Question of the Day, May 5, 2010

[Mutie]

I don't believe either answer is right. I feel there is a definative and undenyable link bewteen Fantasy and sci-fi. You merely have to look at things like Warhammer 40,000 or Japan to see this. The fact of the matter is that sci-fi, moreso than fantasy, is a genre (or sub-genre depending on your opinion) which relies heavily of immersion and "believability", for want of a better word.

In main-stream sci-fi, it is integral that the writters form a bank of rules and literary physics that will rein in their future exploits in the universe in question. This is something which has been adequately demonstrated by Star Trek which, (despite it's numberous expeditions into the ludicrous and "oh, it's a good job we found that cure" scenes to rapidly tie up various episodes) is a series dedicated to it fictional scientific and social structures.

The problem with this modern Doctor Who is that it couldn't give a cat's crap about underlying universal physics and has become little more and a moderate-budget, celebrity-guest-star whore house. Even most magical fantasies conform to a basic law structure (take the fade from Dragon Age) and I believe Terry Pratchett's works to be the perfect balance between nonsensical fantasy psychedelia and ingenious world-creation.

 

[DuX1112]

Star Wars IS Science-fiction. It's themes, setting, and universe all are. Just because they don't explain everything happening there with today's tech/science jargon does not make it meer "fantasy". Even if you'd tried to explain the science of the lightsaber, or the use of force powers through today's scientific knowledge, it will eventually all boil down to speculation, because we lack the knowledge, tech, and appropriate jargon to explain everything that happens there (and "then").

Fantasy, and fiction, should not be restrained by current scientific knowledge or jargon. If that was the case, SF as a genre would've never come into being in the first place, because pioneers like Verne, Huxley, Orwell, and Shelley would never dare speculate (and envisage) the very soul and spine of the SF genre and subsequently, human vision for technological and scientific development.

SF started as a (pseudo-)scientific speculation, IS (pseudo-)scientific speculation, and WILL continue to be (pseudo-)scientific speculation. It's just what we all need - some freedom from formula which enables freedom for vision. And I love, love, love that...

 

[mexicola]

No, technology used in a sci-fi sounding ridiculous/impossible never stops me from enjoying the said book/movie/game. Focusing too much on the technological aspects can only distract from the story in my opinion. Soft or hard SF - I don't mind, as long as the book can keep my interest.

 

[Glamorgan]

Good science fiction always has a foot in the door of realism, but it is important that sometimes it makes a departure from the comfortable. And while I do agree that Doctor Who is at times a tad ludicrus, we're talking about a man who writes about a giant turtle with four elephants on its back, and in turn, they carry a giant flat world. But this is the point. Good sci-fi will stick to the rules, and leave in enough familiarity so that the viewer doesn't feel completely allienated, but the true classics aren't affraid to first establish a world with some degree of familiarity, and then completely screw with the viewers mind, and turn everything they know on their heads. And I can honestly say that I believe that Doctor Who comes further than that, with both believable and likable characters, some great plots, and the villains, most especially the weeping angels, are short of brilliant. All I'm saying is that Science Fiction does not have to have much scientific accuracy for it to be good.

 

[Wicky_42]

Sci-fi's too broad a category to nail down like this. There's some sci-fi that has gone to Arthur C Clark's indistinguishable extreme, which is all fine and cool because that's its setting and it's aware of it. Other sci-fi lives by hard rules, laying out the basis for its technologies even if they don't make sense in the context of our universe or scientific understanding.

The key point for me is the consistency within the stories and universes - if you're in an atomic rocket universe, with lasers for weapons and colonies across the solar system, don't pull out a hyperspace-distortion super mega death fortress and counter it with forcefields made from the Sun's corona controlled by a brain in a jar. IT WOULD MAKE NO SENSE.

Pratchett's point was that Dr Who broke the narrative by inventing a solution that came from nowhere, using rules not established or ignoring ones previously adhered to. That sort of thing pisses me of a bit as well - it's hard to ever feel like there's any genuine danger because the Doc can always magic a solution out of thin air.

 

[LadyCatra]

Fantasy, and fiction, should not be restrained by current scientific knowledge or jargon. If that was the case, SF as a genre would've never come into being in the first place, because pioneers like Verne, Huxley, Orwell, and Shelley would never dare speculate (and envisage) the very soul and spine of the SF genre and subsequently, human vision for technological and scientific development.

Very nicely said!

I think the problem is that as soon as something is set in "outer space" it's pigeon holed into being called Science Fiction.

Too much black and white labeling here when the stories, good stories, are never really one or the other (of any genre).

 

[Acidwell]

Science fiction. If you want factual science go read a paper written by an actual scientist.

 

[LadyCatra]

Pratchett's point was that Dr Who broke the narrative by inventing a solution that came from nowhere, using rules not established or ignoring ones previously adhered to. That sort of thing pisses me of a bit as well - it's hard to ever feel like there's any genuine danger because the Doc can always magic a solution out of thin air.

Pratchett's point is valid for this particular issue and I understand how the DRWHO story lines can be frustrating to a writer for exactly Wicky_42's point here and my previous essay post on "rules".

DRWHO is a fluff piece, one I enjoy very very much, *if* I don't over analyze it or think too deep on it. I watch, I enjoy, I know the Doctor will be safe again in about 37.5 minutes and I take pleasure in the small bits of story lines that show human conflict and emotion. Can't a story be just that and be good enough?

This labeling of genre and the *expectations* of that genre that come with it are inappropriate in this case. Far too black and white -- which is what I think 90% of the posts on this thread have already said in their own way

 

[DuX1112]

Fantasy, and fiction, should not be restrained by current scientific knowledge or jargon. If that was the case, SF as a genre would've never come into being in the first place, because pioneers like Verne, Huxley, Orwell, and Shelley would never dare speculate (and envisage) the very soul and spine of the SF genre and subsequently, human vision for technological and scientific development.

Very nicely said!

I think the problem is that as soon as something is set in "outer space" it's pigeon holed into being called Science Fiction.

Too much black and white labeling here when the stories, good stories, are never really one or the other (of any genre).

Thanks, LadyCatra!

And I agree too, yes.

 

[Kaymish]

well it depends on the sub type you want to do/watch are you a fan of hard or soft sci-fi or do you like what is in-between

Pratchett must not like soft sci-fi and thats cool for him but why his opinion is such big news i will never understand

personally i like any sci-fi that is entertaining and exciting

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

it is called fiction for a reason.

Its science fiction!

The key word in "science fiction" is "fiction."

IT'S CALLED SCIENCE FREAKING "FICTION!"

Do you even realize what the word "fiction" means? It's just a shorter way of saying "this story didn't really happen". It has absolutely nothing to do with how realistic a story is. If it was just "Fiction", it could be almost anything. Calling it "Science Fiction" however, implies at least a foundation of scientific plausibility.

You just answered your own question. Yes it didn't really happen so it does not have to be bound by logic. Just look at the guy with Pyrokenisis in Fringe. The premise behind it is that it uses and altered perception to make it possible(to go into lightly). Yes fictions does mean you can do whatever the crack you like because it didn't really happen and doesn't have to happen meaning it can be about as real as Superman. All of which have a mild scientific plausibility so ye.

 

[DuX1112]

The key point for me is the consistency within the stories and universes - if you're in an atomic rocket universe, with lasers for weapons and colonies across the solar system, don't pull out a hyperspace-distortion super mega death fortress and counter it with forcefields made from the Sun's corona controlled by a brain in a jar. IT WOULD MAKE NO SENSE.

Well, I'm SURE that once the author actually bothered to connect all those things together and provide ANY explanation for those events, it WOULD make sense.

Hell, I could make sense out of it right now, by speculating that the "brain" thing is capable of something called a teleportational telepathy (via a device or its thoughts alone), or is "strong in the Force" (or an equivalent to it), or some other quantum-physics-science mumbo-jumbo, and I'm absolutely sure no one would complain about "not making any sense."

People just suck explanations like a black hole sucks matter and light from around it. The problem with Dr. Who (I don't watch the show) is that probably, NO explanation was offered. Hence, the story as it is - doesn't make any sense. But I can make sense of it (by myself).

 

[Dobrev]

Pratchett is right - Dr Who has science fiction only to further the ridculousness of it own plot. It's been so for years and I wouldn't have it any other way.

On the news section you'd labeled the topic as: What is the difference between science fiction and fantasy. Well it is magic and dragons.

 

[DuX1112]

And Pratchett is the PRIME example of "providing ANY sense". Just look at Discworld! It's a scientifically outrageous idea, BUT, Pratchett has explained that it's a huge disc, standing on four elephants, who in turn stand on a humongous turtle - who in turn is on a voyage to procreate somewhere, sometime (presumably with another galactic turtle). Makes perfect sense. Although implausible.

But Pratchett explained it. He's a master at explaining ridiculous stuff which no one complains that don't make any sense. Gotta love him.

 

[psychic psycho]

--TLDR--

We're more critical of SF because we know that its story lines could exist some day. We're less critical of Fantasy because we know magic isn't real and never will be.

So really, the difference between the two is (IMO):

a) semantic - when does future tech become a type of magic for us? When did tech look like magic to people in the past?

b) setting and material - an enchanted and a light saber could be considered the same basic literary construct.

A good story should be able to be told in any genre with a few tweaks to the object details. Think about putting some of your favorite games into the opposite genre -- if the story was good would the setting make that much difference.

I really like this (as well as the entire post, it's just too big to quote). It's basically what my thoughts are on the topic...accept better written.

 

[Skarvig]

The word itself says it "Fiction", it is something made up. So this means anything can be possible.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Well, it has FICTION in the damn name. It doesn't need to be grounded in reality.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

As long as it's explained, I don't see why anything should be held back...The Hitchhiker's Guide's way of doing things is a good way of doing things I think

 

[psivamp]

There are good works on both sides of the issue. I thoroughly enjoyed Scott Westerfeld's Risen Empire which combines the solid science and blatant impossibilities, but with a heavy emphasis on extrapolations of current science.

All science fiction has to break down at some point or it's just fiction. If the people in a book only have chemical rockets and magnetic railguns, that's current technology. If they use some kind of manipulation of zero-point energy or warping of space-time for propulsion, that's science fiction.

I believe in a healthy balance, but I like to at least see a little bit of theory or some kind of nod to a scientific process in the background, not just 'we can fly.'

 

[gally912]

As previously stated, in either case there has to be "rules of the universe". The reader or viewer accepts these premises (Magic is physically draining, therefore can't be used for mundane chores- or FTL travel is possible, but can only be used by hitting specific relays in the galaxy...) and the story can be told.

To then use excuses like "oh its magic" or "oh its science" to circumvent the foundations of the story will break Suspension of Disbelief and be met with "thats stupid".


But to answer the poll, my favorite Sci-Fi setting is 40k, so you can imagine what camp I fall into.