YAHOO users are idiots

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
That's all fine and dandy, but that's not what makes something science fiction. That's part of what makes something hard science fiction.

And what is HARD FANTASY? Because in the end all scifi is fantasitical.

Not that this question is new:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_science_fiction

I agree with Heinlein and John W. Campbell. There must be some sort of speculation about what mankind might face due ot its own technological advances for it to be sci fi. Any story set nowhere near humanity is irrelevant. Hell, everyone in Star Wars is an alien, given that Luke Skywalker and family simply can't be human.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Wait, so if you call something SF, it is?? Good one.

If most people call something SF, it is, yes. That's kind of how language works.

Also, quoting a wiki for evidence in a nonfactual debate... icing on the cake.

Quoting a wiki as evidence of what people seem to believe is a bad thing?

[q="Robert Sawyer"]Succinctly: there's discontinuity between our reality and fantasy; there's continuity between our reality and science fiction.

[q="Isaac Asimov"][S]cience fiction, given its grounding in science, is possible; fantasy, which has no grounding in reality, is not. [/q]

That's the key element. SF starts with the possible, and speculates what might happen; Fantasy ignores the possible, and just describes an entirely unhindered universe. SF is an effective tool for discussing sociological issues such as the reaction to change, the reaction specifically to technology, and the actions of people in different, often nearly unimaginably different, situations, such as post-scarcity or long-time-delay FTL or STL transit. Fantasy often avoids quite such complex subjects, as much fantasy is escapist, but plenty of fantasy deals with moral questions as well; but it deals with questions typically related to moral character or religion, primarily due to its setting.[/q]

That is, of course, a terrible definition, since it means that nothing Asimov wrote is science fiction. It also means 99% of stuff with FTL in it is automatically disqualified from being science fiction.

My point about not caring what non-sf readers think, is simply that they're not going to know the difference, any more than you'd know the difference between different kinds of romance novel. (My bookstore experience, sadly, leads me to know things like that... sigh ... ) Plenty of people can have opinions on things, but that doesn't make them right, any more than it made most of the world right when slavery was legal, or thinking the world is flat...

Words are defined by how people use them. So, unlike slavery, which is appealing to morality, or the shape of the world, which is appealing to reality... the definition of science fiction is just appealing to "what do people generally mean when they call something science fiction".

and it doesn't really matter, either, because not only is genre largely irrelevant (I know what I like, fantasy or SF, and if it pleases me to make a distinction, I will); it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the novels, nor generally my ability to find or purchase them. So, if you prefer to think of them the same, so be it... that's up to you I've named a difference (multiple differences, arriving from the same basic difference) that I'm comfortable with, and I think correctly defines novels (and movies) that are definitely one or the other.

And of course you're welcome to keep using that difference, and have most people look at you oddly when you say things like "Star Wars isn't science fiction", because you might as well be saying "The sky isn't blue" followed by a detailed explanation of what you think blue means and how the sky doesn't qualify.

Regardless, if you don't see a difference between SF and Fantasy, stay out of the debate of whether Star Wars is SF or Fantasy ... since you don't see a difference, you shouldn't care which outcome is chosen by those of us who do

1) If I didn't see a difference, then I would necessarily hold the position that Star Wars is either neither or both. Since everyone here agrees SW is definitely a form of fantasy, I would necessarily hold the position that SW is both.

2) I never said there wasn't a difference between SF and Fatnasy; I said there wasn't any line between them, and that they have a huge area of overlap. Despite this, it's clear that there are some works which are solely science fiction (say, the Integral Trees) and some works which are solely fantasy (LOTR).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
And what is HARD FANTASY? Because in the end all scifi is fantasitical.

Why does there have to be something called hard fantasy? the hard/soft distinction doesn't make much sense applied to fantasy. It's difficult enough to apply across all science fiction.

I agree with Heinlein and John W. Campbell. There must be some sort of speculation about what mankind might face due ot its own technological advances for it to be sci fi. Any story set nowhere near humanity is irrelevant. Hell, everyone in Star Wars is an alien, given that Luke Skywalker and family simply can't be human.

Tough. Like snoopy, you are consigned to using a word in a way different from the vast majority of everyone else, out of misguided, petulant genre partisanship.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by GePap


And what is HARD FANTASY? Because in the end all scifi is fantasitical.

Not that this question is new:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_science_fiction

I agree with Heinlein and John W. Campbell. There must be some sort of speculation about what mankind might face due ot its own technological advances for it to be sci fi. Any story set nowhere near humanity is irrelevant. Hell, everyone in Star Wars is an alien, given that Luke Skywalker and family simply can't be human.

Heh, you also agree with L. Ron.

Scientologist.

ACK!

[rah]

Technically I have to agree with snoopy, there has to be 'what if' based on a scientific advance for it to be true science fiction. But as almost everyone here as declared, the definition has expanded to include what has been called space opera, which is a story that could be told in almost any era but is told in future setting. Definitions are modified as people need them to, and so the definition here has also. But to me, I always differenciate when discussing movies or books between science fiction, space opera, and sf military but use the generic sci-fi to cover it all. The term sci-fi was originally used as an insult to geeks. It's usage has changed over time.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Why does there have to be something called hard fantasy? the hard/soft distinction doesn't make much sense applied to fantasy. It's difficult enough to apply across all science fiction.

Only if your definition of science fiction is so broad as to include stuff that shouldn't.

Tough. Like snoopy, you are consigned to using a word in a way different from the vast majority of everyone else, out of misguided, petulant genre partisanship.

Actually, the better way to put it is that you are with the ignorant masses that couldn't generally tell their ass ffrom their head - you know, the folks that consider there to be a "debate" on evolution and such.

I am with the people who invented the term about this genre, and if that makes me a "genre partisan," then so be it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
And what is HARD FANTASY?

Fan-fic tends to be.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually, the better way to put it is that you are with the ignorant masses that couldn't generally tell their ass ffrom their head - you know, the folks that consider there to be a "debate" on evolution and such.

I am with the people who invented the term about this genre, and if that makes me a "genre partisan," then so be it.

See, you really are elitist like I said and about the stupidest thing possible - the meaning of a word. It is both pathetic and hilarious.

[Asher]

The punchline is GePap is a paper-pushing civil servant elitist.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


See, you really are elitist like I said and about the stupidest thing possible - the meaning of a word. It is both pathetic and hilarious.

I have no problem with being an elitist - better than being a dumbass, and the meaning of words do matter, quite a lot actually. People who aren't able to see that, well, I can only pity them.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher
The punchline is GePap is a paper-pushing civil servant elitist.

Wow, how stale can your attempts at "wit" get?

[Asher]

That's not wit nor an attempt at it, GePap.

I'm just observing that someone who acts like an elitist should at least have some reason for it on a basic level.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher
That's not wit nor an attempt at it, GePap.

I'm just observing that someone who acts like an elitist should at least have some reason for it on a basic level.

I have plenty of reasons to feel elitist, least of which is I don't have to pretend to be a worthwhile human being, unlike yourself.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap


I have plenty of reasons to feel elitist, least of which is I don't have to pretend to be a worthwhile human being, unlike yourself.

You don't have to pretend because you clearly make no attempt to do so.

I'm not even sure what kind of idiot makes comments about "pretending to be worthwhile human beings". It seems to me like the a comparable person who makes judgments of another person's worth as a human was Hitler. Good day, Godwin.

[rah]

I think we need to throttle this one back a touch.

Let's get back on topic.