Absurdism corner

[Klumpen]

The main reason Star Wars sucks is that it's boring.

But the video games are awesome, especcially the ones with Kyle Katarn!
The new movies should have been about him and Jan Ors but I guess it wouldn't have scored enough political correctness / diversity points.
At least Jan Ors has character unlike the bland Mary Sue / Jill of all trades we got now.

 

[rygD]

I dunno. I don't play the games, and I only watch the films and tv shows when they come on, and I usually don't pay much attention to them.

 

[Djoga'Ro]

I said this in another conversation with @Klumpen, and it deserves being mentioned here, I think. I don't think science fantasy really matters in their classification, and if it does I am pretty sure it will be called sci-fi. That doesn't mean it is any less valuable or important to the fans. Just as these people feel that their idea of science fiction is better than the mainstream sci-fi stuff, there were people that wrote the stuff they consider trash that considered the way others approached these things as wrong. (I can think of one author that made it clear that he valued science above all else, but that it would most likely lead those seeking answers to their doom, and possibly that humans are too simpleminded to deal with reality...probably more of a reflection on himself there. Oh, and this fits with the Clarke quote, which can also be used to support the ancient astronaut theory, which the stories by this author are a twisted example of. Yes, I mean Lovecraft, again.)

It's called sci-fi (which I don't distinguish from science fiction) for intragalactic travel, laser guns, K.I.s, and such. But without attempts on scientific explanations, it's not sci-fi (to me) - it's just fantasy in a futuristic/technological advanced setting, which has no negative connotation coming from me. I like fantasy, maybe even more than good sci-fi. And by good sci-fi I mean stories around technologies, that might be or better yet are possible by what we know about reality, today.

The main reason Star Wars sucks is that it's boring.

You err, it's because it's annoying and that's on C-3PO.

 

[Klumpen]

Very ontopic:

 

[rygD]

It's called sci-fi (which I don't distinguish from science fiction) for intragalactic travel, laser guns, K.I.s, and such. But without attempts on scientific explanations, it's not sci-fi (to me) - it's just fantasy in a futuristic/technological advanced setting, which has no negative connotation coming from me. I like fantasy, maybe even more than good sci-fi. And by good sci-fi I mean stories around technologies, that might be or better yet are possible by what we know about reality, today.

The problem is that there are examples of sci-fi that make distinctions that don't include all that amazing futuristic and space stuff, and does deal heavily with the science of the universe of the story, or even real science. I haven't looked into it more than enough to hear a few basic arguments and complaints, however the vast majority of that was in books from around 40 years ago. It seems some that are not part of that vocal minority was Asimov, who I don't recall making a distinction, but I do remember talking about the importance of conventions (however this led me to additional research on fandom, and I never went back to looking into the debate, because fancy high end things may be nice, but sometimes I just want a cheap, greasy burger. I guess that shouldn't be a surprise since I grew up on The Outer Limits, Twilight Zone, cyberpunk, ST TNG/DS9/VOY, and horror/thrillers.

You err, it's because it's annoying and that's on C-3PO.

No, you err. It is boring and annoying. I won't blame a single character, it just isn't for me.

 

[thatgui]

Oh great, now I am confused: I thought "people" already agreed that it Sci-Fi (or Science-Fiction) when advanced tech/space travel/aliens/etc. is employed to explore things related to the human condition and always reflects back on the human society as it is now - or when that particular piece of fiction was made. While the term Sciene-Fantasy is used when spaceships n' stuff is only used as a "backdrop" to tell some story - like you could easily replace the empire in Star Wars easily with the Nazis and the rebels with some resistance group without needing to change an existential part of the story.

 

[Djoga'Ro]

Hm, so whenever there's let's say fire lit by a sentient being is involved, it's Sience-Something already? What's the difference between aliens and unicorns, that's makes one scientificy, but not the other? I second what you say about exploring possibilities and reflecting as making up for sci-fi, though.

 

[Klumpen]

What's the difference between aliens and unicorns, that's makes one scientificy, but not the other?

I guess this depends where you stand when it comes to the Fermi paradox and therefore depends on your personal belief.

Reading the definitions here, to me science fiction would be something like Nolan's Interstellar, science fantasy would be something like Star Wars although to me it's just fantasy since it doesn't even pretend to give a crap about science at all and sci-fi would be stuff like the new Star Trek, Farscape etc...

I wonder where Firefly fits in since it actually does consider science quite a lot (no sound in space, no magical energy shields, no aliens, no teleportation, no mobile wormhole generators etc...) although the themes could be replaced with things on earth easily since it's basically a western flick in space which does portrait secluded and often abandoned outposts of humanity, imperialism, police state, anarchy, piracy, terrorism, tolerance, intolerance, advanced civilisations (including the downsides), barbarism and everything in between.
The only problem there is as everywhere in science fiction the whole "faster than light" thing but if you consider this, most science fiction is clearly fantasy from our current scientific point of view, because it's hard to accept that we are stuck here and humanity will most likely die where it is now.

What about the Planet of the Apes prequels and the Ghost in the Shell series?
It's science fiction to me too although entirely happening on earth.

And what about Contact, The Abyss, Solyaris and Event Horizon?
Since science fiction is always fiction anyway, I wonder where those would fit in.

In Terry Pratchett's Dark Side of the Sun math and physics are basically the new magic and prediction of the future is a respected developing branch of mathematics for example since they are working on ultimate equations.

 

[Djoga'Ro]

@Klumpen I should have gone with orcs or somehting else typical for fantasy, but not asssiated with magic, since that was not what I was going for. I also deem it ill advised to just assume, we are alone in the universe. Although it doesn't really matter on a day to day basis, I guess. So my point was more like: Given a setting, that's not today's or an older earth, what's the difference between some concrete alien race and orcs, making one scientificy, the other not?
From what you are saying, it seems we share a point of view on that.

 

[Klumpen]

@Klumpen I should have gone with orcs or somehting else typical for fantasy, but not asssiated with magic, since that was not what I was going for. I also deem it ill advised to just assume, we are alone in the universe. Although it doesn't really matter on a day to day basis, I guess. So my point was more like: Given a setting, that's not today's or an older earth, what's the difference between some concrete alien race and orcs, making one scientificy, the other not?
From what you are saying, it seems we share a point of view on that.

The orcs in Warcraft come from a parallel dimension, which makes them more believable than some alien races in typical sci-fi imho since they could be seen as an alternative version of humanity which explains the similarities, but nobody would consider it science fiction since the story doesn't include any form of mentionable science and features a lot of pure magic.
After all (just like in music), genres don't really matter. What matters are interesting coherent stories and science may be a central part of it or not (or just a bit).

My personal belief in alien intelligence is, that it would probably be so vastly different, that we wouldn't even recognise it, maybe not even be able to perceive it at all, since a bunch of rocks could always be a sentient super computer "feeling" things in the universe we couldn't even dream of understanding or an ocean that is a collective mind consisting of uncountable tiny thinking things.
We don't even understand a tiny bit of what's going on here on earth alone.

 

[matzesu]

The other books of terry pratschett beside Diskworld, are they also good if you only know his Diskworld Books??
You mentioned something like Darkside of the Sun..
Im now at my Diskworld longtime read projekt, and i have some books to go bevore i can buy another..
Also i wait for the german translatet version of Stephen Kings "End of Watch" and i think i will get me the new harry potter..

 

[Klumpen]

The other books of terry pratschett beside Diskworld, are they also good if you only know his Diskworld Books??
You mentioned something like Darkside of the Sun..
Im now at my Diskworld longtime read projekt, and i have some books to go bevore i can buy another..

Definitely! Just like with Douglas Adams, some of the real gems are completely overlooked because of the more popular series.
I'd recommend reading it at some point in between when you're tired of Discworld for a moment.
The book is from 1976 and the Hogswatch reference in the Discworld series is actually a reference to Dark Side of the Sun.
I got it used for 2,50€ in a book store when I was visiting Bielefeld and was pleasantly surprised.

Here's what Douglas had to say about stuff like this while presenting a book that he deemed to be way more valuable than the Hitchhiker's Guide:

 

[levi]

Pratchett wrote Dark Side of the Sun and then Strata before he started on the discworld series. I'd personally say he'd not really found his voice by then, but they're certainly worth a read for Discworld fans.

My favourite Prachett book by the way is Nation, which is a non-discworld book. And my favourite discworld book is The Amazing Maurice, which is a book for kids (I guess I don't really read Pratchett for the sex and violence

 

[TrashyMG]

 

[rygD]

I should probably get that.

 

[thatgui]

Hm, so whenever there's let's say fire lit by a sentient being is involved, it's Sience-Something already? What's the difference between aliens and unicorns, that's makes one scientificy, but not the other? I second what you say about exploring possibilities and reflecting as making up for sci-fi, though.

I would say, it completely depends on the context: If you put unicorns in a story, so people can just ride on them or hunt them or whatever, its probably just fantasy. But if you don't just put them in, but give their creation and their existence some implications (like they are cloned for hunting but live a life in agony or something) it can be SciFi.

Reading the definitions here, to me science fiction would be something like Nolan's Interstellar, science fantasy would be something like Star Wars although to me it's just fantasy since it doesn't even pretend to give a crap about science at all and sci-fi would be stuff like the new Star Trek, Farscape etc...

Besides my personal belief that Interstellar is just a pretentious pile of metabolic waste product, I guess the category you may be looking for is Hard- SciFi : meaning, staying as close as you possibly can to current scientific knowledge/achievements. I don't think anyone makes a difference between Sci(-)Fi and Sience Fiction.

In both cases, it simply depends on the distribution algorithm ones brain created to put things into their inner drawers

 

[Djoga'Ro]

For the cat. Sure!

 

[Djoga'Ro]

 

[ible]

I would say, it completely depends on the context: If you put unicorns in a story, so people can just ride on them or hunt them or whatever, its probably just fantasy. But if you don't just put them in, but give their creation and their existence some implications (like they are cloned for hunting but live a life in agony or something) it can be SciFi.

http://drmcninja.com/archives/comic/15p65/

the unicorn is from a different dimension, where magic is possible, so that's a scientific explanation, right?

Besides my personal belief that Interstellar is just a pretentious pile of metabolic waste product, I guess the category you may be looking for is Hard- SciFi : meaning, staying as close as you possibly can to current scientific knowledge/achievements. I don't think anyone makes a difference between Sci(-)Fi and Sience Fiction.

they at least tried to get a few things right regarding gravity. i would have preferred them just killing off the main guy after he went into the black hole. (i mean, you'd be dead before you even went into it, scientifically speaking...) but shooting him out into space at the end (spoiler alert) made it a bit hard for me to believe. and the fact that you'd probably want to be there when your child dies on you, even if by the twin-paradox they're older than you. so pretty much the whole ending was garbage .

but yeah, as mentioned earlier, most scifi boils down to "fantasy" explanations for FTL travel and/or communication.

 

[levi]

Of course; speculative fiction is the daddy of sci fi (however you spell it) and fantasy IMO - if you have both unicorns and laser guns then you're somewhere between the two.

I've probably read more things from the sci-fi end than from the fantasy end - of the latter I've only read Tolkein and Pratchett. In some ways Pratchett writes 'hard' fantasy in that he tries to explain fantasy concepts using real analogues - light slowing down in a magic field, trolls being silicon-based life forms, and in his later writing IMO he moved away from unjustifiable concepts (Rincewind and his luggage aren't seen past book 5 for example), while still using a fair few unjustifiable fantasy cliches where necessary for comic purposes. I guess truly hard fantasy and hard sci-fi are indistinguishable.

And of course then there's Douglas Adams. I think a lot of his books straddle the speculative divide too. He tends to explain very little, but that doesn't mean all of his writing is trashy - there are literary justifications for using conceits in plenty of places.