Because it doesn't have lasers or time-travel in it
IndigoAjah Send a noteboard - 28/09/2009 02:15:18 AM
Except when it happened and we ha to travel back in time to make it not happen by getting James Bond to kill all the "Communists". And "fascists". And Stalin, who was "both". Because James Bond was real, just like 1984 
. Oh, except Bond was based in this version of the Universe, more or less, which 1984 is emphatically not.
. Oh, except Bond was based in this version of the Universe, more or less, which 1984 is emphatically not.
Does the Devil ever struggle to be good again, or if so is he not a devil?
What difference does it make after all? Anonymity in the world of men is better than fame in heaven, for what's heaven? What's Earth? All in the mind.
What difference does it make after all? Anonymity in the world of men is better than fame in heaven, for what's heaven? What's Earth? All in the mind.
Ever notice how in fantasy books the smaller army always wins?
- 20/09/2009 01:01:18 PM
1600 Views
Re: Ever notice how in fantasy books the smaller army always wins?
- 20/09/2009 01:17:00 PM
1217 Views
Well, usually the bigger army are the invaders. Defence tends to have an edge
- 20/09/2009 04:38:45 PM
1244 Views
It's an essential plot device
- 20/09/2009 04:41:04 PM
1229 Views
Yeah but...
- 20/09/2009 07:38:36 PM
1225 Views
I don't quite agree
- 21/09/2009 01:22:45 AM
1166 Views
I'm sitting here trying to think if I've read any books like that...
- 21/09/2009 01:40:08 AM
1116 Views
Fail. 
- 21/09/2009 04:43:24 AM
1305 Views
- 21/09/2009 04:43:24 AM
1305 Views
Hrmm...guess Miéville failed to follow the script then *NM*
- 20/09/2009 07:48:29 PM
464 Views
and a lot of others. But there's a rumour somewhere that it's not the size that matters... *NM*
- 20/09/2009 07:53:41 PM
460 Views
It's still a valid point, even if one author doesn't "follow the script." *NM*
- 25/09/2009 12:34:48 AM
523 Views
Re: Ever notice how in fantasy books the smaller army always wins?
- 20/09/2009 08:45:48 PM
1340 Views
That, and...
- 20/09/2009 09:08:48 PM
1238 Views
Nineteen Eighty-Four, baby!
- 20/09/2009 10:37:05 PM
1165 Views
That is not even fantasy...
- 21/09/2009 12:00:48 AM
1141 Views
IT ISN'T?! *NM*
- 21/09/2009 01:42:16 AM
488 Views
Yeah, didn't your dad tell you about the double ungood days of the 80s? *NM*
- 21/09/2009 01:52:46 AM
486 Views
Doubleplusungood.
- 25/09/2009 02:09:27 AM
1142 Views
Oops, sorry. Probably a thoughtcrime to put a space in. Rebellious waste of... pixels? Space? *NM*
- 25/09/2009 04:26:14 PM
511 Views
I agree. 1984 is not SF-F. *NM*
- 25/09/2009 12:36:46 AM
501 Views
All books should have a point, IMO. Otherwise, what's the point in reading them.
- 25/09/2009 04:32:43 PM
1210 Views
Nineteen Eighty-Four is unquestionably Science Fiction. *NM*
- 26/09/2009 04:12:47 AM
537 Views
No, it's not. ScyFy does not lay claim to anything and everything that takes place...
- 26/09/2009 07:05:59 AM
1148 Views
It's a novel which heavily relies upon futuristic technology. How is it not Science Fiction? *NM*
- 28/09/2009 01:43:23 AM
484 Views
Because it doesn't have lasers or time-travel in it
- 28/09/2009 02:15:18 AM
1158 Views
I read it years ago and I don't remember any futuristic technology except...
- 28/09/2009 04:16:21 AM
1215 Views
I would say that if a story uses that sort of thing, it has a science fiction element.
- 28/09/2009 05:20:39 AM
1010 Views
Because you don't have to root for the huge army that's supposed to win.
- 21/09/2009 04:38:22 AM
1193 Views
Pratchett makes much of this. *NM*
- 21/09/2009 04:11:04 PM
501 Views
"You can take our lives, but you can never take our freedom!" "...wrong!" *NM*
- 21/09/2009 11:02:25 PM
439 Views