Dan Byers wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
>> Hmm, maybe Brook's Magic Kingdom For Sale. Heinlein's Glory Road comes
>> to mind, too.
> 
> I grew up on Brooks' "Shannara" series (LOTR for dummies, like me).  Never read
> the "Magic Kingdom" series, though.  I was under the impression that was
> fantasy, not sci-fi...

It's been ages since I read it. I just recalled the start of it,
something about an amulet that transported a person from a spot just a
few miles up the road from me into another world.

Guess the difference in that is if it's science that transports him,
it's fantastical scifi. If it's magic, it's fantasy. Guess I need to
re-read it and find out.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Guess the difference in that is if it's science that transports him,
> it's fantastical scifi. If it's magic, it's fantasy. 

Nah. It's whether the plot of the story revolves around being 
transported, or whether that just happens to be a way to drop someone 
into a magical (or scientific) realm.

Like, the Myst series is science fiction. The point is to figure out how 
to work the books. Without the book technology (whether it be magic, 
science, or something else), the entire series would make no sense. You 
couldn't re-do Myst without the teleportation aspect.

Quake and Quake II and Half-Life are fantasy, even tho they're set in 
technological worlds. The point isn't that these are aliens. You could 
make them "evil communists" just as easily and the game would play the 
same.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I don't consider it
> to be science fiction unless it's actually about the technology and how
> people react to it. If you could take the story about war between worlds
> with blasters, and set it down as war between countries with revolvers,
> it isn't science fiction. On the other hand, if it's about how
> technology affects people, even old technology then I'd call it science
> fiction. Stories of how medieval peasants deal with the first knights in
> armor would be SF in my book.

a very good definition indeed.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I don't consider it
>> to be science fiction unless it's actually about the technology and how
>> people react to it. If you could take the story about war between worlds
>> with blasters, and set it down as war between countries with revolvers,
>> it isn't science fiction. On the other hand, if it's about how
>> technology affects people, even old technology then I'd call it science
>> fiction. Stories of how medieval peasants deal with the first knights in
>> armor would be SF in my book.
> 
> a very good definition indeed.

I must confess, it is not mine. I don't remember where I heard it, but 
it stuck with me since then.

I also like a series where a world is created, populated with a range of 
people (or species), and presented. Larry Niven and Terry Pratchett both 
do these very well.

(Heh. Nerdware. Apparently Firefox's spelling dictionary recognises both 
those names. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
>> In fact, I read "Fahrenheit 451" again about six months ago, and the
>> parallels between that world and this one are spooky...
> 
> I need to read that one one of these days - got a copy out in the other 
> room, just never got around to it...

	Great book.

	I think it's incorrect to refer to him as a sci/fi writer, though.

-- 
He collects mouthwash bottles, and they're all in mint condition.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 	I think it's incorrect to refer to him as a sci/fi writer, though.

The only Bradbury I ever liked was Martian Chronicles and Illustrated 
Man. Everything else seemed... well, I just couldn't get past the first 
chapter.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:30:07 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>stbenge wrote:
>> Poll: What do you like more?
>> a) hard science fiction
>> b) fantastical sci-fi
>> c) space operas
>
>I prefer hard science fiction. However, given that, I don't consider it 
>to be science fiction unless it's actually about the technology and how 
>people react to it. If you could take the story about war between worlds 
>with blasters, and set it down as war between countries with revolvers, 
>it isn't science fiction. On the other hand, if it's about how 
>technology affects people, even old technology then I'd call it science 
>fiction. 

I agree with this bit too.

>Stories of how medieval peasants deal with the first knights in 
>armor would be SF in my book.

Sorry, for me this is historical fiction. It did happen, you know. :) 

I like a) hard SF best followed by b) fantastical SF and only if there is
nothing else to read c) space operas (Cowboys with space guns, I call them)

Sam's mom recommends Grass by Sheri S. Tepper I would recommend "The Gate to
Women's Country" by her. (Not a boys-ie book IMO)

There is some interesting work by women writers hiding amongst the stories of
"Feisty Girlies with Balls". Has anyone read Elizabeth Moon's "Remnant
Population" or "The Speed of Dark"? Or "Drinking Sapphire Wine" by Tanith Lee"?

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

stbenge wrote:
> Dan Byers wrote:
>>> Poll: What do you like more?
>>> a) hard science fiction
>>> b) fantastical sci-fi
>>> c) space operas
>>
>> What would your definition of b) be (no pun intended)?  What's a good 
>> example of
>> this??
> 
> Grass, Sheri S. Tepper
> http://www.amazon.com/Grass-Sheri-S-Tepper/dp/0553285653
> 
> My mom suggested this book to me, but I just couldn't get into it. It 
> was too frickin' boring.
> 
> Also, the Pern (one letter off from porn) series by Anne McCaffrey. I 
> read one book of it, and had a hard time finishing it. Fantasy sci-fi 
> just isn't that interesting, IMO.

Hmm, I wouldn't describe the Pern stories as fantasy, unless you ignore 
all the prologues and some of the later (and lesser) books. But they 
certainly appear superficially fantastical (the word 'dragon' mainly... 
:)). Just goes to show that there's a finer line than people might think 
between these three categories.

I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the one you tried, I remember the first one I 
read was a little hard going simply because of all the new words and 
strange names she'd thought up. They get much easier. Which one did you 
read first? It should have been Dragonflight, or you wouldn't have 
understood a thing! :)

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:30:07 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Stories of how medieval peasants deal with the first knights in 
>> armor would be SF in my book.
> 
> Sorry, for me this is historical fiction. It did happen, you know. :) 

Try Pasquale's Angel, by Paul J McAuley. How Florence might have turned 
out if da Vinci had leaned more towards engineering than art. 
Contemporary celebrities are some of the main characters. A very good read!

> I like a) hard SF best followed by b) fantastical SF and only if there is
> nothing else to read c) space operas (Cowboys with space guns, I call them)

Hmm, sounds like everyone else has a different definition of space opera 
to me. I always thought that galaxy-spanning adventure and action were 
the main staples, which clearly can include hard sf as well as fantasies 
like Star Wars or Lensman. I'd put Iain M Banks' Culture novels into 
both categories without even thinking about it.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> I don't consider it
>>> to be science fiction unless it's actually about the technology and how
>>> people react to it. If you could take the story about war between worlds
>>> with blasters, and set it down as war between countries with revolvers,
>>> it isn't science fiction. On the other hand, if it's about how
>>> technology affects people, even old technology then I'd call it science
>>> fiction. Stories of how medieval peasants deal with the first knights in
>>> armor would be SF in my book.

How about things like Orwell's 1984 then? That extrapolates many 
possible paths from its time, but doesn't really dwell on technology. Or 
would you put this into 'speculative fiction' but separate from sf?

> I also like a series where a world is created, populated with a range of 
> people (or species), and presented. Larry Niven and Terry Pratchett both 
> do these very well.

Niven must be my favourite author, I think. He's not as good with human 
characters as other authors, but he's a genius at aliens, concepts and 
stories.

> (Heh. Nerdware. Apparently Firefox's spelling dictionary recognises both 
> those names. :-)

And so it should :)

Post a reply to this message