Re: Hard Sci-fi?

Damien Valentine <valends3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 7:27?am, Remus Shepherd <re...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > ? ?There's a point where the science is so 'soft' that you just have
> > to call it fantasy. ?In addition to talking rabbits, Watership Down
has
> > a ghostly black rabbit of death and a more-or-less active sun god.
?It'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"?

   Both I would call 'inexplicable forces'.  Possibly even 'ineffable'.

> 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.

   Yep.  And to me that's the difference between hard and soft science 
fiction:   The care and plausability the author gives to the suspension of
disbelief in his world.

   The difference between science fiction and fantasy is in the choice of
tropes used to tell the story.  If the plausability hinges on something
inexplicable, no matter how well described, that's magic and the story
is fantasy.

   And let me reiterate that everything I've expressed in this thread is
my opinion.  These are definitions that work for me.

....                                                                  ... 
Remus Shepherd <remus@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
   Journal:  http://www.livejournal.com/users/remus_shepherd/
   Comic: http://indepos.comicgenesis.com/