Breaking down the sci-fi genre

[Apache]

Stars Wars has even been compared to Westerns of the 1950's.
Apache

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by VicLavigne

Star Wars is classic Space Opera -- it's hard to find a better fit for that class. Empires, battles, good vs evil, even the bit of swords & sourcery.

Vic

Actually I am going to say that Star Wars more reasonably resembles Science Fantasy. Yes, it has many elements of Space Opera, but it crosses over the line with the Force. To my mind, Space Opera still has to at least have the veneer of science over its major plot points. The Force is an explicitly mystical phenomena. If they had made the Jedi and Sith merely psionics, then Star Wars would have been straight up Space Opera.

I would suggest that Star Trek actually often is very good Space Opera, though the best examples are in the literary world.

--
Bill

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by VicLavigne

Star Wars is classic Space Opera -- it's hard to find a better fit for that class. Empires, battles, good vs evil, even the bit of swords & sourcery.

Vic

like honor harington?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

like honor harington?

Or better still, EMPIRE FROM THE ASHES.
"Rank hath its perks."
And bridge officer perks...

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

If they had made the Jedi and Sith merely psionics, then Star Wars would have been straight up Space Opera.

There's no scientific backing for psionic abilities, either... nor for most of the depictions of light speed, humanoid aliens (speaking in English), living space ships, gravity control, etc, etc... which makes almost all sci-fi, and a lot of SF, fantasy.

[fjtorres]

And going back to the OP: Larry Niven used to claim that since time travel wass demonstrably impossible, all Time Travel stories were actually fantasy.
That gave us Svetz and GET A HORSE! plus the sequels.

Not sure if he still argues that way...

The SF genre generally winks and nods at some impossibilities as granfathered conventions and even new ones if properly justified or essential to the story. (The old "one impossibility" per story rule.) Theoretically, a story can feature magic and still be SF. (It's been done, too. WALDO comes to mind.)

My own case against STAR WARS is that the tone and the themes are classic fantasy themes in a classic fantasy narrative. I see it as fantasy gussied up with the trappings of SF but without the *discipline* of SF writing. My issues aren't with what is in it but with *how* it's treated. Virgin births, ghosts, sound in space; bad science all over... All tossed in cavalierly without much thought into how it fits.

As fantasy it is fun and I'll look the other way. But *I* will not accept it as anything remotely close to what the SF genre aspires to.
$0.02

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

There's no scientific backing for psionic abilities, either... nor for most of the depictions of light speed, humanoid aliens (speaking in English), living space ships, gravity control, etc, etc... which makes almost all sci-fi, and a lot of SF, fantasy.

I didn't say backing, I said veneer. The point here is that what separates Space Opera from Space Fantasy is not whether something is possible, its how its presented. When David Brin writes about Psionics in his Uplift Universe, he is working from the idea that these are talents that built on scientific, not mystical principles, even if they are completely outside current human understanding. When Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda talk about the Force, they talk in decidedly mystical terms and even allows people to come back from the dead (not that resurrection is necessarily outside the realm of SF, but the way it happens in Star Wars is).

--
Bill

[frogi]

Honestly, break it down how it makes sense to you. Never much cared for following the categories imposed by the "collective" whether it is books, music, or whatever.

The last time I chose "Fantasy" category on a book site, I was presented with a page full of Twilight clones. Categories only make sense to the person that created them

[QuantumIguana]

Genre categories are useful. No one is going to like every book in a genre category, but if someone likes fantasy books, they are more likely to like a book in that category. The Twilight books are in the fantasy category, but that doesn't mean that just because you like fantasy that you will like Twilight. Think of it like categories of restaurants. I like Chinese food, but I'm not going to like every Chinese Restaurant or every Chinese dish.

[dreams]

Originally Posted by elemenoP

This is about the history of sci fi but I think it's also a nice breakdown of various genres:

http://www.wardshelley.com/paintings...HistSciFi2.jpg

eP

Wow, I've never seen that before. Thank you.

**Does that count as a book, if I read all the writing on that image?**

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Bill, I just consider it nitpicking. Saying something has a scientific source (hyperdrive) doesn't necessarily mean it does, and to me, that makes it just as mystical. Conversely, saying something has a mystical origin could only mean the person is not aware of the scientific principal behind it (or is purposely obfuscating the issue).

The point is, we're talking about sci-fi, and the one thing about sci-fi is that it doesn't have to be scientifically accurate to be sci-fi... in fact, the barn door swings wide.

Anyway, that's just me.

[VicLavigne]

Originally Posted by frogi

Honestly, break it down how it makes sense to you. Never much cared for following the categories imposed by the "collective" whether it is books, music, or whatever.

The last time I chose "Fantasy" category on a book site, I was presented with a page full of Twilight clones. Categories only make sense to the person that created them

Quite true. What is fantasy to one person may be a version of reality to another. Just ask 100 strangers about the reality of angels and see the wide variety of viewpoints on that particular subject.

And back to Star Wars and "the force", some might consider it a version of esp/telepathy/telekinesis. And that, again, may be perceived as either fantasy or potential fact depending on point of view.

Vic

[flipreads]

Can't we just embrace that science fiction is a very broad term, and that genre boundaries are guidelines as opposed to rigid boxes?

Original post doesn't take into account a lot of other possibilities. Mundane Science Fiction. Slipstream. Interstitial. Science mixing with Fantasy (or Fantasy mixing with Science). Social Science Fiction. Optimistic Science Fiction.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by flipreads

Can't we just embrace that science fiction is a very broad term, and that genre boundaries are guidelines as opposed to rigid boxes?

Original post doesn't take into account a lot of other possibilities. Mundane Science Fiction. Slipstream. Interstitial. Science mixing with Fantasy (or Fantasy mixing with Science). Social Science Fiction. Optimistic Science Fiction.

First, you say SF should be embraced as a broad term... then you give us more definitions! That's not helping!

(Besides, you left off sci-fi porn.)

Seriously, I agree that there's little point to try to break down SF into multiple sub-genres... it's bad enough it's already broken down between "science fiction" and "sci-fi."

Capt. Jack Sparrow was prophetic when he once said, "It's more a set of guidelines, really."

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Bill, I just consider it nitpicking. Saying something has a scientific source (hyperdrive) doesn't necessarily mean it does, and to me, that makes it just as mystical. Conversely, saying something has a mystical origin could only mean the person is not aware of the scientific principal behind it (or is purposely obfuscating the issue).

The point is, we're talking about sci-fi, and the one thing about sci-fi is that it doesn't have to be scientifically accurate to be sci-fi... in fact, the barn door swings wide.

Anyway, that's just me.

Well, I am going to respectively disagree . Its more than nitpicking in the sense that it is about the world view that goes toward building the story. Space Opera, like all science fiction is, in some degree built around a scientific world view; that the powers, challenges, and resolutions that are presented in the story are somehow explainable by the rational mind. A space fantasy like Star Wars approaches things differently. The Force might be explained in what it is, but not how it operates. Users of the Force can foretell the future, heal wounds, show other amazing powers (even up to bringing about a virgin birth!) but these powers are generally presented as being beyond rational understanding. Indeed Obi-Wan, Yoda and even Vader talk about the force in religious terms, not scientific terms.

--
Bill