Time travel is the premise of the show, the miracle you buy to get to the story; the hole is a plot device for this episode, a miracle you allow for the sake of this story; and the resolution of the hole, the Thames swirling down it, is an authorial convenience.
And I'm still not seeing why scientific realism is important for some of those things, but not others.
Stories are emotionally satisfying because they play out situations to a conclusion.
Well, no. Stories are emotionally satisfying because of their emotional content. They're narratively satisfying because they play out to a reasonable conclusion. But I think that's difference of opinion is fairly symptomatic of the different ways we approach both stories and life in general :-p
As for what parma_violets says, well, frankly I couldn't give a good goddamn if the show doesn't take sci-fi concepts seriously; not do I care what genre it's "supposed" to be a part of, so that argument doesn't really hold for me. And if that's also your argument, then maybe you understand why I've had such a time trying to work out why the science behind the hole to the centre of the earth matters so much - because to me it really, really doesn't.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-12-26 07:00 pm (UTC)And I'm still not seeing why scientific realism is important for some of those things, but not others.
Stories are emotionally satisfying because they play out situations to a conclusion.
Well, no. Stories are emotionally satisfying because of their emotional content. They're narratively satisfying because they play out to a reasonable conclusion. But I think that's difference of opinion is fairly symptomatic of the different ways we approach both stories and life in general :-p
As for what