Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke King
I think this a little limiting. There are plenty of novels in the top 100 lists that could exist without their science component, and some simply have none at all.
In this class there is 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, The Man in the High Castle, A Clockwork Orange, Journey to the Center of the Earth, The Handmaid's Tale, The Chrysalids, Flatland - and that's just what I can pick from what I've read on this list:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/petersy...oks_rank1.html |
I wasn't attempting to propose Sturgeon's notion as a definition of SF. I just thought it was a useful measuring stick. If you can remove the tropes and still have the story, maybe you
aren't writing SF, and should consider removing that window dressing.
A lot of stories ultimately fail because the author doesn't clearly understand just what story she is telling, and what form that story should take.
Ultimately, good fiction is moral fiction. Characters are presented with challenges, and either grow and change to meet and surmount them, or fail. The advantage to SF is that it lets us present challenges that don't and can't exist in the world we live in.
Quote:
|
When it comes to science fiction, I prefer Damon Knight's definition - that it means what we point to when we say it.
|
So do I.
Quote:
|
I really don't think it's possible to make a list of do's and don'ts.
|
Nor do I.