you were pretty clear. I was just making sure that my own views where the, shall we call it, ‘line’ resides.

I do endorse the idea that some SF is just for the adventure and has little need for science.

But I also support the idea that when and where science is called for, it should be accurate or at least a reasonable extrapolation.

If a character in an adventure tale needs to resort to simple math, 2+2 better equal 4, or there better be some good explanation as to why it doesn’t. If a particular locale has a huge, bloated red super-giant in its sky, that planet should be in an orbit that allows for a livable environment, or the characters need to be supplied with equipment that sustains them.

An example (something I intend to write about): The novel Recall Not Earth by C.C. MacApp. FTL ‘jump’ engines require time to build up a sufficient ‘charge’. They can’t maintain that ‘charge’ indefinately because power is needed for weaponry and other ship systems and because, due to esoteric laws of quantum mechanics, the ‘accumulators’ leak.

Totally made up science (somewhat reasonable extrapolation of what was known when it was written) and consistent throughout; battle tactics were based, in a reasonable manner, on the limitations imposed and an ancient alien ship added to the story by being able to build up charge – not instantaneously, but just a tiny bit faster than anyone else.

Adventure and reasonable scientific extrapolation. The balance is what we’re looking for, unless you want to read a textbook.

If you want accurate technical information, read a text book or technical manual. I write to entertain and the instruction or edification I want to convey to readers is more of the emotional kind. Existence presents certain problems common to everyone whether they’re on Mars or New Jersey. Questions of love, bravery, integrity, what makes a person want to get up in the morning, what he or she must do to feel justified. All that good stuff. I’ve found in the Jack Brand stories I’ve done for RGR that the space opera, or more specifically, the space western genre ,provides a broad enough canvass to delve into all that.

I think there has to be a distinction made between stories that are ‘just fun’ and stories that are science fictional in intent.

RGR seems to be trying to evoke the Planet Stories style of ‘adventure tale’, and I wouldn’t expect much in the way of ‘good science’ from a new or an old story of that genre.

On the other hand, I do think its quite possible to write an adventure tale in that vein that’s been updated and, where appropriate for the story, to introduce ‘correct’ science.

“Thanks for the info about the new site John. Maybe not so new but news to me. LOL

I have a question about this though:
{{{ One of the ingredients of a strong story for me is that sense of wonder you mentioned. While the story is sci-fi as broadly defined, I really don’t care much about the science of it. If there are space ships and ray guns and other space gadgets, I pesonally don’t care how they work. I’ll accept it as a given. But I want to see them used sensibly as part of a strong plot. }}}

I am very interested in science fiction as a stimulus to kids understanding science and technology. Although most of the techno-babble on Star Trek I simply find hilarious there is some information in their. The Heisenberg compensator is funny in its irony but it does let people know about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle if they look it up.

I reread E.E.Doc Smith’s Triplanetary a few months ago. It was entertaining and brought back memories but that was all. I would much sooner suggest Tao Zero by Poul Anderson to someone because it really gets across the idea of time dilation at relativistic speeds.

So are these stories golden age style entertainment or is there REAL SCIENCE in the stories without trying to explain the workings of technology that doesn’t exist and may never.

psik

From Whatever Happened to Sense-of-Wonder?, 2008/05/18 at 8:36 PM

thanks very much for a quick and complete answer.

I’m sure everyone will understand that these are your criteria and not anyone else’s. I’m repeating that here to make sure folks hear it.

When I read a piece the first thing I ask myself: Does the story fit into the category of what we refer to loosely as golden age space opera? Frankly, it seems there are very few writers who can turn out this kind of story. Most of what we see are either hard sci-fi retreads, or recycled Star Trek or Firefly episodes.

The Overlords love Firefly, I can’t stand it, personally. But if the story is strong enough I’ll overlook the Joss Whedon influence and refer it on to the next level.

One of the ingredients of a strong story for me is that sense of wonder you mentioned. While the story is sci-fi as broadly defined, I really don’t care much about the science of it. If there are space ships and ray guns and other space gadgets, I pesonally don’t care how they work. I’ll accept it as a given. But I want to see them used sensibly as part of a strong plot.

After deciding whether it fits in the space opera category, I mainly look at four things. Is there an interesting and new idea here? Then come characterization, plot and how well it’s written. I really look for strong charactrers with plausible motivations. The plot should also be believable and if possible be constructed with the purpose of saying something. Good craftsmanship is also a must. And finally setting is important too.

These are just my opinions, as I said, and other Slushmasters, I’m sure don’t agree with all of them, and that’s what makes a democracy.