Whatever Happened to the Rocket Men?

This morning I heard Elton John's Rocket Man and noticed the line about not understanding the science and it's just a job he has five days a week. It reminded me of a sociological oddity of early science fiction films. If you watch a film about spaceflight from the 50s, say, the crew almost always included a 'working man' type. If it's a British film he'd probably be a cheery cockney, while the US would give us a wise-cracking or cynical man of the people (they were always men).

The reasoning was pretty obvious - the filmmakers were basing their ideas of a spaceship crew on that of a traditional ship. Even Star Trek, despite starting well into the NASA era, fell for this idea - though they at least had a big enough crew on the Enterprise to require a whole range of roles. But those old, primarily black and white, films usually only had a small crew. So what were they expecting the role of the 'I don't know about the science, just do my job' person to actually be? Turn big brass valves with greasy rags?

I think part of the reason for this occurring to me was reading Adam Roberts' new marmite of a novel, Lake of Darkness, which explicitly mocks the way that most science fiction seems to base its model of future starships on the social structures of traditonal seagoing ships, and often military vessels at that.

You might think there was one other reason for putting in that 'man of the people' character - fulfilling the role that the companion traditionally takes on in Doctor Who. That's someone to ask what's going on and get an explanation from the more scientific types. But I don't particularly remember this happening in the old movies. Whatever the reason, these characters were an entertaining anachronism of their time.

Image from Unsplash by Andy Hermawan.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog