an allegorical lens.
> SF didn't start to reach mass markets until the baby boom began to
> consume it in numbers in the 1960s. The so-called New Wave movement in
> SF arrived around 1968, helping to set off a huge sales boom.
>
> Fantasy had only a small presence until Tolkien's LotR opened the
> floodgates.
the extent that it had fantasy elements, they had more in common with /A
Christmas Carol/ and /It's a Wonderful Life/ than /Beowulf/ and /The
Kalevala/.
> Horror was also a marginal genre until Stephen King and
> his contemporaries arrived.
good, too. Popular radio anthology series such as /Lights Out/ and /Inner
Sanctum/ were a strong influence on the style and format of /The Twilight
Zone/.
>> Network executives would hardly have
>> given Serling the green light if they'd thought most of the potential
>> audience for /The Twilight Zone/ was unfamiliar with the genres it
>> represented.
>
> Their familiarity was much more with the hokey movies of the 1950s
> than with written SF.
provided the templates for most of the stories told on /The Twilight
Zone/. In their settings, style, and content, movies such as /It Came
from Outer Space/, /The Day the Earth Stood Still/, and /Invasion of the
Body Snatchers/ are strikingly similar to the 'house style' of /The
Twilight Zone/. It's not as though Serling was adapting Heinlein and
Asimov for the masses.
>> > The intro was hokum - as was some of the content - and, 56 years
>> > later, doesn't bear close examination, particularly by a highly
>> > educated group of readers, writers and usage experts such as is
>> > gathered here in aue. I'd just take with a grain or three of sea
>> > salt from those pink mountains in south Asia.
>>
>> The intro didn't bear close examination 56 years ago, either. It
>> worked, though, thanks to Serling's narration: his dry,
>> matter-of-fact vocal delivery was a wonderfully appropriate vehicle
>> for his writing, which tended to sound absurdly overblown in the
>> mouths of actors stuck with the impossible task of making it sound
>> like natural dialogue. (Fortunately for the show, Serling wrote very
>> few of the episodes.)
--
Jerry Friedman
Dec 15, 2015, 10:15:57 PM12/15/15
to
TZ was more like John Collier, Shirley Jackson, the radio and then TV
show /Lights Out/, /Brigadoon/, and more remotely, Charles Addams--all
of them known in the '50s, though not dominating the market.
> Horror was also a marginal genre until Stephen King and his
> contemporaries arrived.
Wikipedia lists lots of American horror movies from the '50s.
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
Dec 15, 2015, 10:21:56 PM12/15/15
to
On 12/14/15 5:27 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
...
> When a friend of my brother discovered that I was going to university,
> he asked "Is there really a fourth dimension?". I started to answer, and
> then realised that the question was unanswerable given the assumptions
> he was bringing to the question.
>
> As a systems theorist for most of my career, I'm completely comfortable
> with the idea that a mathematical model of a physical system can require
> many dimensions. The dimensions can be things like voltage, speed,
> temperature, and numerous other things. Spatial dimensions, if they're
> needed at all for the problem at hand, come in almost as an
> afterthought. From that point of view, the answer is "there are as many
> dimensions as you need".
>
> A physicist would most likely nominate time as the fourth dimension,
Briefly, since x^2 + y^2 + z^2 is the same for any observer in Euclidean
geometry and Newtonian physics, and x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - c^2t^2 is the same
for any observer in Minkowskian geometry and Einsteinian physics. Time
was always something that could be measured--a dimension--but now it's
irremovably in the same category as the spatial dimensions.
(The spearchucker flags "Minkowskian" and "Einsteinian" but not
"Euclidean" or "Newtonian". What century are we in anyway?)
> and
> would no doubt add the curled-up spatial dimensions that are features of
> some models of reality.
I think there's some doubt, since as you said they're a feature of only
some models.
> Again, we have a point of view that includes
> more than three dimensions, but I don't think it would be an answer that
> would have satisfied my brother's friend.
...
Probably not.
--
Jerry Friedman
...
> When a friend of my brother discovered that I was going to university,
> he asked "Is there really a fourth dimension?". I started to answer, and
> then realised that the question was unanswerable given the assumptions
> he was bringing to the question.
>
> As a systems theorist for most of my career, I'm completely comfortable
> with the idea that a mathematical model of a physical system can require
> many dimensions. The dimensions can be things like voltage, speed,
> temperature, and numerous other things. Spatial dimensions, if they're
> needed at all for the problem at hand, come in almost as an
> afterthought. From that point of view, the answer is "there are as many
> dimensions as you need".
>
> A physicist would most likely nominate time as the fourth dimension,
geometry and Newtonian physics, and x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - c^2t^2 is the same
for any observer in Minkowskian geometry and Einsteinian physics. Time
was always something that could be measured--a dimension--but now it's
irremovably in the same category as the spatial dimensions.
(The spearchucker flags "Minkowskian" and "Einsteinian" but not
"Euclidean" or "Newtonian". What century are we in anyway?)
> and
> would no doubt add the curled-up spatial dimensions that are features of
> some models of reality.
some models.
> Again, we have a point of view that includes
> more than three dimensions, but I don't think it would be an answer that
> would have satisfied my brother's friend.
Probably not.
--
Jerry Friedman
0 new messages