Genre found its way into the English language in the late 18th century from “middle French.” The French got it from Latin – the “gen-” part tends to refer to “grouping”/category – e.g. “genus” in biology is closely related.
random thought: gender is also “closely related” but “genesis” was derived from the Greek “gignesthal” with a “to be born” meaning – implying beginnings/origins –
Classification systems tend to tell us more about the folks doing the “classifying” than on the things being classified.
A couple of ancient Greek guys liked to argue about the nature of “things” – and without fun stuff like “DNA testing” it can be hard to determine how closely different critters are related.
“To be is to do” — Socrates.
(famous graffiti)
“To do is to be” — Aristotle
“Do be do be do” — Frank Sinatra.”
The pull-quote is PROBABLY a famous “misquote” — Socrates asked a lot of questions and his student Plato started a school where Aristotle did a lot of “observing” and classifying.
If you go back a couple thousand years an expedient way to classify critters would be by what they eat and observable physical traits: e.g. does it have hoofs? are they split? does it eat grass? does it chew the cud?
SO ol’ Mr Aristotle probably didn’t say “to do is to be” but he said something like “tell me what is does and I’ll tell you what it is” – which is obviously different than “tell me what it is and I’ll tell you what it does” — oh, and Mr Sinatra was singing about “Strangers in the night“
She blinded me with …
meanwhile the fine folks at Merriam-Webster tell me that the Latin scientia (“knowledge, awareness, understanding, branch of knowledge, learning,”) is the root of the English word “science” – which first appeared in the 14th Century.
“Science” in modern usage tends to imply a systematized body of knowledge gathered using the “scientific method.” The word “scientist” didn’t pop up until 1834 — a new word was needed for classification. e.g. Ben Franklin would have been called a “natural philosopher.”
Of course the “natural philosopher” was by definition “God” centered. For what it is worth – it is possible to have “religion” without “science” but that doesn’t mean that “science” and “religion” are at odds with each other.
Is “science” a “religion?” Umm, yes – but you will probably upset your biology professor if you bring up the subject – and we are moving on …
Science Fiction
Ok, my mind went down this rabbit hole when someone tried to suggest that Lucien’s “A True Story” was the first science fiction (“SF”) story.
Now, I should say that I don’t feel strongly enough about the question to get into a fight about it – but you kinda need “science” before you can have “science fiction”
The problem is one of “classification” — i.e. is the work “fiction?” yes. does it involve “science?” no.
Of course that would also mean that some VERY popular “space based” franchises are not “science fiction” either.
e.g. “Star Wars” is more accurately labelled “space fantasy” than “science fiction.” George Lucas made a movie titled THX-1138 in 1971 that is closer to “science fiction” but if I’m being REALLY pedantic it is a “futuristic dystopia”
Yeah, the term “science fiction” lost any real meaning a long time ago – but some famous stories NOT thought of as science fiction could fit my definition (again “science” has to be part of the story) – e.g. Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” has “electricity” at its core – if you take away the “electricity”/science portion the story doesn’t happen
While Star Wars (Episode IV) is about a young farm boy going on an adventure to save a princess and becoming a hero along the way — you could take out the “hyperspace travel” and “space dog-fighting” and you have a somewhat traditional adventure story.
Again, if I’m being pedantic – “space based” combat wouldn’t look anything like what they do in the “Star Wars” franchise – i.e. you kinda need an atmosphere to do the quick turning acrobatic moves. The Death Star showing up in orbit around an “earth like” planet would cause disaster on the surface – just from being in orbit.
I’m a fan of “Star Wars” and if you passionately want it to be “science fiction” that is just fine with me. I think it is a great movie – just not “technically” science fiction.
Sub-Genres
But “science fiction” can cover a wide range of subjects. Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968) fits my definition – so do “The Time Machine” (1960) and “The Matrix” (1999) –
“The Planet of the Apes” (1968) checks off the “science fiction” boxes and so did the “reboot” of the franchise – and notice that the 21st Century “reboot” didn’t have “space ships” or “time travel.”
The point being that science fiction has a lot of “sub genres.” Just for fun we could classify those sub-genre’s on a scale of “hardness” e.g. maybe “Star Trek” is “medium hardness” and “Doctor Who” is “softer” and the “Three Body Problem” is “harder”
There tends to be a healthy dose of “speculation” involved in science FICTION – so spending too much time explaining the “speculative science” is a good way to convince me to go somewhere else 😉
Science Fiction without the “science” …
SO what are we left with it you take the “science” out of “science fiction” — well, yeah obviously the “fiction” remains but “story taking a long time ago in a place far, far away” is a recipe for “fantasy.”
I’m probably poking another VERY LARGE mammal if I point out that the “X-Men” franchise is “fantasy” trying very hard to be pretend “science.” Seriously “they were just born with super human powers” is a great way to avoid having to come up with “origin” stories for a wide range of fantastic characters – but it isn’t “science fiction.”
Of course the “superhero” sub-genre could fit under either fantasy or SF – “The Incredible Hulk” and “The Fantastic Four” are “SF-ish” – but CLASSIC “Superman” not so much (e.g. he is from “outer space” and magically gets his powers from the sun and can fly because … I’m not really sure …).
Once again, I enjoy “X-Men” and “Superman” – i just don’t consider them “science fiction.”
Leave a Reply