User talk:Mr. ATOZ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Mr. ATOZ, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Molotov (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] "Naturalistic" vs. old-school science fiction

I'm replying here, rather than on Talk:Naturalistic science fiction, because this is really just a ramble about the comparisons between recent and old-school science fiction television, rather than a comment on the Naturalistic science fiction article. (By the way, I hope you realized that I wasn't the one who removed your contributions from the page — although I did think they were a bit Wikipedia:original researchy, I hoped that they could be improved by finding verifiable sources. I don't have time to do that research myself right now, but if you want to I'll support the inclusion of a "Criticism" section. You might also be interested in the response I wrote to Ricimer, who removed the section, on his user talk page.)

In any fiction, there's a tension between the fantastic and the mundane. Many of the best works of science fiction and fantasy succeed in drawing the audience in by beginning in a familiar, comfortable or domestic setting and then moving to a world filled with wonders, excitement and big ideas or images. Examples include the "real-world" framing devices of books like Alice in Wonderland, The Wizard of Oz and the Narnia books, to the then-contemporary beginnings of H.G. Wells's novels, to the use of the once-everyday police box as the "magic portal" of the TARDIS in Doctor Who. TV series from Buck Rogers to Farscape to Doctor Who (both in its original and current incarnations) include a protagonist from the viewers' world, who can react to the fantastic elements around them as the viewers would. Heck, when Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote A Princess of Mars, John Carter, the Civil War veteran, would have been a type very familiar to his readership.

While a minority of viewers or readers can identify with protagonists in a distant future or far-off worlds, who live lives completely unrelated to those we encounter, the majority of people need some sort of touchstone to the mundane in their fiction. If the premise of the novel or series can allow for a viewpoint character, that's the easiest way to handle this. But what about something like Battlestar Galactica? I think that the success of the new BSG comes from the way that it has pinned itself so closely to the zeitgeist of post-9/11 America, with our fears and insecurities reflected back in a heightened form. Moore's BSG acknowledges those fears, and then asks what our fear might cause us to do, to others and to ourselves.

But you're right that the result usually isn't as much fun as some of the old, less serious science fiction. Christopher Eccleston said that Doctor Who wouldn't work today if it were "just spooky escapism", but I do think that there's a place for spooky escapism too. The difference reminds me of the line by Oscar Wilde: "We are all of us lying in the gutter, but some of us are looking up at the stars."

I'm not sure why I was moved to write this little essay — I guess I wanted you to know that even though I reluctantly supported the removal of your "Criticisms" section on the grounds of original research, I thought it had a lot of value, and it made me think. Which is something that good science fiction, of both kinds, should always do as well. :D —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote of confidence on the critisisms. I got a quote from Greg Benford in his afterword for one of his books that addresses the overuse of allegory. I'm trying to find other sources to back up what we both know is a widespread notion concerning excessive angst and gritty reality undermining the escape value in sci-fi. Like you, I feel that the section is needed to keep it from being pro-Moore or anti old-school. Mr. ATOZ 18:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Good luck on finding sources for the section. I'm hoping that Ricimer was just in a bad mood when he (or she?) wrote that edit summary — he's since responded on his talk page and is sounding more reasonable.
In your comment on my talk page, you said, "with the exception of racism, back then, we didn't consistently have socio-political commentary jammed down our throats." I'm not sure that's true either — the original Star Trek took on lots of issues of its day, including overpopulation (a widely reported concern of the time), the Vietnam War, and the widespread fear that the Cold War might turn hot and destroy both sides. Sometimes it was more subtle, or less — Let That Be Your Last Battlefield is just the most blatant example. In the 1970s, Doctor Who examined colonialism head-on at least twice, as well as concerns as wide-ranging as pollution and punitive taxation. Maybe it was better disguised, or maybe it's just that we were younger when we saw those programs and the political allegories went over our heads.
As for the treatment of the mundane on latter-day Star Trek and BSG, I think that one part of the problem is that the original Star Trek metaphor is a military one, conceived in a time when due to the draft a wide section of the population —including the people working on the programs— was likely to have had military experience. Even if Captain Kirk and his crew were facing a giant amoeba in space or having their brains removed by beautiful but stupid women, the "naval" environment was one that the audience was able to relate to. Today, the military lifestyle is alien to the vast majority of Americans (I know it is to me), so the elements which once served as a touchstone to the mundane no longer resonate with a wide audience. The naval metaphor doesn't help the audiences of today connect to the characters, and may even hinder audience identification. So instead you get scriptwriters turning to sometimes-inane character moments or sexual intrigue in an attempt to get the audience to identify with characters who are in such an unfamiliar environment.
Again, this is just me rambling without much of a point. I guess I can see the value in both the new and old-school science fiction programs, and I'm certainly glad that the genre has gotten past the creative doldrums it was in when the highest-profile examples were Voyager or Enterprise. And again, good luck on finding sources for the "criticism" section of the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right about Star Trek and other SF shows from the old days as far as tackling issues like the Vietnam War and such. I guess the difference back then is just like you say, we were too young to see all of the social commentary. Thing is, a large portion of the SF back then was made for children (as that was the pretext given to the TV executives for expensive SF shows). So it seems like much of these shows, when reexamined in a new, adult light, seem more sophisticated than they were once given credit for. I can sort of see now that Moore was really backlashing against his experiences on Voyager and Enterprise which was definitely in a sorry state by the time it ended. As long as Trek has been around, it should be at an evolutionary point where it should be the best SF on TV. Instead, it has epitomized triteness. Maybe this is why many pro-Moore fans see Trek and it's contemporaries as somewhat inferior. I agree with you that a criticisms section is better to balance against the pros of naturalistic SF. Someone mentioned Bjo Trimble as a possible source.Mr. ATOZ 20:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Emil_Lang_0_large.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Emil_Lang_0_large.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 12:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Emil_Lang_Sentinels_large.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Emil_Lang_Sentinels_large.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 10:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naturalistic science fiction AfD

As a contributor to the Naturalistic Science Fiction article, you may be interested in knowing that I have placed this article on AfD as a non-notable neologism. You can contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naturalistic science fiction. --Constantine Evans 10:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/r/2E/User_talk%7EMr._ATOZ_7566.html"