[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Various stuffq



Ralph Chapman <MNHAD002@SIVM.SI.EDU>:

>It seems odd
>to constrain fiction to only known species. I'd have fun seeing what
>writers could come up with as not found dinos.

I would, too.  And they did - only they insisted on calling it
a "dilophosaurus".  It would have been dead easy for them to
note the discovery of a new species if they wanted one different
from known historical prototypes - just a couple lines of throw-
away dialog would have done the trick.

Grant: "What the heck is _that_ thing?"
Tech:  "We call it a spitter.  Not in the fossil record, as far
       as we know.  When you take DNA from a 'skeeter blood-meal,
       it's strictly pot-luck."

It could even have been mentioned in the background in the tour
with Richard Kiley's voice.  "This species was unknown to us until
the recovery of its DNA from mosquitos - small, but armed with a
lethal toxic bite, a deadly addition to...Jurassic Park".

>I certainly don;t know what the big deal was about things getting
>loose.

Can you say "plot contrivance"?  Sure you can.  Actually, it would
be quite reasonable to worry about the effects on modern ecology -
dinosaurs might be non-competitive (done in by lack of proper food
or by modern viruses and bacteria) or hypercompetitive (crowding out
modern forms).  But the anti-science message is implicit in this idea
that the world must be "protected" and that science will "always" fail
to provide that protection.  It is more blatent in the book.

regards,
Larry