SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
Members' Chat
>
What is the difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy
Generally science fiction is fiction that's based on science. Some refer to certain science fiction as "hard science fiction," meaning that the science used in the story is based on current scientific theory. Star Wars is considered fantasy or space opera because there is no explanation of science in the story. Sometimes the two genres can blend a little, like the show LOST, where there is a fantasy element as well as science.
Kim wrote: "Some books will fall under both genres, plus other genres as well. Not many books are single-genre only. Agreed that there is no hard and fast rule, but an example (of the point of divergence) is that 'Star Wars' is fantasy and 'Star Trek' is science fiction.
I would also note that science fiction does not necessarily involve spaceships and/or the distant future.
Not an easy question...things get murky quickly. I would argue that the difference (if there is one) lies in the degree of control in the hands of the characters. Fantasy usually involves fate, a geas, a prophesy, being chosen. Sci Fi usually involves a character figuring out a solution to a problem within a self-consistent universe of rules. Just saying "If there's magic or dragons, it's fantasy" doesn't work very well. In Pern the dragons are not magical ...telepathic, but not magical. In Star Wars Lucas walked the line...the force is magical, Luke is chosen, but the tone is space opera. I have explored this a bit in my own work...how could science discover magic? (www.thewronggod.com if interested)
Kim wrote: "Some books will fall under both genres, plus other genres as well."This comment physically hurts me. I'm not exaggerating.
Although they share a common parentage, Fantasy and Science Fiction are complete opposites. Science Fiction says that the universe is knowable, explicable, understandable; Fantasy tells us there are things beyond our mortal ken, things we do not understand and can never understand. SF is the literature of the possible, while Fantasy is the literature of the impossible.
Splitting this particular hair isn't really a big deal outside of discussions like this -- genres are just flavors of entertainment, after all -- but I think it's possible to delineate each genre from its neighbor.
I want to point out that saying something is part of Genre A but not Genre B does not mean that one is superior to the others. I've been having this same discussion for 30-plus years and when you tell people things like, "The Hunt for red October is Science Fiction" or "The Man From Snowy River isn't a Western" some of them tend to lose their minds for reasons I only partially understand.
I suspect it's because of basic prejudice, but I don't think sorting things into categories is a bad thing; it just helps us find them later.
Trike wrote: "This comment physically hurts me. I'm not exaggerating.Although they share a common parentage, Fantasy and Science Fiction are complete opposites. "
They aren't mutually exclusive. I would consider Wild Cards and Retribution Falls as two books which contain elements from both genres.
I don't think any book needs to be pigeonholed as any one particular genre and no other.
Pat wrote: "Agreed that there is no hard and fast rule, but an example (of the point of divergence) is that 'Star Wars' is fantasy and 'Star Trek' is science fiction."I would disagree with this assessment, actually. They're both Fantasy with science fictional props. As soon as you have someone like Spock walking around, a being that we know for a fact to be biologically impossible, you've switched genres. Star Trek works really well as allegorical fantasy, but it's not particularly good science fiction.
If something happens in a story that is impossible by the laws of nature as we know them, then it is Fantasy. Personally, I think that a single fantastical thing is enough to render an otherwise pedestrian story into a work of Fantasy.
Case in point: Hamlet. The ghost of Hamlet's dad shows up demanding vengeance for his murder. If only Hamlet had seen him, that could have been dismissed as the imagination of an overwrought teenager. (And Hamlet is the poster child for overwrought teenager.) But others see the ghost as well, thus making him a real character.
Similarly, the movie Harvey is about a guy named Elwood whose friend is a 6-foot-4 invisible rabbit that only he can see and hear. Throughout the movie (I haven't seen the play) a case can be made that Harvey is entirely imaginary and that Elwood is crazy. Until you get to the ending, where Harvey interacts with the world and others can see it.
Both the ghost in Hamlet and the rabbit in Harvey interact briefly with the real world, but those moments are enough to place those stories within the Fantasy genre. Same with Spock: he can't be real, therefore he's not science fictional.
People tend to get really mad when I say that, but I'm not saying Star Trek sucks or that it's somehow lesser of a show for being Fantasy rather than Science Fiction -- I'm just following the logic where it leads.
Pat wrote: "I would also note that science fiction does not necessarily involve spaceships and/or the distant future."
This I completely agree with.
Most people say "Fantasy" and they mean only a particular sub-genre of Fantasy, typically Epic Fantasy such as Lord of the Rings. They also include Harry Potter these days, which is Contemporary Fantasy, but I haven't found many people who make that distinction.
But Fantasy is an incredibly wide-ranging genre that encompasses all the other genres.
When people say "Science Fiction" they tend to mean Space Opera like Star Wars and Star Trek, but sometimes include things like Transformers and The Matrix without making a distinction there, either.
As to Pern, I tend to think of it as Science Fiction, but by the rule of "possible versus impossible" it falls into Fantasy.It's not the existence of dragons which determines this, nor is it the fact that they can teleport and travel through time... it's the fact that they can do this by merely wanting to do it that makes it Fantasy.
Many people will say that teleportation, time travel and faster-than-light travel are impossible, so they aren't science fiction. I disagree. Many well-regarded physicists think that all of those things are possible and we don't know for a fact that they aren't. Until we know either way, I say let them in to the genre.
Kim wrote: "Trike wrote: "This comment physically hurts me. I'm not exaggerating.Although they share a common parentage, Fantasy and Science Fiction are complete opposites. "
They aren't mutually exclusive. I would consider Wild Cards and Retribution Falls as two books which contain elements from both genres.
I don't think any book needs to be pigeonholed as any one particular genre and no other."
As I said, I think they are. They are polar opposites in their view of the universe. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this (it was going to be my PhD thesis had I stayed in college that long) and while I agree that no book "needs" to be pigeonholed, I find it highly entertaining -- as well as immensely helpful -- to do so.
Trike, you make me feel like I've got to choose a religion before choosing my next book! I'm not sure the line is so clean cut. Stereotypical fantasy and sterotypical science fiction both involve things that don't exist in our world. For example, as noted, fantasy often has dragons, sci-fi may have, say, faster than light travel.
It seems that by your definition the major difference between the two is that the sci-fi book will try to explain how, technically, faster than light travel is possible, while the fantasy book will just have dragons without explanation. So then a book that has stereotypical dragons that the author explains have evolved or been bred from lizards in our world would be sci-fi, and a book where people get in a rocketship and travel faster than light by some unexplained magical force would be fantasy. That distinction makes a lot of sense to me, but I bet most bookstores and libraries call the dragon one fantasy and the space travel one sci-fi.
This is all to say that I don't think a precise definition is going to be accurate to how people use the words. Each genre is typified by a group of characteristics, a family resemblance. What a book is, fantasy or sci-fi, is ultimately determined by what we call it. And how we label books, in turn influences what people read, react to, and write.
Trike wrote: "As soon as you have someone like Spock walking around, a being that we know for a fact to be biologically impossible, you've switched genres."Wait ... what? Is there something I don't know about Spock that makes him impossible? I mean given the immense variety of life on Earth, surely a humanoid alien, with different but overlapping biological features would be possible and scientifically explainable. Isn't it possible humans will evolve into vulcans over the coming millenia? Sure, it's not really going to happen, but that's why it's called science-fiction.
I've always thought of the spaceship, life on other worlds as sci fi...anything based on a semblence of science. Fantasy for me has always dealt with things not of this world but in this world in a book, i.e. vampires, werewolves, demons...evil creatures that need defeating adventures. But I have noticed that bookstores and libraries can't seem to make up their minds.
Magic = FantasyScience = Sci-fi
Magic & Science (or MagiTech) = Science Fantasy
When you say Spock doesn't exist, I cry foul.I heard Larry Niven say at a convention that he believed Ring World to be hard sci fi. Ring World has a alien bipedal warrior-cat that speaks English. I don't think that's hard sci fi, but there are elements of fantasy in almost every sci fi story.
Jeff wrote: "Trike wrote: "As soon as you have someone like Spock walking around, a being that we know for a fact to be biologically impossible, you've switched genres."Wait ... what? Is there something I do..."
I'm not exactly a Trekkie, but I don't recall anything 'biologically impossible' about the Vulcans - certainly on Earth we have a vastly greater diversity of life, and all from a common evolutionary root (think bacteria to elephant) than shown between Terran and Vulcan. In fact I believe the only real difference is a similar but different reproductive cycle - but not so different that they can't interbreed.
Vulcans have (so the story goes) managed to suppress their emotions in favour of logic, but even that lets them down occasionally and is anyway not biological.
Science fiction is difficult to define, as it includes a wide range of subgenres and themes. Author, Mark C. Glassy, argues that the definition of science fiction is like the definition of pornography: you don't know what it is, but you know it when you see it. ( Science fiction ).Wikipedia continues: Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with the impact of imagined innovations in science or technology, often in a futuristic setting. Exploring the consequences of such innovations is the traditional purpose of science fiction, making it a literature of ideas.
Science fiction is largely based on writing rationally about alternative possibilities. It is similar to, but differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation).
The settings for science fiction are often contrary to known reality but the majority of science fiction relies on a considerable degree of suspension of disbelief, which is facilitated in the reader's mind by potential scientific explanations or solutions to various fictional elements. These may include:
A setting in the future, in alternative timelines, or in an historical past that contradicts known facts of history or the archaeological record
A setting in outer space, on other worlds, or involving aliens.
Stories that involve technology or scientific principles that contradict known laws of nature.
Discovery or application of new scientific principles plots, such as time travel or psionics, or new technology, such as nanotechnology, faster-than-light travel or robots, or of new and different political or social systems (e.g., a dystopia, or a situation where organized society has collapsed)
http://www.geni.com/projects/Sci-Fi-S...
I think what Trike means re Spock is that a cross between a Vulcan and a Terran (which Spock is) is biologically impossible -- not that Vulcans are implausible in themselves.
Margaret wrote: "I think what Trike means re Spock is that a cross between a Vulcan and a Terran (which Spock is) is biologically impossible -- not that Vulcans are implausible in themselves."Is? I didn't know that - I had it in my mind he had been raised by Terran (or was that Warf?). Either way, the Vulcans are shown as humanoid and so similar to us that I don't think you can assume they can't interbreed without knowing their genetical makeup. Statistically, the evidence would suggest they are the same species.
Trike wrote: "Science Fiction says that the universe is knowable, explicable, understandable; Fantasy tells us there are things beyond our mortal ken, things we do not understand and can never understand. SF is the literature of the possible, while Fantasy is the literature of the impossible..."Just curious on how you would classify a book where a pseudo-scientific explanation for an occurrence is given that the author clearly believed was possible (or at least wants you to believe is possible), but is in reality absolutely impossible due to some other branch of science the author didn’t take into consideration.
Melanti wrote: "Trike wrote: "Science Fiction says that the universe is knowable, explicable, understandable; Fantasy tells us there are things beyond our mortal ken, things we do not understand and can never unde..."The scientific philosophy is that everything 'is knowable, explicable, understandable', but not necessarily by us - not now and possibly ever, the contrary is the realm of religion.
What was scientifically impossible 500 years ago is scientifically commonplace today. The science hasn't changed, only our understanding.
Christopher wrote: "...Star Wars is considered fantasy or space opera because there is no explanation of science in the story...."There's no "explanation" of how a car works in a detective novel, but no one worries about the lack of "scientific explanation" of the internal combustion engine.
"Hard" SF would be strictly limited to that which is possible using today's knowledge OR that which can be extrapolated from it. For instance faster than light travel is an extrapolation (and before you go all Einstein on me, remember that FTL has been demonstrated at least once in the lab).
The fastest way I know of to lose an audience is for the author to attempt to explain how Duck Dodgers' space speeder works using phoney scientific baffle-gab. Really good stories are about people (or cartoon ducks?), not about equipment. The only thing Spaceman Spiff cares about when he jumps into his personal space fighter is that, when he turns the key and tromps on the accelerator, the thing flies. And that's all the reader cares about.
There's no "explanation" of how a car works in a detective novel,..."Everyone knows that the Enterprise is powered by antimatter using dilithium crystals. What powers the Millennium Falcon other than hitting the console with your fist? That's the difference between sci fi and fantasy.
Jeff wrote: "Trike, you make me feel like I've got to choose a religion before choosing my next book!"Yer either fer us or agin us!
Jeff wrote: "It seems that by your definition the major difference between the two is that the sci-fi book will try to explain how, technically, faster than light travel is possible, while the fantasy book will just have dragons without explanation. So then a book that has stereotypical dragons that the author explains have evolved or been bred from lizards in our world would be sci-fi, and a book where people get in a rocketship and travel faster than light by some unexplained magical force would be fantasy. That distinction makes a lot of sense to me, but I bet most bookstores and libraries call the dragon one fantasy and the space travel one sci-fi."
I can't be held responsible for the deplorable ignorance of others on this ultra-geeky, ridiculously-specialized, fringey, edge-of-fandom topic that's of interest to 27 people on the planet. ;)
Your description about the sci-fi dragons versus the fantasy rockets is spot-on, and exactly what I mean. There have been stories like that, too.
The thing about most genres is that they rely on settings and tropes to derive their essence. When you start listing the requirements for a Western, you end up in a specific place above all else. When you start thinking about a Police Procedural, the essence is that of an authority trying to find a guilty party in a crime, divorced entirely from milieu.
But Fantasy and Science Fiction stand apart in that the essence is their worldview. (See above comment.) there are no other story requirements for them at all. No setting, no era, no purpose, no tropes, nothing other than the underlying idea.
I think there's a difference between something being explained or not, and something being explained as 'magic'.Pretty much all fantasy is, in essence, the successor to traditional fairy-tales - the struggle between good and evil, the little guy(s) battling the odds, the evil power-brokers and overlords, and even on occasion the magic and dragons.
Trike said: I can't be held responsible for the deplorable ignorance of others on this ultra-geeky, ridiculously-specialized, fringey, edge-of-fandom topic that's of interest to 27 people on the planet.You're exaggerating, Trike, there're only 13 in this conversation. ;)
...there are no other story requirements for them at all. No setting, no era, no purpose, no tropes, nothing other than the underlying idea.
Very true, I have a book (definitely 'hard' science fiction) that is set back in the 1960's and involves humans and ants - real, ordinary ants (Formica rufus, if you want to be pedantic, and sadly I usually do). Not futuristic, not technological and not in space.
Christopher wrote: "I heard Larry Niven say at a convention that he believed Ring World to be hard sci fi. Ring World has a alien bipedal warrior-cat that speaks English. I don't think that's hard sci fi, but there are elements of fantasy in almost every sci fi story."I've long though that Known Space isn't hard SF because Niven has humans evolving on another planet, then coming to live on Earth. That's just not so.
However, some big-name physicist (Stephen Hawking?) said that while the universe is infinite, information isn't. So somewhere out there patterns repeat. Which means there's another Earth somewhere where we all exist and we're having this exact conversation. Which is seriously mind-bending. So parallel evolution... maybe. I haven't made up my mind about that.
Also, all the creatures in Niven's universe evolved from the same source (Thrintun food) on similar planets, so a shared biology isn't entirely out of the question. All of this stretches my credulity but doesn't quite break it.
Christopher wrote: "When you say Spoke doesn't exist, I cry foul."Margaret wrote: "I think what Trike means re Spock is that a cross between a Vulcan and a Terran (which Spock is) is biologically impossible -- not that Vulcans are implausible in themselves."
Exactly. The described physiology of Vulcans (eg. "copper-based blood") means that they are incompatible with humans. Even if you presume parallel evolution caused Vulcans to develop a nearly identical humanoid form, the fact that their biology is based on copper where ours is based on iron simply makes them too alien to interbreed with humans.
Even if Vulcans have similar sexual systems (insert your own "space junk" joke here), Amanda's body would treat Sarek's sperm as poison and any possible fetus as an infection. And if they engage in oral sex, Sarek's sperm would cause copper toxicity, which can kill you.
So Spock? No way.
Melanti wrote: "Just curious on how you would classify a book where a pseudo-scientific explanation for an occurrence is given that the author clearly believed was possible (or at least wants you to believe is possible), but is in reality absolutely impossible due to some other branch of science the author didn’t take into consideration. "Kind of sounds like bad research more than anything. Do you have something in particular in mind?
Pat wrote: "I think there's a difference between something being explained or not, and something being explained as 'magic'.Pretty much all fantasy is, in essence, the successor to traditional fairy-tales - the struggle between good and evil, the little guy(s) battling the odds, the evil power-brokers and overlords, and even on occasion the magic and dragons."
Epic Fantasy certainly has that at its heart, and it's the default sub-genre people usually mean when they say "This is Fantasy," but that's not the case for all fantasy. Or magical fairy tales, for that matter.
One of my favorite Fantasy stories, "A Proper Santa Claus" by Anne McCaffrey, has conflict at its heart only in the sense that adults don't understand Jeremy's art. Jeremy gets the soul of the object right, which causes it to come to life, but he rarely gets the details correct in the eyes of grown-ups. He paints chocolate chip cookies that he can eat, but when he makes Halloween creatures, they are made of paint. It doesn't really make sense, but it doesn't have to, because it's a fantasy based on a child's imagination. Rules are secondary to the point of the story.
One of the most famous Fantasy stories, Kafka's "The Metamorphosis", doesn't really fit the mold of typical good-versus-evil tales. It has conflict as a result of Gregor's transformation, but that just makes sense when you turn into a 3-foot-long bug.
Christopher wrote: "...What powers the Millennium Falcon other than hitting the console with your fist? ..."Works for the dash lights on my car and that is "science".
Let's reserve fantasy for things outside the realm of "possible" (at least as far as we see it, given that "any sufficiently advanced form of science is indistinguishable from magic.")
Someone living on another world inhabited by humanoids, some of whom are orange, is science. It's possible. If they wave their magic wands and demons appear, that's fantasy (at least I HOPE it is).
It gets fuzzy sometimes. Most of the world believes in one form of supreme being or another (God if you will) and firmly believe in the powers attributed to their God or gods. I believe in the Christian Trinity and have no problem reconciling His power with our use of science. To me, both can coexist. In fact, in my world, God created everything including the rules of nature and physics that we use for "science".
Now, if I include God in one of my stories and no other form of magic or supernatural stuff, no one is going to think of it as "fantasy". They may scoff at my lack of "sophistication", but they'll accept it as "hard" science fiction. If I add FTL flight, they'll still buy it. If I add the wand and the magic or fairies, Orks, centaurs, or such, they'll classify it as "fantasy" and my muse, who sits on my shoulder, will laugh at them for their lack of "sophistication" ;-)...
I hate to be a stickler but "The Metamorphosis" by Kafka is classified as "literature" and "fiction" not "fantasy" as a genre. Maybe that's part of the problem with our look at fantasy vs science fiction. After all, all fictional stories are essentially fantasy because they are made up...fiction, but we like to classify a certain type of story as "fantasy" and that's what we're trying to define.
Caron wrote: "I hate to be a stickler but "The Metamorphosis" by Kafka is classified as "literature" and "fiction" not "fantasy" as a genre. Maybe that's part of the problem with our look at fantasy vs science fiction. After all, all fictional stories are essentially fantasy because they are made up...fiction, but we like to classify a certain type of story as "fantasy" and that's what we're trying to define."That's sort of the opposite of being a stickler, I think.
In discussions such as these, I find it useless to say "all fiction is fantasy because it's not real." That's true, but utterly pointless. That's like saying, "there's no point in determining the difference between an ape and a man, because they're both mammals."
If "The Metamorphosis" isn't fantasy, what is it? "Literature" isn't a specific genre -- it incorporates all the other genres. "Frankenstein" is literature, but it's Science Fiction. Gabriel Garcia Marquez won the Nobel Prize for Literature specifically *because* his novels are magical realist stories, a sub-genre of Fantasy. "Moby-Dick" is literature, but you can't deny it's an adventure tale. And so on.
Basically the term "literature" is what snobs assign to books they don't want to feel guilty about reading.
Caron wrote: "I hate to be a stickler but "The Metamorphosis" by Kafka is classified as "literature" and "fiction" not "fantasy" as a genre. Maybe that's part of the problem with our look at fantasy vs science f..."This is a whole different ballpark. There is a school of thought that, by definition, science fiction can't be literature - therefore any science fiction of literary merit cannot be science fiction. This happens with all fiction.
I have experienced this myself on numerous occasions, albeit in small way. That is, people who profess to dislike science fiction but, for one reason or another, read and enjoy a book of my will inevitably assert that they don't regard it as science fiction.
To be honest, I think it's more about the reader's perception of themselves than any particular aspect of the book concerned.
But let's face it, none of this matters a toss, only whether the story is engaging or not. Personally, my biggest gripe is that so much genre fiction is lacking in originality.
With both science fiction and fantasy, almost everything I read gives me a feeling that it's somehow familiar - same structure, the same cliches, the same outcomes - no matter how well or badly it is written. There are plenty of exceptions, of course, but they are a minority.
I completely agree that the story has to be engaging! I think part of the problem you see with a lack of originality is due to the bix 6 publishers. They only want what they think is going to sell and so we readers get stuck with the same ol' same ol'. That's why I like those who self-publish! :)
The self-published have the same percentage of original fiction as the traditionally published. Few authors have the requisite imagination to be original. Sturgeon's Law applies.
Caron wrote: "I completely agree that the story has to be engaging! I think part of the problem you see with a lack of originality is due to the bix 6 publishers. They only want what they think is going to sell ..."Small publishers are also filling the void and often with stuff that's both new and superior to what NY puts out. The big difference is often editing. Self-publishers who do all their own work, often put out sub-standard work. Those who go with a publisher (or spend a few dollars) get another pair or eyes (or more) to pick up the problems the author is too close to see.
Well, I just think there is a degree of originality in the self-pub world that is lacking elsewhere because they don't have to answer to anyone. However, I agree completely that it is work that should be thoroughly edited to enjoy and unfortunately many don't edit and it gives the rest of us a bad rap. Fortunately, there are so many "look inside this" options so that you can sample a writer's work. Within the first few pages, you can tell if the work has been edited. :)
Trike wrote: "Kind of sounds like bad research more than anything. Do you have something in particular in mind? ..."This isn’t the best example and is contrary to part of what I asked but Richard Matheson. In the couple of books by him that I've read, he spends a great deal of time giving pseudo-scientific explanations for everything that happens. He spends pages and pages detailing how vampires or someone shrinking is possible and those details are important to his characters. Those details are also utter nonsense. We're clearly meant to believe them but vampires or shrinking men just aren't possible, no matter how you try to explain it.
It's not a changing understanding of science at fault, nor a lack of research. I seriously doubt Matheson truly believed vampires could exist or that men could shrink to the size of an ant and beyond.
Do you call it fantasy because vampires and shrinking men are impossible and the explanations bogus? Or do you call it Science Fiction because he spent a lot of time grounding his plot in science.
This may sound like a total dodge, but I'm slowly coming around to the coinage 'the fantastique' to cover sf AND fantasy. I read it in an interview with Clive Barker - whose fiction I don't care for but who I find to be an engaging and insightful interview subject (go figure) - and I find it works for me. I'm perfectly happy with an engaging and well-written sf story with iffy to downright inaccurate science, particularly where errors need to be pointed out by an expert. Does questionable science no longer make that story 'science fiction'? A lot of good stories using at-the-time cutting-edge theories have been rendered obsolete by later discoveries and developments. What about them? I remember Bussard ram-scoops for starflight being a popular story element in the 1970s and I'm pretty sure it's been established that the basic math actually doesn't work out. Scientifically speaking, non-human intelligent life and FTL travel are still a big load of hand-waving and no-one is lumping those tropes in with dragons and wizards.
In the 1940s,John W Campbell edited the short-lived pulp UNKNOWN and while it was fantasy in theme, he wanted his authors to develop and present magic, spells and other fantastical elements logically.
In short (or not, given my blathering), for me, you can subdivide stories within the Fantastique by the elements and tropes they use. For example,if you remove the cultural and stylistic markers from the story and it could be recognized and collected by either Andrew Lang or the Bros Grimm, it's 'fantasy'. If the story requires a basic understanding of a 'computer' and what it does/can do, it's 'science fiction'.
Jaime wrote: "This may sound like a total dodge, but I'm slowly coming around to the coinage 'the fantastique' to cover sf AND fantasy. I read it in an interview with Clive Barker - whose fiction I don't care fo..."I agree.
While I tend to be a bit anal regarding genre and sub genre classification (trust me, you do NOT want me to explain my complicated library shelving system :-), I'm really specific about what needs to be hit to be considered "a" or "b."
I consider Star Wars to be fantasy - I know there are ships but it's so fantastical in nature that it fits the genre. There's no real logical explanation for quite a few things in Star Wars.
I consider Anne McCaffrey's Brain and Brawn series to be sci-fi...even though quite a bit of it can read like fantasy. There is a scientific explanation for everything. And it hits my major requirement for scifi: Does the story depend on scientific exploration or development?
If yes, I consider it sci-fi. If "no" I consider it fantasy.
@NYKen - I'm sorry, but I think I read it in my local free alternative paper the LA WEEKLY. It was years ago, quite possibly to coincide with the release of the original HELLRAISER movie. The paper does have an online presence and possibly a searchable archive. Good luck.
Melanti wrote: "It's not a changing understanding of science at fault, nor a lack of research. I seriously doubt Matheson truly believed vampires could exist or that men could shrink to the size of an ant and beyond.Do you call it fantasy because vampires and shrinking men are impossible and the explanations bogus? Or do you call it Science Fiction because he spent a lot of time grounding his plot in science."
I would call those examples Fantasy. Although I've seen the movies, I actually haven't read either I Am Legend or The Incredible Shrinking Man, but based on your description I'd place them in the subgenre of Science Fantasy. That's Fantasy (impossible stuff) with the set decoration of Science Fiction. As opposed to Hard Fantasy, which is clearly intended to be Fantasy except with well-delineated rules.
I want to reiterate that this is simply a matter of sorting things, not a judgement about quality or inherent worthiness.
With only a couple of exceptions, I'm a fan of most genres in both movies and literature, so I don't deem a work to be of lesser value just because it's Science Fantasy rather than Hard SF. Genre has nothing to do with quality. For some reason a lot of people equate the two, but I don't.
Jaime wrote: "I'm perfectly happy with an engaging and well-written sf story with iffy to downright inaccurate science, particularly where errors need to be pointed out by an expert. Does questionable science no longer make that story 'science fiction'? A lot of good stories using at-the-time cutting-edge theories have been rendered obsolete by later discoveries and developments. What about them? I remember Bussard ram-scoops for starflight being a popular story element in the 1970s and I'm pretty sure it's been established that the basic math actually doesn't work out."I tend to fall on the side of verisimilitude. If it *sounds* like it could work, then I'm fine with that.
As far as books where science has surpassed what's in the novel, I invoke the Grandfather Clause. There are really two standout SF works about submarines: 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and The Hunt for Red October. When they were written, neither the Nautilus nor the Red October could be built as described. Now, however, they can. Because they were science fiction at the time of publication, though, they get a pass. Same with Bussard ramjets and the like.
Jaime wrote: "Scientifically speaking, non-human intelligent life and FTL travel are still a big load of hand-waving and no-one is lumping those tropes in with dragons and wizards."
As I said upthread, as long as something hasn't been shown to be impossible, we should let it into the genre. Lots of actual physicists think FTL is possible, and it's no big stretch to extrapolate non-human intelligence based on what we've seen here (dolphins, octopi, birds, etc.), so until those are disproved, they're fair game.
MrsJoseph wrote: "While I tend to be a bit anal regarding genre and sub genre classification (trust me, you do NOT want me to explain my complicated library shelving system :-), I'm really specific about what needs to be hit to be considered "a" or "b.""I'm interested in hearing how you parse your genres. I love this stuff.
I'm in the process of re-doing my shelving system right now (two new bookcases!!!!!) but currently my system is:Favorite Author
Genre
Sub-genre
Author
Author --> Genre
Author --> Sub-genre
Non-fiction
Author
Non-Fiction --> education
Author
Non-Fiction --> Self-Help
Religious
Religious Discussions
One Shelf for Current Reads
Of course, my genre/sub-genre is a matter of perspective. I consider any fantasy book set in a urban environment (an actual city/city center) to be Urban Fantasy - even if the world culture is not set in current or future technology. So (for example) I file Swords of Haven: The Adventures of Hawk and Fisher and Thieves' World to be Urban although others do not.
I pop back onto Good Reads after taking a break with real life and sit down to get caught up on all the threads.Saw this one and thought: Oh Frak, not this shit again.
Some topics never die, Lara. No matter how much we may want them to :P
Lara Amber wrote: "Oh Frak, not this shit again."Yeah, this is a topic that gets discussed too much. fwiw, I like George R.R. Martin's "Furniture Rule". "I think for me it is a matter of the furnishings. An elf or an alien may in some ways fulfill the same function, as a literary trope. It’s almost a matter of flavor."
For anyone who doesn't feel that they've already heard everything that can be said about the question, there were some really interesting discussions on this in the blogosphere about a year ago, started off by a post by David Brin, and some of the articles and conversations are cross-linked here.
Nice interesting read, thanks for posting the link.
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Watchmen (other topics)Metropolitan (other topics)
Operation Chaos (other topics)
Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea (other topics)
Perdido Street Station (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Lyndon Hardy (other topics)Arthur C. Clarke (other topics)
Orson Scott Card (other topics)
The Lord of the Rings, Magician and A Wizard of Earthsea are good examples of (what I consider) true fantasy.
Foundation, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia I consider true science-fiction.
I don't think there are any hard and fast "rules". I decide after I read a book which genre/s I think it goes in. If it's full of magic then it will be straight into fantasy, if it's spaceships and futuristic technology it will go to sci-fi.
Star Wars is something that I think straddles the line and belongs under both genres. I also think people get too caught up in genre debates.