Subject:
|
Re: IRON MECHA Results!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Feb 2006 18:33:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4229 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: IRON MECHA Results!
|
| (...) 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 (...) (19 years ago, 9-Feb-06, to lugnet.build.mecha, FTX)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
