grahamguitarman
Sage
pretty much anything by Anne McCaffrey is practically indistinguishable from fantasy
Science fiction is based on facts even though the story may be unlikely. Fantasy, on the other hand, Is based on things scientifically impossible. I read that somewhere.
I don't see why they both can't coexist peacefully. They seem like two sides of the same coin. My personal definition is ...if it has spaceships it's SciFi, if magic its fantasy.
But then you get stories like The Time Machine, which had no space ships but was quite clearly science fiction. Actually, there's loads of SF with no space ships; Greg Egan's Quarantine, for example, and Permutation City. Charles Stross's Halting State and Rule 34. Etc.
pretty much anything by Anne McCaffrey is practically indistinguishable from fantasy
Good point. So I guess I'll stick with the first one:
Science fiction is based on facts even though the story may be unlikely. Fantasy, on the other hand, Is based on things scientifically impossible. I read that somewhere.
Science fiction is based on facts even though the story may be unlikely. Fantasy, on the other hand, Is based on things scientifically impossible. I read that somewhere.
Here's an example: I'm a big Star Wars fan, and no matter what anyone else says, I consider Star Wars to be science fiction.
"Space opera" is actually the term I've heard used (by literary types, e.g. my mother, who has likely read more SF books than everyone here combined).
"Space opera" is actually the term I've heard used (by literary types, e.g. my mother, who has likely read more SF books than everyone here combined).
Yes, but that's not too far from calling it science fantasy. People who use that term tend to be the same kind of people who consider hard science fiction the only "real" kind of science fiction. (No offense to Mrs Clayborne.)
Me, I'm okay with calling Star Wars space opera, but you'll have to offer considerable bribes before I aknowledge that space opera isn't science fiction.
Yes, but that's not too far from calling it science fantasy. People who use that term tend to be the same kind of people who consider hard science fiction the only "real" kind of science fiction. (No offense to Mrs Clayborne.)
Me, I'm okay with calling Star Wars space opera, but you'll have to offer considerable bribes before I aknowledge that space opera isn't science fiction.
Space opera is a subgenre of science fiction that emphasizes romantic, often melodramatic adventure, set mainly or entirely in outer space, generally involving conflict between opponents possessing advanced technologies and abilities. The term has no relation to music and it is analogous to "soap opera" (see below). Perhaps the most significant trait of space opera is that settings, characters, battles, powers, and themes tend to be very large-scale.
Perhaps you would care to give an example of books from very different genres which have similar approaches to structure, tone, characterisation, and so on to illustrate your argument?
Science fiction is based on facts even though the story may be unlikely. Fantasy, on the other hand, Is based on things scientifically impossible.
All my points and arguments stand on their own.
I don't need to write PhD theses everytime.
I'm not asking for a PhD thesis. I'm asking for you to logically justify your arguments. Evidently they do not stand up on their own and I for one cannot see how you have reached the conclusions you have reached. Stating opinion is fine, but doing so without explaining your reasoning behind that opinion is not conducive to discussion and debate.
If you can't see the points being made without explanation, then you really shouldn't be a moderator.
Science fiction is based on facts even though the story may be unlikely. Fantasy, on the other hand, Is based on things scientifically impossible. I read that somewhere.