Is SF the fiction of what is not yet possible?

The Radio 4 programme Front Row recently discussed the new TV programme Heartless which bases its plot on the idea that having a heart transplant changes the character of the lead character (so to speak). In setting the item up, the present of Front Row, Mark Lawson, said:

“This idea of an organ transplant changing the nature of a person wasthe subject of science fictoin for many years before organ transplants became possible and of fiction since they did.” (Mon April 4th 2005)

Is this another example of ‘serious’ critics not wanting to validate SF as a legitimate genre? Or is this a good method to define the borders of a subject that has been notoriously difficult to pin down?



    April 10, 2005

    Im always ammazed at how these two elements of Science and Fiction when brought together can cause such volatile reaction in people. It does seem that the term fiction is forgotten when science fiction is criticised when an event is portrayed that could not possibly happen. Like any genre there are good and bad stuff or its simply not ones cup of tea. James Gunn provides some interesting insights on the genre with a series of “essays”:

    Kyle Janison

    April 10, 2005

    There’s a great new astrobiology blog, run by newspaper editor Rob Bignell, at It includes roundups of the latest news from the various scientific fields that form astrobiology and information about SETI.

Leave a comment


Email(will not be published)


Your comment

Designed by Forte Web Solutions