Why do so many skeptics like science fiction and fantasy?

[MG1962]

For example, Asimov's degree in chemistry is fully irrelevant to problems of physics in his settings. Not to mention stuff where a basic understanding of chaotic systems would have nixed the whole premise in the bud. E.g., the Foundation novels. Of course, he gets the excuse that such knowledge wasn't particularly scientific or widely available in 1942, but there we go, his degree in chemistry is fully irrelevant there anyway.

In the era we are talking about, there were two basic types of story. The adventure story set in some created science fiction universe. The other type, which today would be considered 'hard science fiction' used to be called in the trade a 'paperclip' story.

This second group stories traded directly on some quirk of science saving the characters from some specific situation they were put in by the author. Asimov established himself in this sub genre very early on with his story

Marooned Of Vesta

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marooned_Off_Vesta

I am not trying to challenge you over the education of the authors or the material produced, but to point out if realism is a requirement to read science fiction there is actually plenty of material out there to enjoy

 

[quadraginta]

I think you will there are more than a few authors with degrees in the hard sciences, at least enough to build a reasonable library have degrees, if that was a criteria to use

Asimov had a Masters in Chemistry and a Phd in Bio-Chemistry. Stephen Baxter is also a double in engineering and maths. Greg Egan also has one in maths. David Brin, Sir Fred Hoyle and Carl Sagan all held degrees in astronomy. Neil Stephenson has a minor in physics.

Between the authors of that incomplete list you would approaching a couple of hundred books as a starting point.

Gregory Benford, who not only has the degrees, but is actually paid to be a physicist.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

In the era we are talking about, there were two basic types of story. The adventure story set in some created science fiction universe. The other type, which today would be considered 'hard science fiction' used to be called in the trade a 'paperclip' story.

This second group stories traded directly on some quirk of science saving the characters from some specific situation they were put in by the author. Asimov established himself in this sub genre very early on with his story

Marooned Of Vesta

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marooned_Off_Vesta

I am not trying to challenge you over the education of the authors or the material produced, but to point out if realism is a requirement to read science fiction there is actually plenty of material out there to enjoy

Well, I didn't say it was a requirement, mind you. I just said that for one reason or the other, most of the future tech is not taken to its logical plot-ruining conclusion. I'm not complaining, mind you. I'm just stating it.

 

[xtifr]

Think of it like Scooby-Doo. Sure, a talking dog may be preposterous, but it's still a good introduction to skeptical thinking for the kiddies. The ghosts are always frauds.

Likewise, a lot of SF may have talking-dog-sized logic holes if you overanalyze it, but it can still help you to think about the bigger picture.

 

[MG1962]

Well, I didn't say it was a requirement, mind you. I just said that for one reason or the other, most of the future tech is not taken to its logical plot-ruining conclusion. I'm not complaining, mind you. I'm just stating it.

Thats fair enough

 

[MG1962]

Gregory Benford, who not only has the degrees, but is actually paid to be a physicist.

Oh I am sure there are many more examples - I was pretty much working off the top of my head

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I was a huge sci-fi fan before I ever became skeptical.

Similar to be except I wouldn't call myself a huge fan. More of an appreciator. I was also into Fortana. Not that I believed in it per se, but it did interest me.

Years later the Internet has helped us learn that scenes in some of our favorite movies weren't scientifically or historically accurate and that spoiled my memory of particular movies and scenes more than if I'd been watching them and chose to suspend disbelief.

 

[Eudaemonic Plague]

Damn, James Burke is awesome.

Indeed. I need to get a DVD copy of Connections, or at least dig out my tapes. I can watch those over and over and over and over and...

 

[Eudaemonic Plague]

I like good writers, especially if they toss in a bit of sarcasm or irreverent perspectives. Some of them write mysteries. Some of them write philosophy. Some of them write science fiction.

It has nothing to do with the genre, there is a lot of garbage (including massively popular garbage), in many genres.

Ah, yes, Sturgeon's Revelation. So true, so true. Of course, you might have used "all" instead of "many".....

I began reading Fantasy in second grade, and find it hilarious that some people think that there is a hard line between science fiction and fantasy. It's really one genre, I'd say. F&SF sparks the imagination like nothing else does. The best is probably the stuff that is really about people, and, as has sort of been said earlier in the thread, that really works best when the baggage has been left behind.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Ah, yes, Sturgeon's Revelation. So true, so true. Of course, you might have used "all" instead of "many".....

I began reading Fantasy in second grade, and find it hilarious that some people think that there is a hard line between science fiction and fantasy. It's really one genre, I'd say. F&SF sparks the imagination like nothing else does. The best is probably the stuff that is really about people, and, as has sort of been said earlier in the thread, that really works best when the baggage has been left behind.

I think there is some difference between fantasy and science fiction, but I also think that other genres often incorporate elements of both, and yet are considered more "realistic." Detective novels often bend the rules of forensics and physics. Romance novels certainly delve into fantasy. There are no hard lines.

 

[Eudaemonic Plague]

I think there is some difference between fantasy and science fiction, but I also think that other genres often incorporate elements of both, and yet are considered more "realistic." Detective novels often bend the rules of forensics and physics. Romance novels certainly delve into fantasy. There are no hard lines.

Well, yes, there is a difference, what I'm saying is that since there is no clear demarcation between, those who say, "I like science fiction, but fantasy sucks", or vice versa, are being silly.

I'd have to say that anyone who believes that the other genres are automatically "realistic" hasn't thought about it much. Yes, sometimes F&SF elements are included in other genres (Slaughterhouse-Five, ferinst), but that doesn't exactly drag them kicking and screaming into F&SF. It's a subject that's been hauled over the ashes many times before, of course. Still fun to kick around once in a while, since as time passes, one's understanding changes.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Well, yes, there is a difference, what I'm saying is that since there is no clear demarcation between, those who say, "I like science fiction, but fantasy sucks", or vice versa, are being silly. I'd have to say that anyone who believes that the other genres are automatically "realistic" hasn't thought about it much. Yes, sometimes F&SF elements are included in other genres (Slaughterhouse-Five, ferinst), but that doesn't exactly drag them kicking and screaming into F&SF. It's a subject that's been hauled over the ashes many times before, of course. Still fun to kick around once in a while, since as time passes, one's understanding changes.

We agree on that point 100%. The people who dismiss F&SF because it's "unrealistic" just make me laugh. I don't bother arguing with them, because they live in their own world. Even my mother, who isn't a sci-fi fan by any stretch of the imagination, will watch it on TV sometimes because she recognizes the fact that the people are usually the story, not the sci-fi trappings. It's usually crap that she's watching, but I still like the fact that she doesn't dismiss something just because of an arbitrary label.

 

[arthwollipot]

Indeed. I need to get a DVD copy of Connections, or at least dig out my tapes. I can watch those over and over and over and over and...

I have Connections 1, 2 and 3, and The Day The Universe Changed.

 

[Eudaemonic Plague]

I have Connections 1, 2 and 3, and The Day The Universe Changed.

Oh, you lucky dog! I'm going to have to wait until August or later to buy them; saving for the Bristol Renfaire.

 

[Morrigan]

A better question would be, "Why wouldn't they?"

 

[xtifr]

A better question would be, "Why wouldn't they?"

I think some people think that skeptics are all like Spock--pure logic, no emotion allowed, no pleasure, no suspension of disbelief. We're not really human, y'know.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

I think some people think that skeptics are all like Spock--pure logic, no emotion allowed, no pleasure, no suspension of disbelief. We're not really human, y'know.

I know so. In the neopagan community, there is a (unintentional) meme that if you try to come at something critically, then "you're rationalising the issue" and "if you rationalise everything away, you're left with nothing".

And it's not just that community.

 

[Halfcentaur]

People who don't appreciate fiction make me sad, and I wonder what is wrong with them. Maybe it's a product of my miserable childhood in that the escapism attracted me, or maybe it's because I have always been obsessed with how things work and fiction is a way of demonstrating pretend models that serve as an exercise in breaking down the forces that make up reality, or maybe it's my insationable imagination that drives me to become fixated on subjects for reasons I can't really discern after splitting so many hairs, I guess it's a little of all of that and more.

But I usually find that incidentally I can't stand anyone in real life who as a rule does not appreciate at least fiction, fantasy or scifi. They are usually in my limited testimonial experience people who seem to think there are certain protocols and methods to things that make them end up seeming very binary and myopic and I find that they usually judge things by some scale just to be procedural for procedure's sake. They seem overly concerned with being proper because you're supposed to be proper because you're just supposed to be that way.

It's times like that I feel gracious for being mentally ill.

 

[Halfcentaur]

When it comes down to it, I can't really choose why I like something. I can't choose really why I spend hundreds of hours drawing and painting wrinkled trolls and dwarves and trees, I just have to do it because it's a sensation that seems to want to burst out of me.

I find many of the people I've met who seem to hate fiction are people who wonder what makes something good in a dry and analytic sense, and they come up with rules for it and end up judging everything based on these rules. I can't stand that.

People who hate tropes because they are tropes for instance seem to just totally miss the point. But I know they feel very self congratulatory about it, and I end up feeling the same when I compare myself to them, so at the end of the day maybe it's all arbitrary. I will continue to do what obsesses me, hopefully they find the same absorbing sense somewhere in their lives as well.

 

[jtcroy]

I used to be a much bigger fan of sci-fi/fantasy. Then at some point in my adult life the cumulative understanding of plots and tropes undermined my enjoyment of any such fiction, save for parody. Now I can hardly get 5 minutes into a movie or book before I ask myself, "where have I heard this before?" It becomes all too easy to anticipate the twists and resolutions.

I've been feeling the same way in recent times.

Over the decades of reading many books and watching so many tv shows and movies, I've gradually noticed the same patterns appearing over and over again. Many books and shows/movies are not so exciting anymore, when stuff fits into familiar patterns which are easily guessable.

(These days a lot of these patterns are very much codified and cataloged on web sites like tvtropes.org).


Awhile ago I picked up a bunch of dvd sets of old tv shows I use to watch many years ago. Mostly stuff found in the bargain bins, such as 1980's shows like: The A-Team, Magnum PI, Knight Rider, MacGyver, Miami Vice, etc ... and some 1990's/2000's shows like: X-Files, Stargate SG-1, etc ... After watching episodes of these old tv shows again, I find that I don't really enjoy watching them as much now, when I can easily see what tropes are being used and how easily guessable the episode storylines are.

(Over the last few years ago I was going through a mid-life crisis of some sort, and was nostalgic for stuff from my youth. It was easy to go back and re-watch old tv shows, when so many of these dvd sets were already in the bargain bins for $15 each or less).

As for the argument that fiction somehow enlightens us to truths about ourselves... well I find that looking into non-fiction stories is a lot more revealing. Authors use all sorts of methods to create believable characters, but they fall apart when you've seen most of their archetypes.

Many character archetypes become very predictable.

For awhile I was looking for shows/movies with characters which do not always fit into predictable archetypes. Some examples are the (eventual) antagonists in movies like "Magnum Force (Dirty Harry)", "The World Is Not Enough (James Bond)", etc ... Recently I've been watching the season 1 blu-ray set of "Person of Interest" (and some first run season 2 episodes), where the writers seem to crank into overdrive this "ambiguous antagonist" trope in a similar manner (ie. the "badguy" is not always obvious).

Now after watching every season 1 episode of "Person of Interest" several times already, I find I just can't "suspend disbelief" anymore when it comes to examining such ambiguous characters. My automatic knee-jerk reaction is to guess that a guest/supporting character which we're being initially led to believe is a "goodguy", may very well end up being the eventual "badguy". (And vice versa).


It seems like I have a very hard time enjoying most fiction books and tv shows/movies, when my mind is going into overdrive and seeing what tropes are being used and guessing the possible storylines. Even watching the special effects, explosions, destruction, high speed car chases, gun fire, etc ... isn't so exciting anymore.