Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 3460395" data-attributes="member: 3887">Except that in a great deal of great SF, it doesn't. But what does that have to do with Harrison's admonition against making an exhaustive survey of you imaginary world?Trek makes hash out of science. Whole new species of particle physics were invented haphazardly whenever the writers felt the need the turn the crew into babies or sex maniacs (I exaggerate, barely).For the record, I do think Star Trek is rightly considered science fiction, because it addresses most of the major themes associated with the genre, in a serious fashion --usually. But claiming its approach to scientific speculation is ordered and rational is crazy talk. The defining characteristics of SF are a whole other can of worms. At the very least its not merely a matter of scientific accuracy, or an honest attempt at it. Even hard SF stalwarts like Stephen Baxter sometimes write about things that are wholly outside what can meaningfully be called science; like car-sized FTL spaceships, star-killing handguns, and dark matter birds that flock malevolently in suns.&nbsp; Or a pretense to that rationality. Godzilla (or better, the original Gojira) isn't particularly rational, but it sure looks like science fiction, being a work that directly addresses the anxiety over rapid technological change, say, like the Bomb.SF writers have the license to engage in their own kinds of fantasy; force fields, instantaneous communication, FTL, magic gussied up as psionics, the utter inanity of most depictions of space warfare. I think important differences between &quot;SF&quot; and &quot;F&quot; are thematic. That conceptualization at least results in a more stable definition of the genres. But the quote concerns worldbuilding when it occludes the main point of the work, not all attempts at creating a coherent counter-factual world.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mallus, post: 3460395, member: 3887"] Except that in a great deal of great SF, it doesn't. But what does that have to do with Harrison's admonition against making an exhaustive survey of you imaginary world? Trek makes hash out of science. Whole new species of particle physics were invented haphazardly whenever the writers felt the need the turn the crew into babies or sex maniacs (I exaggerate, barely). For the record, I [i]do[/i] think Star Trek is rightly considered science fiction, because it addresses most of the major themes associated with the genre, in a serious fashion --usually. But claiming its approach to scientific speculation is ordered and rational is crazy talk. The defining characteristics of SF are a whole other can of worms. At the very least its not merely a matter of scientific accuracy, or an honest attempt at it. Even hard SF stalwarts like Stephen Baxter sometimes write about things that are wholly outside what can meaningfully be called science; like car-sized FTL spaceships, star-killing handguns, and dark matter birds that flock malevolently in suns. Or a pretense to that rationality. Godzilla (or better, the original Gojira) isn't particularly rational, but it sure looks like science fiction, being a work that directly addresses the anxiety over rapid technological change, say, like the Bomb. SF writers have the license to engage in their own kinds of fantasy; force fields, instantaneous communication, FTL, magic gussied up as psionics, the utter inanity of most depictions of space warfare. I think important differences between "SF" and "F" are thematic. That conceptualization at least results in a more stable definition of the genres. But the quote concerns worldbuilding when it occludes the main point of the work, not all attempts at creating a coherent counter-factual world. [/QUOTE]

Verification