Is Science Fiction dead?

[pholy]

OK, you can talk about Firefly. But if you try to talk about Farscape I'm leaving! Popping open the cockpit the minute you come to a stop after being sucked into an alien spaceship - and no helmet! And then calculating a slingshot trajectory with a crayon on the bridge floor! Sheesh! I have my standards...

[Penforhire]

Well, and it is completely unbelievable that Rygel didn't get flushed out a space toilet.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

What, are you some sort of browncoats? Not even mentioning Firefly!

I did, I did!

Originally Posted by pholy

OK, you can talk about Firefly. But if you try to talk about Farscape I'm leaving! Popping open the cockpit the minute you come to a stop after being sucked into an alien spaceship - and no helmet! And then calculating a slingshot trajectory with a crayon on the bridge floor! Sheesh! I have my standards...

Is that any better than all aliens speaking English... all "Class M" planets being breathable by humans... "cold-starting" a warp core based on the calculations of a Vulcan under the influence of a mind-altering drug... or Ion power being faster than warp drive?

As far as I'm concerned, Farscape was just as believable and likely as Star Trek. Even Firefly didn't explain how a cheap old freighter had gravity control. None of them are "hard" SF. That doesn't make them bad.

[crich70]

Plenty of Science Fiction for the Kindle at Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...pera&x=20&y=16

I don't think Asimov's is losing subscribers so much as they are changing over to a Kindle format either. I have been getting the Kindle edition of Asimov's SF Magazine for the last few months for the sum of $2.99 (per month) which I'm sure is lower than the paper edition's cost. It just downloads to my Kindle as the month comes round.

[MV64]

Working at a Barnes and Noble and perusing the sci-fi aisles don't give me hope. It's mostly Tolkien-esque fantasy, or else uber-ridiculous military sci fi where they all have oversized robot uniforms and ginormous guns. I miss the days of Clarke, Asimov, etc.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by sabredog

B5 set the standard and I believe it has not been matched. A watchable show but characters that were all shades of grey. However the overriding difference between modern BSG/Universe was there was no overflowing gobbets of angst. Universe was 90210 in space. Absolute drivel that has probably killed the SG franchise.

B5 I probably should give another chance some day. I tried to start watching it once, but dumped it after one episode. The "Grampa Munster" character (who some googling tells me is "Londo Mollari") was soooo over-the top cheesy I dumped the series in disgust. Did they dial back the campyness after the pilot episode?

(FWIW, I liked SG:Universe and SG1 but not SG:Atlantis.)

[Penforhire]

They got into a better swing after the whole first season, IMO. The first season commander, Michael O'Hare defines the term "wooden." He was painful to watch compared to Bruce Boxleitner who got his job in season 2, though O'Hare makes wooden returns at times.

The characters, like Londo, evolve considerably. He isn't quite so clownish in later seasons and even acquires an air of menace (he gets an assistant to play the clown). G'Kar doesn't stay the extremely annoying minor villain he is in the first season and turns into quite the character.

Stuff like that. I don't recommend skipping any seasons. Not every episode moves the larger multi-season story arc(s) ahead but they mix those in along with one-shot episodes.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

B5 I probably should give another chance some day. I tried to start watching it once, but dumped it after one episode. The "Grampa Munster" character (who some googling tells me is "Londo Mollari") was soooo over-the top cheesy I dumped the series in disgust. Did they dial back the campyness after the pilot episode?

(FWIW, I liked SG:Universe and SG1 but not SG:Atlantis.)

Season one Londo was a tale of a jaded and fallen noble who could see his beloved Centauri Republic becoming a footnote in history. He tried to relive former greatness. His nemesis, G'Kar was arrogant, quick to temper and easy to dislike.

Seasons 2 - 5 changed all of that. Those two characters are so full of depth, probably more so that any of the other main characters in the series. Bottom dollar was both characters were essentially good people.

[Solitaire1]

Originally Posted by sabredog

Season one Londo was a tale of a jaded and fallen noble who could see his beloved Centauri Republic becoming a footnote in history. He tried to relive former greatness. His nemesis, G'Kar was arrogant, quick to temper and easy to dislike.

Seasons 2 - 5 changed all of that. Those two characters are so full of depth, probably more so that any of the other main characters in the series. Bottom dollar was both characters were essentially good people.

I see Londo as a tragic character in "Babylon 5." To me, he is an example of why you should be careful what you wish for...because you might just get it.

[KenJackson]

Originally Posted by mewmartigan

I think SF is alive and well but I do sometimes have a hard time finding new "hard" SciFi.

One of my favorite authors in "hard" SciFi would have to be Kim Stanley Robinson. I thought his Red/Green/Blue Mars trilogy was amazing ...

Exactly right!


In fact, I dislike the mixing of fantasy and science fiction. I like my scifi to at least be on the edge of possible--except for time travel, which I love to read as long as it's thought provoking.

But a lot of fantasy is written by people who seem to have little appreciation for the known laws of physics. That's just too frustrating to read.

[odiakkoh]

What exactly constitutes hard scifi?

[crich70]

Originally Posted by KenJackson

Exactly right!


In fact, I dislike the mixing of fantasy and science fiction. I like my scifi to at least be on the edge of possible--except for time travel, which I love to read as long as it's thought provoking.

But a lot of fantasy is written by people who seem to have little appreciation for the known laws of physics. That's just too frustrating to read.

Actually the point of Fantasy is that it doesn't follow the laws of physics. A flying animal the size of a dragon probably isn't possible for example and with the square cube law a human like figure that was the size of a giant (ala Jack and the Beanstalk) would be breaking his legs every time he took a step. Not to mention a circulatory system probably wouldn't be able to sustain such a being either. Fantasy is about things that can't be as opposed to Sci. Fi. which is about things that while unlikely to happen could at least in theory be possible.

[KenJackson]

Originally Posted by crich70

Actually the point of Fantasy is that it doesn't follow the laws of physics. ...
Fantasy is about things that can't be as opposed to Sci. Fi. which is about things that while unlikely to happen could at least in theory be possible.

Exactly!

So why do bookstores mix those two different groups as if they were the same?

[dworth]

"What exactly constitutes hard scifi?"

Science fiction that concentrates more on paying attention to current scientific knowledge than merely stories with spaceships in. Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space series, Stephen Baxter and Greg Egan qualify as hard sf to a greater or lesser extent.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by KenJackson

Exactly!

So why do bookstores mix those two different groups as if they were the same?

Because if you go back far enough they have a common origin. They're two sides of the same coin. Spacemen fly in spaceships while the being of Fantasy ride dragons or have wooden ships that fly through the air. And as Arthur C. Clarke said," Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Wizards use levitation charms (Harry Potter) and people from the future or other galaxies use anti-gravity (Star Trek, Star Wars). It's more that the props are different than anything else (IMO).