Quote:
Originally Posted by SkepticJ
And, "It works by sending tachyon particles into modevendium alloy charged with anti-protons," doesn't really tell you anything either. Star Trek's sci-fi, though, right?
|
Sure, I'd call it skiffy. You removed it from the bit you quoted, but you saw what I said in that post about skiffy, right? "Skiffy" is what you see too often on TV and in the movies. Sometimes, there are good science fiction Star Trek stories, but not when they throw in handwavium to do whatever is needed to fix a stupid plot.
Quote:
|
How about Ringworld, with virtually unbreakable materials and luck as a biologically-based trait? Where do you draw the line?
|
I'd say Ringworld has a number of fantastic elements, but it does follow the known rules of physics except where exceptions are explicitly shown, and does show the consequences of the exceptions. I'd say it's science fiction, but it isn't as hard as some.
As for where I draw the line, any line is going to be subjective. However, I do think there needs to be some limits on what is called "science fiction," based on stories that can't be told without the science fiction elements, and can be distinguished from fantasy based on more than a few word choices.
Quote:
|
I've got to disagree with the second. Some steampunk is fantasy-like, though I would still call it sci-fi, just very loose sci-fi. There's nothing in The Difference Engine that couldn't have really happened, had Charles Babbage not ticked off the people he needed to fund his machines.
|
I haven't read that, but I can believe some might not not be what I'd call fantasy. It's just that all of the steampunk I've seen has rather huge fantasy elements: Things that can't be done within the realm of known physics (for instance, heavy flying ships), let alone with steam engines, vacuum tubes, and so forth.