The difference between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy

[ZenGalacticore]

It's been said-by whom originally I have no idea- that Science Fantasy makes the impossible possible, and that Science Fiction makes the improbable plausible. Your thoughts? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>

 

[cunninglinguist]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's been said-by whom originally I have no idea- that Science Fantasy makes the impossible possible, and that Science Fiction makes the improbable plausible. Your thoughts? <br /> Posted by ZenGalacticore</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>My understanding: Science Fiction extrapolates based on existing theory for the "rules" of it's world.&nbsp; Science fantasy doesn't concern itself with how things happen.&nbsp; Think Star Wars vs Star Trek.&nbsp; Star Trek writers worry about what can be done given current theories. George Lucas thought, "spaceships will be cool.&nbsp; They need to go really fast so um... we'll go with Hyperdrives."</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><div style="text-align:center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3108/3219769223_5371b255b5_o.jpg" alt="" /></div><p> </p> </div>

 

[ZenGalacticore]

<p>Yeah. Like Han Solo's Kessle Run. He says of the Falcon: "She made the Kessle Run in less than 12 parsecs." So...um, she made it in less than 12 x 3.3 lightyears? Ok. Don't get me wrong, I love the ORIGINAL Star Wars and good sci-fantasy, but I prefer more purist Science Fiction when it is done well, which seems to be rarely.</p><p>Two of my favorite ST TOS episodes were 'The Immunity Syndrome' and 'The Doomsday Machine', they got good and technical and both episodes had alot of Scotty.</p><p>Appreciate your definition of the two genres. Some people don't consider them separate. They do overlap at times though. Like the transporter beam for example. But, interestingly, Rodenberry came up with the transporter for budgetary reasons as it was too expensive to do too many outer space scenes of shuttles landing on planets. Ha ha, you got to love him for that.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>

 

[nimbus]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yeah. Like Han Solo's Kessle Run. He says of the Falcon: "She made the Kessle Run in less than 12 parsecs." So...um, she made it in less than 12 x 3.3 lightyears? <br /> Posted by ZenGalacticore</DIV>Sounds like a competition between ships that use a propulsion drive that skips across space without traveling the distance between two points.. So, if the skipping part of travel (hyperspace or whatever) happened in a negligible span of time (or instantaneously), the winning ship would have won by traveling the least amount of actual distance.. &nbsp;While the engines recovered, or something.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yeah. Like Han Solo's Kessle Run. He says of the Falcon: "She made the Kessle Run in less than 12 parsecs." So...um, she made it in less than 12 x 3.3 lightyears? Ok. Don't get me wrong, I love the ORIGINAL Star Wars and good sci-fantasy, but I prefer more purist Science Fiction when it is done well, which seems to be rarely.Two of my favorite ST TOS episodes were 'The Immunity Syndrome' and 'The Doomsday Machine', they got good and technical and both episodes had alot of Scotty.Appreciate your definition of the two genres. Some people don't consider them separate. They do overlap at times though. Like the transporter beam for example. But, interestingly, Rodenberry came up with the transporter for budgetary reasons as it was too expensive to do too many outer space scenes of shuttles landing on planets. Ha ha, you got to love him for that.</p><p>Posted by ZenGalacticore</DIV><br />Actually, the Kessel Run has a basis, if not intended by Lucas, in fact.&nbsp; The key is that the Maw, a collection of black holes, is next to Kessel.&nbsp; Most vessels go around the Maw with plenty of distance to spare.&nbsp; However, if a ship could go in closer to those black holes, it would shorten the distance travelled considerably.</p><p>One clear example of Science Fantasy would be dragon stories.&nbsp; Sure, Arthur C. Clarke made them fly in <em>3001</em>, but only in reduced gravity.&nbsp; One Star Trek book (I don't remember which) had horses with wing (genetically engineered) that could also fly, but again, only in reduced gravity. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Actually, the Kessel Run has a basis, if not intended by Lucas, in fact.&nbsp; The key is that the Maw, a collection of black holes, is next to Kessel.&nbsp; Most vessels go around the Maw with plenty of distance to spare.&nbsp; However, if a ship could go in closer to those black holes, it would shorten the distance travelled considerably.One clear example of Science Fantasy would be dragon stories.&nbsp; Sure, Arthur C. Clarke made them fly in 3001, but only in reduced gravity.&nbsp; One Star Trek book (I don't remember which) had horses with wing (genetically engineered) that could also fly, but again, only in reduced gravity. <br /> Posted by willpittenger</DIV><br /></p><p>I have refused to touch "3001" with a ten-foot pole after reading on the book jacket that they resurrect Frank Poole.&nbsp;&nbsp; That seemed just plain silly.</p><p>A better-known example of SF dragons would probably be "Dragonriders of Pern".&nbsp; The dragons on Pern are big flying reptiles.&nbsp; They evolved a small size, but were genetically engineered to be big so that they could be ridden and directed to attack specific targets.&nbsp; They have the ability to move through hyperspace ("Between") and are telepathic.&nbsp; (The fire lizards from which they were bred were empathic, but lacked the intelligence to communicate more precisely with their masters.)&nbsp; Their telepathic bond evolved as a means of communicating with their parents, but human colonists on Pern discovered that they could easily get the hatchlings to imprint on a human instead.&nbsp; The creatures eat special rocks which are processed in a second stomach to produce flame.&nbsp;&nbsp; The flame evolved as a means of killing Thread, a strange possibly-alive substance that lives on the Red Star (another planet in Pern's system) and periodically comes close enough that the Thread falls onto Pern.&nbsp; Thread destroys any living tissue it touches, and can only be destroyed by fire or acid, though it also perishes if it lands in water.&nbsp; It's not really clear how the fire lizards evolved fire breath from this evolutionary pressure alone, since the Thread only falls once every thousand years.</p><p>Not a bad series, but squarely in the category of "science fantasy", I would say.&nbsp; I would put Star Wars into that category as well, because of the mystical nature of the Force.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's been said-by whom originally I have no idea- that Science Fantasy makes the impossible possible, and that Science Fiction makes the improbable plausible. Your thoughts? <br />Posted by ZenGalacticore</DIV></p><p>It seems&nbsp;to me that the classifications are rather loose and mostly in the mind of the beholder.&nbsp; A good deal of modern fiction requires a suspension of belief, particularly a suspension of belief in physics.&nbsp; The chase and fight scenes in action movies stretch credibility beyond the breaking point, and they are not normally considered science fiction.&nbsp; If you restrict yourself to only that which is consistent with physics you will have a credible, but incredibly boring action flic or book.&nbsp; I can't think of single science fiction book or picture that does not violate physics at some point, and from an entertainment perspective that is a good thing.&nbsp; To me the best of genre mix in some speculative but plausible advances with the things that are basically impossible, and make the plausible premises central to the plot.&nbsp; I think that Asimov's Foundation Trilogy is good example of that genre of fiction.&nbsp; Fantasy, as in the Stars Wars pictures is also entertaining.&nbsp; But it is all fiction of one sort or another and there are no clear lines of separation.&nbsp; </p><p>Except, of course, for the Indiana Jones pictures.&nbsp; They are all true.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sounds like a competition between ships that use a propulsion drive that skips across space without traveling the distance between two points.. So, if the skipping part of travel (hyperspace or whatever) happened in a negligible span of time (or instantaneously), the winning ship would have won by traveling the least amount of actual distance.. &nbsp;While the engines recovered, or something. <br />Posted by nimbus</DIV><br /><br />Ha, ha ha, ha: Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha. lol to the tenth power. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>

 

[kelvinzero]

<p>I divide science fiction into three categories</p><p>Science fantasy, which does not attempt to obey physics but tends to invent its own. Both starwars and startrek are heavily in this camp. Starwars is more honestly fantasy whereas I think many people think startrek contains meaningful speculation because of the smug way it&nbsp;regurgitates gobbledygook to solve plot holes. There is also another sort of science fantasy which concentrates on being imaginative about the new physics it invents. I would include tales of magic where the magic has interesting and consistent rules.</p><p>Hard SF, Except most of this settles for what we cannot disprove, for example travel through wormholes. I would guess that very few scientists actually think wormhole travel will not be absolutely ruled out eventually. It merely isnt absolutely ruled out yet. Also, almost all of them involve finding technology far in advance of our own, which we can only hazard guesses at how it works.</p><p>The final category is&nbsp;convincing science fiction. This is the sort that deals with things that are probably&nbsp;in our future&nbsp;based on what we know now. Sometimes it even introduces something new into the human imagination and actually has a role in it becoming reality.</p>

 

[ZenGalacticore]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I divide science fiction into three categoriesScience fantasy, which does not attempt to obey physics but tends to invent its own. Both starwars and startrek are heavily in this camp. Starwars is more honestly fantasy whereas I think many people think startrek contains meaningful speculation because of the smug way it&nbsp;regurgitates gobbledygook to solve plot holes. There is also another sort of science fantasy which concentrates on being imaginative about the new physics it invents. I would include tales of magic where the magic has interesting and consistent rules.Hard SF, Except most of this settles for what we cannot disprove, for example travel through wormholes. I would guess that very few scientists actually think wormhole travel will not be absolutely ruled out eventually. It merely isnt absolutely ruled out yet. Also, almost all of them involve finding technology far in advance of our own, which we can only hazard guesses at how it works.The final category is&nbsp;convincing science fiction. This is the sort that deals with things that are probably&nbsp;in our future&nbsp;based on what we know now. Sometimes it even introduces something new into the human imagination and actually has a role in it becoming reality. <br />Posted by kelvinzero</DIV><br /><br />You make some good points. I think that the King of Techno-Gobblygook has to go to Star Trek TNG, in my humble opinion. All they ever seem to do on that show is sit around and talk. Their technology is <em>so superior</em> that they never seem really vulnerable to anything, and, when they are, they meet in the conference room and talk the whole episode away.</p><p>Contrast that with Kirk and crew you probably see what I mean. For example, if they had their shields up, that would compromise their phaser firepower. And you always had Scotty saying: "She wasn't built for warp 12 sir," or "I can't guarantee she'll hold up." You don't seem to see that kind of vulnerability in the later shows.</p><p>One of my favorite lines was when&nbsp; Scotty says: "We're going around in circles at warp 10 sir, and at that speed we're goin' nowhere mighty fast."</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I divide science fiction into three categories...<br /> Posted by kelvinzero</DIV><br />Well, most here put Star Trek at least partially into the SciFi camp because of the somewhat decent attempt to either obey or extend real laws of physics.&nbsp; Star Wars would fall more towards the SciFanatsy realm, but not squarly in it.&nbsp; Star Wars doesn't attempt to develop much physics for the Star Wars universe.&nbsp; However, large parts of the physics are real or explainable with what we know.</p><p>Contrast this to some SciFanatsy tales like dragons and magic.&nbsp; In those cases, the authors simply throw the rules out and start from scratch.&nbsp; They might obey "rules" that they made up (like a dragon only being able to carry so much weight), but otherwise, they ignore anything real.</p><p>In the end, we are talking about a continous spectrum, only with many dimensions.&nbsp; Eg: We have been talking about only SciFi vs. SciFanatsy.&nbsp; However, some such stories might have an adventure (think of something like Indiana Jones) flavor to them.&nbsp; If you showed a biography of Albert Einstien to somone now, it would be called history.&nbsp; But the same show to someone in the 1880s would be labelled SciFi or even SciFanatsy (using modern labels). </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[kadetken]

<p>I tend to put both Star Wars <u>and</u> Star Trek in the Science Fantasy genre, along with Battlestar Galactica.&nbsp; I don't have much patience for fantasy in the space field at this point.&nbsp; I think it has gotten to the point of being a severe distraction from, rather than a contributor to the development of our space future.</p><p>&nbsp;For the science fiction, I have a bunch of genres (militaristic, pioneering colonization, &c.), but generally break it down into Solar Sci-Fi and Trans-Solar Sci-Fi.&nbsp; Of late, my interests have been increasingly drawn to the stories of our human future within our own Solar system, particularly the Moon.&nbsp; Perhaps it's because I find the closer-to-home settings more relevant to the human drama, while anything beyond the Solar system is at this point bordering on the fantastical.&nbsp; I do have a weakness for Trans-Solar Colonization sci-fi like "Beowulf's Children", "Legacy of Heorot", and "Tunnel in the Sky".</p><p>&nbsp; I find Science Faction an intriguing genre.&nbsp; The story works hard at not just working within a physic-ally correct setting, but also conveys information, knowledge, and understanding of the physics.&nbsp; Arthur Clarke's "A Fall of Moondust" is a good example of this, as is Dr. Alan Binder's "Moonquake".&nbsp; On the Juvenile side are examples like the excellent "Moonwake" by Paul and Anne Spudis, and "Maurice on the Moon" by Daniel Barth.&nbsp; I seem to recall that Jerry Pournelle's "Higher Education" was pretty good in that regard, but I'll have to go back and review it.</p><p>&nbsp; I have no particular issues with Star Wars, or Star Trek, or Warhammer, or Battlestar Galactica, or any of the other deep-space fantasies.&nbsp; My only issue is when they become a cultural focus and distract from the real work that needs to be done so that we might be able to get to the point where those fantasies might become factualistic.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nimbus]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ha, ha ha, ha: Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha. lol to the tenth power. <br /> Posted by ZenGalacticore</DIV>huh?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

<p><font color="#800080">It's been said-by whom originally I have no idea- that Science Fantasy makes the impossible possible, and that Science Fiction makes the improbable plausible. Your thoughts? Posted by ZenGalacticore</font></p><p>That sums it up quite nicely. My interpretation is that Star Trek falls under sci fi because it deals with some realistic elements of science in its shows even if some of the science, wormholes or warp speed for example, may never actually come about.</p><p>Star Wars is clearly a fairy tale sort of story line but I see some sci fi as well as sci fan in Star Wars. And its not unusual to see sci fi and fan merge at times.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[ZenGalacticore]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I tend to put both Star Wars and Star Trek in the Science Fantasy genre, along with Battlestar Galactica.&nbsp; I don't have much patience for fantasy in the space field at this point.&nbsp; I think it has gotten to the point of being a severe distraction from, rather than a contributor to the development of our space future.&nbsp;For the science fiction, I have a bunch of genres (militaristic, pioneering colonization, &c.), but generally break it down into Solar Sci-Fi and Trans-Solar Sci-Fi.&nbsp; Of late, my interests have been increasingly drawn to the stories of our human future within our own Solar system, particularly the Moon.&nbsp; Perhaps it's because I find the closer-to-home settings more relevant to the human drama, while anything beyond the Solar system is at this point bordering on the fantastical.&nbsp; I do have a weakness for Trans-Solar Colonization sci-fi like "Beowulf's Children", "Legacy of Heorot", and "Tunnel in the Sky".&nbsp; I find Science Faction an intriguing genre.&nbsp; The story works hard at not just working within a physic-ally correct setting, but also conveys information, knowledge, and understanding of the physics.&nbsp; Arthur Clarke's "A Fall of Moondust" is a good example of this, as is Dr. Alan Binder's "Moonquake".&nbsp; On the Juvenile side are examples like the excellent "Moonwake" by Paul and Anne Spudis, and "Maurice on the Moon" by Daniel Barth.&nbsp; I seem to recall that Jerry Pournelle's "Higher Education" was pretty good in that regard, but I'll have to go back and review it.&nbsp; I have no particular issues with Star Wars, or Star Trek, or Warhammer, or Battlestar Galactica, or any of the other deep-space fantasies.&nbsp; My only issue is when they become a cultural focus and distract from the real work that needs to be done so that we might be able to get to the point where those fantasies might become factualistic.&nbsp; <br />Posted by kadetken</DIV><br />I see what you mean. I am working on a sci-fi plot that deals with believable <em>real</em> problems that the intrepid explorers in the relatively near future-a couple of centuries from now- will face. I think I get a gist of your point. Contemporary sci-fan and even sci-fi make it all look so easy to go to the stars that they unwittingly take all the fun out of it.</p><p>Consider the B-Movie sci-fies of the 1950s. They were so simplistic in the detail of what it would entail to actually go to the Moon. Contrast those fifties films with "Apollo 13" which was a <em>history</em> of actually going to the Moon, and you see what I mean. I would like to see Sci-fi get more into that direction. The difficulty of it all. Perhaps people would be less frustrated with the pace of our space exploration if the sci-fi genre would try to be more realistic about the actual challenge of the task at hand.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>

 

[ZenGalacticore]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>huh? <br />Posted by nimbus</DIV><br />Forgive me sir. It was funny to me the way you worded your thought. I meant no offense. It tickled me that the winner would be the one who actually travelled the least distance between the two points.</p><p>Lets be clear about the subject. I'm talking about speed of light in this instance, just linear 186,000 miles per second. I think many others on this are talking about space warp. You seem to be talking about warp, you know, bringing point B to A by folding spacetime, instead of spanning the distance between the space of A and B at relativistic velocity.<br />Kirk, Spock, Scotty and McKoy 'warped' space with their anti-matter drive. Realistically, the best we can probably hope for in the next century or two-or possibly much longer- is to achieve some respectable fraction of the speed of light. I'm no physicist, but it seems to me that if you were traveling at say, 30,000 miles per second, you would not be warping the fabric of space,i.e., you're not bringing destination <em>to </em>point of origin. You are actually halling ass across the intervening distance.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>

 

[ZenGalacticore]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, most here put Star Trek at least partially into the SciFi camp because of the somewhat decent attempt to either obey or extend real laws of physics.&nbsp; Star Wars would fall more towards the SciFanatsy realm, but not squarly in it.&nbsp; Star Wars doesn't attempt to develop much physics for the Star Wars universe.&nbsp; However, large parts of the physics are real or explainable with what we know.Contrast this to some SciFanatsy tales like dragons and magic.&nbsp; In those cases, the authors simply throw the rules out and start from scratch.&nbsp; They might obey "rules" that they made up (like a dragon only being able to carry so much weight), but otherwise, they ignore anything real.In the end, we are talking about a continous spectrum, only with many dimensions.&nbsp; Eg: We have been talking about only SciFi vs. SciFanatsy.&nbsp; However, some such stories might have an adventure (think of something like Indiana Jones) flavor to them.&nbsp; If you showed a biography of Albert Einstien to somone now, it would be called history.&nbsp; But the same show to someone in the 1880s would be labelled SciFi or even SciFanatsy (using modern labels). <br />Posted by willpittenger</DIV><br /><br />In my opinion, most if not all of the 'dungeon dragon' type movies and books don't warrant the preface of 'science' at all. They are simply fantasy. I remember one that I think was called "Krull". As usual, the setting was some fuzzy idea of the so called 'Dark Ages'. One got the feel that the writers were thinking about maybe the fifth or sixth centuries A.D. The main character, if I'm not mistaken, was Oliver Cromwell! How rediculous. Cromwell was a Protestant rebel in the English Civil War of the mid seventeenth century in the uprising against King Charles I. A thousand years after their vague/mythical Cromwell.</p><p>In my viewing experience, the only&nbsp; Sword and Magic movies that are worth their salt are the ones based on King Arthur. 'Excalibur' is a good example. The rest of them seem to offer some gross parody of myth with inaccurate and wholly out of place timelines for a viewing public that seems to have very little historical perspective.</p><p>Let me add that if one wants to get really technical, "Excalibur" would be considered silly by historians, in spite its mythological theme, because the Knights wore 14th century armor in Arthur's fifth century world. But it was a 'Fantasy' film.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Replying to:It's been said-by whom originally I have no idea- that Science Fantasy makes the impossible possible, and that Science Fiction makes the improbable plausible. Your thoughts? Posted by ZenGalacticore


That sums it up quite nicely. My interpretation is that Star Trek falls under sci fi because it deals with some realistic elements of science in its shows even if some of the science, wormholes or warp speed for example, may never actually come about.Star Wars is clearly a fairy tale sort of story line but I see some sci fi as well as sci fan in Star Wars. And its not unusual to see sci fi and fan merge at times.
 
Posted by qso1

Zen wrote- One of the aspects I always loved about the ORIGINAL 'Star Wars' was how R2D2 talked to the computers and machines and 3PO translated for the humans. I thought that was super cool. I can see that happening in the future. No one can know everything, so we'll need a protocol/translator droid in order for us to communicate with our other droids, computers, and intelligent machines. ZenGalacticore

 

[kelvinzero]

<p>Starwars was a great movie. It really was a wonderful blend of all the sorts of things you expect and want to see, woven into a universe that feels larger than just whats on screen.</p><p>I have also read some great science fantasy. My only gripe is that I just can't find any convincing SF in the book stores at all. People just dont realise how big this solar system is or how many populated worlds it could hold if we can just find a way to combine sunlight and the materials of icy worlds to produce food and air. We might have to live&nbsp;beneath kilometers&nbsp;of rocks or ice, or in worlds that use spin for gravity,&nbsp;but these worlds are more interesting and majestic than any in popular science fiction programs that I have seen. In fact they specifically invent technology to make the world more mundane: Gravity plates so that everyone in the universe can agree on exactly one direction for up, FTL so that travel between stars&nbsp;is exactly as boring as air travel and&nbsp;&nbsp;people everywhere living as no more than a slight scum on the surface of 1g open skied worlds.</p><p>That was a cool link KadetKen, thanks! </p>

 

[kadetken]

<p>I hate gravity plates.&nbsp; That's one of the biggest gripes I have in all of the Moon stories I read, how many of them don't try to adapt their fiction to the science of 1/6th gravity, but rather make up a technology that makes it 1g 'inside', but only 1/6th g outside.&nbsp; Very few authors put an effort into trying to portray life in 1/6th g, fewer still do it well. That's what I really consider 'scientifical' fiction.&nbsp; Assuming that 40 years from now a Moonbase will have 'artificial gravity' at 1g just seems fantastickal in comparison.</p><p>&nbsp;Thanks for the compliment, KelvinZero.&nbsp; Just wait till we get the page counter fixed.&nbsp; It has been and continues to be a lot of work, especially the Lunar SciFi reviews.&nbsp; I sorted them out by genre at the Bicentilune (or: 200 tales of Lunar Adventure!).&nbsp;&nbsp; I may hit 300 reviews by the end of this year.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;You are right, though.&nbsp; It is tough finding these stories in the book stores.&nbsp; I have much better luck at used book stores, but part of the issue is that the number of folks writing Solar system set sci fi is relatively small in a universe of space operas, and attack ships burning off the shoulder of Orion, and 'scifi' vampires/zombies/werewolves, and the media trademarks. &nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;"So what can I do?" you're asking.&nbsp; Easy.&nbsp; Vote with your wallet.&nbsp; Don't buy what you aren't likely to enjoy.&nbsp; Don't just buy the latest book by the 'current' author <em>du jour</em>.&nbsp; I enjoy Solar system-set manga and anime, but not necessarily the mecha type stuff.&nbsp; So I only buy Planetes, Moonlight Mile, Freedom, Bounty Dog (krepola), and other titles within that specific genre (like 'Rocket Girls', which I'm anxiously awaiting). &nbsp; If a new title is proving hard to find I'll keep looking until I find someone who was smart enough to have it in stock for me to buy.&nbsp; I do have fun asking at the mainstream booksellers for certain titles, like 'Kids to Space'.&nbsp; When they ask if I want to order it I say 'No thanks, I can order off Amazon cheaper and have it delivered'.&nbsp; Perhaps I'm making too subtle a point, but if they're not stocking the titles I'm looking for, then I'm taking my business elsewhere. </p><p>&nbsp;The overall point is that if things like Solar system sci-fi are selling out, while the Space Opera stuff sits on the shelf, then companies will produce more Solar sci-fi.&nbsp; If more Solar sci-fi product is available, then a broader market will be exposed to it, which creates the potential for more demand and thereby induces a virtuous circle.&nbsp; It's all in the choices of the consumers.&nbsp; As long as&nbsp; Star Wars books are selling by the truckload, as long as Star Wars Legos are selling out, as long as Star Wars action figures leap off the shelf, then that is what companies will produce and retailers will put on their shelves.</p><p>&nbsp;It's all about the cash and consumer choice.&nbsp; Accept no substitutes!</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

<p><font color="#800080">One of the aspects I always loved about the ORIGINAL 'Star Wars' was how R2D2 talked to the computers and machines and 3PO translated for the humans. I thought that was super cool. I can see that happening in the future. No one can know everything, so we'll need a protocol/translator droid in order for us to communicate with our other droids, computers, and intelligent machines. Posted by ZenGalacticore</font></p><p>I liked that as well,,,fluent in six million forms of communication. And one day we will definitely need to have some kind of robot, computer or whatever to deal with the sheer volume of info that will be available. There is already so much info that were already at the stage where no one human can possibly be familiar with all of it.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's been said-by whom originally I have no idea- that Science Fantasy makes the impossible possible, and that Science Fiction makes the improbable plausible. Your thoughts? <br /> Posted by ZenGalacticore</DIV></p><p>Science Fiction, classically, is about "Science" and how it could possibly effect people.&nbsp; Usually, this is focused on gadgetry but it doesn't have to be limited to hardware. Social concepts can be science fiction as well.&nbsp; However, true, "hard sci-fi" always deals with gadgetry and science and how it effects people/society and possibly how it could change social groups. </p><p>Science "Fantasy", imo, would be something that has the trappings of science and science fiction yet moves it into the realm of the unexplainable, the unknown, the science so far beyond understanding that it is virtually magic.&nbsp; So, the scientific-like ideas behind the gimcrackery aren't as apparent or they may even be totally false and/or so contradictory or impossible regarding what we know as to be purely "fantasy."</p><p>I like the illustration of a comparison between Star-Trek and Star-Wars the best.&nbsp; Kudos to those who mentioned that.&nbsp; Star-Trek has always been, for the most part, pure "Sci-Fi."&nbsp; Star-Wars, while it deals lightly with certain social concepts, ignores the "science" portion altogether.&nbsp; It focuses on the magical, somewhat mystical qualities of a "scientific concept" that is improbable and never really understood in the movies. (The Jedi/The Force.)&nbsp; While the trappings of Sci-Fi are apparent in technical devices and advanced sciences, they're ignored.</p><p>Nothing is wrong with either genre and, as box-office sales show, people eat it up regardless of which fare you put on their plates.&nbsp; In some cases, I think Science Fantasy might be more popular because people don't have to try to think about or digest how some sci-fi piece of gadgetry works.&nbsp; They're just duty bound to stare at the screen and munch popcorn. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Well folks, I'll tell ya something! The "Post Search" thingy on this website is a piece of crud!

I punched in "The difference between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy" and it basically told me that there were no matches!

I scrolled through a thousand posts from May 2008 (when I joined) to late June '08 to finally archaeologically dig this back up!*

Just for you newbies who missed it, as well as for myself and all the veterans around here.

I want to hear the newer folks' take on it.

*And I'm amazed at all the souls who come and go around here without ever really leaving a mark. So much information and personal knowledge WASTED! There should be a law! No one of any standing should be allowed to just abandon the community without first saying "goodbye"!; and the reasons WHY!

Anyway, that's another thing, and I think I'll start a thread pertaining to that over in Free Space. But for now, I hope those who missed this one read it, and THEN give your own original thoughts. (Please, no links.) Post your thoughts in your own words.

You will be graded by original content. (No laptops or I-Pads are allowed in Zen's class.)


It's been said--by whom originally I have no idea-- that Science Fantasy makes the impossible possible; and that Science Fiction makes the improbable plausible. Your thoughts?

 

[StarRider1701]

Re:

My only gripe is that I just can't find any convincing SF in the book stores at all.

Go to the biggest (downtown?) Public Library in your area. Walk the shelves of Fiction. Look for Azimov, Bradbury, Clark, Drake, Farmer, Gerrold, Heinlein... the list is nearly endless. Most of the books you will find are not in teh bookstores because they are no longer in print. But there is a LOT of great SF out there, including stories that deal with us in the near future right here in our own solar system. I've read many of them, starting out in the Library of my school.

 

[crazyeddie]

It's been said--by whom originally I have no idea-- that Science Fantasy makes the impossible possible; and that Science Fiction makes the improbable plausible. Your thoughts?

The difference between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy? It's hard to nail down. But, like Potter Stewart once said of what defines hard-core pornography, "I know it when I see it"!