RDFRS US:
The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.
The Magic of Reality
for the iPad
Sean Faircloth:
Attack of the Theocrats!
Ah, that kind of snobbery. I see where you're coming from...
I don't buy this analysis at all. In fact I don't really see much difference between the two, except in aesthetic terms. Both can be just as inspiring, just as thoughtful, just as mature and just as interesting. They just have a different aesthetic appeal. Science fiction is simply a sub-genre of fantasy writing.
One could, by that logic, condemn human biology as a discipline because it is not astronomy. I don't see why the traditionally spacefaring settings of science fiction should somehow make them more worthy or worthwhile than the traditionally historically- and mythologically- inspired settings of fantasy works. What has being set in a fictional place a long way away got to reccommend it? The narrative and character and ideas are not made more compelling simply because they are imagined to be light-years distant.
If we're just sticking to the cinema then there's a lot. What about Ray Harryhausen's iconic animated skeleton warriors in Jason and the Argonauts? Or the menace of Christopher Lee's dracula? Or the haunting schizophrenia of gollum in the Lord of the Rings trilogy? But it goes deeper than that. Fantasy literature trades on archetypes, on deeply-held cultural tropes. It's almost Jungian. We are all familiar with the crusading knight, the barbarian warlord, the massed army, the wise sorcerer, the mighty dragon. Indeed, science fiction often borrows from these fantasy archetypes to achieve its effects. Star Wars, after all, has its share of knights and princesses, hermit-sages and evil emperors and swashbuckling adventurers.
Permalink Wed, 03 Aug 2011 09:05:58 UTC | #857359