I’ve been fascinated by science fiction for as long as I can remember, but I have to admit, I’ve never considered standard science fiction works. I, like other users, have been looking for science fiction as an approach to escape, or a method of staying side-by-side with a premise of late logical detection, or primarily an approach to relaxation.
Shortly before my approval guide, I needed to consider science fiction from another point of view. Khabari works for a large and prominent scientific institution believed to be “decisive” as he prefers. When he asked me if I liked science fiction, and assuming I needed to pick about 100 stories to reflect on in a closet they were thinking of creating, I was a little surprised. When he told me it could lead to research, I was even more surprised. I came back that night very happy: my work was supported and I was able to get paid work by choosing science fiction from all things.
At the moment when I felt that basic norms should be reflected in the selected novels, something similar to an alarm occurred: science fiction was not a canonical work.
Annoyed and exhausted by the many unusual and wonderful books for those who don’t remember the customs, I thought, “I made a decision: first I’ll try to find out what which coincide with the center of science fiction. In that sense, in equipping this battle plan, I began to understand what many well-known creators had to say about science fiction. It seemed pretty straightforward until I discovered that no two creators believed that science fiction included the same thing. Extraordinary kindness, I think, “no more” (sorry Edgar, I couldn’t stand it).
So you may be wondering: What is the contrast between “hard” and “delicate” science fiction? You were willing to ask, otherwise I would now have to give up authorship. “Annoying” science fiction is associated with an understanding of the quantum sciences, such as stargazing, physical science, science, and so on. “Micro” science fiction is often associated with people or sociology, such as social sciences, brain research, or financial affairs. Some journalists seem to include “hard” and “delicate” science fiction in their work, as Asimov did in his initial series of three.
How can this be? In fact, I was a little misunderstood. I began to collect stories on broad topics; Does it help me when I format things in groups so that I can apply some sort of selection rule to seemingly irrelevant information (who says thirty years of work is not compensated)? Gradually I began to group the stories on a number of universal bases: logical discoveries, logical revelations. living things (which include strangers, false life and false life); the search for meaning (which includes the search for God or divine beings); The disappearance of a male rally.
Again, I’m glad you asked, because it’s a perfect introduction to the next part of the series. “This lamb of the universe is yours”: science fiction, gravity, third part
I think the main contrast between science fiction and the more acknowledged or “normal” kind of fiction has to be the theme or theme. In the second part of this series, I pointed out that the themes used by science fiction, specifically: Seeing Forever, Character, Gods, and Customs, are similar to those used in “authoritative” writing. In conclusion, this leaves the issue as the main contradiction between the two types.
So we have to allude specifically to science, because we’ve dealt with novels so far (“When you get rid of the unthinkable, all the remaining parts, unlikely like them, have to be true,” Sherlock Holmes said). We must understand in this way that science is the factor that distinguishes science fiction from ordinary fiction. According to this definition, many traditional works of fiction are to be considered science fiction.
0 Comments