![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
meganbmooreHere's something I've never eally been able to figure out: I know a LOT of people who dislike fantasy, but live for scifi and will sing the praises of things like Farscape and Star Wars for as long as anyone will listen, and yet, most outer space scifi is almost literally just high fantasy in space.
Star Wars, of course, is very blatant about it. But Farscape? Normal guy transported to a strange world where he meets a beautiful woman who initially can't stand him, a comedic little guy with delusions of grandeur, a warrior-not nearly as bad as he initially seems-who intially thinks he's useless, a holy figure with A Past, and a defected enemy who joins them because they have no other options, not to mention quickly making enemies with a powerful person meant to hunt them down? I read this story multiple times as a teen, in fantasies published in the 80s and 90s(for that matter, I read one such series earlier this year-Mickey Zucker Reichert's Bifrost Guardians.) In fact, the entire setup and cast of Farscape is really your normal high fantasy cast and plot so far, the main difference being spaceships and guns instead of magic and swords.
Now, I have no problems with this....in fact, the only time I really like outer space scifi(I generally prefer near-future post-apocalyptic) is when it acknowledges this and plays up to it(Which Farscape very much does, by the way. Often blatantly and even gleefully.) I just don't quite understand claiming dislike for a kind of fiction, then praising that kind of fiction the second the trappings are changed.
Incidentally, I also know fantasy fans who refuse to touch any scifi, and scifi fans who won't touvh Star Wars because it is a fantasy in space, or a show like Firefly because it's a western in space. Though those, of course, will praise Star Trek until the end of time, even though it's esentially naval exploration and colonization in space.
This isn't about any one person, or several people(and the first ones of any mentioned variety that I'd think of don't even have LJ to my knowledge) just something that always bugged me.
Star Wars, of course, is very blatant about it. But Farscape? Normal guy transported to a strange world where he meets a beautiful woman who initially can't stand him, a comedic little guy with delusions of grandeur, a warrior-not nearly as bad as he initially seems-who intially thinks he's useless, a holy figure with A Past, and a defected enemy who joins them because they have no other options, not to mention quickly making enemies with a powerful person meant to hunt them down? I read this story multiple times as a teen, in fantasies published in the 80s and 90s(for that matter, I read one such series earlier this year-Mickey Zucker Reichert's Bifrost Guardians.) In fact, the entire setup and cast of Farscape is really your normal high fantasy cast and plot so far, the main difference being spaceships and guns instead of magic and swords.
Now, I have no problems with this....in fact, the only time I really like outer space scifi(I generally prefer near-future post-apocalyptic) is when it acknowledges this and plays up to it(Which Farscape very much does, by the way. Often blatantly and even gleefully.) I just don't quite understand claiming dislike for a kind of fiction, then praising that kind of fiction the second the trappings are changed.
Incidentally, I also know fantasy fans who refuse to touch any scifi, and scifi fans who won't touvh Star Wars because it is a fantasy in space, or a show like Firefly because it's a western in space. Though those, of course, will praise Star Trek until the end of time, even though it's esentially naval exploration and colonization in space.
This isn't about any one person, or several people(and the first ones of any mentioned variety that I'd think of don't even have LJ to my knowledge) just something that always bugged me.