Author Archives: Mark Sample

You end with a fascinating closing question. We could phrase it as well as which is worse, to be hated or ignored?. It’s a question that will reappear throughout the semester, and it seems to be a central one in science fiction in general. Perhaps because so much science fiction consists of the sudden appearance of something new—a new technology, a new idea, or a new creature. Continue reading →

I’d love for you to dig a bit deeper in your comparison of the story and the movie. We shouldn’t be asking which was better, so much as, how were they different? How did each shape the thematic material to fit its own needs? The ending is a great example—accept that the rather ambiguous and anticlimactic ending is there for a purpose, and then ask, so why? What does that ending evoke or suggest? Continue reading →

It’s interesting to hear you say that the movie The Thing takes away many of the underlying meanings of “Who Goes There.” I’ve been thinking about it in opposite terms. I’d argue that the movie tackles more themes directly—specifically, race comes to mind. Also the ending of the movie is much more ambiguous, leaving room for multiple interpretations, something the short story definitely does not do. Continue reading →

That’s an intriguing connection to make between House of Leaves and “The Comet”; it’s not one that would leap out at me, and I’m curious to hear more about the parallels you see between the two texts. Continue reading →

What a great reading of “The Comet” using one simple concept (water) as your lens! This technique shows the power of connecting a close reading of a single word (or related words) to the broader theme of the text.

I also like how your focus on the natural imagery (something you did effectively with Frankenstein too) illustrates that nature is not simply a backdrop to the story, but part of its very essence. I think we could apply a similar technique to the imagery of the Antarctic in “Who Goes There”… Continue reading →

I definitely think it’s worth it to focus on the word choice here, as you do. “Stranger” is such a powerful word (and it lies at the heart of most science fiction). The roots of the word are telling; it comes from the Latin word extraneus, meaning external or from the outside. Jim is certainly from the outside of Julia’s world, and when the boundaries of that world shift dramatically (temporally), it looks as though Jim will be allowed to enter it. Continue reading →

You cover a lot of ground in this post, a bit chaotically. I wonder what connections you see between “The Comet,” “Who Goes There,” and the proto-science fiction of Frankenstein? That is, are there any recurring themes you could use to tie these texts together (particularly the short stories)? Continue reading →

Very intriguing thought experiment. What interests me most (especially in the context of our other reading this semester) is, which of the four scenarios would be most disturbing, causing that cognitive estrangement Suvin deems necessary to science fiction?

I think the answer is clearly (3) Inhuman Children. Hybrids that cannot be easily categorized upset both our sensibility and the “natural order of things” (which is usually not so natural after all). Continue reading →

Interesting distinction here between "playing god" and "playing science." I'm not totally clear on what you mean by "playing science" though; I think you're onto something, but it's worth delving a bit more into how science is opposed to "god" in the novel. Maybe it helps to broaden the notion of god to more generally, "nature." So, science (as Frankenstein works it) is opposed to nature. That might be a more tenable opposition to set up with the novel Continue reading →