From: Jacqueline Thijsen inquisitioner@wish.net
Isaac Asimov once wrote about how some eager young student
enthusiastically
told him about all the wonderful symbolism that he'd found in the Foundation trilogy. Asimov told the student that he hadn't consciously put any of that symbolism in there. The student looked at him as if he'd just been told that the Earth was flat and asked "What's *that* got to do with anything?"
Now that is odd, because the version I read of (written by Asimov himself) - or maybe this is another incident altogether - has Isaac A attending a lecture on one of his own stories (he didn't say which one). And afterwards he collared the lecturer, and something like the following exchange took place: Asimov: "None of that stuff you talked about was in that story." Lecturer: "Why do you think that?" Asimov: "Because I wrote it!" Lecturer: "What the hell makes you think *you* know what you're writing about?"
Anyhow, the bloke what wrote the script becomes just another viewer after the script has been put on tape. His opinions and prejudices count for no more than my own.
By that rationale a murderer becomes just another witness after the crime's been comitted. Try pulling that one in court.
Stop looking at the characters and consider the episode in terms of its ideological topography. It's a bloody great mountain of Victorian
bourgeois
complacency.
Nope, I'm too busy admiring the characters. I like admiring the
characters.
Looking at societal implications is boooooring.
Is it? Why? Since you presumably have some idea why the characters are more interesting or engaging than something that impacts on your every thought and word and deed, perhaps you might care to enlighten me.
If you can.
Neil