teyla | The meaning of sci-fi

Current Mood: idealistic
Current Location: home
Current Music: Kaiser Chiefs - The Angry Mob

Entry tags:

The meaning of sci-fi

This was spawned by a discussion I had with

maddoggirl in this thread. I'm making a post of it because my comment got too tl;dr for LJ, lol.

I'm not making this post to publicly expose you, MDG. I think this is a very interesting discussion, and the more people get involved, the more interesting it'll get, even if this might be a subject on which a lot of people here have very strong feelings, having been brought up as sci-fi geeks or having found their one true love in that genre. If this gets nasty - I don't think it will because the people on my f-list are all nice and awesome, but if - I'll freeze comments.

A popular opinion among RL people is that while sci-fi might be a more or less entertaining way to pass your time, there's no intellectual merit in it. I've even heard fanfic writers voice the opinion that while fanfic on "deep" literature and tv shows is intellectual challenging, sci-fi is just shallow, bad narrative.

In my opinion, this is as wrong as it gets.

Because that's exactly what fandom is about, isn't it, finding meaning in ostensibly meaningless early evening entertainment shows. Anime, cheap sci-fi shows, silly movies like Hot Fuzz or even groups of barely full age fake-emo hard rock boys writing terrible music and acting as if they were the evilest rock stars ever - all these things inspire people to find meaning and write about it.

Here you'll find an entry by

deelaundry in which they quote a statement by

hithah about fanfiction. It's rather short, but I'll c&p the most important part.

I think fanfic is more like going to one of those kid-friendly restaurants and seeing that little basket at your table with six crayons in it. And that's all you get. Six colors. And they're weird colors too, like periwinkle and raw umber. And maybe some kid chewed on one of them and it's all messed up. Now try and draw something with only those six weird colors.

That's fanfiction. All you get is a TV show, which is, like any TV show, caught in the restrictions of having to be family-friendly, interesting, entertaining, not too superficial and cheap to produce. Any TV show is like that. Doctor Who, being a different genre than for example House, has different premises, but the goals are the same: raising the figures.

Don't kid yourself, people. House isn't deeper than Doctor Who or sci-fi. What's deep about House? You have the scruffy, highly intelligent genius, an outsider, who doesn't manage to fit into society because of his intelligence and unwillingness to compromise his strong opinions on wrong and right. You have terribly researched med babble, inconsistent, often shallow characterization (just think about Wilson in Half-Wit. What the hell was that? That was so out-of-character, watching it hurt my eyeballs. Or Cuddy's character. How cliché does it get?) and some really bad acting (Omar Epps, whoever told you you could act was clearly mistaken, and RSL, if you're that bored with TV, you should go back to New York). All of season 4 was a disaster as far as consistency and characterization was concerned - seriously, to me it felt as if they were writing those episodes on a caffeine high in the nights before the shooting. And as far as the argument about the general concept of every episode being the same is concerned - I've never seen a show that turns that concept into an art more than House.

There's about as much meaning in House as there is in Doctor Who. The point where the two differ is that while the meaning of House mostly refers to every day issues, Doctor Who - like any sci-fi - deals more with the meaning of Life, the Universe and Everything. It's the question of whether or not humanity is essentially good at heart, what it is that we would do if we were put in a position where we could exploit a different culture, whether humanity would be able to survive an apocalypse or not.

It's a postmodern concept, sci-fi in general and Doctor Who in particular. It questions everything, and it challenges the recipient to accept completely new ideas. Take Doctor Who science. The Doctor, being a more or less omniscient being, uses a sonic screwdriver and flies around in something that looks like a police box from the 50ies. He says things like this is my timey-whimey detector and laughs at people who don't know what a happy prime is. Doctor Who science challenges the audience to accept that humanity knows nothing about science, and that we are in no position to seriously talk about things like time travel if we don't even know how to build a pencil-shaped sonic device that opens any lock (except dead locks) and explodes robots, if used correctly and in combination with a sound system.

Have you ever read the Hitchhiker? I didn't particularly like it, because I thought the narrative style was terrible, but the ideas in that book are the exact sort of postmodern out-of-the-box thinking that Doctor Who applies as well. You're given the answer to the question of Life, the Universe and Everything - but you're missing the question. It all boils down to wanting to make people accept that they don't know anything, and that they never will know anything, and that they should stop kidding themselves that this isn't so, but at the same time accept that the only purpose in life that you can have, the only purpose that would ever have the chance to give your life even only the slightest bit of meaning, is trying to find out more about Life, the Universe and Everything.

That's sci-fi. As I said, it's a different sort of meaning than House, but it is not in any way less intellectually stimulating. I can accept if someone says they're not interested in this sort of meaning, but I can't accept them claiming that this meaning either doesn't exist or is worth less than meaning in the classic sort of sense as it is applied in classic literature or ostensibly deep movies and books.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I don't want anyone (and especially MDG) to feel crowded in by strange scifi fans, but I just couldn't not say anything to this. And since t_eyla made it public, I hope this will be taken in the right way. :-)

I grew up loving scifi (I basically knew how to say "hi" in Klingon before I was able to tell my mother I'm hungry.) and the genre has always held a fascination for me that never gets old or can be reduced by a crappily produced german show (Raumschiff Orion).

For me scifi is all about HOPE. Because it usually shows us a version of how the future of mankind could be. And mostly this is a good version (except for Dystopias of course) and even if it is a negative version (like end of humanity etc.) it usually ends with the fact that mankind does survive. Mankind adjusts and moves on. And that's a good thing.

Like

t_eyla said, scifi is about the BIG QUESTIONS of Life, the Universe and Everything. And it tries to give some answers. We (audience) might not agree with it, or might find it a little silly sometimes, or even wonder what the question was in the first place - but nevertheless we start to THINK about it.
Scifi makes you wonder about more than just "will Jason marry Susie" or "Am I a circle person" - Not that these are bad questions, they're just examples off the top of my head. I believe that those questions seriously need to be answered, too, in one way or another.
But scifi is generally concerned with the other sort of question (see above).

About Doctor Who (New Who): I think it is a very well done show. Of course it has some cheesy one-liners and a lot of shouting, but the latter just comes with the genre and the former... well, you can't tell me that there are no cheese one-liners in shows like House.
And I have to tell you that I think House (at least the later seasons) is a lot shallower and less well done than Doctor Who in some aspects. Just take the issue of continuity, for example. In Doctor Who you have a continuity that not only lasts through a whole season (Bad Wolf), but also a continuity that lasts over 3 seasons (I'd give an example, but that would be spoilery, so I won't), and I bet if I knew some more Old Who there would be examples of even longer continuity here.
Whereas in House, they are not even able to keep the continuity over two episodes. (Has anyone ever mentioned Tritter again, or the overdose on Christmas Eve...?)
I'm not trying to make House look bad, or anything. I love House. House was my first fandom and it will always be some sort of home for me. I'm just trying to point out, that there are a lot of flaws in that show, that other shows don't have.

I know you're probably going to disagree, and if you really don't love scifi you might never be persuaded by me (not that that is a bad thing in itself, everyone is entitled to their own likes and dislikes) I just felt the need to defend my mostly loved genre. :-)
/end/

From a comment left by MDG: All sci-fi dialogue comes across as overblown and cringey.
I disagree. I disagree so much with that statement. Science fiction, by virtue of its very name, is removed from the world we know, can inhabit a whole new universe in some cases, and the very best of the genre manages to do this while also proffering strong parallels and insights into our world. Arguably this can’t not be done at all – we must have something to relate to within the science fiction medium, otherwise it becomes irrelevant. While I admit that yes, there is sci-fi that is dated and cringe-inducing (see Star Trek: The Original Series and the earliest episodes of The Next Generation), there are also products of the genre that are nothing short of mind-blowing.

I refer Your Honours to the new series of Battlestar Galactica. (Having already written a 3500 word academic essay on the show and its parallels to post-9/11 America, I am biased. And unashamedly so. But I digress.)

The new series of Battlestar Galactica is not cheesy. It is not overblown. And it sure as frak isn’t ‘cringey’. Here we have a ragtag fleet of some 50,000 humans, the last of their race, desperately trying to outrun an army of Cylon machines that decimated their home worlds and find Earth. This is where the science fiction aspect stops. From here we have a drama about a group of people trying to keep hold of what makes them human without descending into lawlessness, chaos and self destruction; as one character eloquently and passionately puts it, “we’re not a civilisation anymore. We are a gang, and we’re on the run and we have to fight to survive. We have to break rules, we have to bend laws. We have to improvise!”

Perhaps this is my academic bias and pride in my previous work showing through, but I don’t see that above quote as anything other than what it appears to be – a reflection on a post-apocalyptic society with which we can all identify. There are deliberate echoes of post-9/11 America in the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, and while the scales of disaster are so vastly different, this show above all others of its time and genre leaves the viewer with no choice but to re-examine the world around them, and to question the morals of leaders and the consequences of actions.

This parallel is perhaps more poignant because of the two core species in Battlestar Galactica – the fleeing humans and the Cylons hell bent on their annihilation – the most simplistic comparison is that the humans are the Afghans and Iraqis, and the Cylons are the Americans and allied forces.

Admittedly this moves beyond the original comment, which pertains only to science fiction dialogue, but any dialogue is begotten of actions, and actions are begotten of circumstance. And circumstance in this context is the situation that forms the universe and storyline of the novel, film or television show. And this is also an argument solely about Battlestar Galactica, which limits the scope of the argument’s impact. But quite frankly, I don’t care. Battlestar Galactica is a well-conceived, superbly written and acted science fiction saga. It is also by far the most intelligent of its genre around today. The universe and situations may be far removed from what we are familiar with, but the characters are human; flawed, capable of mistakes and in so many cases of ambiguous morals and willing to do almost whatever it takes to ensure the survival of their race.

To repeat the point: this is, quite simply, science fiction at its best.

This is where the science fiction aspect stops.
But why does it have to stop?

Hee. I think this is why I don't like BSG. I don't argue with anything you said above, except with the statement about it being the most intelligent of its genre around. Because, quite honestly, I don't consider BSG a real science fiction show. Sure, it has a science fiction setting, and science fiction characters, and science fiction bad guys. But what does the show do with these things? It cannibalizes them to turn itself into a show with the classic sort of meaning while mostly discarding what science fiction is all about (I say mostly, because I know there are science fictional aspects in there, which are, however, mostly left-overs from the old show).

I don't want to say I don't think BSG is a good show. It is. But it's not a show in my tastes, because of the reasons I pointed out. This might sound a little cheesy, but BSG makes the idealist in me queasy. Since I wonder, why does a science fiction show that could be brilliant and awesome on its own have to try and "be like all the others", i. e. using the science fiction aspects merely as a tool to be like any other of the "deep and well-thought-through" shows out there.

In my opinion, BSG is not a good example to present in defense of science fiction. Not because I think it's bad, but because I think its ideas don't have much to do with science fiction. There are many people who say they don't like BSG because they think it's too dark. I guess this is where the difference between science fiction and what BSG is doing shows best: as

wihluta said, what science fiction does is give hope for the future. BSG doesn't give hope. Like House, it usually presents situations in which the main characters are ethically just as or more unethical as the bad guys, and the outlook is not only inconvenient, but downright desperate. You can see this tone in House, too - main characters with questionable ethics and an outlook on life that's rather depressing. It's more about the here and now than it is about the future, as far as the meaning is concerned.

It surely is a well-thought-through show with some continuity and good characters, and I agree with most of what you said. Aside, you know, the science fiction aspect ;).

Oh, and TOS might be dated, but it is not cringe-inducing. I love me my crazy whacked-out 60ies shows xD.

But why does it have to stop?
That's not quite what I meant. And while I try to think of what I meant ;)... yeah, what I was trying to say is that that is where the traditional definition of science fiction, so to speak, stops. It's not to say BSG's any better than any other science fiction show out there; it was to some extent created to reflect modern society, which limits its scope somewhat. And yes, it is pessimistic and dark, which also goes back to its nature as a mirror of sorts.

I concede my argument was overblown, probably because I nearly gave myself an aneurysm trying to make the arguments in my original essay flow and make sense to someone who wasn't me (ie, the guy marking it), which was partly what I was trying to condense for this. I also started out arguing dialogue, and moved into entire scope... again overblown. I would also like to take the opportunity to slightly amend my statement regarding TOS; it's dated and (to me) cringeworthy in terms of its dialogue and "black and white" standpoint. And although I stand by my argument that BSG is good science fiction, I think this may also be another example of, yeah, of my fingers moving too fast for my brain to comprehend exactly what it is that I'm trying to say. Nothing new there really :)

That's exactly what I meant. BSG is trying to be a mirror, while science fiction is trying to be a telescope.

But, yeah. As I said. Not saying it's a bad show. It's surely interesting, for people who like that sort of thing. Just not the science fiction show I'd pick if someone asked me to tell them a good sci-fi show.

And TOS is awesome. From the bouncing cardboard rocks to the tunnels made out of tin foil. Bubblewrap aliens ftw! xD

Just not the science fiction show I'd pick if someone asked me to tell them a good sci-fi show.
I wouldn't either, because it is largely atypical.

And yes, TOS was lots of fun. I need to go back and find some of the eps again, methinks... I don't remember watching any of it in years!

science fiction is trying to be a telescope
this is a wonderful metaphor!

\o/ Thank you! :)

Oy, as they say, gevalt.

First off, thanks, t-eyla, for putting all this a) eloquently and b) without the venom I had been nervously anticipating since I heard you had written an entry based on our exchange. I guess I'd better make a distinction here. I really do not presume to judge the whole genre of sci-fi, because I have relatively little experience of it.

Here is my basic opinion, and I stress the fact that that's all it is:

Shows such as Star Trek, BSG and the like: I haven't seen an awful lot of them. I have seen enough to know that I personally cannot connect to characters in such wild and unimaginable situations in any meaningful way, regardless of their metaphors for the present day. HOWEVER, I recognise that this is a personal flaw of my own character, and can easily see how these programmes could be deeply appreciated and understood by others.

Doctor Who (revival edition): I apologise profusely, but I have seen a lot of the New Who and cannot find one redeeming quality in it. While I can identify, if not enjoy, the depth of some sci-fi shows, I struggle to find anything in this that isn't superficial, clunky and, for a show which operates through aliens, futuristic concepts and bizarre inventions, strikingly unimaginative. Everything about it strikes me as depressingly 2D and, if I might use such a provocative label, slapdash. Torchwood, on the other hand, while not something I watch personally, seems to be something altogether different due to the fact that it has good actors, interpersonal relationships that actually engage on a mature level and a more refined production.

As for House, I cannot defend the occasionally insane writing and characterisation. My love of the show is primarily carried by Hugh Laurie (and, at times, RSL and Lisa E), an incredibly gifted and subtle actor, whose superiority to Tennant's incessant mugging is almost painful (though he's still better than the wooden RADA rejects they range around him). So while I agree that there may be times that Dr Who's writing surpasses House's (in more recent episodes, seeing as the earlier ones are untouchable as far as I'm concerned), for me, this is made up for by the fact that House depicts human, emotional stories that I can relate to, whereas Dr Who, however great it's writing might become, could never affect me the same way.

To cut a long story short, I don't deny that sci-fi can engage, provoke, explore and discuss deep and intellectually probing questions. Not at all. I simply stand by my opinion that Doctor Who does none of these things.

thanks, t-eyla, for putting all this a) eloquently and b) without the venom I had been nervously anticipating
I don't believe in spouting vitriol when I don't agree with someone. Well-founded arguments work so much better to convince other people of your opinion ;).

this is a personal flaw of my own character
I don't consider it a flaw. It's simply a matter of preference. Me, I could never get into the whole idea of watching/reading something only so I could find out how it relates to the real world. Actually, I have a deep aversion to doing so. As I said, matter of preference.

As for Doctor Who, I think the problem is multi-layered.
1) You generally don't like sci-fi and can't really gain any intellectual stimulation from watching/reading it.
2) You subsequently have no awareness of the history and culture of sci-fi.
3) You have only ever seen New Who.

New Who is of an extremely postmodern character. You know how shows that have been running for rather a long time start including little inside jokes and humorous jabs at their own clichés? Like for example the X-Files; I'm thinking of the season 5 episode Postmodern Prometheus, which is so extremely self-ironic it twists your brain.

Well. Doctor Who has been running since 1963. And unlike Star Trek, which survived by creating one spin-off after the other, this is still the same show. It's the same show that used to have aliens who were wearing bubble wrap costumes, and the same main character that in the 80ies ran around for 5 seasons wearing a decorative celery stick on his lapel. The term sonic screwdriver, when it was invented, sounded highly technological. Today, the word sonic communicates out-dated equipment.

New Who is a science fiction show faced with the nearly impossible task to bridge more than 40 years of science, and not only any 40 years, but the last 40 years of the 20th century, which have brought us more technological progress than any other time. Subsequently, they had to develop their own style - the one I mentioned above. They question everything. Nothing is conventional, even the unconventional elements are not unconventional in a conventional sense. This is how you get homicidal Christmas trees and murderous shop window dummies and the crazed, seemingly over-the-top character that is Tennant's interpretation of the Doctor.

I can see how someone who's completely blank as far as sci-fi is concerned would get the impression that this show is the worst, most superficial show ever, though. Doctor Who is using all the classic elements of sci-fi because it has to; they're too deeply ingrained in the canon to discard them. You have to have a certain awareness of sci-fi culture to gain anything from watching it. I've never realized this before, but now that I'm thinking about it, it seems very obvious. Because New Who is like a very well written, original guilty pleasure fic for sci-fi geeks.

I think it's fascinating that you find Torchwood more interesting than DW. Because while I like TW, I can't help but laugh at how hard it tries to be adult - every other scene there's sex, boy kissing or violence. I watch it because I approve of the boy kissing, and because they do have their moments, but imo, it's by far not as well thought through as DW. And um, about the production? The producers of both shows are the same person.

I'm not going to start comparing HL to DT, because I think they're both extremely awesome in their very own way. HL would basically suck if he tried to play the tenth Doctor, just like DT would fail horribly if he tried to be House. I appreciate them both as very talented actors. ~~David Tennant is much prettier, though~~.

House depicts human, emotional stories that I can relate to, whereas Dr Who, however great it's writing might become, could never affect me the same way
I think that is what it comes down to. It's a matter of preference. And that's great, isn't it? Infinite diversity in infinite combination; the more people with different opinions, the more interesting it gets here in fandom \o/ :D.

Erm ... yes, basically. By production, by the way, I meant general slickness of appearance rather than literal producers. But anyway, yeah. I see what you mean about everything.

I've never watched the X Files (bit before my time). I think I'd like it. Mulder and Scully seem sassy in a way that appeals to me. And I like the mystery element. Anyhoo, thanks for taking the time to politely explain why I'm not approaching the show in the right way, because you're right. It'll help me be more understanding next time I clash with my friend Mark over Dr Who (he HAS the sonic screwdriver. And a sonic bottle-opener, but I'm guessing that doesn't feature in the show ;D)

Oh, the X Files are awesome. It might be a way for you to find your way into the horror/sci-fi genre, if you're interested. X Files isn't quite as hard core as DW xD.

Yay for having convinced you, lol xD. Btw, I wasn't trying to tell you you have to love DW. If you want to, you should go right on hating the show, because there's never going to be a show everybody loves. I just couldn't keep my mouth shut, since I got the feeling that you were missing out on the exact factor that I think makes DW as awesome as I think it is.

I was thinking about buying the sonic screwdriver on ebay, to go with my cosplay Doctor costume. But the December budget didn't cover it D:.

I have to say that for me, the thing I like most about Torchwood is how they always seem to fail at everything they're attempting. But they never give up. They lick the wounds and get right on it again. And that's something I admire.

I have to say, though, that appart from John Barrowmann and the actress that plays Gwen, I find the actors rather dull and wooden. But that's maybe just me, and because I like a 'crazy' actor like DT. :-)

What about Rhys? THE BOYFRIEND OF AWESOME??!!

I love love love the Gwen/Rhys dynamics. I think it's my second favorite thing about the show, after John Barrowman and his Gay of Awesome.

OMG TORCHWOOD ON THURSDAY!!!!111!!11

well, you know I'm not too hot about Rhys, but John. John is AWESOMENESS in CAPSLOCK!

AND YAYAYAY ONLY TWO MORE DAYS!

But he dies in a very awesome way. Does he ever.

I think, to be honest, that a lot of minor actors in British shows are worse than their US counterparts. That doesn't count for period dramas, though - whether or not they're actually fun and interesting, they usually have excellent casts.

Like I say, I've never really watched it properly. But I know what I like and I like John Barrowman :D

2nd season starts on Wednesday! You should totally take the time to watch it. There's gonna be moar boy kissing! :D

oh, yeah... John Barroman. Isn't he AWESOME!

here, look at that:

*happy smile*

I...can't even begin to imagine what's supposed to be happening in that picture, but I like it :D

hee - yeah.

and it's good to know that we can always find at least one topic on which we agree. Hot men. LOL

And now tell me again that Doctor Who doesn't come up with awesome ideas. DEFABRICATOR! YAY \o/ xD

Perhaps they could replace Torchwood with half an hour of shirtless John Barrowman? Just him around the house, playing the piano, reading a book, all shirtless. That would be killer viewing.

How come that recently, all my posts seem to turn into picspams sooner or later?

Ah well. It's not like I mind or anything.

TONGUE PR0N!!

you're asking for it. (and honestly, can't we ever stay serious, or at least on topic?) LOLOL

Picspam is SRS BZNS!

And I really ♥ that second picture.

Edited because my coding skills fail.

that second one is LOVE!

I might not have time to read all of this and the comments line by line, but I skimmed closely (LOL, is that possible?) and I think I agree with what you're saying.

Science fiction is THE most intellectually provocative fiction genre. Has been since its conception. (That's why I love it above all other fiction genres.) Anyone who believes otherwise clearly hasn't read enough sci-fi, and certainly not enough GOOD sci-fi. That says nothing about them as a person, but it IS a real shame they're missing out.

People need to read Bradbury, Heinlein, Asimov, etc. before they can say that sci-fi has no intellectual merit. That's some of the smartest, most inspiring work of our time! (And if they DO read it and say the same, well, then...I just don't know what to say to that.)

It's unfortunate that the bias regarding speculative fiction (sci-fi, fantasy, horror) in general continues to linger, because it means that even authors whose bodies of work have speculative elements to them may refuse to acknowledge it.

(I'm thinking in particular at this moment of Margaret Atwood: a well-respected feminist author who has won at least one science fiction award and yet has sneeringly referred to sci-fi as being "just stories about spaceships and lasers." [That's a bit of a paraphrase because I don't have the interview in front of me now. And no, I don't like Atwood!])

And plenty of highly influential works have speculative elements to them. (1984, anyone? At the time it was written, it was set in a possible future. That's sci-fi.)

I agree that sci-fi asks - relentlessly! - the Big Questions. Who are we, why are we here, what makes us us, what else could be, what else will be, what do we love or fear, and why?

There's a reason science fiction is referred to as, "a literature of ideas."

/climbs down the ladder from his soapbox

P.S. I'm sad you don't like Adams's cheeky narrative style; but I suppose it's definitely not everyone's cuppa. It CAN get wearisome in large doses, anyway.

Oh, and it occurs to me that I ignored that you've mostly discussed television here. I sort of went off on my own little lit tangent, because while I do think sci-fi translates wonderfully well to the screen, I also think it has more impact as written word.

Hah, I was thinking of 1984 as well! Even Frankenstein is considered science fiction - actually, it's considered the first sci-fi novel ever.

I agree. It's really annoying that science fiction is only considered literature worth reading when the author has been dead for at least ten years - and even then it usually doesn't get the respect it deserves. I'm thinking of Stephen King here, too. He's the best author I have ever read, and yet his books are still considered junk literature by far too many people.

Yay for the Big Questions, though. I must say, ever since I discovered this genre, anything else mostly bores me to death. Why should I think about the small stuff if there's the universe to consider? Lol xD.

No, I didn't like Adam's style. I thought it was sloppy. I can deal with a fast narration, but I can't deal with it if an author writes a plot summary with half the information missing and then sells it as a book.

I love his ideas, though :).

YAYs, you brought the literary side into this! Fantastic!

I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with you, even though I've as yet to manage to read Asimov. It is pretty high on my list, though. :-)

And I've always tried to find out why a lot of people don't like D. Adams, and I think (that's just my theory) that the biggest problem is that he seems to use a different theory to explain the universe in each part of his book(s). I've read them all and I had to take a long time to do so, because otherwise it would have blown my brain to try and wrap it all together. It's the sort of book that needs to stew a little in your head.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The meaning of sci-fi

no subject

In defence of science fiction

Re: In defence of science fiction

Re: In defence of science fiction

Re: In defence of science fiction

Re: In defence of science fiction

Re: In defence of science fiction

Re: In defence of science fiction

no subject

Tl;dr again... sorry, lol ;)

Re: Tl;dr again... sorry, lol ;)

Re: Tl;dr again... sorry, lol ;)

Re: Tl;dr again... sorry, lol ;)

Re: Tl;dr again... sorry, lol ;)

Re: Tl;dr again... sorry, lol ;)

no subject

Re: Tl;dr again... sorry, lol ;)

no subject

Re: Tl;dr again... sorry, lol ;)

Re: Tl;dr again... sorry, lol ;)

Re: Tl;dr again... sorry, lol ;)

Re: Tl;dr again... sorry, lol ;)

Re: Tl;dr again... sorry, lol ;)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject