|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
The SF vs. SciFi Debate | by Illiad | 2004-05-11 01:06:19 |
| "Science fiction" is just a label these days. |
by AndyA |
2004-05-11 09:37:13 |
It seems that it is used to indicate any fiction not set in either the current world or in the past.
Anyway, to get slightly on topic....
Generally I don't mind people giving things incorrect names, I tend to ignore how something is branded / sold, maybe I'm just a little too cynical about marketing these days. Let them call it Science fiction if they want to, it doesn't change the story or what I think of it. And let's face it most publishers wouldn't know good science if it you demonstrated gravity using a 10 ton mass and their head.
I tend to find the hard science fiction to be a little dry, some of it is very good but a lot just reads like a text book. The characters and plot can suffer and almost feel like they are there as an excuse to explain all these really cool ideas. I don't mind at all if some great technology that isn't explained. In fact that is far better then the star trek psudo-science where the explanation is obviously nonsense.
How many people now understand how our current technology really works? Hardly any. People just use it and accept it. There is no reason for that to change. To have every character in a story understand how the faster than light drive works is unrealistic. Does everyone on a commercial jet know how to service the engines? Does anyone?
To quote AC Clark "Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic." As long as the story is logically self consistent I don't see any need to explain how it works.
A good example of this are the Iain M. Banks books set in the culture. He never tries to explain the technology in terms of modern physics, it may as well be magic.
To me that approach is far better than a Hinesburg compensator
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
