Slashdot Mirror
Is Science Fiction About The Future Anymore?
An anonymous reader writes "A recent Globe and Mail article looked at the state of science fiction and concluded that the future is bleak. Fantasy and science fantasy are popular but near-future predictions are not. But author Robert J. Sawyer says, 'Science fiction has never been about the future, it's always been about the present day...' 'People are looking for a simplicity in their fictional worlds where good and evil are clearly delineated, that you can't find in the real world, and that provides an enormous comfort -- and that, I think, has an awful lot to do with the reason fantasy is so popular.'"
like the LCD screens?
well, you have to consider that today the technology we have was not imagined by Gene in 1967 but to make it a believable future you need to incorporate some tech that appears to have evolved from our world today.
I think it was a mistake to make a pre-series because it had to reflects an evolution of todays society. Gene knew that and that is why his next series, TNG, took place 250 years after TOS.
but for the non anal of us, the continuity is fine.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
"No one is so clear cut black and white in his novels"
Yeah, you don't even know who to root for when even the "good" people do bad things. His books are kind of depressing, but they most certainly do not fall into any good vs. evil cliches.
For the record, Bradbury opposes Moore's theft of Bradbury's title.
Orwell's 1984 seems to have predicted that our government
No, no, and again no.
Read 1984. Orwell was concerned that the Communists would do these this.
* Big Brother looks like "Uncle Joe" Stalin
* The party of 1984, IngSoc, stands (as stated in the book) for "English Socialists".
* Many high-ranking people in the USSR were surprised at how well Orwell knew the system.
* etc. (I am not writting a book report here.)
The book was written in 1947, after Right-wing Fascism had been thoroughly beaten and discredited. What was instead popular then (as the new hope of enlightened civilization) was Left wing Communism. Orwell having spent time with these people knew they were dangerous. He wanted to point out the type of world these people would create if they came to power.
How the Left took something targeted at them (Communism is an extreme Left wing view) and turned it into a tool to beat the Right over the head with, I'll never know (but I am impressed),
I'd assume that is because mostly 1984 gets taught in English classes specifically high schools, where the teacher is almost guaranteed to be Left wing. (Academia has the least political diversity of any profession. Which isn't surprising given that non-University teachers have so much education and so little money to show for it? You have to have a certain philosophical outlook to do that.)
Sure, some matches up... but it's not like there aren't errors as well...
Matthew claims that the birth of Jesus occurred during the reign of Herod the Great of Judea, a puppet king of the Romans, whom we know died in 4 B.C. Luke also tells us that Jesus' birth happened during Herod's reign. Luke even adds what appears to be detailed and historical evidence of the period. He writes that Jesus was born during a census or registration of the populace ordered by emperor Augustus at the time that Quirinius (Cyrenius) was Roman governor of Syria (Luke 2:1-3). In reality, this has to be a fabrication because Quirinius was not governor of Syria and Judea during Herod's kingship. Direct Roman rule over the province of Judea, where Bethlehem was located, was not established until 6 A.D. In other words, ten years separated the rule of Quirinius from Herod.
Taken from http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_lib.htm Granted, it's a site that would be tough to claim is free from bias, however I went with the first link from google that confirmed what I was taught in college, it is a fact that is agreed on by many historians... this alone of course doesn't make the Bible a fantasy story... just not a completely historically accurate story.
WANNAWIKI Wannawiki WannaWiki WANNAWIKI!
This guy has obviously not been reading any Hard SF or "far future" tales. I've seen more and more of these kinds of books coming out. Ever since scientists found that the universe is accellerating and will not collapse, a lot of books have started coming out which look ahead to what life might be like billions, even TRILLIONS of years in the future.
For a good example, read Stephen Baxter's "Manifold" trilogy, which is just from the last 3 years. If that's not about the future, I don't know what is.
Evil is a subjective classification and as such nothing is universally defined as evil by all individuals. Was Napoleon evil when he was simply one of the Consuls or even evil after becoming emperor to fight the monarchies united in opposition to revolutionary France? Was Hitler evil when he rebuilt the German economy from shambles or even evil immediately after the war began in more than the sense of "opponent is always evil"? Is Osama bin Laden evil in the sense that he has taken the Arab freedom fighter role to oppose the illegal occupation and resettlement of the disputed territories by Israel? Was Hussein evil when acting to ensure the sovereignty of his nation? Was Pol Pot evil when he removed colonial influences? No classification of "evil" is universal or even necessarily consistent in its qualifications. Do not spout baseless nonsense that would make even the most zealous of the whig-liberals of the past consider you to be a fool who is incapable of actual understanding.
TNG wasn't 250 years after the original series. It was placed about 90 years after the end of the series (or about 70 years after the last movie).
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
The big problem with literal interpretation is the self contradictions in the stories, the multiple political directives, the politically motivated translations
What look like self-contradictions in religious texts are often artifacts of translation by imperfect humans. Many recognize this; the Italian word for "translator" sounds like the word for "traitor". For maximum fidelity to the original texts (Hebrew and Aramaic for the Tanach; Greek for the New Testament; Arabic for the Qur'an), get a study edition that lists the original words in footnotes at tricky parts.
101 Bible contradictions cleared up
Well at least the Christian Bible is more self-consistent than some speculative fiction novels I've read.
There are no (or hardly any) unbiased documentaries. The only thing a documentary needs to be is factual (and informative) - now whether Moore used his facts to coerce the viewer to see his side of the story is not important to the question as hand. He DID use facts, interviews, etc. in his movie.
Dictionary.com has this definition:
"A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration."
It says NOTHING about bias. Moore's movies are documentaries, but they can also be considered propaganda ("Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause").
Nice link, but try reading a dictionary at some point in your life before blasting someone.
(This post is not a defense for Moore, rather, a defense of the English language).