Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
In SF, a ground rule is that you can speculate all you want about stuff we haven't discovered yet, but you have to get what we do know right. So the Mars books of Edgar Rice Burroughs are still popular, but considered science fantasy these days. We know better, and are well aware the Mars he postulates doesn't exist. As SF, Burrough's Mars books fail because we know better.
|
That's a definition that I don't think I can agree with. Would you equally postulate that Heinlein's "Space Cadet" is "Science Fantasy" rather than SF, because it portrays a Venus that doesn't exist (tropical jungles, etc)?