In a message dated 97-12-01 18:38:26 EST, rstoler@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
writes:
> As an 18 year old college student, I would have to agree. While Godzilla
is
> certainly not science fiction, I think that Tolkein, C.S. Lewis, Atwood,
and
> yes, even those damn Ghost buster movies are. I think the whole sci-fi
vs.
> SF debate is ridiculous. Why divide ourselves up? We are what we are,
> fantasy with some sort of basis in science, be it current, futuristic, or
> otherwise. This science does not even need to be "hard science" i.e.
> Chemistry, Biology, etc. Sociology and Anthropology are legitimate
sciences
> as well. Sorry to blather like this, but I needed to get this off my
chest.
I mostly agree with Becca here: It does seem counterproductive to divide
ourselves. My one quibble is that I consider Godzilla to be science fiction.
Perhaps not very good science fiction, but science fiction nonetheless.
It's been a long time since I've seen the movie, but my VideoHound guide
reminds me that Godzilla was awakened by atomic testing.
In fact, atomic testing/experimentation was a popular theme in science
fiction of the 1950's, when there were a number of films in which such work
turned benign denizens of the natural world into monsters that threatened
people. The symbolism is obvious, and I can well see how horrific these
movies were to people still trying to comprehend the bombing of Hiroshima.
Myself, I have fond memories of a flick called Beginning of the End in which
giant grasshoppers attacked Chicago. At one point it seemed the special
effects consisted of letting grasshoppers crawl all over a picture of the
Tribune Tower.
And now a question. I agree with Becca's statement that "We are what we are,
fantasy with some sort of basis in science, be it current, futuristic, or
otherwise." But how do Alternate History stories fit this definition? They
have long been considered science fiction.
Anny
AnnyMiddon@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:07:37 PDT