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?

  • FavouriteShapes@sh.itjust.worksOP
    2·
    1 day ago

    It strikes me as very sciencey.

    • The space travel, for instance, is “how could space travel actually work?” And even when they have a satisfying explanation for planet to planet travel, they need one for longer distances, so they introduce those wormhole gates? I haven’t read very far into it
    • it tries to make space colonisation as realistic as possible, including the body horror
    However it then surprises the reader by introducing

    the alien plague

    And therein lies the balance. Real science for where we know (or think we know) the boundaries of science, and completely theoretical fantasy for things we don’t know about (the existence of alien life and what shape it might take)