SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
Members' Chat
>
Which do you prefer—sci fi or fantasy?
When I was a child in the 1960's, I cut my teeth on Andre Norton. She wrote both science fiction and fantasy, and I loved all of it. I was a morose teen and couldn't take anything seriously except dystopias. I felt that our future would be horrible and depressing. Dystopias were the only truly realistic fiction. At that time, dystopias were always science fiction. There was no such thing as a fantasy dystopia. Eventually, I became an adult and realized that the world hadn't ended or become some sort of grim dystopia yet. Maybe it wouldn't happen within my lifetime.So I looked for books that would give me hope and encountered early urban fantasy which was not the mashup with the noir detective genre that it is now. It was the idea that you could walk down an ordinary urban street and encounter wonderful magic--not a threat, not monsters but something that would inspire and sustain you. The author was Charles De Lint. He is still my favorite fantasy author.
Fantasy can be fun, but Science-Fiction has such a limitless potential for story-telling. In comparison, Fantasy stories tend to mostly retell a limited range of tales (dragons, knights vs monsters/ evil sorcerers, group quests, etc).
I prefer SF, mostly because I like science and gadgets and extrapolation (of tech, of current events, of the impact of both on the other). But I've also read my fair share of Fantasy. I like adventure and derring-do against impossible monsters using abilities that can't possibly exist in reality (or any plausible extension of it). But after a while those stories start feeling the same, whether it's an Extruded Fantasy Product that's a knock-off of Lord of the Rings or an Urban Fantasy with motorcycle-riding elves or vampires running corporations. SF doesn't have that limitation.I guess I agree with Han Solo: "Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side."
I grew up reading a lot more fantasy (as I believe Neil Gaiman once said to a journalist who asked him "Why did you start reading fantasy?" "We all read it as children. Why did you stop?") but moved more to SF in my teens. Fantasy began to annoy me as so much of it is multi-doorstep-volume sagas that seem very similar.I do still dip into fantasy but generally avoid the world-building epics - the Brandon Sandersons and Steve Eriksons leave me utterly cold - preferring Charles de Lint, Jonathan Carroll or the above mentioned Mr G.
I think SF & fantasy generally serve different purposes. To be reductionist, fantasy is more about psychology and SF sociology - but of course there's a helluva lot of cross over.
I like it all, and for different reasons. I love fantasy because there could be anything inside the book. Some authors have amazing imaginations!I love Sci-fi, because it says 'maybe' to me. Even if the tech isn't completely probable. Again, it says amazing imagination to me, which gives me hope, even in the face of the most depressing stories.
I like both but I find myself being more picky when it comes to scifi subgenres. E.g. I prefer reading space opera or military SF.
Mod
If I have to choose a "pure" genre, it's fantasy for me. I like the mystery, and the significance of humanity in overcoming often supernatural conflicts. I like reading the same sorts of stories to see the twists each person adds. Sci-fi is harder for me to ground myself in because it's supposed to be about new concepts and futures. Sometimes they're great, asking what people and society would be like if. Sometimes they feel like laundry lists of gun names and different engine possibilities. The latter I can only take in small doses.
I've thought about this questions a lot over the last few years. I am a tech nut and I love all things science. I'm also a skeptic to the core. I don't believe in anything there isn't concrete proof of. So, on paper, it would seem like Sci-Fi would be my go to option. However, I have always been more drawn to Fantasy. In all honesty I only started reading Sci-Fi over the last year or so. I think I've nailed down two main reasons why I gravitate towards Fantasy.
1. I've always read as a leisure activity. So, being such a skeptic in my everyday life, I enjoy the escapism of the fantastical world. I don't have to look for facts or proof of why things are. They just are. Why? Because magic. It's relaxing to just take things as they're stated and not wonder why they are that way. That being said, I don't like Fantasy novels that have magic/Supernatural systems that make no sense at all. I like order even in my chaos.
2. The language. I ADORE the English language. With all of it's quirks, broken rules and stolen words. I just love the way words sound, even if that sound is only in my mind as I read. I have found that you don't get as much beautiful language in Sci-Fi. It's all technical jargon and descriptions of machines. There are crazy names with X's and Y's and a lot of hard sounds. In Fantasy you have a lot more prose and florid descriptions. There are spells and incantations that often find roots in Latin. The descriptions are of warm, organic things instead of cold machines.
I've probably put a lot more thought into this than I needed to. I'm really excited someone posed the question so that I had an outlet for my overanalyzing. :)
I always read fantasy books. I hardly can remember a time when I wasn't obsessed with the genre. I started reading sci-fi books when I was over 20, and though I enjoy it very much, I still prefer fantasy over sci-fi.It's more easy to read fantasy for me. I got used to the things which can appear in them, like swords, dragons, magicians, battles, heroes, etc. Although I reached a point where the uniqueness became important to me and that's why I rarely find good fantasy books nowadays. I feel like I already read them all, they're so similar to each other.
Sci-fi is a hard nut to crack for me but maybe I just choose badly. I like a story when it takes place on a new planet, deals with colonization and shows us aliens with advanced technologies. But sometimes I come across books with too much scientific blah-blah and that's really not my thing.
Allison wrote: "I'm really liking the trend of "science fantasy." All of the elements of fantasy, but set in a world that's nothing like medieval or modern Earth, which has science-ish reasons for most of the world"My thoughts exactly. I'll have to check out those two books you mentioned.
Sci-fi does have a very large scope, because, not only can it explore the technological possibilities, but it can also have elements of the magical. I'm halfway through reading Perdido Street Station where Theurgy is a branch of the sciences. And Star Wars has the Force, which is not touted as magic, but has all the hallmarks.
Sci-fi also has the potential for mythology; alien races as gods, with technologically superior 'god-like' powers ect.
Both Fantasy and Sci-fi offer a wealth of possibilities, and the important thing for me is how the author uses those possibilities. I tend to avoid any Fantasy that involves dragons elves, dwarves ect, because those have been done to death over the years. I suppose I'm just tired of all the old mythical creatures. I much prefer to see an author use the full extent of their imagination, and come up with something new, and again I think that sci-fi offers a massive range of options for this. The way that real animals have evolved and adapted to all of earth's environments is staggering, and when you throw in all the other possible environments where evolution could have taken place, things get even better.
Kristin wrote: "The language. I ADORE the English language. With all of it's quirks, broken rules and stolen words. I just love the way words sound, even if that sound is only in my mind as I read. I have found that you don't get as much beautiful language in Sci-Fi. It's all technical jargon and descriptions of machines. There are crazy names with X's and Y's and a lot of hard sounds. In Fantasy you have a lot more prose and florid descriptions. There are spells and incantations that often find roots in Latin. The descriptions are of warm, organic things instead of cold machines."
All very good points. Not only do you have the technical jargon in Sci-fi, but there is also the tendency for authors to want to make their alien languages sound, well, alien, so they do end up sounding weird and unnatural to our ear.
The same thing can happen in fantasy, with the names of characters/races/places ect (Hyrunthor the Grobnik, destroyer of the Ptubi tribes of Quib) or they can sound cliched (Halandriel Llariador from the isle of Gelronia)
So, kudos to an author who can make their language sound both original and real.
Shomeret wrote: "When I was a child in the 1960's, I cut my teeth on Andre Norton. "I started out with the Zero Stone and started reading everything by Norton that I could find. I still read both fantasy and sci-fi and I like both formats. Someone who can cross formats like Norton is still probably my favorite.
Is post apocalyptic fantasy the same as science fantasy? Or one is part of the other? I have a tendency to dislike the post apocalyptic fantasy especially if the past was actually our own civilization.
I love "some" of both, IF earth-based. Won't even read "other-worldly" or "space-operas".I enjoy magic elements in my fantasy... and 'techno-thriller' Sci-fi.
Mod
I won't say I'm terribly well-versed in this yet as I'm only just catching up, but from how I read it, science fantasy is more or less just how the author explains magic, rather than a specific setting. Fifth Season is apocalyptic/dystopian (but not like Hunger Games or Divergent or something) and Wild Seed is not. Both look to explain a world that has limited magic, and how it would be different from either the world as we know it or as we imagine the sort of fictitious Dark Age/Renaissance mix used as a setting for most fantasies.
Edited to add the word apocalyptic where I meant it to go :)
Silvana wrote: "Is post apocalyptic fantasy the same as science fantasy? Or one is part of the other? I have a tendency to dislike the post apocalyptic fantasy especially if the past was actually our own civilizat..."Was the apocalyse magical? Was it a spell or a curse, or was it zombies? Zombies are usually a fantasy element. If the apocalypse was based in fantasy, then there is no science fiction element. That means there are no grounds for calling it science fantasy. Science fantasy is usually something like Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover--a mixture of the two.
I like science fiction, and particularly futurism that builds on current technologies. 'What if?' scenarios that take a technology to a logical forecast. I'm worn out with all the dystopias and I think it's encouraging to see that post-cyberpunk is becoming a thing. Still noir and gritty but with a 'this tech stuff might work out well' attitude.
SF almost exclusively. Because, though it can be exceedingly unrealistic or even highly fantastical, it asks you to imagine the presented world as being real. Fantasy doesn't demand that. Fantasy asks the reader to accept the author's creation as being real only in the story. It's a given that the fantasy world does not actually exist. SF says "this might happen if" or "what if this were real." As such I find SF stimulates my immersion and imagination to a greater degree. There are very few fantasy worlds I've read that engaged my imagination or were able to immerse in the reality of their world so much that I could lose myself in them.SF has other advantages for me as well. For one, even if I can't fully immerse myself in the world creation, it can present me with ideas for thought on the nature of reality, the consequences of near-future technology, or the actual scientific applications of cutting edge research. Another is that in SF it is far easier to examine real world social, political, and cultural themes. Fantasy can do that too but since it's already wrapped in a blanket of unreality, it is at least one step removed from reality already and one has to see through that veil in order to draw correlation between the in-story world and the real one.
All this, of course, is a broad generalization, as the scope and definitions of the two genres are wide and extremely blurred (and highly subjective).
Micah wrote: "SF almost exclusively. Because, though it can be exceedingly unrealistic or even highly fantastical, it asks you to imagine the presented world as being real. Fantasy doesn't demand that. Fantasy a..."I never thought about it like that before. Any book has to have a reasonable level of realism to make it immersive, and Sci-fi has the advantage that it starts from what is real and moves forward from that towards what is possible. Fantasy starts from somewhere more fantastical. Well, it is kind of in the name.
A far more interesting question than it may appear. A couple of years ago, I would have said Science Fiction without a doubt. Fantasy books never interested me and I had read very few of them in my lifetime (single digits and I'm no spring chicken). But I joined this club and started doing the club book reading challenge. I have to say that though I still lean towards Sci Fi, the Fantasy books (that I have read) have had much richer characterization and better world building. They seem to better capture beings and what it means to be human. They seem to deal better with the "fuzzies": emotions, morality, human failings, positivity, motivations, internal conflicts etc. Sci Fi seems to do better with tangibles: what is it, does it work, could it work, how would we go about doing it? A Sci Fi novel that does well with the "fuzzies" is far more rare. Of course the number of Fantasy novels that I've read is still quite low, but recently I've read a few that were so good that they may be giving me a false sense of quality (Anansi Boys, The Golem and the Jinni, The Ocean at the End of the Lane, The Library at Mount Char). Yes I've read a couple of stinkers too in Fantasy but not enough to curtail my current view.
This is an interesting discussion! I have always described SF as my favorite genre but I have become more open to reading fantasy. But my standards are higher for fantasy novels, than scifi, I think. Although really I don't like reading books with average ratings below 4.0.I think it's also because the books I read in my formative years were things like Asimov, Clarke and Tolkien. But back then I also read Lloyd Alexander, Andre Norton etc.
My favorite genre is still space opera (Peter Hamilton, Alastair Reynolds, Frank Herbert, Richard Morgan) but I have been transported in recent years by really good fantasy by Brent Weeks, Brian Staveley and Michael Sullivan.
I'm glad there's a forum to discuss both genres and learn more about the best in both.
I have yet to meet a sub-genre of either sci-fi or fantasy that I didn't like. Right now I'm reading a lot of steampunk and space opera. I tend to switch back and forth book-for-book. Rarely will I ever read fiction that isn't either sci-fi or fantasy. Real life? No, thank you. Horror was my first true love. I cut my teeth on Stephen King. It was a logical progression from there to fantasy to science fiction. I've enjoyed every moment of it.
My preference is for science fiction. I enjoy science over magic. I'm also a sucker for time travel and alternate histories.
Shelly wrote: "My preference is for science fiction. I enjoy science over magic. I'm also a sucker for time travel and alternate histories."What Shelly said :)
Mod
I am the exact opposite. I LOVE magic, in all of its manifestations. This will probably make many dislike me, but science fiction with too much actual science is very unappealing to me. Magic just never seems to get old. Also world building seems (as a whole) better in fantasy worlds.
I have definitely increase my intact of sci-if since joining this group.
For those looking for more literary SF, check out the works of Ursua Le Guin, John Varley, Margaret Atwood, Gene Wolfe, Octavia Butler, Kurt Vonnegut, Walter Miller, Theodore Sturgeon and Haruki Murakami. If you're into really challenging stuff on the order of James Joyce, try Samuel R. Delaney.
I prefer sci-fi, but not space opera.Trike, this is the first time I've heard of literary sci-fi. I wish publishers would add that to the sub-genre selections for authors, since that's what I write. I'm going to add that term to my tags. Thanks.
James wrote: "I prefer sci-fi, but not space opera.Trike, this is the first time I've heard of literary sci-fi. I wish publishers would add that to the sub-genre selections for authors, since that's what I writ..."
Here's a Goodreads list of Literary SF. I would disagree with some of the entries, but it's a decent starter list overall.
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/1...
James wrote: "I prefer sci-fi, but not space opera.Trike, this is the first time I've heard of literary sci-fi. I wish publishers would add that to the sub-genre selections for authors, since that's what I writ..."
The BISAC Subject Headings used by distributors are created by the BISG, here's the current list:
http://bisg.org/page/BISAC2015Edition
Click on FICTION then scroll down to the Science Fiction listings where you'll see this:
FIC028110 FICTION / Science Fiction / Genetic Engineering
FIC028020 FICTION / Science Fiction / Hard Science Fiction
FIC028050 FICTION / Science Fiction / Military
FIC028030 FICTION / Science Fiction / Space Opera
FIC028060 FICTION / Science Fiction / Steampunk
No Literary section for Science Fiction. They do take requests:
http://bisg.org/page/TutorialFAQ
Under 'General Issues' there is this Q&A:
"If I need a heading that is not in the list, what do I do?"
Scroll down to see the answer for that question, the hyperlinks don't work.
"The Subject Codes Committee considers all requests from members of BISG and the industry at large for topical content currently not covered by the terms in the headings list. For your suggestion to be given consideration, please specify where the suggested heading belongs and provide at least three title examples from multiple publishers. Please contact us with suggestions. Any accepted requests will be included in the next scheduled version of the BISAC Subject Headings. New versions are released in the fall of each year."
It could work!
Most importantly, I prefer good writing. If the story is well written, if the characters are appealing, if the plot line is interesting, if the setting fires my imagination, I will read and enjoy it.That said, I probably lean a bit more towards science fiction. It seem that there are more new ideas and greater variety to be found there. I loved the Lord of the Rings when I first read it (still do) but now after reading so many fantasy-quest books, it has to be an exceptional one to attract my attention. I loved the modern/urban fantasy genre when I first discovered it a few years ago, but now so many of them see to blend together. Again, it takes an exceptional UF author to keep me interested.
I much less frequently seem to run into that "oh not this again!" feeling with scifi. True some scifi can be derivative or formulaic, but the best of it can also be amazingly creative and original. To me at least this is something that it has over fantasy as a genre.
Michael wrote: "Most importantly, I prefer good writing. If the story is well written, if the characters are appealing, if the plot line is interesting, if the setting fires my imagination, I will read and enjoy i..."A thousand time, this!
I've always enjoyed both fantasy and scifi, but a few years ago, I probably would have answered this with a resounding FANTASY, considering myself more swords over lasers.
Maybe it is the influence of this group, but over the past couple of years I've found myself more drawn to scifi. Maybe I've just picked the right scifi reads that make me want more.
Michael wrote: "I much less frequently seem to run into that "oh not this again!" feeling with scifi. True some scifi can be derivative or formulaic, but the best of it can also be amazingly creative and original. To me at least this is something that it has over fantasy as a genre."Also, what Sci-fi has over Fantasy is that it can more easily combine elements of the two together, and still remain Sci-fi. I mentioned in an earlier post how sci-fi can include 'magic' and 'mythology', but you can't really put too much technology into Fantasy, without it becoming Sci-fi.
I'm still can't say which of the two I would favour. I love the scope that Sci-fi offers, but at the end of the day, I still prefer a stand up sword fight to a blaster duel or a starship dogfight. But of course, that's the best thing about Sc-fi; it presents options beyond action/battle sequences that Fantasy can't.
Basically, though, anything that crosses the boundary between the two is good in my book.
I seem to be bucking the trend here. I just turned 47, and I find that the older I get the more I read fantasy instead of science fiction. I've noticed this about myself for several years, but I'm still not sure what has caused it. I suppose part of it is precisely the opposite of the reason that some of you have given for preferring sci-fi: I don't like reading about worlds where everything is theoretically possible. To me, if everything in the book is possible, it seems kind of prosaic and not even really "fiction". When I do read sci-fi, I prefer worlds far enough in the future that the science is really way out there, e.g., Dune.
Matt wrote: "Also, what Sci-fi has over Fantasy is that it can more easily combine elements of the two together, and still remain Sci-fi. I mentioned in an earlier post how sci-fi can include 'magic' and 'mythology', but you can't really put too much technology into Fantasy, without it becoming Sci-fi. "I strongly disagree with this.
A single element of Fantasy in an otherwise Science Fictional story turns it into Fantasy. That's because SF takes the point of view that the universe is knowable; if we study it, we can puzzle out its secrets. SF is the literature of the possible. Fantasy, on the other hand, is the literature of the impossible. It is storytelling where literally anything goes and there are things about the world that are ultimately unknowable.
Once you put a piece of this attitude into your otherwise rational story, you open the door to other elements where anything goes. That's what converts it to Fantasy.
I think what you're doing here is confusing iconography with outlook. SF and Fantasy have opposite views of life, the universe, and everything. But because we are constantly inundated with Fantasy which has the props of sci-fi (Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who, every superhero movie, Ghostbusters, Transformers, most steampunk, etc.), it becomes easy to conflate the two genres.
Science Fantasy or Space Fantasy is easy to do, because you can have aliens and spaceships and ray guns, but you don't need any actual science. But because it *looks* like technology, we're fooled into thinking it *is* technology.
This is complicated by the fact that Hard Fantasy is currently the ascendant subgenre in Fantasy, and it borrows its rigid internal consistency and obeying of rules from Science Fiction. But again this is a trick, because the rules are imaginary.
The scale looks like this:
Fantasy - Hard Fantasy - Science Fantasy - Science Fiction - Hard SF
The italicized side is where the genres shift from Impossible to Possible. Under Science Fantasy we get subgenres like Urban Fantasy, Flintlock Fantasy and Gunpowder Fantasy. All of these use varying levels of technology, but the important aspect of them is the fantastical, the supernatural, the impossible.
Some subgenres such as Steampunk and Dieselpunk can be either Fantasy or Science Fiction, depending on outlook and intent. It's rare to find actual steampunk SF, precisely because it's much easier to just make stuff up rather than adhere to actual science.
I was going to make the exact same point about fantasy being more historical and sci-fi being, obviously, more futuristic.However, as my other main genre is history, that fits nicely with fantasy (although it does mean I get irate when I see 'fire' being used with regards to longbows...).
I read mostly fantasy, of the two, but occasionally dipping into sci-fi can be nice.
Mod
So where does literary science fiction fit on your scale, then? The majority of the books I knew on the list you posted would fall closer to the "impossible/fantasy" side of the scale, I believe. Probably around "science fantasy". What's the line between hand-wavy magic and hand-wavy science if not a switch to or from strict rules which adhere to (and project from) science as we know it today?
Edit to note that I'm actually curious about thoughts or research on this and not trying to be snarky.
The line becomes blurred again when the singularity enters the science fiction story world. Now the author can conjure up 'science' that needs no basis in knowable facts because, by definition, they are beyond the singularity curtain and therefore unknowable. Which means, sorry, gotta invoke it:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
The limiting factor becomes the writer's imagination which tends to lead back to knowable science as the basis for departure.
I prefer fantasy, hands down. I watch a fair amount of sci-fi, but, for reading, my go-to is definitely fantasy.Part of it might be because growing up I just read more fantasy than sci-fi.
But I think part of it is because I like the past... I like old castles and ruins and forests and magic and stories of faeries and dragons and all that stuff. I like urban fantasy (at least in theory) because I love the idea of magic still existing in this world, right next door to the world we know.
I also like Steampunk, and have been reading a lot of Regency fantasy lately. I fully acknowledge that these stories are romanticizations as opposed to actual reflections - and I'm ok with that...
I think another part of it is that I'm very much a character based reader, and, like the few other fantasy stalwarts have mentioned, I find some sci-fi books to be too wrapped up in world-building* and technobabble and I just sort of zone out. When I do read sci-fi, or sci-fantasy, they tend to be space operas and things of that sort which sort of read like fantasy anyway.
*Epic fantasy, I feel, also tends to suffer from bloated worldbuilding and descriptions of battles and things, which is probably why I've started to avoid epic fantasy with few exceptions.
Mod
Well, sure, I think we largely agree that technology is a way to give mortals the power of gods. But as far as humans putting things into neat boxes go, we draw a line between Mecha fighting-exoskeletons and golems crafted from earth and bone. Powers may be the same, but those are two different stories. And the singularity is still a conjecturable future based on our current technology, while a knife sharp enough to cut rifts in space and time to the nether world where ghosts go (His Dark Materials) is still...dubious. So where are the contours of the boxes between science fantasy and literary sci fi?
Another edit...I realize I may be getting slightly off-topic, but my questioning stems from an internal conflict! Given the list of literary science fiction, maybe I DO prefer sci-fi, and my life has taken a left turn!
I can conjure up a post-singularity artificial intelligence (AI) that could use advanced DNA manipulation techniques to create a golem from earth and bone. The AI could also craft a 'knife' that could cut through to alternate universes if they exist. (Though not to a nether world that, in my belief system, does not exist.) I don't know what you mean by 'Literary Science Fiction' so I don't know how to answer the question about boundaries. It's not a recognized BISAC category.
http://bisg.org/page/Fiction
Mod
Mod
Allison wrote: "Furthermore, Tom, you seem to be suggesting there isn't a difference at all between classic sci-fi and fantasy and that it's all just style and subject matter! I know they're often lumped together ..."No, I recognize the difference but I do think the line can be well blurred.
What I meant by pointing at the BISAC codes is that there isn't a Science Fiction / Literary category, so what genre does that currently cover? Where is it currently shelved? (Just curious!)
Mod
I have read A LOT of fantasy, far more than sci-fi, even have written 15 fantasy novels, but recently, I have been longing for some good sci-fi. I think the last really good sci-fi I read was The Expanse. Great series. I have a couple sci-fi books I want to write but who knows if or when I'll ever jump into it.
Over the space of 40 years my tastes and reading habits have changed. No particular reason, just the way it is.I started out reading a lot of the SF classics; Asimov, Heinlein, Clark etc. Then over the years I went through a long period of reading a lot of Fantasy such as Moorcock, Eddings, Tolkien, Brooks, Feist etc. Now I find myself enjoying hard SF and Space Opera such as Banks, Reynolds & Hamilton more than anything else. I still read some new fantasy, but a lot of it I find particularly lack-luster. There are exceptions, Sanderson's Stormlight Archives really kick butt:)
Allison wrote: "So where does literary science fiction fit on your scale, then? The majority of the books I knew on the list you posted would fall closer to the "impossible/fantasy" side of the scale, I believe. Probably around "science fantasy". What's the line between hand-wavy magic and hand-wavy science if not a switch to or from strict rules which adhere to (and project from) science as we know it today?"The line is just that: extrapolation from science of today.
A convincing extrapolation of current science gives the work of SF that sense of verisimilitude, which makes us buy into the world presented. This doesn't mean that the fictional science as presented has to actually conform to current technology or even theories, but it does have to take an honest stab at it.
The Martian is a good example. Most of that book, but not all, adheres to factual science as we know it. But Weir takes liberties with the science whenever it suits the story. For example, the storm that strands the astronaut on Mars could never actually happen on Mars. As described, it is far too violent an event for the thin Martian atmosphere. But so much of the rest of the book does conform to real science that we give such things a pass. (I originally said it was "minor", but that's not true: literally the entire story depends on that storm getting Watney into that situation, which is pretty major.)
As far as the "literary" part of it, that's not a genre in the sense I'm using it here, meaning a set of criteria which consists of tropes, setting, iconography and themes used to define a work. For example, a Classic Western needs a few key elements, such as the setting being the American West between roughly 1802 and 1900, the iconography of cowboys, horses, guns, isolated towns, etc., and themes like expansionism and frontier wars (the US v. Indians, ranchers v. farmers, settlers v. wilderness), self-reliance, and so on.
"Literary" is more of a style that is more character-centric and less plot-driven, with nuanced emotional insight that lends the work meaning beyond the details of the story, and as such it can be applied to any genre. Lonesome Dove is a Literary Western, while Flowers for Algernon is Literary Science Fiction, and Watership Down is Literary Fantasy.
Tom wrote: "The line becomes blurred again when the singularity enters the science fiction story world. Now the author can conjure up 'science' that needs no basis in knowable facts because, by definition, they are beyond the singularity curtain and therefore unknowable. "Somewhat true, except the Singularity itself is a Science Fictional concept, so if a story is based on the post-singularity experience then it generally takes that into account.
If it is set completely in the post-singularity world, then its apparent genre will be utterly indistinguishable from existing genres, so therefore pointless to speculate about it. For instance, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn or The Catcher in the Rye or Moby Dick could be interpreted as virtual historical experiences someone is experiencing as a "life simulation", something akin to a post-singularity videogame. But if there's no reference to the fact these are artificial constructs within a larger world, then we take them at face value as belonging to whichever genre they would otherwise be.
Tom wrote: "Which means, sorry, gotta invoke it:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
The limiting factor becomes the writer's imagination which tends to lead back to knowable science as the basis for departure. "
Sure. The problem arises when an author uses Clarke's Third Law as a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. They use it as an excuse not to do the work of learning the current state of science and then extrapolating from it. What they do instead is create a supernatural magic system and try to pass it off as Advanced Super Science. That's how we end up with things like Mr. Spock and the Force. Entertaining, illuminating, perhaps even profound if used correctly, but neither of those have a basis in known science and can't work because they violate fundamental principles of already known science.
Mod
A convincing extrapolation of current science gives the work of SF that sense of verisimilitude, which makes us buy into the world presented. This doesn't mean that the fictional science as presented has to actually conform to current technology or even theories, but it does have to take an honest stab at it...."
Thanks for your explanation, this is interesting! I'll do some soul-searching now about who I am as a reader...
Who really uses those definitions? I can easily find examples of books that are categorized as science fiction — in bookstores, in critical writing, in this very group — that violate known scientific principles of the author's time.The definitions are loose summaries of what people with similar interests are reading. I think of them as communities of readers, authors, and publishers. A definition will give you a pretty good idea of what that community reads, discusses, promotes, etc., but there are plenty of books that are outside the definition yet "adopted" by the community. This community view is especially relevant to literary fiction, which has no formal content boundaries.
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Space Merchants (other topics)Wasp (other topics)
Beacon 23 (other topics)
Once We Were Kings (other topics)
Encounter with Tiber (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Arthur C. Clarke (other topics)Jerry Pournelle (other topics)
Debra Doyle (other topics)
Octavia E. Butler (other topics)
For me, fantasy is amazing. I love the "old-timey" feel of the setting, mixed with the mythological and imagination-stretching creatures, races, and scenarios. It's such a diverse landscape that holds amazing stories and memorable characters. From knights in armor to fire-breathing dragons, as a child, fantasy was definitely my favorite.
But, sci-fi appeals much more to me now as an adult. Not a knock on fantasy, but I feel as though fantasy is "looking behind" while sci-fi is "looking ahead" and I find the future a much more uncertain, much more mysterious, and much more engaging premise. Anything from frightful post-apocalyptic tales to vast space operas, the different planets, I find myself far more engaged to science fiction.
That's just my opinion, though, and I love both tremendously. Where do you guys stand?