TruXta
tired
I take exception to your wilful stupidity.
*What book are you reading? (part 2)
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
It's not though. Argue the point, not the person.
If you continue to be so dismissive and rude, I may be forced to give you a wedgie
TruXta
tired
If you could be bothered to actually make a case instead of just claiming your bollocks, then maybe I could be bothered to argue the point. The fact of the matter is you don't know what you're on about, yet obstinately think you do. Even a cursory glance at the various (contested) definitions of sci-fi makes it abundantly clear that whilst a future setting is a common element of sci-fi, it is neither necessary nor sufficient.
Now go away until you've learned something.
TruXta
tired
Anyway, to bring this back on track, I got another M. John Harrison book out of the shelf today - The Centauri Device. Orang Utan will be pleased to learn that this is indeed science fiction.
TruXta
tired
Yes and no. I never take anything he says seriously, but like a child he needs talking to in a serious manner
TruXta
tired
It was great, I loved it! Is the rest of his stuff as good?
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
tropes maketh science fiction, not dates. Wyndhams 'Chocky' is set in 1950.
Good!
One of the things I enjoyed the most about it was the immensely subtle slagging of Stalin and his regime. Gotta be reet clever to do that and not get dead I've only read one other by him, A Country Doctor's Notebook, based on his own life as a young barely-trained doctor sent out to the wastelands. It's excellent though, full of detail you just wouldn't expect, and gives a great picture of the times.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
I looked it up on Wiki, and one of the definitions is that it is set in the future. It doesn't have to be of course, but if it is set in the future, it can be described as scifi. It's that simple.
There are of course lots of other definitions, but I'm sticking to the broadest.
I don't really see why that earns contempt from you.
Your pineapple comment the other day was strange too.
Last edited:
TruXta
tired
Gods, you can't even read now. Are you ill or mal-nourished?
Again, is any novel set in the future sci-fi?
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
I would say so, yes. Otherwise, why set it in the future, if it's no different to today?
And why are you continuing to be so rude?
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
It's this post that I disagreed with. Why set something in 2053 if there's nowt different about it? Of course it's futuristic. Are you saying Riddley Walker is not sci-fi, for example?
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
What's your problem? Why so dismissive?Yes and no. I never take anything he says seriously, but like a child he needs talking to in a serious manner
TruXta
tired
I can't be bothered with your obtuseness today.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
can be described, its a fairly broad church.
if I set a novel on a fishing community in the faroe islands that hasn't changed a single iota since the 1800s, and set it in say...1834...is it a historical novel? even though nothing would be different if I'd set it in 2010?
if I set a novel on a fishing community in the faroe islands that hasn't changed a single iota since the 1800s, and set it in say...1834...is it a historical novel? even though nothing would be different if I'd set it in 2010?
TruXta
tired
Or, if I wrote a novel set in 2016 describing the post-2015 election political landscape, then that would per the ape's definition be science fiction. It's idiotic.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
It's how I sort my scifi in my library. You need a broad definition in a school library!
I'm getting fed up of being characterised as obtuse. It's rude and incorrect and looks like high-handedness to me.
Eg After Tomorrow by Gillian Cross is set in the very near future or an alternative present. It goes in the sci fi section.
I'm getting fed up of being characterised as obtuse. It's rude and incorrect and looks like high-handedness to me.
Eg After Tomorrow by Gillian Cross is set in the very near future or an alternative present. It goes in the sci fi section.
TruXta
tired
Would you put my hypothetical political novel set in 2016 in the sci-fi section as well?
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Why set it in 1834 if nothing is different? There are some great books where it is never stated, making it more intriguing.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
dewey or nothing! 
tbf I have been known to sit in the sci fi section at waterstones thinking 'which moron put that in here?'
tbf I have been known to sit in the sci fi section at waterstones thinking 'which moron put that in here?'
TruXta
tired
Was it Orang Utan?dewey or nothing!
tbf I have been known to sit in the sci fi section at waterstones thinking 'which moron put that in here?'
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Probably, though I doubt I would have it in the library. There are plenty of alternative histories that I would put in sci-fi as I consider it a subgenre
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Always found it daft that Atwood, Vonnegut and Ballard are never found there.dewey or nothing!
tbf I have been known to sit in the sci fi section at waterstones thinking 'which moron put that in here?'
I'm degenre-ing the library now anyway in favour of one big fiction section.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Always found it daft that Atwood, Vonnegut and Ballard are never found there.
I'm degenre-ing the library now anyway in favour of one big fiction section.
nooooo
and with those three its because people ashamed to be caught in the sci fi section rate them- you know. Guardian reviewer sorts.
TruXta
tired
Atwood for her sins has actively avoided the label - Vonnegut and Ballard not so much IIRC.
Similar threads
- Poll
