The Literary Origins of Science Fiction in Fantasy Settings

The Lensman series by E E Doc SMith was the first great Space Opera series. It sets the tone for psionics being associated with technology as opposed to fantasy. Arguably, the Lensmen are inspiration for the Jedi Knights.

It starts with the Earth, moves on to the solar system, then a multi system federation, then half a galaxy, then the whole galaxy, then TWO galaxies, each book building in scope and power and impact.

I particularly like the alien classification system.

Yeah, the Lensmen is a great read. however, it's from the 50's, so it shows its age and the time it's from...the heroes smoke, and women are not allowed to be Lensmen until the very last books, and then the successor series added them in.

If you accept that and move on, its a great, fun read.

It took me thirty years to get a copy of all the books in the series, and I still don't have the modern series done after he died.

==Aelryinth

Owen,

Did you happen to reference the list of source inspiration books in the 1E DMG? Jack Vance and Shadowjack were prominent in that list. That list is pretty legendary in the hobby.

Shadowjack should definitely have made your list. Half a planet ruled by those born with magic, the other half ruled by technology.

==Aelryinth

He said that in true science fiction, the story was at least in some way about how the technology changed things. Not as a MacGuffin or substitute for a threat that could just as easily be a dragon or soldier, but how society, characters, or conflict is fundamentally changed by new technologies. The fiction is at least in big part *about* the science.

Some of my favorite sci-fi deals with how society and people (and sometimes the very definition of what is 'people') have changed. Cyberpunk, for example, often delved into how technology changed society, and futurist/transhumanist authors like Greg Egan and Peter Hamilton tend to dive right into that well.

Well-thought-out fantasy worlds go the same way. Eberron, for instance, dealt pretty strongly with how the presence of magic and other races changed the world / setting. Instead of it being 'fantasy Europe + all sorts of other stuff that changes nothing,' the presence of magic and other races shaped the entire setting in many ways. Other fantasy settings (and comic book settings, often) are more likely to shove other races off into their own little ghetto nations where humans don't want to live anyway and have humanity develop more or less unchanged in any significant way despite the presence of elves, magic and dragons.

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

And every young kid's make-believe/roleplaying with all their assorted store-bought, second hand, op-shopped, scavenged, own-built toys that didn't stick to brand/genre (Toy Story).

Transformers, G.I.Joe, and Jem all existed in the same universe in the 80's and I remember ghosts, Lovecraftian horros, and wizards being present in those. :)

(there may have been a fake ghost pirate or two, but I think those are technically hard sf)

Don't forget the Inhumanoids!

Yeah I remember that Jem, G. I. Joe, Transformers, and Inhumaniods shared the same version of earth.

Also here are some 80's cartoons that combined magic and tech: Thundarr the Barbarian, He-Man, Thundercats, Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors, Inhumanoids, She-ra, Silverhawks, Defenders of the Earth, Darkstar, Kidd Video, Ulysses31, Voltron, and The Real Ghostbusters.

Owen, thank you for writing this blog!

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

He said that in true science fiction, the story was at least in some way about how the technology changed things. Not as a MacGuffin or substitute for a threat that could just as easily be a dragon or soldier, but how society, characters, or conflict is fundamentally changed by new technologies. The fiction is at least in big part *about* the science.

Some of my favorite sci-fi deals with how society and people (and sometimes the very definition of what is 'people') have changed. Cyberpunk, for example, often delved into how technology changed society, and futurist/transhumanist authors like Greg Egan and Peter Hamilton tend to dive right into that well.

Well-thought-out fantasy worlds go the same way. Eberron, for instance, dealt pretty strongly with how the presence of magic and other races changed the world / setting. Instead of it being 'fantasy Europe + all sorts of other stuff that changes nothing,' the presence of magic and other races shaped the entire setting in many ways. Other fantasy settings (and comic book settings, often) are more likely to shove other races off into their own little ghetto nations where humans don't want to live anyway and have humanity develop more or less unchanged in any significant way despite the presence of elves, magic and dragons.

I really was anti-Eberron when it first came out, but as the years have gone on, I've become more and more appreciative of it, and kind of wish I'd spent more time using the setting itself, then I might be a bit better equipped to implement some of its trappings into my homebrew world.

It's on the to-do list.

I like blended settings, I play Shadowrun (and pathfinder), liked eberon, spelljammer, heck even BESM and Call of Cthulhu blended magic and tech fairly well.

As of this very instant, I'm leery of the numeria stuff. I've read the tech guide, and the first book of Iron gods. Some of the minuses are, some of the items give the impression that they were pulled directly from Shadowrun like the skill chips. The stuff from it that has the potential to be good has the potential to be really good. In the first book (the only one I've read so far) it has started touching on what actually makes divinity in the Pathfinder world/universe, there's a lot of good potential there. It could even touch on some of the whys and wherefores of the starstone, and the mechanisms of deities.

I'll pick up the rest of the AP and see where it goes, but druids are definitely giving off a heavy antitech feel in the new stuff.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

What's the difference between a monster and an alien? To your average adventurer nothing.

What's the difference between a laser pistol and a wand of scorching ray? Not much.

OTOH, if there's no difference, why bother?

So that you can tell a story that you otherwise could not.

Truth to be told, I have a bigger issue with demons, devils, etc, in my fantasy than with technology, time travel and other genre shifts. I grew up with Gormenghast, The Wizard of Oz, 80's fantasy anime and Marvel comics. It wasn't until Baldur's Gate and Forgotten Realms novels that I got properly introduced to some fairly ubiquitous Christian fantasy themes(yes, I skipped X-Infernus).

For me there has never been an issue with genre or mode switching, but once you add eschatology into the mix, the idea of pure evil, damnation, etc, there's a notable shift in the mood. Sudden unwanted gravity enters the equation and it's still a handful for me to swallow.

Sorry, just some nostalgic musings.

For me there has never been an issue with genre or mode switching, but once you add eschatology into the mix, the idea of pure evil, damnation, etc, there's a notable shift in the mood. Sudden unwanted gravity enters the equation and it's still a handful for me to swallow.

Notions of soul (and the selling of or devouring of such) being bandied about as mechanics in the game have always put me off a bit. Just based on what we know, 70% of humans conceived don't live long enough to be born, and depending on assumptions of when a soul is generated or assigned to a living being, the upper and lower planes would be *vastly* populated with souls of people who never were even born (and so had no choice to be good or evil).

It's just whacky.

Add The Dragonriders of Pern by Anne McCaffery and The Chronicles of Morgaine by C.J. Cherryh as fantasy/sci-fi blends.

Notions of soul (and the selling of or devouring of such) being bandied about as mechanics in the game have always put me off a bit. Just based on what we know, 70% of humans conceived don't live long enough to be born, and depending on assumptions of when a soul is generated or assigned to a living being, the upper and lower planes would be *vastly* populated with souls of people who never were even born (and so had no choice to be good or evil).

It's just whacky.

That's making the assumption that people develop souls before they are born . . . Of course, even if that was true, it would just mean that the Boneyard/Plane of Concordant Opposition/whatever would be really full compared to the Upper and Lower (and Sideways?) Planes.

if you read the River of Souls in the last AP book, you'd know that souls enter bodies some time between conception and young age in the Golarion universe, i.e. all those dead children didn't have souls yet. Souls enter bodies ready to accept them, and we can assume most unborn children aren't ready.

That, and Pharasma, overseeing the process, probably won't stick a soul into a body that's going to die immediately. Pretty much a waste of the soul.

==Aelryinth

We do know Pharasma is anti-abortion, so presumably souls get attached at some point prior to birth. Exactly what point is probably one of those questions we should avoid debating. ^.^

No, the article clearly says that pre-birth is not required. It's entirely possible to be born without a soul, but you have to have one if you're going to survive by yourself, is how the article defined it. So I'm presuming before you're weaned, you need one, or you're just an empty thing.

==Aelryinth

I had the great honor to talk to author (and gamer!) Aaron Allston a few times in the later years before his death, when he and I were both quests at SoonerCon. During one of those conversations, I asked him what he saw as the difference between a science fiction story, and a fantasy story (or action story, or romance, or whatever genre) with sic-fi trappings.

He said that in true science fiction, the story was at least in some way about how the technology changed things. Not as a MacGuffin or substitute for a threat that could just as easily be a dragon or soldier, but how society, characters, or conflict is fundamentally changed by new technologies. The fiction is at least in big part *about* the science.

That's a tough bar, and lots of things don't clear it. I'm not even sure I agree with it. But it has strongly influenced how I think about sic fi ever since.

Some people might say that's a description of HARD sci-fi.

Anyone happen to notice that the link for the large sized picture at the top sends you to the home page? Disappointing my computer for a new desktop. :)

Anyone happen to notice that the link for the large sized picture at the top sends you to the home page? Disappointing my computer for a new desktop. :)

The correct link is here.

Not to derail the thread, but there are plenty of stories that don't have a bar for fantasy or science fiction. Ordinary People, for instance, ain't no ray guns or magic swords in that one.

Anyone who insists on strict barriers between Fantasy and Science Fiction is going to have their head explode if they read enough Ray Bradbury.

Or watch Dr. Who.

No, the article clearly says that pre-birth is not required. It's entirely possible to be born without a soul, but you have to have one if you're going to survive by yourself, is how the article defined it. So I'm presuming before you're weaned, you need one, or you're just an empty thing.

==Aelryinth

The Ellori (Arcanis expy for elves) have an interesting problem. The race was created by the Yuan Ti with a fixed number of souls that continually reincarnate when one of their immortal bodies dies or is killed. The Ellori curse of Kurenthe consumes the soul of the Ellori invoking it, permanently reducing the Ellori population cap by one.

The Dwarves in Arcanis have different problem. with their souls barred from the afterlife, those who die without having their souls encased in soulstones, are cursed to wander aimlessly after death. This has led to a form of stillbirth caused by dwarven children born without souls.

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

I had the great honor to talk to author (and gamer!) Aaron Allston a few times in the later years before his death, when he and I were both quests at SoonerCon. During one of those conversations, I asked him what he saw as the difference between a science fiction story, and a fantasy story (or action story, or romance, or whatever genre) with sic-fi trappings.

He said that in true science fiction, the story was at least in some way about how the technology changed things. Not as a MacGuffin or substitute for a threat that could just as easily be a dragon or soldier, but how society, characters, or conflict is fundamentally changed by new technologies. The fiction is at least in big part *about* the science.

That's a tough bar, and lots of things don't clear it. I'm not even sure I agree with it. But it has strongly influenced how I think about sic fi ever since.

Some people might say that's a description of HARD sci-fi.

Robert Forward is about as "Hard Sci-Fi" as you can get, as all his books are based on tech that you can extrapolate from known science. And he's a real scientist who knows his stuff. However unless your the type that likes geeking out on hardware, his books have some of the least flavorful and shallowest characters you'll find in the genre, and will bore you to tears.

Hitdice wrote:

Not to derail the thread, but there are plenty of stories that don't have a bar for fantasy or science fiction. Ordinary People, for instance, ain't no ray guns or magic swords in that one.

Anyone who insists on strict barriers between Fantasy and Science Fiction is going to have their head explode if they read enough Ray Bradbury.

Or watch Dr. Who.

Says the person who defines most science fiction as Fantasy.

I'm perfectly happy thinking of the vast majority of Doctor Who as science fiction.
Bradbury of course wrote both, along with horror and other things.

LazarX wrote:

Hitdice wrote:

Not to derail the thread, but there are plenty of stories that don't have a bar for fantasy or science fiction. Ordinary People, for instance, ain't no ray guns or magic swords in that one.

Anyone who insists on strict barriers between Fantasy and Science Fiction is going to have their head explode if they read enough Ray Bradbury.

Or watch Dr. Who.

Says the person who defines most science fiction as Fantasy.

I'm perfectly happy thinking of the vast majority of Doctor Who as science fiction.
Bradbury of course wrote both, along with horror and other things.

And I stand by that definition. Most of what is peddled as science fiction has practically no real science behind it whatsoever. (Heisenberg Compensator will still draw a few laughs if you mention it in the right crowd.) That does not stop me from enjoying shows such as Dr. Who which have other merits that draw me in.

Bradbury often refused to stay within boundaries when he wrote his stories which frequently were both.

Aaron Bitman wrote:

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

I had the great honor to talk to author (and gamer!) Aaron Allston a few times in the later years before his death, when he and I were both quests at SoonerCon. During one of those conversations, I asked him what he saw as the difference between a science fiction story, and a fantasy story (or action story, or romance, or whatever genre) with sic-fi trappings.

He said that in true science fiction, the story was at least in some way about how the technology changed things. Not as a MacGuffin or substitute for a threat that could just as easily be a dragon or soldier, but how society, characters, or conflict is fundamentally changed by new technologies. The fiction is at least in big part *about* the science.

That's a tough bar, and lots of things don't clear it. I'm not even sure I agree with it. But it has strongly influenced how I think about sic fi ever since.

Some people might say that's a description of HARD sci-fi.

Robert Forward is about as "Hard Sci-Fi" as you can get, as all his books are based on tech that you can extrapolate from known science. And he's a real scientist who knows his stuff. However unless your the type that likes geeking out on hardware, his books have some of the least flavorful and shallowest characters you'll find in the genre, and will bore you to tears.

There's nothing that says that Hard SF has to be good. :)

thejeff wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Hitdice wrote:

Not to derail the thread, but there are plenty of stories that don't have a bar for fantasy or science fiction. Ordinary People, for instance, ain't no ray guns or magic swords in that one.

Anyone who insists on strict barriers between Fantasy and Science Fiction is going to have their head explode if they read enough Ray Bradbury.

Or watch Dr. Who.

Says the person who defines most science fiction as Fantasy.

I'm perfectly happy thinking of the vast majority of Doctor Who as science fiction.
Bradbury of course wrote both, along with horror and other things.

And I stand by that definition. Most of what is peddled as science fiction has practically no real science behind it whatsoever. (Heisenberg Compensator will still draw a few laughs if you mention it in the right crowd.) That does not stop me from enjoying shows such as Dr. Who which have other merits that draw me in.

You don't have to like it. You can laugh at it if you want. But the science not being up to your standards doesn't make it fantasy. It just makes it science fiction with lousy (or sometimes just outdated) science.

Bradbury often refused to stay within boundaries when he wrote his stories which frequently were both.

I'm certainly not denying there's crossover and sub-genres that mix the two, but I don't accept science fiction becomes fantasy if the science isn't good enough. That's almost irrelevant to the question.

I'm certainly not denying there's crossover and sub-genres that mix the two, but I don't accept science fiction becomes fantasy if the science isn't good enough. That's almost irrelevant to the question.

You're not getting what I'm saying. I'm saying that for the most part, when it comes to popular science fiction, there's very little that distinguishes it from fantasy, especially the further you get from present day tech. Fantasy after all, is where science fiction came from. They're both subsets of stories of wonder.

{. . .}
Robert Forward is about as "Hard Sci-Fi" as you can get, as all his books are based on tech that you can extrapolate from known science. And he's a real scientist who knows his stuff. However unless your the type that likes geeking out on hardware, his books have some of the least flavorful and shallowest characters you'll find in the genre, and will bore you to tears.

You could make a valid argument that Hal Clement wrote even harder SF, with even less fleshed-out characters, although at least in his earlier writings he made settings that were so cool(*) that it mitigated the lack of character development.

(*) Mesklin is cool . . . in more ways than one . . . .

Robert Forward is about as "Hard Sci-Fi" as you can get, as all his books are based on tech that you can extrapolate from known science. And he's a real scientist who knows his stuff. However unless your the type that likes geeking out on hardware, his books have some of the least flavorful and shallowest characters you'll find in the genre, and will bore you to tears.

So, so terribly dull. Old 'classic' sci-fi like Larry Niven or Greg Bear would sometimes delve a little bit into science-talk, but Forward will spend five pages on a mathy science lesson, complete with fomula. Ugh. Give me Trek-no-babble any day!

The science (magic, historical accuracy, cultural details, fetishistic technical descriptions of guns, violence or medicine, whatever) should serve the story, not the other way around.

Best blog post of the year!

To me, "Hard" SF is SF that doesn't break any known rules of the universe as we understand them, and doesn't hand-wave major new technologies with no scientific basis of how they are supposed to work. FLT, teleportation, psychic abilities, perpetual motion machines, and perfect prediction all drop a story immediately out of the Hard SF category from my point of view.

There are weird cases, like 2001, where one group (humans) follow hard SF rules and others (monolith and those it affects) get handy-wavy powers with no explanation.

I'm a huge fan of Honor Harrington books, which include a lot of math of velocities and momentum and range, but also have ftl propagation of gravity and hyperspace, so I don't see them as hard sf. However, the advance of technology through study, development, research, and the occasional fluke is a huge part of the engine that drives the stories (despite being "Horatio Hornblower Fights WWII in Space with the help of a Psychic Familiar"), so it's core to me is still sic-fi, even if I ignore the trappings of high tech.

Of course, by the definition "advancing technology done in a realistic fashion is a major driver of the story" the Sword of Knowledge books would be Sci-Fi, despite being set on a fantasy world filled with swords and magic (though it is a very *specific* kind of magic).

That said, I certainly don't require anyone to use my definition, or even Aaron Allston's definition. But I find them both useful food for thought.

Best blog post of the year!

Thanks!

David Weber's HH books are great reads for space naval tactics.
All of the "why's" he's come up with make sense, and work well together.
I don't know that I'd classify it as hard sci-fi, but he doesn't just handwave why things work the way they do, he explains it in detail. Better yet, he sticks to it as well.

There are weird cases, like 2001, where one group (humans) follow hard SF rules and others (monolith and those it affects) get handy-wavy powers with no explanation.

I'm okay with handy-wavy in Hard Sci-Fi (that is Clarke's Law, after all), provided it respects the fundamental limits (relativity, the various conservation laws, thermodynamics).

To use another Clarke example, I was right on board with the Rama series being hard sci-fi until the final book revealed that Rama (and associatated creatures) worked for God.

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

There are weird cases, like 2001, where one group (humans) follow hard SF rules and others (monolith and those it affects) get handy-wavy powers with no explanation.

I'm okay with handy-wavy in Hard Sci-Fi (that is Clarke's Law, after all), provided it respects the fundamental limits (relativity, the various conservation laws, thermodynamics).

To use another Clarke example, I was right on board with the Rama series being hard sci-fi until the final book revealed that Rama (and associatated creatures) worked for God.

I don't think the monolith and its ilk pay much attention to fundamental laws, but it's been a long time since I read 2001.

Still, I'm more willing to accept handwavy unexplained tech in semi-Hard SF when it's mysterious alien tech that the protagonists don't begin to understand either.

I don't think the monolith and its ilk pay much attention to fundamental laws, but it's been a long time since I read 2001.

Been a long time for me too, but IIRC, they were bound by the speed of light (to send signals anywhere), and conservation of mass (for instance, when they ignite Jupiter, they do so by increasing its density, not mass.) Other than that, they were just powerful computers witht he ability to self-replicate. These days we'd call them a Bracewell probe.

Still, I'm more willing to accept handwavy unexplained tech in semi-Hard SF when it's mysterious alien tech that the protagonists don't begin to understand either.

Absolutely: Part of being 'magic' is being mysterious from the outside, and 'sufficiently advanced' refers to the reference point of the observer, not some concept that with enough technology we can make magic-like things like replicators. A firearm is magic to a Spartan.

Clarke's Law is not justification for putting a human-invented teleporter on your ship and acting like it is okay simply because we haven't definitively disproven it yet.

thejeff wrote:

I don't think the monolith and its ilk pay much attention to fundamental laws, but it's been a long time since I read 2001.

Been a long time for me too, but IIRC, they were bound by the speed of light (to send signals anywhere), and conservation of mass (for instance, when they ignite Jupiter, they do so by increasing its density, not mass.) Other than that, they were just powerful computers witht he ability to self-replicate. These days we'd call them a Bracewell probe.

Except for the part where it sends Bowman to another solar system (It's full of stars,etc)

thejeff wrote:

Still, I'm more willing to accept handwavy unexplained tech in semi-Hard SF when it's mysterious alien tech that the protagonists don't begin to understand either.

Absolutely: Part of being 'magic' is being mysterious from the outside, and 'sufficiently advanced' refers to the reference point of the observer, not some concept that with enough technology we can make magic-like things like replicators. A firearm is magic to a Spartan.

Clarke's Law is not justification for putting a human-invented teleporter on your ship and acting like it is okay simply because we haven't definitively disproven it yet.

OTOH, it's perfectly ok if you want to play around with teleporter concepts. Or if you just can't afford to shoot shuttle sequences every time you want to visit a planet.:)

It's not Hard SF, but there's nothing wrong with it.

Except for the part where it sends Bowman to another solar system (It's full of stars,etc)

I'd need to re-read the end of the book to be sure, but I'm not sure FTL was actually involved there. As for the movie, who knows what was actually happening there?

It's not Hard SF, but there's nothing wrong with it.

That is all I meant. I apologize for being unclear.

thejeff wrote:

Except for the part where it sends Bowman to another solar system (It's full of stars,etc)

I'd need to re-read the end of the book to be sure, but I'm not sure FTL was actually involved there. As for the movie, who knows what was actually happening there?

As I recall it was all pretty psychedelic and could all have been a head trip, but it's pretty clear he thought he had been elsewhere. That could also have been from the start of 2010. And partly mixed memories of the book and movie, but it does seem to be the take away.

[bubble bubble bubble]

Best part of the flick.

I wouldn't mind a non-hard SF where one of the characters (preferably upper level scientist/engineer) grudgingly admits "You can handwave the latest fads in theory around all you want, but truth be told, actually nobody understands how this stuff works. All anyone knows is that if you put these doohickies together in this certain relation, and power them just so, adtivating them in the right order that makes no sense to any human mind, it works".

And there you would have a transition from advanced technology into nascent magic . . .

Scary thought: This may be already happening.

Mock not the workings of the Omnissah.

There are some *great* stories that look at what happens when you apply scientific method to magic (the results, of course, depending very much on what the rules of magic are).

I am particularly fond of The Windrose Chronicles (Barbara Hambly, beginning with The Silent Tower) and, those not quite as on-theme, the Darwath Trilogy (also Barbara hamblybeginning with The time of the Dark, and more a man-out-of-time piece, but applying modern thinking to fantasy problems certainly is part of what drives the plot).

Of course I am just flat-out a fan of Barbara Hambly's works, so be aware of my bias. :)

Warhammer 40k plays with a lot of the technology-treated-as-magic themes as well, though given they have psykers and demons it's also more of a fantasy-into-sf blend overall.

There are some *great* stories that look at what happens when you apply scientific method to magic (the results, of course, depending very much on what the rules of magic are).

I am particularly fond of The Windrose Chronicles (Barbara Hambly, beginning with The Silent Tower) and, those not quite as on-theme, the Darwath Trilogy (also Barbara hamblybeginning with The time of the Dark, and more a man-out-of-time piece, but applying modern thinking to fantasy problems certainly is part of what drives the plot).

Of course I am just flat-out a fan of Barbara Hambly's works, so be aware of my bias. :)

I haven't read the Windrose Chronicles, but really liked the Darwath Trilogy. Probably should hunt those down.

I liked the modern thinking to fantasy problems thing in Darwath, but I'm not generally fond of applying scientific method to magic, mostly because I tend to prefer magic that doesn't respond well to that approach. Magic with something of a mind of its own or that responds to will, emotion or subconscious desire. Not magic that actually follows a hard set of rules.

Though another, very different, modern approach to fantasy problems, and to the rules of magic, that is a long time favorite is de Camp and Pratt's Harold Shea stories.

There was a series, I don't remember titles or by whom, about a computer programmer who got summoned to a world where magic works. He figured out how to do magic by computer programs. I thought that was pretty interesting.

There was a series, I don't remember titles or by whom, about a computer programmer who got summoned to a world where magic works. He figured out how to do magic by computer programs. I thought that was pretty interesting.

Are you possibly thinking of I'm Off to be the Wizard by Scott Meyer? (And its sequel, Spell or High Water?)

Ed Reppert wrote:

There was a series, I don't remember titles or by whom, about a computer programmer who got summoned to a world where magic works. He figured out how to do magic by computer programs. I thought that was pretty interesting.

Are you possibly thinking of I'm Off to be the Wizard by Scott Meyer? (And its sequel, Spell or High Water?)

I'm almost certain it's the Wiz Zumwalt series by Rick Cook (starting with Wizard's Bane).

Evil's got it.

thejeff wrote:

Except for the part where it sends Bowman to another solar system (It's full of stars,etc)

I'd need to re-read the end of the book to be sure, but I'm not sure FTL was actually involved there. As for the movie, who knows what was actually happening there?

thejeff wrote:

It's not Hard SF, but there's nothing wrong with it.

That is all I meant. I apologize for being unclear.

Clarke changes his tune with each sequel of the novel.

In 2061, instead of Bowman being "evolved" he's merely copied and allowed to die, and Heywood Floyld is copied in the same way without the original having any personal knowledge that it was done. In 3001, the artificial personas of Bowman and HAL have merged to become "Halman", with no mention of the Floyld persona at all.

In 2001, the Monolith laughs at the light speed limit when it sends Bowman across the galaxy. In 3001, it's communication with it's controllers is still limited by the speed of light.

I actually didn't write this to change anyone's minds, and I don't expect it will. Some folks dislike genre-blur, and that's okay. There's no reason every adventure path has to appeal to every player. In fact, I'm pretty sure that would be impossible. What we can do is make every AP as interesting and high-quality as we possibly can, and trust it'll find an audience.

But I am a huge fan of a lot of the sources that early science-fantasy stories, so I wanted to take a moment to talk about some of it since Iron Gods clearly owes some of its DNA to these stories. I'm really exited to see where James Jacobs is taking this, and I want to share some of my enthusiasm for the entire concept.

And yes, by all means, go read the full Gulliver's Travels. There is so much weird, amazing stuff in that story that never makes it into any adaptation.

Gulliver's Travels is an imagination run wild. The only kingdom that is real in the whole thing is Japan, and I don't think Jonathan Swift might have not visited Japan (at least not modern Japan). Laputa figures in Castle in the Sky.

OTOH, it's perfectly ok if you want to play around with teleporter concepts. Or if you just can't afford to shoot shuttle sequences every time you want to visit a planet.:)

It's not Hard SF, but there's nothing wrong with it.

I learned of a Scientist who disproved Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. This makes technological teleportation possible and Hard Science Fiction.