Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan
Nice list... though I noticed it sidestepped the "FTL drive" issue, even as it shot down the Trek/Wars conventions pretty thoroughly.
|
Well, it's pretty much a list of *guiding* principles.
Good writing practices.
That's why I focused on their zeroth law; it allows relaxing the other laws as necessary in service of the narrative. Implied is that the less relaxation and the more rigorous the science, the more SF-like the story. Equally implied is that what constitutes valid SF elements will depend on the narrative and what is known at the time.
For example, they devote a lot of thought to intelligent technological aliens and first contact--correctly pointing out (by implication) that ALIEN is horror, not SF--even though by current factual science they are actually *less* likely than human FTL travel. (In fact, the case for humans being the only technological civilization at this point in time grows incrementally by the minute.:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47134963...science-space/)
I also noticed they dismissed telepathy out of hand, even though pretty much anybody can come up with multiple scenarios that would allow telepathy, telekinesis, and even (yes,
) pyrokinesis to be used in a rigorous *hard* SF story. (Niven and Pournelle did technological telepathy beautifully in OATH OF FEALTY with zero handwaving.)
One thing they hammer conclusively is that the Science (and pseudo-science) needs to be *integral* to the story.
Telepathy may not be real in our world but that doesn't stop Bester's DEMOLISHED MAN or THE STARS MY DESTINATION from being good SF. Nor does Time Travel's dubious scientific status keep Poul Anderson's THERE WILL BE TIME from being a great read.
The bottom line stands: following the "laws" is good, but telling a good story is better.
