Maybe it feels like it ruined the genre in North-America? Or the UK/Australia/NZ? There's a lot of sci-fi written (and filmed) elsewhere that has not been all that much influenced/ruined by Star Wars. E.g. in (Soviet) Russia space opera as a genre was not developed as the intelligentsia did not approve of it.
Dammit, Star Wars is not sci-fi. It's fantasy. It's a space opera. It's always been a space opera. How can something like the force exist in sci-fi? It's practically magic. However, you could say that it ruined the science fiction genre, as people think that Star Wars is a sci-fi. Hence, most sci-fi these days isn't sci-fi at all. It's fantasy. So, yes, in that sense it could have ruined science fiction.
You have to trudge through the next two books, yes, it's true. Frank never meant for Children of Dune and Dune Messiah to even be books. They were published as serialized stories that got novelized later on. He was bowing to the pressure of the cult (yes, cult) he had unwittingly birthed with DUNE. Seriously, bro, because you're a good guy and you deserve to share in the goodness, get through those two little sequels (almost novelettes by today's standards) and then take a deep breath before God Emperor of Dune. Herbert found his stride again in that book and it's truly majestic. If you read the ones after GEOD, that's your choice, but you need to at least get to that one if the original made a strong impression on you. Think of the intervening two sequels as webisodes. Never as well done as the actual episodes, but they fill in some holes between seasons.
What I love though, is that as soon as the intelligentsia was out of the way, Russia produced Nightwatch and Daywatch. Two utterly exotic and deeply delicious pieces of speculative fiction. I hesitate to call them either Science Fiction or Fantasy because they clearly come from a very different lineage of the genre-creating machine and I don't think they answer to anything that fits cleanly in the western system of categorizing.
Skiffy guys have soldiered on. None of the famous skiffy writers died in the immediate aftermath of Star Wars, so it's not a very credible argument that it "killed" them.
If the article about star wars ruining science fiction meant did it tell a captivating and engaging story, did it excite millions of people, did it set standards in science fiction and fantasy story telling,... if that is what it meant by ruin, then, yes it certainly did. But there is a reason it was so successful. I find it disingenuous to try to blame a single superb story (same with Middle Earth) on "ruining" a genre. Affecting and influencing for sure. But these are amazing stories, extremely well crafted, and quite original (in scope if not plot). They need to be recognized for that. They cannot be blamed for ruining a genre. They set a new example and gave direction. Another one will come along and alter the trajectory again. We should learn from the classics, not denigrate them nor give them too much influence. Did Jaws "ruin" the thriller genre? I think the argument misses the boat.
I haven't read everyone's reply. Just wanted to think about it cause I've often wondered this about other things - Did Twilight ruin Vampires? Is 50 shades of Grey ruining romance novels? I collect old 80's children's book series and I often wondered if its behemoth leader Sweet Valley High ruined children's fiction, especially series fiction. It had so many spawns one could almost think so. But I'm going to say yes and no. Yes because it had a lot of spawn authors whose efforts dipped heavily into 'borrowing' from t.v. shows of the time, bits from episodes are lifted and reworked giving the whole thing a downhill effect. Not only were the series eeriely familiar but now they blatantly echoed t.v. shows. However, some writers forced themselves to see what was wrong with Sweet Valley High and developed a better series. Of course they never got the kudos but someone ( a collector like me ) can look back and see the superiority of a spawn surpassing it's inspiration. Unfortunately not many writers look back on those series but write from the base of memories of Sweet Valley High. So the series with all it's flaws continues to color future writers. But whose fault is it Sweet Valley High, Francine Pascal and her posse of ghost writers? It's more the writers fault for leeching on to one body of work. I think that's the main trouble with Star Wars, any writer whose serious about sci-fi and Fantasy should branch out and research the genre more.
I'll let Robert Heinlein explain it to you, Science Fiction is speculative fiction in which the author takes as his first postulate the real world as we know it, including all established facts and natural laws. The result can be extremely fantastic in content, but it is not fantasy; it is legitimate--and often very tightly reasoned--speculation about the possibilities of the real world. This category excludes rocket ships that make U-turns, serpent men of Neptune that lust after human maidens, and stories by authors who flunked their Boy Scout merit badge tests in descriptive astronomy. -- from: Ray Guns And Spaceships, in Expanded Universe, Ace, 1981
I haven't read Daywatch yet, but I liked Nightwatch. There's also Metro 2033 which became a huge hit and it's actually not bad for a young writer's novel, imo. Engaging and creepy.
That's why attempts at explaining how the force works, such as was done in the "Episode I" prequel (or was it in Episode II?), is just a terrible distraction. Explaining too much in science fiction is never good, but it's really awful when the producers/authors try to explain magic scientifically. I literally laughed out loud when they started talking about "midi-chlorians."
Star Wars is science fantasy. It has elements of science fiction and elements of fantasy. I don't know why some folks want to deny that it is science fiction on a basic level other than some misguided sense of genre-purity. Of course, the "definitions" mentioned earlier from famous guys were purposefully designed to exclude pulp writing. This was done by those older, famous guys because they were trying to fight the social stigma against science fiction they felt was created by pulp writing. However, that is no longer a real issue, so there is no reason to carry on the political fiction that pulp writing, and star wars, are "not science fiction".
I think we live in a copycat culture. Anything that sells is seized upon by the folks who want to make money and imitated to death. We see this trend in movies, TV shows, books etc. There was even a recent attempt to re-create the Susan Boyle phenomenon on Britain's Got Talent, by presenting a very old lady as a dancer, who was initially smirked at and ridiculed, until she started to dance. Of course she was superb at what she did. Then ...surprise surprise ...it turned out the makers of the show had actually recruited her. She is a professional dancer who works in Spain. Copycat stuff sells. But only to people stupid enough to keep buying it. Then the Next Big Thing makes its appearance, and the sheep change direction.
"Copycat" culture is older than history. Folks took ideas made by others and reworked them, replicated them, riffed on them since always. In the past it was recognized that this practice wasn't inherently bad, but rather is the mechanism by which evolution took place in human culture, mirroring how evolution works in nature.
Totally agree with this Jannert - but I don't know about the sheep term. I think deep down people want to be different they just don't know how. The trouble I find with cultural is that kids & people aren't taught how to be different, they're taught how to be the same, how to blend and fit in. How to be trendy. When they're different they're usually ridiculed. I can just imagine how crippling that thinking can become on a truly creative person.
You both are taking an unhistorical view of the issue. Kids aren't less creative today than they were in eras bygone and they aren't more sheeplelike than they were in eras bygone. I know it's "cool" to be dismissive of the new generations and talk about social degeneration like it's a done thing, but that's just hipster nihilism talking.
I didn't say they were sheeplike. I don't like the term myself. And I'm not putting a time stamp on my statement - this could be said now fifty years from now, and a hundred years ago. Lets take the issue of clothes just on the basest of expression. Can you think of anyone you know that doesn't style what they wear based on some group ( don't mean music group - I mean emo, punk, prep, ) , or a person ( Kardashian ) , or by economic trap ( Walmart ). This kind of choice doesn't just effect one aspect of their life, you can tick off a lot more and see that people live lives kind of like they're trapped in genres. The sci fi geek, the angsty hipster etc. Now when those same people have to sit down and express themselves and be creative - beyond all the Oprah talk, Rachel Ray recipes, sweater sets from Sears, or maybe they think they've escaped that because they've gotten a Bettie Page haircut and buy old Zandra Rhodes dresses and collect Frank Miller graphic novels. Neither matters. They're both groups and if they isolate and latch onto just what's within the group it can stifle their art form.
So you consider needing to buy cheaply (get clothes from walmart) because you have almost no money (economic trap) to be equivalent to following a youth culture fad? Geez...
Not all culture is composed by fad. It isn't just governed by choices or for the well off. Lack and poverty are part of society and contribute to culture, too. In a sense they are they're own culture. To deny that is not to recognize it. Plus, without getting into a huge argument, I'm not saying every single person falls into these categories - that's not the point of the discussion. But a good many do and that's all I meant when I said that most people when they go to create something maybe cannibalizing off their own little culture instead of branching out.
Did I say that there is no culture involved? No. You equated the culture associated with poverty with the culture associated with following youth fads. They are not equivalent at all. You've actually turned your opinion around now, saying that poverty isn't a "fad", so you now agree with me. There's no argument anymore.
That would have been better, but still not the right way to frame these things, I think. I think you do have a reasonable view here, but haven't expressed it precisely yet. Care to do so? I'll be nice! Honest!
Probably my fault I like to condense everything I say. I'll probably do it now. Take Michael Crichton as a writer. He was talented came from a well too do home, wrote at an early age. Went to medical school. The culture he surrounded himself with, the people he surrounded himself with influenced his creations. It's no big surprise that it's big on technical aspects, has a nice elegance to it, and yet there's something that goes beyond what was being written at the time. He's broken through fads, he's a bit of a trailblazer. Is that a reflection on the man himself wanting to go beyond culture, or a happy accident? Now take Ruby Jean Jensen, a sweet little old lady, who grew up in Missouri. I'm uncertain about her background ( I read a thesis about her a while ago but some of the info is fuzzy ) but I do recall she started out by telling stories to her kids and they begged her to write them down. She also started writing gothic romances ( a real cannibalistic genre ) before crossing over to horror. Though she does have her own style and I love her, is she stuck in the idea of giving people what they want? A storyteller looking to eternally please. Not necessarily a cultural aspect because this could span any economic divide ( certainly you could perhaps say the same of Danielle Steel ) but every aspect of her novel is affected by her status. The ordinary places, the average but likable characters, the ease of the horror. She takes no chances. She's not a trailblazer. Now is her lack of taking chances a reflection on her, or is it a reflection of the culture she has immersed herself in?
