|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Science fiction/Archive1
No ACD[edit]
Don't you dare "ACD" this, just make it better! humanbe in 22:48, 1 September 2007 (CDT)
Gentlemen...[edit]
...time for a reality check. We are not going to say that everything 'not hard sci-fi' is crap. Dan Simmons? Ursula Le Guin? Philip K. Dick? Roger Zelazny? Robert J. Sawyer? Even Clarke, Asimov and Heinlein wrote plenty of material that's pretty far from hard sci-fi. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 17:13, 2 September 2007 (CDT)
- Also, can I use this page to extol to great length the virtues of Neal Stephenson? Yeah, I know he's post-cyberpunk, and in his books (eg. the start of Diamond Age) he takes the mick out of the whole genre, but he's an author that everyone in the world should read. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
Harlan Elison[edit]
I'd been trying to dredge Harlan Elison up from the depths of my mind - lovely author! SJGsjg 08:35, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
Thought I'd put Poul in ages ago. SusanYou don't have to talk, but ... 18:25, 4 November 2007 (EST)
Cube 2 Hypercube[edit]
Really? That fits in with Clockwork, 2001, and Gattaca? Also, not sure about Firefly/Serenity being among the best sci-fi ever. And where's the Babylon 5 love? Stile4aly 14:11, 5 November 2007 (EST)
- A bit of Babylon 5 love added. Can't comment on Firefly as I've never gotten around to watching it. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:39, 5 November 2007 (EST)
- Cube 2 may not operate on the cinematic scale of 2001, the literary/political intensity of CO, or the cheesy love story in Gattaca, but it is a real mind bender of a film. Not perfect, and relatively low budget, but a wonderfully insane trip into the concept of trying to exist in four dimensions as 3 dimensional creatures. I would recommend you rent it if you can. Especially if you liked Flatland. Go here, and select cube 2 from the menu; check out the timeline thing I put together, if you want to get an idea of what a trip the flim is. human
15:43, 5 November 2007 (EST)
- Sorry SPOILER ALERT on the link I recomended checking out. Don't look at or read it prior to your first viewing. human 15:49, 5 November 2007 (EST)
- Sorry SPOILER ALERT on the link I recomended checking out. Don't look at or read it prior to your first viewing. human
- Cube 2 may not operate on the cinematic scale of 2001, the literary/political intensity of CO, or the cheesy love story in Gattaca, but it is a real mind bender of a film. Not perfect, and relatively low budget, but a wonderfully insane trip into the concept of trying to exist in four dimensions as 3 dimensional creatures. I would recommend you rent it if you can. Especially if you liked Flatland. Go here, and select cube 2 from the menu; check out the timeline thing I put together, if you want to get an idea of what a trip the flim is. human
Seriously, people...[edit]
...what is it with this prostration for hard science fiction?
- "The "big three" [...] tried to write stories that did not do more than project or extrapolate real science..." (that's wrong by a pretty wide margin, BTW); "The majority of the above emphasise plot over scientific accuracy, although some (the reimagined Battlestar Galactica in particular) include aspects of hard science and an excellent plot-line alongside pure space opera story-telling", "A very few hard science fiction films have been made, which are scientifically honest, and explore the possibilities that might occur in our real universe" , "...Firefly and the movie Serenity, while not being true to science, are among the best sci-fi ever..."
As far as I'm concerned, the Golden Requirements of good fiction writing are, in no particular order, plot, character definition, and do. interaction. If the writer can handle those, scientific accuracy can go to high bollocks for all I care, unless it happens to add something to the plot. I mean, how often do you see a reviewer say anything like, "Well, the plot was mostly incomprehensible, the characters were one-dimensional and difficult to emphasize with, and the dialogue felt contrived and unrealistic. But the author clearly knew his high energy physics, which is what makes this such an excellent novel!"? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 13:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)
- Bravo, AKjeldson! --
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:17, 23 January 2008 (EST)
- I have actually enjoyed stories that meet that description. I'm fine with fantasy/horror/speculative fiction, but if an author starts playing with science, I expect them to get it reasonably right. And the "hard" writers wrote softer stuff, as well - cf. Heinlein's wonderful Job novel. human 15:22, 23 January 2008 (EST)
- Also note that this article is a mash-up of seventy-eleven RW editors' taste in books and movies, there's no way it's ever going to be distillable to a nice, NPOV wikipedia-esque piece. human 15:24, 23 January 2008 (EST)
- Of course, which is why I chose to bitch about it here instead of tryint o rewrite it. ;-) Anyway, I think that what I wouold expect from science fiction is not so much scientific realism, but rather consistency. For instance, if a writer tells me that hyperdrives run on long-eared jerboas or that all optical computers must be immersed in prune juice to work, that's perfectly fine with me if there's a reason for it - but on the other hand, those 'natural laws' had better not be deviated from unnecessarily once they're established. Changing such thing without a good reason really messes with suspension of disbelief. But generally speaking, if there's a good story hidden in creating a universe where gravity can be manipulated at will, I don't see a problem with that at all. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 16:17, 23 January 2008 (EST)
- Of course. I don't think we are at cross-purposes there - the writer, in a sense, must lay out whatever technological innovations or alterations to known science will be in play in a "fair", consistent manner. Ever read "The Gods Themselves"? Inspired by a clumsy reference to Polonium-139 (which can't exist in "our" universe...).
- Often in short stories, I don't expect much characterization (like a murder mystery or detective story), or plotting - just a cool idea and a reasonably well written, often surprise, ending that comes from it. Of course, a little "writing skillz" goes a long way in making you want to read more. human 16:45, 23 January 2008 (EST)
- I agree with most of this. Though, personally, I think characters are more important than plot. There's no reason why the accuracy of the science should have any bearing on the quality of the fiction. I myself would rather read science fiction with good believable characters and proper literary devices no matter how accurate the science is, even though I'm in the science field myself, and I find most science fiction in the tradition of Clarke to be rather dull. Taste is subjective, but most literary people will tell you that Jack Vance, Gene Wolfe and Ursula K. Guin write great science fiction, despite it not being anywhere near "hard". Woodgod (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, which is why I chose to bitch about it here instead of tryint o rewrite it. ;-) Anyway, I think that what I wouold expect from science fiction is not so much scientific realism, but rather consistency. For instance, if a writer tells me that hyperdrives run on long-eared jerboas or that all optical computers must be immersed in prune juice to work, that's perfectly fine with me if there's a reason for it - but on the other hand, those 'natural laws' had better not be deviated from unnecessarily once they're established. Changing such thing without a good reason really messes with suspension of disbelief. But generally speaking, if there's a good story hidden in creating a universe where gravity can be manipulated at will, I don't see a problem with that at all. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 16:17, 23 January 2008 (EST)
- Also note that this article is a mash-up of seventy-eleven RW editors' taste in books and movies, there's no way it's ever going to be distillable to a nice, NPOV wikipedia-esque piece. human
- I have actually enjoyed stories that meet that description. I'm fine with fantasy/horror/speculative fiction, but if an author starts playing with science, I expect them to get it reasonably right. And the "hard" writers wrote softer stuff, as well - cf. Heinlein's wonderful Job novel. human
Space opera[edit]
I'd suggest space opera is characterized by futuristic (cheesy) costumes and designs, usually employing the very bright primary color schemes of cheap plastic. For that reason I object to including the movie Alien 1, which was remarkable for its gritty realism, from the grease-stained work clothes to the the anti-heroic characters. Also the incredible art work of Giger. Rational Edfaith 13:53, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
- Space Opera as a term descends from the fifties galaxy spanning blood and thunder (Astounding Science Fiction type) epics. Often with sword wielding space farers. You're right Alien isn't.SusanG 13:58, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Asimov[edit]
In what sense are the Foundation books based on real science? Word wisest Phantom Hoover! 17:35, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
- Seriously, they have hyperspace, forcefields and telepathic mutants and this is considered feasible by the known laws of the universe? Word wisest Phantom Hoover! 17:43, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
- Upon further research, I shall concede that some of his work was "hard", but I still maintain that the Foundation series is very much "soft". Word wisest Phantom Hoover! 17:49, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
- Psychohistory- statistical science taken to the extreme. Look at the effect economics had and is having today- with future improvements in technology, who knows what it will be able to predict. The EmperorKneel before Zod! 18:02, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
- And the hyperspace, forcefields and telepathic mutants? Word wisest Phantom Hoover! 18:04, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
- Psychohistory- statistical science taken to the extreme. Look at the effect economics had and is having today- with future improvements in technology, who knows what it will be able to predict. The EmperorKneel before Zod! 18:02, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
- It has to have a plot- forays into theoretical branches of statistics don't sell well. The EmperorKneel before Zod! 18:13, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
- So a single bit of theoretical statistics makes it "hard"? Word wisest Phantom Hoover! 03:40, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
- It has to have a plot- forays into theoretical branches of statistics don't sell well. The EmperorKneel before Zod! 18:13, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
- On the upside, I acquired The Ghost from the Grand Banks from an Oxfam bookshop, so I shall go to bed and read that now (with a nice cup of tea). Word wisest Phantom Hoover! 18:09, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
Listpedia[edit]
As those lists where adding sweet fuck all to the article, I have deleted them. They were ultimately pointless and very open to content creep. 
pathetic 01:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good thing it was preceded by a well-argued discussion! ħuman 02:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- It was mentioned elsewhere. But lets face it, that was properly excessive and served no purpose. pathetic 02:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- It was mentioned elsewhere. But lets face it, that was properly excessive and served no purpose.
Suggested mention[edit]
The Eye of Argon (to be found variously on the web) - with a link to the 'lost finish.' The problem was mainly 'lack of a good editor/beta.'
Stormbringer meets Darth Vader - who wins? Or is this a category error? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)