Scifi and Fantasy: where do we draw the line?

[Narkalui]

Ok, point taken over deus ex machina. But still, I think my point over Captain America's magic potion and Peter Parker's magic spider stands: I don't think they qualify as Science Fiction. Even Star Wars: when you compare it to Star Trek it just feels like fantasy in Sci Fi clothing

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Everyone has a good example of fantasy works and a good example of science fiction. We'll forget the fact that some people's idea of fantasy is other people's idea of science fiction. There are many popular science fiction shows that are 1,000 percent fantasy. I don't call them fantasy, but the only real thing in them is the depiction of what human beings look like. There is a nebulous grey zone with indistinct borders connecting science fiction and fantasy. What is most interesting is that there are ideas in the gray zone that are not part of today's reality, they are part of today's fantasy, but they can get transformed or expressed into something that is real, tangible, and works in the physical world. This new product went from fantasy, to science fiction, to become a part of everyday reality. Do we have to reclassify science stories when this happens. There are also known facts accepted as reality that are debunked and put in the fantasy bin. With the unpredictableness of what science will do next there is a good chance some kind of Steve Austin will be walking amongst us, or a resurrected, large, long dead reptile, that flies and exhales fire, is flying over our heads. Maybe it's got sodium breath. The exhibition will probably have some kind of disclaimer that says proceed at your own risk, you are in the twilight zone.

 

[Elckerlyc]

... you are in the twilight zone.

Than perhaps we should rebrand all SF and Fantasy into one new all-encompassing genre, called The Twilight Zone.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Ok, point taken over deus ex machina. But still, I think my point over Captain America's magic potion and Peter Parker's magic spider stands: I don't think they qualify as Science Fiction. Even Star Wars: when you compare it to Star Trek it just feels like fantasy in Sci Fi clothing

I must have been asleep when they were voting on this but I've never heard either of those superhero movies been described as SF. I've always placed them more in the fantasy camp. Although there are clearly some SF concepts utilised (Ironman's suit etc.) so they are really in a blurry middle ground, I suppose.

And Star Wars. The actual author of the stories doesn't call it SF (he clearly states they are SPACE OPERA - a mixture of fantasy and SF) with which I concur wholeheartedly!

 

[Star-child]

Lucas called it "Space fantasy" or "space opera" to market it differently than what was usually thought of as SF film at the time. But Star Wars, as a visual medium, is clearly SF with detailed depictions of future work and technology in medicine, mining, agriculture, recycling, preservation, robot lubrication, ship maintenance, varied cultures and economic levels, crime and alien languages.

By contrast, the only "work" anyone does in Star Trek is either sitting at a computer, holding a lighted wand up to some tech or wound and having spirited arguments. The most physical labor ever shown in Star Trek (not counting lizard fist fights) is when Spock resets the reactor in Khan - something he does by hand because no one has invented the robot arm in the 23rd century.

When Star Wars depicts "mining", it is a with an amazing, huge complex hanging in the atmosphere of a gas giant. When Star Trek shows mining it looks like a scene from Poldark. But neither one is literature, and obey different rules because they truly SHOW rather than tell you about the SF worlds they exist in. It may be better to keep the discussion about fantasy writing to writing.



Deux ex machina: Show me a SF book that doesn't really on hand-waving. If that's the standard, the only SF book ever written was Glide Path.

 

[olive]

The problem is not with the way the genres overlap, but it is with the term 'Fantasy' as opposed to how we percieve the term 'Fiction' in general. Between fantasy and sci-fi, the former includes the latter by definition, because a sci-fi is the fantasy with a certain theme. It doesn't matter how closely it is tied to a branch of science or becomes real at some point in time, it is fantasy when it is created, that's why people read it. Otherwise it wouldn't be fiction to begin with. So sci-fi is a sub genre of fantasy to be exact. But both can have each other's elements. It's about the story they are telling.

There is this archaic hierarchy concerning Fiction in literature, perhaps generally in art. At the top, there is realist, classic fiction which is not considered as 'fantasy', because it can happen/occur in reality or tells the tales of real life. It has been defined hundreds of years ago. Literature was born as fantasy, we just call them myths.

However, people often forget that for example, a man called Raskalnikov has never existed. Or Alyosha Karamazov and his brothers. Or Holden Caulfield. Or Oblomov, poor Katusha, Anna Karanina or Zola's miners... their power comes from being 'real' while they are actually symbols of what we collectively accept and approve as real. If you have read and enjoyed the novel -preferably at a young age- you can look at a man in the street and think 'oh he looks exactly like Raskalnikov!'. They are that real for readers. How does he look like? How can anyone know? I do. We all do in different ways, they are all still real stories, will be as long as the world stands. And I have actually thought that looking at a real person.

On the other side, there is 'fantasy' which is roughly considered as better fairy tales with more complicated plot. But then a good fantasy element can create a space big enough and circumstances good enough in a plot to treat every kind of themes from grand to small, from collective to the individual much better than realist fiction.

The example would be the most worn out one and I believe the reason it is worn out is the quality of the 'fantasy element' that makes it. Zombie theme. When I've first seen "28 Days Later", I enjoyed it immensely, because I thought 'here, finally the zombie theme achieved what we wanted from it: This has always been about humans, not some dead people walking around trying to bite the living'. Then came The Walking Dead, I had no idea about the comics before the show, and yes I enjoyed it very much -though still haven't seen the half of it.

What is it? Sci-fi or fantasy? The origin of the virus -biological weapon, natural virus-it was buried somewhere but released out with polars melting, we screwed up the nature, we have no idea where it came from- doesn't matter, because zombie stories tell about people and their relations, survival in a world without fear of auhtority, law and order; what kind of a delusional concept is the idea of civilisation. It's actually the only big and powerful enough element to tell about human nature this way. There is no other. Because there is always never ending imminent danger and besides any other kind. None of the zombie stories are actually about the virus or even the real detailed mechanics of it. So it is a fantasy created with a sci-fi element.

One idea doesn't make a sci-fi or fantasy of course. One idea doesn't make a story of any genre. The point is what kind of a story that idea serves to tell.

Science fiction is a very powerful genre, because while its scope is limitless, its theme is grand. It's the age of grand themes now, it is the time of science. By that I mean something else than 'epic' we usually use for fantasy. It has the power of transforming people's world vision. It's very hard to do it good. A very few of it exist. And this creates a distorted view, noone can be really objective. Neither am I. We take it more seriously than any other fantasy. We see it as a high genre by its nature.

For example, Ursula's stories can open a reader's horizons too, but I would call them anthropological fantasy with sci-fi elements. Not sci-fi or just plain fantasy.

If we take it this way, it is all mixed up and to me anyone who was born after Jules Vernes is responsible from sci-fi,lol. Do kids even read Jules Vernes anymore? But if we define the genre with the names Arthur C. Clark, Isaac Asimov, Kurt Vonnegut...etc to give a marker, we can't just put anything in the box because we love them. The obvious example is Star Wars. Star Wars has never been sci-fi. Sci-fi has already existed long before when it was designed and its creator had no concern to make it a sci-fi. People did, because it happened in 'space' and they loved it because they hadn't seen anything like that before. That was the perspective of the majority when Lucas made Star Wars. That was the world. It's not just a space opera, it is also a soap opera, a huge glorified toy box which was added and edited constantly. And I am saying that lovingly. I love it. But that's it. I don't get why it has to be promoted to something that it is not to be celebrated.

I think, it always comes down to the superior works that transform masses' horizons, visions to define a genre. They are very few. We just want, wait for more of them.

 

[Star-child]

The obvious example is Star Wars. Star Wars has never been sci-fi. Sci-fi has already existed long before when it was designed and its creator had no concern to make it a sci-fi. People did, because it happened in 'space' and they loved it because they hadn't seen anything like that before. That was the perspective of the majority when Lucas made Star Wars. That was the world. It's not just a space opera, it is also a soap opera, a huge glorified toy box which was added and edited constantly. And I am saying that lovingly. I love it. But that's it. I don't get why it has to be promoted to something that it is not to be celebrated.

If Star Wars isn't SF, is something like Dune or Foundation SF? I don't see the distinction you're making about a film where all of the problems and solutions are essentially speculative technology.

 

[Venusian Broon]

If Star Wars isn't SF, is something like Dune or Foundation SF? I don't see the distinction you're making about a film where all of the problems and solutions are essentially speculative technology.

The Force is speculative technology? The jedi are magic knights/wizards using fancy swords (in a gun fight, which means they need their magic to survive ). Jedi/skywalker family are part of the core ideas of the series.

And a lot of the technology shown is really just analogies of older stuff. Star destroyers are really just 20th century battleships/ or 18th century galleons (see especially the fight sequence at the start of the Revenge of the Sith), space craft such as X-wings and Tie's dogfight like Spitfires and Bf 109's. The characters fuel up their ships, as if they have a gasoline tank then go faster than light (i.e. time travel, but we don't get any paradoxes about that in the story!) Something more SF, would need better ideas than that.

It's great fun but it's not SF. It is, IMO, Space Opera, because it has a great veneer of SF - space! Spaceships! Blasters! Droids! But it's core story is fantasy. Not saying that's bad of course, as it has kept me entertained for decades.

As for the others: I would call Dune space opera too, but I would put it more towards the SF end of the spectrum as a lot of the tech and abilities feel more grounded in SF, and Foundation is probably the most 'SF' of those you mention, basically because the core of that story, psychohistory is a big SF idea. In fact, if someone were to call Foundation SF, I probably wouldn't bat an eyelid.

 

[hitmouse]

Arent we overthinking this?
Star Wars is SF because its writers and the Hollywood publicity machine says it was, and because that is what the vast majority of the paying public think.
Of course the physics is nonsense, as is 99% of all sf. It may be fantastical but that does not mean it is not sf, because sf is a loose genre definition described by a century of popular precedent and general public acceptance. To argue that the only true sf is hard sf is sort of missing the point.

 

[Star-child]

The Force is speculative technology? The jedi are magic knights/wizards using fancy swords (in a gun fight, which means they need their magic to survive ). Jedi/skywalker family are part of the core ideas of the series.

The Force isn't the cause or solution to the events of Star Wars. That film is about a military fight between a planet busting battle station and fighter pilots. Luke and company become involved because of a computerized blue print, get trapped due to a tractor beam and manage to get free due to computer hacking and switching off the tractor beam power supply. Ultimately, Luke substitutes the Force for a targeting computer that would have also destroyed the fusion generator. All technology based problems. The Force didn't create the problems or provide necessary solutions to the plot, and the film could be edited to take out all references to the Force and it would be the same story.

Star Wars is so deeply invested in tractor beams, the problems of hyperdrives, tracking devices, shields, gravity generators, force fields, aliens, super structures, unique ecosystems and animals, unusual jobs, androids, computer systems, cybernetics, power plants and power transmission. It is weird to call all of that "not SF" and then find the Mule in Foundation solid science based speculation.


There just appears to be a strange double standard that either favors written SF, or simply a confusion that occurs because the Force has a capitalized title not used for all the paranormal abilities found in so many other SF sources, like Azimov, Heinlein, Herbert, Pohl, Star Trek, Clarke, Vonnegut, Dick or Bester. There's plenty of other SF that also revolve around naval-like space battles and other anachronistic concepts. If SW wasn't so popular, I doubt the contrarians would apply these arbitrary distinctions.

 

[olive]

Star Wars is so deeply invested in tractor beams, the problems of hyperdrives, tracking devices, shields, gravity generators, force fields, aliens, super structures, unique ecosystems and animals, unusual jobs, androids, computer systems, cybernetics, power plants and power transmission. It is weird to call all of that "not SF" and then find the Mule in Foundation solid science based speculation.

Which is plain writing and elaborating the universe the stories take place. Ornamental elements. They don't make a story sci-fi. That's why I said, it is about the story they tell. What's the story in Star Wars in a nutshell? Good guys vs bad guys, diversity of the peoples scattered around the galaxy, politics, war. The oldest story in the book any intelligent species bound to write in anywhere in the universe(s). What's the unique element of the story? The Force. It is not even the philosophy built around it, because it's just the concept of power defined and buffed up with magic. It's a fantasy element. Don't you also think it has bit of a 'soul' quality in the arhaic religious sense? Gifted with the force, they are either evil or good. Considering the weight of duty, they are like a prophets a bit and a weird aristocracy class.

Now, take it out of space, put it on a planet. Put it on earth if you like. Can we tell the exact same story with ordinary technology? Yes, we can. We can tell it with stone age technology with the Force as it is. So hyperdrives, and gravity generators, alien species don't make a sci-fi. It puts a silly, affectionate expression on your face whenever you hear the voice of a certain droid, no matter how old you get and that's about it.

A few examples to point out something objective as much as possible. Can we take the space travel, spaceship, the gravity generator, AI technology or a piece of bone out of Space Odyssey and tell the same story? Can we take the robotics technology from Asimov's series or from Blade Runner and tell the same story? We can't.

That's what I mean when I say, it's about the story they tell. These are the examples of fiction that transformed the human thought and its limits by telling stories in sci-fi plots. This is not an arbitray distinction.

Do we feel the need the elaborate, add and stretch these stories as fans? No. But that's what is going on with Star Wars. That's why it ended up in Disney. Hence the expression 'glorified toy box'. Because while the material is not suitable to make anything original, mature out of it, you could invite adults to be kids to enjoy this way safely. From the beginning it was something thin, it got stretched and stretched... he got tired, worned out. But it's good business. Also fans will discuss about it forever, so the original spirit will never die.

There just appears to be a strange double standard that either favors written SF, or simply a confusion that occurs because the Force has a capitalized title not used for all the paranormal abilities found in so many other SF sources, like Azimov, Heinlein, Herbert, Pohl, Star Trek, Clarke, Vonnegut, Dick or Bester. There's plenty of other SF that also revolve around naval-like space battles and other anachronistic concepts. If SW wasn't so popular, I doubt the contrarians would apply these arbitrary distinctions.

Self aware AI, has a hybrid element. It's not just 'evil' -which is a religious, therefore a fantasy element- per se, it is just over intelligent without any emotion or morality. Its intelligence has not evolved the archaic way as ours and actually obeys the very first set of orders; it take care of humans and help them. But AI faces a dilemma and solves it from the most logical way. It designs better robots and program them to breach the three laws to control stupid humans who are certain to annihilate themselves through sheer stupidity. This process could be seen as the sci-fi element perhaps. But Asimov has given us a premise. It's much more than an idea. In the end, it's just power to control. The greatest powers available, intelligence and knowledge. It's the engineer who builds AIs and robots to begin with. It's a product of human intelligence and technology. It's a human story.

The culture it created is huge. The problem of morality, existence and being. Evolution of human intelligence. It opened questions like what's free will? Intelligence? Most importantly, what's the relationship with intelligence and morality? Can morality and free will coexist? Can we talk about a real free will? Can human create artficial beings with free will? What happpens if we do? I know these are so worn out stuff again, but in its time when people were reading these for the first time, the most complicated machine in a home programmed to do something by itself was the coffee machine. Today, every AI story is based on this premise. Noone can beat it.

A lot of people think, Matrix is science fiction. It's a dystopian action and it would have been the worst program ever written in Matrix world. A man named Plato told the same story 2500 years ago by using just a man and a cave.

When you look at the Force, it's a natural, hereditary power that is belonged only to chosen characters; a kind of aristocracy class, if you will. Yes, Obi-wan says it is in all living things, but he is just talking to the kids watching the movie. It's like Uncle Ben supposedly telling Parker, "with great power comes great responsibility". It's a special power drawing a picture of absolute good and evil. You could interpret and use the way you want, of course it was used by a lot of people. Why wouldn't it be?

[I could claim Esmeralda Weatherwax has the greatest gift of Force and create a new class with her. She has the faculty of a Sith, but she chose to be a Jedi to get even. Do you know a better Jedi than that? She is not gonna switch sides because of clinic depression. Not to mention it is a better Twin story. ]

Like you, a lot of people love Star Wars very much and as they percieve the science fiction as a higher genre than fantasy, they want it to be defined with that genre. The thing is, science fiction is a fantasy with a theme. It's a sub genre of fantasy. But Star Wars is not telling a story in that theme.

 

[Star-child]

What's the unique element of the story?

The Force isn't unique at all. It is little different than Vulcan or Atredies powers.

The unique element is the Death Star, which has no analogous historical precedent. It is both ultimately powerful and uniquely vulnerable.

Like you, a lot of people love Star Wars very much and as they percieve the science fiction as a higher genre than fantasy, they want it to be defined with that genre.

I wasn't aware I felt that way. What else do I believe?

 

[Toby Frost]

I don't want to sound condescending here, because people have clearly thought hard about this and written well-reasoned comments. But this question comes up every so often here, and each time I see it I end up asking myself the same thing: why does it matter? I don't think anyone is arguing that categorising something as fantasy or science fiction makes it automatically good or bad. Apart from the (tired) argument that the only good SF is hard SF, what difference does it make?

 

[Brian G Turner]

I wasn't aware I felt that way. What else do I believe?

Lol! If you don't love Star Wars and don't think it's science fiction, I'm not sure what you're argument is.

However, let's not make it personal - that's not the point being made and I'd like to stay on subject, thanks.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Which is plain writing and elaborating the universe the stories take place. Ornamental elements. They don't make a story sci-fi. That's why I said, it is about the story they tell. What's the story in Star Wars in a nutshell? Good guys vs bad guys, diversity of the peoples scattered around the galaxy, politics, war. The oldest story in the book any intelligent species bound to write in anywhere in the universe(s). What's the unique element of the story? The Force. It is not even the philosophy built around it, because it's just the concept of power defined and buffed up with magic. It's a fantasy element. Don't you also think it has bit of a 'soul' quality in the arhaic religious sense? Gifted with the force, they are either evil or good. Considering the weight of duty, they are like a prophets a bit and a weird aristocracy class.

Now, take it out of space, put it on a planet. Put it on earth if you like. Can we tell the exact same story with ordinary technology? Yes, we can. We can tell it with stone age technology with the Force as it is. So hyperdrives, and gravity generators, alien species don't make a sci-fi. It puts a silly, affectionate expression on your face whenever you hear the voice of a certain droid, no matter how old you get and that's about it.

A few examples to point out something objective as much as possible. Can we take the space travel, spaceship, the gravity generator, AI technology or a piece of bone out of Space Odyssey and tell the same story? Can we take the robotics technology from Asimov's series or from Blade Runner and tell the same story? We can't.

That's what I mean when I say, it's about the story they tell. These are the examples of fiction that transformed the human thought and its limits by telling stories in sci-fi plots. This is not an arbitray distinction.

Do we feel the need the elaborate, add and stretch these stories as fans? No. But that's what is going on with Star Wars. That's why it ended up in Disney. Hence the expression 'glorified toy box'. Because while the material is not suitable to make anything original, mature out of it, you could invite adults to be kids to enjoy this way safely. From the beginning it was something thin, it got stretched and stretched... he got tired, worned out. But it's good business. Also fans will discuss about it forever, so the original spirit will never die.



Self aware AI, has a hybrid element. It's not just 'evil' -which is a religious, therefore a fantasy element- per se, it is just over intelligent without any emotion or morality. Its intelligence has not evolved the archaic way as ours and actually obeys the very first set of orders; it take care of humans and help them. But AI faces a dilemma and solves it from the most logical way. It designs better robots and program them to breach the three laws to control stupid humans who are certain to annihilate themselves through sheer stupidity. This process could be seen as the sci-fi element perhaps. But Asimov has given us a premise. It's much more than an idea. In the end, it's just power to control. The greatest powers available, intelligence and knowledge. It's the engineer who builds AIs and robots to begin with. It's a product of human intelligence and technology. It's a human story.

The culture it created is huge. The problem of morality, existence and being. Evolution of human intelligence. It opened questions like what's free will? Intelligence? Most importantly, what's the relationship with intelligence and morality? Can morality and free will coexist? Can we talk about a real free will? Can human create artficial beings with free will? What happpens if we do? I know these are so worn out stuff again, but in its time when people were reading these for the first time, the most complicated machine in a home programmed to do something by itself was the coffee machine. Today, every AI story is based on this premise. Noone can beat it.

A lot of people think, Matrix is science fiction. It's a dystopian action and it would have been the worst program ever written in Matrix world. A man named Plato told the same story 2500 years ago by using just a man and a cave.

When you look at the Force, it's a natural, hereditary power that is belonged only to chosen characters; a kind of aristocracy class, if you will. Yes, Obi-wan says it is in all living things, but he is just talking to the kids watching the movie. It's like Uncle Ben supposedly telling Parker, "with great power comes great responsibility". It's a special power drawing a picture of absolute good and evil. You could interpret and use the way you want, of course it was used by a lot of people. Why wouldn't it be?

[I could claim Esmeralda Weatherwax has the greatest gift of Force and create a new class with her. She has the faculty of a Sith, but she chose to be a Jedi to get even. Do you know a better Jedi than that? She is not gonna switch sides because of clinic depression. Not to mention it is a better Twin story. ]

Like you, a lot of people love Star Wars very much and as they percieve the science fiction as a higher genre than fantasy, they want it to be defined with that genre. The thing is, science fiction is a fantasy with a theme. It's a sub genre of fantasy. But Star Wars is not telling a story in that theme.

Excellent post @olive, I don't really need to respond, you put a lot of what I'm thinking down here.

I think you hit the nail on the head, it's the core of the story that's important when trying to establish genre. All SF will have elements of fantasy - such as Foundation (I am not one of those that demand all SF be defined as 'hard'), but these will, like the technology of Star Wars to its story, be window-dressing elements to enrich the story or paint an exciting new setting. As Eragon proved, the story at the heart of Star Wars can easily shrug off galaxy-wide empires, spaceships and tech and be told in any setting. Tellingly though you can't get rid of the magic which is crucial to the story.

But honestly, I'm not bothered too much if the average joe calls Star Wars SF, and I'm personally not ejecting Star Wars into a 'lesser genre' by arguing that it's not SF but Space Opera instead. (I absolutely adore Space Opera!) Great work is great work, no matter what genre it is!

I do discuss this topic here after saying I'm not too bothered, as being a writer, you have to analyse what makes stories and genres what they are.

 

[Elckerlyc]

I was wondering the same thing as @Toby Frost.
I couldn't in a clear way define or express what I consider to be SF or Fantasy. And even if I could it means nothing, because everyone seems to have his/her own definition, which at the same time may be completely different from the genre the publishers brand their editions with.
And as I know good SF and horrible SF, boring Fantasy and captivating Fantasy tales I don't really care much what is what. I can love both, that's for sure,

 

[BAYLOR]

I don't want to sound condescending here, because people have clearly thought hard about this and written well-reasoned comments. But this question comes up every so often here, and each time I see it I end up asking myself the same thing: why does it matter? I don't think anyone is arguing that categorising something as fantasy or science fiction makes it automatically good or bad. Apart from the (tired) argument that the only good SF is hard SF, what difference does it make?

None.

 

[olive]

I don't want to sound condescending here, because people have clearly thought hard about this and written well-reasoned comments. But this question comes up every so often here, and each time I see it I end up asking myself the same thing: why does it matter? I don't think anyone is arguing that categorising something as fantasy or science fiction makes it automatically good or bad. Apart from the (tired) argument that the only good SF is hard SF, what difference does it make?

In my opinion, it matters a lot. First of all, it's a way of interaction through common material which different individuals from different backgrounds from all over the world enjoys and think about, so can provide different perspectives and comments to each other. We all have different imaginations, perspectives.

It's valuable to me, because I don't have the reflex of seeing my own opinion as the one. Don't get me wrong, I can really be opinionated, but I am equally curious about what the next person thinks about a certain material, all this accumulation; pile of fiction. When somebody says something interesting, offer a different perspective or show something I haven't seen/thought before, I feel sort of happy, I guess. This reminds that, that reminds this... it makes you think.

Going back and forth about the stories, narratives, plots; thinking on something you love and placing them into somewhere is about loading new meanings on them, producing new ones for yourself. Doing that naturally pushes to you attach events, elements of the story to greater contexts. And that leads to placing works to a genre, while discussing about characteristics of that certain genre which is enjoying multiple material collectively.

Honestly, I can't think of not analysing anything I read or watch. It's automatic. It's too much fun.

 

[Star-child]

I think you hit the nail on the head, it's the core of the story that's important when trying to establish genre

I don't know if I agree with this idea when it comes to visual mediums. Plot is merely one element of film, and some don't even have one. Check out La Jetee.

 

[olive]

Excellent post @olive, I don't really need to respond, you put a lot of what I'm thinking down here.

I think you hit the nail on the head, it's the core of the story that's important when trying to establish genre. All SF will have elements of fantasy - such as Foundation (I am not one of those that demand all SF be defined as 'hard'), but these will, like the technology of Star Wars to its story, be window-dressing elements to enrich the story or paint an exciting new setting. As Eragon proved, the story at the heart of Star Wars can easily shrug off galaxy-wide empires, spaceships and tech and be told in any setting. Tellingly though you can't get rid of the magic which is crucial to the story.

But honestly, I'm not bothered too much if the average joe calls Star Wars SF, and I'm personally not ejecting Star Wars into a 'lesser genre' by arguing that it's not SF but Space Opera instead. (I absolutely adore Space Opera!) Great work is great work, no matter what genre it is!

I do discuss this topic here after saying I'm not too bothered, as being a writer, you have to analyse what makes stories and genres what they are.

Thank you. Agreed. Space opera is perfect, I love Star Wars. I am not bothered either, I just want to think and talk about these subjects, because I enjoy it. That's all. And I believe we should do that whenever we can.