User blog comment:Unownshipper/Can "Burial at Sea" be counted as canon?/@comment-3967731-20131114022302/@comment-75.19.157.29-20131116232832

Even in a degree, that still is always going to be just as much fiction than just hard science. People like those stories, and only to them that they find those stories as enjoyable, emersive, and as inspiring, but its usually aspects that people like about it, and its never usually the same aspects that someone else would like about it. Not everyone is going to like the seudo science, just as much as not everyone is going to like the hard science, and expecting it to have one standard or expectin it to be unflawed is not always going to work. Most of the best work usually has plotholes, and even though there are people who obsees ove finding every plothole to make a story realistic, most of the people that do love those stories either don't notice or, if they like the story enough, can actually tolerate it, especially if it isn't as notably aparant, rather than just obsesse over every plothole. Those stories are not a documentary, a how-to blueprint guide to create something, or how to greet a "spaceman", but an idea of how something like that would happen and what it does for the story. You'll always will expect some form of ellaborate pseudo science or some science that's not as well explained in a lot of it, and there's not always going to be the most concrete explanation for it. Not every great writer is a scientist that created a real thing in their basement, just the same as they're not always from Hollywood. Even H.G. Wells had some work that wasn't as hard science, but it was still more of a exploration of how something could change or be further developed in its habitat, or how some pseudo science-based invention could happen if it were used, and its outcome would be detailed further.