Science Fiction is Obsolete? by cljohnston108

Science fiction has *never* been popular relative to the main stream, and it never will. This doesn't mean it's dead, it just means it'll never be in the main stream. There's just too few Sci-Fi people to get it to that level.

Probably has something to do with the average Sci-Fi person has /much/ higher standards than the average "other" person. Costs time and money to produce something worth while ya know

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:41 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Probably has something to do with the average Sci-Fi person has /much/ higher standards than the average "other" person. Costs time and money to produce something worth while ya know

Ah, the elitist rantings of a true SF person.....

I agree

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:18 AM

SAFEAT2ND

I think a lot of it also has to do with the fact that when writers like Jules Verne and H.G. Wells were writing, there was sooo much unexplored.

As a species we've developed the technology to shine a light in areas that were previously dark or even shaded. Yeah there is, I feel, less to write about but that doesn't mean the quality of Sci-fi should diminish. Quite the opposite. There are a lot of 'lazy' writers out there that just rehash old ideas because it's too hard to come up with new ones. BUT, the ones that have that...spark... THAT is where the good Sci-fi will come from.

I don't think Sci-fi is dead, I think the borders have been blurred is all.

_______________________________________________________________
"Got a headful of lightning
And a heart full of rain
And I know that I said
I'd never do it again
Oh and I love you sweet baby but I always take the long way home."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:31 AM

JONGSSTRAW

I think E.T & Star Wars and it's sequels are about as close to "mainstream" as sci-fi has ever gotten. The problem with anything "mainstream" is that it usually means it's crap....dumbed-down, stupidity meant for assimilation of the masses of asses...ie, those that either don't read, or are hooked fans of So You Think You Can Burp Louder Than a Redneck...or some go se like that.
As far as future sci-fi...the possibilities still seem endless to me, and I'm pretty dumb myself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:58 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

I think the problem lies in what he is comparing. He takes Jules Verne’s From the Earth to the Moon and H.G. Wells’ Time Machine and compares them to Crichton’s Timeline and Prey. Why not compare them to Crichton’s Jurrassic Park and Sphere? Why Timeline and Prey? He’s comparing heavyweight science fiction classics to lightweight stories, and what he ends up measuring is not the value of science fiction but the value of standard of living. In the 19th century, books were relatively rare and fairly expensive to write. Today any idiot with a version of Word on his PC can pump out a professionally edited story. Michael Crichton is one of the all-time greats of science fiction, but producing novels is so easy and competitive these days (compared to the 19th c.) that he can pump out these action stories for the masses with little investment. This is something neither Verne nor Wells could have ever done, but this doesn’t mean that modern science fiction is crap. Sure, if you take an average over all science fiction written in the last 30 years, and compare it to the average of all science fiction written in 19th century, modern science fiction looks like crap, but that’s not because there aren’t just as many great works of science fiction today as there were then.

I suspect, this guy is just taking his disgust with the poor social skills of science fiction authors out on the work. True Verne and Wells probably dressed in three piece suits and no one wants to sit next to a man who hasn’t bathed since his mother took away his Luke Skywalker doll. But let’s be honest, being beautiful or bathing is not a prerequisite for every kind of greatness. We should judge the science fiction writers of our time by their fabulous works, not the pee stains on their sweats.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Ah, the elitist rantings of a true SF person.....

I agree Chrisisall

Just look at the standard tv today. It's pretty much all reality tv crap. No social/political/etc commentary at all. Nothing clever, nothing subtle.

So, IMO, it isn't elitist to point that out. It's just mentioning a fact.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:29 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Just look at the standard tv today. It's pretty much all reality tv crap. No social/political/etc commentary at all. Nothing clever, nothing subtle.

Yeah, for every Dark Angel, there's 20 So You Think You Can Burp Louder Than a Redneck?'s.

Quote:

So, IMO, it isn't elitist to point that out. It's just mentioning a fact.

Dude, don't be be makin' excuses; it's elitist just to be ABLE to point that out IMO.

Elite Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:32 PM

FIZZIX

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Probably has something to do with the average Sci-Fi person has /much/ higher standards than the average "other" person. Costs time and money to produce something worth while ya know

Ah, the elitist rantings of a true SF person.....

I agree Chrisisall

Very true. However, it's a mite disturbing that Discover is putting this out. I might have to go yell at them.

/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\
May not be smart, and it may not please you, but you're definitely gonna see what I have to say.
Put this in your sig if you had a favorite show that may have been named Firefly and was canceled by FOX.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:22 PM

JONGSSTRAW

The recent "new" Outer Limits had a 7 year run, some produced with Showtime & some with Sci-Fi. 150+ episodes of usually great and imaginative sci-fi. Each week, a new exploration of sci fi, either out there in space somewhere, or right here on ole Earth...great stuff utilizing a wide spectrum of sci-fi themes...time travel, space travel, aliens, robots, mutants, war, ...and dozens of great, original stories. You may not like them all, but I would guess that most FFFs would like at least 2/3 of them. So why can't there be something like that now? A weekly trip to un-imagined realms with un-imagined concepts of life, to take me away from the little nasty world we have to live in every day.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 4:09 PM

CORNCOBB

Radio Times ( a British Tv guide) recently ran an article about the new surge of unreality TV, about how sci fi fantasy property is now hot stuff. I couldn't agree more. Lost, Heroes, Dr Who, stargate - these shows are hugely popular. Several old sci fi series are being ressurected. Bab 5 soon and I'm sure Firefly won't be far behind

All the big Hollywood money-spinners are now fantastical to some degree. Even in literature all the really famous authors are fantasy/ sci fi/ horror writers. Sci Fi / fantasy is in its prime. People are sick of being spoon fed moronic dumbed-down rubbish. The backlash has begun.

"Gorramit Mal... I've forgotten my line."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 4:18 PM

@chrisisall:

LOL

But, IMO it'll only be elitist to those that can't make the distinction between pointing out a fact and being snob-y (e.g. the majority of people). Which I find quite sad.

Perhaps if we get really drunk and act like idiots (a la The Real World) before we say it, we'd have more "cred" and we wouldn't be snobs.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:39 PM

ODDSBODSKINS

I'm a terrible snob, and frequently spend my time too drunk to recognise my face in the bathroom mirror, so I'm pretty sure they aren't mutually exclusive at least ^^

They may think their sins are original, but for the most part they are petty and repetitive.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 25, 2007 1:00 AM

I can't say for certain who Bruno Maddox is, but I'm going to guess that he's a journalist who knows bugger all about sf. Let's look at some of his points and see how poor they are:

And with the exception, obviously, of this correspondent, we’re a fairly drab and subdued sort of bunch.
Arrogant git. How many sf writers has he met? I don't like him already. I'm particularly turned off by his pseudo-objective "this correspondent" bollux - tried his hand at Irony 101, failed.

I wasn’t hoping for Naomi Campbell in Vera Wang, just a few people dressed as Klingons, perhaps, or painted green, even very faintly, or even just in a nice houndstooth jacket or something, wildly gesticulating with the stem of an unlit pipe.
These aren't fans, obssessed with the worlds they inhabit; these are filthy pros. It's their job and, fantastic as their work may appear to us, for them to succeed they pretty quickly have to reduce it to the mundane of business or starve.

the towering French figure of Jules Gabriel Verne, a man with a better claim to being the Father of Science Fiction than anyone else
Verne's first sf was Journey to the Centre of the Earth (1864) followed by From the Earth to the Moon (1865) Mary Shelley is the true Father of science fiction (and yes, obviously she's the Mother; sf has no father and is a bastard) publishing Frankenstein in 1818 and The Last Man in 1826. Both are pure sf (one hard, one soft) and both were published before Verne's birth.

When he (Verne) wanted to send protagonists From the Earth to the Moon, he first had to figure out how to get them there. It was rocket science, literally, but the poor sap muddled through, eventually dispatching a three-man crew from a space center in Florida riding a rocket made of newly discovered aluminum at a speed of 12,000 yards per second.
Verne did not send them in a rocket ship, as anyone who has read him, or knows anything at all about sf, knows. Verne stuck them in a capsule fired out of a thumping great gun. His three man crew would have been smeared to a sticky red paste across the bottom of their drawing room vessel. How "that correspondent" can bring up Verne's spat with Wells over his unscientific ideas and not point out that Verne was immediately crucified by scientists for that very error shows he's a very poor correspondent, or at least a very lazy one.

Mary Shelley’s 1818 soft SF classic
He actually knows about this one having previously ignored it - he must have classic movies in his cable package. Trouble is, he's never read it or he doesn't have a clue about the state of science in 1818. The novel was HARD SF, inspired by Volta's experiments that demonstrated how electrical impulses could stimulate muscle contraction in excised frogs' legs. The conclusions drawn from this (that electricity could be used to re-animate dead tissue, returning the dead to life) while reasonable from the experiment are now ignored. None the less, this was state of the art science, reflecting the interest that Mary's husband Percy and his contemporary Romantic poets had in science. Ironically, The Last Man is softer sf, with the 21st Century apocalypse largely undefined.

Nor were SF’s gifts to humanity confined to the world of ideas. Space precludes a full listing here of every real-world marvel lifted straight from a work of futuristic fiction, but suffice it to say that an artificial Earth-orbiting satellite was depicted in the sci-fi short story “Brick Moon” by Edward Everett Hale in 1869.
The most damning proof that he's out of his depth. Anyone who's made any effort to examine sf knows that it predicts the future about as well as a bad fairground psychic, if you'll excuse the tautology. I have a suspicion it was Frederik Pohl who said that sf is as useful for predicting the future as a broken watch is for telling the time - for 1 minute every 12 hours, it's bang on. Honestly, how many dumb ideas have you seen in sf?

Why are the heirs to such a grand tradition dipping their tortilla chips into bean dip that has not even been decanted from its original plastic container into a proper bowl? A plastic container, furthermore, to whose circumference still adhere flapping shreds of cellophane safety seal, the bulk of it clearly peeled off and discarded by someone who has ceased to even give a damn?
Petty, pretentious git.

why are the science fiction shelves of bookstores glutted with brightly colored works of “fantasy” whose protagonists, judging by the covers, are shirtless bodybuilders with Thor hairstyles fighting dragons with swords?
Actually, I agree here. I used to read sword and sorcery when I was a kid but it just gives me the shits now.

There might be purists who’d argue that what Crichton writes are better classified as techno-thrillers than works of science fiction
I am going to argue that what Crichton writes are airport novels. Good pseudo-intelligent fun. I love dumb fun and I sometimes get a charge out of pseudo-intelligent fun. But judging sf by the works of Crichton is like Judging 21st century poetry by looking at the rhymes in Terry Pratchet's latest discworld novels. (Let's face it, he sells more poems in his pages than any Nobel Laureate.)

these days that if a Top Thinker wakes up one morning aghast at man’s inhumanity to man, he’s probably going to dash off a 300-word op-ed and e-mail it to The New York Times, or better still, just stick it up on his blog, typos and all
Actually, a "Top Thinker" will do no such thing. Blogs are written by ordinary people who want to be part of an on-line community and so don't try too hard to set the world to rights and pretentious no-hopers who think they're top thinkers. I quite like the former (did you read the blog/thread on here about the guy who bumped into Summer?) The latter, whom our top thinking correspondent seems to admire so much, are incapable of writing publishable fiction, which is one of the reasons that they're forced to blog their execrable prose to a readership of seven people, six of whom are blood relatives. Milhouse - This is terrible. We've got to post it on the internet right now. Bart - No. We've got to tell people who matter.

Why would I spend my money on a book about amazing-but-fake technology when we’re only a few weeks away from Steve Jobs unveiling a cell phone that doubles as a jetpack and a travel iron? As for the poor authors, well, who would actually lock themselves in a shed for years to try to predict the future when, in this age, you can’t even predict the present?
Because the technology isn't the point and never should be, just as the big ideas are not the point in mainstream fiction. It's the people and the language (and, in the case of cinema, the images and sounds) that make the fiction worthwhile. Furthermore, your paucity of imagination about where future tech will lead us shows you were obviously in the wrong room to start with.

There. That was long, wasn't it? Hope you're all still here. Bye now.

www.cpfc.org - my life
www.nbhs.school.nz - my work

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 25, 2007 5:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Oddsbodskins:

I'm a terrible snob, and frequently spend my time too drunk to recognise my face in the bathroom mirror, so I'm pretty sure they aren't mutually exclusive at least ^^

Ah, but "they" don't know that

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 25, 2007 1:09 PM

Quote:

The most damning proof that he's out of his depth. Anyone who's made any effort to examine sf knows that it predicts the future about as well as a bad fairground psychic, if you'll excuse the tautology.

What? How can you say that, when SF authors have given us the communications satellite (Clarke), the "star wars" Strategic Defense Initiative (Niven, Heinlein & Pournelle, allegedly), the water bed (Heinlein, kinda sorta) and ready-mixed donuts (E.E. "Doc" Smith)! I assume that Star Trek can take credit for the flip-top mobile phone, too.

I mean, OK, there's all sorts of stuff about electronics, quantum mechanics, flying Pan Am to the moon in 1999 and such that they got wrong, but who cares in the face of such glorious successes and an ample supply of reasonably priced deep-fried cakes!

Come on - the real space program only managed non-stick frying pans and million dollar ballpoint pens (and even those claims, after 10 seconds of research on teh interweb, turn out to be more wobbly than Heinlein's water bed)

Maybe SF has peaked. We just went from first powered flight to landing on the moon within a single lifetime, while also discovering the first really practical ways of wiping out the entire race. It would not be particularly surprising if the 20th century turned out to be the heyday of SF. Progress may not have stopped - but its getting a bit incremental. "Hey, now you can get your entire record collection in your pocket instead of a suitcase!" doesn't have quite the same shock and awe as "Gadzooks, mister Edison - some sorcerer has trapped a miniature orchestra in your commode!" If someone does invent the matter transmitter or warp drive we'll be like "whatever".

Mind you, three years ago I wouldn't have believed that the sport-nature-and-jane-austin obsessed British Broadcasting Corporation's flagship Saturday night and Christmas Special show would be Doctor Who... but then that is a 40 year old show.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 25, 2007 1:43 PM

GREYSTOKE

What? Have you been living under a rock? Get out and read some modern Sci-Fi not some stupid tripe by H.G Fkn Wells. That cunt lived in the steam age! Read some Alistair Reynolds or Stephen Baxter to name but two. Kim Stanley Robinson is also an excellent read if only for his Mars series. With all the breakthroughs in technology these day's only an idiot would say Sci-fi's dead. Nanotech, Genetics, The Hubble? Quantum Mechanics? Get a Clue......And stay Shiny! Cheers.....

It's All Gravy Baby!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 25, 2007 1:48 PM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by Greystoke:
Have you been living under a rock? Get out and read some modern Sci-Fi not some stupid tripe by H.G Fkn Wells. That cunt lived in the steam age! ......And stay Shiny! Cheers.....

Nice mouth
Nice respect to a sci-fi icon
And stay shiny of course....Browncoat?..I think not by a long shot.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 25, 2007 4:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
Quote:

The most damning proof that he's out of his depth. Anyone who's made any effort to examine sf knows that it predicts the future about as well as a bad fairground psychic, if you'll excuse the tautology.

What? How can you say that, when SF authors have given us the communications satellite (Clarke), the "star wars" Strategic Defense Initiative (Niven, Heinlein & Pournelle, allegedly), the water bed (Heinlein, kinda sorta) and ready-mixed donuts (E.E. "Doc" Smith)! I assume that Star Trek can take credit for the flip-top mobile phone, too.

Because:
1) None of those things are important; sf is literature that examines change in society and technology. What's important is not whether it accurately predicts the future but whether it accurately predicts the way we deal with change. Usually the technology is stuff that real scientists have predicted and the sf writers are just exploring the implicaitons.
2) Clarke did predict the coms satellite but not as science fiction. His first writings about it were in non-fiction, where he suggested the utility of such a system.
3) For every accurate prediction in sf there are more that were wildly inaccurate, we just don't bother to record them. Even the hardest of sf writers have done this. Reference humid Venus as a setting in the 1930s and 1940s, matter transmission, thumbnail nuclear reactors, time travel, warp drives yaddah yaddah.

Like I said, the broken watch idea isn't mine: I plagerised it off Fred Pohl or Isaac Asimov or Harlan Ellison. I can't remember which.

www.cpfc.org - my life
www.nbhs.school.nz - my work

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 25, 2007 7:42 PM

QUIETUDE

The idea that Science Fiction is obsolete is purely Science Fiction.

I can't image a world where all the books are either Text books, biographies or attempts at drama set in the past or present.

If you think about it most religions are based on Fantasy i.e. Samson getting strength from his hair. Religions are born from the need for man to place himself in a meaningful position in the world.

Science Fiction provides the same purpose. That fact that a Firefly Fan calls him/herself a Browncoat and defines themselves that way is in itself a religion, and lets face it these stories are made up too.

Science Fiction is as limitless as the Human Imagination, and that is limitless.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Quietude:
I can't image a world where all the books are either Text books, biographies or attempts at drama set in the past or present.

Plato banned poets from his Utopia because they told lies!

www.cpfc.org - my life
www.nbhs.school.nz - my work

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2007 4:52 PM

QUIETUDE

Have you ever heard of 'Plato', 'Aristotle', 'Socrates'?!!!

Morons.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2007 5:05 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Uuuu really going to even consider someone who writes:

"In a sulfurous chasm beneath Reality, lit by the orange glow from what appears to be a river of molten Time, the serpent and the eagle have reached their moment of final reckoning."

???!!! PleaSe entEr HeRe your choIce of WtF or HuH ???!!!

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 6:15 AM

CYBERSNARK

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Uuuu really going to even consider someone who writes:

"In a sulfurous chasm beneath Reality, lit by the orange glow from what appears to be a river of molten Time, the serpent and the eagle have reached their moment of final reckoning."

Actually, I kinda like that. Good, evocative use of imagery, and the word choice lends itself well to the lugubrious rhythm. . .

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 6:57 AM

SAFEAT2ND

Quote:
Originally posted by Quietude:
Have you ever heard of 'Plato', 'Aristotle', 'Socrates'?!!!

Morons.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...

I think it's just our definition of Science Fiction has changed. Or perhaps the un enlightned's view of it has changed.

_______________________________________________________________
"Got a headful of lightning
And a heart full of rain
And I know that I said
I'd never do it again
Oh and I love you sweet baby but I always take the long way home."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 10:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by hughff:
Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere: (snipped a bit)
What? How can you say that, when SF authors have given us the communications satellite, the "star wars" Strategic Defense Initiative, the water bed and ready-mixed donuts

Because:
1) None of those things are important

Well, SciFi may not be dead, but irony is definitely looking a bit shakey... Mind you don't drop donut crumbs on your waterbed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 1:49 PM

TRAVELER

If Science Fiction is dead than the Western has passed on long ago. Oh wait I seem to remember Open Range, Missing, The Quick and the Dead, and The Unforgiven. Should I sit back and really add up all Westerns there are.

Science Fiction outweighs Western by ten fold. I would be here all day writing movie titles. Every library I have ever entered has a special section just for Science Fiction.

Just how many comic books would exist if Science Fiction were removed from the store shelves.

Even Jodie Foster did Contact. Would you have wagered that Ms. Foster would make a Science Fiction film.

Science Fiction is not dead. You would have to wipe out all intellingent life forms in the universe first.

I think of all the science fiction that came out of my mouth when asked how the lamp got broken or the come the car only has half a tank of gas.

Long live Science Fiction and those who love it.
Traveler

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 9:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Uuuu really going to even consider someone who writes:

"In a sulfurous chasm beneath Reality, lit by the orange glow from what appears to be a river of molten Time, the serpent and the eagle have reached their moment of final reckoning."

Actually, I kinda like that. Good, evocative use of imagery, and the word choice lends itself well to the lugubrious rhythm. . .

To me, it sounds like something The Tick might say.

www.cpfc.org - my life
www.nbhs.school.nz - my work

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 9:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
Quote:
Originally posted by hughff:
Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere: (snipped a bit)
What? How can you say that, when SF authors have given us the communications satellite, the "star wars" Strategic Defense Initiative, the water bed and ready-mixed donuts

Because:
1) None of those things are important

Well, SciFi may not be dead, but irony is definitely looking a bit shakey... Mind you don't drop donut crumbs on your waterbed.

I can't make up your mind whether you're being obtuse to wind me up or you really are so stupid you don't get it.

Obviously, the last two are trivial and therefore ironic but everyone quotes the first two (and the atomic bomb spy scare at Astounding) as evidence of sf's predictive significance. Of course, as I pointed out above, the comms satellite wasn't sf but speculation based on known science - no fiction here; the SDI is also unimportant unless you were one of the weapons scientists/companies sticking your snout into the public trough and gorging yourself or one of the poor saps (read, US taxpayers) who funded said porcine orgy. I'm neither.

I explain in my post why none of those things are important in science fiction, but if you like sf because it gives you a banal glimpse of future tech and on rare but famous occassions is accurate, knock yourself out. In fact, that's my problem with Bruno whatsisface. He doesn't understand that science fiction is fiction, not science.

www.cpfc.org - my life
www.nbhs.school.nz - my work

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2007 2:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by hughff:

I can't make up your mind whether you're being obtuse to wind me up or you really are so stupid you don't get it.

(Interesting solipsist Freudian slip there).

That's good, because I can't make up my mind whether you're being obtuse to wind me up or just don't get it, either.

Hint: I WAS AGREEING WITH YOU! Please tell me you didn't take:

Quote:

I mean, OK, there's all sorts of stuff about electronics, quantum mechanics, flying Pan Am to the moon in 1999 and such that they got wrong, but who cares in the face of such glorious successes and an ample supply of reasonably priced deep-fried cakes!

...seriously!?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2007 12:27 AM

I see. You're not very good at writing ironically and you get offended and mock people when they stumble across your incompetence. All is forgiven.

www.cpfc.org - my life
www.nbhs.school.nz - my work

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2007 2:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by hughff:
I see. You're not very good at writing ironically and you get offended and mock people when they stumble across your incompetence. All is forgiven.

Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.

In future I will restrict my efforts at humour to simple fart gags and humourous captions for cat photographs - safe in the knowledge that good people such as yourself will at least recognise them as attempts at humour, however inept and unfunny, and will not waste your valuable time attempting to refute them as if they were serious.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 2:54 AM

CLJOHNSTON108

Here's another article on the subject...

The Death of Science Fiction
http://home.tiac.net/~cri/2001/sfdeath.html

...and John C. Wright's rebuttal...

johncwright: Reports of the death of SF are greatly exaggerated
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/107629.html

Michael L. Wentz's take...

Phantom Reflections: Does Literary SF Have A Self-Confidence Problem?
http://michaellwentz.typepad.com/blog/2007/07/does-literary-s.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 2, 2007 12:56 PM