Day: October 20, 2007

Linkpharm:

  • Gwenda Bond is right: this is a pretty terrific quote from George Saunders.
  • My appreciation for Doctor Who has grown by leaps and bounds lately — thanks in no small part to a pretty terrific third season and Betty‘s essay about the show and its history in the current issue of Kaleidotrope — but I’m still not prepared to wear one of these talking Dalek neckties. I’ve had a tough enough time explaining my current desktop image to office co-workers. [via]
  • There once was a starship, the USS Nantucket… A Space Western Limerick Contest [via]
  • “Is this the end of zombie Shakespeare?” I have no idea if this production is any good, but c’mon: 12th Night of the Living Dead? How can you not grin at a title like that? [via]
  • I think what I like best about this list of 10 Dumb Moments in Sci-Fi Cinema is the “Why we don’t care” part at the end. It’s worth noting that a movie can fail spectacularly in logic or as science fiction and still be entertaining. [via]
  • Ben Bova wonders, “What if some of the startling things that astronomers see are not entirely natural? What if they are caused by the actions of intelligent creatures?” [via]
  • J.K. Rowling discusses the Christian imagery in Harry Potter. Is it wrong that I sort of wish she hadn’t? [via]
  • Some video:
  • I know there are lots of reasons why a television pilot does or does not get picked up, but c’mon: how can you fail with a zombie crime drama? That’s sort of what Babylon Fields was supposed to be. And, having now seen the pilot episode, I really wish CBS had given this one a chance. It’s not perfect, but it would have been one of the more interesting shows of the season. If you have forty minutes to kill (and it’s still up there), I’d recommend it. [via]

We live in an increasingly rational society, in which “a rising tide of irrational religiosity infecting mainstream life” has been substantially curbed thanks to the efforts of philosophers and authors like Richard Dawkins.

So says Mark Chadbourn, in a post entitled Richard Dawkins Is Killing SF! [via] And while it’s an interesting theory, I think the basic premise is a little absurd — and perhaps even a little insulting.

Chadbourn acknowledges that “[i]f you’re interested in magic, it doesn’t mean you think Einstein is a charlatan.” But that’s essentially what he’s suggesting when he asserts that the enjoyment of magical stories, and the success of science fiction and fantasy as genres, hinge on widespread irrational beliefs.

You can believe in magic and believe in Einstein. But you can also enjoy stories about magic without believing in it. I can enjoy science fiction and fantasy without believing in unicorns, ogres and orcs, faster-than-light travel, vampires, ghosts, God, telepathy, Frankenstein’s monster, artificial intelligence, or any number of other things.

In short, I can be as Richard Dawkins insists I should be and still find plenty to keep me coming back to science fiction and fantasy.