What do you consider GOOD science fiction?

[shavedape]

Okay, here's my understanding of what true science fiction is: The effects of fictional, futuristic technology on human characters. That is what is at the heart of true science fiction stories and that's what separates it from stories of magic. There is an actual underlying scientific explanation for why the technology exists and how it works. Just claiming that pieces of stone are Ancient "technology" hence the ability to work inter-galactically doesn't cut it. Scifi fans aren't stupid. We are willing to suspend our disbelief but we're not willing to throw our rational faculties into the trash bin just because some lame Hollywood writer tells us that his work is science fiction.

Does this mean that every single technological aspect has to be dissected and explained before moving forward with the story? No. It simply means that the main scientific aspect has to be logic-based; that the premise of the story has to be logical. We can quibble about the verity of things like "sub-space communications" in Star Trek, but communications aren't the base of the science fiction premise in that story. The science fiction premise in Star Trek is the development of warp core technology and how it impacts humans. All the other stuff follows from that, like the Prime Directive, etc.

And sure, it's fine to examine things like religion verses science in some of the stories, but that should never be a main story line. (DS9 made that mistake. So did nuBSG.) And it's fine to examine interpersonal relationships via dramatic means in a scifi setting, but, that drama has to be a direct result of that futuristic technology impacting those lives. This means that if the dramatic elements in your scifi story could play out the same way on an episode of The Love Boat then it's not really science fiction. SGU made this mistake over and over and over. Most of the events that happened on Destiny could have played out on an Earth-based ocean liner. The producers just propping up a stargate in the background did not make SGU science fiction.

So there ya go, my interpretation of what science fiction is. Of course shows like Star Trek are guilty of violating this "law" on certain occasions, but I still maintain that the premise of the show is sincerely science fiction based.

 

[Gatefan1976]

I am really thinking this is far to personally subjective for peeps to discuss well. It's like asking someone what "heavy metal' is in musical terms and they tell you bands that they LIKE, not bands within the genre.
IF, IF we were to take OM's initial examples of what is, and what is not scifi, then you can kick near every scifi show out the proverbial airlock, simply because most shows break at least one of these "rules" at one point or another. The Wrath of Khan is oft cited as the BEST TOS era movie, yet it's focus is on the interpersonal relationships between the various characters, and the Genesis effect is entirely secondary, and it is the "scifi" meat of the movie.

TNG fails by the very existence of Q, and DS-9 as well via the Prophets in the Fantasy arena. B5 fails in via the shadows and the Vorlon. Who, continuum and ST:VOY fail by the virtue of time travel which is non viable science. ALL of SG fails due to the folding space effect of the Stargates (SGU double fails for real time FTL travel in our universe), as does NuBSG. Eureka fails due to unexplained "hyperscience", W13 fails because Artifacts are fantasy elements.
Even other shows fail by the measures given by OM. Time tunnel. Sliders, Early Edition, Starlost, Farscape, Twilight zone, Red Dwarf and outer limits so on and so forth. Even classics like Dune, Frankenstein, 30,000 leagues under the sea, THHGTTG all fail under such rulings.

So, what really is Scifi?

 

[Overmind One]

Okay, here's my understanding of what true science fiction is: The effects of fictional, futuristic technology on human characters. That is what is at the heart of true science fiction stories and that's what separates it from stories of magic. There is an actual underlying scientific explanation for why the technology exists and how it works. Just claiming that pieces of stone are Ancient "technology" hence the ability to work inter-galactically doesn't cut it. Scifi fans aren't stupid. We are willing to suspend our disbelief but we're not willing to throw our rational faculties into the trash bin just because some lame Hollywood writer tells us that his work is science fiction.

Does this mean that every single technological aspect has to be dissected and explained before moving forward with the story? No. It simply means that the main scientific aspect has to be logic-based; that the premise of the story has to be logical. We can quibble about the verity of things like "sub-space communications" in Star Trek, but communications aren't the base of the science fiction premise in that story. The science fiction premise in Star Trek is the development of warp core technology and how it impacts humans. All the other stuff follows from that, like the Prime Directive, etc.

And sure, it's fine to examine things like religion verses science in some of the stories, but that should never be a main story line. (DS9 made that mistake. So did nuBSG.) And it's fine to examine interpersonal relationships via dramatic means in a scifi setting, but, that drama has to be a direct result of that futuristic technology impacting those lives. This means that if the dramatic elements in your scifi story could play out the same way on an episode of The Love Boat then it's not really science fiction. SGU made this mistake over and over and over. Most of the events that happened on Destiny could have played out on an Earth-based ocean liner. The producers just propping up a stargate in the background did not make SGU science fiction.

So there ya go, my interpretation of what science fiction is. Of course shows like Star Trek are guilty of violating this "law" on certain occasions, but I still maintain that the premise of the show was sincerely science fiction based.

That was beautiful.

 

[shavedape]

I am really thinking this is far to personally subjective for peeps to discuss well. It's like asking someone what "heavy metal' is in musical terms and they tell you bands that they LIKE, not bands within the genre.
IF, IF we were to take OM's initial examples of what is, and what is not scifi, then you can kick near every scifi show out the proverbial airlock, simply because most shows break at least one of these "rules" at one point or another. The Wrath of Khan is oft cited as the BEST TOS era movie, yet it's focus is on the interpersonal relationships between the various characters, and the Genesis effect is entirely secondary, and it is the "scifi" meat of the movie.

I would say the "scifi meat" of Wrath of Khan would be Khan's scientifically enhanced genetics and its impact on normal humans. That's essentially the well spring from which the story of Khan came from originally. That is the science fiction premise at work in the Khan story, not the Genesis nonsense.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Okay, here's my understanding of what true science fiction is: The effects of fictional, futuristic technology on human characters. That is what is at the heart of true science fiction stories and that's what separates it from stories of magic. There is an actual underlying scientific explanation for why the technology exists and how it works. Just claiming that pieces of stone are Ancient "technology" hence the ability to work inter-galactically doesn't cut it. Scifi fans aren't stupid. We are willing to suspend our disbelief but we're not willing to throw our rational faculties into the trash bin just because some lame Hollywood writer tells us that his work is science fiction.

I have one question.
If the magic was explained, you got to see behind the curtain so to speak, would it be science, or magic?

 

[Gatefan1976]

I would say the "scifi meat" of Wrath of Khan would be Khan's scientifically enhanced genetics and its impact on normal humans. That's essentially the well spring from which the story of Khan came from originally. That is the science fiction premise at work in the Khan story, not the Genesis nonsense.

I would accept that for the episode "space seed" where Khan first appears, but TWOK is more about Kirk being forced to deal with his decisions. YES, I agree with you 100% ape that space seed dealt with eugenics and it's effects, but TWOK is not about that.
Leaving Khan on Tau Seti.
Leaving Carol Marcus.
The repercussions of these actions, and the cost they will take, the loss of the Enterprise, the loss of his son, the loss of his best friend are what TWOK is really about. We can argue that there are "other factors" sure, and they will of course play a part, but these are the key issues of the movie, not the science, or the tech or anything else.

 

[shavedape]

I have one question.
If the magic was explained, you got to see behind the curtain so to speak, would it be science, or magic?

When it's logically explained it's science. The key word here being "logically". For instance, the communication stones in SGU would have to have a logical, believable explanation as to how these signals can instantaneously travel across galaxies, plural. That's a HUGE premise we're expected to swallow so it has to have a believable explanation. Anything short of a logical and believable explanation is just magic.

 

[Gatefan1976]

When it's logically explained it's science. The key word here being "logically". For instance, the communication stones in SGU would have to have a logical, believable explanation as to how these signals can instantaneously travel across galaxies, plural. That's a HUGE premise we're expected to swallow so it has to have a believable explanation. Anything short of a logical and believable explanation is just magic.

OK, so If I could *logically* explain say, Harry potter to you, you would see it as science?

 

[shavedape]

I would accept that for the episode "space seed" where Khan first appears, but TWOK is more about Kirk being forced to deal with his decisions. YES, I agree with you 100% ape that space seed dealt with eugenics and it's effects, but TWOK is not about that.
Leaving Khan on Tau Seti.
Leaving Carol Marcus.
The repercussions of these actions, and the cost they will take, the loss of the Enterprise, the loss of his son, the loss of his best friend are what TWOK is really about. We can argue that there are "other factors" sure, and they will of course play a part, but these are the key issues of the movie, not the science, or the tech or anything else.

Keep in mind we're talking about established characters with an established relationship via a previous story. As we both maintain, the basis of science fiction was established in the original episode. So I don't think it's that big of a deal that the follow up dealt more with the inter-personal side of things. They are still the result of the science fiction premise that first began the relationship between Kirk and Khan. (That whole story was still being played out, it wasn't finished in TOS episode. Khan was still genetically superior to Kirk, he was still stronger and smarter. His science-based advantage was still in play. At least that's the argument that I would make for WoK being scifi.)

I get the point you're making though. Science fiction, as I've described it, requires human interaction, "human drama" if you will, in order to work. That's the whole point of advanced scientific technology on humans as a definition of science fiction. So yes, there will be interpersonal relationships in scifi stories as there should be. But my bone of contention comes into play when stories labeled scifi use futuristic technology as props and window dressing instead of as the central theme of the story (ala SGU).

 

[Joelist]

Time Travel can be science fiction in two ways actually. One is the mechanism - for example the mechanism used in Star Trek IV to travel back in time was explained. It may not be something we can do now and the theory may even have issues but the explanation was there and met basic logic. The second is having a science fiction plot that looks at implications of Time Travel. For this one I offer up a two parter from ST:TNG named "Time's Arrow".

Time's Arrow is the episode with the discovery of a centuries old Data's head in a mineshaft under San Francisco. While the episode itself has its bad parts, overall it is enjoyable and it does highlight one theoretical scenario that can occur in Time Travel - the Predestination Paradox. It comes to light as we realize that Guinan was there and the whole time of the show has not only known this day would come but how things would ultimately play out up to a point. Riker presses her harder and harder for information as he gets desperate trying to solve the situation but she dare not tell him or anyone anything lest she alter events. Nicely done and definitely science fiction.

 

[shavedape]

OK, so If I could *logically* explain say, Harry potter to you, you would see it as science?

If you could explain the physics behind the magic then yes, it would be science. But keep in mind we're talking genuine physics that have actual, provable laws that they follow. Good luck proving that brooms can fly replete with adolescent riders in the saddle no less.

 

[Joelist]

Keep in mind we're talking about established characters with an established relationship via a previous story. As we both maintain, the basis of science fiction was established in the original episode. So I don't think it's that big of a deal that the follow up dealt more with the inter-personal side of things. They are still the result of the science fiction premise that first began the relationship between Kirk and Khan. (That whole story was still being played out, it wasn't finished in TOS episode. Khan was still genetically superior to Kirk, he was still stronger and smarter. His science-based advantage was still in play. At least that's the argument that I would make for WoK being scifi.)

I get the point you're making though. Science fiction, as I've described it, requires human interaction, "human drama" if you will, in order to work. That's the whole point of advanced scientific technology on humans as a definition of science fiction. So yes, there will be interpersonal relationships in scifi stories as there should be. But my bone of contention comes into play when stories labeled scifi use futuristic technology as props and window dressing instead of as the central theme of the story (ala SGU).

And that basic description is true and not just for Science Fiction - pretty much any literary type both requires characters and requires that they interact. Without that you really have no plot so to speak. Sure you could make a plot with no characters and no character dynamics - but would you REALLY want to see it?

Here is a REALLY silly example of that dynamic in video game design:

 

[Overmind One]

I am really thinking this is far to personally subjective for peeps to discuss well. It's like asking someone what "heavy metal' is in musical terms and they tell you bands that they LIKE, not bands within the genre.

Not really. This is not the same thing at all.

IF, IF we were to take OM's initial examples of what is, and what is not scifi, then you can kick near every scifi show out the proverbial airlock, simply because most shows break at least one of these "rules" at one point or another. The Wrath of Khan is oft cited as the BEST TOS era movie, yet it's focus is on the interpersonal relationships between the various characters, and the Genesis effect is entirely secondary, and it is the "scifi" meat of the movie.

Dont even try it. I did NOT say they had to meet all of the points, and I specifically said that my bullet points were basic guidelines. The Wrath of Kahn is science fiction. The center of the story is the genesis device and what it can do. It is the catalyst that brings Kahn and Carol Marcus together. Without the CORE CHARACTER (the genesis device), there is no Wrath of Kahn. You may have focused on the interpersonal conflicts between Kirk and Kahn, as most did, but the story is about protecting potentially game changing TECHNOLOGY. They tell the story using the characters...that is how one tells a story like that. Dont try to hold me hard to my bulleted list as though I have implied they are rules in stone.

TNG fails by the very existence of Q, and DS-9 as well via the Prophets in the Fantasy arena.

Agreed about DS9, but not TNG. I hated the Q. But just how many episodes had them in it? About as many as Mr Gazoo the Martian in Flintstones. TNG was certainly not about the Q.

B5 fails in via the shadows and the Vorlon.

Agreed. But B5 was a science fiction DRAMA. You do not seem to be able to discern the difference between sci-drama, soap-fi and scifi. You seem think of them all as being science fiction when in fact they are not. Im not cool with inviting fantasy or religion into science fiction as part of it's core. But its okay to do fantasy and skin it in a spacesuit (Star Wars) or take a crime drama and skin it in a futuristic timeline (Continuum) neither are science fiction. Despite Q, TNG is good science fiction in the spirit of my bulleted points with few exceptions. DS9 was science DRAMA set in the Trek universe.

Who, continuum and ST:VOY fail by the virtue of time travel which is non viable science.

Yes, but only recently (last 20 years) has it been shown that time travel is not viable and never was. (the fall of the light constant). But Continuum is a sci DRAMA, and Voyager did not concentrate on time travel, it concentrated on science and exploration .

ALL of SG fails due to the folding space effect of the Stargates (SGU double fails for real time FTL travel in our universe), as does NuBSG. Eureka fails due to unexplained "hyperscience", W13 fails because Artifacts are fantasy elements.

Of those shows you named, only Stargate is science fiction. Even that is sci ACTION DRAMA, heavy on the real science. None of those other shows are science fiction.

Even other shows fail by the measures given by OM. Time tunnel. Sliders, Early Edition, Starlost, Farscape, Twilight zone, Red Dwarf and outer limits so on and so forth. Even classics like Dune, Frankenstein, 30,000 leagues under the sea, THHGTTG all fail under such rulings.

You really have broad strokes to include those totally non science fiction shows in that paragraph. Of those, Starlost is the only one that qualifies as science fiction since the science behind it is sound and the show focuses on exploration of the ark and mastering it's technology. The other shows are laughably out of place in your post.

So, what really is Scifi?

Perhaps you should re-read shavedape's post for the answer. I am not at all vague with regard to what science fiction is as opposed to the other genres. But this is the problem...the edge has been dulled, and there are plenty of people out there thinking they are watching science fiction when they watch Transformers or Avatar or Star Wars or District 9. They are not. The more you tolerate these mish mash messes trying to pass themselves off as good science fiction, the more they will serve up. More than a few science fiction fans have much higher standards.

 

[Overmind One]

I have one question.
If the magic was explained, you got to see behind the curtain so to speak, would it be science, or magic?

There is no way to create science to explain a House Elf or a magic wand, especially when we know that all that is inside is a feather. There is no way to scientifically explain a talking hat, screaming mandrake roots, or mail that turns into a (floating) screaming mouth that speaks English.

There is no such thing as real magic. Magic is an ILLUSION based in something real, like psychology, optical illusions or sleight of hand. So, no it cant ever be magic. Only in our minds and in the movies.

 

[Gatefan1976]

There is no way to create science to explain a House Elf or a magic wand, especially when we know that all that is inside is a feather. There is no way to scientifically explain a talking hat, screaming mandrake roots, or mail that turns into a (floating) screaming mouth that speaks English.

There is no such thing as real magic. Magic is an ILLUSION based in something real, like psychology, optical illusions or sleight of hand. So, no it cant ever be magic. Only in our minds and in the movies.

I am not talking about magic, I am talking about logic.
If I can logically explain a concept, is it magic or science?

What are the abilities of the residents of Talos IV?
What are the abilities of the Vulcan?
What are the abilities of the Betazoids?

 

[Overmind One]

Agreed.

Weeelllll..............
The story was finished in space seeds, Kirk won out over all of Khan's "superiority", TWOK is the fallout of that episode, YEARS down the track. I realise that is the argument you would make, but is it really a "good argument"? Take the comm stones. They were established in SG-1 being able to do what they did in SGU, yet we all called BS on them to a degree. If previous exposure gives a pass, why not give the stones a pass in SGU? Is that not the essence of your argument?, previous establishment?

I dont believe it. You are actually arguing for a LACK OF PRECISION in science fiction. That thinking is what brought us NuBSG, SGU, Defiance, Terra Nova, etc. You are trying your best to erode the boundaries...give the stones a pass? Really???

Communication Stones: Can "transmit" somebody's "consciousness" across BILLIONS of light years in REAL TIME and put that consciousness in another body AND transfer the memories gained whilst "swapped" = MAGIC.

I am forced to ask again, isn't dealing with the repercussions of your actions something you could find in the love boat, or Gillian's Island?

WTF does Gilligan's Island or Love Boat have to do with science fiction? Im not understanding your arguments at all you do not seem to be adding your ideas as to what YOU think "good" science fiction is, just trying to argue what others say it is for them. And even more disturbing, you seem to be very comfortable...even preferential in favor of blurring the lines to the degree that we now have dreck like Defiance passing itself off as science fiction.

This is why I said it is so vastly subjective.
Take Eps of TNG like "measure of a man". We call it Sci-fi because it deals with Data and his rights as a sentient being, but at it's core it's about human rights and slavery, something you can find in many period pieces. The true "thrust" of the story is these elements, NOT Data being a "robot". Is HE not just window dressing for old concepts?

True, but when we find it in Trek, it is science fiction by proxy (even if it isnt really...like Q). If we see The Professor on Gilligan's Island build a radio from coconuts and some wire and a rock, that does not make it science fiction, because it is one episode or a few scenes in a comedy drama. Seeing the utterly out of place Q in TNG or Voyager or DS9 does not make those shows fantasy.

How about this:

You tell us what YOU think "good" science fiction is. Unless you do, I will have to assume you are clueless...based on your responses.

 

[Overmind One]

I am not talking about magic, I am talking about logic.
If I can logically explain a concept, is it magic or science?

What are the abilities of the residents of Talos IV?
What are the abilities of the Vulcan?
What are the abilities of the Betazoids?

Its never magic. There is no such thing. If you can logically explain a SCIENTIFIC concept, it is science. In Harry Potter, the explanation of a magic wand (containing only a feather within) "choosing" it's "master" is not going to cut it. You can explain (concoct) an explanation for the creature in Alien. We know it's life cycle, it's gestation, it's weaknesses and strengths. It is not a magical creature. But the same can be said of a dragon...we know they lay eggs, can fly and breathe fire, but they are not billed as aliens from another world, they are treated as though they were some actual species on earth back in medieval times which makes them magical and therefore not scientific.

• Talos IV: Power of illusion facilitated by telepathy (aliens)
• Vulcans: Telepathic suggestion like the Talosians, but on a much weaker level. Mind melding (sharing consciousness), and the acquired discipline of logic (available to non-Vulcans as well)
• Betazoids: Empaths with limited telepathic abilities weaker than Vulcans (aliens)

Science can never be magic. Magic is never science. The words and concepts are not interchangeable.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Not really. This is not the same thing at all.

Oh really??
so it is OK to break things down into "soap fi, or Drama, or space opera when it serves your viewpoint??
Hmm, Ok dude.

Dont even try it. I did NOT say they had to meet all of the points, and I specifically said that my bullet points were basic guidelines. The Wrath of Kahn is science fiction. The center of the story is the genesis device and what it can do. It is the catalyst that brings Kahn and Carol Marcus together. Without the CORE CHARACTER (the genesis device), there is no Wrath of Kahn. You may have focused on the interpersonal conflicts between Kirk and Kahn, as most did, but the story is about protecting potentially game changing TECHNOLOGY. They tell the story using the characters...that is how one tells a story like that. Dont try to hold me hard to my bulleted list as though I have implied they are rules in stone.

I am not trying to hold you to your list, I said is we USE it, ST fails. If you seriously think that TWOK is about the Genesis device, then you don't get the movie at all. It's like saying ST 2009 is about red matter, not about the formation of the crew in that AU, or Romeo and Juliet is about the war between the Montegues and the Capulets.
TWOK has very little to do with the genesis device, it is a plot ELEMENT, no more.

Agreed about DS9, but not TNG. I hated the Q. But just how many episodes had them in it? About as many as Mr Gazoo the Martian in Flintstones. TNG was certainly not about the Q.

Oh, so YOU hate them, so they are not relevent??
I never said TNG was ABOUT the Q, I said they were a PART of it. Q may not appear often, but the results of his actions are VERY telling in the series. It starts and ends with Q, the introduction of far flung galaxies come from Q, the BORG are introduced Via Q. Multiple universes are introduced via Q, Picard's personal growth is motivated via Q.
Need I go on??

Agreed. But B5 was a science fiction DRAMA. You do not seem to be able to discern the difference between sci-drama, soap-fi and scifi. You seem think of them all as being science fiction when in fact they are not.

LOL!!!!!

Im not cool with inviting fantasy or religion into science fiction as part of it's core. But its okay to do fantasy and skin it in a spacesuit (Star Wars) or take a crime drama and skin it in a futuristic timeline (Continuum) neither are science fiction. Despite Q, TNG is good science fiction in the spirit of my bulleted points with few exceptions. DS9 was science DRAMA set in the Trek universe.

Again, YOU are not cool with it............

Yes, but only recently (last 20 years) has it been shown that time travel is not viable and never was.

Breaking Rule one, it has to be understandable and viable. The TARDIS is not happy with you

(the fall of the light constant). But Continuum is a sci DRAMA, and Voyager did not concentrate on time travel, it concentrated on science and exploration .

It concentrated on the voyage HOME by whatever means that we could accept. Do we even watch the same shows???

Of those shows you named, only Stargate is science fiction. Even that is sci ACTION DRAMA, heavy on the real science. None of those other shows are science fiction.

Errr???

You really have broad strokes to include those totally non science fiction shows in that paragraph. Of those, Starlost is the only one that qualifies as science fiction since the science behind it is sound and the show focuses on exploration of the ark and mastering it's technology. The other shows are laughably out of place in your post.

Your definitions are a freaking joke. "Here are my ideas, but if I like them, it's OK to use other ones"

Perhaps you should re-read shavedape's post for the answer. I am not at all vague with regard to what science fiction is as opposed to the other genres. But this is the problem...the edge has been dulled, and there are plenty of people out there thinking they are watching science fiction when they watch Transformers or Avatar or Star Wars or District 9. They are not. The more you tolerate these mish mash messes trying to pass themselves off as good science fiction, the more they will serve up. More than a few science fiction fans have much higher standards.

Like people care a frack about your "higher standards" that include exceptions for what you happen to like. You don't choose genres, but it is obvious you want to. I deal with what I get, not what I "wish upon a star" for. Transformers, Avatar, they may suck balls, but they bring sci-fi as a concept into popular consciousness, even via the function of an action movie.

 

[Joelist]

Its never magic. There is no such thing. If you can logically explain a SCIENTIFIC concept, it is science. In Harry Potter, the explanation of a magic wand (containing only a feather within) "choosing" it's "master" is not going to cut it. You can explain (concoct) an explanation for the creature in Alien. We know it's life cycle, it's gestation, it's weaknesses and strengths. It is not a magical creature. But the same can be said of a dragon...we know they lay eggs, can fly and breathe fire, but they are not billed as aliens from another world, they are treated as though they were some actual species on earth back in medieval times which makes them magical and therefore not scientific.

• Talos IV: Power of illusion facilitated by telepathy (aliens)
• Vulcans: Telepathis suggestion like the Talosians, but on a much weaker level. Mind melding (sharing consciousness), and the acquired discipline of logic (available to non-Vulcans as well)
• Betazoinds: Empaths with limited telepathic abilities weaker than Vulcans (aliens)

Science can never be magic. Magic is never science. The words and concepts are not interchangeable.

Have you ever seen the film "Reign of Fire"? Good flick. Has fire breathing dragons which are explained in science terms - is it science fiction?

 

[Gatefan1976]

I dont believe it. You are actually arguing for a LACK OF PRECISION in science fiction. That thinking is what brought us NuBSG, SGU, Defiance, Terra Nova, etc. You are trying your best to erode the boundaries...give the stones a pass? Really???

Communication Stones: Can "transmit" somebody's "consciousness" across BILLIONS of light years in REAL TIME and put that consciousness in another body AND transfer the memories gained whilst "swapped" = MAGIC.



WTF does Gilligan's Island or Love Boat have to do with science fiction? Im not understanding your arguments at all you do not seem to be adding your ideas as to what YOU think "good" science fiction is, just trying to argue what others say it is for them. And even more disturbing, you seem to be very comfortable...even preferential in favor of blurring the lines to the degree that we now have dreck like Defiance passing itself off as science fiction.



True, but when we find it in Trek, it is science fiction by proxy (even if it isnt really...like Q). If we see The Professor on Gilligan's Island build a radio from coconuts and some wire and a rock, that does not make it science fiction, because it is one episode or a few scenes in a comedy drama. Seeing the utterly out of place Q in TNG or Voyager or DS9 does not make those shows fantasy.

Learn to read you fool.
NOT what you WANT to read, but what is put in front of you.
I ASKED what people consider good scifi, I GAVE no definition myself because I WANTED people to discuss the topic. I ENTERED INTO the discussion to either CLARIFY OR CHALLENGE their POV. To be Honest, I AGREE with Shaved insofar as sci fi stories reflect HOW science and technology affect US as people. WHAT is the result of getting a cyber leg, or being able to "jack in" to the net, or having not just continents with different people but PLANETS with different races and ideals, or an Alien Invasion.
Sci fi Explores the IMPACT of technology on PEOPLE, and just because someone chooses to explain the emotional impact of technology does NOT make it "not scifi", all it makes it is scifi you just don't like.
Big fat hairy deal.