Sujet : Re: “Top 10 Space Opera Books and Series”
De : michael.stemper (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Michael F. Stemper)
Groupes : rec.arts.sf.writtenDate : 03. Jun 2024, 15:27:55
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v3kjtb$3u3bk$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0
On 03/06/2024 08.46, Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2024-06-03, Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/06/2024 10.55, Paul S Person wrote:
I think I've mostly regarded "space opera" as a formation based on
"horse opera". FWIW. YMMV.
>
I have no doubt about that being the etymology of the term. But, it's hardly
a definition. And I was wondering specifically about the definition used by
the folks setting up the poll; the definition that viewed Hyperion and
Foundation as "space opera".
>
My guess is that the pollsters had no criteria, and this poll was really
"what science fiction do you like?" With serious sampling issues.
Wikipedia has a nice article on "space opera"; a very major focus of
it is how the definition has changed over the years, and how many
different definitions of it there are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_opera
Interesting article, thanks.
One bit of it that did bring me up short was a definition of "hard science
fiction" as:
[...] emphasis is on the effects of technological progress and inventions,
and where the settings are carefully worked out to obey the laws of
physics, cosmology, mathematics, and biology.
This is a fine definition of hard SF, but it goes on to say:
[...] Examples are seen in the works of Alastair Reynolds or the movie
The Last Starfighter.
I have a lot of trouble figuring out how _The Last Starfighter_ has a
setting "carefully worked out to obey the laws of physics". It's a great
flick, but its physics is laughable.
-- Michael F. StemperIndians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding;Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.