On 24 Jun 2008 18:59:36 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
wrote:

>Indeed.  And the rest was good, think I might go and shoot some things in 
>Perfect Dark again this evening.
>

Go for it! :)

>>>But as Adams always was keen to say (paraphrasing), the brilliance of
>>>Sci- Fi (or Sci-Fantasy, if you will)
>> 
>> What I will is SF, actually ;)
>
>That works as well, covers both genres.  Most people conflate "Science 
>Fiction" with "Science Fantasy".  Hardcore Sci-Fi people will tell you 
>that something like H2G2 isn't Sci-Fi because it doesn't include a basis 
>in science - it's basis is humour, set in space.
>
I don't know about that. I consider myself a "Hard SF" fan and think
that H2G2 is SF. Mainly because it takes the use of science or
technology to demolish the Earth. Scaling up zoning laws is acceptable
in my view.
As for using humour as a basis to discount a story as SF. Well the
good doctor was renowned for his humour.
"Who the hell cares what happens to a sabre tooth tiger" or "It takes
a pair of jacks to open" :)

>(I used to moderate a forum years and years ago on Science Fiction - very 
>interesting mix of people).
>

I bet.


>
>I must've misunderstood what you said (not uncommon for me), but I 
>thought you said you didn't like radio drama...
>

My problem is that I can seldom follow a serial as I live such a
disjointed life.
I like radio drama and often listen to recordings when driving. I

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible schrieb:
> It could be worse:
> 
> http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1041
> 
> Or even
> 
> http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1047
> 

Great, now you've got me hooked on yet another webcomic. Damn!

Manuel

Post a reply to this message

Manuel Kasten wrote:

> Great, now you've got me hooked on yet another webcomic. Damn!

Addictive, much? ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:52:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> For the second, though, there's a blur between "fantastic science" and
>> "fantasy science".
> 
> Sure. I'm of the opinion you can have science fiction without credible
> science, as long as the story is about the science. FTL? No problem.
> Stasis fields? No problem.

I personally tend towards that as well - pushing the boundaries of 
science is what it's about; Jurassic Park was science fiction, even 
though that technology doesn't exist today.  It's something that's 
possible.

I think one of the hallmarks of good Science Fiction is that the author 
does some research into the field he's writing about.

>> Agreed.  I would probably also put BSG in the "not science fiction"
>> category using that definition, because the story is more about the
>> characters and less about the technology.  The science is quite good
>> (one of the few shows where I've seen actual thought put into spaceship
>> physics), but the story isn't about the technology, it's about the
>> people and their journey.
> 
> Right. Ask yourself if you could rewrite it as a giant ocean-liner
> crossing the Atlantic in 1490, and see if the same basic plots still
> work.

Yep.  And I think they would.

> Now, recast Niven's "Ringworld" without spaceships. Does it still work?

I actually haven't read Ringworld.  Need to do that one of these days.

> Or any of James Halperin's stuff, like The Truth Machine or Immortality?
> How do you write a book about the affects on society of a perfect lie
> detector if you don't incorporate the technology of a perfect lie
> detector?
> 
> Even something like "The Witling", a novel about earthmen accidentally
> crashing a spaceship on a planet populated by people who can magically
> teleport themselves and others would count as "SF" in my view. The story
> just doesn't fly without the "magical technology" of the teleportation,
> even tho it is completely unexplained how it works or why.
> 
> Of course, there's a fuzzy boundary.

Well, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from 
magic. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:13:20 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 24 Jun 2008 18:59:36 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>Indeed.  And the rest was good, think I might go and shoot some things
>>in Perfect Dark again this evening.
>>
> Go for it! :)

Oh, I did.  Got quite good with the sniper rifle, in fact. :-)

>>>>But as Adams always was keen to say (paraphrasing), the brilliance of
>>>>Sci- Fi (or Sci-Fantasy, if you will)
>>> 
>>> What I will is SF, actually ;)
>>
>>That works as well, covers both genres.  Most people conflate "Science
>>Fiction" with "Science Fantasy".  Hardcore Sci-Fi people will tell you
>>that something like H2G2 isn't Sci-Fi because it doesn't include a basis
>>in science - it's basis is humour, set in space.
>>
> I don't know about that. I consider myself a "Hard SF" fan and think
> that H2G2 is SF. Mainly because it takes the use of science or
> technology to demolish the Earth. Scaling up zoning laws is acceptable
> in my view.

I think of H2G2 more as a social commentary/space comedy.  There are 
elements of Science Fiction in it - but it's a long ways from what Adams 
originally was thinking of for the story.  ISTR he originally had planned 
on calling it something like "The Ends of the Earth", in which each 
episode ended with the destruction of the planet.  The name "Hitchhiker's 
Guide to the Galaxy", of course, came from "Hitchhiker's Guide to Europe" 
and books of that nature, and that title occurred to him well before the 
concept of the story did.  Some would say (and I would count myself in 
this group) that he didn't really have the concept of the story down 
until *after* what is now known as the "primary and secondary" phases had 
been completed.

> As for using humour as a basis to discount a story as SF. Well the good
> doctor was renowned for his humour. "Who the hell cares what happens to
> a sabre tooth tiger" or "It takes a pair of jacks to open" :)

Oh, I wouldn't say that humour alone discounts a story as SF.

>>(I used to moderate a forum years and years ago on Science Fiction -
>>very interesting mix of people).
>>
> I bet.

One of the more interesting discussions was about whether or not Star 
Wars was Science Fiction.  One member pointed out that it is in fact a 
messiah story, with elements of being a story of redemption.  More 
religion than sci-fi.

>>I must've misunderstood what you said (not uncommon for me), but I
>>thought you said you didn't like radio drama...
>>
>>
> My problem is that I can seldom follow a serial as I live such a
> disjointed life.
> I like radio drama and often listen to recordings when driving. I
> generally prefer spoken work books ´tho'.

Ah, I see now.  I have a similar issue, don't get a lot of time to listen 
to things.  I'm working my way through some old CBS Radio Mystery Theater 
recordings from the early 70's, but the stories are self-contained.  
Conveniently, they are as long as my drive to the office is - but I only 
make the trip once or twice a week, so I only get about 4 stories in on 
any given week.  I've got about 1400 recordings in total to get through 
(9 years' worth).  Going to take some time, I think.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I personally tend towards that as well - pushing the boundaries of 
> science is what it's about; Jurassic Park was science fiction, even 
> though that technology doesn't exist today.  It's something that's 
> possible.

To me, it doesn't matter if it's actually possible or not. It's whether 
you can tell the story without the science. Saying "Imagine a movie just 
like Jurassic park, but without dinosaurs" makes no sense. There is no 
story there but for the dinosaurs. Or "Imagine back to the future, 
without a time machine."

Could you tell the Terminator story without the science? Yeah, almost 
kinda. All you need is someone who is really, really hard to kill. You 
could imagine it as some super-strong dude in the centuries where 
weapons that killed effortlessly weren't around, or a really smart 
gunslinger in the old west who took a dislike to somebody. Sort of like 
the Black Knight kind of story, or Beowulf.

I certainly prefer "hard" science, myself.

> I think one of the hallmarks of good Science Fiction is that the author 
> does some research into the field he's writing about.

Yep. Depends, of course, on what they're trying to express, tho.

I'm reading a novel right now called "star farers", basically about the 
people who get on close-to-lightspeed ships, and how it affects them, 
and how the societies react to them as they show up hundreds of years 
apart. It's 95% talking between characters, and 0.3% science, just 
enough in the beginning to let you know there's science, with lots of 
quantum mumbo-jumbo about the new inertia free drive that lets you get 
up to high tau.  But it's still science fiction, because it's about the 
time dialation, and it wouldn't make sense to tell the story without that.

> I actually haven't read Ringworld.  Need to do that one of these days.

I quite enjoyed it. The ones after were much less interesting, IMO.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:21:21 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I personally tend towards that as well - pushing the boundaries of
>> science is what it's about; Jurassic Park was science fiction, even
>> though that technology doesn't exist today.  It's something that's
>> possible.
> 
> To me, it doesn't matter if it's actually possible or not. It's whether
> you can tell the story without the science. Saying "Imagine a movie just
> like Jurassic park, but without dinosaurs" makes no sense. 

Sure it does; instead of genetically cloning dinosaur DNA, make it a 
mastadon instead.  Or a sabre-toothed tiger.

> There is no
> story there but for the dinosaurs. Or "Imagine back to the future,
> without a time machine."

That one would be a bit more difficult.  It wouldn't have to be a 
DeLorean, but yeah, that one would be hard without the science.

> Could you tell the Terminator story without the science? Yeah, almost
> kinda. All you need is someone who is really, really hard to kill. 

IOW, let's say, Predator or Rambo.

> You
> could imagine it as some super-strong dude in the centuries where
> weapons that killed effortlessly weren't around, or a really smart
> gunslinger in the old west who took a dislike to somebody. Sort of like
> the Black Knight kind of story, or Beowulf.

That'd work as well.

> I certainly prefer "hard" science, myself.

Same here; though it depends on my mood, too.  Sometimes I just want to 
watch stuff blow up.

>> I think one of the hallmarks of good Science Fiction is that the author
>> does some research into the field he's writing about.
> 
> Yep. Depends, of course, on what they're trying to express, tho.

Absolutely.

> I'm reading a novel right now called "star farers", basically about the
> people who get on close-to-lightspeed ships, and how it affects them,
> and how the societies react to them as they show up hundreds of years
> apart. It's 95% talking between characters, and 0.3% science, just
> enough in the beginning to let you know there's science, with lots of
> quantum mumbo-jumbo about the new inertia free drive that lets you get
> up to high tau.  But it's still science fiction, because it's about the
> time dialation, and it wouldn't make sense to tell the story without
> that.

I would classify it as Science Fiction for that reason, hardcore or not.

>> I actually haven't read Ringworld.  Need to do that one of these days.
> 
> I quite enjoyed it. The ones after were much less interesting, IMO.

I've heard that about the later ones.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Sure it does; instead of genetically cloning dinosaur DNA, make it a 
> mastadon instead.  Or a sabre-toothed tiger.

Let me rephrase that. Jurassic park wouldn't be the same story without 
the *cloning*.

>> Could you tell the Terminator story without the science? Yeah, almost
>> kinda. All you need is someone who is really, really hard to kill. 
> 
> IOW, let's say, Predator or Rambo.

Yeah, pretty much, now that you mention it. :-)

>> I certainly prefer "hard" science, myself.
> 
> Same here; though it depends on my mood, too.  Sometimes I just want to 
> watch stuff blow up.

Oh, hard science in novels. Movies, sure, whatever floats.

> I would classify it as Science Fiction for that reason, hardcore or not.

Right, exactly.

>>> I actually haven't read Ringworld.  Need to do that one of these days.
>> I quite enjoyed it. The ones after were much less interesting, IMO.
> 
> I've heard that about the later ones.

It also helps if you read it around the time you read some of the 
others. Otherwise, you miss a bunch of stuff the aliens do. In other 
words, there's several novels full of aliens and Louis Wu, of which 
Ringworld gives you a slice. If you don't remember the other slices, the 
slice that Ringworld gives is going to be less interesting.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:12:02 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Sure it does; instead of genetically cloning dinosaur DNA, make it a
>> mastadon instead.  Or a sabre-toothed tiger.
> 
> Let me rephrase that. Jurassic park wouldn't be the same story without
> the *cloning*.

OK, that I'd agree with.

>> Same here; though it depends on my mood, too.  Sometimes I just want to
>> watch stuff blow up.
> 
> Oh, hard science in novels. Movies, sure, whatever floats.

I think the medium does sometimes make a difference.

>>>> I actually haven't read Ringworld.  Need to do that one of these
>>>> days.
>>> I quite enjoyed it. The ones after were much less interesting, IMO.
>> 
>> I've heard that about the later ones.
> 
> It also helps if you read it around the time you read some of the
> others. Otherwise, you miss a bunch of stuff the aliens do. In other
> words, there's several novels full of aliens and Louis Wu, of which
> Ringworld gives you a slice. If you don't remember the other slices, the
> slice that Ringworld gives is going to be less interesting.

That's good to know.

Jim

Post a reply to this message