Technofantasy: A Genre I've Discovered. Opinion?

[Swank]

He didn't shut off his computer in the first film willy nilly. It was to use natural abilities instead of technology.

Considering that we don't know what the force is, and that the force always seems to duplicate SW technology, I think it is a stretch to say that using the force is a "natural ability".

If anything, the force is something people access when they are aware of the ability to do so.

Either way, he didn't "reject" his computer. He used an alternate and maybe better method at the prompting of Ben - who is providing all the proof of concept he needs by speaking to him beyond death.


So can we please get back to insisting that SW is a story about destiny, or is a medieval fantasy story, or a samurai story, or is Oedipal, or is a WWII fighter movie?

 

[KGeo777]

Either way, he didn't "reject" his computer. He used an alternate

An alternate computer--one with a Force operating system.
Yoda is kind of the Bill Gates of the Force and Obi Wan is the Paul Allen.

 

[BAYLOR]

Midichlorians were criticized for sounding stupid, along asexual reproduction.

Luke could have a hook and use the force to juggle and pour blue milk

That and that the Force was being explained in scientific terms.

A hook is more techie than a womp rat. If he was going to reject technology he needs to go the extra mile.

Lucas should have left the that a mystery.

 

[Guttersnipe]

Everyone who's saying sci-fi doesn't need to be hard to be sci-fi has a valid point. Blame Arthur C. Clarke and Ursula K. LeGuin for saying Ray Bradbury's ostensible soft sci-fi works were actually fantasy. I'm above it all, of course.

 

[Swank]

Everyone who's saying sci-fi doesn't need to be hard to be sci-fi has a valid point. Blame Arthur C. Clarke and Ursula K. LeGuin for saying Ray Bradbury's ostensible soft sci-fi works were actually fantasy. I'm above it all, of course.

That's kind of a false comparison. A book failing to be hard sci fi doesn't make it like Bradbury.

 

[Guttersnipe]

That's kind of a false comparison. A book failing to be hard sci fi doesn't make it like Bradbury.

OK.

 

[Parson]

I think we should all agree that what we have is a sort of a fuzzy continuum from Fantasy to Fiction where all the science is possible today. Except at the two extreme ends everything else is a little like this and a little like that.

 

[Swank]

I think we should all agree that what we have is a sort of a fuzzy continuum from Fantasy to Fiction where all the science is possible today. Except at the two extreme ends everything else is a little like this and a little like that.

I don't see it as a continuum largely because fantasy is predicated on the existence of occult or mythical forces that we reject as impossible in reality.

 

[Guttersnipe]

I don't see it as a continuum largely because fantasy is predicated on the existence of occult or mythical forces that we reject as impossible in reality.

What about science fantasy? Wouldn't that kind of be in the middle?

 

[Wayne Mack]

I don't see it as a continuum largely because fantasy is predicated on the existence of occult or mythical forces that we reject as impossible in reality.

How about FTL drives, worm holes, and cold sleep suspended animation?

 

[Swank]

How about FTL drives, worm holes, and cold sleep suspended animation?

What about them? They aren't a product of discarded beliefs about God's, monsters, magic or prophesies. They are scientific speculation, like nanotechnology or efficient fusion. Just more speculative. "Fantasy" is dreaming about what we know is impossible but find romantic.

 

[Parson]

"Fantasy" is dreaming about what we know is impossible but find romantic.

I guess the question would be "How do we know what is impossible?" There are people today that claim they are "witches" and who do "magic." Or "How do we know that there isn't a book of spells which only appears when people believe in it strongly enough." Or "How do we know that FTL isn't the same as a leprechaun?" Something about which a lot of people have speculated but there is nothing to prove they/it exists.

 

[THX1138]

I'll give this a go. Just my view.

So, from wikipedia, for what it's worth:

Technofantasy is a subgenre of fantasy, which has some elements of science and technology but it does not rationalize their use through scientific or quasi-scientific terms, which distinguishes it from science fiction and science fantasy. The less realistic and the more "technobabble" any explanation is, the closer the work is to technofantasy. The concept of technofantasy has been described as "destroying the difference between magic and science".

So, given that, could not 'The Wizard of OZ' be considered tecnofantasy being that there are witches that use real 'magic' and then there is the wizard that is looks upon as the greatest of all magic users in the land of OZ, but is really just shy of being a steam-punk techno geek as he pulls and pushes leavers and buttons?

And as for Star Trek, it's all crystal powered! Yes, they do explain scientifically how the dilithium crystal work to regulate mater and anti-matter in the warp core. But even without that or not knowing the science part of it, its crystal power and there is nothing you can say otherwise. Your technology only works because of crystal magic, and the two are blurred together. With out these crystals, you're not trekking, teleporting, replicating or anything in the ST universe.
Just another way of looking at ST. Not that I'm promoting it, but you could.

 

[Swank]

I guess the question would be "How do we know what is impossible?" There are people today that claim they are "witches" and who do "magic." Or "How do we know that there isn't a book of spells which only appears when people believe in it strongly enough." Or "How do we know that FTL isn't the same as a leprechaun?" Something about which a lot of people have speculated but there is nothing to prove they/it exists.

I would say that modern people largely agree that certain terms denote debunked and abandoned views of reality. "Magic" being the most obvious one, where we now use the term to refer either to fantasy fiction or slight of hand tricks.

You can tell a story where it is ambiguous whether the forces are fantastical (magic) or scientific speculation (quantum interference detection), but if you side with one or the other with a given element you have likely decided on a genre. However, the fantastical wins over the speculative, because all worlds contain science

 

[Karapace]

SFE: Technofantasy

Welcome to the fourth edition of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction.

sf-encyclopedia.com

Technofantasy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Technofantasy is what I think people mean when they call something ostensibly science fiction "fantasy." I think Star Wars, while often called space opera, a type of science fiction (mostly by those not well-versed in interpreting such works), but also called fantasy, is basically this. The Force may have been scientifically explained, but (I've read a bit about the novels) there are also witches who actually perform magic. I'm babbling. What's your opinion? Should this subgenre's name be used more often or is it just a fancy word for science fantasy?

It's like Science fiction and Fantasy had a baby

 

[Karapace]

I would say that modern people largely agree that certain terms denote debunked and abandoned views of reality. "Magic" being the most obvious one, where we now use the term to refer either to fantasy fiction or slight of hand tricks.

You can tell a story where it is ambiguous whether the forces are fantastical (magic) or scientific speculation (quantum interference detection), but if you side with one or the other with a given element you have likely decided on a genre. However, the fantastical wins over the speculative, because all worlds contain science

or in reference to the occult and religion (which still count as fantasy in my book)

It's an interesting idea. I tend to go with Arthur C Clarke "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguisable from magic"
I don't use magic in my novels but there are beings that seem magical due to their technology and access to limitless energy.
The distinctions can often be quite fine. A fantasy novel with a scientifically explained magic system (eg. Rivers of London) or a sci-fi novel with FTL travel that is never explained. I tend to think of Fantasy (and this includes some sci-fi) as entertainment, a good story. Where as speculative is more about exploring an idea or a theme, a what if? kind of story (A canticle for Leibowitz).