Futurism: the art of the future.
Iian Neill
Frank Herbert, the award-winning author of the Dune series, once wrote
in an essay that he considered there to be no ONE future, but a
plurality of them. He called the styles which depict these futures,
Futurism.
Frank Herbert's insistence that the future is dynamic - that its borders
and landmarks change as often and sometimes as quickly as a
battle-ground - is the statement of a independent mind. Whilst it is
true that the literary conceptions of the future are diverse, it is
actually quite rare to find an artistic vision of the future that is
individual; that isn't, in some way, an amalgam of Blade Runner or Star
Trek.
But more than being a statement of the nature of Futurism, Frank
Herbert's observation opens up the way for a new field of inquiry: a
comparative study of the styles of future-art.
It is obvious to anyone that the visions of the future presented to us
in films as diverse as Blade Runner, The Fifth Element, or the Star Trek
franchise are not actually from the future. They are imaginative
creations of what we - being the artists of the present - believe the
future will look like. But, so far, they seem immune from criticism
because they are not so much seen as a style in itself (like the
Baroque, Rococo or Art Nouveau) but rather as the expression of the
prophetic purpose popularly believed to define science-fiction.
What I mean by this is that science-fiction is often invested with an
importance beyond its merely aesthetic qualities; it is seen to have a
socially instructive goal, to present us with visions of utopias or
dystopias as a form of incentive or warning. Science-fiction, also, is
sometimes looked upon with the kind of curiosity people must have once
had for fortune-tellers; we always want to stay one step ahead of the
times, to be the FIRST.
This impulse is present in everyone from the stock-broker to the
fashion-conscious teeny-bopper who wants to be the envy of her peers. In
short, science-fiction has become invested with a dual purpose: a
didactic and a speculative one. The former seeks to instruct us in
morality (we should not pollute the planet, create artificial
intelligences, let governments invade our privacy), and the latter seeks
to satisfy our curiosity (what will we be wearing, driving, or eating in
the future? what governments will be in power? will mankind have changed
fundamentally at all?)
It is my view that the dual-purpose science-fiction has been given
distracts from the aesthetic qualities of the genre. We are all too
ready to ignore the aesthetic blemishes of a science-fiction novel so
long as it tells us something new, plausible, and sometimes wonderful.
Science-fiction epics of that type risk going down the same road as the
Victorian social novel or - more despairingly - the entire genre of
Victorian social painting. Is there a fundamental difference between the
rantings of a Victorian novelist-preacher and the strident warnings of
the dystopian science-fiction writers? Both are, perhaps, a
psychological necessity of the times - they draw the public's attention
to serious problems - but they tend to be forgotten by history.
What I am calling for here is a study of the Art of the Future. It is my
view (and it is not a new one) that each generation creates the future
in the image of itself; in most cases it seems incapable of imagining a
world that isn't a larger, busier and more industrialised vision of
itself. It is therefore of paramount importance that we - in the study
of Futurism - trace the connections between the art of the present and
that of the future.
It should be obvious to anyone after even a superficial glance at such
films or series as Blade Runner, Star Trek, or Star Wars - and on the
British side Doctor Who, Blakes Seven and Red Dwarf - that their
conception of future architecture is very much a present-day one. Star
Trek, in particular, is the perfect example of corporate post-modernist
archictecture visualised on a galactic scale.
What is in common with every one of these shows is that none of them has
freed itself from the influence of the present. They always assume that
the art of the future will be dominated by present-day conventions. All
of these series forget that art and architecture has changed enormously
in even the past millenium in the Western cultures alone. And all of
them pretend - in their own way - to be authentic glimpses of the future
tarred, as I mentioned before, by the belief that science-fiction has a
prophetic goal.
The reason I have sent this letter to <rec.arts.fine> particularly is
because there are people here much better versed in the evolution of
post-modernist art than I am, and who would be more equipped to spot
similarities and (just as significant) differences from present-day art.
This letter is also a appeal to those science-fiction writers and
painters who really want to innovate to consider their designs more
carefully. If you really want to stand out from the pack, you might want
to entertain the outrageous notion that the art of the 1990s won't be
dominant in the year 100,000 AD. Hell, the United State of America might
not even be around by then and the whole system of capitalism. Who knows
what the art and architecture will look like? One thing IS for certain -
it will never be the same at is now, even if there is a revival.
If you want to be innovative and original (at least from our
perspective), you might want to consider taking the art of another
culture, particularly an ancient historical one.
What sort of spaceships would the Mayans be making today, if they had
become a world-power? What would happen if the Middle East became the
dominant cultural influence in the future? How would this affect the art
and architecture? What would happen if were we to blend two styles and
work from there?
Best regards,
Iian Neill.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Daniel Gooley
conceptual sides of science fiction. (I've snipped it to pieces for
reasons of length, I'm afraid)
> What I mean by this is that science-fiction is often invested with an
> importance beyond its merely aesthetic qualities; it is seen to have a
> socially instructive goal, to present us with visions of utopias or
> dystopias as a form of incentive or warning. Science-fiction, also, is
> sometimes looked upon with the kind of curiosity people must have once
> had for fortune-tellers; we always want to stay one step ahead of the
> times, to be the FIRST.
I think science fiction serves several functions. At its most obvious
level, it provides the great escapist option of rational times, the only
way modern minds will concede that the incredible can happen, under the
famous proviso that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic". It is perhaps telling that, using this
license to escape to another world, the paucity of our imaginations all
too often sees us harking back to mediaeval or cowboy scenarios - albeit
with flashier weapons. Nevertheless, this is the territory occupied by
most Doctor Who stories, where the science fiction is merely a device to
allow the incredible to happen.
The more respected "serious" science fiction, often called speculative
fiction, is closer to what you have described in your preceding post. It
serves to explore the possibilities of the future, but its
"justification" is that it really illuminates aspects of the present.
The future scenarios highlight by contrast aspects of our own societies;
or suggest where current trends may lead us; or proclaim the constancy of
the human nature by showing people in such very different circumstances
obeying the same imperatives as ourselves; or examine the physical laws
of the universe which constrain us and shape our lives; or provide
symbolic utopias or dystopias which provide the same archetypal
perspective which religion once served. This is "ideas" science fiction,
justifiable because the focus is really on the present.
It is primarily this second type of science fiction which you are talking
about. As you say, the aesthetic of these stories is certainly secondary
to the ideas presented. But in any case, the aesthetic evoked by such
films is usually *not* attempting to be decidedly different in any case.
You mentioned Blade Runner, derived from the story "Do Robots Dream of
Electric Sheep?", which is really an examination of the nature of
consciousness and the soul. The purposes of the story are served to
evoke a civilisation which is not so different from our own: just a
little further down the track in meddling in issues better left to God,
and with human and robotic characters occupying a similar place within
society. Hence, the aesthetic is simply a darker, more crowded version
of the present.
It is the earlier, more basic "sci-fi" which actually has more potential
for an interesting aesthetic sense. Star Wars is at heart an extremely
basic adventure tale, its popularity deriving chiefly from the
concentration on a relatively diverse aesthetic identity. Imperial
forces have a distinct appearance, and the deserts of Tattoine are far
removed from the cloud city of Bespin or the romantic primitive ideal of
the Ewok tree cities. Where there is no need to make the vision of the
future recogniseably based on our own, and the story itself is not
sufficently intriguing, a sci-fi film positives calls out for aesthetic
colour.
> It is my view that the dual-purpose science-fiction has been given
> distracts from the aesthetic qualities of the genre. We are all too
> ready to ignore the aesthetic blemishes of a science-fiction novel so
> long as it tells us something new, plausible, and sometimes wonderful.
It's an interesting perspective you are using. The new, plausible and
sometimes wonderful tends to (rightly, in my opinion) get lauded as a
desireable thing. Aesthetic qualities of a primarily concept-driven
genre do tend to get secondary attention, and perhaps that is a bit
unfair.
> Science-fiction epics of that type risk going down the same road as the
> Victorian social novel or - more despairingly - the entire genre of
> Victorian social painting. Is there a fundamental difference between the
> rantings of a Victorian novelist-preacher and the strident warnings of
> the dystopian science-fiction writers? Both are, perhaps, a
> psychological necessity of the times - they draw the public's attention
> to serious problems - but they tend to be forgotten by history.
Is that necessarily a problem, though? We live for our own time - we
can't do otherwise. Many science fiction epics will indeed get lost in
the mists of time - given the amount of popular culture spurted out at
the moment, and the no doubt greater amount in the future, that's
inevitable. But where those epics whose ramblings about societies which
never eventuate find something true to say about "the human condition",
they will be around in 500 years for the same reason as Shakespeare's
tales of times that never were.
> What I am calling for here is a study of the Art of the Future. It is my
> view (and it is not a new one) that each generation creates the future
> in the image of itself; in most cases it seems incapable of imagining a
> world that isn't a larger, busier and more industrialised vision of
> itself. It is therefore of paramount importance that we - in the study
> of Futurism - trace the connections between the art of the present and
> that of the future.
You're right, but in retrospect the images of the future which each
generation creates is as intriguing as an original aesthetic. From
Leonardo da Vinci's pedalled helicopter to cannon-ball capsules shot at
the moon to sleek colourful 50's spaceships clawing through space, the
generational identity of speculative fiction acquires a quite familiar
and welcome nostalgic value. Emulation of successful aesthetic
interpretations is unavoidable: Star Wars' large-scale mechanical
constructs inevitably changed the rules for a generation; the Alien films
and Blade Runner inspired a "realistic" dirty extension of current
technology; large-scale CGI futures are blossoming with the Starship
Troopers generation of films.
> If you want to be innovative and original (at least from our
> perspective), you might want to consider taking the art of another
> culture, particularly an ancient historical one.
>
> What sort of spaceships would the Mayans be making today, if they had
> become a world-power? What would happen if the Middle East became the
> dominant cultural influence in the future? How would this affect the art
> and architecture? What would happen if were we to blend two styles and
> work from there?
And yet this is not really creating a new cultural aesthetic, is it?
After accusing our visionaries of being unable to conjure up a future
which doesn't just look like a "larger, busier and more industrialised
version" of the present, suggesting that they simply adopt an ancient
cultural feel and update is a bit of a cop-out. Okay, so we've got
Draconians who look like Samurai and share a suspiciously similar
attitude; those Romulans have an imperial mindset and classical
architecture strangely like that of the ancient Romans....
The inability to envision a culture greatly different from one we already
know is frustrating but understandable. In films, particularly, there
isn't the time to establish the associations for a new cultural
aesthetic, so film-makers adopt the cultural cues which will allow an
audience to paraphrase for themselves the surroundings. A once great
empire now in decline will tend to have classical temples dotted about
and an evil militant power will often adopt quasi-Nazi motifs. It's
disappointing, but understandable and pretty much unavoidable.
Nevertheless, I really enjoyed your letter. It's certainly made me have
a think about the relative merit of aesthetic aspect of science fiction.
Danny
Gareth Thomas
"Daniel Gooley" <daniel...@detya.gov.au> wrote in message
news:387ad0bb@info-int...
> Iian Neill wrote..... a *great* letter on the aesthetic vrs the
> conceptual sides of science fiction.
>
paragraph and a comment at the end.
--
Gareth Thomas
Andrew Lawston
>
> Frank Herbert, the award-winning author of the Dune series, once wrote
> in an essay that he considered there to be no ONE future, but a
> plurality of them. He called the styles which depict these futures,
> Futurism.
>
> Frank Herbert's insistence that the future is dynamic - that its borders
> and landmarks change as often and sometimes as quickly as a
> battle-ground - is the statement of a independent mind. Whilst it is
> true that the literary conceptions of the future are diverse, it is
> actually quite rare to find an artistic vision of the future that is
> individual; that isn't, in some way, an amalgam of Blade Runner or Star
> Trek.
This is true, although Bill and Ted had a crack at it. I would also cite
the Alien franchise (not to mention Giger) as a major influence on
visions of the future - First Contact certainly seemed to take its
trappings on board.
> But more than being a statement of the nature of Futurism, Frank
> Herbert's observation opens up the way for a new field of inquiry: a
> comparative study of the styles of future-art.
>
> It is obvious to anyone that the visions of the future presented to us
> in films as diverse as Blade Runner, The Fifth Element, or the Star Trek
> franchise are not actually from the future. They are imaginative
> creations of what we - being the artists of the present - believe the
> future will look like. But, so far, they seem immune from criticism
> because they are not so much seen as a style in itself (like the
> Baroque, Rococo or Art Nouveau) but rather as the expression of the
> prophetic purpose popularly believed to define science-fiction.
Well, I'm sceptical that LA will have off-world colonies and spinners by
2010. IMO, some of these ideas are immune from criticism not necessarily
because they could turn out to be in any way prophetic, but because they
are paintings of coherent societies. You could see someone living in the
LA of Blade Runner, even if you don't believe for a minute that it will
happen, by 2010 or later.
My favourite future society is the one shown in Back to the Future 2.
Like Blade Runner, Peut-Etre and Jeunet's films, we can clearly see the
process of the new being built on the ruins of (and existing alongside)
the old.
> What I mean by this is that science-fiction is often invested with an
> importance beyond its merely aesthetic qualities; it is seen to have a
> socially instructive goal, to present us with visions of utopias or
> dystopias as a form of incentive or warning. Science-fiction, also, is
> sometimes looked upon with the kind of curiosity people must have once
> had for fortune-tellers; we always want to stay one step ahead of the
> times, to be the FIRST.
This is a great post, as someone else observed. I would recommend (once
again) that you try and check out the recent French film Peut-Etre (not
sure what its english title will be, maybe something like 'Maybe'). In
its portrayal of a future Paris buried under sand, Klapisch portrays a
believable society. They're not nobly struggling for survival, or
degenerating into savages, but simply living like... well, people. My
problem with so many futures shown on TV and in the cinema is that they
are so caught up in invention of new technologies and new styles, that
they think they also have to make up new people. Star Trek's impossibly
noble Federation folk who've renounced all material ambition, for
example.
The final moments of Peut-Etre are thematically similar to the closing
minutes of the Back to the Future trilogy ('The future's whatever you
make it'), but as the film is partly set within that future, its final
'message' is that all portrayals of the future are ultimately fictional.
I like this a lot.
Andrew Kasekuchen Lawston
--
http://www.geocities.com/area51/corridor/9591
The Time Lords' 8-bit Time Share Villa - Now with restored fiction pages
and a solution to an adventure game you've probably never heard of.
"The whole world's on better drugs than me."
Tony Velasquez
>Iian Neill a écrit:
[snipped some good discussion for bandwith's sake]
>> It is obvious to anyone that the visions of the future presented to us
>> in films as diverse as Blade Runner, The Fifth Element, or the Star Trek
>> franchise are not actually from the future. They are imaginative
>> creations of what we - being the artists of the present - believe the
>> future will look like. But, so far, they seem immune from criticism
>> because they are not so much seen as a style in itself (like the
>> Baroque, Rococo or Art Nouveau) but rather as the expression of the
>> prophetic purpose popularly believed to define science-fiction.
>
>Well, I'm sceptical that LA will have off-world colonies and spinners by
>2010. IMO, some of these ideas are immune from criticism not necessarily
>because they could turn out to be in any way prophetic, but because they
>are paintings of coherent societies. You could see someone living in the
>LA of Blade Runner, even if you don't believe for a minute that it will
>happen, by 2010 or later.
>
>My favourite future society is the one shown in Back to the Future 2.
>Like Blade Runner, Peut-Etre and Jeunet's films, we can clearly see the
>process of the new being built on the ruins of (and existing alongside)
>the old.
>
I agree with this last statement for making good sci-fi. Too often,
sci-fi writers or showmakers want to show *everything* different, changed.
Like in the movie 2010 where anything that could be made "modern" was made
modern. For instance, I live in an older house. Not much has changed here
since it was built. If you plopped down someone from the 1960's into my
house today what would they find different?
They would still recognize the appliances: the fridge, the stove
(although they might look stylistically different than 1960's stuff, their
obvious function would hold no suprises.)
Some of the electronic items would be strange: The VCR, CD Player,
telephone answering machine, and of course, my computer. However, they are
all fit into a pre-existing old structure (as pointed out in this post).
The desk my computer sits on is a plain old wooden desk, not some postmodern
ultramodren stainless steel sculpted desk from BladeRunner.
This seems to be the way things change, slowly over time, with new
inventions and equipment replacing old ones. In time, when this house gets
knocked down and a new one built, then the house itself will be more
"modern" but even then, it will be frozen in time and only the furnishings
and equipment updated until thirty or more years down the line when they
knock down that house.
In short, yes, I think the sci-fi portrayed a mixture of old and new,
or as Andrew said, the new being built on the ruins of the old, makes for
the most believable science fiction.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Velasquez (vela...@grovenet.net)
Remove 'remove' in address if you use autoreply to send email.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Daniels
> It should be obvious to anyone after even a superficial glance at such
> films or series as Blade Runner, Star Trek, or Star Wars - and on the
> British side Doctor Who, Blakes Seven and Red Dwarf - that their
> conception of future architecture is very much a present-day one. Star
> Trek, in particular, is the perfect example of corporate post-modernist
> archictecture visualised on a galactic scale.
Well the reasons for this are obvious -
1) These series/films have BUDGETS. Especially on television or in
order films its not so much a lack of imagination as it is a lack
of resources.
2) The audience lives in the present day and needs to relate to
the action on screen. "Is that a refrigator?? Or is a chair??"
3) Design will ALWAYS be influenced by the present. Not everyone can
reinvent the wheel for every scene in every tv show or film.
These things have to be built and they have to be usable and make
sense.
> What is in common with every one of these shows is that none of them has
> freed itself from the influence of the present.
That really isnt possible. Imagine some guy in 1967 makes a movie that
he feels is TOTALLY divorced from his own times and totally original.
If his vision of the future is intriguing and really original, Im SURE
others will base their ideas OFF that concept.
So a slew of films from 1968 - 1972 would be made with that look.
Then t your average movie goer of 2000 they'd see it and say "That's
SOO 60s!"
> They always assume that
> the art of the future will be dominated by present-day conventions. All
> of these series forget that art and architecture has changed enormously
> in even the past millenium in the Western cultures alone.
Well again I think a lot of this is budgetary necessity.
> And all of
> them pretend - in their own way - to be authentic glimpses of the future
> tarred, as I mentioned before, by the belief that science-fiction has a
> prophetic goal.
Well Im not sure if they want to be prophetic. But sometimes science
fiction does shape the ideas of people and it becomes a self-fulfilling
prophecy.
The deal is that anyone who says they know what the future will be like,
is a over confident, arrogant, or a loony.
> If you want to be innovative and original (at least from our
> perspective), you might want to consider taking the art of another
> culture, particularly an ancient historical one.
> What sort of spaceships would the Mayans be making today, if they had
> become a world-power?
While these would come up with some cool designs, its not likely to be the
future either.
"Let's not base the future on today's design, let's base it on design 400
years ago."
its not really anymore valid, even though I agree it will make for more
interesting designs.
Charles Daniels
> I agree with this last statement for making good sci-fi. Too often,
> sci-fi writers or showmakers want to show *everything* different, changed.
> Like in the movie 2010 where anything that could be made "modern" was made
> modern. For instance, I live in an older house. Not much has changed here
> since it was built. If you plopped down someone from the 1960's into my
> house today what would they find different?
> They would still recognize the appliances: the fridge, the stove
> (although they might look stylistically different than 1960's stuff, their
> obvious function would hold no suprises.)
> Some of the electronic items would be strange: The VCR, CD Player,
> telephone answering machine, and of course, my computer. However, they are
> all fit into a pre-existing old structure (as pointed out in this post).
> The desk my computer sits on is a plain old wooden desk, not some postmodern
> ultramodren stainless steel sculpted desk from BladeRunner.
Yeah I agree, my home is just a mesh of ancient and modern things.
I tend to find they all have their good qualities and add color to my
little abode.
Even though it would be funny to have some postmoden ultramodern stainless
steel sclupted desk, just so my friends could come over and say
"Ahh..Charlie? What THE HELL have you been doing?"
> In short, yes, I think the sci-fi portrayed a mixture of old and new,
> or as Andrew said, the new being built on the ruins of the old, makes for
> the most believable science fiction.
Yes this is very true.
Im not sure what the future will look like but I hope Terry Gilliam gets a
vote!
Charles Daniels
> The more respected "serious" science fiction, often called speculative
> fiction,
by those who can't stop wanking themselves in every possible way.
I mean the only one who deserves this distinction is Jules Verne.
I think "speculative fiction" is just sort of "No, we don't write that
crap with space ships and aliens! Space is really big! So we have
wormholes and really vague aliens."
Or some such nonsense.
> The future scenarios highlight by contrast aspects of our own societies;
> or suggest where current trends may lead us;
Yes this is vitally important for novels like 1984 and A Clockwork Orange.
> or proclaim the constancy of
> the human nature by showing people in such very different circumstances
> obeying the same imperatives as ourselves; or examine the physical laws
> of the universe which constrain us and shape our lives; or provide
> symbolic utopias or dystopias which provide the same archetypal
> perspective which religion once served.
Or to have divine midgets using wormholes to rob famous people in
history...oh well. reaching there.
> This is "ideas" science fiction,
> justifiable because the focus is really on the present.
Yes I agree totally.
> It is primarily this second type of science fiction which you are talking
> about. As you say, the aesthetic of these stories is certainly secondary
> to the ideas presented. But in any case, the aesthetic evoked by such
> films is usually *not* attempting to be decidedly different in any case.
Yes in stories where you want to reflect on the modern day and modern
issues and say something about it, the best apporach is "The more things
change, the more they stay the same".
> Is that necessarily a problem, though? We live for our own time - we
> can't do otherwise. Many science fiction epics will indeed get lost in
> the mists of time - given the amount of popular culture spurted out at
> the moment, and the no doubt greater amount in the future, that's
> inevitable. But where those epics whose ramblings about societies which
> never eventuate find something true to say about "the human condition",
> they will be around in 500 years for the same reason as Shakespeare's
> tales of times that never were.
Yeah people like reading and watching people. They interest us because in
some way we are them and they are us.
Really neat aesthetic vision of things to come are cool for about 5 years
or so then most of them get unbelievably hokey.
> And yet this is not really creating a new cultural aesthetic, is it?
> After accusing our visionaries of being unable to conjure up a future
> which doesn't just look like a "larger, busier and more industrialised
> version" of the present, suggesting that they simply adopt an ancient
> cultural feel and update is a bit of a cop-out.
Yeah this is where, in my eyes, his argument fell apart.
Daniel Frankham
wrote:
>Daniel Gooley <daniel...@detya.gov.au> wrote:
>
>> The more respected "serious" science fiction, often called speculative
>> fiction,
>
>by those who can't stop wanking themselves in every possible way.
>
>I mean the only one who deserves this distinction is Jules Verne.
>I think "speculative fiction" is just sort of "No, we don't write that
>crap with space ships and aliens! Space is really big! So we have
>wormholes and really vague aliens."
>Or some such nonsense.
I think the term was coined in the 60s, to cover stuff which was being
called "science fiction", but didn't have anything to do with science or
any of the usual science fiction stuff like robots, spaceships, aliens (or
indeed wormholes).
But it does sound a bit wanky...
--
Daniel Frankham
The Chocolate Snark
> Charles Daniels wrote:
> >Daniel Gooley wrote:
> >
> >> The more respected "serious" science fiction, often called speculative
> >> fiction,
> >
> >
> >I mean the only one who deserves this distinction is Jules Verne.
> >I think "speculative fiction" is just sort of "No, we don't write that
> >crap with space ships and aliens! Space is really big! So we have
> >wormholes and really vague aliens."
> >Or some such nonsense.
>
> I think the term was coined in the 60s, to cover stuff which was being
> called "science fiction", but didn't have anything to do with science or
> any of the usual science fiction stuff like robots, spaceships, aliens (or
> indeed wormholes).
>
> But it does sound a bit wanky...
>
examples of this (I've read each of them _at least_ twice, btw, ho
hum...}B-)), as well as Samuel Delany's Dhalgren, Shea and Wilson's _The
Illuminatus Trilogy_ (at least five times, this...), and, apparently,
portions of _The Blue Angel_ (if not the entire book......)
--
Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!! We must stick apart!!!
Lola, Queen of Spain, PMS Co-Chair
Read The Principia Discordia and find out why you shouldn't eat hot dog
buns:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tilt/principia/body.html
Charles Daniels
> On 12 Jan 2000 22:48:09 -0800, Charles Daniels <cdan...@web1.calweb.com>
> wrote:
>>I think "speculative fiction" is just sort of "No, we don't write that
>>crap with space ships and aliens! Space is really big! So we have
>>wormholes and really vague aliens."
>>Or some such nonsense.
>
> I think the term was coined in the 60s, to cover stuff which was being
> called "science fiction", but didn't have anything to do with science or
> any of the usual science fiction stuff like robots, spaceships, aliens (or
> indeed wormholes).
> But it does sound a bit wanky...
I think ti started off, pretty much, when certain authors, or certain
publishing companies, didnt want sells hurt or reputations damaged by
publish science fiction which had, and still has, a bad reputation.
The crap to quality ratio in science fiction may seem alarming but it's
not really more so than good comedy to crap, or good action adventure to
cures for insomnia.
The thing about science fiction is, when it'sbad, it can become VERY funny
and hokey.
A bad comedy doesnt make you laugh when Its desperately trying.
A bad science fiction movie can be a barrell of laughs because it's TRYING
to be serious, or hip, or futuristic, or terrifying, when it's really
just...goofy.
Charles Daniels
> A strange and unknown force compelled me to respond to Daniel Frankham:
>> Charles Daniels wrote:
>> called "science fiction", but didn't have anything to do with science or
>> any of the usual science fiction stuff like robots, spaceships, aliens (or
>> indeed wormholes).
>>
>> But it does sound a bit wanky...
>
> examples of this (I've read each of them _at least_ twice, btw, ho
> hum...}B-)), as well as Samuel Delany's Dhalgren, Shea and Wilson's _The
> Illuminatus Trilogy_ (at least five times, this...), and, apparently,
> portions of _The Blue Angel_ (if not the entire book......)
Well the thing is just having a robot, or a space ship or aliens, isnt all
you need to be good science fiction. You cant take the old Star Trek
approach "What about a guy with two belly buttons!" and spin anything
that is geniunely science fiction out of it.
Thats just a gimmick.
The deal is that science fiction deals with, and takes from, every other
genre and tradition, and just creates its own intrepretation and reality
from those concepts that already exist in society.
Both Philip K Dick and Robert A Heinlein, for example. are fascinating
writers in science fiction, but they represent the genre in different
ways.
oliver.thornton
----------
In article <387d7...@news.calweb.com>, Charles Daniels
<cdan...@web1.calweb.com> wrote:
>Iian Neill <nei...@kraz.tafe.tas.edu.au> wrote:
>> It should be obvious to anyone after even a superficial glance at such
>> films or series as Blade Runner, Star Trek, or Star Wars - and on the
>> British side Doctor Who, Blakes Seven and Red Dwarf - that their
>> conception of future architecture is very much a present-day one. Star
>> Trek, in particular, is the perfect example of corporate post-modernist
>> archictecture visualised on a galactic scale.
>
>Well the reasons for this are obvious -
>
>1) These series/films have BUDGETS. Especially on television or in
> order films its not so much a lack of imagination as it is a lack
> of resources.
>
>2) The audience lives in the present day and needs to relate to
> the action on screen. "Is that a refrigator?? Or is a chair??"
>
>3) Design will ALWAYS be influenced by the present. Not everyone can
> reinvent the wheel for every scene in every tv show or film.
> These things have to be built and they have to be usable and make
> sense.
>
>> What is in common with every one of these shows is that none of them has
>> freed itself from the influence of the present.
>
>That really isnt possible. Imagine some guy in 1967 makes a movie that
>he feels is TOTALLY divorced from his own times and totally original.
>If his vision of the future is intriguing and really original, Im SURE
>others will base their ideas OFF that concept.
>So a slew of films from 1968 - 1972 would be made with that look.
>
>Then t your average movie goer of 2000 they'd see it and say "That's
>SOO 60s!"
>
We have to take into account the saying, 'there are no new ideas; only
developments of old ones'. In most interviews with designers for sci-fi
shows, the recurring theme is either, 'well, the appropriate thing for this
would be a version of the Spaceships of Planet X in the 1930s and the decor
of Alien, and then hints of these pictures I saw from the Sixties' style
amalgam, *or* 'I went for something new and different, but a friend of mine
came up and said, "hey, that was really good how you echoed the effect on
Return of the Killer Spaceman" so really it was nothing new at all'. I
could go off into David Hume territory here, but I'm not sure I remember it
too clearly (been 3 years since I thought about it so much).
>> They always assume that
>> the art of the future will be dominated by present-day conventions. All
>> of these series forget that art and architecture has changed enormously
>> in even the past millenium in the Western cultures alone.
>
>Well again I think a lot of this is budgetary necessity.
And how the hell are we supposed to know what conventions will (or might) be
used in the future!? It's in debates like this that the central argument
of Interference starts to have meaning. We are aware of sets of
conventions from the past, and are governed by sets of conventions now.
Whether we like it or not, these govern the way we think about conventions
as a whole, and consequently inform the sorts of conventions we are able to
imagine as progressing forwards. In the sense of the scientific
paradigm-shift, progression is not predictable in that way, nor truly
imaginable. Many times over, Science Fiction must run into this problem,
and the results are no less impressive when they fail to tackle it.
>> If you want to be innovative and original (at least from our
>> perspective), you might want to consider taking the art of another
>> culture, particularly an ancient historical one.
>> What sort of spaceships would the Mayans be making today, if they had
>> become a world-power?
>
>While these would come up with some cool designs, its not likely to be the
>future either.
>"Let's not base the future on today's design, let's base it on design 400
>years ago."
>its not really anymore valid, even though I agree it will make for more
>interesting designs.
>
Another approach is to look not at aesthetic design, but purpose design
first. Almost always, science fiction spacecraft are designed to have a
'look', and then consideration is given to what the bits do. But if you
ask what would be a *useful* shape to have your futuristic appliances and
transport, then you can create an artwork aesthetic that depends on what
technology you want to assume has been made. For instance, the beauty of a
sports car is moulded not only by delights of the eye, but by the
effectiveness of engine placement, aerodynamics, seating and so on. What
we have come to regard as beauty in a car is not necessarily what will be
appreciated in a spaceship, and nor is it what is appreciated in other
areas. The aesthetic, while still conforming to some inate ideas, is also
informed by necessity.
Snowdrop
Daniel Gooley
> Daniel Gooley wrote:
>
> > The more respected "serious" science fiction, often called speculative
> > fiction,
>
Mate, I doubt whether the man with no nipples can even pronounce
"speculative"....
> I mean the only one who deserves this distinction is Jules Verne.
> I think "speculative fiction" is just sort of "No, we don't write that
> crap with space ships and aliens! Space is really big! So we have
> wormholes and really vague aliens."
> Or some such nonsense.
Well, 'Contact' aside (which nevertheless made for a cool movie*), I
think you're short-changing a lot of novels here. "Science fiction" is
such an encompassing term - even covering things like the Supernatural
and Fantasy as far as a lot of people are concerned - that you need
little subdivisions. I'm not suggesting that it's necessarily superior
to entertaining pulp sci-fi, but there's certainly room within the genre
for novels which are explore aspects of who we are, outside the confines
of everyday realist fiction. You seemed quite happy when I called it
"ideas" science fiction - "speculative fiction" is just a useful handle.
> > The future scenarios highlight by contrast aspects of our own societies;
> > or suggest where current trends may lead us; or proclaim the constancy of
> > the human nature (&etc); or provide
> > symbolic utopias or dystopias which provide the same archetypal
> > perspective which religion once served.
>
> Or to have divine midgets using wormholes to rob famous people in
> history...oh well. reaching there.
Struggle you may with the elementary - lucky you got so far. All you
hold is mythology. Measure mystery. And the sun, it's like taking a gun
to the handiwork we made, only a dream away.
Danny
(*so speaketh the Jodie Foster fan)
Daniel Gooley
so fluffly and snuggly now, Oliver!) said. A few comments on the last
para, though.
> Another approach is to look not at aesthetic design, but purpose design
> first. Almost always, science fiction spacecraft are designed to have a
> 'look', and then consideration is given to what the bits do. But if you
> ask what would be a *useful* shape to have your futuristic appliances and
> transport, then you can create an artwork aesthetic that depends on what
> technology you want to assume has been made. For instance, the beauty of a
> sports car is moulded not only by delights of the eye, but by the
> effectiveness of engine placement, aerodynamics, seating and so on. What
> we have come to regard as beauty in a car is not necessarily what will be
> appreciated in a spaceship, and nor is it what is appreciated in other
> areas. The aesthetic, while still conforming to some inate ideas, is also
> informed by necessity.
Actually, spacecraft are one area where aesthetic concerns are
*not* really governed by necessity. Most spaceship concepts look suspiciously
like current fighters or ships, without recognition of the fact that the
vacuum of space allows all sorts of strange and otherwise unthinkable designs.
Some of my favourite spaceships have been large chunks of ship held together by
an impossibly fragile-seeming thin corridor/elevator, or else an un-aerodynamic
block like the Borg ship. In the absence of utilitarian imperatives, the
aesthetic (in the "beautiful" sense) can flourish largely unchecked.
Of course, there may well be good reasons why such designs are not
useful in a coherent vision of the future. The quark phazar manipulator
may need to be right next to the mezon accelerator, but away from the
crew quarters. But unless you want to get down to the level of working
out just what a quark phazar manipulator is, why bother? There seems to
be a bit of a Catch-22 here: if you imagine a spaceship which is
basically just an extension of a modern-day cruiser, you're opening
yourself up to (valid enough) criticisms such as Iian's that you are
bound by the constraints of current logic and aesthetics; if you imagine
an unusual spaceship of interlinked pylons, Snowdrop can (validly enough)
accuse you of flights of fancy without due concern for everyday
workability.
It seems to me that there's another Catch-22 in this question as well.
For mine, the question Iian raised about the aesthetic of science fiction
is one of both originality, but also cohesiveness. Lots of jarring,
individually interesting designs for things which just don't seem to fit
together do not impress us as being a convincing future aesthetic.
However, current trends in the real world are towards ever greater
diversity, individuality and mixing of a variety of designs. Imagined
societies which, usually for lack of money, time and imagination, are
presented with everyone wearing similar uniforms and living in similar
surroundings, do not convince us. Worlds where people wear a variety of
clothing styles in less-than-pristine condition tend to impress us more.
But surely that is just the current audience reading it's inability to
conceive other than current trends onto the screen, rather than being a
more convincing aesthetic?
In the end, all designers can really do is do the most convincing job
they can based on the current set of prejudices. And no doubt in twenty
years time we will look back in a partly condescending, partly nostalgic
way at the turn-of-the-millenium's visions of otherwheres.
Danny
Charles Daniels
>>> fiction,
>>
>
> Mate, I doubt whether the man with no nipples can even pronounce
> "speculative"....
My nipplelessness just makes me sleek and amazing and more likely to use
words like speculative!
> Well, 'Contact' aside (which nevertheless made for a cool movie*), I
> think you're short-changing a lot of novels here. "Science fiction" is
> such an encompassing term - even covering things like the Supernatural
> and Fantasy as far as a lot of people are concerned - that you need
> little subdivisions.
Well Ive always thought of Fantasy as a different genre by itself
because it doesnt try to explain itself by scientific terminology usually.
However if you have someone who genetically engineers elves or someone
explains a xenobiology or proposes that say dragons could have existed
long ago and gone extinct, that can be science fiction.
The supernatural is an odd area as well. As long as it seems to focus on
parts of the brain we dont understand or things which will one day perhaps
be possible by technology this again is science fiction in a way just
plain "oh it's magic" isnt.
Although the author doesnt NEED to have the character understand the
science behind it all. Not everyone understand how lots of things work in
the real world.
> I'm not suggesting that it's necessarily superior
> to entertaining pulp sci-fi, but there's certainly room within the genre
> for novels which are explore aspects of who we are, outside the confines
> of everyday realist fiction. You seemed quite happy when I called it
> "ideas" science fiction - "speculative fiction" is just a useful handle.
Well I prefer "ideas" science fiction. Too much of modern "science
fiction" is just so much explosions, and silly costumes, and computer
generated neat looking crap. The thin is I don't have a specific
objection to the term "speculative fiction" but more of the people
who use it and attach themselves to it.
Especially those who insist that speculative fiction ISNT science fiction
at all but "someething else which is serious."
I understand that there is great reason to say "This is about a serious
issue and not about robots and cute midgets in bear outfits."
However becoming posh about it, and coming up with some nice term to
shield youself away from, is what gets on my nerves.
Its like any good idea, when people start to take advantage of any good
term or concept, it just gets a sour taste in the mouth.
>>> The future scenarios highlight by contrast aspects of our own societies;
>>> or suggest where current trends may lead us; or proclaim the constancy of
>>> the human nature (&etc); or provide
>>> symbolic utopias or dystopias which provide the same archetypal
>>> perspective which religion once served.
>>
>> Or to have divine midgets using wormholes to rob famous people in
>> history...oh well. reaching there.
> Struggle you may with the elementary - lucky you got so far. All you
> hold is mythology. Measure mystery. And the sun, it's like taking a gun
> to the handiwork we made, only a dream away.
Interestingly written by George Harrison as a criticism of Terry Gilliam.
Charles Daniels
> In article <387d7...@news.calweb.com>, Charles Daniels
> <cdan...@web1.calweb.com> wrote:
>>So a slew of films from 1968 - 1972 would be made with that look.
>>
>>Then t your average movie goer of 2000 they'd see it and say "That's
>>SOO 60s!"
>>
> We have to take into account the saying, 'there are no new ideas; only
> developments of old ones'.
Yes you have to take the benefits of what has come before.
The thing is there is this sort of brand of intellectual arrogance that
INSISTS everything has to be new and totally unrelated to all that has
come before. That anything that draws upon any previous existing material
is just recycled crap.
The thing is that this thinking lacks common sense. If you've got 6,000
years of narrative history which you get to inherit, it's really daft to
throw it away.
You have to relate to your audience and what you do is you cleverly use
what the audience already knows. You speak to the audience in their own
language and then you take their expectations and mold them to your ends
to send a message that they will understand and embrace.
> In most interviews with designers for sci-fi
> shows, the recurring theme is either, 'well, the appropriate thing for this
> would be a version of the Spaceships of Planet X in the 1930s and the decor
> of Alien, and then hints of these pictures I saw from the Sixties' style
> amalgam, *or* 'I went for something new and different, but a friend of mine
> came up and said, "hey, that was really good how you echoed the effect on
> Return of the Killer Spaceman" so really it was nothing new at all'. I
> could go off into David Hume territory here, but I'm not sure I remember it
> too clearly (been 3 years since I thought about it so much).
Well I tend to write and just describe the things in my mind. So it's
only been recently when I've had to deal with a real visual element and
it's been very educational for me. What Im working on now is a comic book
series which I am hoping to get published. I can't draw worth a damn
but Ive got this lovely artist, Chris Rednour, doing miracles for me.
And we are ALWAYS having discussions about HOW things should look and what
sources we should draw from and how we should try to visually communicate
the ideas, scenes, and backrounds.
My issue at the moment is that my comic book is SOOO MUCH dialogue.
I have the most talkative comic book characters in history, and it's
screwing with the art.
So I'm having to learn how to communicate my ideas with the art itself
so my characters can interact with the physical world they are in with
more realism.
This would be impossible if we didnt use some conventions because
the audience has to be able to follow the story and know "Oh well this
is a fancy restaurant, this is a middle class home, this is an attack
fleet of super advanced aliens, and these people are very serious
military types" and all that sort of thing.
You can't have the reader saying "Oh who are these people???? Where
are they??"
They really have to relate to the art and the characters.
So I really like going through that process now.
Even though I don't draw it myself, when I account for artwork and the
look of things, when I write it and when I tell Chris what I want, it's
very much influenced by A Clockwork Orange, Terry Gilliam, and some
comedies from Japan like Maison Ikkoku and Kimagure Orange Road,
and also by the classic comics like Superman and Captain Marvel.
There's even a bit of Doctor Who in there sometimes. :)
So its all very confused on my end and SOMEHOW Chris takes my insane
ideas, thinks them over, makes them SOOO MUCH BETTER, and comes out with
something that has either been trapped in my head for ages OR something
which is so much MORE than I could ever come up with myself.
>>Well again I think a lot of this is budgetary necessity.
>
> And how the hell are we supposed to know what conventions will (or might) be
> used in the future!?
Yeah you never can tell with absolutely certainity what will be laughed
about "Is that REALLY how they did interior decorating in the 70s???"
and what will go on and quietly adapt itself.
>>While these would come up with some cool designs, its not likely to be the
>>future either.
>>"Let's not base the future on today's design, let's base it on design 400
>>years ago."
>>its not really anymore valid, even though I agree it will make for more
>>interesting designs.
>>
> Another approach is to look not at aesthetic design, but purpose design
> first. Almost always, science fiction spacecraft are designed to have a
> 'look', and then consideration is given to what the bits do. But if you
> ask what would be a *useful* shape to have your futuristic appliances and
> transport, then you can create an artwork aesthetic that depends on what
> technology you want to assume has been made. For instance, the beauty of a
> sports car is moulded not only by delights of the eye, but by the
> effectiveness of engine placement, aerodynamics, seating and so on.
This is fascinating!
I have a lot of little city scenes in an upcoming issue of the comic
so I think Ill send this along to Chris!
Thanks!
> What
> we have come to regard as beauty in a car is not necessarily what will be
> appreciated in a spaceship, and nor is it what is appreciated in other
> areas. The aesthetic, while still conforming to some inate ideas, is also
> informed by necessity.
Thats brilliant!
Charles Daniels
> Actually, spacecraft are one area where aesthetic concerns are
>*not* really governed by necessity. Most spaceship concepts look suspiciously
>like current fighters or ships, without recognition of the fact that the
>vacuum of space allows all sorts of strange and otherwise unthinkable
>designs. Some of my favourite spaceships have been large chunks of ship
>held together by an impossibly fragile-seeming thin corridor/elevator,
>or else an un-aerodynamic block like the Borg ship.
This is a lot like The Red Dwarf or the Imperial Ships in David McIntee's
The Dark Path, just terribly ugly monstrousities.
Thats great!
oliver.thornton
----------
In article <387ebe59@info-int>, Daniel Gooley <daniel...@detya.gov.au>
wrote:
>Charlie wrote...
>> Daniel Gooley wrote:
>>
>> > The more respected "serious" science fiction, often called speculative
>> > fiction,
>>
>> by those who can't stop wanking themselves in every possible way.
>
>Mate, I doubt whether the man with no nipples can even pronounce
>"speculative"....
>
>> I mean the only one who deserves this distinction is Jules Verne.
>> I think "speculative fiction" is just sort of "No, we don't write that
>> crap with space ships and aliens! Space is really big! So we have
>> wormholes and really vague aliens."
>> Or some such nonsense.
>
>Well, 'Contact' aside (which nevertheless made for a cool movie*), I
>think you're short-changing a lot of novels here. "Science fiction" is
Contact was an amazing novel, and the movie was a complete bastardisation of
it, so I wasn't happy. Plus it removed the best line in the entire book:
'Let's see if I've got this straight: A man and a woman are lying in naked
in bed together discussing high-level physics. Do they know how to have a
good time?' - or something very similar.
Snowdrop
Iian Neill
> > What I mean by this is that science-fiction is often invested with
an
> > importance beyond its merely aesthetic qualities; it is seen to have
a
> > socially instructive goal, to present us with visions of utopias or
> > dystopias as a form of incentive or warning. Science-fiction, also,
is
> > sometimes looked upon with the kind of curiosity people must have
once
> > had for fortune-tellers; we always want to stay one step ahead of
the
> > times, to be the FIRST.
>
> I think science fiction serves several functions. At its most obvious
> level, it provides the great escapist option of rational times, the
only
> way modern minds will concede that the incredible can happen, under
the
> famous proviso that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is
> indistinguishable from magic".
That's a particularly fascinating point. It may explain why
science-fiction seems to be a peculiarly modern phenomonen, a product of
Enlightment rationalism. Has anyone noticed, incidentally, how
rationalisation has invaded even the field of modern Fantasy? How some
writers - Raymond E. Feist comes immediately to mind, and Terry
Pratchett next - feel compelled to justify the use of magic by
explaining it away as a primitive theory of quantum physics? Just a
point!
> The future scenarios highlight by contrast aspects of our own
societies;
> or suggest where current trends may lead us; or proclaim the constancy
of
> the human nature by showing people in such very different
circumstances
> obeying the same imperatives as ourselves;
This reminds me of the pseudo-classical paintings of Sir Lawrence
Alma-Tadema last century. It has often been commented how he liked to
paint the Romans as Victorians in togas; it highlights our need to see
ourselves reflected in our ancestors, that sense of tradition,
continuity.
> Where there is no need to make the vision of
> the future recogniseably based on our own, and the story itself is not
> sufficently intriguing, a sci-fi film positives calls out for
aesthetic colour.
An excellent observation. There are plenty of science-fiction films
which have failed on all fronts, though - where the lack of plot, ideas,
character-development, and acting have been appended with a paucity of
visual design. It could simply be that we notice the aesthetic more when
those other elements have been dampened.
> You're right, but in retrospect the images of the future which each
> generation creates is as intriguing as an original aesthetic.
Absolutely, Danny. This is one of the reasons I posted the letter. I
believe that the creations of Star Wars, Metropolis or Blade Runner (to
name a few) are at least as worthy of attention as, say, the
architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright or Gaudi. Qualitative differences
aside, science-fiction is a contemporary art and deserves to be
appreciated aesthetically. Appreciation can be enhanced by contrasting
what was achieved in Metropolis with the work produced in the Art Deco
period, or comparing Star Trek with modern corporate architecture.
> > What would happen if the Middle East became
the
> > dominant cultural influence in the future? How would this affect the
art
> > and architecture? What would happen if were we to blend two styles
and
> > work from there?
>
> And yet this is not really creating a new cultural aesthetic, is it?
I'm afraid so. But it also a recognition that many of the so-called
"new" styles that have appeared in history owe a debt to their
predecessors. In any case, I've suggested it as a quick and easy way to
create a non-Westernized vision of the future; it's a cop-out intended
to fire up the imagination of science-fiction artists or writers who
want to do something different.
> Nevertheless, I really enjoyed your letter. It's certainly made me
have
> a think about the relative merit of aesthetic aspect of science
fiction.
Likewise, Danny. Thanks for posting!
Regards,
Iian
Daniel Frankham
wrote:
>This reminds me of the pseudo-classical paintings of Sir Lawrence
>Alma-Tadema last century. It has often been commented how he liked to
>paint the Romans as Victorians in togas; it highlights our need to see
>ourselves reflected in our ancestors, that sense of tradition,
>continuity.
It also highlights the fact that his models were Victorians in togas :)
--
Daniel Frankham
Daniel Frankham
wrote:
And now for my non-piss-taking response.
The past has a certain in-built "legitimacy", in the eyes of many people,
which many organisations and institutions seek to borrow by imitating the
its trappings. This was perhaps most evident with the Italian and German
fascists trying to emulate the glories of ancient Rome. On the one hand,
they were wrapped up in a romanticised vision of the past, which they
wanted to live in; on the other hand, by aligning themselves with aspects
of the past that were considered "great" and "good", they sought to
represent themselves as modern manifestations of those great and good
things. Everyone respected the ancient Romans, despite them behaving so
much like Nazis, and so to an extent the Nazis seem to have thought that
being like ancient Rome would allow them to be respected, despite behaving
like Nazis.
Even in the democracies, classical architecture has generally been the
style of choice for Power; with government buildings and banks modelled on
the state buildings of ancient Rome, all columns and hundred foot tall
doors calculated to make the individual feel small.
The Victorians, like many expansionist empires, fancied the art of Rome, or
at least what they thought the art of Rome was like. Amusingly, the white
marble busts they favoured were quite unlike their Roman equivalents, which
were apparently painted in lifelike colours; when the Victorians acquired
them millennia later the colour had worn away, and art theorists concluded
that if the Romans did it that way, that must be what sculpture is supposed
to be like. Even more amusing to our eyes are the portraits and statues of
Great Men, which seek to represent them as Great by depicting them in
sheets. We've got one of those here in Adelaide - always good for a laugh.
Probably my favourite pseudo-classical sculpture here is a kind of monument
to early aviators, created in the 30s I think, which depicts early aircraft
being held aloft by women in togas, apparently representing spirits of the
air, or perhaps Personifications of Heroism or something. Very odd to see
that 20th century technology in a piece of 19th-century-style
pseudo-classical art.
Before aggressive expansionism started to look bad, Americans loved movies
which represented the classical world as like America. Movies like The Ten
Commandments and Ben Hur and Caesar and Cleopatra depicted an ancient Rome
ruled by people who looked and sounded like American celebrities, as
interested in spectacular entertainment as in world conquest. This probably
wasn't even intended as a subtle commentary on the cult of celebrity in the
20th century. If the Western often represented the anarchist spirit in
American popular culture, with loners coming up against corrupt Power in
American microcosms, the Ancient movie represented the fascist impulse,
where audiences could vicariously enjoy the trappings of an absolute power
able to crush all resistance, to conquer all comers without moral qualms,
while indulging their wants at the rest of the world's expense.
--
Daniel Frankham
Charles Daniels
> The past has a certain in-built "legitimacy", in the eyes of many people,
> which many organisations and institutions seek to borrow by imitating the
> its trappings.
Well this is because people have a weird series of delusions about the
past. The past is a time where things are suppose to be "simplier",
they are suppose to be more grand a visionary and idealistic and artistic
in a way.
People basically want to remember what was good or what could have been,
and not the gritty daily reality of it all.
> This was perhaps most evident with the Italian and German
> fascists trying to emulate the glories of ancient Rome. On the one hand,
> they were wrapped up in a romanticised vision of the past, which they
> wanted to live in; on the other hand, by aligning themselves with aspects
> of the past that were considered "great" and "good", they sought to
> represent themselves as modern manifestations of those great and good
> things. Everyone respected the ancient Romans, despite them behaving so
> much like Nazis, and so to an extent the Nazis seem to have thought that
> being like ancient Rome would allow them to be respected, despite behaving
> like Nazis.
Well yes, oddly the Germans also wanted ties with the Nordic heroes.
The Noble Savage, the glorified barbarians who kicked the Roman legion's
ass in that German forest.
What is interesting is some writings of the time, written by critics of
Roman society say these people has "simpler" and more noble lives.
So in a way they wanted both the glory of the Romans and this sort of
spirit of the ancient "noble savages".
> Even in the democracies, classical architecture has generally been the
> style of choice for Power; with government buildings and banks modelled on
> the state buildings of ancient Rome, all columns and hundred foot tall
> doors calculated to make the individual feel small.
Yeah this is very true. There is a sort of timeless, powerful
reaction in people to that sort of architecture. It just is all
rooted in the design and the cultural response to that sort of grand
scale.
> The Victorians, like many expansionist empires, fancied the art of Rome, or
> at least what they thought the art of Rome was like. Amusingly, the white
> marble busts they favoured were quite unlike their Roman equivalents, which
> were apparently painted in lifelike colours; when the Victorians acquired
> them millennia later the colour had worn away, and art theorists concluded
> that if the Romans did it that way, that must be what sculpture is supposed
> to be like.
Whats interesting is this is what has happened all over. The Sphinx
in Egypt for instance was brightly painted, Everything in Egypt was
just fantastically colorful. The Egyptains really didnt like that
yellow color everyone always associates with their monuments today.
> Before aggressive expansionism started to look bad, Americans loved movies
> which represented the classical world as like America. Movies like The Ten
> Commandments and Ben Hur and Caesar and Cleopatra depicted an ancient Rome
> ruled by people who looked and sounded like American celebrities, as
> interested in spectacular entertainment as in world conquest.
This is a bit weird, but I dont like the movies where the Romans
talk in that ultra SLOW very unreal sounding voice. I imagine that
people actually talked in a sort of everyday tone. No one really
went around talking like they do in those Biblical epics.
Daniel Frankham
wrote:
>Daniel Frankham <dan...@oztek.net.au> wrote:
>> Before aggressive expansionism started to look bad, Americans loved movies
>> which represented the classical world as like America. Movies like The Ten
>> Commandments and Ben Hur and Caesar and Cleopatra depicted an ancient Rome
>> ruled by people who looked and sounded like American celebrities, as
>> interested in spectacular entertainment as in world conquest.
>
>This is a bit weird, but I dont like the movies where the Romans
>talk in that ultra SLOW very unreal sounding voice. I imagine that
>people actually talked in a sort of everyday tone. No one really
>went around talking like they do in those Biblical epics.
Yeah, they seem to feel that a "natural" tone won't sound ancient enough,
so they come up with this very artificial, dull style speech, where nobody
ever uses contractions. Posh people in BBC costume dramas seem to talk like
that, too. And everyone else talks like cockneys :)
--
Daniel Frankham
oliver.thornton
----------
In article <387fe...@news.calweb.com>, Charles Daniels
<cdan...@web1.calweb.com> wrote:
In fact, there are a lot of aesthetic concerns that are linked to the needs
of a spaceship. Just because aerodynamics influence car design
aesthetically, that doesn't mean aerodynamics are the only design criterion!
Things that might affect a spaceship design are: where you need to put your
engines; what protection the crew are going to need; what sorts of sensors
does your spaceship have to have; how your spaceship communicates with other
spaceships and planets; where/if you have docking ports, and what form they
need to take; where you need to get to quickly, and from where.
For instance, the spaceship described in 2001: A Space Odyssey the novel has
a design based all around these aspects.
Snowdrop.
Charles Daniels
> In article <387fe...@news.calweb.com>, Charles Daniels
> <cdan...@web1.calweb.com> wrote:
>>This is a lot like The Red Dwarf or the Imperial Ships in David McIntee's
>>The Dark Path, just terribly ugly monstrousities.
>>Thats great!
>>
> In fact, there are a lot of aesthetic concerns that are linked to the needs
> of a spaceship. Just because aerodynamics influence car design
> aesthetically, that doesn't mean aerodynamics are the only design criterion!
Yeah that is very true!
> Things that might affect a spaceship design are: where you need to put your
> engines; what protection the crew are going to need; what sorts of sensors
> does your spaceship have to have; how your spaceship communicates with other
> spaceships and planets; where/if you have docking ports, and what form they
> need to take; where you need to get to quickly, and from where.
Yeah these are the requirements of practical spaceship construction.
Charles Daniels
> On 15 Jan 2000 03:51:18 -0800, Charles Daniels <cdan...@web1.calweb.com>
> wrote:
>>This is a bit weird, but I dont like the movies where the Romans
>>talk in that ultra SLOW very unreal sounding voice. I imagine that
>>people actually talked in a sort of everyday tone. No one really
>>went around talking like they do in those Biblical epics.
> Yeah, they seem to feel that a "natural" tone won't sound ancient enough,
> so they come up with this very artificial, dull style speech, where nobody
> ever uses contractions.
Yeah I mean it would be nice to someone would actually try to present a
more accurate portrayal. Im sure there are some, but they arent
leaping to mind.
Then again I think Being Human has a relaxed conversational tone
in it's Roman section.
> Posh people in BBC costume dramas seem to talk like
> that, too. And everyone else talks like cockneys :)
How yeah very authentic!
Daniel Gooley
> Daniel Gooley wrote:
> > Charlie wrote...
> >> Or to have divine midgets using wormholes to rob famous people in
> >> history...oh well. reaching there.
>
> > Struggle you may with the elementary - lucky you got so far. All you
> > hold is mythology. Measure mystery. And the sun, it's like taking a gun
> > to the handiwork we made, only a dream away.
>
> Interestingly written by George Harrison as a criticism of Terry Gilliam.
Okay. If you're fishing a la Smith?, here's your first bite of the day.
What?!
Admittedly my memory of the song is patchy, since I haven't heard the
thing in a decade and only remember it at all because I loved it so much
that I played it over and over one time I borrowed the Time Bandits
movie, so long ago), but that's something I'd never have guessed. Do you
mean criticism as in "having a go at?" Unusual of Terry to use it in
his film, in that case. Can you shed any more light on this comment?
Here's what I can remember of the lyrics below, and I'm struggling to
make any real connection to a critique of Gilliam.
Or-I-in-I-ay, or-I-in-I-ay, or-I-in-I-gee-you-lay.
Or-A-loo-laa-we, or-I-in-I-ay, sy-A-tay-li-A-lee-sure.
Midnight sunshine, shower and thunder
Sky is black as day
Only a dream away
Chorus
See them feeling, wheeling, dealing
Losing what you own
See the dream come undone.
Struggle you may with the elementary
Lucky you got so far
All you hold is mythology
Measure mystery
And the sun
It's like taking a gun
All the handiwork we made was
Only a dream away.
There were other verses - I can recall one starting with "Tumbling
through a thousand centuries" - but that just makes it sound more related
to the film than Gilliam.
Or have I got the lyrics completely wrong?
Danny
Daniel Gooley
> This reminds me of the pseudo-classical paintings of Sir Lawrence
> Alma-Tadema last century. It has often been commented how he liked to
> paint the Romans as Victorians in togas; it highlights our need to see
> ourselves reflected in our ancestors, that sense of tradition,
> continuity.
And that injection of the present into historical scenarios
dates the subject so very quickly. Much as the science fiction aesthetic
interpretation experiences a generational shift and quickly becomes a
quaint reminder of more ignorant times, it's fascinating looking back at
old movies to see how differently 1950s and 1970s versions of Romans are,
for example.
But Daniel Frankham's already done a good post on that. Something else
which is quite fascinating is the way that an anachronistic style can
take hold and continue pretty much unobserved in it's own little niche.
Christian iconigraphy generally depicts very white Western European
figures in medieval garb, several centuries and several thousand
kilometres from what we might historically expect. And yet the only time
that I for one would stop to even think about that is when I see a South-
East Asian community grouped around an Asian Jesus, or - just as
jarringly - an "everyday" Caucasian one. An aesthetic which is not
modern but not contemporary has taken hold and is blindly accepted as the
norm.
Believe it or not, we can make this relevant to Doctor Who. In 1963, the
costume designers took a small but effective decision to give William
Hartnell a wig. I'm not sure what style of hair elderly Edwardian
gentlemen tended towards, but this step not only looked funky, but
removed him from the contemporary short haircut.
Troughton, when he appeared, had no such affectation, and simply adopted
a hairstyle of the day - which happened to be a Beatles mop. Pertwee's
curls were initially tight in line with the short square style of the
early 70's, but quickly bloomed into a full "mane" as the Hair decade
blossomed. Big-haired Baker leapt forth in that era, and stayed about
for so long that the fashions changed behind him, while he was locked
into character as the guy with the scarf and mass of brown curls.
Davison arrived in time to bring New Romantic shoulder-length locks to
the part. Even during Colin's tenure in the mid-80's there was quite a
bit of hair to be found, and the ToaTL season shows him with full head of
hair.
By the late 80's men's hair was getting short again, but the short-haired
McCoy made no great splash on the public consciousness, and when he did
it wasn't a particularly popular one. And then the BBC stopped producing
the show during the crew-cut, goateed 90's.
So when it came time for Phillip Segal (and subsequently the BBC, drawing
also upon McGann) to decide upon new Doctors, certain things had set fast
in a static consciousness, based on decade-or-more old photos. The
Doctor would have to travel in a Police Box; he would have to wear a
frock coat; and he would have to have shoulder length (preferably curly)
hair. After all, Hartnell had long hair. Troughton had big hair. Jon
and Tom had curly big hair. Oo,h look, there are some pictures of Peter
and Colin with long hair! Oscar Wilde had long hair. QED, the Doctor
has long hair!
The fact that, Hartnell aside, previous Doctors had simply been
reflecting fashions of the day was not thought about. And so, for the
first time since Hartnell, Doctors McGann and Atkinson donned wigs. By
an accident of nature, the 70's/80's version of the eccentric Edwardian
gentleman adventurer had become an essential icon, like Sherlock Holmes'
deerstalker (added to the great detective posthumously, I understand).
Well, makes *me* think, anyway.
Danny
Charles Daniels
> Chaz Gordon writ:
>>>> Or to have divine midgets using wormholes to rob famous people in
>>>> history...oh well. reaching there.
>>
>>> Struggle you may with the elementary - lucky you got so far. All you
>>> hold is mythology. Measure mystery. And the sun, it's like taking a gun
>>> to the handiwork we made, only a dream away.
>>
>> Interestingly written by George Harrison as a criticism of Terry Gilliam.
> Okay. If you're fishing a la Smith?, here's your first bite of the day.
Oh I thought that was sort of semi-common knowledge.
> What?!
Oh yeah the song was written by George Harrison to criticize
Terry Gilliam and the way he approached the film.
> Admittedly my memory of the song is patchy, since I haven't heard the
> thing in a decade and only remember it at all because I loved it so much
> that I played it over and over one time I borrowed the Time Bandits
> movie, so long ago)
Oh yeah i love the song too! It's very catchy.
> but that's something I'd never have guessed. Do you
> mean criticism as in "having a go at?"
Yes I do.
> Unusual of Terry to use it in his film, in that case.
Well Terry didn't realise it himself until after the film was
in theatres. At that point someone who knew both him and George
told him why George wrote that song the way he did and then
Terry realised it was directed at him.
> Can you shed any more light on this comment?
Sure. okay here's the deal -
George was suppose to do the musical score for the entire film.
According to Terry Gilliam the music George wanted to do was a very
happy up beat "hi ho! HI HO! It's off to work we go!" musical
score so the time banits would be seen as sort of like the 7 dwarves
in Snow White.
The thing is Terry and some other people making the film hated
this idea as this wasn't the mood they wanted.
So Terry Gilliam rejected his whole score.
Then George Harrison asked if he could do a closing song.
He did the closing song. Terry used it.
Then sometime later it came out first through this mutual
friend then directly, about the nature of film.
> Here's what I can remember of the lyrics below, and I'm struggling to
> make any real connection to a critique of Gilliam.
Okay according to Terry Gilliam. in the source I have he doesnt
remember the lines but here's what he says -
"Keeping George's music out of the body of the film, he wanted to do a
song for the end. Which he did and I loved. It was only later I
told and realised the song was for me. The lyrics are actually some
notes he kept about Time Bandits and me. And he used those notes
to write the song. I can't remember the lines but there's one in there
"to astound, without taking up time" and that's because he thought the
movie was too long.
Also he was upset because he thought I wasn't greatful enough,
I was talking to Denis (Denis was the guy who handled George's money),
and there are lines about that. Like "shouting madly" or some
line about that is suppose to be me. I didn't realise until after
that the words were meant for me."
Okay now the lyrics as you recall them, I think I've heard
what some of those were suppose to mean, even though I don't
have a direct source from Terry Gilliam himself on those. -
> Or-I-in-I-ay, or-I-in-I-ay, or-I-in-I-gee-you-lay.
> Or-A-loo-laa-we, or-I-in-I-ay, sy-A-tay-li-A-lee-sure.
> Midnight sunshine, shower and thunder
> Sky is black as day
> Only a dream away
> Chorus
Okay ive never heard anything about this.
> See them feeling, wheeling, dealing
> Losing what you own
> See the dream come undone.
As I recall the "see them feeling, wheeling, dealing" was about
how Terry Gilliam and Ray were making the film in George's opinion.
Also "Losing what you own. See the dream come undone"
Was about his music being lost from the film, and perhaps actually
now no longer copywrighted to him, and of course his dream of the
soundtrack of the film coming undone.
> Struggle you may with the elementary
> Lucky you got so far
Again this is suppose to be a DIRECT criticism of Terry.
He is suppose to being saying that Terry struggles with elementary
stuff other people would just handle, and he's lucky he's gotten as far as
he has in the industry.
> All you hold is mythology
I think this is suppose to be a reference that his films are
always stuff taking from other sources - the holy grail legend,
Monty Pythoing and the Holy Grail, the biblical epics, Life of Brian,
that Time Bandits used the legend of Robin Hood, king Agamemnon,
Napeleon and the Titanic.
That Terry didnt have a lot of new ideas and always drew from mythological
or big known events.
> Measure mystery
> And the sun
> It's like taking a gun
Not sure here.
> All the handiwork we made was
> Only a dream away.
Again I think this is suppose to refer to how all the work he did on the
film never saw the light of day.
> There were other verses - I can recall one starting with "Tumbling
> through a thousand centuries" - but that just makes it sound more related
> to the film than Gilliam.
That is that line as well.
Again I have heard that this was a criticism from George about the movie.
Apparently George thought instead of having so many short skips
the film should have dealt with fewer time periods in more detail
and do it in a more elegant fashion than just tumbling around.
> Or have I got the lyrics completely wrong?
Those are the lyrics pretty much as I recall them.
There are some verses missing from the above that I know are vital.
I know Terry Gilliam goes into more detail about this in the Criterion
DVD.
Lance Parkin
<daniel...@detya.gov.au> wrote:
>Iian Neil wrote:
>
>> This reminds me of the pseudo-classical paintings of Sir Lawrence
>> Alma-Tadema last century. It has often been commented how he liked to
>> paint the Romans as Victorians in togas; it highlights our need to see
>> ourselves reflected in our ancestors, that sense of tradition,
>> continuity.
>
>And that injection of the present into historical scenarios
>dates the subject so very quickly. Much as the science fiction aesthetic
>interpretation experiences a generational shift and quickly becomes a
>quaint reminder of more ignorant times, it's fascinating looking back at
>old movies to see how differently 1950s and 1970s versions of Romans are,
>for example.
There was a great article in, er, The New Scientist I think, last
year that showed the evolution of what we think dinosaurs
looked like, and how it's so closely tied to our own cultural
assumptions (right up to the 'family values' Tyrannosaurs of
The Lost World).
Lance
Paul_Pippa
>
> The fact that, Hartnell aside, previous Doctors had simply been
> reflecting fashions of the day was not thought about. And so, for the
> first time since Hartnell, Doctors McGann and Atkinson donned wigs. By
> an accident of nature, the 70's/80's version of the eccentric Edwardian
> gentleman adventurer had become an essential icon, like Sherlock Holmes'
> deerstalker (added to the great detective posthumously, I understand).
Sorry, but I'm gonna be very boring and pedantic here. It was Sherlock's
curved pipe that was added posthumously. The deerstalker was added by the
*contemporary* illustrator Sidney Paget.
But apart from that, I loved your point about the hair.
--
Paul_Pippa
"Nothing puzzles me more than time and space; and yet nothing troubles me
less, as I never think about them." (Charles Lamb, 1810)
SHADoWS http://www.shadws.freeserve.co.uk
Sherlock Holmes And Doctor Who Site
Charles Daniels
> Charles Daniels:
>>
>> Oh I thought that was sort of semi-common knowledge.
>
Ohh okay!
> <snip explanation which suddenly makes sense of the strange claim. Much
> thanks>
Cool! Glad to help!
> And now, after a little internet search, here are the real lyrics.
> Proving once and for all that both my memory is shaky, and I've never
> been able to hear lyrics in songs properly....
> Stumble you may with the elementary
> Lucky you got so far
> All you owe is apologies
Yeah this was definitely all directed at Terry Gilliam
> Measure the mystery and astound
> Without taking up time
And yeah apparently Geroge Harrison thought the movie was too long.
Daniel Gooley
> >> Interestingly written by George Harrison as a criticism of Terry Gilliam.
>
> > Okay. If you're fishing a la Smith?, here's your first bite of the day.
>
> Oh I thought that was sort of semi-common knowledge.
Mayhaps it is. Not one I knew, though.
<snip explanation which suddenly makes sense of the strange claim. Much
thanks>
> > Here's what I can remember of the lyrics below, and I'm struggling to
> > make any real connection to a critique of Gilliam.
And now, after a little internet search, here are the real lyrics.
Proving once and for all that both my memory is shaky, and I've never
been able to hear lyrics in songs properly....
"Dream Away"
by George Harrison
Lyrics:
Oh Ry In Eye Ay - Oh Ry In Eye Ay
Oh Ry In Eye Key Ooh Lay
Ka Kay Ooh Lau Ee - Oh Ry In Eye
Say Te Lee Ay Vee Show
Midnight sunshine silent thunder
Sky as black as day
Only a dream away
Chorus
Waking while you're still deep sleeping
Finding you're not here
Watching a dream appear
Tumbling through a thousand centuries
You don't know where you'll land
It's so dark in mythology
Treasures of history to be found
Near the legends of time
All the handiworks remain there
Only a dream away
Chorus
Greedy feeling wheeling dealing
Losing what you won
See the dream come undone
Stumble you may with the elementary
Lucky you got so far
All you owe is apologies
Measure the mystery and astound
Without taking up time
So the handiworks remain there
Only a dream away
Chorus
In out, hot cold, up down, young old
What a lot to do
Sharing a dream with you
Chorus
Danny
Daniel Gooley
> Daniel Gooley wrote:
> >
> > The fact that, Hartnell aside, previous Doctors had simply been
> > reflecting fashions of the day was not thought about. And so, for the
> > first time since Hartnell, Doctors McGann and Atkinson donned wigs. By
> > an accident of nature, the 70's/80's version of the eccentric Edwardian
> > gentleman adventurer had become an essential icon, like Sherlock Holmes'
> > deerstalker (added to the great detective posthumously, I understand).
>
> Sorry, but I'm gonna be very boring and pedantic here. It was Sherlock's
> curved pipe that was added posthumously. The deerstalker was added by the
> *contemporary* illustrator Sidney Paget.
Ah, okay. Thanks. Knew it was something like that.
Danny
Mick Collins
>> *contemporary* illustrator Sidney Paget.
And is mentioned, I believe, in the text as a "fore and aft".
Cyn
"Daleks don't like stairs."
Daniel Frankham
<daniel...@detya.gov.au> wrote:
>By
>an accident of nature, the 70's/80's version of the eccentric Edwardian
>gentleman adventurer had become an essential icon, like Sherlock Holmes'
>deerstalker (added to the great detective posthumously, I understand).
It appears in some of Sidney Paget's illustrations of the Holmes stories
(in their original appearances in the Strand). In some of the stories,
Holmes wears a "close-fitting cloth cap" when traveling to the country -
probably this is what suggested a deerstalker to Paget.
It seems to have been adopted by stage and movie versions of Holmes because
it was one of the few fairly unusual (and therefore identifiable) things
Holmes wore. In most of the early illustrations he wears more conventional
hats. Interestingly, in the stories he probably appears more often in
dressing gown and slippers than deerstalker and cloak, but the world had to
wait another century for a hero usually associated with a dressing gown :)
--
Daniel Frankham
Daniel Frankham
<pin...@shadws.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Daniel Gooley wrote:
>>
>> The fact that, Hartnell aside, previous Doctors had simply been
>> reflecting fashions of the day was not thought about. And so, for the
>> first time since Hartnell, Doctors McGann and Atkinson donned wigs. By
>> an accident of nature, the 70's/80's version of the eccentric Edwardian
>> gentleman adventurer had become an essential icon, like Sherlock Holmes'
>> deerstalker (added to the great detective posthumously, I understand).
>
>Sorry, but I'm gonna be very boring and pedantic here. It was Sherlock's
>curved pipe that was added posthumously. The deerstalker was added by the
>*contemporary* illustrator Sidney Paget.
Holmes had a lot of pipes in the stories; it seems it was the actor William
Gillette, who played Holmes on stage in 1899, who introduced the curved
pipe. Apparently he found it easier to speak with that kind of pipe in his
mouth than other pipes.
So, to be utterly boringly pedantic, it wasn't posthumous, unless you're
one of those who think Holmes really did die at Reichenbach :)
--
Daniel Frankham
Meddling Mick
Frankham) wrote:
<snip>
>So, to be utterly boringly pedantic, it wasn't posthumous, unless you're
>one of those who think Holmes really did die at Reichenbach :)
<grin> Oh thanks for the F?!#ING SPOILER!!! I was just about to start
reading 'The Final Problem', too!
---------------------
(Meddling) Mick
"I'm half-Loom, man. On my Other's side."
(What the Doctor *really* said)
Paul_Pippa
>
> So, to be utterly boringly pedantic, it wasn't posthumous, unless you're
> one of those who think Holmes really did die at Reichenbach :)
>
Touche'!
Erm, can I get away with saying this was between publication of FINA & EMPT
when people thought Holmes was dead, so from Gillette's POV it was
posthumous?
Daniel Gooley
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 16:53:32 -0000, "Paul_Pippa"
> <pin...@shadws.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Daniel Gooley wrote:
> >>
> >> The fact that, Hartnell aside, previous Doctors had simply been
> >> reflecting fashions of the day was not thought about. And so, for the
> >> first time since Hartnell, Doctors McGann and Atkinson donned wigs. By
> >> an accident of nature, the 70's/80's version of the eccentric Edwardian
> >> gentleman adventurer had become an essential icon, like Sherlock Holmes'
> >> deerstalker (added to the great detective posthumously, I understand).
> >
> >Sorry, but I'm gonna be very boring and pedantic here. It was Sherlock's
> >curved pipe that was added posthumously. The deerstalker was added by the
> >*contemporary* illustrator Sidney Paget.
>
> Holmes had a lot of pipes in the stories; it seems it was the actor William
> Gillette, who played Holmes on stage in 1899, who introduced the curved
> pipe. Apparently he found it easier to speak with that kind of pipe in his
> mouth than other pipes.
>
> one of those who think Holmes really did die at Reichenbach :)
Can't speak for Paul_Pippa, by "posthumously" I for one meant Conan
Doyle, along the "original conception" line. Though that's not massively
clear, I grant you.
In any case, thank you for pointing out that I was talking garbage.
But the heir to hair point hold, dammit! I mean, the only consistently
short-haired Doctor (McCoy), returned in the TVM with - ta-da! - long
hair!!!!!
Danny
(no, I'm not really serious)
Daniel Frankham
<daniel...@detya.gov.au> wrote:
>Can't speak for Paul_Pippa, by "posthumously" I for one meant Conan
>Doyle, along the "original conception" line. Though that's not massively
>clear, I grant you.
>
>In any case, thank you for pointing out that I was talking garbage.
My pleasure.
>But the heir to hair point hold, dammit! I mean, the only consistently
>short-haired Doctor (McCoy), returned in the TVM with - ta-da! - long
>hair!!!!!
Indubitably.
--
Daniel Frankham
Daniel Frankham
<pin...@shadws.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Daniel Frankham wrote:
>>
>> So, to be utterly boringly pedantic, it wasn't posthumous, unless you're
>> one of those who think Holmes really did die at Reichenbach :)
>
>Touche'!
>
>Erm, can I get away with saying this was between publication of FINA & EMPT
>when people thought Holmes was dead, so from Gillette's POV it was
>posthumous?
Yes, I think I'll allow that one.
--
Daniel Frankham