Obviously you don't (or just don't want to) understand what I am saying in my posts but I guess that's fine. Whatever you believe man. I could really care less. Maybe if you read it again but idk, just trying to be helpful.
I understood your posts fine. I just don't agree, and I don't think you've bothered to think this through. You just adopted a view, and now you're trying to twist anyway you can to make some kind of logical argument to back it up. But you can't, because there's no good basis for defining science fiction the way you do, and Star Wars is so clearly fantasy that the whole argument falls you pieces. If you're going to fight this particular battle, you chose a really bad work to base your arguments on. You can find works that more closely straddle the line between SF and fantasy and could fall into a 'science fantasy' subgenre, but Star Wars isn't one of them. Pure fantasy, with nothing to suggest otherwise.
I really don't care to argue with you. You stand on your high horse and you don't actually understand (or care) for others arguments instead insisting that you're are 100% correct. I have argued with people like you before and I care not to do it again. To each their own.
According to the scientist's definition of sci-fi, the "fiction" part refers to it being a work of imagination. The "science" part points out that that imagination is confined to our scientific understanding of our universe. It's not that the reader alone doesn't understand the technology; it's that humankind in its current form doesn't. Note that genre labels accord with the real world, not the universe of the fictional work. By your argument, fantasy basically doesn't exist. In Harry Potter, they have a whole school that teaches how to use magic, because in-universe they understand how to use magic. So by your definition, Harry Potter is sci-fi. I realise that you probably don't believe this: I'm pointing out that you need to explain the holes we're picking in your consistency if you actually want to discuss/argue this, otherwise it's just butting heads. From what I can see, Steerpike has understood your contention and rationally explained why s/he disagrees. "To each their own," is a reasonable conclusion to issues over which there are several valid opinions. "What science is" is not such an issue. For your own sake, you'd do well to take your own advice and reread others' comments until you at least understand what you're arguing against, even if you choose to continue the contrary attitude. You're entitled to keep a hole-filled opinion that's not grounded in observable fact; others are entitled to ridicule that opinion when it's paraded in public. I already regret the time I spent on my first post, so this will be my last in this thread.
Star Wars is sci-fi. Not because it has science based fiction, but because with Sci-Fi people expect spaceships, lasers, and computers.It's not fantasy simply because you don't expect spaceships in fantasy. Sure, it has 'magic' and fantasy elements, but it's not as heavy as the world of space and ships. Horror doesn't mean it has monsters, but that it will primarily scare you. Comedy will primarily make you laugh. Fantasy is swords and magic. Genre is simply about letting readers know roughly what to expect. Roughly.
Exactly. When people try and make these precise definitions and force it all down our throats in articles and such it is just silly. Genres are for getting a general idea and giving the author wiggle room to explore it.
That is the subjective thing about genres. To one observer, spaceships, lasers, and computers are what the experience of "science fiction" is all about. To another observer, interesting speculation about the potentials of technology is what the experience of "science fiction" is all about, and mysticism and imaginative worlds are what the experience of "fantasy" is all about. Any genre definition we can possibly come up with is either incomprehensible to anyone but the one who defines it, or so arbitrary that it misses the point of what one work offers to the observer that another work does not.
But just because it is different to different people doesn't mean it can't be defined. I in no way think it should be some exact thing or else it's not. Sci-Fi is mostly about advanced technology, space ships, new worlds, etc. It's not a real definition but it is what is in every science fiction story in one way or another. And it is open enough for people to explore it a LOT more than they would be able to with an exact definition that shoves the genre into some small jar of "What is ____".
By the main genres that I posted here. They are wide enough genres for a lot to fit into each one and be correct. That and obviously with a kids section manga and anime and then books and the picture books. Whilst I do believe in a way of describing the genres like: Fantasy; magic, knights, etc. Sci-fi: Spaceships, advanced tech, etc. Crime Drama, Murder, Mystery, etc. You get the jist. The point is there should be arcs not down to the nail slim detail of what is and what isn't.
At some point, though, you need to make the difficult decision of whether to shelve a given book in one genre section or another genre section. Unless you shelve copies of a book in more than one section.
I will put them in the section they best belong too. Is it more science fiction or is it more horror. Is it more Fantasy or is it more historical, etc. And there is also a reason libraries and book stories keep some record of where everything is. To help the consumers. It's really not that hard. Oh also alphabetically. Obviously.
If you went by some of the comments here you'd think the idea of categorizing was new. How have bookstores managed without their input? It's been chaos! sigh.
Okay, then I will rephrase my previous post: "at some point, you need to make the difficult decision of whether a book best belongs to one genre or another." Oh I know exactly how categorization works; I am just seeing how @Daemon Wolf approaches that problem from a perspective of genre disillusionment.
I'm no cataloger but I would probably just read the blurb or look up what the book is about to get a good idea.
I do a little slush-reading for a SF/Fantasy magazine. Part of the job involves classifying a story that I recommend for publication into a sub-genre. This is the list of sub-genres that I use for SF... Apocalyptic, holocaust, and post-apocalyptic Cross-genre Steampunk/Cyberpunk First contact Hard science fiction Light/humorous science fiction Military science fiction Near-future science fiction Science fantasy/future fantasy Slipstream Soft/sociological science fiction Space opera Time travel
Out of curiosity, @Daemon Wolf, where would you place the Star Wars books in your bookstore/library, if you had one?
Ok, but here's the thing I don't get: Who is forcing what down the throat of whom? Your argumentative premise seems rooted in some happenstance of you (or others) being manhandled/forced/obligated or otherwise made to write something to fit within these "thin lines" of which you speak. No one here is forcing anyone to do anything. No one here can force anyone to do anything. I read authors all the time whose work crosses borders and boundaries of classic genre definitions, so clearly they are not being held back either. Yes, I read articles all the time from published authors who give their opinions on these matters. I am free to consider these articles. I am free to take the information in. And I am also free to ignore or discount the information. People have their opinions as to what is what. People have the right to express their opinions as to what is what. People have the right to disagree as to what is what. People have the right (sit down for this one) to tell you they think you are wrong, which, btw, is what you yourself are doing in this thread. You are doing, in this thread, the very thing about which you are complaining. You simply have one view, others have another.