i.e do you prefer:

  • technically grounded and plausible science elements (e.g The Martian)

or

  • stuff so fantastical that it doesn’t even warrant trying to explain it (Dr Who, some Marvel/DC stuff, Star Wars)

Another way to look at this would be Sci-Fi versus Science Fantasy, perhaps.

  • Old-School Sci-Fi like HG Wells centers around a core scientific idea and the consequences arising from that,

whereas

  • Science Fantasy (more prevalent nowadays) only looks to science - or the impression of some science - to serve the fantasy devices it uses.

So which is better?

  • VitoRobles@lemmy.todayEnglish
    1·
    4 days ago

    Only if it’s written organically.

    I tried to read Lord of the Rings/A Song Of Fire and Ice and skipped parts where it was 20 pages about the lore. Granted, they are written in a compelling way. But I’m tired of it, especially in the hands of weaker writers. And sci Fi authors have a LOT of them.