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