Breaking down the sci-fi genre

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Indeed Obi-Wan, Yoda and even Vader talk about the force in religious terms, not scientific terms.

Religious texts talk about the parting of the Red Sea and the Nile turning the color of blood in religious terms. Yet, there are scientific methods that could have caused both (and, I suspect, probably did).

And we should probably give up arguing the point in terms of Star Wars, since Lucas retconned the whole "mystical force" thing with his Mitichlorians stuff in the prequels... he himself turned the Force into a scientific principle.

[Ekaros]

Sci-Fi is a strange category.

Not sure if this is true but:
Take on regular fantasy setting.
Add in travel with some pseudo-science techno-gadget, alternate dimension travelling mechanism or time-travel and presto you just turned fantasy to Sci-Fi...

[fjtorres]

Nope.
Science Fiction isn't about the trappings or the setting.

Not the good stuff.
Good SF starts with ideas and then a rationalist narrative is built around it.

SF is a product of the Renaissance, of Newton, and more recently of Quantum Mechanics and M-Theory and whatever the bleeding edge brings in any given field. Science Fiction needs a core of science; whether physics or biology or psychology or even cybernetics. It needs ideas that challenge our worldview.

SF requires discipline and consistency; good SF is *always* about something of significance. Even when entertaining us, good SF will make us think.
Of course, as Theodore Sturgeon said; "90% of SF is crap."
He also added; "80% of everything is crap."

STAR WARS is fun stuff. It introduced a lot of people to the trappings of the genre and the sense of wonder that is Science Fiction's calling card. It led some of those to the good stuff. A lot of them have simply bought into the mythology of the movies and the books and the toons and the toys. No harm done as long as they're having fun.

But Star Wars is simply too sloppy, too mystical, too undisciplined to be anything more than good fantasy.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Not the good stuff.

So, basically, you're subdividing SF into the 10% good and the 90% crap.

[Ekaros]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

So, basically, you're subdividing SF into the 10% good and the 90% crap.

So just read the 10%? ;D

Ofc, good and bad is also impossible to do non-individual way. So no good way to breaking down genre.

If some way have to be done, I would go by elements and such each piece of art can have multiple elements in it. These can be broad or very narrow.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Religious texts talk about the parting of the Red Sea and the Nile turning the color of blood in religious terms. Yet, there are scientific methods that could have caused both (and, I suspect, probably did).

Perhaps, but the Bible talks about those events in specifically religious terms. So the Bile remains a religious text (or if you are the bent think in these terms, a mythological text). The key is how they are presented in story, and how the characters understand them. If the text presents them as mystical, then they are mystical.

And we should probably give up arguing the point in terms of Star Wars, since Lucas retconned the whole "mystical force" thing with his Mitichlorians stuff in the prequels... he himself turned the Force into a scientific principle.

The whole Mitochondria... er mitichlorians is kind of a weird thing.. yes it put some scientific trappings around it, but not really. I mean yes, you might measure a Jedi's power with them, but you still have the issue of Force Ghosts.

--
Bill

[QuantumIguana]

If 90% of science fiction of crap, then you can't say that something is not science fiction just because it is crap, because that is a contradiction. Fantasy is not a ccategory of failed science fiction. Categories can be useful, but they too often are used as clubs to beat each other with.

[DrNefario]

Star Wars is an adventure story set in space. I don't think it's useful to call it fantasy. It is deliberately a throwback to pulpier times, and saturday matinee serials. They were never that sciencey.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

So, basically, you're subdividing SF into the 10% good and the 90% crap.

Sturgeon did.
I've merely seen little to suggest he was wrong.

(Then again, I *have* run into more than my share of "three-chapter marvels".)

On the subject of SF or Fantasy:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Space-Prod...4270493&sr=8-6

Note the label on the cover.

BTW, the *midichlorians* are never defined. They can easily be ghosts, like ObiWan or Yoda or the Shapeshifting Anakin. ;-)

Anyway, anybody can classify anything anyway they want.

[VicLavigne]

I agree, anyone can classify SF anyway that want if its meaningful to them.
And some SF is just too muddy to fit a strict classification. How about Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land? Yes, it includes space travel, aliens, and new scientific technology. It also includes references to ghosts, God, and angels/archangels. So is it pure SF, science fantasy, space fantasy, SF mythology, or what? And then what about the small population that took it as the beginning of a New Age religion?

Vic

[DrNefario]

Stranger in a Strange Land is the next Hugo-winner I'm planning to read, and I have to say I'm really not looking forward to it.

(I've been trying to read the whole set, and I decided a few weeks back to read the three I was least looking forward to, so I didn't have them dragging me down at the end. I was pleasantly surprised by The City & the City, and didn't much like The Wanderer. Stranger is the third of the three.)

Despite the fact that categorisation often gets a bit hazy around the edges and can be unhelpful, I'm still happy to say I'm a fan of SF and Fantasy. I'm content to read from pretty much all parts of the subgenre spectrum, and the fuzzy fringes. I still seek out the categorisation.

[fjtorres]

STRANGER... is... Strange.
Definitely part of the fuzzy fringe.

A lot of its success came from its shock value for the times.
I'm not sure what its reception might've been if it had surfaced now as an unpublished manuscript. (Probably a long debate right there.)

STRANGER is one Heinlein book I've never had any impulse to re-read, even though it was the *third* Heinlein book I ever read. (BEYOND THIS HORIZON and STARSHIP TROOPERS were first.)

Classifying it has always been problematic because the narrative is purposefully ambiguous. And because Heinlein was getting experimental and provocative (not always successfully) in his old age. (GLORY ROAD, FARNHAM'S FREEHOLD, NUMBER OF THE BEAST).

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

BTW, the *midichlorians* are never defined. They can easily be ghosts, like ObiWan or Yoda or the Shapeshifting Anakin. ;-)

In Episode 1, ObiWan and Qui-Gon are seen to use scientific equipment to measure the levels of midichlorians in Anakin's body. That makes it a scientifically-understood phenomenon.

OTOH, the Ghostbusters had scientific equipment that could measure paranormal energies. Dr. Egon Spengler...

Okay, I'm officially done with this.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Okay, I'm officially done with this.

The dead horse *is* starting to smell, isn't it?
We need to find something else to dissect.
Murder mysteries, anyone?

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

In Episode 1, ObiWan and Qui-Gon are seen to use scientific equipment to measure the levels of midichlorians in Anakin's body. That makes it a scientifically-understood phenomenon.

Umm, actually, it only makes it a scientifically quantifiable phenomenon. Understanding can sometimes come much later.

For example, we were able to know how much energy was produced by the Sun for decades before we actually understood what created that energy (assuming we actually do now... always possible something could cause us to re-evaluate our current understanding, though unlikely).

OTOH, the Ghostbusters had scientific equipment that could measure paranormal energies. Dr. Egon Spengler...

Okay, I'm officially done with this.

That is a better case since they were actually able to use their readings to create traps and a containment system for paranormal manifestations (i.e., Ghosts ).

--
Bill