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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 9786737" data-attributes="member: 22779">Ok, in the interests of trying to move past this stumbling block, let me try to explain my point without resorting to any jargon.In SF, there are two (note, this does not mean that there are ONLY two, just that these are two among many) common themes. In the first theme, science can resolve the problems that we face.  In the other theme, science cannot solve our problems and, in general are typically the source of our problems.Take two fairly well known SF TV series (which also exist in other formats, yes, that is true, but, I'm trying to stick to just the two tv series) - Battlestar Galactica and The Expanse.  Both are fantastic shows.  Very well written.  I believe both have one numerous awards.  So, they're both very well received.  But, they do typify pretty clearly the two schools.  In Battlestar, science is the problem.  The Cylons are defeated, not by science, but by faith and humanity's spirit.  OTOH, in The Expanse, the main characters constantly use science to resolve problems.  There is certainly elements of the metaphysical in The Expanse, of course.  But, at the end of the day, our heroes prevail through reason.You can see these two schools in all sorts of SF works.  They are, IMO, the foundation upon which SF is built.  Most SF works can be categorized in one or the other school.  Now, since fantasy as nostalgia was brought up, I'll be the first to admit my own bias.  I don't particularly like most fantasy.  I never have.  Which is weird because I prefer D&D for roleplaying.  I never pretended to be consistent.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />  But, I find most SF to be too close to revisionist history.  They, as was rightly pointed out, mythologize the past.  The King has Returned.  All Hail the King!  Never minding that we've just spent the last several hundred years trying to get rid of kings because, well, monarchy tends to be a very bad thing.  All the horrors of the past are elided.  We don't have fantasy stories where 3/4 of the children die before they hit the age of 5.  We don't see the constant disease, famine and ignorance.  We tend not to have scenes of Galadriel washing her hair in her own urine.  That sort of thing.  I dislike fantasy because fantasy almost always pretends that the past was this wonderful place where knightly knights go forth to do knightly things.  Even more grounded fantasy is still far too sanitized AFAIC.  Which is why I don't read it very much.  I read a lot more SF than I read fantasy for exactly this reason.But, to roll this all, very lengthy pontification back on track, instead of defining our settings as hope vs despair, one could define them by the means in which things get resolved.  Both settings could be very dark.  Very grim.  Very brutal.  But, in one setting, it isn't really the PC's who fix the world.  They become the focus of provenance.  Whereas in the other approach, the PC's are more in the driver's seat.  It's directly through their actions that the setting changes.</blockquote>

Verification