Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!JAFFE
From: JAFFE@RUTGERS.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Space 1999, UFO, et al
Message-ID: <2589@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 8-Jul-85 20:35:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.2589
Posted: Mon Jul  8 20:35:58 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 10-Jul-85 23:41:37 EDT
Sender: daemon@topaz.ARPA
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 24

From: varian!fred (Fred Klink)

>"Space: 1999" wasn't intended for children any more than was, say "Star  Trek",
>but  it  tended  to stretch the willing suspension of disbelief a hell of a lot
>further.  This wasn't due to exotic imagination, just a lack  of  understanding
>of some fundamentals of SF craftsmanship.

I enjoy Star Trek far more than Space 1999 as well, but to say Star Trek didn't
stretch willing suspension of disbelief to the breaking point on numerous
occasions is, to coin phrase, stretching it!

I think the original authors posting was meant to say that judging sci-fi
strictly on the basis of scientific accuracy is not a fair means of critique,
unless all works of fiction are judged on the same basis.  People in detective
movies take blow after blow that would knock out a horse-- now thats
not very scientifically plausible but we take it willingly as a part of the
formula action show.  How about horror movies?  There's yet to be a case
of dead folks walking around causing trouble that made it to the scientific
journals, yet we flock to the theatre to willingly subject ourselves to such
improbabilities.  Part of what is refered to as "SF craftsmanship" has always
involved creating that which is scientifically impossible, usually by just
bringing in a "technology that is completely unknown to us" as Spock seemed
to be saying every other week.  Also, since I'm a scientist, I have learned
to avoid saying that anything is "impossible".