BF3s Book Club

2013-05-01 23:30:59

#1926

Adams_BJ: Russian warship, go fuck yourself; +2,054|6868|Little Bentcock

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Adams_BJ wrote:
I like fantasy, not a huge fan of sci fi novels, which is strange as I enjoy sci fi movies/games.

am I strange?
Fantasy used to encompass sci-fi before publishers created a new category, so a lot of the older books I have still bear the fantasy categorization. To me, a lot of sci-fi novels still tend to read like fantasy, so it still applies...

Point being, do you mean you hate hard sci-fi or all sci-fi?

I don't know what hard sci-fi is. I don't know, maybe I have read some bad titles. I can remember when I was in primary school reading some star wars books and enjoying it.

I just can't get into them I guess, where as I find fantasy really easy to create in my mind. Swords and horses and shit. I don't get as immersed in the sci fi.

2013-05-01 23:33:58

#1927

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7017|PNW

Hard science fiction is a category of science fiction characterized by an emphasis on scientific or technical detail, or on scientific accuracy, or on both.

2013-05-01 23:42:02

#1928

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5831

I don't have a problem with sci fi in and of itself. Hard sci fi is the one on my shit list. What I like about Sci Fi is that you have much more latitude to create stories, settings, and characters. Some of my favorite stuff is set in a quasi sci fiish future. My all time favorite novel Infinite Jest is set in a future where there is unlimited energy and a North American union. It is not hard sci fi but uses some sci fi elements to create a very good story and setting. I think where sci fi fails is when it starts to focus on the tech side instead of developing good story. Talking about how lasers work is just filler.

Fantasy on the other hand... Fucking elves man.

2013-05-02 00:17:48

#1929

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7017|PNW

Hard science fiction doesn't have to be just about the tech. It can mean that your story is kept within the confines of theoretical science, but still primarily focused on story.

2013-05-02 00:18:47

#1930

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5831

You are going to have to pick one of those. You are lucky if you get one working.

2013-05-02 00:23:48

#1931

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7017|PNW

Wait, are you saying that a book can't be successful or good if it doesn't have fantastical elements, or??

2013-05-02 00:30:41

#1932

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5831

I'm saying that keeping something with the confines of theoretical science and having that as a selling point closes off opportunity in the story when it shouldn't be like that for sci fi. Sci fi is supposed to open opportunity to explain the experience of people using elements not possible within the world we live in. The story limits itself by attempting to get it by the book when it comes to science. If you can make an interesting universe why shackle it with the laws of reality?

2013-05-02 00:59:03

#1933

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6398|what

If you haven't already, read Enders Game.

The movie is coming out soon and I really doubt will do the book justice.

2013-05-02 03:29:08

#1934

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7017|PNW

Macbeth wrote:
I'm saying that keeping something with the confines of theoretical science and having that as a selling point closes off opportunity in the story when it shouldn't be like that for sci fi. Sci fi is supposed to open opportunity to explain the experience of people using elements not possible within the world we live in. The story limits itself by attempting to get it by the book when it comes to science. If you can make an interesting universe why shackle it with the laws of reality?

But if the story is about the characters, what does it matter what the backdrop is? It won't matter if you're keeping it within the confines of modern science, speculative science or fantastical science. It's all just world building. Hard sci-fi isn't restricted to fictitious tech manuals.

2013-05-02 03:38:12

#1935

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6351|eXtreme to the maX

Macbeth wrote:
Sci fi is supposed to open opportunity to explain the experience of people using elements not possible within the world we live in.

Thats scifi fantasy really

The story limits itself by attempting to get it by the book when it comes to science. If you can make an interesting universe why shackle it with the laws of reality?

Thats the idea, scifi basically asks the question: "What if X reasonably plausible scientific/technological advance were made"
Changing the laws of physics doesn't really come into it.

'Character-based' scifi is just space-drama.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-05-02 03:39:17)

Fuck Israel

2013-05-02 04:20:24

#1936

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7017|PNW

What about character-based sci-fi that doesn't take place in space? "Hard" sci-fi and "soft" sci-fi are just two convenient, fuzzy subcategories for sci-fi, which used to all fall under the umbrella of fantasy.

2013-05-02 04:41:43

#1937

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6351|eXtreme to the maX

Scifi has some basis in reality, fantasy basically doesn't.
Scifi doesn't really fall under the umbrella of fantasy IMO.

Fuck Israel

2013-05-02 05:04:47

#1938

Uzique The Lesser: Banned; +382|4499

Dilbert_X wrote:
Scifi has some basis in reality, fantasy basically doesn't.
Scifi doesn't really fall under the umbrella of fantasy IMO.

2013-05-02 05:06:11

#1939

Uzique The Lesser: Banned; +382|4499

Macbeth wrote:
I don't have a problem with sci fi in and of itself. Hard sci fi is the one on my shit list. What I like about Sci Fi is that you have much more latitude to create stories, settings, and characters. Some of my favorite stuff is set in a quasi sci fiish future. My all time favorite novel Infinite Jest is set in a future where there is unlimited energy and a North American union. It is not hard sci fi but uses some sci fi elements to create a very good story and setting. I think where sci fi fails is when it starts to focus on the tech side instead of developing good story. Talking about how lasers work is just filler.

Fantasy on the other hand... Fucking elves man.

nothing about infinite jest is "sci fi". jesus you are a fucking moron. it has magical realist and absurdist parts, but not "sci-fi". to call infinite jest a sci-fi book is fucking moronic. not everything that is set in the future is 'sci-fi'. next you'll be calling it a "dystopian novel".

2013-05-02 05:10:02

#1940

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6351|eXtreme to the maX

Uzique The Lesser wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Scifi has some basis in reality, fantasy basically doesn't.
Scifi doesn't really fall under the umbrella of fantasy IMO.

Sorry if you're out of your depth.

Fuck Israel

2013-05-02 05:15:12

#1941

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6351|eXtreme to the maX

Yay I'm right again

Wiki wrote:
Science fiction is a genre of fiction with imaginative but more or less plausible content such as settings in the future, futuristic science and technology, space travel, parallel universes, aliens, and paranormal abilities. Exploring the consequences of scientific innovations is one purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas".[1] Science fiction has been used by authors as a device to discuss philosophical ideas such as identity, desire, morality, and social structure.

Science fiction is largely based on writing rationally about alternative possible worlds or futures.[2] It is similar to, but differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation).

Wiki wrote:
Fantasy is a genre of fiction that commonly uses magic and other supernatural phenomena as a primary plot element, theme, or setting. Many works within the genre take place in imaginary worlds where magic and magical creatures are common. Fantasy is generally distinguished from the genres of science fiction and horror by the expectation that it steers clear of scientific and macabre themes, respectively, though there is a great deal of overlap between the three, all of which are subgenres of speculative fiction.

Yay me.

Fuck Israel

2013-05-02 05:36:08

#1942

Uzique The Lesser: Banned; +382|4499

i would say that science-fiction is concerned with future speculation, all based roundly in a sort of post-rational, post-technological age. sci-fi is fantastical, but it's not 'fantasy' in that it's already restricted in its speculative choices by the imagining of a world that is already 'post-technology' and 'post-science'. fantasy is literally a blank slate, a complete tabula rasa - it doesn't even need to involve humans, or anything like a human earth origin. most sci-fi tends to at least reference 'the real world', as it is now, or as it was being wrote from, even if only as a distant reference or foregrounding.

much fantasy though, can also be (and is in many cases) just a thin allegory of 'reality'. you guys were talking about sci-fi as if sci-fi treats all the hard themes and 'issues' and tries to pose questions about fundamental science/rationality, i.e. reality. fantasy can do that too, even if all its characters are elves and the world is some fantasy middle-earth. allegory and metaphor work just as powerfully in the fantasy genre to represent and comment on 'reality' as any sci-fi book that spends a fifth of its pages detailing technology.

but yeah, "out of my depth". it's not like i didn't have one of the most eminent sci-fi writers of the current era as my PERSONAL TUTOR for two years, or anything.

2013-05-02 06:03:18

#1943

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6351|eXtreme to the maX

Scifi is based in a 'post-technological age'?
Considering you're a lit nerd is surprising you get the simplest definitions wrong.

Scifi doesn't come under the umbrella of fantasy.

OK, lets move on.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-05-02 06:08:47)

Fuck Israel

2013-05-02 06:24:04

#1944

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7017|PNW

Dilbert_X wrote:
Scifi doesn't come under the umbrella of fantasy.

OK, lets move on.

No. Were you reading this thread at all? Before science-fiction even existed as a term, books that are now considered science-fiction were called fantasy. Hard science-fiction came into being as a further categorization convenience.

e: Just to mix things up, if sci-fi isn't a skin for fantasy, then what would you call a sci-fi book with elves and trolls and shit?

2013-05-02 06:27:51

#1945

Uzique The Lesser: Banned; +382|4499

Dilbert_X wrote:
Scifi is based in a 'post-technological age'?
Considering you're a lit nerd is surprising you get the simplest definitions wrong.

Scifi doesn't come under the umbrella of fantasy.

OK, lets move on.

post-technology as in, after the advent of technology. as in, in a world irredeemably changed/altered by the presence of technology. not 'in an age where technology no longer exists'.

jesus christ learn to fucking read. 'post-modern' doesn't mean "where the modern doesn't exist anymore".

post-enlightenment doesn't mean "back to barbarism".

stop making stupid snide comments. you look dumb.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-02 06:28:15)

2013-05-02 06:29:22

#1946

Uzique The Lesser: Banned; +382|4499

also i never said sci-fi came under the umbrella of fantasy. i said they are both forms of speculative writing. all i was saying is that your distinctions between sci-fi/fantasy, especially the stuff you were saying about dealing with 'issues', is not quite right.

2013-05-02 17:50:46

#1947

Adams_BJ: Russian warship, go fuck yourself; +2,054|6868|Little Bentcock

ANy good fantasy novels/series out there? Preferably with not too much magic. Some is ok.

2013-05-02 19:13:58

#1948

Uzique The Lesser: Banned; +382|4499

Adams_BJ wrote:
ANy good fantasy novels/series out there? Preferably with not too much magic. Some is ok.

the bible

2013-05-02 21:24:34

#1949

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7017|PNW

Get real, the bible had level 99 spells with perfect rolls.

I'll point out a few authors that immediately come to mind: Ursula K. Le Guin, C.J. Cherryh, Robin Hobb.

Also consider historical fiction.

2013-05-03 05:34:38

#1950

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6351|eXtreme to the maX

Uzique The Lesser wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Scifi is based in a 'post-technological age'?
Considering you're a lit nerd is surprising you get the simplest definitions wrong.

Scifi doesn't come under the umbrella of fantasy.

OK, lets move on.
post-technology as in, after the advent of technology. as in, in a world irredeemably changed/altered by the presence of technology. not 'in an age where technology no longer exists'.

jesus christ learn to fucking read. 'post-modern' doesn't mean "where the modern doesn't exist anymore".

post-enlightenment doesn't mean "back to barbarism".

stop making stupid snide comments. you look dumb.

Do you mean Post-Industrial?

'Post-Technological' could mean anything from the first knapped flint onwards.

Fuck Israel

BF2S Forums BF3s Book Club

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Wiki wrote:

Wiki wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Board footer