"HF" vs. "S&S" gaming: the underlying reason of conflict and change in D&D

[Kishin]

So does Star Wars, yet it is considered fantasy.

The Well World series has centaurs, lizards, shapechangers, sword fights, teleportation, etc. Yes, the underlying principle behind it is science, but it's still deeply in the realm of fantasy. Blackmoor had laser guns, expedition to the barrier peaks had a spaceship, yet they are still fantasy.

In the bolded text, you highlight with certainty why it is SCIENCE FICTION.

Star Wars is fantasy in only as much as it shares the common fantasy convention of a hero from backwater mcbumpkinville rising up to save all of us. Otherwise Star Wars is the definitive space opera, as was pointed out, which makes it science fiction. Again, science is the driving force of the world/universe/milieu. (The Force is even science! Yay midichlorians! Errr, I mean...not talking about that...)

 

[Ariosto]

"Doc" Smith's "Lensmen" series (from which Star Wars appropriated elements, from the psychic-powered elite to planet-sized fortresses and planet-smashing weapons) is a much more legitimate claimant to the title of "definitive space opera" (as well as the runner-up to Asimov's Foundation Trilogy for the 1966 Best All-time Novel Series Hugo Award).

What makes it SF is that Edward E. Smith, Ph.D., devoted some attention to the ramifications of his "what if" postulates. The physics is, if not air-tight, then at least carefully considered. His future society is in a sense an escape from the real future (our present) that was closing in, but the epic has some internal plausibility and a scope (extending into the past as well) almost rivaling at least a chapter of Olaf Stapledon's cosmic stories.

Star Wars chucks all the science for pure movie magic, eschews the forward-looking aspects and takes the atavistic ones to a blatantly medieval extreme. It's no coincidence, I think, that "magic swords" are the weapon of choice for the Young (Jedi) Knight and the Dark Lord. It's the highest of high fantasy in a vehicle propelled at rocket velocity, searing almost archetypal images into the brain through the eyes.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

"Doc" Smith's "Lensmen" series (from which Star Wars appropriated elements, from the psychic-powered elite to planet-sized fortresses and planet-smashing weapons) is a much more legitimate claimant to the title of "definitive space opera" (as well as the runner-up to Asimov's Foundation Trilogy for the 1966 Best All-time Novel Series Hugo Award).

That depends. I agree that hardcore SF fans and SF authors may find Lensman a definitive Space Opera work, but for the average SF fan, Star Wars beats it handily by being current and much, much better known.

 

[Krensky]

"Doc" Smith's "Lensmen" series (from which Star Wars appropriated elements, from the psychic-powered elite to planet-sized fortresses and planet-smashing weapons) is a much more legitimate claimant to the title of "definitive space opera" (as well as the runner-up to Asimov's Foundation Trilogy for the 1966 Best All-time Novel Series Hugo Award).

This I would agree with.

What makes it SF is that Edward E. Smith, Ph.D., devoted some attention to the ramifications of his "what if" postulates. The physics is, if not air-tight, then at least carefully considered. His future society is in a sense an escape from the real future (our present) that was closing in, but the epic has some internal plausibility and a scope (extending into the past as well) almost rivaling at least a chapter of Olaf Stapledon's cosmic stories.

What makes it SF is that it's a Space Opera. What makes it a Space Opera is that it's a colorful, dramatic, melodrama that takes place in space with a large scale.

Star Wars chucks all the science for pure movie magic, eschews the forward-looking aspects and takes the atavistic ones to a blatantly medieval extreme. It's no coincidence, I think, that "magic swords" are the weapon of choice for the Young (Jedi) Knight and the Dark Lord. It's the highest of high fantasy in a vehicle propelled at rocket velocity, searing almost archetypal images into the brain through the eyes.

Thereby relegating Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, John Carter, Eric Stark, and dozens of others to 'non-SF'. Along with most of the works of Phillip K Dick, a good chunk of Andre Norton and Heinlein. Both Galacticas, Farscape, Firefly, Leiji Matsumoto'a Harlock works (including the Yamato works) or Kawamori Shoji's Macross works. The works of Keith Laumer, Cordwainer Smith, Gordon Disckson, and Alfred Bester are no longer science fiction by your reckoning. Your comments sound a lot like Brin's 'anti'-Star Wars rants.

 

[Mallus]

"Doc" Smith's "Lensmen" series (from which Star Wars appropriated elements, from the psychic-powered elite to planet-sized fortresses and planet-smashing weapons) is a much more legitimate claimant to the title of "definitive space opera".

As a few others remarked, the Lensman series would be definitive if it were better known.

The physics is, if not air-tight, then at least carefully considered.

Surely you are kidding.

Star Wars chucks all the science for pure movie magic...

And the Lensman books chuck science in favor of grandiose pulp sci-fi magic.

It's no coincidence, I think, that "magic swords" are the weapon of choice for the Young (Jedi) Knight and the Dark Lord.

And Galactic Patrol marines in Lensman fight with 'space axes'. Not to mention the Lensman themselves, who have magic crystals Lenses, which focus the Force mind powers, given to them by a whole race of Gandalfs the Arisians.

Don't get me wrong, I think Doc Smith is great, and I love the Lensman saga (despite being written in a prose style that can induce ocular bleeding among people sensitive to the misuse of the English language). But to suggest the Lensman and Star Wars are cut from a wholly different cloth is ridiculous.

 

[Melan]

Thereby relegating Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, John Carter, Eric Stark, and dozens of others to 'non-SF'.

Well, they aren't - they are generally considered "sword&planet" stories or "planetary romances", a subgenre with period SF trappings but little attention paid to (or even interest in) actual science. Star Wars is an offshoot of the same family with a strong infusion of Tolkien's dark lords and the whole "youngest son" thing.

 

[Krensky]

Well, they aren't - they are generally considered "sword&planet" stories or "planetary romances", a subgenre with period SF trappings but little attention paid to (or even interest in) actual science. Star Wars is an offshoot of the same family with a strong infusion of Tolkien's dark lords and the whole "youngest son" thing.

Sword and Planet is a subgenre of Science Fiction. Some argue that S&P is a subgenre of Space Opera, but I tend to disagree with them. They are Science Fiction however. Buck and Flash are space opera or pulp science fiction (depending on the author and story), not S&P. Stark is Planetary Romance, not S&P. Technically Carter isn't S&P since that genre properly refers to the genre of stories from the 1960s on recreating the style and conventions of John carter and his pulp era imitators mixed with things from the pulp era S&S stories. I'm not entirely sure they're planetary romances either, but it's a convenient place to stick them.

And it's not Tolkien's, it's Joseph Campbell's. Lucas specifically cited Campbell as an influence and his monomyth work predates Lord of the Rings by up to a decade in places.

 

[Krensky]

Don't get me wrong, I think Doc Smith is great, and I love the Lensman saga (despite being written in a prose style that can induce ocular bleeding among people sensitive to the misuse of the English language). But to suggest the Lensman and Star Wars are cut from a wholly different cloth is ridiculous.

Don't mistake me here, Smith's prose is... uniquely special. I'm not sure, however it's the brutalization of English you imply. For it's time anyway. Smith developed his style almost a hundred years ago and there has been a bit of drift.

 

[Desdichado]

NONE AT ALL is "too much importance"??? I did not say a thing about genre emulation! And it's more than a single mechanic; I mentioned two -- and that's leaving out hit locations, for a start on other Arnesonian rules. I've played Arneson's Adventures in Fantasy, and I've played RuneQuest; my statement on the consequences of the "any hit can kill" approach is well founded.

Oh. Well, in that case, your post seems to be a non sequiter, completely unrelated to the discussion in which it appeared.

 

[Desdichado]

There's not as sharp a divide between various subgenres of science fiction and fantasy as a lot of these most recent posts are implying. Star Wars isn't definitively science fiction because it has the trappings of science fiction. It's not definitive space opera and therefore can't be High Fantasy even though the plot and just as many of the trappings are pulled right outta King Arthur.

This overt dismissal because of overly tight genre stipulations isn't really helping discussion, nor is it really accurate anyway. It relies on a very facile approach to genre boundaries that I don't think most lit/film critics would recognize.