"Why do people think Star Wars is sci-fi when it so clearly isn't?"

[David Johnston]

Why do people think Star Wars is sci-fi when it so clearly isn't?
David Johnston
Answered 22m ago

Because that “when it so clearly isn’t” bit? It’s felgercarb. It’s gate
keeping piffle. There is nothing “clear” about Star Wars’s
classification as something other other than sci-fi. Why isn’t it
science fiction?

Because it has psychic powers? So did Star Trek. So did Stranger in a
Strange Land. So did thousands of other works that nobody questioned
were science fiction. Actually Star Wars made more of an effort to
provide it’s psychic powers with a pseudo-science justification than
pretty much any of them.

Because it has sword fights? So did Dune. And so did Flash Gordon and
John Carter of Mars. Funny story, but Star Wars originated out of
Lucas’s frustrated desire to make a reboot of Flash Gordon and actually
resulted in Dino De Laurentis making the film Lucas wanted to make.

Now it is true that Star Wars was a self-consciously retro work of
science-fiction even in the 70s. But I can’t take seriously the idea
that a franchise that borrowed so extensively from the Foundation
series, Dune, Lensman, and Flash Gordon, is “clearly” not sci-fi. Pull
the other one.

[Kevrob]

Post by David Johnston
Why do people think Star Wars is sci-fi when it so clearly isn't?
David Johnston
Answered 22m ago
Because that “when it so clearly isn’t” bit? It’s felgercarb. It’s gate
keeping piffle. There is nothing “clear” about Star Wars’s
classification as something other other than sci-fi. Why isn’t it
science fiction?

SW may not be "science fiction," but it's definitely "sci-fi."

http://fancyclopedia.org/Sci-fi

:)

--
Kevin R
a.a #2310

[Quadibloc]

At first, I looked at your post, and was puzzled. There didn't seem to be an
earlier post in this thread that you were answering. How could you answer the
title of your own post, since that was set by you, not someone else.

However, the first few lines of your post made it obvious what was going on. You
had answered someone's question on Quora, and you were now sharing that answer
here with us.

So I went there and looked up the question, and gave my own answer. I know some
people make a distinction between "sci-fi" and science fiction. I don't. I see
sci-fi as an abbreviation for science fiction; of course there is such a thing
as "good science fiction" and "serious science fiction", and sci-fi tends to be
used most often to describe Hollywood movies that are neither, but I see this as
connotation, not denotation.

So here is my answer, where I try to really hit the details:

(begin quote)
It’s true that the Force plays an important role in Star Wars.

As well, why are people using light sabers to fight with, when they’ve got
blasters?

Sword fights and magic - clearly it’s really fantasy with only a surface veneer
to make it look futuristic.

Well, that’s one point of view.

Other people will instead say that Star Wars obviously meets the definition of
science fiction. A science fiction story is one in which at least one of the
following:

- advanced technology,
- natural phenomena not yet encountered by people (such as an asteroid hitting the Earth, intelligent alien life forms)

appears.

Star Wars has both of them.

In the first movie, Star Wars (1977), now also known as A New Hope, we see the
following examples of advanced technology, among others:

- a fast-moving “landspeeder” which apparently uses antigravity to hover above the ground,
- electronic binoculars that use video technology to achieve a high magnification,
- highly intelligent robots, called “droids”,
- spaceships capable of travelling at speeds beyond that of light
- a hand-held plasma torch that somehow limits its beam to a definite range
- a ray-weapon with sufficient power to blow up an entire planet

and we also see examples of advanced alien life.

So of course it’s science fiction; it is fiction that exhibits science and
technology in advance of what we currently have, and/or natural phenomena which
we have not yet encountered.

That it may not be good science fiction - that it is “really” Tolkien-esque
fantasy with the serial numbers filed off - may also be true, but that is
irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is science fiction at all.

There is a famous editorial by John W. Campbell where he said the kind of
science fiction story he would not publish was the kind which was really a
Western in disguise, with Martians taking the place of the indigenous peoples of
North America, a trusty ray-gun taking the place of a trusty six-shooter, and so
on. Escapist fantasy dressed up as science fiction doesn’t do what many people
see as the function of science fiction: to get people to ask questions about the
implications of technological advances, or contact with extraterrestrial life,
and so on and so forth. To them, The Andromeda Strain was science fiction, but
Fantastic Voyage, not so much, as they reject this kind of “science fiction”
from the field.
(end quote)

John Savard

[Jack Bohn]

And what's this "Star Wars clearly isn't a musical" balderdash?

Why isn't it a musical? Because it's about training a knight to protect a princess? So is "Camelot." Because it has villains willing to kill whole populations? So does "The Sound of Music." Because it's science fiction? So is "My Fair Lady."

Wait, is Star Wars science fiction? Rather than throwing it out for any alleged crimes it commits against the genre, I would say there has to be something that needs to be affirmatively done to be a part of the genre. One such thing it could do would be to express parts of the story (character, plot, setting, etc.) in semi-diegetic song -- I mean to explore a change (in technology, philosophy, or sociology, etc.) and what difference that would make. To say it makes none would be cheating. (To what extent are the cartoons "The Three Robotic Stooges" or "Gilligan's Planet" science fiction?) To say it recreates the conditions of a previous storied age may be a cheat. GALAXY and ASTOUNDING rail against space-westerns, but w have seen them, various historical empires and feudal states, and myths such as Orpheus & Eurydice retold. To the extent that a landspeeder is no different from a dune buggy, it is not a sci-fi device. To the extent that droids are Japanese peasants in metal suits, they are not sf. When it's acknowledged that they are autonomous technological devices, and a trade in them has technological solutions to restraining them from orders and alliances to previous masters; restraining bolts and memory wipes; with the only way for a droid to "overcome" this tech is a bit of "social engineering" to prevent it being applied, that is a science fiction view.

[David Johnston]

Post by Jack Bohn
And what's this "Star Wars clearly isn't a musical" balderdash?
Why isn't it a musical? Because it's about training a knight to
protect a princess? So is "Camelot." Because it has villains
willing to kill whole populations? So does "The Sound of Music."
Because it's science fiction? So is "My Fair Lady."

Um...no it isn't. But did you know that a Back to the Future musical is
coming out next month?

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by David Johnston

Post by Jack Bohn
And what's this "Star Wars clearly isn't a musical" balderdash?
Why isn't it a musical? Because it's about training a knight to
protect a princess? So is "Camelot." Because it has villains
willing to kill whole populations? So does "The Sound of Music."
Because it's science fiction? So is "My Fair Lady."

Um...no it isn't. But did you know that a Back to the Future musical is
coming out next month?

Really? Who's writing the music?

[Quadibloc]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by David Johnston

Post by Jack Bohn
And what's this "Star Wars clearly isn't a musical" balderdash?
Why isn't it a musical? Because it's about training a knight to
protect a princess? So is "Camelot." Because it has villains
willing to kill whole populations? So does "The Sound of Music."
Because it's science fiction? So is "My Fair Lady."

Um...no it isn't. But did you know that a Back to the Future musical is
coming out next month?

Really? Who's writing the music?

Really. But it's in the United Kingdom for now.

https://www.backtothefuturemusical.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future_(musical)

Alan Silvestri and Glen Baillard.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

Post by Jack Bohn
And what's this "Star Wars clearly isn't a musical" balderdash?

The only source music in the first Star Wars movie was in the Cantina Band
sequence, and it didn't have lyrics.

In the other Star Wars movies, the only source music I can think of is from a
parade involving Jar-Jar Binks, and there were also no lyrics in that.

So Star Wars is clearly not a musical. At no point are the characters singing at
each other.

John Savard

[David Johnston]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Jack Bohn
And what's this "Star Wars clearly isn't a musical" balderdash?

The only source music in the first Star Wars movie was in the Cantina Band
sequence, and it didn't have lyrics.
In the other Star Wars movies, the only source music I can think of is from a
parade involving Jar-Jar Binks, and there were also no lyrics in that.
So Star Wars is clearly not a musical. At no point are the characters singing at
each other.
John Savard

You need new batteries in your sarcasm detector. And you missed his
point which was that a work can't just be defined as part of a genre
based on lacking the elements of another genre. So yes, Star Wars isn't
a musical because it lacks songs that makes a show a musical. His
argument is that in order to be classed as science fiction it has to
have elements that are more than cosmetically science fictional.

[Jack Bohn]

Post by David Johnston
You need new batteries in your sarcasm detector. And you missed his
point which was that a work can't just be defined as part of a genre
based on lacking the elements of another genre. So yes, Star Wars isn't
a musical because it lacks songs that makes a show a musical. His
argument is that in order to be classed as science fiction it has to
have elements that are more than cosmetically science fictional.

I hope my snarkasm was not taken amiss. I've convinced myself that everybody has agreed to use the silliest possible arguments in the political threads, just to get my goat, and I let them flow by, but to see it about the subject of the group...

Hugo Gernsback invented science fiction; not just the name, but the genre. AMAZING STORIES, while collecting existing examples, was also a magazine-sized hole that had to be filled each month with science fiction -- or something that looked like science fiction. (That's the thing about commercial fiction: it might be art, but the one thing it *has to be* is at the printers on Tuesday.) I wonder if I'd have the stamina to read through early Gernsback publications to find authors who'd rewritten their standard stories to get money from this new market. Hmm... although "looks like sf, but it's not" still predates him, with Barsoom being a pseudo-Africa where Burroughs doesn't have to worry about being told pseudo-tigers are not native to it.

[Jack Bohn]

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:33:40 -0800 (PST), Jack Bohn 

Hmm... although "looks like sf, but it's not" still predates him, with Barsoom being a pseudo-Africa where Burroughs doesn't have to worry about being told pseudo-tigers are not native to it. 

So far as I can recall, the closest the Tarzan novels set in Africa 
(as opposed to the one set in Pellucidar) come to a "tiger" is a 
small, striped /lion/ with large teeth, which is found in a secluded 
land which also has dinosaurs running about -- IOW, a Lost World. 
Panthers, yes. Leopards, yes. Tigers, no. Unless my memory is failing 
me again, of course.

I read (unless my mind has completely made it up) that "tiger" was changed to "lioness" after the first edition, leaving that species with a mangani word for each sex.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Jack Bohn
I read (unless my mind has completely made it up) that "tiger" was changed to
"lioness" after the first edition, leaving that species with a mangani word for
each sex.

That is correct. (Or at least I read it too, but I know I didn't make it up.)
Although the mistake may have been in the original serial publication of Tarzan
of the Apes, and _not_ in the first hardcover edition. In fact, I think that's
more likely.

It's possible, though, that there was something else about the behavior of some
animal in the Burroughs Tarzan novels that led the poster to call it a pseudo-
tiger.

John Savard

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 11:49:05 -0800 (PST), Jack Bohn

Post by Jack Bohn

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:33:40 -0800 (PST), Jack Bohn 

Hmm... although "looks like sf, but it's not" still predates him, with Barsoom being a pseudo-Africa where Burroughs doesn't have to worry about being told pseudo-tigers are not native to it. 

So far as I can recall, the closest the Tarzan novels set in Africa 
(as opposed to the one set in Pellucidar) come to a "tiger" is a 
small, striped /lion/ with large teeth, which is found in a secluded 
land which also has dinosaurs running about -- IOW, a Lost World. 
Panthers, yes. Leopards, yes. Tigers, no. Unless my memory is failing 
me again, of course.

I read (unless my mind has completely made it up) that "tiger" was changed to "lioness" after the first edition, leaving that species with a mangani word for each sex.

Now /that/ would make sense, as different mangani terms for male and
female lions does seem a bit ... excessive.

I'm not sure about Barsoom being entirely developed as a
"psuedo-Africa", although, snce this criticism would have come very
early, it is possible.

[Jack Bohn]

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 11:49:05 -0800 (PST), Jack Bohn

Post by Jack Bohn

So far as I can recall, the closest the Tarzan novels set in Africa 
(as opposed to the one set in Pellucidar) come to a "tiger" is a 
small, striped /lion/ with large teeth, which is found in a secluded 
land which also has dinosaurs running about -- IOW, a Lost World. 
Panthers, yes. Leopards, yes. Tigers, no. Unless my memory is failing 
me again, of course.

I read (unless my mind has completely made it up) that "tiger" was changed to "lioness" after the first edition, leaving that species with a mangani word for each sex.

Now /that/ would make sense, as different mangani terms for male and
female lions does seem a bit ... excessive.

*whew* I was afraid you'd point out the species has an english word for each sex. And there's also "tigress." Although not a word for a female zebra, though it's not hard to construct a phrase to express the concept of a female zebra. Hmm... I wonder if there is a way to chart the variation in names versus sexual dimorphism and domestication. I'd probably nominate bees as giving the most along those two axes and slowest to get recognition of their internal lives. I wonder if breeding horses being the rich's hobby is responsible for us having names for the masculine, feminine, and neutered, despite them being functionally identical -- that is, we don't depend on them for milk or eggs, and each has won the Kentucky Derby. But that's a digression.

Post by Paul S Person
I'm not sure about Barsoom being entirely developed as a
"psuedo-Africa", although, snce this criticism would have come very
early, it is possible.

It depends on how much antigravity, radium pistols, and Tharks can be seen as riverboats, carbines, and native tribes under different names. Strange religions, thieves, pirates, and Lost Cities in both. I'd have to reread if the headless bodies and bodiless heads of _Chessmen of Mars_ are more worked out than the headless bodies in Pliny. I'd never gotten to _The Synthetic Men of Mars_.

[Juho Julkunen]

Post by Jack Bohn
I'd never gotten to _The Synthetic Men of Mars_.

Yeah, I don't think Tarzan faced too many clone armies.

[Paul S Person]

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 16:14:19 -0800 (PST), Jack Bohn

Post by Jack Bohn

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 11:49:05 -0800 (PST), Jack Bohn

Post by Jack Bohn

So far as I can recall, the closest the Tarzan novels set in Africa 
(as opposed to the one set in Pellucidar) come to a "tiger" is a 
small, striped /lion/ with large teeth, which is found in a secluded 
land which also has dinosaurs running about -- IOW, a Lost World. 
Panthers, yes. Leopards, yes. Tigers, no. Unless my memory is failing 
me again, of course.

I read (unless my mind has completely made it up) that "tiger" was changed to "lioness" after the first edition, leaving that species with a mangani word for each sex.

Now /that/ would make sense, as different mangani terms for male and
female lions does seem a bit ... excessive.

*whew* I was afraid you'd point out the species has an english word for each sex. And there's also "tigress." Although not a word for a female zebra, though it's not hard to construct a phrase to express the concept of a female zebra. Hmm... I wonder if there is a way to chart the variation in names versus sexual dimorphism and domestication. I'd probably nominate bees as giving the most along those two axes and slowest to get recognition of their internal lives. I wonder if breeding horses being the rich's hobby is responsible for us having names for the masculine, feminine, and neutered, despite them being functionally identical -- that is, we don't depend on them for milk or eggs, and each has won the Kentucky Derby. But that's a digression.

So far as I can tell, all other females are either "female" or "she".

As in "my she", "the she", "a she", each referring to a specific
whatever-it-is.

Post by Jack Bohn

Post by Paul S Person
I'm not sure about Barsoom being entirely developed as a
"psuedo-Africa", although, snce this criticism would have come very
early, it is possible.

It depends on how much antigravity, radium pistols, and Tharks can be seen as riverboats, carbines, and native tribes under different names. Strange religions, thieves, pirates, and Lost Cities in both. I'd have to reread if the headless bodies and bodiless heads of _Chessmen of Mars_ are more worked out than the headless bodies in Pliny. I'd never gotten to _The Synthetic Men of Mars_.

Too bad.

To miss any of Barsoom is, indeed, a tragedy.

Or any other work of Burroughs, for that matter.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Jack Bohn

Post by David Johnston
You need new batteries in your sarcasm detector. And you missed his
point which was that a work can't just be defined as part of a genre
based on lacking the elements of another genre. So yes, Star Wars isn't
a musical because it lacks songs that makes a show a musical. His
argument is that in order to be classed as science fiction it has to
have elements that are more than cosmetically science fictional.

I hope my snarkasm was not taken amiss. I've convinced myself that everybody has agreed to use the silliest possible arguments in the political threads, just to get my goat, and I let them flow by, but to see it about the subject of the group...
Hugo Gernsback invented science fiction; not just the name, but the genre. AMAZING STORIES, while collecting existing examples, was also a magazine-sized hole that had to be filled each month with science fiction -- or something that looked like science fiction. (That's the thing about commercial fiction: it might be art, but the one thing it *has to be* is at the printers on Tuesday.) I wonder if I'd have the stamina to read through early Gernsback publications to find authors who'd rewritten their standard stories to get money from this new market. Hmm... although "looks like sf, but it's not" still predates him, with Barsoom being a pseudo-Africa where Burroughs doesn't have to worry about being told pseudo-tigers are not native to it.

Wow, Jules Verne and H. G. Wells would be surprised to find out that
their wild stories in the 1800s were not Science Fiction. An amazing
submarine that could cruise underneath the depths of the ocean for
months at a time. A mysterious island where animals were being gene
edited. A space ship to the moon. A man building a machine that could
travel forwards in time thousands of years.

Science Fiction has been with us for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Hugo Gernsback may have coined the name but the spirit was already there.

Lynn

[Peter Trei]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Jack Bohn

Post by David Johnston
You need new batteries in your sarcasm detector. And you missed his
point which was that a work can't just be defined as part of a genre
based on lacking the elements of another genre. So yes, Star Wars isn't
a musical because it lacks songs that makes a show a musical. His
argument is that in order to be classed as science fiction it has to
have elements that are more than cosmetically science fictional.

I hope my snarkasm was not taken amiss. I've convinced myself that everybody has agreed to use the silliest possible arguments in the political threads, just to get my goat, and I let them flow by, but to see it about the subject of the group...
Hugo Gernsback invented science fiction; not just the name, but the genre. AMAZING STORIES, while collecting existing examples, was also a magazine-sized hole that had to be filled each month with science fiction -- or something that looked like science fiction. (That's the thing about commercial fiction: it might be art, but the one thing it *has to be* is at the printers on Tuesday.) I wonder if I'd have the stamina to read through early Gernsback publications to find authors who'd rewritten their standard stories to get money from this new market. Hmm... although "looks like sf, but it's not" still predates him, with Barsoom being a pseudo-Africa where Burroughs doesn't have to worry about being told pseudo-tigers are not native to it.

Wow, Jules Verne and H. G. Wells would be surprised to find out that
their wild stories in the 1800s were not Science Fiction. An amazing
submarine that could cruise underneath the depths of the ocean for
months at a time. A mysterious island where animals were being gene
edited. A space ship to the moon. A man building a machine that could
travel forwards in time thousands of years.
Science Fiction has been with us for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Hugo Gernsback may have coined the name but the spirit was already there.

A lot of people identify Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein' (1818) as the first
work in the field.

pt

[Quadibloc]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Jack Bohn
Hugo Gernsback invented science fiction; not just the name, but the genre.

Wow, Jules Verne and H. G. Wells would be surprised to find out that
their wild stories in the 1800s were not Science Fiction.

Since Hugo Gernsback reprinted some of those to fill his pages, he would have
hardly thought that was the case.

I think what is meant by "invented the genre" is that he invented it *as a*
genre. Instead of stories being written about which someone would note that it
happened to be about the future, stories would henceforth be written to belog to
a well-known category, like Westerns or detective fiction, rather than just
stories which happened to have the characteristics we now associate with the
genre of science fiction.

John Savard

[Jack Bohn]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Jack Bohn
I hope my snarkasm was not taken amiss. I've convinced myself that everybody has agreed to use the silliest possible arguments in the political threads, just to get my goat, and I let them flow by, but to see it about the subject of the group...
Hugo Gernsback invented science fiction; not just the name, but the genre.

Wow, Jules Verne and H. G. Wells would be surprised to find out that
their wild stories in the 1800s were not Science Fiction.

Wells at least would be relieved to be rid of the association with the American pulps that had gotten reprint rights. I'd have to pin down a cite, but it might be from the '40s, meaning even the Campbellian Reformation held no significance for him. Verne is easier, I just have to check the French spelling, and any reference to him will tell me he wrote _voyages extraordinaires_; if he had to invent a way to get to the site he wished to see, he would, but if it was just a path for a Journey to the Center of the Earth, or spending Five Weeks in a Balloon, or if regularly scheduled transportation was sufficient to go Around the World in Eighty Days, that was fine.

Post by Lynn McGuire
Science Fiction has been with us for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Hugo Gernsback may have coined the name but the spirit was already there.

The desire to tell or hear a weird tale exists. To what extent a strain of it can be separated out and called "science fiction" is the debate.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Jack Bohn

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Jack Bohn
I hope my snarkasm was not taken amiss. I've convinced myself that everybody has agreed to use the silliest possible arguments in the political threads, just to get my goat, and I let them flow by, but to see it about the subject of the group...
Hugo Gernsback invented science fiction; not just the name, but the genre.

Wow, Jules Verne and H. G. Wells would be surprised to find out that
their wild stories in the 1800s were not Science Fiction.

Wells at least would be relieved to be rid of the association with the American pulps that had gotten reprint rights. I'd have to pin down a cite, but it might be from the '40s, meaning even the Campbellian Reformation held no significance for him. Verne is easier, I just have to check the French spelling, and any reference to him will tell me he wrote _voyages extraordinaires_; if he had to invent a way to get to the site he wished to see, he would, but if it was just a path for a Journey to the Center of the Earth, or spending Five Weeks in a Balloon, or if regularly scheduled transportation was sufficient to go Around the World in Eighty Days, that was fine.

Post by Lynn McGuire
Science Fiction has been with us for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Hugo Gernsback may have coined the name but the spirit was already there.

The desire to tell or hear a weird tale exists. To what extent a strain of it can be separated out and called "science fiction" is the debate.

The presence of a scientist, perhaps. Which Frankenstein
was, admittedly.

Mary Shelley also wrote about alchemy, I think.

We might consider a genre to be defined by there being
a magazine of it.

By some accounts that just leaves the writer's problem
of getting money out of Hugo Gernsback.

[Peter Trei]

Post by Jack Bohn

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Jack Bohn
I hope my snarkasm was not taken amiss. I've convinced myself that everybody has agreed to use the silliest possible arguments in the political threads, just to get my goat, and I let them flow by, but to see it about the subject of the group...
Hugo Gernsback invented science fiction; not just the name, but the genre.

Wow, Jules Verne and H. G. Wells would be surprised to find out that
their wild stories in the 1800s were not Science Fiction.

Wells at least would be relieved to be rid of the association with the American pulps that had gotten reprint rights. I'd have to pin down a cite, but it might be from the '40s, meaning even the Campbellian Reformation held no significance for him.

Campbell became editor of Astounding in 1938. HG Wells lived until 1946.
There's an eight year overlap.

Gernsback's Amazing was reprinting Wells from its first issue, in 1928.

pt

[Joe Bernstein]

Post by Jack Bohn

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Jack Bohn
I hope my snarkasm was not taken amiss. I've convinced myself that
everybody has agreed to use the silliest possible arguments in the
political threads, just to get my goat, and I let them flow by, but to
see it about the subject of the group...
Hugo Gernsback invented science fiction; not just the name, but the genre.

Wow, Jules Verne and H. G. Wells would be surprised to find out that
their wild stories in the 1800s were not Science Fiction.

[No, they wouldn't. This has since moved on.]

Post by Jack Bohn

Post by Lynn McGuire
Science Fiction has been with us for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Hugo Gernsback may have coined the name but the spirit was already there.

The desire to tell or hear a weird tale exists. To what extent a
strain of it can be separated out and called "science fiction" is the
debate.

At this point in a genre-defining discussion I usually trot out my
distinction among modes, traditions and market categories. Gernsback
certainly invented the market category of science fiction; I don't
see any room for doubt about that. Were scientific romances even
marketed *as* scientific romances? - did ads for those books feature
any such term, or promise specifically scientific-seeming action?

There's also no doubt that the tradition of science fiction includes
Wells, Verne and Shelley, sometimes even Swift. But that's post
facto tradition. The tradition of fantasy trilogies clearly goes
back to Tolkien, but Tolkien didn't intend to write a fantasy trilogy
at all. [1] Similarly, none of Swift, Shelley, Verne or Wells
thought they were writing science fiction, though Wells lived long
enough to see the term coined. Traditions that know themselves as
"science fiction" all go back to Gernsback.

I don't much like working in modes, but Wells, Verne and Shelley
certainly belong in any reasonably defined science fiction mode; I
suspect Swift does too. My tongue-in-cheek candidate for the first
science fiction story by mode terms is the Gospel of Nicodemus. This
is most famous today as a seminal anti-Semitic document, and is well
known to be a patchup of two originally separate texts, but in fact,
the way it survives as a unit, it depicts the Crucifixion and
Resurrection as they would seem to, and as they would affect, one
population after another, both on Earth and in other realms. It's
unequivocal science fiction of the science, as it was termed in those
days (long after Christ), of theology. It's actually significant,
here, that we *are* long after Christ (about the 6th century AD). I
don't see how you can define a science fiction mode that doesn't call
on "science", and that means no science fiction mode can be
immemorial, can be older than human concepts understandable as
science. I've read much of what's older than about 400 BC, and I
wasn't tempted to call *any* of that proto-sf. [2]

All of that said, I no longer have the confidence I did when I came
up with this set that they really cover the field. I'm too used to
thinking with these categories to go further, but I suspect there are
still more ways people intend "genre", being illustrated in this
thread, that this set doesn't capture. Oh well.

Joe Bernstein

[1] Trilogies by Eddison and Peake not only didn't have the same
impact, but were both completed posthumously *after* LotR, and both
authors seem to have intended more books, so only their deaths turned
their series into (potential) trilogies.

[2] Some people make claims for <Gilgamesh>, and although I read that
as either myth or fantasy, it's probably possible to define science
fiction modes that make the epic clearly sf. Similar goes for at
least two works from *between* 400 BC and the 6th century AD,
Lucian's <True History> and Lucan's <Pharsalia>.

[Juho Julkunen]

Post by Jack Bohn

Post by David Johnston
You need new batteries in your sarcasm detector. And you missed his
point which was that a work can't just be defined as part of a genre
based on lacking the elements of another genre. So yes, Star Wars isn't
a musical because it lacks songs that makes a show a musical. His
argument is that in order to be classed as science fiction it has to
have elements that are more than cosmetically science fictional.

I hope my snarkasm was not taken amiss. I've convinced myself that everybody has agreed to use the silliest possible arguments in the political threads, just to get my goat, and I let them flow by, but to see it about the subject of the group...
Hugo Gernsback invented science fiction; not just the name, but the

genre. AMAZING STORIES, while collecting existing examples, was also a
magazine-sized hole that had to be filled each month with science
fiction -- or something that looked like science fiction.

Post by Jack Bohn
Hmm... although "looks like sf, but it's not" still predates him, with

Barsoom being a pseudo-Africa where Burroughs doesn't have to worry
about being told pseudo-tigers are not native to it.

Tarzan is often quite SF-nal, and Barsoom stories are occasionally
properly speculative, like with the seeking missile.

[J. Clarke]

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 10:10:39 -0800, Paul S Person

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:33:40 -0800 (PST), Jack Bohn

Post by Jack Bohn

Post by David Johnston
You need new batteries in your sarcasm detector. And you missed his
point which was that a work can't just be defined as part of a genre
based on lacking the elements of another genre. So yes, Star Wars isn't
a musical because it lacks songs that makes a show a musical. His
argument is that in order to be classed as science fiction it has to
have elements that are more than cosmetically science fictional.

I hope my snarkasm was not taken amiss. I've convinced myself that everybody has agreed to use the silliest possible arguments in the political threads, just to get my goat, and I let them flow by, but to see it about the subject of the group...
Hugo Gernsback invented science fiction; not just the name, but the genre. AMAZING STORIES, while collecting existing examples, was also a magazine-sized hole that had to be filled each month with science fiction -- or something that looked like science fiction. (That's the thing about commercial fiction: it might be art, but the one thing it *has to be* is at the printers on Tuesday.) I wonder if I'd have the stamina to read through early Gernsback publications to find authors who'd rewritten their standard stories to get money from this new market. Hmm... although "looks like sf, but it's not" still predates him, with Barsoom being a pseudo-Africa where Burroughs doesn't have to worry about being told pseudo-tigers are not native to it.

So far as I can recall, the closest the Tarzan novels set in Africa
(as opposed to the one set in Pellucidar) come to a "tiger" is a
small, striped /lion/ with large teeth, which is found in a secluded
land which also has dinosaurs running about -- IOW, a Lost World.
Panthers, yes. Leopards, yes. Tigers, no. Unless my memory is failing
me again, of course.

In any case, the notion that Barsoom is a "pseudo-Africa" doesn't
really fly--I'm pretty sure that antigravity, radium rifles, and
Tharks aren't things that Burroughs would associate with Africa.

[David Johnston]

Post by Jack Bohn

Post by David Johnston
You need new batteries in your sarcasm detector. And you missed his
point which was that a work can't just be defined as part of a genre
based on lacking the elements of another genre. So yes, Star Wars isn't
a musical because it lacks songs that makes a show a musical. His
argument is that in order to be classed as science fiction it has to
have elements that are more than cosmetically science fictional.

I hope my snarkasm was not taken amiss. I've convinced myself that everybody has agreed to use the silliest possible arguments in the political threads, just to get my goat, and I let them flow by, but to see it about the subject of the group...
Hugo Gernsback invented science fiction; not just the name, but the genre. AMAZING STORIES, while collecting existing examples, was also a magazine-sized hole that had to be filled each month with science fiction -- or something that looked like science fiction. (That's the thing about commercial fiction: it might be art, but the one thing it *has to be* is at the printers on Tuesday.) I wonder if I'd have the stamina to read through early Gernsback publications to find authors who'd rewritten their standard stories to get money from this new market. Hmm... although "looks like sf, but it's not" still predates him, with Barsoom being a pseudo-Africa where Burroughs doesn't have to worry about being told pseudo-tigers are not native to it.

If Barsoom wasn't sf, what was it?

[Kevrob]

Post by David Johnston
If Barsoom wasn't sf, what was it?

"Scientific romance" is the term of art, considered widely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_romance

"Planetary Romance" or "Interplanetary Romance" if it
involves travel to other worlds.

http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/planetary_romance

Whatever you call it, if it isn't "science fiction" in "the
pure drop," it's proto-SF. By the time the mysticism gets
wrung out of the genre, real world science undermines the
plausibility of things like FTL travel or time-travel, and
adding them to a story moves it out of "hard SF" into "science
fantasy," unless we employ the "one free non-realistic
sciency idea" rule: There's FTL in the future, but it
requires discovering something about the universe we
currently don't know, frex.

Kevin R

[Paul S Person]

Post by Kevrob

Post by David Johnston
If Barsoom wasn't sf, what was it?

"Scientific romance" is the term of art, considered widely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_romance
"Planetary Romance" or "Interplanetary Romance" if it
involves travel to other worlds.
http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/planetary_romance

I'm afraid these distinctions are a bit to high-brow for me.

I interpret "Science Fiction" much more broudly.

As do all who, having made such a distinction, are nonetheless forced
to restrict /their/ definition to "true" or "pure" or "serious" or
"hard" Science Fiction.

But you don't have to jettison half of a genre just to recognize that
some of it is serious, and some of it is not.

Post by Kevrob
Whatever you call it, if it isn't "science fiction" in "the
pure drop," it's proto-SF. By the time the mysticism gets
wrung out of the genre, real world science undermines the
plausibility of things like FTL travel or time-travel, and
adding them to a story moves it out of "hard SF" into "science
fantasy," unless we employ the "one free non-realistic
sciency idea" rule: There's FTL in the future, but it
requires discovering something about the universe we
currently don't know, frex.

Is a long, boring, indigistible, unintelligible Technical Explanation
required as well?

One meaning of "hard" in "hard Science Fiction" is "hard to get
through because of the scientific, or pseudo-scientific,
explanations". Note that early forms were explaining /real/ things,
like how rockets worked. If you could understand the explanation, you
actually learned something! Teachers loved it!

[Kevrob]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Kevrob

Post by David Johnston
If Barsoom wasn't sf, what was it?

"Scientific romance" is the term of art, considered widely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_romance
"Planetary Romance" or "Interplanetary Romance" if it
involves travel to other worlds.
http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/planetary_romance

I'm afraid these distinctions are a bit to high-brow for me.
I interpret "Science Fiction" much more broudly.
As do all who, having made such a distinction, are nonetheless forced
to restrict /their/ definition to "true" or "pure" or "serious" or
"hard" Science Fiction.
But you don't have to jettison half of a genre just to recognize that
some of it is serious, and some of it is not.

Post by Kevrob
Whatever you call it, if it isn't "science fiction" in "the
pure drop," it's proto-SF. By the time the mysticism gets
wrung out of the genre, real world science undermines the
plausibility of things like FTL travel or time-travel, and
adding them to a story moves it out of "hard SF" into "science
fantasy," unless we employ the "one free non-realistic
sciency idea" rule: There's FTL in the future, but it
requires discovering something about the universe we
currently don't know, frex.

Is a long, boring, indigistible, unintelligible Technical Explanation
required as well?

No, but writers who can either make an infodump entertaining
to read, or able to hide the spinach under the meat and mashed
potatoes so that you don't notice you've eaten it are to be
prized.*

Post by Paul S Person
One meaning of "hard" in "hard Science Fiction" is "hard to get
through because of the scientific, or pseudo-scientific,
explanations". Note that early forms were explaining /real/ things,
like how rockets worked. If you could understand the explanation, you
actually learned something! Teachers loved it!
--

Gernsback was very into using SF to promote science, aside from
its value to him as a money-making scheme. I don't mind defining
"science fiction" broadly, or throwing the "speculative fiction"
mantle over the whole Fantasy <----> Science fiction continuum.
If the story is good, I'm in. I enjoyed Stirling's "Lords of
Creation" books, which had the out of occurring in an alternate
universe where our solar system had planets much as they appeared
in those early 20th century stories by Burroughs, Kline, etc. It's
too bad they didn't sell well enough to give us a third one.

* [Aside to Dorothy:]

Saw a commercial about these.

https://www.simplemost.com/purdue-has-new-chicken-nuggets-with-hidden-vegetables/

The response of one child actor after downing one,
then being told it had veggies in it: "Sneaky!"

Kevin R

[J. Clarke]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Kevrob

Post by David Johnston
If Barsoom wasn't sf, what was it?

"Scientific romance" is the term of art, considered widely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_romance
"Planetary Romance" or "Interplanetary Romance" if it
involves travel to other worlds.
http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/planetary_romance

I'm afraid these distinctions are a bit to high-brow for me.
I interpret "Science Fiction" much more broudly.
As do all who, having made such a distinction, are nonetheless forced
to restrict /their/ definition to "true" or "pure" or "serious" or
"hard" Science Fiction.
But you don't have to jettison half of a genre just to recognize that
some of it is serious, and some of it is not.

Post by Kevrob
Whatever you call it, if it isn't "science fiction" in "the
pure drop," it's proto-SF. By the time the mysticism gets
wrung out of the genre, real world science undermines the
plausibility of things like FTL travel or time-travel, and
adding them to a story moves it out of "hard SF" into "science
fantasy," unless we employ the "one free non-realistic
sciency idea" rule: There's FTL in the future, but it
requires discovering something about the universe we
currently don't know, frex.

Is a long, boring, indigistible, unintelligible Technical Explanation
required as well?

No, but writers who can either make an infodump entertaining
to read, or able to hide the spinach under the meat and mashed
potatoes so that you don't notice you've eaten it are to be
prized.*

Post by Paul S Person
One meaning of "hard" in "hard Science Fiction" is "hard to get
through because of the scientific, or pseudo-scientific,
explanations". Note that early forms were explaining /real/ things,
like how rockets worked. If you could understand the explanation, you
actually learned something! Teachers loved it!
--

Gernsback was very into using SF to promote science, aside from
its value to him as a money-making scheme. I don't mind defining
"science fiction" broadly, or throwing the "speculative fiction"
mantle over the whole Fantasy <----> Science fiction continuum.
If the story is good, I'm in. I enjoyed Stirling's "Lords of
Creation" books, which had the out of occurring in an alternate
universe where our solar system had planets much as they appeared
in those early 20th century stories by Burroughs, Kline, etc. It's
too bad they didn't sell well enough to give us a third one.

Agreed. I reread those every once in a while--they so far don't get
old.

On the other hand at least he didn't wear it out. Somewhere around
book 7 or 8 of the Emberverse I lost interest.

Post by Kevrob
* [Aside to Dorothy:]
Saw a commercial about these.
https://www.simplemost.com/purdue-has-new-chicken-nuggets-with-hidden-vegetables/
The response of one child actor after downing one,
then being told it had veggies in it: "Sneaky!"
Kevin R

[Joy Beeson]

Post by Kevrob
Saw a commercial about these.
https://www.simplemost.com/purdue-has-new-chicken-nuggets-with-hidden-vegetables/
The response of one child actor after downing one,
then being told it had veggies in it: "Sneaky!"

It is as I suspected: the "veggie" in question is chick peas -- also
known as garbanzo beans. Using bean flour to make the breading does
not add any vegetables to the meal.

This particular iteration (child's "food" breaded with chick peas has
been around for a while) says that it also contains cauliflour. If
it contained enough cauliflower to count, I guarantee the child would
notice. [Typo in seconde line of paragraph left deliberately.]

I bought some cauliflower crackers once. They were edible, but I'd
have much preferred some fresh crunchy cauliflower stems.

[p***@hotmail.com]

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by Kevrob
Saw a commercial about these.
https://www.simplemost.com/purdue-has-new-chicken-nuggets-with-hidden-vegetables/
The response of one child actor after downing one,
then being told it had veggies in it: "Sneaky!"

It is as I suspected: the "veggie" in question is chick peas -- also
known as garbanzo beans. Using bean flour to make the breading does
not add any vegetables to the meal.
This particular iteration (child's "food" breaded with chick peas has
been around for a while) says that it also contains cauliflour. If
it contained enough cauliflower to count, I guarantee the child would
notice. [Typo in seconde line of paragraph left deliberately.]
I bought some cauliflower crackers once. They were edible, but I'd
have much preferred some fresh crunchy cauliflower stems.

"I say it's spinach, and I say the hell with it!"

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

[Kevrob]

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by Kevrob
Saw a commercial about these.
https://www.simplemost.com/purdue-has-new-chicken-nuggets-with-hidden-vegetables/
The response of one child actor after downing one,
then being told it had veggies in it: "Sneaky!"

It is as I suspected: the "veggie" in question is chick peas -- also
known as garbanzo beans. Using bean flour to make the breading does
not add any vegetables to the meal.
This particular iteration (child's "food" breaded with chick peas has
been around for a while) says that it also contains cauliflour. If
it contained enough cauliflower to count, I guarantee the child would
notice. [Typo in seconde line of paragraph left deliberately.]
I bought some cauliflower crackers once. They were edible, but I'd
have much preferred some fresh crunchy cauliflower stems.

When my sister was taking care of my late mother, who lived to be
92, she got devious about seeing to it that Mom ate vegetables.
Advanced age and side affects of various meds she was on made her
less than enthusiastic about certain foods she happily ate when a
young girl of...60. Creamed soup, run through a blender, or made
with an immersion blender, was a favorite. It's essentially the
same theory as used in making baby food. I wonder if it would work
when making sauce for mac & cheese? Get the veg blended small enough
that one doesn't have to chew it.

The only way I'll eat onion is reduced in a sauce, gravy or stew
such that I don't even know that it's there.

I took a look at Perdue's website:

"One serving of this product does not provide a significant
amount (1/2 cup) of vegetables." Is 1/4 cup enough for a small
child, to count as a vegetable "serving?"

Also:

"*MINIMALLY PROCESSED. NO ARTIFICIAL INGREDIENTS EXCEPT FOR
TEXTURED WHEAT PROTEIN."

https://www.perdue.com/products/perdue-chicken-plus/

Using garbonzo would make sense if trying to make it safe
for celiac sufferers, but they aren't even doing that.

Kevin R

[David Johnston]

Post by Kevrob

Post by David Johnston
If Barsoom wasn't sf, what was it?

"Scientific romance" is the term of art, considered widely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_romance

I think not, considering that at the time "fiction" and "romance" were
synonyms.

Post by Kevrob
"Planetary Romance" or "Interplanetary Romance" if it
involves travel to other worlds.
http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/planetary_romance
Whatever you call it, if it isn't "science fiction" in "the
pure drop," it's proto-SF. By the time the mysticism gets
wrung out of the genre, real world science undermines the
plausibility of things like FTL travel or time-travel, and
adding them to a story moves it out of "hard SF" into "science
fantasy,"

I despise the narrowing of the definition of science fiction to the
point where it excludes just about all the accepted classics of the
genre. Gentlemen, Be Seated was a cute story, but it's not what Asimov
got his grandmaster title for.

[Kevrob]

Post by David Johnston

Post by Kevrob

Post by David Johnston
If Barsoom wasn't sf, what was it?

"Scientific romance" is the term of art, considered widely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_romance

I think not, considering that at the time "fiction" and "romance" were
synonyms.

And the Wiki link points out the synonymous relationship.

Post by David Johnston

Post by Kevrob
"Planetary Romance" or "Interplanetary Romance" if it
involves travel to other worlds.
http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/planetary_romance
Whatever you call it, if it isn't "science fiction" in "the
pure drop," it's proto-SF. By the time the mysticism gets
wrung out of the genre, real world science undermines the
plausibility of things like FTL travel or time-travel, and
adding them to a story moves it out of "hard SF" into "science
fantasy,"

I despise the narrowing of the definition of science fiction to the
point where it excludes just about all the accepted classics of the
genre. Gentlemen, Be Seated was a cute story, but it's not what Asimov
got his grandmaster title for.

It wouldn't be. Heinlein wrote it. But, I take your point.

If one wants to point to "A Princess of Mars" as "state of the
art scientifiction for 1912," fine. The fact remains that certain
things are unexplained, without a trace of scientific rationale:
Carter's apparent agelessness, lack of memory about his childhood,
as if he were an amnesiac immortal. There's also his method of travel
to Barsoom - essentially astral projection, or teleportation by act
of will, or just wishing. It's been decades since I've read the ERB
series (the late 70s, early 80s releases from Del Rey with the Whelan
covers) and they were antiques then. Lots of fun, though. I don't
remember if there was ever an explanation for carter's pre-Barsoom
backstory, other than his being a rebel in the US Civil War, then
a prospector. The Disney movie retcons his journey to Mars as due
to teleportation tech from.... the Therns (?).

Kevin R

[Paul S Person]

Post by Kevrob

Post by David Johnston

Post by Kevrob

Post by David Johnston
If Barsoom wasn't sf, what was it?

"Scientific romance" is the term of art, considered widely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_romance

I think not, considering that at the time "fiction" and "romance" were
synonyms.

And the Wiki link points out the synonymous relationship.

Post by David Johnston

Post by Kevrob
"Planetary Romance" or "Interplanetary Romance" if it
involves travel to other worlds.
http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/planetary_romance
Whatever you call it, if it isn't "science fiction" in "the
pure drop," it's proto-SF. By the time the mysticism gets
wrung out of the genre, real world science undermines the
plausibility of things like FTL travel or time-travel, and
adding them to a story moves it out of "hard SF" into "science
fantasy,"

I despise the narrowing of the definition of science fiction to the
point where it excludes just about all the accepted classics of the
genre. Gentlemen, Be Seated was a cute story, but it's not what Asimov
got his grandmaster title for.

It wouldn't be. Heinlein wrote it. But, I take your point.
If one wants to point to "A Princess of Mars" as "state of the
art scientifiction for 1912," fine. The fact remains that certain
Carter's apparent agelessness, lack of memory about his childhood,
as if he were an amnesiac immortal. There's also his method of travel
to Barsoom - essentially astral projection, or teleportation by act
of will, or just wishing. It's been decades since I've read the ERB
series (the late 70s, early 80s releases from Del Rey with the Whelan
covers) and they were antiques then. Lots of fun, though. I don't
remember if there was ever an explanation for carter's pre-Barsoom
backstory, other than his being a rebel in the US Civil War, then
a prospector. The Disney movie retcons his journey to Mars as due
to teleportation tech from.... the Therns (?).

Well, in terms of "hard" Science Fiction, that's better than astral
projection, surely.

Too bad they never did a sequel. They might actually have thought up a
more detailed explanation!

Probably one involving a 10th Ray. Or was it attributed to the 9th?

/Avatar/ showed us 3D CGI that looked as good as a man in a rubber
suit. /John Carter/ showed us 3D CGI of six-legged critters that
looked as good as anything Harryhausen did. Progress was being made
before our eyes!

[David Johnston]

Post by Kevrob

Post by David Johnston

Post by Kevrob

Post by David Johnston
If Barsoom wasn't sf, what was it?

"Scientific romance" is the term of art, considered widely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_romance

I think not, considering that at the time "fiction" and "romance" were
synonyms.

And the Wiki link points out the synonymous relationship.

Post by David Johnston

Post by Kevrob
"Planetary Romance" or "Interplanetary Romance" if it
involves travel to other worlds.
http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/planetary_romance
Whatever you call it, if it isn't "science fiction" in "the
pure drop," it's proto-SF. By the time the mysticism gets
wrung out of the genre, real world science undermines the
plausibility of things like FTL travel or time-travel, and
adding them to a story moves it out of "hard SF" into "science
fantasy,"

I despise the narrowing of the definition of science fiction to the
point where it excludes just about all the accepted classics of the
genre. Gentlemen, Be Seated was a cute story, but it's not what Asimov
got his grandmaster title for.

It wouldn't be. Heinlein wrote it. But, I take your point.
If one wants to point to "A Princess of Mars" as "state of the
art scientifiction for 1912," fine. The fact remains that certain
Carter's apparent agelessness, lack of memory about his childhood,
as if he were an amnesiac immortal.

Carter is fairly clearly one of the Martian immortals who are introduced
later in the series. And those Martian immortals are one of the
strongest arguments for JCoM being science fiction since it asks a
what-if question. "What if we made ourselves ageless and nearly
unkillable" and provides an answer. It would be eventually horrific and
the reason Carter hasn't gone the way he did is because his amnesia is
protecting his sanity. Eventually he'll have to do it again or go mad
with the desire for self-destruction.

There's also his method of travel

Post by Kevrob
to Barsoom - essentially astral projection, or teleportation by act
of will, or just wishing. It's been decades since I've read the ERB
series (the late 70s, early 80s releases from Del Rey with the Whelan
covers) and they were antiques then. Lots of fun, though. I don't
remember if there was ever an explanation for carter's pre-Barsoom
backstory, other than his being a rebel in the US Civil War, then
a prospector. The Disney movie retcons his journey to Mars as due
to teleportation tech from.... the Therns (?).
Kevin R

[Kevrob]

Post by David Johnston

Post by Kevrob

Post by David Johnston

Post by Kevrob

Post by David Johnston
If Barsoom wasn't sf, what was it?

"Scientific romance" is the term of art, considered widely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_romance

I think not, considering that at the time "fiction" and "romance" were
synonyms.

And the Wiki link points out the synonymous relationship.

Post by David Johnston

Post by Kevrob
"Planetary Romance" or "Interplanetary Romance" if it
involves travel to other worlds.
http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/planetary_romance
Whatever you call it, if it isn't "science fiction" in "the
pure drop," it's proto-SF. By the time the mysticism gets
wrung out of the genre, real world science undermines the
plausibility of things like FTL travel or time-travel, and
adding them to a story moves it out of "hard SF" into "science
fantasy,"

I despise the narrowing of the definition of science fiction to the
point where it excludes just about all the accepted classics of the
genre. Gentlemen, Be Seated was a cute story, but it's not what Asimov
got his grandmaster title for.

It wouldn't be. Heinlein wrote it. But, I take your point.
If one wants to point to "A Princess of Mars" as "state of the
art scientifiction for 1912," fine. The fact remains that certain
Carter's apparent agelessness, lack of memory about his childhood,
as if he were an amnesiac immortal.

Carter is fairly clearly one of the Martian immortals who are introduced
later in the series. And those Martian immortals are one of the
strongest arguments for JCoM being science fiction since it asks a
what-if question. "What if we made ourselves ageless and nearly
unkillable" and provides an answer. It would be eventually horrific and
the reason Carter hasn't gone the way he did is because his amnesia is
protecting his sanity. Eventually he'll have to do it again or go mad
with the desire for self-destruction.

I've read more than 1 Mars book, but I don't think I made it
through the entire series. If I did, I don't remember all the
plot points. All the Martians are comparatively long-lived,
and keep a youthful appearance far longer than Terrans, no?
JC being a displaced Martian, on Earth, with amnesia, until he
returns "home," albeit with augmented strength due to Jasoom's
"heavy gravity" environment would be interesting. Said advantage
ought to return to the mean over the years/decades spent on Barsoom,
though, if he actually had Martian, not Terran physiology.

We now know that living in a low-gravity or zero-g environment will
cause progressive bone loss, though Burroughs wouldn't have.*

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast01oct_1

Is there a particular reference to "Martian immortals" I might
be unaware of? Therns and Black Martians had both pretended to
ghodhood, but were no more immortal than other long-lived races,
IMS.

Post by David Johnston
There's also his method of travel....

[snip]


* A related digression:

As a SUPERMAN fan, I was raised on the Silver Age rationale that
Kryptonians owe their powers, not only to differences in gravity,
but to an ability to metabolize starlight of different types to
augment their strength, vision powers, and other pseudo-scientific
handwavium, like nigh-invulnerability. I always thought that exposure
to Gold Kryptonite shouldn't leave a Kryptonian powerless, but reduced
to only the gravity-difference abilities, making him an Aarn Munro,
a John Carter or a Charlie-27. Such a "1938-style" hero (or villain)
could face the same problem our astronauts do, living in what is for
a Kryptonian, microgravity. So, he'd have to exercise like crazy, and
conceivably consume supplements to maintain any advantage. If the
minerals he needed to consume were rare on earth, that might be a problem.
"I must obtain X in order to maintain my health" is a classic super-
villain motivation.

Kevin R

[Jack Bohn]

Post by David Johnston
I despise the narrowing of the definition of science fiction to the
point where it excludes just about all the accepted classics of the
genre. Gentlemen, Be Seated was a cute story, but it's not what Asimov
got his grandmaster title for.

There's a famous quote about 90% or everything, but I'm not sure how applicable it is here. Long before the unsatisfactory compromise of "dwarf planet," we had the term "speculative fiction" which covers myth, folklore, traveler's tales, shaggy dog stories, secondary-world fantasy, comic books, and I would dare say, Star Wars. (As long as I'm making enemies, let me say it plainly: "speculative fiction" is sci-fi which the labeler likes, "sci-fi" or even "skiffy" is speculative fiction the labeler doesn't like. Come at me sib.) "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" is great writing. So great that it discourages engineering thinking about it: could each citizen contribute one day of suffering, instead?

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 09:35:21 -0800 (PST), Jack Bohn

Post by Jack Bohn

Post by David Johnston
I despise the narrowing of the definition of science fiction to the
point where it excludes just about all the accepted classics of the
genre. Gentlemen, Be Seated was a cute story, but it's not what Asimov
got his grandmaster title for.

There's a famous quote about 90% or everything, but I'm not sure how applicable it is here. Long before the unsatisfactory compromise of "dwarf planet," we had the term "speculative fiction" which covers myth, folklore, traveler's tales, shaggy dog stories, secondary-world fantasy, comic books, and I would dare say, Star Wars. (As long as I'm making enemies, let me say it plainly: "speculative fiction" is sci-fi which the labeler likes, "sci-fi" or even "skiffy" is speculative fiction the labeler doesn't like. Come at me sib.) "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" is great writing. So great that it discourages engineering thinking about it: could each citizen contribute one day of suffering, instead?

Now /that's/ a definition of "speculative fiction" I could live with.

I generally regard as Just Another Stupid Marketing Tool.

[Kevrob]

Post by Jack Bohn

Post by David Johnston
I despise the narrowing of the definition of science fiction to the
point where it excludes just about all the accepted classics of the
genre. Gentlemen, Be Seated was a cute story, but it's not what Asimov
got his grandmaster title for.

There's a famous quote about 90% or everything, but I'm not sure how
applicable it is here. Long before the unsatisfactory compromise
of "dwarf planet," we had the term "speculative fiction" which
covers myth, folklore, traveler's tales, shaggy dog stories, secondary-
world fantasy, comic books, and I would dare say, Star Wars. (As long as
I'm making enemies, let me say it plainly: "speculative fiction" is sci-
fi which the labeler likes, "sci-fi" or even "skiffy" is speculative
fiction the labeler doesn't like. Come at me sib.)

4SJ coined "sci-fi" as an analogue of "hi-fi" and it became
pejorative when he pushed it in his magazine, "Famous Monsters
of Filmland." It was tailor-made for headline writers who liked
to use VARIETY-style "slanguage." [e.g. STIX NIX HICKS PIX]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famous_Monsters_of_Filmland

See: http://fancyclopedia.org/Skiffy

http://fancyclopedia.org/Sci-Fi

Post by Jack Bohn
"The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" is great writing. So great
that it discourages engineering thinking about it: could each
citizen contribute one day of suffering, instead?

Don't forget "stef" for stf, an abbreviation for "scientifiction."

http://fancyclopedia.org/Stf

I used to see that in AMAZING, under Ted White's editorship.

Kevin R

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Jack Bohn
And what's this "Star Wars clearly isn't a musical" balderdash?
Why isn't it a musical? Because it's about training a knight to protect a princess? So is "Camelot." Because it has villains willing to kill whole populations? So does "The Sound of Music." Because it's science fiction? So is "My Fair Lady."

Hmm. The Frankenstein monster, Anakin Skywalker,
Eliza Doolittle: all a disappointment to their
creators? And ultimately a nemesis.

[Paul S Person]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 00:39:03 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston
Why do people think Star Wars is sci-fi when it so clearly isn't?
David Johnston
Answered 22m ago

Oh, for pity's sake.

Genres are ill-defined. That is the problem here.

/Star Wars/ is Space Opera.

That is, /Star Wars/ is a perfectly ordinary story which happens to
take place in outer space. The written equivalent is "Space Opera".

/Star Wars/ could /also/ be called "humorous action-adventure". So
could such films as /The Three Musketeers/ and /The Four Musketeers/
from about the same time, but they take place in pre-revolutionary
France. So could /Superman: The Motion Picture/, but it is a
comic-book movie. They share one genre; they differ in three others.
This is why classifying movies gets ... confusing.

Just as not all of written Science Fiction is Space Opera, so not all
Science Fiction movies are humorous action-adventure. Indeed, just as
I would classify, say, /Stranger in a Strange Land/ as /serious/
Science Fiction, so would I classify /Predestination/ and /Gattaca/.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 00:39:03 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston
Why do people think Star Wars is sci-fi when it so clearly isn't?
David Johnston
Answered 22m ago

Oh, for pity's sake.
Genres are ill-defined. That is the problem here.
/Star Wars/ is Space Opera.
That is, /Star Wars/ is a perfectly ordinary story which happens to
take place in outer space. The written equivalent is "Space Opera".
/Star Wars/ could /also/ be called "humorous action-adventure". So
could such films as /The Three Musketeers/ and /The Four Musketeers/
from about the same time, but they take place in pre-revolutionary
France. So could /Superman: The Motion Picture/, but it is a
comic-book movie. They share one genre; they differ in three others.
This is why classifying movies gets ... confusing.
Just as not all of written Science Fiction is Space Opera, so not all
Science Fiction movies are humorous action-adventure. Indeed, just as
I would classify, say, /Stranger in a Strange Land/ as /serious/
Science Fiction, so would I classify /Predestination/ and /Gattaca/.

+1

Lynn

[David Johnston]

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 00:39:03 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston
Why do people think Star Wars is sci-fi when it so clearly isn't?
David Johnston
Answered 22m ago

Oh, for pity's sake.
Genres are ill-defined. That is the problem here.
/Star Wars/ is Space Opera.
That is, /Star Wars/ is a perfectly ordinary story which happens to
take place in outer space. The written equivalent is "Space Opera".
/Star Wars/ could /also/ be called "humorous action-adventure". So
could such films as /The Three Musketeers/ and /The Four Musketeers/
from about the same time, but they take place in pre-revolutionary
France. So could /Superman: The Motion Picture/, but it is a
comic-book movie. They share one genre;

I don't think I've ever seen a humorous action adventure section in the
bookstore.

they differ in three others.

Post by Paul S Person
This is why classifying movies gets ... confusing.
Just as not all of written Science Fiction is Space Opera, so not all
Science Fiction movies are humorous action-adventure. Indeed, just as
I would classify, say, /Stranger in a Strange Land/ as /serious/
Science Fiction, so would I classify /Predestination/ and /Gattaca/.

[Quadibloc]

Post by David Johnston
I don't think I've ever seen a humorous action adventure section in the
bookstore.

Neither have I, but I did watch Hogan's Heroes on TV.

John Savard

[Kevrob]

Post by David Johnston

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 00:39:03 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston
Why do people think Star Wars is sci-fi when it so clearly isn't?
David Johnston
Answered 22m ago

Oh, for pity's sake.
Genres are ill-defined. That is the problem here.
/Star Wars/ is Space Opera.
That is, /Star Wars/ is a perfectly ordinary story which happens to
take place in outer space. The written equivalent is "Space Opera".
/Star Wars/ could /also/ be called "humorous action-adventure". So
could such films as /The Three Musketeers/ and /The Four Musketeers/
from about the same time, but they take place in pre-revolutionary
France. So could /Superman: The Motion Picture/, but it is a
comic-book movie. They share one genre;

I don't think I've ever seen a humorous action adventure section in the
bookstore.

BITD, we spread them out in the SFF section. "A" was filled with Bob
Asprin and Douglas Adams. Over in "mystery" the DESTROYER books
filled that niche.

Kevin R

[Paul S Person]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 15:09:46 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 00:39:03 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston
Why do people think Star Wars is sci-fi when it so clearly isn't?
David Johnston
Answered 22m ago

Oh, for pity's sake.
Genres are ill-defined. That is the problem here.
/Star Wars/ is Space Opera.
That is, /Star Wars/ is a perfectly ordinary story which happens to
take place in outer space. The written equivalent is "Space Opera".
/Star Wars/ could /also/ be called "humorous action-adventure". So
could such films as /The Three Musketeers/ and /The Four Musketeers/
from about the same time, but they take place in pre-revolutionary
France. So could /Superman: The Motion Picture/, but it is a
comic-book movie. They share one genre;

I don't think I've ever seen a humorous action adventure section in the
bookstore.

Sadly, we are discussing movies here. Off-topic, no doubt, but true.

OTOH, I've never saw a humorous action adventure section in a DVD
store either.

It is, nonetheless, clearly a genre.

If you don't think so, consider /Superman: The Motion Picture/ and
/Superman Returns/: both are comic-book movies, both are
action/adventure, both have many of the same plot elements
(white-haired mother, kid moving heavy objects, villain into real
estate) but only the first is /humorous/. The second is so serious you
might think, as Mozart puts it in /Amadeus/, that Superman sh*ts
marble.

Thus, they are clearly of /different/ genres despite clearly being of
the /same/ genre. And that is why classifying by genre is very
complicated.

Post by David Johnston
they differ in three others.

Post by Paul S Person
This is why classifying movies gets ... confusing.
Just as not all of written Science Fiction is Space Opera, so not all
Science Fiction movies are humorous action-adventure. Indeed, just as
I would classify, say, /Stranger in a Strange Land/ as /serious/
Science Fiction, so would I classify /Predestination/ and /Gattaca/.

[Titus G]

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 15:09:46 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 00:39:03 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston
Why do people think Star Wars is sci-fi when it so clearly isn't?
David Johnston
Answered 22m ago

Oh, for pity's sake.
Genres are ill-defined. That is the problem here.
/Star Wars/ is Space Opera.
That is, /Star Wars/ is a perfectly ordinary story which happens to
take place in outer space. The written equivalent is "Space Opera".
/Star Wars/ could /also/ be called "humorous action-adventure". So
could such films as /The Three Musketeers/ and /The Four Musketeers/
from about the same time, but they take place in pre-revolutionary
France. So could /Superman: The Motion Picture/, but it is a
comic-book movie. They share one genre;

I don't think I've ever seen a humorous action adventure section in the
bookstore.

Sadly, we are discussing movies here. Off-topic, no doubt, but true.
OTOH, I've never saw a humorous action adventure section in a DVD
store either.
It is, nonetheless, clearly a genre.

Or sub-genres exist, transferring the problem to that of ranking.

Post by Paul S Person
If you don't think so, consider /Superman: The Motion Picture/ and
/Superman Returns/: both are comic-book movies, both are
action/adventure, both have many of the same plot elements
(white-haired mother, kid moving heavy objects, villain into real
estate) but only the first is /humorous/. The second is so serious you
might think, as Mozart puts it in /Amadeus/, that Superman sh*ts
marble.
Thus, they are clearly of /different/ genres despite clearly being of
the /same/ genre. And that is why classifying by genre is very
complicated.

Post by David Johnston
they differ in three others.

Post by Paul S Person
This is why classifying movies gets ... confusing.
Just as not all of written Science Fiction is Space Opera, so not all
Science Fiction movies are humorous action-adventure. Indeed, just as
I would classify, say, /Stranger in a Strange Land/ as /serious/
Science Fiction, so would I classify /Predestination/ and /Gattaca/.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Titus G

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 15:09:46 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 00:39:03 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston
Why do people think Star Wars is sci-fi when it so clearly isn't?
David Johnston
Answered 22m ago

Oh, for pity's sake.
Genres are ill-defined. That is the problem here.
/Star Wars/ is Space Opera.
That is, /Star Wars/ is a perfectly ordinary story which happens to
take place in outer space. The written equivalent is "Space Opera".
/Star Wars/ could /also/ be called "humorous action-adventure". So
could such films as /The Three Musketeers/ and /The Four Musketeers/
from about the same time, but they take place in pre-revolutionary
France. So could /Superman: The Motion Picture/, but it is a
comic-book movie. They share one genre;

I don't think I've ever seen a humorous action adventure section in the
bookstore.

Sadly, we are discussing movies here. Off-topic, no doubt, but true.
OTOH, I've never saw a humorous action adventure section in a DVD
store either.
It is, nonetheless, clearly a genre.

Or sub-genres exist, transferring the problem to that of ranking.

That only gets you so far.

Consider Animation. That's a genre (or, rather, a set of genres), but
/every movie in it/ also belongs to another genre. I, myself, have at
least DVDs of animated films which are also fantasy, or science
fiction, or western, or mystery; my brother reports that extensive
streaming of anime shows /all/ genres represented.

And those same genres exist in live action films. And films that are
both animated /and/ live action exist, just as films that are humorous
/and/ action/adventure, humorous /and/ western, and so on, exist.

Classifying films (and, indeed, written fiction), when done seriously,
produces a network or web of genres, not a hierarchy.

Or, to put it another way, any hierarchy is arbitrary, and will have
many many leaves (so to speak) with the same value. And any of those
values can be used as the base of a /new/ hierarchy, with the former
head appearing as the value of many many leaves.

This reminds me of my uncle: back in the 80s, when PCs were new, he
was very dismissing of them. But later, with the advent of the 386, he
discovered a geneology program which made a computer his best friend.
Among other things, once you had your data entered, you could pick any
individual, such as a grandchild, or each grandchild in turn, and
print out a chart with /that person/ in the center and everyone else
in the periphery. The data recorded the /relationships/, but who you
picked as the center determined how it was displayed.

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Paul S Person
Consider Animation. That's a genre (or, rather, a set of genres), but
/every movie in it/ also belongs to another genre. I, myself, have at
least DVDs of animated films which are also fantasy, or science
fiction, or western, or mystery; my brother reports that extensive
streaming of anime shows /all/ genres represented.

No it's not a genre.
It's a medium.

[Paul S Person]

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Paul S Person
Consider Animation. That's a genre (or, rather, a set of genres), but
/every movie in it/ also belongs to another genre. I, myself, have at
least DVDs of animated films which are also fantasy, or science
fiction, or western, or mystery; my brother reports that extensive
streaming of anime shows /all/ genres represented.

No it's not a genre.
It's a medium.

The it's opposite, which I am currently calling "live action", must
also be a "medium".

And films like /Who Framed Roger Rabbit/, which have both, must be
"mixed media".

And then we have 3D CGI (an animation technique). This is used both in
"animated" films and in "live action" films, so 3D CGI is ... two
different media?

If I were to call "animated" something other than "genre", I would
choose "style".

Thus, Disney has two films of /The Lion King/ -- one animated, one
live-action. They may have different "media" -- that is, the first may
have been distributed on film and the second in digital form -- but
the difference that is /visible/ is surely, if not a matter of
/genre/, then one of /style/.

But renaming descriptor sets will not solve the problem. A hierarchy
like:
Movie
Detective Western
Animated Live-action Animated Live-action
Comedy Drama Comedy Drama Comedy Drama Comedy Drama

can always be re-written as:
Movie
Animated Live-action
Detective Western Detective Western
Comedy Drama Comedy Drama Comedy Drama Comedy Drama

or in any other order. Hierarchies are too arbitrary.

[Kevrob]

Post by Paul S Person
Thus, Disney has two films of /The Lion King/ -- one animated, one
live-action. They may have different "media" -- that is, the first may
have been distributed on film and the second in digital form -- but
the difference that is /visible/ is surely, if not a matter of
/genre/, then one of /style/.

Howzabout "Kimba pastiche?" (If not plagiarism.)

Kevin R