posted
This is an issue I come across again and again. The most recent example is an individual who claims that everything that doesn't strictly comply with the laws of present-day physics does not deserve to be called "science fiction" but at most "science fantasy". While I'm concerned about the frequent misuse of physical or technical terms and the infamous "particles of the week" myself, this guy questions every basic concept of Star Trek from subspace to time travel (while he accepts hyperspace which I won't comment on). He might be right in that all this might be nonsense, but it is required to tell the story of a far more advanced world. This is what science fiction is about in essence. Don't accept this as a concept for storytelling, and you won't have any fun with it. And maybe some of the science fiction might come true some day.
Well, Trek uses subspace to violate the laws of thermodynamics, which no one should really approve of.
Time travel is a difficult subject...it would be difficult to devise a scenario where you could alter your own future.
I don't think that people enjoy sci-fi because of all it's advanced fantasy-tech. I think it's because people are bored with the world, and are entertained by new ones.
I personally think the problem with Trek is that the writers know very little about physics.
------------------ http://frankg.dgne.com/ "[Steve Jobs] shouts at his employees a lot, using language you can't use on TV, not even on UPN." - Andy Ihnatko
posted
I think the term 'science' has become a crutch of sorts. Thinking about it, fantasy is fiction! There are types of Science Fiction known as hard sci-fi and, I suppose, soft sci-fi although I've never heard it called that. In hard sci-fi novels, the rules aren't broken. Arthur C. Clark is very good at creating stories about the future in which mankind is still stuck in the solar system--even two hundred years from now. Read "Rama." And I will agree that to an extent the majority of sci-fi out there has very little science in it. Using correct command of the english language I would call that fantasy science fiction, and all fiction that uses faster than light travel and ftl communication falls into that category, until such a time when theories are reworked and discoveries are made that allow faster than light travel and communication. I think people don't want to read a true hard sci-fi novel or see a hard sci-fi show because it would be to constrictive to the imagination. But imagine the human drama for travelers on a sublight ship venturing to Alpha Centauri on a 15 year round trip. Or imagine the world and the tales and the social evolution of the people on a generation ship sent out to cover 500 light-years. That's a big playground for any writer, or team of writers, to have fun in.
I term Star Trek as Technical Fiction. We see a lot of gee whiz stuff, but the science behind it is lost to us and only hinted at. Certain components do certain tasks, but how? We don't know, and we buy tech manuals to discover that they, the writers, don't really know either, but the fake jargon is cool.
The stories of an advanced world doesn't need to rely on warpdrive, transporters, or subspace radio. Those things most likely aren't going to happen, and if they do they will require so much energy as to make them impracticle. But at least we can fantasize that they will happen, in some alternate universe where the laws are physics are different, or just aren't bothered with a little adjustment here and there.
------------------ Sector One at last. We are home. Tuvok, arrest the Maquis. Mr. Kim, inform Starfleet Command we have completed our mission. Capt. Janeway upon reaching Earth.
posted
Fantasy is not much different from fiction, if we compare these words w/o their specific meanings in mind. Mike Wong says "science fantasy" so as to disqualify Star Trek as opposed to other sci-fi shows.
I agree with a distinction of "hard" and "soft" sci-fi. Hard sci-fi could turn out as a boring non-fictional project description, if it is too consequently pursued. I agree with Cargile in that this needs not necessarily be the case, and after all I like the way each sci-fi book or show has its own characteristic science and tech. The diversity of ideas is the strength of sci-fi. Fiction or a novel, however, implies that there is something imaginary featured that is not real or cannot be proven. This applies to novels or TV series situated in our world and time as well, where persons, events and places are not necessarily real.
The Enterprise is a vehicle for storytelling, as stated in the TNGTM and is not much different from the Ponderosa Ranch which probably doesn't exist as well, but seems to be more easily accepted. There are inconsistencies in every fictional story, so why should Star Trek be free of them? There could be a stricter writer's guide and better scientific consulting, though.
posted
Fiction is something that did not actually happen. Fantasy is generally regarded as something that cannot happen. If we use these definitions then, yes, Trek would be fantasy. But I'm not seeing how that's a problem. If someone wants to say Trek is fantasy, the proper response would be "Yes, that's right. What was your point, again?" :-)
------------------ "I see you've found your Nausicaan friend. You seem unimpaled so far..." -Q to Picard, "Tapestry"
The only hard sci-fi movie I can think of is 2001: A Space Odysee. And even then the Monolithe/Wormhole device seems to border on the fringe of fantasy.
------------------ Sector One at last. We are home. Tuvok, arrest the Maquis. Mr. Kim, inform Starfleet Command we have completed our mission. Capt. Janeway upon reaching Earth.
posted
Consider In the age of the Roman Empire, a writer wrote about a voyage to Luna. Centuries later, humans landed on Luna.
IP: Logged
Simon
Ex-Member
posted
I've never heard of Roman science-fiction before. Do you have any more information, such as author, date, or a location where I could get a copy?
IP: Logged
posted
Neilus Brachiusfortis: "Hic est passus brevis hominis, sed est saltus maximus hominorum."
I agree with TSN's definition of fiction and fantasy. Science fiction in particular, however, has been established for any kind of literature involving a possible scientific background, realistic or not. So anyone calling Trek "fantasy" does want to demote it, and this is exactly what I was upset about lately.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
