Warp wrote:
>   Maybe the definition of "sci-fi" is not so much about the science part,
> but about the fiction part, in other words, the storytelling. But that
> becomes even harder to define accurately.

I know I've said this before, but I usually define sci-fi as needing to be 
about the science and technology rather than the personalities. An 
exploration of "what would the world be like if this science were 
available." If you can tell essentially the same story without the science 
element, it isn't sci-fi.

In the case of Moon, you would have a very hard time telling the story 
without the cloning aspect. Avatar, on the other hand, is Pocohantas in 
space, so it doesn't really count as sci-fi in my book.

It's a little easier to figure out with books and such than it is with 
movies, unless it's really extreme.

I haven't decided how I feel about fantasy that's consistent and the story 
is about the fantastic element. Something like "Master of the Five Magics" 
seemed very sci-fi'ish to me, even though the story was about the apprentice 
learning the "technologies" of all five types of magic.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
    that the code does what you think it does, even if
    it doesn't do what you wanted.

Post a reply to this message