On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:21:21 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I personally tend towards that as well - pushing the boundaries of
>> science is what it's about; Jurassic Park was science fiction, even
>> though that technology doesn't exist today.  It's something that's
>> possible.
> 
> To me, it doesn't matter if it's actually possible or not. It's whether
> you can tell the story without the science. Saying "Imagine a movie just
> like Jurassic park, but without dinosaurs" makes no sense. 

Sure it does; instead of genetically cloning dinosaur DNA, make it a 
mastadon instead.  Or a sabre-toothed tiger.

> There is no
> story there but for the dinosaurs. Or "Imagine back to the future,
> without a time machine."

That one would be a bit more difficult.  It wouldn't have to be a 
DeLorean, but yeah, that one would be hard without the science.

> Could you tell the Terminator story without the science? Yeah, almost
> kinda. All you need is someone who is really, really hard to kill. 

IOW, let's say, Predator or Rambo.

> You
> could imagine it as some super-strong dude in the centuries where
> weapons that killed effortlessly weren't around, or a really smart
> gunslinger in the old west who took a dislike to somebody. Sort of like
> the Black Knight kind of story, or Beowulf.

That'd work as well.

> I certainly prefer "hard" science, myself.

Same here; though it depends on my mood, too.  Sometimes I just want to 
watch stuff blow up.

>> I think one of the hallmarks of good Science Fiction is that the author
>> does some research into the field he's writing about.
> 
> Yep. Depends, of course, on what they're trying to express, tho.

Absolutely.

> I'm reading a novel right now called "star farers", basically about the
> people who get on close-to-lightspeed ships, and how it affects them,
> and how the societies react to them as they show up hundreds of years
> apart. It's 95% talking between characters, and 0.3% science, just
> enough in the beginning to let you know there's science, with lots of
> quantum mumbo-jumbo about the new inertia free drive that lets you get
> up to high tau.  But it's still science fiction, because it's about the
> time dialation, and it wouldn't make sense to tell the story without
> that.

I would classify it as Science Fiction for that reason, hardcore or not.

>> I actually haven't read Ringworld.  Need to do that one of these days.
> 
> I quite enjoyed it. The ones after were much less interesting, IMO.

I've heard that about the later ones.

Jim

Post a reply to this message