Comments on: Bogosity generators: the secret heart of science fiction http://boingboing.net/2013/02/05/bogosty-generators-the-secret.html Brain candy for Happy Mutants Tue, 18 Jun 2013 21:12:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: Michael Smith http://boingboing.net/2013/02/05/bogosty-generators-the-secret.html#comment-1648149 Michael Smith Wed, 06 Feb 2013 20:00:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=211111#comment-1648149 RSS works fine for me here. It links to the BB article with an embedded disqus thread. Is it possible you are using a disqus RSS feed? RSS works fine for me here. It links to the BB article with an embedded disqus thread. Is it possible you are using a disqus RSS feed?

]]> By: Michael Smith http://boingboing.net/2013/02/05/bogosty-generators-the-secret.html#comment-1648139 Michael Smith Wed, 06 Feb 2013 19:55:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=211111#comment-1648139 Yes they missed a lot of good opportunities with their script. Yes they missed a lot of good opportunities with their script.

]]> By: Peter http://boingboing.net/2013/02/05/bogosty-generators-the-secret.html#comment-1647811 Peter Wed, 06 Feb 2013 16:34:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=211111#comment-1647811 I actually don't mind that.  All our developments are not necessarily going to be linked, there are going to be random collections... and some of the plot that the TK stuff dragged in was starting to elevate the story beyond a hackneyed, seen-it-a-million-times-before time travel plot with a few especially dumb premises (and, admittedly, good actors) What annoyed me was that they did, for my money, the worst possible ending type of time travel movie. :P I actually don’t mind that.  All our developments are not necessarily going to be linked, there are going to be random collections… and some of the plot that the TK stuff dragged in was starting to elevate the story beyond a hackneyed, seen-it-a-million-times-before time travel plot with a few especially dumb premises (and, admittedly, good actors)

What annoyed me was that they did, for my money, the worst possible ending type of time travel movie. :P

]]> By: Renee http://boingboing.net/2013/02/05/bogosty-generators-the-secret.html#comment-1647691 Renee Wed, 06 Feb 2013 14:30:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=211111#comment-1647691 hmm so the RSS feed is only for the comments? No RSS for the original posts? *confused* Sorry but I am having trouble finding it if it's here ... hmm so the RSS feed is only for the comments? No RSS for the original posts? *confused* Sorry but I am having trouble finding it if it’s here …

]]> By: Renee http://boingboing.net/2013/02/05/bogosty-generators-the-secret.html#comment-1647686 Renee Wed, 06 Feb 2013 14:27:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=211111#comment-1647686 Oh, nope there it is. Wonder why my add button didn't automagically find it? Second question ... why does each entry show up with the same headline in my feed? Oh, nope there it is. Wonder why my add button didn’t automagically find it? Second question … why does each entry show up with the same headline in my feed?

]]> By: Renee http://boingboing.net/2013/02/05/bogosty-generators-the-secret.html#comment-1647684 Renee Wed, 06 Feb 2013 14:24:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=211111#comment-1647684 No RSS feed reader? No RSS feed reader?

]]> By: Saltine http://boingboing.net/2013/02/05/bogosty-generators-the-secret.html#comment-1647651 Saltine Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:22:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=211111#comment-1647651 I've read tons of both genres, and they equally exhibit pure-entertainment works and works that are thoughtful and/or self-aware, ones that try to accomplish more than just pleasure. The difference, however, is that SF tends to skew toward stereotypically "male" interests like politics and philosophy, while Fantasy often deals with psychology and/or interpersonal relationships, as well as just working how how mythic/epic narratives can be retold. That said, there's plenty of fantasy that also takes on those grand, "masculine" themes. I’ve read tons of both genres, and they equally exhibit pure-entertainment works and works that are thoughtful and/or self-aware, ones that try to accomplish more than just pleasure. The difference, however, is that SF tends to skew toward stereotypically “male” interests like politics and philosophy, while Fantasy often deals with psychology and/or interpersonal relationships, as well as just working how how mythic/epic narratives can be retold. That said, there’s plenty of fantasy that also takes on those grand, “masculine” themes.

]]> By: Kimmo http://boingboing.net/2013/02/05/bogosty-generators-the-secret.html#comment-1647537 Kimmo Wed, 06 Feb 2013 06:29:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=211111#comment-1647537 Sure, go ahead and make Asimov, Clarke et al turn in their graves. Just because there's a lot of dross doesn't mean proper SF isn't inherently a cut above anything else. I mean, look at Greg Bear's <i>Blood Music</i>. You can't tell me any other genre has the capacity for such mind-blowing scope. Sure, go ahead and make Asimov, Clarke et al turn in their graves.

Just because there’s a lot of dross doesn’t mean proper SF isn’t inherently a cut above anything else.

I mean, look at Greg Bear’s Blood Music. You can’t tell me any other genre has the capacity for such mind-blowing scope.

]]> By: Kimmo http://boingboing.net/2013/02/05/bogosty-generators-the-secret.html#comment-1647535 Kimmo Wed, 06 Feb 2013 06:24:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=211111#comment-1647535 I like the speculative tag, but I don't think it encompasses very much fantasy. I like the speculative tag, but I don’t think it encompasses very much fantasy.

]]> By: Marja Erwin http://boingboing.net/2013/02/05/bogosty-generators-the-secret.html#comment-1647431 Marja Erwin Wed, 06 Feb 2013 03:09:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=211111#comment-1647431 It depends if you are defining SF as Scientifiction, Science Fiction, or Speculative Fiction. There are good speculative fiction works written by extrapolation of current trends, by changing one or a few things, and by changing many things. As long as they share the speculative spirit - not being bound by the here and now, but being bound by the logic of the setting and following it through - I think they can be considered SF. It depends if you are defining SF as Scientifiction, Science Fiction, or Speculative Fiction. There are good speculative fiction works written by extrapolation of current trends, by changing one or a few things, and by changing many things. As long as they share the speculative spirit – not being bound by the here and now, but being bound by the logic of the setting and following it through – I think they can be considered SF.

]]> By: Daemonworks http://boingboing.net/2013/02/05/bogosty-generators-the-secret.html#comment-1647418 Daemonworks Wed, 06 Feb 2013 02:57:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=211111#comment-1647418  I was going to say much the same thing. In fact, I'm fairly sure that Brandon Sanderson has been described as a sort of science fiction in that his magic systems are very much a part of the laws of physics of his worlds, and often major plot developments result from new discoveries in how to utilize those laws, just as a rather large chunk of SF is based around new scientific discoveries using physics that are a little closer to home... There's no shortage of SF that doesn't really try to explain it's bogosity either, or that makes at best a slap-dash point of doing so (midoclorians, anyone?) In most of the SF I've read, the excuse for he bogosity is "it's science", and hand-waved away. Change the technobabble in ST:TNG from "inverting the phase coupler" to "cleansing the mana stones" and *poof* it's fantasy. Works with the vast majority of SF.  I was going to say much the same thing. In fact, I’m fairly sure that Brandon Sanderson has been described as a sort of science fiction in that his magic systems are very much a part of the laws of physics of his worlds, and often major plot developments result from new discoveries in how to utilize those laws, just as a rather large chunk of SF is based around new scientific discoveries using physics that are a little closer to home…

There’s no shortage of SF that doesn’t really try to explain it’s bogosity either, or that makes at best a slap-dash point of doing so (midoclorians, anyone?)

In most of the SF I’ve read, the excuse for he bogosity is “it’s science”, and hand-waved away. Change the technobabble in ST:TNG from “inverting the phase coupler” to “cleansing the mana stones” and *poof* it’s fantasy. Works with the vast majority of SF.

]]> By: Strange Quark Star http://boingboing.net/2013/02/05/bogosty-generators-the-secret.html#comment-1647357 Strange Quark Star Wed, 06 Feb 2013 02:03:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=211111#comment-1647357 Agree 100%. That is also one of the reasons why Fantasy should never be called SF; it does not even try to be realistically set in this universe. Agree 100%.
That is also one of the reasons why Fantasy should never be called SF; it does not even try to be realistically set in this universe.

]]> By: Kimmo http://boingboing.net/2013/02/05/bogosty-generators-the-secret.html#comment-1647209 Kimmo Wed, 06 Feb 2013 00:14:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=211111#comment-1647209 Not a hint of facetiousness. Sturgeon's Law notwithstanding. Its validity only serves to prove my point. Not a hint of facetiousness.

Sturgeon’s Law notwithstanding. Its validity only serves to prove my point.

]]> By: duncancreamer http://boingboing.net/2013/02/05/bogosty-generators-the-secret.html#comment-1647204 duncancreamer Wed, 06 Feb 2013 00:10:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=211111#comment-1647204 Visually, I've heard all the stuff in the backgrounds is referred to as "gak". I'm thinking of computer screens and the like. Visually, I’ve heard all the stuff in the backgrounds is referred to as “gak”. I’m thinking of computer screens and the like.

]]> By: Scurra http://boingboing.net/2013/02/05/bogosty-generators-the-secret.html#comment-1647179 Scurra Tue, 05 Feb 2013 23:58:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=211111#comment-1647179 OK, so I realise you're being a little facetious, but Sturgeon's Rule was originally applied to SF after all. OK, so I realise you’re being a little facetious, but Sturgeon’s Rule was originally applied to SF after all.

]]> By: Boundegar http://boingboing.net/2013/02/05/bogosty-generators-the-secret.html#comment-1647122 Boundegar Tue, 05 Feb 2013 23:32:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=211111#comment-1647122 I'm re-reading one of the Culture novels, and it's jam-packed with bogosity generators.  They add nothing to the plot, but they add tons of atmosphere. I’m re-reading one of the Culture novels, and it’s jam-packed with bogosity generators.  They add nothing to the plot, but they add tons of atmosphere.

]]> By: liquidstar http://boingboing.net/2013/02/05/bogosty-generators-the-secret.html#comment-1647097 liquidstar Tue, 05 Feb 2013 23:16:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=211111#comment-1647097 It seems a little unfair to say that fantasy authors don't have to justify their "bogosity generators".  Many don't or give minimal explanations, but others do give coherent rules for "magic" or for how the universe/worlds work and such. Surely these would qualify for the same kind of consideration. (Zelazny's Nine Princes in Amber series comes to mind here). Do we say that if a (high) fantasy author who does give plausibility through explanation is automatically a science fictional author?  These seem to me to be the kind of issues that arose a long time ago, especially during the late 60s to 80s and generally resulted in fantasy and science fiction coming much closer together (guess the term speculative fiction is re-dead now?) It seems a little unfair to say that fantasy authors don’t have to justify their “bogosity generators”.  Many don’t or give minimal explanations, but others do give coherent rules for “magic” or for how the universe/worlds work and such. Surely these would qualify for the same kind of consideration. (Zelazny’s Nine Princes in Amber series comes to mind here). Do we say that if a (high) fantasy author who does give plausibility through explanation is automatically a science fictional author?  These seem to me to be the kind of issues that arose a long time ago, especially during the late 60s to 80s and generally resulted in fantasy and science fiction coming much closer together (guess the term speculative fiction is re-dead now?)

]]> By: Rocketpilot http://boingboing.net/2013/02/05/bogosty-generators-the-secret.html#comment-1647088 Rocketpilot Tue, 05 Feb 2013 23:11:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=211111#comment-1647088 Academic/game developer Ian Bogost should be consulted on this one. Academic/game developer Ian Bogost should be consulted on this one.

]]> By: oasisob1 http://boingboing.net/2013/02/05/bogosty-generators-the-secret.html#comment-1647085 oasisob1 Tue, 05 Feb 2013 23:07:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=211111#comment-1647085 I heard they're going to bring up midichlorians in the sequel. I heard they’re going to bring up midichlorians in the sequel.

]]> By: Jody S http://boingboing.net/2013/02/05/bogosty-generators-the-secret.html#comment-1647076 Jody S Tue, 05 Feb 2013 23:04:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=211111#comment-1647076 I thought the standard name was 'flux capacitor.'  I thought the standard name was ‘flux capacitor.’ 

]]> By: TheMadLibrarian http://boingboing.net/2013/02/05/bogosty-generators-the-secret.html#comment-1647057 TheMadLibrarian Tue, 05 Feb 2013 22:52:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=211111#comment-1647057 Isn't this known in Star Trek as technobabble?  The hand-waving that is used to explain/fix the problem-of-the-week? Isn’t this known in Star Trek as technobabble?  The hand-waving that is used to explain/fix the problem-of-the-week?

]]> By: Kimmo http://boingboing.net/2013/02/05/bogosty-generators-the-secret.html#comment-1647056 Kimmo Tue, 05 Feb 2013 22:51:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=211111#comment-1647056 The other reason a theory behind a bogosity generator isn't idle bullshit is that SF is often a lot more serious and thoughtful than fantasy, and generally has plenty of things to say about human nature and our relationship with technology and evolution. Aside from the fact you don't want to come across any implausible clangers in such a brew, and since many SF writers are <i>particularly</i> thoughtful folks have a hard science background, some of them do this so well they're engaging in the first step of actually creating the future. It should be blindingly obvious to all that SF is the highest form of fiction, without no other contenders for the title. The other reason a theory behind a bogosity generator isn’t idle bullshit is that SF is often a lot more serious and thoughtful than fantasy, and generally has plenty of things to say about human nature and our relationship with technology and evolution.

Aside from the fact you don’t want to come across any implausible clangers in such a brew, and since many SF writers are particularly thoughtful folks have a hard science background, some of them do this so well they’re engaging in the first step of actually creating the future.

It should be blindingly obvious to all that SF is the highest form of fiction, without no other contenders for the title.

]]> By: Stefan Jones http://boingboing.net/2013/02/05/bogosty-generators-the-secret.html#comment-1647047 Stefan Jones Tue, 05 Feb 2013 22:45:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=211111#comment-1647047  <I>Looper</I> reminded me of <I>The Stars my Destination</I> (a cool SF future with memorable characters were, Oh Yeah, everyone can teleport!) in that regard.  Looper reminded me of The Stars my Destination (a cool SF future with memorable characters were, Oh Yeah, everyone can teleport!) in that regard.

]]> By: Michael Smith http://boingboing.net/2013/02/05/bogosty-generators-the-secret.html#comment-1647035 Michael Smith Tue, 05 Feb 2013 22:36:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=211111#comment-1647035 <blockquote>an SF writer is expected to cobble together some kind of semi-plausible, paralogical, science-like explanation</blockquote>Yeah I agree. I was annoyed with Looper because while they legitimately invented time travel they also invented telekinesis. There was no attempt to explain why the world in the movie had those two amazing advances, even though a little bit of thought could have feasibly linked the two.

an SF writer is expected to cobble together some kind of semi-plausible, paralogical, science-like explanation

Yeah I agree. I was annoyed with Looper because while they legitimately invented time travel they also invented telekinesis. There was no attempt to explain why the world in the movie had those two amazing advances, even though a little bit of thought could have feasibly linked the two.

]]>