Sci-Fi Debate

[Alluveal]

What is science fiction? I'm getting into a debate on another board where people are saying Star Wars is not sciience fiction, but rather fantasy. What constitutes fantasy VS science fiction?

To me, it's the following:

Fantasy is based in magical/mystical
Science Fiction is based in science

What say you?

 

[Sindatur]

What is science fiction? I'm getting into a debate on another board where people are saying Star Wars is not sciience fiction, but rather fantasy. What constitutes fantasy VS science fiction?

To me, it's the following:

Fantasy is based in magical/mystical
Science Fiction is based in science

What say you?

Yes, therefore, the Force puts Star Wars into the realm of Science Fantasy.

 

[GKarsEye]

Such debate is pointless, because very few labels or categories in art or entertainment are so hard-set.

What makes something "science fiction" is simply marketing.

Star Wars is sci-fi because when you go buy it or rent it, that's the section it's under.

 

[Alluveal]

But Star Wars has no real "mystical" or "magical" qualities. The Force comes from a symbiot-like life form (midichlorians) that live within a Jedi. To me, that sounds like science.

 

[Sindatur]

But Star Wars has no real "mystical" or "magical" qualities. The Force comes from a symbiot-like life form (midichlorians) that live within a Jedi. To me, that sounds like science.

We didn't know that in the first trilogy, though, did we?

GKE makes an excellent point.

 

[vacantlook]

The Force comes from a symbiot-like life form (midichlorians) that live within a Jedi.

No, it does not. The Force is generated by life, period. The midichlorians are mitochondria-like lifeforms that enable an individual person to be able to perceive The Force; midichlorians do not create The Force.

 

[GKarsEye]

One of the towering figures of sci-fi, Arthur C Clarke, made the famous observation that a technology sufficiently advanced (and I will add a science insufficiently understood) is indistinguishable from magic. This is certainly true dramatically.

Throw in the fact that sci-fi sometimes adds in scientific concepts that are only theoretical (the whole Star Trek universe is based on wormholes and tachyons and the like), and the line between the magical and the scientific in drama continues to be blurred.

The Force, in Star Wars, is magic, as it concerns drama, despite any midichlorian or whatever nonsensical barely-pseudo-scientific "explanation" they may offer.

 

[GaribaldisHair]

One of the towering figures of sci-fi, Arthur C Clarke, made the famous observation that a technology sufficiently advanced (and I will add a science insufficiently understood) is indistinguishable from magic. This is certainly true dramatically.

The technomages, of course, offering a pretty stark illustration of that.

 

[Galahad]

In British bookstores, Science Fiction is usally classed together with Fantasy... because they largely share the same reading audience.

I would personally class Star Wars as a Science Fiction Fantasy saga, butnot call it a Science Fantasy.

If it was just about the jedi in Star Wars, or about wizards/knights is space... I'd be tempted to call that Science Fantasy. However in Star Wars you have a very modern political superstructure and advanced civilisations as well... which in my view swings it back strongly in favour of sci fi.

It is a science fiction with fantasy elements.

Incidentally, I believe there was a book out when I was at college 10 years ago, which centred around a starship crashing on a planet inhabited by a race of fantasy styled warriors. If you are interested in the fusion between the two concepts, you might want to look into that story.

 

[Chilli]

I also believe it's mainly a question of marketing.

"Star Wars", but any other explanation, would have to be fantasy - at least the original trilogy (I still hate George Lucas for trying to explain the force with science. That was just stupid, and contrary to the whole Star Wars thing, IMHO).

Most science fiction uses technology, which is highly speculative. As the rules of science, as we know them today, forbid faster than light-travel (though there are several good theories of ways that there might be around this) .. and yet all Sci-Fi genres I can think of right now, sans Firefly, use it.

At the same time, I could apply the same kind of BS "microbes" explination on any magic that happens in Lord of the Rings - hey, it's possible that that's what was going on, they just didn't tell us!

Would that make it Sci Fi?

 

[PillowRock]

To me, the categories are not mutually exclusive. I'm not *just* talking about SF and fantasy, but it certainly applies to them.

To my mind, if it includes fictional science or technology then it is science fiction. Star Wars certainly qualifies by that definition. However, Star Wars also does contain some fantasy elements.

I've heard some people insist that the *only* things that are "science fiction" are those directly center on any and all elements of not-yet-real science or technology that are present ...... and do include a reasonable amount of depth in explaining that science / tech. By that definition there is almost no space based "science fiction". Very little of it deals with their interstellar tavel / faster-than-light drives and such with enough direct detail to meet the criteria.

I disagree with that take. I consider that to be the sub-genre of "hard science fiction" rather than the entirety of "science fiction".

Different people have different opinions about what those definitions should be and what all falls under the umbrella of "science fiction" ........ obviously, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[PillowRock]

and yet all Sci-Fi genres I can think of right now, sans Firefly, use it (faster than light).

Well, not really. At least not by my definition of "science fiction" (see above).

Most of Jules Verne's writing is "science fiction". The fact that we have since caught up with most of the things that he speculated about (with the notable exception of the titular gadget in "The Time Machine"), is irrelevent. As he was writing it, it was science fiction.

Mary Shelley was writing science fiction when she wrote "Frankenstein". In fact, I've seen pretty good arguments made that this was the first modern science fiction novel.

Plus, of coarse, almost anything set in the future is science fiction because they always have some speculative tech in their futures ..... Minority Report, Blade Runner, Demolition Man, and even the original Rollerball, etc. are all "science fiction" and completely Earth bound.

 

[Alluveal]

Galahad wrote:

I still hate George Lucas for trying to explain the force with science.

God, I do too. What the hell? And the whole immaculate conception/spontaneous conception of Annikan was stupid, imho.

It is a science fiction with fantasy elements.

Agree with you there.

I think the series that blurs the line the most, IMHO, is the Dune series. That's almost the opposite of Star Wars in that it's Fantasy with sci-fi elements, imho.

 

[raw_bean]

There are some guys I work with who are adamant that they hate science fiction. They watch Lost and Heroes though, so I'm loving needling them by pointing out all the sci-fi they're watching at the mo. :^)

According to JMS at different times, either Arthur C. Clarke or Isaac Asimov once said their definition of SF was "Whatever I point to and say, 'That's SF'". Worrying about what category a piece of fiction fits into strikes as a rather dreary and pointless debate.

Of far more importance than whether something's Speculative Fiction, Hard Sci-Fi, Space Opera, Fantasy, Space Fantasy, Alternative History, Horror, Dark Fantasy, Supernatural, or whatever else, is whether it's any good or not. :^)

 

[raw_bean]

...
I think the series that blurs the line the most, IMHO, is the Dune series. That's almost the opposite of Star Wars in that it's Fantasy with sci-fi elements, imho.

Really? I never felt that way. There are obviously aspects of the series that modern science has contradicted (like the cellular race-memory that the Bene Gesserit Reverend Mothers can access), but I definitely always saw it as science fiction. Just science fiction with little focus on technology as opposed to ecology and politics and psychology.

 

[Galahad]

Galahad wrote:


God, I do too. What the hell? And the whole immaculate conception/spontaneous conception of Annikan was stupid, imho.



Agree with you there.

I think the series that blurs the line the most, IMHO, is the Dune series. That's almost the opposite of Star Wars in that it's Fantasy with sci-fi elements, imho.

Actually I can't take credit saying any of that... but I do agree with what was said. Trouble with Lucas I believe, is that as he has got older he has believed his own press too much... and wants to take himself and his work a lot more seriously.

 

[Galahad]

Well, not really. At least not by my definition of "science fiction" (see above).

Most of Jules Verne's writing is "science fiction". The fact that we have since caught up with most of the things that he speculated about (with the notable exception of the titular gadget in "The Time Machine"), is irrelevent. As he was writing it, it was science fiction.

You meant H.G. Wells when referring to that book didn't you

 

[PillowRock]

You meant H.G. Wells when referring to that book didn't you

Sorry. Typing without thinking between test runs at work.

 

[Galahad]

No worries... I did wonder if the confusion came about because Doc Emmett Brown cites Jules Verne as his favourite author in the Back to the Future trilogy... and that obviously centres around a time machine. ;-)

 

[Galahad]

There are some guys I work with who are adamant that they hate science fiction. They watch Lost and Heroes though, so I'm loving needling them by pointing out all the sci-fi they're watching at the mo. :^)

According to JMS at different times, either Arthur C. Clarke or Isaac Asimov once said their definition of SF was "Whatever I point to and say, 'That's SF'". Worrying about what category a piece of fiction fits into strikes as a rather dreary and pointless debate.

Of far more importance than whether something's Speculative Fiction, Hard Sci-Fi, Space Opera, Fantasy, Space Fantasy, Alternative History, Horror, Dark Fantasy, Supernatural, or whatever else, is whether it's any good or not. :^)

Indeed, but you see it is a failing of human nature... that we have to packaga things up in nice little boxes. Everything has to fit into a slot or we aren't comfortable with it.

Thats why people who adopt certain behaviour, wear certain clothes or listen to certain music get named Goth or Emo kid, hippie, yuppie or chav.