Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharukem  People have been arguing this point for many a century, and have had many a conflict with each other. But I think that it is about time that we discuss this point amongst us. |
Um, "many a century" is a bit of a stretch, as sf hasn't even been around (as such) for a century yet.....
(Wells and Verne wrote "scientific romances" where the science could be accurate to the knowledge of their day, or complete fluff, for example). And what we know as fantasy really doesn't date much further back than William Morris in the 1880s....
However, to step down from being pedantic: They always have tended to do so. If you read the sf or the fantasy of the 1910s on, you'll find plenty of examples of the lines being blurred... sf is an outgrowth of fantasy (or the imaginative tale, which also includes the tale of supernatural horror, ghost stories -- scary or humorous -- etc.) Personally, I think there's plenty of room for a variety, and I'd prefer to keep it that way: some that are rigidly scientific ("hard" sf writers such as Benford, Bova, etc.), fantasy of various sorts (from the delicate touch of a Dunsany to the mega-doorstops like Jordan, Martin, etc.), and those that fall inbetween ... whatever they may be. (How would you, for instance, classify most of Rod Serling's work? SF? Fantasy? Horror? Or Lovecraft, who wrote in all of these. Or James Tiptree, Jr.? etc.)
In the end, I'd say for the writer to follow the demands of the story ... but I'm not a publisher or agent, and professional writers also have to listen to what will sell -- and therein lies the rub; for marketers like nice, cleancut divisions (until they stop selling because they've become too insular). But in the long run, crossbreeding the stories gives them more vitality, and allows for more growth, than any rigid systematization. So I'd say it's a healthy thing.