Veering off into religious debate is a bad idea. Check out the Problem of Evil and try reading Dawkins the God Delusion.
Is 'Star Trek' science fiction?
- Thread starter FeanorLobelia
- Start date
Good point.
Isn't that throwing fuel on the fire?
Anyway, back to the topic: faeries. Provable or unprovable?
No thanks, I tried reading "The Selfish Gene", that was enough Dawkins for this little girl.
No. Maybe. I do that sometimes without noticing.
And... back to the topic of... oh, wait... who we talking about?
I haven't read his writings on science, but God Delusion is a very readable, often funny, and biting discussion of religion. If you're into that kind of thing.
Not how I'd describe his "take" on Genetics.
Agree. In that terms ST travels back in time to 1977 and copies barely Campbell's hero myth. Barely because main character doesn't evolve.
I'm sure someone has said this, but it's space opera. And yes, space opera is SF.
A lot of science fiction is dumb. That doesn't mean it's not science fiction.
A lot of science fiction is dumb. That doesn't mean it's not science fiction.
Once I have read a review of some SF book - "amount of rubbish that could burn out cerebral cortex of any teenager, even barely educated one"
I've only been around this bbs for shortly over a year and I still get amazed at the topics people find to 'discuss'.
So, since Campbell's theory and Star Wars are part of this discussion, I thought I would throw in a dissenter's opinion from the Wikipedia article on Monomyth. I love the irony of this quote as related to the posts and the concepts of scifi as discussd, as Lucas followed Campbell's theory so completely with his screenplays, and many posters don't consider Star Wars to be 'true' scifi:
"Novelist David Brin has criticized the monomyth, arguing that it is anti-populist, and was used by kings and priests to justify tyranny. Brin also pointed out that the existence of a monomyth may reflect cross-cultural historical similarities, rather than some deeper "human insight". He points out that, until relatively recently, storytellers were dependent upon the oligarchy for their livelihood and that the aristocracy only recently lost its power to punish irreverence. Once those historical factors disappeared, science fiction emerged--a story-telling mode Brin sees as the antithesis of Campbell's monomyth."
Link to the entire article - the quote is from the Critcism section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth
For myself, I have a basic threshhold of what constitutes scifi, especially in movies - I don't require the concepts of hard science as discussed here.
So, since Campbell's theory and Star Wars are part of this discussion, I thought I would throw in a dissenter's opinion from the Wikipedia article on Monomyth. I love the irony of this quote as related to the posts and the concepts of scifi as discussd, as Lucas followed Campbell's theory so completely with his screenplays, and many posters don't consider Star Wars to be 'true' scifi:
"Novelist David Brin has criticized the monomyth, arguing that it is anti-populist, and was used by kings and priests to justify tyranny. Brin also pointed out that the existence of a monomyth may reflect cross-cultural historical similarities, rather than some deeper "human insight". He points out that, until relatively recently, storytellers were dependent upon the oligarchy for their livelihood and that the aristocracy only recently lost its power to punish irreverence. Once those historical factors disappeared, science fiction emerged--a story-telling mode Brin sees as the antithesis of Campbell's monomyth."
Link to the entire article - the quote is from the Critcism section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth
For myself, I have a basic threshhold of what constitutes scifi, especially in movies - I don't require the concepts of hard science as discussed here.
My point is that "Star Trek" often uses stories that can be told WITHOUT science fiction. It's had whodunnit mysteries that could be "Law & Order" episodes, or stories about "cowboys" and "Indians" that could be "Bonanza" episodes.
It has even had episodes about Nazis, gangsters, and Roman gladiators -- three distinctly separate genres -- but called it science-fiction because it was a Nazi planet, and a gangster planet, and a Roman planet. That's like taking episodes of "Hogan's Heroes," "The Untouchables," and "Rome," setting them on another planet, and declaring them science-fiction stories.
It's like that old movie "Robinson Crusoe on Mars" -- it's just "Robinson Crusoe" ... on Mars. "Robinson Crusoe" isn't a science-fiction story, so setting it on Mars does not make it a science-fiction story. It's just introducing a science-fiction element into a story of another genre.
That's true about a lot of "Star Trek" episodes. Just because you set a detective story, or a Western story, or a gangster story in space, doesn't make them science-fiction stories.
They can have science-fiction elements in them, like robots and starships and aliens, but a science-fiction STORY should start with the science, not the story.
Even Gene Roddenberry himself pitched "Star Trek" as a Western set in outer space. While the series itself is in the science-fiction genre because of its setting and props, a lot of the STORIES are straight out of cop shows and Westerns and gangster movies.
If you can tell the same exact story WITHOUT the science-fiction elements, it's not a science-fiction story.
...which, in turn would disqualify much of TOS from actually being SF and knock the OP from his oh-so-high horse...splendidly done
The science fiction is in the optimistic vision that this species will be able to advance towards frighteningly powerful technology but still develop a maturity that allows it not to become extinct because of it. It explores our interfacing with it and the consequences of the abilities it confers.
It is in the depiction of teamwork, friendship, individuality and a meritocratic society devoid of destructive tribalism or totalitarian dogma, and the insights and progress acheived as a consequence.
And the film invokes the currently mooted multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics and provokes thoughts about the ethical implications of same (Should Spock break the temporal prime directive?).
It is in the depiction of teamwork, friendship, individuality and a meritocratic society devoid of destructive tribalism or totalitarian dogma, and the insights and progress acheived as a consequence.
And the film invokes the currently mooted multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics and provokes thoughts about the ethical implications of same (Should Spock break the temporal prime directive?).
Wrong. It IS a science fiction story, as there are always elements to said story that are unique to the genre, hence still qualifying it as science fiction.
I haven't seen such persnickety adhering to some concept of the "purity" of the faith since the last time I had a sit down with Christian fundamentalists.
Isn't this sci-fi: time-travelling, black holes, space ships, planets, the red matter, exotic species and so on?
If you disagree, at least it's still sci-fi for the mainstream audience whom the movie is targeted.
Star Trek XI is 100% a blockbuster with no real depth and deep scientific meanings. Its main target is only to keep you entertained for two hours (and it succeeds well in this). Many of the folks who rant on this forum have not yet realised that.
Here are some insightful bits from The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. (1995)
On The Original Series . . .
"Perhaps Roddenberry's blend of the mildly fantastic and the reassuringly familiar, and his use of an on the whole very likable cast, attracted viewers precisely because its exoticism was manageable and unthreatening.
Despite the reservations expressed above, there is no doubt Star Trek was one of the better sf tv series."
And on The Next Generation . . .
" It could be said that ST:TNG is not really sf at all. That is, the events of any episode seldom if ever arise of necessity from a truly sf idea. The sf elements are, by and large, prettifications used to enliven fables about human ethics, and are essential to the plot only insofar as enabling devices to create moral dilemmas. Thus, for example, in the several episodes that are variations on the theme of the immaturity of wanting to be a god, the only necessary sf element is the temporary conferral of godlike power."
I would say the later series continued along the TNG path, while injecting further drama, adventure, and earlier pulp sf tropes to keep things from getting stale.
On The Original Series . . .
"Perhaps Roddenberry's blend of the mildly fantastic and the reassuringly familiar, and his use of an on the whole very likable cast, attracted viewers precisely because its exoticism was manageable and unthreatening.
Despite the reservations expressed above, there is no doubt Star Trek was one of the better sf tv series."
And on The Next Generation . . .
" It could be said that ST:TNG is not really sf at all. That is, the events of any episode seldom if ever arise of necessity from a truly sf idea. The sf elements are, by and large, prettifications used to enliven fables about human ethics, and are essential to the plot only insofar as enabling devices to create moral dilemmas. Thus, for example, in the several episodes that are variations on the theme of the immaturity of wanting to be a god, the only necessary sf element is the temporary conferral of godlike power."
I would say the later series continued along the TNG path, while injecting further drama, adventure, and earlier pulp sf tropes to keep things from getting stale.
[German Butler Accent]If Star Trek is sc-fi, then I am Mickey Mouse[/German Butler Accent]
It's been said before in this thread, but whatever you call it, however you define it, sci-fi, syfy, science fiction all has one significant trait. It explores the implications of its concepts. The degree of that exploration defines whether it is hard or soft, or whatever. Otherwise you just have fantasy.
Star Trek in my view was fantasy. Stuff happened to move the plot along, to get the characters from A to B. Time Travel happened to get old-Spock to the past to meet nu-Kirk and nu-Spock. Vulcan was demolished by a black hole to piss off nu-Spock and get nu-Kirk in the Captain's chair.
If there had been an exploration of these events from a science viewpoint, consequences and implications, then it would have been less a fantasy.
For instance, the black hole created by the Red Matter. It's actually a great concept. It could do with a lot more rational thought and extrapolation but it's a great concept. My favourite book, Earth, by David Brin, postulates what would happen if a black hole fell into the Earth. Coming from a scientific background, it's less spectacular and more reasoned than what happened to Vulcan but it's much more rewarding.
The black hole that ate Vulcan was just a plot device, that looked kewl on camera. If there had been a bit of scientific thought to the concept that made it onto screen, then it would have given this film sci-fi chops as well as just the fantastical elements.
For instance after the collapse of Vulcan...
Spock: "Get us out of here, maximum warp!"
Kirk: "What the hell's wrong with you, we have to look for survivors!"
Spock: "It's a low mass black hole. It's losing mass through gamma decay quicker than it can gain it through sucking matter in. That decay will increase exponentially until the hole vanishes. At that point, the gamma flux will cook anything within orbital distance. We do not have long. Warp speed now."
And all of a sudden a whole bunch of fans are hitting Wikipedia.
It's been said before in this thread, but whatever you call it, however you define it, sci-fi, syfy, science fiction all has one significant trait. It explores the implications of its concepts. The degree of that exploration defines whether it is hard or soft, or whatever. Otherwise you just have fantasy.
Star Trek in my view was fantasy. Stuff happened to move the plot along, to get the characters from A to B. Time Travel happened to get old-Spock to the past to meet nu-Kirk and nu-Spock. Vulcan was demolished by a black hole to piss off nu-Spock and get nu-Kirk in the Captain's chair.
If there had been an exploration of these events from a science viewpoint, consequences and implications, then it would have been less a fantasy.
For instance, the black hole created by the Red Matter. It's actually a great concept. It could do with a lot more rational thought and extrapolation but it's a great concept. My favourite book, Earth, by David Brin, postulates what would happen if a black hole fell into the Earth. Coming from a scientific background, it's less spectacular and more reasoned than what happened to Vulcan but it's much more rewarding.
The black hole that ate Vulcan was just a plot device, that looked kewl on camera. If there had been a bit of scientific thought to the concept that made it onto screen, then it would have given this film sci-fi chops as well as just the fantastical elements.
For instance after the collapse of Vulcan...
Spock: "Get us out of here, maximum warp!"
Kirk: "What the hell's wrong with you, we have to look for survivors!"
Spock: "It's a low mass black hole. It's losing mass through gamma decay quicker than it can gain it through sucking matter in. That decay will increase exponentially until the hole vanishes. At that point, the gamma flux will cook anything within orbital distance. We do not have long. Warp speed now."
And all of a sudden a whole bunch of fans are hitting Wikipedia.
Imagine that. Another thinking fan of an atheistic, secular humanist SF television show.
That's the popular perception, but I think Star Trek is more open to spiritual, sublime, transcendant thought than some would think. There is an excellent documentary on the TFF DVD that addresses just this topic, with commentary from people like David Brin. Sure, Kirk and co have encountered their share of false idols. However, the show never makes the leap to conclude that the universe itself has no spiritual aspect, has no higher being, and is only a universe of atoms and forces disapating to oblivion.
In fact, there's plenty of evidence that it's anything but.
Those things may not fit with conventional theology, but that doesn't make them any less real in the Trek universe.
And that's also how I feel about ours, as theologians and mystics seek to describe things while seeing through a glass darkly.
Oh, and to assume that all who think MUST come to your conclusions, is NOT thinking. That's just more dogma.
In fact, there's plenty of evidence that it's anything but.
Those things may not fit with conventional theology, but that doesn't make them any less real in the Trek universe.
And that's also how I feel about ours, as theologians and mystics seek to describe things while seeing through a glass darkly.
Oh, and to assume that all who think MUST come to your conclusions, is NOT thinking. That's just more dogma.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
