I've been reading Nialls posts about Accelerando and have come to an important realisation. These are stories I am not interested in. They're not stories about people and that's what I'm interested in. Telling stories which tells me something about people.
In a not entirely unrelated note, I re-watched A Few Good Men last night and noticed for the first time that it was written by Aaron Sorkin (the writer of the West Wing). Which, although unknown, was entirely unsurprising. The passion of the characters, the clear treatment of moral issues, acknowledging the ambiguities, and above all the rhetoric. It should have been obvious.
In a not entirely unrelated note, I re-watched A Few Good Men last night and noticed for the first time that it was written by Aaron Sorkin (the writer of the West Wing). Which, although unknown, was entirely unsurprising. The passion of the characters, the clear treatment of moral issues, acknowledging the ambiguities, and above all the rhetoric. It should have been obvious.
no subject
Date: June 5th, 2005 08:51 pm (UTC)From:But then, I would argue, so do the things which are discussed in Accelerando, and in very similar ways. Manfred and Pamela argue about the importance of, say, taxation, or religion, in much the same way that Toby and Josh might. 'Survivor' is about whether killing a person to obtain information is justified. 'Elector' is about how you try to make an electorate look at more than its own self-interest. 'Curator' is about how you record history; who writes it, and who reads it, and why. 'Tourist' is about how you face up to a world where your skills are obsolete. And so on. It's just that their context is a little more, ah, gonzo than The West Wing. :)
no subject
Date: June 15th, 2005 12:26 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: June 15th, 2005 05:19 pm (UTC)From:Again, characterisation is not the novel's strength, but the people are more recognisable than those in, say, a Greg Egan novel (I'm thinking of Disaspora in particular here).