Let’s open up a big, cliché can of worms.
This post was inspired by a recent pissing match I witnessed.
I write science fiction romance. What is acceptable material for science fiction? Is there a difference between “hard core” science fiction and “soft core”? Really, is there?
I think I've said it before. All science fact had to be proved at one time or another.
Go back to the 1700's and before we had aircraft. Think of the views of the people then. You'd have been burned at the stake for suggesting man could fly through the heavens or talk to someone across the seas or view them on a computer screen. Science is thinking outside the box, taking fantasy elements and if not proving them, giving a reasonable theory as to how it could work. It's making the impossible, possible.
You still with me?
I get so irritated with people who say "That's not possible, so it's not science fiction." I wonder what our ancestors would think of cell phones and planes? Gas engines and solar power?
All science starts in fantasy. That’s where its roots are.
Here’s an example: Who would have thought a person or object could be rendered invisible to the naked eye by bending electromagnetic energy? They're doing it now. Five, ten years ago, that was fantasy. The invisible girl in the fantastic four. Hogwarts Express. How many stories use invisibility???
Guess what? It's science. It's proven.
Writing Science Fiction is no different. There are two parts to that. Yes, science-proven theories and fiction. Bald face lying. Storytelling.
Bottom line, if science fiction read like science we'd be reading textbooks, not stories that compel us to keep turning the pages. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.