b6decee1__Essays__How_to_Analyze_Sci_Fi__Suspension_of_Disbelief
[0] Cons [Literary] Poorly suited to movies, which are mostly visual. In fact, it is so poorly suited to movies that its practitioners tend to sneak in "suspension of disbelief" methods when convenient. Heavily dependent upon semantics. Its inherent ambiguity tends to create endless debating stalemates (this might be considered a good thing if you think debates are for entertainment rather than resolution of disputes). Poorly suited to scientific analysis of any kind, since the notion of scientific analysis of an author's intent requires that the author himself must be scientifically competent. An author cannot intend to convey a message beyond his own comprehension. Is limited to the author's scientific comprehension by its very nature as an attempt to divine his intentions. If the author is an ignoramus, then there are many intelligible explanations for phenomena which become off-limits because the author wouldn't understand them. Has a penchant for explaining things by going "out of universe" for an explanation based on the author's motives and literary conventions. For example, the argument that "the good guys have to win" is a classic example of literary analysis. [Suspension of Disbelief] 
Not good for novels (where the nature of the source is inherently subjective, you cannot directly observe anything at all, and you are restricted to a particular observer's testimony). In real life, stories written in an entertaining style are considered a rather poor historical source when compared to official documents or diagrams. Poorly suited to thematic analysis, dissection of social messages, etc. Historians try to figure out what happened and scientists try to figure out how things work. Neither is out to assign higher meaning to anything, so their methods are simply not geared to doing so.
Star Wars vs Star Trek Essays: How to Analyze Sci-Fi
Suspension of Disbelief