From: spike66 (spike66@attglobal.net)
Date: Thu Mar 07 2002 - 23:45:31 MST
Michael M. Butler wrote:
>I still hate _Lord of the Flies_ because of a fundamental science gaffe in it. The difference is, the author of _Lord of the Flies_ could have easily _checked_ whether nearsighted peoples' glasses focus light to a burning point--he just didn't *bother*. And if Piggy isn't both nearsighted *and* "useful" because of his glasses, the entire story falls apart. *BZZZT*. Up with _that_ I will not put. MMB
>
This is a good example of what I mentioned earlier: we need sci-fi with
feeling. In Lord of the Flies, Golding has written some pretty flimsy
sci-fi,
but LOTF has great pathos. Similarly, Card demonstrates early in Ender's
Game that he doesn't understand conservation of angular momentum.
It ruins the story, until you realize that this isnt the point.
In the case of Golding, Piggy's glasses and his nearsightedness are
both symbols, powerful symbols of how society has members that
are great assets if protected carefully, but who are vulnerable to
exploitation.
How many sci-fi stories have we read that we can recall the names
of any of the main characters 25 years after having last read the story?
Piggy. Simon. Jack. Samneric. I agree with Mike that really good
sci-fi must get all the technical details exactly right. But it is a
tribute
to Golding that he could create such characters that stay in the mind
for a quarter of a century. spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:50 MST