Poll: How do you like your Science Fiction?

[randomsix]

Usually I prefer realistic, but then I read Anathem and my mind was blown.

 

[Berethond]

I like it both ways

Also I like how people mention two really unrealistic series and then say that means they like it hard and soft.

 

[tkioz]

While I'm not a "hard sci-fi" fanatic, I like that if you're going to break a rule of nature you should at least make a token effort to explain it.

 

[DJDarque]

I've never been huge on science fiction, escpecially when it's really out there, but I do enjoy space western like the manga series Trigun. I'm too picky with what I read.

 

[TeeBs]

I don't really care, I just want it to be symbolic of something that's happening right now.

 

[Agayek]

It depends mostly on the mood of the piece. If it's at least mildly comedic or somesuch, I like just about any sort of ridiculous device or setting. If the work takes itself seriously though, the science better be fairly hard. I just can't take something seriously when I know it's blatantly wrong.

 

[latenightapplepie]

I can enjoy either, but I suppose I prefer the harder stuff. Not too fussed though. I believe that both types can make really excellent TV, film, videogames etc.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

The Heisenberg compensator is a component of the transporters in Star Trek, used to get around the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which appears to prove that transporters are total BS (do they have Einstein compensators in the warp drives, I wonder?). I don't know if the writers were poking fun at the nerds who point out those sorts of flaws, or ironically acknowledging the flaw, or seriously suggesting that some sort of 'compensator' could make this particular impossibility possible. I'm kinda curious about that.

It's not the worst thing about how bad the Transporters are. The main problem is that you're basically storing matter as an energy form and then pulsing it to an unknown place where it spontaneously changes back. The Compensator just stops you ending up with a load of giblets, it doesn't actually acknowledge how to switch back.
And that's before you go into how devalued everything is if you can disintegrate one, store it and then re-integrate multiple times.

 

[Cazza]

I don't care. I do like plausible more but I don't like it when the story gets slowed down while they explain how everything works. Call it teleports or space ships but don't go it works like this because it might really work like this.

 

[XJ-0461]

Both, but I prefer the more out there stuff. I enjoyed Metropolis (1927) but I much prefer the crazier stuff that happens in stuff like Star Wars or Doctor Who. They're much better for escapist fantasy for me.

 

[Vigormortis]

I hate to generalize it, but...I'll take lasers, space-ships, aliens, and robots over elves, dragons, swords, and "magic" any day.

I wasn't actually refering to fantasy vs. sci fi, just the differing type of science fiction - the cases where the technology and science is potentially plausible versus the times where the science is unexplainable and flat out futuristically awesome.

When I mentioned 'magic' I didn't mean it in a fantasy sort of way, was just the easiest way to point out how some books don't explain how things work when there really seems to be absolutely no plausible explaination. i.e. virtual interfaces that just pop into thin air when you need them... the sort of thing the story just blames on advancements in technology.

I realized that, actually. That last part of my previous post was just a general thought/short rant. It wasn't in regard to your post. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Tilted_Logic]

I realized that, actually. That last part of my previous post was just a general thought/short rant. It wasn't in regard to your post. Sorry for the confusion.

No worries I just didn't intend for the original topic to sound like I was asking for a sci fi vs. fantasy debate.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I like out there I suppose as I love The Hitchhikers Guide books and most of that was just plain stupid.

Not really. Consider for a moment the least probable thing in the work (The Infinite Improbability Drive). That drive "moves" a ship (the heart of gold) based loosely on a principle of quantum mechanics. As it turns out, there are few things in the universe that are impossible. There are, however, plenty of things so very improbable that they are effectively impossible (For example, it is possible that, for some instant, all of the air in a room will occupy one half rather than another. The probably is such that, for the average bedroom, it might happen once every few trillion years somewhere in the galaxy). The universe had already demonstrate the existence of a finite improbability mechanism that worked, but only if you knew precisely how improbable something was. The key to the creation of the Infinite Improbability drive then was determining precisely how improbable the creation of such a drive was and then using the finite improbability mechanism to sort it all out.

That is a plausible explanation within the confines of the universe I think, even if it was hysterically phrased.

 

[Daveman]

I like out there I suppose as I love The Hitchhikers Guide books and most of that was just plain stupid.

Not really. Consider for a moment the least probable thing in the work (The Infinite Improbability Drive). That drive "moves" a ship (the heart of gold) based loosely on a principle of quantum mechanics. As it turns out, there are few things in the universe that are impossible. There are, however, plenty of things so very improbable that they are effectively impossible (For example, it is possible that, for some instant, all of the air in a room will occupy one half rather than another. The probably is such that, for the average bedroom, it might happen once every few trillion years somewhere in the galaxy). The universe had already demonstrate the existence of a finite improbability mechanism that worked, but only if you knew precisely how improbable something was. The key to the creation of the Infinite Improbability drive then was determining precisely how improbable the creation of such a drive was and then using the finite improbability mechanism to sort it all out.

That is a plausible explanation within the confines of the universe I think, even if it was hysterically phrased.

Yes I understand probability but that still doesn't explain how it translates the probability into movement which is probably because that's just stupid... and then there's also this. http://www.earthstar.co.uk/bistro.htm

And that's why Douglas Adams is the greatest human being ever.

 

[Serenegoose]

All I care about is that the author digs it and works with it - mostly. Never been fond of 100% 'hard' sci fi, but that's the only exception.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

I think I prefer plausible.

But it's really not even that.

I like my sci-fi to be relateable. In other words, I like there to be a degree of familiarity with the people, with the culture, with motivations, and so on.

Sci-fi that takes place millions of years in the future and is largely concerned with alien races or a very much evolved human race...those don't interest me that much.

Sci-fi that takes place in the next couple hundred years and deals with humanity's struggle to expand into space or discover extinct alien worlds...those are much more interesting to me. They still deal with people as we know them.

 

[Lord Honk]

I freaked out when I learned about antimatter (the anti-hydrogen experiment commenced at CERN in 1995) in 11th grade, and it utterly fascinated me, so I really like SciFi if it backs up it's tech with quasi-possible phenomena. On the other hand, anything "far, far away in a [blablabla]" is fine as well, no need (let alone possibility) to try to explain the stuff that's going on, you're just in it for the ride.

 

[EmzOLV]

I never really got into science fiction when it came to the space age settings or "far-into-the future" scenarios - but then after I read Joe Abercrombie that was it. I was hooked.

It was so bloody, violent and unique, with a twisted sense of humour that I couldn't put the book down. Then the 2nd, 3rd and the spin off. I was chuffed with what I'd found.

I'd recommend it to anyone, but as I'm not used to reading science fiction I'm not sure how to best describe it without perhaps generalising it too much. Anyone wanting to have a peek at it can go here

 

[Latinidiot]

I don't care as long as it's bound to one condition: It's not magic. It has limits. you can't keep making strnger and bigger shit. there are rules to things.


With the exception of Douglas Adams, who defies definition.

 

[MetaMop]

To quote Harry S. Plinkett. "I like my science fiction slow and boring."
Two of my favourite movies are Space Oddysey and Alien. They're slow, they built up a fantastic atmosphere. Even with all the blood and guts, I find Alien to be a very relaxing film in terms of it's visuals and music.