Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 2287053" data-attributes="member: 19675">A morality tale is usually presented as cause & effect: the one who does evil will have repercussions based upon the evil he does.  The boy who cries wolf dies because no one believes his cry for help when he actually sees a wolf.  They are personal to the character.Normative stories are societal in scope.  They show a drive towards a utopian or at least better existence than most currently have.  Ben Bova's Planetary series & Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series both show groups overcoming those who would prevent the improvement of the human condition, at least in a scientific sense.Currently, dystopias are common, but up until the rise of Cyberpunk, they were the exception.  For every dystopian 1984, We, or Brave New World, I can point out 2 relatively positive futures.  Larry Niven's Known Space books are generally positive- even when at war with the technologically more advanced Kzin, humans  win the wars.  Asimov's Robot books are generally positive, but for the murders that must be solved.  Both Kieth Laumers Bolos and Fred Saberhagen's Berserkers revolve around superpowerful, artificially intelligent killing machines capable of destroying armies...and yet in both universes, they have largely been defeated.  The ones in the stories are the last of their kinds.  Robert Heinlein's societies are generally positive, although they may be unfamiliar in structure: Starship Troopers has been described as faschisistic- but then again, its because the only ones who get to vote in the system are those who have demonstrated the willingness to die to defend the system. Gordon R. Dickson's Dorsai series about genetically tweeked supermen is also positive overall.   David Brin's Uplift cycle shows a future that has negative elements (humanity is weak relative to other alien races), but overall, it is a fairly free and open society.  And , humanity has not only uplifted (become sentient) itself (as far as anyone can tell), but at least 2 other species on its planet before first contact- unheard of in millions of years of the Galactic civilization.  In other words, we and our fellow terrestrian sapients (dolphins and chimpanzees) are the species to watch.  Despite our low current status, we have demonstrated superiority to our superiors  That, by the way, hearkens back to a common trope in early sci-fi: Humans #1- that you'd find in C.M Kornbluth, John Campbell, Eric Frank Russell, Ray Bradbury, Hal Clement, HG Wells, Jules Verne, Cordwainer Smith, Edmond Hamilton, James Blish, Raymond Z. Gallun, L. Sprague De Camp, and many, many others...who, of course, also wrote about dystopias, but not often.First- for convenience sake, could you please restate your definition of the two genres or point us to the post with the most succinct or precise formulation of it?  Thanks.Second- I'm calling Star Wars sci-fi because it has starships in it.  It has blasters in it.  It has planet-sized vehicles in it.  It has a multistellar galactic empire and hyperdrive in it.  Roger Ebert calls it Space Opera. And, in a link you provided, it is cited as one of the best current examples of Space Opera- <a href="http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/s/st/star_wars.html" target="_blank">as does this one</a> (a term it uses interchangibly with Science-Fantasy).  Its not my classification- its the most common one, and one I happen to agree with.  Because YOU insist it is fantasy-a position counter to the norm-it is incumbent upon you to overcome the presumption that its a Space Opera.And if a Space Opera can meet your definition of fantasy to the point of excluding it from the realm of Sci-fi, that is a serious flaw.Other online sources helping to define space opera :<a href="http://members.aol.com/ATOMX13/" target="_blank">http://members.aol.com/ATOMX13/</a> , <a href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=space+opera&x=0&y=0" target="_blank">http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=space+opera&x=0&y=0</a>I'm not contradicting myself.  "Highly objective" is not a synonym for "Completely objective."  In my first formulation of this, I admitted that there were exceptions, and have admitted it every time.Your original post Re: Star Wars cited the Force as magic.  Some see it as Sci-fi (see the thread that inspired this thread's creation, about <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=131914" target="_blank">Psionics in D&D</a>, and George Lucas (in "The Science of Star Wars") and others see it as an extrapolation of Shao-lin concepts of Chi (which allows the monks to do their stupendous feats).  In other words, whatever the Force is, is entirely subjective.  But the setting (a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away), and the majority of Star Wars' other trappings (blasters, starships, star-spanning governments & trade, hyperdrive) are pure sci-fi.</blockquote>

Verification