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".