Science Fiction, Fantasy, or…?

[Anthony G Williams]

Some questions which are often debated: what is the difference between science fiction and fantasy, how do they relate to mainstream fiction, and is this changing?

I explore this at some length in my Science Fiction & Fantasy blog, and conclude:

While fantasy and space operas will always be essentially escapist (and long may they continue – we need some respite from reality from time to time), it seems possible that the gap between mainstream fiction and the more serious end of SF will narrow even further in the future, as the predicted developments in cyberspace and changes to our planet's environment become part of the backdrop to our lives. Established mainstream authors have already written novels with SF themes, for example P.D. James' 'Children of Men', recently turned into a feature film, although they are usually careful to avoid the results being categorised as genre fiction. At the moment such crossovers are uncommon, although I suspect that they might increase. Perhaps we will see a return to works comparable with Orwell's '1984' or Bradbury's 'Fahrenheit 451' – a merger between SF themes and the literary mainstream. In which case, 'mundane SF' could have a big future.

[iansales]

Science fiction is a modernist genre, fantasy and horror are both fantastic. Crossovers between mainstream (often so-called "literary") fiction are often called magic realism. Science fiction works presented as mainstream are usually done so because the author does not identify as a science fiction writer - Anthony Burgess, Cormac McCarthy, Thomas Pynchon, Michel Chabon, etc. Some authors make the leap from science fiction to genre, such as William Gibson, but their novels are no longer obviously sf. There are no mainstream-sf crossovers as such.

[Fried Egg]

Indeed, more and more science is moving from being fiction to reality but that should not really lead to a merging of general and science fiction because, in science fiction, we should always be stretching the limits of our imagination, add new and previously undreamed of ideas to it's realm.

[Locksmith]

Sorry, being a bit thick - what do you mean by 'mainstream', given that the most popular books of recent years have been fantasy (even if not acknowledged as such by their author)? If you mean not in a genre, haven't you just defined away your question - i.e. there can be no crossover, it's either genre or not?

Anyway, pedantry aside, I'm not sure this is a terribly novel question, although it is interesting. Starting from the premise that all fiction is, by definition, make believe (else it's non-fiction), the author decides whether to keep all of the elements of the real world, or to tweak bits here and there. Depending on how much the author decides to tweak reality, you may get deeply into a science fiction or fantasy genre. If they don't change things much, it may be what you are calling 'crossover'.

It's perhaps easier to see the relation between the more marginal science fiction and the real world, because some science fiction says "the world could be like this in x years time" and we can identify with that. With fantasy, a lot of the genre is based in different worlds and is therefore seen as being totally different. Sword and sorcery is what many people call fantasy. But the more subtle fantasy is often seen as part of mainstream fiction or historical fiction or horror.

[iansales]

The fact that the furniture used in a science fiction story might come to approximate real technology is irrelevant. Science fiction isn't about futurism.

[Locksmith]

Some science fiction is very much about futurism - cyberpunk for example.

[Connavar]

Cyberpunk is only one subgenre of many in SF.

Dystopian SF for example arent not about futurism exactly. Many of them are near future and focus on other things than the big new future.

[iansales]

Cyberpunk isn't about futurism. Its setting happens to be near-future, but that's all. No one can claim any of the furniture in cyberpunk novels was in any way predictive. It's been nearly 25 years since Neuromancer. So where's cyberspace? Where are the "decks" you can "jack" into? Where's the "black ice"?

[Fried Egg]

Just because a particular vision of the future turns out to be incorrect makes it not "futurist"? Of course not...

[Locksmith]

I agree Connavar - see my post above. There's a broad panorama of writing classified as science fiction. (Indeed, it's quite difficult to define science fiction.) Some is more focused on ideas common to mainstream fiction, some is more far removed. Dystopian SF is still (just about) about tweaking reality.

Ian - we must be talking at cross purposes, apologies. My definition of futurism seems to be different from yours. I agree science fiction is not about future studies and predicting what future technology will actually look like, if that's what you're saying.

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by Locksmith

I agree Connavar - see my post above. There's a broad panorama of writing classified as science fiction. (Indeed, it's quite difficult to define science fiction.) Some is more focused on ideas common to mainstream fiction, some is more far removed. Dystopian SF is still (just about) about tweaking reality.

Ian - we must be talking at cross purposes, apologies. My definition of futurism seems to be different from yours. I agree science fiction is not about future studies and predicting what future technology will actually look like, if that's what you're saying.

Sorry man im blind i didnt your post started with SOME

Which means your post sounded totaly different to me and why i said cyberpunk is only one of many subgenres.

[iansales]

Originally Posted by Locksmith

Ian - we must be talking at cross purposes, apologies. My definition of futurism seems to be different from yours. I agree science fiction is not about future studies and predicting what future technology will actually look like, if that's what you're saying.

Ah yes :-) Futurism is about predicting the future. Science fiction often requires writers to create believable and/or plausible settings - which may near- or far-future. But that doesn't mean they're futurists, or their stories should be taken as predictive.

But (just to throw a further spanner in the works :-)), science fiction doesn't even need to be set in the future...

[Connavar]

Thats so common in TV/movie world. They like making SF that arent not in space or in the future. Stuff like The Dead Zone,John Doe,Kyle XY etc

But i must say when i think about getting a SF book, i think about one set in the future. Near or far doesnt matter. If not it can be today but about space travel or time travel or something. Thats cause of the genres in SF i wanna read. Dystopian,Space opera,cyberpunk,Hard SF,military SF etc

[iansales]

I don't think that's true. Sf doesn't have to be set in the future, or space, or feature time travel or space travel. Would a post-holocaust novel set next year be science fiction? Would a novel set next year in Iraq after the troops have finally withdrawn be sf?

To me, a story is science fiction is it is involves some invented object or process which is either defines the setting or plot or creates the setting or plot.

[steve12553]

It seems like we debated a version of this question 2 dozen times in the last year. Authors and publishers can call things whatever they want to but if the work takes know principals of science and steps beyond it without using magic they've got Science Fiction. It doesn't matter if it's a little step or a huge step. It's still Science Fiction. If an author takes a step into a direction we know can't be true (and we don't care if it is) they've got Fantasy. It also doesn't matter if it's a little demon or an entire magical world. It's still Fantasy. It doesn't matter what they call it. I know and so do most of you. Hand me a cup of coffee and call it tea, I'll figure it out in a few sips.