On Jan 31, 7:53 pm, Damien Valentine <valen...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On the other hand, the OP's species is supposed to be "highly
> advanced". That may imply the species evolved with males and females,
> but for whatever reason, now depends on cloning, or some other
> technological fix. (Such as Dan Goodman's example.)
One of my core concerns with the premise is the assumption that humans
would view alien homo***uality with the same vehemence as they do
human homo***uality. Granted, Carl defines them as being humanoid, but
that only implies a basic physiological similarity. i.e. bilateral
symmetry, bipedal locomotion, 4 limbs, torso, neck and head.
Chimpanzees have to same morphology and I doubt even the most bigotted
human would be little more than disgusted to see 2 male chimps
kissing. I certainly doubt that any but the most zealous homophobes
would consider such a sight to be morally outrageous.
Thus, for Carl's premise to work, his aliens will have to appear human-
like enough for humans in general to transfer our own moral principles
to the alien's behavior. This then begs the question of parallel
evolution, a la, star trek. (aka the aliens-are-humans-with-pointy-
ears syndrome).
> Cryptoguy's assertion that "male" and "female" ***es are automatically
> out of the question because they're extraterrestrials is...dubious.
> Some form of ***ual reproduction is at least a billion years old on
> Earth; it's not unreasonable to assume that it's a fairly common
> element to other biospheres as well. (Certainly not as unlikely as
> intelligent life, for instance.)
Again to the point of morphology. I personally think that it's fair to
assume ***ual reproduction is probably as common on other earth-type
planets as it is here. But it's im****tant to remember that gender is
not always immediately apparent based on appearance. For instance, how
many people can tell the difference between a male and female ladybird
beetle? or male and female goldfish? For a long time scientist thought
that seahorse males were actually females due to the way seahorses
protect their young. Wouldn't a person seeing a penguin for the first
time, holding an egg and keeping it warm, naturally assume that the
penguin was a she?
Perhaps a better approach to Carl's basic premise is a species where
all members appear to be one gender so that superficially the entire
race seems to be homo***ual, while in reality, most couples are
perfectly "normal" hetero***uals. This allows for a taste of irony as
the author gradually reveals that the demonizing bigots hate the
aliens not because the aliens are homo***uals, but because the bigots
find it easier to hate than to take the time to understand the truth.
Or maybe reverse the premise and have the supposed "superior" race
come to earth, notice how over populated our planet is and then
"solve" the problem by forcing us to abandon hetero***ual *** "for our
own good."
Basically, either approach simply takes the root conflict, i.e. one
sapient being enforcing it's moral standards on another, and presents
a different way of presenting the same conflict.
> As for "preachy"...Eric Max Francis, am I to take it that you've never
> seen an episode of "Star Trek" in any of its incarnations? :)
While I agree that many readers don't enjoy fiction that is overly
"preachy" or heavy-handed in it's agenda, I also want to point out
that one of the things that makes sci-fi literarily relevant is it's
ability to take on social and moral issues in unusual ways. Many fine
examples of heavy-handed, "preachy" sci-fi exist. Rand's "Anthem" for
instance, Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land", Daniel
Quinn's "After Dachau", and Dick's "The Man in the High Castle". Can
you get more "preachy" and heavy-handed than "Fahrenheit 451?"
However, It is presentation that distinguishes someone like Daniel
Quinn from someone like, say, Richard Bach, is that Quinn has a real
story to tell. He constructs a plot arc, his characters are fully
realized beings rather than arch typical stand-ins, his characters
grow and change, and he doesn't confuse a plot device for the plot
itself.
Summary, Quinn tells a story that has a message. Bach just has a
message presented in something vaguely story shaped. Now, if I pick up
a book wanting the former and get the later, I'm going to be pissed.
So, If you have a story, a real story, write it. But if you have an
essay you want to trick people into reading by thinly disguising it as
a story...well... that's what blogs and forums are for, isn't it?
|
