Jim Henderson wrote:

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

Sure. I'm of the opinion you can have science fiction without credible 
science, as long as the story is about the science. FTL? No problem. 
Stasis fields? No problem.

> 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.

Right. Ask yourself if you could rewrite it as a giant ocean-liner 
crossing the Atlantic in 1490, and see if the same basic plots still work.

Now, recast Niven's "Ringworld" without spaceships. Does it still work?

Or any of James Halperin's stuff, like The Truth Machine or Immortality? 
How do you write a book about the affects on society of a perfect lie 
detector if you don't incorporate the technology of a perfect lie detector?

Even something like "The Witling", a novel about earthmen accidentally 
crashing a spaceship on a planet populated by people who can magically 
teleport themselves and others would count as "SF" in my view. The story 
just doesn't fly without the "magical technology" of the teleportation, 
even tho it is completely unexplained how it works or why.

Of course, there's a fuzzy boundary.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message