posted
SF satire isn't SF? Does that mean that The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy isn't science fiction?
(Blatent self-promotion: Another good example of SF comedy can be found by following the link attached to the bottom of my post. )
I think one of the problems is that SF is an incredibly broad category, one which can accomodate a vast range of subject material. It doesn't help that the genre has been marginalized for as long as it's been around, despite producing some of the justifiably "great novels" of the 20th century, or that any SF author who writes something so undeniably wonderful that it can't be ignored is immediately labeled as something, anything other than a science fiction author by the press. "Oh, it isn't fantasy, it's magical realism." Etc.
Saiyanman Benjita
...in 2012. This time, why not the worst?
Member # 122
posted
Okay, so I generalized the world of comic books, sorry. However I stand that SF satire should be classified with comedy (yes, another broad subject, but comedy seems to have sub-genres that are identifiable and distinct.) Superman (Yes, I know he's an alien, but so is Marvin the Martian. Upon later description of SF, he doesn't seem believable.) has no real science base to him(See Xentric's definition--Superpowers from the earth's yellow sun doesn't seem rational, does it?). The super powers in the comic book realm seem less scientific than just plain fictional (unless the basis is something like bionic/cybornetic implants or something like that. As for the fantasy thing, I didn't mean magic fantasy, I meant more into the fictional aspect.). How can anyone believe a radioactive spider can be a scientific base for a super power? Every story has some sort of science in it, but that doesn't make it Sci-fi per se (if it did, I'd have to consider Road Runner cartoons sci-fi.)
Science fiction to me has always been based on the science in the story, or a story on how we see ourselves changed by the advancements we make, or could have made(alternate timeline theory). Star trek is based on the advancement of technologies to where we can explore the galaxy in days, instead of millenia. Its technology seemed believable to the extent of copying it in our devices today. Star Wars was a light show of technology advancments to hold an ordinary war on a galactic scale. 1984 showed us how the human race could be controlled by a central power (and it's possible with the satellite and cable technologies we have today.).
I'll even concede some comics and cartoons are Sci-Fi. Gundam Wing is based on the advancements that we can create giant robots to win our wars for us. Quest for Odin is based on an interstellar transport to find a lost world. Vehicle Voltron has the same basis as Battlestar Gallactica, the search for a new Earth using interstellar transport (and of course the giant kick-ass robot). However, such cartoons as Dragonball Z seem to have powers and aliens, yet are not based on science or magic, as much as superhuman strength. I wouldn't consider these to be sci-fi (and this is where I classify Superman). I think this should have its own genre (comic-book fiction?). As for Spawn, wasn't his powers given to him by the devil? And isn't Blade like half-human, half-vampire? Where's the science in those?
Nimrod- for the record, I believe Vampires, werewolves, demons, angels (I am religious, but still.), and the such to still be considered fantasy characters, since they have no scientific base to them(this goes for telepathy, ESP, telekenesis, pyrokenesis, since these haven't been proven by science {nor probably will ever}, and mostly are based in the fantasy world). As for the Aliens, well that can be argued. I guess it all depends on the context to them (A story based in an alien world with the setting of something like "The hobbit" might be fantasy, but a story about aliens coming to Earth is definitely sci-fi)
And as for the Geordi & Ro thing, they didn't fall through the floors because the producers didn't want them to. I, like all realistic people was laughing my ass off at the fact they can throw someone through the bulk head, but not fall through the floor themselves. Sol, I agree with you on that last part. Didn't Asimov and Sagan author books on real science that were labeled as sci-fi because of the history of the authors?
------------------ Well I'm a Bada$$ cowboy living in a cowboy day wicky-wicky-wak yo yo bang bang me and Artemus Clydefrog go save Selma Hayek from the big metal spider Wicky-wicky-wak wicky-wicky-wicky-wak Bada$$ cowboy from the West Si-yiide
[This message has been edited by Saiyanman Benjita (edited June 06, 2000).]
posted
I think that when you say science fiction you specifically mean hard science fiction with perhaps a smattering of the softer stuff, excluding a certain amount of "science fantasy". (Under which falls, I would argue, the examples of ST and SW.)
Of course, this is why the term speculative fiction was invented, to provide an umbrella term for any story that is told in an environment suitably alien to our own. Using this sort of classification, we can see why works as different as The Hobbit and A Scanner Darkly get grouped together, while the latest Clancy gets to parade around as military drama.
Saiyanman Benjita
...in 2012. This time, why not the worst?
Member # 122
posted
No, more including the certain amount of "Science Fantasy" Like ST, SW, (B5, Sliders, etc.)
As for the other classifications you mentioned, I agree.
------------------ Well I'm a Bada$$ cowboy living in a cowboy day wicky-wicky-wak yo yo bang bang me and Artemus Clydefrog go save Selma Hayek from the big metal spider Wicky-wicky-wak wicky-wicky-wicky-wak Bada$$ cowboy from the West Si-yiide
"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."
I agree with this, BUT to me fantasy in this case is the synonym of imagination.
------------------ "Do you want to be President?" "Yes." "Put you hand on the book and say 'I do'." "I do." "Good, done. Let's eat!"
)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
