Walter Amos sez:
>I will certainly grant that no doubt elements of the military actions in LoGH
>leave much to be desired. However in terms of the totality of science
>fiction, especially military science fiction, produced for the screen I think
>it nonetheless still stands head and shoulders above almost everything.
Compared to such paragons of virtue as _Gallforce_, no doubt. But consider
the brief, incandescent battle at the end of _Royal Space Force_. It's not
a movie about military action, but the tactics and realism depicted are
absolutely spot-on, right down to the usage of hovercraft and air strikes.
LoGH, obstensively a war story (at least in part) is far less interested
in realistic touches. Admittedly, neither was _Star Wars_, but SW never
pretended to be much more than moralistic pulp fiction. LoGH claims the
dignity of historical rigour, rather stridently in fact.
>However I would agree with Harold Ancell that the main point of LoGH is not so
>much the minutia of the battles but rather the larger questions of societal
>organization that are raised. Much as I am a fan of the Empire stylistically,
>I fear that most of the best and most relevant points about modern political
>life are raised by Yang.
Hmm. Yes, I believe we've had this argument before. The importance of
civilian-military relations in a democracy, and the needs of democracy?
I still find them to be essentially conventional wisdom, in the Japanese
context of the militaristic Thirties.
Mitch Hagmaier
Quest Labs