Are you sick and tired of the Navy in scifi

[Allyn Gibson]

The Navy dominates scifi but why?

It's a legacy of the Golden Age of Science-Fiction.

In the 1930's, the United States military had two branches -- the Army and the Navy. (Do the Marines count as a separate branch? Historically, they're Navy.) Of those two, Army, and Navy, it was the Navy paradigm -- ships and captains and crews -- that worked best for describing starships.

Writers working in the Golden Age would have found it easier to repurpose the Naval structure than to invent a new "space service" structure. There's no reason that new ranks and paradigms couldn't be invented, but writers can be lazy.

 

[Star Wolf]

The Navy dominates scifi but why?

It's a legacy of the Golden Age of Science-Fiction.

In the 1930's, the United States military had two branches -- the Army and the Navy. (Do the Marines count as a separate branch? Historically, they're Navy.) Of those two, Army, and Navy, it was the Navy paradigm -- ships and captains and crews -- that worked best for describing starships.

The Commandant of the Corp is one of the Joint Chiefs of Staff but there is no civilian Secretary overseer. They fall under the Navy Secretary. During the golden age the USMC didn't maintain permanent divisions and airwings and worked directly for the Admiral where they were except in major conflicts were they would fall under the army general or even Col Robert E. Lee in one famous law enforcement role.

 

[C.E. Evans]

As long as you've got spaceships, you're going to have a Navy-style set-up. Even a civilian ship will have a captain and a first-mate as well as a chain of command/picking order that won't be completely different from that of actual military ships, just less polished. They may not wear uniforms, they may not address each other by ranks, but there will always be someone called captain.

I don't think they will always need strict Navy hierarchy.

It depends on either the type of ship or its mission. In any case, you'll still have a Navy hierarchy in which there's someone in charge giving orders telling the crew what to do and when to do it. You can take away the uniforms and ranks, but they'll still be doing essentially the same thing as their uniformed counterparts--they'll just be doing it more informally and less professionally.

MILITARY SHIP CAPTAIN: Lieutenant, bring us about.

CIVILIAN SHIP CAPTAIN: Joe, bring us around.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I don't see what the big deal is, really.

A fleet of starships would naturally use the Navy style of rank and organization. Why not? Ships that fly in space are still ships. And that's what the Navy is for! It doesn't make much sense for a General, for example, to be leading a fleet of ships; generals command ground troops, not starships.

 

[Dayton Ward]

In the 1930's, the United States military had two branches -- the Army and the Navy. (Do the Marines count as a separate branch? Historically, they're Navy.)

Yes, they're a department of the Navy (a throwback to the earliest days of the Continental Marines serving aboard naval vessels), but the Marine Corps has long operated as a separate, distinct branch.

 

[Gotham Central]

The reason that sci-fi is dominated by navy types is becayse most of sci-fi is action oriented. The moment you start talking about space combat and defense of any sort, you're talking about a military force. The moment you have a military force in space, it will naturally be more navy like.

Stargate is unusual in that it is based on the airforce (though to be honest over the years its become more of a combined service).

Atlantis has a very different structure, It has a multinational defense force and science contingent that is commanded by a civilian.

 

[Star Wolf]

I don't see what the big deal is, really.

A fleet of starships would naturally use the Navy style of rank and organization. Why not? Ships that fly in space are still ships. And that's what the Navy is for! It doesn't make much sense for a General, for example, to be leading a fleet of ships; generals command ground troops, not starships.

Perhaps the objection is the entire use of fleet structures. As I was saying most space operas have evolved from Horatio Hornblower and his ship to Bull Haley and his fleet. As opposed to Firefly as smugglers evade customs agents at the landing site.

 

[J.T.B.]

Since the end of the WW2 I think there's kind of been a perception we still need a Navy, with the biggest badest ship with thousands of crew to win a war. While I give great respect to the Navy and I think a powerful Navy is a huge advantage it is not completely necessary to win a battle or a war.

If you look at the history of the US armed forces in the late 1940s, you'll see that a very similar attitude was shared by the army, the new air force, and much of congress. Then the Korean War happened, and literally within days the SecDef was approving funds to build carriers that he had fought tooth and nail before.

The size and composition of a navy depends on a country's size, location, and international situation. The United States' experience has led to a commitment to a relatively large and capable navy for the foreseeable future.

Why in the future would we need a Naval structure to pilot a spaceship? Is it some as psychologically simple as because the word "ship" is part of the word spaceship. Would the need for a Navy structure be the same if they were all "spacecraft"?

When creating new organizations, the normal inclination is to crib from similar existing structures, and tradition is strong. The airline industry began borrowing from nautical organization as far back as the days of the DC-3: captain, first officer, purser, steward(ess). It is not unlikely that a future space service would adopt something similar, but I do think it is sometimes carried too far in space fiction. Things like ship's bells and rudder orders seem a little silly on a space vessel hundreds of years in the future.

BTW, the US Marine Corps today is an independent service equal to the other branches, but is part of the Department of the Navy alongside the USN. A recent bill in congress to rename the department the "Department of the Navy and Marine Corps" died mostly because of traditionalism, but with a Marine becoming Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in 2005 any question of the USMC being "under" the navy has pretty much been eliminated.

--Justin

 

[CorporalClegg]

This thread makes my brain explode!

 

[Star Wolf]

With navy's or the military invovled your story has the BIG STORY potential. That your captain has the power to end life as we know it where he is. Submarine and Carrier Task Force commanders have more independent power in that reguard then the general whose troops would have to fight off federal agents should he go off the reservation. Without the military you have to invent the big menance potential and many stories first concern would be will Mr. X hook up with Ms. Y

 

[V4Victory]

First I think a good scifi story should revolve around the lives of colonists, their ambitions, their lusts. The culture clashes, the day to day discriminations the need for trade etc not some big battleship with lots of torpedoes. One of my favorite TNG Trek episodes was Picard meeting this guy Darmok. There were no space battles, no big battleships just Picard and this guy Darmok going through a culture clash, two guys struggling to communicate in order to fight effectively and trying to understand each other as best they can.....the episode is absolutely brilliant! No Navy ! No Space Battles! but a wonderful episode. If you watched Andromeda, or TNG or even Voyager you will see a lot of episodes degenerated into planet of the day, they would spend a few mins in "deep space" and then all of a sudden visit a new planet. No need for supplies, no stuck out at sea for weeks, no docking to get the crew new food, no fresh laundry, no naval blockades and sieges....ok I know TNG had that "replicator" excuse where they could live forever without supplies but Voyager didn't even pretend to be a Naval spaceship lost at sea. How many times did Janeway run out of coffee!? none I can think of! Life looked pretty liberal and sophisticated in these shows yet everyone religiously followed the Navy structure in these series, greeting and saluting their commanders and petty officers following a bunch of antiquated traditions. Also why would you need the Navy with wormholes, warp speed and slip streams since the vessels more or less behave like taxis or aircraft often going from one planet to another in a matter of hours.

This thread makes my brain explode!

This will make it hurt even more >>> some people might insist if you want exciting scifi you need battles and explosions but why would they battle using an old structure? Part of the reason the Marine Corps were formed was to give a new structure which combined task forces for the new military weapons of the revolutionary war. The Navy just seems so obsolete to me, are people suggesting that in the 23rd century people would still big fighting using the old Navy system, even in the Klingon and Cylon Empires they still can only fathom how to fight in one way. That's to fight with big ugly looking ships? "Full speed ahead, photon torpedoes....Arrrggh where's me robotic cylon parrot !" Why wouldn't they form a new military structure. For those of you who say the only way to manage lots of troops is by the Navy structure I say look at Normandy, head of the attack were Bradley and Montgomery (army guys) and Commanders Dwight D. Eisenhower and Tedder. I hate to say it but a lot of scifi to me has degenerated into fan wankery, for boys who collect toy ships, or people who reminisce about days at sea or for fan wankery people who play too many video games fighting one bigass 3d battleship against another online ship. Stargate and Firefly might have done some of these planet of the week episodes but I applaud them for try to deal with real people and at least getting away from the Navy structure for more than an episode or two.

 

[captcalhoun]

you'll love my original fiction book I'm writing, the main characters are fighter pilots. using RAF ranks like Squadron-Leader, Flight Leftenant, Group Captain and Wing Commander.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Eh? Star Trek has the Navy metaphor but it's not so dominant in sci fi. Okay, maybe BSG is Navy-esque, but it's so different that I don't make the connection. Stargate is the Airforce, Farscape isn't military at all, B5 is supposed to be military but never really came across that way to me, dunno why.

First I think a good scifi story should revolve around the lives of colonists, their ambitions, their lusts.

AMC's working on Red Mars. Another space colony based show I've heard rumored is Sci Fi Channel's Revolution, but I fear it might be dead since I haven't heard anything about it lately. And Caprica also counts as a space-colony setting.

For unmilitary space exploration, Defying Gravity (Fox Studios, not sure if it will air on Fox) is in production and for a military-sci-fi spoof, look for Going Boldly Nowhere tol air on Fox, maybe midseason.

 

[Skywalker]

you'll love my original fiction book I'm writing, the main characters are fighter pilots. using RAF ranks like Squadron-Leader, Flight Leftenant, Group Captain and Wing Commander.

Those are stupid ranks. ::ducks::

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

B5 is supposed to be military but never really came across that way to me, dunno why.

Probably because the humans' rank system was a bit fucked up. JMS never did explain it, really.

 

[Star Wolf]

B5 is supposed to be military but never really came across that way to me, dunno why.

Probably because the humans' rank system was a bit fucked up. JMS never did explain it, really.

How about this Starfleet was the big bad among its peers no matter that every soldier except Worf and Yar was actually a scientist. On BSG an active war was being fought. However when B5 began Earthforce was the weakest military among the starring species.while called military they could not actually use the military to force Earth's will onto others. It similar with Farscape the military under the Orwelian Peacekeepers name were on the other side.

 

[CorporalClegg]

First I think a good scifi story should revolve around the lives of colonists, their ambitions, their lusts. The culture clashes, the day to day discriminations the need for trade etc not some big battleship with lots of torpedoes. One of my favorite TNG Trek episodes was Picard meeting this guy Darmok. There were no space battles, no big battleships just Picard and this guy Darmok going through a culture clash, two guys struggling to communicate in order to fight effectively and trying to understand each other as best they can.....the episode is absolutely brilliant! No Navy ! No Space Battles! but a wonderful episode. If you watched Andromeda, or TNG or even Voyager you will see a lot of episodes degenerated into planet of the day, they would spend a few mins in "deep space" and then all of a sudden visit a new planet. No need for supplies, no stuck out at sea for weeks, no docking to get the crew new food, no fresh laundry, no naval blockades and sieges....ok I know TNG had that "replicator" excuse where they could live forever without supplies but Voyager didn't even pretend to be a Naval spaceship lost at sea. How many times did Janeway run out of coffee!? none I can think of! Life looked pretty liberal and sophisticated in these shows yet everyone religiously followed the Navy structure in these series, greeting and saluting their commanders and petty officers following a bunch of antiquated traditions. Also why would you need the Navy with wormholes, warp speed and slip streams since the vessels more or less behave like taxis or aircraft often going from one planet to another in a matter of hours.

This thread makes my brain explode!

This will make it hurt even more >>> some people might insist if you want exciting scifi you need battles and explosions but why would they battle using an old structure? Part of the reason the Marine Corps were formed was to give a new structure which combined task forces for the new military weapons of the revolutionary war. The Navy just seems so obsolete to me, are people suggesting that in the 23rd century people would still big fighting using the old Navy system, even in the Klingon and Cylon Empires they still can only fathom how to fight in one way. That's to fight with big ugly looking ships? "Full speed ahead, photon torpedoes....Arrrggh where's me robotic cylon parrot !" Why wouldn't they form a new military structure. For those of you who say the only way to manage lots of troops is by the Navy structure I say look at Normandy, head of the attack were Bradley and Montgomery (army guys) and Commanders Dwight D. Eisenhower and Tedder. I hate to say it but a lot of scifi to me has degenerated into fan wankery, for boys who collect toy ships, or people who reminisce about days at sea or for fan wankery people who play too many video games fighting one bigass 3d battleship against another online ship. Stargate and Firefly might have done some of these planet of the week episodes but I applaud them for try to deal with real people and at least getting away from the Navy structure for more than an episode or two.

You obviously completely missed my point.

 

[Neroon]

Somehow I doubt that there'd be any less of a focus on "big space battles" if any other military "branch" were used. There is an unfortunate over-reliance upon the battles and so on, due to an unfortunate misperception as to what audiences want. Still, there have been quite a few episodes of each of the shows mentioned which didn't use the "uber-cool" battle motif. There have been quite a bit more than the OP implies, I think. Perhaps then the overuse is more in movies as opposed to TV shows.

 

[V4Victory]

Why not stay with the lives of colonists and if we need any ranks why not use town and police ranks. Mayor, Assistant Secretary, Chief Magistrate, Transport Minister, Commissioner, Inspector, Facility Manager, Detective and so on....I don't see why the Navy would be in space. Let's hypothesize NASA or whoever builds colonies on the Moon and Mars in 2020 or 2040 or 2060? Why would we need the Navy and big battleships? Why would we need the US Navy or British Navy ships or Euro ships or Chinese Navy or whatever to colonize space? If you build a base on the Moon, send capsules like Apollo and maybe that's the way. It grows over the years to one thousand people wouldn't a Malcolm Reynolds style sheriff with a little pistol do a far better job at policing and security than a big overkill warship with hundreds of torpedoes...ok maybe not "Mal" since he was a smuggler but I think you guys get my point?

 

[V4Victory]

Damn, most people voted The Navy is great, it will always rule the cosmic waves 80% in favor ! So I guess I'm in the minority. For me the Navy = battle bots crap. Navy in space, it's all about Star-Wars and not about exploration or colonization