 | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.mecha, Brian Cooper wrote:
| |
This is like the difference between Fantasy and Science Fiction, which I
often like to explain. :-) Science Fiction requires some intellectual rigor
and logic. You can certainly make up weird new science, but it has to be self
consistent.
|
Philip K Dick, among countless others, has also addressed this. His distinction
between sci-fi and fantasy was similar but more fundamental: if an element of
the story is considered impossible, then it’s fantasy. Not “improbable” or
“currently unavailable,” but impossible. He asserts that no hard, fixed
distinction between the two is possible, because our notions of the “impossible”
tend to fluctuate.
The self-consistency aspect is less of a distinction, since a good story in
either genre must entail sufficient self-consistency to maintain a
comprehensible plot, IMO.
| |
ps - If a rocket motor isn’t positioned to give thrust behind a ship’s center
of mass, it isn’t going to fly very well, and a top heavy mecha with tiny
legs also isn’t going to walk very well. Realistic considerations. ;-)
|
I’m not a physics guy, so forgive me this question: we’re talking about the
“net” center of thrust being directly behind the center of mass, right? As
opposed to an engine placed exactly there?
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.mecha, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Philip K Dick, among countless others, has also addressed this. His
distinction between sci-fi and fantasy was similar but more fundamental: if
an element of the story is considered impossible, then it’s fantasy. Not
“improbable” or “currently unavailable,” but impossible. He asserts that
no hard, fixed distinction between the two is possible, because our notions
of the “impossible” tend to fluctuate.
The self-consistency aspect is less of a distinction, since a good story in
either genre must entail sufficient self-consistency to maintain a
comprehensible plot, IMO.
Dave!
|
Another interesting study of Sci-Fi vs. Fantasy can be found in Henry Gee’s
The Science of Middle Earth. His point is that science fiction has at least
some focus on the technology that makes the ‘impossible’ possible. Fantasy, he
suggests accepts the impossible with little attention on how. His examples come
mostly from The Silmarillion and Tolkien’s notes of Elven ‘technology’.
Basically, Tolkien invented the how, but then simply doesn’t focus on the how in
his stories.
Side note, I have read many of the ‘Science of...’ books on SW, ST, Harry
Potter, etc. This book references more actual science, and yet stays accessible
much more so than it’s fellow books. ie I recommend it to fellow science and/or
fiction geeks.
Aaron
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.mecha, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Philip K Dick, among countless others, has also addressed this. His
distinction between sci-fi and fantasy was similar but more fundamental: if
an element of the story is considered impossible, then it’s fantasy. Not
“improbable” or “currently unavailable,” but impossible. He asserts that
no hard, fixed distinction between the two is possible, because our notions
of the “impossible” tend to fluctuate.
|
The extreme definition: Science fiction is an extrapolation, linear perhaps.
Fantasy is a random point, connected to nothing.
| |
The self-consistency aspect is less of a distinction, since a good story in
either genre must entail sufficient self-consistency to maintain a
comprehensible plot, IMO.
|
Self-consistency of pseudo science is a drag on the plot. It spoils the fun in
Fantasy realms. :-)
| |
I’m not a physics guy, so forgive me this question: we’re talking about the
“net” center of thrust being directly behind the center of mass, right? As
opposed to an engine placed exactly there?
|
Yes you can certainly have motors on pylons hanging way out, but if you add up
the 3D thrust vectors you’ll want them to not make your ship spin around like a
pinwheel (over taxing your attitude control thrusters to compensate for the
misaligned main thrust). People have a more instinctive feel for what sort of
things can walk without keeling over than what can fly well in space.
K
| | | | | | |
