Conquer Club

Mr. Olai,

You are very interesting and smart and stuff. Please tell us your views on things, as well as on stuff. Everyone, please suggest a category for Mr. Olai to share his views. After he shares his views, someone can suggest a new category. I will start.


Science Fiction that is actually Science Fiction: Does it always require robots?

pimpdave wrote:Science Fiction that is actually Science Fiction: Does it always require robots?

No.

Science fiction, as I usually define it, is fiction written in an imagined setting wherein the author considers the results of possible scientific advances. Note that I say possible scientific advances. Settings that include items which are utterly beyond scientific possibility as we currently understand it are rightly classified as works of fantasy. This includes anything with elements of magic or mysticism as central setting elements. So Star Wars, while usually found in the science fiction section of your local library, is fantasy because, while it does include many elements explainable by science - laser swords, blaster pistols, hyperdrives, etc. - it also has a major setting element which is utterly unexplainable by science: the Force. Star Trek, on the other hand, is (at least nominally) science fiction because it at least makes an attempt to explain every unusual phenomena encountered in scientific terms.

What's really interesting to consider is how the line that defines science fiction and fantasy is in a state of constant flux because it depends on our current level of understanding. When Jules Verne wrote Journey to the Center of the Earth, it could have been considered science fiction because science at the time didn't know of any reason why the setting described shouldn't exist. Now, of course, we know better, so it is rightly classified as fantasy. His 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, on the other hand, has been science fiction from the beginning, and now is almost simple fiction. H. G. Wells' The Time Machine, on the other hand, was - and is - a fantasy work because current science indicates that a functional time machine is impossible. But it could become science fiction if our scientific understanding of several things - most notably time - were to change. In the same way, Star Wars could become science fiction if someone were to make a scientific discovery of an energy field created by all living things which surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together.

Robert Heinlein wrote an excellent book in 1952 called The Rolling Stones. It remains, for me, the single best example of science fiction I have ever read. It postulates certain advances in science and technology, and essentially proceeds to explore how the world would change if those advances happened. Check it out sometime - it's a great book.

Ah, but I'm rambling away from the original question. Robots are often found in science fiction, primarily because, given our current scientific achievements, we find it very believable that sometime in the future, there will be advances in technology that make robots a common part of life. But the presence or absence of robots does not determine whether a work is science fiction or not.

Note : in the UK that book is sold as Space Family Stone.

Trek fans who like the tribbles may recognise the Martian Flat Cats.

Huh. I did not know it sold under a different name. And yes, although really it should be stated in the reverse order.

Well, I think it came out over there in the 60's.

I have a question: do you think that one can wear anything other than a hat at a "rakish" or "jaunty" angle? And can anything other than hair ever be "tousled"?


(In writing this, I've realised that the answer to either could be "yes, a wig" - but please ignore that possibility and move on).

In Communist Russia, you don't shoot gun, gun shoot...what?

jonesthecurl wrote:I have a question: do you think that one can wear anything other than a hat at a "rakish" or "jaunty" angle? And can anything other than hair ever be "tousled"?


(In writing this, I've realised that the answer to either could be "yes, a wig" - but please ignore that possibility and move on).

Sure - anything that has a proper angle. A tie, for instance. Or a ribbon. A lapel pin. Shoelaces might be stretching it, but I believe they can be worn at a jaunty angle, at least. A patterned shirt. A cane isn't technically worn, but it's a part of your outfit that can be carried at a "rakish" or "jaunty" angle. So, also, is a purse.

Now, since many of these would simply look strange at the wrong angle, it takes someone special to wear them at a "jaunty" or "rakish" angle. But then, it takes someone special to wear a hat at a rakish or jaunty angle, instead of just being a dude with a crooked hat. It's all in the attitude.

muy_thaiguy wrote:In Communist Russia, you don't shoot gun, gun shoot...what?

In Communist Russia, you don't shoot gun, gun shoot you. KGB shoot gun.