http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html

This pretty much says why I consider science fiction to only be that where 
you couldn't write the story without the technology. Could Star Trek be 
written as a western or a Spanish Armada kind of story? Yes. Could 
Ringworld? Not hardly.

If you can still tell the story without the technology, it's not SF. Oddly 
enough, most of the original Star Trek series that people liked the best 
(say, the one with the Horta) were ones where you couldn't take out the tech 
and tell the same story.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:4ad4c199$1@news.povray.org...
> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html
>
> This pretty much says why I consider science fiction to only be that where 
> you couldn't write the story without the technology. Could Star Trek be 
> written as a western or a Spanish Armada kind of story? Yes. Could 
> Ringworld? Not hardly.
>
> If you can still tell the story without the technology, it's not SF. Oddly 
> enough, most of the original Star Trek series that people liked the best 
> (say, the one with the Horta) were ones where you couldn't take out the 
> tech and tell the same story.
>

Couple o' things... technology isn't science, it's an application thereof. 
Arguably the most visible application, to be sure, and most SF stories take 
place in some sort of future where technological enhancements are almost 
inevitable. However, I think there's some wiggle room there.

Also, I'm not sure "Devil In The Dark" is the best example of the point... 
the only important technology to the plot were A) what the miners were 
digging for, and B) the silicon cement used to bandage the Horta. If the 
creature were found in a Welsh coal mine in 1872 and one of the government 
folks sent in to investigate were a telepath, you could tell the same story. 
I think if you gave a logical enough explanation for how a silicon based 
life form could exist (and in Wales, no less) and let the telepathy go as an 
unexplained-but-taken-for-granted miracle (as it is in Star Trek) it would 
be still be science fiction. No gadgets, but still scientific.

Post a reply to this message

He's got a point.  But BSG and Babylon 5 are still very worthy of 
praise, despite having about as much science as Star Wars... :)

I've not followed much Star Wars besides some of the original series and 
quite a few episodes of TNG.  Good fun, in the same league of Charlie's 
Angels... :)

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

On 10/13/09 13:06, Darren New wrote:
> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html
>
> This pretty much says why I consider science fiction to only be that
> where you couldn't write the story without the technology. Could Star
> Trek be written as a western or a Spanish Armada kind of story? Yes.
> Could Ringworld? Not hardly.

	What about something like Asimov's Foundation?

	I've watched very few of the Star Trek series, but have seen all the 
movies. Can't remember all the plots, though, but technology certainly 
plays a major role in some of them.

	What about stories where they talk about different races (aliens) whose 
behavior is quite different from ours (due to genetic makeup or 
whatever), and a big part of the story is exploring how their culture 
evolved differently from ours? It's hard for me not to consider them as 
SF. Or about aliens who live in planets where, due to the type of 
geography, results in quite a different culture, and the story is 
exploring that difference (e.g. Asimov's Nightfall, or Heinlein's Universe).

	Some stories use technology as a tool for the plot in the above. Such 
as genetic manipulations of humans to achieve those effects. Or 
artificially generated biospheres. But that's really as good as looking 
at an alien species in another planet. The technology isn't really 
necessary. Yet, most people would consider them as SF stories.



-- 
Ground yourself, THEN hug your motherboard!

Post a reply to this message

Captain Jack escreveu:
> Also, I'm not sure "Devil In The Dark" is the best example of the point... 
> the only important technology to the plot were A) what the miners were 
> digging for, and B) the silicon cement used to bandage the Horta. If the 
> creature were found in a Welsh coal mine in 1872 and one of the government 
> folks sent in to investigate were a telepath, you could tell the same story. 
> I think if you gave a logical enough explanation for how a silicon based 
> life form could exist (and in Wales, no less) and let the telepathy go as an 
> unexplained-but-taken-for-granted miracle (as it is in Star Trek) it would 
> be still be science fiction. No gadgets, but still scientific. 

That's why many advocate for "speculative fiction" rather than scifi. 
Also copes with pure fantasy works...

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan escreveu:
> SF. Or about aliens who live in planets where, due to the type of 
> geography, results in quite a different culture, and the story is 
> exploring that difference (e.g. Asimov's Nightfall, or Heinlein's 
> Universe).

BTW, Nightfall sounds eerily like a 1950's portrayal with funny names 
and bits here and there, until the 3 sun disposition is revealed to the 
reader.  The science BTW is just a catalyst for the strange situation, 
but the real drama comes from a very cliché terror setting... still, a 
wonderful short story.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

Captain Jack wrote:
> Also, I'm not sure "Devil In The Dark" is the best example of the point... 
> the only important technology to the plot were A) what the miners were 
> digging for, and B) the silicon cement used to bandage the Horta.

Well, my point was that you couldn't tell the story without an alien 
creature that lives in solid rock. Granted, you could set such a thing in an 
old coal mine, but you couldn't substitute a person for the Horta and tell 
the same story.

> I think if you gave a logical enough explanation for how a silicon based 
> life form could exist (and in Wales, no less) and let the telepathy go as an 
> unexplained-but-taken-for-granted miracle (as it is in Star Trek) it would 
> be still be science fiction. No gadgets, but still scientific. 

Sure, that works too. The point is whether you can tell the same story in a 
mundane setting, not whether it's "science" or "technology" that does the 
trick.

Most of Star Trek wasn't about the technology and how it affected people. I 
suppose the episodes of the holodeck taking over or something would be hard 
to tell without the holodeck. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:4ad4e933$1@news.povray.org...

> Most of Star Trek wasn't about the technology and how it affected people. 
> I suppose the episodes of the holodeck taking over or something would be 
> hard to tell without the holodeck. :-)

I definitely agree with that one. :)

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     What about something like Asimov's Foundation?

Parts of it would be hard to tell without it being in the far future, yes. 
Altho you could probably tell a very similar story in the midieval times, if 
you have a psychic or something. Hard to tell it without the psychic, tho.

Note that I count Conneticut Yankee as SF, tho, and even Singing in the Rain 
if I remember the story right.

>     I've watched very few of the Star Trek series, but have seen all the 
> movies. Can't remember all the plots, though, but technology certainly 
> plays a major role in some of them.

Some, sure.

>     What about stories where they talk about different races (aliens) 
> whose behavior is quite different from ours (due to genetic makeup or 
> whatever), and a big part of the story is exploring how their culture 
> evolved differently from ours?  It's hard for me not to consider them as
> SF. Or about aliens who live in planets where, due to the type of 
> geography, results in quite a different culture, and the story is 
> exploring that difference (e.g. Asimov's Nightfall, or Heinlein's 
> Universe).

Sure. Don't read *too* narrowly into it. :-)0

>     Some stories use technology as a tool for the plot in the above. 
> Such as genetic manipulations of humans to achieve those effects. Or 
> artificially generated biospheres. But that's really as good as looking 
> at an alien species in another planet. The technology isn't really 
> necessary. Yet, most people would consider them as SF stories.

Yeah. The point is that SF is an exploration of the affect of something 
other than personalities upon personalities and society. If it's just the 
affect of a crazy guy with a blaster instead of a crazy guy with a pistol, 
it's uninteresting.

Indeed, I'd even put some of the Discworld stories involving Sam Vines as SF 
stories, like the one with the Gunn, whatever that was called.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> This pretty much says why I consider science fiction to only be that where 
> you couldn't write the story without the technology. Could Star Trek be 
> written as a western or a Spanish Armada kind of story? Yes. Could 
> Ringworld? Not hardly.

  Out of curiosity: Do you consider Terminator and Terminator 2 to be SF?
Do you consider them to be good SF?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Out of curiosity: Do you consider Terminator and Terminator 2 to be SF?

I would say so. The idea that a humanoid robot comes back in time is pretty 
central to the story, and it's about her reaction to being chased, having to 
grow up to defend herself, etc.

About the closest you could really come would be a story about a guy who 
invents medieval armor or something the first time, and I'd class *that* as 
SF too, even if it's set in the past.

> Do you consider them to be good SF?

I enjoyed them, yes. :-) It was also sufficiently believable that I didn't 
say "Oh come on."  At least, not too often.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 10/13/2009 2:06 PM, Darren New wrote:
> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html
>
>
> This pretty much says why I consider science fiction to only be that
> where you couldn't write the story without the technology. Could Star
> Trek be written as a western or a Spanish Armada kind of story? Yes.
> Could Ringworld? Not hardly.
>
> If you can still tell the story without the technology, it's not SF.
> Oddly enough, most of the original Star Trek series that people liked
> the best (say, the one with the Horta) were ones where you couldn't take
> out the tech and tell the same story.

I'm OK with Star Trek on TV and in the movies (OK, maybe not so much in 
the last ten years or so...). I'm a lot less tolerant of sub par science 
fiction novels.

Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 10/13/09 20:50, SharkD wrote:
> I'm OK with Star Trek on TV and in the movies (OK, maybe not so much in
> the last ten years or so...). I'm a lot less tolerant of sub par science
> fiction novels.

	I haven't read that much SF. Read most of Clarke's and Asimov's works, 
but then just a smattering here and there.

	My experience is that the novels are *much* more "valid" SF than 
typical movies and SF TV series. To give you an idea, go search for my 
posts regarding District 9 and why it's poor SF (although still a good 
movie).

-- 
AAAAA - American Association Against Acronym Abuse

Post a reply to this message

SharkD <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I'm OK with Star Trek on TV and in the movies (OK, maybe not so much in
> the last ten years or so...). I'm a lot less tolerant of sub par science
> fiction novels.

BTW, just yesterday I saw on TV a fun movie called "Galaxy Quest" with Tim
Allen, Sigorney Weaver.  It parodies and criticizes heavily Star Trek.  Very
good, specially the implicit mock on juvenile fans as the naive squid aliens...

I'd say it's one of the best scifi parody movie ever, along with Men in Black
and Spaceballs...

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html
>
> This pretty much says why I consider science fiction to only be that where
> you couldn't write the story without the technology. Could Star Trek be
> written as a western or a Spanish Armada kind of story? Yes. Could
> Ringworld? Not hardly.
>
> If you can still tell the story without the technology, it's not SF. Oddly
> enough, most of the original Star Trek series that people liked the best
> (say, the one with the Horta) were ones where you couldn't take out the tech
> and tell the same story.

While I agree in principle, I think there is too much variation in what is
considered 'proper' SF. 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 sure you could say that these belong in a different genre, given that the
'science' in SF explicitly demands there to be some scientific whatifs. But I
think the speculation and extrapolation central to SF is the same process
regardless of what one is extending. I think the genre was named poorly, and
perhaps 'speculative fiction' is more apt (as someone else suggesed) - it just
so happened that science was the big society-changing thing in the genre's early
days.

As an aside, although I agree that much of star trek is indeed a soap opera that
could take place anywhere and anywhen, there are some genuine SF stories in
there. The same goes for Doctor Who. And personally I found a large proportion
of B5 to be good, if not original, SF.

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4ad4c199$1@news.povray.org...

>
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html
>
> This pretty much says why I consider science fiction to only be that where
> you couldn't write the story without the technology. Could Star Trek be
> written as a western or a Spanish Armada kind of story? Yes. Could
> Ringworld? Not hardly.
>
> If you can still tell the story without the technology, it's not SF. Oddly
> enough, most of the original Star Trek series that people liked the best
> (say, the one with the Horta) were ones where you couldn't take out the
tech
> and tell the same story.

Sci-fi is inherently a very difficult genre to work with, since there are
several conflicting goals to simultaenously satisfy, and good and
half-original ideas are exceedingly rare. Entire Star Trek soap opera
franchise has maybe one hour's worth of sci-fi. For that matter, Asimov had
maximum of half a dozen good ideas in his lifetime. Commercial reality
necessitates fluffing it up, but variations on delivery and formula scripts
can only go so far before it becomes a waste of reel or paper.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > Do you consider them to be good SF?

> I enjoyed them, yes. :-) It was also sufficiently believable that I didn't 
> say "Oh come on."  At least, not too often.

  I liked how T2 succeeded at points to be quite philosophical (in a very
scifi'ish manner), but without sounding cheesy.

  "Watching John with the machine, it was suddenly so clear. The
  terminator wouldn't stop, it would never leave him. It would never
  hurt him or shout at him or get drunk and hit him or say it was too
  busy to spend time with him. And it would die to protect him. Of all
  the would-be fathers that came over the years, this thing, this
  machine, was the only thing that measured up. In an insane world, it
  was the sanest choice."

  (I think that's one point which would be hard to express in a non-scifi
story.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> I'd say it's one of the best scifi parody movie ever, along with Men in Black
> and Spaceballs...

And it's deep and philosophical, wonderfully acted, and with characters who 
are stereotyped without being unbelievable.

One of the very few movies I've seen twice in the theatre. (Joe vs the 
Volcano being the other that springs to mind.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

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.)

> As an aside, although I agree that much of star trek is indeed a soap opera that
> could take place anywhere and anywhen, there are some genuine SF stories in
> there. The same goes for Doctor Who. And personally I found a large proportion
> of B5 to be good, if not original, SF.

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

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.

  I thought Harry Potter falls into the genre of fantasy, not the genre of
science fiction.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
>   I thought Harry Potter falls into the genre of fantasy, not the genre of
> science fiction.

Correct.

I was making an analogy.  Bill said

 > 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 wouldn't call that SciFi, but I would call it speculative fiction. I 
wouldn't call HP SciFi, but I might call it "speculative fiction", 
speculating on what it might be like if some people could do magic. But we 
already have a name for "speculative fiction about magic", and that's 
Fantasy. We already have a name for "speculative fiction about science and 
technology", and we call that "sci fi". :-)

I've also read speculative fiction like "Hopscotch", where the basic premise 
is that you can swap bodies with anyone who you touch, given their 
permission. Sort of like the "surrogates" movie only swapping between 
bodies. A group of kids grow up in the society, and this is about how their 
lives go. The artist hops into homeless bums, crippled people, etc to 
experience how they life and feel so he can make art depicting that. The kid 
who grows up to be a cop chases down the little old lady who won't give back 
the young healthy body she only contracted for an hour. The young girl gets 
sucked into a cult where everybody switches bodies about so much nobody 
knows who is in what body any more, etc.  Is that fantasy or sci fi or 
something else? They never explain how the swapping works, just that one day 
people started to be able to do it.

I don't rave about the terminology. I would just prefer people not put 
"alternative histories" and crap like that in the Sci Fi section. :-) It 
would be nice if bookstores actually distinguished the different kinds of 
fiction, so I could better focus on what I wanted to read.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> 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. 

That's an interesting distinction too.

>> 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? ;-)

LOL!

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I wouldn't call that SciFi, but I would call it speculative fiction. I 
> wouldn't call HP SciFi, but I might call it "speculative fiction", 
> speculating on what it might be like if some people could do magic. But we 
> already have a name for "speculative fiction about magic", and that's 
> Fantasy. We already have a name for "speculative fiction about science and 
> technology", and we call that "sci fi". :-)

  Isn't *all* fiction speculative? If a piece of art is not speculative
fiction, then it's a documentary (if not outright a historical account).
Kind of makes the word "speculative" a bit obsolete. Or is there some type
of fiction other than speculative?

  (Of course there are other types of art than just fiction or documentary,
such as philosophical writings or poetry, but I'm not sure I would call them
"fiction", as they fall quite outside the domain.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Isn't *all* fiction speculative? 

People generally don't call historical (for example) fiction "speculative". 
E.g., the movie Titanic wouldn't be "speculative" even if it was 
fictionalized. Neither would the movie "Die Hard" or "Basterds". They're 
merely fiction.

I think the "speculative" part is "if you're in a different society 
altogether..." It's hard to quantify, of course, but I'd say speculative 
fiction says "how would people react if their environment was something we 
never considered before", rather than "show me an example of someone 
reacting to a fairly normal situation."

In speculative fiction, you get relatively normal people (normal for their 
culture, of course) reacting to unusual (unusual for us) events.  In other 
fiction, you get exceptional people (like Bruce Willis plays) reacting to 
relatively normal events. The former is about the culture and society, while 
the latter is about the individuals.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

"Captain Jack" <Cap### [at] comcastnet> wrote:room there.
>
> Also, I'm not sure "Devil In The Dark" is the best example of the point...
> the only important technology to the plot were A) what the miners were
> digging for, and B) the silicon cement used to bandage the Horta. If the
> creature were found in a Welsh coal mine in 1872 and one of the government
> folks sent in to investigate were a telepath, you could tell the same story.
> I think if you gave a logical enough explanation for how a silicon based
> life form could exist (and in Wales, no less) and let the telepathy go as an
> unexplained-but-taken-for-granted miracle (as it is in Star Trek) it would
> be still be science fiction. No gadgets, but still scientific.



Or you'd have the same theme if they went on a sailing ship to a faraway island,
found strange beastly apparitions that later turned out to be sentient men, and
then the ship's doctor's tobacco miraculously cured the chieftain of some
disease.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New schrieb:
> 
> I've also read speculative fiction like "Hopscotch", where the basic 
> premise is that you can swap bodies with anyone who you touch, given 
> their permission. Sort of like the "surrogates" movie only swapping 
> between bodies. A group of kids grow up in the society, and this is 
> about how their lives go. The artist hops into homeless bums, crippled 
> people, etc to experience how they life and feel so he can make art 
> depicting that. The kid who grows up to be a cop chases down the little 
> old lady who won't give back the young healthy body she only contracted 
> for an hour. The young girl gets sucked into a cult where everybody 
> switches bodies about so much nobody knows who is in what body any more, 
> etc.  Is that fantasy or sci fi or something else? They never explain 
> how the swapping works, just that one day people started to be able to 
> do it.

Reminds me of the movies "Jumper", and also of "Being John Malcovich" - 
both of which could fit in either Fantasy or Science Fiction; it is only 
through the actual depiction of some details that I would tend to file 
"Jumper" as SciFi (the equipment of the Paladins - nothing else) while 
filing "Being John Malcovich" as Fantasy (the "Alice in 
Wonderland"-esque secret floor and door - again nothing else).

I guess referring to this as "alternate reality" would be most fitting. 
Fantasy could, in this sense, be considered a sub-genre, while Science 
Fiction would partially overlap with it.

Post a reply to this message

Warp schrieb:

>   Isn't *all* fiction speculative? If a piece of art is not speculative
> fiction, then it's a documentary (if not outright a historical account).
> Kind of makes the word "speculative" a bit obsolete. Or is there some type
> of fiction other than speculative?

I wouldn't call most pulp fiction "speculative". It usually just tries 
to entertain, typically being set in a familiar world, without raising 
any questions of "what-if" (i.e. speculate) - unless of course you 
include trivial speculations such as "what if this guy now falls in love 
with that girl" in that definition.

I wouldn't even consider most whodunits as "speculative", even though 
there's inevitably a lot of speculation going on, as those are no 
/fundamental/ "what-ifs", and the aim of the story is not to have the 
reader /speculate/, but /discover/.

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
> Or you'd have the same theme if they went on a sailing ship to a faraway island,
> found strange beastly apparitions that later turned out to be sentient men, and
> then the ship's doctor's tobacco miraculously cured the chieftain of some
> disease.

Indeed. And I think most people would rate both the Illiad and the Island of 
Dr Moureau as speculative fiction if not sci fi in the latter case. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> I wouldn't even consider most whodunits as "speculative", even though
> there's inevitably a lot of speculation going on, as those are no
> /fundamental/ "what-ifs", and the aim of the story is not to have the
> reader /speculate/, but /discover/.

The speculation part is by the author, not the reader. ;)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
> Indeed. And I think most people would rate both the Illiad and the Island of
> Dr Moureau as speculative fiction if not sci fi in the latter case. :-)
>


I've been reading some of those 19th century tales.  It is interesting that
there is a very different feel to "20,000 Leagues" than a typical 60's scifi
novel.  In the older works, the authors are all about amazement at the grandeur
before them. In the latter ones, everyone is jaded about how society's worst
problems came along with them to Mars or the moon.

I am preparing a DVD compilation of public domain books.  I chose to make the
access on the virtue of "genre", and I put Verne and Wells in with the old sea
tales, not with the 1930's scifi.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html 
> 
> 
> This pretty much says why I consider science fiction to only be that 
> where you couldn't write the story without the technology. Could Star 
> Trek be written as a western or a Spanish Armada kind of story? Yes. 
> Could Ringworld? Not hardly.
> 
> If you can still tell the story without the technology, it's not SF. 
> Oddly enough, most of the original Star Trek series that people liked 
> the best (say, the one with the Horta) were ones where you couldn't take 
> out the tech and tell the same story.

One element that is very common in SF is the political dimension. 
Generally, an SF tale revolves around the effects of a given technology 
on society; either the explorers stumble onto a society that is 
different because of some piece of technology, or some new technology 
causes our society to be shifted in a significant way.

For instance, Trek used the "society run by a computer" for multiple 
episodes, and several episodes had the characters doing something less 
than intelligent in order to avoid violating the sacred Prime Directive 
(TNG was far worse in this regard).

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
> In the older works, the authors are all about amazement at the grandeur
> before them. In the latter ones, everyone is jaded about how society's worst
> problems came along with them to Mars or the moon.

Another excellent point. And some of the stuff from the 40's and 50's, 
there's a bit of "oh *that's* how it works" kind of moments, without the 
"awe" as such.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
> I've been reading some of those 19th century tales.  It is interesting that
> there is a very different feel to "20,000 Leagues" than a typical 60's scifi
> novel.  In the older works, the authors are all about amazement at the grandeur
> before them. In the latter ones, everyone is jaded about how society's worst
> problems came along with them to Mars or the moon.

I guess after a couple decades of science promising New York but 
delivering New Jersey, people got a bit cynical ;)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message 
news:web.4ad70d5f48067d0f34d207310@news.povray.org...
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>
>> Indeed. And I think most people would rate both the Illiad and the Island 
>> of
>> Dr Moureau as speculative fiction if not sci fi in the latter case. :-)
>>
>
>
> I've been reading some of those 19th century tales.  It is interesting 
> that
> there is a very different feel to "20,000 Leagues" than a typical 60's 
> scifi
> novel.  In the older works, the authors are all about amazement at the 
> grandeur
> before them. In the latter ones, everyone is jaded about how society's 
> worst
> problems came along with them to Mars or the moon.
>
> I am preparing a DVD compilation of public domain books.  I chose to make 
> the
> access on the virtue of "genre", and I put Verne and Wells in with the old 
> sea
> tales, not with the 1930's scifi.
>
>
> gregjohn wrote:
>> In the older works, the authors are all about amazement at the grandeur
>> before them. In the latter ones, everyone is jaded about how society's
>> worst
>> problems came along with them to Mars or the moon.
>
> Another excellent point. And some of the stuff from the 40's and 50's,
> there's a bit of "oh *that's* how it works" kind of moments, without the
> "awe" as such.

Prior to, oh, about the 1930's most people's idea of "science" was medicine
(to a small extent) and electricity (to a large extent). Most popular
stories were written around that idea. By the time of the war in 1939, most
people could only name one scientist, if that (well, that's mostly still
true... <g>). After the war, people began to think of "science" in terms of
"physicists" which were in demand and somewhat feared (they made bombs,
don't ya know).

People *were* in awe of being able to flip a switch and light a room without
burning anything, and the possibilities seemd to go on forever. But after
the Big War, people started getting scared of what "science" could do, and
popular stories began to reflect that.

Also, SF got a bad rap up to that point because there were so many
bug-eyed-monsters-chase-the-screaming-daughter-of-the-mad-scientist-
who-are-then-saved-by-the-big-square-jawed-galoot stories that were
*called* SF. (Yes, there were some exceptions, but not many). Then in
the 1940's, along came some authors who assumed their audience could
think, and enjoyed doing so (I'm thinking of Heinlein and Asimov in
particular, but it was a fashion that caught on for a while).

Starting slowly, then picking up steam after 1977, cinema began to reflect
the idea that SF stories had to blow things up (blowing things up, after
all, is totally cool... in a movie). An awful lot of what passess for SF in
books these days will have space travel in it, and something, somewhere will
explode.

I'm not sure it matters, really, whether Fiction is Science or Speculative
or anything in between. I just wish there were more authors who paid
*attention* to actual science, and don't just make up miracles in tech
disguises that grate on the nerves. :D

Post a reply to this message

Some of the best "Sci Fi" I've ever read isn't even "Sci Fi."  Still 
really good books, though :)  (I'm thinking of Donaldson's GAP Cycle).

I think part of the reason that Sci Fi remains a niche market is mainly 
because many authors get the "Sci" part right, and the "Fi" part wrong. 
  So many of the books are just downright *bad*, and even many of the 
good ones have poor character development (wasn't it said of Asimov that 
he "[wrote] about people as if he'd never met one"?).

I would really love to see more quality Sci Fi, that's actually good 
fiction and not just good Sci Fi.  I realize Star Trek made attempts at 
this (to the point of ignoring the science except as a Deus Ex Machina), 
but they failed so horribly at the fiction part that it remains in a 
class by itself.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html
>
> If you can still tell the story without the technology, it's not SF.

When he talks about scripts containing "tech the tech", I think this could be
called literary greebling.  Greebles do not detract from an object's main role
in a scene unless the entire substance of the object are the greebles
themselves*.  If a SF story has nothing more than "literary greebles" setting a
certain style, then I agree, it's less of "true SF" and more of conventional
story telling in a relatively arbitrary setting.

*in some application other than a greebling demonstration.

Charles

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I think part of the reason that Sci Fi remains a niche market is mainly
> because many authors get the "Sci" part right, and the "Fi" part wrong.
>   So many of the books are just downright *bad*, and even many of the
> good ones have poor character development (wasn't it said of Asimov that
> he "[wrote] about people as if he'd never met one"?).

Arthur C Clarke couldn't write characters very well either. But his concepts,
like Asimov's, were so big you didn't care... or even notice, often!

Ever read any Iain M Banks? His characters are diverse and fascinating. His SF
often borrows heavily, but usually feels new.

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Ever read any Iain M Banks? His characters are diverse and fascinating. His SF
> often borrows heavily, but usually feels new.

I just checked my local library, and they don't have a single book of his.

That's the other problem with good Sci Fi - my library sucks :(

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:web.4ad8453548067d0f6dd25f0b0@news.povray.org...

> Ever read any Iain M Banks? His characters are diverse and fascinating. 
> His SF
> often borrows heavily, but usually feels new.
>

Have you read any of Ken Macleod or Charles Stross (whose blog started this 
thread?)

-- 

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoys[at]aolDOTcom> wrote:
> "Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:web.4ad8453548067d0f6dd25f0b0@news.povray.org...
>
> > Ever read any Iain M Banks? His characters are diverse and fascinating.
> > His SF
> > often borrows heavily, but usually feels new.
> >
>
> Have you read any of Ken Macleod or Charles Stross (whose blog started this
> thread?)

I have. Of Macleod, I've read the Engines of Light trilogy, and The Star
Fraction. Enjoyed both, but wasn't completely gripped. I need to re-read them
more sedately I think. Of Stross, I've only read Halting State so far, which I
thought was great. I'll definitely be reading more of his in the near future.

I think their SF is better than Banks', but I still prefer his stories and
situations for sheer excitement and page-turning power.

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> "Stephen" <mcavoys[at]aolDOTcom> wrote:

>> Have you read any of Ken Macleod or Charles Stross (whose blog started this
>> thread?)
> 
> I have. Of Macleod, I've read the Engines of Light trilogy, and The Star
> Fraction. Enjoyed both, but wasn't completely gripped. I need to re-read them
> more sedately I think. 


I may have enjoyed him more because of the Earthly settings; Glasgow, 
Scotland and London.

>Of Stross, I've only read Halting State so far, which I
> thought was great. I'll definitely be reading more of his in the near future.
> 

I really liked his “Hard” SF, Singularity Sky and Iron Sunrise.

> I think their SF is better than Banks', but I still prefer his stories and
> situations for sheer excitement and page-turning power.
> 

Banks, in both guises, is one of my favourite authors but I feel that in 
the last 10 years his books lack the sparkle of his earlier work.
-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolDOTcom> wrote:
> >Of Stross, I've only read Halting State so far, which I
> > thought was great. I'll definitely be reading more of his in the near future.
>
> I really liked his “Hard” SF, Singularity Sky and Iron Sunrise.

Duly noted :)

> Banks, in both guises, is one of my favourite authors but I feel that in
> the last 10 years his books lack the sparkle of his earlier work.

Agreed. My favourite of all his work (a close run thing, mind) is Use Of Weapons
- which, aptly enough, Ken Macleod recommended he rewrite from an earlier,
unpublished work.

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolDOTcom> wrote:
>>> Of Stross, I've only read Halting State so far, which I
>>> thought was great. I'll definitely be reading more of his in the near future.
>> I really liked his “Hard” SF, Singularity Sky and Iron Sunrise.
> 
> Duly noted :)
> 
>> Banks, in both guises, is one of my favourite authors but I feel that in
>> the last 10 years his books lack the sparkle of his earlier work.
> 
> Agreed. My favourite of all his work (a close run thing, mind) is Use Of Weapons
> - which, aptly enough, Ken Macleod recommended he rewrite from an earlier,
> unpublished work.
> 
> 

Almost 20 years ago. I must reread it.
I first read “The Bridge” then “The Wasp Factory” then Heigh Ho it’s oft 
to the culture we go :-) I loved the word play of “Feersum Endjinn” (Dr 
John note the spelling ;-)).



-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Btw, can anyone recommend *good* sci-fi movies? Preferrably hard science
fiction. "Hard" in this context means physically plausible technology and
physics, which imples, among other things:

- No faster-than-light travel.
- No time travel.
- No far-fetched supernatural phenomena (unknown to modern science).
- Preferably no aliens, but if there are, as plausible ones as possible.
  (The alien in the movie of the same name *counts* as plausible because
it does nothing supernatural or physically implausible.)

  Besides Alien (and Aliens), this one is a perfect example of what I'm
looking for: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448134/

  Space Odyssey 2001 is a good example too, although has elements which
are borderline "non-hard" sci-fi.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Btw, can anyone recommend *good* sci-fi movies? Preferrably hard science
[snip]

I think Sunshine is a great movie, but is at odds with your list of criteria. In
Sunshine, it is strongly implied that we can control gravity without using a
centrifuge. I think this is more unlikely than FTL travel and the existence of
extraterrestrial life, at least as far as our current understanding of physics
is concerned! I realise that it's not a major plot point, but still.

Also:
>   (The alien in the movie of the same name *counts* as plausible because
> it does nothing supernatural or physically implausible.)
.... apart from growing to full human-size from cat-size within days without
apparently ingesting any organic matter? (weak point, I know, but it's always
bothered me on some level).

I take it you're also not counting post-apocalyptic action fare such as Mad Max?

Anyway, here's a few off the top of my head:

You didn't mention 2010, the sequel to 2001. It's a lesser film in many ways,
but has some cracking detail in it and moves the story on well.

Contact is excellent, but does have aliens and FTL travel (albeit permitted by
general relativity).

Event Horizon has some great SF in it, as long as you also don't mind the
Hellraiser storyline that evolves alongside it!

Deep Impact is flawed, and widely maligned, but is surprisingly intelligent
given that it was competing with Armageddon the year it was released.

Cube is good.

Cypher is interesting (by the same director as Cube).

I really like Serenity, although it's certainly not SF by Darren's definition!

Strange Days is superb, but does feature one item of technology that may be a
little far-fetched depending on your area of expertise.

I shall ruminate further.

:)

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4ada2f46@news.povray.org...

>   Btw, can anyone recommend *good* sci-fi movies? Preferrably hard science
> fiction. "Hard" in this context means physically plausible technology and
> physics, which imples, among other things:
>
> - No faster-than-light travel.
> - No time travel.
> - No far-fetched supernatural phenomena (unknown to modern science).
> - Preferably no aliens, but if there are, as plausible ones as possible.

>   (The alien in the movie of the same name *counts* as plausible because
> it does nothing supernatural or physically implausible.)

I would consider several things, such as their growth rate without apparent
nutrients, physically and biologically implausible. I think Aliens series is
much closer to "horror when mutant, 20 foot ants attack" genre than hard
sci-fi.

>   Besides Alien (and Aliens), this one is a perfect example of what I'm
> looking for: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448134/

I just had a quick glance, but sun going out and being kick started by
humans both seem like definition of supernatural.

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> I would consider several things, such as their growth rate without apparent
> nutrients, physically and biologically implausible. I think Aliens series is
> much closer to "horror when mutant, 20 foot ants attack" genre than hard
> sci-fi.

  Granted that the film took a "shortcut" with the growth rate. What are
the other several things?

> >   Besides Alien (and Aliens), this one is a perfect example of what I'm
> > looking for: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448134/

> I just had a quick glance, but sun going out and being kick started by
> humans both seem like definition of supernatural.

  It's based on theoretical science, not handwaving:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ball

(See the "Fiction" section for a reference to the Sunshine movie.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Btw, can anyone recommend *good* sci-fi movies? 

The only one that hasn’t disappointed me was Forbidden Planet. It went 
down a storm with me ;)
I find that my internal eye is so much better than any camera.

Probably not what you want, though.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > I just had a quick glance, but sun going out and being kick started by
> > humans both seem like definition of supernatural.

>   It's based on theoretical science, not handwaving:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ball

> (See the "Fiction" section for a reference to the Sunshine movie.)

  Btw, I consider that as a trait of *good* science fiction: If it contains
something based on actual theoretical physics which you can then go and look
up in wikipedia and learn something new, rather than simply containing some
completely made-up physics or technology.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message