Misconceptions About Star Wars
One of the things that I find interesting about the criticisms of Star Wars is when people tend to misunderstand or misrepresent what the series is about or what happens within the series. Sometimes this has to do with people over analyzing or simply people being idiots.Mulluane of Dragons, Heroes, and Wizards recently brought to my attention this post by Richard Risch that somewhat irritated me with the ways in which Risch criticized Star Wars for its failures to succeed as a piece of science fiction–he argues that Star Wars is more of a science fantasy than anything else.Now, to be fair, I have little argument against Risch’s points. He is correct in placing Star Wars in the science fantasy category. Lucas’s series is not at all a true science fiction story and is a prime example of why the “just because it has spaceships doesn’t mean it’s science fiction” rule is a good one to follow. What I take issue with are the examples Risch uses and the fallacies in logic that come with them. I suppose the best way to go about this would be to go one piece at a time.First this: Sadly though and even more important, authentic fighter tactics were lacking, and at times, … purely ignored. This was made quite evident by the attack on the exhaust port via the death trench. Using your fighter to block an enemy fighter (on your six o’clock), is suicidal in real warfare. That is in reality how most fighters get shot-down. A logical tactic would have been to keep a circling flight of fighters above, waiting to engage any bandits making a run for your dive-bombers. But then, that would have not lent well to the story, would it? My initial contention with this part of his argument is his reference to the suicidal tactic of blocking an enemy fighter with your own fighter. If you’ve seen the movie it’s pretty darn obvious that the folks doing the blocking are, in fact, being suicidal. They’re there to basically be annoying. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, sure, but I don’t think Risch really addresses the reality of the setting. Perhaps this all isn’t much of a contention, but from the start I already had issues with the assumption that the rebels in Star Wars were doing anything other than being suicidal decoys…I think a far more accurate criticism, one which Risch only touches on briefly here, would be to point out the idiocy behind the whole idea of having to travel down a long trench. The film never mentions any rational behind this tactic and really, as Risch says, it’s there for the pretty-fying of the story.Then there’s this: Added to this, was the attack on the exhaust port (which was purportedly ray-shielded) with photon torpedoes (borrowed from Star Trek). Funny thing, a mass of photons is considered ray. (Photon energy is produced by an electron dropping from a higher orbit to a lower orbit as it travels around in an atom.) Therefore, how could photon torpedoes be realistically considered the weapon of choice for this attack? Well, as was mentioned in the comments of his post, the Star Wars folks used proton torpedoes, not photon torpedoes, meaning that no actual “stealing” was involved (in theory). But regardless of the name, Risch’s point is one worth taking up. Why must we assume that the names for all things within a fictional universe have to be related to the things they represent? For example, if I have a fish torpedo, does that mean the torpedo has to be made out of fish? Or shaped like a fish? Does it have to smell like a fish or make a fish sound when it’s shot? No, it doesn’t. It could be called a fish torpedo for a lot of reasons. Maybe it’s called that because when the fighter pilots who shot them saw them moving through deep space they came up with a new slang term in which space became the ocean and torpedoes became fish. Who knows. Just because something is a photon or proton torpedo doesn’t mean that the torpedo has to be made out of photons or protons or anything, or even resemble those things, or be made of photons or protons as we know them in our reality. It doesn’t really matter what they are called. Star Wars also has ion cannons, by the way, and I imagine there are all sorts of scientifically incorrect things about those too. Let’s face it, Star Wars isn’t exactly the most realistic universe out there as far as science is concerned. But do any of us expect it to be? No. It’s Star Wars. There are lightsabers and people who have magic powers and aliens that drool and evil guys that breathe funny. Then: All well and to the good except for one minor problem, it took the samurais and ninjas many years to develop their bodies and skills through training, discipline, and actual combat. I ought to know, I trained at and taught Karate for over twenty-five years. For Luke Skywalker to become an accomplished Jedi Knight (under several weeks of Yoda’s tutelage and training) is laughable and cannot possibly happen even with most gifted human beings. Again, you are expected to accept this with blind faith. Let’s take this one apart piece by piece. TimeIt’s never indicated with any certainty how much time passes between the separation of Luke Skywalker/R2-D2 (traveling to Dagobah) and Han Solo/Chewie/Leia/C-3PO (running from the Empire). The most we can assume is that it didn’t take more than a few years lest we might have seen some drastic changes in the physical appearances of the characters (as in someone getting old all of a sudden). It’s likely, however, that the second film spanned only a few months. Remember, Han Solo gets tortured during this period. I can think of a lot of real world examples where tortures took place for
Science Fiction, Fantasy, and God
Yahoo! Answers is a remarkably interesting place to go if you’re interested in seeing what other people are saying about your favorite genre. Sometimes the responses are dead on and other times they’re so outlandish that I’m left scratching my head. But, they do get me thinking, if not on a deep, intellectual level, then at that knee-jerk level that puts me in the mood to write something new.One of the interesting discussions in science fiction is about the inclusion of God, or gods. While people in the United States are overwhelmingly Christian, there are plenty of people elsewhere in the world that believe in different forms of the same basic idea. We are, by default, a species of many beliefs, customs, and ideals.With that in mind, I came across this question: If God is mentioned in a story does it make the story science fiction?I’m reading a story entitled “The Nine Billion Names of God” and it’s considered a science fiction story, but why? Is it because of the notion of God or what? And this response: Yes, because God is not fact. Some people believe in it, but then again some people believe in dragons and unicorns. That’s why it’s science fiction. I’m a bit perturbed by the complete lack of knowledge about science fiction and fantasy. Since the primary issues here are similar to the issues that rose out of the werewolves discussion from before, I’m going to try to focus on one rather alarmingly ignorant assumption: that science fiction is not about fact.While it is true that science fiction is not necessarily about what is necessarily fact, the genre does arise out of a fact-based reality. The land of Middle Earth did not exist, while Mars and Jupiter do. It is also true that science fiction can often be rather outlandish in its portrayals of future peoples.But what separates science fiction from fantasy is the very fact that it is intended to be about what is possible based on what we know at the time (this explains why many older science fiction stories are now out of date and completely ridiculous). The notion that something is science fiction simply because it isn’t fact is an ignorant assumption. All fiction is fake. If it were real it would be called something else (which it is). The assumption intentionally ignores what science fiction is actually supposed to be and makes light of it as a genre. Fantasy is a more accurate fit for something not factual, because it is a genre about things that aren’t established facts or established truths: people can fly or shoot fire out of their hands, or dragons, in the mythical sense, fly around burning villages while knight-like individuals run around in armored suits swinging their enchanted swords (and yes, I know that fantasy can be far more complex and interesting than this, but I’m making a point here). Science fiction is intended to be the genre of the possible, based on what is real.To mention God in a story doesn’t make it any sort of story, let alone science fiction. That’s absurd. It’s even more absurd to say that a story that mentions God is science fiction because God is not a fact. That would mean that any story with non-factual elements are automatically science fiction–and that’s fortunately not true at all. Equally absurd is to say that because a story mentions spaceships it must be science fiction by default. Science fiction isn’t a broad genre in the same sense as fiction. It’s a narrowed field with parameters and logical limitations.Moving to the specifics of the question, however, we find that the story “The Nine Billion Names of God” by Arthur C. Clarke is not a story about a fantastical concept akin to, say, flying chipmunks or Greek gods. It’s actually a story about monks wanting to calculate all the names of God because they believe that once that happens, the universe will end. Okay, sounds like fantasy right? Well, no. You could argue that the story is fantasy based on its ending, but because the story itself deals with an abstract religious concept and no God actually appears to wave his hand magically we can assume that perhaps the story is attempting to be more “current” and realistic.The story is primarily about calculating the name of God–a scientific concept. The Monks believe they’re really finding the names of God, but if you think about it you’ll find that the Monks could be calculating anything, but are calling it something else. What if the names they are finding are related to astronomical signs or some such? A lot of questions can be raised once you’ve finished the story, and for good reason.The ending, though, is the one section of “fantasy” because the universe does begin to end. Okay, but can that be explained? Perhaps. Clarke never provides the explanation. It could be mere coincidence, or it could be the end of the world as the Monks see it, or it could be something else entirely (perhaps calculating whatever is being calculated is some sort of early and quite twisted form of quantum physics). Ultimately, it doesn’t matter. What matters is the overall story, and that story is clearly science fiction.Science fiction is perfectly capable of dealing with God, religion, etc. It’s capable of a lot of things, actually, but what must be true for a story to be science fiction is that the story and the science arise out of a realistic current reality. Otherwise it becomes fantasy. That’s what I think, anyway.
Should Science Fiction Be Taught in Schools?
I don’t think the question should be whether it should be taught in schools, but whether there should be a larger variety of science fiction titles presented to students. Science fiction is already taught in most schools (at least in America). Some of the most popular science fiction stories taught in public high schools include 1984 by George Orwell, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, and a select few other titles (Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card has become rather popular); some school curriculum already offer a varied diet of science fiction titles–kudos to them. In my personal opinion, however, in directing my answer to this particular question: Yes, of course science fiction should be taught in public schools, but I believe that the same criteria for quality should be applied to science fiction as to any other genre of fiction. We teach Charles Dickens for a very specific reason, and similar reasons should be applied to science fiction novels (which are why the novels I mentioned above tend to be common). I simply think that there needs to be more variety. I don’t think all science fiction texts should be taught, nor do I suggest that only the “classics” deserve a space. There are plenty of incredibly important science fiction novels that have sprung up in the last thirty years (such as William Gibson’s work or Joe Haldeman, Arthur C. Clarke. et al). As such, there is a wealth of material available to the public and to schools that could beneficial for the teaching of modern forms of literature. I personally feel that many of our schools place too much focus on “classic” forms of literature–particularly older work–and I see that as failing to prepare our students for the changes that have occurred in modern literature today. True, one’s reading ability does not necessarily have to be advanced to read the vast majority of literature written today, but critical thinking is absolutely necessary to grasping the sometimes abstract or deeply-rooted concepts found within many great science fiction novels. As to why I think science fiction should be taught: Science fiction is the literature of the future. It speculates upon the world we live in now to see where we might end up one day, whether that be 10 years ahead or 100 years ahead (or 1,000). As a genre it is important because many of the greatest science fiction novels do contain the depth and themes that make literature important to us. It is a genre that constantly questions and examines the human condition, which is precisely what literature is meant to do. That makes it an enormously important genre in preparing students for critically thinking upon the human condition. It also has a powerful influence on world perspectives and I find that the more I read science fiction the more I find that my own personal feelings about the world I live in now are put into question. While public schools aren’t necessarily there to get students to challenge themselves, good literature will do this from time to time and it is important to expose the next generation of readers to such conditions. That’s the case I’m making for teaching science fiction in schools. What do you think? Do you have different opinions on the matter?
Otherism: The Dissection of Humanity and the Human in Science Fiction Film
The title is a mouthful, but represents the core idea behind the research project for which I received a monetary grant from UC Santa Cruz. Given that, I give my the proposal for my research project: What is the human? What does it mean to be human? These are questions that motivate many, if not most, fields in the humanities. I’m applying for the Humanities Undergraduate Research Award (HUGRA) because I wish to address these deep-rooted and enduring questions, albeit using a relatively new medium: science fiction television and film. As a genre, science fiction (SF) lends itself easily to investigations and interpretations of the human-other dichotomy. How does SF grapple with this dualism? How does it challenge our preconceptions of the human and offer new definitions? And does the genre make sociohistorical processes, such as racialization and the vilification of difference, more accessible due to its futuristic and fantastic narratives and settings? These are the questions that motivate my project, “Otherism: The Dissection of Humanity and the Human in Science Fiction Film.” My primary focus is on science fiction film—such as Battlestar Galactica, Space Above and Beyond, Blade Runner, Ghost in the Shell, and others—and how the relation between the human and the other is represented. Drawing from post-colonial discourse, I argue that science fiction negates the existence of a human category, with exception to biology, by blurring the line between human and non-human—the cyborg, android, humanoid alien, non-humanoid alien, robot, etc. This negation is, in my mind, a challenge to our preconceived notions of humanity and a challenge on a fictive level to the foundations of human indifference and intolerance. As an ardent SF fan, I’ve read numerous science fiction novels and short stories. Additionally, I’ve taken courses at UCSC that have allowed me to pursue my passion. These courses include AMST 109B: Science Fiction in Multicultural America; Lit 101: Animal Theory; and an independent study on the writings of Philip K. Dick. Moreover, I’ve found immensely helpful LTWL 115A: Fiction in a Global Context (from the African Continent) and LTEL 160C: Postcolonial Writing. Through further researching colonial/postcolonial discourse I hope to relate the conditions and issues of colonialism to the otherworldly portrayal of human “racism” towards the other, slavery, post-slavery, and cultural merging and its effects. With a HUGRA, I intend to spend Fall Quarter primarily researching at UC Santa Cruz, either viewing materials available to me in McHenry Library or finding materials at other libraries that I find to be of interest. During Winter Quarter I will visit the Science Fiction Foundation Collection at the University of Liverpool and in Spring Quarter I will attend the Eaton Conference at UC Riverside—where John Rieder (author of Colonialism and the Emergence of Science Fiction) will be giving a lecture. Also during Spring Quarter I will spend time in the Eaton Collection and hopefully attend the Science Fiction Research Association’s conference.A HUGRA will enable me to achieve the goals I put forth in this timeline. Ultimately, I intend to produce a research paper and to continue to pursue this question of the human in graduate school—the University of Liverpool’s Science Fiction Studies MA and Brunel University’s Contemporary Literature and Culture MA are programs of significant interest to me. The paper will comprise an important part of my undergraduate dossier. So, any questions?
Werewolves and Misconceptions About Science Fiction
I was perusing Yahoo! Answers today and saw an interesting inquiry: I know that very technical stories like one of Jules Verne’s are science fiction, but what about stories of werewolves, etc. Does this count as science fiction? Does it count as fantasy fiction? Is fantasy fiction a subgroup of science fiction? I’ve never heard of fantasy as being a subgenre of science fiction, which is why these questions are rather interesting. Since when have science fiction and fantasy been at all synonymous? They’ve always seemed to be rather opposite categories to me, connected only by the fact that they both deal with elements of the nonexistent. Science fiction, in theory, looks at these elements through the lens of the possible, while fantasy looks at them through the lens of the impossible. Spaceships are real, while wizards and dragons are not. Answering the question, however, leads me to a bit of a paradox. I’ve always automatically lumped werewolves in with horror and fantasy, but is it possible that werewolves could be allowed in science? I’m inclined to think so. Perhaps not in the traditional sense that we have seen in the movies, but in a different sense. Werewolves are easily fantastical creatures, yet they could also be scientific creatures. It all depends on how it is done. If the werewolves change because of a curse or “blood” without explanation of why they are genetically the way they are, then it’s clearly fantasy or horror (or both). But if the werewolves are explained to be, say, genetic experiments in a government lab, or genetic anomalies explained by mutations in the cells, then they become part of a science fiction universe. That aside, I was surprised by the response that was chosen as the “best answer” by the questioner (note: I’ve edited it so it’s readable, which will only help to a certain extent): Sci-fi is a HUGE category. From aliens to elves, wizards to talking animals and everything in between. So, I think that werewolves can be counted as fantasy fiction, and horror like someone else said. Sci-fi is interesting, because it can intertwine itself with many other different genres without getting confusing. Of course, there is the basic story plot that is pretty sci-fi, and then it can venture off into different courses. Horror being one of them. So yeah, it can! Actually, no it can’t. You see, here’s the problem with this whole discussion. Science fiction isn’t fantasy. Fantasy is not a part of science fiction, it’s a part of the broader term “speculative fiction.” Speculative fiction encompasses all literatures of the fantastic/nonexistent. Fantasy and science fiction each deal with specific forms of speculative fiction. Aliens and elves are not synonymous with the same thing. Aliens are almost exclusively the realm of science fiction while elves are almost exclusively the realm of fantasy, with little exception. In fact, to make such generalizations is rather ignorant of what the genres actually entail. You can have elves in science fiction, but not Tolkien elves or traditional fantasy elves. The parameters are different for science fiction elves; fantasy elves are not the same as science fiction elves precisely because they follow different rules. Vulcans from Star Trek are science fiction elves and you can clearly see that they aren’t the same as the elves that Tolkien created, where magic and enchanted rings exist. So, while there may be some similarities between the genres, it is important to maintain a separation. The two are, with rare exception, distinct from each other. Without that separation it becomes near impossible to provide appropriate classifications for speculative literatures. If science fiction and fantasy can be anything, then they cease to become categories at all–they cease to be important. Before long, all categories could become unimportant (and trust me when I say this will wreak havoc on book shoppers).
Peggy’s Qs and My As (about science fiction)
I’m not sure if Peggy of Biology in Science Fiction wanted professional science fiction writers. If so, then I guess she can ignore my answers. If not, then here are my answers to her questions for science fiction writers (if you’re a science person, go check out her questions for science writers): Why are you writing science fiction in particular? What does the science add?I think the primary reason I write science fiction first and fantasy second is that science fiction seems to grab at my imagination in a more profound way than fantasy (which isn’t meant to be a slight on fantasy). The reasons for this are also my reasons for not clinging to a particular religion, and also being rather critical of religion: I’m a rational/logical/non-pseudo-supernatural-whatsit person. You can argue that I’m not rational or logical, but I do spend more of my time looking at things from a viewpoint born out of what is known and provable, to a certain extent, rather than looking at stuff that is, to put it bluntly, bunk. I find things like quantum computers or astronauts losing $100,000 tool bags in space far more interesting on a more consistent basis than TV shows about ghost hunters or listening to people explain to me how dinosaurs and humans lived together.So, from this perspective science fiction offers me a way of thinking “realistically” about the future. Science fiction is the literature of the future, whether that future be distant or near. I like being able to write about what the world could be like in 20 years, or 50 years, if one thing were to show up, or a new technology were to become a part of traditional culture, etc. I like how science fiction offers me a lot of ways of dealing with what interests me, such as human reactions to the other (in science fiction this translates to human reactions to aliens, cyborgs, clones, robots, human replicas, etc.).Perhaps what science adds, when I make an effort to really use it (and I guess I use science all the time in science fiction, but when I talk about really using it I mean actually going out of my own little box to find new concepts to work with or trying to portray a better grasp of something I don’t know a lot about), is a sense of reality. The idea that this story I’m writing could actually happen. That’s important to science fiction I think: that the science make the stories and imagined futures seem real enough for the reader to actually consider the possibilities. The science makes the fiction stronger. Part of this is my personal distaste for regular fiction. I like things that aren’t currently real. I like spaceships and aliens and bizarre future technologies, etc. To me, the science simply makes the fiction stronger by allowing for more complex themes than are present in “traditional” fiction. You could argue with me on this if you wanted to, but “traditional” fiction cannot do what science fiction does. Period. Science fiction is unique because of its ability to do what other fictional forms cannot do. What is your relationship to science? Have you studied or worked in it, or do you just find it cool? Do you have a favorite field?I consider myself a science enthusiast. I don’t claim to know everything about science and am honest enough to say that I probably couldn’t explain without flailing my arms around like a moron how basic aspects of science work. I don’t remember how to do most of things I learned in chemistry and I couldn’t easily tell you the specifics of every step of cell division. But I love science, even when I don’t understand it (and that happens a lot, because I have no idea how quantum physics works, or what string theory really means, or how the heck a computer works, etc.). I consider myself relatively knowledgeable, though, regardless of my weaknesses. I’m not Mike Brotherton, who is a scientist, and I would never take up arms against him on any scientific issue, because I would lose horribly.That said, I have studied bits and pieces of science. I think I know a bit more about biology and evolution than I do about, say, complex subjects such as the eleven dimensions or string theory or quantum theory. I have a lot of sociology-type experience in college primarily because I wanted to be an evolutionary biologist before I decided literature and writing was more up my alley. I really find myself fascinated by primates and how close they are to us (and if you researched you’d be absolutely astonished at how intelligent and “human” they really are). Outside of that, I utilize Google on a regular basis to keep myself as knowledgeable as possible about subjects I don’t know very well (such as physics, astronomy, etc.–although these subjects are actually fascinating to me, so I find myself learning more and more as I go along).If I had to pick a favorite field, I’d have to say astronomy. While evolution and primatology are all hot topics for me, I find the recent news in science regarding exoplanets, asteroids, deep space satellites, supernovas, dark matter, etc. absolutely astonishing. Whoever said we weren’t still advancing our at an exponential rate was a complete moron, because the things we’re learning from space are mind boggling. Pretty soon someone is going to be able to prove that that whole panspermia thing is real…imagine that day, eh? How important is it to you that the science be right? What kind of resources do you use for accuracy?This really depends. First off, I’m willing to make exceptions about certain tropes in science fiction for the sake of a story. Faster-than-light travel is still impossible according to our good friend Einstein. But, if FTL isn’t possible and you don’t want to be one of those folks who uses wormholes and other loopholes, then you’re pretty much screwed if you