Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
Er, I wasn't aware we had codified "accepted rules of SF".
|
Isn't that what this thread is for? |
Sure, but I wasn't aware we'd come to any solid conclusions. We're still in the early phases of a Socratic argument where we're defining our terms.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
You can certainly postulate that all of the above are fantasy, because they aren't possible, and you may be right, but that hasn't been conclusively proven, so they are still grist for the SF mill.
|
Well, maybe if all SF, hard and soft, is speculation, and even the most unlikely elements are still possible simply because they haven't been proven... what's the use of labels? It's all SF, then. Or it's all Fantasy. Or it's both at the same time. Maybe we should be calling it all Science Fantasy.
|
The late John W. Campbell considered SF a subset of an overall genre of fantastic literature. For that matter, he considered mainstream fiction to fall under that umbrella.
Quote:
|
Seems like there are simply too many unknowns and variations to allow useful labels (or rules, for that matter) to exist. If Star Wars and Solaris can be painted with the same brush, that brush must be awful large. And very gray in color.
|
There isn't just one brush size or color. To extend that analogy, a painter will begin with an undercoat, then add successive layers to it, adding color and definition till he has what he considers a finished work. You can't classify the painting by the undercoat, and may not be able to classify it till it's substantially finished.
______
Dennis