Star Wars Is Not Science Fiction
io9 is a site I frequent to keep up-to-date on goings on in the SF world. It’s a good site, focusing almost exclusively on TV and movies, but I recently read something that reminded me of a rant I’d been planning for some time.
In their list of the top death’s in SF cinema–which criminally omits Roy Batty from Blade Runner, arguably the great SF death scene–the author mentions Danny Boyle’s ill-fated SF outing, Sunshine, referring to it as “Space Opera.”
Similarly, on another forum, a poster referred to Iain M. Banks’ series of novels set in the Culture as “Hard SF.”
Things like this really bug the shit out of me, in the context of things that are basically meaningless. I’m not sure the phrase “nerd rage” is appropriate here, as I rarely get worked up about anything, including important stuff. Maybe “nerd ennui” would be better.
First, allow me to point something out that often goes unspoken. SF cinema is very different from literary SF. This doesn’t bother me, I’m not frustrated that there aren’t movies like I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream, and we do occasionally get genuinely thoughtful and cerebral SF Cinema, but overwhelmingly Science Fiction movies are merely adventure stories set in space or the future.
Whereas written SF…ok, is also mostly adventure stories, but there’s a long tradition of genuinely thoughtful and relevant writing in SF literature largely absent from SF cinema. This often confuses the issue because terms like Hard SF and Space Opera were created to describe written SF and almost never apply to Cinematic SF.
Sunshine, for instance, is not Space Opera. The Culture books are not Hard SF. In fact, allow me to make a broad, sweeping, statement that gives me a title for this post, a much better one than “What Makes It Science Fiction?” which was the original title.
Star Wars is not science fiction.
I mean, obviously it is Science Fiction because it’s got spaceships and rayguns. And words acquire meaning through usage. But as it’s used, the phrase “Science Fiction” has become a setting. I submit to you that Science Fiction can also be a kind of story.
As a setting, any story set in space, or in the future, or with spaceships and rayguns is Science Fiction. Therefore Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, all Science Fiction to the average viewer.
But if we examine the stories involved, rather than the setting, a different picture emerges.
Star Wars features a Hidden Monarch, an Old Wizard, a Princess and a Dark Lord, these last three are actual terms used in the movie. What genre are these plot elements the hallmark of? Fantasy.
That’s why many people refer to Star Wars as “Science Fantasy” being a hybrid of Science-fiction and Fantasy. I prefer “Space Fantasy” since obviously science has nothing to do with anything we see in the series. I am not the first person to make this observation and if, as I suspect, you’ve encountered this insight in many other places, I apologize. I’m merely covering my bases.
I submit the critical test of whether a story is Science Fiction is; “Could you tell this same story in another genre?” If the answer is “no,” then it’s Science Fiction.
If 2001 for instance, was just a movie about a bunch of guys on a ship and the crewmember who goes insane, then it wouldn’t be a science fiction story. It’s the first act from the monkeys to the guys who activate the first Monolith, and the last act with Dave Bowman leaving this set of dimensions, that makes it SF. There are many SF ideas within the “crazy crewmember starts killing everyone” bulk of the film. Artificial Intelligence, Suspended Animation, but these are just window dressing. They’re not critical to the plot. Uplifted Monkeys and aliens from another dimension, an alien alarm hidden on the moon waiting for the human race to develop space travel so it can send its warning to its creators…these are science fictional ideas.
Therefore I conclude that while Star Wars is Science Fiction, based on common usage, it is not science fictional. Meaning “not in the manner of an SF story.”
Most fans love Science Fiction, the setting, while being turned off by Science Fictional stories. Because they’re tuning in to see characters they love in a setting with spaceships and rayguns. Nothing wrong with that. But these stories are merely set in a Science Fiction universe, they’re not Science Fictional stories.
Like the Mystery genre, most readers are tuning in because they like the characters. Not to unravel the mystery. The mystery is often an excuse and just as often, famously, doesn’t even make sense.
Battlestar Galactica, for instance, flirts with Science Fiction, mostly in the “how would your mores and folkways change if you were the last 40,000 people in the world,” but apart from that briefly visited issue, the story about trying to get home, trying to find a safe harbor, with enemies walking among us, could just as easily be set in WWII or Pre-Hellenic Greece. The setting is SF, and that’s why the fans love it. The stories are not. The stories are…well, the same stories you get in any other genre. Love, betrayal, suspicion, loyalty. SF fans are really just like everyone else, they like the same stories everyone else likes, they just prefer them in space, with rayguns and rocketships.
Science Fictional stories are often cerebral. It’s rare that you get a good SF story in a movie that’s also a great populist adventure, the two often being at odds. Strangely, the two are often married in SF literature.
2001, Ang Lee’s Hulk, the first Star Trek movie, all films with genuine SF ideas in the middle of them, all largely rejected as entertainment by fans. The pilot episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine turned a lot of people off, myself included. Watch it again, as I did. It’s all about a uniquely Science Fictional idea, brilliantly made personal. Because of this, rather than in spite of it, people stayed away in droves.
Sunshine was like this. It had a genuinely SF idea in the middle of it, though it fucked it up.
So why isn’t Sunshine Space Opera?
Popularity: 63% [?]
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Recently
October 10th, 2008 at 12:24 am
[...] as the point is raised on another blog I read, it is science fiction. While some of the political aspects of the story could be told in a [...]
October 12th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I’d argue that one aspect of BSG that makes it SF is the idea that <i>you</i> could be an enemy and <i>not know it</i>. Hard to explain that in another genre.
But overall, I agree with everything you say here.
October 12th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Well, The Manchurian Candidate.
If I were being really noodly I’d wonder at what of paranoia BSG is exploiting in the manner The Manchurian Candidate exploited the paranoia of communist agents among us who might not even know they were agents! But I’m not that noodly, I don’t think they’re being allegorical there.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:05 pm
[...] pretty sure my local library carried at least two of these. Some extras for you. A brief reminder: Star Wars is not science fiction. Also – [...]
September 17th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Nice post, I totally agree. In my effort to enlighten the world I created Is it Science Fiction? where you can vote on whether something like Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica or Foundation are Science Fiction or not. You can also comment to explain yourself and try to convince others.
January 6th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
I would suggest The Andromeda Strain as a semi Hard/Good true science fictional movie.
January 6th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Shit yeah, the Andromeda Strain is perfect. Lots of science, classic SF "what if?", pretty rudimentary characterization. It’s got all the hallmarks of Hard SF. Good call.