Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SpiralBound" data-source="post: 3004547" data-attributes="member: 8396">I did bring up the example of &quot;The Dark Crystal&quot;, (Which I love and can't wait for the sequel in 2008!),&nbsp; to which my friend countered that there were human-equivalents in that settings.&nbsp; The Gelflings and Podlings in his view were really just humans with different names.&nbsp; Their viewpoints and mental abilities were sufficiently human that they &quot;filled the gap&quot; by not having actual humans.I pointed out the wings on female gelflings and he said that this was a very minor thing.&nbsp; It wasn't even fully explored and had NO effect on the Gelfling psychology - it was more of a plot element (how do we escape the Garthim when we're on the edge of a cliff?) than an actual difference in the race.&nbsp; He then went on ad nauseum about settings like Star Trek where all the different races aren't really alien - they're all just exaggerated portrayals of specific aspects of humanity.&nbsp; This is when he sequeways into a discourse on how as humans who have never really interacted with actual aliens, we're literally incapable of &quot;truly&quot; portraying an alien perspective and that if we were, then we would need the human perspective to be present in such a setting all the more to aide the reader/viewer in comprehending the setting.&nbsp; I didn't even bother mentioning the movie &quot;Enemy Mine&quot; which I felt DID have an alien race with a non-human mental outlook - he would have just locked onto the human characters to use it as an example which &quot;proved his point&quot;. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="SpiralBound, post: 3004547, member: 8396"] I did bring up the example of "The Dark Crystal", [i](Which I love and can't wait for the sequel in 2008!)[/i], to which my friend countered that there [u]were[/u] human-equivalents in that settings. The Gelflings and Podlings in his view were really just humans with different names. Their viewpoints and mental abilities were sufficiently human that they "filled the gap" by not having actual humans. I pointed out the wings on female gelflings and he said that this was a very minor thing. It wasn't even fully explored and had NO effect on the Gelfling psychology - it was more of a plot element [i](how do we escape the Garthim when we're on the edge of a cliff?)[/i] than an actual difference in the race. He then went on ad nauseum about settings like Star Trek where all the different races aren't really alien - they're all just exaggerated portrayals of specific aspects of humanity. This is when he sequeways into a discourse on how as humans who have never really interacted with actual aliens, we're literally incapable of "truly" portraying an alien perspective and that if we were, then we would need the human perspective to be present in such a setting all the more to aide the reader/viewer in comprehending the setting. I didn't even bother mentioning the movie "Enemy Mine" which I felt DID have an alien race with a non-human mental outlook - he would have just locked onto the human characters to use it as an example which "proved his point". ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification