Star Wars is not Sci Fi!

[JohnT]

"First anything that does not happen on mother earth is SCI-Fi"

Many fantasies don't necessarily exist on mother Earth - does that automatically make them Sci-Fi? Me thinks not.

"second Star Wars could only exist in an alternate reality, and but for that reason alone must be considered Sci-Fi."

See above.

Btw, are those quoted statements BAMS?

Edit:

Also In F451 I thought centered more on the evils of thought police and the dangers of censorship, Very similar with 1984 in that respect

.

Yes, but the crucial difference is the fact that they used technological advances to acheive their means.

If 1984 had been written with Winston Smith using spells and dragons to maintain order, then it would've been fantasy. If he had used means known and capable to the people of 1948, then it would've been "plain" fiction. But to get to the world of 1984 Orwell had to extrapolate trends that he saw in 1947/8, and it is this extrapolation that makes 1984 science fiction. It is as much a sf novel as David Brin's Earth, but far, far less self-consciously so.

Btw, I always thought Orwell's thought police had a kind of big flaw. Sure they went and replaced all the copies in the libraries and such (what a tremendous waste of resources and time!), but I don't recall any mention of replacing those copies that people had purchased/received.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How about another definition, JohnT.

This time from The American Heritage Dictionary (a better source than a British one, I'd think).

A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.

Undoubtably, Star Wars has 'speculative scientific discovery' and 'space travel' forming the 'background'.

Check .

If science fiction is explaining science being central to the theme, then the pulp comics that made sci-fi popular can't be called sci-fi! You get the absurd result that the works that made sci-fi popular can't even be classified as sci-fi!

[Tuberski]

I always liked L. Ron Hubbard's way of differentiating between fantasy and Science fiction.

Science fiction has to have an explanation for the things that are done.

Fantasy can just say "POOF" and it's done.

So, in essence, Star wars,Empire and Return are fantasy because the Force makes thing happen by going "POOF" I.E. "these aren't the droids your looking for."

Episode 1 and 2 are Sci-fi because they use "midichlorians" as the basis of the force.


By the way, how in hell can you use a silent p to give pronunciation?

ACK!

[tinyp3nis]

If he had used means known and capable to the people of 1948, then it would've been "plain" fiction.

Hmmm? If they would make a film about a guy who is a clone, in present day world, wouldn't that be sci-fi (no, not sixth day, it had different type of cloning process, it's not possible yet)? It's quite possible with current tech, but hasn't been done yet (If there are baby clones, they don't count because I mean life of a mature person). Would you consider this fiction or science fiction?

So, in essence, Star wars,Empire and Return are fantasy because the Force makes thing happen by going "POOF" I.E. "these aren't the droids your looking for."
Episode 1 and 2 are Sci-fi because they use "midichlorians" as the basis of the force.

4,5,6 are not sci-fi but 1 and 2 are?

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis

Hmmm? If they would make a film about a guy who is a clone, in present day world, wouldn't that be sci-fi (no, not sixth day, it had different type of cloning process, it's not possible yet)? It's quite possible with current tech, but hasn't been done yet (If there are baby clones, they don't count because I mean life of a mature person). Would you consider this fiction or science fiction?


4,5,6 are not sci-fi but 1 and 2 are?

By his definition, not mine.

ACK!

[Ramo]

Btw, I'm wondering what the SF reading habits are of those who argue for/against? I read a LOT of SF, even moderate a SF novel discussion group here in Knoxville. I don't read novelizations and I don't read books based upon movies/games/TV shows. Otoh, I read some truly great science fiction authors (as opposed to creative typists like Timothy Zahn) like Iain Banks, Dan Simmons, Robert Sawyer, and Peter F. Hamilton.

FWIW, I'm an avid sci-fi fan, and my favorite sci-fi authors are Isaac Asimov and Vernor Vinge. Come to think of it, the Foundation wouldn't fit under your definition of science fiction. Place an extraordinarily brilliant mathematician during the rise of the Roman Empire, and the basic story concept works just fine. I guess that makes the Foundation, not science fiction, but in the same genre as the movie Gladiator.

the part of 'fiction' in science fiction does not refer back to the 'science' part, but the the narrative, which is, aftre all, a story that did not happen (hence fiction). Yes, most science fiction, specially older novels, use theories of science now discredited, but those stories that are sci-fi still attempted to explore worlds and human beigns somehow transformed by science, either directly, or by a change in society. {i]Star Wars[/i] never attempts to explain how these characters have been affected by science.

On, a side note, your example 1984 does not explain how society is affected by science, but technology. Orwell didn't begin to describe the science behind all of the neat examples of technology used in the novel. And Shelley's attempt to do so was simply ludicrous.

The very fact that Lucas decides to separate thse characters completly from man and history (hence the long long ago, and far far away bit) shows that he did not mean to delve into the effects of science, but use space themses for his myth story.

Lucas speculates on what happens when you throw space travel, androids, alien societies, etc. together. Granted, this speculation is rather superficial, but it is objectively no less science fiction than any example you can come up with.

If he had used means known and capable to the people of 1948, then it would've been "plain" fiction.

Ummm.. he did. The ideas of video cameras and video transmission, etc. were well-known to the people of 1948.

[Edan]

Hmm. Given the mention of alternate history in another thread, what do people think about an alternate history story which doesn't feature anachronistic technology or aliens or whatever, but merely takes a possibility (what if person X chose to do Y instead of Z, with large consequences.) and explores what the future of that timeline would be (wherein it has enough differences that it can't be the same as our timeline). Would that be sci-fi or not?

[Dis]

why must people feel the need to label things?

It's a movie. Now move on with your lives

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Dissident
why must people feel the need to label things?

It's a movie. Now move on with your lives

Because the ability to name is one of the things that make us human... or didn't you read your Bible? ACK!

[JohnT]

Ramo: "The ideas of video cameras and video transmission, etc. were well-known to the people of 1948."

Hmmm. I don't recall any ability then (or today) to make the past so malleable with mass production and replacement of information, especially material information. It has been quite a while since I've read 1984, so I'm not getting into a pissing contest over details.

Anyway, one could also argue that the science that 1984 extrapolates from is political science, but if I do that, y'all will likely start pelting me with rotten bananas.

"On a side note, your example 1984 does not explain how society is affected by science, but technology."

Two sides of the same coin, Ramo? Perhaps there needs to be a redefinition of terms, science fiction for fiction dealing with science and technical fiction (tech-fi) for fiction that deals with gadgets.

Nawwwww.

"Come to think of it, the Foundation wouldn't fit under your definition of science fiction. Place an extraordinarily brilliant mathematician during the rise of the Roman Empire, and the basic story concept works just fine. I guess that makes the Foundation, not science fiction, but in the same genre as the movie Gladiator."

Fine: So now we have mathematical fiction as well. Jeez, how many definitions do we need guys? Damned reductionists!! Anyway, see below for more about Foundation.

Edan: "Hmm. Given the mention of alternate history in another thread, what do people think about an alternate history story which doesn't feature anachronistic technology or aliens or whatever, but merely takes a possibility (what if person X chose to do Y instead of Z, with large consequences.) and explores what the future of that timeline would be (wherein it has enough differences that it can't be the same as our timeline). Would that be sci-fi or not?"

Currently in bookstores it is classified as science fiction, but that is because there isn't enough of it being currently produced to warrant it's own shelving. You can probably place alternate histories (AH) in any one of 4 categories:

1. science fiction
2. fantasy
3. historical fiction
4. "plain" fiction

One's immediate impulse is to put it in historical fiction, until you realize it is another name for "Romances." It doesn't really fit science fiction, but it fits fantasy even less so it is currently being marketed as SF. A few AH's get marketed as "plain" fiction, including Kingsley Amis's The Alteration, which is based in an England where Luther made his peace with the Pope. It sounds like a fascinating read:

The year is 1976 and we are alive in an all-Catholic world. The Reformation never took place because Martin Luther made a deal with Rome and became Pope Martin I. The "alteration" proposed to Hubert Anvil, brilliant 10-year-old boy soprano, is that most feared by all males. Pope John XXIV wishes Hubert to preserve the purity of his voice to glorify the Church on a permanent basis; Hubert wishes to share his talent but he has some disquieting thoughts about Pope John's proposal.

SF doesn't necessarily have to be about the hard sciences, it can also deal with the social (or "soft") sciences like history, sociology, psychology, economics and etc. AH's and other works including Foundation and The Demolished Man are of this type. If you then want to argue that these subjects really aren't science, well, then, I think we have found our divergence point!

small ****: "Hmmm? If they would make a film about a guy who is a clone, in present day world, wouldn't that be sci-fi (no, not sixth day, it had different type of cloning process, it's not possible yet)? It's quite possible with current tech, but hasn't been done yet (If there are baby clones, they don't count because I mean life of a mature person). "

Define "mature" person. 25? That makes the clone formed around 1975, which would make it science fiction. If the clone is formed today, meaning you have a baby today, then it is still a science fiction novel, but not one based upon the hard science of cloning, but the soft sciences of psychology and sociology.

Tuberski: "So, in essence, Star wars,Empire and Return are fantasy because the Force makes thing happen by going "POOF" I.E. "these aren't the droids your looking for."

Episode 1 and 2 are Sci-fi because they use "midichlorians" as the basis of the force."

Obviously the midchlorians exist in the first three movies if they existed in the last two, they were just unmentioned.

[off topic]I will argue that the use of the midochloridian (or whatever) hand-waving device detracts greatly from the SW universe by diluting the meaning of the "Force" into nothing more than just another technology. I never thought about this before, but midochlorans essentially turn the Force from a (and I'm going to use SF terms here - it's what I know) universe spanning force that can be accessed by anyone through the continued devotion to pure good or pure evil, to a jackpot ability like ESP in The Demolished Man where some people were born with the ability and developed it, most weren't born with it and could never be an Esper. [/off topic]

Great thread, GePap!!!!

[Edan]

Currently in bookstores it is classified as science fiction, but that is because there isn't enough of it being currently produced to warrant it's own shelving. You can probably place alternate histories (AH) in any one of 4 categories:

1. science fiction
2. fantasy
3. historical fiction
4. "plain" fiction

One's immediate impulse is to put it in historical fiction, until you realize it is another name for "Romances."

Well, I think Historical Fiction is a little more inclusive than that - for instance, Steven Saylor's series of books about a detective in ancient Rome would undoutably be considered HF (and indeed the series appears to be well reserched). However, I tend to consider books HF if they could take place in our past (but are obvious fiction), and try to be accurate (author's goofs aside).

It doesn't really fit science fiction, but it fits fantasy even less so it is currently being marketed as SF.

Well, I think it does fit into speculative fiction quite easily (for obvious reasons).

SF doesn't necessarily have to be about the hard sciences, it can also deal with the social (or "soft") sciences like history, sociology, psychology, economics and etc. AH's and other works including Foundation and The Demolished Man are of this type. If you then want to argue that these subjects really aren't science, well, then, I think we have found our divergence point!

Hey, I'm open enough to include social sciences, at least in this context.

[The Mad Monk]

This all reminds me of a discussion on another forum where somebody with a master's in English was insisting that any story or game that involved firearms (of any sort) or 'steamtech' and called itself 'Fantasy' was misusing the term.

[Edan]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
This all reminds me of a discussion on another forum where somebody with a master's in English was insisting that any story or game that involved firearms (of any sort) or 'steamtech' and called itself 'Fantasy' was misusing the term.

SteamPunk? (or is that merely an alternate-history genre where the "sciences" of jules verne, hg wells, etc, are all true (and expanded on))

[The Mad Monk]

Well, the discussion centered on MageKnight, which I would label as a fantasy game, depite the occasional bit of gunplay and steamtech that is thrown in.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Dissident
why must people feel the need to label things?

It's a movie. Now move on with your lives

Can we label it a bad movie and move on? :