Gharlane's SF Taxonomy (long)
Anthony Nance
Michael Schiffer kept the thread alive on my server. (Just for
Mike-S. completeness, Mike Schilling appears not to have been
involved, and I don't think Mike Stone has posted for a while.)
Anyhow, below is Gharlane's SF Taxonomy. The version I saved comes
from summer 2001, and says "Originally posted January 9, 2000."
Any type-setting errors, especialy in the ASCII diagram, are my own,
and if it comes out too terribly munged, I can put it on a webpage.
Tony
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoting Gharlane all the way through:
"Well, my current thinking on the subject is easily explicated...
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so let's save some
verbiage, here....
| |
| |
| |
| SPECULATIVE FICTION |
| ( fiction set in a reality |
| / that does not exist ) |
| / \ |
| / \ |
| FANTASY SCIENCE FICTION |
| ( fiction which ( Fiction based on a |
| cannot occur ) projection of current |
| | \___________ knowledge which is |
| | | legitimately defensible ) |
| CLASSIC FANTASY | / \ |
| ( elves, magic, wizards, | / \ |
| "Social Security" ) | SOFT SF HARD SF |
| Emphasis on mythic | ( one or more ( Based on |
| archetypes and quests | presumptions; stuff we know |
| ________| ESP, FTL, we'll be able |
| | or one major to build ) |
| SCI-FI departure Emphasis on |
| ---- ( Fantasy from known checkable math, |
| / with reality. ) logic, and info; |
| SKIFFY SF props Emphasis on characters think |
| ( largely substituted human reaction. and solve. |
| excrement ) for "magic.") and action. | |
| | | | | |
| +--------------------------------------------------------+ |
| | SPACE OPERA --- can be SkiFfy to Sci-Fi to Hard SF | |
| +--------------------------------------------------------+ |
"SPECULATIVE FICTION" would include all non-real-world fiction with
fantastical elements. Things like "PT 109," "DYNASTY," "MIAMI VICE,"
"THE COSBY SHOW," "SIXTY MINUTES," and anything where Peter
Jennings tries to convince us he knows anything all count as
"Speculative Fiction," since they deal with a world that does
not exist but might be fun to visit, if only for the horror.
"FANTASY" would include all utterly impossible fictional frameworks,
ranging from "I LOVE LUCY" through "I DREAM OF JEANNIE" to Sarah
Brady's speech to the Democratic National Convention, or even more
horrific, "FRIENDS."
TV-Fantasy is normally inordinately putrid; happy exceptions in
recent years include "BUFFY" and "ANGEL." Respectable class efforts
like "BRIMSTONE" have been made.
"CLASSIC FANTASY" would be the great works that transcend time, era,
and review by litterateurs; Homer, Vergil, Aristophanes, Tolkien,
Spenser, Lonnrott, Malory, and their ilk; numerous religious works
fall in this category as well. This category can range from
Gilgamesh to simplistic archetype exercises such as Michael Landon
playing a Magic Angel. I rate "XENA" as good Classic Fantasy, and
"STAR WARS" as an also-ran.
"SCI-FI" is Fantasy that lifts props from Science Fiction without
( example; Crichton could just as easily be a human transported
across the Rainbow Bridge to Asgard, being Earnestly Interviewed
by Loki; we haven't seen any use of actual technology that can't
be handled just as easily with Magic Spells; he has a Magic Spell
to get home with, but it's clouded until the Right Time. At least
Manning had the class to slip "Froonium" in as *intended* as guff. )
Most of the "TREK" products range from "Fantasy" to "Sci-Fi," with
occasional coherent efforts that slip across the line into being
something that vaguely resembles real Science Fiction. Of course,
none of these occasional efforts have been seen on "VOYAGER," or
on a show that Braga or Taylor worked on.
"SKIFFY" is something that puts on airs about being "Science Fiction"
and isn't; unlike some "Sci-Fi" and some "Fantasy," it is almost
never respectable, and is only rarely worthwhile. It's a sort of
illegitimate offspring of "Sci-Fi," and is normally engaged in by
Production Suits with delusions of sapience. Typical examples
would include the late and unlamented "PREY," "SPACE: ABYSMAL AND
BORING," "SINKQUEST," and "EARTH 2." I believe that "PREY" probably
carries the all-time high score for insegrevious putridity, although
the others cited are certainly close runners-up. "THIRD ROCK" is SkiFfy.
"MY FAVORITE MARTIAN" was SkiFfy. "GET SMART" was often SkiFfy.
"Hard Science Fiction" is written by people who know enough of science
and technology to know what is possible, and create a narrative milieu
based on the availability of something we haven't got yet, but can have.
VERY few people do "Hard Science Fiction" without slipping over the
edge here and there, so the real thing is very rare indeed. On TV,
the only two examples I can think of offhand are "MEN INTO SPACE"
and "STAR COPS."
"Soft Science Fiction" is an exercise in coherent extrapolation; given
one presumption, how would life/society/human beings be affected, and
what would they do about it? Historically, some fairly wild one-
presumption schticks have been allowed, when developed with skill and
respect by the writer involved. ( My favorite examples here are
Alfred Bester's two best books, "TIGER, TIGER" and "THE DEMOLISHED
MAN," which aside from a few noncritical props, posit only one
departure from present knowledge, the trainability of ESP powers. )
( I just re-read "THE DEMOLISHED MAN," and was amused to note that
Bester seems to have scooped the cosmetic surgery people by half
a century; they've recently been touting adjustable inflatables
that you can set to the size you're in the mood for, and avoid
silicone implants... )
The best "Soft Science Fiction" I've seen on TV that comes instantly
to mind was the old "PLAYHOUSE 90" Bradbury script, "THE SOUND OF A
DIFFERENT DRUMMER." There were, of course, several examples of
decent "Soft SF" on both incarnations of "THE TWILIGHT ZONE," and
one or two good tries on the old "OUTER LIMITS." ( And a couple
of good ones on the NOL, after the staffing shakeups. ) The
best current-production example, in my opinion, is "STARGATE SG-1,"
which is often actually worth watching.
"SCIENCE FICTION THEATER" did several hard-SF scripts, and a
number of soft-SF, and a whole bunch of Sci-Fi.
"Space Opera" can range from "CAPTAIN VIDEO" to "STAR TREK," with
stops at "SPACE RANGERS" and "QUARK." I haven't seen any Space
Opera produced to date that qualifies as "Science Fiction," but
I've certainly seen a lot that I enjoyed.
As for "FARSCAPE," it's "Kiddie-SkiFfy," but we're cutting it
some slack and calling it "Sci-Fi," since it's got Good Muppets.
( And we know that Muppets *can* be built. )
For a formalized view of this sort of thing, constructed by someone
with a bit more formal academic rigor, see the "rec.arts.sf.tv"
FAQ created by the Estimable Hines; it's in the archive sites.
...(snip Gharlane's sig of that day)...."
Anthony Nance
between ---> and <--- below.
Sorry,
Tony
----------------------------------------------------------------
<snip the start>
"SCI-FI" is Fantasy that lifts props from Science Fiction without
--->laying the groundwork or establishing the need for technology.<---
( example; Crichton could just as easily be a human transported
across the Rainbow Bridge to Asgard, being Earnestly Interviewed
by Loki; we haven't seen any use of actual technology that can't
be handled just as easily with Magic Spells; he has a Magic Spell
to get home with, but it's clouded until the Right Time. At least
Manning had the class to slip "Froonium" in as *intended* as guff. )
<snip the rest>
Mike Stone
in message
news:efrmrr$f6b$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu.
..
> Michael Stemper asked about this last week, and
in responding,
> Michael Schiffer kept the thread alive on my
server. (Just for
> Mike-S. completeness, Mike Schilling appears not
to have been
> involved, and I don't think Mike Stone has
posted for a while.)
>
What counts as "a while"?
Google "intelligent mice" and you'll find a
message from me dated Sep 18.
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England
"It is so stupid of modern civilisation to have
given up believing in the devil, when he is its
only explanation"
Ronald Knox
Gene Ward Smith
Anthony Nance wrote:
> Anyhow, below is Gharlane's SF Taxonomy.
It makes very little sense, put the tree diagram is cool.
Mike Schilling
"Mike Stone" <mws...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4odh8bF...@individual.net...
> "Anthony Nance" <na...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote
> in message
> news:efrmrr$f6b$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu.
> ..
>> Michael Stemper asked about this last week, and
> in responding,
>> Michael Schiffer kept the thread alive on my
> server. (Just for
>> Mike-S. completeness, Mike Schilling appears not
> to have been
>> involved, and I don't think Mike Stone has
> posted for a while.)
>>
>
>
> What counts as "a while"?
>
> Google "intelligent mice" and you'll find a
> message from me dated Sep 18.
Two weeks is forever when you're on internet time. [1]
1. Is "internet time" in common parlance? In the 90s, it was an excuse for
releasing untested crap software and immediately starting to code new
products.
Michael Grosberg
Anthony Nance wrote:
> Michael Stemper asked about this last week, and in responding,
> Michael Schiffer kept the thread alive on my server. (Just for
> Mike-S. completeness, Mike Schilling appears not to have been
> involved, and I don't think Mike Stone has posted for a while.)
>
> Anyhow, below is Gharlane's SF Taxonomy. The version I saved comes
> from summer 2001, and says "Originally posted January 9, 2000."
> Any type-setting errors, especialy in the ASCII diagram, are my own,
> and if it comes out too terribly munged, I can put it on a webpage.
Out of curiosity, what is the reason for posting this? I remember you
mentioned it in one of the endless "what is SF" discussions, but
reading it now, all I can think is that while it is somewhat amusing as
a rant, it is completely useless as a serious way to categorize works.
Anthony Nance
>"Anthony Nance" <na...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote
>in message
>news:efrmrr$f6b$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu.
>..
>> Michael Stemper asked about this last week, and
>in responding,
>> Michael Schiffer kept the thread alive on my
>server. (Just for
>> Mike-S. completeness, Mike Schilling appears not
>to have been
>> involved, and I don't think Mike Stone has
>posted for a while.)
>>
>
>
>What counts as "a while"?
>
>Google "intelligent mice" and you'll find a
>message from me dated Sep 18.
I was thinking "over a week", since usenet messages expire on my
server after a week. I surely could have said it better.
Tony
Anthony Nance
I posted it only because Michael Stemper mentioned he was looking
for it. As coincidence would have it, I stumbled across it in an
old archive around the same time it popped back up on rasfw that he
was still looking for it nearly a week later. I don't think it's
a burning need by any stretch, but he mentioned he had looked for
it further.
As far as it being mentioned earlier, I'm sure it was, but not by me.
I'm not one for participating in the classification wars, or semantic
spirals in general.
I also think, from reading it, that it was initially sent to/meant for
rec.arts.sf.tv where Gharlane was also very active. At least, almost
all the specific examples are tv shows, and he typically was well
aware of his audience.
Lastly, I agree that it's "completely useless as a serious way to
categorize works", but we've chased our tails around here enough to
know that pretty much all of them are (in the sense that every
categorization has boundary busters, as well as authors that aim
straight for the boundaries, too).
Tony
norrin
Anthony Nance wrote:
> Michael Stemper asked about this last week, and in responding,
> Michael Schiffer kept the thread alive on my server. (Just for
> Mike-S. completeness, Mike Schilling appears not to have been
> involved, and I don't think Mike Stone has posted for a while.)
Interesting read. I noticed that, by Gharlane's definitions,
the NYSE is fantasy.
> "Hard Science Fiction" is written by people who know enough of science
> and technology to know what is possible, and create a narrative milieu
The writers should have stayed in school. If they did,
they'd know that almost anything is possible. For
example, there's a possible world with life on Venus.
There are two types of fiction, speculative and mundane.
The two biggest classes of speculative fiction are
science fiction and fantasy. Mundane fiction
includes most TV shows, action movies, and
techno thrillers. Mystery and romance are
usually mundane fiction.
norrin
Anthony Nance wrote:
> Whoops - I chopped off a line in the middle. It is now inserted
> between ---> and <--- below.
>
> Sorry,
> Tony
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> <snip the start>
>
> "SCI-FI" is Fantasy that lifts props from Science Fiction without
> --->laying the groundwork or establishing the need for technology.<---
So, the difference between sci-fi and soft science
fiction is that the latter has better tech manuals?
Michael Stemper
>Anthony Nance wrote:
>> Michael Stemper asked about this last week,
>> Anyhow, below is Gharlane's SF Taxonomy.
>Out of curiosity, what is the reason for posting this?
Because, as he stated in his post, I asked about it last week.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made from meat?
Gene Ward Smith
norrin wrote:
> Interesting read. I noticed that, by Gharlane's definitions,
> the NYSE is fantasy.
The New York Stock Exchange is fiction which cannot occur?
Michael Grosberg
Michael Stemper wrote:
> In article <1159873670....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Michael Grosberg writes:
> >Anthony Nance wrote:
> >> Michael Stemper asked about this last week,
>
> >> Anyhow, below is Gharlane's SF Taxonomy.
>
> >Out of curiosity, what is the reason for posting this?
>
> Because, as he stated in his post, I asked about it last week.
Notes to self:
1. don't post when ill and in need of sleep
2. make sure you remember the beginning of a post once you get to the
end of it.
norrin
An utterly impossible fictional framework. The stocks keep
going up and up, people keep working, and nothing ever
gets destroyed or used up. Stockbrokers, and TV journalists,
may pretend their words are true but they get rich off of
the ignorance of the audience.
Gharlane said MIAMI VICE was speculative and I thought
it was an ordinary TV show, and an utterly impossible one.
John Duncan Yoyo
<genewa...@gmail.com> wrote:
It took me a few minutes to find a font that would make the chart
work.
--
John Duncan Yoyo
------------------------------o)
Brought to you by the Binks for Senate campaign comittee.
Coruscant is far, far away from wesa on Naboo.
Joe Bednorz
>
>Michael Stemper wrote:
>> In article <1159873670....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Michael Grosberg writes:
>> >Anthony Nance wrote:
>> >> Michael Stemper asked about this last week,
>>
>> >> Anyhow, below is Gharlane's SF Taxonomy.
>>
>> >Out of curiosity, what is the reason for posting this?
>>
>> Because, as he stated in his post, I asked about it last week.
>
>
>Notes to self:
>1. don't post when ill and in need of sleep
If your judgement were good enough to evaluate that accurately, then
your judgement would be good enough to be able to post well.
It's the old "He's too drunk to know he's drunk" paradox.
--
SF at Project Gutenberg: <http://thethunderchild.com/Books/OutofCopyright.html>
Baen Free Online SciFi: <http://www.baen.com/library/>
Baen Free SciFi CDs <http://files.plebian.net/baencd/>
SciFi.com classic/original: <http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/archive.html>
Free SF samples from Baen and Tor: <http://www.webscription.net/catalog.asp>
All the best, Joe Bednorz
Wayne Throop
: It took me a few minutes to find a font that would make the chart work.
Just choose any Courier font.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Howard Brazee
<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> If your judgement were good enough to evaluate that accurately, then
>your judgement would be good enough to be able to post well.
>
> It's the old "He's too drunk to know he's drunk" paradox.
Does that really occur?
Will Frank
>> It's the old "He's too drunk to know he's drunk" paradox.
>
> Does that really occur?
All the time. The last person to know a man is drunk is usually himself...it's
the same as "if one man says you're drunk, ignore him, if two say it, wonder,
and if ten say it, sit down and switch to water."
--
Will "scifantasy" Frank - wmf...@stwing.org
"Who am I to argue with history?"
"Usually the first in line."
--The Doctor and Rose, "The Doctor Dances"
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>>> It's the old "He's too drunk to know he's drunk" paradox.
>>
>> Does that really occur?
>
>All the time. The last person to know a man is drunk is usually himself...it's
>the same as "if one man says you're drunk, ignore him, if two say it, wonder,
>and if ten say it, sit down and switch to water."
That's not when he's "too drunk to know", that implies that if he
drank less he would know he's drunk and then has some more drinks and
thinks he is sober.
I don't see that happening.