Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > While I agree in principle, I think there is too much variation in what is
> > considered 'proper' SF.
>
> Sure. But they're all WRONG!

:)

> > I personally would classify Niven & co's "Lucifer's
> > Hammer" as SF, even though there is absolutely no science or tech extrapolation.
> > Likewise, Harris' "Fatherland", or McCauley's "Pasquale's Angel". These latter
> > are both extrapolations of a real society given a single small difference in
> > recorded history, again without any novel tech or science.
>
> I'm happy calling such "speculative fiction" without calling it "science
> fiction."  I don't call Harry Potter "science fiction" either even tho it's
> speculative and couldn't tell *quite* the same story without the magic. (At
> least in some of the novels.)

I tend to think of speculative fiction as an umbrella that covers all of the
above. I wouldn't put my examples alongside Harry Potter (or any 'fantasy' for
that matter) in their particular sub-genre because my examples could all occur
in the world we inhabit, as far as we know, whereas fantasy fiction creates
worlds that couldn't, as far as we know, exist. This is a dangerous game,
however, because then where do I put authors like Roger Zelazny? Hmm. Thinks. I
reckon the best I can do is a Venn Diagram :)

> Yup.  Star Gate would be hard to tell without the science, for example. (By
> which I mean the original movie.)

Hehe, you mean technology, surely? ;-)

Post a reply to this message