>
>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
>
I think that alternate Histories are also sci-fi/SF they fit in too.
Perhaps my definition was limited. If so, my apologies
Becca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:07:38 PDT