On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:59:23 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That works as well, covers both genres.  Most people conflate "Science
>> Fiction" with "Science Fantasy".
> 
> I find there's a very easy distinction to make (that many don't).
> Science Fiction explores the results on people or society of technology.
>
> So, if you can recast it without the science/technology, it isn't SF. If
> it's completely fantastic science, but the story is about the *science*,
> then it's SF.

I'd agree with the first paragraph you wrote - at least looking at it 
from a hardcore Sci-Fi perspective.  The other perspective, of course, is 
that what most people call Sci-Fi is a "supergenre" (if you will) that 
covers both this definition and Science Fantasy.

For the second, though, there's a blur between "fantastic science" and 
"fantasy science".

> In that sense, Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court would be Science
> Fiction, because it was primarily about what the Yankee did with modern
> technology. Star Trek is (mostly) not science fiction.

Agreed.  I would probably also put BSG in the "not science fiction" 
category using that definition, because the story is more about the 
characters and less about the technology.  The science is quite good (one 
of the few shows where I've seen actual thought put into spaceship 
physics), but the story isn't about the technology, it's about the people 
and their journey.

> Of course, the lines can still be blurry, but I personally don't think
> "science fiction" is about whether it's "hard" or not, but about whether
> the focus is science (or technology) or whether the focus is something
> you could equally set in the Old West or Medieval Europe.  (Indeed, Iron
> Man presented as "the first guy to invent armor in 600 AD" would count
> as "science fiction" by this definition.)

True enough...

Jim

Post a reply to this message