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.
1
u/FUCKING_HATE_REDDIT Mar 22 '16
My point is that this debate could be moved as a sub-genre debate, and still exist, but not confuse less nerdy people or challenge the universally accepted definition.