Difference between revisions of "Talk:Science fiction"
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:My understanding of science fiction has grown a little dim; that article reflects all that I remember from the genre before I quit reading it. | :My understanding of science fiction has grown a little dim; that article reflects all that I remember from the genre before I quit reading it. | ||
| − | :One thing puzzles me: from a literary agent who tried to place a manuscript of mine, I now learn that "science fiction" includes even a story that uses an out-of-the-ordinary machine as a plot device. Even a drama involving a spacecraft that [[NASA]] could build today now somehow qualifies as "science fiction." Do you agree?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 10:29, 8 June 2007 (EDT) | + | :One thing puzzles me: from a literary agent who tried to place a manuscript of mine, I now learn that "science fiction" includes even a story that uses an out-of-the-ordinary machine as a plot device. Even a drama involving a spacecraft that [[NASA]] could build today now somehow qualifies as "science fiction." Do you agree? Before you answer, let me give you two titles that some might put in this category: ''Oxygen'' and ''The Fifth Man'' by John Olson and Randall S. Ingermanson. The first title even won the Christy Award for the best futuristic faith-based novel in its year.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 10:29, 8 June 2007 (EDT) |
Revision as of 14:40, June 8, 2007
Dual-user Provenance
My edits to this article as of April 22, 2007, represent a dual submission of content of sole authorship. I am the same person as User:Temlakos on CreationWiki. My contributions to this article are based in part on this version of the CreationWiki article, which is entirely my work. I have, however, expanded on certain concepts that are more appropriate to a general encyclopedia than to one specializing in creation science and creation-informed history.--TerryHTalk 14:58, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
Hope you don't mind
I hope you don't mind that I made some edits to your article without first discussing them with you. The article is a excellent one, but I thought there should perhaps be a bit more emphasis on the exploration of philosophical and psychological questions as opposed to scientific theories, discoveries and inventions. I've been reading science fiction for more than 40 years, and have long been interested in both the entertaining and the serious sides of the genre. NitramNos 10:14, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
- Those edits are friendly.
- My understanding of science fiction has grown a little dim; that article reflects all that I remember from the genre before I quit reading it.
- One thing puzzles me: from a literary agent who tried to place a manuscript of mine, I now learn that "science fiction" includes even a story that uses an out-of-the-ordinary machine as a plot device. Even a drama involving a spacecraft that NASA could build today now somehow qualifies as "science fiction." Do you agree? Before you answer, let me give you two titles that some might put in this category: Oxygen and The Fifth Man by John Olson and Randall S. Ingermanson. The first title even won the Christy Award for the best futuristic faith-based novel in its year.--TerryHTalk 10:29, 8 June 2007 (EDT)