What makes a good Sci Fi story?

[psikeyhackr]

Exactly.
The amount of Science, technology, maths and how accurate it appears to be isn't the main issue, that simply allows the publisher to categorise it.

But different readers are interested in different things. Plenty of stuff called science fiction is bad or dumb or both.

I ignored Hyperion for years. I finally read it a few years ago. It was better than I expected but I would still regard it as more fantasy/horror than science fiction. That is why I think we need specific works to use as references rather than endless vague talk.

http://www.sffworld.com/forums/show...ies-A-Proposal&p=709804&viewfull=1#post709804

Being "literary" is not "scientific".

psik

 

[scientia]

If she'd been aware of any of those things at the time of writing Frankenstein, she'd have been a true visionary.

Indeed since Tesla wasn't born until after she was dead. Let me try that again with the right century.

Galvani did frog experiments in 1790 and died in 1798.
Galvani's ideas were disproved by Volta who created the first battery in 1800.
Davy gave a lecture in London on Galvanism in 1801.
Davy, using electrolysis, discovered Potassium in 1807 and Sodium, Barium, Calcium, Aluminum, and Magnesium in 1808.
Davy was knighted in 1812.
------
Farraday didn't create the first generator until 1831.
And commercial telegraphs weren't around until 1837.

Davy's discovery of Potassium by electrolysis generated a lot of interest. Napoleon obtained batteries twice as powerful as Davy's hoping for some French discoveries. However, they apparently weren't familiar enough with the method and never found anything while Davy went on to discover several more elements. This is undoubtedly the source of the chemistry reference in chapter 4. Of course, considering that Jules Verne wasn't even born until 10 years after Frankenstein, Shelley didn't do too bad.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

But different readers are interested in different things.

I'd say most of what PUBLISHERS call SF, you'd call Horror Fantasy or Space Opera
I'd agree that a lot of stuff is labelled SF, that if you look at it hard, it's anything but.

I watched the 1st Alien film. I was told it was SF. Yes, it had a Spacecraft and set presumably in Future. But to me it was just a horror film with SF "setting". The same story could easily have been set in Wiltshire in 1846.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Indeed since Tesla wasn't born until after she was dead. Let me try that again with the right century.

No problem! Like I said, it's debatable exactly what she's hinting at - and like I've said on another thread on this work, it is an ambiguous novel on many levels. That is what I choose to read into it for the reasons I gave, I respect it if you wish to disagree

 

[MatterSack]

In my opinion, good science fiction only needs three properties.

1. Scientific authenticity (the more the better).
2. A compelling story.
3. Novelty.

 

[F.J. Hansen]

Good story and characters go without saying for any genre, but for Sci-Fi I love...

Space travel
Aliens (the weirder the better, but I have nothing against Humanoid aliens)
Time travel (not required obviously, but a story involving time travel would have a big plus for me)

I become especially giddy, though, when science fiction explores situations such as time dilation (Robert Forward's Dragon Egg), other dimensions (the recent Interstellar movie), the stargate sequence from 2001. That sort of thing.

 

[Avid Scifi Fan]

Thanks for the input.

I agree that some scifi seems to be more of a setting for some stories rather than a hard core exploration of science. I suppose there would have to be smome balance between the two (are the characters simply on a space ship or do you explore how the space ship works...).

 

[Venusian Broon]

Thanks for the input.

I agree that some scifi seems to be more of a setting for some stories rather than a hard core exploration of science. I suppose there would have to be smome balance between the two (are the characters simply on a space ship or do you explore how the space ship works...).

To be honest I find the term 'science fiction' (and all its variants) actually a little old-fashioned. As a child of the 70s I tend to think I write SF - which I'd define as speculative fiction - as a way of being inclusive to a vast array of works which is SF (in my mind at least) but really is nothing to do at all with portraying hard science, or only plays lip service to these sort of concerns. And I think SF/SciFi/Science Fiction/SfFy or whatever you want to call it is much more interesting being inclusive rather than exclusive.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[Avid Scifi Fan]

Not to digress Venusian, but your icon photo looks very familiar. Is that David Bowie from the Labyrinth?

 

[Venusian Broon]

Not to digress Venusian, but your icon photo looks very familiar. Is that David Bowie from the Labyrinth?

Yes! And if you see it on the Guardian website that's probably me too. Unfortunately I have seen another* use it, so it's no longer unique as an icon - at least in my web-sphere. I think for my 2000th post I'll move to something else. Gotta be unique man.


*Damn imposter !!!

 

[Avid Scifi Fan]

I knew it looked familiar, but I haven't seen that movie in many years. I may have to watch it again to refresh my memory.