I totally kick ass!

Damocles said:
Sci-fi is not only such. It must be set in a time with a higher tech level. In this case it was there. The world specifically didn't have "magic" just a different way of reacting to a mind.

In all cases of sci-fi there is some speculation. Such as "Earth" by David Brin where they create a "Grazer" (a Gravity beam) using a black hole created by humans using techniques that are not in reality today's science. He speculates.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Science Fiction doesn't need to be set in the future, nor does it need to involve on a more advanced technology than that available to the author. What distinguishes Science Fiction from other genres of fiction -- and Fantasy, specifically -- is that S.F. is primarily concerned with the effects of science and technology on society, OR technology or science is used to illustrate a particular theme or point. The second permutation covers such things as Slaughter House Five, which I would never want to kick out of the club. :D

In science fiction, technology becomes a character, as it were. And, like any character, it has to be consistent and believable.

The Darkover novels aren't science fiction simply because she never cared whether the effects to which her characters were subjected were plausible by the standards of science at the time. I say that knowing full well she would not be offended: she literally didn't care because her interest was entirely in the characters. The characters' emotional reactions were realistic, in her mind, so the world they were reacting to was largely immaterial.

That, right there, is the distinction between fantasy and science fiction.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
I disagree. Science Fiction doesn't need to be set in the future, nor does it need to involve on a more advanced technology than that available to the author. What distinguishes Science Fiction from other genres of fiction -- and Fantasy, specifically -- is that S.F. is primarily concerned with the effects of science and technology on society, OR technology or science is used to illustrate a particular theme or point. The second permutation covers such things as Slaughter House Five, which I would never want to kick out of the club. :D

In science fiction, technology becomes a character, as it were. And, like any character, it has to be consistent and believable.

The Darkover novels aren't science fiction simply because she never cared whether the effects to which her characters were subjected were plausible by the standards of science at the time. I say that knowing full well she would not be offended: she literally didn't care because her interest was entirely in the characters. The characters' emotional reactions were realistic, in her mind, so the world they were reacting to was largely immaterial.

That, right there, is the distinction between fantasy and science fiction.
Click to expand...
Once again, it is the elitist snob version. "I only read 'pure' science fiction, Buffy! What are you doing reading that 'fantasy'?"

Call it what you will Darkover fit the definition above regardless of the "fit within the framework of today's science" that you put on it.

It honestly doesn't matter to me. You started this total sideline discussion.

Darkover is not her only sci-fi either. Many of her short stories would even satisfy your specialized definition.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Don't worry: there are therapeutic regimens for that now. :p

Here's a true fact for your erudition and amusement. Marion Zimmer Bradley, of all people, truly loved ol' Robert. She thought he was one of the most gallant and likable men she ever met. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Ahh Darkover. Need a matrix crystal bad....
 
OrnotBitwise said:
There is no "both". Or, rather, if it's science fiction it's also fantasy, but not necessarily the other way 'round.

:cool:

Yeah, I'm being pedantic again. So sue me.

Within the culture, it's collectively called "speculative fiction." That takes in both fantasy and science fiction -- "SF&F" in the lexicon of the marketing weasels. All speculative fiction could be legitimately called "fantasy" but not all fantasy is science fiction.

To make his or her work science fiction, as opposed to fantasy, the author must make a good faith effort to comply with accepted scientific theory as it stands at the time of writing. "Good faith effort" here is actually the best construction possible, I think: the writer isn't responsible for being correct, but, rather, for trying hard not to be wrong.

You don't have quasi-magical, unexplained telepathic people in real science fiction. You can have such in fantasy and, sometimes, it can work out really well. I have no problem with fantasy as such; it's just not science fiction.
Click to expand...

MZB and Norton do mix SCI FI and Fantasy. Spaceships and wizards....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top