Grading Science Fiction for Realism

Rathark · Post by **Rathark** » 2002-10-21 01:19am

http://www.orionsarm.com/books/grading.html

On this grading system, Star Wars, Evangelion and Peter F Hamilton's Night's Dawn Trilogy are all classified under "Science Fantasy" because they deliberately combine high technology and supernatural elements. Star Trek, however, is classified as "Soft SF" because it seems less self-consistent than other forms of SF, despite its intentions. Personally I think this grading system has a good point. Star Wars, Evangelion and Night's Dawn seem more honest in their depiction of the unknown or the humanly incomprehensible, while Trek smothers a lot of potential mystery and wonder under excessive technobabble. What do you think? Do your opinions correspond with the Orion's Arm grading system?

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2002-10-21 03:41am

ST has had ghosts, possessions, and omnipotent beings. It's as much science fantasy as SW. I agree with ST tries to deal with all its supernatural elements with bullshit technobabble.

Mr. Mister · Post by **Mr. Mister** » 2002-10-21 03:57am

I think it's amusing to see a Latin American literary movement included in the "not sci-fi" section. Who wants to bet that they had no idea "Magical Realism" is a style pioneered by Gabriel García Márquez that's probably the predominent style in Latin American literature of the 20th century? The hallmark, though, is people accepting totally random, weird shit as if it were a mundane part of their lives (in one story, the people in a little farming village find a live angel, so of course their first response is, "It might steal chickens. We should shoot it."), so that might actually earn it a place as "not sci-fi" on a list of what is and isn't sci-fi...

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-10-21 04:37am

Rathark wrote:http://www.orionsarm.com/books/grading.html

On this grading system, Star Wars, Evangelion and Peter F Hamilton's Night's Dawn Trilogy are all classified under "Science Fantasy" because they deliberately combine high technology and supernatural elements. Star Trek, however, is classified as "Soft SF" because it seems less self-consistent than other forms of SF, despite its intentions. Personally I think this grading system has a good point. Star Wars, Evangelion and Night's Dawn seem more honest in their depiction of the unknown or the humanly incomprehensible, while Trek smothers a lot of potential mystery and wonder under excessive technobabble. What do you think? Do your opinions correspond with the Orion's Arm grading system?

I thought this thread would be about how realistic a sci-fi universe is. But yeah, that system makes sense.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-21 12:35pm

Star Trek is no more realistic that Star Wars. They mearly make up stupid treknobabble to explain their weird shit. And usually it 100% horsehit treknobabble.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-10-22 02:07pm

I almost made a similar thread. I always hear about how Star Trek is 'science fiction' and Star Wars is 'science fantasy'. I hear all kinds of arguments, like for instance that ST explains everything in a 'scientific' way, while SW is all magic and princesses and firefights.

I really hate this, because it seems to belittle Star Wars in a strange way (I mean I've read lots of science-fiction, and there's nothing that would make ST more sci-fi than SW.)

Just what would be a valid definition of science-fiction that somehow would include Star Trek but exclude Star Wars? I don't think there is, but more importantly, what can I tell those jerks who always claim that Star Trek is more 'shun-tific'.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-10-22 02:13pm

Oh yeah, just read the definition of 'soft sci-fi' and it indeed sounds a lot worse than science fantasy...

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-22 02:44pm

Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take Firefly from me!

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-10-22 02:54pm

Star Trek is only more science fiction than Star Wars in that it is more about science, exploration, etc, no matter how incorrect that science may be. Star Wars is about conflict between people, both on a galactic, and personal scale. Science is not focused on as a central theme.

Actually, based on those guidelines ST is more soft sci-fi, especially if you include Enterprise as being ST>

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-10-22 03:35pm

neoolong wrote:Star Trek is only more science fiction than Star Wars in that it is more about science, exploration, etc, no matter how incorrect that science may be. Star Wars is about conflict between people, both on a galactic, and personal scale. Science is not focused on as a central theme.

Actually, based on those guidelines ST is more soft sci-fi, especially if you include Enterprise as being ST>

A lot of (real) sci-fi works are based on an all-out war and zero exploration, and while they extrapolate science concept, it isn't the central theme.

Evil Jerk · Post by **Evil Jerk** » 2002-10-22 04:00pm

Jim Raynor wrote:ST has had ghosts, possessions, and omnipotent beings. It's as much science fantasy as SW. I agree with ST tries to deal with all its supernatural elements with bullshit technobabble.

No no no no no no no. ST doesn't have ghosts. No.
It has "Anaphasic Lifeforms"

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-10-22 05:09pm

Slartibartfast wrote:
neoolong wrote:Star Trek is only more science fiction than Star Wars in that it is more about science, exploration, etc, no matter how incorrect that science may be. Star Wars is about conflict between people, both on a galactic, and personal scale. Science is not focused on as a central theme.

Actually, based on those guidelines ST is more soft sci-fi, especially if you include Enterprise as being ST>
A lot of (real) sci-fi works are based on an all-out war and zero exploration, and while they extrapolate science concept, it isn't the central theme.

I know. I just meant that ST can really only be considered as more science fiction than SW because of the emphasis on science. Only in that one aspect in my opinion.

Rathark · Post by **Rathark** » 2002-10-23 12:07am

Slartibartfast wrote:Oh yeah, just read the definition of 'soft sci-fi' and it indeed sounds a lot worse than science fantasy...

That's the point. Red Dwarf and Lexx have every right to be "inconsistent" because, basically, they're comedies, not strictly dramas or thrillers. ST, on the other hand, has become inconsistent through years of collaboration. Even from the beginning, those transporters and phasers seem a little "miraculous" to be in the hands of mere mortals. Even 2001 (generally considered as close to "hard SF") has miraculous technology in the form of the monolith and the stargate, but at least we know that their alien creators were supposed to be beyond our comprehension. The full implications of phasers and transporters are not explored thoroughly, at least as far as the Federation is concerned.

Dr Who belongs in the "soft SF" for almost the opposite reasons: like Star Wars, it "feels" more mythological, despite keeping one toe in the scientific world. Personally I feel it should be included under "science fantasy".

In short, SW, Night's Dawn etc are honest about being science fantasy. Red Dwarf is SF that doesn't have to be "hard SF" at all. The same applies to Dr Who, but for different (and debateable) reasons. Star Trek does something that RD and DrW don't do - it tries to be something resembling "hard SF", but thinks it could achieve this through technobabble. It's stuck in a grey area by default.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-10-23 01:00am

Actually I think that ST is soft sci-fi through sheer incompetence.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Grading Science Fiction for Realism

Grading Science Fiction for Realism

Re: Grading Science Fiction for Realism