tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996609237882090723.post1744644449905483486..comments2024-01-13T02:28:25.074-04:00Comments on Physicists of the Caribbean: Sci-fi Versus FantasyRhysyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13219113442790412792noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996609237882090723.post-40428764638000296262020-11-09T05:00:59.363-04:002020-11-09T05:00:59.363-04:00Yeah, I'm not at all happy with the labels her...Yeah, I'm not at all happy with the labels here. I thought about redoing it but I got lazy. I definitely prefer "soft" to "weak".<br /><br />I wouldn't draw a line though, I'd paint a fuzzy mess ! Moodust is essentially a thriller that happens to be set in space. The minutate of the story is hard sci-fi but the main thrust of it is more of an action-adventure. Foundation I would class as a straightforward "proper" sci-fi : psychological/sociological sci-fi rather than the the traditional physics-based sci-fi, but the story is very much dependent on fictitious science.<br /><br />I would judge the plausibility based on what was known at the time. Jules Verne is definitely hard sci-fi even though some of the ideas have now been discredited - the intention was to follow the science of the time, which by its very nature is something that isn't static but changes according to the evidence. In contrast, when a writer knowingly places the story above the current scientific understanding, they're softening it - that's when they're doing space opera or its equivalent. Which isn't a bad thing at all... in general, I think I'd actually prefer to have a good story with bad science than good science with a bad story.Rhysyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13219113442790412792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996609237882090723.post-12397623179219940642020-11-08T19:03:16.230-04:002020-11-08T19:03:16.230-04:00Where would you be drawing the line between the &q...Where would you be drawing the line between the "proper" and "weak" sci-fi, a lot of the early sci-fi greats wrote shrot stories in which the science is the plot, but longer novels which could in theory, with some loss of satisfaction and the odd clever moment, be translated to other genres. Issac Asimov wrote things such as the Foundation series which is primarily more about history than science. Plenty of space-opera was written by Clarke, Heinlein and Asimov, do we say that it is "proper" becaue of who wrote it? Or "weak" because it focuses on adventure and intrigue? Also, what do we make of sci-fi such as Clarke's "A Fall of Moondust", written when we thought there were deep dust seas on the moon, or other such sci-fi written at times when the authors thought that some of the key premises were in agreement with reality, science having found otherwise since publication?BWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08504911977198741876noreply@blogger.com