Very, very, very offtopic but the Queen is still the Queen. She is the head of state, head of the armed forces, can open and close parliament and has to ratify any decision made by parliament before it can become law. Admittedly she is the Queen with the least amount of power in the history of England but she isn't totally figurehead.Very very OFFtopic, but princess was a formal title, like the Queen of England
I dont think we can criticise movie makers here, it would be a bit of a problem if they could only make movies which adhered to known laws of physics, if its sci fi and it knows its sci fi and has no pretence of being anything else then i really dont mind.Otherwise yes, it is irritating how Hollywood filmmakers unaware about basic things.
Except that Star Wars is not sci-fi. Never claimed to be. It's space fantasy.I dont think we can criticise movie makers here, it would be a bit of a problem if they could only make movies which adhered to known laws of physics, if its sci fi and it knows its sci fi and has no pretence of being anything else then i really dont mind.
Upon rereading this, I realize this might have come across derisively. It was not intended to be. It was a knee-jerk reaction to arguments I've had elsewhere.(Anyone who thinks that's splitting hairs obviously doesn't care about the lack of science in fantasy stories).
Yes you are totally right. I am a big fan of fantasy and sci fi and space fantasy (of which there is a LOT in more recent years)Except that Star Wars is not sci-fi. Never claimed to be. It's space fantasy.
(Anyone who thinks that's splitting hairs obviously doesn't care about the lack of science in fantasy stories).
I am working through my first novel at the moment - about 9 months in, I wrote a number of short novellas and was happy with them. The problem I am having is how not to fly in the face of modern understanding while not limiting the scope of my story.I've seen this site before and think it's excellent, especially this section
Too many authors don't think through the ramifications of what they propose when they invent a plot device.
Best of luck with it I've always thought that in good SF it's not about what science and technology you allow but how well you deal with the ramifications (as well as good plot, characters etc). It's a real toe stub on my suspension of disbelief when I come across something akin to what was described in the link.I am working through my first novel at the moment - about 9 months in, I wrote a number of short novellas and was happy with them. The problem I am having is how not to fly in the face of modern understanding while not limiting the scope of my story.
I am allowing the ability of FTL (using an avoidance mechanism) and one of my major plot points is causality which is a recurring theme throughout the novel.
Anyways I am not plugging/advertising just noting what Ryan says as important and very difficult for authors - sometimes scientific validity has to be thrown out of the window!
That's only if you equate human capability in a specific area with human consciousness, emotion, sense of self/identity, sense of personal liberty, social interaction etc. I'm firmly in the camp of we don't design planes to fly like birds nor cars to travel like quadrupeds and neither do we design intelligent software with the rest of the attributes that the most intelligent thing (us so says us) possesses.If they can evolve to match human abilities, then with a rebellion scenario, a writer can rule them out.
enforce Asimov's laws of robotics.
True but the advantage Solaria has is ~20,000 robots per person. Their industrial capacity is massive and IIRC:About the first one :
the enemy will sooner or later recognise that they use robotic armies against them, and expose it.
Then, it wont be a matter between two planets anymore, it will be a galactic matter, people will be overwhelmed by fear, that the robots can actually kill them, and they will demand immediate action against Solaria. They cant manufacture enough robots to handle every enemy.
I dunno, Orson Scott Card did a good job. Ender's Game won a Hugo and Nebula.Than the enemy will swarm them with nuclear missiles, if we playing dirty...
But yes, thats why people rather want to read about pilots and space marines who live by the old samurai codex, not robotic armies and nuclear missiles and politicans who order bombings from their nuke-proof bunkers...
Also, a captain who control drone battleships from behind (and mostly he accepts the strategist computer's plans) isnt such a good character.
Theoretically, you can robotize the battleships also.
Enders Game is a fantastic novel in my opinion. I dont feel like Card trivialises any major scientific hurdles (Even with the Ansible allowing FTL communications Card puts a lot down on implications.)I dunno, Orson Scott Card did a good job. Ender's Game won a Hugo and Nebula.
Strategy in its purest forms is best left to minds and not machines IMO. I just dont think machines will ever be able to make judgements like we can. You would need to read Enders game I thinkWell, I havent read it, i would be curious, what made him such a brilliant strategist?
There isnt too much option for trickery in space... or maybe my fantasy isnt the best.
I can appreciate that and it was one of the few criticisms of the novel but there are some major ethical and moral bumps at the end of the novel that wash away much of the moral high ground. Speaker for the Dead is a lot more morally pragmatic and I think it shows as a more mature novel than Enders Game. I read Enders Game when I was around 13/14 so maybe a slightly biased view!At first I found myself enjoying Ender's Game but then I began to dislike it for the simplicity and the farcical nature of it. There is absolutely no situation in which Ender isn't shown as being the morally correct victim even when he massively over-retaliates to the point of killing other children. It bored me because there was nothing in it that wouldn't ooze worship for Ender's pure moral character and I found that as interesting and believable as listening to religious apologetics.