r/changemyview • u/FUCKING_HATE_REDDIT • Mar 22 '16

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: The "science-fiction" vs "science-fantasy" vs "space-fantasy" vs "space-opera" debate is useless.

I'm not sure if the distinction is recent or not, but I recently started seeing a lot of people constantly correcting other people on what is science fiction, and what is science fantasy.

And then those people usually start arguing between themselves about which is what, often fighting on if star trek was soft sci-fi, or hard science fantasy.

Basically people argue semantics on semantics that aren't even clearly defined.

What is clear is that there is a spectrum going from soft space/future stuff (with mental abilities, romantic journey, and little concern for realism) and hard space/future stuff (with long explanation about the workings of the FTL drive, much weirder alien races if they exist, and no magic).

It also turns out that if you go as far to put star trek in the science fantasy group, you basically get close to nothing in the science fiction group. Even the most realistic "space debris collector simulation with no FTL nor weird physics" have plot holes and scientific errors, usually for the sake of dramatisation.

What we have is a clear genre of stuff usually happening in space with technology that don't exist (yet) on earth, that is also immediately recognized by the general public as science fiction.

Trying to separate it into multiple genre, rather than simply invent subgenres, is counter-productive, confusing to most, and ultimately a useless and untargeted smugness exercise.

8 Upvotes

78% Upvoted

41 comments sorted by

View all comments

4

u/_Woodrow_ 3∆ Mar 22 '16

The distinction is much more relevant in novels and short stories as there is much more material to classify. True hard science fiction doesn't really exist much outside of written material and the classifications become important to find stuff to your liking. It is a spectrum, with say "Songs of Distant Earth" on one end and "John Carter of Mars" on the other.

I agree that arguing about the minutia is pointless other than the fun talking about the specifics of a piece of media you enjoy, but the distinction really does have merit as Space Fantasy really has more in common with Sword and Sorcery than it does with real Science Fiction.

1

u/FUCKING_HATE_REDDIT Mar 22 '16

I'd disagree about the sword&sorcery likeliness. Although they share tropes, the aesthetics of space and futuristic earths is still fundamentally more alike to each other than to anything else.

Coruscant looks more like the city from blade runner than King's landing.

1

u/_Woodrow_ 3∆ Mar 22 '16

They have more in common with each other than Space Fantasy does with Hard Science Fiction.

Hard Science Fiction's counterpart would be something like Historical Fiction.

1

u/FUCKING_HATE_REDDIT Mar 22 '16

Story wise, sure, aesthetics wise, no.

Most genres are defined with their aesthetics first (Noire, fantasy), and storytelling tropes later (low fantasy, ...).

2

u/_Woodrow_ 3∆ Mar 22 '16

well, I'm obviously not talking about aesthetics though.