Rimbo
81
Because there’s something physically there to project the energy in the first place, e.g. a monofilament that gets extended when the lightsaber is turned on.
- Consider the immense amount of energy required to project a beam powerful enough to melt durasteel (whatever that is), sever limbs in one slice with instant cauterization, etc. Now explain why the immediate area around a lightsaber isn’t the temperature of a small star. And don’t give me some crap about them not bleeding off energy, because they give off colored glows that affect their surroundings (or at least they have for the last 15 years or so).
Because air, and the handle’s material, is an excellent insulator for the kind of reaction the lightsaber produces.
Also, lots of things give off bright glows that don’t melt you if you touch them, like fluorescent bulbs. :)
What I’m proposing above as explanations are only possibilities, by the way. I certainly take them no more seriously than I do Star Wars in general. And they might not be “canon,” per se; I don’t know much of anything of Star Wars beyond the three movies. (THERE ARE ONLY THREE.)
I also don’t spend a particularly long time thinking about it, because it’s not the point of the movies. It doesn’t have to be for a movie to be science fiction. Fitting certain genre conventions – planets, ray guns, aliens and spaceships – is more than sufficient.
Congratulations, that’s too stupid even for the EU, which I didn’t think was a possibility. And yes, the EU is full of ridiculous “explanations” for the nonsense tech of the GFFA (Galaxy Far Far Away).
Because air, and the handle’s material, is an excellent insulator for the kind of reaction the lightsaber produces.
Magic metal. Gotcha.
Also, lots of things give off bright glows that don’t melt you if you touch them, like fluorescent bulbs. :)
Someone’s been playing too much No More Heroes.
I also don’t spend a particularly long time thinking about it, because it’s not the point of the movies. It doesn’t have to be for a movie to be science fiction. Fitting certain genre conventions – planets, ray guns, aliens and spaceships – is more than sufficient.
No, it’s not. That’s called space opera, which is a branch of fantasy, not science fiction. What you’re claiming is like saying that since Law & Order has cops, guns and criminals in it, it’s film noir.
Rimbo
83
Nobody called Flash Gordon “fantasy” when the serials were first running in newspapers. Nobody bothers calling it that now. But it has things that are equally less-explained and unlikely as what’s in Star Wars; in fact, I don’t think you could claim with a straight face that the two are different genres. The distinction you’re making here is academic in both senses of the word. And the same is true of Star Wars.
The only difference between the two is that Star Wars has been singled out by a recent movement within academia in a misguided attempt to elevate the status of SF as literature by making a distinction between SF that uses plausible technological advances and SF that does not. But as I pointed out earlier, it’s a ridiculous thing to try to attempt to say what is plausible and what is not, because even the most scientific of the hard SF of the 1960s had plenty of “magical” elements (e.g., Asimov’s positronic brain), and would have found modern computers and cell phones completely implausible. And the reason Star Wars has been singled out is its recentness and its popularity.
If it weren’t for those two things, no one would consider Star Wars to be anything other than science fiction; as it is, that status goes to a bunch of folks tilting at windmills and making a distinction that puts them into all kinds of trouble. Seriously, I dare you to either tell me that the Positronic Brain is more plausible than the lightsaber, or that Asimov’s “I, Robot” novels are not science fiction. Because that is the position you have put yourself in.
I think one point you are missing, Rimbo, is that of all the examples you are using, only ONE* arguably has an anti-technology, anti-science underpinning. Most of your examples are products of their time’s understanding of what the future of scientific advancement might look like. Or simply not caring how accurate they were. For instance, there’s nothing inherently silly about a “positronic” brain aside from the question of it would make sense to use positrons instead of electrons. It just sounded cooler to Asimov than “electronic”. The original Flash Gordon was a serial, just as silly as every other of the time. And just as realistic as Superman, Prince Valiant, etc.
- How will our plucky hero defeat the ultimate weapon? With a genius use of technology and science? Nope. He does it by putting aside science and technology and trusting in the mystic Force.
No, it really isn’t. And I have already explained in multiple ways why the two are different genres.
The only difference between the two is that Star Wars has been singled out by a recent movement within academia in a misguided attempt to elevate the status of SF as literature by making a distinction between SF that uses plausible technological advances and SF that does not. But as I pointed out earlier, it’s a ridiculous thing to try to attempt to say what is plausible and what is not, because even the most scientific of the hard SF of the 1960s had plenty of “magical” elements (e.g., Asimov’s positronic brain), and would have found modern computers and cell phones completely implausible. And the reason Star Wars has been singled out is its recentness and its popularity.
No, the reason Star Wars is singled out (and it isn’t, but one stupid thing at a time) is because it’s not science fiction. Star Wars has been cited as myth since 1977, when Joseph Campbell latched onto it and Lucas expounded on how he used Campbell’s writings in conjunction with the trappings of space opera serials to create what eventually became the original film.
If it weren’t for those two things, no one would consider Star Wars to be anything other than science fiction; as it is, that status goes to a bunch of folks tilting at windmills and making a distinction that puts them into all kinds of trouble. Seriously, I dare you to either tell me that the Positronic Brain is more plausible than the lightsaber, or that Asimov’s “I, Robot” novels are not science fiction. Because that is the position you have put yourself in.
Quite willingly, and do you know why? Because a fucking semi-sentient computer brain is a hell of a lot more plausible than a laser sword that defies reality. The positronic brain is a matter of terminology and advancement of existing tech. The lightsaber is magic and will never exist because it cannot exist in the same way The Force, hyperspace (as utilized in Star Wars), and moon-sized space stations that explode if you poke them in the wrong hole can’t exist: It’s fantasy with no basis in reality or science and doesn’t try to be anything other than a mythic quest with spaceships in it.
You’re wrong, Rimbo, as is anyone who tries to call Star Wars science fiction. It isn’t, by any meaningful definition of the term.
Hemalin
86
Are you calling insulators magic? Of all the things to be nit-picky about, complaining about a highly efficient insulator is quite silly.
Rimbo
87
Really? How is Star Wars a different genre from Flash Gordon? You have the Campbell mono-myth in each one (guy from backwaters area gets plucked away against his will to go face a great evil against overwhelming odds with the assistance of a mentor and an oddball cast). You have tech indistinguishable from magic. You have air-speeders and spaceships and ray guns.
Quite willingly, and do you know why? Because a fucking semi-sentient computer brain is a hell of a lot more plausible than a laser sword that defies reality.
First off, they’re not semi-sentient. There’s nothing “semi” about R. Daneel Olivaw and the like. Second, you are making a judgment of plausibility that is completely subjective. There are no positronic brains, and there is no such thing as any kind of technology in existence which can reproduce the kind of intelligent thought. You are peeking into a magical crystal ball, looking at the future and saying, “In the future, I see no laser swords, but I do see positronic brains,” but there is absolutely no basis in current, existing Science, Physics or Mathematics for believing the latter is possible, much less plausible.
AI is based on a common projection – that people always analogize the workings of the brain to the highest technology of the day; back around the 1800s, people analogized mental processes to gears and mechanisms. So obviously SF writers of the 1960s imagined it to be based on electronics. But they are no less magical space brains than lightsabers are magical space swords.
This argument you are making is so full of contradictions that it reduces to nothing more than, “Star Wars is not Science Fiction because I say it is not Science Fiction.” In fact, if you were to say that, it would be the most accurate thing you’d have said, because distinctions of genre are entirely arbitrary.
Not that I don’t agree with you, but Flash Gordon was a comic character from the 30s. Star Wars certainly inherited from Flash (as I’m pretty sure Lucas has said at some point - or, at any rate, that it derived from the old serials), but Gordon is a character from a different time.
The first requirement for plausibility is possibility. We know that intelligence is possible because we have it. It’s not unreasonable to assume that we could completely replicate the entire process of consciousness as it exists right now. Beam swords, however, or really any finite, closed beams of light that can slice through matter do not exist, and we have good reason to doubt that they could ever exist as they are depicted (a beam of light doesn’t generally self-terminate, and the required power to generate a laser that could slice through a person’s shoulder joint is ridiculous to begin with). At this point, we don’t understand whether consciousness is an emergent phenomenon or an as-yet-unidentified physical mechanism in the brain, but we know that it exists and there’s no reason to believe that if we continue to punch away at it that we cannot eventually replicate it.
That’s not the biggest hurdle for Star Wars, though. Star Wars explicitly includes magic - an additional unexplained force manipulable by trained adepts that can move objects without any physical mechanism, or grant precognition, or project lightning out of a human body with no evident power source, or place psychic suggestions in another person’s mind. Before the whole microorganism disaster from Episode 1, Star Wars was actually better fantasy than a lot of modern fantasy specifically because it didn’t even try to explain its magic (unlike, say, Wheel of Time). While you could argue for classing Star Wars as science fiction because it has spaceships and (incorrect) lasers, I would tend to leave it out because I don’t really see anything useful to be learned from the grouping (which is why we have genres in the first place - you put like things together so that you can talk about them as a piece).
sinnick
89
“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [“science fiction”]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”
— Chief Justice Antilles, concurring opinion, Palpatine v. Alderan
antlers
90
There’s been a term for what Star Wars is for years: Space Opera–a fantasy story in a sci-fi setting.
BTW, neither light sabers (plasma torches with a force-field and good industrial design) nor hyperspace are the most physically impossible things in Star Wars-- that would be the WWII era space combat.
Science Fiction: Stories of humanity’s relationship with its technology.
Fantasy: Stories of humanity’s relationship with its symbols.
Star Wars: Mostly fantasy, but with and undercurrent of Science Fiction, especially in the first film, which is actually fairly anti-technology.
Rimbo
92
Brian: But you are assuming that the blade of a light saber is a beam of light. That’s like saying that naugahyde is made from hunted or farmed naugas, that starfruit is made of star, that Tie Fighters are made out of bow ties or that french horns were invented or made in France. They’re called lightsabers because they glow with a bright light, but there’s no reason to expect that they’re actually made entirely of light.
But that is beside the point.
The simple fact is if you pick a thousand people at random and ask them whether Star Wars is Science Fiction, Fantasy or something else, the overwhelming majority of them will say it’s Science Fiction.
They are not doing so because they are uneducated boors. They are doing so because Star Wars primarily follows the conventions of the science fiction genre – ray guns, spaceships, aliens and distant worlds in a far-off galaxy.
I certainly appreciate the motives of why people are trying to redefine what “science fiction” means; it stems from a desire to give credit where it’s due to the great science fiction writers of the past and present, who have historically been ignored for dabbling in a genre seen as childish and immature.
But even if redefining the boundaries of the genre were a way to achieve that (which it isn’t), even if the manner in which people were trying to redefine the genre could do something to add credibility to that genre (which it doesn’t), I would still object to it because it’s arbitrary, inconsistent, confusing and frequently self-contradictory.
“Ray guns and spaceships,” on the other hand, is clearly defined, commonly accepted, isn’t relevant to what makes something art or not and doesn’t make a statement about artistic credibility one way or the other. If it were only “commonly accepted,” it would already be a superior definition of the genre; given the ridiculous mental gymnastics demonstrated in this thread to say that “Star Wars is not science fiction” only further demonstrates the lack of a need.
“And to those who say, ‘Wait, there’s a difference between nerds and geeks,’ I answer, ‘Shut up, nerd!’”
You see mental gymnastics, other people see it an obvious relationship to the content of the story rather than the narrative trappings of the setting. I think the former is more useful for categorization, even if the latter is easier and more obvious.
dermot
95
It seems to me that the mental gymnastics are on the other side of this ‘debate’. The side that classifies Star Wars as science fantasy seems to have a reasonably straightforward methodology for classifying it as such. On the other side you have people proposing ever more fantastic solutions (force fields!) to ground in reality an already fantastic device (light-sabres).
Even George himself gave it a go with the Midichlorians. Didn’t go well…
Rimbo
97
No, the “other side” is not proposing more fantastic solutions; the “other side” doesn’t see the plausibility of light sabers as being relevant. The “other side” doesn’t engage in the discussion of whether or not laser swords are plausible, because they rightly see it as pointless mental masturbation.
The only reason I brought it up is to demonstrate the futility and pointlessness of using “plausibility” as a definition of genre; we can argue for days over whether or not a given proposed future technology is plausible without ever getting anywhere, and the side that ‘loses’ can then easily say, “But you consider THIS ‘Hard’ SF, and yet we now know that the tech in it is completely implausible…”
That’s what nerds do. It’s not what the masses whose cultural agreement defines the conventions that describe a genre do. Nor is it what literary critics do.
dermot
98
For the most part I’ll concede - someone did try to explain how force-fields would make light-sabres plausible and that Star Wars was therefore pure science fiction but I can’t be arsed going back to figure out who.
But for my own part, I made no claims about whether or not the plausibility of anything is the sole determinant of whether or not a work qualifies as science fiction or science fantasy. On the contrary, I pointed out that it’s often how that tech and its impact are explored in the narrative that determines which category it falls into.
To be honest, I’m not that bothered about how people classify Star Wars. I don’t think describing it as science fiction is inaccurate; I just think that describing it as science fantasy is more accurate.
Zylon
99
As multiple people keep pointing out, describing it as space opera is most accurate of all.
But some people prefer to argue.
dermot
100
Enough of this pedantry!
My son and I have been watching the Clone Wars cartoons (the CGI ones). I’m actually enjoying them. The animation is solid and some of the battle scenes - light-sabre, mano-a-mano, space or otherwise - are pretty enjoyable. In fact, some of the space battles I’ve seen so far have put the opening of Revenge of the Sith to shame (talk about a wasted opportunity - space crowded with giant capital ships unleashing salvo after salvo against each other and what do we actually get to see? fucking robots pretending to be the three stooges).
<whisper>even Jar-Jar isn’t as annoying in the context of a cartoon.</whisper> Though I do wonder why they continue to let him get involved in things considering how much he costs the Republic in respect of accidentally destroyed space ships and so on.
For some reason though, I’m nearly finding the changes they made to the music at the start and end more annoying than anything they made a balls of in the prequel films. Oh, and they sort of undermine Obi-Wan’s status in the original trilogy (and, indeed, the prequels) by having him always turn out to be wrong when he’s chastising Anakin.
