Jump to content

Talk:Space opera

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Heather (talk | contribs) at 21:49, 2 May 2012 (→‎The new BSG). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconScience Fiction Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Old talk

The latest version corresponds to definition of space opera inthe Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (and others). Barsoom series is more like a combination of Heroic Fantasy and Planetary Romance Skysmith

Attempting to keep the Neutral point of view in the entry.

It's popular stuff. Most people think it's fun. It has a venerable history.

It bugs some sci-fi pedants. Even many of them don't mind putting the mind on hold and having some fun with it once in a while.

Chill, friend. True though it may be, we must remain neutral.

You ever wonder how much those photographed old magazines are worth? whew ! Terryeo 10:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not easy to distinguish from soft science fiction, since it ostensibly deals with some human consequence of (vaguely defined) technologies. The only difference seems to be that space opera is lightweight, in literary terms.

Soft sci-fi is different in its attitude to science, though. Soft sci-fi either concentrates on areas of science other than physics, or simply plays it down. Space opera ignores it completely to fit in with the special effects budget, IMHO. --Robert Merkel
To be considered space opera as distinguished from soft SF, a work ought to have an identifiably operatic element about it, either in style or structure. Not just character-oriented drama, over-the-top character-oriented drama. 18.24.0.120
Those who consider Vinge's A Deepness in the Sky and similar works to be "new space opera" would disagree with all the above points. This work, and similar works often labeled "space opera" are not "lightweight" by intention, nor by the views of many readers and critics. Nor are this and similar works entirely "soft" SF. Certinlay such works do not simply ignore scientific realities.


Personally i would not call such works "space opera". I would reserve that label for works with shallow characterization, and no serious attention to the scientific reality behind their gimmics. I would disqualify anything with a literary level higher than E.E. Smith's classic lensman series from the 'space opera" level. This position is a minority one, however. DES 16:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article include written space opera, like "The Reality Dysfunction" by Peter F. Hamilton? --Magnus Manske

Yes, the Lensman series is print space opera... of course there is Aniara to consider, which is actually a space opera, I believe,

Yes the term was first used for written works, and is still frequently used in that connection. The main other use is in connection with movies, such as Star Wars which is a space opera by almost anyone's defination. Note that the term comes through "Horse Opera" (which was used for radio and written westerns) and "Soap opera", and the connection with the musical sense of "opera" is thus more remote. A good recent example might be the Honor Harrignton series by David Webber. DES 16:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I found what I think is a really good space opera "grading scale" (from Ultra-Hard to Very-Soft) at this site: [1] Do you think it should be incorporated? - At18 09:38 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps it should go to the general science fiction article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:22, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Changed The Heroic Legend of Arslan to Legend of the Galactic Heroes. Same author but Arslan is historical, not SF.

Music

Should they mention the musical style used for Space Operas in television and film? Space Opera Scores usually have an overture that is always quite grandious, sweeping and swashbuckling, like a space travel. --Surten (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Surten[reply]

Usually? Says who? The music is no different than that used for other adventure films (Indian jones etc).Yobmod (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Star Trek space opera?

I have always consider Trek in a different category than, say, Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica. Those are more mythological, whereas Trek is more introspective, philosophical. Those other are philosophical too, but in a totally different way. So should we keep the link on our list or no?--Dudeman5685 13:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would say that Trek is a classic Space Opera. After all, it is the continuing saga that follows a a set of characters and follows their thoughts, feelings and emotions. This is classic 'Operatic' style in much the same way as Rawhide or Gunsmoke were a Horse Operas. Actually, personally I think of the Star Wars/Battlestar Galatica (original not reimagined) as being different in that they are Science Fantasy - with magic powers etc. This does not exclude them from also being Space Operas, but may explain the difference you note between them. --68.81.2.64 22:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No actually Star Wars is more space opera cause it includes heroism in it and romance something which star trek lacks.Star trek is more fantasy drama.-Vmrgrsergr 06:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well in truth, I would probably classify BOTH as space opera, though Lucas calls Star Wars Space Fantasy... regardless, do you really think Star Trek has no romance or heroism in it? How about all those girls Kirk falls for? What about those hundreds of episodes where someone dies, or at least risks their lives to protect some intelligent form of bacteria or the like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tle585 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lucas has referred to Star Wars as space opera. I've noticed that Star Trek fans are generally less willing to admit the "space opera" label than Star Wars fans. The borderline fantasy elements of Star Wars contribute to the difference but aren't the whole picture. Put simply, Star Trek has always had a more intellectual, philosophical bent than Star Wars. Both fit the definition of a space opera, in the sense that they both involve heroic adventures in outer space, with less emphasis on science than hard science fiction would require. The difference is a matter of degree, in that Star Wars is more directly a romance (in the classical sense), whereas Star Trek infuses the stories with elements outside the romantic tradition. marbeh raglaim (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to both (based on ref I'll use to improve the article soon). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James White

I think that his Sector General series is a space opera. Although it concerns only one place (space hospital) and has few battles, I think it passes the overall definition test. Do you agree? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

New Space Opera

The talk about "new space opera" is very vague. What is "new space opera"? This wikipedia article doesn't tell me (4-15-05) and it's probably bogus anyway. Are there any references? Anywhere on the Internet that someone has proposed this term?

(The above was posted by User:Lousyd)
This term is frequently used in online discussion of science fiction (for example in the usenet group rec.arts.sf.written). It is generally used to refer to works that have the wide or cosmic scope and feel of such classic works of space opera as the Lensman series, but attempt greater and deeper character development, and have more literary asperations in general. The classic examples are A fire Upon the Deep and A Deepness in the Sky by Vernor Vinge. but there are many other works of this sort. Such works are generally plot-driven, as classic space opera is, and try to evoke some of the same "sense of wonder" but attempt higher quality of writing skill and greater literary pretensions. Some would put the work of Lois M. Bujold in the same category. Others would cite C. J. Cherryh.
Personally I find the term almost an oxymoron. I feel that works of high literary quality are, by definition, not space opera. Many people disagree with this view. DES 16:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then what is one supposed to call a book about galactic civilizations at war, that spans many years and many more worlds ... that is *well-written* and actually develops characters and keeps the science somewhat realistic? If this is not space opera simply because it is written with these things in mind, then perhaps you have made the fundamental case for the use of the term "new space opera". Personally, I think space opera is defined by the grandiose ideas, but if it's not expected to be written on the level of more serious fiction, maybe we should consider adding the "new" for those authors who *do* intend their novels to be taken seriously. Otherwise, we'd have to describe those books as something more along the lines of "character-driven, hard space opera", and that seems silly to me. MXVN (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the many people who disagree, I'll say this... Character-driven plots would seem to differentiate 'new' space-opera from the older space-opera. I think quite a lot of high-quality literature is based on character-driven plots, or uses deep characterization. Absence of hard science might differentiate new space-opera from hard sci-fi, but I don't really see why this would mean it couldn't be literature. Many people consider Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, whose setting is fantastic, to be literature. Stories like Kafka's Metamorphosis are totally unrealistic, and yet are widely accepted as high-quality literature. I'm not saying that there have been any high-quality literature 'new' space-operas yet, but I don't see any reason why it would "by definition" be impossible. WhiteC 00:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To be clear, I like much of the stuff that some people label "new space opera", I just dislike the term. In fact I think that Vinge et. al. is considerably better written than Smith, and I prefer it. I don't argue that such works are not literature. (However, IMO, most works labeled as "new space opera" are still plot-driven, not character driven. Bujold may be an exception, but thsoe of her works most often so labeld are precisely those least character-driven, particularly The Vor Game.
I want to keep the term "space opera" as a term of abuse, or at least a term descriptive of fluff like Star Wars, so I would cap its use at about the literary level of the lensman books, using a different term for the stuff some call "new space opera". That said, there are some similaities between "new space opera" and classic space opera, which the related terms highllight. If people would always use "new space opera" as a new, related term, and not consider it a subset of "space opera" I would have far less problem with it. I think that the wider usage is broadening the term "space opera" until it is not of much use, that is all.
In short I am not arguing that wide-scope or "cosmic" works of SF can not have high literary standards, I am arguing that any work that has such standards is not "space opera" because part of the defination of "space opera" is (or IMO should be) precisely the absence of such standards. DES 01:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, but this is Wikipedia -- we're supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive, right? And, descriptively speaking, "space opera" has lost its perjorative connotations. When the SF world talks about Iain Banks's SF novels or a book like M. John Harrison's Light, "space opera" is what they call it, like it or not... David M 19:12, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, Gary K. Wolfe and I wrote a dialogue, "Duet, With No Fat Lady," for the August 2003 Locus in which we tried to figure out just what was going on with NSO. That issue also had pieces on NSO by M. John Harrison, Gwyneth Jones, Ken MacLeod, and Paul McAuley, plus interviews with Alastair Reynolds and Charles Stross. See this link for the table of contents (but not the content) of the issue. [[2]] Might be a useful reference. BTW, the "Characteristics" list might apply to the oldest of Old Space Opera, but not very well to what writers such as, say, Poul Anderson and Gordon R. Dickson were producing even in the 1950s. It might have some relevance to other media, but in print SF it's so out of date as to amount to a parody. RLetson 06:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and added the Locus Special Section to the "Articles" section. RLetson 19:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good changes. But, would you really qualify Banks as being scientifically rigorous? Excellent author, no doubt, and I love to read him, but hardly hard sci fi. --68.81.2.64 22:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Topic in this section is new space opera, not hard SF--not that the two are opposites anyway. RLetson 20:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It notes as the last sentence "New space opera is therefore scientifically rigorous while ambitious..." and so was wondering that was appropriate considering Banks is being used as an example.--68.81.2.64 22:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see the problem. I edited the sentence to remove the implication that NSO is necessarily scientifically rigorous--that's a variable rather than a constant (though NSO strongly tends to take its physics and astronomy more seriously than the ancestral form did). RLetson 18:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a good point there. People like Reynolds in particular could be classified as Hard Sci Fi. Perhaps you might want to venture : "While it does retain the interstellar scale and grandeur of traditional space opera, it also frequently associated with a high degree of scientific rigor." Or something like that. --68.81.2.64 22:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new section beginning with the new development among the American addition seems a bit out of plce in this section. Perhaps it would be better suited for the Military Science Fiction and Space Opera area?

What happened to this section? I don't NEw Space Opera there at all?--75.170.54.151 (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Seperate Article?

Out of curiosity, can New Space Opera really be defined as a type of Space Opera simply because it uses the same words in its definition of the genre? I mean, in the end, the dark and 'punky' nature of the New Space Opera genre really seems quite different to the Bold Heroic pulp of classic Space Operas.

Space opera and Military Science Fiction

Sorry for intervening, but I got the impression that the two genres are a bit the same. Both are revolving around Space battles, advanced techs, highly developped civilizations, aliens and etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I just get the feeling that the genres are very similar and IMHO deserve one place, not two.

Military SF focuses on (far-future) military characters and military life. Most space opera doesn't have military characters as protagonists and, where it does, often takes them out of their normal context -- more Apocalypse Now or Three Kings than Black Hawk Down, if you know what I mean. Also, I think it could be argued military SF tends to have complex plots playing out against a fairly static backdrop, while "new" space opera, at least, tends more toward events and discoveries with universe-changing consequences. That said, there clearly are plenty of books that could be said to fit in both categories. David M 19:12, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)


I'd be very glad if you can recommend me something very good reading. Something like Star Wars and Star Trek, but... not them, specifically. Something standalone, good pace, great characters, something which isn't delved from a movie or series. A couple of books that will blow me out of my mind, not some shit. Thank you very much: Painbearer 00:51, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

You might try Walter Jon Williams' Praxis books. David M 19:12, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Also any of Neil Asher's "Polity" series. RLetson 06:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might also try Ender's Game (Orson Scott Car), Speaker for the Dead, and Ender's Shadow. Ender's Game (which I heard as a book on tape) sequels a young enough military genius of child who is young enough to be manipulated by the adults into attempting to commit genocide on the Buggers (the alien monster).

How about?

How about Honor Harrington?

Michael 17:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? It is already mentioned in the 'books' section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sample space opera backgrounds

Hmm. I'm sure this will be a controversial suggestion, but here goes:

Sample space opera backgrounds has grown to be more than 50% of the article. I think that's way too big. I propose to cut that relatively huge list down to a maximum of a dozen entries. IMO, the Lensman and Skylark series by E. E. Smith absolutely must be on the list. beyond that, I'm open to suggestions. And, yes, I do realize how hard it is to see one's favorite books removed from this article, but I really do think the list needs to be trimmed significantly.

FWIW, I've read at least 90% of the print SF listed (including about 20 Perry Rhodan novels), seen samples of all of the TV shows except some of the anime, and done enough gaming of various sorts (majored in bridge and D&D in college) to think that no game that emphasizes roleplaying will ever qualify. I specifically played both Traveller and Space Opera. I don't (personally) agree that there can be any definition of space opera that includes scientific rigor, but realize that there are those who disagree. I (obviously) also believe that "new space opera" is a separate genre from traditional space opera.

My list would be:

Books

Television

  • The original Battlestar Galactica series
  • Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda
  • Star Trek the original series
  • Captain Video

Film

  • Star Wars Episodes IV, V, and VI

I'm open to suggestions, changes, and reasonable additions.

Ken 04:21, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I am stronly opposed to cutting any information. Wiki is not paper, size is not the problem here. I prefer long, comprehensive list to a tiny one. As for definition, you can of course adjust it, prefrably by listing several different versions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the book list should be made more concise and list series, rather than individual books (for example, it currently lists all of Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space books), though I agree with Piotrus in that it should still be comprehensive. If it's anything else, there are two problems: 1) It'll be someone's opinion on what the best books are, and thus ceases to be objective, and 2) someone else may just come along in the future and add missing the items before reading this discussion... --Leperous 10:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now here's a phrase I never thought I'd say: I agree with Leperous (nothing to do with anything you've ever said, mind you... just becaus of the name). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.81.2.64 (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Suggestion

I'm for this and this is what I suggest as a list for the Sample opera backgrounds.

Books

Comic Strips

Television

Film

Fuck the manga. It's redundant... Painbearer 09:03, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Please use civil language. I definetly think that anime and manga should be listed here, as well as some cartoons (Ulysses 31 comes to mind). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that too much exemples are on there, so anime and manga are overburdening the article. IMHO they're redundant. Vast of those book exemples also are overburdening. If I were on the head of the article I'll half-"behead" it. And my list I think it's excellent start.

p.s. yeah, you can cite Alistair Reynolds' books a couple of times. No matter they are one saga, you can do it a couple of times. That's very stupid and very great idea. *rolling eyes*

Painbearer 10:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

First, I'm hoping to create a better encyclopedia article here. The list, as it exists, overpowers the rest of the article.
Addressing several points:
Wikipedia is not paper: no, the article itself isn't huge. However, the list of samples, if removed from the article, is as large as the rest of the article. On screen, it's larger because there's more white space in a list than text paragraphs. That's unbalanced, and I would like to fix it. The goal of the list should be to provide examples, not a list of everything that might meet the criteria. Milieus listed here should be those that (subjectively :-) are the best examples we can come up with, examples that we would give our friends if they asked us what space opera they should read first.
Objective vs. subjective: the list is already subjective. Everyone who comes to the article has a favorite, or several favorite, SF novels (or TV show, or movie, etc.). Those novels get added. The result is the list that exists today. My goal here is to create a list that A) informs the reader, and B) doesn't dominate the article. How to deal with people who come along and add to the list? Well, the easy way would be to invite them to propose additions here, right?
Anime: I'm not a fan, really, of series anime. (Feature length is a different matter; I've liked most of the anime films I've seen.) I've seen some, and the impression I get is that they abandon scientific rigor (part of "new space opera" according to the article) and focus on characters (weak characterization is a characteristic of "traditional" space opera). So I don't think anime fits. I'm certainly willing to see one or two listed anyway, if others think that they suit the article.
Multiple cites of a series: I'm strongly against this, as it bloats the list, with no real benefit in terms of additional information. A series, as I see it, is really a single story that was too large to tell in one book. I would prefer to see the series listed as, for example, the Skylark series, by E. E. Smith, instead of listing each book separately.
Painbearer's list: I would strike the Star Trek and Star Wars entries from the Books section, because they're already listed under the medium where they started. I would also strike the Duniverse, the Foundation series, the Uplift universe, and the Vorkosigan saga, because they're about characters (real, three dimensional characters), political entities, etc. From the Television section, I would strike either B5 or Battlestar Galactica as redeundant, I would strike Farscape, and I would strike Stargate and it's spin-off, for the same basic reason. The super-science is secondary to the story, and the story is about the people, not the action. I would include an anime or two, if we can figure out which ones are the best examples of space opera or new space opera.
Ken 13:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars and Star Trek

Both of those franchises have produced very successfull book branches. Shouldn't they be included in the book list or in the game list? I mean, especially Star Wars is dominant over much of the entertainment industry: book, computing gaming, role-playing games, TV, Cartoons. I mean guys, they deserve some... special section. As well as multi-billion blok-busters, the movies have spawned extremely successfull other branches. Okay, okay - Star Trek is albeit shite - I agree. But, Star Wars, you agree that this is cultural phenomena in all aspects of the entertainment industry. Painbearer 21:45, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I assume this is a response to my suggestion. Yes, both franchises have produced successful spin-offs. However, those franchises are best known for the television (Star Trek) and film (Star Wars) series that spawned the spin-offs. As I said above, I think the list needs to be cut down from the present 75 or so to about a dozen. To do that, I think it would be unreasonable to list a franchise more than once, so I would say that for a multi-media franchise, we should pick the most notable medium (usually the one where it starts) and list that alone. By the way, if you have a "new space opera" background or two that you feel exemplifies that type of space opera, I think it (they) should be included. All the samples I listed are traditional space opera. Ken 23:46, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the Book section is rather big, so I am with thumbs up to your suggestion. I'm not such a big expert on Space opera, as I've read only the Dune series, but if I were on the head, I would list the best and most classic exemples of the genres. Thus, I endorse your initiative and suggestion and I hope that it will become better article.

p.s. actually it wasn't supposed to be a response to your suggestion, yet... it turned to be. :)) Painbearer 09:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


  • why no mention of Star Wars in the main article (its mentioned in the list only) ? Star Wars is the most famous Space Opera, which became a standard for cinema

the Space Opera is not only the books! The number of people who watched Star Wars is much bigger than number of people who have read that books (the movie watched even illeterate people frpm the third world). So the main article MUST mention Star Wars too.

The Inhibitor Series

I'm thinking now that the list-the-series-as-such idea is better than the individual books. But I think that Alastair Reynolds' Inhibitor Series should be listed. His first novel (Revelation Space) won an award from an SF magazine, and he then went on to write additional books for the series.

SnoopY

Sci-fi or Fantasy?

I was having a discussion with a friend who claims Space Opera as a genre is not a sub-genre of Science-Fiction but actually of Fantasy. He claims works like Star Wars have futuristic technological advances but they are not a significant part of the story to warrent inclusion in the sci-fi genre. He claims these stories are really fantasy because they have little focus on 'science' and instead rely on action and adventure and sometimes magical elements(the force in Star Wars). I was wondering if anyone could give me a good arguement for Space Opera being listed as a sub-genre of Science-Fiction rather than Fantasy? And if there isn't a good arguement for it not being considered Fantasy maybe that should be stated in the definition. Bodhi395

That's an interesting argument, which definitely has some merit. I don't think anyone would deny space opera relies on action and adventure. It doesn't really explore science very much, but nevertheless is usually put in a futuristic environment with high technology. I think that is the only difference really--fantasy often has a medieval-type background, whereas space opera has a futuristic one. If the Lensman series (by EE Doc Smith) had been set mostly in the past with knights instead of spacemen, and gods and demons instead of Arisians and Eddorians, it would be fantasy rather than space opera. But the story wouldn't have to change too much... just the setting. At least, that's my opinion. (Anime is often difficult to classify here--would you call it fantasy or space-opera, or just anime due to the oriental setting?) WhiteC 04:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While I can appreciate the argument 'now much 'sci' is there in space opera', I think the bottom line is that space opera uses science artifacts, while fantasy uses magic. Of course, even such simple definition will leave out some books in the cold - for example, books having both advanced technology and magic, or playing on the Clarke's third law, like Scrapped Princess anime (one of my favourite examples of such a case)... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it was put best when called 'Science Fiction Fantasy,' all one phrase. 68.225.242.19 04:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Debating the line between science fiction and fantasy is sometimes entertaining but rarely fruitful. --Chronodm 03:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Science fantasy page puts a lot of light on this topic, and actually states that Space Opera is not a sub genre of eiter Science Fiction or Fantasy, but Science Fantasy, the bridge between them.

"...Sometimes the term space opera is used pejoratively to denote bad quality science fiction,...." Of course because space opera is closer to science fantasy than sci-fi, if we accept this the space opera become fine. It's a same case if we would said that the "Lord of the rings is bad quality crime story" what is true but good quality fantasy. --Szente (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first space opera

Quoting from [3] "In 1897 H.G. Wells created one of the greatest science fiction masterpieces ever written-The War Of The Worlds. The story was serialized in newspapers across America and proved to be so popular that the Hearst newspaper group commissioned a sequel, to be written by their own science editor - Garrett Putnam Serviss. This sequel appeared in February of 1898 and quickly entered into the annals of science fiction history. It is one of the rarest and possibly one of the most important stories ever to appear in the genre. Serviss procured the cooperation of the famous inventor Thomas Edison and wove a totally distinct and astonishing tale of humans invading Mars. Whereas Wells had composed a story of human suffering, Serviss invented the space techno-thriller. This book contains the first space battle to ever appear in print. It is the first alien abduction story. The birthplace of the hand-held phaser-gun. It has asteroid mining and the first truly functional spacesuits. It is a cornucopia of technical ingenuity. The hero of the story is Edison himself." The orginal scans, now in PD, are available at [4]. Do you think this merits the title of 'the first space opera'? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of Edison's Conquest of Mars added. --John Nagle 18:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, while War of the Worlds is clearly one of the great and early works of Science Fiction, I cannot see that it is Space Opera. It does not hold the 'Man-of-Bronze' elements for its protaganists, nor any of the other more common 'pulp' fiction elements that classify the genre.

Doctor Who?

I gather that there's been some debate over how long the lists at the bottom of the page should be, so I'm asking before putting something else in. Would it be appropriate to add Doctor Who to the television list? It's not exclusively space opera, but many stories such as Frontier in Space and The Parting of the Ways from the new series certainly fall into the category. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is though, there are actually very few space opera Who stories compared to the vast majority of the serials. You may as well put it in a Western category because of The Gunfighters. In my opinion, obviously. Angmering 23:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. I suppose it's better just to add the (few) space opera episodes to Category:Space opera — which I've done. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/poll – Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker: one article or two?

What do you think? E Pluribus Anthony 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One. --68.81.2.64 22:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"LoGH" and "Crest of the Stars" are anime?

Legend of the Galactic Heroes and Crest of the Stars are novel, though have the anime version. I understand almost nobody(in the English-language-country) have read these novels because there is no English version. However, I feel the article to have treated this works as anime is improper, because these works were famous before making an anime.

I want to know the criterion of this article. Do you treat as novel, if the original-book on English version has come out?

I think a present treatment is impolite to the authors of both works, Yoshiki Tanaka and Hiroyuki Morioka. Because they wrote exactly as a novel, and didn't write as an original of the anime. I consider it is necessary rather to delete these works from the article if nobody has a mind to treat these works as a novel.

I was disappointed having deleted my correction frequently by those who do not understand an intention. But I expect you have a respect also for creators of the foreign country.--Morio 01:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably when you fixed that, it was "corrected" back the old, incorrect version by editors who knew of the anime but not the novel. Put a note in your edit summary pointing to this talk page. I don't think anyone is trying to deny credit to the authors, they probably jsut didn't know.Zabieru 00:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest leaving them in anime section and adding them to novel section. This way both sides should be happy.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Misnomer?"

The term "space opera" is not a misnomer. It's derived from soap opera (through horse opera, depending on who you ask), which refers to the emotional content and melodrama characteristic of opera, rather than to the singing. I added a sentence to the lead about how the term isn't directly a reference to opera, but I don't think we should really have even that, since that should be pretty clear from the links to soap and horse opera. Zabieru 00:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respectable

I reworded the "respectable" part above. If the author being referred to used it, it would be made known it's his word choice, otherwise it seems we are implying it's not "respectable", scare quotes or no. Definition is muddy and needs some shoring up, as this term is found confusing by a lot of people. --Shadow Puppet 14:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Among the practitioners of the new space opera are

This needs some more qualifying. Do these authors claim their work comes under this description? Also, the anime stuff is getting into cartoon/pure fantasy. I'm not going to mess with it, just taking a second look. --Shadow Puppet 14:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert explanations

Reverted two edits by 129.21.114.159 which appeared to be vandalism, since Star Trek and Star Wars were removed from the reference list with no explanation, not even an edit summary. This IP's only previous 'contribution' was the addition of poorly-written panegyrics to Adolf Hitler, on that page. 129.21.114.159, if you're reading this, I hope you'll not take offense if I'm wrong, and that you'll create an account and remember to summarize your edits and to explain on the talk page any edits you think might be controversial. Thanks! Zabieru 08:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted an edit made by 155.192.161.3 in which they, without explanation, deleted the Lensman series from the Books list. The Lensman series is commonly cited as the classic example of written space opera. Probably this edit was made due to inexperience rather than as vandalism. If the editor reads this, please create an account and read some of the help pages. Zabieru 20:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Games

I wonder if we should cut some of the games from the list. In particular, Starcraft doesn't seem to fit, given that although there's room in the universe for space opera, it's not a dominant influence on the gameplay or the story. X-Com seems entirely irrelevant to the genre, as it did not in fact feature any characters, period, or any extrasolar space travel, so I'm going to remove it immediately, but Starcraft may be more contentious, so perhaps I could ask for opinions?

In addition, I didn't play Alpha Centauri, so I won't suggest that we delete it, but wasn't it more of a planetary colonization story?

Zabieru 09:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Is there a reason the various space opera game genres are not in alpha order? Also, the StarCraft description seems unnecessarily long, and the second sentence is redundant (the first sentence already calls it one of the best and most popular PC games in the world, and it's in the space opera section, so the sentence "Probably one of the best known examples of Space Opera in computer gaming" doesn't really add anything). How about cutting it down to: "a real time strategy game, often cited as one of the best and most popular PC games in the world"? Please note that I have no objection to StarCraft being listed, I just think the description can be limited to one line. ASpafford 22:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest we define first what a space opera game is. I can see how some adventure games like Spacequest would fit in here, as well as Homeworld RTS, and even the Starcraft - but we need a definition. X-Com is certainly not a space opera, and SMAC doesn't really qualify IMHO - the entire story, save prequel, takes place on a planet. For example, I am pretty sure that every single 4X and Space flight simulator would classify as space opera - maybe instead of duplicating those lists, we can simply list genres? Also, what about military space operas - should they be duplicated here?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The games subsection of sample space opera backgrounds looks like it could do with a lot of work. The Role-Playing Games section looks like it may be all right. The Boardgames is where I start getting sceptical, especialy on Warhammer 40k. The Computer and Console game sections looks really hit or miss, and I do not think that any of the First-person shooters or Real-time strategy games are of the Space Opera genre.
Military SciFi is probably more accurate for most of these items and so they should probably be removed from the list.
—Asatruer 14:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

I did a rewrite and re-organization on the very muddled "History" and "Characteristics" sections; not adding much new, but moving sentences and paragraphs around and improving the wording. I am left with these two references:

"Fritz Leiber's The Wanderer tells a story about a situation when Earth sees one episode of interstellar conflict. Others, like Samuel R. Delany in Nova, refer to mythological concepts."

I cannot tell what, if any, aspect of space opera these two were originally intended to illuminate. So I am removing them until such time as someone figures out where to put them back in. RandomCritic 20:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this definition...

"General term for a subgenre of adventure SF in which the men are heroic, the women beautiful, the monsters monstrous, and the spaceships make whooshing sounds in hard vacuum." http://www.catb.org/~esr/sf-words/glossary.html#space_opera

Churchh 21:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clever, but not encyclopedic. Also, contemptuous, and so POV, and it's certainly not expansive enough to include all space opera. Zabieru 01:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's really "contemptuous"... Churchh 20:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, a lot of ESR's casual writing reads to me like he's being catty and looking down on something he doesn't enjoy, as though his enjoyment were the ultimate arbiter of quality. So maybe it's just my dislike for his style. But all the same, I can give counterexamples of every one of those qualities, so I don't think it's something that should go in the article, unless you want to make a section for "Self-described hacker historian opinions on space opera." Zabieru 09:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space Opera in Scientology

Here is a link, an expert's opinion, which expands on the how and why of Space Opera in Scientology. [5] Terryeo 19:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me entirely clear that the decaology was intended to be what we would now call space opera, whether Hubbard would have called it that or not. And that's certainly how they were published; as more or less the Lester Del Rey version of the idea: the good old stuff you used to enjoy back when sf was fun. I don't have an opinion as to whether space-opera values or themes or some such specifically influenced scientology. However, this is a tangent to the general issue and is probably not worth anyone's time and effort in terms of WikiRealPolitik. --Pleasantville 13:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space opera and planetary romance

I've revised this to sharpen the distinction, and to correct the impression that Brackett wrote much space opera. Instead, the useful contrast in her work would be between her Burroughs-influenced stories and something like her ESB script--which might be seen as her homage to her husband, whose space opera credientials are much stronger. RLetson 19:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit, RLetson. Rick Norwood 20:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Bat Durston

Restoring the information that transplanted Westerns are called Bat Durstons -- they are. The Galaxy ad was, of course, the source of this name. 01:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been in science fiction fandom since before the Bat Durston ad appeared, and have never heard "Bat Durstons" used as a noun. Please cite a reference. Rick Norwood 14:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second Rick Norwood on this point--been watching the field's scholarship since the early 1960s and attending cons since '69 and never came across this usage--though the allusion would be familiar to older fans. RLetson 03:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone can point to an authority or source that confirms the use of "Bat Durston" as described above, I suggest that assertion be edited out the article. RLetson 18:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Star Wars need to be repeated several times?

I think mentioning the film is effective enough seeing that the films are what influenced the books and comic books, etc.

2001: Space Opera?

I did never thought about 2001: A Space Odyssey being a space opera. Despite the title it has all the aspects of hard sci-fi, and so few of space opera. I even think Arthur Clarke would disagree with it being called space opera. So it seems to be original research to include it on the film section exemplifying the genre (in my opinion it´s also leading to confusion, so people will mistakenly take 2001 for a space opera). Can someone explain to me why this entry is on the list (based on reliable sources)? If no, I will remove it. Regards Loudenvier 20:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly a space opera. --John Nagle 21:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - if we classify 2001 as Space Opera, then we might as well just call all Sci-Fi Space Opera. --Turtle585 18:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warhammer 40K

This is not a space opera. There's no clear-cut line between good and evil. There's little to no romance. There is at least a nod made to some physical properties (ships don't "turn on a dime, without the boring necessity of decelerating", and warp flights take quite some time - multiple weeks). It's far too dark for space opera. As such, I'm going to remove it from the article. If this is unacceptable, then message me to discuss this here. Supersheep 23:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --John Nagle 00:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music section?

The music section is kind of marginal. Is there really "space opera music"? There's that stuff Queen did for the Flash Gordon movie, Holst's The Planets, and the overdone orchestral material John Williams writes for Star Wars. But the stuff listed is mostly irrelevant to space opera; the connection, if any, is mostly in the titles. --John Nagle 02:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Space Punk?

Why Space Punk is not mentioned in definitions "Definitions by contrast" ? An example of Space Punk is space wars between Shapers and Mechanist of Bruce Sterling.

Personally, I would qualify Space Punk (ie. Bruce Sterlin) as a type Space Opera Noir: stuff like Alister Reynolds. On the other hand there is a good argument to be made that it might consist of a sub-sub-sub-gennre in it's own right. There is a big difference between the sort of Grand Sweeping Scale of say Battlestar Galactica (re-imagining) and the Revelation Space, and your more classic "punk" styles which are painted on a smaller canvas (though are by no means any less dynamic or artistic). Views? -- --68.81.2.64 17:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One good reason for "space punk" not to be included here is the term's failure to appear in reviews, articles, or discussions of SF. The first 70 Google hits are about music, not SF narrative; and I don't recall seeing it used anywhere in connection with Sterling's work. This is not the place to introduce new terms, but to explain the meanings of established ones. RLetson 05:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some edits

Finally cut that "Bat Durston" reference--nobody was able to make a convincing case for it being a commonly-used descriptor for space-westerns. Also cut the military SF material from the New Space Opera section, gave it its own heading, and cleaned up the copy. RLetson 21:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Later: Merged the mil-SF material with the pre-existing section (I'd forgotten it was there).

Some possible cuts and serious revisions

  • I'd say it's time to cut the "Space western" section--the term has come to have a pretty specific meaning (apparently in comics and anime), but it isn't in common use among critics and scholars in the sense suggested here--there is, for example, not entry for it at the jessesword site, nor in Clute & Nicholls or Wolfe's Critical Terms. The fact that it's a descriptive term people have sometimes used doesn't necessarily make it a standard or common term in the field. It more properly belongs in a discussion of frontier themes in SF or in an article on the particular comics/anime examples.
  • I also suspect that the "Space Opera and Scientology" section is not very useful in an article devoted to a science fiction subgenre.
  • The "Characteristics" section is imprecise and ahistorical--some of those traits belong to stories written a half-century or more ago, or to TV/film traditions, or just to pulp SF. There are significant counter-examples for just about everything on the list. The only universal traits have to do with scale (of setting and action) and the emotional responses these are meant to evoke. The rest are variables dependent on period, publishing context, authorial outlook and skill, and so on. Any characteristics list needs to be rooted in reliable, authoritative sources and a sense of history--not any individual's preferences or idiosyncratic experience.

I agree. Go ahead and start the revisions.Nemo69 00:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did so--cut westerns and Scientology and tweaked a few other things. RLetson 23:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's time to clean up the endless lists, too--They're way too long, with too many "hey, how about my favorite?" entries, and some that just seem arbitrary. (I cut a few from the Music section, and I've got serious doubts about the items I left.) I really don't see the point of 40-plus games (subdivided into seven categories, yet). The anime sublist looks pretty straggly, too; and in fact I wonder whether we need all the print-medium backgrounds. The lists ought to be illustrative and typical, but they need not (and cannot) be exhaustive. I'd say ten print and five everything-else. (And is there any real space opera music? Not just SF, but space opera?) RLetson 23:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have once again removed three doubtful items from the Music sub-list. Last time I did this, it got reverted without comment. I couldn't find any sources that would lead me to include these items in a list of "sample space opera backgrounds," but I'd be happy to hear of them. Until then, I take their presence to be based on someone's personal opinion. (The same thing might be said of many items on the other sub-lists. They all need pruning.) RLetson 21:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous edits

An anonymous editor recently went through the article, moving pieces around, changing formatting, and introducing usage, punctuation, and diction errors. I'd think that such extensive changes would rate at least a note here to indicate what's being edited and why. Why, for example, remove the link information for the Hartwell and Cramer essay? Why capitalize "space opera"? (It's not a proper noun.) Why de-italicize titles of books and films (standard US usage)? Why change US double quotation marks to UK singles? Why move the passage on Edison's Conquest of Mars to the middle of an explanation of the term's connotation? Why remove mention of exemplary planetary romance writers Vance, Farmer, and Silverberg while inserting the unnecessary point about Leigh Brackett's Empire Strikes Back script? Why re-introduce the unsourced (and, I suspect, unsource-able) Bat Durston factoid? If someone wants to argue for a particular sequence of topics or inclusion or exclusion of a particular example, fine--but it would be polite to drop by and make a case before making the changes. RLetson 01:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have started to rework some of the changes mentioned above, starting with the lead paragraphs and the Articles section. I think the next-most-important section would be Characteristics, which badly needs the POV and plain old inaccuracies removed. RLetson 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking a question before Editing

Reading the examples of Space Operas and so forth in this article made me think that the Halo Universe could be included since it has the elements of space opera. Humans about to be wiped out, super weapons to destroy the known galaxy, Lady in distress (Cortana), etc. Wanted to ask your opinions before I placed the edit.

Lucky Foot 19:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of playing the killjoy, what the article needs is a severe pruning of the lists. I keep arguing for short, clearly/authoritatively-defined lists of representative (or historically important) works that help to map the territory. I'm not familiar with the Halo Universe (it must be a game or a media product), but if it is historically important or recognized as genre-defining in its category, then one can/should make a case. But first, I think, we need to work out some reasonable ground rules for constructing lists of representative items. Otherwise, we wind up with straggly, indefinitely-long lists and arguments over which book/movie/TV show is really space-operatic. RLetson 04:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I agree with that. I'm not that familiar with alot of those things named on the list so I don't believe I'd be good for the job, but Halo is a game (some people love it, some people hate it) and it had a lot of the characteristics mentioned in the article. It was defining as it introduced a whole new idea in to science fiction and also was the best selling game for years after it was released for Xbox. More about Halo: Combat Evolved That's just my opinion though." Lucky Foot 15:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space Quest space simulator?

I would not catagorize Space Quest as a space simulator. None of the other catagories seem to fit either though, I usually describe it as an "adventure game" but that is somewhat of an ambiguous term. If anywhere in this article I think it belongs in the section about parodies along with Spaceballs and Hitchhiker's Guide. --124.189.122.147 07:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to cull the lists

The "Sample space opera backgrounds" list(s) just keep getting more and more straggly and irrelvant--the most recent addition to the Anime category is a TV show so obscure that not even the Wiki article tells me whether it's really space opera. It's past time to set up a framework that resists this kind of ad-hoc, what-about-my-favorite-show stuff and gives a few well-sourced examples of space opera narratives. I'd suggest that we:

  • Settle on a restricted set of categories with a small number of items in each. I'd think that prose fiction, comics, and film/anime/TV are sufficient. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list but a set of examples--five to ten in each category should do the trick.
  • Establish a minimum number of citations from reliable sources that say "X is an example of space opera." Three is a nice number--and it requires just a bit of research rather than an expression of personal opinion. In the case of disagreement about what to include in the limited list, the item with the most citations would be preferred.
  • Eliminate games--the scenarios might reflect space-opera conventions and motifs, but it's probably enough to mention the influence of space opera on game design in the body of the article. The extravagant and overdetailed list of games we have now is a case of the tail wagging the dog. (I'd say the amime list is heading that way as well.)

Failure to get this part of the article under control means that the lists become a kind of parlor game, and the usefulness of the article suffers.

So what does anyone think? (BTW, that "Characteristics" section still needs to be completely reworked--it's inaccurate and unsourced.) RLetson 03:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I've culled some of what are IMO clear removals. While the characteristics given in the article aren't sourced, they seem a reasonable starting point for judging what fits and what doesn't.

My cuts: Red Dwarf - Almost the opposite of SO, has almost none of the characteristics.

Warhammer 40k - It's a dark, dangerous Universe with few heroes and no genuinely sympathetic factions.

Let's stick to really really obvious/sourced examples. Nazdakka 16:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nazdakka: If you're suggesting using the "Characteristics" section as it stands as a way of developing an examples list, I'd caution that the items that are not trivial ("ray-guns or a gun-like weapon") or simply wrong ("ultimate good vs. evil stories") are quite out of date--some of the points might apply to some examples of space opera from the pulps (and quite a few from movies and TV), but they do not describe anything like the range of the print tradition, particularly from the 1950s onward. What's needed there is a digest of descriptive/defining traits from good sources. RLetson 23:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Alternative to a Cull

Instead of engaging in a cull, why don't we simply create a Category: Space Opera Novels page that lists them in the manner of "Category:Science fiction novels" pages? We could then give the handful of classic examples here and then say "For a more complete list see...." To that end we could do the same thing with Movies, TV, Games, etc. --Turtle585 19:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would just move the problem to a different location. Is WP actually in the business of providing open-ended lists of things? Not that I'm in any position to give or withold permission for such a project--it just seems irrelevant to the function of an encyclopedia. RLetson 05:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few good sources

Here's a start on a list of sources of information on space opera (and many other SF topics) that can be used to authenticate list items and to rebuild the Characteristics section. Additions are invited:

  • Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, ed. John Clute and Peter Nicholls (shorthand: ESF or Clute & Nicholls)
  • Critical Terms for Science Fiction and Fantasy, Gary K. Wolfe
  • Brave New Words: The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction, ed. Jeff Prucher
  • SF Citations for OED, the on-line precursor of Brave New Words.
  • David G. Hartwell and Kathryn Cramer, "How Shit Became Shinola: Definition and Redefinition of Space Opera"; on-line version of introductory essay for their 941-page anthology The Space Opera Renaissance, which also includes prefatory essays for each story. A contents list is available at in a reader review on the book's Amazon page.

There are plenty of other candidates--Brian Aldiss's 1974 anthology, Space Opera, plus any number of academic and general-audience histories and essays (Aldiss & Wingrove's Trillion Year Spree, Hartwell's Age of Wonders, Edward James's Science Fiction in the Twentieth Century, James and Mendelsohn's The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction, and so on). RLetson 19:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Snarkiness

I'm not feeling particularly descriptive right at this moment, but in short, the lists at the end of this article suck. In particular, almost everything in the games category should be cut with extreme prejudice, as well as a hefty chunk of nearly every other category. After a decent article which describes the sub-genre in some detail, we are then offered a list that ignores the given definition of space opera, and essentially includes every scrap of science fiction which in some way relates to space. The lists literally make the article they follow worse by association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.55.43 (talk)

So, do you have any suggestions, or contributions you'd like to make? It might be a good idea for the lists to be pruned, and then split off into another article, as was done over at the steampunk article. However, "snarkiness," as you call it, is not really helpful. Also, please sign your comments. ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 14:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tact and manners aside, the anonymous commentator's points are well taken--the lists have been out of control for quite a while, and the relevance of the games section seems particularly iffy. The "Characteristics" section (as I have grumbled above) is also pretty weak--a laundry list of cliches and inaccuracies that needs a complete reworking. RLetson 20:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganizing the lists

The lists should include dates for all items, since the definition of "Space Opera" has varied a lot over time. Also, the lists should be cut to items that are important to or in some way exemplary for their five year period, and gaps should be filled in where appropriate. Otherwise, the lists will end up very top-heavy with material from the past 5 years.

Does that sound like a reasonable solution to the list problem?

Also, it would be helpful if authors etc. were labeled by nationality, since the literary game of space opera is different in the UK and the US, and some of the material is Japanese and animé-related. I am not sure that the animé material belongs here at all, though I wam willing to be told otherwise. It seems to me a tangent.

I am puzzled by what is intended by the heading "Sample space opera backgrounds." The implication seems to me to be that the books in question can be used as backgrounds for role-playing games or some such. (This is perhaps why many entries in the book section are "sagas" and series?) Also, the Books subsection should be retitled Fiction, since space opera n fiction is not restricted to booklength or series-length works.

Checking from the beginning of the list, I find that in many cases where whole series are listed, only one or two books in the series are notable enough for inclusion in this list. (There are exceptions, such as Ian Banks, where it is the series itself that is influential.) --Pleasantville 13:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: OK. I went through the fiction list and refined it. It is very US-centric and has some big holes in it: Poul Anderson, Leigh Brackett, Michael Moorcock. Also, I have reordered it chronolgically to give it more of a narrative structure. I may find a few minutes to fill some of the holes.

See Clute & Nicholls for references to fill in the holes in the list.--Pleasantville 15:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: See also my remarks on User Talk page, requesting that he not revert changes discussed here without discussion. --Pleasantville 15:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: User:Painbearer is pushing the fiction lists back into lists of series and "universes." I have other fish to fry, but I think this trajectory is incorrect and he seems uninterested in discussing the matter here. Perhaps someone else might wish to deal with the matter. But I think that only the influential books, and not entire series should be cited. --Pleasantville 22:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC) aka Kathryn Cramer[reply]
The list of games

Can someone knowledgable about games PLEASE cut the list of games down to a reasonable size? Thanks --Pleasantville 16:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to split article

The list of space opera-related games is much too long and is growing, not shrinking. Should this article be split into Space opera and List of space opera games? The alternative to to cut the games list way back to about 10-15 important ones. --Pleasantville 21:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That would be fine but the problem is twofold: first of all, creating a separate article for space opera games would be prejudice along the lines of "games aren't real fiction/art/etc." To be fair you'd have to create a similar list for books and films. Also - there becomes a question of how you determine which games are "most important." --Nivenus 08:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy Bebop a space opera?

My impression was that space opera required a backdrop involving interstellar civilizations, wars/conflicts involving moral dilemma (either with a good vs. evil spin or something more complex), and an extremely high-tech civilization. Doesn't Cowboy Bebop qualify more as a space western? --Nivenus 23:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second a revision of that too. I added Infinite Ryvius after reading the definition and watching the animated list, and it was deleted, and I kept wondering why Gankutsuo does qualify, and I've my doubts about Cowboy Bebop too (Neverland0 (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

List of space opera works

I think it is high time for a split in this article, with all of the lists being moved off into a separate article, just as was done with the Steampunk article. The lists here are becoming too long, they now dominate the article, and they keep being (needlessly) added to. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Effect and other video games

Can someone who knows more about video games decide whether Mass Effect is really appropriate for this article? I have deleted it at least four times in as many days---mostly because I do not think we need longer lists in this article. The anonymous users who keep adding it have never bothered to make any comment whatsoever as to why they believe it fits. As I said above, though, all of the lists need to be spun off into a separate article altogether. Even if this is done, though, there still have to be standards for what is included. Not every book, movie, tv show, game, etc., that takes place in space is a space opera. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'll attempt to justify the inclusion of Mass Effect by referring to this article's own "characteristics" section. Mass Effect takes place across many planets and a vast space station. Alien species are, for the most part, similar to humans (with a few exceptions they are bipeds who communicate vocally and are comfortable in an Earth-like environment) and they easily communicate with humans. One race, the Asari, can even mate with humans. The various Alien species, together with humanity, participate in a single overarching galactic union (analogous to the UN). It has a good-vs-evil moral framework, and the survival of all life in the galaxy depends on the player's character stopping the return of an ancient race of machines. It features several possible romance subplots, and the conclusion features a massive space battle. Both robots and spacecraft are present in great number and important to the plot. Faster-than-light travel, handheld railguns, and artificial gravity are all present and made possible by the titular "Mass Effect" technology. Finally, several characters are "biotics", who possess the paranormal ability to manipulate mass effect fields with their minds.

All in all, I'd say Mass Effect closely and consciously follows the conventions of the Space Opera genre. Given that the game is also very much plot and dialog driven, I'd say that it is more exemplary of the genre than most any other videogame included in this article. -Spoonboy42 (talk) 06:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am going to add Mass Effect to the article because I believe that Spoonboy's explanation more than qualifies it for inclusion. Also, anyone that has a source that would help should add it. -- Interrupt_feed (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And i removed it as having no source. Every item in the current list has a source explicitly calling it space opera, mostly added by me, so there is no excuse to not source any new additions.Yobmod (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I specifically requested that someone add a source. It's fairly obvious to anyone that plays it that it is a space opera, we just need some verification. If you can find a source, then by all means add it in. -- Interrupt_feed (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is true for all the works that have been removed: Any with a reliably sourced cite is more than welcome. But as i think games contribute next to nothing to the genre or a readers understanding of it, the person wanting them added should find the cite before adding them.Yobmod (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then. I have a source. Let's just keep it in there now. -- Interrupt_feed (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great work!Yobmod (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citations

Undid a blind conversion to inline citations. If you're going to convert links to inline citations, please go all the way and create proper citations using a citation template. Moving links into a reference block, without any additional information, just turns a one-click link into a much harder to use link. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Method of Listing

There've been a lot of complaints about long listings of space operas on this page, particularly in the game section but elsewhere as well. Perhaps it would be best to remove the listings entirely and instead name the best known ones (like Star Wars, Halo, Foundation series, etc.) while linking to a separate category page for space operas. What do you think? --Nivenus (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm the only one who would love to see the entry de-cluttered. I've been reluctant to mess with the games, since I don't follow that subculture, but the movies/TV and even the print sections attract enthusiasts set on adding their favorites to the wall of fame. Anyone up the the task of setting up the appropriate page(s), links, and such has my gratitude and whatever help I can offer on the content side. RLetson (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new BSG

I honestly don't see how it can fit the space opera's definition.

Here's the first sentence of the article:

"Space opera is a subgenre of speculative fiction or science fiction that emphasizes romantic adventure, and larger-than-life characters often set against vast exotic futuristic settings with remotely plausible technology such as time travel and interstellar travel, complex alien civilizations and fictional depictions of the human future."

Which of these elements does the new BSG have? It does not have much in the vein of "romantic adventure", its characters are pointedly lifelike, flawed and so on, it lacks vast exotic settings (unless see a fleet of some tens of thousands people deperately fighting for survival as vast and exotic). It does have some of the things that are usually found in SO, but those are just that--things that are found in SO. The key items it lacks. ---Vladimir V. Korablin (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a good idea to apply the definition of space opera offered here to contemporary work because, to be blunt, much of the material in this article is imprecise and not very well articulated. The opening definition is too narrow and ahistorical, and the "Characteristics" section amounts to a caricature. (The lists are starting to look rational, though.) I've thought about major revisions for months but have not been able to summon up the strength to fight the fights that will inevitably be required (look at this discussion page!). As for the new BSG, it certainly has space opera elements (notably large-scale space war), and its grittiness is not at all a disqualification. (I'd say its primary classification would be "military SF," but that may be a matter of the angle from which one comes at it.) Space opera has pulp roots, but it is not limited to the characteristics implied by that heritage--by the 1950s writers like Poul Anderson took the large-scale, space-based adventure elements and produced some decidedly non-comic-booky work. That's why even a term like "New Space Opera" is a bit of a misnomer--writers like Alistair Reynolds and Peter Hamilton didn't come out of nowhere, nor were they reaching across some literary-historical discontinuity. They were doing what SF writers have always done: taking received materials and finding new ways of using them. RLetson (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure that BSG really qualifies as a space opera either. It has a source, yes, but that source only says "BSG is a space opera," yet it doesn't say why it should be considered a space opera. I did find a source that refutes the idea of BSG as a space opera, and fairly well:
"So why didn’t something like Battlestar Galactica make the list? I excluded Battlestar because although the rag-tag fleet does move through the galaxy, visiting other star systems, it pretty much does so as a single group, meaning the colonials take their world–their psychological landscape–with them. The tone of Battlestar is often deliberately (and brilliantly) claustrophobic, and to me Space Opera is all about being expansive."
That is from http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2008/09/19/5-greatest-space-operas-and-no-foundation-isnt-one-of-them/. BSG is claustrophobic and fairly tight-knit. The space battles don't really make up for it. So, basically, I'm not so sure the new BSG really qualifies as a space opera. The BSG entry does have a source, but it's not a very good source. Also, you can't access that source anymore, apparently. You now have to sign up with the Times to gain access. -- Interrupt_feed (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If sources disagree, we should note that somehow, but we cannot make the decision about what is and isn't SO, we can only reflect the sources. Any reason this blog counts as a RS, btw? His definition of SO would seem to limit many works (don'T Trek and foundation take their worldview with them?). Strange Horizons say the new BSG reinvented Space Opera [6], and a google search finds many more such articlesYobmod (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least six distinct star systems featuring at least fifteen habitable or once-habitable planets spread across at least three galaxies and over the course of 150,000 years is textbook space opera. I would absolutely think that BSG would count as such, even though the main cast of characters is smallish and close-knit. JMO, though. Heather (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "asterisk system" on this page is rather ridiculous; here's an alternative.

In the examples of space opera listed on this page, the Star Trek movies are not listed; neither are the Star Wars video games. This is because of this article's "asterisk system," in which space opera franchises that encompass multiple formats are given an asterisk (as opposed to listing the franchise in multiple lists).

It is quite obvious to me that this is a very inefficient and confusing system. The reason is simple: The asterisk does not denote which other formats a franchise encompasses. Thus, the people who constantly delete multiple-format references to sci-fi franchises are preventing readers of the article from gaining relevant knowledge about the formats into which those franchises have been translated.

In my opinion, this could be solved by creating a "Multiple Format" category. Franchises in this category would be listed as follows:

Star Wars films, (1977-present) created by George Lucas - novels, films*, television, comics, video games

with the asterisk now denoting the original format of the franchise.

This would be, in my opinion, much more informative than the current setup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.203.156 (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One could employ that system but I see no reason to change the way it is now. If anybody wants to find out more information about those franchises they can simply click on the link, which links in many cases to the article for the franchise rather than to any individual film or series. Also, I think in many cases alot of people are aware of the Star Wars EU and the Star Trek films, which are also mentioned in the article as examples of multimedia franchises. The fact of the matter is that while the other system you propose would be more informative it would be less efficient as it would take up more space for somewhat unnecessary exposition. However, if others want to second the suggestion it'd be worth looking into. --Nivenus (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics

Can someone make sense of this opening sentence from the "characteristics" section:

The characteristics and connotations have changed and continue to mold in the various forms of media that Space Opera is present in.

That says a whole lot of nothing, as far as I am concerned. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 05:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go you one better: Cut the whole section. Eleven of the fourteen bullet points are inaccurate, outdated, or irrelevant, and the whole section adds more noise than signal. RLetson (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that sounds good to me. It all looks like OR to me, anyway. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 05:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to Be Bold and cut it. RLetson (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot imagine that anyone will object. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revised lead definition

I have reworked the base definition to reflect the whole historical and quality range of space opera--the old one showed a bias toward the "space opera is badly-done SF" position. This definition better reflects the account in the "History of Space Opera" section, which is more nuanced and accurate. (No more "space opera has shallow characterization and bad physics" nonsense.) RLetson (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists and/as billboards

So now we have "on-line projects" promoting themselves via the endless lists of examples. Orion's Arm and Raygun Revival doubtless provide hours of fun for their participants and partisans, but I don't see how displaying their URLs here adds to an understanding of the nature and history of space opera. (Nor do I see the benefit of listing every game or anime or TV show that features a spacecraft or a raygun.) Neither of these projects strikes me as rising to the level of notability, except, possibly, as examples of how space opera tropes work into various SF-associated pop-culture/amateur-writer/gaming activities. But do they rate separate, featured status? Not really. If someone would like to write a section on space opera influences on these activities, fine--otherwise, I'd favor a serious pruning of these vanity/fan listings. RLetson (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you. Nearly every science fiction article on my watchlist is a constant target for "let-me-add-my-favorite-game/tv show/movie/website-itis. Frankly, I have tired of it. This is an encyclopædia we are writing here, not a fan-boy blog. Only the most relevant and best examples of a genre need or deserve to be listed. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opera???

I cannot see how opera automatically has anything to do with a saga or science fiction. Opera is normally defined as "...a form of musical and dramatic work in which singers convey the drama." I think to call a saga an opera without the correct music elements is misleading at best.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.85.81 (talk • contribs)

The term didn't come directly from opera; like the roughly contemporary "horse opera", it is an American publishing term, and derives from "soap opera." While the term's significance has evolved slightly from its originally semi-pejorative roots, it still carries connotations of melodramatic behavior, larger-than-life characters, and comparatively weak underlying logic and world-building; all of which are characteristics associated, in the American mind at least, with opera. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion of this kind might be reduced by restoring the "History of Space Opera" section to something like its earlier form, with the origins of the term itself at the top and the genre's history back-filled. The reorganization done by RandomCritic buries the coining six paragraphs in--chronologically "correct" (since the term was coined after the genre had evolved) but suboptimal from the making-sense point of view. I'd fix it right now if I weren't over deadline. RLetson (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and did it--nothing fancy, mostly a resequencing of a few paragraphs. Also did some minor cleanup. RLetson (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:Billthegalacticherocover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List trim & cleanup

Trimmed out much of the fat in the lists. My cuts in the games are arguably arbitrary -- if I cut a truly best-known example, please reinsert, and remove remaining also-rans. Please note this isn't intended to be a list of all popular games (etc.). Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No arguments from me--sprawing lists are the bane of these articles. RLetson (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some more from various lists. then added fact tags to the games (just for a RS source to name it space opera, if not a "best known". I've found the easiest way to prevent sprawling lists is to cite every entry. This deters drive by fan boy additions (they would have to learn to use references!). Books i can do tomorrowYobmod (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization Cleanup Proposal

The entire article looks a bit sloppy to me in terms of how it categorizes and defines movements in "Space Opera". I already made a few tweaks to the more modern sections, where they just scremed for them, suggesting in the article that military science fiction deserves its own seperate subgenre heading, and fleshing out "new space opera" a little better.

I also think it might be more useful to arrange the article by periods and then discuss the characteristics of space opera in the given period, since it does change significantly over time:

These are the periods of space opera as my research indicates they exist:

1) Proto-space opera - 1890s-1924 - Serviss, Cole, the French stories

2a) Early Golden Age - 1925-40 pulps - Uneven literary quality, but imaginative plots and settings. Ray Cummings, E. E. Smith, Edmond Hamilton, John W. Campbell, Jack Williamson.

Wilson Tucker's famous statement (1941) brings about the next period.

2b) Late Golden Age - 1941-55 pulps - More sophisticated work, better writing, more complicated, more romantic. C. L. Moore, A. E. van Vogt, Leigh Brackett, Jack Vance, Charles Harness, Poul Anderson, Alfred Bester.

3) Silver Age - 1960s - Increased writing style sophistication and deeply concerned with social and political issues. James H. Schmitz, Murray Leinster, Gordon R. Dickson, Robert A. Heinlein, Roger Zelazny, Samuel R. Delany.

The next period splits into three directions (four if you want to lump military science fiction, produced mainly in the U.S., under space opera, which I do not). You have the parodies (or satire) of earlier space opera. When a genre becomes parodied it usually marks the end of the genre because no one can write seriously in it afterwards for fear of being ridiculed, but oddly enough, maybe due to the strength of the subgenre being parodied, serious space operas continued to appear as well.

4a) Parodies - 1970s-90s - This section as it exists already in the article is excellent as is. Douglas Adams, et al.

4b) Modern Age - 1970s-90s - A continuation of the silver age, but with even more narrative sophistication and experiments in technique - John Varley, George R. R. Martin, Bruce Sterling, Michael Swanwick, Vernor Vinge, Orson Scott Card, Stephen R. Donaldson.

4c) Military science fiction - 1950s-present - Has its own Wikipedia article

4d) New Space Opera - 1975-present - mainly British, takes all the parodied characteristics of earlier space opera periods (especially 2a above) and writes it in the opposite way (like the new Battlestar Galactica series when compared to the 1970s version). Character development, scientific plausability, verisimilitude of character and situation (which lends to darkness), and top notch writing technique are all emphasized. M. John Harrison, Iain M. Banks, Ken Macleod, Stephen Baxter, Alastair Reynolds, Colin Greenland. 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by DanQuigley (talk • contribs) 21:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to argue with your categories or periods, but the telling phrase above is "as my research indicates"--the account of historical development, subgenres, characteristics, and such should come from authoritative sources, digested and perhaps intergrated here. Otherwise we have the dreaded OR, no? Of course, if the researches referred to are in authoritative sources, then they would need to be cited. RLetson (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. My categories are derived from a synthesis of the info presented on this page, Orson Scott Card's introduction to New Space Opera, two or three articles I found in academic journals, and my own reading and observations. So, unless it's published somewhere it can't be used. DanQuigley 23:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

New Space Opera (round two)

In my opinion this type of literature marks such a radical departure from Space Opera that it deserves its own entry in Wikipedia. I wish that it had a name that reflected just how different it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanQuigley (talk • contribs) 01:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but what of the opinions of the people who write it and write about it (and named it)? They seem to emphasize continuity--as the name suggests. NSO could indeed be a topic large and significant enough to justify its own article, but it also belongs in any treatment of space opera in general. RLetson (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the examples given by the sources really don't seem discontinuous either. delaney space operas (Babel 17, Nova) predate the coining of the term, and are more ambitious than most new works in terms of characterisation and themes. It's just another Buzz word to market newer writers as doing something edgy imo.Yobmod (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, from having read widely in both, I consider new space opera as different from the older version as the new Battlestar Galactica is from its 1970s predecessor. It treats the same themes (witness that the storyline for Razor's Edge is in both editions) but differs radically in treatment and aims in regards to those themes. However, okay, I see the point about no new category being needed, and concede. I still believe new space opera is too different to be just a marketing ploy, and I'm sure the authors themselves contributing to the genre see themselves as departing from as well as enhancing the genre of space opera, if they would use the term at all. Until recently "space opera" was a pejorative term here in the US. DanQuigley (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cut the line about NSO's "predictable" left-wing slant. There is a point to be made about the politics of NSO, but it needs to be more precise and perhaps disconntected from the catalog of NSO writers that followed it--Hamilton, for example, is not a lefty, and McLeod's politics are more complex than a simple left-right label permits (where does a Trotskyite libertarian gun enthusiast fit in?). It might also be useful, in the light of Yobmod's observation, to distinguish between what happened to space opera/space adventure in the hands of writers such as Poul Anderson, Samuel Delany, and C.J. Cherryh from the late 1950s onward and the semi-programmatic "let's change this US-style stuff" attitude that seems to have energized the later UK practitioners whose work can usefully be tagged as NSO. As for NSO being a marketing buzzword: it didn't come from marketers but from writers and commentators looking for a way to talk about a body of work. Look at the Locus special section (in which I participated) and it's clear that this is pretty normal behavior among lit geeks. UK writers in particular seem fond of movements and manifestos (remember who invented the New Wave?). RLetson (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intro to the New Space Opera anthology is a decent reference that can be used to improve this article; it gives a historical overviews of operas in general and nso in specific.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable

I moved this paragraph here, as it has been tagged for ages, and needs so many citations that it is damaging the article with its ORness:

A more recent movement of American space opera writers, many writing for the Baen books imprint,[citation needed] developed during the 1990s and 2000s. This branch of space opera follows more military themes than the British branch and usually features tales of war on an interstellar scale.[citation needed] It is a matter of some controversy whether to classify this movement as space opera, a still pejorative term in many circles, or to classify it under another subgenre name, military science fiction. This new wave of authors includes David Drake, Lois McMaster Bujold, Eric Flint, Elizabeth Moon, S.M. Stirling, John Ringo and David Weber.[citation needed] Other older, more established writers such as James H. Schmitz, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, among others, produced space opera (or military science fiction) some years ago and were often reprinted by Baen during this same period as part of an effort by the publisher to reestablish the market for this more military-themed space opera.[citation needed] Random House's Del Rey division, which had never totally gone out of the space opera business, also increased their output of space opera books during the 1990s and 2000s,[citation needed] including their own versions of military space opera. Stories such as David Sherman and Dan Cragg's StarFist series became increasingly common.[citation needed] Yobmod (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cole and the "first space opera"

Two problems with paragraph 4 of the "History of space opera" section: First, Cole's novel isn't really "generally considered" to be the first space opera. Bleiler calls it that, and while his opinion should carry considerable weight, a quick search of Google (and of my memory and my copy of the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction) yield only three other associations of the novel with the "space opera" label. It might be more prudent to cite comments by John Clute and Brian Stableford in ESF entries (in "Cole, Robert W(illiam)," p. 242; and "Space Opera," pp. 1138-39 respectively) alongside Bleiler's. (But note Stableford's caution about retrospective application of the term.) By far the most frequently cited candidate for the first space opera is The Skylark of Space. Second, the last sentence of the paragraph, linking Cole's novel with future-war and Wellsian SF, is either OR or in need of a citation of source(s). It's a conclusion, and if it comes from a recognized authority or commentator, that needs to be made explicit. RLetson (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skylarking about space opera

Anyone who calls Skylark of Space a "space opera" either hasn't read it or has retrospectively gotten it mixed up with Smith's later material (e.g. his Lensman novels). Skylark really offered nothing new that wasn't amply represented in the earlier sf literature of the 19th and earlier 20th century. There's a genius scientist who invents a spaceship, his pal, their girlfriends, and an almost-equal genius with an amoral lust for power. There's some Earthbound intrigue involving an international corporation (the time of the story isn't stated, but is clearly meant to be no more than a couple of years in the future from 1928). There are a few spaceflights, with minimal incident and no encounter with other spacefarers. Finally, there's a planet-bound adventure story in the Barsoom mode, though without even slight dramatic tension, since the heroes so completely outgun their adversaries that the only question is how long it will take them to reduce the enemy civilization to rubble. None of this is really the stuff of space opera; it's not even a 'spaceship yarn' in any but the broadest sense, as so little of it actually takes place in space. Stories about geniuses inventing spaceships and traveling to distant planets were already commonplace by the time of Skylark, and Smith really didn't create anything new in this story. RandomCritic (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While this matches my (very old) memories of Skylark, WP culture insists (often tiresomely) that it's the weight of secondary-source opinion that counts. Find an authority or two to support the notion that Skylark isn't really space opera and insert same. (And someone should root around n the literature and take a census of opinion on what the first space opera might be.) BTW, what about the rest of the Skylark sequence, which started appearing in 1930? RLetson (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of category

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_9#Category:Space_operas: Category:Space operas was deleted in October. I think it was a bad move, and that the category should be restored. Comments? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 09:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vote at the time, but seem to remember that deletion was done due to the category being a complete mess, with mostly articles that had no citations for being SO. So in theory, recreating the cat should not have these problems, if someone is willing to patrol it, and is willing to put up with the edit warring against editors who want it to contain every SF TV programm or music album in existance. I find categories to be 100% useless, and they almost always contain more disinformation than information. If the category is kept only to those that have citations in the article, it would be what, 4 articles in size? What's the point? What are the arguments against the list, that an be cited in situ, as has been done?Yobmod (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Yobmod (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that we need to patrol the category, but an overloaded category should be cleaned by cleaning up, not by deletion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Battlestar Galactica

Our current definition of a space opera is:

"Space opera is a subgenre of speculative fiction or science fiction that emphasizes romantic, often melodramatic adventure, set mainly or entirely in space, generally involving conflict between opponents possessing powerful (and sometimes quite fanciful) technologies and abilities. Perhaps the most significant trait of space opera is that settings, characters, battles, powers, and themes tend to be very large-scale."

I edited Battlestar Galactica out from the list of examples and got reverted, on the grounds that it has a cite. However, I just can't see how it belongs here. Sure, the NYT used the phrase to describe it... but I don't see how the show matches the description we use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.185.137 (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strangehorizons, an award-winning SF site also uses the term for BSG, as do other sources that can be expected to have some knowledge of genre definitions (i added 2 more). Your opinion that is not SO is contradicted by professionals that write about SF, which is why i reverted. I don't watch the show, so it is entirely possible what you say is true, however the opposite position is verifiable. The most likely problem is that our definition is too narrow, and does not reflect how the term is really used. (From description of the show, it seems to fit melodrama set in space with powerful tech at least, and the near extirmination of the human race in a space war sounds large scale.)Yobmod (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've only seen enough of BSG to decide not to watch more of it, and enough to findit odd to hear it called space opera--it's more like anti-space opera. Of course, it's an old writer's trick to take a genre's defining elements and change something crucial and "reinvent" (or pervert or evert or satirize) it, and insofar as the new BSG is built on the chassis of the old, genuinely space-operatic BSG, it is a kind of space opera, but with the emotional polarity reversed. In any case, if knowledgeable commentators are calling the new BSG "space opera," then by Wiki standards it can be included here. The repackaged BSG is, by the way, one of the few examples of something that might usefully and accurately be called "space opera noir." Which is still not a separate genre. I've added my two cents' worth on that term over at the "Space Opera Noir" Talk page. RLetson (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look again at that definition. New BSG is "romantic" in that it's fantasy and highly imaginative. It's certainly very dramatic, so much so that one man's drama could be another man's melodrama. It is set primarily in space. The conflict is between two sides for the most part and advanced technology exists. And many of the battles in the series have depicted hundreds of ships firing at each other and entire planets being laid waste. New BSG meets the written definition of space opera, such as it is. In fact, it better meets the criteria for the genre more widely knowm as "new space opera", which sounds like it's the same thing as the less well known term "space opera noir". I suggested that new space opera was so different from space opera that it should be its own category. However, it really is part and parcel of space opera, just the modern, more mature, imaginative, and serious version of it. DanQuigley 04:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanQuigley (talk • contribs)

I think the problem is that as editors we want the definitions to define the genre and be definitive, whereas they can only make an imprecise description of how the term is used. Clearly the new BSG is very different from the original BSG, and in a perfect world this would be reflected in ther terms SF writers use to describe them, but the sources show it simply isn't. New space opera may be entirely different in form, but all the sources use it as a subtype of SO, therefore it is correct to call any New SO (or SO noir) simply Space opera or science fiction. No one would say New BSG should not be included in a list of SF, because SO is clearly a subtype of that too. Yobmod (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of Space opera noir, the consensus was to redirect that page, if not delete it, as it is not a notable term. The only 2 sources from that page i'll put here, in case it becomes more popular in the future: [7], [8]. They just usage as a descriptor, not a common term.Yobmod (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star blazers

I just removed a bunch of uncited examples. This one nearly fooled me, as it had cites, but neither mention SO at all (one is a fan page for the series and other is under construction). If anyone wants it back in, it needs a real citation to a RS that calls it SO.

Anime space operas

There is no denying there are anime spae operas. Here's a bunch of references: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Hope this is enough proof and citation material :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring category space opera

I am restoring Category:Space opera (see why it was deleted). Now, with improvement in references, there should be no problem with filling this category with properly referenced examples. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List --> separate

I'M think that now the list is entirely cited and getting longer, with many subsection, it is worth moving it back to its own article. Any objections?YobMod 09:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for additions to the literature list

I recommend adding Vernor Vinge's "Zones of Thought" books (A Fire Upon the Deep and A Deepness in the Sky) and Dan Simmons' "Hyperion" books to the literature list. Both of these series won Hugo Awards (two in Vinge's case), and are popular exemplars of the "New Space Opera" movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.28.52 (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEBOLD - but please provide references as well. We try to avoid the situation from few years back when we had every second sci-fi novel classified as space opera :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pejorative?/POV?

The main article refers to Space Opera as "pejorative" several times. It (correctly) attributes this usage/definition to Bob Tucker: "the hacky, grinding, stinking, outworn space-ship yarn, or world-saving [story] for that matter." I have no objection to this. But it also claims it was used that way into the 1970s. While I'm not famous like Tucker, I have been a fan since the mid-1960s, and I can say that people did not consider it strongly pejorative when used about, e.g., the Lensman series. Doc Smith's writing was perhaps not up to the standards of the best of modern SF, but for its time it was pretty good stuff, and I can still enjoy the Lensman and Skylark sagas.

So, here's a first try at an alternate approach:

Space opera was coined by analogy with horse opera, a cliched Western movie (especially one that depicted the cowboy singing to his horse). A space opera is a Western, except that the hero rides a spaceship instead of a horse and uses a raygun instead of a six-shooter. But in many space operas there is an extra element: grandeur. A "horse opera" western is often set in a single small town, or a cluster of nearby ranches. But Space Opera often finds even a galaxy confining. Perhaps the best example of this is the Lensman series, which spans two galaxies and four generations.

"Space opera" was originally a pejorative term for the worst, "really bad" SF. (insert Bob Tucker definition and reference) Over the years, it has come to mean "colorful, dramatic, large-scale science fiction adventure, competently and sometimes beautifully written, usually focused on a sympathetic, heroic central character and plot action and usually set in the relatively distant future and in space or on other worlds characteristically optimistic in tone. It often deals with war, piracy, military virtues and very large-scale action, large stakes." (insert ref). This change in meaning began in the 1960s, became widely accepted during the 1970s, so that "Space opera" includes the Star Wars saga, the Miles Vorkosigan Saga by Lois McMaster Bujold, and the Familias Regnant universe and Vatta's War series by Elizabeth Moon. All of these include space battles, often with multiple ships on each side, deeds of derring do, and a definite hero.

Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the problem would be with the article's current treatment of the shifting connotation of "space opera." There might be some debate about exactly when it became less of a pejorative, but at least the 1970s time frame has a source. If there are strongly competing (and sourced) possibilities, they could be worked into the article as alternative views, but otherwise that part of the account strikes me as being pretty reasonable. RLetson (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to source the assertions of changing meaning, just as Tucker's original definition is properly sourced. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I believe the Tucker's original definition is sourced to content I added... it seemed pretty reliable. Remember: WP:NOR and WP:V :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of sources for markers of shifting meaning discussed in our book The Space Opera Renaissance. (I'm not going to get involved in the specifics of this.) --Pleasantville (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC) aka Kathryn Cramer[reply]

Ha, nice to meet one of the coeditors of the book I am citing here :) Please, feel free to correct any errors I might have made if I misunderstood something when citing your intro. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never got a copy of Renaissance, Kathryn. Could you please give us some specific data as to what you consider to be those markers of shifting meaning? We do need cites. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show me those "markers of shifting meaning" in a Google search. I don't like the way the article currently tries to make it sound that everyone agrees today that space opera is good SF. Perhaps some group of people (who?) do, but when I hear it today it is is always pejorative, meaning "cliché entertainment SF" or "action stories in a SF setting". (I'm not part of any odd fandom fraction; just an SF reader since the mid 1980s ... meaning I think what I read and hear is fairly representative.) JöG (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pleasantville is one of the SF field's foremost experts on space opera, J.Grahn, not "part of any odd fandom fraction". That doesn't exempt this article from the need for properly formatted cites, of course; but she knows whereof she speaks. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If an on-line source is needed (though good old dead trees ought to suffice), Hartwell & Cramer's "How Shit Became Shinola" (the first item on the external links list) provides a lucid overview of how the term's connotation changed. How much detail is needed to support the point (which is, in any case, not really controversial)? RLetson (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romance

Romance is not central to space or horse opera. The romantic element at least into the 1960s seldom if ever got beyond the me Tarzan you Jane level. Not much kissing in Lensman, Foundation or even Carter of Mars. Star Trek and Star Wars have a bit more but the romance is a sub-plot. "I am your father' is the big line not "you are my sister". Going boldly forth is central messing around with green skinned girls isn't. To put romance at the head of this genres tropes is inaccurate and distorts the meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitpyck (talk • contribs) 07:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only place "romance" or "romantic" appear in the article are in "planetary romance" and in the phrase "romantic, often melodramatic adventure." Both cases refer to the literary tradition of "romance" that goes back to the middle ages: a tale of adventure, usually with an exotic setting and extravagant action. The "romance novel" or the "romantic comedy" about courting and love and such are different genres. RLetson (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy

Editor Salmanazar added to the lede section a paragraph on the origins of the term that duplicates material that is already in the "Changing definition" section. I'm hestiant to simply cut the newly-added material--the question is, does this information needs to be in the first section, or should it remain part of the explanation of the how the sense of the term shifted? What is gained by putting the origins information up front? RLetson (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A foolish duplication on my part and one that I've remedied! Salmanazar (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just make sure that all the new claims are in the body; the lead should only repeat the claims from the article - it should not introduce new material. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Venereal"?

In the section "Definitions by Contrast" might not "Venusian" be a better word than "venereal" in the following sentence?: 

In this view, the Martian, Venereal, and lunar-setting stories of Edgar Rice Burroughs

I know "venereal" has it's etymological roots in the word "Venus" but I've never heard it used in reference to the planet. Only sexual diseases. I'm no expert on them, you understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.10.102.252 (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and fix it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "The Wave Motion Web Page". desslok.com. Retrieved 2009-03-10.
  2. ^ "Starlog Magazine, June 1980". starlog.com. Retrieved 2009-03-10.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Space_opera&oldid=490368743"