Bill Pragnell wrote:
> While I agree in principle, I think there is too much variation in what is
> considered 'proper' SF.

Sure. But they're all WRONG!

> I personally would classify Niven & co's "Lucifer's
> Hammer" as SF, even though there is absolutely no science or tech extrapolation.
> Likewise, Harris' "Fatherland", or McCauley's "Pasquale's Angel". These latter
> are both extrapolations of a real society given a single small difference in
> recorded history, again without any novel tech or science.

I'm happy calling such "speculative fiction" without calling it "science 
fiction."  I don't call Harry Potter "science fiction" either even tho it's 
speculative and couldn't tell *quite* the same story without the magic. (At 
least in some of the novels.)

> As an aside, although I agree that much of star trek is indeed a soap opera that
> could take place anywhere and anywhen, there are some genuine SF stories in
> there. The same goes for Doctor Who. And personally I found a large proportion
> of B5 to be good, if not original, SF.

Yup.  Star Gate would be hard to tell without the science, for example. (By 
which I mean the original movie.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message