I based my recent colege essay on the different genres of Sci-Fi. Am I accurate?

[Pika...]

The following was meant to be a divisionary essay. I decided to divide it into the various sub-genres of Science Fiction, or more precisely the four I felt were the most prevalent.

I would love to know how the media junkies here feel about how I broke them down, and if you feel I came close or was completely off on my categories and break downs.



Matthias Drake

xxxx xxxxx

English 1101

March 30th 2010


The various sub-genres of Science Fiction Television

Although many non-fans of the genre tend to lump it all together, the truth is that this genre is probably more diverse than most due to the lack of limits it allows the creators and writers of the various forms of series which have become iconic of the genre. There are surely more sub-genres out there than the ones which I will describe in this paper, but after reading it you should be more informed on the subject and should feel a bit more comfortable in conversations with your nerdish friends. The four sub-genres I will be discussing (using my own terminology for categories) are: Pure Escapism Sci-Fi, Truer to Science Sci-Fi, Classic “Fun” Sci-Fi, and Modern Drama Sci-Fi.

The first sub-genre I will discuss is Pure Escapism Sci-Fi because it possibly has the largest non-”nerd” following in the mainstream and general populace due to a single movie franchise: Star Wars. This genre does not even try to cover up it's lack of scientific bases for their ideas, and the writers possibly simply assume that technology that is advance enough can make anything possible. However, do to this they are able to produce more escapism-filled worlds and scenes to project onto the big screens. This is as close as most people are willing to experiment with the Science Fiction genre.

Unlike Pure Escapism Sci-Fi mentioned above, True to Science Sci-Fi tends to present imaginative worlds which feel a bit more like they can actually one day come to be. This is due to an enfaces on the futuristic science, technology, and alien spices presented in such works being founded on more true-to-life physics and knowledge of the universe. In addition, it tends to focus more effort on depicting characters in more true-to-life ways, although this has begun to fade in favor of pure melodrama style characters and character interactions (See Modern Drama Sci-Fi below). The best known example of this sub-genre is probably the Star Trek franchise.

Now Classic ”Fun” Sci-Fi can either focus on more true-to-life science and character interactions, or not. It truly does not usually matter as long as they are mostly constant with how the science and technology that makes everything possible works, for it is still in the background. Why it is not import while it basically defines the first two sub-genres you may ask? Because it simply does not matter. The whole point is that it is fun and enjoyable, and that it can leave you smiling after killing an hour of your time. Many of the older Sci-Fi series and franchises fell more-or-less into this category, but sadly it is clearly fading entirely. The sole, and yet very popular, example of this genre I am aware of that is still on the air is the series Doctor Who, though it should be noted the series has been around nearly half a century and began in the era where this genre was abundant.

The last genre I will discuss with you is in all honestly my most disliked sub-genre, but I will try to be as unbias as I can for the moment. In short, this sub-genre is the standard melodrama style show which has become extremely popular over the last few years, with some Science Fiction style backgrounds and a few futurist elements such convenient technology which helps extend the drama to levels standard shows could not without making it difficult for the audience to suspend disbelief. This sub-genre's best example at the moment is remake of Battlestar Galaxtica. That show became a major hit outside the Sci-Fi community, but personally I believe this was due to it merely being another melodrama and not a true Science Fiction series. Sadly it seems it has opened the floodgates of cooperate greed, and I am certain this sub-genre will quickly drive most other genres to near or total extinction. There are already signs indicating this is a definite possibility.

[Prime32]

Your first three genres appear to be Science Fantasy, Hard sci-fi and Soft sci-fi. I'm not sure if the last one counts as a genre.

Basically the difference between sci-fi and fantasy is that sci-fi takes place in a world identical to our own but with something new introduced to it at some point in time (usually dealing with the societal implications), while fantasy takes place in a world separate to our own.

Star Wars is a fantasy series in a futuristic setting.


Mohs Scale of Science Fiction Hardness (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness)
Science Fiction Versus Fantasy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScienceFictionVersusFantasy)
Speculative Fiction (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpeculativeFiction)

[Poison_Fish]

I'm mostly wondering just what sort of audience your writing to.

You also don't pertain to classic literary tropes of science fiction (Hard vs. Soft) that are worth mentioning. I suppose I feel that your category's aren't that solid as I could easily label BSG into Truer to Science Sci-Fi over Star Trek, for instance.

In addition, your categories judgements as what forms them as categories are not aligned. It appears your going for a technological belief/disbelief sort of scale, but it appears for the most part that none of these are exclusive save for the first two.

As well, define your terms. Your invoking nerd culture, does this have bearing on the types of science fiction?

If your looking for a way to spin this in a more english manner, with the use of terms like "Melodrama" and "Suspension of Disbelief", try to incorporate that element in more.

All in All, I can't entirely disagree with what you have, but I don't feel you have a solid distinction between your categories. My suggestion is to use the 4 examples you have and try and find out where they do solidly differ in certain categories, or even before that, figure out what sort of criteria you'll be attempting to use as a distinguishing factor.

[warty goblin]

I'm thinking...not so accurate. As I see it, sci-fi is not exactly a rigid genre itself, and its subgenres hardly partition the set. That said, I'd say the following descriptors are fairly useful.

1) Space Opera/Space Fantasy. Basically an adventure story in space, often- but not necessarily- with outright fantastical or scientifically nonsensical elements. Ur example is of course Star Wars in pretty much every form, although most televised sci-fi series I think fall into this category as well, as does most of George RR Martin's sci-fi work.

2) Hard sci-fi. Regardless of story told, I'd say hard sci-fi either tries to keep its speculative elements as accurate as possible (when written) the blatant unrealities to a minimum, and to seriously consider the effects of technology on society and people. Heinlein, Asimov and Clark all did this sort of stuff.

3) Military sci-fi. This is often also hard sci-fi, but it's hardly necessary; much of Star Wars could probably be so described. Basically fiction in the future about the military.

There's probably others, but I'd start there.

[Pika...]

Wow, I should have done a google search. I had no idea these terms were already defined, especially so well. Or should I say there are proper terms out there...

And thank you Poison Fish for giving me a little lesson there. Useful information, as I am AWFUL in English.

[Starbuck_II]

3) Military sci-fi. This is often also hard sci-fi, but it's hardly necessary; much of Star Wars could probably be so described. Basically fiction in the future about the military.

There's probably others, but I'd start there.

Does Starship troopers this one?

[Weezer]

Does Starship troopers this one?

Very much so yes. It's about a guy in the marines fighting bugs in space while wearing powered armor. That's just about the epitome of military sci-fi.

[warty goblin]

Very much so yes. It's about a guy in the marines fighting bugs in space while wearing powered armor. That's just about the epitome of military sci-fi.

Although at least by my (highly non-official, if such a thing even exists) it's also hard sci-fi. As I said, the categories are in no way mutually exclusive.

Although if you are limiting yourself to television, I'm not sure they are as applicable. I can't think of any pure sci-fi set-in-space TV shows that I would call anything but space opera. The others, ala X Files, are entirely different beasts. I'm sure terms and descriptors for more contemporary shows about the paranormal exist, but I don't know them.

[Mewtarthio]

The last genre I will discuss with you is in all honestly my most disliked sub-genre, but I will try to be as unbias as I can for the moment.

You might not want this sentence. Either you really do try to be unbiased, in which case injecting your personal opinions is counterproductive, or you just want to state your problems with the genre, in which case you shouldn't pretend you're doing otherwise. Make no mistake, though, the next paragraph is biased and focused mainly your private beliefs and speculations.

Now, if you want to keep the personal opinions, here's a few recommendations: First, don't try to trick your readers into thinking there is no bias. Your teacher's read enough papers that (s)he'll see right through that. Next, and most importantly, explain why you hold those opinions. Why areBattlestar Galactica (note the spelling, by the way) and its ilk "not a true Science Fiction series"? That requires more than just proving it's a melodrama; the two genres aren't mutually exclusive. Explain exactly what signs you've seen to convince you that "this sub-genre will quickly drive most other genres to near and total extinction" (and why you think this is sad).

For the paper as a whole, you need to clarify the categories. Here's an idea for you: Pick a number of sci-fi stories (say, five to ten, be they movies, video games, television shows, novels, or even short stories). Then, figure out which category each one belongs to (if you have trouble at this point, then the categories are too imprecise). Look for the common threads between them, see what exactly it is that made you group them like so, and update your paper accordingly. Then, if you have the time, present the fresh draft to other people familiar with the stories and see if they sort everything the same way you did (feel free to post the revised draft and the list of stories in this topic).

Good luck on that paper! :smallsmile:

[Jimorian]

The following was meant to be a divisionary essay. I decided to divide it into the various sub-genres of Science Fiction, or more precisely the four I felt were the most prevalent.

I would love to know how the media junkies here feel about how I broke them down, and if you feel I came close or was completely off on my categories and break downs.

(From your essay)
The four sub-genres I will be discussing (using my own terminology for categories) are: Pure Escapism Sci-Fi, Truer to Science Sci-Fi, Classic “Fun” Sci-Fi, and Modern Drama Sci-Fi.


Actually, I think you got the categories just about right, though as others have mentioned, there are already terms for them.

What I'd call them in order
1) Adventure Science Fiction or Space Opera
2) Hard Science Fiction
3) Golden Age Science Fiction
4) Literary Science Fiction

Naturally, there's a lot of overlap when you try to break down a genre.

For example, Golden Age SF would be considered "Hard" in most cases as well, because they were speculating on possible future technologies, but its defining characteristic is that it's more about solving the puzzle of the story using that technology. The magazine Analog Science Fiction is the closest to maintaining that tradition these days.

Literary SF mostly concerns the impact upon the characters, with the speculative science being secondary to this and mostly as a catalyst to telling their story.

There's a lot more that can be said, but overall, your essay hits the major points, which is pretty impressive considering you weren't aware of these classifications beforehand. :smallsmile:

[Lord Loss]

I'm thinking...not so accurate. As I see it, sci-fi is not exactly a rigid genre itself, and its subgenres hardly partition the set. That said, I'd say the following descriptors are fairly useful.

1) Space Opera/Space Fantasy. Basically an adventure story in space, often- but not necessarily- with outright fantastical or scientifically nonsensical elements. Ur example is of course Star Wars in pretty much every form, although most televised sci-fi series I think fall into this category as well, as does most of George RR Martin's sci-fi work.

2) Hard sci-fi. Regardless of story told, I'd say hard sci-fi either tries to keep its speculative elements as accurate as possible (when written) the blatant unrealities to a minimum, and to seriously consider the effects of technology on society and people. Heinlein, Asimov and Clark all did this sort of stuff.

3) Military sci-fi. This is often also hard sci-fi, but it's hardly necessary; much of Star Wars could probably be so described. Basically fiction in the future about the military.

There's probably others, but I'd start there.

This seems, very, very accurate in my opinion. In your case, Pika, I would take this, then elaborate, perhaps mentioning sub-genres and to whom each category appeals (Example: Military Horror appeals to Action/Horror fanatics - porbably untrue, just an example)

[Mauther]

Just as a general formating, I'd unify my paragraph structure. In your first body paragraph, you identify your example early. At that point I would make specific themetic examples (light sabers, the force, carbonite) that illustrate your point. Once you've established that structure, replicate it on the other paragraphs.

[Platinum_Mongoose]

Your name is Matthias Drake? I don't understand. Are you a spy or a starship captain or something?

Edit: Okay, actually read the essay now. I like the core of it, but as with any essay you're gonna want to give concrete examples. I'm sure you're well-versed in your subject matter, given the forum you're calling on for help. :smalltongue: So, in this case, just write what you know. Read back over your essay and ask yourself for each point you make, "How can I convey this to a reader who is familiar with the material, but does not understand your argument without reference?"

[JonestheSpy]

You know, I'm still having a very hard time trying to wrap my mind around the idea that a story about the last remnant of humanity searching space for a refuge while being pursued by robots - who may be infiltrating humanity with spies who may not even be aware they are robots - isn't "real" science fiction.

I mean, sure, you can write a story about a private detective who happens to be from Mars, and it can be really just a run-of-the-mill detective story with SF trappings; but there is absolutely no way that you could tell the story of Battlestar Galactica without the science fiction elements and have it be even remotely the same.

Pika, I think your initial instinct to separate Hard SF vs "soft" SF is a good one, but I also suspect you'll get a better grade if you refine it a lot more, and drop the "fun vs drama" categories. There is completely Hard SF that's got action and adventure, and there's playing with the net down stories full of scientific impossibilities that are about people sitting around talking and not much else.

And if you make the claim that Battlestar is ruining SF and your teacher happens to be a fan of the show, well, you better have a very clear and defensible argument for your position...

P.S. - Star Trek really, really isn't anywhere near Hard SF. I suggest checking out some Gregory Benford or Larry Niven if you want to see what the hard stuff really looks like.

EDIT: Pika, I think you also need to clarify the difference between melodrama and drama. A good definition of melodrama I googled goes like this:

A work (as a movie or play) characterized by extravagant theatricality and by the predominance of plot and physical action over characterization

Galactica is clearly not a melodrama - the definition is much more in line with a show like Dr. Who, in fact.

[Syka]

Niven is a good example of hard science fiction. Star Trek is not. Orson Scott Card would be a good example of 'soft' and/or 'hard' sci-fi.

I also disagree that BSG is not sci-fi. As someone else said: it's the last vestiges of humanity escaping a totally different plant system being chased by murderous androids they created. How does it being a drama make it not sci-fi?

I mean there is sci-fi comedy, sci-fi fantasy, sci-fi drama, sci-fi horror. I'd almost buy Caprica not being Sci-Fi, but not BSG.

What do you think about Firefly? It's more focused on characters and their relationships but it's also solidly sci-fi. Drama does not make it less of a science fiction show.



I think what you should do is break it down in to hard and soft sci-fi and leave it at that. If you try and go farther down, you'll likely end up with so many different little distinctions like I mentioned above.

[Prime32]

P.S. - Star Trek really, really isn't anywhere near Hard SF. I suggest checking out some Gregory Benford or Larry Niven if you want to see what the hard stuff really looks like.
Star Trek has a lot of technical explanations for things, but in the end they're all gibberish and added in after-the-fact. See this (http://robertsmanor.com/pics/Public/Funny/stories/LaForgeDialogGenerator.html) and this (http://www.robotplanet.dk/humor/startrek_babble_generator.html)

[JonestheSpy]

Star Trek has a lot of technical explanations for things, but in the end they're all gibberish and added in after-the-fact. See this (http://robertsmanor.com/pics/Public/Funny/stories/LaForgeDialogGenerator.html) and this (http://www.robotplanet.dk/humor/startrek_babble_generator.html)

I loved Phil Foglio's jibe at this from Buck Godot:

"Ready to begin speaking in technobabble, sir."

"Oh shut up, it's just us. Turn it on!"

[Brewdude]

Spell check. The word is college.

Obviously, this topic sets you up as a geek, and they'll put you in their "geek" quota when trying to balance their "diversity". Given that, I would tailor the essay to what sort of college you were applying to. If it is to an engineering college, I would concern myself with the science elements of the topic. If it is to more of a film/artistic college, I'd concern myself with the tropes. If to an arts college, then comparing and contrasting with historic fiction genres would be in order.

A trip to www.tvtropes.com seems in order so that your essay can use specific terms that already exist for the concepts you are expressing. Make sure to cite your sources, however, so as to distinguish well known literary tropes vs "stuff someone made up for the tropes website".

Example: "Checkov's Gun" is also known as "Plants and Payoffs" in movie writing circles, as that is how the concept was described in the literary talks of a well known industry script doctor.

Whoa, sorry for the tangent there.

[warty goblin]

Spell check. The word is college.

Obviously, this topic sets you up as a geek, and they'll put you in their "geek" quota when trying to balance their "diversity". Given that, I would tailor the essay to what sort of college you were applying to. If it is to an engineering college, I would concern myself with the science elements of the topic. If it is to more of a film/artistic college, I'd concern myself with the tropes. If to an arts college, then comparing and contrasting with historic fiction genres would be in order.

A trip to www.tvtropes.com seems in order so that your essay can use specific terms that already exist for the concepts you are expressing. Make sure to cite your sources, however, so as to distinguish well known literary tropes vs "stuff someone made up for the tropes website".

Example: "Checkov's Gun" is also known as "Plants and Payoffs" in movie writing circles, as that is how the concept was described in the literary talks of a well known industry script doctor.

Whoa, sorry for the tangent there.
I don't think this is an admissions essay- and if it is you really need a different, more personal topic. Also I suspect that geek isn't a category colleges use to determine diversity.

Also, while tv tropes may be helpful do not, under any circumstances, cite from it. You might, depending on the class, get by with Wikipedia, but tv tropes doesn't even try to be a credible, referenced source. You could possibly get away with using it as a primary source, eg. an aggregate of opinion on the definitions, but even then I think it's likely to be fairly suspect.

[Pika...]

There's a lot more that can be said, but overall, your essay hits the major points, which is pretty impressive considering you weren't aware of these classifications beforehand. :smallsmile:


Thank you. That makes me feel special. I am quite surprised myself now. :smallsmile:



Your name is Matthias Drake? I don't understand. Are you a spy or a starship captain or something?


Actually I am Mattias Elven Drake. :smallbiggrin:

[Platinum_Mongoose]

Actually I am Mattias Elven Drake. :smallbiggrin:

Just... wow.

Meanwhile, on topic, my alma mater, San Francisco State University (go Gators?) offers a variety of Cinema courses on genre. I graduated last semester, unfortunately, because this semester they're running courses on both Sci-Fi and Fantasy. Just strikes me that if you can land in a class like that, in film or literature, you're gold. What is your major, anyway?