Comment by thedanbob
7 hours ago
> Bradbury’s stories are about people, deeply real and deeply feeling people. ... and less interested in exactly how the ray guns worked.
Maybe this is why I never really got Bradbury. When I read scifi, I can't help but consider the logic of the world that's being described, and Bradbury's worlds aren't really logical (e.g. who would live on such a strict timetable? wouldn't all the singing and rhyming be annoying? how is the house still being powered?). But it makes a lot more sense if the point is to convey feelings. Kind of like an impressionist painting I suppose.
FWIW it’s not that I don’t find the worlds logical, just that Bradbury doesn’t explain them. E.g., have you read Seveneves (Neal Stephenson)? At one point he spends about 30 pages describing in loving detail the tech behind a high-atmosphere human glider suit. Really cool stuff. I still don’t remember a damn thing about the person who wore it.
Were it Bradbury, or LeGuin, we’d have had two sentences about the tech behind the suit and pages about the people involved. We’d have learned more about the character and, maybe, our common humanity.
I have the inverse perspective. I am uninterested in the mechanics because to me, all science fiction stories are actually stories about the present. The more mechanical a story is, the more I feel it is obscuring that truth. The author can never erase the fact that they are living in the present and that their work is ultimately about the present. They can only obscure it under layers of verisimilitude that, definitionally, is only an appearance.
> I can't help but consider the logic of the world that's being described
Focusing your attention on the mechanical logic of a story's world is one lens by which to analyze it, but that is a choice and you can choose to analyze it from other lenses as well. Being able to apply multiple perspectives to anything is a useful skill to practice instead of tacitly accepting the view that comes most easily to us.