Science Fantasy?

[Thomas]

Micah wrote: "And the Look Inside feature is available on practically all selections. That serves quite well as in indicator of the authors ability and style. "
T.C. Wrote That's a great feature, but I never know how many people actually use it.

I use the look inside a lot, especially if I'm thinking of parting with cash for the item. Libraries are cool, but most don't have a look inside, so it's off to Amazon I go. It's saved me money and time, by helping screen out the books that look good on the outside, but inside is a mess (poor grammar, repetition of words or phrases. An example would be the repetitious use of the work grin to replace all other forms of smile (need to expand vocabulary). A box of books can be like a box of candy, each one looks good on the outside, but it's the first bite that can be ooohhh or eeewww.

[Jim]

Ah, a box full of books! Now you're talking. Especially if it's from someone two generations older than you but who sort of shared your tastes.
Now you're talking a REAL treasure chest :-)

[Thomas]

I used to love used book stores and thrift shops for their book section. Lately, all I find are traditional romance novels that don't even try to have an interesting story. There's always Project Guttenberg for old books, and here at GR you can find some new treasures just by reading the forums.

[Charles]

Micah wrote: "Charles wrote: "Micah wrote: "... I mean, I read Zelazny's Amber series (10 out of 10 for thinking, but 3 out of 10 for writing...it really is very sloppy and "un-edited" feeling) ..."

I'm speechl..."

Okay, I'll grant you that a few times I would have preferred shorter shadow-walk descriptions. I'll even admit that I occasionally skim some of them during my re-reads. In my case, however, that was a relatively minor nit-pick that failed to keep me from loving the rest of his prose.

[Paul]

Two points -

1. I'd say genre distinctions in fiction have the same value that food or cuisine genres do.

If, for example, I walk into an Italian restaurant, and discover that all they have on the menu are sushi and sashimi, I would be disappointed - because those are examples of Japanese not Italian cuisine.

In the same way, if I pick up a book listed as science fiction, and find a story in which someone travels through space by wishing it were so, and clicking one's heels together three times, I would be disappointed.

So the genres of writing do play a role in reading choices, and, if violated, can be a cause of reasonable concern to the reader.

2. With that in mind, I think science fantasy is a meaningful genre, which exists somewhere between science fiction (where the science is more plausible than in science fantasy) and straight-up fantasy (where there's no science at all).

A good example of science fantasy, I think, would be Jack Finney's Time and Again, where the mechanism of time travel has almost no scientific plausibility, but is treated as a serious, real scientific possibility.

[T.C.]

I don't think I agree with that line of reasoning.

What would you call, for example, something set in an entirely imaginary 'medieval' world of swords and kings and things, but where there is no magic, and where 'alchemists' study entirely along 'scientific' principles? Is that 'science fiction'? I don't think most people would think so - it has to be about a bit more than just how scientific the science is.

[Paul]

I would say your 'medieval' world is a good example of science fantasy. The key is the no magic but alchemy - which could seen as a failed science, but a kind of science nonetheless.

[Jim]

Paul wrote: "In the same way, if I pick up a book listed as science fiction, and find a story in which someone travels through space by wishing it were so, and clicking one's heels together three times, I would be disappointed...."

I know what you mean, but I remember one SF short story when it was mentioned that someone had decided that you couldn't travel faster than light, but your imagination can be anywhere at any time, and he was attempting to travel off world mentally. This was back in the 70s and I suspect there were a lot of drug culture references that I never picked up at the time :-)

[Paul]

Sounds like a good story :) As to its genre, I would say that if it made an attempt to provide some science fictional explanation for teleportation via telepathy, then it could be science fiction and definitely science fantasy.

I've often said that the fastest speed in the universe is not speed of light but speed of imagination.

[Thomas]

I was thinking about The Excalibur Alturnative, which has knights on the way to the crusades kidnapped by aliens to act as their surrogate army. It was interesting.

[Jim]

I wish I could remember it :-)

[Micah]

Paul wrote: "If, for example, I walk into an Italian restaurant, and discover that all they have on the menu are sushi and sashimi, I would be disappointed - because those are examples of Japanese not Italian cuisine.
...
A good example of science fantasy, I think, would be Jack Finney's Time and Again, where the mechanism of time travel has almost no scientific plausibility, but is treated as a serious, real scientific possibility. ..."

He, he...see, reading the second paragraph I quote above, my thought was "If someone had sold me Time and Again as being Science Fantasy, I would have had the same reaction as your Italian restaurant selling only sushi...I would have been sorely disappointed." Because Time and Again has virtually no science in it, and certainly no traditional fantasy elements. Time travel, to me, simply is not a fantasy element, no matter how implausible. It can be fantastical, but that doesn't make it fantasy any more than romantic makes a book Romance. OTOH, time travel is a staple of SF, even if it isn't explained scientifically.

So every time someone tries to define Science Fantasy here, I end up reaffirmed in my notion that the term is simply too vague and subjective to be a useful genre. And in fact that it's not a genre, but rather an attempt at mitigating the uncomfortable and to some people annoying fact that SOME books blend more than one genre together, making them difficult to neatly categorize. The term is pretty much just an attempt to invent a missing link sub-genre.

Science Fantasy instantly raises questions in my mind: how much science, how much fantasy? Is it Science Fiction with Fantasy elements or some fantasyland with some SF tropes? The examples people have given for it are so widely dispersed that you really have to read the book's summary and/or an example from it to get an idea why it's categorized as Science Fantasy.

To me, it works only on a personal level. That is, for categorizing what you've read or want to read based on your own definition. So...useless for marketing or use in finding literature you might like.

Time and Again is a great book, BTW.

[Paul]

Well, again, I think Time and Again goes through great pains to present the time travel method as scientific - it's not just someone walking into the past, but doing so after receiving the requisite training. And I see that as needing a different genre designation than hocus pocus magic.

But, obviously, genre designations are much more subjective than mathematics or science, so different strokes for different folks is fine.

[Steph]

T. wrote: "What would you call, for example, something set in an entirely imaginary 'medieval' world of swords and kings and things, but where there is no magic, and where 'alchemists' study entirely along 'scientific' principles? Is that 'science fiction'?..."

This reminds me of Gormenghast, which has a medieval fantasy feel to it but no magic. That's not a book I would describe as 'science fantasy'. To me, stories about alchemy could be regarded as historical fiction (i.e. early experiments in chemistry).

[Paul]

I'd say that alchemy stories would be science fantasy only if the alchemy actually worked as a science in the story, to produce desired or unintended but real results. Otherwise, yeah, I would agree that they would be historical fiction not science fantasy.

[Steph]

Paul wrote: "I'd say that alchemy stories would be science fantasy only if the alchemy actually worked as a science in the story, to produce desired or unintended but real results..."

Except that alchemy doesn't work as a science. Therefore, if you have a story where it did, that's fantasy.

[Paul]

But your approach makes no distinction between science that doesn't work - be it alchemy, Ptolemaic astronomy, Lamarckian evolution, whatever - and straight up fantasy with no connection to science.

I think that distinction is worthwhile, and the term "science fantasy" captures it.

By the way, science that doesn't work has been even called science fiction. Richard Garfinkle's Celestial Matters is a great example.

[Steph]

Paul wrote: "...By the way, science that doesn't work has been even called science fiction. Richard Garfinkle's Celestial Matters is a great example."

Hmm... I would have described that as fantasy. I guess the Hugo panel thought differently.

[Jeannette]

Steph wrote: "Paul wrote: "...By the way, science that doesn't work has been even called science fiction. Richard Garfinkle's Celestial Matters is a great example."

Hmm... I would have described that as fantasy. I guess the Hugo panel thought differently."

I have Ezekiel's Wheel shelved as "science fiction" solely because it won a science fiction award, and also shelved as "fantasy", for reasons that will probably be obvious to anyone who has read it. Amazon lists it as "Science Fiction > Mystical and Visionary", among other things, which is one of the strangest genre descriptions I think I've seen.

[Jeannette]

Micah wrote: "...But maybe there should be like a Venn diagram classification where you can see the amount of different story elements in the book? ];D "

There is a book recommendation site that is trying to create a crowd-sourced database that will do something similar, but I have no idea if they'll be successful. I think it is called "book digits" or something like that.

[Steph]

Jeannette wrote: "I have Ezekiel's Wheel shelved as "science fiction" solely because it won a science fiction award, and also shelved as "fantasy", for reasons that will probably be obvious to anyone who has read it..."

My thinking is that if a 'science-fiction' book has current scientific thinking in mind at the time of writing, it's science-fiction. If it uses scientific ideas that are no longer held true - again, at the time of writing - then it's fantasy. Therefore, The War Of The Worlds is sci-fi; Celestial Matters isn't (but would have been had it been written back in the Hellenistic period!).

[Brenda]

I would argue that CELESTIAL MATTERS is perfectly science fiction. It's just not our science. And he keeps it perfectly consistent, which is why it won the award!

[Paul]

Steph wrote: "My thinking is that if a 'science-fiction' book has current scientific thinking in mind at the time of writing, it's science-fiction. If it uses scientific ideas that are no longer held true - again, at the time of writing - then it's fantasy. Therefore, The War Of The Worlds is sci-fi; Celestial Matters isn't (but would have been had it been written back in the Hellenistic period!). "

But that's why, again, I think "science fantasy" is a good term for stories that use science that's been proven false - in contrast to just plain fantasy, such as the Wizard of Oz, in which there's no science at all.

[J.E.]

Honestly, I think the distinction between SciFi and Fantasy is largely arbitrary, so calling it Science Fantasy really changes nothing for me lol.

It's not really a classification of what kind of story it will be, nor even what to expect from the story. Rather, the genre distinction is more about the world.

[Brenda]

Yes, it is a spectrum. And not even a flat one, like a rainbow. It is like one of those 3-D color solids. There are plenty of works in the middle. These labels are mainly for marketers and bookstores so that they can tag or shelve books.
You know that the library databases insist that books get categorized with their own system of tags. So even if a book doesn't fit particularly well into a slot, it has to be tagged. This works OK for books that are in the center of a category: Regency romance, let us say. But all the more eclectic stuff is difficult.
Another thing that the library systems want is 'books that are like this book'. With ISBNs. This is VERY difficult.

[[deleted user]]

The distinction is arbitrary. There are those who would categorize anything not Hard science fiction as fantasy. There are those who make the split at technology v magic and there are those, like me, who love that large grey area in between.

When categorizing my books in Calibre or here on goodreads, I go for a minimalist approach. Anything I'll do the magical/technological split for general scifi/fantasy but then take entire sections out of those genres all together simply because I love them enough that they get their own categories - apocaplytic, superheroes, etc.

Science Fantasy isn't distinct enough to get it's own category any more than Cyberpunk is ... now, in my mind I can parse and parse categories and sub-categories with the best of them. But, in general, that's an exercise in academic fun.

To my mind, there is science fantasy where the two coincide - such as Anthony's Split Infinity, Trellis' Bitter Seeds or May's Saga of the Pliocene Epoch. There is what's essentially fantasy with some elements of technology overlaid or in the back story such as McCaffrey's Dragonrider of Pern, Chalker's Soul Rider or the reverse with science fiction with some fantasy elements along for the ride such as May's Galactic Milieu or Herbert's Dune.

Now, I think it's all good. And I usually categorize it with the element that's the strongest in a series ....

[Jim]

Yes, going with the element that's strongest works for me as well

[Frank]

I've even changed my mind in the middle of a series. I thought The Golden Compass was fantasy. Then I went in to The Subtle Knife and decided the series was science fantasy. Finally I read The Amber Spyglass and said the trilogy was science fiction.

I'm still trying to decide about alternate history. Some is SF, but I don't recall any I've read that I'd call fantasy.

[[deleted user]]

In setting up the Fantasy Theme nominations thread, I had a thought, so I'm just going to toss it out here and see what you think: If April's fantasy theme is Science Fantasy and we're looking at books primarily fantasy with some scientific overlay, what do you think about the next science fiction theme then also being Science Fantasy where we can do some of the SciFi books with a bit of magic or implausible science or etc ....?