Quote:
Originally Posted by hildea
Thinking about my favourite SF authors and books, scientific background doesn't seem all that important. Some examples: Martha Wells' Murderbot series, Ann Leckie's Ancillary Justice triology, Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan series, Elisabeth Moon's Familias Regnant universe, Lee and Miller's Liaden books. I don't actually know these authors' background, for all I know most of them have some background in science, but the science isn't all that prominent in the books.
...For instance, I like Moon's thoughts on how longevity technology could change a society, and implications of the invention of an artificial uterus in Bujold's universe.
|
I'm likely doing a poor job of communicating. When I read what I think of as science fiction, I like books that provoke thought on what impact the book's changes might make on society.
So for instance,
Poul Anderson's Brain Wave isn't hard SF (the Earth passes out of a magnetic field it has been in for eons making everything on Earth much smarter than it had been). Or
David Brin's Kiln People had people making temporary duplicates of themselves out of clay. No, I don't think that is coming in the future. But it makes an interesting read thinking about what would happen if you could be in multiple places at the same time.
What I don't like in science fiction is taking an action story, dressing it up in 'the future' and calling it sci-fi (countless Will Smith and Bruce Willis movies and their book equivalents). That was what I thought of when I read "I don't see scientific background as important in SF..."
I like the John W. Campbell one: "To be science fiction, not fantasy, an honest effort at prophetic extrapolation from the known must be made."
Campbell did a lot for science fiction. Of course, he also fell for a bunch of pseudoscientific nonsense and L. Ron Hubbard's hokum. But his early instincts were important. He created and helped shape what many now think of as science fiction.
I remember reading an author interview somewhere (I wish I could find the interview) where they said science fiction should mostly be plausable with believable extensions on existing technology with one thing that is a stretch, which becomes the basis of the story.
But when you insert too many made up technologies in there: ESP, warp drive, the Force, teleporters, artificial gravity, time travel, laser swords you have moved into the realm of fantasy.