RE: Did Science Fiction Influence You?
Science fiction has had a huge influence on my life. As a child I was dead set on being a scientist and this was mainly due to science fiction. For much of my youth I wanted to be a paleontologist so naturally films like Jurassic Park appealed to me. I also marveled at the series "Walking With Dinosaurs" which I've just now realized is technically science fiction. I also fondly remember my father reading me Isaac Asimov's "Robot Dreams" when I was still young enough to be read to.
It barely counts as science fiction but I very much emulated Dexter from Dexter's Laboratory and the character Jason Fox from the Foxtrot comics. In addition I loved Star Trek. As a middle schooler Voyager was my favorite, but now I have far more appreciation for Next Generation.
One of my all time favorite series was Stargate SG-1. SG-1 is more space fantasy then science fiction but I feel it's worth mention anyway. In particular the fact that it also had a humanities influence with references to various history and myth and an archeologist as a main cast member is significant to me as I'm now studying archaeology.
In high school my grades weren't looking sufficient for a serious career in science so I chose to pursue my other passion, film. As a film student I took a science fiction class and pitched sci-fi script ideas in screenwriting class. I also talked my experimental film teacher into letting me make this as a final project:
I completely failed to make the models look like anything other then toys but I'm still proud of the sound design as I used audio based on planetary magnetic fields and the "Wow signal".
My first ever paid publication was a science fiction short story called "Mercy Park". The story is based on the idea of the "euthanasia coaster" and follows a person who narrates his ride via a thought-to-text device. When it was accepted into Perihelion the editor wrote "Well, this is certainly one of the most unusual, disturbing stories that I've read in quite some time. I have to publish it." A response I'm still incredibly proud of. My story is not available online right now but there should be a reprint in the future.
As I mentioned I'm now studying archaeology. I enrolled in a Masters Program at Yale last year. This means a lot to me as Yale was my dream school as a child. So I've returned to the serious pursuit of a career in science, albeit a social science in this case. Still I think my ten year old self would be satisfied to know where I am today though perhaps slightly disappointed I'm studying ancient people instead of dinosaurs.
I wholeheartedly reject the definition the quoted person tries to impose on the genre. To insist that science fiction must be completely scientifically accurate is to discount most works in the genre, including some of the most seminal and influential ones. To call a story fantasy simply because some of the science is inaccurate is simply wrong. Fantasy is an entirely different genre with it's own literary tradition.
That is a very thorough answer, easily the equal of anything in the Sigma Xi sample (actually, the addition of the film clip puts it over the top, imho). Thank you.
Those endless debates about what is and is not SF are pretty pointless. To me, science fiction could just as easily be classified as a form of applied philosophy, a continuation of the utopian/satiric traditions of Thomas More and Jonathan Swift. Whatever the technical or magical special effects, many many SF stories contain classic moral dilemmas.
Thank you! To me the deciding element is the presence of scientific story elements, central to the plot which in some way delve into the theoretical. These story elements can include the speculation that certain aspects of our modern understanding of science are wrong or how things might be different if certain known laws did not exist or did not work in the way they're currently understood to work.
As Arthur C Clark once said "The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible". So I see no reason to shun works that do just that.
I do love stories which are rooted firmly in what is known to be scientifically possible, such as some of the more grounded episodes of Black Mirror but I see no reason they should be declared the only "true" science fiction.
To me fantasy is defined by a central focus on pre-scientific ideas, in particular some form of magic which has no scientific explanation. Fantasy worlds need not be devoid of science, but science is not a key focus. Just as an example, in the world of Harry Potter we can presume that science exists and the products of scientific research are still vital to the non-magical world, but the books never really delve into this because the focus is on the mythology-inspired concept of magic.
Coincidentally, another quote from Clarke opens my column this month, on a similar theme.
“It seems to me that there is room—one might even say a long unfelt want—
for what might be called the ‘tall’ science-fiction story.
By this I mean stories that are intentionally unbelievable:
not, as is too often the case, unintentionally so.”
– Arthur C. Clarke, preface, Tales from the White Hart
The column should be posted tomorrow at the top of this page
http://www.intergalacticmedicineshow.com/cgi-bin/mag.cgi?do=columns&vol=randall_hayes&article=_index