There are not "two branches" of anything. Science fiction is a subgenre of fantasy.
How to define Science Fiction
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
To me a more interesting question than all of this is: why isn't the genre of fiction equal to the genre of fantasy? Fiction is by definition make believe, right? Must be one of those misnomer things.
Why should the category change? We've already established that Westerns don't include Kung Fu movies despite Kung Fu. Should the definition of Mystery evolve over time to include things that are not mysteries? Should History evolve to include Swamp People and Ice Road Truckers? I don't understand the value of evolving a label to the point where it's meaningless.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?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 doubt if even the most inclusive definers would consider Trek or SW to be "Hard" SF.
Technically, it is. Since all fiction is unreal, all fictional genres are sub-genres of fiction. Fantasy, in and of itself, is an unhelpfully broad term, which is why people come up with terms like "High Fantasy" and so forth.
@RJDiogenes: Descriptive definitions conform to the manner in which they are used in practice, by definition. Or so I was taught. Upthread you said that science fiction has a descriptive definition, or so I thought you agreed.
However, I've never favored evolving definitions to the point that they are meaningless and all-inclusive.
As I've tried to demonstrate, a consequence of a descriptive definition, as opposed to a prescriptive one, is that it must change over time. For, if the way in which it is used in practice is in fact static, then there is no necessity to make its definition depend on how it is used. That is, unless of course a definition can be both descriptive and prescriptive at the same time; I've never heard of such a thing, though.
However, I've never favored evolving definitions to the point that they are meaningless and all-inclusive.
Oh, I see. I'm using descriptive in the sense of the words actually describing what is included in the set, as opposed to a more inclusive, generic meaning. My problem is that a definition of "science fiction" that includes everything from Foundation to Buffy is needlessly vague; the word science is there for a reason and treating it as a vestigial organ makes "science fiction" almost as general a term as "genre fiction."
When used as a pair to contrast kinds of definitions, the words descriptive and prescriptive have certain very precise technical meanings.
Descriptive is used in the sense of describing, or reporting, what is observed regarding usage.
Prescriptive is used in the sense of limiting correct usage to a static form. That's why I've been making such a big deal out of the a priori.
I'm sure if I'm mistaken about this, or incomplete, someone will jump in and correct me, or enhance what I've said.
Descriptive is used in the sense of describing, or reporting, what is observed regarding usage.
Prescriptive is used in the sense of limiting correct usage to a static form. That's why I've been making such a big deal out of the a priori.
I'm sure if I'm mistaken about this, or incomplete, someone will jump in and correct me, or enhance what I've said.
@Greg-the barricades need manning. The last few years before Borders went under, I would see dozens of Dragonlance-based novels, vampire/supernatural tales etc and have to hunt to find a single story by John Scalzi or Michael Z Williamson.
In general, this discussion fails to take into account that scifi itself is often broken up between "hard' and 'soft". Science fiction can portray technological trends or sociological trends. I think the idea behind both is that the causes are measurable, that is, if you put so many circuits together you just might create artificial intelligence and if you cram X millions of people into a single, monolithic building it might cause society as we know it to change in thus manner. With the "magic" or fantasy tales, no measurement is needed or can be achieved.
I would define science fiction as a speculation of what might practically be, however unlikely.
Simplistic? Yes. Failing to take into account Lucas and his bastard child? Don't care. He started so far from adult science fiction to begin with (Sat morning serials of the 30s-40s) and then roamed across the landscape with little need or wanting of adherence to science fiction as a genre that his end product is an amalgam and shouldn't be held up as an example or an argument to support a definition of science fiction anyway.
I may not be as clever as some of the respondents here, but I've got over 30 years of reading the genre and whether my definition works perfectly or not, if I read something I know what it is I'm reading. However, I have to admit this is more fun than arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
In general, this discussion fails to take into account that scifi itself is often broken up between "hard' and 'soft". Science fiction can portray technological trends or sociological trends. I think the idea behind both is that the causes are measurable, that is, if you put so many circuits together you just might create artificial intelligence and if you cram X millions of people into a single, monolithic building it might cause society as we know it to change in thus manner. With the "magic" or fantasy tales, no measurement is needed or can be achieved.
I would define science fiction as a speculation of what might practically be, however unlikely.
Simplistic? Yes. Failing to take into account Lucas and his bastard child? Don't care. He started so far from adult science fiction to begin with (Sat morning serials of the 30s-40s) and then roamed across the landscape with little need or wanting of adherence to science fiction as a genre that his end product is an amalgam and shouldn't be held up as an example or an argument to support a definition of science fiction anyway.
I may not be as clever as some of the respondents here, but I've got over 30 years of reading the genre and whether my definition works perfectly or not, if I read something I know what it is I'm reading. However, I have to admit this is more fun than arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Actually, I think you're easily as clever, or more so, than many of the respondents here. "I know what I'm reading when I'm reading it" is actually the cleverest definition of sf I know. The rest is pedantic, a priori, prescriptive, and non-applicable nonsense.
Well, using those definitions, my definition is prescriptive, with the caveat that the contents are dynamic. Mammals will always be mammals, but individual species can still evolve, appear, disappear-- or move into a new category.
I'm prepared to admit that "science fiction" is marketing...also understandably used organizationally...sure it would be great to just to list authors alphabetically in a book store, but that doesn't really help customers much...so ultimately the marketing becomes useful.
My biggest problem is with people with the narrowest definition, often those in the "mainstream" of literature or Hollywood who won't admit when something is SF because it's "serious", not understanding that the definition is broad and goes beyond just technology. I think Brin in the OP article brings up Margaret Atwood's opinion that "A Handmaid's Tale" is too important to be SF.
My biggest problem is with people with the narrowest definition, often those in the "mainstream" of literature or Hollywood who won't admit when something is SF because it's "serious", not understanding that the definition is broad and goes beyond just technology. I think Brin in the OP article brings up Margaret Atwood's opinion that "A Handmaid's Tale" is too important to be SF.
Well we can call it whatever we want whether the author thinks so or not... and will Atwood really be that mad if I buy A Handmaid's Tale because I think it's sf?
Methinks not.
In the end what matters is what we want as readers -- if making categories [however oversimplistic or overcomplex they might be] helps us find things we enjoy reading and share them with like-minded others, there's no downside I can see. If it makes a few arrogant geeks [if that isn't an oxymoron] feel superior because they like [insert subgenre of choice] instead of the flavor of the moment or hoary old classics or sparkly vampires, so be it. No one cares except them anyhow, so no loss there.
I've been accused of being arrogant by calling mainstream literature "mainstream" lol, like it implied an elite perspective. I was only thinking of it as descriptive.
I respect Kurt Vonnegut immensely and love much of his work, but his opinion about whether or not his work is sf means nothing to me while I'm reading his books. It's just a topic for discussion.
Methinks not.
In the end what matters is what we want as readers -- if making categories [however oversimplistic or overcomplex they might be] helps us find things we enjoy reading and share them with like-minded others, there's no downside I can see. If it makes a few arrogant geeks [if that isn't an oxymoron] feel superior because they like [insert subgenre of choice] instead of the flavor of the moment or hoary old classics or sparkly vampires, so be it. No one cares except them anyhow, so no loss there.
I've been accused of being arrogant by calling mainstream literature "mainstream" lol, like it implied an elite perspective. I was only thinking of it as descriptive.
I respect Kurt Vonnegut immensely and love much of his work, but his opinion about whether or not his work is sf means nothing to me while I'm reading his books. It's just a topic for discussion.
Alexei Panshin made exactly that argument, simply designating some fiction "mimetic" and other (what we think of usuall as sf/fantasy) as "non-mimetic." He also noted that much genre fiction which hypothetically takes place in "the real world" - such as the James Bond novels - does not and really could not.
The solution is simple.
Both fantasy and science fiction involve incredible events, things that current thinking tells us are impossible. For instance, disappearing from here and reappearing somewhere distant, creating things from nothing.
The difference is that in fantasy these things happen when you wave an amulet and say a magic word. In science fiction, these things happen when you press a button.
Both fantasy and science fiction involve incredible events, things that current thinking tells us are impossible. For instance, disappearing from here and reappearing somewhere distant, creating things from nothing.
The difference is that in fantasy these things happen when you wave an amulet and say a magic word. In science fiction, these things happen when you press a button.
I gotta agree with Stonester here. Just because something runs in families we cannot say that it is caused by something biological. It can also be due to a meme (in the Dawkinian sense, not the internet sense).
Religious beliefs run in families also. A family of catholic people is likely to remain catholics, and any new members are likely to become Catholics as they grow. But there is no Catholic gene. There's no biological cause that makes a person more likely to be Catholic.
Sometimes in the same book!
One of the real reasons fantasy and sf tend to get lumped together is because so many noted sf authors and editors work both sides of the street: Ray Bradbury, Poul Anderson, Gordon R. Dickson, Larry Niven, Fritz Leiber, Robert E. Heinlein, Theodore Sturgeon, L. Sprague de Camp, Richard Matheson, Ursula K. LeGuin, G. R. R. Martin, Roger Zelazny, etc. Ditto for prominent genre filmmakers like Spieberg, Zemeckis, Lucas, Jackson, Whedon, etc. And then, of course, there's Anne McCaffrey and her alien space dragons . . . or Edgar Rice Burroughs, who is technically space opera but sure looks like sword-and-sorcery.
I have, on rare occasions, stumbled onto bookstores that tried to maintain separate sections for sf and fantasy. Invariably there's little consistency or logic to it, and it's just a nuisance to figure out where, say, The High Crusade happens to be shelved. Better to put all of Poul Anderson's books on one shelf so his fans can find them easily, than expect some poor bookstore clerk to sort Anderson's work by category on a book-by-book basis.
("Okay, The Merman's Children . . . that sure sounds like fantasy, but what about The Boat of a Million Years? Boss?")
On a practical level, just the other night I was writing jacket copy for an upcoming alternate-history novel that features both sf and fantasy elements. How exactly would you classify it? I'm not sure, but it doesn't really matter as long as it ends up in the SF/Fantasy section, where readers who might like a fantasy-sf-alternate history adventure can find it.
Last edited:
A good example of them overlapping is when Luke uses the force instead of the technology to destroy the Deathstar. I remember Ben Bova being so mad at that like why would he do or have to do that, but that's where religion and belief have to come in but the characters in star Wars mostly believe in scientific gadgetry to rule their universe and so do we with them which is why it is sci-fi to me - because it's plausible and believable even though it takes place in an alternate reality maybe.
In most cases you get a little more exposition than that in SF. In fantasy you generally have things happen because someone who knows some ancient secrets reveals something. In good SF, people learn things or through actions can help you think about situations more deeply.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic-ACClarke
...Ok so some things aren't explained much, but you can go back and apply modern speculation on how older SF "miracles" can be accomplished. Stephen Baxter explains more along the lines of contemporary thinking in his "Timeships" novel compared to the original "Time machine". Nanotech, Dyson spheres, modern parallel universes, quantum theory...some of these exist now in rudimentary form/theories. They can make a lot of things sound plausible, and if you believe exponential growth in technology, we won't even recognize ourselves in a few decades. Now that's magic.
I also find the argument lacking in the real world too...people suggesting Hindu religion or ancient ideas/tech are accurate with modern science, neglect to consider they had no rigorous way to actually explain these things and probably didn't care. You could ask why does it matter if the end results were the same, but I'd argue it's a qualitative difference, and knowledge makes things repeatable, where you can build off it as a springboard.
RAMA
Yeah, it's funny that so many in fandom consider a purist definition of SF to be elitist when the mainstream considers it all a big ghetto.
Sure. This is why most objects can't be described with just one adjective. A Saturn V is both loud and fast. Also big. But all of these different types of fiction do have at least one thing in common: Imagination. Generally, imaginative people will be interested in a variety of imaginative literature. That doesn't mean it can't all be subdivided into meaningful and descriptive categories.