Star Trek is Already Steampunk

[Crazy Eddie]

And then a bunch of other writers came along and both expanded and redefined the genre a dozen different ways over the past century with a dozen sub-genres and categories and trends along the way.

So you're saying that science fiction doesn't mean anything? We must embrace pluralistic babble of a horde of faceless writers?

No, we must embrace the pluralistic babble of a horde of faceless PUBLISHERS.

Because at the end of the day, it's the major publishing houses that really decide what gets printed and what gets trashed, the growing proliferation of self-publish/ebooks notwithstanding. Both the printing houses and the television industry have developed amongst themselves a very consistent definition of what "science fiction" is, and it doesn't even SLIGHTLY agree with yours.

What's your definition of science fiction?

Any story that takes place against the backdrop of a specific scientific premise, without which the story could not be told. The technology of the story could be the plot's driving force, or may merely provide the setting for the story.

Science fiction comes in two varieties: "Hard science fiction" with a specific focus on natural sciences and technological developments in a highly realistic context, and "soft science fiction" which focusses less (if at all) on the physical laws and technological hardware and more on the "soft sciences" of philosophy, politics and sociology. For example: a hard science fiction novel would explore the technology of futuristic space travel and the equipment and weapons involved while soft science fiction would focus more on the social/political problems inherent in space travel without really focussing on the technology. Most science fiction stories will try to do both, but the degree to which they do one or the other defines wether it is "hard" or "soft."

Will it serve this conversation better? Simple: to re-emphasize that "science" does not include ONLY physics and technology.

My definition is pretty simple. I have argued that it must involve both science and fiction. It is concerned with the implications of our future advancements (i.e., science).

The second part is unnecessary. Good science fiction stories usually do, but a bad science fiction story that rambles on for pages and pages and never seems to ever make a point (Starship Troopers was kinda like this) would also fit the genre.

I say there is. You can call it "soft" science fiction if you wish (give it a name) but what matters is the conceptual space we're mapping.

Except WE are not mapping it. Those definitions have been settled pretty rigidly by the people who actually write and--more importantly, publish--this stuff. There's a specific target audience for both varieties of science fiction and publishers like to know who that audience is when trying to decide whether to green light a manuscript or not.

We can define the tension as hard/soft, if you wish, but the underlying tension between the poles of Verne (hard) and Wells (soft) remains.

True as that is, Verne and Wells no longer define the genre. As Orson Scott Card put it once, after the 1970s the ceiling fell out of science fiction... and so did the floor.

How am I not getting that? Speculative future-oriented fiction, by definition, has to make creative guesses beyond "real science."

So can non-speculative science fiction that uses bullshit/pseudoscience as a backdrop for its story. Your failure to recognize that is one of the reasons you still think "Star Wars" is a fantasy story.

If it shows little to no regard for building suspension of disbelief and simply offers a fantastical romp (the film Wild Wild West comes to mind), it's what I would call science fantasy.

"Science fantasy" isn't a real genre. It is what most publishing houses would call "soft science fiction," and it would fall into one of the many subcategories therein ("Wild Wild West" is a classic example of "Steampunk").

Some of those sub-genres, by the way, have developed the way they have because of the tendency of the more established "classic" science fiction to become dated. Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey" for example, works as pure science fiction when it's written in 1968. If that book had been published in 1999, though, it would be considered "Rocketpunk," presenting a science fiction with a setting about five minutes into the future with technology that definitely doesn't exist and will arguably never exist and yet a realistic story still grows up around it. "Strange Days" is another good example of this.

The reason these are usually soft science fiction stories is because nobody wants to read a long-winded detailed technical explanation of something that obviously cannot exist. You can set a story in the year 2012 about a race of malevolent warrior clones taking over the world, but if you're going to do that your focus is better off being about the sociological implications of cloning in some sort of "playing god/hubris" narrative; a detailed explanation about the workings of the cloning machines probably isn't going to play very well to your readers (unless, of course, you plant to make it a comedy, Douglass Adams style). That's also the reason why time travel stories almost NEVER include anything resembling a plausible explanation for HOW time travel could be possible: because by the time you've finished explaining about Einstein-Rosen bridges and the possibility of retrograde travel in 11-dimensional space and the field equations that would allow for the existence of causality violations, half of your readers have fallen asleep and the other half have skipped to the end of the chapter.

As science fiction ages, its conventions wear to the point that the audience no longer takes them as a given. We no longer accept chemical rocket ships with fins, jet packs, and clumsy metal robots as plausible.

We do if we're reading Rocketpunk.

Well, guess what? Star Trek is in the same boat. Indeed, the styling cues of the JJ-Prise (the fins, the styling cues from 1950's automobiles, the rocket-looking nacelles) admit the (now) retro-nature of Trek.

True, but Star Trek doesn't become "steampunk" quite yet because we haven't really dated the time period or the technology, just the stylistic look of it. Buck Rogers isn't really steampunk either for the same reason.

OTOH, the 1970s remake of Flash Gordon is arguably the first openly Rocketpunk movie ever made.

Star Trek isn't quite there yet; in 2009, the stylistic nods to TOS were more for continuity and fan pleasure than anything else, but I doubt they will continue to be faithfully followed.

Again, if it isn't really concerned with science it ain't science fiction.

Philosophy and sociology are sciences too. A fictional story that uses technology or alternate history to explore those concepts likewise classifies as science fiction.

One really good example: I once read a short story told from the perspective of a slave fleeing from the Confederacy via the underground railroad... in the year 1994. You might hesitate to consider that to be a "science fiction" story, but then you've got to think about, say, "Bread and Circuses" whose premise is basically "What if the Roman Empire had 1960s television technology?"

 

[YARN]

No, we must embrace the pluralistic babble of a horde of faceless PUBLISHERS.

So capitalists rule all? Even our conversations about science fiction must bow to what present day book publishers say?

Your elite masters of culture are just the people looking to sell books. They're not artists and they're not the reading public. They're middle men, that's it. Moreover, they don't govern the entire marketplace. There's film, TV, blogs, plays, etc.

Your preferred definition is subject to the whims of historical contingency. If, tomorrow, the major publishing houses decided to start branding half of their wares as "science fantasy," you'd have to eat crow, because you've ceded your cognitive authority to them.

At the same time, this perspective is also hopelessly conservative. We are stuck with the way they say it is.

I've already discussed the limitations of an overly loose definition of science fiction. If the publishers disagree, then that's their problem. There was a time when the novel was a bit of a scandal, but that didn't stop novelists.

Because at the end of the day, it's the major publishing houses that really decide what gets printed and what gets trashed, the growing proliferation of self-publish/ebooks notwithstanding. Both the printing houses and the television industry have developed amongst themselves a very consistent definition of what "science fiction" is, and it doesn't even SLIGHTLY agree with yours.

Just because they do regulate a part of the market does not mean that this is how we should define/view the term. Your view is basically that economic might makes right. While you might be correct at a descriptive level (e.g., this is how publishers DO view it), this is no criterion for how to treat the term at a prescriptive level (establishing good reasons that we should share their view).

There was a time when the powers-that-be decreed that slavery was not only acceptable, but legal. Using the argument pattern you've offered, they would say - "We determine what's legal and illegal, so you abolitionists can just suck it!" And the abolitionists, rightly, would reject this notion. I don't think that YOU would make this argument. Indeed, that you would not shows the misplaced reasoning of your argument.

Any story that takes place against the backdrop of a specific scientific premise, without which the story could not be told. The technology of the story could be the plot's driving force, or may merely provide the setting for the story.

The key clause there is "without which the story could not be told."

I think I could possibly live with this definition (see below for why I reject it in it's particulars - your definition of "science" includes too much). Still, I am inclined to think that if the science isn't driving the fiction in some way (not just providing a half-ass excuse for a fantasy story), that it does not belong in the category. I am more inclined to say that there are two varieties of science stories. One is science fiction (my definition) which runs from hard to soft. Then there is Science Fantasy, which only has the bare requirement of scientific conceit being an excuse for an adventure.

Science fiction comes in two varieties: "Hard science fiction" with a specific focus on natural sciences and technological developments in a highly realistic context, and "soft science fiction" which focusses less (if at all) on the physical laws and technological hardware and more on the "soft sciences" of philosophy, politics and sociology.

Nonsense. A story grounded completely in the science "philosophy" need not be a science fiction story at all (unless it is a philosophy-of-science tale). No one would suggest that Sartre's Nausea is "soft science fiction."

Your definition is too loose. It lets too much in.

Lo! I have found a political thriller softback book! Politics is a science, therefore, THIS is a soft science fiction novel!

Will it serve this conversation better? Simple: to re-emphasize that "science" does not include ONLY physics and technology.

No, it will not serve. Your definition includes any "sociological" setting, which means that any story with PEOPLE (in a sociological setting) in it is soft-science fiction.

"Science fantasy" isn't a real genre. It is what most publishing houses would call "soft science fiction," and it would fall into one of the many subcategories therein ("Wild Wild West" is a classic example of "Steampunk").

LOL, and I suppose you would deny that an animal species existed if the Royal Society refused to call it one. What matters is not whether some circle of elites recognizes it, but whether the given classification is apt. Again, your view is hopelessly conservative.

The poverty of Barnes and Nobles book sections is why you find books about dragons and wizards in the section that is supposed to contain evil computers and spaceships.

Some of those sub-genres, by the way, have developed the way they have because of the tendency of the more established "classic" science fiction to become dated. Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey" for example, works as pure science fiction when it's written in 1968. If that book had been published in 1999, though, it would be considered "Rocketpunk," presenting a science fiction with a setting about five minutes into the future with technology that definitely doesn't exist and will arguably never exist and yet a realistic story still grows up around it.

No, 2001 one is miles away from from rocket punk. It isn't dating nearly as quickly as the lazy conceits of Star Trek.

The reason these are usually soft science fiction stories is because nobody wants to read a long-winded detailed technical explanation of something that obviously cannot exist.

Hard science fiction doesn't have to be fictional science manual.

The REAL reason for so many soft science fiction stories is that people really aren't interested in science fiction, but rather playing with light sabers, making planets go boom, fapping to M'Ress (or whatever that damned furry's name is), and so on.

Philip K. Dick hated film adaptations of his work, because they'd take his stories and turn them into mindless action films.

You can set a story in the year 2012 about a race of malevolent warrior clones taking over the world, but if you're going to do that your focus is better off being about the sociological implications of cloning in some sort of "playing god/hubris" narrative; a detailed explanation about the workings of the cloning machines probably isn't going to play very well to your readers

Still, it is a concern with the implications of technological progress (concern with science is what's driving the story), so I have no problem with this -- it rises above you vague definition.

We do if we're reading Rocketpunk.

That's my point (which you quote below). JJ is framing Star Trek as retro-science fiction. Trek is (consciously) drifting into the mists of myth and fantasy.

Well, guess what? Star Trek is in the same boat. Indeed, the styling cues of the JJ-Prise (the fins, the styling cues from 1950's automobiles, the rocket-looking nacelles) admit the (now) retro-nature of Trek.

True, but Star Trek doesn't become "steampunk" quite yet because we haven't really dated the time period or the technology, just the stylistic look of it. Buck Rogers isn't really steampunk either for the same reason.

I am not saying it is literally steam punk. I am saying that it's already fundamentally dated in a way that we should no longer casually invoke the reality criterion in our discussions of Treknology. Trek is now something like Rocketpunk.

OTOH, the 1970s remake of Flash Gordon is arguably the first openly Rocketpunk movie ever made.

Right, they looked at the (now) cheesy nature of the old show and ran with it. They didn't breathe new life into it, but rather played with it as a stylistic curiosity. It's nostalgia porn. People who originally watched Buck Rogers didn't say to themselves - "How quaint! The ships look like clothes irons! How amusing! LOL, Jet packs!" On the contrary, it was designed to amaze. It was meant to be have the titillating spark of lingerie, not the nostalgic amusement you get when you find an old girdle ("Wow, people used to wear these?").
If you really wanted to do a remake of Buck Rogers as it was meant to function, as it was meant to be, you couldn't do old-school Buck Rogers.

Star Trek isn't quite there yet; in 2009, the stylistic nods to TOS were more for continuity and fan pleasure than anything else, but I doubt they will continue to be faithfully followed.

No, these weren't just nods to TOS, but to 1950's futurism and design sense.

Philosophy and sociology are sciences too.

Philosophy is a science for Aristotle, but science now is not what Aristotle thought of as science. Modern science is empirical, and relies heavily on methods, instruments, and theories. Popper's falsifiability criterion, for example, suggests what is scientific and what isn't. This criterion, which is part of the philosophy which informs science, is something which allows us to DO science, but which is not itself potentially falsifiable. Philosophy is a larger discipline concerned with wider and more abstract questions about epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. Because philosophy is bigger than science, we cannot say that philosophy is a science.

Sociology is (at least in some cases) indeed science, but what is scientific about sociology are its methods and theories. Just because the fiction writer who functions as a folk-psychologist/folk-sociologist has something to say about about society in a story does not automatically mean that we're looking at a science fiction story. If it did, then ANY story that dealt with people in society, would arguably be a science fiction story.

Technology in fiction is easy to identify because we can marks techno-products within a tale. The technological aspect of science offers us a bright line for demarcation.

We need limiting criteria like this or any tale that deals with the stock in trade of science (people, the world, the universe, animals, etc.), could arguably be a science fiction tale, which would make the identification of the genre moot. It would be a nuclear move that would obliterate any distinctions. You would kill the disease (my definition) along with the patient (the genre).

Science is identifiable by more than techno-artifacts. It is also identifiable in terms of its theories and methods. One might be able to write a science fiction tale that was demarcated by these aspects, but you have to keep in mind that in terms of "method" this would mean imagining using an actual scientific method or technique (somehow) in the confines of the story. Since the deployment of these techniques involves the use of technologies (e.g., interferometers, microscopes, fMRI scanners, Likert-type survey devices), we would still probably be identifying the science by locating a technology. Moreover, it is hard to imagine a fiction story which would be solely driven or motivated by a method without reference to any technology. It might be easier, or so it would initially appear, to mark a science fiction work by the presence of a scientific theory. But scientific theories permeate our lives. You can't take two steps in the real world without tripping over Malthus, or Darwin, or Newton, or Heisenberg, or Freud (if we count his theory as scientific). Scientific assumptions have melded into our commonsense assumptions.

If I wrote an historical novel, for example, that attempted to explain the Spanish Inquisition from a sociobiological perspective, would it be science fiction? This book, as I can imagine it, would need not alternate timeline (save that the particular people and some of the particular events did not literally occur). It would certainly be a fiction. It would certainly have a scientific perspective. If the book were, I suppose, motivated and driven with the purpose of imaginatively discussing sociobiology in a fictional setting, I might be willing to call it science fiction. Now, on the other hand, if the writer - doing as all writers do - were to simply to draw upon everything she happened to know or believe about the world, and in the process of doing so offered some sociobiological speculations would THIS be a science fiction novel? No, definitely not.

This case is troublesome for your definition as there is no technology or alternate history to speak of, but yet includes (which you say is important) a scientific outlook.

Again, I can only come back to criterion of technology being the best means of making these distinctions.

Even your bare notion of an alternate timeline doesn't get it done.

A fictional story that uses technology or alternate history to explore those concepts likewise classifies as science fiction.

One really good example: I once read a short story told from the perspective of a slave fleeing from the Confederacy via the underground railroad... in the year 1994. You might hesitate to consider that to be a "science fiction" story, but then you've got to think about, say, "Bread and Circuses" whose premise is basically "What if the Roman Empire had 1960s television technology?"

No, a story that simply has an alternate timeline is not necessarily a science fiction story.

If it were, if I wrote a story where a different person were president, I would be writing a science fiction story. The TV show The West Wing, for instance, would be science fiction. It isn't. It's just fiction.

Now if a counterfactual bit of technology were the reason for the alternate timeline were the reason for the divergence, this would be a different story.

The mere presence of a counter-to-actual-fact timeline, however, is overly broad.

 

[Pavonis]

...
I am not saying it is literally steam punk. I am saying that it's already fundamentally dated in a way that we should no longer casually invoke the reality criterion in our discussions of Treknology. Trek is now something like Rocketpunk.
...

No one here agrees with you on this fundamental point. No one here shares your view that post-humanism (as you define it) is the only "realistic" outcome of current scientific and technological progress.

You're arguing that Star Trek is outdated because you don't think that it reflects the future you, and only you, perceive as "realistic".

 

[YARN]

...
I am not saying it is literally steam punk. I am saying that it's already fundamentally dated in a way that we should no longer casually invoke the reality criterion in our discussions of Treknology. Trek is now something like Rocketpunk.
...

No one here agrees with you on this fundamental point.

Actually, some have agreed that Trek is dated and will only become more dated in the future. Some have quibbled with the term Steampunk, (suggesting things like (Rocketpunk and Atompunk instead), but this term is only deployed polemically (it worked in this regard BTW).

At the point that you agree with me that Trek is dated, my main line of analysis gets purchase (i.e., the reality criterion in discussions of Treknology is misplaced).

No one here shares your view that post-humanism (as you define it) is the only "realistic" outcome of current scientific and technological progress.

LOL, posthumanism is just one of the reasons that Trek is dated (that it had a letter next to should have been a hint).

You're arguing that Star Trek is outdated because you don't think that it reflects the future you, and only you, perceive as "realistic".

If so, I think I'm doing a pretty good job of it. My approach here is not rhetorical (persuasion), but dialectical. I assert a thesis and see if anyone can best it with reasons, not groans from the peanut gallery of disagreement.

If you have something substantive to add, feel free. But that you stubbornly refuse to assimilate is only an exercise in futility. Your disagreement is noted. So is your lack of substantive rejoinder.

 

[Pavonis]

I'm sorry, YARN, but I'm not convinced you're honestly looking for people to best your thesis. Like most TrekBBS posters, I think you're looking for praise for your "insight". But maybe I'm just being cynical.

Anyway, I'm more interested in why you think biology and technology are fated/doomed to fuse. The fact that you think post-humanism is a realistic outcome for humans is entertaining. Have you been reading Charles Stross lately, or Dan Simmons?

If you ask me, evolution has already developed the ultimate in nanotechnology that can combine with biology - the eukaryote.

At any rate, I stand by my assertion that you're arguing that Star Trek is "Steam Punk" only because you don't see the future heading in that direction now. But it's likely you're wrong about the singularity and post-humanism, too. So your vision of the future is just as likely to be "dated" in a couple of decades, too.

Basically, all I'm getting from your posts is that you think we shouldn't even bother debating and discussing the fine points of treknology because you think it's dated.

 

[YARN]

I'm sorry, YARN, but I'm not convinced you're honestly looking for people to best your thesis.Like most TrekBBS posters, I think you're looking for praise for your "insight". But maybe I'm just being cynical.

If so, it is better than the rest of the posters who just crab and moan when someone proposes a thesis. I've noticed that BBS posters don't give an inch. You have to duke it out even to secure mundane premises. Sometimes it's amusing. Timo is something else. That guy can argue! But sometimes you'd just like to have a few premises granted so that you could move to the next stage of the discussion.

Anyway, I'm more interested in why you think biology and technology are fated/doomed to fuse.

It is quite possible that we'll hit peak oil (and peak everything else) and destroy ourselves in resource wars.

Trek, however, is an optimistic future in which technology has progressed steadily and significantly. In a possible future like this, I think the fusion is inevitable.

The fact that you think post-humanism is a realistic outcome for humans is entertaining. Have you been reading Charles Stross lately, or Dan Simmons?

No, lots of futurist Anime, Nostradamus, and bubblegum wrappers.

If you ask me, evolution has already developed the ultimate in nanotechnology that can combine with biology - the eukaryote.

The human body is an amazing machine. But even amazing machines can be augmented and supplemented.

If you go to a dentist and/or a doctor on a regular basis, you aren't counting on the machine to do it all by itself.

At any rate, I stand by my assertion that you're arguing that Star Trek is "Steam Punk" only because you don't see the future heading in that direction now.

LOL, if I saw the future heading in that direction, the title of the thread would be Star Trek is uncannily prescient! It is our future! Of course I don't see it that way.

But it's likely you're wrong about the singularity and post-humanism, too. So your vision of the future is just as likely to be "dated" in a couple of decades, too.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I am wrong about the singularity. It doesn't happen. There are still several lines of analysis in the OP that support my claim.

Basically, all I'm getting from your posts is that you think we shouldn't even bother debating and discussing the fine points of treknology because you think it's dated.

Well, I haven't been able to get that far because I have had to quibble about definitions of science fiction and argue about whether the singularity analogizes black holes or more fundamental mathematical concepts.

If you would like to know what I think, I'd be happy to tell you.

 

[Pavonis]

The human body is an amazing machine. But even amazing machines can be augmented and supplemented.

Not if further augmentation comes at the cost of overall sub-optimal performance.

There's reasons to think that the human body is already optimized for performance. You can maintain it better, but you can't necessarily wring better performance out of it by "fusing" it with technology. In fact, that may just hinder its performance.

For instance, you're not going to improve the performance of the human brain. The neurons have already become optimized for speed of signal transmission and signal-to-noise ratios. If you make the brain bigger, that'll increase the neuron's axon length, and reduce signal speed. You'll also have further problems with heat dissipation. What's technology going to do for these types of problems?

You can't beat physics, not with technology and not with biology.

 

[YARN]

you're not going to improve the performance of the human brain.

Depends on what you mean by performance.

My memory, for example, is already enhanced via technology. I don't have to remember everything, I just have to remember how to access it.

There are complicated figures I cannot compute easily or quickly, but which a calculator can whip off at dizzying speeds.

You might object that this has nothing to do with my brain function - that these are external. Imagine the day when you're wifi access is in your head along with computational processors. Harder to draw the line now. Even this imagines the brain as homunculus working a keyboard in the brain.

The neurons have already become optimized for speed of signal transmission and signal-to-noise ratios. If you make the brain bigger, that'll increase the neuron's axon length, and reduce signal speed. You'll also have further problems with heat dissipation. What's technology going to do for these types of problems?

Predict, in advance, how science will solve problems?

If I had those answers, I wouldn't share them with you (for free).

You can't beat physics, not with technology and not with biology.

Is Moore's Law "beating physics" or working with it?

 

[Pavonis]

Is Moore's Law "beating physics" or working with it?

Neither. Moore's "law" is an observation.

 

[Bob Karo]

Damn... I wasted some time reading this thread.

Trek isn't steampunk. I get you're trying to use it as a metaphor of some kind. You failed, podna. It's like me calling dogs mice and listing all the ways they are similar. Then saying it's a metaphor. Just use a simile damn it.

 

[YARN]

Damn... I wasted some time reading this thread.

Really? If you had read the first line of the first post, you could have saved yourself a lot of time. Seriously.

Here is what I wrote at the top of that post:

No, not literally since the Enterprise is not actually steam powered (although visual evidence in the latest film does suggest it may run on beer... ), but it is already

I. A history alternate from ours.
*Remember the eugenics wars? Neither do I.

II. Features dated technological concepts.

This post will focus on #2, which is appropriate to the Tech forum.

Now if you read this (and if you can read), this is what it says: "No, I am not literally saying trek is Steampunk, but that it features dated technological concepts."

Also, if you actually read the title of the OP you'll notice that the word "already" appears, which injects process, time, and eventuality into the mix. The title reveals that the thesis is about aging, with "Steampunk" standing as a destination or point in the process of aging, indicating that most (if not all) science fiction eventually becomes "Steampunk," which only makes sense if I am not using the term literally (as a stable genre category).

Trek isn't steampunk. I get you're trying to use it as a metaphor of some kind. You failed, podna. It's like me calling dogs mice and listing all the ways they are similar. Then saying it's a metaphor. Just use a simile damn it.

My analysis focuses on #II which asserts that Star Trek is technologically dated. I didn't literally map out similarities between Star Trek and Wikipedia's list of the generic features of steam punk. There was no (to use your analogy) comparison of mice to dogs. Consequently, you cannot rightfully whine that you were sold a false bill of goods and had your time wasted.

 

[MacLeod]

^well you could if you just read the thread title. But back to the subject at hand like with anything time marches on. So yes somethings that star trek potrayed as occuring might not have occured. Some scienctifc theories could have been revised since it was made.

Still doesn't change the fact that whilst the show might now be wrong about certain concepts/things, it doiesn't detract from the fact that it contains enough elements to still be classed as Science-Fiction

 

[YARN]

^well you could if you just read the thread title. But back to the subject at hand like with anything time marches on. So yes somethings that star trek potrayed as occuring might not have occured. Some scienctifc theories could have been revised since it was made.

Still doesn't change the fact that whilst the show might now be wrong about certain concepts/things, it doiesn't detract from the fact that it contains enough elements to still be classed as Science-Fiction

Sure, Star Trek is science fiction. Steampunk (if I were making the literal connection) is science fiction too. I think most here would argue that ALL of Steampunk is science fiction. Someday Trek will be a foggy science myth - like Egyptians imagining the Sun being carted across the sky in a chariot. Right now it is dated science fiction.

I am not knocking Star Trek here. I love the show, especially TOS.

Now, if we can all agree that Star Trek is becoming more dated, that continuity with TOS anchors it to anachronisms and 1960's goofiness, I can get on to my proposal...

 

[Pavonis]

If you're going to wait until everyone agrees with you, you'll never get around to posting your "proposal". Why didn't you just do so in your opening post?

 

[MacLeod]

Some elements of Star Trek might have dated, thers haven't. Last I checked we still hadn't cracked things like Warp Drive, Teleportation.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

No, we must embrace the pluralistic babble of a horde of faceless PUBLISHERS.

So capitalists rule all? Even our conversations about science fiction must bow to what present day book publishers say?

Basically, yes. For much the same reason soft drink companies get to define the difference between Coke and Diet Coke. Doesn't matter what you think, they're the ones who print the labels.

Your elite masters of culture...

We're discussing genres, not culture. Those are two different things.

Your preferred definition is subject to the whims of historical contingency. If, tomorrow, the major publishing houses decided to start branding half of their wares as "science fantasy," you'd have to eat crow, because you've ceded your cognitive authority to them.

Pretty much, yeah. And then I'd have to decide whether or not I like science fantasy and whether or not it's sufficiently different from science fiction for me to care. And if it isn't, we'll probably have this big discussion about how the new category makes no sense and is pretty much a con by the publishing industry to blur the genre lines even more just so they can sell more books.

And you know what? There wouldn't be a damn thing we can do about it, because WE don't get to decide what "science fiction" is. There are a million things we can control and a million things we can't control and the definitions of commoditized products isn't one of them.

FYI: fiction is a commodity, whether it's in print or on television. If and when that actually changes, THEN it'll be up to writers how the genre is defined.

I've already discussed the limitations of an overly loose definition of science fiction. If the publishers disagree, then that's their problem.

Actually, it's YOUR problem. Because unless you have connections with several hundred writers and the ability to put their works to print and to place those books on Amazon or Barnes & Noble or the local libraries where they will be read, reviewed and distributed to the mass market, you have no means whatsoever to challenge the publisher's definitions. They could literally decide one morning--just to fuck with us--that from now on "science fiction" is defined as "Any story whose protagonist has more than two syllables in his first name." You can disagree all you like, but it won't change the fact that any time you go on Amazon and look at the category of "Science fiction" you will therefore see a whole host of books that have nothing to do with science OR fiction and are placed there only because the main character has more than two syllables in his first name.

The good news is, the publishers aren't completely soulless and their definition of "science fiction" DOES make a lot of sense. Maybe you feel they ought to have a "science fantasy" genre as well, but you're gonna have to take that up with them, because THEY are the ones who own the presses.

Just because they do regulate a part of the market does not mean that this is how we should define/view the term.

First of all, what part of the market DON'T they regulate? Even e-books and vanity-publishers use the same categories and the same basic definitions.

Second of all, I'm not saying they SHOULD define literary genres. I'm saying they DO, and the reason they do is that it's extremely difficult if not impossible for a writer to have his work published and widely read without those distributors. It's not like the music scene where whole new styles can develop underground and split off into a new genre before anyone in the industry even catches on.

At least, not yet.

There was a time when the powers-that-be decreed that slavery was not only acceptable, but legal.

And half of this country AGREED with those powers, in fact they agreed strongly enough that it took four years of brutal warfare and the decimation of their entire way of life to change their minds, and their descendants were still holding a grudge more than a century later.

This for an authoritative proclamation that DIDN'T make sense. The publishing industry's definition of "science fiction" is actually pretty reasonable.

The key clause there is "without which the story could not be told."

I think I could possibly live with this definition (see below for why I reject it in it's particulars - your definition of "science" includes too much).

Again, it's not MY definition, it's an industry-wide standard. Which is pretty much why Neil Stephenson's "Cryptonomicon" is still classified as "science fiction" despite the fact that it is not set in the future (in fact huge parts of it are set during WW-II) and doesn't involve any technology or scientific concept that doesn't presently exist.

Still, I am inclined to think that if the science isn't driving the fiction in some way (not just providing a half-ass excuse for a fantasy story), that it does not belong in the category. I am more inclined to say that there are two varieties of science stories. One is science fiction (my definition) which runs from hard to soft. Then there is Science Fantasy, which only has the bare requirement of scientific conceit being an excuse for an adventure.

Okay.

So name one science fiction story that you think isn't science fiction but is actually science fantasy.

Then describe to me exactly how you, YARN, are going to go out into the world and convince EVERYONE ELSE that your definition is better than theirs.

Lo! I have found a political thriller softback book! Politics is a science, therefore, THIS is a soft science fiction novel!

It kinda depends on the context. "Cryptonomicon" is considered a science fiction novel while "The Baroque Cycle" (all three novels) are not, despite the fact that they are essentially prequels of Cryptonomicon. Interestingly, "The Andromeda Strain" is generally NOT considered to be a science fiction novel. Make of that what you will.

Context matters, which is one of the reason publishers spend so much time analyzing manuscripts and arguing with writers to figure out whether or not a particular book is appropriate for its target audience. IOW: if an editor was handed a political thriller that was written for a science fiction readership, he would immediately send it back to the author and say "This doesn't appear to be science fiction. Either re-write it for political thriller readers or add more science."

No, it will not serve. Your definition includes any "sociological" setting, which means that any story with PEOPLE (in a sociological setting) in it is soft-science fiction.

Strictly speaking, that would be a FICTIONAL sociological setting. That's part of the reason why a biography about, say, Robert Oppenheimer would not be science fiction, while a novel about Robert Oppenheimer trying to break his secret brother out of a Nazi death camp using a strontium-90 dirty bomb WOULD be.

More importantly, the (fictional) sociological setting has to be a factor that is somehow integral to the story. For example, a society where human beings have somehow lost the ability to reproduce and no new children have been born in decades. This becomes a science fiction story if that one condition is driving most of the action of the story; less so if it turns out to be some kind of sitcom that has almost nothing to do with that setting at all.

LOL, and I suppose you would deny that an animal species existed if the Royal Society refused to call it one.

No, I would deny that that animal species had an official name. Big difference there.

In this case, it's even more clear than that. It's as if the Royal Society decided that there are two distinct varieties of Leather Backed Book Creatures" and you have decided, entirely on your own, that there are actually THREE varieties and who the hell is the Royal Society to tell you any different?

The poverty of Barnes and Nobles book sections is why you find books about dragons and wizards in the section that is supposed to contain evil computers and spaceships.

Tell me about it.

No, 2001 one is miles away from from rocket punk.

It wouldn't be if it was written in 1999.

The REAL reason for so many soft science fiction stories is that people really aren't interested in science fiction, but rather playing with light sabers, making planets go boom, fapping to M'Ress (or whatever that damned furry's name is), and so on.

In other words, soft science fiction is as prolific as it is because it's more interesting than hard science fiction.

Philip K. Dick hated film adaptations of his work, because they'd take his stories and turn them into mindless action films.

Funny you mention the Dickster, because the overwhelming majority of his novels WERE soft science fiction (hell, the Divine Invasion was pretty much a thinly veiled essay on Judaic theology). And even Phillip K. Dick was impressed with how closely Blade Runner managed to stay true to the vision of "Electric Sheep."

It's not just publishers you're disagreeing with, it's writers too.

I am not saying it is literally steam punk. I am saying that it's already fundamentally dated in a way that we should no longer casually invoke the reality criterion in our discussions of Treknology. Trek is now something like Rocketpunk.

It isn't. Not unless the next Trek movie reaffirms the Botany Bay's launch date as being in 1996.

Right, they looked at the (now) cheesy nature of the old show and ran with it. They didn't breathe new life into it, but rather played with it as a stylistic curiosity.

Which changes WHAT about the fact that it is a science fiction story, set in the distant future, depicting technology that may realistically exist in the distant future, all of which entirely contradicts the definition of "rocketpunk?"

It's not as if we saw the Enterprise being built by NASA in 1969 using technology derived from Einstein's field equations. It emulated the original (cheesy?) nature of the show because the PREMISE of the show is not yet entirely cheesy and there are still stories that could be told in that context.

If you really wanted to do a remake of Buck Rogers as it was meant to function, as it was meant to be, you couldn't do old-school Buck Rogers.

Yeah, you'd probably reboot it with newer technology and more advanced scientific concepts and settings, like they did with Bionic Woman.

And it would probably get cancelled after one season.

No, these weren't just nods to TOS, but to 1950's futurism and design sense.

List a SINGLE example of "1950s futurism" in STXI.

We need limiting criteria like this...

Who is "we?" I'm not in charge of a major book publisher. Are you?

If I wrote an historical novel, for example, that attempted to explain the Spanish Inquisition from a sociobiological perspective, would it be science fiction?

Depends. Is your sociobiological perspective noticeably fictional? (i.e. did you write a story about the Spanish Inquisition being the result of a vast conspiracy by a hidden subspecies of humans that practiced ritual cannibalism?)

Now, on the other hand, if the writer - doing as all writers do - were to simply to draw upon everything she happened to know or believe about the world, and in the process of doing so offered some sociobiological speculations would THIS be a science fiction novel? No, definitely not.

Which is probably why a publisher would never allow her to publish that book AS science fiction and would impose at least two different re-writes to make the book more palatable to its intended audience.

You talk about this as if the literary world is run by college dropouts who don't know what the hell they're doing and they need some sort of genre police--preferably you--to keep it all straight. I'm trying to tell you that those definitions are enforced pretty rigidly by an infuriatingly elitist literary establishment, so much so that it is incredibly difficult to bend those definitions and still get your book published (let alone read).

No, a story that simply has an alternate timeline is not necessarily a science fiction story.

Not necessarily. But often enough.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You're arguing that Star Trek is outdated because you don't think that it reflects the future you, and only you, perceive as "realistic".

If so, I think I'm doing a pretty good job of it.

You're not.

 

[YARN]

Basically, yes. For much the same reason soft drink companies get to define the difference between Coke and Diet Coke. Doesn't matter what you think, they're the ones who print the labels.

You're making a category error here. An artist may title a work however she pleases. A company may name their product whatever they please (assuming that the name is not the property of another party). An artist, however, does not get to tell us whether her work is good. She does not get to tell us how to classify the work.

Genre classifications are cultural property, not private property. No one owns "fiction, "let alone "science fiction." Artistic culture is a dialogue between artists, audiences, and critics. We are part of it. When we discuss artworks and try to find terms to describe we add something to our cultural apparatus. The trope "manic pixie dreamgirl," for example, was named by Nathan Rabin. The label is now part of our cultural dialogue.

I would be inclined to call Star Wars science fantasy and not science fiction. Our culture disagrees. This, however, does not limit my own usage in conversation. I can make my case for why I make a distinction that our culture at large does not. And if it serves the purpose of a conversation, why not? You, however, would chain us to our present classifications. Arguing from your perspective, we might criticize Rabin for talking about Manic Pixie Dreamgirls at a time when the wider culture did not recognize that particular distinction. You would limit him to discussing the world as we presently see it, which is a silly thing to do.

Quite literally, you would say to the first novelists that they had no business writing or talking about their works, because the literary establishment of their day did not recognize or appreciate the classification. You view is hopelessly backwards, only able to see changes long after they have arrived and become part of the new establishment.

Most importantly, whether or not my preferred tripartite distinction (i.e., hard science fiction, soft science fiction, and science fantasy) holds good matters very little to the overall argument. A point you have missed. More about this below.

We're discussing genres, not culture. Those are two different things.

If you wish concede cultural categories to book publishers, that's your affair not mine.

Pretty much, yeah. And then I'd have to decide whether or not I like science fantasy and whether or not it's sufficiently different from science fiction for me to care. And if it isn't, we'll probably have this big discussion about how the new category makes no sense and is pretty much a con by the publishing industry to blur the genre lines even more just so they can sell more books.

We collectively decide everything that is socially constructed. We individually, are part of that collective. We are all part of the conversation. Any one voice will tend to be very small in the overall dicussion, but it is there nonetheless.

And you know what? There wouldn't be a damn thing we can do about it, because WE don't get to decide what "science fiction" is. There are a million things we can control and a million things we can't control and the definitions of commoditized products isn't one of them.

FYI: fiction is a commodity, whether it's in print or on television. If and when that actually changes, THEN it'll be up to writers how the genre is defined.

No, by your argument, it is NOT the writers who decide anything, but rather the gatekeepers, the publihsers who do so. Remember when I asked: "We must embrace pluralistic babble of a horde of faceless writers? " This was your reply, "No, we must embrace the pluralistic babble of a horde of faceless PUBLISHERS. Because at the end of the day, it's the major publishing houses that really decide what gets printed and what gets trashed, the growing proliferation of self-publish/ebooks notwithstanding. Both the printing houses and the television industry have developed amongst themselves a very consistent definition of what "science fiction" is, and it doesn't even SLIGHTLY agree with yours."
You sir, repudiated the notion that writers are a relevant part of the equation! I argued that they are part of the overall conversation.

Actually, it's YOUR problem. Because unless you have connections with several hundred writers and the ability to put their works to print and to place those books on Amazon or Barnes & Noble or the local libraries where they will be read, reviewed and distributed to the mass market, you have no means whatsoever to challenge the publisher's definitions. They could literally decide one morning--just to fuck with us--that from now on "science fiction" is defined as "Any story whose protagonist has more than two syllables in his first name." You can disagree all you like, but it won't change the fact that any time you go on Amazon and look at the category of "Science fiction" you will therefore see a whole host of books that have nothing to do with science OR fiction and are placed there only because the main character has more than two syllables in his first name.

The good news is, the publishers aren't completely soulless and their definition of "science fiction" DOES make a lot of sense. Maybe you feel they ought to have a "science fantasy" genre as well, but you're gonna have to take that up with them, because THEY are the ones who own the presses.

The mere fact that a book publisher might shelved book X, in the Juvenile Literature, does absolutely nothing to stop me from analyzing it for adult themes.

Book publishers could NOT unilaterally decide to define science fiction as protagonists with two syllables, for they serve the market (they're only in it for the money) and the general public would reject a random and radical reclassification such as this. Distributors are part of the conversation too, but they aren't God. Culture defines when science fiction is, not publishers.Your example, if you actually think about it, only proves this.

And why should it matter if they are soulless or not? I thought you were making a purely descriptive argument (i.e., this is how it is)? Would you like some syrup for that waffle?

First of all, what part of the market DON'T they regulate? Even e-books and vanity-publishers use the same categories and the same basic definitions.

Second of all, I'm not saying they SHOULD define literary genres. I'm saying they DO, and the reason they do is that it's extremely difficult if not impossible for a writer to have his work published and widely read without those distributors. It's not like the music scene where whole new styles can develop underground and split off into a new genre before anyone in the industry even catches on.

At least, not yet.

LOL, you speak of "regulation" as if fiction were the private property of these corporate interests. They're part of the conversation, they don't own it. They're middle men out for a quick buck. Writers, critics, and audiences are the ones who are interested in what ought to be. Book sellers just want to make $$$.

And half of this country AGREED with those powers, in fact they agreed strongly enough that it took four years of brutal warfare and the decimation of their entire way of life to change their minds, and their descendants were still holding a grudge more than a century later.

This for an authoritative proclamation that DIDN'T make sense. The publishing industry's definition of "science fiction" is actually pretty reasonable.

I have a more reasonable definition, I think, so I will lobby for it. I will use it in my discussions when I please. It probably won't change the world, but popular culture does not absolutely dictate to me how I should view the world or talk about it. Insignificant though I may be, I am part of the conversation, part of the dance, part of my culture. It is my right as a human being (those things from which culture is constructed) to speak as I wish. My minimal burden is to make myself understood, and to that extent I must pay some respect to conventional usages, and I have succeeded in that regard, for it is not that you do not understand me, but that you disagree with me. Book publishers, however, are just part of the same dance.

If you wish to hang your head and take orders, then that is your prerogative, but it is a sad choice.

Again, it's not MY definition, it's an industry-wide standard. Which is pretty much why Neil Stephenson's "Cryptonomicon" is still classified as "science fiction" despite the fact that it is not set in the future (in fact huge parts of it are set during WW-II) and doesn't involve any technology or scientific concept that doesn't presently exist.

Again, you're confusing cultural standards with industry standards.

I don't have accept status quo. I reject Star Wars as pure science fiction too. If this example does not fit my definition, then I can reject it without pain of contradiction.

We should ask, however, Does this example fit in my definition? My definition: I argue it must be science and fiction. Concerned with the implications of our future advancements (i.e., science). If set in an alternate history, it still requires the presence of non-existent or anachronistic technologies in the timeline.

To this definition, I have added a caveat in response to your definition: I think I could possibly live with this definition (see below for why I reject it in it's particulars - your definition of "science" includes too much). Still, I am inclined to think that if the science isn't driving the fiction in some way (not just providing a half-ass excuse for a fantasy story), that it does not belong in the category.

Cryptonomicon isn't really a counterexample when you consider my remarks - science and technology are still driving the fiction in Cryptonomicon, so I would not object. What I object to is the notion that any counter-to-historical-fact novel would qualify under your definition. At most, your example here may suggest a needed clarification. I might amend my definition as follows: Science Fiction must be science and fiction. It is concerned with the implications of our future advancements (i.e., science). If set in an alternate history, it requires the presence of non-existent or anachronistic technologies in the timeline OR it must be an alternate history in which science/technology drive/motivate the story.

On the other hand, there will always be borderline cases. I mentioned this before, but you passed over the point. No matter what definition one proposes, there will always be troubling examples. What matters is whether the distinction is useful, not perfect. That my definition encounters borderline cases like this is a non-unique disadavantage.

And again, my definition is still preferable to yours, because yours fails to make any discriminations. Any novel that discusses politics, philosophy, or sociology is science fiction under it. Since novels tend to involve groups of people and thus sociological concerns, we're talking about most of the books on the shelf. In terms of pros and cons I am at a distinct advantage here. My disadvantage is that I would have to exclude a book like Cryptonomicon and shelve it with historical fictions or something. Your disadvantage is that just about every book on in the building would be shelved in the Sci-Fi section.

Also, the Wikipedia entry on the book suggests that Cryptonomicon does not cleanly fit within the genre: "Cryptonomicon is closer to the genres of historical fiction and contemporary techno-thriller than to the science fiction of Stephenson's two previous novels."

Finally, this example repudiates notion that there is no market for technical novels. The Wikipedia entry states: "Portions of Cryptonomicon are notably complex and may be considered somewhat difficult by the non-technical reader. Several pages are spent explaining in detail some of the concepts behind cryptography and data storage security, including a description of Van Eck phreaking." Looks like there is a market for hard fiction after all!

 

[YARN]

Okay.

So name one science fiction story that you think isn't science fiction but is actually science fantasy.

Then describe to me exactly how you, YARN, are going to go out into the world and convince EVERYONE ELSE that your definition is better than theirs.

I think Star Wars, especially the original trilogy, is much more science fantasy than science fiction. It's about wizards, and swords, and pirates, and evil Emperors.

Does current culture disagree with me? Yes, they disagree with me. However, must I, in advance, ask permission to view and speak of things otherwise? No. If we did, nothing would ever change. We would be trapped in a hopelessly conservative situation. Again, my burden with respect to conventionally negotiated meanings is to respect them enough to make myself understood and I have done so.

It kinda depends on the context. "Cryptonomicon" is considered a science fiction novel while "The Baroque Cycle" (all three novels) are not, despite the fact that they are essentially prequels of Cryptonomicon. Interestingly, "The Andromeda Strain" is generally NOT considered to be a science fiction novel. Make of that what you will.

Context matters, which is one of the reason publishers spend so much time analyzing manuscripts and arguing with writers to figure out whether or not a particular book is appropriate for its target audience. IOW: if an editor was handed a political thriller that was written for a science fiction readership, he would immediately send it back to the author and say "This doesn't appear to be science fiction. Either re-write it for political thriller readers or add more science."

What you response here indicates is that publisher serve their readers which means they're not God, the final word, the end all be all. They are servants of culture as well as shapers of it. As are the rest of us.

Also, if the editor liked my manuscript, but disagreed with my idea that it was science fiction, she would still buy it and then try to sell it as a political thriller. If the marketplace changed, however, and our cultural definitions of generic categories shifted, so would my editor's sensibilities.

Strictly speaking, that would be a FICTIONAL sociological setting. That's part of the reason why a biography about, say, Robert Oppenheimer would not be science fiction, while a novel about Robert Oppenheimer trying to break his secret brother out of a Nazi death camp using a strontium-90 dirty bomb WOULD be.

More importantly, the (fictional) sociological setting has to be a factor that is somehow integral to the story. For example, a society where human beings have somehow lost the ability to reproduce and no new children have been born in decades. This becomes a science fiction story if that one condition is driving most of the action of the story; less so if it turns out to be some kind of sitcom that has almost nothing to do with that setting at all.

How does this challenge my preferred definition of science fiction? And how does your prefered definition make this distinction for us? I have already discussed, at considerable length, the problems associated with defining science in terms a scientific premise - for science describes the world. Again, the most reliable way to draw the brightline is in terms of technology. You have failed to discuss the part of my last post which deals with this issue, so I invite you to read that section, reflect, and then respond.

You sociological example is defective -- what you describe is a biological crisis with obvious sociological ramifications. And is biology a hard science or a social science?

No, I would deny that that animal species had an official name. Big difference there.

In this case, it's even more clear than that. It's as if the Royal Society decided that there are two distinct varieties of Leather Backed Book Creatures" and you have decided, entirely on your own, that there are actually THREE varieties and who the hell is the Royal Society to tell you any different?

This is a significant concession; the Royal Society of Culture (you are sorely mistaken in thinking of it as publishers only) can be wrong. Under this view, which you have just conceded, it might very well be the case that there is indeed another species of animal and that a naturalist might be correct to say so.

As for "who the hell is the Royal Society to tell me differently" - we should note that I am a member of this society (I am part of culture). And we should note that culture (like science) is contested and through this process it changes. It's not like Darwin's theory or Einstein's were welcomed with open arms. They were resisted quite strongly, by people like you (i.e., who insist on doing things the way we have done them and who take their cues from their masters). Finally, I am not leading a revolution here, I am simply speaking in terms that I prefer to use and I am respecting conventional meaning as I should (i.e., so as to make myself understood). It is, of course, your right to disagree with me, but that does not limit my usage. I don't have to change the world to speak in terms I prefer.

It wouldn't be if it was written in 1999.

No, 2001 would not have been Rocketpunk in 1999, but this is another matter. If you want to argue about it another thread fine, but I am leaving off on this tangent.

In other words, soft science fiction is as prolific as it is because it's more interesting than hard science fiction.

It is more interesting to our culture at large. And I would not take it away from them. I would simply inaugurate a new category for them (ie., science fantasy), so that more mature works of fiction don't get lumped in with them. That your average person has simple tastes is fine.

Funny you mention the Dickster, because the overwhelming majority of his novels WERE soft science fiction (hell, the Divine Invasion was pretty much a thinly veiled essay on Judaic theology). And even Phillip K. Dick was impressed with how closely Blade Runner managed to stay true to the vision of "Electric Sheep."

It's not just publishers you're disagreeing with, it's writers too.

On your analysis and by your definition, Dick is just a mere writer who is to be bought and sold, accepted or rejected by publishers.
At least I do him the service of respecting him as part of the conversation. And that I might exclude some of his work as true science fiction, does not mean I don't think he is one hell of a writer.

Dick was opposed to early scripts he saw of Blade Runner because they were of the "Take that robot!" variety. The film, however, turned out to be a much more complicated artifact. And Dick died before the final film was released so you might want to check your facts there.

It isn't. Not unless the next Trek movie reaffirms the Botany Bay's launch date as being in 1996.

I am not talking about any one film. I am talking about the 40 plus years of Star Trek which preceded it. Are you arguing that the 40 plus years of Star Trek which came before is no longer Star Trek?

Which changes WHAT about the fact that it is a science fiction story, set in the distant future, depicting technology that may realistically exist in the distant future, all of which entirely contradicts the definition of "rocketpunk?"

It's not as if we saw the Enterprise being built by NASA in 1969 using technology derived from Einstein's field equations. It emulated the original (cheesy?) nature of the show because the PREMISE of the show is not yet entirely cheesy and there are still stories that could be told in that context.

You've argued that 2001 a Space Odyssey, one of the greatest hard science fiction stories ever told, would be rocketpunk if published in 1999, and yet you maintain that Star Trek (which came out at the same time) would NOT be Rocketpunk if written in 1999?

I get that the original Buck Rogers is not Rocketpunk or Steampunk (or whatever label our cultural punks come up with next) when viewed in its own context. I am already on the record as saying that TOS WAS solid Science Fiction in its day. My argument is not that Star Trek no longer belongs in the genre of fiction, but (tracking the metaphor as a metaphor matters here) that it is significantly dated such that the invocation of the reality criterion is no longer a reasonable move in our discussion of Treknology. I’ve been saying this since page one.

List a SINGLE example of "1950s futurism" in STXI.

I said, Indeed, the styling cues of the JJ-Prise (the fins, the styling cues from 1950's automobiles, the rocket-looking nacelles) admit the (now) retro-nature of Trek.

You said, "True, but Star Trek doesn't become "steampunk" quite yet because we haven't really dated the time period or the technology, just the stylistic look of it. Buck Rogers isn't really steampunk either for the same reason."
You accepted my claim that the JJ-Prise took styling cues from 1950's automobiles. 1950's automobiles had Rocket like fins which reflected the futurism of the age. The JJ-Prise takes cues from these cars which means there is 50's futurism in the styling of the JJ-Prise. I don't have to provide a single example -- you've already agreed to it.

Depends. Is your sociobiological perspective noticeably fictional? (i.e. did you write a story about the Spanish Inquisition being the result of a vast conspiracy by a hidden subspecies of humans that practiced ritual cannibalism?)

The Spanish Inquisition being the result of a conspiracy of a human subspecies that ate people (vampires?) would NOT be a science fiction tale. You have to bring science in or it isn't science fiction.

Not necessarily. But often enough.

No, if it is just an alternate timeline without science in the picture it is NOT a science fiction story - there's no "often enough" about it.

 

[22 Stars]

Looking at this thread is like picking at a puss-filled scab. Yet I cannot resist. Kiind of like watching an insane person yell at himself in a locked room.

Do we nominate 'worst-thread of the year' here at TrekBBS or maybe 'Stupidest Thread Name of the Year'?