What is this now?
Is it Happy Star Wars Day or is it Happy I-couldn't-give-a-rat's-arse-to-go-see-the-most-awesome-movies-of-all-time Day? ?
X-rated Bob wrote
I just want to say that to me Star Wars is not Sci-Fi. Philip K Dick or Isaac Asimov or Robert Heinlein is sci-fi.
Star Wars is fantasy.
OK, I'll bite. Interesting proposition Bob, but I'd have to disagree. I think George Lucas is every bit the Sci-Fi genius that Isaac Asimov, Arthur Clarke or Robert Heinlein was. I suppose it depends on your definition but if I measure Star Wars against the dictionary and wikipedia definitions of Sci-Fi, it fits the bill perfectly, better perhaps than any of the aforementioned writers.
Here's a list of typical elements of Sci-Fi that Wikipedia lists. I would argue that Star Wars incorporate each one of these. I don't think the same can be said for either Asimov, Clarke or Heinlein (sorry, I don't really know Philip Dick).
- A time setting in the future, in alternative timelines, or in a historical past that contradicts known facts of history or the archaeological record.
- A spatial setting or scenes in outer space (e.g., spaceflight), on other worlds, or on subterranean earth.
- Characters that include aliens, mutants, androids, or humanoid robots.
- Technology that is futuristic (e.g., ray guns, teleportation machines, humanoid computers).
- Scientific principles that are new or that contradict known laws of nature, for example time travel, wormholes, or faster-than-light travel.
- New and different political or social systems (e.g. dystopia, post-scarcity, or a post-apocalyptic situation where organized society has collapsed).
- Paranormal abilities such as mind control, telepathy, telekinesis, and teleportation.
- Other universes or dimensions and travel between them.
Now go measure your favourite Sci-Fi writer against the above points. I suspect there will be very few who measure up to Lucas, who ticks every box.
Take Asimov for example. I think he was a brilliant Sci-Fi writer but he had a very small arena. His focus was on androids and robots with some dabbling in politics and alternative social systems. He didn't touch on alternative physics, paranormal abilities, alien races etc.
Clarke on the other hand was obsessed with futuristic human achievements and technologies and a little bit of alien technology but no politics, no alternative timelines, no paranormal abilities.
I think Heinlein comes closest but again, I am not aware that he wrote much about alternative physics, different universes or dimensions etc.
I'm not saying they were bad Sci-Fi writers, on the contrary. I'm just saying that they set themselves a very limited purlieu whereas Lucas covered the field. I suppose you could say that Asimov, Clarke and Heinlein designed the building blocks of Sci-Fi which Lucas used to build a masterpiece.
? Did I forget to start the thread with a warning that I am a staunch (OK well, rabid) Star Wars geek. You'll have a hard time convincing me of any shortcomings and if you try, it will meet with fierce debate. ?
