Comments on: No new space opera

By: Velcro City Tourist Board » Blog Archive » “Beer-money hard-pulp cyber-opera”, or “Defining the indefinable”

Tue, 03 Oct 2006 20:14:23 +0000

[...] Next up, Jonathan Strahan (in what I assume is an unconnected incident) started wondering about the definition of ‘new space opera’, and how it compared to ‘old space opera’, if indeed there is such a thing as either: “So, what do I mean? Well, if all of that stuff is ’space opera’ and not ‘new space opera’ or ‘old new space opera’ or ‘new old space opera’, then is there something else? Yes. Space opera has always been popular. It has always been science fiction’s dominant form, even when it wasn’t cool or whatever. And throughout space opera’s history there have been writers of ‘retro space opera’: writers who continue to create older forms of space opera for reasons of art or commerce. They effectively pastiche space opera, rather than partake of its continuing evolution. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it creates the impression that there’s space opera (that old stuff) and something new. It’s an error of perspective. There’s actually space opera and that other old stuff. I’m just saying.” [My emphasis.] [...]

By: SF Signal

SF Signal — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:23:23 +0000

SF Tidbits for 10/2/06…

There is some cool art over at ConceptArt.org. [via Quantum Storytelling]Need a Halloween costume? Check out How to build a Giant Robot Costume. [via Make]Jonathan Strahan wonders if there’s no such thing as the “new space opera”. He is also……

By: Michael Puttre

Michael Puttre — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:06:22 +0000

Jonathan,

Space opera has gotten a bad name because of the fantastical, even nonsensical (if fun) elements that have become associated with it. Elements like fighters turning on a dime and fleets of spaceships arrayed cheek-to-jowl in dense convoys. Then there are the over-the-top villains and scoundrel-with-a-heart-of-gold good guys that run around, as Asimov once wrote about ‘Star Wars’ and ‘Battlestar Galactica,’ firing bazookas at each other with their shirts hanging upon.

As you pointed out, military SF has made an attempt to inject come realism into the proceedings, but much of this genre lacks much appeal beyond connoisseurs of organization tables (like myself, for example).

In order for space opera to thrive outside of the world of franchise novels, writers should try to keep the science and the character development at a high level. Military science and technology should not be divorced from the “S” in SF. Also, motivations should be based on the complex interworking of societies, economics, and philosophies and not boiled down to Good vs. Evil.

I don’t want abuse your good graces, but I have just published a new SF novel that I would say falls into the space opera category. You can have a look at it here:

http://www.lulu.com/content/441712

Thanks for the forum,

–Michael

By: What is space opera? « Torque Control

What is space opera? « Torque Control — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:55:48 +0000

[...] What is space opera? Here’s a thought: there’s no such thing as the new space opera. — Jonathan Strahan [...]

By: New Space Opera « The Entropy Pump

New Space Opera « The Entropy Pump — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:15:22 +0000

[...] Jonathan Strahan wonders whether there’s actually such a thing as NEW space opera, and what space opera actually is. I think like Science Fiction itself most writers and readers have their own definition and will fight infinite battles over whose definition is the one true thing. Sometimes people just need to waste time until entropy gets to them. And it’s fun. So, my definition of space opera is quite simple: Starfaring civilizations at war with each other. The divide between old and new is that the old stuff just tries to be adventure and entertainment without any pretense of being more, and the NEW space opera tries to combine depth with all the old stuff. It’s simple as that, but look at for example old Battlestar Galactica and NEW Battlestar Galactica. A small thing like a bit of depth can make a world of difference. [...]

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 06:29:25 +0000

As to the last five years: I’m not sure when the term the ‘new space opera’ as first coined, but I’m pretty sure it dates back almostten years now, and the stuff they’re covering with that description goes back to the mid-70s.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 06:28:03 +0000

And yet, many of them have described their work as just that: space opera. True, I’ve not seen Harrison or Cherryh do so, but certainly Greenland, Baxter and McAuley. Cherryh’s an interesting case. Her work skirts space opera. A novel of space adventure like DOWNBELOW STATION, is borderline space opera.

Oh, and in terms of how other people see it. I had a similar conversation with John Kessel, Jim Kelly, Charles Brown, Gary Wolfe and a bunch of others. Kessel tried (and failed) to persuade me that Herbert’s DUNE was space opera. He ultimately relented on that one.

By: Ellen Datlow

Ellen Datlow — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 04:38:57 +0000

See, I don’t consider Greenland, Harrison, Baxter, Cherryh, McAuley, or Banks as writers of space opera but of novels about space exploration.

By: Ellen Datlow

Ellen Datlow — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 04:37:04 +0000

That’s interesting because I’ve been referring to it as that (lightweight adventurous fluff) for the past 25 years :-)
And that’s what I saw being published –for the most part- as “space opera” until about the past five years or so.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 01:42:36 +0000

I guess we do. Bob Tucker coined the term in 1941, and within five or six years it was being challenged. It initially was meant to mean badly written, cliche ridden space adventure. By the end of the decade it was used to refer to good quality space adventure, and has evolved and changed since then. The key with space opera is that it is space adventure. That’s a given. There must be a spaceship and other stuff, but while there’s been a qualitative angle, I don’t think I’ve ever heard it used to simply refer to lightweight adventurous fluff. Even back in the 40s and 50s it meant more than that.

By: Ellen Datlow

Ellen Datlow — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 01:39:17 +0000

I guess we have different definitions of what space opera is, Jonathan. I’ve always thought of it as the essence of lightweight adventurous fluff. That’s why “space opera” ala “soap opera.”

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 23:43:08 +0000

I don’t think I could ever agree with that. It suggests that space opera can never change, evolve or move forward. It’s true that there are stories that take place in space or or spaceships that aren’t ‘space opera’: hard SF, military SF, whatever. But I think it’s also true thatspace opera can be serious and multi-layered. I think what Alastair Reynolds does is clearly space opera, for example.

I’m not dogmatic about it, but I’ve not actually heard a better way of looking at it than ‘space opera’ and ‘lovesongs to the way the future was’.

One thing that complicates this somewhat is that often science fiction stories share elements of ‘space opera’. Military SF, obviously, sometimes is space opera and sometimes is a cousin of space opera. Some hard SF is pretty much space opera. So, to reduce space opera permanently to ‘simple adventures in space’ doesn’t really cover what space opera is, or what writers are doing with it.

By: Ellen Datlow

Ellen Datlow — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 17:36:32 +0000

I find the current use of the term “space opera” exceedingly annoying and confusing.
To me “space opera” was and always will be simple adventures in space.

Other stories and novels that take place “in space” and on spaceships but are serious, multi-layered explorations of humans living and working and fighting in an other-worldly environment should be called something else.

They’re two different animals completely and should not be conflated, as they currently are.
So there IS no “new” space opera. There is space opera and there is …..but that’s the problem. I can’t think of a good term for what the rest of it is.