• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

How to define Science Fiction

RAMA

RAMA

Admiral
Admiral
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-to-define-science-fiction.html

I've put up some rather elaborate definitions before, but here's a good David Brin article on how SF has been preceived and defined over the years.

Some interesting points: Some of things I've espoused, that positive viewpoints in SF are just as valid as the negative cautionary tales. Star Trek itself is brought up in the article as a good example of this. Amusing part:

Rejection of Optimism

Apparently not. Almost like an immunal rejection to the 1960s can-do spirit of Star Trek, wave after wave of stylish grouches swarmed over science fiction itself, claiming to have discovered dark cynicism as something fresh and original.
Click to expand...
...and some revealing truths....

Yet, I've found that whole notion of progress is so anathema, to such a vast range of people, that something deeply inherent in human nature must be involved. The widest cultural gap I've ever seen, about something absolutely fundamental, it explains why so many feel reflex hostility toward science fiction. Especially those who believe in "eternal verities."

Example: when I spoke about SF in China, nearly all the readers, publishers and press folk seemed deeply worried that any hint of optimism in literature might insult their ancestors, by implying generations can improve with time.
Click to expand...
I think this is a societal problem too, not just in SF...too many people looking towards the past, even the "look ahead" West often has this issue.
 
There does seem to be a prevailing thought among a lot of readers, authors and critics that the adage, "The more things change, the more they stay the same," is true. The idea that humanity will always be a slave to its baser instincts and character traits, that we will never overcome corruption or greed or war. Maybe that's true, I can't possibly predict that, but I don't have the instinctual aversion to believing otherwise that some seem to.
 
RAMA said:
Example: when I spoke about SF in China, nearly all the readers, publishers and press folk seemed deeply worried that any hint of optimism in literature might insult their ancestors, by implying generations can improve with time.
Click to expand...
I think this is a societal problem too, not just in SF...too many people looking towards the past, even the "look ahead" West often has this issue.
Click to expand...

Yes, the West seems to have this problem in a big way, when it comes to belief ( though no one can deny that living standards and technology have improved ). A lot of people don't want to admit their ancestors may have been wrong about something. Especially their immediate ancestors.
 
Science Fiction [sahy-uh
thinsp.png
ns fik-shuh
thinsp.png
n]

- Something with futuristic (for the time) technology or spacey stuff. Examples: Robots, space, time travel, aliens, robot aliens, etc. The key trick that works 99% of the time is to look for robots. You see a robot? Science fiction.
 
My Name Is Legion said:
Damon Knight: "Science fiction is what we point to when we say it."

End of story.
Click to expand...
Quite.

I haven't read a lot of Michael Crichton - really just read his two Jurassic Park books ages ago - but Jurassic Park is pretty clearly a science fiction premise. Whether or not it fits into what science fiction should be about is another story, I'm sure.

Generally liked the article, as I don't see a lot of defenses of science fiction foregrounding Star Trek these days.
 
So people don't like science fiction because they don't want to change and they see sci-fi as a means of forcing people to change and become better people? And they don't want to be?

Basically the Plato's cave principle in action.

Weird.
 
FordSVT said:
There does seem to be a prevailing thought among a lot of readers, authors and critics that the adage, "The more things change, the more they stay the same," is true. The idea that humanity will always be a slave to its baser instincts and character traits, that we will never overcome corruption or greed or war. Maybe that's true, I can't possibly predict that, but I don't have the instinctual aversion to believing otherwise that some seem to.
Click to expand...

I can't predict that either. But, it seems to be the case so far in human history, doesn't it?

I guess the question is: what could possibly change what seems to be fundamental human nature? And would we still be human after such a change?
 
The basic definitions that I consider science fiction:

1) Postulate a technology or device that has yet to be developed, and examine its effect on a person/people/humanity in general.

2) Examine humankind in general, or a particular foible of humankind, from the outside perspective of an alien being or alien society.

The first definition would apply to hard SF such as Larry Niven or Stephen Baxter stories. The second to things like Stranger in a Strange Land.
 
I use a simple definition that works most of the time:

Science fiction is something that can be extrapolated from the current day [or extrapolated from the past to today, as in "secret history" types of stories...]. It may involve an unlikely series of discoveries or events, but it could happen.

Fantasy involves a fundamental difference from our reality [magic, dragons, etc.] that cannot be linked either to from our present.

That's it! :D

And for the record, I like both "positive" and "pessimistic" sf... depends on how well it's done.
 
Sci fi is a) about the future, regardless of whether there is any advanced technology in it (Nineteen-Eighty-Four); or b) about advanced science and technology, regardless of whether it's set in the future (alt-history that depends on time travel; steampunk).

Sci fi is a story that couldn't happen in the real world as we currently know it. But of course that also describes fantasy. Differentiating sci fi from fantasy is easy. Just ask yourself what the author intends? Aliens and robots are a sign that the intent is sci fi; elves and wizards signal that the intent is fantasy. There are probably borderline cases out there, but strangely enough, I've never run across them.

Science fiction is something that can be extrapolated from the current day [or extrapolated from the past to today, as in "secret history" types of stories...]. It may involve an unlikely series of discoveries or events, but it could happen.

Fantasy involves a fundamental difference from our reality [magic, dragons, etc.] that cannot be linked either to from our present.
Click to expand...
Sci fi doesn't need to have any link to our universe; example: Star Wars. The intent there is sci fi because that story could easily have been constructed with wizards instead of Jedi and wands instead of lightsabers, but it wasn't. The Force isn't "magic" but has a science-y explanation that sounds like it might be some fundamental force of physics that people just don't yet fully understand, the way cavemen might have thought lightning was magic.

The true distinction between sci fi and fantasy is whether things can be explained rationally or not. Things don't have to be explained rationally, but there needs to be some indication that there's a rational explanation at the heart of it all. Then it's sci fi.

Some of things I've espoused, that positive viewpoints in SF are just as valid as the negative cautionary tales.
Click to expand...
Definitely. The attitude a story takes is separate from its category. Some categories (like noir) imply a certain attitude, but sci fi certainly doesn't.
1) Postulate a technology or device that has yet to be developed, and examine its effect on a person/people/humanity in general.

2) Examine humankind in general, or a particular foible of humankind, from the outside perspective of an alien being or alien society.
Click to expand...
Neither of those cover Nineteen-Eighty-Four, one of the great works of science fiction. #2 could cover it if you're talking about a person who is alienated from his society, but not an alien, but I really don't think that part is what makes that novel sci fi. It's sci fi because it's set in the future and is starkly different from the present, as of the time it was published. The difference wasn't precipitated by a technology, so definition #1 is the one that's too limited.
 
Last edited:
The Force didn't get a scientific explanation until the prequel trilogy. As far as the original three films are concerned, it is magic, and the Jedi are Wizards by another name ("Wizard" and "Sorcerer" are even thrown around to describe Jedi characters in Star Wars).
 
The Force is essentaily magic in A New Hope, however the Death Star is science. Indeed, the contrast between the magic of the force and technology is brought up in a number of ways - the lightsaber versus the blaster, the death star versus the 'power of the force', and, of course, autotargeting systems versus pure gut instinct.

It's a world where technology has largely displaced the old role of magic* and that's sort of frowned on. In that sense I don't think it's just fantasy dressed up in science fiction's clothing, although as far as Brin's formulation goes it shares fantasy's palpable nostalgia for 'a simpler age' and sides with it against technological sophistication - that is, siding with its fantasy roots against its science fiction trappings.

*Not that the 'past' is a feudal age, but it clearly was one where the wizard-like Jedi were more numerous and respected, and the idea of the force wasn't casually scoffed at (by the likes of Motti) or dismissed as without foundation (by Han Solo). There was a place for magic that no longer seems to exist, as marginalized as it's become.
 
Kegg said:
The Force is essentaily magic in A New Hope, however the Death Star is science. Indeed, the contrast between the magic of the force and technology is brought up in a number of ways - the lightsaber versus the blaster, the death star versus the 'power of the force', and, of course, autotargeting systems versus pure gut instinct.

It's a world where technology has largely displaced the old role of magic* and that's sort of frowned on. In that sense I don't think it's just fantasy dressed up in science fiction's clothing, although as far as Brin's formulation goes it shares fantasy's palpable nostalgia for 'a simpler age' and sides with it against technological sophistication - that is, siding with its fantasy roots against its science fiction trappings.

*Not that the 'past' is a feudal age, but it clearly was one where the wizard-like Jedi were more numerous and respected, and the idea of the force wasn't casually scoffed at (by the likes of Motti) or dismissed as without foundation (by Han Solo). There was a place for magic that no longer seems to exist, as marginalized as it's become.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Harvey said:
The Force didn't get a scientific explanation until the prequel trilogy. As far as the original three films are concerned, it is magic, and the Jedi are Wizards by another name ("Wizard" and "Sorcerer" are even thrown around to describe Jedi characters in Star Wars).
Click to expand...
Actually, the Force got a "scientific" explanation in the 1977 film, just not a detailed one. Obi-Wan defines the Force as "an energy field created by all living things", and Han Solo later calls the Force a "mystical energy field".

But I don't believe these expressions were intended to reduce the Force to something nonmagical. Rather, I believe these expressions were intended to help us suspend our disbelief, by completely integrating the magical into the science-fiction-looking universe that we had up to the point of hearing about the Force found our story unfolding in. In fact, Han Solo's fusion of the science-sounding explanation with the word mystical accomplishes precisely that.
 
Kelthaz said:
Science Fiction [sahy-uh
thinsp.png
ns fik-shuh
thinsp.png
n]

- Something with futuristic (for the time) technology or spacey stuff. Examples: Robots, space, time travel, aliens, robot aliens, etc. The key trick that works 99% of the time is to look for robots. You see a robot? Science fiction.
Click to expand...

This is the grade school definition of SF...
 
CarbonCopy said:
Actually, the Force got a "scientific" explanation in the 1977 film, just not a detailed one. Obi-Wan defines the Force as "an energy field created by all living things", and Han Solo later calls the Force a "mystical energy field".
Click to expand...

Han's description of that "energy field" as "mystical" doesn't sound very scientific to me.
 
Certainly,"energy field" has a scientific meaning, but it's also employed by New Age types in a way that is far from that meaning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top