[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dragons on Animal Planet March 20
Martin Baeker (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
<The dragons are nice (indeed, very nice, sometimes), and they tried to
adapt them to the region (chinese woodragons look like those in chinese
culture, etc.) but prepare to have everything you ever knew about how
paleontologists work being upset - the science part, although they tried
(you even get to see a cladogram of dragons if you look close enough -
yes, they are monophyletic), was terrible. (And they can fly because of
being filled with - well, you can guess, and guess how they spit fire.)>
I will likely be watching this for the amusement factor, but also
because I am genuinely interested. I have read some classic fantasy, and
remain an avid reader of modern fantasy to this day (who hasn't read
Tolkein or Heinlein yet?), so some of the statements about the biologies
of dragons they indicated on the site had me intrigued and I want to see
if they credit these people as being original conceptors for these
effects. Dragons in Gordon R. Dickson's world have inflatable gas
chambers, so they fly like blimbs, whereas Anne McCaffrey's dragons
possess a chemical reacting substance that requires limestone and
calcium-rich rock to create the "flame," and the descriptions of these so
far appear to have come straight from their pages. I hope plagiarism isn't
in the offering.
Jaime A. Headden
Little steps are often the hardest to take. We are too used to making leaps
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do. We should all
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.