Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 2271009" data-attributes="member: 1879">Lots of stuffIt is an accepted convention of the Sci-Fi genre (and has been for as long as SF has existed as it's own genre) that the author gets one 'gimme' that he can handwave in order to tell the story he wishes to write. Often this is FTL, sometimes it is Psionics, sometimes aliens amoung us, time travel,  etc. ________________________________________________________________There is a distinction between hard sf and soft sf. In Hard SF the story revolves around the technology and the laws of nature (even if altered by the gimme) must be observed. Often exploring the ramifications of the gimme is the point of the story.Examples include Asimovs Robot stories, Heinliens 'Beyond this Horizon', Poul Andersons Asteroid stories.Soft SF uses the trappings of SF, but ignores the details of the technology to focus on the characters. Examples include Lois McMaster Bujolds 'Nexus' series although she often does spend a lot of time exploring the ramifications of new technology. I would also put Anne McCaffreys dragon books into this category although doubtless some would argue with me.__________________________________________________________________Psionics were explored as an area of scientific possibility during the silver age of science fiction and factored heavily into some archtypal stories like E.E. 'Doc' Smiths Lensmen series. They are still accepted as part of the genre in part because the jury is still out on the scientific validity of them. (I.E. Most studies show a staticially significant variance from pure chance.)Nonetheless it is silly to claim they are not allowed in fantasy, because many of the powers associated with Psionics are also staples of fantasy. Tolkien in particular has many telepaths, and some other 'psionic' powers in his characters, he just doesn't use psionic terminology to describe them.____________________________________________________________________My personal take on Star wars is that it is fantasy just barely dressed in the trappings of SF. Nothing in the movies ever hinges on technology. I think Lucas cast his story as SF instead of Fantasy because he (correctly) percieved that his audiance would respond more strongly to the SF trappings than they would to Fantasy trappings. The original Star Trek series is soft SF. The more recent series try to be, but they continually break my suspension of disbelief because the tech never works the same way twice. This is a crime by the standards of SF. Babylon 5 is hard SF. The one 'gimme' is Psionics and the emergance of them amoung humans is explained within the context of the series. The technology works consistantly within the series, and some episodes hinge on correct applications of technology. ___________________________________________________________________I'm with the past/future distinction between SF and Fantasy. David Brin as an excellent essay on the difference in his book 'Otherness'.Fantasy looks to an ancient past when we reached heights unobtainable to us in these degenerate days. This has been a central feature of the genre since the tales of atlantis.SF looks to building a future that is better than today. Even 'The Postman' falls within this context. The war may have delt civillization a setback, but all it take is a single seed crystal (the postman) for the rebuilding to begin. If you err, you learn and the move forward.If a story doesn't look outside of itself then I look to the trappings.</blockquote>

Verification