CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:43 am
Both Star Trek and Star Wars are both space opera in my opinion.
Yes, but space opera in fantasy, or in science fiction? You've specified a subcategory while we're talking about more general groupings.
Lois Bujold's Sharing Knife tetralogy and World of the Five Gods series involves a type of 'magic' that's rigorous and bound by the laws of thermodynamics, and they are more SF than a lot of badly-thought-out SF I've come across lately, even though publishers categorize them as fantasy.
See TV Trope's "Magic A is Magic A for examples of works whose fundamental premises are radically different from our own but in which scientific thinking is usefully applicable.
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two equals four. If that is granted, all else follows." -- George Orwell, 1984
CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:43 am
Both Star Trek and Star Wars are both space opera in my opinion.
Yes, but space opera in fantasy, or in science fiction? You've specified a subcategory while we're talking about more general groupings.
Lois Bujold's Sharing Knife tetralogy and World of the Five Gods series involves a type of 'magic' that's rigorous and bound by the laws of thermodynamics, and they are more SF than a lot of badly-thought-out SF I've come across lately, even though publishers categorize them as fantasy.
See TV Trope's "Magic A is Magic A for examples of works whose fundamental premises are radically different from our own but in which scientific thinking is usefully applicable.
I mean that's actually my point that it's technically Fantasy/Scifi as a genre and the two genres shouldn't be separated automatically to begin with.
But they ARE separated. By how they approach the aspects of their world that don't match how our familiar world operates.
Mere realistic fiction has facts that aren't true, but could plausibly be true without discarding our general models of the world - specific characters exist when they do not, events occur that aren't really, and so on.
Speculative fiction goes further, presenting facts that are incompatible with reality on deeper and deeper levels of modeling, presenting a hypothetical world that doesn't match ours and isn't merely a matter of incidental facts.
The further division of speculative fiction into the domains of Science Fiction and Fantasy depends on how the differences between our world and the presented world are approached.
Horror, meanwhile, is a broader category defined on an axis orthogonal to fiction.
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two equals four. If that is granted, all else follows." -- George Orwell, 1984
Thing is, "science" can refer to two different things. It can refer to the scientific process of analyzing available data and conducting experiments to test a hypothesis. But it can also refer to the body of knowledge that's been attained via the scientific process. Like, in your average science class, you're not learning how to carry out and analyze scientific experiments; you're learning what previous scientific experiments have already proven.
In defining science fiction, you seem to be using the former definition of science. But most people define science fiction using the latter definition of science: it's not fiction based around doing science, but on taking our existing body of scientific knowledge and speculating new discoveries based on that (science has proven that evolution exists and that other planets exist, so science fiction speculates about life evolving on other planets). Fantasy is distinguished by the fact that it's speculative elements are based on things there's no scientific evidence for, like ghosts or magic spells.
You've described the very most rigorous form of science fiction: a story that is entirely compatible with known science (at the time of its creation) but extends beyond it.
Most science fiction permits violations of known principles, as long as the exploration of the consequences is done rationally.
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two equals four. If that is granted, all else follows." -- George Orwell, 1984
If time travel happens in a science fiction story, there'll be some mention of it being possible due to quantum mechanics or traveling through an alternate dimension or "reverse relativity". Something that attaches the impossible event to real world scientific knowledge, even if the link is tenuous as all hell.
Whereas, if time travel happens in a fantasy story, there may be clearly laid out rules for how it works, and its consequences might be explored in a rational manner, but the explanation for how it's possible in the first place will either be rooted in something outside the field of science (magic, divine intervention, what-have-you).
And then there are stories where time travel happens and no explanation for it is ever given (see, Groundhog Day) and its up to individual preference whether to call it a sci-fi or fantasy story.
When looking at the forced relocation stories, the differences have to be analyzed as well.
Ensigns of Command - The Federation had no knowledge of the colony, didn't think the planet had value to them due to the radiation (no immune species in the Federation?).
The Maquis - The Federation knew they were there and made the treaty, anyway.
Insurrection - The Federation is claiming dominion over a planet that was colonized long before it even existed and forcing the people out.
The first question to be asked is assuming no other species was expelled in the colonization, how many years/generations before the inhabitants are considered "natives". Humans did not evolve in the Western Hemisphere, but we now acknowledge that in getting here first and being here thousands of years before Europeans, the indigenous peoples of the Americas had rights that should have been respected. Would that have been untrue if they'd only arrived 100 years before?
In actuality EoC is probably the closest to American history. One group believing they were superior and willing to slaughter millions is encroaching on the land already occupied because they believe they have a right to it. The only real difference is in numbers, population density, and technology that give the Shelliak the ability to wipe out the humans in one fell swoop.
What does the episode title mean? There's no ensign with a significant role. Data is technically in "command" of a one android mission and probably learns something that would be useful to future command situations, but that's not really mentioned in-story.
Ensign isn't just a military rank. It can also be used a synonym for a certain type of flag or symbol. The title specifically is taken from a line of a poem as well:
"The Wants of Man" by John Quincy Adams
[...]
I want the seals of power and place,
The ensigns of command,
Charged by the people's unbought grace,
To rule my native land.
Nor crown nor sceptre would I ask,
But from my country's will,
By day, by night, to ply the task
Her cup of bliss to fill.
Madner Kami wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 2:08 pm
Ensign isn't just a military rank. It can also be used a synonym for a certain type of flag or symbol. The title specifically is taken from a line of a poem as well:
"The Wants of Man" by John Quincy Adams
[...]
I want the seals of power and place,
The ensigns of command,
Charged by the people's unbought grace,
To rule my native land.
Nor crown nor sceptre would I ask,
But from my country's will,
By day, by night, to ply the task
Her cup of bliss to fill.
Okay so I decided to look up ensigns of command and Most of what I saw was this episode. With a few mentions of how an ensign is also a flag or symbol.
My understanding is you could use the term ensigns to mean duties or obligations.
