From: MarkLFischer at aol.com
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 21:19:57 EST
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Who said: SF is fantasy with nuts and bolts painted on?
To: WSFAlist at WSFA.org
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

In a message dated 4/1/2005 4:50:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,
omni at omniphile.com writes:

>I do see a difference between a laser in the
>30's ("heat/death  rays") and a fairy godmother's magic wand in the 30's.

This is a problem with giving Science fiction too much credit for
prediction.  The heat/death rays of the 30s were not lasers.  They  were
generally-linear energy weapons that sometimes behaved in ways that are  similar to modern
lasers, but that's where the resemblance ends.
If the method of their generation was discussed at all, it was usually
dissimilar to laser principles, and was often scientific hogwash.

>The magic wand violates known physical laws and so will never  happen.

A magic wand violates known physical laws, and is therefore  unlikely.  Our
understanding of nature is good, but by no means  comprehensive.  New
understanding may bring new ability.

"Magic", as used in all but the most simplistic juvenile fiction, can be
defined broadly as controlling elements of the physical universe  by means an
instrumentality that responds to the will (I don't  propose to get into a furball
over this definition on the list.  See me at  a meeting if you want to
hairsplit over it).  So can fictional Science  and Technology.  What difference
exists lies in the tools used.

Technology generally uses both physical and nonphysical instrumentality,  and
magic usually only a nonphysical one.  Fiction employing  magic generally
avoids exploring the nature of its instrumentality altogether,  or uses vague
concepts.  Fiction employing future technologies frequently  posits advances in
science that have yet to occur, or may never occur.   Science does not discover
to order, and often behaves in unexpected ways.   The Space Elevator
envisioned by Arthur Clarke is ALMOST reality, but materials  science hasn't provided
us with anything strong enough to build the thing,  and might not.  Until we
have it in hand, or know exactly how it can be  made, it's fantasy.  "Fantasy"
doesn't mean "Impossible", it just means  "Not Existent".

>Extrapolating that to the future, I'd say that unless something  violates
>natural laws, it's possible and if it's also desireable, it will  probably
>happen at some point.

I'll accept that the day that we know all the laws and everything about  them.

>I see a very distinct difference there...you really don't?

Time out.  You're edging close to Ad Hominem.  I can do that,  too.  Let's
not.

>Things that rely on science that is currently unknown  ("subspace",
>"hyperspace", "wormholes", etc.) but which does not actually  violate any
>known laws are far less likely to happen, but aren't ruled  out the way
>magic is.

It's all imaginary.  What physical laws forbid magic, again?

>One pole is "SF" the other is "Fantasy"

Why is it important to have this pigeonholed like that?  Just enjoy it  and
don't sweat the labels.

>Actually, there are physics theories that allow both of those  things, and
>these are taken seriously by theoretical physicists.

Yes, way down at the quantum level.  These things do not necessarily  scale
well.

>You can understand why the Kif have the social setup they have once  you
>understand their biology, but you can't really identify with  them.  Not if
>you are human anyway.  Humans consider children  valuable, Kif do not.

On the contrary, I can get inside their heads quite handily, as you have to
do even with villains.  Part of the fun of a really well-constructed alien
character is being able to look at the story from their point of view, even if
their cultural norms would be reprehensible to us.

>Yeah, that we live in the same universe and are subject to the same  natural
>laws.  Both need to eat, need some space to exist in, and  therefore are
>competitive for resources.

Reductio ad absurdem again.  An alien with no recognizable motives or
attitudes isn't a character, it's a force of nature.  Kif ruthlessness has  many
parallels in our own species.

>>True, but "Rendezvous with Rama" and "Ringworld" are not set in  this
world,
>>either.
>
>The difference is that for  the most part they could be.  That means they
>might be.    We can be fairly certain that Hobbits trying to destroy a ring
>of power  with the help of elves and dwarves can't and won't ever
>be...outside of  Fantasy imagination.

They remain fantasy until we know them to exist.

>All the stories  we tell happen in worlds that exist between our
>ears.  They  may be more or less similar to ours, but they are equally
unreal.

The  same can be said about "reality", but let's not get into  the
subjective/objective universe thing...