1189 replies to this topic

[Shredhead]

Ilithi Dragon, on 15 June 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:

As Catamount noted, a story can have a science fiction setting, and still not be a science fiction story. Any science fiction author will tell you that spaceships alone a science fiction story does not make. Science fiction is ultimately, at its core, a gedenkenexperiement, a thought experiment, the continual asking of, "What if?" Science fiction also, by its nature, expresses change. The end of the story leaves the characters and/or the world in which its set in a very different state from when it started, usually questioning a lot of things along the way.

Conversely, a story with a fantasy setting can still be very much a science fiction story. Just ask Anne McCaffrey about her Dragonriders of Pern universe. It's very much a fantasy setting, but she has insisted from the beginning that it is science fiction. I'm an aspiring science fiction author myself, and at least two of the stories I am working on, including the maybe-stand-alone novel I'm currently awake at two in the morning working on that I hope to be my first published piece, have fantasy settings but are very much science fiction in terms of literary tradition.

40K has none of the elements of literary science fiction. In 40K, nothing changes, it is a perpetual, apocalyptic war, and questioning things is actively discouraged in the story's lore. 40K does not ask, "What if?" 40K asks, "What do we have to do to make all this brutality and suffering seem good?" and "How Grim and Dark can we make this?" 40K has a science fiction setting, but it isn't science fiction. It's closer to fantasy than anything else, and the 40K universe originated from the Warhammer fantasy game, so it basically IS a GrimDark ™ fantasy story, set in space. Wars is much the same way, though not quite as GrimDark: It is literally a classic Campbellian fantasy story, and it fits every single point of that literary standard.

Is calling 40K not science fiction being elitist? Certainly not! It's making a classification based on established literary standards. But don't take my word for it, here's acclaimed science fiction author, Dr. David Brin, author of the Uplift Saga, and author of Foundation's Triumph, the last book in the Second Foundation saga, on Science Fiction vs Fantasy:
http://ieet.org/inde...re/brin20110410



Now, like Catamount, I have a lot of disdain for the stories of both 40K and Star Wars, and the Campbellian story tradition in general (it's the story tradition/template of bards and minstrels that kept kings and shamans in power for thousands of years!), and especially for the moral lessons and principles they espouse, and especially those of 40K, because they are not just bad, they are downright evil, and are anathema to everything that the modern Enlightenment that has bootstrapped us out of the darkness of the Middle Ages and that represents all the hopes and dreams we have for any kind of future that isn't a reversion to that, let alone a continued betterment of our future.

I'm sorry to tell you, but Science Fiction is only an offspring of Fantasy at least. The most simple definition of Sci Fi surely is: set in the future, featuring some uncommon (fantastic) technological and/or social developments. That's it. If you don't like 40k, ok, your problem, but there's no exclusive club of "Real Sci Fi" vs. "Fantasy w/ SF setting". That's made up bullsheet. WH 40k is in big parts "Dark SF" because of the dystopian setting, while the universe also offers settings for "Military SF" (Gaunts Ghosts i.e.), Space Opera (parts of Horus Heresy) and medieval settings. Star Trek and Star Wars classify as Space Operas too, while Star Trek is quite annoying with its sterility and peace stuff, Star Wars clearly descends from early "Space Cowboy" stories.
Also this thread is just an invitation for trolling and having fun while some extreme nerds really try to compare fictional technology from tons of completely different universes. Sorry guys. that's laughable. I'd understand if you tried to compare, let's say "Hard" SF from Stanislaw Lem with today's technology (hey, Lem made Mechs in the early 80's, based on real science, if you want to have a good read, try "Fiasco"), but this is just hilarious.
tl,dr: 40k owns you. Period.

[Catamount]

Jack Gammel, on 16 June 2012 - 06:04 AM, said:

Sounds like you're quitting. Cool. Guess I win. How about we let this thread finally die?

Wow, we really must have hit a nerve with you by daring to suggest that 40k and SW belong to a genre different from scifi. Why? Why the hostility? You and I don't usually converse in this fashion.

In any case, now that we've had another opinion enter in, maybe a more detailed post is warranted, provided you and I can discuss this without reducing it to petty bantering, either of us. I'm not here to foster bad feelings among posters over something as silly as genre definitions; I doubt you are either.


@Shredhead:

I'm leaving in a minute for a time, but let me leave you with a question: Why isn't LOTR science fiction? Is Star Wars?

Star Wars takes place in the past, not in the future. It says so in the film's beginning. Is it then not science fiction, by your definition?


As for LOTR, clearly it doesn't take place in Earth's past, or Earth's anything. It's another planet, and the story might well take place in the future, and it does have technology we lack, very advanced technology (Palantirs comes to mind). Oh sure, they call it "magic", but it's still technology.

What about The Gods Must be Crazy? It has interesting social developments, so does that mean it's science fiction?



The core problem I see is that people are using definitions that don't actually do a good job of creating any distinction at all between science fiction and fantasy, such that any story could be called science fiction, such that we might as well not even have a science fiction genre.

Sure, any definition given by me, or Ilithi, or David Brin, is equally arbitrary, because all systems of classification are Tartary. Even biological taxonomy is an arbitrary system (hence massive recent changes with cladistics). The question is, does the system make sense. I think the often-assumed definition of science fiction, which I'm seeing here, does not, because it would encompass the vast majority of fantasy stories, thereby nullifying the use of having a science fiction genre. I think it's an inconsistent and inadequate definition. That's why I, and many, if not most, science fiction writers, focus on the thought experiment portion (which usually includes a fundamental form of chance, usually), rather than the technology or timeframe portion (although I will say that most stories that take place in the future probably qualify).



But yes, more later.

Edited by Catamount, 16 June 2012 - 06:31 AM.

[Jack Gammel]

Catamount, on 16 June 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

Wow, we really must have hit a nerve with you by daring to suggest that 40k and SW belong to a genre different from scifi. Why? Why the hostility? You and I don't usually converse in this fashion.

You're right. I generally don't converse in this manner.

I've had to defend "soft" sci-fi before in some very heated environments. It bothers me when people try to dictate what constitutes science fiction and fantasy when it's perfectly clear (at least to me and many others) that both genres are almost completely intertwined at their most basic levels, and I've had to deal with some very pretentious individuals who have tried to insist that "hard" sci-fi is the only real "sci-fi" and is inherently superior to "soft" sci-fi and fantasy. Brin's article is a perfect example of this, and the comments section on that link pretty much sum up my feelings on the matter.

I've always insisted that there's a reason why there are "hard" and "soft" sub-genres within science fiction, and both have their pros and cons while maintaining their overall place in the genre. I actually don't care so much about 40k and what people think of it since it's obviously a brutal, dark, and evil universe, but it will always be "soft" sci-fi to me. The same goes for Star Trek and other such narratives, and there are plenty of reasons to support this. And since it all comes down to opinion anyway I've always taken a more inclusive stance. So I guess I do take it personally, which of course accomplishes nothing in an internet forum.

For the sake of manners and civility I will apologize for any "trollish" behavior. But seriously, this thread should die. Nothing new is being added.

Edited by Jack Gammel, 16 June 2012 - 06:51 AM.

[Catamount]

I don't think there was anything trollish, but perhaps an apology is due on both ends here for a failure to listen, so I am sorry it degenerated so. My brusque and dismissive response probably didn't help.

I agree that there is "soft" science fiction, in the case of stories which both do and don't fit scifi as a genre, but I think the point I'd like considered is merely one of what science fiction is. I don't think it's about the flashy lights and the technobabble and the space ships, although most stories which have these things can be argued as science fiction. Star Wars isn't because it's a campbellian tale; it is quite literally a textbook example of a well-established fantasy genre that adhere's to every single story element in said genre religiously. The wizards and princesses just have a few more gadgets than usual. Beneath that very thin skin is a classic an undeviating classic of that particular fantasy genre.

That doesn't make Star Wars bad. In fact, I happen to like the original three films a lot (the prequel ones... yeah, not so much). It's just a matter of classification.

What I think science fiction is is a speculative narrative. It's a "what if" story that explores the possibilities of the universe and the human condition, and it comes from a very progressive tradition of literature, progressive, not in the political meaning of the word, but merely meaning stories which in which the settings in question fundamentally change and grow from beginning to end, although this sort of change is only usually present, not always. Compare David Brin's Loom of Thessaly (great scifi short story) to Orson Scott Card's Ender series, which I consider both to be science fiction, and you get an idea there.

This definition makes a lot more sense out of the genre than what is usually assumed, which is to say definitions that would include very non science-fiction works. Again, LOTR would fit into most of the generally-assumed definitions of science fiction. It not only makes sense, but it fits the history of the genre. Science fiction was born out of the speculative, out of ornery tales that challenged literary and social and scientific convention by saying "well what if...", which draws a stark line between it and prior literary genres, like Campbellian Fantasy, which were there precisely to uphold dogma, by telling tales of nobles and knights and destined heroes, intended to reinforce the social hierarchy of the time periods out of which those genres were born.


So why isn't 40k science fiction, according to this definition? It's not that one is being elitist in saying so; I'm not saying "well 40k isn't science fiction, because it doesn't have enough scifi elements, so therefore it's just not scifi enough"; that would be a somewhat elitist attitude. It's that 40k is 100% antithesis to this ever-present aspect of science fiction, this aspect which defined the genre. 40k is a story which basically says "this is how it is, and why everyone has to behave like this; don't question it". In 40k, basic human progress caused all the problems in the universe, while all the solutions lay in unquestioning dogmatic religious following of the God Emperor, who literally controls the entire fate of all life, everywhere, no matter what, end of story (the nuances of which I don't pretend to understand, but it's been stated by 40k followers here, explicitly, that the destiny of sentient life ends with him one way or the other). That's it. that's the way it is. Asking "what if" isn't allowed.

So what would a 40k science fiction story look like? Well you could write a very good scifi cautionary tale, in the tech noir vein, about how overzealous pursuit of technology might have lead to the warp as a pitfall, but only if you leave open the possibility of doing things differently, which 40k implies is impossible, because there are volumes written on how science just inherently produces such bad results. We're even given all this backstory on how the God Emperor used to champion enlightenment, but then "discovered" that it was all really a bad thing, after all. That's not very science fictionish, not because it's "bad", but because it doesn't leave open any "what ifs". Another way to do a genuine science fiction story might be an Imperium fleet trying to conquer say, a Tau world, getting destroyed down to the last ship enroute by the warp, and having the last ship thrown back in time, severely damaged and in no position to conquer, having the inhabitants land and be forced to make a home on a very ancient Tau world, and having the two races, uninhibited by the rest of 40k history, build an enlightened, science-based society that becomes so advanced, that they figure out how to insulate the galaxy against the warp. See what I did there? I did a "what if", of the sort 40k doesn't, and 40k really precludes it, with very story elements relating to fate/destiny (intrinsically an anti-scifi concept since there's no "what if" allowed in fate), and demigods whom control it, without the possibility of meaningful input from the masses, beyond their role as meat shields for the other invading powers.

That doesn't make 40k bad. Non science fiction stories aren't inherently inferior to science fiction stories, they're just different. I personally think that 40k isn't a very good story line, but it's not because it's not science fiction. I'm not claiming that stories are inherently inferior if they lack this quality, merely that the genre is different. (note, of course, that in my personal opinion, science fiction is the best and most important genre, but it's just that, my opinion; regardless of definitions, I don't claim that to be objectively true)


I could do the same with LOTR. For instance, what if, after the Elves leave, magic becomes far less dogmatically treated, and suddenly everyone gets access to it? What might be the possibilities and consequences to a Middle Earth world with a Palantir in every home? Of course, it's important to leave open possibilities beyond what that story would explore; if you don't do that, it's a pretty poor science fiction tale, but LOTR isn't about that sort of "what if"; it's just not what the story seeks to do.


Even Star Trek betrays this tradition sometimes, and yes, I find some of the story lines and story elements frightening and objectionable too, although the genre as a whole is undeniably science fiction. The universe takes a lot of time to explore the consequences of fundamental change, like the century-long changes incurred because of the Praxis incident, and the subsequent transformation of Klingon society, as explored many times by three different television series. But beyond the fundamental changes to the universe, and the time taken to explore the pitfalls (the potential and extant shortcomings of the Federation are explored on more than one occasion), Star Trek is absolutely a speculative what if tale, and that permeates nearly every single episode. What if an accident causes the ship's computer to become sentient? What are the consequences and opportunities of sentient computers? At what point does a synthetic creation become alive? What if gender became illegal? What if trying to destroy a galaxy-ending spatial phenomena ends up being what creates it? These are the sorts of speculative storylines, all from just a single one of five series, which puts Trek squarely into the science fiction genre.


As for the thread... look, as long as genuine discussion is going on, I don't care if this thread lives or dies. I just get irked when it has been dead for like six months, and then someone resurrects it with a three word post. I'm sure you agree, that's just obnoxious (the particular poster actually went through and necroed like a dozen long-dead threads with such replies)

Edited by Catamount, 16 June 2012 - 08:27 AM.

[L4C0]

Like Battletech, but Star Wars, Halo and Warhammer 40k too

[Shredhead]

Catamount, on 16 June 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

Wow, we really must have hit a nerve with you by daring to suggest that 40k and SW belong to a genre different from scifi. Why? Why the hostility? You and I don't usually converse in this fashion.

In any case, now that we've had another opinion enter in, maybe a more detailed post is warranted, provided you and I can discuss this without reducing it to petty bantering, either of us. I'm not here to foster bad feelings among posters over something as silly as genre definitions; I doubt you are either.


@Shredhead:

I'm leaving in a minute for a time, but let me leave you with a question: Why isn't LOTR science fiction? Is Star Wars?

Star Wars takes place in the past, not in the future. It says so in the film's beginning. Is it then not science fiction, by your definition?


As for LOTR, clearly it doesn't take place in Earth's past, or Earth's anything. It's another planet, and the story might well take place in the future, and it does have technology we lack, very advanced technology (Palantirs comes to mind). Oh sure, they call it "magic", but it's still technology.

What about The Gods Must be Crazy? It has interesting social developments, so does that mean it's science fiction?



The core problem I see is that people are using definitions that don't actually do a good job of creating any distinction at all between science fiction and fantasy, such that any story could be called science fiction, such that we might as well not even have a science fiction genre.

Sure, any definition given by me, or Ilithi, or David Brin, is equally arbitrary, because all systems of classification are Tartary. Even biological taxonomy is an arbitrary system (hence massive recent changes with cladistics). The question is, does the system make sense. I think the often-assumed definition of science fiction, which I'm seeing here, does not, because it would encompass the vast majority of fantasy stories, thereby nullifying the use of having a science fiction genre. I think it's an inconsistent and inadequate definition. That's why I, and many, if not most, science fiction writers, focus on the thought experiment portion (which usually includes a fundamental form of chance, usually), rather than the technology or timeframe portion (although I will say that most stories that take place in the future probably qualify).



But yes, more later.

Nitpicking a bit, huh? So let me make it clearer: Science Fiction is a subgenre of Fantasy, defined by a futuristic setting and uncommon (fantastic) technological and/or social developments.
Thus every Science Fiction story is Fantasy, subgenre SF, subsubgenre "Hard"/"Dark"/"Military"/"Space Opera"/etc. p.p.
And no, LotR can simply not be Science Fiction, as it doesn't meet the criteria. Magic =/= Technology (I know " Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." A.C. Clarke, but it doesn't fit the other way round!)
"The Gods Must Be Crazy" was a hilarious movie which I like very much, but it only depicts the influence of our "civilisation" and its products on a more "primitive" culture. There are no social developments whatsoever, nothing new. That's neither Fantasy nor Science Fiction, just a fictional story about actual real occurences (they still occur, in Afghanistan "Taliban" fight against literal "Space Marines", jungle tribes in South America get butchered by cons and gold digging human scum), as such we may call it "Tragicomedy".
Here are some nice quotes of SF authors on the matter: http://scifi.about.c...CIFI_defs_2.htm
I tried to sum all these statements up in my definition.
This David Brin should better stick to writing books instead of the BS he uttered in his essay.
And may I humbly ask you what makes you a Science Fiction writer? I mean, I've written some short stories, most of it Horror in a Lovecraftian spirit but nothing that was ever published, so I can't call myself a writer. Did you ever publish a novel? Or at least a short story? Link?
I've learned that most wannabe writers own an ego greater than Himalaya, but never get published. Then it's always the fault of those publishers and critics who "know nothing about real literature/lyric".

Quote

when it's perfectly clear (at least to me and many others) that both genres are almost completely intertwined at their most basic levels

Also that.

[Catamount]

Sheadhead, how is magic not technology? Technology is any method or tool used to solve a new problem or accomplish a new task (or improve upon an existing one). That's sociology 101. Would you explain how magic fails to meet that criteria?

While we're at it, would you define "futuristic" in a way that includes Star Wars? It's explicitly stated to take place in the past, and there's nothing about advanced technology that necessitates association with the future, since the universe is more than old enough to have accommodated many societies of greater technological advancement than may exist today.

You seem to be passing off your definition like it's some kind of objective truth, which, from the get-go, is a questionable position, since all systems of classification are arbitrary (yet somehow you manage to directly insult and belittle anyone who doesn't agree with your arbitrary classification), all while failing to answer the most basic questions about it.


Edit: Also, you might want to check your facts there; I never claimed to be a science fiction writer. I am not, nor do I have any aspirations to be.

Edited by Catamount, 16 June 2012 - 08:40 AM.

[Ilithi Dragon]

Jack Gammel, on 16 June 2012 - 06:49 AM, said:

I've had to defend "soft" sci-fi before in some very heated environments. It bothers me when people try to dictate what constitutes science fiction and fantasy when it's perfectly clear (at least to me and many others) that both genres are almost completely intertwined at their most basic levels, and I've had to deal with some very pretentious individuals who have tried to insist that "hard" sci-fi is the only real "sci-fi" and is inherently superior to "soft" sci-fi and fantasy. Brin's article is a perfect example of this, and the comments section on that link pretty much sum up my feelings on the matter.

This explains much of why you're missing the core of what Catamount and I are saying, and I understand very well. There certainly are some very pretentious and elitist sci-fi 'connoisseurs' out there who have very strict and rigid and 'uptight' classifications of what science fiction is. Catamount and I are most definitely not among those types, though we can certainly empathize with arguing with them, and other rabid fanboys of particular interpretations, etc. We've been there, done that, and we understand.

I will say, though, that you are misunderstanding the point that Dr. Brin was trying to make in his article. Perhaps a declaration of terminology might help to clarify, both Dr. Brin's position and Catamount and my own's (both of which are heavily influenced by Dr. Brin).

When I use the terms "Hard Science Fiction" and "Soft Science Fiction" (HSF and SSF for ease of use), I'm thinking in terms of the realistic application of current scientific knowledge and extrapolations of prominent hypotheses.

A strictly HSF story uses no fancy technology that goes beyond the laws of the universe that we know and understand today. Space ships have no gravity or generate gravity by spinning or with low-g acceleration, using fusion rockets or maybe anti-matter rockets, painstaking details are taken to keep things in-line with how technology could really develop given what we know of how the universe works, and how it doesn't, and the story is told within that framework.

SSF, on the other hand, stretches what we know of how the universe works, sometimes using the justification of "nothing we know strictly says that this can't happen, we just don't know how to make it happen, so here's some unobtanium to make it happen," sometimes changing how we understand the universe works with some new discovery, sometimes just flat-out ignoring the laws of the universe entirely.

Now, I have certainly known a number of people over the years who insist that HSF is the only real SF and the rest is just fantasy, and sometimes argued with them over that (though fortunately infrequently, and it seems you've had the misfortune of the opposite, for which you have my sympathies). Catamount and I both agree with you there (we've discussed this subject many times before), that such a definition of what is and is not real science fiction is just silly, or as Catamount put it in an earlier post, not a functional definition of Science Fiction.

To put that in other terms, such a definition of HSF as the only real SF and SSF as nothing but fantasy would make Jules Vern's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, a HSF story in its day, real science fiction, but H.G. Welles' War of the Worlds, a SSF story in its day, pure fantasy. Obviously, that definition doesn't work (though, amusingly enough, that particular argument dates back to Vern and Welles, as Vern hated Welles' stories for their lack of hard science, and in modern times Vern would have been a hard-core HSF snob).

That is not the definition that Catamount, nor I, nor Dr. Brin are putting forward. Science fiction stems from fantasy, that has never been in question, but there is a difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy. That difference is not just in setting or explanation of the wonders found in the story. A SSF technobabble explanation isn't really any different than a magical incantation, so calling something science fiction based on the setting or explanation of certain elements alone does not suffice. It does not distinguish SSF from Fantasy, even though SSF is often clearly science fiction.

So it must be something else that makes Science Fiction distinct from Fantasy. In that vein, what are the elements that are common to all Science Fiction? What do the experts, like renown science fiction authors, have to say on the matter?

There are two underlying elements of all Science Fiction. The first is the inherent, underlying question of, "What if?" That is the single strongest tradition of Science Fiction - the questioning of what would happen if things were a certain way, or this changed, or that technology came about, or this event or sequence of events happened. That is often used as a tool to provide commentary on the human condition (another strong tradition of science fiction), or unintentionally provides an examination of the human condition, though this is not a requirement. This is what Catamount and I call "High-Brow Science Fiction." "Low-Brow Science Fiction" still asks "What if?"; it eschews high-brow social commentary (or at least intentional social commentary) in favor of pure adventure fun, but is certainly still science fiction.

The second element that all Science Fiction features is change, and it is an inherent consequence of asking, "What if?" Science Fiction stories are stories of change. They may be stories of a big change occurring, or events leading up to a big change, or the aftermath and fallout of a big change. Change also does not have to actually occur - 1984 is a story of missed opportunities for change to prevent disaster and to make the world a better place. At the end of the story, any changes that occurred have been effectively erased, but it is still science fiction, and specifically is a science fiction tragedy, because the potential for change was there, it was just missed. But the change, or the potential for change, is always there in Science Fiction.


Those are the two elements around which Catamount and I build our definition of Science Fiction, and its distinction from Fantasy, along with some other literary concepts, such as Joseph Campbell's classic archetypes of heroes of mythology and the monomyth or hero's journey, the classic templates and formula for fantasy characters and stories. Most Fantasy fits into Campbell's monomyth forumula, and uses some or all of his classic character archetypes. Science Fiction, on the other hand, diverges sharply from both.

Star Wars is a classic Campbellian fantasy tale, complete with knights and wizards and princesses, and the heroes are demi-god-like warriors of a quasi-religion. Lucas chose a soft science fiction setting for the universe, but all the elements of the story itself fit into Campbell's classic monomyth framework. As such, Star Wars cannot be considered Science Fiction - it has setting elements of science fiction, but it does not ask "What if?", there is no real change or opportunity for change, it's just a different variation on the same-old conflict between good wizards and bad wizards with knights and rogues and farm boys and princesses caught in the mix. It is a classic fantasy tale with a science fiction background, so it is Fantasy in a sci-fi setting.

Warhammer 40,000 is the Warhammer fantasy universe converted to space, and it is a universe where there is no real change - the Imperium has been in a perpetual state of conflict for thousands of years and the whole universe itself is designed to ensure that there is no hope of anything ever being different ever again. The heroes are demi-god-like warriors and knights and mages, and they go around fighting a perpetual war against an unavoidable fate, in the same vein as the classic Greek tragedies - the heroes struggle futilely against a fate that they cannot avoid. There is no question of "What if?" asked in the 40K universe, just, "What do we have to do to make these horrible things seem okay and cool?" Warhammer 40,000 is not science fiction, it is Fantasy with elements of Greek tragedy in a sci-fi setting.




As for your alien orgy example story, would that be science fiction? Well, if it asks "What if?", and there is at least the potential for change, either in the characters or the world they live in, then yes. Would it be anything close to good science fiction? Probably not. It would probably be very bad science fiction (though a story of alien lovers in a complex world unexpectedly having a hybrid child that changes everything could have potential...), but quality of story does not determine whether or not something is Science Fiction, or Fantasy, or Mystery, or Romance. There have been some very bad murder mystery stories written, and you don't even want to go near the worse sections of the bad Romance stories, but just because they are bad stories or poorly written doesn't change the genre that they fall into. L. Ron Hubbard's Battlefield: Earth is an absolutely atrocious story (I know that first hand, I've read it), but it is still a Science Fiction story. It asks "What if?" and prominently features change. It is a disgrace to the genre that should not be burned only so that it might be held up as an example of how to NOT write a good story, and to be used to beat the most terrible children into good behavior with (though the threat alone should suffice), but it is still, unfortunately, Science Fiction.

[Catamount]

Ilithi Dragon, on 16 June 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

That is not the definition that Catamount, nor I, nor Dr. Brin are putting forward. Science fiction stems from fantasy, that has never been in question, but there is a difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy. That difference is not just in setting or explanation of the wonders found in the story. A SSF technobabble explanation isn't really any different than a magical incantation, so calling something science fiction based on the setting or explanation of certain elements alone does not suffice. It does not distinguish SSF from Fantasy, even though SSF is often clearly science fiction.

This is the point that is so often missed. There is no difference to a story between a magical incantation and a technobabble explanation, especially since, again, magic fits the basic definition of technology anyways. If one knows how to do it, and it accomplishes a task, it's technology.

So definitions that attempt to distinguish any kind of SF from fantasy based on this distinction fail abjectly.


Also, I'm not sure I'd agree that all science fiction is necessarily centered around change. It's usually a central aspect, and that's been true throughout the history of the genre, but I think there are exceptions in "what if" stories, on rare occasions.

Edited by Catamount, 16 June 2012 - 08:50 AM.

[Xune]

Sorry to say so. But Star Wars is MAGIC, thers no reason, no way they explain where they get ther stupid amounts of energy from.
Beside the fact that Star wars apeals to so many people becouse its simple. Thers no moral grey zone. Only god and bad. So if you want you could allso watch Space Monks against Space Heretics in space.

[Shredhead]

Catamount, on 16 June 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

Sheadhead, how is magic not technology? Technology is any method or tool used to solve a new problem or accomplish a new task (or improve upon an existing one). That's sociology 101. Would you explain how magic fails to meet that criteria?

While we're at it, would you define "futuristic" in a way that includes Star Wars? It's explicitly stated to take place in the past, and there's nothing about advanced technology that necessitates association with the future, since the universe is more than old enough to have accommodated many societies of greater technological advancement than may exist today.

You seem to be passing off your definition like it's some kind of objective truth, which, from the get-go, is a questionable position, since all systems of classification are arbitrary (yet somehow you manage to directly insult and belittle anyone who doesn't agree with your arbitrary classification), all while failing to answer the most basic questions about it.

You are a very difficult person.

Quote

Technology is the making, modification, usage, and knowledge of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, systems, methods of organization, in order to solve a problem, improve a preexisting solution to a problem, achieve a goal or perform a specific function.

This from Wikipedia

Quote

technology, the application of scientific knowledge to the practical aims of human life or, as it is sometimes phrased, to the change and manipulation of the human environment.

This from Encyclopedia Britannica
You just left out the parts about science, tools, machines and systems.
While you can make fictional "magical" machines, magic itself is not scientifically explainable.
Star Wars is already included, as "futuristic" doesn't need to actually be in the future.

Quote

1. Of or relating to the future.
2.
a. Of, characterized by, or expressing a vision of the future: futuristic decor.
b. Being ahead of the times; innovative or revolutionary: futuristic computer software.
3. Of or relating to futurism.

From Free Online Dictionary, I've underlined the part that's important for me. To "be ahead of the times" things don't have to happen in the future.
And yes, my definition is an objective truth, because it's a minimal definition, it's broken down to the very core elements of Science Fiction.

[Catamount]

Xune, on 16 June 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

Sorry to say so. But Star Wars is MAGIC, thers no reason, no way they explain where they get ther stupid amounts of energy from.
Beside the fact that Star wars apeals to so many people becouse its simple. Thers no moral grey zone. Only god and bad. So if you want you could allso watch Space Monks against Space Heretics in space.

Magic, silly technology, it doesn't really matter what one calls it, and yeah, Wars did start getting pretty dogmatic and black and white after awhile, though in fairness, that's mostly in the prequel films. I found the originals to be far more just a light-hearted space adventure that didn't try nearly so hard to push Lucas' rather...interesting... philosophies on their viewers.


@Shredhead

Thank you, your own definition shows that magic fits the basic definition of technology. It's the knowledge to manufacture tools (wands, staves, what have you), and techniques to achieve a task. Even without the tools, it's still knowledge of techniques to achieve a task, ergo, magic is a form of technology.

You've also still failed to answer the basic objections to trying to use this distinction to define the difference between scifi and fantasy.

Shredhead, on 16 June 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

And yes, my definition is an objective truth, because it's a minimal definition, it's broken down to the very core elements of Science Fiction.

No, it's broken down to the elements you think define science fiction, and you've failed utterly to answer any of the objections to using said definition. Boiling your subjective definition down doesn't make it less a subjective definition. You think science fiction is defined by a couple aspects of setting, rather than core story elements, and fail to answer the objections to that definition.

Edited by Catamount, 16 June 2012 - 08:59 AM.

[PirateLincoln]

Winner: Star Trek - It's been long established that most weapon tech EXCEPT Star Trek weapon tech would be virtually useless.

Loser: BattleTech - The space tech is awesome, but too realistic to go up against any of the listed options.

[Braedin]

hey any ship that can take a nuke on the hull and keep going gets my vote BSG

[Durahl]

If we go by raw firepower I'd probably settle with Gunbuster and it's sequel Diebuster.

In the first Series, which I liked because of it's "realism", they built a Black Hole Bomb by stripping Australia from all it's ressources to compress Jupiter close enough to it's Schwarzschield Radius then setting it of by triggering a Chainreaction caused by one of the Reactors of Gunbuster 1 and 2 ( the 2 could merge ).

The Bomb erased the entire core of the Milky Way including the Parasite Enemy that posed a threat to humanity and pretty much everything else giving the cause to this dramatic decision.

The second Series went kinda over board with the powers the Gunbusters had so it's probably not such a good example.

They had the ability to grab, teleport and then actually throw an entire planet at the enemy using the power of thought which nullified the boundaries of possibility or the running gag of the series with the main protagonist beeing able to split everything starting by apples, plates, pans, fridges, monsters the size of a continent, planets and... who would have guessed it? Black Holes.

Nontheless... Beeing able to play PingPong with Planets is kinda a neat feat, huh?

[Waladil]

The winner: the denizens of the webcomic Schlock Mercenary.

At least one other person mentioned it, but here's my reasoning:

Why: Ships powered by M/AM reactions from neutronium, encapsulated in a spherical reactor. Artificial gravity is both commonplace and weaponized: the Schlock Mercenary "beam weapon" is called a gravy gun and will simply rip your ship apart. Large ships can be much more controlled with their gravy guns, to the point of manipulating individual crew members.

So we can immediately be sure that they'd beat Star Trek, who clearly have no fine control over gravity, considering that a salvo of energy weapons will knock a bridge crew around.

AIs are commonplace, and typically control warships. Most AIs are sufficiently advanced that they'd outmaneuver organic-controlled ships by several orders of magnitude. Orders to these AIs tend to be general, because by the time you try to give them a specific order, they've already completed it. ("Destroy any hostiles that get in range" rather than "Shoot their shield generators")

Nanotech is widely used, to "boost" people phyiscally, and as medical technology, allowing people to be brought back from the edge of death, or even from death itself if their minds were previously backed up. (They can do that, too!)

FTL travel (as of now in the webcomic) is almost entirely by the teraport, which is a classic wormhole drive, instant transport from A to B -- but it doesn't require the long charge time of the BattleTech universe, instead consuming a small amount of matter and turning it into energy. This method has several key advantages: It is both the FTL drive, and the Star Trek transporters, except with instant transit in both methods. (There is a way to jam teraports, but it is unlikely the other races in this conflict would figure it out.)

Probably, the only one of your listed options that would have a good chance is certain races from W40K.

[Ilithi Dragon]

Shredhead, on 16 June 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

[magic /= technology]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke.

Magic is just another form of technology, in stories often involving mystical incantations and forces and energies that don't exist in the real world, but it is just another form of technology, and if you took your house and its contents and a generator back to 908 CE, you'd be a high wizard.


Also, you're committing a fallacy of inconsistency in your usage of definitions. In defining technology, you are requiring that for anything to be considered technology, it must conform to ALL the definitions of technology (such as having been derived from the use of scientific knowledge, which cannot be said for all technology that has existed; windmills and watermills and medieval forges were not developed using the Scientific Method or knowledge derived from said method), but then when trying to claim that Star Wars is futuristic, you require that it only conform to ONE definition of futuristic (having a futuristic appearance or being advanced ahead of its time (the latter of which is a rather arbitrary definition that doesn't work for a civilization that existed thousands of years ago)).

This is a logical fallacy of a double standard. If something must meet all of the definitions of a term to be classified under that term, then Star Wars is not futuristic, and so is not Science Fiction. If something only needs to meet one of the definitions of a term to be classified under that term, then magic is just another form of technology, and there is no difference between "invert the polarity of the quantum phase inducer matrix" and "replace the good life force powering the heart stone gem with an evil soul" (and, indeed, there is no functional difference between either - they are nonsense phrases that have no real-world or scientific meaning, and are both describing inverting the polarity / changing the life force energy from good to evil of the quantum phase inducer matrix / heart stone gem), and your definition of Science Fiction falls apart.

[Ilithi Dragon]

Waladil, on 16 June 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

So we can immediately be sure that they'd beat Star Trek, who clearly have no fine control over gravity, considering that a salvo of energy weapons will knock a bridge crew around.

Don't know much about Schlock Mercenary, but I will say that this is not correct - Trek has demonstrated fine control of gravity / subspace on countless occasions. Their shields are gravity-based, and we see fine manipulations with tractor beams, and precise placement and control of micro-scale tractor beams, and of forcefields (again, gravity shields), and especially on the holodeck (Trek holograms are textured forcefields overlaid with light projections). Their FTL drives are purely gravity/subspace manipulation-based, and even their STL drives use artificial mass reduction through gravity/subspace manipulation. Their computers use subspace manipulation to allow for FTL computing, their inertial dampening systems use gravity to dampen acceleration forces (we see the ship shudder under sudden, unplanned accelerations, but we see far worse when the IDFs are offline, and we don't see anyone sieved through the bulkheads in a fine paste when they accelerate at thousands of g's). Their shields have also been shown to block gravitational fields.

Again, I don't know much about Schlock Mercenary, I've heard of it but never read any of the comics, but Trek wouldn't be quite so helpless as the above statement implies, and their primary ship-board power source is a high-output M/AM reactor with near-100% efficiency, so they shouldn't be too far behind SM in terms of power generation, at least pound-for-pound.


EDIT: Oh, and Trek has its own gravity-based weapons. They are not the primary weapons of the Federation, but the Borg make significant use of them, and the Federation does have special torpedo ordnance that employs them, namely the graviton torpedo (which gives a yield comparable to a souped-up photon torpedo / M/AM warhead), and the tri-cobalt torpedo, which is a borderline subspace weapon with the potential to create gravity distortion fields so strong that they can rip holes in subspace if dialed up high enough (something that the Federation can achieve with just two torpedoes).

Edited by Ilithi Dragon, 16 June 2012 - 09:33 AM.

[Waladil]

When I said "fine control" I meant "One ship's gravity weapons not only suspended certain people in midair while leaving other people unaffected, but also caused forcibly moved some of the suspended people's appendages" or "rattling a ship's hull such that the hull spoke, sending an audio message to the crew inside." (Both of those were from the same ship, as a show of strength.)

EDIT: and while gravity is the primary form of beam weaponry, plasma is common, too, especially if you really want that nice hot "THOOOM." Also torpedoes... or more often "terapedoes" that teraport AND explode. And talk, on occasion. Anitmatter is also often weaponized. Those who use AM weaponry on an infantry scale are considered insane... because they have no regard for their own safety, carrying around antimatter.

Trek definitely wouldn't be able to keep up in terms of speed: attempting to set up a TAD (teraport area denial) is a highly complicated system that requires intense knowledge, and has only been developed or improved by the inventor of the teraport himself. Maybe if the Federation captured an intact teraport, took it apart, and had a couple years to study it, but not within the timeframe of a "who would win." (Because allowing reverse-engineering would allow waaayy too much abuse.)

Nanites in the Trekiverse are really only used by the Borg, rather than commonplace boosts among soldiers, legal or otherwise. Plus they're literally capable of turning people into death machines. Actually, that's the current storyline in SM, one person brought back to life and mentally rewritten by highly invasive nanotech, turning him into a one-man army.

EDIT 2: Out of fairness, I would like to point out one thing that Trek has the advantage: Replicators. The best SM has are fabbers, which do largely the same thing BUT take a lot of know-how and are large and expensive, and are still slower than replicators.

Edited by Waladil, 16 June 2012 - 09:55 AM.

[Catamount]

Ilithi Dragon, on 16 June 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

Also, you're committing a fallacy of inconsistency in your usage of definitions. In defining technology, you are requiring that for anything to be considered technology, it must conform to ALL the definitions of technology (such as having been derived from the use of scientific knowledge, which cannot be said for all technology that has existed; windmills and watermills and medieval forges were not developed using the Scientific Method or knowledge derived from said method)

Windmills, plows, the bow and arrow, the crossbow, the sword, early medicine (alchemy was the precursor to chemistry, but was not scientific in method), the sailing ship, the firearm, gliders, poisons, the catapult and trebuchet, once could go on and on with technologies that weren't created using the scientific method.

Furthemore, who's to say magic, such as in LOTR wasn't derived from a scientific methodology, but an impulse engine in Star Trek was? We have no idea how LOTR discovered/developed specific magical techniques, anymore than we're ever given the back story on how the impulse engine came about (for all we know it was whisked into existence by a mystical being; it's not likely, but it's never been said that this isn't true).

Besides, the whole "one uses tech while the other magic" fails as an absolute definition for a whole host of other reasons, failings, none of which have been explained.

@Waladil

Regarding Schlock Mercenary, it sounds like an interesting franchise worth some discussion. I'm in and out today here and there, so I lack the time for any real research, but since you already know a fair about about them from the sounds of it, maybe you can give a rundown of examples of weapon yields, either in stated numbers, or examples of destruction?