The Sword and Laser discussion
Why is fantasy more popular than scifi?
It is as though science fiction of the 40s and 50s was designed to appeal to young boys, young white boys. But then came Sputnik and the government jumped into science education but we all know that is for boys too.There hasn't been any mention of Lois McMaster Bujold in this thread yet. Her father was an engineer and one of her brothers became an engineer. As an old sci-fi fan who went to engineering school I must say a lot of the stuff called science fiction today just does not have a real sci-fi feel to it. The characters aren't smart enough. They do not have a scientific attitude about reality.
Bujold and Robert J. Sawyer get the SF right.
But how do we handle science in the real world with computers everywhere? Even Bujold does not really get that right. No smartphones 600 years in the future. Kind of funny.
But unfortunately I have to appeal to the Bell Curve explanation at least in part for the lack of interest in SF. 75% of the population scores below 111 according to the psych boys and only 10% over 120. So even if an author can write great SF if her or his objective is to sell a lot of books then what is going to be written. Bujold does fantasy too. I haven't read any of it. Maybe that is a mistake and I should try it just for comparison. I don't know how well it has sold compared to her Vorkosigan series.
Sorry, read too quickly. But I'm not the first one to use "What if" associated with Fantasy. Look at the statement by Raymond Coulombe of Quantum Muse at the very end:http://www.greententacles.com/article...
Trike wrote: "I'm not sure how what I said could be misinterpreted but I'll rephrase: I've never seen the specific phrase of "What if" associated with Fantasy. It's always used in conjunction with SF.
Trike wrote: "Yeah, Atwood's rationale is nonsense. You're better off ignoring her, because almost no one thinks she knows what she's talking about when it comes to genre. Science Fiction is not just Hard Science Fiction just as Fantasy is not just Epic Fantasy.There's nothing "technical" about whole subgenres of SF. Books like Vonda McIntyre's Dreamsnake or most of LeGuin's novels are about the personal and the social, not about the hardware. I *like* Handmaid's Tale, but it's not the first time anyone wrote something along those lines. Just because Atwood doesn't want to call her book science fiction doesn't change the fact that it belongs in the SF genre. Just like the other books which have talked about one extreme viewpoint or another dominating the future.>>
You've been reading the genre much longer than I have. Before expanding my reading choices, I prefer to read the non-fiction sciences along with literature. I'm still trying to wrap my mind as to what SF is as a genre, since there are many varying viewpoints. The problem with your definition is that it made SF less clear. That means The Hunger Games series, Don Delillo's White Noise and Jose Saramago's Blindness should also be SF. They all depict a future that could possibly happen.
<
Trike: I'm not sure what you mean by this, since the very heart of science fiction is speculation. You literally can not even have the genre without it. Fantasy is rarely about speculation, but extrapolation is all SF does.>>
What I meant is that some sectors like to reserve the term Speculative Fiction to mean fiction that treats topics in ways not usually done in conventional SF or Fantasy, or that has some elements of these genres, but cannot be pegged into them.
<>
Speculative Fiction label is helpful for labeling books that don't exactly fit into these genre types, but have elements of them.
Trike wrote: "Anne wrote: "What "math" says time travel is possiblle?"Wormholes! V. exciting! No more grandfather paradox!"
Exciting maybe. Not math, but physics, using some assumptions probably not true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole
The wormhole hypothesis is intriguing. As I mentioned in an earlier post, they probably can't be used for travel through space and time. Perhaps used to send information and nothing more.However, as far as I'm concerned, "perhaps" and "probably" are more than sufficient to let them in the genre.
Aloha wrote: "Sorry, read too quickly. But I'm not the first one to use "What if" associated with Fantasy. Look at the statement by Raymond Coulombe of Quantum Muse at the very end:http://www.greententacles...."
Ah, that's where you derived your "weird & edgy" definition from. That remains the only usage I've ever seen. Fantasy just doesn't push limits in the sense of how "What if" is typically used.
Perhaps it is being more commonly used that way. Which would be annoying, because "What if magic were real" is basically the only question Fantasy asks.
Karl wrote: "But unfortunately I have to appeal to the Bell Curve explanation at least in part for the lack of interest in SF. 75% of the population scores below 111 according to the psych boys and only 10% over 120. So even if an author can write great SF if her or his objective is to sell a lot of books then what is going to be written."That may be. There certainly is a perception that Science Fiction is about technology. Which is why people like Atwood try to distance themselves from it: they're basically thinking of the fanciful Star Wars type stuff or hard SF with its technical infodumps.
Good SF does demand an intellectual cover charge, which if you're reading purely for enjoyment doesn't really appeal to many people. I have nothing against that attitude, as I often read purely for enjoyment myself. Just open the book and have a little fun, especially after a day spent thinking a lot.
Alos the reason sci-fi books are not that mainstream is that we got plenty of Star trek, and star wars culture going on, and while I do love tie-in fiction, I believe a freshly starting author will consider it to be difficult to make a name for himself/herself whithout being compered to those 2 giants.also speaking of black holes, I once had the pleasure to read a book about space exploration and in the end one of the crew members, decides to separate the rear part of the spacecraft ( he gets sucked in and we don't know what happens to him) to save the others.... I know it's not much of a description, but if anyone knows which book I'm talking about, could you please tell me?
Anne wrote: "Scifi is more than space operas."Maybe, but space operas are good... [grin]
The problem I think with the "hard" end of Scifi it that there's a perception that it's a lot about obscure physics problems -- wormholes and quantum bozos and being able to justify the maths, and you need at least a degree to read it and a phd to even contemplate writing it. And very little about story or character.
Now, I'm not thick, but I also don't regard myself as particularly clever (tested at 127), but when I get home from a hard day's skiving off work reading the GoodReads forum, I find myself not really caring how the spaceships get from planet a to planet b. It could be a wormhole or folding space, or a quantum bubble, or Royal Mail express delivery (aka a black hole), my brain will automatically translate any physics lecture the author comes up with as "la la la la magic". Until I've seen the star drive demonstrated on the Discovery Channel and I can book a ticket, it might as well be. If the "science" is wrong, there may be three theoretical physicists on the planet that care, but I'm not one of them.
I don't care how my car works either, so long as when I put petrol in one end and press the start button (remember when cars had keys...), it goes.
What I do care about is the ultimatum that the Gflurxl has just issued to the Woozlemat, and the clock is ticking...
If, and this seems to be what people here are suggesting, the only "good" sf is based around a speculative theoretical physics problem, then I for one won't mourn its passing.
Anne wrote: "Scifi is more than space operas."We need a good space musical. That would totally shift sales back to sci-fi.
"I am the very model of rebel Jedi general!"
Tim wrote: "wormholes and quantum bozos"Did you say "quantum bozos"?
From the Uncyclopedia:
Bozo Particles
“Don't touch the Jukebox! !”
~ Marco Polo on Bozo
The Bozo is a long-lived particle, An elementarii particle if ever there was one, the Bozo is unlike most other elementarii particles. In String Theory, the Bozo is beliieved to be contructed of Le Roule.having a visual half-life of years, as opposed to fematoseconds. Bozo Particle emanate Annoyiing Radiation, which has a slightii longer wavelength than Ultraviolent Radiation. Bozos are found denselii packed together in clumps. These clumps are traditionallii observed in New Jersey, outside the childhood home of Gerald Way.
The Bozo plays a crucial role in the theory of Quantum Murphydynamics.
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Bo...
Kamil wrote: "also speaking of black holes, I once had the pleasure to read a book about space exploration and in the end one of the crew members, decides to separate the rear part of the spacecraft ( he gets sucked in and we don't know what happens to him) to save the others.... I know it's not much of a description, but if anyone knows which book I'm talking about, could you please tell me? "Gateway perhaps? Only the scene you mention plays out a little differently here.
LOL! Can't get away with anything here ;)If a spar dive could be fooled by malapropisms and eggcorns...
Andromeda Strain is one of the best scifi stories, known to many, and there is no physics problem nor is it a space opera.
Trike wrote: "Anne wrote: "Scifi is more than space operas."We need a good space musical. That would totally shift sales back to sci-fi.
"I am the very model of rebel Jedi general!""
Hmm, Interesting.
Something like Buffy the musical but based on a fleet of war mongering spaceships which have a pluggable 5 gear drive unit.
The drive units could be warp drive (for the basic model), wormhole drive (for the Zetec model) or multiverse jump drive (for the Titanium model).
All the spaceships come with cup holders as standard.
Anne wrote: "What "math" says time travel is possiblle?"Anne, on the math question -- I am not a mathematician, so I cannot tell you, but if you look at Richard Feynman's diagrams of movement backward and forward in time, you might get a better notion than I have right now of how it works.
Robin wrote: "Anne wrote: "What "math" says time travel is possiblle?"Anne, on the math question -- I am not a mathematician, so I cannot tell you, but if you look at Richard Feynman's diagrams of movement ba..."
Still physics, not math.
Trike wrote: That's why people call it Science Fantasy. It looks like Science Fiction but it works like Fantasy."Science Fiction and Fantasy are really the same genre, separated only by the use of either magic or technology, or the time period in which it takes place. I feel that using the term 'Science Fantasy' is getting a little overkill especially when the term 'Speculative Fiction' covers all options.
A professor's time travel mission:http://phys.org/news63371210.html
http://www.amazon.com/Time-Traveler-S...
Re: sci fi musicals--I di renew my affection for Star Trek after listening to Voltaire Like The USS Make Stuff Up. There is also Repo! The Genetic Opera.
Aloha wrote: "A professor's time travel mission:http://phys.org/news63371210.html
http://www.amazon.com/Time-Traveler-S..."
It is still physics, not math. With Mallett it is a poor excuse for physics.
"...In a paper by Ken Olum and Allen Everett[9] the authors claimed to have found problems with Mallett's analysis. One of their objections is that the spacetime which Mallett used in his analysis contains a singularity even when the power to the laser is off and is not the spacetime that would be expected to arise naturally if the circulating laser were activated in previously empty space. Mallett has not offered a published response to Olum and Everett, but in his book Time Traveler he mentions that he was unable to directly model the optical fiber or photonic crystal which bends the light's... "
"...Another objection by Olum and Everett is that even if Mallett's choice of spacetime were correct, the energy required to twist spacetime sufficiently would be huge, and that with lasers of the type in use today the ring would have to be much larger in circumference than the observable universe. "
"...the physicist J. Richard Gott argues that slowing down light by passing it through a medium cannot be treated as equivalent to lowering the constant c (the speed of light in a vacuum) in the equations of General Relativity, saying:[13]"
"Later, Mallett abandoned the idea of using slowed light to reduce the energy, writing that, "For a time, I considered the possibility that slowing down light might increase the gravitational frame dragging effect of the ring laser ... Slow light, however, turned out not to be helpful for my research."[14]"
"Finally, Olum and Everett note a theorem proven by Stephen Hawking in a 1992 paper on the Chronology Protection Conjecture,[15] which demonstrated that according to General Relativity it should be impossible to create closed timelike curves in any finite region that satisfies the weak energy condition, meaning that the region contains no exotic matter with negative energy. Mallett's original solution involved a spacetime containing a line source of infinite length, so it did not violate this theorem despite the absence of exotic matter, but Olum and Everett point out that the theorem "would, however, rule out the creation of CTC's in any finite-sized approximation to this spacetime."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_M...
ROTFL. If Spike Lee is making a movie ....
Oh well, these are just the objections assuming Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is true - which is an assumption not all physicists would make.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Richa...Gott's proposals on time travel are more cleverly done than Mallett's (which are pitiful even if his goal is to reurrect his father) ... speculative physics still, however, not math.
Based on what I've read, I agree that there are plenty and huge problems with his model. If anyone's interested, here are interesting discussions regarding the Mallett time machine in the Physics Forums.http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/...
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthre...
Mallett's paper:
The Gravitational Field of a Circulating Light Beam
Mallett's Page
Here's an interesting hypothesis on a parallel world:
http://phys.org/news/2012-06-neutrons...
Interesting site on time travel:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cie...
And Gödel metric and Visualization of the Gödel Spacetime
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthre...
Of course, it's one thing to theorize but to go through the rigors of the real world is another quarky, uh quirky, matter. It's fun SF reading, though.
Hey, if Spike Lee is doing Mallett's story, I'll be there with my popcorn.
Anne wrote: "It is still physics, not math. With Mallett it is a poor excuse for physics....
Well, Anne, you've made me purchase another hardback, Time Travel in Einstein's Universe: The Physical Possibilities of Travel Through Time. I've moved to a world of books few people read, in which there are only paper books available. *sigh*Anne wrote: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Richa...
Gott's proposals on time travel are more cleverly done than Mallett's (which are pitiful even if his goal is to reurrect his father) ... speculative ph..."
It's interesting that Sean Carroll criticized some part of the book's appeal to lay readers since his From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time was not as friendly to the lay person as it could be.
There is probably no way to be friendly to the lay person on time travel. All these speculations in physics(and they should be clearly labelled as such by physicists - even Hawking and Tipler) are difficullt. Lay people lose patience going through the assumptions being made at each step --- yet it is so easy to set up a 1=0 paradox, or something of the sort, without realizing it.
Lay people reading science fiction will accept "wormhole", "4th dimension something something" and "It's magic." :)
http://staringatemptypages.blogspot.c...Reading through the Physics Forum posts, Mallett might as well have done that. And the knowledgeable people at the Physics Forum could not go any deeper into his research without further information, or listing in minute detail what is wrong with his ideas. Each step and assumption has to be analyzed.
I guess, ultimately, it is fantasy, isn't it? It's a matter of categorizing the fantasy. Still, an equation with a 1=0 paradox is much more interesting than no equation at all.
Science fiction is about the problems of humankind, and fantasy is about the triumphs of humankind.
I don't agree with that, Kevin. There are a lot of triumphs and discoveries in SF, and there are a lot of problems (beheadings, etc.) in fantasy.
Jason wrote: "Trike wrote: That's why people call it Science Fantasy. It looks like Science Fiction but it works like Fantasy."Science Fiction and Fantasy are really the same genre, separated only by the use of either magic or technology, or the time period in which it takes place. I feel that using the term 'Science Fantasy' is getting a little overkill especially when the term 'Speculative Fiction' covers all options."
Young man, I will turn this thread around! See if I won't!
Anne wrote: "Still physics, not math."We really need to stop all these physicists using numbers and equations and stuff.
Trike wrote: "Anne wrote: "Still physics, not math."We really need to stop all these physicists using numbers and equations and stuff."
Making use of mathematics is not mathematics. Important in physics because one can write myriads of equations with no meaning besides that which one can sell to the unsuspecting - which eventually ruins the reputation of physics in Congress and elsewhere [god particle anybody?). Mallett, for example, claims to have 2 grants - he does not say what kinds of grants. Do you think such funds should be spent on a time machine based on the flimsiest of badly done physics??? If you wish him to speak to a group contact the Levin Agency - LOL - yeah, he has an agent. If he were selling snake oil would that make him any worse?
Tangled wrote: "Lay people reading science fiction will accept "wormhole", "4th dimension something something" and "It's magic." :)"damn, i even accepted the breaking of the 4th wall in fiction, why shouldn't i accept the 4th dimension
Anne, mathematics has its own inconsistencies and unsolvables, as proven by Godel's incompleteness theorems. It can also get away with not having to face the rigors of the real world application. For example, time travel is possible mathematically, but impossible (as far as we know it) physically. Anne wrote: "Trike wrote: "Anne wrote: "Still physics, not math."
We really need to stop all these physicists using numbers and equations and stuff."
Making use of mathematics is not mathematics. Important in..."
Aloha wrote: "Anne, mathematics has its own inconsistencies and unsolvables, as proven by Godel's incompleteness theorems. It can also get away with not having to face the rigors of the real world application. ..."Time travel is not possible mathematically. One might be able to change F(x,T) with respect to a variable t in math - the minute one says t is time it isn't math anymore, it's physics. It's more than just a quibble to realize this.
Informally, Gödel's incompleteness theorem states that all consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions (Hofstadter 1989). This is sometimes called Gödel's first incompleteness theorem, and answers in the negative Hilbert's problem asking whether mathematics is "complete" (in the sense that every statement in the language of number theory can be either proved or disproved). Formally, Gödel's theorem states, "To every -consistent recursive class of formulas, there correspond recursive class-signs such that neither ( Gen ) nor Neg( Gen ) belongs to Flg(), where is the free variable of " (Gödel 1931).A statement sometimes known as Gödel's second incompleteness theorem states that if number theory is consistent, then a proof of this fact does not exist using the methods of first-order predicate calculus. Stated more colloquially, any formal system that is interesting enough to formulate its own consistency can prove its own consistency iff it is inconsistent.
Gerhard Gentzen showed that the consistency and completeness of arithmetic can be proved if transfinite induction is used. However, this approach does not allow proof of the consistency of all mathematics.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsI...
Still, that does not cover all mathematics. There are still holes.Anne wrote: "Gerhard Gentzen showed that the consistency and completeness of arithmetic can be proved if transfinite induction is used. However, this approach does not allow proof of the consistency of all mathematics.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsI... "
Well, I can't argue math with a specialist. But there is something off about this logic. When I figure it out, I'll let you know. :oDAnne wrote: "Time travel is not possible mathematically. One might be able to change F(x,T) with respect to a variable t in math - the minute one says t is time it isn't math anymore, it's physics. It's more than just a quibble to realize this. "
This seems to say that time travel is not possible mathematically because time does not exist in pure mathematics. So this argument is moot.Anne wrote: "Time travel is not possible mathematically. One might be able to change F(x,T) with respect to a variable t in math - the minute one says t is time it isn't math anymore, it's physics. It's more than just a quibble to realize this."
Aloha wrote: "Still, that does not cover all mathematics. There are still holes.Anne wrote: "Gerhard Gentzen showed that the consistency and completeness of arithmetic can be proved if transfinite induction i..."
But the "holes" do not necessarily signify what some of the authors would have you believe. Rather like the situation with Einstein in the early 1900's when it became popular to say "everything is relative" as an excuse for moral laxity...many people were led down the garden path... totally ignoring the fact that Einstein's universe of non-Absolutes did not exist. LOL.
Aloha wrote: "This seems to say that time travel is not possible mathematically because time does not exist in pure mathematics. So this argument is moot.Anne wrote: "Time travel is not possible mathematicall..."
It is more correct to say that mathematics is abstraction.
For example, the number one might be illustrated on Sesame Street as one shoe, one car, one cup of water, one foot, one GB, one hour, one camel but one is the mathematical concept independent of shoe, car, water, foot, GB. hour, camel, etc. Not all children make that jump to the abstraction.
We're treading dangerously close to a philosophical debate on abstraction vs. reality. I understand that pure mathematics is not dependent on a perceiver, meaning that its truth is independent of any "reality" or any changes in time. Basically, abstract mathematics is an eternal truth. This sounds almost religious. LOL. Anne wrote: "Aloha wrote: "This seems to say that time travel is not possible mathematically because time does not exist in pure mathematics. So this argument is moot.
Anne wrote: "Time travel is not possible..."
I don't understand the correlation. It seems to me that if Einstein's universe of non-Absolutes did not exist, then there is an absolute truth. What is that? That sounds religious, too.Anne wrote: "But the "holes" do not necessarily signify what some of the authors would have you believe. Rather like the situation with Einstein in the early 1900's when it became popular to say "everything is relative" as an excuse for moral laxity...many people were led down the garden path... totally ignoring the fact that Einstein's universe of non-Absolutes did not exist. LOL. "
Aloha wrote: "We're treading dangerously close to a philosophical debate on abstraction vs. reality. I understand that pure mathematics is not dependent on a perceiver, meaning that its truth is independent of ..."You make some mental leaps there. Mathematics change as do those who speak them...languages with strict grammars but living languages nevertheless.
Anne wrote: "Aloha wrote: "We're treading dangerously close to a philosophical debate on abstraction vs. reality. I understand that pure mathematics is not dependent on a perceiver, meaning that its truth is i..."Yes you are. At the risk of attracting hate, one could say may "pure" religions are not dependent on the perceiver--if you accept the fundamental assumptions behind those religions as true. That is not to say that all regions are as logical as math. However, if one were to accept the fundamental belief behind most religions, then many of the conclusions that follow would not be subjective (though the interpretation of such conclusion could no doubt be argued by sects with the religion).
To simplify, if I have a video game were I am god, I can objectively demonstrate the outcomes of various actions withing the rules of the universe created for the game. There may even be some intellectual merit to such abstract exercises. And just to bring the topic back around to types of weird fiction, if I wrote a book extrapolating on the rules and experiences of my game, I doubt many here would consider it science fiction rather than fantasy (because I would focus on magical rules, drama and relationships to make a good story even if it is based on extrapolations from abstract principles and "what if" questions).
The Sword and Laser
Books mentioned in this topic
Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea (other topics)The Hunt for Red October (other topics)
Tigana (other topics)
Stranger in a Strange Land (other topics)
Silver Moon (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Kelley Armstrong (other topics)Patricia Briggs (other topics)
Neil Gaiman (other topics)
N.K. Jemisin (other topics)
Stephen R. Donaldson (other topics)
More...
Wormholes! V. exciting! No more grandfather paradox!