RGH ... A followup on "Mission to Mars" and on realism
Steve Reed
Rand's insights, here is what I promise is the last installment (for today) of
RGHs. As one might gather from this exchange, Samantha Atkins is a substantive
and interesting debater. So are many of you. It's the others who can't get
beyond slurs that have kept me from posting such items here.
=====
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 19:37:58 -0600
To: Atlantis <atla...@wetheliving.com>
From: Steve Reed <Stev...@earthling.net>
Subject: ATL: Art, universes, realism (was: Corny)
Sender: owner-a...@wetheliving.com
(No film spoilers below. And Samantha's comments ended up being a pleasant
spur to some deeper reasoning, so I tender regrets as to length.)
>I wrote, about science holes and plot holes:
>>None of that necessarily has much to do with [a film] being well-done
>>Romantic fiction. My prime example is the British film "Breaking the
>>Sound Barrier," from 1950 [...] It was made three years after USAAF
>>pilot Chuck Yeager actually did this feat, though this news was (at
>>first) suppressed, and had a heroic industrialist and a British pilot
>>making this achievement.
I'll say here, to expand on this point, that I was making a note on what
connections to fact were genuinely -necessary- for successful art. Not on
what was -optimal.- Veracity with fact, historical or scientific, may not
be as important a factor as internal coherence. This can widely vary with
the creator's skill at world-spinning.
To take "Atlas Shrugged" as an example: We shouldn't blast Rand, now, for
envisioning a "35-inch-super-color TV set" in a D.C. public park as being
an invalid example of State diversion of productive capital. Nor should we
call this an anachronism. She didn't anticipate the integrated circuit when
she was writing in the mid-'50s -- one of many technologies that would help
Sony and others to churn out these and far larger sets by the tens of
millions for use in private homes.
What matters, -for her art,- is this: Does such an example fit coherently
with her setting of a decaying society? It does.
One storytelling framework that came from science fiction into mainstream
stories, in the decades since "Atlas," has been the
alternate-flow-of-history or alternate-universe plot. That hasn't lessened
the need for internal coherence on such stories. But it's made it easier
(with me and others) for such mismatches to history, past or current, to be
encountered and envisioned without being nearly as jarring. In another
plausible timeline, the private transcontinental passenger railroads -could
have- ended up persisting. "Atlas" becomes a "might have been," and doesn't
lose as much power due to conflicts with "what is."
Samantha Atkins responded to my first point, regarding "Mission to Mars":
>While I agree that the fundamental "sense of life" of the movie was good
>and a relief from many recent arguments, I disagree in part with this
>point of view. For science fiction the science is crucially important
>to get right or at least within the bounds of the possible.
That isn't nearly as straightforward as you imply. Almost all SF that is
set beyond this solar system, or in distant futures, posits
faster-than-light travel, as an essential for interactions of
civilizations. Relativity and quantum mechanics imply that this is not
possible, at least within our local spacetime framework. Does this breaking
of a "bound of the possible," as such, make these stories invalid? Or less
appealing, for that matter?
Where we run into difficulty, in "suspending disbelief" for particular art,
is in settings and details that are close to our own. "Atlas" was set in a
vague "12 years" or so from a 1950s future. "MtM" is set in 2020. That
makes the possible mismatch to what the audience knows, or will soon know,
considerably larger. (Unless the what-might-have-been or alternate-future
framework is asserted from the beginning, as this film did not.)
To take one particular issue of the possible, the mission's base-camp
greenhouse: Mars' observed atmospheric and light densities make this tent
-- one that I could envision as being a fully sealed, selectively permeable
fabric that we haven't yet invented -- impossible on current data. For that
matter, the storms the astronauts observe, including funnels, are similarly
either impossible or unlikely.
Yet for the purposes of art, that greenhouse is not a story element that is
made unworkable, partly because the particulars of Martian weather could
have changed over time to different settings that would have made such
human tools more plausible.
Some of this was only corroborated by scientists as recently as two days
ago, as it turns out! Reconstructions have been made of how underground
rivers apparently flowed around that planet early in its life. If some
variables of this flow had been slightly different -- altered by asteroid
impact, perhaps, to borrow from "MtM" -- the core of Mars might not have
lost its capacity for generating a magnetic field, or not as early. And
this would have made the planet retain an atmosphere notably closer to that
of Earth.
In short, this particular element does not hold a scientific issue that
goes so far beyond the could-have-beens as to make it stand in the way of
effective storytelling. Not simply on scientific grounds.
I'll admit that some story elements in "MtM," perhaps many, don't allow for
this range. One major plot turn, in genetic matters, is fixed upon the
astronauts observing chromosomes as being part of genes, when it is most
decidedly the other way around. (And on "remembering" molecular
differences: It's suggested, in a line heard in the film's previews, that
"This DNA looks human," which is not at all a matter that's casually visible.)
My point isn't that an artwork such as "Mission to Mars" is showing these
extrapolations perfectly, or -- with genetics, among others -- even with
minimal competence. It's that such tinkering with the ranges of possibility
admits of more room to maneuver, qua art, than you're willing to grant.
>Otherwise what you have is a different genre, science fantasy. Reality
>has quite a bit to do with a rational romanticism.
Romanticism in Rand's sense? She didn't fully narrow down how she was
defining "realism" in her esthetic works, especially in matters of "hard"
science. This is where her own unfamiliarity with much of science hindered
her. It's not as if such topics are peripheral to the art of our age.
(Evolution, or a twist thereupon, which she openly professed to not having
studied, even found its way into "MtM.")
More importantly, she was pressing for "Romantic realism" as being superior
in important respects -- not for other takes on Romanticism as being either
not "rational" or not existing. Again, I don't see her admitting of very
many possibilities in regard to SF, out of her own preferences (and,
perhaps, out of SF being less matured in its storytelling in the '50s). She
discerned more variety in mystery genres ... then, again, she liked and
-read- mysteries.
Realistic Romanticism, again in short, is not at all a simple equivalent to
"rational" Romanticism. Other storytelling can be just as rational and
evocative of human volition, even in SF.
>[...] In an age where the majority of Americans are distressingly
>science illiterate, I think it is even more important that the science
>in science fiction, and most especially in what is supposed to be a
>portrayal of near time possibilities, be reasonably accurate.
As Rand might ask: Important for -what-? This film is not a chronicle, or a
portrayal of current trends' results. It's an artwork and an entertainment.
Being didactic and "accurate," though helpful, is not its main end. What
matters -- not more, but nearly at all -- is how coherently it tells its
story.
I share Samantha's distress at science illiteracy. Yet an artwork such as
this is not the place to address such a problem, any more than "Les
Miserables" was the place to discourse on the sociology of poverty. (Hugo
did do this, and it did have tenuous ties to the plot, but it still never
quite fit.) Nor, frankly, for that matter, was "Atlas" the place to define
a new take on the essentials of epistemology and ethics.
It's a matter of fitting tools to ends. Science -can- be communicated in
entertaining and accessible ways. I'm heartened by how the private sector
has done so on cable TV -- with the Discovery Channel and similar venues.
(PBS has played catch-up.) Such education isn't appropriate for a dramatic
film.
>It is even more crucial when the will to actually explore and exploit
>space is so low.
You're suggesting, here, something even beyond didactic works: encouraging
the "will" to explore. Presumably, political will. I'll merely suggest that
enough private space ventures are being worked upon already to put the
issue of will where it belongs, in the hands of entrepreneurs. (If the
anti-market "will" of government bodies, such as NASA, was removed as an
obstacle, these ventures would be succeeding far faster and with far
greater depth.)
>Making the science right that was glaringly wrong would not have in the
>least distracted from the [R]omanticism of the film.
Not in the studio-system days, perhaps, where Romantic storytelling devices
were used and respected, even if the end product was also mocked when it
got out into the culture. Hollywood, as an industry, has largely lost these
abilities. Brian de Palma, this film's director, felt that atmosphere and
strong characters would be an effective substitute. To me, this largely
succeeded ... though I have to wonder about what might have been.
In any event, scientific veracity is -not- so simple or straightforward an
element of poking holes in the value of such efforts. Especially when it's
not teaching or advocacy that is at issue, but the creation of art.
--
* Stev...@earthling.net *
"The two worst things we teach our children is that a knowledge
of science is nice, but not necessary, and that a knowledge of
sex is necessary, but not nice." -- Marilyn vos Savant
Stephen Speicher
[deleted]
What's RGP? Why, Reed's Greatest Perversions, of course.
Steve Reed would have us believe that because he writes some
posts on the Kelleyite list which do not disparage ARI, that we
should ignore the slurs against ARI and its members in his other
posts.
This is what Reed has failed to respond to. (Incidentally, I left
Peter Schwartz off of the list of those Reed disparaged. I
apologize to Peter for this oversight. :) )
"I looked at the last three weeks of posts from Reed,
and out of these eleven posts, six contain various
diatribes, slurs, disparaging remarks, insults, etc.
against ARI and its memebers. In just that short time
Reed has attacked or disparaged the ARI, Leonard
Peikoff, Allan Gotthelf, Phil Oliver, and Betsy
Speicher. More than 50% of his posts are spent
attacking ARI and its supporters!
"By contrast, for instance, on Harry Binswanger's large
e-mail list, I do not even recall one instance of any
attack on David Kelley, his organization, or his
supporters. When we are away from places like h.p.o.,
we don't even think about them. They are not the
subjects of our posts or the focus of our attention. In
fact, we do have better things to do."
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
You can always tell a pioneer by the arrows in his back.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
Regnirps
>On 17 Apr 2000, Steve Reed wrote:
>
>[deleted]
>
>What's RGP? Why, Reed's Greatest Perversions, of course.
What the hell's the matter with you? Need a workout? More sex? Let it go. Take
a shower and imagine your hate is washing off and flowing down the drain.
Charlie Springer
Tony Donadio
news:altK4.35068$y4.12...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> As one might gather from this exchange, Samantha Atkins is a substantive
and interesting debater. So are many of you. It's the others who can't get
beyond slurs that have kept me from posting such items here.
Coming from someone with this gentleman's extensive history of offering
vicious slurs and attacks against his antagonists (which means: pretty much
anyone who supports ARI), this remarks is amusing in its irony and
projection.
*Plonk*
Tony Donadio
Stephen Speicher
> Steve Reed <Stev...@earthling.net> wrote in message
> news:altK4.35068$y4.12...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > As one might gather from this exchange, Samantha Atkins is a substantive
> and interesting debater. So are many of you. It's the others who can't get
> beyond slurs that have kept me from posting such items here.
>
> Coming from someone with this gentleman's extensive history of offering
> vicious slurs and attacks against his antagonists (which means: pretty much
> anyone who supports ARI), this remarks is amusing in its irony and
> projection.
>
Yes, exactly. And what is hysterical about this is how Reed
changes the facts to create good impressions of himself. Look at
what he told the members of the Kelleyite list he posts to.
"About 18 months ago, I stopped taking part in
discussions on the moderated newsgroup
humanities.philosophy.objectivism, due to its cast of
characters becoming stale and biting each others' rear
ends. That hasn't happened much on any of the WTL
lists, apart from a few trolls or semi-trolls."
Note the "hasn't happened much on any of the WTL lists" comment.
Evidently, to Reed, the slurs of ARI, Leonard Peikoff, Peter
Schwartz, Allan Gotthelf, Phil Oliver, etc. which he makes on
these WTL lists doen't count! In another post, I gave a sample
of these slurs, which rolls off the lips of Reed into the
emotions of his brethern. The irony of Reed claiming that "others
who can't get beyond slurs" is like Cathcart slamming a PG-rated
movie because of foul language.
Chris Cathcart
100...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>,
Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
> The irony of Reed claiming that "others
> who can't get beyond slurs" is like Cathcart slamming a PG-rated
> movie because of foul language.
The Spei-cur forgot to mention Chris Wolf as well, the one who, a few
months ago, exposed the Spei-cur for what a Fucking Liar (of "Stephen
Speicher is a Fucking Liar" subject header fame) and coward he is.
The Spei-cur (and his ilk) has his own brand of foul language, hiding
behind a pretense of respectability. But the obscenity of the
irrational, dishonest, cowardly, hypocritical and evasive tactics he
and a few others have engaged in and sanctioned in the name of
Objectivism, speaks many more volumes than a few well-aimed profanities
hurled by his enemies, and won't be covered up by the pseudo-
respectable tone in which he hurls *his* diatribes.
There is no getting past the irony of the Spei-cur's posting
accusations of lowlife behavior and dishonesty on the part of other
posters here, when he sanctions a parasitizing, dishonest lowlife sack
of feces like Petey Schwartz.
--
Chris Cathcart
*
" . . . the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the
subordination of your mind to the mind of another . . . " -- Ayn Rand
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.