But ... but ... Congress ....
What is your definition on sci fantasy and sci fi?
- Thread starter WB2
- Start date
There were a lot of magical beings in Star Trek. What is a being of "pure energy" or "pure thought?" How does it maintain its structure?
Bradbury and Matheson wrote both SF and Fantasy. So did Asimov and Heinlein. Writers can write whatever they want. Definitions are not limitations. They're just essential to communication.
Sure they can overlap, but that doesn't mean the words don't have meaning. If you go to Barnes & Noble and ask for Erotica and they give you something by Richard Scarry, you're probably not going to be happy.
Definitions matter in every aspect of life, otherwise we'd just be saying "thing" and "stuff" all the time. Definitions are the essence of communication. As a writer, I tend to choose my words carefully, perhaps even obsessively, and I'm sure you do too. The Arts are no exception. Disco is not Folk. Ballet is not Riverdance. Realism is not abstract. And Fantasy is not Science Fiction.Definitions may matter in science, but in the arts . . . maybe not so much.
Same here. That's pretty much how I tend to write, most of the time. There are rules that are internal to any given work, but not external. But that still doesn't mean that words don't have meanings.
And so did Poul Anderson, Fritz Leiber, etc. But my point was that, even when they were deliberately writing SF, Bradbury or Matheson or whoever weren't exactly writing Analog-style hard SF, but it was still science fiction.
As for definitions in general. . . yes, words have meaning, but it's possible to get too hung up on trying to sort things into tight little boxes according to strict, exclusionary definitions that often bear little resemblance to the way the terms are actually used in real life. (By some definitions, ninety percent of all science fiction movies and TV shows aren't "really" SF, according to the strictest definition.)
Where I'm coming from: basically I'm weary unto death of endless, hair-splitting debates on whether such-and-such is "really' science fiction or science fantasy or whatever, probably because I've spent too much time on the internet.
I swear, for a while there, it seemed impossible to read any sort of comment thread on a sci-fi site without somebody complaining that "SPACE VIXENS isn't real science fiction!"
Who cares, as long as it's worth watching?
Plus, in practice at least, there often seems to an implied (or overt) value judgement involved, with people pushing the idea that "true" science fiction is inherently superior to science fantasy, just as fantasy (and horror) are supposedly inferior to SF . ....
Last edited:
Yeah, Sci-Fi Fantasy is a huge sub-genre of Sci-Fi with very fuzzy borders and all kinds of overlap with many other related genres. There isn't a strict checklist of requirements that defines what a Sci-Fi Fantasy story *must* include and there's not abrupt cut-off between "there's a 87.2% chance this will happen in the next decade" Hard Sci-Fi and "laser swords and mystic space wizards of Azgarvotax XII!" Sci-Fi Fantasy. It's a subtle gradation.
Well I'm pretty sure Tom Baker really is a mystic space wizard (you have a better explanation?!) so you're at least half way there.
Personally I'm still bitter about the lack hoverboards, hover-dog-walking-thingies and fax machines in every room by 2015. You LIED to me Robert Zemeckis!
As a matter of evolution, humans really are just mutant apes, after all. Then, with the way the election cycles keep going and Facebook/Google/Twitter and all slowly get turned into one overarching database on us all, get ready for the future.
Eat up
https://www.soylent.com/
Last edited:
Lol. Soylent Powder is described as "deliciously neutral".
Last edited:
Maybe. Depends on which stories you're talking about.
More like 99%. It's hard to come up with examples of movies or TV episodes that are SF. I don't know why you think that accuracy is a hang up or exclusionary, or that it matters how terms are generally used. Most people think that dolphins are fish and that the 21st century started in the year 2000. Wrong is wrong, no matter how widely believed.
Well, I certainly can't blame you for that.Where I'm coming from: basically I'm weary unto death of endless, hair-splitting debates on whether such-and-such is "really' science fiction or science fantasy or whatever, probably because I've spent too much time on the internet.
But hair-splitting debates aren't going away any time soon. Even using terms correctly, people will have opinions.I'm guessing not, but I'll have to watch it to be sure. Maybe more than once.
Oddly enough, that's my exact point.
It's the quality of the story that matters, so why not be right? Why not acknowledge that words have meaning? Why not acknowledge that more than one term can be applied to one story? It's not exclusionary to correctly label a story any more than it's exclusionary to call an apple a fruit and a potato a vegetable. They're both plants.Well, that's an entirely different subject. By the same token, there is the political motivation behind the SF-is-whatever-I'm-pointing-at mentality of fanboys who are afraid of being seen as too nerdy. Unfortunately, the Arts are not immune to politics.
Because that's how language works. A definition is nothing more than a general popular agreement that when we say 'xyz', we mean 'fish'. If the usage changes, the definition changes with it. There is some room in there for extra accuracy among specialists using unusually strict categorizations. But 'science fiction' is not an objectively definable category like 'fish' is, and its never had a universally accepted definition which strictly defines the line between science fiction and non-science fiction.
As I said, there can't be a strict definition, but there can be a better definition than, "Whatever, dude." Damon Knight may have read The Great Gatsby, but it's not Science Fiction and it never will be. The word "science" has to relate to something.
Similar threads
- Locked
