Science Fiction, Fantasy, or…?

[iansales]

We can't have debated it all that much if people are still throwing around a hundred or so different definitions :-)

But for the purposes of argument, it's not worth considering what publisher, marketroids or authors call works of fiction. We all know McCarthy's The Road is sf, we all know that Margaret Atwood writes sf, etc.

Known principles of science is hardly a prerequisite of science fiction. All those varieties of FTL. Teleportation. ESP. Artificial Intelligence. Er, life on other planets...

And not all high fantasy novels feature magic. There's nothing untrue about swords.

:-)

[Locksmith]

Why the need to classify, define? Why can't we accept that not all books fall neatly into an artificial categorisation that others attempt to retrofit to meet their need for everything to form part of a larger pattern or order? A novel is not a label. It is not a category. Maybe I'm in the minority, but frankly who cares if it's mainstream fiction, science fiction (hard, soft, pseudo), fantsy (dark, high, urban), whatever...?

[iansales]

The better to understand it. You can't understand something if you don't know what it is. And if you don't what it is, then why bother discussing it?

:-)

[Locksmith]

Have you been eating in Chinese restaurants again?

[iansales]

I'm not a big fan of Chinese food. I've no idea what most of it is :-)

[j. d. worthington]

Well, this is a debate that shows up frequently (in fact, I've seldom known any group of readers who read genre fiction to get together where it didn't come up at some point), but it can still make for some interesting debate.

As for classifying... well, there are lots of reasons for doing so, just as there are valid reasons for not doing so.... One such is: it makes it easier to discuss books with others if you're each "on the same page"... at least to the point of understanding a definition of something. Else you can very quickly end up talking a cross-purposes and confusing the dickens out of each other.

And Ian's right... there are lots of books that are considered sf -- even classics of sf -- that aren't necessarily set in the future, space, etc. Flowers for Algernon is a good example. Several books by Michael Moorcock that straddle the genres are set in the contemporary UK (with some, only partly, with others, completely): Mother London, the Cornelius books, London Bone, etc. Not to mention urban fantasy or the sort of fantasy written by people by Charles Beaumont, Richard Matheson, a fair amount of Ray Bradbury, nearly all of Harlan Ellison, etc.... none (or darned little) of which has to do with elves, wizards, dragons, magical kingdoms, or any of the other things people have come to associate with fantasy; a great deal of this is among the best contemporary fantasy there is. Heck, Borges wrote a lot of fantasy.....

A note, though... a lot of earlier sf writers did consider themselves futurists, or were classified as such by commentators and critics (the ones who took the genre seriously, anyway), as they were telling fables that looked at trends and extrapolated where they were leading us. They were not particularly concerned with the "nuts-'n'-bolts" of future technology, but sociological trends ("The Marching Morons" by C. M. Kornbluth, for example).

[ray gower]

Originally Posted by Isaac Asimov(1952)

{Science Fiction} That branch of literature which is concerned with the impact of scientific advance upon human beings.

Or you can choose any other definition from 50 or so Science Fiction writers from Aldiss to Wolheim, all of whom should know what they wrote and all of them saying the same in more or less words.

So now we have a good (and narrow) definition of what Science Fiction is, perhaps we need to define and create categories for Science Fantasy?

[iansales]

Where's the "scientific advance" in 'Nightfall'? That's not a proper definition. Just because Asimov wrote science fiction, that doesn't mean he's qualified to define it. In fact, since when have authors either engaged in taxonomy, or been any good at it? (Except for those who also wrote criticism, of course - such as Damon Knight, Samuel Delany, James Blish, etc.)

And there's no such genre as science fantasy. That's two entirely different modes of fiction, not just two genres.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by iansales

And there's no such genre as science fantasy. That's two entirely different modes of fiction, not just two genres.

On that I'll take issue with you, as it is a term that has been used by both writers and critics, as well as editors (including Groff Conklin, August Derleth) at various points. From the use I've seen of it, it applies to that which has the trappings and sometimes the concepts of science fiction, but has a more fantastic mode of development... it does not rely on a "feeling of probability" according to much sf.

[iansales]

I wondered if anyone would bite :-)

The term "science fantasy" has arisen (my personal theory here) due to readers, writers, commentators, etc. only using the term "science fiction" to refer to stories which embody clear scientific principles or technological extrapolation. So any fiction involving elements which couldn't be rigorously explained - like Star Wars, for example - must be "science fantasy".

I think this is wrong, because science fiction is modernist and fantasy is fantastic. Sf is modernist because it takes it as a given that the human condition and/or environment is capable of (human) control and/or explanation. This is true even of Star Wars.

In fantasy, nature and supernature can't be explained or controlled. They're givens of the setting, to use as presented, according to a set of rules that have been arrived at empirically or by fiat.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by iansales

I wondered if anyone would bite :-)

Oh, now, surely you knew I would....

The term "science fantasy" has arisen (my personal theory here) due to readers, writers, commentators, etc. only using the term "science fiction" to refer to stories which embody clear scientific principles or technological extrapolation. So any fiction involving elements which couldn't be rigorously explained - like Star Wars, for example - must be "science fantasy".

Well, the examples I saw when younger came a long time before the sharp division, when the two were often interchangeable in the magazines, and science fiction was still referred to as a subset of fantasy (cf. Derleth, Moskowitz, etc.). Such never really went away, despite the attempts of some (such as Knight) to draw such a sharp distinction (but then, Damon could be just a tad dogmatic on such things at times....)

At any rate, more recent examples began to crop up in the mid- to late-1960s, again, long before Star Wars and its ilk. As for more recent usage... you may well be right.

I think this is wrong, because science fiction is modernist and fantasy is fantastic. Sf is modernist because it takes it as a given that the human condition and/or environment is capable of (human) control and/or explanation. This is true even of Star Wars.

In fantasy, nature and supernature can't be explained or controlled. They're givens of the setting, to use as presented, according to a set of rules that have been arrived at empirically or by fiat.

I think I may take issue with some of your terms here (and at least some of their implications): I'm not sure "modernist" is the best term to use, considering its connotations and usual associations. Perhaps "rationalist" or "positivist" is more appropriate, reflecting the continuing influence of nineteenth-century positivist thinking and its current descendants? In any event, given your definition, HPL (at least in hist later work) comes very close to it, as the most he would allow was the "supernormal" or "preternatural"... that which was based in natural, but as yet unknown or undiscovered, rules of entity. And, while he was indeed one of sf's progenitors (his guidelines for writing a story of science fiction fit very well with such as Stapledon, for instance), I don't know as many would consider him a science fiction writer per se.

I'm also not too sure your classification of fantasy is correct. After all, a great deal of fantasy from the early to late middle twentieth century certainly had that sort of rationalist approach... especially that as written by De Camp, Anderson, Carter, Pratt, etc. The handling they (and others) gave to magic was often near-indistinguishable from that of science fiction, setting down rules within which magic works, creating nearly a "physics" of magic... yet these are by no means science fiction in either feel nor intent.

Again, for a great deal of sf's history, the two have been very closely intertwined; which is why so many earlier writers could float so easily from one to the other and back again. Only in the post-Tolkien years did fantasy and sf become so rigidly divided... a division that is once again crumbling via the work of such as China Mieville, Thomas Ligotti, et al.

[steve12553]

[quote=iansales;902471]I think this is wrong, because science fiction is modernist and fantasy is fantastic. Sf is modernist because it takes it as a given that the human condition and/or environment is capable of (human) control and/or explanation. This is true even of Star Wars. [quote]

Star Wars had 2 phases. The first phase (Episodes IV through VI) were Fantasy because the Force had no scientific explanation. It was a mystical existance. In the second phase, the Force had a scientific (albeit poor) explanation. Hence Science Fiction. Any literary work with an extrapolitive or interpolitive science concept becomes Science Fiction ..........unless you throw in a fantastic element whereby it become Fantasy. Throwing a time travel element into a western makes it Science Fiction. Putting a dragon into a mystery makes it Fantasy. Science Fantasy is Fantasy with a Science Fiction Element but definitly Fantasy. Science cannot resolve magic or fantastic creatures (if they are truly fantastic.) A mystery cannot resolve the discovery of a new element (gorganzolium e.i.) You can play subgenre all day but Science Fiction and Fantasy define themselves by the elements within.

[ray gower]

Personally I hate the way books are carved up in to an ever increasing number of categories, it is the result of marketing and elitism.

Borrowing from a post I made on Ascifi some years ago as it seems rather apt:

Originally Posted by Is Science Fiction Ashamed of Itself

To freely re-interpret, re-write and re-invent Genesis:-

1) In the beginning there was the word and that word was Gods and the truth.
2) But many words were written, and many of those were not the Truth. 3) And 'Fiction' was begotten to tell the difference between the Truth and non-Truth and Jane Austin could live with Jules Verne in untruthful bliss.

4) Yet man created more Fiction and it came to pass that man was confused over his choice of Fiction. 5) And did not Verne have designs on topics above the belt and Austin did not. 6) And Science Fiction was begotten to tell the difference between Fictions and their higher morals.

7) But man was industrious creating words and some Science Fiction was popular and some was less so. 8) And to tell the difference the term SciFi was created to identify the inferior popular Science Fiction from the superior Science Fiction.

9) And man, seeing there was now more space for words, was yet more fruitful bringing forth words. 10) And it was seen that the words must be divided again, for where not some Science Fiction words more truthful than other Science Fiction words?
11) And were not many of these truthful words being lost behind the great weight of less truthful words?

12) And it came to pass that 'Speculative Fiction'� was begotten. 13) And behold issuers of some words could show that their words were more truthful than other Science Fiction.

The moral being spend less time worrying about it and read more.

The rest of that thread, which is quite long, varied and deep in concept is here http://www.chronicles-network.com/fo...-itself-6.html

[iansales]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

Well, the examples I saw when younger came a long time before the sharp division, when the two were often interchangeable in the magazines, and science fiction was still referred to as a subset of fantasy (cf. Derleth, Moskowitz, etc.).

I've never seen either as a subset as the other. They're marketed together, but I don't believe they actually have all that much in common.

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

I think I may take issue with some of your terms here (and at least some of their implications): I'm not sure "modernist" is the best term to use, considering its connotations and usual associations. Perhaps "rationalist" or "positivist" is more appropriate, reflecting the continuing influence of nineteenth-century positivist thinking and its current descendants?

If "modernism" means "a trend of thought that affirms the power of human beings to create, improve, and reshape their environment, with the aid of scientific knowledge, technology and practical experimentation", then yes, that's what I mean.

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

In any event, given your definition, HPL (at least in hist later work) comes very close to it, as the most he would allow was the "supernormal" or "preternatural"... that which was based in natural, but as yet unknown or undiscovered, rules of entity. And, while he was indeed one of sf's progenitors (his guidelines for writing a story of science fiction fit very well with such as Stapledon, for instance), I don't know as many would consider him a science fiction writer per se.

What little i've read of HPL is clearly fantastic, but I'm not as familiar with his oeuvre as you are.

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

I'm also not too sure your classification of fantasy is correct. After all, a great deal of fantasy from the early to late middle twentieth century certainly had that sort of rationalist approach... especially that as written by De Camp, Anderson, Carter, Pratt, etc. The handling they (and others) gave to magic was often near-indistinguishable from that of science fiction, setting down rules within which magic works, creating nearly a "physics" of magic... yet these are by no means science fiction in either feel nor intent.

A rules-based magic system does not make a story modernist, no matter how rigorous that rules system. The magic itself is still presented as an a priori fact, and cannot be reduced further.

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

Again, for a great deal of sf's history, the two have been very closely intertwined; which is why so many earlier writers could float so easily from one to the other and back again. Only in the post-Tolkien years did fantasy and sf become so rigidly divided... a division that is once again crumbling via the work of such as China Mieville, Thomas Ligotti, et al.

Yes, well, what history said, what historical commentators said... The fact that writers can easily swap from one to the other... doesn't necessarily mean the two genres aren't entirely different. Writers could have just as easily flitted between sf and crime - and many did: Leigh Brackett, Jack Vance, etc. (And don't forget Georgette Heyer wrote both crime and Regency romance.) That's all extra-textual and not relevant.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by iansales

I've never seen either as a subset as the other. They're marketed together, but I don't believe they actually have all that much in common.

It isn't simply marketing, but a fair amount of criticism of the field(s) includes precisely this relationship between the two, often from very astute critics, well-read in these, as well as other aspects of literature.

If "modernism" means "a trend of thought that affirms the power of human beings to create, improve, and reshape their environment, with the aid of scientific knowledge, technology and practical experimentation", then yes, that's what I mean.

Thanks for the clarification. In that case, I've no objection to the term... it was simply that this usage differed from that usually meant in the mentions I've seen.

What little i've read of HPL is clearly fantastic, but I'm not as familiar with his oeuvre as you are.

Well, Lovecraft saw himself as a fantaisiste, just as did Clark Ashton Smith (who wrote a fair amount of early sf... in fact, there has recently been a collection of all his sf stories, Star Changes, including the somewhat infamous story "The Dweller in the Gulf", which had the entire ending rewritten by an editor, causing quite a stir.... Should you --or anyone else -- be interested):

STAR CHANGES - Clark Ashton Smith

However, Lovecraft wrote stories that were (and are) considered by many to be science fiction, including "The Colour out of Space" (which was published in Amazing Stories), At the Mountains of Madness and "The Shadow out of Time" (both published in Astounding Stories), etc. There are also stories that blur the boundaries, such as "The Call of Cthulhu", "The Shadow over Innsmouth", "The Thing on the Doorstep", etc., which are very scientifically-oriented overall, yet in which the fantastic plays a large part, and where the emphasis is not of the positivist kind you mention above... yet Lovecraft was very much a strong supporter of science, and insisted (in his work post-1926, anyway, and even a fair amount before) that any modern tale of terror must be grounded in reality. As he put it:

The time has come when the normal revolt against time, space, & matter must assume a form not overtly incompatible with what is known of reality – when it must be gratified by images forming supplements rather than contradictions of the visible & mensurable universe. And what, if not a form of non-supernatural cosmic art, is to pacify this sense of revolt – as well as gratify the cognate sense of curiosity? (SL III, pp. 295-296)

A rules-based magic system does not make a story modernist, no matter how rigorous that rules system. The magic itself is still presented as an a priori fact, and cannot be reduced further.

Not modernist (in the usual sense of the term) no... but in the sense you use above... certainly there's a very slender difference if any between this and Pratt & de Camp's Harold Shea stories, which are nonetheless fantasy (in fact, considered classics of the field). There are other examples out there, as well....

[quote]Yes, well, what history said, what historical commentators said... The fact that writers can easily swap from one to the other... doesn't necessarily mean the two genres aren't entirely different. Writers could have just as easily flitted between sf and crime - and many did: Leigh Brackett, Jack Vance, etc. (And don't forget Georgette Heyer wrote both crime and Regency romance.) That's all extra-textual and not relevant.[quote]

Ian... this seems to contradict an earlier statement you made:

In fact, since when have authors either engaged in taxonomy, or been any good at it? (Except for those who also wrote criticism, of course - such as Damon Knight, Samuel Delany, James Blish, etc.)

especially as "what history said, what historical commentators said" has an enormous amount to do with the definitions of (and the refinement of the definitions of) genre. As for your analogy... yes, a lot of them did (several -- including Brackett -- wrote screenplays). But the things I'm talking about included not only those which were obviously one or the other, but stories which were a blending of both, and which sometimes had more of an emphasis on one philosophical underpinning (which seems to be really what you're drawing on), sometimes the other. As for the comment about authors -- Isaac has written criticism (cf. Asimov on Science Fiction, Asimov's Guide to the Bible, Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare, various other annotated editions which included critical analysis), as have Leiber, Bloch, Derleth, Lovecraft, Smith... the list is enormous, and a fair number of these (including those named here) have all referred to "science fantasy"... and several of these are among the most astute and insightful commentators on the genre(s). There have also been organizations (such as The Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society) who have both historiographical and critical branches, which have not only used such a term, but backed it up with both reasoning, close critical reading, and historical examples. And, frankly, even among the best critics/writers of the field, there continues to be a great deal of debate on this issue. Every time it seems "settled" in one direction or another, something comes along with plenty of evidence to upset the apple cart all over again....

That there can be a useful distinction between science fiction and fantasy is most certainly true, and in many cases such a distinction is quite easy to make. But there are a substantial number of tales both historically and contemporaneously, which seriously blur the boundaries between the two -- often to great advantage. Taxonomy can be a very useful tool literarily, but a too-rigid and absolute taxonomy is too much like taxidermy (as I've noted before), preventing the growth and cross-fertilization so necessary to literature to prevent stultification and even fossilization.....