I like a little more science in my science fiction

[reveal]

The title of this thread is a quote from a friend of mine. She said it after seeing someone do something (I don't remember what it was exactly) in the Star Wars "Clone Wars" cartoon DVD. I mean, she is a Physics major getting her Masters degree in that subject, but she also plays D&D, where wizards shoot fireballs out of their butts and Halflings are as common as Humans, and loves the Buffy and Angel tv shows. All in all, I thought it was both odd and amusing. I told her she needed to stop watching sci-fi and playing fantasy because she would be sorely disappointed.

I'm sure there are others who feel the way she does. Anyone else think that? That they prefer a little more "science" in their "science fiction" even though you play D&D or some other fantasy game?

 

[Hand of Evil]

If you make it look good, explain it, and make it believable, I will take it, it is when you do not and make it part of the plot that it gets to me.

 

[Ranger REG]

I'm sure there are others who feel the way she does. Anyone else think that? That they prefer a little more "science" in their "science fiction" even though you play D&D or some other fantasy game?

Well, I do miss the technobabble lately, but then it is to be expected now that there is no more Star Trek on TV.

I do agree with HoE.

 

[Andre]

Anyone else think that? That they prefer a little more "science" in their "science fiction" even though you play D&D or some other fantasy game?

Yep. I enjoy both types of stories, but if I'm reading science fiction, I usually prefer hard sci-fi. The difference is that hard sci-fi has a solid grounding in science, whereas most sci-fantasy simply uses technobabble to hide the fantasy elements. Basically, it's fantasy in space. Star Trek and Star Wars clearly fall into this category.

Timothy Zahn is a contemporary author who writes some outstanding hard sci-fi. Another is Robert Forward. Interestingly enough, both have degrees in physics. Fortunately, both are also good writers.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I like my sci-fi shock full of science. It's part of sci-fi's appeal; to present wonders which will one day be taken for granted. Things that will, or at least can, happen given the natural laws we live by.

 

[John Crichton]

To me, science fiction (which is different from sci-fi which is more like just a setting) is the fantastic or the extraordinary used to explore some aspect of humanity. In whatever form that may be in, as long as it makes internal sense, it works for me.

 

[Numion]

I like some science in my sci-fi. I thought that, for example, the Hyperion series was a nice mix of fantasy and science. Star Treks are all babble and no science. Star Wars doesn't bother me though, because it's not sci-fi.

FWIW I got my masters at a physics department, but I majored in math, not physics. I know more physics than your average joe, though.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I don't give a damn how much science there is in my science fiction. I accept the premises of the show I'm watching or the book I'm reading.

Of course, if the people involved claim that their scientific mumbo-jumbo could work, then I scoff. But I scoff at them, not the show. I'm entertained by hard and soft science fiction in different ways for different reasons.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I think it really depends on the style of the show. I'm typically very able to accept the "rules" of a fictional universe as they are presented. So in Star Wars - which is very low on the science part of science fiction - it doesn't bother me. If someone were doing a movie version of an Isaac Asimov story, I'd be much less willing to take that leap because my expectations would be different.

 

[MaxKaladin]

Anyone else think that? That they prefer a little more "science" in their "science fiction" even though you play D&D or some other fantasy game?

Yes. I like my SF to actually have science in it. I can enjoy things like Star Wars, but in general I do have a different set of expectations from SF than I do from Fantasy.