How to define Science Fiction

[Klaus]

Science fiction is large. It contains multitudes.

 

[Kegg]

He may perceive different authors as representing different "strains"-- which is fine, no one ever said there can't be multiple flavors of ice cream-- but Foundation, Brave New World and 1984 all fit the definition of Science Fiction.

This depends what you mean by 'the' definition. If you mean your definition, to wit:

Science Fiction is the extrapolation of science or applied science and its effect on an individual or society. Both words have equal weight.

That quote would work well enough for I, Robot, but not for what is essentially an epic space opera version of Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

He certainly doesn't give any arguments in favor of a more generic definition.

Yes, but I did not cite him for that. Definitions stem from how words are used, and I was ciitng him as an example of a science fiction writer using the term science fiction.

That Paolo's quote makes it clear he wouldn't call Foundation something that is about 'where you're extrapolating about who are we, where are we going, what our society looks like,' but still refers to it as science fiction is important here.

 

[RJDiogenes]

He may perceive different authors as representing different "strains"-- which is fine, no one ever said there can't be multiple flavors of ice cream-- but Foundation, Brave New World and 1984 all fit the definition of Science Fiction.

This depends what you mean by 'the' definition. If you mean your definition, to wit:

Science Fiction is the extrapolation of science or applied science and its effect on an individual or society. Both words have equal weight.

That quote would work well enough for I, Robot, but not for what is essentially an epic space opera version of Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

I agree that Foundation also qualifies as Space Opera, but I would consider it Science Fiction as well. Asimov starts with a postulated science of psychohistory, extrapolated from statistics and predictive models and so forth, which can predict trends and cycles on a broad scale, and adds the applied science of the Foundation to influence those trends and cycles. So I think it would fit the (my) definition.

He certainly doesn't give any arguments in favor of a more generic definition.

Yes, but I did not cite him for that. Definitions stem from how words are used, and I was ciitng him as an example of a science fiction writer using the term science fiction.

That Paolo's quote makes it clear he wouldn't call Foundation something that is about 'where you're extrapolating about who are we, where are we going, what our society looks like,' but still refers to it as science fiction is important here.

Well, we've already seen that SF writers and editors have as much disagreement as we have. In my view Paolo's "stealth" definition is the baseline definition. The real question is, whether someone is an editor, pro, semi-pro or fan, how do they back up their definition?

 

[RAMA]

The problem with trying to come up with some sort of restrictive, ivory tower definition of sf is that, invariably, it will bear no resemblance to how the term is actually used in the real world. Any definition of science fiction that excludes STAR WARS, for instance, is only going to make sense to purists.

This is absolutely true, and succinctly put.

I've always liked Vonnegut's essay on the subject, though his specific remarks about sf magazines (and brown suits) are quite dated now:

Years ago I was working in Schenectady for General Electric, completely surrounded by machines and ideas for machines, so I wrote a novel about people and machines, and machines frequently got the best of it, as machines will. (It was called Player Piano, and it's coming out in hard covers again next spring.) And I learned from the reviewers that I was a science-fiction writer.

I didn't know that. I supposed that I was writing a novel about life, about things I could not avoid seeing and hearing in Schenectady, a very real town, awkwardly set in the gruesome now. I have been a sore-headed occupant of a file-drawer labeled ''science- fiction'' ever since, and I would like out, particularly since so many serious critics regularly mistake the drawer for a tall white fixture in a comfort station.

The way a person gets into this drawer, apparently, is to notice technology.The feeling persists that no one can simultaneously be a respectable writer and understand how a refrigerator works, just as no gentleman wears a brown suit in the city. Colleges may be to blame. English majors are encouraged, I know, to hate chemistry and physics, and to be proud because they are not dull and creepy and humorless and war-oriented like the engineers across the quad. And, because English majors can scarcely sign their own names at the end of a course of English instruction, many become serious critics. I have already said what they then do to the drawer I'm in.

But there are those who love life in this fulsome drawer, who are alarmed by the thought that they might some day be evicted, might some day be known for what they really are: plain, old, short-story writers and novelists who mention the fruits of engineering and research. They are happy in the drawer because most of the people in it love each other as members of old-fashioned families are supposed to do. They meet often, comfort and praise one another, exchange single-spaced letters of 20 pages and more, booze it up affectionately and one way or another have a million heart-throbs and laughs.

I have run with them some, and they are generous and amusing souls, but I must now make a true statement that will put them through the roof: They are joiners. They are a lodge. If they didn't enjoy having a gang of their own so much, there would be no such category as science-fiction. They love to stay up all night, arguing the question, "What is science-fiction?" One might as usefully inquire, ''What are the Elks? And what is the Order of the Eastern Star?''

Well--it would be a drab world without meaningless social aggregations. There would be a lot fewer smiles, and about one-hundredth as many publications. And there is this to be said for the science-fiction publications: If somebody can write just a little bit, they will probably publish him. In the Golden Age of Magazines, which wasn't so long ago, inexcusable trash was in such great demand that it led to the invention of the electric typewriter, and incidentally financed my escape from Schenectady. Happy days! But there is now only one sort of magazine to which a maundering sophomore may apply for instant recognition as a writer. Guess what sort.
.
.
.
Boomers of science fiction might reply, ''Ha! Orwell and Ellison and Flaubert and Kafka are science fiction writers, too!'' They often say things like that. Some are crazy enough to try to capture even Tolstoy. It is as though I were to claim that everybody of note belonged fundamentally to Delta Upsilon, my own lodge, incidentally, whether he knew it or not. Kafka would have been desperately unhappy D.U.

Link

Vonnegut's lamentation about being pigeonholed as an SF writer is part of what my original post was talking about...if you speculate on technology, its cultural effects, whether it is positive or negative, is immediately thought of as something less artistic, and less valid. It's even worse if you are not making a "cautionary tale" because then you are being "utopian" or unrealistically optimistic. It's also thought down upon bythe literati...this is understandable...of course we want decent characters, but the richness of our language(s) can also describe amazing ideas, and I'm totally fine with a Stephen Baxter novel (and I think he writes quite well) focusing on descriptions of how the Great Attractor was "built" and effects future civilization.

On a side note, book stores are disappearing...the secondary outlets still carry books, Walmart, grocery stores, etc...has anyone noticed they almost never carry real SF?? Oh sure, I love picking my books on Amazon, or downloading some for an e-reader, but I miss going to the bookstore...the last one near me for about 50 miles in any direction just closed.

Edit: More thoughts about my original post...the rejection of more serious SF by many also is part of the "rejection of expertise" that is common these days...add to this the rejection of science that seems pervasive...both in learning/teaching it and with the mass population. Conflicting scientific tests on common, everyday issues/tech turn people off to it (since people aren't taught how science works), or again it's relegated to a small few who are too smart for their own good. In the long run, the popularization of science and SF can go hand in hand...one will reinforce the other. I find it distasteful when even the "experts" negatively comment on such popularizers both in fact and fiction.

 

[Kegg]

^
My regular bookstore did close down recently, but the bookstore next to it still has a lot of solid SF in print. I'm less sure about the prejudices against science fiction critically speaking - I mean didn't Lapis Exilis post a thread here awhile back about genre bleeding into modern lit or something?

Well, we've already seen that SF writers and editors have as much disagreement as we have.

Quite, which is why I distinguished between use of the word and debated meanings of the word. This is really the important thing here.

Debates about science fiction are, as the Vonnegut quote points out, a distinctly old hat affair, but they rarely if ever affect how anyone uses the term. The only meaningful definition is the latter - what people mean when they say science fiction, not what people think it ought to mean... and that's why I gave an example of a writer using the term, rather than attempting to define it.

To put it another way: Someone might insists on using the word 'science' in the sense of the Latin word it derives from, knowledge - which would mean we have culinary science, musical science, and so on. Possibly this same person would want the modern gap between philosophy and science to be altogether closed and return, lexically at least, to Aristotle, so researchers are referred to as philosophers and existentalists are called scientists. This might be an interesting rearranging of the meaning of words but it's not what the words mean now and thus as a definition is not a helpful one.

Anyway:

I agree that Foundation also qualifies as Space Opera, but I would consider it Science Fiction as well. Asimov starts with a postulated science of psychohistory, extrapolated from statistics and predictive models and so forth,

This hedging is pretty interesting.

So, so long as a book/film/TV show/game has a postulated science at least vaguely derived from the real world, it fits? Alrighty then. Star Wars is science fiction because it has robots, intelligent machine life that can be reprogrammed. These robots are shown to be essentially a servile class with vastly redistricted rights compared to humans but who are largely content in their more narrow roles and mostly quite helpful, although their irascibility can make them unreliable.

 

[RJDiogenes]

The bookstores at my local mall have all gone, and the local Borders closed recently; all we have left here is a little Barnes & Noble.

Edit: More thoughts about my original post...the rejection of more serious SF by many also is part of the "rejection of expertise" that is common these days...add to this the rejection of science that seems pervasive...both in learning/teaching it and with the mass population. Conflicting scientific tests on common, everyday issues/tech turn people off to it (since people aren't taught how science works), or again it's relegated to a small few who are too smart for their own good. In the long run, the popularization of science and SF can go hand in hand...one will reinforce the other. I find it distasteful when even the "experts" negatively comment on such popularizers both in fact and fiction.

Very true. We live in a dark age. Literacy is in tough shape, and scientific literacy is worse off. People want to live in a world where low standards are better than high standards.

Quite, which is why I distinguished between use of the word and debated meanings of the word. This is really the important thing here.

Debates about science fiction are, as the Vonnegut quote points out, a distinctly old hat affair, but they rarely if ever affect how anyone uses the term. The only meaningful definition is the latter - what people mean when they say science fiction, not what people think it ought to mean... and that's why I gave an example of a writer using the term, rather than attempting to define it.

To put it another way: Someone might insists on using the word 'science' in the sense of the Latin word it derives from, knowledge - which would mean we have culinary science, musical science, and so on. Possibly this same person would want the modern gap between philosophy and science to be altogether closed and return, lexically at least, to Aristotle, so researchers are referred to as philosophers and existentalists are called scientists. This might be an interesting rearranging of the meaning of words but it's not what the words mean now and thus as a definition is not a helpful one.

Well, it's six of one, half a dozen of another. Professionals will use the word according to the definition they like. Paolo will use the term in the more inclusive sense that you favor, while Schmidt will use it in the more descriptive sense that I favor. Both definitions are "in use." The question is, which is more useful?

This hedging is pretty interesting.

So, so long as a book/film/TV show/game has a postulated science at least vaguely derived from the real world, it fits? Alrighty then. Star Wars is science fiction because it has robots, intelligent machine life that can be reprogrammed. These robots are shown to be essentially a servile class with vastly redistricted rights compared to humans but who are largely content in their more narrow roles and mostly quite helpful, although their irascibility can make them unreliable.

No, no hedging. Foundation postulates new science based on existing sciences, extrapolates the application of that science as technology, and depicts how it could effect human society. That's the point of the books. Star Wars is straightforward adventure, and the robots and spaceships and so forth are stage dressing-- they are not what the story is about.

Which isn't to say that there aren't gray areas. Even if we all agreed on a definition, there would still be disagreement about what fits-- unless the definition is literally "everything." But there are always gray areas. That's no reason to abandon meaning altogether.

 

[Kegg]

Paolo will use the term in the more inclusive sense that you favor, while Schmidt will use it in the more descriptive sense that I favor. Both definitions are "in use." The question is, which is more useful?

Whichever usage is more standard, basically. And standard-wise I don't see people reflexively not calling Star Wars sci-fi. There's a common, peculiar thread stringing together Fritz Lang's Metropolis to John Brunner's Stand on Zanzibar, and we have this rather natty term for it.

No, no hedging. Foundation postulates new science based on existing sciences, extrapolates the application of that science as technology, and depicts how it could effect human society. That's the point of the books. Star Wars is straightforward adventure, and the robots and spaceships and so forth are stage dressing-- they are not what the story is about.

This division is pretty amorphous, though. For example, Foundation is also very interested in discussing the decline and fall of the Roman Empire only in space. This is as every bit as important, if not more so, than psychohistory, which is a sci-fi response to the problem of imperial decline.

If science fiction is defined by the level of importance it gives the scientific concepts presented in the work... well definitions should get nightmarishly messy, don't they?

But there are always gray areas.

Oh absolutely. I think the easiest way to deal with those - definitionally speaking - is to acknowlege genres are more venn diagrams then they are blueprints.

 

[Ubik]

The bookstores at my local mall have all gone, and the local Borders closed recently; all we have left here is a little Barnes & Noble.

Edit: More thoughts about my original post...the rejection of more serious SF by many also is part of the "rejection of expertise" that is common these days...add to this the rejection of science that seems pervasive...both in learning/teaching it and with the mass population. Conflicting scientific tests on common, everyday issues/tech turn people off to it (since people aren't taught how science works), or again it's relegated to a small few who are too smart for their own good. In the long run, the popularization of science and SF can go hand in hand...one will reinforce the other. I find it distasteful when even the "experts" negatively comment on such popularizers both in fact and fiction.

Very true. We live in a dark age. Literacy is in tough shape, and scientific literacy is worse off. People want to live in a world where low standards are better than high standards.

Quite, which is why I distinguished between use of the word and debated meanings of the word. This is really the important thing here.

Debates about science fiction are, as the Vonnegut quote points out, a distinctly old hat affair, but they rarely if ever affect how anyone uses the term. The only meaningful definition is the latter - what people mean when they say science fiction, not what people think it ought to mean... and that's why I gave an example of a writer using the term, rather than attempting to define it.

To put it another way: Someone might insists on using the word 'science' in the sense of the Latin word it derives from, knowledge - which would mean we have culinary science, musical science, and so on. Possibly this same person would want the modern gap between philosophy and science to be altogether closed and return, lexically at least, to Aristotle, so researchers are referred to as philosophers and existentalists are called scientists. This might be an interesting rearranging of the meaning of words but it's not what the words mean now and thus as a definition is not a helpful one.

Well, it's six of one, half a dozen of another. Professionals will use the word according to the definition they like. Paolo will use the term in the more inclusive sense that you favor, while Schmidt will use it in the more descriptive sense that I favor. Both definitions are "in use." The question is, which is more useful?

This hedging is pretty interesting.

So, so long as a book/film/TV show/game has a postulated science at least vaguely derived from the real world, it fits? Alrighty then. Star Wars is science fiction because it has robots, intelligent machine life that can be reprogrammed. These robots are shown to be essentially a servile class with vastly redistricted rights compared to humans but who are largely content in their more narrow roles and mostly quite helpful, although their irascibility can make them unreliable.

No, no hedging. Foundation postulates new science based on existing sciences, extrapolates the application of that science as technology, and depicts how it could effect human society. That's the point of the books. Star Wars is straightforward adventure, and the robots and spaceships and so forth are stage dressing-- they are not what the story is about.

Which isn't to say that there aren't gray areas. Even if we all agreed on a definition, there would still be disagreement about what fits-- unless the definition is literally "everything." But there are always gray areas. That's no reason to abandon meaning altogether.

I don't understand. Why would "adventure in space" NOT be science fiction? That's a completely arbitrary, baseless, historically inaccurate, and counter-productive differentiation. In fact, a vast majority of science fiction, including most of the Golden Age stuff, is primarily adventure. What's your real assumption, that for it to be science fiction, it has to be thoughtful? Nonsense. A genre's boundaries are not defined by the quality of the work. There must, indeed, be bad, thoughtless, brainless science fiction, which there is, plenty of. But the fact that it doesn't have a brain or a purpose in its adventure-ridden head does not preclude it from being science fiction.

Much of Robert Heinlein, a father of science fiction just as much as H. G. Wells is, is not remotely interested in technological advancements, or their implications for the society. There's no reason to consider H. G. Wells' style science fiction and not Heinlein's. That's the very definition of arbitrary. It also doesn't take into account the true history of the genre in the twentieth century, whose roots are in the pulp magazines, not the scientific romances of Wells.

 

[Sindatur]

I've always seen the Entire Genre as SciFi/Fantasy.

Which is, of course split into SciFi and Fantasy

SciFi is in turn split into Space Opera, Time Travel, etc, etc

People in this thread, seem to use SciFi for only a certain type of SciFi and put it at the same level on the tree as Space Opera, rather than Space Opera being a sub-segment of SciFi?

I don't have a definition of SciFi, other than "I know it when I see it"

 

[RAMA]

I meant to mainly show the variety and tone of SF in the article rather than simply define SF as many have done here, but I do have one of my own from another board in 2000:

Xensulas: Message Board for The Rings of Saturn

A great question
Sun Sep 10 18:05:00 2000

There are lots of definitions for SF, and I myself tend to be rather strict
about it, though within the definition the range of stories is quite broad.

SF is a story about change: a new paradigm. Its fiction set in a world that differs from our everyday world in a way that importantly involves science or technology. This can include sociological changes (& soft sciences) as well as changes in hardware. It can include stories set in the past, but mainly in the future. I would include doomsday scenarios and post-apocalyptic movies of every kind (On the Beach, Dr Strangelove). It includes alternate worlds and stories that exist in the modern day but with slight twists--parallel worlds(Fahrenheit 451; Truman Show). It differs from pure fantasy in that even seemingly magical changes should have some rationale beyond simply saying its so for its own sake, as long as its fairly internally consistent(such as Star Wars). Scientific accuracy is a plus, but may take a back seat in favor of excellent high concept or speculation.

RAMA

 

[Greg Cox]

Science fiction, as the term is popularly used, is a big tent that includes everything from Godzilla movies to Ursula K. LeGuin. "Hard sf" is a subcategory of science fiction, although some people seem to think that hard sf is the only "real" sf, which strikes me as a bit presumptuous.

And, of course, sf is just a subcategory of what we think of as genre entertainment these day, and is kissing cousins with fantasy, horror, and even techno-thrillers. And all these lines start to blur together the closer you look. Is The Incredible Shrinking Man science fiction, fantasy, horror, or all of the above? What about Frankenstein?

Why get pedantic about it?

 

[RAMA]

Science fiction, as the term is popularly used, is a big tent that includes everything from Godzilla movies to Ursula K. LeGuin. "Hard sf" is a subcategory of science fiction, although some people seem to think that hard sf is the only "real" sf, which strikes me as a bit presumptuous.

And, of course, sf is just a subcategory of what we think of as genre entertainment these day, and is kissing cousins with fantasy, horror, and even techno-thrillers. And all these lines start to blur together the closer you look. Is The Incredible Shrinking Man science fiction, fantasy, horror, or all of the above? What about Frankenstein?

Why get pedantic about it?

"Genre" is used by marketers; organizations trying not to fall into a category that has the word "science" in it (Syfy-because that's bad) or trying to increase the mass of people they are trying to sell something to.

Frankenstein wasn't conceived as SF but it didn't have to be..it certainly fits just about every definition of SF even though it's supposed to be scary, or at least will be presumed so by some. Frankenstein as it relates to the current idea of AI, human intelligence uploading, and immortality within trans-humanism would be a great movie.

I will go as far as saying I prefer "hard sf" but its not the only kind I've enjoyed, and I am fine with suspending disbelief for most things if the speculation is worth it.

RAMA

 

[Klaus]

Why get pedantic about it?

Because it gives them something to do?
[cf. Most of the Internet and/or academia]


...I do like the "speculative fiction" label. That's a general-practitioner kind of term like "history", which means many many things to different people while most authors [and many readers] think of themselves as specialists in one subgenre or another.

 

[Greg Cox]

It also doesn't take into account the true history of the genre in the twentieth century, whose roots are in the pulp magazines, not the scientific romances of Wells.

Good point. Edgar Rice Burroughs, Flash Gordon, Planet Stories, and The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms are as much a part of our heritage as anything from the John W. Campbell/Astounding school of serious sf. Pretending otherwise is like denying that your grandfather was a bootlegger or sticking your embarrassing relatives in a closet when company comes. It smacks of snobbery.

For the record, my great-grandfather was a bank robber. (Really.)

 

[xortex]

Uh oh. Ah ha. No How is Q represented? as sci-fi or magic?

This is where science meets religion and overlaps creating a hybrid of sorts. What isn't a science? What isn't religious? What isn't horror?

The Lawn Mower Man was in a way a super Frankenstein taken to the extreme but King often has aliens mixed with demons and magic and science. but anyone who says Star Wars is not science fiction but fantasy has got to be kidding me. I think it's mostly about things that can't happen now but they do or are or will if we're not careful.

 

[RJDiogenes]

RAMA, your definition is pretty good. Some of that stuff I would think of more as Speculative Fiction, though.

Whichever usage is more standard, basically. And standard-wise I don't see people reflexively not calling Star Wars sci-fi. There's a common, peculiar thread stringing together Fritz Lang's Metropolis to John Brunner's Stand on Zanzibar, and we have this rather natty term for it.

Well, as I said earlier, it's understandable to me that someone would think Science Fiction when a story has the trappings of Science Fiction even if the story itself is not Science Fiction. What's really weird is when they start to include ghosts and werewolves and dragons and stuff (and, yes, I know you're going to bring up Pern ).

This division is pretty amorphous, though. For example, Foundation is also very interested in discussing the decline and fall of the Roman Empire only in space. This is as every bit as important, if not more so, than psychohistory, which is a sci-fi response to the problem of imperial decline.

If science fiction is defined by the level of importance it gives the scientific concepts presented in the work... well definitions should get nightmarishly messy, don't they?

Sure it can be amorphous, but I don't think they are nightmarishly messy. A lot of things fall into multiple categories. It's like the tags at the end of a Blog post. There is seldom just one tag; more often half a dozen or more. If Foundation were a Blog, it could be tagged Science Fiction, Space Opera, Allegory, Future History and on and on.

Oh absolutely. I think the easiest way to deal with those - definitionally speaking - is to acknowlege genres are more venn diagrams then they are blueprints.

I just think it's better to let the story fall into multiple categories than to use one amorphous (to use the word above) label that carries little information.

I don't understand. Why would "adventure in space" NOT be science fiction? That's a completely arbitrary, baseless, historically inaccurate, and counter-productive differentiation. In fact, a vast majority of science fiction, including most of the Golden Age stuff, is primarily adventure. What's your real assumption, that for it to be science fiction, it has to be thoughtful? Nonsense. A genre's boundaries are not defined by the quality of the work. There must, indeed, be bad, thoughtless, brainless science fiction, which there is, plenty of. But the fact that it doesn't have a brain or a purpose in its adventure-ridden head does not preclude it from being science fiction.

Nope, I never said anything about quality. There is good Science Fiction and bad Science Fiction, good Space Opera and bad Space Opera, good Westerns and bad Westerns, good Gothic Romance and bad Gothic Romance. The point is not quality, but that words have meanings.

Why get pedantic about it?

Because it's better than being cavalier. But it's not about being pedantic. Is it pedantic to use the word irony correctly? Is it pedantic to say "wreak havoc" instead of "wreck havoc?" Is it pedantic to differentiate between Mystery and Crime Drama?

Good point. Edgar Rice Burroughs, Flash Gordon, Planet Stories, and The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms are as much a part of our heritage as anything from the John W. Campbell/Astounding school of serious sf. Pretending otherwise is like denying that your grandfather was a bootlegger or sticking your embarrassing relatives in a closet when company comes. It smacks of snobbery.

I don't think anyone in this thread has said anything like that, though.

 

[captcalhoun]

science fiction is anything which uses fictional science or science fictionally.

simple really.

 

[Kegg]

What's really weird is when they start to include ghosts and werewolves and dragons and stuff (and, yes, I know you're going to bring up Pern ).

Nah, I was going to go left field and bring up Childhood's End, which has another familiar creature given a science fiction explanation. I won't say what for anyone who hasn't read the book but I'm sure those that have understand immediately.

Also Childhood's End was my very favourite novel when I was fourteen so dismiss it at one's peril.

Anyway, the dividing line when dealing with obvious fantasy things is often how it is explained. Foundation is basically a story about the fall of the Roman Empire and Oracular prophecies intended to mitigate it, it is science fiction because the empire is in space and the Oracular prophecy is a scientific discipline. One could tell a broadly similar story about the fall of a fantasy take on Rome and a wise sage's efforts to save civilization, now that I think of it.

This 'scientific discipline' bit is the key dividing line between sci-fi and fantasy, such as it is. This is how we get from mindreading magic to psionics. Arthur C. Clarke's dictum about sufficiently advanced science being indistinguishable from magic and all that.

So, yes, if there is a werewolf virus that is transmitted bacterially as the result of a bite, that's a rather more sci-fi idea than werewolves being the result of a curse.

Sure it can be amorphous, but I don't think they are nightmarishly messy. A lot of things fall into multiple categories.

Multiple categories are fine, but unless the science fiction category is foregrounded - Hari Seldon's prophecies being given more weight than Star Wars' robots - it doesn't get in?

Yes, I'd call that rather messy.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Multiple categories are fine, but unless the science fiction category is foregrounded - Hari Seldon's prophecies being given more weight than Star Wars' robots - it doesn't get in?

Yes, I'd call that rather messy.

"Categorical knowledge" is interesting as long as one's not interested in whether something is real.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The idea that one could succinctly characterize an open-ended category of literature should be a priori really suspect.

Works of literature are sequences of words strung together, as are definitions of genres themselves. Thus, works of literature routinely exceed the complexity of any concise characterization of their contents. This is the essential part of the technical explanation for why classification schemes are so messy.

The only remedy is to use as many specific examples as necessary to define the genres in question, especially along the boundary between one genre and another. In this way, the complexity of the definition of each genre can keep pace with the aggregate complexity of its constituents.