SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
Members' Chat
>
Sci-Fi and Fantasy?
D.L. wrote: "Isaac Asimov summed it up this way: “science fiction, given its grounding in science, is possible; fantasy, which has no grounding in reality, is not.” The Canadian science fiction writer, Robert J. Sawyer, put it a bit differently. "Science fiction deals with things that might possibly happen (or, in the case of the subgenre of science fiction known as alternate history, things that possibly could have happened); fantasy deals with things that never could happen"
So where does that leave China Mievilles 'Perdito Street Station' or 'Railsea' etc? You might get away with saying That PSS is a planet thousands of years in the future where many alien races settled then lost their technology but Railsea is just impossible but without the 'magic' element to make it fantasy.
Trike wrote: Mieville's work is CLEARLY Fantasy. There's no argument at all. Nothing he writes is the least bit possible.."
I can't even begin to grasp where you are coming from in order to refute what you say :-) To each his own.
Robinhj wrote: "D.L. wrote: "Isaac Asimov summed it up this way: “science fiction, given its grounding in science, is possible; fantasy, which has no grounding in reality, is not.” The Canadian science fiction wr..."
I picked up a China Miéville book at the library once. I couldn't finish it. All I remember about it is that he always typed '&' instead of spelling out 'and.' That's not the reason I gave up on it after about 100 pages, though. It just did not appeal to me.
Brenda wrote: ". Remember too that these labels are mostly a marketing tool -- same as the book covers. You can shift a book from SF to Fantasy, with suitable adjustment of the book cover image. (STAR WARS: Tie fighters assailing the Death Star against a backgraound of stars? SF, for sure. Galloping with your taun-taun, dressed in black and with your light saber in hand? Fantasy.)It is by no means hard and fast, so fighting about it is a waste of valuable reading time. "
Genre existed before marketing, so that's not an argument I buy. It's a convenient cop-out, I find. Marketing doesn't change what something *is*, after all. Kraft was having a hard time selling their various types of shredded cheese until they changed the labeling and attendant marketing of the product. Once it was called "Italian Cheese" and "Mexican Taco Cheese", sales picked up. Exact same cheese, simple change in marketing.
I like talking about genre, as well as trying to decide which genre a particular work belongs in. It's fun. I can find 30 million people in America alone who think whatever it is you're into is the stupidest waste of time they've ever heard of, too. Doesn't change the fact that you like it, does it?
Robinhj wrote: "Trike wrote: Mieville's work is CLEARLY Fantasy. There's no argument at all. Nothing he writes is the least bit possible.."I can't even begin to grasp where you are coming from in order to refute what you say :-) To each his own. ."
Not sure what you mean. Giant insects are biologically impossible. Fantasy. Vampires can't exist. Fantasy. A whole bunch of other stuff he writes is impossible. Fantasy.
That's where I'm coming from. Impossible = Fantasy.
Trike wrote: "Brenda wrote: ". Remember too that these labels are mostly a marketing tool -- same as the book covers. You can shift a book from SF to Fantasy, with suitable adjustment of the book cover image. (S..."Very good point! Taste is personal, and genre is one of the key ways we have of having some idea whether or not a particular book will appeal to us before we start reading it. Tone and mood are others for me, but reviews and blurbs seldom mention these.
The purpose of a marketing tool is to guide the consumer to a product. The genre that a work is assigned to should, in theory, be accurate so that the reader can find the work. All those people who declare that They Don't Read Science Fiction? They will -- as long as the book is categorized as a thriller, or a near-future romance, or whatever. Covers do the same thing -- they signal to the buyer that this is Another Work You Will Enjoy.
Despite some people's desire that everything be clearly defined as one thing or the other, it's simply not always the case, even if you type it in all caps. Embassytown by China Miéville is CLEARLY science fiction. Blindsight by Peter Watts is definitely science fiction, despite the existence of vampires. Authors don't always feel the need to remove elements of a plot because it blurs a boundary. Some do strive to accurately portray the scientifically possible, at least as we know science today. The earth used to be the center of the universe according to the best scientific knowledge. Does that mean a story that portrayed it otherwise was fantasy at the time, but became science fiction?
It’s interesting that they seldom define anything as in an “Academic” genre—while it clearly exists. I think Card pointed out that if it wasn’t for university classes, none of the academic genre (written by people teaching the classes) would be read. Of course, the academic genre is porous, and when something written across genre lines becomes popular (you might make an argument for The Time Traveler’s Wife) it ceases to be academic and becomes something else (e.g., SciFi). Genre might exist before marketing, but marketing defines genre for its own purpose (and we do the same).
Carole-Ann wrote: "No-one agreed then, and it's unlikely now - NO definition will make ALL the people happy :)"In my opinion it would make more sense to give each definition a different word instead of arguing over which ones get to be "science fiction" and "fantasy."
Brenda wrote: "The purpose of a marketing tool is to guide the consumer to a product. The genre that a work is assigned to should, in theory, be accurate so that the reader can find the work. All those people who declare that They Don't Read Science Fiction? They will -- as long as the book is categorized as a thriller, or a near-future romance, or whatever. Covers do the same thing -- they signal to the buyer that this is Another Work You Will Enjoy."Which is precisely why we should ignore marketing. When Science Fiction wasn't cool -- and it still isn't, in many hoity-toity circles -- publishers refused to market some books as SF. Frank Herbert and Anne McCaffrey once got into an argument over who had the first bestseller labelled as Science Fiction. When someone asked them why that was important, she snapped, "Because it's about time we were honest about what we write!"
Does anyone really believe Margaret Atwood's absurd assertions that she made for years that she wasn't writing Science Fiction? None of it was marketed as such, but everyone knows exactly what it is.
In their early days, Blockbuster Video used to only have four sections to shelve videos: Drama, Comedy, Special Interest and New Releases. No one I know ever categorized movies so simply.
Ignore marketing. They cater to the market, not tell the truth.
Tad wrote: "Despite some people's desire that everything be clearly defined as one thing or the other, it's simply not always the case, even if you type it in all caps. Embassytown by China Miéville is CLEARLY science fiction. Blindsight by Peter Watts is definitely science fiction, despite the existence of vampires. Authors don't always feel the need to remove elements of a plot because it blurs a boundary. Some do strive to accurately portray the scientifically possible, at least as we know science today. The earth used to be the center of the universe according to the best scientific knowledge. Does that mean a story that portrayed it otherwise was fantasy at the time, but became science fiction?"I haven't read these, so I can't speak to them specifically. Mostly because I gave up on Mieville as a result of the fact that I just didn't like his writing. It's cool if you like his stuff; it's just not for me.
How is the vampire handled in Blindsight? One can easily come up with science fictional rationales for most typical Fantasy creatures. Genetic engineering is more than suitable for unicorns, dragons and the like. One can even spin some physics theories for ghosts. But a classic vampire that can change into a wolf, a bat or a mist, can not cross running water or doesn't cast a reflection in a mirror? You can't get around that stuff.
David Weber's recent novel Out of the Dark starts off as a standard alien invasion story then inexplicably takes a left turn as Dracula shows up to defeat the aliens. Despite the fact that's the sole supernatural element, it's pretty obviously a Fantasy book because that's the category for impossible things. One such item can change the genre, despite all the other things in the story.
I'd say Miéville's Embassytown is SF and meant to be SF, but I fail to see how the New Crobuzon books could be considered SF rather than fantasy. It's not High Fantasy, more like Urban Fantasy (the urban fantasy of Gaiman and de Lint, not Butcher and LKH).DL wrote: "I picked up a China Miéville book at the library once. I couldn't finish it. All I remember about it is that he always typed '&' instead of spelling out 'and.' That's not the reason I gave up on it after about 100 pages, though. It just did not appeal to me."
That's Railsea. The ampersands annoyed me too, although it is actually explained in the book why they're used. His works are very diverse though, so if you didn't like the Boy's Own Adventure of Railsea, you might enjoy one of his adult works.
Trike wrote: "Does anyone really believe Margaret Atwood's absurd assertions that she made for years that she wasn't writing Science Fiction? None of it was marketed as such, but everyone knows exactly what it is."
She has a very well thought out argument as to why she doesn't believe it is SF (and it's not that she doesn't like SF), it just doesn't match yours very well. ;) Her argument is that anything currently deemed possible would be SFF and stuff not currently deemed possible would be SF (she puts fantasy as a subgenre of SF). Personally I'd use SFF as an umbrella term for not-realistic-fiction (SF, fantasy, horror, magical realism, UF, paranormal-anything), but that doesn't make her definition absurd.
Evilynn wrote: "She has a very well thought out argument as to why she doesn't believe it is SF (and it's not that she doesn't like SF), it just doesn't match yours very well. ;) Her argument is that anything currently deemed possible would be SFF and stuff not currently deemed possible would be SF (she puts fantasy as a subgenre of SF). Personally I'd use SFF as an umbrella term for not-realistic-fiction (SF, fantasy, horror, magical realism, UF, paranormal-anything), but that doesn't make her definition absurd. "I don't know - her comments relegating sci-fi to "monsters and spaceships" and "talking squids in outer space" doesn't sound, to me, like she's a huge fan of sci-fi...
Maybe our personal definition of genre enables a first pass through some list of titles we are considering. Right now, I’m reading Battle Royale, Mort, and Takekurabe (I would classify these respectively as Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Japanese Fiction). The book I picked up this morning was Battle Royale (which I might also classify as Japanese Fiction) because of the three (I’m at about the mid-point in all of them) I saw it as having the greatest potential to satisfy my partially awakened mind. The point is that while “Japanese Fiction” is hardly a genre, I probably use it like a genre when I’m filtering my to-read stack, or selecting among books I’ve already started. I see post-apocalypse fiction as alternate history, and group alternate history with SciFi because of the obvious Many Worlds angle. Of course, my reasoning is spurious, and only exists because I like to think of myself as a rational being (my taxonomy is more affective than cognitive). If I liked Fantasy but not SciFi, yet still happened to like post-apocalyptic-alternate history, I would probably try to (certainly could) make the argument that it was Fantasy (Urban Fantasy). I saw Handmaid’s Tale as SciFi. After she published, Atwood’s classification became irrelevant.
Trike wrote: "Brenda wrote: "The purpose of a marketing tool is to guide the consumer to a product. The genre that a work is assigned to should, in theory, be accurate so that the reader can find the work. All t..."It sounds like the problem is that when a book could potentially appeal to more than one reading subculture, it only gets marketed to the biggest one. Marketing could still be a useful criterion if the rule is to assign books to the genre they're marketed as and any others they could have been marketed as.
Evilynn wrote: "I'd say Miéville's Embassytown is SF and meant to be SF, but I fail to see how the New Crobuzon books could be considered SF rather than fantasy. It's not High Fantasy, more like Urban Fantasy (the..."What about the only China Miéville, and his first book, King Rat that is never discussed? Where would you put that book on the fantasy or science fiction scale?
Colleen wrote: "I don't know - her comments relegating sci-fi to "monsters and spaceships" and "talking squids in outer space" doesn't sound, to me, like she's a huge fan of sci-fi..."I think there's a fair bit of room between a huge SF fan and someone who dislikes SF. Atwood is impish and snarky, so I would take that into account when reading the quote. :) She's described herself as "the Willy Wonka of the literary arts", and apparently read a lot of SF pulp when she was young, as well as the SF classics. She did write this just the other year too: In Other Worlds: SF and the Human Imagination, it's based on her Ellmann Lectures, and I think it says a lot that she did her Ellmann Lectures on the theme "SF and the human imagination".
Kevin wrote: "Evilynn wrote: "
What about the only China Miéville, and his first book, King Rat that is never discussed? Where would you put that book on the fantasy or science fiction scale? "
It's a retelling of the Pied Piper, set in London in the late 1990ies, so UF, I'd say. There's certainly no science in it as far as I can remember. A fair bit of music and magical rats though.
Sorry guys, I'd rather go back to the 50's & 60's when everything was classed as SFF..........:)Anything with (fictional) science in it, or anything with a bit of magic/majik/magick in it, or any (definable) supernatural creature in it......all fell under this umbrella!
No-one argued. SFF was it!
(Simple, ain't it??) :)
Evilynn wrote: "Colleen wrote: "I don't know - her comments relegating sci-fi to "monsters and spaceships" and "talking squids in outer space" doesn't sound, to me, like she's a huge fan of sci-fi..."I think th..."
Thanks!
I wonder if Atwood isn't a little pissed that she is known for her fiction rather than her poetry. People of Atwood's age who don't like SciFi are often thinking of the kind of juvenile, pre-Sturgeon/Le Guin stuff that focused on gadgets and 14-year-old boys.
Carole-Ann wrote: "Sorry guys, I'd rather go back to the 50's & 60's when everything was classed as SFF..........:)Anything with (fictional) science in it, or anything with a bit of magic/majik/magick in it, or any..."
I like to turn back the clock, too! Back to when we only had four colors to write about! By god, if the masters didn't need to use the word "blue", then neither do we!
Simple, right?!
Starting around 46 minutes into this podcast: http://www.radiolab.org/2012/may/21/?...
Carole-Ann wrote: "Sorry guys, I'd rather go back to the 50's & 60's when everything was classed as SFF..."I'm pretty sure that was done by publishers who A)assumed that the only people reading the stuff was snot-nosed kids, and B)didn't know the difference themselves.
I much prefer to narrow down my genres, since I don't want to read everything considered fantasy and SF... or, for that matter, I don't want to read everything that's considered SF.
I am, by and large, mostly a fantasy fan. I have of course read the Ender's Game books and most of the Hitchhiker's books as well as 3 or 4 of Robert Aspirin's Phule books but I stick primarily to the sword and sorcery books. I just love the story telling that happens when anything and everything is open to the reader. Though I'll take a good cross-over fantasy/Sci-fi book any day!
I love both! I prefer Fantasy, though this could be due to the fact that my SciFi reading experience is somewhat limited. I would love to read more SciFi, any suggestions?
I read everything I can without paying too much attention to genres, but I find it useful to have the SF and F categories, and the proliferation of sub and cross categories, but only where they give an indication of what I can expect from a book and because there is a lack of alternatives.Expectation derived from the category tags is a problem. For me SF and F are more than just an exposé on events or sentiments in an impossible or possible future tech setting, they are about pushing frontiers and exploring new ideas.
With creativity in mind, I think over categorisation is limiting for both the writer and the reader, as it forces expectations.
In terms of categorisation I would prefer something analytic, which is attached post manuscript completion. In that fashion the author is not constrained, and the reader can still make quick selections of what they fancy reading.
For example, something I would find more useful than the SF and F genres would be an indication of the book's setting, the tone of the book, and the book's focus. e.g. it takes place in an Iron Age tech setting, is written in a humorous though caustically cynical manner, and is dynastically focused. That way I would know what qualities I was getting without thinking magic, or space ships. I'd like to know what the writer's voice is like too, but characterising that sort of thing is so highly personal that it's doubtful that it would be possible. Prose however, is another matter entirely. I'd like to be warned if a book has bad prose.
Trike wrote: "Robinhj wrote: "China is part of a new wave of SF who say 'I don't care if it is plausible and I am not going to explain how this world came about' :-) but I would not classify any of his work as F..."i completely agree.. i couldnt believe i read someone saying he wasnt fantasy. How can you explain all the fantastic idea's and people in Perdido for example?
Ron wrote: "The speculative fiction label has always felt ugly and overly academic but unfortunately, it's accurate. What l'd like is some more powerful term with the same range. "I thought I was the only one who felt like that! In fact, the term I've come up with for what I write is "imaginative fiction". I also have used "imagine-lit" or "the genre of imagination".
Maybe that seems like a pretty broad term, but the kinds of things I write and am drawn to as a reader are pretty broad as well. But there is this thread that seems to run through everything from fairy tales to super hero stories, to mythology, and edge of the universe epics which delights in imagining new worlds and new "rules" for these imaginary places we get to visit in these stories.
Those are the tales which I love best.
Ron wrote: "I agree with Adam that describing a work is more important than labeling it.If we are labeling, then I think the shared sense of wonder is what appeals to me rather than questions as to whether it can happen in "real life". The speculative fiction label has always felt ugly and overly academic but unfortunately, it's accurate. What l'd like is some more powerful term with the same range. "
Nuclear Jesus?
That would be a pretty powerful genre descriptor.
"What's this about?"
"Nuclear Jesus!"
Kathryn wrote: "What is the line between literature and fantasy? ...""Literature" is defined as fiction that someone with a Ph.D. in Literature liked.
Ron wrote: "Does anyone like the flavour of "modal fiction" that would include science-fiction, fantasy and, for that matter, horror?"So that would be more like Atomic Buddha?
Heh, both "Nuclear Jesus" and "Atomic Buddha" are names that have been used by others already.
Labels are especially difficult if the stories cross genres. I sometimes call my own "anti-fantasy" because they are science fiction in a pre-modern, low-tech setting in which magic works about as well as it does in our world (not at all). For stories in a Victorian type of world, the term 'steampunk' might apply, but these take place in a more medieval setting not unlike classic epic fantasy.Speculative fiction (or whatever you want to call it) is widely varied, and because it is, well, speculative, it resists accurate labeling. That doesn't mean we can't try. Like Ron, I was also a philosophy major, and bending terms to fit ideas is kind of what we do. I suppose that's why people with philosophy degrees seem to end up as writers or comedians. Not that there are many other career opportunities. It's not like we can open up a philosophy shop. :-)
To DL: you should totally open up a Philosophy Shoppe.
Ye Olde Philosophy Shoppe - Yeah - Maybe a title for my next book. :-)
Yes exactly. "The Meaning of Life comes with a price."
Two for $6, Four for $10 -- a bargain at half the price. As seen off TV!
Philosophie Shoppe: The First Mind-Blowing Is Free
Oh no! Not existentialism! I'm reading 2312 now by Kim Stanley Robinson, which is like an existential Sci-Fi thesis about the future. I mean, it's not a bad book. Quite well-written, really, but the emotionally unbalanced, self-absorbed main character is beginning to get on my nerves. (And there's not a laugh in the whole book.)
Ron wrote: "not one laugh? Sounds like existentialism alright. ;-)"Yep. I much prefer more empiricist philosopher/novelists like Douglas Adams or Terry Pratchett. :-)
Oh Nooooooo!!! Not Existentialism, not in the Science Fiction world!!!I once told a college professor (after a dreary Lit course in which she had us reading nothing but Existentialists -- Camus, Kafka, etc.) that I HATE that miserable, dreary stuff. In fact, I told her, that's why I read Science Fiction; because SF writers believe there WILL BE a future, not a dreary, endless repetition of the present. Existentialism, in five words: Life sucks... then you die.
D.L. wrote: "It's not like we can open up a philosophy shop. :-)..."One of the towns where I used to live had a philosophy shop. It was called "The Philosophy Shop." They had an eclectic collection of used books for sale, others that were available for reference but not for sale, comfy chairs, chess set rental for $2 a night, self-serve coffee and tea for a $1.50 a bottomless cup, philosophy reading groups that met on a rotating basis during the week, and regular speakers on a variety of topics. It was wonderful. It closed down when the owner became too ill to continue to run it. I think that it was only successful as long as it was because it was in a college town.
But it worked at least once.
"One of the towns where I used to live had a philosophy shop. It was called "The Philosophy Shop." They had an eclectic collecti..."It sounds wonderful. There is a university here in Orlando, a large one, but I wouldn't call it a college town. It's more of a theme park town. :-)
John wrote: "Oh Nooooooo!!! Not Existentialism, not in the Science Fiction world!!!I once told a college professor (after a dreary Lit course in which she had us reading nothing but Existentialists -- Camus, ..."
Made me giggle, but I would say that the core precept of existentialism is that you may only know you exist through interaction with your environment, so although a lot of the literature is pretty grim, it is a philosophy that seeks change through action.
Or. . .
Life sucks - kick 'em in da fork.
J.D. wrote: "D.L. wrote: "It's not like we can open up a philosophy shop. :-)..."One of the towns where I used to live had a philosophy shop. It was called "The Philosophy Shop." They had an eclectic collecti..."
Made me think of the Manhattan Restaurant of the Mind in Stephen King's Dark Tower series. Beats WHSmiths.
Sorry to jump in late- but pertaining to a previous point.That was the exact reasoning why George Lucas introduced Midiclorians in his Star Wars Universe.
Before that, the force was a magical power, which made his Universe fantasy.
Having the force be driven my microscopic organisms talking to each other is a sci-fi biology- as any Alien species would be.
This was a critical distinction as Mr. Lucas wanted to ensure there was no confusion with calling his Universe FANTASY, compared to Sci-Fi (a long time ago, in a galaxy far away).
I suspect (without evidence) that Lucas knew he was writing a fantasy from the start. "A long time ago, in a galaxy far away" = "Once upon a time in a land far away..." A kind of fairytale parody. The bio-sci rationale may have been an afterthought. It's a fun adventure story either way.
That was the exact reasoning why George Lucas introduced Midiclorians in his Star Wars Universe.And for years I thought they were talking about mitochondria. Now I'm disillusioned.
Since Lucas was the first one to call Star Wars "Science Fantasy", the midiclorians things was just another example of him changing his mind as he went along.Vader being Luke's father is just the stupidest example, but it was only the first of many such retcons he added to the movies.
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
In Other Worlds: SF and the Human Imagination (other topics)King Rat (other topics)
Railsea (other topics)
Embassytown (other topics)
Out of the Dark (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
China Miéville (other topics)China Miéville (other topics)
Peter Watts (other topics)
B.J. Whittington (other topics)
Peter F. Hamilton (other topics)
It is by no means hard and fast, so fighting about it is a waste of valuable reading time.