TThere seems to be no distinguishing between science fiction and science fantasy these days.
What is fanrastic is passed as fiction.
In the past it was about use of fiction to indicate future fact. Like nuclear submarines, email, that have come real.
Now it is just entertainment.

btbt

On 06/04/24 11:58, bertietaylor wrote:

> TThere seems to be no distinguishing between science fiction and
> science fantasy these days. What is fanrastic is passed as fiction.

It often annoys me, in a bookshop, to browse the "science fiction"
section and discover that it's almost all fantasy. I don't have much
interest in fantasy fiction, but I guess that that is what selling best.

> In the past it was about use of fiction to indicate future fact. Like
> nuclear submarines, email, that have come real. Now it is just
> entertainment.

I recently noticed an interesting example of SF extrapolation. It's in
the short story "Twilight", by John Campbell. (Originally published, in
1934, under the name Don A Stuart.) He predicted that, a couple of
million years from now, the cities of Boston, New York, and Washington
will have expanded so much that they would form one continuous urban region.

In fact it happened in less than one million years.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) wrote or quoted:
>TThere seems to be no distinguishing between science fiction
>and science fantasy these days.

Let me tell ya 'bout this "hard science fiction" they call it.
Sounds like a fancy term, don't it? But even the books they say
are "hard sci-fi" - they got all sorts of impossible things in 'em.

It ain't just that science fiction has stuff that's pure fantasy.
Nah, it's that they got things in there that just ain't possible,
scientifically speakin'. Now dragons, that's fantasy for sure. But
you know, scientifically, they could actually exist. But when these
science fiction stories start talkin' 'bout stuff happenin' across
the galaxy, they just ignore the speed of light like it ain't even
a thing. That there goes against everythin' we know 'bout science.

Yep, even the "hard" stuff, it's got all kinds of nonsense that
don't hold up to the facts. Ain't no way around it. They just make up
whatever they want, facts be damned. That's why I say, you gotta take
all that sci-fi with a big ol' grain of salt. It's entertainment,
sure, but don't go thinkin' it's the real deal!

On 06/04/24 21:08, Stefan Ram wrote:
> bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) wrote or quoted:
>> TThere seems to be no distinguishing between science fiction
>> and science fantasy these days.
>
> Let me tell ya 'bout this "hard science fiction" they call it.
> Sounds like a fancy term, don't it? But even the books they say
> are "hard sci-fi" - they got all sorts of impossible things in 'em.
>
> It ain't just that science fiction has stuff that's pure fantasy.
> Nah, it's that they got things in there that just ain't possible,
> scientifically speakin'. Now dragons, that's fantasy for sure. But
> you know, scientifically, they could actually exist. But when these
> science fiction stories start talkin' 'bout stuff happenin' across
> the galaxy, they just ignore the speed of light like it ain't even
> a thing. That there goes against everythin' we know 'bout science.
>
> Yep, even the "hard" stuff, it's got all kinds of nonsense that
> don't hold up to the facts. Ain't no way around it. They just make up
> whatever they want, facts be damned. That's why I say, you gotta take
> all that sci-fi with a big ol' grain of salt. It's entertainment,
> sure, but don't go thinkin' it's the real deal!

Have you recently moved out to the sticks?

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 06/04/2024 14:10, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 06/04/24 21:08, Stefan Ram wrote:
>> bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) wrote or quoted:
>>> TThere seems to be no distinguishing between science fiction
>>> and science fantasy these days.
>>
>>    Let me tell ya 'bout this "hard science fiction" they call it.
>>    Sounds like a fancy term, don't it? But even the books they say
>>    are "hard sci-fi" - they got all sorts of impossible things in 'em.
>>
>>    It ain't just that science fiction has stuff that's pure fantasy.
>>    Nah, it's that they got things in there that just ain't possible,
>>    scientifically speakin'. Now dragons, that's fantasy for sure. But
>>    you know, scientifically, they could actually exist. But when these
>>    science fiction stories start talkin' 'bout stuff happenin' across
>>    the galaxy, they just ignore the speed of light like it ain't even
>>    a thing. That there goes against everythin' we know 'bout science.
>>
>>    Yep, even the "hard" stuff, it's got all kinds of nonsense that
>>    don't hold up to the facts. Ain't no way around it. They just make up
>>    whatever they want, facts be damned. That's why I say, you gotta take
>>    all that sci-fi with a big ol' grain of salt. It's entertainment,
>>    sure, but don't go thinkin' it's the real deal!
>
> Have you recently moved out to the sticks?
>

<smile> Are you assuming Stefan wrote this? He more likely cut and
pasted it "from the web".

Stefan Ram has always been living in the sticks of the mind.

On 06/04/2024 02:58, bertietaylor wrote:
> TThere seems to be no distinguishing between science fiction and science
> fantasy these days.
> What is fanrastic is passed as fiction.
> In the past it was about use of fiction to indicate future fact. Like
> nuclear submarines, email, that have come real.
> Now it is just entertainment.
>

I like that characterisation of possible science ('SF') v. just
entertainment (Science Fantasy). Except, as a reader, I'd be less
generous to Science Fantasy and describe it as intellectual
masturbation. I'd include all Marvel Comic films in this latter category.