Kevin's Watch

Ummm, The Memory of Earth by Orson Scott Card?

No...nobody that famous (can't even remember author, I think it was a woman, though) AHHH! Maybe 'Memento Mori' [morte?] title feels right...but it was a brand new book in the library 10, 12 years ago?
That might be it.

Vraith wrote:No...nobody that famous (can't even remember author, I think it was a woman, though) AHHH! Maybe 'Memento Mori' [morte?] title feels right...but it was a brand new book in the library 10, 12 years ago?
That might be it.

Mememto Mori by Muriel Spark (Paperback - 1990)
1 Used & new from $5.00
Books: See all 10 items

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:I'm not saying that about any magical/mystical/scifi elements. I specifically referred to the human element of SRD's novels with my example of slumping over the control panel. Look at Nick's crew in the second book of the Gap, or at Nick himself. Everybody had a unique personality, different responses to events, different motivations, different reasons for being there - and everybody played a role in the events as they played out in the novel. There were no throwaway characters, and nothing incidental to the characterization.

In the original Star Trek series, the Spock/Bones/Jim triad was very interesting, but the other characters, while all unique, tended to fade into the background. And nobody ever slumped over their control panels.

I know, I know. And that's the thing. Every character in BSG and Lost has a lot to them--has a more or less unique personality, different way of responding to things, motivation, etc. If I could recollect every scene in 'em, I'm sure there'd be something to parallel slumping over control panels. The importance of each person to the plot is more open to question, though (yet even that shines through fairly well).

Mighara Sovmadhi wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:I'm not saying that about any magical/mystical/scifi elements. I specifically referred to the human element of SRD's novels with my example of slumping over the control panel. Look at Nick's crew in the second book of the Gap, or at Nick himself. Everybody had a unique personality, different responses to events, different motivations, different reasons for being there - and everybody played a role in the events as they played out in the novel. There were no throwaway characters, and nothing incidental to the characterization.

In the original Star Trek series, the Spock/Bones/Jim triad was very interesting, but the other characters, while all unique, tended to fade into the background. And nobody ever slumped over their control panels.

I know, I know. And that's the thing. Every character in BSG and Lost has a lot to them--has a more or less unique personality, different way of responding to things, motivation, etc. If I could recollect every scene in 'em, I'm sure there'd be something to parallel slumping over control panels. The importance of each person to the plot is more open to question, though (yet even that shines through fairly well).

I tried to watch Lost for a couple of the very first few episodes. It is, well, a television series, designed to keep an audience coming back for more. When I saw the hint of a dinosaur-like creature crashing around in the thicket, I knew they would keep the suspense of "what-is-it?" up for as long as they could.

Such tactics fail to impress.

On the other hand, a good sci-fi book would explain why the airplane got lost. Even Piers Anthony, in his great Orn/Omnivore/OX trilogy, had a scientific explanation for it all.

I haven't seen any of the new Galactica, so I don't know if I am missing anything.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:I tried to watch Lost for a couple of the very first few episodes. It is, well, a television series, designed to keep an audience coming back for more. When I saw the hint of a dinosaur-like creature crashing around in the thicket, I knew they would keep the suspense of "what-is-it?" up for as long as they could.

Such tactics fail to impress.

On the other hand, a good sci-fi book would explain why the airplane got lost. Even Piers Anthony, in his great Orn/Omnivore/OX trilogy, had a scientific explanation for it all.

I haven't seen any of the new Galactica, so I don't know if I am missing anything.

The "monster" is not anything prehistoric, at least not in the sense that would usually be attached to the word prehistoric. It's an amorphous cloud of darkness that visually represents inside of its form the memories of the people it encounters. The only thing close to an authoritative explanation of its role on the island offered so far has been that it's a security system, but for what we don't know. I don't think it's quite fair to put the show down for taking so long to solve this mystery and yet commend SRD so much for his work since

Spoiler

it took him 3.5 entire books to reveal the nature of the shadow on the heart of the Elohim, for example.

As for the reason the airplane disappeared, I think some explanation of that has been forthcoming recently. For one, the island periodically teleports, drawing nearby objects with it. Secondly, there is an unusual concentration of energy inside of the island with special magnetic properties, which concentration (when unrestrained) tore the airplane in half over the island (this is what caused the crash, and what might've drawn the plane to the island's locale in the first place). Besides this, while nearly every episode brings with it new sources of confusion (much like in TRoTE or FR), a lot has been by now explained and more is being continuously unravelled now that the show is getting closer to finishing (this and the next season are planned to be it, basically). Besides this, I can't stress too much how amazingly the characters are conceived. Half the structure of the first 2 or 3 seasons centers on showing how their current difficulties reflect back on the nature of the lives they led before they came to the island, and there's no trivial protagonist/antagonist scheme set up, either. (There is a recurring conflict with "Others" who dwell on the island and who demonstrate a savage proclivity to abduction and killing, but this is not spelled out as so clearly a matter of good vs. evil as it might have been.)

BSG presents a multiplanetary human civilization almost completely annihilated by a concert of nuclear strikes on all of humanity's colonial territories. These attacks are the responsibility of a 40-years quiescent army of sentient robots built by humanity at some time in the past (I think), which robots are organized and led by a number of human-like personnel primarily known by numerical designation (e.g. one of those who orchestrates the massacre of the colonies is generally known as Number Six). In terms of a deeper theme, into the show can be read ambiguous commentary on a lot of modern political questions about emergency situations, insurgency, etc. plus a complex religious subtext (the robots tend to believe in a single Christian-like god whereas most of humanity is polytheistic; the robots, up until a certain point anyway, have technology that allows them to reincarnate; and so on). Virtually all of the characterization is crisply done, the personal struggles of the different people involved pretty damn compelling and well-drawn (no simplistic, "The Cylons tried to murder humankind because they're just plain evil," here, for instance; instead, an array of motivations is on offer, including a peculiar form of self-hatred on the part of the Number Ones--if I remember a more recent episode correctly).

In other words and more concisely, knowing these shows as well as I do, and knowing the Covenant novels with even more intimacy, I think I can safely judge them to be of more or less equal standing when it comes to the (spiritual) value of the characters and challenges they contain. Surely a first impression of TCoTC could easily lead to a dismissive, "Just a darker LotR," especially considering the parallels between the two (extremely important rings, trees defeating an army at crucial parts of the 2nd books in the series, etc.). But first impressions aren't necessarily the best.

So you're getting closer to the truth about the "dinosaur," I didn't expect the writers of Lost to keep the secret forever. I'm not putting down the show based on one little thing. I'm putting it down because it is prime-time network pap which, it seems, is designed to appeal to a broad range of interests in an audience, except, of course, for mine.

BSG looks more appealing to me. So I tried to view a complete episode online earlier today, but the site wouldn't let me.

Once again, it's not a dinosaur, not even a "dinosaur." And I don't get how a show with characters who routinely face explicit ethical problems (dealing with past crimes as if their guilt were reified on the island, for instance--rather like Linden Avery when translated to the Land, to hazard the comparison) and who adopt a broad array of metaphysical outlooks (e.g. some accept only scientific evidentialism, others appeal to a sense of teleology), shot through with clear academic references (Hume, Locke, Bentham, Faraday, Hawking), could be pap (or: it's only pap if SRD's work, or even just anything else short of outright philosophy texts, maybe, is, too). Knowing the show as well as I do, I just have to resist the fairness of this description. (Maybe I should say: to judge the show on the basis of a few episodes, rather than an exhaustive engagement with it, is irrational.)

Ok ok, so you know "Lost" better than I do. I'll stop passing judgment on it.

Since it's true, I do want to point out: I could be wrong, though.

Maybe another thread, covering reflection on what makes a certain piece of fiction "deep" or not, could be in order. It could start with paradigmatic examples of "deep" works and try to abstract from them the definition of the quality in question, or it could offer an a priori model of depth (yet how to test it?), instead. Or some other thing. I don't know. It's pretty tempting to me...