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


   I agree with those who have commented that Mr Gurney's books are beautifully illustrated, and, as I have explicated previously, imbued with his ostensible love of dinosaurs as iconographic figures. However, I do believe, contra those who say one should not expect it, even manipulative televisioned phantasies should have accurate dinosaurs. I, for one, found the Flintstones and Alley Oop to be of the same calibre as alphabet soup swirling in a colostomy bag -- and accurate dinosaurs, if they had appeared in the episodes, would not have made them applicable for the quest of our dreams, how, for many of us, we were introduced to the beautiful beasts. (I still remember that, in 1954, I huddled under a blanket, with a flashlight, poring over Ned Colbert's dinosaur book.) And yet. I do not believe that in itself Dinotopia, as an ideation, can ! ! ! teach viewers anything about paleobiology and the complex ecomorphologies of pre-K/T dinosaurs. Why? Because, the television barneyologists (the marketing accountants) are selling an anthropomorphized product -- talking dinosaurs (one almost expected them to break into Uncle Remus songs) + cute hominids do not = what we should expect of public conjurations of dinosaurs. Can one juxtaposition dinosaurs + hominids? In "entertainment", to be sure...causing one to ask: what kind  of "society" exists in the imaginary Dinotopia? An amalgamation of Montessori ethos and L. Frank Baum and ERB's dinosaurs as props? George Orwell's talking animals appeared in a fable, as did those of the web of Charlotte, and, earlier, in Anna Sewell et al. Are we to interpret Dinotopia as a phantasy kibbutz?