5 ms·

(Sorry, pet peeve.) It's space opera, which is a subgenre of science fiction. Some people invent definitions of "science fiction" that exclude some works of s

by philh 11y ago

(Sorry, pet peeve.) It's space opera, which is a subgenre of science fiction. Some people invent definitions of "science fiction" that exclude some works of science fiction, but that's silly. There's no definition of "science fiction". It's a concept that we feel out by pointing to things that are "clearly science fiction" and then sort of deriving a fuzzy decision boundary from that. If you ask people whether Star Wars is science fiction, most people will say yes. Robots! Lasers! Space ships! Aliens! It's clearly science fiction. There are useful definitions, which talk about subsets of science fiction that don't include Star Wars. But those aren't definitions of science fiction, even if they use the same words.

danharaj 11y ago
"Science fiction" is also an artificial ghetto that historically was used to segregate "science fiction" from "literary fiction". It's funny to see the same process being repeated.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  Larry Niven examined the "ghetto" argument, and concluded that it's more of a country club.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
    I don't have a lot of trust in Larry Niven's arguments.
    - pavel_lishin 11y ago
      I suspect I might know at least a partial answer, but how come?
dragonwriter 11y ago
> It's space opera, which is a subgenre of science fiction. That's an interesting view, but one which is nullified by: > There's no definition of "science fiction". Then the phrase has no meaning or use, and the statements "Star Wars is science fiction" or "space opera is a subgenre of science fiction" are semantically null, neither true nor false, just sequences of words that form grammatically valid sentences that communicate no meaning. If "space opera is a subgenre of science fiction" is to be true, then "space opera" and "science fiction" both need to have definitions, and the definition of the latter must include at least everything included in the definition of the former. If either or both has no definition, then the statement has no meaning, and cannot be said to be true or false. For
- verisimilidude 11y ago
  You're dancing around philh's main point, which I find very much valid. When we're talking about something popular like "science fiction", you need to account for two different definitions. * The written definition, as found in the dictionary and/or agreed upon by the tiny subset of hardcore fans who care. * The loose popular definition, which varies for each person but tends to include the broadest set of common basics: lasers, robots, spaceships, etc. When referring to the written definition, it makes sense to say, "It's space opera, which is a subgenre of science fiction," as long as you're saying it among folks who appreciate the distinction. But when referring to the popular imagination, it's not a stretch to say, "There's no definition of "science fiction," because it means something a little bit different to each person.
  - itaibn 11y ago
    I disagree. If philh intended to make the finer distinction you're now making they should have stated it. As it stands they are stating both that a) "science fiction" is a fuzzy category, there's no right or wrong in how you categorize it in specific instances and b) this particular statement on what is science fiction is right. These two points contradict each other, and dragonwriter was correct in pointing this out. Just because a certain usage of a word is not accepted by the majority doesn't mean it's wrong.
    - philh 11y ago
      verisimilidude didn't get me, but nor did you or dragonwriter. I'm distinguishing between definition and meaning. You don't need to be able to define a word, to know roughly what it means. The words "science fiction" mean something. They're a map pointing to some territory. They don't mean the exact same thing to everyone, but close enough to be useful. Attempted definitions of "science fiction" attempt to point at the meaning. They're maps pointing to a map. When I say "there's no definition", what I really mean is "I've never seen a definition that points to a good map of the territory". In particular, a lot of definitions point at maps which don't point to Star Wars, and those are bad maps.
logfromblammo 11y ago
Fantasy and science fiction are usually lumped together under the "speculative fiction" umbrella. Since Clarke pointed out that magic is equivalent to sufficiently advanced technology, the dividing line between science fiction and fantasy can change according to the technical sophistication of the observer. In 1865, Jules Verne's _De la Terre à la Lune_ was science fiction. By 1903, Tsiolkovsky made it space fantasy. By 1960, it was back to science fiction again, though it will never be usable for manned launches until we find some way to make >100g accelerations survivable. As such, I don't find it useful to divide the genres too strictly. A Charles deLint fairy tale novel and a Cunningham/Carruthers Men in Black comic are in the same genre: low modern urban fantasy. Laser guns and magic wands are the same thing. Lightsabers and vorpal blades are the same thing. Robotic automata and servitor daemons are the same thing. In most cases, the fantasy elements keep the story interesting, and the sci-fi elements lend it an air of future plausibility. You don't have to explain a magic wand, but you might have to mention that a laser rifle uses an Er:YAG laser and a heavy air-breathing lithium battery, only in very arid atmospheric conditions, to literally explode the water in a human target into steam from hundreds of meters away. But a shock cannon uses a different type of laser to ionize the air between the user and the target, and uses a voltage multiplier circuit to shoot an artificial lightning bolt down the conductive pathway, grounding through the target. If it isn't explained, it's another magic wand. I have read books that started out looking like high fantasy at the beginning, until the characters learn that magic is the result of an AI--from the colonization ship's navigation computer--performing weapons research on the human descendants of its former passengers, and that the creatures formerly described as demons are actually aliens. Try to pigeonhole that one into the right genre.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  I don't want to pigeonhole it, I want to buy it and read it! Which book was that? (For the first half of the description, I was sure I knew what it was, but hesitate to say so out loud because that would be a spoiler.)
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    Janny Wurts's Cycle of Fire trilogy

by philh 11y ago

danharaj 11y ago

"Science fiction" is also an artificial ghetto that historically was used to segregate "science fiction" from "literary fiction". It's funny to see the same process being repeated.

pavel_lishin 11y ago
Larry Niven examined the "ghetto" argument, and concluded that it's more of a country club.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  I don't have a lot of trust in Larry Niven's arguments.
  - pavel_lishin 11y ago
    I suspect I might know at least a partial answer, but how come?

dragonwriter 11y ago

> It's space opera, which is a subgenre of science fiction. That's an interesting view, but one which is nullified by: > There's no definition of "science fiction". Then the phrase has no meaning or use, and the statements "Star Wars is science fiction" or "space opera is a subgenre of science fiction" are semantically null, neither true nor false, just sequences of words that form grammatically valid sentences that communicate no meaning. If "space opera is a subgenre of science fiction" is to be true, then "space opera" and "science fiction" both need to have definitions, and the definition of the latter must include at least everything included in the definition of the former. If either or both has no definition, then the statement has no meaning, and cannot be said to be true or false. For

verisimilidude 11y ago
You're dancing around philh's main point, which I find very much valid. When we're talking about something popular like "science fiction", you need to account for two different definitions. * The written definition, as found in the dictionary and/or agreed upon by the tiny subset of hardcore fans who care. * The loose popular definition, which varies for each person but tends to include the broadest set of common basics: lasers, robots, spaceships, etc. When referring to the written definition, it makes sense to say, "It's space opera, which is a subgenre of science fiction," as long as you're saying it among folks who appreciate the distinction. But when referring to the popular imagination, it's not a stretch to say, "There's no definition of "science fiction," because it means something a little bit different to each person.
- itaibn 11y ago
  I disagree. If philh intended to make the finer distinction you're now making they should have stated it. As it stands they are stating both that a) "science fiction" is a fuzzy category, there's no right or wrong in how you categorize it in specific instances and b) this particular statement on what is science fiction is right. These two points contradict each other, and dragonwriter was correct in pointing this out. Just because a certain usage of a word is not accepted by the majority doesn't mean it's wrong.
  - philh 11y ago
    verisimilidude didn't get me, but nor did you or dragonwriter. I'm distinguishing between definition and meaning. You don't need to be able to define a word, to know roughly what it means. The words "science fiction" mean something. They're a map pointing to some territory. They don't mean the exact same thing to everyone, but close enough to be useful. Attempted definitions of "science fiction" attempt to point at the meaning. They're maps pointing to a map. When I say "there's no definition", what I really mean is "I've never seen a definition that points to a good map of the territory". In particular, a lot of definitions point at maps which don't point to Star Wars, and those are bad maps.

logfromblammo 11y ago

Fantasy and science fiction are usually lumped together under the "speculative fiction" umbrella. Since Clarke pointed out that magic is equivalent to sufficiently advanced technology, the dividing line between science fiction and fantasy can change according to the technical sophistication of the observer. In 1865, Jules Verne's _De la Terre à la Lune_ was science fiction. By 1903, Tsiolkovsky made it space fantasy. By 1960, it was back to science fiction again, though it will never be usable for manned launches until we find some way to make >100g accelerations survivable. As such, I don't find it useful to divide the genres too strictly. A Charles deLint fairy tale novel and a Cunningham/Carruthers Men in Black comic are in the same genre: low modern urban fantasy. Laser guns and magic wands are the same thing. Lightsabers and vorpal blades are the same thing. Robotic automata and servitor daemons are the same thing. In most cases, the fantasy elements keep the story interesting, and the sci-fi elements lend it an air of future plausibility. You don't have to explain a magic wand, but you might have to mention that a laser rifle uses an Er:YAG laser and a heavy air-breathing lithium battery, only in very arid atmospheric conditions, to literally explode the water in a human target into steam from hundreds of meters away. But a shock cannon uses a different type of laser to ionize the air between the user and the target, and uses a voltage multiplier circuit to shoot an artificial lightning bolt down the conductive pathway, grounding through the target. If it isn't explained, it's another magic wand. I have read books that started out looking like high fantasy at the beginning, until the characters learn that magic is the result of an AI--from the colonization ship's navigation computer--performing weapons research on the human descendants of its former passengers, and that the creatures formerly described as demons are actually aliens. Try to pigeonhole that one into the right genre.

pavel_lishin 11y ago
I don't want to pigeonhole it, I want to buy it and read it! Which book was that? (For the first half of the description, I was sure I knew what it was, but hesitate to say so out loud because that would be a spoiler.)
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  Janny Wurts's Cycle of Fire trilogy