And, of course, I'm constantly working on improving my wriiting.

As I learn more and study these areas more, I'm discovering it's harder and harder for me to enjoy literature or movies.

Anyone else have this problem? Suddenly I find myself going to movies like Van Helsing or Day After Tomorrow and just completely despising them. I know that even four or five years ago I would have loved these films for their effects alone. But now, the writing is so bad (especially Van Helsing) and the science is so off base that I just can't let the special effects and action take over.

So have I become TOO skeptical? Or are those movies just THAT bad?

But it's not just movies...I found myself tossing Hammerfall by C.J. Cheryth in the circular file after forcing my way through 100 pages. And even though I find Lion of Senet to be a good book, I can't help but wonder if I would have enjoyed it more back in my "I just read it for entertainment" days....

my 2 pennies
 

I do understand, however. As a child, I could enjoy stories that had faulty science and logic. I'm not sure what I enjoyed about them, maybe character. I usually enjoyed stories that had a strong female character with whom I could identify.

Then I began to learn things. A few things here, a few things there, and before I knew it I could not enjoy all of the things I used to enjoy.

I think part of it is growing up. But it can go too far.

Let's take a good example from my past: Star Trek. I loved the next generation episodes when i as growing up. (Oh, I must have been 10-15 as I watched those.) I had a crush on Wesley Crusher. (Yeah, yeah...) But at some point I began to realize how silly it all was. I mean, it's just plain silly. And now, if I happen to catch an episode on Spike TV because nothing else is on, I have to work hard not to laugh. I just outgrew it. In part, its a shame, but then, I've left much of the naivety of my childhood behind.

On the other hand, it can go too far, this obsession with getting the science right. You haven't mentioned anything that concerns me, to be honest, but if all of a sudden you started thinking Clarke's work was full of holes, I'd have to be worried. (and never let you critique anything of mine!)

So skepticism is good, a little growing up is good, just be careful not to let it go too over the top.
 

Really, I just wanted to register my laughter over your little admission about Wes

Anyway, fiction is an art. All fiction, not just science fiction. It is an exercise in portraying truths that transcend the facts. The facts in fiction are always wrong, the deeper question is whether there is any truth to be found.

Sometimes there just isn't any.
 

I've noticed the same thing, however. I can't enjoy the same books (usually) I once did, although the classics (Coville, mostly) never die.

CVG
 

The great thing about science is, it's changing all the time. The best example I can think of is the resurgence of this idea that part of the water on Earth today may actually have been sucked off of Mars when it passed close to us sometime long, long ago. The scientific community scoffed at this idea, along with everyone else, and now it's getting some serious press and thought again. Who would have thought? Now, I'm not saying there isn't such a thing as "bad science", but, who knows, the crackpot ideas of today could be reality tomorrow.
 

Okay...I STILL love to read Adams, but still...

I read the latest M.Y.T.H novels now and just can't stomach them. And to think that at one point in time Piers Anthony was my reference point for good literature...eek.

Thank you OSC and Ender's Game for getting me on-track for good stories.

I still can't believe I waited until I was almost THIRTY to read Tolkein.

As for the Star Trek references--I guess I still am able to forgive some thing! I am a Trekker through and through (though somebody, please, spare me that first season of DS9--there's only so much nodoze one person can take). From what I hear about Trek, though, the original series initially attempted to right the "sounds of explosions in space" thing, but apparently viewers complained that it didn't 'feel' right not to hear things blow-up.

So I guess in some cases we the viewer/reader are to blame for some of the flaws in science we see/hear (er...don't hear?) in film.

But as far as quality of writing goes...well...no. On second thought, we seem to keep buying up poor samples of writing by the truckoad, too.

And in the case of flicks like "Day after tomorrow" I guess that watching global climate shift occur over the course of several decades just doesn't exactly hold the audience too well.

Still, it would be nice to read a book and not stop every other paragraph and think to myself "I can't believe they got away with writing that..."

Of course...I've never felt that way reading Tolkien or Card or Brooks....well...maybe on occasion.

(And what is it with me and all these stupid ellipses??? I honestly don't do that in my fiction. I promise...really....)
 

Mmm. I actually find myself enjoying bad science movies a great deal. There's something innately wonderful about going to the movies with friends and saying "*snerk* Stupid movies. That kind of quartz deposition could never occur at those depths, even if the pressure would allow the formation to occur. *snerk snerk*" (And something even more wonderful and perhaps disturbing if those friends understand you, and vice versa.)

Bad writing is another story, although I rather hope growing out of some writing means you're growing into other writing at the same time. It's when you grow out of, say, Finnegans Wake that you start getting worried.... *jk*
 

I've also noticed that I've gotten better at rating movies based solely on previews. I saw the first preview for Day After Tomorrow many months ago, and my response was "cool effects, but it'll be totally schlocky." Bingo.

And while I'm on the subject of previews, my favorites are the ones where you get to see the whole movie in three minutes. Then it comes out and I think, "haven't I seen that one already?"

And Gen, the best way to "de-Snape" Alan Rickman is to rewatch Sense and Sensibility. Works like a charm.

Lisa

[This message has been edited by birdcastle (edited June 15, 2004).]
 

It's the voice...he has a very distinct voice that has now become Snape's in my mind.

I actually like Robert Asprin better than Douglas Adams...Asprin knows how to tell a joke with a straight face. The Myth books are great fun. So are all the Adams books...but Asprin is pure fun.

I always thought that Piers Anthony was juvenille, but I read his books anyway (because I wasn't always so old, you know). So I can authoritatively state that they are for only teenagers if anyone happens to mention them.
 

Mind you - if you want to talk about HISTORICAL inaccuracy...

[This message has been edited by RFLong (edited June 16, 2004).]
 

Oh, I can hear the groans from here.

No. It was a good movie. It was, as Kevin Smith meant it to be, a hilarious movie and just a bit sacrilegious, but that, and Alan Rickman, is what made it great.

That, and Ben Affleck's head exploding. I could never get tired of that.

Though I could do without seeing Alanis Morrisette portraying God. Seriously. It's wrong.

CVG
 

I thought Alanis was oddly right. I mean, how often is God portrayed swinging upside down in a tree?

Lisa
 

Don't know why, though.