nuages Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 the real question is should science fiction have actual fiction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timidsword Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Science fiction should have a good structure to it. Not just something like "the heisenburg manifold is causing a state of triphasic alpha particle flux!". Which means what exactly? Nothing. It's like watching a monkey immitate a lawyer. It's an insult. And I agree, scifi is drama/soap opera of a specific type. It shouldn't be, but it is because humans are still basicly mindless idiots. We may be the smartest species we know of, but that doesn't say we're suffiently developed yet. I think the factor everyone is ignoring is that regardless of whether or not you realize it, media shapes your understanding of yourself and the world around you. Especially fiction, because you don't really think it does; you mostly believe that all that is happening is that you are being entertained. If you've ever done a serious academic study of the effects of media on the human mind, you'd know what I'm talking about. Anyhow, for this reason scifi should be intelligible instead of just reducing everything down to an excuse to have cool space battles. But down here in "the mob", I supose I am wasting my time with this kind of talk. Arktis --Whoever told u u were smart ----must have been an idiot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest c4evap Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 MOD NOTE: OK ppl...let's watch the insults! c4 :thinking: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveng Posted January 17, 2006 Author Share Posted January 17, 2006 For SW' date=' I could see how the original triology might have fantasy with the whole "force" thing alongside Jedi's but it's still science fiction above the rest.[/quote'] Nonsense. Star Wars is the classic "knights having duels" fantasy tale. Sure, they moved it into the future, but it's still just "knights having duels". Still just fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 from my dictionary: fiction: - An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality. - The act of inventing such a creation or pretense. - A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact. - The category of literature comprising works of this kind, including novels and short stories. - Something untrue that is intentionally represented as true by the narrator. fantasy: - The creative imagination; unrestrained fancy. - Something, such as an invention, that is a creation of the fancy. - A capricious or fantastic idea; a conceit. - Fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements. science fiction: - A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background. See any similarities? Of course, they could start calling it fantasy-science-fiction, but why make things more difficult than they need be... SW is clearly sci-fi (since it fits the description), if you don't like the current explanation for sci-fi, than you can allways try to convince the people who make these dictionaries, but I fear your request would fall on deaf ears, since I'm quite convinced that the majority of people would classify SW as sci-fi, if presented with the question: Is Star Wars science-fiction? Just have a look in your local library, at least in mine, I can find SW in the sci-fi section, not in the fantasy section. Science fiction is no more than fantasy in space / in the future / with extraterrestrials / .... Yes, there is some mention of science in there, but usually the science part is about 'fictional' science, things we can't do atm and of a lot of those things they use in sci-fi it isn't even known whether we'll ever be able to do them. Science fiction: as in fictional science, you see.... If you can only make science fiction about real science, then we might as well strike the designation from the dictionary, since the few works that will remain, will not be worth it to have a seperate classification for. We might as well all start reading non-fiction, if the science has to be real... The furthest we could go than would be: Moon Trek: these are the voyages of the space shuttle, eh... no, that wouldn't go, the space shuttle isn't suitable for travel to the moon.... You see: fiction, FICTION, stories emanating from a writers mind that are not necessarily possible for real. And when they needn't be possible for real, why should the science be possible for real? Of course, it should bare some resemblance to what we know now, if not, a lot of people wouldn't enjoy it, but that is not the most important part of the stories. Maybe a new classification is in order: non-fictional science fiction... For those who are not happy with the current classifications... You know, I can just keep on going about this, I could write an entire page and more why science fiction should not be based solely on real science, but also on fantasy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 the real question is should science fiction have actual fiction? Wouldnt it then turn into science non-fiction? We'd be left with stories about like, the old Apollo missions or watching the Mars rover as it moves an inch every couple hours.. If its not fiction it kinda defeats the purpose of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveng Posted January 18, 2006 Author Share Posted January 18, 2006 Go read "The Man Who Sold the Moon". It's about colonizing the Moon, using realistic science, and it is NOT boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracoons Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 if im not mistaken Troy. Star Wars isn't in the future but the past.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveng Posted January 18, 2006 Author Share Posted January 18, 2006 Which would just reinforce my point that it's FANTASY, not science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Well, as said, most science fiction has little to do with real science. I guess if I told my dad (he hates sci-fi) I watched science fiction because of the science, he'd laugh in my face. imo any story that deals with real science and is fiction, is not science fiction, but just fiction, just like any other story about things that have a high likelyhood of being really physically possible. But in fact this is all just semantics... One person says this, the other that, in the end the dictionary and the majority decide what is the real definition of a word is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queenhank Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 It once was that Science Fiction meant allegorical fiction, dealing in futuristic/fantastic imagery. Star Wars, this is definitely not. Star Trek, on the other hand, sure. Sadly, this seems to no longer be the case... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveng Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 imo any story that deals with real science and is fiction' date=' is not science fiction, but just fiction[/quote'] I strongly disagree. That definition would effectively remove ONE-QUARTER of the great short stories/novels from the science fiction genre, because most of them are based on real science written by people with Ph.Ds in science (example-Asimov). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I strongly disagree. That definition would effectively remove ONE-QUARTER of the great short stories/novels from the science fiction genre' date=' because most of them are based on real science written by people with Ph.Ds in science (example-Asimov).[/quote'] Yes, based on science, but that's not what I meant. I meant real science, like what we have and can do for sure today. Most of Asimov's work that I read does not go under this header, for example robots: that is fictional science and thus science fiction.... But as said, it's all semantics.... :) To reply to the post below: I completely agree that that kind of science fiction is the best, or rather my favourite kind too. But to say that all other science fiction is no science fiction at all, like the proposition made in the topic header, is going too far for my tastes. But wel, as said.... semantics... :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antipodean Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I would argue that what defines Science Fiction is the fact that it concerns itself with what may be. Of course, in this project, science fiction is at its most credible when it is founded on real science... that is to say, without reference to real science, a work of science fiction is rendered distinctly less plausible. Of course truely GREAT science fiction is aware that in presenting what "may be" to "what is"... that it is speaking directly to its time, if not to the essentials of the human condition. I reckon that when it is engaged in the latter, science fiction can become one of the most astounding and most valuable of artistic forms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S0V13T Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Like take Quantum Leap for example, imo, this is the most well done classic style Sci-Fi program ever made. No killer robots from mars, no psychic vampires, no emphesis on special effects / CGI battles. It's just a guy bouncing around through time, posessing other peoples bodies, and setting right what once went wrong. Every eposode had a real message behind it, some kind of commentary on society on the past, and how it's reflected in our time. Much in the same way that Star Trek TOS did in the 60's. It was all social commentery. People love this series, becuase it makes them think about how things once were, and it shows how things were / are from another point of view. (the episodes when Sam leaps into a negro, a woman, or a mentally handicapped person, for example) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveng Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 I strongly disagree. That definition would effectively remove ONE-QUARTER of the great short stories/novels from the science fiction genre' date=' because most of them are based on real science written by people with Ph.Ds in science (example-Asimov).[/quote'] Yes, based on science, but that's not what I meant. I meant real science, like what we have and can do for sure today. Most of Asimov's work that I read does not go under this header, for example robots: that is fictional science and thus science fiction.... I disagree. Asimov's Robots is based on solid scientific principles (neural networks, artificial intelligence, et cetera). It's based on the laws of the universe.... factual, not fiction. Another excellent example that is based on factual science is Gattaca. Genes exist. It is possible (accordinng to science theory) to rearrange them to form a perfect baby. What happens in Gattaca is something that, according to Science, could happen for real. (The "fiction" part refers to the story/characters.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queenhank Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 So, what you are saying is that you don't so much want ACTUAL science as PLAUSIBLE science. That is, things which, according to current scientific understanding, are not impossible. Am I right in assuming this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 So' date=' what you are saying is that you don't so much want ACTUAL science as PLAUSIBLE science. That is, things which, according to current scientific understanding, are not impossible. Am I right in assuming this?[/quote'] Indeed, I too think that that is the correct description of what you're talking 'bout theaveng. Plausible science. I've never seen or even heard of a robot with extreem intelligence and psychic abilities, etc... [Yes' date= based on science, but that's not what I meant. I meant real science, like what we have and can do for sure today. Most of Asimov's work that I read does not go under this header, for example robots: that is fictional science and thus science fiction....[/quote] I disagree. Asimov's Robots is based on solid scientific principles (neural networks, artificial intelligence, et cetera). It's based on the laws of the universe.... factual, not fiction. Another excellent example that is based on factual science is Gattaca. Genes exist. It is possible (accordinng to science theory) to rearrange them to form a perfect baby. What happens in Gattaca is something that, according to Science, could happen for real. (The "fiction" part refers to the story/characters.) That's like saying that a baby that can crawl also can run in the olympics on the 100m sprint. Those technologies we've only just begun to grasp and we've got a long road ahead of us before we'll see anything as sophisticated as described in Asimov's work. Not only the robots, but also the space travel over the entire Galaxy, etc... As queenhank said, I too think that plausible science is the correct description of what you're talking 'bout theaveng. And I concur, as I said above, that this kind of sci-fi is the best out there, since it's got a lot more credibility, but I still think that the term sci-fi shouldn't be restricted to only these subjects. For example Star Wars: it's not plausible at all, but it does have space battles and such, so for me that's sci-fi too. But I doubt that debating this will change many persons point of view. Maybe you can create a poll like, "is Star Wars sci-fi" or something like that, then you'll at least get more of an idea of the opinion of the majority. (If you're interested in that...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USWhoFan Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 So if we’re going for plausible science, then that kinda kills Star Trek from Science Fiction, because Warp Drive and artificial gravity based on known science is not plausible. Right? :thinking: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S0V13T Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 I'd rather have my Sci-fi being intentionally vauge about the science behind their machines. Trek just gets irritating and stale fter a certian point where every episode is solved in the last 5 miniutes by realigning the deflector dish to emit some kind of modified energy wave of some kind. I like BSG becuase the ony 3 real pieces of technology featured is the Dradeus console, the FTL drive, viper fighters, and the Cylons. BSG is the Anti-Trek, as in the ship is deliberatelly made to be primitive, and the crew is made dileberatelly NOT to be able to solve all their problems using 5 mins of nonsence science, to save the day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now