J Free - 12 January 2008 10:56 PM

Does that make sense?

It might to some. It doesn’t to me. I think people need to be careful when they try to give some specific meaning to abstract art, poetry, or art in general. Just like when we hear Dawkins to say over and over that the question of God is a scientific problem, so is, I believe, the kids and the deamon idea, which practically plays on the dilemma of nature vs nurture. This is one of the reasons why I can’t seem to enjoy fantasy movies: take an idea, give it some bogus explanation and go on. Science fiction movies don’t do that. It is still a fantasy (Star Trek, for example), but at least they make the idea of a “magic sword” plausible: they explain why and how a sword could indeed appear magical.

George - 13 January 2008 08:54 AM

This is one of the reasons why I can’t seem to enjoy fantasy movies: take an idea, give it some bogus explanation and go on. Science fiction movies don’t do that. It is still a fantasy (Star Trek, for example), but at least they make the idea of a “magic sword” plausible: they explain why and how a sword could indeed appear magical.

Yeah, I hear ya.  That’s what was missing for me too -
I really enjoy sci-fi and that’s what I like about it.  The ideas in GC weren’t explained enough to have value to me as metaphors in the same way some sci-fi series are.  I wouldn’t have minded that the daemons ‘just were’ or whatever, if they could explain their history and purpose a little more, for example.