SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
Members' Chat
>
What do you look for in Space Opera?
I haven't really read any unless you count Across the Universe. But I love star trek so Im def interested in finding some good ones to read for the new year :)
Has anyone watched Brandon Sanderson 2013 Lectures from Writing about Dragons dot com. I think he helped a lot with clearing things up. However I think which ever way the Author classifies his work or how each individual reader sees it should be how its classified. Also a lot of writers combine the two. On the fantasy side some people will say Martin writes Epics others will say he rights Heroic Fantasy in reality its both with a strong lead towards Epic.
I'd love to hear about Space operas!
:: sits down and waits patiently for others::
Space Opera. Hmm... In space, no one can hear you sing.
Space opera has to have action and drama -- that's the opera part of it. It must necessarily take place off of earth, although not necessarily only in outer space. There is a large-stage big-event quality to the work. These are not novels about the romantic complications of two people who just happen to live on a suborbital space station. There have to be big issues, planets to save, worlds to conquer.And that brings us to mil-SF. The ur-novel of this subgenrelet is STARSHIP TROOPERS. Military matters are positively presented, in an SF setting. (This is also how you would define military action-adventure only taking place in Iraq or whatever.) In theory a mil-SF novel would not have to be a space opera, but if you want to see all that military hardware going bang then inevitably it does overlap quite a lot.
@Chakara -- Funny you should mention Brandon Sanderson's lectures. I literally wasted my last weekend watching all of them.He brought up some of the differences between Military Sci-Fi and Space Opera. I really hadn't thought much about it.
It's what prompted this very question!
I'm a pretty big Anime/Mecha/Robotech fan and those seem to cross all over Military SciFi and Space Opera.
I also just read Levithan Wakes. While that story and plot is almost solely wrapped around a big miltary movement and inter-soloar system war -- it really feels more Space Opera-y to me.
So let's hear it! What do you guys consider Space Opera? What do you want from your Space Operas?
@Francis -- Roflmao.
Space Opera is generally not burdened with realistic technology, and the core story could generally work well even with the scientific elements removed.
The early Vorkosigan novels by Lois Bujold are a good example of space opera. THE VOR GAME is perfect that way. Or THE RISEN EMPIRE, by Scott Westerfeld.
I second Vorkosigan books. (Not all. Some are comedies of manners, but those are late ones.)Also Michael Flynn's Spiral Arm series: The January Dancer, Up Jim River, In the Lion's Mouth, and On the Razor's Edge
I think we need to look at who writes each kind of fiction, and we will learn a lot about what the genres are. There actually isn't that much overlap. Authors typically write to their own skillset. Action-packed military sci fi usually doesn't have great character development, high-concept themes, and "artistic" writing. That's space opera territory. Military writers want to get you in and out with as much of a thrill as possible, give you your fix and have you eager for the next installment. Exceptions to this rule (those who transcend genres) would be authors such as Heinlein, Scalzi, David Weber, and a few others.(ps. I would also add "hard SF" to the list)
Space Opera writers: Lois Bujold, Peter F. Hamilton, Alastair Reynolds, Stephen Baxter, Anne McAffrey, Elizabeth Moon, George Lucas, John Scalzi... The list is HUGE.
Military Sci-fi: David Weber (Honorverse), Jack Campbell, John Ringo, Ian Douglas, Mike Shepherd, etc. See the theme here? All are focused on primary characters and there is a much higher action/page ratio.
Space opera, as Jonathan stated, isn't as concerned with the technical aspects of how technology works. It's more focused on big themes, has an epic feel, and generally has less action (space battles, etc). They can be adventurous and imaginative. They have a HUGE cast of characters, often.
The third category I name is hard sci-fi, and that is for stories with a smaller scope, with technology that we can pretty much imagine really developing, good character development but not as much action.
Space opera and Mil-SF definitely overlap, but there are distinct examples of each.In fact, the book that's called the first true space opera, E.E. "Doc" Smith's The Skylark of Space is not Mil-SF at all. I would also consider Larry Niven's Protector to be Space Opera, as well, that follows a similar story with just a few characters. (Whereas I would ascribe Ringworld primarily to the Planetary Romance subgenre that would include Burrough's Barsoom novels and Herbert's Dune.)
For me, Space Opera has to be epic, widescreen adventure that either takes place primarily in space or interplanetary travel is a very important aspect of the story.
A lot of Military SF uses these same tropes but it doesn't have to. It's about the military experience first and everything else second. It's just that "epic" lends itself to intergalactic battles, but Mil-SF doesn't necessarily have to be epic or occur off-planet. Hardwired by Walter Jon Williams is Earthbound Mil-SF that's also cyberpunk, while Harry Turtledove's World War series is also Alternate History. Captain America is pretty good Mil-SF, too.
If you want to dip your toe into the space opera pond you could do worse than Stephen Donaldson's Gap series.Grand and epic in scale,combines a bleak vision of the future with flawed and dark characters.well worth a look.
I do love the Gap series, though the science doesn't really work for me.
Francis wrote: "I do love the Gap series, though the science doesn't really work for me."yep,but that's the thing i like about space opera..the science doesn't matter.i read this stuff purely for the entertainment value and suspend all my qualms about the physics.i get my hard Sci fi fix from people like Alistair Reynolds etc
Good stuff! I want to steer this conversation a lil bit. Oh noes!I'm more curious about what YOU look for and enjoy in Space Opera.
The exhaustive lists of what is and isn't Space Opera is great, but I'm more curious about what makes you pick one up off the bookshelf?
--What do you enjoy about them?
--What kinds of stories, characters, plot elements you like to read about, can't get enough of, want to see more of.
You know, the more subjective stuff. :)
Trike kinda got around to it. Stuff more like this :)
"For me, Space Opera has to be epic, widescreen adventure that either takes place primarily in space or interplanetary travel is a very important aspect of the story."
I'm a sucker for a heroine, as long she doesn't scream fantasy-league stereotype. Just finished The Girls From Alcyone which may qualify as space opera, and that tread awfully close to the uber-awesome threshold.Mostly, though, it's just finding something that stands out as different.
James wrote: "Good stuff! I want to steer this conversation a lil bit. Oh noes!I'm more curious about what YOU look for and enjoy in Space Opera.
The exhaustive lists of what is and isn't Space Opera is great..."
To expand on my Spiral Arm recommendation: I like it because it has a wonderful depth of history (a lot of which are subtle allusions), an intricate and adventurous plot, a far-faring setting, and great characters.
I think Firefly + Serenity is the perfect Space Opera for me. There's a ton of stuff going on in that world and while the focus is primarily on those nine characters, their lives and adventures hook directly into a much larger story that involves everything from a civil war to human experimentation to genocide... with all the conspiracies that go with it.I'd love to find another series (literature or TV) that replicates that sort of thing, with the same quality of writing. It needs more than just cool characters doing badass stuff, they need to be smart and witty and each of them have their own point of view. All things that are hard to find.
James wrote: "Good stuff! I want to steer this conversation a lil bit. Oh noes!I'm more curious about what YOU look for and enjoy in Space Opera.
The exhaustive lists of what is and isn't Space Opera is great..."
for me space opera is all about epic storylines,great characters etc..you know the type of thing,galactic civilizations in peril,huge odds stacked against the protagonists.also focusing on character detail and flaws and the overcoming of all these obstacles.I'd also include series like Dan Simmons Hyperion and even Dune may squeeze onto the list.oh and aliens of course,they always help
Space opera, to me, has a grander focus. It is about conflict or intrigue on a large scale, not simply in a military sense but also in a political and personal sense. You might have scheming politicians plotting war, but they will also have personal vendettas to wage and treachery to implement.Military sci-fi has a much more military focus in my mind. It's about combat and strategy. Admittedly, it can have an intensely personal focus (e.g., a story around a single infantry fighter) but it can also have a much broader focus (e.g., a campaign against an opposing world). But the focus is on military matters.
I do think there is some serious overlap, but most of the time, I think it's possible to identify which of the two sub-genres is more strongly present in a book.
For me, something has to reach out and grab me in terms of the book description - usually something to do with the characters and the situations they are put in. Books about alien invasions are a dime a dozen - what makes yours DIFFERENT? is what I want to know. Nifty cover art helps too - it grabs my initial attention, then I read the blurb on the back.
1. Awesome cover that goes well with the story2. Lots and Lots of action
3. Politics or drama etc
My example of a good space opera novel is the Deathstalker series by Simon R Green,
bumped in the Deathstalker Legacy in 2007, fell in love with it. then read the other titles later, but man, i think it was the best of the whole series.
You should remember that unless a work is self-published, the author gets zero input at all on the cover design or image. (Unless they're Stephen King, OK.) Publishers have art departments to make covers, and these artists may or may not even read the ms.
Mmm, depends on what you mean. If a book is self-published, then who chose the cover image? The author, and one would hope that she selected it with the work in mind. However! There is a reason why big publishers have art directors. The author frequently does not know art better than her dog; her idea of a great cover might be horrible. The art director is paid to keep an eye on market trends, on what's going in in the genre, even to understand what colors are hot this year. When you consider that the first thing the buyer sees of the work is the cover, then you can understand that the cover image and design is crucial.
I am in fact a fair artist. I have tried more than once to paint a cover image. Always a flop! I am far a better writer than I am a painter. I do better with photography, taking a picture to be turned into a cover, but clearly this is not my core skill.
getting out notebook to add suggestions.
An author associated with a mainline publisher does work directly with the graphic design artist and may suggest and discuss options regarding not only cover design, but also the spine and backmatter design and print content as well.He/she must sign-off on the final decision; usually a choice of three final design options.
Mubbles wrote: "yep,but that's the thing i like about space opera..the science doesn't matter.i read this stuff purely for the entertainment value and suspend all my qualms about the physics.i get my hard Sci fi fix from people like Alistair Reynolds etc..."I think the science does matter, or it's not science-fiction. Alastair Reynolds is regarded as a writer of space opera (which also happens to be hard sci-fi). I agree that it's all about grand, character-driven stories with epic stakes.
Eh, Jim? I never had that, at any point in my publication life. The folks at Tor did send me a poster of my book cover, however.
Trike wrote: "I think Firefly + Serenity is the perfect Space Opera for me. [...] I'd love to find another series (literature or TV) that replicates that sort of thing."I grew up watching the BBC series Blake's 7, which is similar to Firefly in a lot of ways (except when it came to budgets! Don't expect any wonderful special effects). I confess that I'm a writer of space opera; and another fan of Mal Reynolds and his crew.
I did not like Firefly, I just couldn't get into it. And this is coming from a Star Trek fan. I loved Battlestar Galactica the best. That was space opera at its finest!
James wrote: "I see a lot of people classify Old Man's War as Space Opera masquerading as Military Sci-Fi. (While Scalzi claims it is Military Sci-Fi)."I think there is some overlap in the categories, which is what makes it confusing.
Many of the books I consider at least partially space opera have military aspects. I look for human relationships to be developed in a space opera, not just military campaigns or scientific discovery. I also consider a certain amount of real life drama to be part of space opera, all of the sad, ridiculous, frustrating and funny stuff that comes from interacting with humans. I consider the Miles Vorkosigan books by Lois McMaster Bujold to be largely space opera. Some of the books take place on the planet, but many of them are largely space adventure. Firefly/Serenity is awesome space opera, as are Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Pohl's Gateway. Many or some of the Jack McDevitt, Alistair Reynolds, Allen Steele, Arthur C. Clarke, Heinlein books are space opera. I don't really consider Ender's Game or Dune to be space opera, but excellent sci-fi, but plenty of folks would consider them both space opera. I would say many of the Scalzi books have elements of both military sci-fi and space opera, no need for them to fall in only one category. I really think the definitions of sub-genre's in sci-fi have nebulous edges and lots of overlap, and that's OK with me.
Good points, Judy. I guess much of my leisure "likes" are good old, mostly not-have-to-think Space Opera. Much more enjoyable than textbooks.
Anton wrote: "I did not like Firefly, I just couldn't get into it. And this is coming from a Star Trek fan. I loved Battlestar Galactica the best. That was space opera at its finest!"One sec, I'll go get the feathers while the tar is heating up.
Trike wrote: "One sec, I'll go get the feathers while the tar is heating up..."Well, the show wasn't a hit with critics and was cancelled mid-series. Anything with a cult following will have a lot of people scratching their heads and wondering what all the fuss is about. I suppose you could say that about a lot of sci-fi.
A space opera, like a soap opera, is not intended to be a serious, accurate portrayal of real-life; although a good production of either will include an abundance of real-life scenarios.Space operas are primararily created to entertain and succeed commercially. Therefore, those looking for total technical and/or scientific accuracy may be disappointed. Those looking for pure entertainment with no deference to technology or science may be better off watching soap operas and reading romance novels.
Jim wrote: "A space opera, like a soap opera, is not intended to be a serious, accurate portrayal of real-life; although a good production of either will include an abundance of real-life scenarios.Space ope..."
Nonsense. Soap operas and romance novels, being bound to the mundane, can't hit the heights of excitement that space opera is capable of.
And excitement is entertaining.
Mary wrote: "Jim wrote: "A space opera, like a soap opera, is not intended to be a serious, accurate portrayal of real-life; although a good production of either will include an abundance of real-life scenarios..."My reference was aimed at the technology geeks who constantly criticize a space opera that may occasionally reference or utilize a technology that is currently considered by scientists to be impossible or even ridiculous.
My son is one of them; he drives me crazy when we are watching a space opera together.
Jim wrote: "My reference was aimed at the technology geeks who constantly criticize a space opera that may occasionally reference or utilize a technology that is currently considered by scientists to be impossible or even ridiculous."Suspension of disbelief is tricky stuff, and if you can't do it, you can't do it.
And there are a lot of triggers. One of my sisters is in Society for Creative Anachronism and also does Victorian era, and is frequently thrown out by hair styles and clothes (and heaven help you if the story claims that corsets are ordeals). My father will be thrown out of your military story if they act like they have unlimited ammunition. I tend to choke on political and moral philosophy, wherein the characters of a very different era think like modern Americans (and often a selected group).
Steph wrote: "I think the science does matter, or it's not science-fiction."This isn't exactly on topic, but I think it brings up an interesting point. I agree with this sentiment. But I'm not sure bookshelves at stores do.
For me, Space Opera is basically Fantasy in space. You know, like Star Wars.
Your magic tends to be tech. But it's not really important how that tech works, just that it does in a believable manner, that may/may not follow a strict ruleset (Doesn't this all of a sudden sound a lot like magic?)
For Hard SciFi peeps, that isn't enough. I get that.
I also think for Military SciFi, it isn't enough.
Hard SciFi needs tech based on probable future of science or theoretical science.
In a similar way, Military SciFi needs its weapons tech to be based on... I dunno, I'm not military SciFi guy, but for them future weaponry needs to be real in the same way Future tech is real for Hard SciFi fans.
For me, I don't need this.
I need the adventure. I need the character relationships (I don't mean "soap opera" -- I mean, unless you think Star Wars is a soap opera -- which you might (I can see an argument for this)). I need the new settings, or old settings re-envisioned anew.
But I also need the new ideas of a probable future. To me, this is where most SciFi stories fall into what is typically referred to as SciFi. (albeit very soft SciFi).
A tale that was a swashbuckling adventure set on the high seas becomes a Space Opera simply by setting it in space and cruising the galaxy in a different kind of warship.
I find that interesting. The genre is based more on setting than it is story.
For me, when I think of Space Opera, what I'm looking for is definitely more along the lines of the adventure genre.
James wrote: "Steph wrote: "I think the science does matter, or it's not science-fiction."This isn't exactly on topic, but I think it brings up an interesting point. I agree with this sentiment. But I'm not su..."
You raise some excellent points.
Space operas, like most other science fiction, provide a form of escapism.
This includes military sci-fi. No one who actually experienced war wishes to view a totally realistic portrayal of combat. They don't have to watch it on the big or small screen; after all, they saw the play.
Space Battle scenes = space opera. Simple as that I think. A large portion of the story takes place in ships, and in space, and the settings take place on several planets.
James wrote: "...A tale that was a swashbuckling adventure set on the high seas becomes a Space Opera simply by setting it in space and cruising the galaxy in a different kind of warship..."A swashbuckling adventure in space. I think that defines space opera! My personal preference is for the sci-fi to be hard(ish) - I particularly like what Alastair Reynolds is doing with the genre, for example.
I think there has to be conflict, but not necessarily grand battle scenes. That's where military sci-fi comes in.
Alastair Reynolds' stories about future adventures in outer space are written very intelligently and realistically. Maybe the fact that he has a PhD in physics and astronomy has something to do with it.What I like most about his writing is the consistency from one story to another. The physical make-up of his imaginary universe tends to remain constant.
Frustrated, aspiring authors may find some consolation in knowing that, although Mr. Reynolds started writing in 1991, all of his submissions were rejected by mainline publishers until "Byrd Land Six" was published in 1995.
Jim wrote: Frustrated, aspiring authors may find some consolation in knowing that, although Mr. Reynolds started writing in 1991, all of his submissions were rejected by mainline publishers until "Byrd Land Six" was published in 1995.
Another example of the myopia that seems to afflict most publishers.
Another example of the myopia that seems to afflict most publishers.
I like my space opera full of bold (and often backstabbing) characters, BDOs (big dumb objects), threats that can annihilate entire worlds/civilizations, a sense of mystery, portrayal of a galaxy that is ancient like a cobwebbed filled attic of an old mansion, and a galaxy full of creepy crawly horrors (and friends) yet to be discovered.
Jim wrote: "Alastair Reynolds' stories about future adventures in outer space are written very intelligently and realistically. Maybe the fact that he has a PhD in physics and astronomy has something to do wit..."There seem to be so many examples of this sort of thing that one can't help but wonder what goes on in their heads.
Neal wrote: "I like my space opera full of bold (and often backstabbing) characters, BDOs (big dumb objects), threats that can annihilate entire worlds/civilizations, a sense of mystery, portrayal of a galaxy t..."Ah, the Big Dumb Object. I particularly like the title one of Michael Flynn's The January Dancer -- even if we learn in due course a few things about it that don't fit the pattern.
L.G. wrote: "Jim wrote: "Alastair Reynolds' stories about future adventures in outer space are written very intelligently and realistically. Maybe the fact that he has a PhD in physics and astronomy has somethi..."It is difficult to determine what goes on inside anyone's head; but in the case of a mainline publisher and/or author today, I think they may focus upon subject matter and style that caters to, or at least attracts, readers who prefer paperback or hardcover books rather than an e-Book download.
Even though production costs are significantly less for e-books, the mainline publisher's profit margin and the author's royalty is significantly more for paperback and hardcover sales.
The average author's royalty from an e-book sale is $1.43 compared to $2.42 from a paperback sale.
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The January Dancer (other topics)The Girls From Alcyone (other topics)
The Skylark of Space (other topics)
Protector (other topics)
Ringworld (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Michael Flynn (other topics)Lois McMaster Bujold (other topics)
Michael Flynn (other topics)
--What do you look for in the genre?
--What makes something definitively Space Opera to you?
It seems to me there are two branches of Sci-Fi that heavily overlap here, but... um, how to put this delicately -- fans of one genre would murder you for mislabeling theirs with the wrong genre. :)
1) Space Opera
2) Military Sci-Fi
Seem very close to me.
I see a lot of people classify Old Man's War as Space Opera masquerading as Military Sci-Fi. (While Scalzi claims it is Military Sci-Fi).
It got me to wondering:
--What makes these different for you, as a reader?