[Kevis Hendrickson]

I think sci-fi gets a bad rap for being too pessimistic in its view of the future. The excessive exhibition of a post-apocalyptic dystopian future and the stoic figures who inhabit these tales turns many people off. Truth is, every writer has the right to tell the kind of stories they enjoy. But I agree that too many science fiction writers focus too heavily on technology at the expense of their stories. I think that's what made the original Star Wars films so great. They breathed life into a genre that these many years later is still too rigid and cold.

 

[Kevis Hendrickson]

I disagree. I think the Star Wars films and the Star Trek TV shows are probably the two worst examples of science fiction imaginable. It is unfortunate that the layman, who never reads, is likely to name these two franchise as examples of good science fiction, but they are space fantasy with starships and aliens instead of wizards and dragons. Sure, I enjoyed Star Wars when I was twelve or thirteen, but they are as not nearly as deep as Solaris (the book) or Dune (the book).

Everyone has the right to respectfully disagree. But I love Star Wars (and Star Trek) as much now in my 30's as I did when I was 4. I've never asked anyone's permission to enjoy Star War and never will. With that said, I'm not one of those uninformed people that you mention and I have to admit that I resent being used as an example of a person who has not read science fiction. Asimov, Bradbury, Heinlein, Herbert, and a slew of other science fiction authors have been the staple of my reading over the years in addition to Lucas, Straczynski, Tolkien, Liebert, Lewis, Leguinn, etc, etc.

The real problem with science fiction is that there are people who think they are the guardians of the genre and go out of their way to disassociate the genre from anything remotely popular and in the process alienate the casual and curious science fiction reader who has discovered sci fi but has not had a chance to explore the genre. Unfortunately, these so-called guardians scare people off from becoming sci fi fans and play a huge role in the bastardization of sci-fi from the rest of literature.

I have always loved science fiction and will not let someone tell me that Dune is more relevant than Star Wars simply because they feel ecology or anthropology are subjects that echo more loudly with a particular reader than metaphysics, philosophy, or spirituality. Sci-fi is not the domain of the few. Who cares if Star Wars pays less attention to the science involved in its stories than Ender's Game? If this is the case, then where does this leave War of the Worlds, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Twenty thousand Leagues Under the Sea or The Lost World? Or do we give more points to those who strive to be scientifically accurate over those who are scientific visionaries? By your insipid standard, I would have to disregard nearly every single science fiction novel written before the advent of computers into the trash.

I read fantasy and science fiction because they explore possibility and alternate realities. How dare any of us attempt to condemn those who dream of other worlds and realities just because we don't share those visions. I will continue to watch The Empire Strikes Back with a big fat smile on my face while others read Dune with an Elitist attitude. When I read Dune I will do so knowing that Frank Herbert allowed me to share his vision to the future, not as a member of a private club, but as a person who also has his own dream of the future even if it happens to be different from yours.

 

[Kevis Hendrickson]

VERY well said! I love both SW (the original movies) and Trek. If you want deeper SF television, Babylon 5 is wonderful.

There is a lot of elitism aimed at media SF (versus literary SF), and I'm sick of it. Why can't I love both? Something needs to be well written; whether it be media or literary doesn't matter to me. Like you, I was drawn to SF because of the possibilities it presents.

As a side note, I'd like to plug one of my favorite authors, Lois McMaster Bujold -- if you haven't read her Vorkosigan series of books, I highly recommend them.

RangerXenos,

As the world's biggest self-acclaimed fan of Babylon 5, I cannot agree with you more. I think many people fail to realize that the offshoots of extrapolative fiction, in this case science fiction, allow people to delve into a wide and varied range of tales to enjoy. As art is subjective, one kind of science fiction tale is not necessarily better than the others. Fashions change as time moves ever forward and books that were once hailed as literary achievements now find scarcely a reader today. I think it is more important to find the relevance in a story and apply it to your own life than to try to force conformity or create a consensus as to what should be considered good science fiction versus bad science fiction.

Star Wars introduced science fiction (and fantasy) to a world of people who may not otherwise have taken any interest in the genre. Through films like Star Wars, masses of people have been inspired to go on and discover books like Dune or the Lensman series. Star Wars is every bit a legitimate vision of the future, even if given over to flights of fancy, as the one shown to us by Herbert. There is a reason why the genre is called science fiction. Perhaps some of us focus too strongly on the science and not the fiction, both readers and writers alike.

Perhaps time will reveal to us that there are no extraterrestrials in space. Then again, perhaps as science moves forward we will discover that the concept of ships traveling through light speed is not as far fetched as we think (as a few scientists are starting to say now). In the end, does any of this really matter? Lightspeed, Hyperspace, or Warp Speed, are all conventions of a science either real or imagined. The science, though an inescapable and vital element of science fiction, is not important. What truly matters is the bold and daring attempt of writers to capture the essence of humanity's place in the universe and the never ending quest for the knowledge of who we really are and what are role is in the vastness of time and the universe. To me, any story that explores that concept is indeed science fiction even if the particulars cause some of us to label some works of science fiction as hard science fiction or space opera.

 

[Kevis Hendrickson]

My biggest complaint with sci fi is that all too often it is still culturally based in the 17th-20th centuries, that was my beef with the original Star Trek. I consider this to be laziness on the part of the writers to not create a unique immersible world. Enough with the references to classical music and literature in sci fi. I think that's why I often times enjoy fantasy more.

I have to disagree. I believe that many writers choose to include historical cultural references in science fiction because it is relative to the overall story arc of humanity. You can't have the future without the past and the past is in direct dialogue with the future. True, some writers may be simply trying to show off how smart or cultured they are. But I believe most writers trust their instincts enough to include the kind of material that helps to make their stories commune with other forms of art and literature. I don't think laziness has anything to do with it. In fact, it takes a clever sort of writer to include historical cultural references without coming off sounding cheesy like the aforementioned quote from Picard.