Magic to Make the Sanest...confirmed "bottle episode"

[Mudd]

Good, and early, SF and Fantasy writers, would disagree with you.

They are at liberty to do so, and be wrong.

Vonnegut had a thing to say about sf writers who took "defining science fiction" terribly seriously.

Construct a line of logic whereby science fiction like Star Trek is not a kind of fantasy, without being ridiculous.

Go ahead.

 

[eschaton]

Star Wars is no more or less science fiction than Star Trek. Science fiction is just a label for a certain subgenre of fantasy.

The term you're looking for is speculative fiction. Which is also inclusive of alternate history, horror, utopian/dystopian fiction, superheroes, supernatural, magical realism, etc.

Fantasy - at least if defined as a self-aware literary genre separate from folklore and children's stories - is arguably a more recent construct than science fiction. Certainly it predated Tolkien by a bit, but Frankenstein is recognizably a science fiction novel, and was published 30 years prior to the first adult fantasy works.

Personally, I've always preferred authors who aren't easily pigeonholed as SF, fantasy, or horror: Matheson, Sturgeon, Lovecraft, Serling, Leiber, Bradbury, Burroughs, etc. Bending genre boundaries is more fun than keeping everything in tidy little boxes.

I grew up in a "SFnal" household, with parents who loved sci-fi but freely disparaged fantasy. I read all of the classics as a child, but aside from some Arthur C Clarke novels, none of it really appealed to me. My tastes run more to either hard/semi-hard sci-fi (Gregory Benford, Greg Egan, etc) or conversely to "soft" sci-fi which is heavy on social allegory (LeGuin, Tepper, Octavia Butler, etc). I wasn't really exposed to any fantasy until I went away to college and got past my childhood hangups. I'll read George RR Martin, Tad Williams, and especially China Meiville now.

Construct a line of logic whereby science fiction like Star Trek is not a kind of fantasy, without being ridiculous.

Go ahead.

Issac Asimov's definition:

"Science fiction can be defined as that branch of literature which deals with the reaction of human beings to changes in science and technology."

It's unquestionable this applies to Star Trek - hence Star Trek is science fiction in the Asimovian sense.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

especially China Meiville now.

Fellow Meiville fan here! He needs to hurry up and write another Bas-Lag novel

 

[Mudd]

And science fiction is a kind of fantasy, as are supernatural horror, fairy tales etc. Look up "fantasy."

"Argument from authority" is meaningless with respect to this. damon knight once famously wrote, "Science Fiction means what we point to when we say it," and he was right.

The term you're looking for is speculative fiction.

"Fantasy" works fine and is completely accurate, thanks.

For short I just call most of this stuff "skiffy" but that's slang.

 

[jaime]

And science fiction is a kind of fantasy, as are supernatural horror, fairy tales etc. Look up "fantasy."

"Argument from authority" is meaningless with respect to this. damon knight once famously wrote, "Science Fiction means what we point to when we say it," and he was right.



"Fantasy" works fine and is completely accurate, thanks.

For short I just call most of this stuff "skiffy" but that's slang.

So, what’s the defining point for you between fantasy and fiction in general? Cos it must be fairly loose.
And skiffy has a known use too.

 

[eschaton]

And science fiction is a kind of fantasy, as are supernatural horror, fairy tales etc. Look up "fantasy."

"Argument from authority" is meaningless with respect to this. damon knight once famously wrote, "Science Fiction means what we point to when we say it," and he was right.

"Fantasy" works fine and is completely accurate, thanks.

For short I just call most of this stuff "skiffy" but that's slang.

Let's look up the Wiki definition of fantasy:

Fantasy is a genre of speculative fiction set in a fictional universe, often without any locations, events, or people referencing the real world. Its roots are in oral traditions, which then became literature and drama. From the twentieth century it has expanded further into various media, including film, television, graphic novels and video games.

Fantasy is a subgenre of speculative fiction and is distinguished from the genres of science fiction and horror by the absence of scientific or macabre themes respectively, though these genres overlap. In popular culture, the fantasy genre is predominantly of the medievalist form. In its broadest sense, however, fantasy consists of works by many writers, artists, filmmakers, and musicians from ancient myths and legends to many recent and popular works.

...

Fantasy has often been compared to science fiction and horror because they are the major categories of speculative fiction. Fantasy is distinguished from science fiction by the plausibility of the narrative elements. A science fiction narrative is unlikely, though seemingly possible through logical scientific or technological extrapolation, where fantasy narratives do not need to be scientifically possible.[1] Authors have to rely on the readers' suspension of disbelief, an acceptance of the unbelievable or impossible for the sake of enjoyment, in order to write effective fantasies. Despite both genres' heavy reliance on the supernatural, fantasy and horror are distinguishable. Horror primarily evokes fear through the protagonists' weaknesses or inability to deal with the antagonists.[4]

Now, I certainly agree that one can say that Trek is not scientifically plausible any longer. TOS did strive to be relatively scientificly plausible for TV sci-fi of its time period - less pulphouse fiction and more "soft sci-fi." As I said, adherence to canon and continuity meant that Trek got to become a more and more implausible universe as time went on. You can claim however, that Trek is a fantasy in its current form I suppose if you really want to - although it shares basically no common threads with say Tolkien whatsoever.

I absolutely and catagorically reject the claim that all sci-fi is fantasy. There's a whole modern sub-genre of science fiction called mundane science fiction. It's basically ultra-hard sci-fi that includes no implausible elements at all - no FTL, no aliens, no hypothetical future tech. Often the settings are just a few decades in the future and involve logical extrapolation of already existing tech. Cory Doctorow is probably the most famous author who writes in this genre. His 2009 book, Makers, is basically just a setting a few decades in the future which extrapolates what more advanced 3D printing and a slow "post-work" collapse of the economy will look like.

More generally, genre is defined in literature by a mixture of technique, tone, content, etc. Often the approach that a novelist takes helps to define a work far more than even its setting. For an example, a work can be set in the Old West and not be a western if it has a highly divergent plot and style from the genre. On the other hand, sometimes other genres (including speculative fiction) can come out as "westerns" if they embrace the tropes, but have a very divergent setting.

 

[Mudd]

That's nothing but a set of definitions based on product differentiation for marketing purposes. Put an elf on the cover of this one and a spaceship on that one over there.

More essentially, the Cambridge dictionary defines fantasy as "Imaginative literature, often set in strange places with unusual characters and the use of magic."

Science fiction is a little subgenre of that.

Of course even that broad a definition of fantasy begs the question of what kind of storytelling isn't imaginative.

As far as definitions of "science fiction" itself, however, only damon knight's stands the test of time and is applicable to all examples - and this is only because it's a bit of verbal slight of hand, a non-defining "definition" simply intended to make a somewhat humorous point.

I'd suggest that before you try to present a useful and authoritative definition of science fiction as distinct from fantasy, you practice by sailing a boat down the middle of the Potomac River, take some yellow paint in hand and mark out a state border in the water between Maryland and Virginia.

 

[eschaton]

That's nothing but a set of definitions based on product differentiation for marketing purposes. Put an elf on the cover of this one and a spaceship on that one over there.

More essentially, the Cambridge dictionary defines fantasy as "Imaginative literature, often set in strange places with unusual characters and the use of magic."

Science fiction is a little subgenre of that.

Of course even that broad a definition of fantasy begs the question of what kind of storytelling isn't imaginative.

As far as definitions of "science fiction" itself, however, only damon knight's stands the test of time and is applicable to all examples - and this is only because it's a bit of verbal slight of hand, a non-defining "definition" simply intended to make a somewhat humorous point.

I'd suggest that before you try to present a useful and authoritative definition of science fiction as distinct from fantasy, you practice by sailing a boat down the middle of the Potomac River, take some yellow paint in hand and mark out a state border in the water between Maryland and Virginia.

I'm sorry, but saying "all speculative fiction is fantasy" is kind of like saying "all rock music is folk music." Certainly an argument can be made here, because the major antecedents of rock - country and rhythm & blues - were themselves different variants of a U.S. folk vernacular. But the term folk has come to in its modern definition mean something much more restrictive - basically a revival of English folk music which was not influenced by U.S. styles significantly. The revival meant that one had to talk about "traditional folk" to distinguish it from the modern, more-self conscious genre.

The same thing happened with fantasy. Obviously it started out as a very broad category which arguably included every story that was told which was not a direct historical account. But fantasy developed in the 19th century as a self-conscious revivalist genre of the fairy tales and folklore told in Europe for centuries. For modern intents, it's basically all either derivative of, or a deconstruction of, tropes which began with Tolkien.

But yes, every genre is basically pigeonholing for marketing purposes. Hence historically "literary authors" were not said to be writing sci-fi (or fantasy, or romance, etc) even if they embraced the conventions of the genre. Regardless, your definition of fantasy as a genre is not the one which most people use, and does not help to elucidate discussion. I could just as easily say that all fantasy is a subgenre of science fiction, which would also be unprovable.

 

[jaime]

Let's look up the Wiki definition of fantasy:



Now, I certainly agree that one can say that Trek is not scientifically plausible any longer. TOS did strive to be relatively scientificly plausible for TV sci-fi of its time period - less pulphouse fiction and more "soft sci-fi." As I said, adherence to canon and continuity meant that Trek got to become a more and more implausible universe as time went on. You can claim however, that Trek is a fantasy in its current form I suppose if you really want to - although it shares basically no common threads with say Tolkien whatsoever.

I absolutely and catagorically reject the claim that all sci-fi is fantasy. There's a whole modern sub-genre of science fiction called mundane science fiction. It's basically ultra-hard sci-fi that includes no implausible elements at all - no FTL, no aliens, no hypothetical future tech. Often the settings are just a few decades in the future and involve logical extrapolation of already existing tech. Cory Doctorow is probably the most famous author who writes in this genre. His 2009 book, Makers, is basically just a setting a few decades in the future which extrapolates what more advanced 3D printing and a slow "post-work" collapse of the economy will look like.

More generally, genre is defined in literature by a mixture of technique, tone, content, etc. Often the approach that a novelist takes helps to define a work far more than even its setting. For an example, a work can be set in the Old West and not be a western if it has a highly divergent plot and style from the genre. On the other hand, sometimes other genres (including speculative fiction) can come out as "westerns" if they embrace the tropes, but have a very divergent setting.

I would suggest that Star Trek is a subgenre all of its own by this point, with The Orville being the most obvious example of a work in the genre outside Treks own genre. Trek, after all, also differs fairly greatly at this point from Space Opera, military Sf, hard sf, or the older SF romances.

That it is t ‘fantasy’ beyond ‘somebody made up everything about it pretty much’ is obvious. For a start, Trek includes Earth as a central concept, including existing states etc...it is also essentially devoid of ‘magic’ in any real sense, and only the flimsiest of ties to myth or legend.

In short, hear hear.

 

[jaime]

That's nothing but a set of definitions based on product differentiation for marketing purposes. Put an elf on the cover of this one and a spaceship on that one over there.

More essentially, the Cambridge dictionary defines fantasy as "Imaginative literature, often set in strange places with unusual characters and the use of magic."

Science fiction is a little subgenre of that.

Of course even that broad a definition of fantasy begs the question of what kind of storytelling isn't imaginative.

As far as definitions of "science fiction" itself, however, only damon knight's stands the test of time and is applicable to all examples - and this is only because it's a bit of verbal slight of hand, a non-defining "definition" simply intended to make a somewhat humorous point.

I'd suggest that before you try to present a useful and authoritative definition of science fiction as distinct from fantasy, you practice by sailing a boat down the middle of the Potomac River, take some yellow paint in hand and mark out a state border in the water between Maryland and Virginia.

By that definition, Bridget Jones is both Fantasy and SF.

 

[Greg Cox]

I grew up in a "SFnal" household, with parents who loved sci-fi but freely disparaged fantasy. I read all of the classics as a child, but aside from some Arthur C Clarke novels, none of it really appealed to me. My tastes run more to either hard/semi-hard sci-fi (Gregory Benford, Greg Egan, etc) or conversely to "soft" sci-fi which is heavy on social allegory (LeGuin, Tepper, Octavia Butler, etc). I wasn't really exposed to any fantasy until I went away to college and got past my childhood hangups. I'll read George RR Martin, Tad Williams, and especially China Meiville now. .

I was fairly omnivorous growing up. I read SF, fantasy, and horror pretty interchangeably and didn't really distinguish between the stuff. Robots, vampires, wizards . .. it was all the same to me. And some of my favorite works were ones that mashed genres together in interesting ways.

You can kinda see that in the books I've been editing for Tor in recent years: lots of Weird Westerns, a swashbuckling pirate fantasy, a couple of superheroes/vampires mashups, hard-boiled occult thrillers with a film noir vibe, an urban fantasy/horror series about truckers and bikers (which I like to hype as "SONS OF ANARCHY meets SUPERNATURAL"), etc.

That being said, I've always leaned more towards WEIRD TALES than ASTOUNDING, if you know what I mean, and tend to bristle when hardcore SF fans disparage fantasy or horror, which happens more often than you might think.

(Oddly enough, it seldom seems to work the other way around. I don't often see fantasy fans complaining that there are too many damn space books on the shelves or that a list of the Ten Best SF/F movies leans too heavily toward robots and aliens. In my experience, it's the "SF-only" folks who are most concerned with not getting chocolate in their peanut butter.)




.

 

[Mudd]

I was fairly omnivorous growing up. I read SF, fantasy, and horror pretty interchangeably and didn't really distinguish between the stuff. Robots, vampires, sword-and-sorcery . .. it was all the same to me. And some of my favorite works were ones that mashed genres together in interesting ways.
.

I segued from superhero comics passed down from an older kid up the street, to the vast Irwin Allen network wasteland of the 1960s and on to sf and fantasy novels - mainly juveniles at the school library - and eventually to a huge collection of 1950s paperbacks and decades of back issues of Astounding Science Fiction belonging to a neighbor.

Started reading fantasy when I was in college - right at the crest of the LOTR and sword-and-sorcery craze that spawned Dungeons And Dragons and its ilk.

 

[Greg Cox]

This is where I confess I never got into Tolkien. My fantasy tastes leaned more towards sword-and-sorcery than high fantasy: Conan, Elric of Melinibone, Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser, etc. I gave up on THE LORD OF THE RINGS halfway through the first book.

In other words, I have a great weakness for pulp fiction.

As for definitions, I'm less interested in academic, ivory-tower definitions of "science fiction" than in the way the term is used in the real world. The way I see it, any definition of SF that excludes, say, "Flash Gordon" or STAR WARS bears little resemblance to what most people think of as "science fiction."

 

[eschaton]

I was fairly omnivorous growing up. I read SF, fantasy, and horror pretty interchangeably and didn't really distinguish between the stuff. Robots, vampires, sword-and-sorcery . .. it was all the same to me. And some of my favorite works were ones that mashed genres together in interesting ways.

You can kinda see that in the books I've been editing for Tor in recent years: lots of Weird Westerns, a swashbuckling pirate fantasy, a couple of superheroes/vampires mashups, hard-boiled paranormal thrillers with a film noir vibe, an urban fantasy/horror series about truckers and bikers (which I like to hype as "SONS OF ANARCHY meets SUPERNATURAL"), etc.

That being said, I've always leaned more towards WEIRD TALES than ASTOUNDING, if you know what I mean, and tend to bristle when hardcore SF fans disparage fantasy or horror, which happens more often you might think.

(Oddly enough, it seldom seems to work the other way around. I don't often see fantasy fans complaining that there are too many damn space books on the shelves or that a list of the Ten Best SF/F movies leans too heavily toward robots and aliens. In my experience, it's the "SF-only" folks who are most concerned with not getting chocolate in their peanut butter.)

A lot of the anger SF readers have towards fantasy is because it seems to dominate the shelves. I remember when I was younger I would get the "Year's Best Science Fiction" anthologies, and the opening each year would glumly announce how yet again there were less published sci-fi novels than fantasy.

I'm not a professional writer, but I've been turning around this idea in my head for a novel for years. Basically it starts out seeming like a generic fantasy adventure. But it turns out that the characters are all self-aware computer programs within simulation - basically a high-tech version of World of Warcraft. Their world is threatened with being shut down because no one likes classic fantasy IRL any longer, and it's taking up too much processing space. The major "heroes" and "villains" of the game world are recruited by their fans - a bunch of giant nerds - into developing a heroic plan to "save" the world. Half of them get downloaded into robot bodies to go IRL, and the other half explore the wider net, with hilarious results.

 

[Greg Cox]

A lot of the anger SF readers have towards fantasy is because it seems to dominate the shelves. . .

I suppose, but it's getting old. I swear, sometimes it seems like every time some website publishes a recommended reading list or viewing list, you can pretty much count on some cranky comments about how there isn't enough "real" SF on the list or indignantly pointing out that Such-and-Such is not real SF and doesn't belong on the list.

By contrast, say, you don't see vampire fans complaining that, "Oh jeez, another big hard-SF novel about space exploration. Isn't that played out already?"

 

[eschaton]

I suppose, but it's getting old. I swear, sometimes it seems like every time some website publishes a recommended reading list or viewing list, you can pretty much count on some cranky comments about how there isn't enough "real" SF on the list or indignantly pointing out that Such-and-Such is not real SF and doesn't belong on the list.

By contrast, say, you don't see vampire fans complaining that, "Oh jeez, another big hard-SF novel about space exploration. Isn't that played out already?"

I've heard from those within the publishing industry when they get unsolicited manuscripts, they're almost always total crap if they're sci-fi. For some reason fantasy is attracting the authors who can actually write these days.

 

[Greg Cox]

I've heard from those within the publishing industry when they get unsolicited manuscripts, they're almost always total crap if they're sci-fi. For some reason fantasy is attracting the authors who can actually write these days.

My years of reading slush are well behind me, but I don't remember that really being the case, although different genres sometimes had different issues when it came to submissions.

Bad SF: cool ideas, but little or no interest in actual human characters or emotions. Written for Vulcans by Vulcans.

Bad Fantasy: "Oh, god, somebody novelized their favorite D&D campaign again." Sometimes more world-building than actual plot, complete with lots of maps and charts and dynastic family trees going back six generations.

Bad Horror: "Okay, I think I know way too much now about this author's psycho-sexual hang-ups."

And then, of course, there was the thinly-disguised fan fiction, with the serial numbers barely scraped off: "The Klargon battle cruiser activated its Stealthing Field . . . . "

 

[Mudd]

This is where I confess I never got into Tolkien. My fantasy tastes leaned more towards sword-and-sorcery than high fantasy: Conan, Elric of Melinibone, Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser, etc. I gave up on THE LORD OF THE RINGS halfway through the first book.

In other words, I have a great weakness for pulp fiction.

As for definitions, I'm less interested in academic, ivory-tower definitions of "science fiction" than in the way the term is used in the real world. The way I see it, any definition of SF that excludes, say, "Flash Gordon" or STAR WARS bears little resemblance to what most people think of as "science fiction."

Exactly so.

I read and enjoyed LOTR...once.

I read slush briefly for a pulp sf magazine in the late 1970s. What seemed to be true of many first-time writers then was that their exposure to science fiction appeared to be mainly from television - most unusable stories turned on a "twist ending" that was telegraphed at the beginning, apparently inspired by The Twilight Zone. And spaceships were usually the Enterprise with another name (nolo contendre on that one).

 

[eschaton]

Bad SF: cool ideas, but little or no interest in actual human characters or emotions. Written for Vulcans by Vulcans.

Honestly, that's a lot of good sci-fi as well.

Currently re-reading Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy again. No plot, weak characterization, and page after page of the characters getting into discussions about everything from climate science to how to set up an anarcho-communist society. Great descriptive prose of the Martian landscape though. I'm so fucking glad Starz attempt to turn it into a series failed, it would have made hackwork of the books, which cannot be interpreted as a TV show.