[003]
supergod
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Made a few small edits so it looks more neutral. Not all science fiction fans are worried about the science aspect of the story. What is good or bad depeds on the reader, and there is absolutely no rule that it has to be dominated with science fact. As Brian Aldiss said, science fiction is no more written for scientists, than ghost stories are written for ghosts. For me, at least, science should be used as a means to get the story going, not the other way round, and with few exceptions most of the respected \
to:
Made a few small edits so it looks more neutral. Not all science fiction fans are worried about the science aspect of the story. What is good or bad depends on the reader, and there is absolutely no rule that it has to be dominated with science fact. I, and I know for a fact, others, feel that science should be used as a means to an end, not the other way round, and with few exceptions most of the respected \\\"literary\\\" SF authors after the \\\"Golden Age\\\" are not what most people would generally describe as hard science fiction - Banks, Le Guin, Phil Dick, Vance, Simmons, Wolfe, etc. Of course there are great hard SF writers as well, like Baxter, but for a lot of fans it seems getting the science right, or at least focusing a lot of time explaining the fictional science is more important than telling the story. Of course, there\\\'s a difference between deliberately altering the laws of physics and making genuine mistakes, but in the end it still shouldn\\\'t matter that much. A story that relies entirely on the strength of it\\\'s science probably isn\\\'t a very good story to begin with.
Another thing is that, despite the seeming prevalence of \\\"Hard SF only\\\" types (as seen on sites like Amazon), a lot of the major respected SF critics and writers tend to be more neutral about it or even opposed to the harder stuff (see [[http://punkadiddle.blogspot.com/2012/03/greg-egan-clockwork-rocket-orthogonal.html this]] and [[http://everythingisnice.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/proof-by-hal-clement/ this]] for examples).
Another thing is that, despite the seeming prevalence of \\\"Hard SF only\\\" types (as seen on sites like Amazon), a lot of the major respected SF critics and writers tend to be more neutral about it or even opposed to the harder stuff (see [[http://punkadiddle.blogspot.com/2012/03/greg-egan-clockwork-rocket-orthogonal.html this]] and [[http://everythingisnice.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/proof-by-hal-clement/ this]] for examples).
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Made a few small edits so it looks more neutral. Not all science fiction fans are worried about the science aspect of the story. What is good or bad depeds on the reader, and there is absolutely no rule that it has to be dominated with science fact. As Brian Aldiss said, science fiction is no more written for scientists, than ghost stories are written for ghosts. For me, at least, science should be used as a means to get the story going, not the other way round, and with few exceptions most of the respected \
to:
Made a few small edits so it looks more neutral. Not all science fiction fans are worried about the science aspect of the story. What is good or bad depeds on the reader, and there is absolutely no rule that it has to be dominated with science fact. As Brian Aldiss said, science fiction is no more written for scientists, than ghost stories are written for ghosts. For me, at least, science should be used as a means to get the story going, not the other way round, and with few exceptions most of the respected \\\"literary\\\" SF authors after the \\\"Golden Age\\\" have been more or less \\\"soft\\\" - Banks, Le Guin, McDonald, Phil Dick, Card, Simmons, Wolfe, etc. Of course there are great hard SF writers as well, like Baxter, but for a lot of fans it seems getting the science right, or at least focusing a lot of time explaining the fictional science is more important than telling the story.
Another thing is that, despite the seeming prevalence of \\\"Hard SF only\\\" types (as seen on sites like Amazon), a lot of the major respected SF critics and writers tend to be more neutral about it or even opposed to the harder stuff (see [[http://punkadiddle.blogspot.com/2012/03/greg-egan-clockwork-rocket-orthogonal.html this]] and [[http://everythingisnice.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/proof-by-hal-clement/ this]] for examples).
Another thing is that, despite the seeming prevalence of \\\"Hard SF only\\\" types (as seen on sites like Amazon), a lot of the major respected SF critics and writers tend to be more neutral about it or even opposed to the harder stuff (see [[http://punkadiddle.blogspot.com/2012/03/greg-egan-clockwork-rocket-orthogonal.html this]] and [[http://everythingisnice.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/proof-by-hal-clement/ this]] for examples).
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Made a few small edits so it looks more neutral. Not all science fiction fans are worried about the science aspect of the story. What is good or bad depeds on the reader, and there is absolutely no rule that it has to be dominated with science fact. As Brian Aldiss said, science fiction is no more for scientists, than ghost stories are for ghosts. For me, at least, science should be used as a means to get the story going, not the other way round, and with few exceptions most of the respected \
to:
Made a few small edits so it looks more neutral. Not all science fiction fans are worried about the science aspect of the story. What is good or bad depeds on the reader, and there is absolutely no rule that it has to be dominated with science fact. As Brian Aldiss said, science fiction is no more written for scientists, than ghost stories are written for ghosts. For me, at least, science should be used as a means to get the story going, not the other way round, and with few exceptions most of the respected \\\"literary\\\" SF authors after the \\\"Golden Age\\\" have been more or less \\\"soft\\\" - Banks, Le Guin, McDonald, Phil Dick, Card, Simmons, Wolfe, etc. Of course there are great hard SF writers as well, like Egan, but for a lot of fans it seems getting the science right, or at least focusing a lot of time explaining the fictional science is more important than telling the story.
