{"id":796,"date":"2024-06-10T19:12:38","date_gmt":"2024-06-10T19:12:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.iterudio.com\/?p=796"},"modified":"2024-06-10T19:12:38","modified_gmt":"2024-06-10T19:12:38","slug":"thoughts-on-genre","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.iterudio.com\/?p=796","title":{"rendered":"thoughts on genre"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/genre\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Genre<\/a> found its way into the English language in the late 18th century from &#8220;middle French.&#8221; The French got it from Latin &#8211; the &#8220;gen-&#8221; part tends to refer to &#8220;grouping&#8221;\/category &#8211; e.g. &#8220;genus&#8221; in biology is closely related.<br><br>random thought: gender is also &#8220;closely related&#8221; but &#8220;genesis&#8221; was derived from the Greek &#8220;gignesthal&#8221; with a &#8220;to be born&#8221; meaning &#8211; implying beginnings\/origins &#8211; <br><br>Classification systems tend to tell us more about the folks doing the &#8220;classifying&#8221; than on the things being classified. <br><br>A couple of ancient Greek guys liked to argue about the nature of &#8220;things&#8221; &#8211; and without fun stuff like &#8220;DNA testing&#8221; it can be hard to determine how closely different critters are related.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-pullquote\"><blockquote><p>&#8220;To be is to do&#8221; \u2014 Socrates.<br>&#8220;To do is to be&#8221; \u2014 Aristotle<br>&#8220;Do be do be do&#8221; \u2014 Frank Sinatra.\u201d<\/p><cite>(famous graffiti)<\/cite><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>The pull-quote is PROBABLY a famous &#8220;misquote&#8221; &#8212; Socrates asked a lot of questions and his student Plato started a school where Aristotle did a lot of &#8220;observing&#8221; and classifying.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>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?<br><br>SO ol&#8217; Mr Aristotle probably didn&#8217;t say &#8220;to do is to be&#8221; but he said something like &#8220;tell me what is does and I&#8217;ll tell you what it is&#8221; &#8211; which is obviously different than &#8220;tell me what it is and I&#8217;ll tell you what it does&#8221; &#8212; oh, and Mr Sinatra was singing about &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=Fd_3EkGr0-4\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=Fd_3EkGr0-4\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Strangers in the night<\/a>&#8220;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">She blinded me with &#8230;<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>meanwhile the fine folks at Merriam-Webster tell me that the Latin\u00a0<em>scientia<\/em>\u00a0(&#8220;knowledge, awareness, understanding, branch of knowledge, learning,&#8221;) is the root of the English word &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/science\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">science<\/a>&#8221; &#8211; which first appeared in the 14th Century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&#8220;Science&#8221; in modern usage tends to imply a systematized body of knowledge gathered using the &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/scientific%20method\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">scientific method<\/a>.&#8221; The word &#8220;scientist&#8221; didn&#8217;t pop up until 1834 &#8212; a new word was needed for classification. e.g. Ben Franklin would have been called a &#8220;natural philosopher.&#8221;<br><br>Of course the &#8220;natural philosopher&#8221; was by definition &#8220;God&#8221; centered. For what it is worth &#8211; it is possible to have &#8220;religion&#8221; without &#8220;science&#8221; but that doesn&#8217;t mean that &#8220;science&#8221; and &#8220;religion&#8221; are at odds with each other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Is &#8220;science&#8221; a &#8220;religion?&#8221;  Umm, yes &#8211; but you will probably upset your biology professor if you bring up the subject &#8211; and we are moving on &#8230;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Science Fiction<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Ok, my mind went down this rabbit hole when someone tried to suggest that Lucien&#8217;s &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/A_True_Story\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">A True Story<\/a>&#8221; was the first science fiction (&#8220;SF&#8221;) story.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Now, I should say that I don&#8217;t feel strongly enough about the question to get into a fight about it &#8211; but you kinda need &#8220;science&#8221; before you can have &#8220;science fiction&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The problem is one of &#8220;classification&#8221; &#8212; i.e. is the work &#8220;fiction?&#8221; yes. does it involve &#8220;science?&#8221; no.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Of course that would also mean that some VERY popular &#8220;space based&#8221; franchises are not &#8220;science fiction&#8221; either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>e.g. &#8220;Star Wars&#8221; is more accurately labelled &#8220;space fantasy&#8221; than &#8220;science fiction.&#8221; George Lucas made a movie titled <a href=\"https:\/\/www.imdb.com\/title\/tt0066434\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">THX-1138<\/a> in 1971 that is closer to &#8220;science fiction&#8221; but if I&#8217;m being REALLY pedantic  it is a &#8220;futuristic dystopia&#8221;<br><br>Yeah, the term &#8220;science fiction&#8221; lost any real meaning a long time ago &#8211; but some famous stories NOT thought of as science fiction could fit my definition (again &#8220;science&#8221; has to be part of the story) &#8211; e.g. Mary Shelley&#8217;s &#8220;Frankenstein&#8221; has &#8220;electricity&#8221; at its core &#8211; if you take away the &#8220;electricity&#8221;\/science portion the story doesn&#8217;t happen<br><br>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 &#8212; you could take out the &#8220;hyperspace travel&#8221; and &#8220;space dog-fighting&#8221; and you have a somewhat traditional adventure story.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Again, if I&#8217;m being pedantic &#8211; &#8220;space based&#8221; combat wouldn&#8217;t look anything like what they do in the &#8220;Star Wars&#8221; franchise &#8211; i.e. you kinda need an atmosphere to do the quick turning acrobatic moves. The Death Star showing up in orbit around an &#8220;earth like&#8221; planet would cause disaster on the surface &#8211; just from being in orbit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>I&#8217;m a fan of &#8220;Star Wars&#8221; and if you passionately want it to be &#8220;science fiction&#8221; that is just fine with me. I think it is a great movie &#8211; just not &#8220;technically&#8221; science fiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Sub-Genres<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>But &#8220;science fiction&#8221; can cover a wide range of subjects. Stanley Kubrick&#8217;s &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.imdb.com\/title\/tt0062622\/\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/www.imdb.com\/title\/tt0062622\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">2001: A Space Odyssey<\/a>&#8221; (1968) fits my definition &#8211; so do &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.imdb.com\/title\/tt0054387\/\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/www.imdb.com\/title\/tt0054387\/\">The Time Machine<\/a>&#8221; (1960) and &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.imdb.com\/title\/tt0133093\/\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/www.imdb.com\/title\/tt0133093\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The Matrix<\/a>&#8221; (1999) &#8211; <br><br>&#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.imdb.com\/title\/tt0063442\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The Planet of the Apes<\/a>&#8221; (1968) checks off the &#8220;science fiction&#8221; boxes and so did the &#8220;reboot&#8221; of the franchise &#8211; and notice that the 21st Century &#8220;reboot&#8221; didn&#8217;t have &#8220;space ships&#8221; or &#8220;time travel.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The point being that science fiction has a lot of &#8220;sub genres.&#8221; Just for fun we could classify those sub-genre&#8217;s on a scale of &#8220;hardness&#8221; e.g. maybe &#8220;Star Trek&#8221; is &#8220;medium hardness&#8221; and &#8220;Doctor Who&#8221; is &#8220;softer&#8221; and the &#8220;Three Body Problem&#8221; is &#8220;harder&#8221; <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>There tends to be a healthy dose of &#8220;speculation&#8221; involved in science FICTION &#8211; so spending too much time explaining the &#8220;speculative science&#8221; is a good way to convince me to go somewhere else \ud83d\ude09<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Science Fiction without the &#8220;science&#8221; &#8230;<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>SO what are we left with it you take the &#8220;science&#8221; out of &#8220;science fiction&#8221; &#8212; well, yeah obviously the &#8220;fiction&#8221; remains but &#8220;story taking a long time ago in a place far, far away&#8221; is a recipe for &#8220;fantasy.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>I&#8217;m probably poking another VERY LARGE mammal if I point out that the &#8220;X-Men&#8221; franchise is &#8220;fantasy&#8221; trying very hard to be pretend &#8220;science.&#8221; Seriously &#8220;they were just born with super human powers&#8221; is a great way to avoid having to come up with &#8220;origin&#8221; stories for a wide range of fantastic characters &#8211; but it isn&#8217;t &#8220;science fiction.&#8221; <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Of course the &#8220;superhero&#8221; sub-genre could fit under either fantasy or SF &#8211; &#8220;The Incredible Hulk&#8221; and &#8220;The Fantastic Four&#8221; are &#8220;SF-ish&#8221; &#8211; but CLASSIC &#8220;Superman&#8221; not so much (e.g. he is from &#8220;outer space&#8221; and magically gets his powers from the sun and can fly because &#8230; I&#8217;m not really sure &#8230;). <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Once again, I enjoy &#8220;X-Men&#8221; and &#8220;Superman&#8221; &#8211; i just don&#8217;t consider them &#8220;science fiction.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Genre found its way into the English language in the late 18th century from &#8220;middle French.&#8221; The French got it from Latin &#8211; the &#8220;gen-&#8221; part tends to refer to &#8220;grouping&#8221;\/category &#8211; e.g. &#8220;genus&#8221; in biology is closely related. random thought: gender is also &#8220;closely related&#8221; but &#8220;genesis&#8221; was derived from the Greek &#8220;gignesthal&#8221; with [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-796","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.iterudio.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/796","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.iterudio.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.iterudio.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.iterudio.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.iterudio.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=796"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.iterudio.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/796\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":799,"href":"https:\/\/www.iterudio.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/796\/revisions\/799"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.iterudio.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=796"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.iterudio.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=796"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.iterudio.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=796"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}