Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Sci-Fi Books Media Book Reviews

From Alien to The Matrix 249

Posted by timothy from the gross-icky-things-on-both-sides dept.
Spencerian writes "Roz Kaveney's From Alien to the Matrix is definitely a love-to-hate book for me, and probably for most fanboys who've forgotten more than the author knows about the meanings, philosophy, and humor found in many popular SF films of the last 35 years. If you love to argue and curse when you read something that's so way off base in interpretation or appears to lack any research in even the basic meanings that most Americans found in a SF film, then this is your book. But if you hate arguing with your non-fannish significant other on why you really liked a particular movie, save your money by not buying this book. Oh, and dump your boy/girlfriend, too." Read on for the rest of Spencerian's review.
From Alien to The Matrix: Reading Science Fiction Film
author Roz Kaveney
pages 208
publisher I.B.Tauris
rating 4
reviewer Kevin H. Spencer
ISBN 1850438056
summary For kooky, way-off-base interpretations of several Sci-Fi films, this is your book.

The book seemed interesting enough from the cover, given a pleasant upsurge in the number of meaning and philosophy books on many SF films. I was expecting another take on my current joy, The Matrix universe, as well as some tidbits from other movies to get me delving for the hidden jokes and thoughts of a classic or two, like the Alien movies. Despite the title, the book is not all inclusive on film SF and does not discuss with any significance any of the latest Marvel superhero movies, and definitely skips discussion on the the Lord of the Rings trilogy--a tragic omission in light of its popular and Oscar-winning performance that brought SF/Fantasy to Hollywood legitimacy. Specifically, the writer discusses and contrasts elements from a handful of interesting SF movies of the last quarter-century, including

* The Matrix trilogy, including elements from "The Animatrix" and the "Enter the Matrix" game
* The Alien movie saga
* Galaxy Quest
* Dark City
* The Star Wars saga
* The Terminator saga
* Strange Days
* Small Soldiers

Small Soldiers? That was science-fiction? That was worthy of discussion in a book on SF film meanings? Surely there were other films of the last 25 years related to the chapter's subject on robots and AI that were more germane, such as "Bicentennial Man," "I, Robot," "Star Trek: Nemesis," and even the writer's home favorite of Marvin from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" (not the 2005 release, but the 1980's TV depiction from the BBC, since this book was apparently printed in the early months of this year).

This book was written by someone that doesn't appear to read or watch much in the way of SF beyond what they see at the movies. Realizing that the writer was British, I tried (and failed) to give her allowance for her non-American point-of-view on the topic, hoping for some enlightenment over my decadent Cowboy Way of watching SF here in America. There are many areas in the book where her interpretation simply is misinformed. The writer apparently had chosen to write her book as a self-interpretation of the movies in question, failing almost completely to read other interpretations or discussions from the movie's directors or screenwriters.

The book as a whole, particularly with its monotonous small text and a complete lack of the simplest illustrations or even eye-catching chapter header graphics, feels like a dry collegiate dissertation written by someone who could give a damn about the subject matter and just needs a passing grade.

One example of the author's lack of research or understanding was confirmed by my own mother, a woman of 64 years that enjoys the Matrix movies as much as her son but has developed her understanding of the movies on her own, without my coaching. In one example in the book, the writer says that Neo, in "The Matrix," was told by the Oracle that he was not the One. In fact, the Oracle said no such thing--it was Neo who told himself that he was not the One. The Oracle, after toying with Neo to a degree by examining his hands and face, said, "...but you already know what I am going to say, don't you?" with Neo completing his own assumption, "I'm not the One." The Oracle implied that Neo was indeed in possession of the ability, but that his mind was not ready--a point confirmed by Neo's self-doubt (Neo's pod-name, "Thomas" is a Gnostic Christianity reference to that apostle's doubt of the resurrection of Christ). My mom, of all people, got this, but it was lost completely by the writer.

Other points in the book are just outright wrong and filled with error. Quoting a description about the climatic moments near the end of "The Matrix Revolutions": "Neo sets off to interview the Machines--along the way he is blinded and Trinity killed by a human who has been absorbed by Smith." In fact, Trinity was attacked, but not killed by Bane/Smith -- she would die moments after their hovercraft crash lands near the center of the Machine City.

Bad fact checking is a hallmark of this book. One glaring example was in finding the name of actress Nichelle Nichols of "Star Trek" badly warped to 'Michelle Nichols' in a discussion of the movie "Galaxy Quest." A sentence discussing the kiss between Persephone and Niobe in the cut-scenes of the game "Enter the Matrix" wrongly named Jada Pinkett-Smith's character as "Phoebe." Oh, no. What would Ross and Chandler say?

That's not to say the the whole book is totally tainted. At worse, this book is no less informed than your non-fannish significant other, a person that most of us will still take some time to listen to for wisdom or enjoyment, even if their views seem stupid initially. One quote I will leave to your enjoyment or disdain regarding a take on Darth Sidious from the Star Wars trilogy: "Palpatine is not just a machine politician, but a Dark Lord in the manner of Tolkien, and his corruption of Anakin Skywalker to the point where he becomes Darth Vader parallels the seduction of the human kings who became the Nazgul."

Her discussion on the Alien movies, particularly "Aliens," showed some insight, indicating the writer was more familiar with this material, or just more attentive. I'd guess she was most comfortable with the Alien saga--more than one-third of the book was devoted completely to the Alien movies. The book's title would be more appropriate as From Alien to Alien and More about Alien: And Some Meaningless Discussion About Some Lesser Science Fiction.

The writer name-drops Philip C. Dick, William Gibson, and Heinlein in an attempt to sound knowledgeable. "Big whoop," you might say,"as fanboys to various interests, we ALL do that kind of thing." But like the most decrepit and ill-informed of us non-mundanes, the writer seems to do this more to impress and less to inform, compare or contrast. The names just stick out like they're supposed to have meaning just because they are in the book.

Maybe this is a British thing. Maybe I'm wrong or not as enlightened while scanning this book (which is, unfortunately, the best I could do while trying to read it before I began stammering uncontrollably to myself moments later about some bad interpretation). Maybe I need a book on interpreting this book. I'd like to keep my mind open to the possibility (however unlikely) that this was really not such a bad book for most of us. Buy the book if you like Alien saga interpretations or if you like to invoke apoplexy in yourself or others. Otherwise, look for my copy of this book at your local discount used book store--and don't mind the drink stains and coffee cup rings. The book also doubles as an excellent coaster.

You can purchase From Alien to The Matrix: Reading Science Fiction Film from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

From Alien to The Matrix More

From Alien to The Matrix

Comments Filter:

  • Yep, that is the slashdot folks!!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by lecithin ( 745575 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @04:43PM (#12904433)
    "If you love to argue and curse when you read something that's so way off base in interpretation or appears to lack any research in even the basic meanings that most Americans found in a SF film, then this is your book"

    And this is our website!!!
      • this also explains why 2 & 3's plot was so different and poor.

        That's probably only part of it. The other part of it was that the Wachowski Brothers originally wanted to make only one movie. When they couldn't fit all the material into a single movie, they decided to stretch it out into three. The results are quite obvious as the first one got the bulk of the intrigue, while the remaining movies were required to be less story dense and packed with more filler.

        A similar situation can be seen with the new Star Wars Trilogy. Lucas obviously tried to plan things a bit on the fly, and ended up with 60-70% of the story packed into the last movie. Some estimate that as much as 15-20% of the material intended for the trilogy got cut from the movies. That's what left such a large gap for the "Clone Wars" animated series, and the new up-coming television show.
        • "That's probably only part of it. The other part of it was that the Wachowski Brothers originally wanted to make only one movie."

          Also consider that their motivation here was to do a live-action 'anime', not a mind-bending sci-fi intrigue-a-thon. It was a loose plot intended to tie together some strange kung-fu scenes. They said almost as much in the Matrix Revisited DVD.
      • Does the book mention that Matrix 1 was a rip-off of an old script from 1981 called "The Third Eye"?

        I'd never heard this before. It appears that she won, and won big: $2.5B for matrix and terminator. I'm guessing the axe that killed them was that she submitted it to "to an ad placed by the Wachowski Brothers" in the mid 80s. Wow.

        I did some looking on the net and came up with a few links, but one will cover it for most who only want confirmation of the win:
        http://www.femmixx.com/matrixlawsuit.html [femmixx.com]
      • That web site is really wince-inducing, I'm sorry. Maybe Ms. Stewart has something to her claims, but the fact that she also is apparently claiming that the "Terminator" stories were ripped off from her seriously undercuts her credibility. We've already been through this once, folks: Harlan Ellison sued Cameron for taking the idea of "Terminator" from two of his Outer Limits episodes, and Cameron settled out of court. Perhaps Ms. Stewart should be suing Mr. Ellison for obviously stealing her stories for his
        • I don't know so much about the Terminator part...my theory on that is she decided to let it go orginally but when the Matrix came out with an almost identical story she decided to go ahead and sue the Terminator guys while she was at it.
    • Uninformative as slashdot threads may be, it looks like this book may be worse. There doesn't seem to be many movies between the "Alien" and "Matrix" series. Not to mention the author's short-list contains "Small Soldiers" and "Galaxy Quest". The most thoughtful sci-fi films aren't included. I think we at least need to include the Philip K Dick inspired movies:

      Blade Runner
      Total Recall
      A.I.
      Minority Report
      Paycheck
      • I don't think AI was based on Dick's work. This website [ram.org] says " It would've been better to leave as is the title of the book the film is based on: Supertoys Last All Summer Long by Brian Aldiss. "

        But maybe Aldiss was influenced or inspired by Dick? I don't know.


      • If you want a good book on Aliens, you could do worse than look Google for Screening the Sacred which isn't specifically focused on Sci-Fi but does contain a brilliant chapter on Alien / Aliens by Janice Hocker Rushing.

        She also has another book called Projecting the Shadow: The Cyborg Hero in American Film. which is specifically sci-fi but predates the Matrix.

        I definitely recommend anything by this woman for those who want genuine depth and insight.
      • Sod Paycheck. Stick Robocop in as the best Dick novel Dick never wrote.
      • Dark City is an awesome proper science fiction movie. (IMO of course). I think Minority Report was more an action film, if you're going to include that then I want Equilibrium (awesome action film with the plot lifted from Fahrenheit 451), I, Robot, and Demolition Man.

      • Re:Yep, that is the slashdot folks!!! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by tmhsiao ( 47750 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @05:31PM (#12904837) Homepage Journal
        Not to mention the author's short-list contains "Small Soldiers" and "Galaxy Quest".

        Granted, the reviewer neglects to mention that the two chapters on the aforementioned movies are labelled "Comedy 1" and "Comedy 2." His omission seems a bit disingenuous, as if his primary goal is to condemn the book and any information that does not support his thesis can be ignored.

        Indeed, complaining that a book with the subtitle "Reading Science Fiction Film" does not include anything about the Lord of the Rings trilogy is not unlike bitching that your fruit salad has no bacon.

        From what I gather from the description I've read [dymphna.net], the book is less an examination of the philosophical underpinnings of individual science fiction stories, and more about the affect that science fiction films have had on both filmmaking and science fiction storytelling.

    • Re:Yep, that is the slashdot folks!!! (Score:4, Funny)

      by SilentChris ( 452960 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @04:54PM (#12904550) Homepage
      Yes, and on Slashdot, it's apparently not uncommon to read book reviews that sound like they were done by the Comic Book Guy. "The author refers to Neo's tool as a 'spoon' instead of a 1954 New Age stainless-steel piece of cutlery? Unthinkable!"

  • Hmmm. (Score:5, Funny)

    by SatanicPuppy ( 611928 ) <Satanicpuppy.gmail@com> on Friday June 24, 2005 @04:45PM (#12904449) Journal
    If you want to get pissed off about something, buy it. Otherwise don't.

    Is it published by Microsoft?
    • Is it published by Microsoft?

      No, wait... the case is different. A Microsoft product WILL be pissing you off REGARDLESS of whether you bought it or not.

  • Fact Checking (Score:3, Funny)

    by drewzhrodague ( 606182 ) <drew@nOsPaM.zhrodague.net> on Friday June 24, 2005 @04:47PM (#12904463) Homepage Journal
    Note to self. Check facts before submitting anything I write. Gotcha.

  • Contradiction (Score:5, Funny)

    by someguy456 ( 607900 ) <someguy456@phreaker.net> on Friday June 24, 2005 @04:48PM (#12904478) Homepage Journal
    Ok, so what you're trying to say is that somehow, there exists a hypothetical slashdotter who in addition to being geeky and liking geeky movies, has enough time/motivation to read geeky books about aforementioned movies, yet was somehow able to gain a significant other?

    Blasphemy!

  • Realistically... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @04:49PM (#12904496) Journal
    Has there ever been a "Profound Lessons From Popular Movie / TV Show Book Series" that hasn't been completely stupid? The Tao of Pooh is probably the best of the lot, which isn't saying much.

    When authors need to appropriate someone else's creation instead of coming up with their own, you can't expect much.

    • I've only read The Matrix book in this series, but it was really good. I had to read it for a philosophy class.

      Philosophy of the Matrix [amazon.com]

      The D'oh of Homer [amazon.com]

      Seinfeld and Philosophy [amazon.com]

      • There are other great books on Matrix philosophy that you can inbibe, too. Start with

        "Like a Splinter in Your Mind"

        available from Amazon. There is a successor book to the first link you note, which I also highly recommend.
    • As someone who would consider himself a bit in the know about Tao . Having studied it for around 13 years ,I can honestly say that "The Tao of Pooh" is actually a rather good light introduction to The Tao for younger readers.
      I totally agree with your comparison though

    • Exactly (Score:2)

      by spun ( 1352 ) *
      I'm a true SF geek, having read literally thousands of SF books and stories in my lifetime. I think anyone who has more than a cursory interest in the topic knows that there are very few science fiction movies at all. Most of them are science fantasy. To be frank, bad science fantasy.

      Most anything that is mass marketed is dumbed down as the suits think that most audiences are stupid hicks. I'm kinda sorry for the author of this review. It's obvious he hasn't experienced any really good SF, and so has nothi

  • Trans atlantic (Score:5, Funny)

    by EvilMagnus ( 32878 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @04:53PM (#12904534)
    Maybe this is a British thing.

    No - this book just confirms what some people suspected for many years : that bad writers are not the exclusive domain of the United States.

  • Philip C. Dick? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24, 2005 @04:53PM (#12904536)
    Never 'eard of 'im, guv.

    I have just finished reading 'The World Jones Made' by Philip K. Dick, if he's any relation?

  • Nitipicks . . . (Score:5, Funny)

    by npsimons ( 32752 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @04:58PM (#12904576) Homepage Journal
    Great, scathing review, which will justify all of us not buying this book. However, when one reads a review nitpicking all the details the author got wrong, then says . . .

    The writer name-drops Philip C. Dick

    (emphasis mine)


    . . . you have to wonder if all the mistakes he was complaining about were due to his own innattention to detail. Pot calling the kettle black, and all that.

  • Fanboys? (Score:3, Funny)

    by rsadelle ( 719824 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @04:58PM (#12904580)
    I'm a fangirl, you insensitive clod!
  • The book as a whole, particularly with its monotonous small text and a complete lack of the simplest illustrations or even eye-catching chapter header graphics, feels like a dry collegiate dissertation written by someone who could give a damn about the subject matter and just needs a passing grade.

    Don't judge a book by its cover. Or in this case, dont' judge a book by the layout/appearance of its contents. This hardly useful in a book review. When I read, I like to read the author's words; I do not care

  • Note to the reviewer (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @04:59PM (#12904597)
    Science-fiction fans make a slight distinction between the terms "SF" and "Sci-fi" which you don't seem to be aware of.

    - Sci-fi is easy-to-get-into science fiction, like Star Trek, Matrix and I, robot. In short, sci-fi is more like a regular story, or show, set in some futuristic universe

    - SF is hard-core, or "serious" science fiction. That includes, for example, books from Iain M. Banks, and movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey. SF works are usually space operas, well researched on the (possible) technical plan, and can plunge the reader/viewer right down the weird and absolutely alien, which not all may like.
    • Who the hell does that?

      I have seen the term 'Hard' sci-fi to mean a more grounding to reality. That may or may not be an space opera.

      Star wars is a space opera, and it is not hard sci-fi.

      The ease to get into it depends on the presentation of the story. Nothing more.

      • The ease to get into it depends on the presentation of the story. Nothing more.

        There's more to it than that: if you tackle a SF work featuring many alien races, with different levels of technology, and complex interactions between then, and/or with a convoluted storyline, then it can get quite hard to get into it, simply because it's too departed from normal reality. But otherwise you're right.

        I guess the real difference between sci-fi and SF is how consistent and plausible the futuristic environment is.
        • Funny. What you call sci-fi, I'd call fantasy. Sure, there are spaceships, lasers, and lightsabers. Ultimately, it's not about the technology - that just 'works' (see: magic).

          Sci Fi and speculative fiction seem to have a much stronger grounding in reality. SF doesn't need the obvious cues of laser/robot/AI/nanotech/etc to hit the reader off that something is altered away from the universe we know (which we'd just call fiction.) SF could be about an alternate timeline with the exact same technology. I
        • "
          Also, in Star Trek, you hear things in the void of space, "

          with the exception of ships and music from the sound track, when has sound every been in space in the star trek universe.
          I'm no ST fan boy, but I honestly can't think of a time it is incorrect.
          • phasers
            explosions
            ships moving about
            the magnetic boots in First Contact


            And I seem to recall an episode of Classic Trek where an enemy ship was destroyed using a giant directional speaker, blasting out sound waves through space.

            (Just to name a few)
    • The reviewer thought that leaving out discussion on the Lord of the Rings trilogy was "a tragic omission" and questioned if Small Soldiers was science fiction at all so it's pretty clear that he doesn't use any standard definition of what "science fiction" is. I think perhaps he equates science fiction with geek chic.
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the distinction is a little bit more specific than that.

      Sci-fi is as you say. A regular story set in the future or focusing on technology (i.e.: Star Trek--although, not all episodes)

      Science Fiction (SF) specifically refers to any fiction that put humans in a futuristic environment to illuminate and reflect on the human condition, culture and society. The classic example is showing tension between alien species that is derived essentially from their physical dif

    • actually, reviewer needs to learn that in a book about sci-fi or SF, things about LOTR is completely off basis. Just because people who like sci-fi also like fantasy, they are not the same. Also, the reviewer probably needs to realize that comic book heroes are NOT sci-fi by the measures of almost all people. Comic books are mostly their own domain(at least the classic comic books which have been the ones to be turned into movies).

      If the reviewer is going to bash someone for including Small Soldiers, he

    • - SF is hard-core, or "serious" science fiction. That includes, for example, books from Iain M. Banks, and movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey. SF works are usually space operas, well researched on the (possible) technical plan, and can plunge the reader/viewer right down the weird and absolutely alien, which not all may like.

      Er, SF (or what most people term as "hard SF") works are usually space operas?

      There are many definitions of "Space Opera", but Wikipedia's definition is probably close enough

    • I'm afraid that SF and sci-fi are just abbreviations for the same thing. The term 'sci fi' was invented because it's more convenient than saying science fiction, it's not a new term altogether. You may as well argue the difference between 'hacker' and 'cracker'.

  • dump (Score:3, Funny)

    by sewagemaster ( 466124 ) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (retsamegawes)> on Friday June 24, 2005 @05:02PM (#12904614) Homepage
    Oh, and dump your boy/girlfriend, too

    um, why would anyone want to cut off their own hands?

  • Quick Correction (Score:5, Informative)

    by ndansmith ( 582590 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @05:02PM (#12904620)
    Neo's pod-name, "Thomas" is a Gnostic Christianity reference to that apostle's doubt of the resurrection of Christ.

    It is fair to say that Thomas is a reference that can be understood as generically Christian, not just "gnostic," since the account of Doubting Thomas is in the orthodox canon. The author is probably asymilating the apostle Thomas with the author of the pseudopigraphal "Gospel of Thomas," which was a gnostic document.

    • It is fair to say that Thomas is a reference that can be understood as generically Christian, not just "gnostic," since the account of Doubting Thomas is in the orthodox canon. The author is probably asymilating the apostle Thomas with the author of the pseudopigraphal "Gospel of Thomas," which was a gnostic document.

      Man, posting that on /. takes balls. And it's one of the truly informative and interesting comments I've seen here for a long time. thanks.
    • The author is probably asymilating the apostle Thomas with the author of the pseudopigraphal "Gospel of Thomas," which was a gnostic document.

      They are assumed to be the same. That is, whether you accept it as authentic or not, the supposed author of the text (if not the document) is the same as the doubting Thomas.
    • Anyone has studied canonicity enough to use the term "pseudopigraphal" gets a highfive.

  • The Matrix (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ndansmith ( 582590 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @05:10PM (#12904682)
    The author of this review seems to hold a great opinion of the Matrix Trilogy's "deeper" meaning. I have always been inclined to have a negative opinion. When the first film came out, people were raving about it integrated so many themes and references and what-not. Christianity, Buddhism, etc. They were all in there. I perceived that it was a rather sloppy hodge-podge rather than a graceful synthesis. No doubt many /.ers will disagree with me on this point.

    I think that so many people thought that the Matrix was a literary masterwork because not many people have read many actual literary masterworks.

    • Bottom line (Score:4, Insightful)

      by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportlandNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Friday June 24, 2005 @05:46PM (#12904970) Homepage Journal
      many young people showed interest in discussing things on a philisophical basis. How many movies have done that? I listend to a friends kid talk to his buddies, and they made some pretty could philisophical observation, and made some statements that held a lot of similaritiy to classic philosphies. I even recommended some books.

      They were thinking about something other then 'cool explosion' and chicks in leather. I eman, that came up, but it wasn't the ONLY thing they talked about.

      I consider that good.

      Persoanlly, I found that it pointed out central themes in religeon and rather nicely brought them together. Plus, hot chicks in leather.

    • Re:The Matrix (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Blakey Rat ( 99501 )
      Don't be an elitist prick.

      The thing that makes the Matrix better than 90% of movies is that two weeks after you've seen the movie, you're still discussing things with your buddies. That doesn't happen very often in Hollywood... in fact, it's rare now for me to remember anything about a movie even a couple days after I've seen it. (Of course, that might say more about my memory than anything...)

      Now I'm not saying that the Matrix were excellent movies, or that they're at the level of, say, 2001: A Space O

  • OMG No Pictures? What use is this book? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SJS ( 1851 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @05:21PM (#12904777) Homepage Journal
    It's refreshing to see an honest review when a reviewer doesn't like a book. However, when I got to:
    The book as a whole, particularly with its monotonous small text and a complete lack of the simplest illustrations or even eye-catching chapter header graphics, feels like a dry collegiate dissertation written by someone who could give a damn about the subject matter and just needs a passing grade.
    ...my perception of the whole review underwent a phase-change. It's not a rant, it's a whine.

    Of all the things to object to, this one shouldn't even have made the list. It's a book. It mean for those who can read. And this particular complaint puts me in mind of a child complaining about how "real books" are "too hard".

    Most of my library is full of great books that lack the simplest illustrations (even though I have more than a shelf's worth of Hellboy, Sandman, Far Side, Calvin & Hobbes, and suchlike; lest you get the wrong idea, be assured that I'm not opposed to illustrations) or eye-catching chapter-header graphics. I like books where the type is monotonous; anything eye-catching catches my eye, disturbs my reading, and derails my concentration.

    Some of the worst books I've encountered rely on ever-changing fonts, plentiful illustrations, eye-catching graphics, all to hide the fact that the author isn't saying much, or even saying it well.

    If the reviewer has come to rely on that sort of reading experience, perhaps it's because they've not been reading the right sort of books. Put down those technical manuals and pick up a volume of Wodehouse. Set aside that Learn-in-21-days tome and grab some Kipling. Whatever you do, go read something by someone who can entrance you with words, where the illustrations are created by your own imagination, where what catches your eye is the next sentence, and the next, and the next...

    This isn't to say that the book may be any good. I don't know, I haven't read it. I can imagine that it's a hard thing to do, to identify and discuss the themes of SF movies, much less more than one or two, in a single book. To cover the genre would likely result in a three-inch coffee-table book, four columns of tiny (monotonic!) type on every family-bible-thin page.

    Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

    • I notice that all of the examples you give of good books with little formatting are fiction.

      Do you have any examples that are not narratives?

      I find that for narratives (either fiction or non), a lack of formatting works very well because your imagination is carried smoothly through the text. In a non-narrative, though, some formatting can aid greatly in the readability. It can help your eye flow down the page, it can break up the monotony (even if it's well-written and interesting, reading it in unbrok

    • If the reviewer has come to rely on that sort of reading experience, perhaps it's because they've not been reading the right sort of books. Put down those technical manuals...

      I was thinking this is probably the first book he's read since mgrade school. All his reading since has been on the web. That explains the whole review, not just the one point. 8^)
  • ...The reluctant messiah.

    This is a plot that SF cannot seem to transcend. Neo of The Matrix has to save the human race? Oh wait, no, Sarah Conner from The Terminator is supposed to do that. Or is it young Master Skywalker? Or Paul Atreides from Dune? (He's only saving one planet's worth, really, I guess). The guy from Dark City also only saves a city's worth, but the story's the same. Even the best Superman movie (TWO, DERF) featured the Kryptonian as reluctant to save the whole frigging planet. Not really

  • That Alien #3 was supposed to have been a much superior movie? I even read the script to it, someone once posted a link to it here on slashdot. Alan Dean Foster, of all people, wrote it. It was pretty good, I could see what it would have been...

    Oh, and the setup it would have left for #4 would have been awe-inspiring. Leave it to hollywood to fuck up unfuckupable trilogies...

  • [The book being reviewd] definitely skips discussion on the the Lord of the Rings trilogy--a tragic omission in light of its popular and Oscar-winning performance that brought SF/Fantasy to Hollywood legitimacy.

    Sadly, the LOTR trilogy did no such thing - it rode on the legitimacy built by the Star Wars series, the Terminator series, and others. It came to be not just because SF was seen to be legitimate, but because it had legions of fanboys who would drool over it's presence on the screen and tons of

  • What's Next? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @07:38PM (#12905805)
    Will the next volume be: From Matrix II to Zardoz?

  • Roz Kaveney (Score:3, Informative)

    by Ray Radlein ( 711289 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @09:09PM (#12906346) Homepage
    This book was written by someone that doesn't appear to read or watch much in the way of SF beyond what they see at the movies.
    Would this be a good place to point out that Roz Kaveney has been a major figure in British SF Fandom for roughly three decades now? [64.233.161.104]

    She has co-written stories with Neil Gaiman [isfdb.org], and was a Contributing Editor to John Clute and John Grant's Encyclopedia of Fantasy [64.233.161.104].

    She's no stranger to Media Fandom, either, being one of the major figures in UK Buffy Fandom (possibly in part because, if they were real, she would have likely been an Oxford classmate and fellow inhabitant of low dives with Rupert Giles and Ethan Rayne).

    In addition to knowing more or less everyone who is the least bit connected with SF in the UK, she has lead a life which can, perhaps, best be understood as science fiction, of the Late Heinlein or John Varley variety, in that, like all good posthumans, she has actually changed genders and sexual orientations during her lifetime [dymphna.net].

    If that isn't demonstrative of a true dedication to science fiction, I don't know what is.

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Close