Having two conversations about the meaning of SF this month that seem to be running in parallel: one with Joe Mahoney, via e-mail, and one on the SFCanda mailing list. Best bits IMHO are requoted here.

My personal definition of good SF is "fiction that examines the human condition in situations not currently considered possible." -- Joe Mahoney e-mail to Lynda Williams 20/06/05

"Although it is important for SF to address the impact of science, its literary and emotional parentage has more to do with mythology, morality plays and tall tales, than it does with science. Science is often its material, not at the heart of its motivations. The distinction between "hard" SF and "fantsy" is naturally difficult to make because it is artificial and wrong headed, driven by the desire of those who set up the dichotomy to ally themselves firmly with a source of power (science) and distance themselves from less respectable fantasy. I have a scientific background, and see value in making science as real as possible in SF in order to make any message it has to convey that much more relevant to the modern world. But if someone manages to address the same issues symbolically, through fantasy methods, I see more kinship than difference between the two approaches." -- Lynda Williams, post of SFCanada Williams 19/06/05 (with some editing by author for brevity)

posted by Lynda at 08:37   comment? e-mail lynda@okalrel.org 0 comments