Should Star Trek be considered Science Fantasy?

[Batman]

I have to admit that before I came here (which, yes, was quite a while ago) I never heard the term Science Fantasy. If it was primarily about spaceships and ray guns and technology, it was SciFi. If it was primarily about dragons and magic and people attacking each other with swords, it was Fantasy.
Who cares if the science is so soft it's practically liquid? As long as they claim it's done by science, it's science fiction in my book.

[Stark]

It's particularly amusing when scifi like Asimov is based on UTTERLY RIDICULOUS AND CONTRIVED 'science' that is nothin but a plot device. But elitists now want scifi I mean really clever, and nothing is as clever as REAL SCIENCE.

Please note by real we mean 'science I like' and can include utter nonsense.

[Connor MacLeod]

No worries, I should've put more thought into it but I only thought of those two at the time. I'm more than willing to expand my horizons to more than two possible entries.

No offense but I'm not even sure this is really a question. You can't reduce fiction to simple categories, even though people try to do this all the time. It only works in the most broadest, general way, and even then it tends to gloss over all the important details and nuances that may make it distinctive. Thats precisely why I say its arbitrary, because the only way to make those definitions stick is to basically impose a particular way of viewing it.

The question of why we would need to classify it is simply because it's more of a question of whether the science outweighs the more fantastic elements that could be defined as fantasy. In that regard, it's similar to the question, is the claim that Star Trek is based on fact and thus is superior to other works of fiction? Or is it just as guilty of Wars of making up elements that have little to no bearing on reality?

I'm not sure either of those are rreally questions. AT least not any that a normal, sane sci fi fan (EG not one obsessed with things like vs debates, or the people involved in vs debates) would ask. Is there some reason the science NEEDS to outweigh the fantasy? Does this make the fiction inherently better in some way? Why is the 'fantasy' elements bad? Again this is part of the problem I have with the context of this entire discussion - it asks alot of questions and makes alot of bold statements, but we never get any real context or reason WHY this matters or WHY this should be considered, other than purely arbitrary reasons. Are we trying to impose some sort of categorizational segregation on fiction to prevent cross-genere pollution, or something? Is the chocolate getting into the peanut butter really that horrible?

I mean it doesn't particularily bother me if Star Trek is blending science and fantasy. So does Warhammer 40K, and I think its a great setting.

And your second question is, again, mostly my fault for not thinking the question through adequately. Sorry folks.

Again forgive me for being blunt, I dont think you've really given this the really deep thought it really warrants. I mean you could have made the whole issue of 'does categorization matter/should it be categorized, and if so why does it matter?' the topic of conversation or otherwise made it more open ended, but I think you sort of crippled it from the get go by imposing certain arbitrary 'restrictions' based on the choices you outlined. Again the criticism is less aimed at attacking you and pointing out that your logic is... imprecise, I suppose.

[Flagg]

Space Opera is a term not used enough.

[Batman]

This is so going to get me in trouble.
Connor? I'm reasonably certain Bafallo is the one who gets to decide what this thread is about, what with being the thread creator.
And while I can't speak for him, speaking for nobody but myself, yes 'spaceships=SciFi' and 'Dragons=Fantasy' works for me as a base concept, and I fail to see why we need anything more complex, nor why we should analyze SciFi/Fantasy past the 'Is it fun' Y/N stage. To put it bluntly you don't get to decide whether or not it warrants really deep thought, especially as the answer is 'are you fucking kidding me? We're talking fiction so NO, or not unless you want to put deep thought into it while being perfectly aware of the fact that it is.

[Stark]

Space Opera is a term not used enough.

What does it mean?

No, really. Originally it referred to short serialized movies and was then adopted by Star Trek. I don't think it means anything more specific than 'not very serious scifi which is probably cheap' outside of mental fascists who believe it is a term with very specific meaning.

Hey Batman demonstrate how your simplistic approach (that you are comfortable with and probably never thought about) covers fantasy involving speculative science or science fiction involving literal magic. It the distinction is as clear as you claim this should be very easy.

[Flagg]

Space Opera is a term not used enough.

What does it mean?

No, really. Originally it referred to short serialized movies and was then adopted by Star Trek. I don't think it means anything more specific than 'not very serious scifi which is probably cheap' outside of mental fascists who believe it is a term with very specific meaning.

I try not to be a classification nazi, but I use the term to apply to most scifi with spaceships and other familiar scifi themes which play fast and loose with actual science. I think a good example is nBSG. But if you wanna call LotR science fiction I don't care.

[Stark]

All I'm trying to say is that a loose classification without a consistent meaning isn't very useful. It's a problem for space opera because people are happy to say 'only pace opera' to hide their entirely subjective opinions behind an official sounding term rather than discuss them.

I mean I could jut call it 'non boring scifi' and people would still know what I meant. :v

[Flagg]

True. I just figure that if I have to classify ST, SW, and the like it would be under space opera. I mean it's still scifi.

[Baffalo]

Again forgive me for being blunt, I dont think you've really given this the really deep thought it really warrants. I mean you could have made the whole issue of 'does categorization matter/should it be categorized, and if so why does it matter?' the topic of conversation or otherwise made it more open ended, but I think you sort of crippled it from the get go by imposing certain arbitrary 'restrictions' based on the choices you outlined. Again the criticism is less aimed at attacking you and pointing out that your logic is... imprecise, I suppose.

If it makes you feel better, then I invite you to make your case for it. Do you think categorization matters? Or, as you've been pointing out, is it just an arbitrary distinction? If we're going to get into that discussion, then I'll take the time to provide deeper thought on the issue, beyond simple Star Trek, and if needed we can move this discussion to science fiction as a whole or even more generalized.

Does Classification Matter?
Yes. And no. Classification is a strictly arbitrary affair we have with trying to impose order upon chaos. In the realm of determining categories for works of fiction, it is mostly in an attempt to define the elements that occur within the piece and what we, the reading audience, can expect before we ever pick up the book. Science Fiction and Science Fantasy are, admittedly, interchangeable terms, as are the terms Soft and Hard Science Fiction. Each is but a subsection of what is often simply labelled Science Fiction.

Does a specific genre have more appeal than others?
Again, no simple answer. If I say Space Opera to anyone who is unaware of what that term means, they might get it confused with a grandiose opera with a science fiction bent. There is a certain element of elitism associated with anyone who believes themselves to be more versed in things the average layman doesn't have the inclination to learn, and so these specialized sub-genres of science fiction appeal to us more than it would a historian with a desire to read biographies from the 18th century.

As Chuck (SF Debris) once said, "Opinion is one of the few areas people can be unique in our modern world", and it is very much true. I personally find biographies to be rather dry, but science fiction has an appeal. To the overall market, science fiction may be less lucrative, hence it's being lumped together with fantasy novels, but it is none the less popular enough to remain worthwhile for authors to write and publishers to print. I would even go so far as to say that the internet has allowed genres to become even more focused as people use categories to define what they themselves want by what category it fits into. If I search science fiction on Amazon, I get 319,405 results. However, Space Opera reveals 11,295 results.

Then why do we care what sub-genre a particular piece of fiction falls into?
Because, like the biologist classifying a new species of animal, we use classifications to break down how different things are related and how they're different. An Eagle and a Hawk have many more features in common than an Eagle and a King Cobra. They both fit under the overall classification of Animal, but the differences are interesting as well as their similarities. Same way with science fiction or any other broad genre, they fit primarily under Fiction or Non-Fiction, then a particular genre like Science Fiction, then a particular sub-genre. Does Flash Gordon share more in common with Star Wars than Star Trek? How? Why? If it fits into this category, what else does that I might find interesting? If I know I don't like this particular sub-genre, and this series falls into that category, would I still want to try it? I might anyway, but it would rank a lower priority than something that fits in a category I know I like.

Are you done talking now?
Yes.

[Guardsman Bass]

Space Opera is large-scale melodrama in space, with titanic clashes and epic struggles.

I think there's a difference between stories where it's just speculative science, and when you have out-and-out magic that is more or less acknowledged as magic and/or magical (such as the Force). If it has magic - whether it's in space or on Earth - it's Fantasy. If it doesn't, but features speculative technology regardless of how "realistic" it is, it's Science Fiction. So I'm going to call Star Wars "Space Fantasy".

But if you think that's a stupid criteria, then why even bother with the "Science Fiction" and "Fantasy" labels? Just label it all under "Speculative Fiction" and leave it at that. That includes everything that isn't set in either the "real" present or past - Alternative History Fiction, "Science Fiction", Horror, Magical Realism, and "Fantasy".

[Stark]

Isn't it a bit strange that a small and unattractive genre like scifi is chopped up ever smaller by its alleged 'fans'? I mean do we divide THRILLER by how melodramatic they are, or Tom Clancy novels by how SPECULATIVE they are?

Even the word 'fiction' is redundant because no shit it's fiction. I read a lot of what people would call science fiction that isn't about that nerd definition at all. I'm not even sure where it came from because again early scifi was Flash Gordon or logic puzzles.

I read this one book about a spaceman who fell in with space Aztecs and lived amongst their magic and ritual for years. The speculative content is all in the setup (ie 'spaceships in space explore space') and the rest of the novel is about people and the power of belief.

Clearly, not science fiction. Right? It's just a story about a guy who went on a spaceship once (and I believe he owned a laser gun). It's just a novel people who like spaceships would get bored with.

[Connor MacLeod]

This is so going to get me in trouble.
Connor? I'm reasonably certain Bafallo is the one who gets to decide what this thread is about, what with being the thread creator.
And while I can't speak for him, speaking for nobody but myself, yes 'spaceships=SciFi' and 'Dragons=Fantasy' works for me as a base concept, and I fail to see why we need anything more complex, nor why we should analyze SciFi/Fantasy past the 'Is it fun' Y/N stage. To put it bluntly you don't get to decide whether or not it warrants really deep thought, especially as the answer is 'are you fucking kidding me? We're talking fiction so NO, or not unless you want to put deep thought into it while being perfectly aware of the fact that it is.

Right. And this has TOTALLY stopped SDN people from breaking with an OP whenever it suits them to pursue whatever commentary. opinions, statements, etc. they want, whether its TREKKIES SUCK type comments, or bashing of America, or how unrealistic mecha/space fighters/FTL is.

There would be nothing wrong with his comments if they WERE put in the context of a personal opinion, because people are entitled to their opinions. However, the entire premise of this thread is NOT one of 'this is my opinion', it is phrased as an attempt to draw a consensus on what STar Trek should be DEFINED as. That is something entirely different, and as noted its a rather problematic way to approach the issue.

[Connor MacLeod]

If it makes you feel better, then I invite you to make your case for it. Do you think categorization matters? Or, as you've been pointing out, is it just an arbitrary distinction? If we're going to get into that discussion, then I'll take the time to provide deeper thought on the issue, beyond simple Star Trek, and if needed we can move this discussion to science fiction as a whole or even more generalized.

Dude, no need to get defensive. I'm not singling you out specifically, its just that your thread is convenient to address something that is a larger issue with the board. I think its fairly obvious that people want there to be an exchange of ideas, and interesting and involved discussions on stuff. The problem is, this board has been so adversarial for so long, and geared towards 'winning' a debate and crushing opposition, its hard to remember just HOW an exchange of ideas like that should happen without it breaking down into an 'either/or' argument. VS debating is a peculiar creature in the sense it likes to embrace extremes, because there is (for some at least) an overriding desire to 'win' the debate and that can often mean 'by any means neccessary.' Unlearning that sort of behaviour is hard.

As far as your question goes.. well you pretty much already answered it. In more paragraphs than I would have needed honestly (which is a bit ironic, considering my own habit for 'wall o text' replies, far be it from me to criticize that.) Its a hobby, so deep down it only 'matters' as much as a person cares bout it. The problem is not in 'matter/does not matter', but the way in which we approach these things, and the language we use. Especially on this board, as people can and will jump on the way things are stated/phraesd and use that to verbally bludgeon the opposition to death.

tl;dr: A more open ended approach is generally better, and will be conducive to actual discussions. But it takes practice to learn that sort of approach (it did for me, and I'm still learning as I go.)

now, if I had made the thread, I might go 'What sort of characteristics does Star Trek exhibit thematically' or something like that. Star Trek can and does cross over into lots of different kinds of stories other than just 'science fiction'. You might have certain 'broad' categories of elements it embraces most often (EG its tendency towards a positive and utopian view of human nature) and you might have a large number of 'lesser' elements (encompassing different kinds of stories: mystery, time travel, human interets, romance, etc.) You could even make allowances for where STar Trek falls short on the theme and stories to contrast betwene where its strengths lie.

[Stark]

It's that breadth in story (as a universe and not a twelve part book series or whatever) that allows the brand to be used for different things. Lots of the stuff people would condemn as 'fantasy' would probably be fine scifi in a stand alone thing and its just the perceived inconsistency that makes it seem 'not REALIZM'.

[Baffalo]

If it makes you feel better, then I invite you to make your case for it. Do you think categorization matters? Or, as you've been pointing out, is it just an arbitrary distinction? If we're going to get into that discussion, then I'll take the time to provide deeper thought on the issue, beyond simple Star Trek, and if needed we can move this discussion to science fiction as a whole or even more generalized.

Dude, no need to get defensive.

I'm not getting defensive I'm trying to be accommodating to your point of view. I've been reading your discussions and I'm in perfect agreement. This board is very adversarial, but I believe that yes, we can have civil discussions where the intent is to discuss rather than argue.

There would be nothing wrong with his comments if they WERE put in the context of a personal opinion, because people are entitled to their opinions. However, the entire premise of this thread is NOT one of 'this is my opinion', it is phrased as an attempt to draw a consensus on what STar Trek should be DEFINED as. That is something entirely different, and as noted its a rather problematic way to approach the issue.

This comment will sound sarcastic but it is not. I would really like to see a different thread with a link available to a more proper discussion on the issue like you've pointed out. The discussion is worth having and I'd like to continue. Again, not being sarcastic, I'm wanting this discussion to continue because it is an opinion that is being limited by the original opinion put forward, which happens to be my own.

[Stark]

Why is categorizing fiction even valuable? That's question one.

[Batman]

I dunno. Maybe so you know where to find a particular subset of fiction that you would like to browse? Like, for a completely random example, spaceships and laser swords vs dragons and vorpal swords?

[Stark]

What if you don't decide your preferences by that criteria? For instance, Sherry likes human drama and high stakes jeopardy. She doesn't care if its Smaug or the orbital laser cannon - only the content of the drama. How then are these genre definitions valuable to those people?

[Batman]

Automatic fail. You just proved that genre definitions are valuable to those people, they just use different genre definitions.

[Stark]

Which is why you'll notice i asked about people who don't use your preferred criteria. Can you understand that the way you choose fiction is not how others do, and this your preferred system is not universal or sdn useful to many people.

I'm askig him (ie not you, because you're an idiot) because I want him to think about what the actual goal or utility of categorization is before he thinks about what the categories should be or say.

[Batman]

So you're conceding that categorizing fiction is valuable, it's just that the categories you use are pretty damned arbitrary for the most part.

[Stark]

Are you intellectually incapable of understanding what a thought experiment is, or are you just obsessed with your habit of reposting the same idea over and over regardless of if its valuable or if anyone cares? You 'attack' me (lol) for arbitrary distinctions 'for the most part' (because you're a fucking coward as well as an idiot) because you mentally do not understand that the point of the exercise was to highlight that any system is inherently arbitrary!

Anyway, I hope Baffalo finish primary school and will be able to gain some insight into the idea that to change something it's best to understand what it does and what it is trying to achieve. I believe the current genre system exists largely to keep a specific set of conceits most people don't like out of 'regular' fiction, but this is not particularly successful these days.

[Formless]

Why not just call fantasy series that are set in space "Space Fantasy"? That seems like a far more useful term than calling it "Science Fantasy", which is just weird and confusing. It also opens the door to calling movies like Alien and Event Horizon "Space Horror", and so on and so forth.

That sounds awesome. And as an added bonus, we can reclaim the word "Space Opera" to mean actual opera, with singing and music and fat ladies IN SPACE. Get some half decent rock or metal bands into it, and it could be a real hit. Actually, starting to sound like the premise to Macross now that I think about it...

Now how to get the hipsters involved...

But seriously, this clarifies a lot of fiction that people think of as science fiction because of the setting, but whose plots, themes or aesthetics would otherwise get labeled something else. I like it.

I don't care about some stupid dictionary definition here, but fantasy is generally dragons, shields, swords, elves, bows and arrows and what-not. Scifi is generally spaceships, technology, FTL etc.

Dragon Riders of Pern, meet Clueless Grognard. Clueless Grognard, meet Pern.

Firebreathing telepathic dragons that can teleport (through time). That were genetically engineered by human colonists of an alien planet in anticipation that their technology would break down and leave them vulnerable to an extraterrestrial threat. All of the stereotypes you have are challenged here. Leave your generalizations at the door, please. They have no place in serious discussion.

Hell, if you look at classic era sci-fi the idea of human society slowly breaking down and devolving back into an analogue of the dark ages (aesthetically, even!) is such a classic theme that even Asimov was doing it. Ever heard of Foundation? The trappings of sci-fi that supposedly divide it from fantasy are so thin that Arthur C. Clark, one of the three biggest "Golden Age" sci fi writers, made it his third law of science fiction! And did you know that once upon a time Psionics was considered scientifically plausible by a great many futurists and writers? That's how that word came to be, and why it shows up so often in sci-fi despite clearly being a product of magical thinking. Its amazing how much the genre's fans have forgotten its roots.

At the basic level, fantasy tends towards "magic did it" whilst scifi tends towards "tech did it".

That's the separation.

If you go back to the genesis of "science fiction", you will find no such separation. SF, Fantasy, and Supernormal Horror was all put under the blanket label "Weird Fiction". Hence why H.P. Lovecraft freely invoked spirits, gods, aliens, time travel, books of forbidden lore, zombies, mad science, cultists, magic rituals, prophesies, psychic powers, and biologically engineered monsters before genetic engineering was even a thing. It all ran the gamut of human fears, all unknowns that might frighten the inhabitants of the world he created. And all of them exist in the same mythology.

In fact, come to think of it, your definition seems to exclude the entire genre of alien encounters from sci-fi; half the time you can not tell whether UFOs are technological, magical, or even if they are from space or merely another dimension. It literally doesn't matter, all of the above have been featured in alien stories both in media and folklore. Certainly agent Mulder wouldn't care, he's a True Believer! As long as its aliens with anal probes, it appears to be considered sci-fi. And yet, Harry Potter has a character who believes in crazy conspiracy shit, and the other characters react to her exactly the same way we would to someone who believes in Bigfoot or a secret cabal of reptilian overlords that secretly control the economy. And that's a fantasy story.

Genre labels have changed before; categories for creative endeavors are always mutable. Clinging to the trappings of a genre and refusing to hold them up to scrutiny or comparison to related genres makes you look rigid and irrational.

[Formless]

Now, Star Trek, that I would actually make a case for it being "a mix of both", and I can explain what that means. Star Trek is an episodic television show. Recently, we've been watching a lot of TOS remastered, and its amazing how many episodes involve the crew meeting Greek Gods (no, seriously. Greek Gods. This happens at least twice in Kirk's era) and other mythological figures or creatures. Like episodes that have a ghost or spirit show up, and they just roll with it and hardly even try to paint it as something other than a spirit. And then next episode they have to deal with a berzerker probe, and the tone completely shifts back to a classic sci-fi story. It had a real sense of a variety hour show, where no two episodes are completely the same. TNG is a bit more consistently sci-fi, but it also has plots like Tapestry where Picard dies, meets God (who unsurprisingly looks like John de Lancie), and by the end of the episode walks away with a valuable life lesson. If you take it on an episode by episode basis, some plots are science fiction, some are unabashed fantasy in a space setting. And many are neither, just human dramas or comedies like any other on television. High quality drama with good characters, to be sure, but not exactly science fiction per say. And that's great. Human drama keeps it grounded far better than knowing the technical readouts of a warp core.