How to define Science Fiction

[captcalhoun]

i'm still waiting for someone to refute my definition.

Well I had to dig for it.

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

simple really.

Okay I can dispute that: how does it encompass Nineteen-Eighty-Four, a work that is unquestionably one of the classics of science fiction? Science doesn't play any particularly important role in that novel.

Here's a better definition: "science fiction is the branch of speculative fiction that is governed by a rational universe, as opposed to the other branch - fantasy - governed by an irrational universe."

it was set in an alternate timeline, with a sophisticated surveillance system.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

It wasn't set in an alternate timeline when it was originally published. As far as Orwell knew, the year 1984 could have been just like he described.

And the surveillance system wasn't the point of the story. It was an outgrowth of the totalitarian system that was the real point of the story, not the cause of it. Or to put it another way: Nineteen-Eighty-Four is not a story that explores what happens to an otherwise normal society when you give it an all-seeing surveillance system. It's an exploration of what happens when totalitarian trends that were real and frightening for George Orwell during his lifetime are extended to a nightmarish degree.

In short, it's about society, not science or technology, and it's perfectly okay for sci fi to be about society. But I do think that being about the future or an alternate-timeline past is a necessary part of the equation, so that there's some speculative element to it.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The Jedi are just an element in the story, to be used or discarded as needed. They can be used as a symbol of good, or they can be revealed not to be a symbol of good, but rather just a neutral element that was unwittingly contributing to a bad situation. But Luke can't be exposed as a symbol of evil, or even just neutral. That would wreck the story because then there would be no point.

I already clarified what I meant by my single-sentence condensation.

Defeat evil, restore good.

If it makes you happier, I misspoke the first time. I wasn't painting with a broad enough brush.

 

[stj]

Once again, the point in identifying whether any given work is SF or fantasy is a very simple one: As the fiction treats an impossibility in a falsely realistic way, does it do so in an imaginatively creative way, helping the reader to willingly suspend disbelief? The fantasy reader doesn't need help because the whole premise of the fantasy is conceded to be irrelevant to reality.

At least, for most of us. Again, some of the resistance to a simple descriptive distinction between two different literary techniques seems to come from a visceral hatred for the very concept of a lawful, intelligible universe, physical or (especially?) social.

With SF, it is in principle possible to select scientific speculation or extrapolate scientific/technological developments relevant to the real world. Therefore it is tempting to imagine SF really is a genre of fiction, instead of a literary technique. In practice, I think, this type of story, which necessarily uses the SF technique in handling its fantastic (aka non-real, for now anyhow) element, is far too small a part of literature and drama using SF to dub as the core SF genre. I don't think SF is a genre at all.

There is a kind of esthetic formalism that deems a consilience or consonance between technique and goal to be more artistic. But to insist that using pseudorealistic style in talking about the fantastic must jibe with the goal of the fiction is impractically prescriptive. Use of pseudorealism to incoporate the fantastic does not have to be justified on the grounds that only pseudorealism can accomplish this particular goal. This is especially true since I doubt that anyone can really, truly successfully perform suc extrapolation. Some people will not accept that fiction is somehow relevant, much less that fantastic fiction can be.

Another need for the commonsense descriptive definition of SF is the practical need for separate shelving and labeling. The witless practice of lumping SF and fantasy together has caused many practical problems for fans of SF. Currently, as militant ignorance is rising, SF is in a distinct commercial downturn and we SF fans need all the help we can get finding the stuff we want.

No definition is foolproof. The inability to draw a relevant distinction is stupidity in its narrow meaning of nonresponsive to stimuli. Aside from being mlitant philistinism, it ignores the treaty between reader/viewer and author/dramatist that really does mark off most fantasy as a genre in a way that SF simply isn't. The fantasy fan has agreed that the story will pretend the irrational and impossible just are, that magic is real inside the story or drama. The reader and viewer reads and watches this stuff for the kick he or she gets. Despite the many superficial differences (Greek mythology or Egyptian, vampires or werewolves or zombies, etc. ad nauseam,) fantasy is at core about this.

If the "science" mattered half so much as apologists for the genre sometimes insist then the majority of the most popular and well-remembered examples of the genre would be neither.

The most popular and well remembered examples of "SF" are the movies of course, in which the quality of the FX carry the conviction that scientific exposition could not. If you don't believe a man can fly, FX will convince you to suspend disbelief, because seeing is believing. Science is irrelevant. Of course, if the esthetic standard is simply popularity, there is no point to discussion. I suppose this is convenient for people who apparently cannot formulate a reasoned argument. The issue is, is there a level of stupidity that should lead us to dismiss a work? I say there is, which is why we need first to identify what aims to be SF.

The further point of course is that it is highly unlikely even popular works using SF, not one, was actually made better by blatant stupidity. Which is, again, what we're really talking about. The avoidance of big words or difficult ideas even when necessary to simple coherence is not a virtue!

Lastly, I don't believe Clarke's Law. I think people who've mastered technology and its accompanying science will not in fact believe its magic.

 

[RJDiogenes]

What I actually meant by that is that specific things don't change. Star Wars is still Star Wars whether you call it Science Fiction or Space Opera.

Ah, I see. You mean that the thing itself doesn't change, no matter how you describe it.

That may be true, but now we have the issue of the significance of interpretation. Revisions notwithstanding, the text of a work is indeed static. But without dynamic interpretation in the minds of those who read the text, the text is completely inert and it is not being experienced. Furthermore, the significance that certain elements are believed to have can change over time.

Dynamic interpretation is inevitable, but it doesn't change the definition. Novels written in the 1890s that speculate on the effects of certain discoveries or technologies are obsolete now because of new knowledge. Whether they are no longer to be considered SF or are to be grandfathered in is a matter of opinion, but there's no reason to alter a definition because of it. We didn't start calling pigeons dinosaurs when we discovered their pedigree.

i'm still waiting for someone to refute my definition.

The problem I have with it is that there's no element of extrapolation or the effect of the science (or applied science) on people or society. This means that shows like Bones, or very likely any contemporary procedural, would have to be considered SF because their methods of solving mysteries rely almost exclusively on science or technology-- using science fictionally.

Okay I can dispute that: how does it encompass Nineteen-Eighty-Four, a work that is unquestionably one of the classics of science fiction? Science doesn't play any particularly important role in that novel.

Sociology. No one said the soft sciences were ineligible (although I'd probably characterize 1984 as Speculative Fiction). In any case, we can't (or shouldn't) come up with a definition based on what we want to be included-- that was the mistake they made in defining planets. What we should be doing is using a reasonable definition and then seeing what falls under it.

 

[Vulagr]

The problem with reasonable is that people don't want to be reasonable, they want to be right.

 

[Greg Cox]

Onc
At least, for most of us. Again, some of the resistance to a simple descriptive distinction between two different literary techniques seems to come from a visceral hatred for the very concept of a lawful, intelligible universe, physical or (especially?) social..

I think you may be reading too much into it there. I'm about as pro-science and rationality as you can get as far as real life and politics are concerned. I just don't think that applies to art or entertainment . . . which is all about imagination.

And relative levels of plausibility or believability don't really matter all that much when it comes to distinguishing sf from fantasy or whatever. Nobody actually thinks that talking chimpanzees are likely to take over the world someday, but PLANET OF THE APES is still regarded as a classic science fiction movie.

(And if we're going to argue that PLANET OF THE APES, along with STAR WARS and STAR TREK, isn't science fiction, then we're really going down the rabbit hole into some sort of alternate universe where the term means something completely different than the way it's always been used.)

To digress slightly, it does seem like some fans are overly concerned with protecting the precious bodily fluids of sf these days. I admit that a lot of my posts have been in reaction to that fact that, for the last year or so, I've seen a rise in what I think of as "sci-fi snobbery," to the point where it's almost impossible to visit some sort of fannish message board or website without running into militant posters who get positively incensed at the notion of lumping "proper" sf in with vampires or wizards or whatever.

Just the other day, I was reading a thread on Grimm (at another site) and, sure enough, the very first post was from some grumpy sf purist objecting to the show's existence on the grounds that it was another goddamn fantasy show and not legitimate science fiction, while yet another poster protested the use of magic and supernatural elements in a show about fairy-tale creatures! (Imagine that.)

Look, I think I know what's going on here. Star Trek and Stargate are off the air, space shows are out of vogue, and urban fantasy, steampunk, Harry Potter, and Twilight are currently ruling the roost. But this seems to have provoked a weird backlash in which a certain segment of fandom seems determined to man the barricades to protect "real" sf from all that "irrational" fantasy and horror stuff.

Part of which involves pointless debates over what really qualifies as SF--in order to avoid further contamination. Often with the implication that the popularity of, say, vampire fiction is somehow hurting science fiction and maybe even civilization. None of which has anything to do with the actual entertainment value of any show, book, or movies.

At least that's how it looks to me.

End of rant.

 

[xortex]

Science fiction should be a tool for understanding the metaphysical world - that which can not be seen, heard or measured in any way.

 

[RJDiogenes]

The problem with reasonable is that people don't want to be reasonable, they want to be right.

Not so much that they want to be right, but they want to predetermine what will fall under the definition. The Astronomical Committee didn't say, "Let's come up with a good definition of planet and then see what qualifies," they said, "Let's come up with a definition of planet that limits the number of planets in the solar system to eight no matter how much we have to torture logic to do it."

 

[Set Harth]

Heir to the Empire (EU novel) does have him (and possibly Yoda and Anakin) ascending to a plane of higher existence though.

"Yoda will always be with you."

I think vanishing Obi-Wan may be an accidental casualty of the rule handed to Zahn ( but not DE ) by the franchise: don't bring back characters killed off in the films. Or some similar form of editorial meddling. The voice of Force ghost Anakin is heard later on in the chronology.

For instance, if Luke's maturity had led him to conclude that the real problem is the existence of two eternally warring factions, then he could have decided not to become a Jedi and not to help resurrect them, in fact to do everything to prevent that. And that would have represented both maturity for Luke and the triumph of good, but the death of the Jedi.

That's neither "maturity" nor the triumph of good; it's exactly the opposite. Being unable to distinguish between Sith and Jedi is a Bizarro World definition of "mature". In Lucas' universe the survival of the Jedi is portrayed as a triumph, as the title of ROTJ would seem to indicate. The real problem is the Sith, who are still a problem in the scenario where the Jedi are completely eliminated.

Anakin redeemed himself and Luke became an adult

The point of Luke's development is that he becomes a Jedi, not just an adult.

the OT is about good vs evil (despite what Lucas claims)

Lucas has not claimed that the OT is not about good vs. evil.

I find it more interesting that the OT (and the PT, if it had been done right) together are the story of how good triumphs over evil

The OT was like that already, so this would remain true regardless of how the PT was "done". The PT had to involve evil triumphing over good at some point.

 

[stonester1]

The witless practice of lumping SF and fantasy together has caused many practical problems for fans of SF. Currently, as militant ignorance is rising, SF is in a distinct commercial downturn and we SF fans need all the help we can get finding the stuff we want.

Oh...teh DRAMAZ!!! I am overcome by The Vapors...

...we are bright lords and ladies...I'm sure we will figure it all out, stj, but thank you for your somewhat misplaced concern.

 

[stonester1]

Onc
At least, for most of us. Again, some of the resistance to a simple descriptive distinction between two different literary techniques seems to come from a visceral hatred for the very concept of a lawful, intelligible universe, physical or (especially?) social..

I think you may be reading too much into it there. I'm about as pro-science and rationality as you can get as far as real life and politics are concerned. I just don't think that applies to art or entertainment . . . which is all about imagination.

And relative levels of plausibility or believability don't really matter all that much when it comes to distinguishing sf from fantasy or whatever. Nobody actually thinks that talking chimpanzees are likely to take over the world someday, but PLANET OF THE APES is still regarded as a classic science fiction movie.

(And if we're going to argue that PLANET OF THE APES, along with STAR WARS and STAR TREK, isn't science fiction, then we're really going down the rabbit hole into some sort of alternate universe where the term means something completely different than the way it's always been used.)

To digress slightly, it does seem like some fans are overly concerned with protecting the precious bodily fluids of sf these days. I admit that a lot of my posts have been in reaction to that fact that, for the last year or so, I've seen a rise in what I think of as "sci-fi snobbery," to the point where it's almost impossible to visit some sort of fannish message board or website without running into militant posters who get positively incensed at the notion of lumping "proper" sf in with vampires or wizards or whatever.

Just the other day, I was reading a thread on Grimm (at another site) and, sure enough, the very first post was from some grumpy sf purist objecting to the show's existence on the grounds that it was another goddamn fantasy show and not legitimate science fiction, while yet another poster protested the use of magic and supernatural elements in a show about fairy-tale creatures! (Imagine that.)

Look, I think I know what's going on here. Star Trek and Stargate are off the air, space shows are out of vogue, and urban fantasy, steampunk, Harry Potter, and Twilight are currently ruling the roost. But this seems to have provoked a weird backlash in which a certain segment of fandom seems determined to man the barricades to protect "real" sf from all that "irrational" fantasy and horror stuff.

Part of which involves pointless debates over what really qualifies as SF--in order to avoid further contamination. Often with the implication that the popularity of, say, vampire fiction is somehow hurting science fiction and maybe even civilization. None of which has anything to do with the actual entertainment value of any show, book, or movies.

At least that's how it looks to me.

End of rant.

Word. Especially the "manning the barricades" stuff.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Dynamic interpretation is inevitable, but it doesn't change the definition. Novels written in the 1890s that speculate on the effects of certain discoveries or technologies are obsolete now because of new knowledge. Whether they are no longer to be considered SF or are to be grandfathered in is a matter of opinion, but there's no reason to alter a definition because of it. We didn't start calling pigeons dinosaurs when we discovered their pedigree.

My point was that having learned, having expanded one's horizons, or having grown to appreciate certain relationships, people can change their minds about whether something should be considered SF. Science itself does not involve a priori knowledge; instead it depends upon discoveries and experiments. Why should what is considered SF not change over time as well? How can one have a descriptively defined category of works that does not change over time?

 

[DarthTom]

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.

But even Trek and Wars have elements of fantasy don't they even though most people would consider both 'hard sci-fi.' In Wars the metachlorians [sp?] with the Jedi is what gives them their magical powers. And in Trek they use magical crystals to break faster than light travel.

In both cases, there is some elements of fantasy.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Star Trek also has ESP, mind-reading, clairvoyance, and telekinesis. Ask Gary Mitchell whether he was feeling the Force flow through him?

 

[DarthTom]

Star Trek also has ESP, mind-reading, clairvoyance, and telekinesis. Ask Gary Mitchell whether he was feeling the Force flow through him?

Very true. The Q for example seem to use non-tech to perform their magical tricks.

In other forums though I've seen in debated that the may use Tech to be superpowerful but we just don't see it or they don't tell the audience.

I tend not believe that because we have no evidence to believe they are using tech.

 

[xortex]

Good point. Even Trellain's tech was visable and explained to not make it seem like magic and even Apollo's tech was inside the temple itself. The midichlorens don't determine psi power, they just measure it I believe. It was never said that they cause it. Q's tech should be explored as I theorize he's a V'ger virus etc., and not just a race of genies. Kirk would want to know where and how Q got his power. Picard didn't seem interested.

 

[DarthTom]

should be explored as I theorize he's a V'ger virus etc., and not just a race of genies. Kirk would want to know where and how Q got his power. Picard didn't seem interested.

Voyager explored the Q's moreso than Next Gen or DS9 did. But even with Janeway it's implied but not said they are magical beings.

It seems inconsistent however for magical beings to create super weapons to fight each other as seen in the Q and the Grey

 

[Vulagr]

Well, that's the thing about independent sentient thought. Regardless of how powerful or advanced a group of beings are, independent thought always leads to disagreements and disagreements often leads to conflict, sometimes violent.

The only true way to avoid this is to not have independent thought.

 

[Lindley]

Here's a better definition: "science fiction is the branch of speculative fiction that is governed by a rational universe, as opposed to the other branch - fantasy - governed by an irrational universe."

Rational in what sense? In Buffy, for example, different people may have different aptitude for magic, but many spells can be performed by anyone who speaks the words. Not always in a well-controlled manner, mind, but magical effects are consistent and repeatable. That seems "rational" to me, even though it uses effects which do not exist in the real world.