Why is mech often considered separate from sci-fi?

[rocklobster]

Isn't calling something "mech/sci-fi" redundant? I can understand when it's more fantasy-based, like say Escaflowne .

[Joshua Christopher]

Isn't calling something "mech/sci-fi" redundant? I can understand when it's more fantasy-based, like say Escaflowne .

Come on, dude, how rooted in science is something by Go Nagai?

[The Last Bard]

But if you think about it, isn't there a big difference between Stars Wars and Robotech?

[battletech]

Mech is short for mechanical. The defination for mechanical is adj. of or pertaning to machinary or tools. A tank is a mech. To say mech/scifi is not redundant.

[Hitokiri]

Mech can be considered sci-fi.

Broadly speaking, the science fiction genre is concerned with the effects of science or technology on society or the characters. These effects may be epic in scope, or personal. The definitive elements may be imagined or rooted in reality, offering many variations such as the imagined effect of real science, the effect of imaginary technology on present day society, or the effect of imagined science on some imaginary society.

However, I think we need to know what seperates a series like Outlaw Star with Evangelion so therefore, Mech is thrown in. That and Mech is a fundemental element in the world of animation.

[Blitzkrieg1701]

But you wouldn't call something spaceship/sci-fi, so why single out mechs?

[creed4]

I think because Mech is a sub gonra(sp?)

[Esoteric]

Hmm, well the word 'mech' can theoretically encompass many things, but has come to mean usually only one. Think about it, when someone mentions a mech series, if you're familiar with the genre you more or less know what to expect. Giant Robots! And true, a tank is a mech, but a story about tanks wouldn't be classified as sci-fi now, would it? They exist. Giant robots (the fodder of most mech series) don't, hence the sci-fi classification. That's my uneducated take.

Oh, and if space ships developed their own unique genre of story such as mechs have, then I don't see why there wouldn't be a spaceship/sci-fi classification.

[mitsuki lover]

It would depend on what you call mech though.For example would the Shaft on Geneshaft be considered a type of mech?I ask since Geneshaft is considered
Sci Fi.
Also Dual has Sci Fi elements since it is set mainly in a Parallel World and is about
Parallel Worlds,a common subject in Sci Fi.On the other hand what about a series like Big O or Sakura Wars where the mechs are more primitive?

[Esoteric]

GeneShaft...there was a wierd anime. I must confess I haven't seen it all the way through. That's a hard one to call, because although there is a mech in it, the rings seemed to be the center of the story.

Dual is different because it merges two popular subgenres of anime (mecha and harem). Big O is a blend as well, mech/noir/steam punk? Yeesh, no wonder this is topic of discussion...I'm getting confused just thinking about it!

[ClosetOtaku]

I wouldn't consider "Mech" and "Sci-Fi" in the same category, unless perhaps you were talking about the novel (not the movie) Starship Troopers. Even then, that was just human-sized mechanized personal body armor, not gargantuan stylized samurai.

"Mech" assumes a world where battle robots dominate the landscape. However, most anyone familiar with engineering, science, and the military will tell you such behemoths would take immense power to operate and be impractical in tactical operations, to say nothing of the silly weaponry. The trend in all warfare has been increasingly "if you can see it, you can kill it", and I don't see mechs hiding behind trees. In an age of precision munitions and tactical nuclear weapons, mechs are senseless.

Nope, I'd consider mechs "fantasy". Good sci-fi would have nothing to do with them.

[Emanku]

And you could see the Death Star hiding behind trees?

The majority of science fiction isn't realistic and the 'Mech' genre is just a branch off of that less realistic side to sci-fi. None of us relly know what the future will bring, so it's pretty hard to judge different futuristic technologies based on realism.

Sci-fi has become such a broad term that labeling something as just 'Sci-Fi' isn't very descriptive. Same with the term 'Fantasy'.

Does a fantasy story have elves, orcs and dwarves? Maybe. Does it have magic? Maybe. Is it set in the past? Maybe. Present? Maybe? I've read several that're set hundreds or thousands of years in the future but have less advanced technology than is available today.

Does a sci-fi story have spaceships? Sometimes. Aliens? Some of them do. Giant battling robots? There're sometimes those. Is it set 25 years in the future? Maybe. How about 4000? That's a possibility too. Does it focus on genetic mutation? It could. Cloning? Maybe. Are there humans in it? There doesn't have to be.

Get my meaning? Classifying something as mech/sci-fi is just a bit more descriptive than either term would be alone.

[ClosetOtaku]

I think good sci-fi is plausible -- well-reasoned, logical extensions of what is scientifically possible (or projected to be possible). A lot of the Cyberpunk movement, for example, was in reaction to the very heady (and not so plausible) themes found in sci-fi of the 50s and 60s.

Mech seems to be a peculiar branch of fiction that is particularly popular in Japan, and I suspect the attraction has as much to do with culture as anything else. In my mind, though, it is certainly less rigorous than most modern sci-fi.

Star Wars was space opera at its finest (well, at least the original trilogy before all the revisionism and prequels), but I don't consider it particularly decent science fiction.

So, I guess I'm defending a concept of a purer form of science fiction that resists being thrown in the heap with all the other forms of worlds-that-aren't, Mech being one of them. There are those who just lump it all, throw in the dwarves and elves, and wind up with an indiscernible mess. If I'm going to the trouble of defining what science fiction "is", then I would have to leave out Mech -- in my mind (and perhaps my mind alone), it doesn't rise to the level of science fiction as I would define it.

[uc pseudonym]

I agree with ClosetOtaku that most mech anime aren't really science fiction. In fact, it is unfortunate that most people associate anything that has to do with space or aliens as science fiction, as most of it is not. The first science fiction anime title that comes to mind is Ghost in the Shell. It takes current technological trends and postulates possible advancements that, while not necessarily existant, are scientifically plausible.

And while Star Wars is almost the defining science fantasy title, you must admit that the Death Star only needs to hide in space, which is so massive as to make most planets nearly impossible to find.

I'd also like to reiterate a good point:

The trend in all warfare has been increasingly "if you can see it, you can kill it", and I don't see mechs hiding behind trees.

Or, in other words, offensive technology is advancing much faster than defensive technology. Armor does some good against swords, but much less against bullets and practically none against your average bomber. The future of combat is stealth, not defenses (unless "shields" somehow become technically possible).

I would add several other things: it makes no sense to make robots that are shaped like human beings. Not only is the design weak and easily toppled, its movement capabilities are in many ways limited. A tank-like machine equipped with the same weapons as a mech would be far superior. The only reason mechs are human-shaped is because this makes it easier for viewers to relate to them, as they seem more "human." Thus the heart of the genre isn't science.

Consider something else: how many mech anime do you know that have story elements beyond science? Full Metal Panic has the Lambda Driver, for instance. I mention this only because I think it illustrates how the genre drifts from science.

[Emanku]

I think sci-fi and fantasy have become very generalized terms because of their convenience. It just wouldn't be practical for a library or video store to have a section on, say, 'Futuristic war stories not quite realistic enough to be science fiction because some of the weapons in it aren't practical'.

Nitpicking on the exact meaning of certain terms used to classify fictional materials seems like a waste of time to me. Each one is (or should be) unique, with its own, individual attributes. Determining the exact classification for them that everyone can agree on would be extremely difficult, not to mention confusing. (As a reference, I'd like to point out the classification system of the Gnomes in the Dragon Lance series, to anyone who knows about them)

[uc pseudonym]

You make a legitimate point in terms of general classification. However, I would argue that being specific about terms isn't really nitpicking - it says fairly general things about a genre and doesn't require in-depth analysis. I like labels that communicate things about a story. If "science fiction" covers an extremely broad scope of fiction it has very little meaning and has little use except to a completely undiscerning reader. Ironically, this is why I support the "mech" classification.

Let me also add that I (and I believe ClosetOtaku) are aren't making up some new requirements for the genre because we're picky. If you study the etymology of the phrase, science fiction once had a specific meaning that was in time taken over by cheaply-written, mass-produced pulp fiction. People have been trying to keep the classification pure since the introduction of this material, but language panders to the lowest common denominator.

Each one is (or should be) unique, with its own, individual attributes. Determining the exact classification for them that everyone can agree on would be extremely difficult, not to mention confusing.

Of course, the eventual extension of this would be to place all fiction together, which I can't say that I would be that against.

After reading over this, I'd like to add that I don't mean this to be attacking or mean-spirited, I just diagree with you fairly fundamentally on this subject.