Primal and AirRazor- love in the air ;)

[Gomess]

That from the guy who argues that TF stories should be just so, (Earth focused), because they are TF. By this standard, "Carwash of Doom" or "Autobop", (or even "Infestation), are better than "Last Stand of the Wreckers" or "Webworld".

Dude... I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Never be an interviewer. =p

I don't like Carwash of Doom. The only thing I like about Auto-Bop is Raoul. I don't like Infestation. I do like Webworld.

Yes, I do prefer more Earth-focused TF stories, and no, I don't think people should use oversimplified generic terms in otherwise intelligent conversations. I see no contradiction here.

[Sparky Prime]

Why would sexism, racism and homophobia be publically acceptable if they weren't USEFUL?

.... What? You're trying to compare discriminations against people to how different forms of art/culture are separated into categories? I don't see where you can even draw a parallel between the two, they have nothing to do with each other. Discrimination is hateful behavior breed out of ignorance and fear. There's nothing useful or acceptable about it at all. Genres on the other hand is a way to organize a massive amount of material into categories based on similarities of stylistic elements, making it a useful tool to find stories, music, art and so on that are similar to each other within a given category. Seems like you're trying to turn this argument into something it isn't.

You make it sound like an absolute. You say, "They ARE two different genres" as if genre is some natural law, and not an arbitrary construct that only applies to very narrow discourse (such as this one!). Generic distinction was *invented* (not discovered) so that consumers could broaden their expectations, producers could target and profit from niche audiences more efficiently, and so video shops could better organise their shelves. Simple as.

Categorizing things by genres is a system that dates back to Aristotle and Plato, who used it to organize literature into three basic categories of the time: poetry, drama and prose. It wasn't invented for producers to target certain audiences and video shops to better organize their shelves like you suggest it was, but much more simply, to just organize different styles of literature. Which remains the central point of what a genre is, to categorize different stylistic elements together.

And while they may not be an absolute, these distinctions aren't arbitrary. As I argued along this line before, if there was no important/useful distinction between genres, then you might as well be arguing that there is no difference between realistic-fiction and non-fiction. It's close enough to being the same thing right? Except in one, it actually happened, where as the other is just something that could happen but is still a fictional story. It's an important distinction to make in literature/movies/television. And it's no different between sci-fi and fantasy.

I thought we'd all made that point by bringing up He-Man, Dragon Ball, etc...

As I pointed out earlier, those would fall under a separate sub-genre, being "science-fantasy" as a result of having elements of both rather than just one or the other.

People would argue that. Even the scientist said that his record keeping was a bit sloppy. And, Dolly was a sickly thing, so "successfully" might not be the best way to describe the effort. (And, the ages of Dolly and those monkeys indicates that cloning had been around for a years at that point.)

Dolly was sickly due to fairly common diseases sheep get, which other sheep in Dolly's flock also died of, so scientists don't believe Dolly being a clone was a factor there. And since the success of Dolly, several other animals have been cloned using the same process. There were cloned animals before Dolly, but Dolly was the first cloned from an adult cell where as earlier experiments used embryo cells. And still, doesn't change the public perception that cloning was once only viewed as something from science fiction.

Cloning questions aside, many of the technologies you describe would seem to be magic.

How? There is absolutely nothing magical about the technologies we have or could someday create. Technology is something explainable and understandable. Magic is unexplainable and impossible.

But, the important issue is that for narrative purposes, magic and science fiction are pretty much the same damned thing.

So you keep saying, but you have yet to provide an argument that actually supports this claim.

[Dominic]

Yes, I do prefer more Earth-focused TF stories, and no, I don't think people should use oversimplified generic terms in otherwise intelligent conversations. I see no contradiction here.

You have also said that TF stories should be focused on the disguise aspect of the transforming while the TFs blend in on Earth, rather than transforming for other reasons, (speed, conserving energy, whatever). to my knowledge, you have stil not read "Last Stand of the Wreckers", despite it being very well written and not merely "good for the property or genre".

There's nothing useful or acceptable about it at all. Genres on the other hand is a way to organize a massive amount of material into categories based on similarities of stylistic elements,

I think Gomess would agree it was a bad example. (He actually did.) I too agree that it was not a good example/analogy.

Now, back to our regularly schedule disagreement.

The stylistic elements you mention are the only *real* difference between sci-fi and sword/sorcery.

It is a question of what type of setting and McGuffens the writers want to use.

So you keep saying, but you have yet to provide an argument that actually supports this claim.

While a writer is putting a story together, they may well realize that they need a character to do something, or be able to do something. The way they decide the character can/will/not do the thing in question could be explained as magical or technological. But, in the end, the character still does (or not) the thing they are supposed to do (or not).

To use the LotR example from above, it would be simple enough to change the setting and other dressing elements so that Gollum's crack-ring is some kind of master control component. Using it could give one control over a technocracy, or simply cloak a person from all sensors. The ring-thing could also have incredible data storage capacity, making it an ideal media for storing chunks of one's personality or soul. Bam, instant all purpose McGuffin.

Science-Fantasy, (I need to wash my hands after typing that), is simply more liberal about blending those elements. But, ultimately, the dilithium crystals will fracture right t about the same time the winds of magic shift and the astronomicon fades....when the writers decide they need it to.


Dom
-computers=oracles.

[Sparky Prime]

The stylistic elements you mention are the only *real* difference between sci-fi and sword/sorcery.

It is a question of what type of setting and McGuffens the writers want to use.

Once again, that's not the only difference. There is more to sci-fi than you give it credit.

While a writer is putting a story together, they may well realize that they need a character to do something, or be able to do something. The way they decide the character can/will/not do the thing in question could be explained as magical or technological. But, in the end, the character still does (or not) the thing they are supposed to do (or not).

A character is going to do something (or not) regardless of if the story even uses magic or technology. I don't see what you're point here is as that can really apply to anything.

To use the LotR example from above, it would be simple enough to change the setting and other dressing elements so that Gollum's crack-ring is some kind of master control component. Using it could give one control over a technocracy, or simply cloak a person from all sensors. The ring-thing could also have incredible data storage capacity, making it an ideal media for storing chunks of one's personality or soul. Bam, instant all purpose McGuffin.

....You're not really big on science fiction are you Dom? What brand of sci-fi have you seen that has ever used some sort of "all purpose McGuffin"? Look at some of the most commonly used technologies in sci-fi: warp/hyper drive, stargates, shields/force fields, transporters, robotics, A.I., flux capacitor, cloaking device, energy based weapons... These are reasoned ideas with a specific purpose with real laws of nature in mind, not some catch 22 McGuffin that can do anything you happen to need it to do in a story. And again, that's a point about science fiction that you keep ignoring, reasoned possibilities.

But, ultimately, the dilithium crystals will fracture right t about the same time the winds of magic shift and the astronomicon fades....when the writers decide they need it to.

That's not "winds of magic shift", that's called a plot twist, and its something *any* story can have.

[Gomess]

Seems like you're trying to turn this argument into something it isn't.

Yes, I have a communist agenda. *Please* go back through this discussion at some point, try to diagram your responses to Dom and Trekwave, and tell me they're not cyclical and at times illogical. I'm trying my best to keep up with you here, but you keep picking up on odd points and repeating yourself without adding any citations or fun pictures.

But, ultimately, the dilithium crystals will fracture right t about the same time the winds of magic shift and the astronomicon fades....when the writers decide they need it to.

That's not "winds of magic shift", that's called a plot twist, and its something *any* story can have.

See, this is what I'm talking about. Dom has essentially said, "Regardless of what you CALL a plot device that doesn't exist in our world (regardless of whether it "might someday"), it will do what it needs to for the story to continue." And you've responded, "No, all stories have plot devices". Banana spoon owl?

Categorizing things by genres is a system that dates back to Aristotle and Plato, who used it to organize literature into three basic categories of the time: poetry, drama and prose. It wasn't invented for producers to target certain audiences and video shops to better organize their shelves like you suggest it was, but much more simply, to just organize different styles of literature.

...Ok, you're actually referring to Genette's interpretation of Plato's work on drama, epic and dithyramb. Which was a method of categorising *media*, not genres. Plato was ultimately arguing differences in format, not aesthetics. He was saying, "This is a movie, this is a video game," not "This is horror, this is romance". Beyond establishing that there's a precedent for generic distinction (which at no point I've disagreed with), I don't see how Plato's work is relevant here.

And even if I thought it was, *why* would they organise different styles of literature? Humanity's genetic memory doesn't just do this stuff for fun. Again, I'm not being as cynical as I probably sound, but genre is a subconsciously created method of audience control. I'm not saying it's EVIL, but it has a very clear purpose. The only other explanation is that Plato was being self-indulgent and essentially organising his stamp collection, which is also possible.

You honestly don't seem to get that genre is a fluid and ultimately superfluous theory that's only good for picking which movie you feel like watching after a particularly hard day when your expectations are at their lowest. It is not, never has been, and hopefully never will be, a strict set of rules that can enrich everyone's consumption of media. Millions of people find it convenient, but it's waaaay down the list of important aspects in media.

And no one has EVER described Dragon Ball as "science fantasy". Because as I keep telling you, genres are not absolute, particularly the ones invented by the west.

what brand of sci-fi have you seen that has ever used that sort of "all purpose McGuffin"? warp/hyper drive, stargates, shields/force fields, transporters

Right, it seems we're using "McGuffin" and "plot device" interchangeably here, which is ok with me, long as we're on the same page. ...But oh my... How is a force field not a plot device? How is a transporter not a plot device?? They have as much "reasoned purpose" as the FIRE WAND OF SAMARDOOOOM or whatever. The transporter is one of the greatest plot devices of all time, because it literally lets you move your characters wherever you want instantaneously! And.. really..

Force field = Stops whatever you want getting through (changes depending on narrative convenience; in some stories they're harmless, sometimes they kill you if you touch them, sometimes they're breakable or unbreakable...)

Fire wand of SAMARDOOOOM = Makes fire happen (changes depending on narrative convenience; in some stories they shoot fire, sometimes they only manipulate fire, sometimes they rely on the user's vibrational energy or some external power source...)

Hm. I should've compared a force field with a magic barrier, or a laser gun with a fire wand of SAMARDOOOOM. O well.

Sparky, lemme just ask one very direct question: You get that Star Wars is just a swashbuckling movie, right? That the spaceships flying from planet to planet really have no meaningful grounding in extant science, and may as well be boats going from country to country? Because they are. Star Wars might be "sci-fi" in appearance, but its plot doesn't rely on those elements to progress whatsoever. It's just Zorro / Hidden Fortress iiiin Spaaaace.

[Sparky Prime]

Yes, I have a communist agenda. *Please* go back through this discussion at some point, try to diagram your responses to Dom and Trekwave, and tell me they're not cyclical and at times illogical. I'm trying my best to keep up with you here, but you keep picking up on the wrong points and repeating yourself.

Right, because my pointing out a bad example means I'm suggesting you have a communist agenda. And how are any of my responses cyclical or illogical? Picking up on wrong points? I have no idea what you're talking about. Repeating, sure, however that's to point out when certain points have been ignored or misunderstood.

...Ok, you're actually referring to Genette's interpretation of Plato's work on drama, epic and dithyramb. Which was a method of categorising *media*, not genres. Plato was ultimately arguing differences in format, not aesthetics. He was saying, "This is a movie, this is a video game," not "This is horror, this is romance". I hardly see how Plato's work is relevant here.

No... I'll admit I'm not very familiar with this sort of stuff from ancient Greek but actually I was referring to Plato's mimetic concepts, which involves aesthetic and literary theory and how the type of author/performer reflects the type of work they produce. Something Aristotle expanded on and it continued to evolve from there. How is it relevant here? You make it seem like genres are a fairly new concept, simply to make shopping easier. I brought this up to show it's origins go back to the foundations of Western philosophy and part of the tradition of literary criticism.

You honestly don't seem to get that genre is a fluid and ultimately superfluous theory that's only good for picking which movie you feel like watching after a particularly hard day when your expectations are at their lowest. It is not, never has been, and hopefully never will be, a strict set of rules that can enrich everyone's consumption of media. Millions of people find it convenient, but it's waaaay down the list of important aspects in media.

Would you argue that fiction and non-fiction are fluid? Something real against something false? Are these superfluous distinctions? As I said before, genres might not be absolute, but they certainly aren't superfluous either. That's the thing I honestly don't get, how you can't seem see that difference. And again, it's origins are in literary criticism, not to simply help someone pick out a movie.

And no one has EVER described Dragon Ball as "science fantasy". Because as I keep telling you, genres are not absolute, particularly the ones invented by the west.

Would "science-fiction fantasy" make you feel better about it? It's the same thing as "science fantasy" but perhaps a more commonly used term for combining the two genres.

...Oh my... How is a force field not a McGuffin? How is a transporter not a McGuffin?? They have as much "reasoned purpose" as the FIRE WAND OF SAMARDOOOOM or whatever. The transporter is one of the greatest McGuffins of all time, because it literally lets you move your characters wherever you want instantaneously! And.. really..

As I pointed out before, we're a long way from transporter technology like in Star Trek, but it is something scientists are working on. Same with force fields. Someday, we might actually have and use this technology. That's part of what makes sci-fi what it is, reasonable speculation on what might be possible. The Fire Wand of Samardooooom? Magic like that doesn't exist. And that's part of what makes fantasy what it is. Impossibilities.

[Gomess]

Ok, just answer this one question:

Why is it important that we so firmly distinguish between sci-fi and fantasy?

Because really- and I do apologise if I'm wrong- it's starting to seem like your'e a fan of literary criticism in and of itself, in which case I feel we have nothing to debate.

[Sparky Prime]

Ok, just answer this one question:

Why is it important that we so firmly distinguish between sci-fi and fantasy?

Because really- and I do apologise if I'm wrong- it's starting to seem like your'e a fan of literary criticism in and of itself, in which case I feel we have nothing to debate.

Well I am an English teacher. Literary criticism is part of what I do and I felt it important to point out there is a distinction between Sci-Fi and Fantasy. Honestly, I never intended this debate to drag on and out like this though.

[Onslaught Six]

Seems like you're trying to turn this argument into something it isn't.

Yes, I have a communist agenda. *Please* go back through this discussion at some point, try to diagram your responses to Dom and Trekwave, and tell me they're not cyclical and at times illogical. I'm trying my best to keep up with you here, but you keep picking up on odd points and repeating yourself without adding any citations or fun pictures.

Welcome to arguing with Sparky Prime. Unfortunately, he just kind of does this. (Nothing against you, man. Not trying to offend.)

And no one has EVER described Dragon Ball as "science fantasy". Because as I keep telling you, genres are not absolute, particularly the ones invented by the west.

DB is, at its best, a martial arts adventure shonen anime. (In fact, I quite like how genres in anime seem to just be split up by appropriate age group--shonen/shojo/seinen/the one that means adult girls).

Side note: Is Firefly a "science-western?" (Context: I have never seen this show.)

Sparky, lemme just ask one very direct question: You get that Star Wars is just a swashbuckling movie, right? That the spaceships flying from planet to planet really have no meaningful grounding in extant science, and may as well be boats going from country to country? Because they are. Star Wars might be "sci-fi" in appearance, but its plot doesn't rely on those elements to progress whatsoever. It's just Zorro / Hidden Fortress iiiin Spaaaace.

Yes! To bring up Dom's Excalibur With A Lightsaber plotline again, Sparky's argument was "BUT LIGHTSABERS DON'T WORK THAT WAY!" Well, if Star Wars' plot had relied on them working that way, you're damn sure George Lucas would have made them that way.


Optimus Prime's trailer disappears when he transforms. Fans invented subspace to explain it--pocket dimensions and stuff. However, if during a G1 episode, Prime had simply explained, "Oh, my trailer disappears with magic," then would there be any functional difference? The trailer still goes away, and neither thing (magic or subspace) is possible.

[Gomess]

shonen/shojo/seinen/the one that means adult girls)

Oh come on, dude. You can work it out. Go on, look at the words and take a wild guess at what it is. =p