> For example, many science-fiction fans get involved in lengthy discussions about physics [...]
This always bothers me when talking to sci-fi fans that only read sci-fi. It also bothers me in more modern sci-fi when the author puts too much time into explaining the mechanics of whatever concepts are used.
The 1950s, 1960s and the earlier 1970s sci-fi is usually about ideas. The 'science' is mostly there as a plot device. This gives the author huge freedom to just take an idea (however absurd) and run with it.
Whatever kind of fiction your read, though, it's always characters, their development and their reaction to the environment that they find themselves in that is the key to a good story.
(Yes, there is plenty of good sci-fi to be found today, from the hard kind to the lyrical/meta-physical kind, I'm just commenting on the general development of the genre. Also, see Sturgeon's Law).
This always bothers me when talking to sci-fi fans that only read sci-fi. It also bothers me in more modern sci-fi when the author puts too much time into explaining the mechanics of whatever concepts are used.
The 1950s, 1960s and the earlier 1970s sci-fi is usually about ideas. The 'science' is mostly there as a plot device. This gives the author huge freedom to just take an idea (however absurd) and run with it.
Whatever kind of fiction your read, though, it's always characters, their development and their reaction to the environment that they find themselves in that is the key to a good story.
(Yes, there is plenty of good sci-fi to be found today, from the hard kind to the lyrical/meta-physical kind, I'm just commenting on the general development of the genre. Also, see Sturgeon's Law).