Okay, DSYoungEsq tell me what the error was in Niven’s “Neutron Star”. I remember the story pretty well and I didn’t notice any errors, but you’ve gotten me curious.
Well said, DSY. One point of clarification, though–you say
I think it’s important to realize that “advance” covers a lot of ground. Sometimes that can mean simply “if things continue as they have, what will be the results.” A good example off the top of my head is Harry Harrisin’s Make Room! Make Room! (made into Soylent Green, for you non-geeks), in which the primary hook is “if population keeps increasing as it is now, what might happen?”
-andros-
Just because I’m a nitpicker, I’d think a larger complaint would be that you could breed for luck at all – that luck is somehow determined by genetics. In fact, that luck even exists, in the way people commonly refer to it. To say that someone is “lucky” is purely descriptive, and has no predictive value. A person has had many fortunate events happen – but as long as future events are independent, there should be no effect on the likelihood of future lucky advances.
Not that I didn’t really enjoy Ringworld, but I just found it really funny that in judging the quality of a book’s science, people are willing to let slide the concept that we could be bred in such a way that the universe would be nicer to us.
Or should I start a thread questioning the existence of luck?
Well, Keenan, I don’t think there are any problems there. It might prove to be incorrect, but it was consistent. Niven postulated A) the existentce of paranormal “esper” abilities, and B) that luck as exhibited by Teela Brown was one of those abilities.
Further, 2sense, this answers your issue with it as well. The Lottery was selecting for luck, that is, was finding the high-end members of the “luck-bearing” existing population. Don’t confuse this with evolution. The abilities existed already. Teela happened to be the extreme of the curve–as Cecil Adams is to intelligence, so is Teela to luck.
Again, I’m not saying it’s right, or that Niven doesn’t have problems with his science (Mercury nor rotating, for example, or the Earth rotating the wrong direction). But the Teela Brown Effect is fairly consistent.
-andros-
I’d like to apologize to DSYoungEsq - I tried to get into MPSIMS several times to post a link to here, but as many of you know, MPSIMS had once again crossed the space-warp barrier into another dimension, possibly the twilight zone . . .
So, I didn’t mean to leave you out or talk about you behind your back, DS - I was thwarted in my intentions by a contrary message board gremlin. Glad you found your way here anyway!
It’s not that I don’t see DS’s, and others’, points about scientific accuracy in science fiction. I’m just not as sure about where the line should be drawn as to what constitutes scientific accuracy, and how important absolute accuracy is in relation to the rest of the story’s components.
Until DS pointed it out, I was totally unaware of any scientific inconsistency in the Dragonrider books. (I did wonder about the lack of Threadfall at night, but assumed there was a good explanation for it!) I have no background whatsoever in physics and only high school level astronomy (I know what a black hole is) and don’t even know if DS’s criticism is correct - there may be an argument that accounts for the way Threadfall occurs that I’m completely unaware of. I DO know enough to see that he is quite possibly correct.
However, to me the mechanics of Threadfall aren’t really central to the story being told, and I’m perfectly willing to allow that to be glossed over for the sake of what is, to me, what the books are really about - the unique bond between humans and dragons, the type of culture that developed due to both the threat of Thread and the dragon/human relationship, and how the individuals in that society coped with their situation. Their have actually been several inconsistencies there that I’ve overlooked for the sake of the story because I knew the author was trying to deal with some poor decisions made in the earlier books (obviously, this was NOT a planned series!). Kinda like comparing LoTR to The Hobbit.
As Ptahlis said:
THIS is why I read science fiction - what would happen if some sort of FTL travel was discovered tomorrow? What if either friendly or hostile aliens showed up on our doorstep? What if we discover the secret to immortality? What would an intelligent species evolved from plants be like, what sort of society would they have, and how would humans relate to them? etc.
Maybe McCaffrey’s physical science is poor, but in my opinion her development of Pern society and especially the Dragonrider subculture is fascinating and entirely plausible.
Certainly, obvious errors that anyone with a high school education or a lick of common sense will notice will ruin a story, whether it be a book or a movie. It jars the reader out of the fictional world they have entered and destroys the ‘compact’ of ‘suspended disbelief’ entered into by the reader and the author.
BUT - I have a very specialized and intimate knowledge of cats, both their biology and their behavior. I constantly see errors in all kinds of fiction whenever cats are mentioned, but rarely do I do more than snort a little and continue reading, because I realize that very few people have that sort of knowledge and I don’t expect every author that wants to mention cats to research them to the extent that I have.
However, if a major point of the story revolves around the cat in some way, and the author’s information is incorrect, then I will probably put the book down in disgust and move on to something else. In a previous post, DS said something along the lines of “if you’re going to write science fiction, you should know science”. Well, if you’re gonna write about cats, you should know something about cats!
And in order to compete with Notthemama for post length, I’ll provide an example. Several people recommended a book to me called Tailchaser’s Song, supposedly about the secret feline culture unsuspected by humans. A few pages into the page, the title character meets another cat described as a male calico. And that’s it. No other comments by the author, no comments from Tailchaser - nothing. This male cat was described as a calico just as though it were brown or something. I put the book down in disgust and didn’t waste my time reading it.
Why? Because anyone who knew very much about cats at all would know that a male calico is a very rare genetic anomaly, and would not have introduced one into the story without at least some comment on the fact, and most likely a specific intent in doing so.
If this had occurred (and it has) in another sort of book, I would just have snorted and continued reading. However,in this case the author is claiming enough knowledge of cats to create a plausible secret feline society - and right off the bat indicates to me that he doesn’t know enough about cats to do a very good job of that. Why should I waste my time reading any further and doubtless become even more aggravated at the author’s ignorance? (If it were my book, a male calico would be some sort of special creature, maybe with some sort of unusual powers, because they are rare and unusual creatures to begin with.)
I’m sure a lot of people read that book with great enjoyment, but I just couldn’t get past those first few pages - dammit, if you are going to claim specialized knowledge, then you should have it! But I ‘science’ in general is too large a field to be overly critical of minor glitches or a little ‘poetic license’ on the part of a fiction author.
God is love. Love is blind. Ray Charles is blind. Therefore, Ray Charles is God.
-
There are thousands of definition of “science fiction.” None work (with one exception). The problem, as Samuel R. Delany has pointed out, that it’s impossible to construct a definition that includes everything you consider science fiction and excludes everything you do not. The only definition that works is “science fiction is what I’m talking about when I point and say ‘that is science fiction.’”
-
For a science fiction author, the answer is simpler. A science fiction story is one where, if you removed the speculative element, the story wouldn’t work.
-
Science fiction is a subset of fantasy. The only difference is that science fiction assumes that there is a scientific explanation for its magic. (See Christopher Stasheff’s Warlock books to see this clearly. All science fiction – yet with fantasy terminology.)
-
Science fiction is not about science. No one really cared if the science was accurate until Hal Clement came along (well, maybe Jules Verne). It was routine for hard science fiction writers (like Heinlein, for example) to ignore scientific accuracy if it got in the way of the story. The number of truly accurate SF books – ones that stick only to scientific fact – is a very small part of the genre, and even Clement is willing to accept things like FTL travel when necessary.
-
Science fiction writers don’t have to know all that much science. And good science fiction only needs enough science to make the story work. The three most honored SF writers ever – Connie Willis, Harlan Ellison, and Fritz Leiber – were not exactly hard science advocates.
-
It’s silly to stop reading a book just because of a minor factual error. I recall one SF book that gave a male Russian a female last name. So what? Larry Niven once had the Earth turning in the wrong direction; that didn’t stop Ringworld from becoming an instant classic. If you’re going to feel that way, better stay away from movies, too.
-
Science fiction, like any literature, it ultimately about people. It’s not about the science; it’s about how people react to that science.
-
Trying to use “science” in a definition of “science fiction” has little to do with defining the genre. See Samuel R. Delany’s “red scramer” analogy in his essay at the end of Triton. Briefly, Chip assumes that a bunch of children hear the siren of a fire truck and call it a “red screamer.” Over the years the children use the term to denote a fire truck. Finally someone asks why. “Because it’s red and it screams.” But that definition has nothing to to with what a “red screamer” is. Similarly, explaining “science” and “fiction” does little to explain “science fiction.”
This is highly amusing. When Niven was first writing, he was considered one of the best and most rigorous at hard SF (even with the Earth rotation error in Ringworld). Most of his best work is fine hard SF (though the scientific facts are now known to be different).
Breeding for luck, BTW (if such a thing were possible) does not fly in the face of evolution. When you breed for something, you can get the traits you want much more quickly. The thoroughbred horse didn’t exist 200 years ago. Evolution couldn’t have created it in 200 years, but it does exist.
–
Chuck Rothman
Treasurer-elect (presumptive), Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America http://www.sff.net/people/rothman
You know, I remember reading an essay in an old edition of Alfred Bester’s The Stars My Destination, and he argued that if you wanted a space ship in your story, just – Boom! Put a space ship in your story. He argued that nobody wants to read a fifty page explanation of how the engines work, because that’s not a story, it’s a tech manual. If you, as author, write with enough authority and confidence, your reader will buy into anything as long as it’s a “good yarn” and says something about being human.
I agree. It’s like Tom Clancy, who writes pages describing submarine torpedos and inserts the entire history of the development of the AK-47 right in the middle of a scene where someone’s getting shot. I don’t care. Where’s the story?
I agree with Notthemama when it comes to criteria, here. Is the World the author’s created INTERNALLY consistent? That’s the only question that matters. That’s why I don’t mind, say, a Heinlein story set on a swampy Venus. Does it contradict itself? No. Does it contradict our current, known reality? Sure, but then, so does every science fiction story, no matter how many pages of technical goo-gah you get trying to “prove” that a ray gun could work.
I mean, as far as we know, a lightsaber’s impossible right? How does the light “stop,” come to a “point”? But if you’re watching the lightsaber battle in Empire Strike’s Back and Darth is knocking hell out of Luke, and you find yourself thinking that, well, you have no soul. Why are you even there? Did you come to the theatre to learn about lightsabers? If you did, and you’re dismissing the movie because it doesn’t meet that expectation, that’s your fault. You should have known enough, known better, and looked elsewhere.
It simply isn’t fair to say a story’s not any good because it doesn’t meet criteria it was never intended to fulfill.
I like Roger Zelazny, myself. I don’t care what you call him – science fiction writer, science-fantasy, fantasy, whatever. He writes a good story. People dismiss him because his science isn’t “hard.” But was it ever intended to be? Nope. Is that the world, the rules, he’s sets up? Nope. His worlds are internally consistent. If you don’t like him, if you’re not interested in that type of world, fine, great, but don’t tell me he’s “lousy” because he doesn’t write hard science. He doesn’t write what YOU like, that’s all. You should have looked elsewhere.
I dislike “hard technological science fiction”, but if I read one, I would come to the table prepared to evaluate it on its own merits.
If I didn’t, I’d be trying to force a square peg in a round hole, and getting angry at the peg because it wasn’t working.
If I’m reading you all right, it seems like most everybody agrees that a ton of great SF writers are not “hard science fiction” writers. So science fiction doesn’t have to be hard to be good.
The point is taken, but it makes me wonder who y’all would consider to be a hard science fiction writer?
This goes straight to the heart of why I’m not the SF target audience. My big problem with Clancy is that the guy shouldn’t be writing stories in the first place; he should be writing fictional histories and ditch “character development” altogether. My biggest problem with Starship Troopers was, I couldn’t figure out how the spaceships got around so fast. He pointed out that “stupid races don’t build spaceships” when describing the arachnids, without ever giving any details. Did a queen and a bunch of brains pack their bags and hope on board? Were the ships built underground in the colony? I was curious.
One of my favorite SF books is the “technical manual” (can’t remember the exact title) for the Space Marines from Aliens. When reading fiction of any kind, I’m usually wishing for more maps, more specs, a glossary, timeline, and a bunch of other stuff, and less plot, characterization, and dialogue. Not that I really expect people to write that way, since I’m not much of a market.
Oh, yes you are, *Boris. Hie thee to a game store and pick up some RPG manuals!
Coosa: excellent analogy. You knew enough about cats to be upset at some basic and idiotic mistakes. Some folks read “hard” SF and get upset that the top quarks don’t spin the right direction.
Point being, if you write about cats, get the cats right. If you write about science, get the science right. You’re correct that science is a really big field, but no one even tries to cover it all at once.
Not everything needs to be explained. If the author of Tailchaser’s hadn’t mentioned that the cat was calico, you’d have kept on going, right? But s/he threw it in, and screwed it up. Similarly, if I write a SF story and say that all the carbon turned radioactive overnight, I’d be in the remainder bins so fast it’d make my head spin.
Which leads to Chuck:
And NO MORE THAN THAT! Once an author goes into detail about stuff s/he doesn’t understand, the story is gonna die.
-andros-
Hal Clement, of course. Larry Niven. Poul Anderson (TAU ZERO, for instance). William Gibson, in his own way (most of the cyberpunks are quite well grounded in science). Bruce Sterling. Greg Benford. Arthur C. Clarke. Stephen Baxter. Jules Verne.
“What we have here is failure to communicate.” – Strother Martin, anticipating the Internet.
Blue Mars comes to mind. ARRRGH!
Tinker
From Boris B:
I sure didn’t catch it, either, when I read the story. But I’ll try to explain it quickly.
In the story, as you’ll recall, Beowulf Shaefer (sp?) is sent in a General Products hulled ship around a neutron star. Previous attempt resulted in squished astronauts in nose of ship. As he arrives at the star, Beowulf realizes he is being affected by the tidal forces of the star, which will pull him into the nose of the ship (or send him to its tail) unless he can manage to remain at the center of the ship (long boring discussion of tidal forces omitted here). He accomplishes this, and lives.
Except that the ship wouldn’t just complete the pass of the neutron star nose down: the tidal forces would cause it to spin as it passes the star, resulting in the hero being forced to maintain his position until such time as the ship could manage to cease the spinning. This all gets quite technical, and I have never bothered to try and do the equations myself.
Now, I rarely do the following, but in this case I feel compelled. I’m gonna take on point by point the post of Reality Chuck.
Absolute nonsense. I constructed a perfectly good definition, and those things that don’t fit it I don’t consider to be ‘science fiction’. The fact that my definition of ‘science fiction’ doesn’t match what someone else considers science fiction doesn’t invalidate the definition one bit.
This is true of all fiction. So what? It doesn’t address what makes the fiction ‘science fiction’ as opposed to a western or a crime novel or a mystery or ‘fanatsy’ (and, yes, a story can be part of more than one genre).
Actually, only true if you define ‘fantasy’ as that which doesn’t presently exist. As I think I presented, I think of ‘fantasy’ writing as writing that involves elements that are totally imaginary, rather than simply extensions of presently existing principles or objects. As an example, a story about dragons is fantasy (no such creature), a story about robots is not (we have robots), a story about robots on a world surrounding a distant star that doesn’t derive from the expansion of humans through the galaxy is both fantasy and science fiction, potentially. This is why the Honor Harrington novels are not science fiction, but, rather, fantasy.
This misunderstands the idea behind science fiction. It isn’t just about postulating what is likely to happen, based on what we know: it often involves postulating that which is highly unlikely to happen, but which consists of some sort of advance, discovery or breakthrough. In The Roads Must Roll, Heinlein was not seriously advocating that mechanized roads were the future of the United States. That didn’t make it bad science fiction; au contraire the fact the future as postulated was so different from the probably future was what made it so interesting. As I pointed out, faster than light travel isn’t known to be impossible, it’s just thought to be impossible based on what we currently understand. And even so, the number of writers of really good science fiction that still talk about travelling faster than light by some sort of ‘field’ or ‘drive’ is rapidly dwindling away to nothing; usually the methodology involves warping or folding space. Is it likely? No. Is it impossible? We don’t know yet.
First of all, provide documentation those three are the ‘most honored SF writers ever’ (and don’t quote Nebulas and Hugos cause they didn’t exist in the heyday of SF writing). Second, you are correct that you don’t HAVE to know alot of science, but I find it interesting that a goodly number of the most successful ‘hard’ science fiction writers were people with enormous understanding of science, including Asimov, Heinlein and Niven. And trust me: if Harlan Ellison wrote about a thing, he damn well learned what he DID need to know. There isn’t a pickier writer in all of the world about that sort of thing.
I would agree. I never advocated anything of the sort, nor has anyone else who posted. I entered into a discussion of great science fiction by asserting that Anne McCaffrey was not a great science fiction writer, because her stories are riddled with numerous errors of scientific nature. I have noted that I like her stories and read most of them, I just don’t think they are ‘great’.
This is nothing more than restating your first point in a different way, and I will again point out that to assert that you can’t define ‘science fiction’ as fiction involving scientific advances, discoveries or breakthroughs etc. and their effect on society because it is tautalogical misunderstands the meaning of the definition.
Now, I am sorry if this flies in the face of the ‘presumptive’ opinion of the SFFWA. But, frankly, given that the ‘science fiction’ genre was long ago overtaken by all the Tolkein wannabes, I am not surprised. The popularity of ‘fantasy’ literature is undeniable. But you don’t take something that is dark grey and make it light grey just by putting it next to a lot of white stuff. 
You’re arguing that you have your own personal definition of SF, which is obvious; everyone does. However, once you articulate what that definition is, you will find stories that you consider SF not to be and those you don’t consider SF to fit. No one has yet constructed a written definition that covers all cases of everything he considers SF only.
It addresses quite specifically what editors are looking for when you submit a science fiction story. If the “science fictional” element is not essential, then it’s not science fiction.
All fiction is fantasy – it describes things that don’t exist. Science fiction merely assumes a scientific explanation for fantasy principles. If aliens fly because they evolved wings, then its science fiction. If they fly because they say a magic spell, it’s fantasy. But in both cases you flying aliens. So the fact that there is a scientific basis has nothing to do with the story. And plenty of fine SF stories were based on bad science (especially the older ones – read Van Vogt or Doc Smith).
And if tomorrow it’s shown that there is absolutely no possible way to go faster than light, do the stories stop being science fiction? Nonsense. The stories haven’t changed.
I’m going by awards simply because there’s no other way to judge. Also, the earlier SF writers were even less concerned with scientific accuracy. Look at Smith, Van Vogt, Bradbury, etc.
Sure, “hard” sf writers have a strong knowledge of science. (Can you say “tautology”?). But there are many great SF writers don’t write hard SF, including many of the best writers of the current day. Look at, say Octavia Butler, Chip Delany, Maureen McHugh, Ted Chiang, Mike Resnick, etc.
That’s true of any SF writer. But in every case, when caught between science and fiction, the science was always jettisoned. Asimov always admitted that his “positronic brain” was complete and utter fantasy, for instance, with no basis on scientific fact. Heinlein portrayed Venus in ways known to be incorrect at the time he wrote about it. Indeed, one of the weakest part of the older SF stories is the technobabble the put in to try to convince the reader that there really really really is a scientific principle behind what they’re portraying.
Let’s assume than that your definition is “fiction involving scientific, advances, discoveries, or breakthroughs and their effect on society.” That means a story about Eli Whitney the cotton gin fits your definition. Any contemporary novel involving the Internet is SF under your definition. At the same time, RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA is not science fiction under this definition, since what it portrays has no effect on society.
That’s the problem I was referring to.
Ah yes. The holy grail of science fiction, the pure and honest literature, has been corrupted by infidels. I’ve seen that bit of ignorant snobbery many a time, and it is based on false assmptions.
Read the Golden Age SF – the science there is all too often glossed over or fanciful. Heinlein (and Niven) wrote about time travel, both knowing it was impossible, but everyone called it science fiction. Heinlein wrote STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND – obviously not scientifically accurate even when it was published. Asimov often indicated that his robots weren’t scientific, but merely a way to pose interesting questions. Bradbury used very little science at all. Alfred Bester wrote THE STARS MY DESTINATION, considered by some to be the best science fiction novel ever, using a concept (“jaunting”) which has no scientific basis, and no one cared (same for THE DEMOLISHED MAN). Van Vogt, of course, didn’t care about the science – and was one of the three most popular names of the Golden Age.
The list goes on.
Science fiction is always willing to use science, but to think good science is the most important thing is narrow minded and ignorant of the history of the genre. The ironic thing is that you’re using precisely the defintion I suggested – “SF is what I am talking about what I point and say ‘this is SF.’”
This debate is starting to sound like others I have heard adn been in. On the one hand, there are folks who want a very narrow definition, and on the other there are those who want to include everyone who might be called sci-fi writers in passing. After a lot of reflection over the years and arguing with my friends I took the easy way out and adopted both.
The “soft” SF writers were called “Tolkien wannabes” in a post above. Ironically, Tolkien is my favorite author ever, and I’ve collected any- and everything Tolkien-related since the sixth grade. I read both SF and fantasy, but the ratio of SF books to fantasy books is about 10 to 1, because so much of the fantasy genre is being taken over by Danielle Steel wannabes! For every original work, like the Covenant series, there are dozens of boy-defeats-evil-overlord-and-wins-the-girl books, but I digress.
Basically, I’m willing to let anything that wants to be science fiction be science fiction. As a working definition, the publishers, movie makers, and authors have made SF a broad and inclusive field, and I’m OK with that. That doesn’t mean that I read all that stuff. What I read is more closely aligned with what the purists would offer. I like my SF hard for the most part, with all the scientific exposition thrown in that the story will bear. (Internal consistency is necessary of ALL fiction, so I don’t think it needs to be stated as a qualification of SF. It is, or should be, assumed.) I, however, don’t think it advances literature or SF to be too narrow in defining the necessary qualifications. Just because I gravitate toward the “purer” side doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the soft side occasionally. “Stranger in a Strange Land” is hardly SF if you use the narrower definitions, but as the first SF novel ever to top the best seller list, it advanced the field enormously by being the first introduction many people had to SF beyond the ‘rocketships and rayguns’ stereotype. And despite Heinlein’s spotty record, he wrote a damn good book there despite the lack of real science. And that, to me anyway, is the point. Even if you want to divide the genre into hard SF, soft SF, and “future fantasy”, there are excellent examples in each category, as well as the 90% crap that has and always will exist.
Hmm, I think here is where we encountered a misunderstanding. I didn’t think the original topic (Favorite SF/Fantasy books) was limited to what we considered ‘great’ - just what we enjoyed reading. Interestingly enough, although I enjoy McCaffrey’s books, I don’t consider them ‘great’ - just wonderfully entertaining and interesting. As a matter of fact, I was careful when listing my choices not to categorize any of them as either SF or fantasy, because I think there is a really blurry line there sometimes. The “Pern” books are SF, but certainly not ‘hard’ SF. But they’re definitely not fantasy, either.
DS, if you’ve not read them yet, you might try McCaffrey’s FT&T series (Federated Telepath & Teleportation). Talk about a unique way of traveling FTL! And much, much more ‘science fictiony’ than the Pern books.
I think andros pretty much understood what I as talking about as far as accuracy. If you don’t know enough about something, don’t include specifics in your writing. If McCaffrey had made a big deal out of the orbital mechanics of the Red Star and tried to explain it and Threadfall in detail, and she got it wrong, it would have ruined the story (providing I had the knowledge to recognize the errors). However, she never really tried to justify the science behind this, just said ‘here it is - accept it’. Here again, we encounter the ‘willing suspension of disbelief’. I’m willing to accept her proposal in order to enjoy the books.
My limited scientific education is biology-oriented, and while I’m no expert, I could certainly pick some holes in the “Pern” series. BUT, I’m willing to accept that ‘it happened like this’ because, well, she doesn’t try to go into a lot of detail and explain these things, so it doesn’t ruin the story. There’s room for speculation as to why and how certain things occurred, and it’s actually kind of fun to try to think up explanations for them.
Heck, Niven used this device all of the time - ‘the Puppeteers manufactured indestructable space ship hulls, but they kept the process a big secret so I don’t have to explain it.’ Religion uses God/gods to explain ‘impossible’ things, fantasy uses magic, and SF uses intelligent, incredibly advanced aliens. (I think this is the same thing RealityChuck just said.)
My opinion is that if you’re going to be extremely picky about ‘accuracy’ in science fiction, you might as well kill of the entire genre. Speculation would be limited to what is possible or plausible by current scientific knowledge and the whole field would become incredibly boring. I prefer to take my SF with a big dose of ‘in an infinite universe, anything is possible’. And assume that the universe is infinite or pretty darn close.
BTW, you might be interested in the SF definition one of my high school English teachers used. First of all, he had a category he called ‘futuristic fiction’, which, IIRC, had to 1) occur more than 50 years in the future and 2) include some sort of definite sociological and/or technological difference. He then broke this down into two categories: speculative fiction and science fiction. Science fiction was anything that had a space ship in it! Fahrenheit 451 was considered speculative fiction; Stranger in a Strange Land was considered SF because space ships ‘existed’ in the book (even though they did not play any real part in the story).
Oh, god, where to begin.
RealityChuck, you fail to comprehend my meaning utterly. I never postulated that the scientific breathrough, discovery, or advance had to be POSSIBLE; the best science fiction often includes what seems to be IMPOSSIBLE. got it???
This should clear up your quibbles with my assertions.
Now to some minor points. My definition includes all that I consider science fiction. If it doesn’t meet the definition, I don’t call it Science Fiction. Duh. The fact others might consider it such is simply an indication that the ignorant masses will often attach lables to things that aren’t included. Therefor, MY definition does quite well, thank you. You can try postulating examples of ‘science fiction’ that don’t fit my example if you like.
Heinlein’s juvenile science fiction wasn’t great by ANY definition. It was juvenile. Therefor, describing swamp creatures on Venus, which was considered unlikely even in the times he wrote, was, as you note, poor science fiction. I agree. It even had elements of fantasy, and to that I also agree.
Asimov’s positronic brain may well be something that he didn’t seriously consider likely to be invented, but that doesn’t make it NOT science fiction. A story about Eli Whitney and the cotton gin today wouldn’t be science fiction, but written before he invented it, or before its effects on society were known WOULD have been science fiction. Again, this is pretty elemental; failing to understand this shows you didn’t comprehend the idea.
NOT all fiction is fantasy. As I stated, and you ignored, fantasy is something more than just the unreal; it is the totally imagined, as opposed to the fictional depiction of what already exists. Malafrena is fantasy; the place didn’t exist and although it is allegorical (referring to 1800’s revolutionary Europe), it isn’t about something that existed. Tess of the D’Urbervilles is fictional, but not fantasy; it is set in a place that exists (England) and is merely a fictional depiction of life in that place. The Man in the High Castle is arguably fantasy, because although it starts with a historical situation, it takes it to an imagined conclusion based on unreal events, but if you didn’t want to consider it fantasy, that would be okay, too.
Rendevous with Rama DOES address the effect of the discovery on society; it does so through the medium of its effect on the characters in the story. Let’s not be stupidly narrow in our attempts to apply the definition I am working by. :rolleyes: Mind you, I always thought that story a bit on the wierd side, but the Clarke was always a bit out there.
Now rather than misunderstand or misconstrue what I am saying, how about addressing the actuality of my assertions. I am ready to accept that not everyone will agree with what I consider to be the hallmarks of great science fiction; let’s hear WHY.
DSY, I appreciate what you are saying here when you try to define what constitutes “true” science fiction. In fact, I agree with it really. However, the generally accepted use of the term science fiction is far broader than the more exacting definition you use.
It’s almost beginning to sound like the hacker/cracker debate. The public has long ago decided that “hacker” applies to anyone who gets into a computer’s software guts and monkeys around, whether for good or ill. The geek crowd cries out “No!” and asserts that hackers are the good guys and crackers are the bad guys and so forth. It doesn’t matter at this point. The battle is over. In their societal segment they may well make the distinction, but in the larger world the accepted definition of “hacker” is set. Same goes here. Since the whole rest of the world uses the inclusive definition of SF, I find it only practical to do so as well, and then I refer to the subset you define as SF as “hard” SF. This seems to be the way that best keeps the peace and eliminates confusion amongst the SF community as a whole.