Insanely Twisted Shadow Planet; The first time I've ever really wanted an xBox.

Female flying spaceships

I'm not entirely sure what's happening here.



* This doll is really named "Rika-chan" or "Licca-chan" not Barbie. But she's kind of like the Japanese version of Barbie.

OMGZ All U DTTD HEADS....

I didn't want to talk about this...

But I gotta talk about this. I have a problem. My problem is with the term science fiction.
An article came out on io9 today talking about how Battlestar Galactica should not be called science fiction, rather social fiction. The key reason being that it was really about society, as opposed to science.
Excuse me , but WHAT THE FUCK.
This is the problem I have with the term science fiction. It is such a loaded and subjective term.

To be honest I couldn't give a fuck whether BSG is science, social, or speculative fiction. The problem I have is that people seem to think that science fiction deals with science.

Here's what I'm thinking. Science fiction doesn't often have much to do with science.

If things termed "science fiction" really had to do with science, Star Wars would be called Spiritual Fiction. there's no science in Star Wars.
There, I said it.
There's no science in Star Wars. If you took away the ships and alien worlds, you'd have a war movie that's about people coming to terms with their family, and their spirituality. Let it sink in a minute before you throw up.

BSG? The original was a riff on Exodus. The current version? Yeah, I'd call it "societal fiction" if we're holding it up to the standards in question.
Buck Rogers? Nothing to do with science. It's just an imaginative setting to do a story about alienation within one's own world.
Blade Runner? very little to do with science. More a morality play about staring into the abyss. One could even argue that it is reactionary to the exploratory nature of science.
Jurassic Park? Science? Oh, barely. More an ethical dilemma regarding technology than science by far.
2001: a Space Odyssey? A little science, but really, come on. It's yet another morality play about the dangers of science
Alien/Aliens/More Aliens? It's a fucking bug hunt.
Terminator? Please. So rife with paradox, science implodes on contact with Terminator plotlines.

So what about Star Trek? Arguably the most "science-y" science fiction series in popular history?
Backdrop. One big fucking backdrop. There's very little science to speak of. Star Trek capitalizes on scientific notions to be sure, but employing scientific rationale within the stories? How often is it logic, deductive reasoning, or experimentation that solves the problems in Star Trek? Someone please make a list of the star trek episodes where science either saves the day, or comes out on top? If that were the case, wouldn't Spock be the main protagonist of Star Trek? And Data, for TNG?
One could argue that every time someone re-routes the sub-space manifold to send the ionic waves back towards the mysterious power source, thus sealing the rift in the space time continuum, and rescue the stranded crew, science is being employed. But is that science being employed, or merely technology?
Honestly, if you set that same story in present day, it's pretty much a matter of someone giving traditional tools alternative functions. Thinking outside the box, I guess. I suppose one could call that scientific. I guess. Maybe. Possibly.

So you might be wondering just what does ol' GP consider science fiction? What is canon to him?
You really want to know?
I'm not thrilled about saying this, but to me, Contact is one of the closest approximations of Science Fiction film I can think of. Let's do a quick examination of the story. A scientist, along with some other scientists discover a signal. the signal is determined to actually be information in the form of schematics. These scientists build the machine the schematics describe, and test it out. the first test fails, due to human error. the second test is apparently a success and the scientist conducting the experiment is thrilled, but upon conclusion of the experiment, there is no proof, and thus the scientist is labeled a nutjob by her peers. However, in the very end, it appears they may be some empirical evidence after all.
Please understand that I love what we all call "science fiction". I just would like what I say to mean what I'm thinking of when I say it.
I don't have an answer to my question. I'm not trying to one up anything here. I wish I had solution to my problem, but Unrealistic Setting Fiction and Improbable Technology Fiction both sound like ass.

Please argue, discuss, list your ideas of what you believe true "Science Fiction" to be.


p.s.- I wanted to say something about Dune, but I was too tired to try and summarize it.

New blog discovery!

New blong discovery!