Science fiction or historical fiction?
I've never liked science fiction, except for the original Star Trek TV show.
History for the win!
If you think ALL science fiction ideas have become fact, you can't have read much science fiction.
the media already presents enough historical fiction. science fiction ideas have been realized and turned into science fact
The best of the genre doesn't extrapolate dialog much farther than what can be well supported by historical documents. Otherwise, it's, uh, fiction.
Fiction in a historical setting, usually well researched for details of what life was like in that ear. Sometimes involves or centers on actual historical characters with fictionalized dialog...
Doctor Who!!! :D
For those that like both- you should read 11/22/63 by Stephen King. Excellent combination of the two genres!
I'm so glad you mentioned Fringe!!
Science fiction usually, but Inglorious Basterds was well done.
Actually it's the social fiction that I enjoy. Ursula Le Guin. Devise a world where something's radically different than with humans - have "people" switch genders at regular intervals as part of their normal physiology and see how civilization might be different. Stuff like that. Better n rockets.
JG Ballard, praet?
Exactly, @mar45alex! And if Lincoln DIDN'T slay 'em, who did?!
WHOVIANS UNITE! :D
Because those two are my favorites!!
If you read Jurassic Park and The Lost World, you'll find much more science than in the movies, even if this also has been criticized as not realistic - still, I prefer something that is close enough to what's soon possible to a utopia that our descendants will laugh at.
Literature from the heyday of SF (1930s to 1950s) had humans explore the universe in huge spaceships but doing their calculations with slide rules or at best huge mainframe computers.
Heinlein stubbornly clung to his solar system even after it was shown Venus isn't inhabitable.
Actually, my absolute favorite genre has no name - it's a blend of techno thriller and hardcore SF that usually plays in the near future.
Ben Bova and Michael Crichton are examples. It's hard to impossible to predict future development past maybe a generation...
Heinlein is more social fiction than science fiction - Bradbury sometimes, too. I want more hard science in SF.
..students that afternoon. Swarthmore, I think. Even though school had been dismissed. It was surreal. Everyone acting all polite and almost prissy, and I was thinking WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? ARE YOU ALL NUTS? Maybe everyone else was thinking that too.
Interesting, whoami! I wouldn't have guessed we were that close in age, or that you are older! I can remember so clearly what I was doing at various points that day, and the next few, whole conversations even. Vividly. In fact, I had to go to a mother-daughter college tea for prospective...
The main thing that I get from historical fiction (I used to read a lot of it; not much now), when its done well, anyway, is what daily life was like. The thing I disliked about history in school was that you didn't have much sense of that, and it's really more interesting to me.
Historical fiction does not have Spock, debate OVER :D
I voted for sci-fi, but I read both. Mostly I think that history as it actually happened is just as interesting, if not more so, than a lot of historical fiction.
And I mean the really cheesy weather related ones. Lol.
Hey, Susan! You are just about 4 years younger than I am. I was in college in 1963 and also newly married. Of course, I remember that day very well!
Why read about what didn't happen, when you could be reading about what might happen?
It's really good but people who are not serious readers might not be able to handle it. It's about 850 pages
Hmm.. Book and game-wise it's historical, but I love watching those cheesy sci fi movies with my sister. Lol tough choice.
This was basically the hardest poll I've had to answer.
whoami - It's really long and goes into a lot of detail - I think we'll over 600 pages. I listened to it as an audiobook, so I didn't get eye fatigue at least. For anyone alive in '63 (I was a HS senior) it strikingly brings back the whole chilling main event, it's that well researched.
Me four although I'm for the Klingons ;)
I like her books too, or at least the Outlander series, which is all I've read. Having medical interests, I particularly enjoyed that aspect of the books.
Four words: Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter.
Who says he wasn't a vampire hunter?
Whoami-- you mean like Abraham Lincoln vampire Hunter?lol!
I would put it mainly under sci-fi. But it might fall under hisci-fi
Me three!!! ????
That was sarcasm, whoami. Sorry that wasn't conveyed with the quip.
See my explanation below, in my reply to elitist.
Thanks! It sounds interesting. I have added it to my to-read list on Goodreads.
Finally, I have recently become a fan of stories that blend both science fiction and historical fiction. To continue our Civil War example, imagine a story that represents the Civil War as it actually happened. However, one of the characters is a time traveller, who is visiting that era.
There is another genre of fiction, called alternative history. It starts with a real historical setting, but makes a "what if" change. For example, imagine Gone With The Wind, beginning with the assumption that the South won the war. The story would be entirely different.
Historical fiction is fiction, based on a real historical setting. A good well-known example is Gone With The Wind. The actual story is 100% fiction. However, the background and setting of the story is real - namely, how people lived in the south, around the time of the Civil War.
Ooh tough one. I picked sci fi as i've been into that longer than historical fiction, but i love both.