Re: Hard Sci-fi?

On Apr 22, 7:27=A0am, Remus Shepherd <re...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> =A0 =A0There's a point where the science is so 'soft' that you just have
> to call it fantasy. =A0In addition to talking rabbits, Watership Down
has
> a ghostly black rabbit of death and a more-or-less active sun god.
=A0It's=

> a fairy tale, and falls squarely in the fantasy genre.

So what distinguishes science fiction from fantasy (or "fairy tale" if
you like) is the presence of gods?  Or magic?  What do you consider a
"god"?  What do you consider "magic"?

> [snip comments on magic swords]
> =A0 =A0To summarize: =A0Hard science fiction earns every ounce of
disbelie=
f it
> gets. =A0Fantasy relies on the readers to be willing participants in the
> suspension of disbelief. =A0And soft science fiction falls in between,
rel=
ying
> on the fact that previous sci-fi stories have recognizable components
that=

> readers will latch onto if given the chance.

Forgive me, but it seems the distinction between "liquid gallium-
filled chambers controlled by magnetic actuators", "computer-aided
swinging action", and "magic"...is just a question of how much
exposition you want to stick in.  They're all mechanisms for the
suspension of disbelief: some just have more syllables than others.