h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Are we all over complicating this? Surely it's just fiction that has science as a theme.

Does it have to have science as a theme? A lot of the classic science fiction (Philip K Dick especially) doesn't.

Some people say good science fiction is ultimately about people. It's not, they are just needed to move the plot along. Science fiction is an exploration of the consequences of scientific and technological advancement.

I have a first edition hardback copy of A Scanner Darkly.

May I bring in The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag?

The main novella is more magical mystery, but the short '--All You Zombies--'?

I love Heinlein and this is one of my faves.

and then, of course there's Moorcock and Bradbury...

I think Ray Bradbury's 'Something Wicked This Way Comes' would be regarded as science fiction (although fantasy / horror might be more appropriate) because of the general output and reputation of the writer irrespective of science, technology and foresight into the future.

PP.

I also think there are two sort of science fiction.There's the intelligent sort and then there is the whizz bang plotless crap that so often ends up as hollywood movies.

I know which I prefer..

And strangely Philip K Dick's intelligent sci-fi tends to end up as whiz bang Hollywood stuff

His sci-fi has intelligent barcode stickers too:

http://conferencepear.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Phllip%20K%20Dick

Oh yes but I was thinking of the superhero/big robots/big monsters/zombie/vampires genres that currently seem to be the vehicle of choice for big blockbusters

The last SF film I thought was intelligent was Gattaca.No flash bangs just good actors and no need for CGI though that wasn't based on a book..

Source Code and Limitless were good examples of science fiction set in the present.

Is credibility a criteria? Banks has invented "fields" that explains space ship engines and droid's ability to carry things. I have no difficulty of believing in fields that can do cool "spooky at a distance manipulation", so the Culture Novels are Science Fiction - despite their name. However, the books contain no science whatever, hence their name.

Conversely, I don't believe Julian May's Golden Torc series represents a reality that every could or did exist despite a certain amount of scientific mechanism in the explanation of bits and pieces. I am not credulous but not that much.



PS: I am trying to work out if there was a better science fiction author from Philip K Dick's era. Fredrick Pohl perhaps or Ursula Le Guin? Both of them are much later and, arguably, rely on Dick's foundation work. Anyway, something to ponder during the day.

Post 20 fits my definition (i.e. science fiction if it doesn't break our knowledge of science). I prefer to classify fantasy based on whether the plot hinges on ponies or dragons.

Tolkien's rings of power are Fantasy, Moorcock's (Dancers at the End of Time) are Science. Dragon's Egg is Science, Eragon is Fantasy (see what i did there?)

Julian May can torque the tork, but can't walk the walk.

Pity the librarians who have to judge which books get put in the science fiction section and which go in fantasy. The library where I used to work mingles the two in one section . Mystery stories can also be a headache. Quite often arguments have broken out about whether a book should go in mysteries or in the general fiction section.

I remember in the past you'd often hear pompous literary people say they didn't like sci fi, accusing it of having two dimensional characters. It seemed to me at the time that apart from being wrong, they were missing the point, and that the pleasure in sci fi need not come from all that thespian stuff they wanted. Maybe if we look at what sci fi is not, then we could better define what it is?

I've started reading winners of the Nebula Award for science fiction. I'm almost finished with "Darwin's Radio," and plan to go on to other winners.

For the record, I'm not fond of Elizabethan drama, but am happy to make an exception for Shakespeare. Few people read 18th century fiction, but somehow "Gulliver's Travels" and "Candide" continue to be popular. My point is that you can focus on the best of any genre.

HGWells, often complained at being called a scifi writer
and was particularly upset by comparisons to Jules Verne
whom he considered a great scifi writer. Verne was into
the nuts and bolts of possible future tech and had a very
prophetic vision of gadgets and things to come.

Wells took pains to explain he was 'just' a fantasy writer
who simply used modern technologies as a substitute for
the magic of more traditional fantasies which had been lost
in the cynicism of modern times. He was interested only in
creating a displaced reality in which he could place his human
characters for development. The society 'discovered' on and
under the moon was a metaphor for contemporary culture.

Verne pointed a cannon at the moon and shot it off from some
location in Florida (near Cape Canaveral) while Wells used the
'magic' of anti-gravity materials to elevate his sphere through
the roof of a rural English cottage. Later on he even had a young
whipper-snapper make off with it. Kids, eh.

It is not the machinery of the 'Martians' that intrigued him or even
the biology of their red misty blooms - he only wanted to explore
the dimensions of human reaction to, and likely behaviour in, such
an overwhelming and devastating situation.

The Shape of Things To Come is entirely a diatribe on the almost
always predictable outcomes of political and social organisations.
The workings of a Time Machine are never explained; he simply
repeats his message of continuing warfare and a schism in mankind
where beastial subterranean laborers eat all the flower children.
Etc...

~jwf~

Wells' Things To Come was written after he saw Metropolis and vocally described it as rubbish.
Personally I think Metropolis is closer to the truth

Great posts, jwf and Pastey! I saw "Metropolis" many years ago and enjoyed it. During the silent film era, it was customary for pianists, organists, and orchestras to accompany the films while they were running. Louis Armstrong, Fats Waller, and many other notables worked in theater ensembles. Audiences loved Waller's organ accompaniments in a theater in Chicago, but he had to leave it after six months because of troubles with his wife.

That last sentence doesn't seem entirely innocent.