|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Gilles Tran wrote:
> The problem with that definition is that is probably excludes most of what
> has been produced, sold and accepted by the public under that name,
Sadly true.
> "A clockwork orange" is one of the most
> powerful and influential SF movie ever, except that there's 0 science in it.
I've never heard that called science fiction. Is 1984 also considered to be
science fiction?
> There's not much science in 2001 either, btw.
In the book there is, certainly. You can't tell the story of 2001 without
aliens setting up a monolith.
> Really, the label "science fiction" was basically a marketing trick design
> to attract readers at a time when "science" was a catch-all term (see
> "scientology" or "Christian science" for similar abuses of the word). In
> other words, the "science" in science fiction never actually meant science,
> except for a few science-minded writers.
Sadly true.
--
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |