Is science fiction really more fantastical than science fantasy?

[tom aaron]

Science fantasy vs science fiction. Do we have it wrong?

At out science Meet Up group we were talking about Interstellar travel. As usual, the properties of matter, energy brought up.

Regardless of how described in scientific jargon, FTL is all silly gobbledygook in science fiction books and movies. A magician waving a magic wand to get the Enterprise around the galaxy is no less silly than evoking Warp Speed or whatever. Scotty could put on a magician's hat and it would all be the same.

We were rambling on and someone pointed out that it may be within the laws of physics to one day develop a real life flying dragon-like animal. It is within the law of physics that a sword yielding princess could ride on its back and slay the enemies of her father, the king. The scenario might be 'fiction' but the theoretical science is not fantasy.

In contrast, as soon as any property of matter or energy is ignored, then something becomes 'fantasy' regardless of the plot. Anything contrary to the property of a subatomic particle, quantum mechanics...etc...etc. is 'fantasy'. Liberties taken for convenience sake to push a plot along are actually magic wands being waved. Technology that we say we may develop 'one day' will actually not be developed unless it conforms to properties of physics.

Anyways, it is a contrarian position. I've always been a science fiction reader with little interest in what's called science fantasy. Perhaps there is more fantasy in a lot of science fiction than in a lot science fantasy.

 

[jerromyjon]

So science fiction is robots and man-made where fantasy is magic and faeries. The best are both. The universe has a logical side and a mystical one by nature.

I'm watching 2001: a space odyssey thinking how ironic this is.

 

[Drakkith]

From wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fantasy

Distinguishing between science fiction and fantasy, Rod Serling claimed that the former was "the improbable made possible" while the latter was "the impossible made probable".[2] As a combination of the two, science fantasy gives a scientific veneer of realism to things that simply could not happen in the real world under any circumstances. Where science fiction does not permit the existence of fantasy or supernatural elements, science fantasy explicitly relies upon them.

It's not just about what is possible either. It's also about the tropes used and the overall tone, setting, and other content in the story.

Regardless of how described in scientific jargon, FTL is all silly gobbledygook in science fiction books and movies. A magician waving a magic wand to get the Enterprise around the galaxy is no less silly than evoking Warp Speed or whatever. Scotty could put on a magician's hat and it would all be the same.

The key is that warp travel and transporters are based in science, regardless of whether or not they are actually possible. A mystical band of fairies who push a spaceship through space at FTL speeds are NOT science based, they are fantasy based.

In contrast, as soon as any property of matter or energy is ignored, then something becomes 'fantasy' regardless of the plot. Anything contrary to the property of a subatomic particle, quantum mechanics...etc...etc. is 'fantasy'. Liberties taken for convenience sake to push a plot along are actually magic wands being waved. Technology that we say we may develop 'one day' will actually not be developed unless it conforms to properties of physics.

I don't agree with this definition of fantasy. Fantasy, as a genre, uses mainly non-scientific explanations for their more 'fantastic' breaks from reality. And that's what everything here is. A break from reality. Contrary to what you've said, the explanation given for the break in reality DOES make a difference. It is one of the defining characteristics that separates two genres.

 

[meBigGuy]

You make a good point. But, sorry, everybody just agrees that FTL is science and magic is not.
I guess FTL is at least posed as having been developed by science whereas flying dragons and magic swords are not posed as products of science (generally).

A book containing advanced science and mutant dragons developed though genetic techniques could probably be called science fiction.

 

[tom aaron]

Dark kith,
I would say that FTL had never been posed within some scientific explanation. Adding scientific sounding jargon is not scientific explanation.. It has always been fudged and hidden behind something that is not science. The properties of matter and energy can't be cherry picked. General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics can't be tweaked be tweaked to allow for happenings outside of physical reality.

A whole chapter devoted to explaining how a human spacecraft avoids the law of physics is no more scientific in explanation than saying we jumped into a jar of peanut butter and when we opened the lid we were on Alpha Centauri. The description of some method that contradicts GR or QM may sound neat but it is no less fantasy.

 

[Drakkith]

Dark kith,
I would say that FTL had never been posed within some scientific explanation. Adding scientific sounding jargon is not scientific explanation.. It has always been fudged and hidden behind something that is not science. The properties of matter and energy can't be cherry picked. General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics can't be tweaked be tweaked to allow for happenings outside of physical reality.

Pretty much all of literature disagrees with you. Besides, scientific laws are not set in stone. There's absolutely no way to know if some future discovery will enable FTL or not.

A whole chapter devoted to explaining how a human spacecraft avoids the law of physics is no more scientific in explanation than saying we jumped into a jar of peanut butter and when we opened the lid we were on Alpha Centauri. The description of some method that contradicts GR or QM may sound neat but it is no less fantasy.

I disagree. What you're claiming doesn't match up with what the word Fantasy means in this context.

Fantasy is a genre of fiction that commonly uses magic and other supernatural phenomena as a primary plot element, theme, or setting. Many works within the genre take place in imaginary worlds where magic and magical creatures are common. Fantasy is generally distinguished from the genres of science fiction and horror by the expectation that it steers clear of scientific and macabre themes, respectively, though there is a great deal of overlap between the three, all of which are subgenres of speculative fiction.

While FTL travel and mythical creatures are both breaks from reality, the former is generally explained within a technological/scientific context, unlike the latter. And that makes all the difference in the world to readers.

 

[GTOM]

Whether there is any possibility that the Alcubierre drive could work in reality or no, whether there are extra dimensions, wormholes or not, whether there is a superset that makes things possible without rewrite everything we know or not (mathematical example, sqrt(-1) is defined on the set of complex numbers, and you don't have to change anything on the set of real numbers) ; i disagree with your point.
IMHO if FTL is needed for a good story, a writer shouldn't be ashamed to use it, especially if s/he cares about, that every other thing should be as scientific as possible (Newtonian dynamics in space for example, time slows down near to a black hole etc)
If an SF cares about discovery, creating a self-consistent universe, how breakthroughs can affect our future lives (make young ones interested in science, space explorations) etc, then i say its good SF, whether it involves the element zero and unobtanium or not.

 

[Khashishi]

It's a fuzzy boundary. That doesn't mean there's no difference between the two, but there is always some subjective judgement in there. You can have magic in sci-fi, and robots in fantasy--it's about what the focus of the narrative is, and how logic works in the universe. Science fiction doesn't have to be possible, but it has to make sense. The technology (or magic) has clearly defined limits and has ramifications on society. In fantasy, magic is mostly not integrated into society. Even if the characters know that magic exists, it is always a surprise what can be achieved, since there are apparently no limits. Magic is strange. In science fiction, we imagine what society would be like if people possessed certain powers (through technology). In fantasy, we imagine what we would be like, if we had certain powers and we were plopped into an unsuspecting society.

 

[MIG15]

Science fiction,

Todays science fiction is tomorrows science fact..(possibly)
You have to remember that the scientists need someone to think of an idea to invent it, and then again do we invent anything or if we discover anything surly it already has to exist. You cannot create anything in theory, the possibility has to already exist.
Perhaps that links to thoughts and ideas.

 

[Drakkith]

You have to remember that the scientists need someone to think of an idea to invent it

No, they don't. They do just fine discovering or inventing things on their own.

 

[MIG15]

Well,
Scientists are not normally outrageous except for the odd few. There are some great thinkers that are not scientists. To block out other ideas is not always a good idea.
Yes I will agree they can be proved wrong or not applicable. However to assume science has all the ideas is a bit closed minded.

If you think about it what is a thought? Where does the creation come from?
I'm talking about the original idea.
Science fiction is also a way of playing out moral issues which cannot always be done in the "real world".
We wouldn't want another world war to happen to then think well that was a mistake.
Or create a computer that takes over the world.
The above are just reflections on Science fiction however they do have an impact.
Even thoughts about genetic engineering etc.

 

[meBigGuy]

I would feel safe saying that Science Fiction makes ZERO contributions to actual science. It does help with cultural acceptance of new concepts, but that is different.
Science looks for and makes adaptations to account for anomalous data. Anomalies accumulate relative to the accepted paradigm and finally the science community comes up with a solution to the anomalies and there is a sudden revolutionary paradigm shift. Sometimes all the old guard have to die off before a new paradigm is accepted. Discoveries are generally spread across many researchers and even generations, but someone gets the credit and his place in history. There are seemingly standout exceptions, like Galileo or Newton, but even they were building on ideas from peers and predecessors. I suggest Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Not everyone agrees with his views, but it is an enlightening read none-the-less.

 

[Khatti]

I doubt that Science Fiction has any real effect on science but I do think that Science Fiction does have an effect on technology. How much does your cell phone look like the communicators from Star Trek?

 

[tom aaron]

I doubt that Science Fiction has any real effect on science but I do think that Science Fiction does have an effect on technology. How much does your cell phone look like the communicators from Star Trek?

What does Star Trek have to do with the technology of my cell phone...zip. Technology isn't a box. It's what's inside the box.

I like the movie 'The Time Machine'. One of my favourite lines was when the inventor was asked how the time machine worked. Press the handle ahead ...and you go forward in time. Pull it back ...to go into the past. So, if some timetravel is some day achieved through some manipulation of quantum states, are we going to give credit to HG Wells for the idea?

I predict that one day a building will be 200 stories tall. When it happens, I want credit for the concept. Predicting things isn't that difficult. Difficulty is developing technology within the limits of matter and energy.

 

[Khatti]

I like the movie 'The Time Machine'. One of my favourite lines was when the inventor was asked how the time machine worked. Press the handle ahead ...and you go forward in time. Pull it back ...to go into the past. So, if some timetravel is some day achieved through some manipulation of quantum states, are we going to give credit to HG Wells for the idea?

But there is the question of whether we would bother looking for a route to the future or past without science fiction. As for the cell phone no one had the technology for such a thing when the idea first entered print, but someone thought it would be possible someday.And I still use one of the older designs that look like Captain Kirk's communicator (the newer cell phones look more like a tricorder).

 

[tom aaron]

But there is the question of whether we would bother looking for a route to the future or past without science fiction. As for the cell phone no one had the technology for such a thing when the idea first entered print, but someone thought it would be possible someday.And I still use one of the older designs that look like Captain Kirk's communicator (the newer cell phones look more like a tricorder).

Why would we not look for a route to the future or past without science fiction? Scientists, including myself, base our research by building on science.

 

[Khatti]

Why would we not look for a route to the future or past without science fiction? Scientists, including myself, base our research by building on science

The same only different. Scientists in this instance are looking at the future as something that is predictable in relation to findings in research. You're something like lawyers who are building on precedent in the hope of creating a predictable future. Unlike lawyers you're not particularly interested in how people are going to relate to that predictability. That's a bit more of the Science Fiction writers domain.

 

[meBigGuy]

Science fiction has no effect on progress and little effect on products. The star trek communicator had no effect on cell phone designs. Any similarity is due to just common sense design. Public acceptance of ideas is not enhanced by science-fiction (a small minority even read science fiction). Most progress (in a product sense) is motivated by making money, pure and simple.

 

[rootone]

Still, it would be cool if we had something like the Star Trek transporter by now instead of just cell phones
I am kind of glad also, that Star Trek did not get as ludicrous as to suggest such a things as facebook and etc.

 

[Drakkith]

Still, it would be cool if we had something like the Star Trek transporter by now instead of just cell phones
I am kind of glad also, that Star Trek did not get as ludicrous as to suggest such a things as facebook and etc.

Like they say, reality is stranger than fiction!

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Still, it would be cool if we had something like the Star Trek transporter by now instead of just cell phones
I am kind of glad also, that Star Trek did not get as ludicrous as to suggest such a things as facebook and etc.

The only reason Star Trek had transporters was because it would have been too expensive for them to do the special effects for a shuttle flight each episode. In effect it was a plot device to solve a production problem. Unfortunately, and this is true for Star Trek in general, the social and technical implications of the technology were never really thought through. E.g., it never became standard to beam a bomb to the enemy ship once their shields were down.

An interesting connection between teleporters and social media was made by Larry Niven. One of his settings had cheap teleporter booths as the primary mode of transport on Earth. A consequence of this was something called the "flash crowd", basically whenever something interesting was reported live on the news thousands of people would teleport there creating a huge crowd. Pretty similar to the type of behaviour we see on social media with viral videos.

 

[tom aaron]

The only reason Star Trek had transporters was because it would have been too expensive for them to do the special effects for a shuttle flight each episode. In effect it was a plot device to solve a production problem. Unfortunately, and this is true for Star Trek in general, the social and technical implications of the technology were never really thought through. E.g., it never became standard to beam a bomb to the enemy ship once their shields were down.

An interesting connection between teleporters and social media was made by Larry Niven. One of his settings had cheap teleporter booths as the primary mode of transport on Earth. A consequence of this was something called the "flash crowd", basically whenever something interesting was reported live on the news thousands of people would teleport there creating a huge crowd. Pretty similar to the type of behaviour we see on social media with viral videos.

So true. So many shows with magic...Popeye, Star Trek, Superman, Hercules have this bizarre selective use of power. Wait until on the precipice of death, then eat the can of spinach. Why not eat it before?

True, the Niven concept is neat. In contrast, a lot of futuristic fiction still focuses around the isolated wagon train concept. A few individuals experience continuous incredible phenomena. The scientist of the spacecraft , or in the lab individually solves some puzzling dire challenge. No need to tap into the collective resources of 20 thousand scientific minds...better to solve problems by pondering the interaction of peas rolling together on the dinner plate. ' Eureka. Look at the way the peas collide. I figured out how to offset the forces of a Black Hole'.

 

[Khashishi]

Who needs bombs when you can beam the atoms of your enemy into all different places?

 

[rootone]

I think I vaguely recall an episode where a transporter had malfunctioned and Spock's atoms became dissipated throughout the cosmos.
Luckily, despite being in that condition Scotty, (I think it was), somehow was able to connect with Spock's 'ki' (or something), IIRC he was actually able to communicate with Spock in some fashion.
This meant that the atoms could be recovered after the transporter fault was fixed,

 

[Stephanus]

Like they say, reality is stranger than fiction!

"Life imitates art" Ralph Wado Emerson,
or
"The different between fact and fiction? Fiction has to make sense", Tom Clancy?

 

[vemvare]

So true. So many shows with magic...Popeye, Star Trek, Superman, Hercules have this bizarre selective use of power. Wait until on the precipice of death, then eat the can of spinach. Why not eat it before?

True, the Niven concept is neat. In contrast, a lot of futuristic fiction still focuses around the isolated wagon train concept. A few individuals experience continuous incredible phenomena. The scientist of the spacecraft , or in the lab individually solves some puzzling dire challenge. No need to tap into the collective resources of 20 thousand scientific minds...better to solve problems by pondering the interaction of peas rolling together on the dinner plate. ' Eureka. Look at the way the peas collide. I figured out how to offset the forces of a Black Hole'.

That is one of the main factors raising my "ridiculometer" when it comes to SF. The lone scientist/team of scientists always saving the day is so distant from how history has worked so far that it doesn't even vaguely look like a continuation of it. If the characters come across an aggressive, unknown species with superior technology, they will always rapidly not only understand said technology but also find a "hole" in it to be exploited so that the equilibrium is preserved, and the writers can lazily write up yet another episodic episode, rather than making the effort in writing a story-arc.

Historically, when historical powers such as the Mongols or the Europeans had an advantage, they expanded, a lot of people died and the maps were re-written.

I also dislike when obvious "blunt force" strategies are ignored, as in new-BSG where the Cylons need to infiltrate the colonial military computer networks in order to bomb the colonies when in the same setting it is possible to jump with considerable precision straight into a deep gravity well. They could've sent a single ship into the atmosphere of each colony, and have said ship built as a giant multi-step nuclear bomb. The same is true for each setting where it is possible to clandestinely put special forces on the surface of an enemy-controlled planet. The actual strategy to be employed by a race fighting for its survival in such a situation would probably involve a lot of nuclear kaboom.

In short, the nuclear bomb or even the potential use of fission products to contaminate a world if it is about to be taken over by a geno/xenocidal enemy is something that is overlooked by SF-authors, in my humble opinion.

EDIT: I thought I was in the "omitted tech" thread.

 

[GTOM]

The same is true for each setting where it is possible to clandestinely put special forces on the surface of an enemy-controlled planet. The actual strategy to be employed by a race fighting for its survival in such a situation would probably involve a lot of nuclear kaboom.

In short, the nuclear bomb or even the potential use of fission products to contaminate a world if it is about to be taken over by a geno/xenocidal enemy is something that is overlooked by SF-authors, in my humble opinion.

EDIT: I thought I was in the "omitted tech" thread.

Depends on, for example, capture enemy technology could help more than simply nuke a planet.

 

[BWV]

And why bother with nukes when you can accerate a massive object to relativistic speeds and slam it down on the planet?

 

[GTOM]

And why bother with nukes when you can accerate a massive object to relativistic speeds and slam it down on the planet?

That only works in settings that both interstellar and non FTL.

 

[DaveC426913]

That is one of the main factors raising my "ridiculometer" when it comes to SF. The lone scientist/team of scientists always saving the day is so distant from how history has worked so far that it doesn't even vaguely look like a continuation of it.

The thing is, and I always end up applying this logic whenever I come upon the apparent flaw you mention: stories do not reflect reality - they're not supposed to. They are the distilled essence of reality.

A thousand exploration vessels went out into the abyss, exploring. 999 of them made discoveries that took the resources of the federation 10 years to plumb.

One ship and its crew were exceptional. And that's why this one has had stories written about it.

You don't tell stories about the every day (even when the story's about the every day.) A recounting of the every day is called a documentary.

 

[Digitalism]

I love me some good science fantasy. Putting an entire planet to the Inquisitorial flame because it has been infested with Orks in the name of the Emperor = my idea of fun.

 

[MacRudi]

Think of Jules Verne
all of his fantasy is now reality. We made the impossible in his time now reality.
The same will be with Star Trek in the future. Many things are right now reality from TOS and TNG. Think of iPad oder cell phone. Think of alcubierre drive as WARP drive which is theoretically possible. At TOS in the 60s it was only fantasy. But today since 2012 is not impossible anymore says NASA.
Mankind is able to make fantasy to reality. This has been shown history. Noone thought in 19th century that it is possible to fly to the moon. completely out of sight. Noone thought that it is possible to fly in 80 days around the world. We can do it in one day. Noone thought that it is possible to live under water or drive with a submarine 20 000 miles under water. We can do it today. And we will be able in future to have interstellar flights with WARP drive. This is all a matter of time. 2063 will be the first WARP flight lol We know all. lol I will be 95 years old and want to see it on TV. lol

 

[Hornbein]

Think of Jules Verne
all of his fantasy is now reality. We made the impossible in his time now reality.
The same will be with Star Trek in the future. Many things are right now reality from TOS and TNG. Think of iPad oder cell phone. Think of alcubierre drive as WARP drive which is theoretically possible. At TOS in the 60s it was only fantasy. But today since 2012 is not impossible anymore says NASA.
Mankind is able to make fantasy to reality. This has been shown history. Noone thought in 19th century that it is possible to fly to the moon. completely out of sight. Noone thought that it is possible to fly in 80 days around the world. We can do it in one day. Noone thought that it is possible to live under water or drive with a submarine 20 000 miles under water. We can do it today. And we will be able in future to have interstellar flights with WARP drive. This is all a matter of time. 2063 will be the first WARP flight lol We know all. lol I will be 95 years old and want to see it on TV. lol

I always liked Peter Noone. I didn't know he was such a visionary.

 

[Smattering]

We were rambling on and someone pointed out that it may be within the laws of physics to one day develop a real life flying dragon-like animal.

If you build a plot with genetical engineering around it, you can certainly call that science fiction.

 

[Smattering]

Adding scientific sounding jargon is not scientific explanation. It has always been fudged and hidden behind something that is not science.

I strongly disagree. I would rather say that scientific sounding jargon is one of standard ingredients of science fiction. And I also claim that the difference between fantasy and science fiction is mainly a difference in *style*.

In order to be considered SF, a story does not need to be scientifically accurate. It just needs to *sound* as if it was based on science.

 

[DaveC426913]

I strongly disagree. I would rather say that scientific sounding jargon is one of standard ingredients of science fiction. And I also claim that the difference between fantasy and science fiction is mainly a difference in *style*.

In order to be considered SF, a story does not need to be scientifically accurate. It just needs to *sound* as if it was based on science.

And I strongly disagree with your disagreement.

I am firmly in the camp of those who insist that Star Wars is not science fiction - despite it's spaceships and light sabers. In my books, it is Space Fantasy, or Space Opera.

Of course, there is no definitive definition - it is a matter of opinion. There are generally two viewpoints - that of the purists and that of the popularists.

 

[meBigGuy]

to me (and many others http://www.goodreads.com/genres/science-fiction) Science Fiction is an a broad genre of fiction, and has sub genres such as Hard Science Fiction, Space Opera, and even Streampunk. For you to say Space Opera is not science fiction is just destroying any meaningful use of the words.

 

[DaveC426913]

to me (and many others http://www.goodreads.com/genres/science-fiction) Science Fiction is an a broad genre of fiction, and has sub genres such as Hard Science Fiction, Space Opera, and even Streampunk. For you to say Space Opera is not science fiction is just destroying any meaningful use of the words.

Don't you see how that's kind of strange? Suggesting that throwing a bunch of discrete things into a generalized melting pot is somehow improving meaning, whereas fine-tuning the categories is somehow destroying meaning?

Would you go on suggest that the categories 'mystery and 'action' have little meaning, and instead should be lumped under the undifferentiated title of, say 'fiction', and that will provide a similar clarity of meaning you seek?

 

[meBigGuy]

mystery and action are broad genres of fiction, just as science fiction is, and have definitions understood by all (with the usual fuzziness).
Its more like you would arbitrarily declare the action genre to only include car chases.

You are not fine tuning the meaning, you are stealing a phrase with an existing meaning to define a narrow sub genre.

Did you read the full definition at goodreads? (did you click on "more"). While no definition is perfect, that captures the essence of the issue.

So what words should one use to describe the genre of fiction that contains the sub genres "hard science fiction", "space opera", "steampunk", and "cyberpunk"?
If you steal "science fiction", we now need a new phrase. What broad genre contains Star Wars and The Martian, Snow Crash, and The Lensman series?

With your definition, I have to say "science fiction, cyberpunk, steampunk, space opera, military science fiction, hard science fiction, time travel ..;. " rather the words "science fiction" (which, to most, encompass them all). What you specifically try to define as science fiction is but a small subset of what the world calls "science fiction". You could call your sub genre "pure science fiction" or "Dave's science fiction" or "acceptable science fiction" or "real science fiction". But to usurp words that are already defined and limit them to a subset of the genre is not good.

Now, don't get me wrong. There is a place for the genre you are referring to. It is a significant sub genre of Science Fiction.

Examples that illustrate the breath of the genre of fiction that is science fiction:

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663397/infographic-of-the-day-a-mind-blowing-history-of-sci-fi <--- wish I could find the full size graphic. I've used it to find good reads.
http://i2.wp.com/www.box.net/shared/static/a6omcl2la0ivlxsn3o8m.jpg

 

[Smattering]

I am firmly in the camp of those who insist that Star Wars is not science fiction - despite it's spaceships and light sabers. In my books, it is Space Fantasy, or Space Opera.

I agree that Star Wars is not SF. But the main reason is not the lack of scientific accuracy, but rather the non-scientific *style*.

For example, Star Trek TNG can be considered (soft) SF although it is not scientifically accurate either. But it does have the right style.

 

[Smattering]

to me (and many others http://www.goodreads.com/genres/science-fiction) Science Fiction is an a broad genre of fiction, and has sub genres such as Hard Science Fiction, Space Opera, and even Streampunk. For you to say Space Opera is not science fiction is just destroying any meaningful use of the words.

Space Opera and Steampunk are clearly cross-over genres and *not* pure SF subgenres.

 

[meBigGuy]

IMO, star Wars is in the "Space Fantasy or Space Opera" (your words) sub genres of science fiction.
Works can easily belong to multiple sub-genres.

You can't just disappear a whole recognized genre of fiction (science fiction) and replace it with an ill defined sub genre of your choice.

This wikipedia article considers science fiction as a genre of "speculative fiction". (whereas goodreads considers it a genre of fiction)
Wikipedia lists Science Fictions subgenres:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction#Subgenres

Space Opera and Steampunk are clearly cross-over genres and *not* pure SF subgenres.

You are welcome to define a "pure science fiction" subgenre of science fiction if you want. Take the word Pure out of the above quote and it doesn't make sense. So, the word pure is narrowing the definition. "Pure science fiction", and "Science Fiction" are two different things.

You say this list of books are not science fiction?
http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/82803.Epic_Space_Opera
And that this "defintion" is not a good one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_opera

Again, you cannot usurp the words "Science Fiction" to mean something different than it does. Well, you can, but it is futile.

 

[Khatti]

I am firmly in the camp of those who insist that Star Wars is not science fiction - despite it's spaceships and light sabers. In my books, it is Space Fantasy, or Space Opera.

And in my own Star Wars--which includes psionic abilities, multi-universal technology and travel, and reincarnation as a technology--I'm quite comfortable with the Space Opera or Space Fantasy label. I do feel a need to separate what I do from what, say, Hal Clement did. However, my main thing is getting it written and out there, I don't care if you call it a ham-and-swiss-on-rye when I'm done.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Genres seem unnecessarily restrictive to me, especially given that most stories cross multiple genres (romance, mystery, fantasy etc). As different as it may be I think it makes more sense to describe stories in a sort of tagging system, prioritising what is more relevant to the story.

As for what science fiction is its of course going to be vague, after all it changes over time! In the 50s psychic powers were a strong feature of SF, now that's shifted into fantasy.

 

[DaveC426913]

All of this is simply a preference. There are many in both camps. And my view is not my invention, I simply adhere to a different, popular standard than you.

It is implicit in all your posts that you mean "in my view". You did not state it explicitly, so I am.

To suggest that you are entitled to the "true" definition of words is silly. Below is a short list of the most egregious entitlements in your argument.

... definitions understood by all...
...stealing a phrase with an existing meaning...
...what words should one use...
...usurp words that are already defined...

... you cannot usurp the words "Science Fiction" to mean something different than it does...

You do not get to lay claim to the "true" definition.
Your entire stance is guilty of the foregone conclusion fallacy.

 

[Smattering]

Genres seem unnecessarily restrictive to me, especially given that most stories cross multiple genres (romance, mystery, fantasy etc). As different as it may be I think it makes more sense to describe stories in a sort of tagging system, prioritising what is more relevant to the story.

Yes, but then Star Wars ends at SF/Fantasy which is exactly where it belongs.

 

[Hornbein]

I have a policy not to argue about definitions. State your definition and get on with it.

As an artist I can tell you that the whole genre thing is a joke. It is a structure imposed on art, which doesn't really have any rules. Art critics take this genre stuff seriously. You don't have to.

Nevertheless the genre thing can be useful. If I experience some award-winning work from some genre and it's trash, then I know not to waste my time on that genre. The great majority of works fall into such categories.

I find it much more useful to sample a work. Read a few random lines, watch a few random scenes...

 

[Smattering]

As an artist I can tell you that the whole genre thing is a joke. It is a structure imposed on art, which doesn't really have any rules. Art critics take this genre stuff seriously. You don't have to.

As a reader I do take it seriously, because I am one of those who do not like fantasy at all--at least not when it comes to reading. I can watch something like Star Wars as a movie, but I would not be able to finish a book written in the same style.

Thus, SF/fantasy is a warning for me not to buy that book.

 

[DaveC426913]

As a reader I do take it seriously, because I am one of those who do not like fantasy at all--at least not when it comes to reading. I can watch something like Star Wars as a movie, but I would not be able to finish a book written in the same style.

Thus, SF/fantasy is a warning for me not to buy that book.

Yes, but this results in false positives and false negatives.

I too dislike fantasy, but I'll read Larry Niven's magic books (The Magic Goes Away, The Flying Sorcerers) because they (mostly) adhere to science fiction principles.

I wonder if you would enjoy them if you could drop your label criterion.

 

[meBigGuy]

Well, I'll stick with my definition of Science Fiction as fiction containing concepts at least presented as having been developed by science, however "impossible", and Fantasy as not invoking science. Trying to draw a line regarding your feelings about the supposed plausibility of the science seems to be the dividing line for Hard Science Fiction.

Trying to find a logic to your point of view, I tried searching "is space opera science fiction" and "space opera is not science fiction". I found nothing defending the view that space opera was not science fiction. I mention this because I think there is some value (called communication) in adopting definitions that match the common view, unless there is good reason not to. (I'd be interested in your rationale, beyond being contrary).

Of course, defining space opera becomes its own chore. Check out this:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=space+opera
"Excession' (Iain M Banks), 'A Fire Upon The Deep' (Vernor Vinge) and 'Second Foundation' (Isaac Asimov) are instantly recognisable as space operas."
Do you consider those as not science fiction? Or, not space opera?

You are welcome to your own personal definitions of words but it will cause communication difficulties.

As for the value of genres and subgenres, its just a tool to aid in communication. And, as is always the case with language, words can be limiting and misused.
I expect all artists are especially offended by being categorized as X or Y, when what they really are is creative.