Fantasy is not SF!
M. Tettnanger
from a knight on his horse, the story suddenly is
placed alongside Martian Chronicles, Forge of God,
and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? The roles that
science and technology play in most of these King
Arthuresque tales and court stories are not only
null but are completely irrelevant.
Yes, there is sometimes overlap, and yes, Clarke said
that magic is advanced technology. I think we are
being thrown a red herring. You can find overlap
in almost any literary genre (yes, there are SF-
fantasy hybrids!) And just because Sir Galahad
invents bifocals shouldn't be cause to leap for
the SF label. Can't we just call a spade a spade?
I have nothing personally against fantasy but I think
it sorely needs to be unhitched from the SF label and
allowed to grow and flourish on its own terms.
Why is there no rec.arts.fantasy.written group?
Why is WSWS still carrying the fantasy genre for
the Hugos -- or are they just trying to reel in the
broadest possible chunk of literature under one wing,
thus this problem? Is SF being used as a cover by
insecure publishers to "mark up" fantasy into the
ranks of an allegedly more mature audience? I think
there is more to this than just overlap and incidental
semantics. Why can't we have two distinct and
independent genres?
Mark
Dan Goodman
Among other things, it explains that in the name of the rec.arts.sf.*
newsgroups, "sf" DOES NOT STAND FOR "SCIENCE FICTION" but rather for
"speculative fiction".
However -- perhaps you can redeem yourself by stating some clear,
precise, and inarguable criteria by which science fiction and fantasy can
be accurately divided. No one has yet managed that to the general
satisfaction of this newsgroup; you have the chance to be the first.
marktet...@hotmail.com (M. Tettnanger) wrote in
news:2015f42e.04021...@posting.google.com:
> Why is it that when we take the historical basis away
> from a knight on his horse, the story suddenly is
> placed alongside Martian Chronicles, Forge of God,
> and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? The roles that
> science and technology play in most of these King
> Arthuresque tales and court stories are not only
> null but are completely irrelevant.
You've named one fix-up which I consider to be fantasy with a few science
fiction trappings; one genuine science fiction novel; and one
novelization of a radio show which I would consider to be just barely
science fiction rather than fantasy.
> Yes, there is sometimes overlap, and yes, Clarke said
> that magic is advanced technology. I think we are
> being thrown a red herring. You can find overlap
> in almost any literary genre (yes, there are SF-
> fantasy hybrids!) And just because Sir Galahad
> invents bifocals shouldn't be cause to leap for
> the SF label. Can't we just call a spade a spade?
>
> I have nothing personally against fantasy but I think
> it sorely needs to be unhitched from the SF label and
> allowed to grow and flourish on its own terms.
Been doing that for several decades; I believe it's now a larger market
than science fiction.
> Why is there no rec.arts.fantasy.written group?
Same reason there isn't an rec.arts.sf.* group for science fiction alone
> Why is WSWS still carrying the fantasy genre for
> the Hugos
Tradition. Same reason SFWA had fantasy writers as members even before
the bylaws officially said they were eligible.
-- or are they just trying to reel in the
> broadest possible chunk of literature under one wing,
> thus this problem?
It's not a problem. Or, more precisely: the Worldcon committees and
most Worldcon members do not consider it a problem.
> Is SF being used as a cover by
> insecure publishers to "mark up" fantasy into the
> ranks of an allegedly more mature audience?
You're _really_ out of touch with the publishing market.
--
Dan Goodman
Journal http://dsgood.blogspot.com or
http://www.livejournal.com/users/dsgood/
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
SpaceGirl
"M. Tettnanger" <marktet...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2015f42e.04021...@posting.google.com...
So hard to define. Take McAffrey's Pern books. The first 5 or 6 books I'd
have thought firmly fit in the fantasy category. But then, we discover the
Pern is a human colony, and they find the ship, and then she writes the
back story. So it became SciFi. There are plenty of other examples of this.
I think there is no such definition. Bit like trying to define the horror
genre, or the thriller genre. Aren't most SF books also liberally sprinkled
with horror and are almost all thrillers, or sorts? And so on...
SpaceGirl
"SpaceGirl" <NoSpace...@subhuman.net> wrote in message
news:c13lkk$1dej40$1...@ID-129131.news.uni-berlin.de...
I meant McCaffrey.... it's late... I'm tired, but this doesn't bode well
for a day of writing tomorrow.
Leanne Phillips
Omixochitl <Omixoch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>marktet...@hotmail.com (M. Tettnanger) wrote in
>news:2015f42e.04021...@posting.google.com:
>> it sorely needs to be unhitched from the SF label and
>> allowed to grow and flourish on its own terms.
>> Why is there no rec.arts.fantasy.written group?
>rec.arts.sf.written as standing for "speculative fiction" (SF, fantasy,
>alternate history, magic realism, cyberpunk, wuxia, all that good stuff :)
>) instead of only "science fiction." ;)
Well - it's not that lots of us treat it that way without any basis.
That's how we defined it, back during the Usenet Ol - er, back in '91
when the rec.arts.sf hierarchy was created.
I've taken to typing 'ScF' when I actually mean science fiction instead
of speculative fiction.
-Leanne
--
Leanne
We have tasted fear./We have breathed in grief.
We have swum in hate./We have witnessed strength.
- Last verse of my poem in memoriam of the September 11 tragedy.
Dorothy J Heydt
M. Tettnanger <marktet...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Why can't we have two distinct and
>independent genres?
Because there is no dividing line between them that anyone can
get anyone else to agree to.
Where do you put McCaffrey's Pern? Bradley's Darkover? Brust's
Dragaera?
For instance.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Konrad Gaertner
>
> Why can't we have two distinct and independent genres?
I make a point of not arguing the same topic in two places at once.
Lucky for you, this thread finally died over in
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg :)
According to the latest stats[1], only 78% of speculative fiction is
unambiguously classifiable.
[1] http://google.com/groups?selm=bvkj9t%248v2%241%40reader2.panix.com
--KG
Andrew Wheeler
>
> Why is it that when we take the historical basis away
> from a knight on his horse, the story suddenly is
> placed alongside Martian Chronicles, Forge of God,
> and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?
For the same reason that a bland adventure story about "asteroid
rustlers" is considered science fiction; a story is generally defined by
its packaging.
We've done this before, but my usual take is that the good-bad axis
exists in all genres, and it's not useful to try to conflate that axis
with the genre-typing of a particular work. You're not exactly doing
that, but I'm sure the thread is aiming that way even as I type.
By the way, two of your three examples are extremely "soft" science
fiction, to begin with. (Bradbury, in fact, these days calls
_Chronicles_ fantasy.) You might want to have that eye looked at.
> The roles that science and technology play in most
> of these King Arthuresque tales and court stories
> are not only null but are completely irrelevant.
What stories are you talking about? I haven't seen anything even vaguely
Arthurian in science fiction in ages. I think you may be speaking very
loosely here.
> Yes, there is sometimes overlap, and yes, Clarke said
> that magic is advanced technology. I think we are
> being thrown a red herring. You can find overlap
> in almost any literary genre (yes, there are SF-
> fantasy hybrids!) And just because Sir Galahad
> invents bifocals shouldn't be cause to leap for
> the SF label. Can't we just call a spade a spade?
If you want. Which spade did you have in mind, and what do you want to
call it?
> I have nothing personally against fantasy but I think
> it sorely needs to be unhitched from the SF label and
> allowed to grow and flourish on its own terms.
<hollow laugh> Oh, I don't think you need to worry about that. Fantasy
might not have moved out of the house, but it's paying the mortgage
these days (and paid for that new wing off the back as well). Science
fiction is out of work and hanging around the house playing Xbox games a
lot these days. (Though it does have some promising interviews coming up.)
> Why is there no rec.arts.fantasy.written group?
SF, in this group's name, stands for "speculative fiction." That gives
us some chance to stay on topic once in a while, so most of us are in
favor of keeping it that way most of the time.
> Why is WSWS still carrying the fantasy genre for
> the Hugos -- or are they just trying to reel in the
> broadest possible chunk of literature under one wing,
> thus this problem?
If you want to make fantasy ineligible for the Hugo, go to the business
meeting in Boston this year and propose it. There isn't really a "WSWS"
-- it's just whoever shows up for the meeting in any given year. (I
don't expect you'd be successful, but my knowledge of Hugo politics is
slight and second-hand to begin with.)
There are people who feel passionately that the two genres should be
separated and never touch again, but most of the professionals in the
field (he said, leaning heavily on an assumed *gravitas* and hoping
nobody touches the curtain) think the two are inseparable.
> Is SF being used as a cover by
> insecure publishers to "mark up" fantasy into the
> ranks of an allegedly more mature audience?
Are you *kidding*? No. Not at all. Not even close. Not in a million
years. Fantasy strongly outsells science fiction, and might be pulling
away. I won't say that science fiction is dying, but it's getting to be
the little brother. Fantasy is more appealing to female readers, who --
as you know, Bob -- buy far more books than men, but that's only one reason.
> I think there is more to this than just overlap
> and incidental semantics. Why can't we have
> two distinct and independent genres?
Well, we can, and sometimes do. But, other times, we have them all mixed
together. Can you give specifics as to the "science fiction" books you
think are contaminated by fantasy (or are disguised fantasy)?
--
Andrew Wheeler
"Mens' souls are crooked and unsound things, not good materials out of
which to build friendships. families, households, cities, civilizations.
But good or no, these things must be built, and we must craft them with
the materials at hand, and make as strong and stubborn redoubt as we can
make, lest the horrors of the Night should triumph over us, not in some
distant age to come, but now."
- John C. Wright, "Awake in the Night"
steve miller
Tettnanger) wrotD:
>I have nothing personally against fantasy but I think
>it sorely needs to be unhitched from the SF label and
>allowed to grow and flourish on its own terms.
>Why is there no rec.arts.fantasy.written group?
Try starting one.
>Why is WSWS still carrying the fantasy genre for
>the Hugos -- or are they just trying to reel in the
>broadest possible chunk of literature under one wing,
>thus this problem?
Read the history of the Hugos. The fans *like it* this way. If you
don't like it, go to the next worldcon and make a motion at the
business meeting.
> Is SF being used as a cover by
>insecure publishers to "mark up" fantasy into the
>ranks of an allegedly more mature audience?
No.
> I think
>there is more to this than just overlap and incidental
>semantics.
Read the history of genre publishers in the US. Think what you will,
the conspriacy you seek is between the readers and the writers.
>Why can't we have two distinct and
>independent genres?
See above. The readers, writers, and publishers of the genres involved
all overlap.
Steve
Balance of Trade - on sale February 12
Local Custom -- the audiobook -- coming soon
Chapbooks at www.korval.com/srmcat2.htm
Sea Wasp
Why can't we have two distinct and
> independent genres?
If you can make a distinct and independent definition which
everyone will agree upon, by all means, go ahead.
I will work on something much easier and more likely of success,
like, say, psionic teleportation, FTL drives, etc.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Dorothy J Heydt
Konrad Gaertner <gae...@aol.com> wrote:
>"M. Tettnanger" wrote:
>>
>> Why can't we have two distinct and independent genres?
>
>unambiguously classifiable.
As much as that? Wow.
David Johnston
>Why is it that when we take the historical basis away
>from a knight on his horse, the story suddenly is
>placed alongside Martian Chronicles, Forge of God,
>and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? The roles that
>science and technology play in most of these King
>Arthuresque tales and court stories are not only
>null but are completely irrelevant.
You know what? I'd say the exact same thing about
the Martian Chronicles. The role that science and
technology plays in most of those stories are pretty
damn null. However, given that magic is usually
very important in fantasy novels, and fundamentally
magic is just a science that doesn't work, the connection
of fantasy to science fiction seems pretty obvious to me.
Michael S. Schiffer
news:c13lkk$1dej40$1...@ID-129131.news.uni-berlin.de:
>...
> So hard to define. Take McAffrey's Pern books. The first 5 or 6
> books I'd have thought firmly fit in the fantasy category. But
> then, we discover the Pern is a human colony,
That's actually made explicit in the first book.
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Bill Snyder
Heydt) wrote:
>In article <403568A3...@worldnet.att.net>,
>Konrad Gaertner <gae...@aol.com> wrote:
>>"M. Tettnanger" wrote:
>>>
>>> Why can't we have two distinct and independent genres?
>>
>>According to the latest stats[1], only 78% of speculative fiction is
>>unambiguously classifiable.
>
>As much as that? Wow.
90% of that statistic is crud.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
David Dyer-Bennet
> I have nothing personally against fantasy but I think
> it sorely needs to be unhitched from the SF label and
> allowed to grow and flourish on its own terms.
Well, let's start by you defining the difference, in a sufficiently
satisfactory way that you can build a strong consensus of, say, the
readers of this group that you've got a good definition.
Because, obviously, trying to split SF from Fantasy is hopeless if we
don't have a pretty clear understanding of which is which.
Even then it's a problem, since it's fairly common for the same author
to write some of each, and the same fans to want to read both
(Cherryh, Bujold, DeCamp, Dickson, Poul Anderson, Card, Brin, and
*many* more).
Technically, SF is a sub-genre of fantasy, so far as I can see.
Fantasy is the broad class of fiction that's at least a step away from
the "real world". SF is the sub-set of that which...well, we know it
when we see it.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
GSV Three Minds in a Can
wonderful person Leanne Phillips <fe...@felan.best.vwh.net> said
>In article <Xns9494C4CD...@130.133.1.4>,
>Omixochitl <Omixoch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>marktet...@hotmail.com (M. Tettnanger) wrote in
>>news:2015f42e.04021...@posting.google.com:
>>> I have nothing personally against fantasy but I think
>>> it sorely needs to be unhitched from the SF label and
>>> allowed to grow and flourish on its own terms.
>>> Why is there no rec.arts.fantasy.written group?
>>Overlapping fan bases, so lots of us just treat the .sf. in
>>rec.arts.sf.written as standing for "speculative fiction" (SF, fantasy,
>>alternate history, magic realism, cyberpunk, wuxia, all that good stuff :)
>>) instead of only "science fiction." ;)
>
>Well - it's not that lots of us treat it that way without any basis.
>That's how we defined it, back during the Usenet Ol - er, back in '91
>when the rec.arts.sf hierarchy was created.
>
>I've taken to typing 'ScF' when I actually mean science fiction instead
>of speculative fiction.
Me too, since I got fed up with people telling me SciFi was
'derogatory',
and ScF is shorter anyway.
8>.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
GSV Three Minds in a Can
person David Johnston <rgorma...@telusplanet.net> said
>On 19 Feb 2004 16:10:18 -0800, marktet...@hotmail.com (M.
>Tettnanger) wrote:
>
>>Why is it that when we take the historical basis away
>>from a knight on his horse, the story suddenly is
>>placed alongside Martian Chronicles, Forge of God,
>>and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? The roles that
>>science and technology play in most of these King
>>Arthuresque tales and court stories are not only
>>null but are completely irrelevant.
The roles that science and technology plays in most ScF are also pretty
much null and irrelevant. I've said before that a lot of LM Bujold's ScF
would transpose very neatly into any other setting with minimal plot and
character changes. Honor Harrington is just Hornblower with spaceships.
EFR's _WASP_ could equally well be a 2nd WW story. A lot of ScF has such
hokey science and technology that you'd be better off pretending it was
magic, then the glitches wouldn't be so annoying.
>You know what? I'd say the exact same thing about
>the Martian Chronicles. The role that science and
>technology plays in most of those stories are pretty
>damn null. However, given that magic is usually
>very important in fantasy novels, and fundamentally
>magic is just a science that doesn't work
? Magic is just science that the reader doesn't understand the basis
for.
I'm not sure where the 'doesn't work' bit came from. Might not work for
you .. but then you probably forgot to charge the dilithium battery in
the 5th dimension of your brane-space backpack before you started.
>, the connection
>of fantasy to science fiction seems pretty obvious to me.
--
SpaceGirl
"Michael S. Schiffer" <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9494DE0931ED...@130.133.1.4...
I'll get my coat.
I was... 15 I think when I read those books. I guess I've forgotten way more
than I realised! Oh well, there's an excuse for a reread :)
how...@brazee.net
Do people really believe in SF anymore?
Sure I believe in, and love the stories. But we know more about what is
possible and the costs of achieving the common space travel future we love.
Family space ships currently have moved from SF to fantasy. Maybe they
will change back.
Do people believe in Gibson and Stephenson's future? Or even Red Mars?
how...@brazee.net
On 19-Feb-2004, Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
> Among other things, it explains that in the name of the rec.arts.sf.*
> newsgroups, "sf" DOES NOT STAND FOR "SCIENCE FICTION" but rather for
> "speculative fiction".
Who defined this?
In real life SF stands for a bunch of things. One of these speculative
fiction, one is science fantasy, and another is science fiction. Science
Fiction is the long lasting term (Hugo Gernsback lost his bid), that SF is
named after.
Joe Bernstein
<djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> In article <403568A3...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Konrad Gaertner <gae...@aol.com> wrote:
> >According to the latest stats[1], only 78% of speculative fiction is
> >unambiguously classifiable.
> As much as that? Wow.
Um, well, there's an ongoing argument between me and the person who
provided the list of books used as a sample, over whether the list
was biased in such a way that it would produce a relatively high
number.
But since both he and I had been predicting a higher number, and
since people who, uh, agree with you I think, had been predicting
lower (without giving specific quantities, admittedly), there was
ample egg to go on everyone's faces.
I dunno about others, but I'm still tired from the last round, so
I doubt this is the thread into which I'll put my list from <Locus>
for a more authoritative tally. I don't even have the energy to
go and correct the person upthread who described the news that
Pern is a space colony as belonging to a late book in the series.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, bookseller and writer j...@sfbooks.com
<http://www.panix.com/~josephb/>
Joe Bernstein
<acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
> "M. Tettnanger" wrote:
> > The roles that science and technology play in most
> > of these King Arthuresque tales and court stories
> > are not only null but are completely irrelevant.
>
> What stories are you talking about? I haven't seen anything even
> vaguely Arthurian in science fiction in ages. I think you may be
> speaking very loosely here.
Well, he (she?) must be, since whatever he (?) is saying in that
sentence is entirely beyond me, but I'll see your "ages" and raise
you one <Views from the Oldest House>, thank you.
-- JLB
SpaceGirl
"Joe Bernstein" <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote in message
news:c13vh4$ndl$1...@reader2.panix.com...
You dont need to bother, I know I was wrong now :)
Mark
> You really ought to read the FAQ -- findable at http://www.faqs.org.
>
> Among other things, it explains that in the name of the rec.arts.sf.*
> newsgroups, "sf" DOES NOT STAND FOR "SCIENCE FICTION" but rather for
> "speculative fiction".
>
> However -- perhaps you can redeem yourself by stating some clear,
> precise, and inarguable criteria by which science fiction and fantasy can
> be accurately divided. No one has yet managed that to the general
> satisfaction of this newsgroup; you have the chance to be the first.
It never will be--most people want their fantasy and science fiction
aesthetically inseparable, so no argument will ever establish a
legitimate criteria for saying the one is not the other. That doesn't
mean good arguments haven't been offered--just that they've been
discounted. Usually.
Mark
author of:
COMPASS REACH
METAL OF NIGHT
PEACE & MEMORY
REMAINS (forthcoming)
www.marktiedemann.com
Jamie Hart
"Andrew Wheeler" <acwh...@optonline.com> wrote in message
news:40356EA1...@optonline.com...
> "M. Tettnanger" wrote:
> >
<snip>
> SF, in this group's name, stands for "speculative fiction." That gives
> us some chance to stay on topic once in a while, so most of us are in
> favor of keeping it that way most of the time.
>
Why was "Speculative fiction" chosen? I can see Sci-Fi fitting into that,
but what is more speculative about fantasy novels than about westerns?
In fact I can see reason to fit all but the most restricted categories into
that description.
Anyway, don't want to argue, just curious as I wasn't around at the time it
was decided.
r.r...@thevine.net
And for Arthurian ScF, I give you Cherryh's "Port Eternity".
Rebecca
Damien R. Sullivan
>But the SF as I grew up loving, is fantasy.
>
>Do people really believe in SF anymore?
>
Vinge, Egan, MacLeod, with dreams of Banks. Advanced biotech and robotics and
AI.
We've got cameras in cell phones. Dick Tracy 2-way TV watches probably aren't
far off, if we want them.
-xx- Damien X-)
Damien R. Sullivan
>The roles that science and technology plays in most ScF are also pretty
>much null and irrelevant. I've said before that a lot of LM Bujold's ScF
>would transpose very neatly into any other setting with minimal plot and
>character changes.
But can you support what you say about Bujold?
Some of hers might carry over, but lots of it is quite dependent on the
science, especially the biotech. The wormholes matter to a lot of plots as
well. Even the adventure of _Shards of Honor_ depends on some postulated
tech: Betan ship being able to sneak up to a warship, and plasma shields.
_Barrayar_ might be easier to change, turning Miles from a fetus in a
replicator to a sick infant.
But Athos depends on replicators, Falling Free and Diplomatic Immunity depend
on genetic engineering, Brothers in Arm and Mirror Dance depend on cloning, in
other books you've got memory chips and butter bugs and more replicators and
sex changes and terraforming and wormhole manipulations and the whole
Cetagandan mess.
Vor Game and Warrior's Apprentice I think I'll give you. But most of the
others take place in worlds strongly shaped by technology (or the lack of it.)
-xx- Damien X-)
Dan Goodman
Keith Laumer, _A Trace of Memory_.
--
Dan Goodman
Journal http://dsgood.blogspot.com or
http://www.livejournal.com/users/dsgood/
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Garrett Wollman
<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 19-Feb-2004, Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> Among other things, it explains that in the name of the rec.arts.sf.*
>> newsgroups, "sf" DOES NOT STAND FOR "SCIENCE FICTION" but rather for
>> "speculative fiction".
>
>Who defined this?
The people who created this newsgroup.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every
wol...@lcs.mit.edu | generation can invoke its principles in their own
Opinions not those of| search for greater freedom.
MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (2003)
David Johnston
(Damien R. Sullivan) wrote:
>GSV Three Minds in a Can <G...@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>The roles that science and technology plays in most ScF are also pretty
>>much null and irrelevant. I've said before that a lot of LM Bujold's ScF
>>would transpose very neatly into any other setting with minimal plot and
>>character changes.
>
>But can you support what you say about Bujold?
>
>Some of hers might carry over, but lots of it is quite dependent on the
>science, especially the biotech. The wormholes matter to a lot of plots as
>well. Even the adventure of _Shards of Honor_ depends on some postulated
>tech: Betan ship being able to sneak up to a warship, and plasma shields.
Perhaps as important is Beta itself. Beta is a futuristic science
fiction utopia by design, and I find that pretty essential to the
story.
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> Why is it that when we take the historical basis away
> from a knight on his horse, the story suddenly is
> placed alongside Martian Chronicles, Forge of God,
> and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? The roles that
> science and technology play in most of these King
> Arthuresque tales and court stories are not only
> null but are completely irrelevant.
>
/The Martian Chronicles/? /The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy/?
Feh, what a load of pseudoscientific claptrap -- they're nothing but
fantasy with rocket-ships and ray-guns.
See, the problem with these science fiction/fantasy arguments is
that no two people ever draw the line in the same place, and anyone
who declares that there is a clear border between the two gets
laughed down.
--
Sean O'Hara
Gibberish in Neutral: http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
Ace: Do you know any nice people? You know, ordinary people? Not
power-crazed nutters trying to take over the galaxy?
--Doctor Who
Sean O'Hara
> "Andrew Wheeler" <acwh...@optonline.com> wrote in message
> news:40356EA1...@optonline.com...
>
>>SF, in this group's name, stands for "speculative fiction." That gives
>>us some chance to stay on topic once in a while, so most of us are in
>>favor of keeping it that way most of the time.
>>
>
> Why was "Speculative fiction" chosen? I can see Sci-Fi fitting into that,
> but what is more speculative about fantasy novels than about westerns?
>
Well, we have historical evidence about how cattle rustlers behaved,
whereas all-powerful mages bent on enslaving the minds of everyone
on Earth, including sentient trees, requires a bit of speculation on
the author's part.
--
Sean O'Hara
Gibberish in Neutral: http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
Truth-loving Persians do not dwell upon
The trivial skirmish fought near Marathon.
--Robert Graves, "The Persian Version"
Konrad Gaertner
>
> "Andrew Wheeler" <acwh...@optonline.com> wrote in message
> news:40356EA1...@optonline.com...
> > "M. Tettnanger" wrote:
> > >
> <snip>
>
> > SF, in this group's name, stands for "speculative fiction." That gives
> > us some chance to stay on topic once in a while, so most of us are in
> > favor of keeping it that way most of the time.
> >
> Why was "Speculative fiction" chosen? I can see Sci-Fi fitting into that,
> but what is more speculative about fantasy novels than about westerns?
>
> In fact I can see reason to fit all but the most restricted categories into
> that description.
It refers to speculation about settings that differ from the
World as We Know It in some significant way (future, aliens, magic,
history taking a different path, etc).
--KG
Sea Wasp
> how...@brazee.net wrote:
>
>>But the SF as I grew up loving, is fantasy.
>>
>>Do people really believe in SF anymore?
>>
>>Do people believe in Gibson and Stephenson's future? Or even Red Mars?
>
>
> Vinge, Egan, MacLeod, with dreams of Banks.
I believe in Babylon 5.
Andrew Wheeler
>
> r.r...@thevine.net wrote in news:40362cf5...@news.thevine.net:
>
> > On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 03:42:41 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
> > <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <40356EA1...@optonline.com>, Andrew Wheeler
> >><acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "M. Tettnanger" wrote:
> >>
> >>> > The roles that science and technology play in most
> >>> > of these King Arthuresque tales and court stories
> >>> > are not only null but are completely irrelevant.
> >>>
> >>> What stories are you talking about? I haven't seen anything even
> >>> vaguely Arthurian in science fiction in ages. I think you may be
> >>> speaking very loosely here.
> >>
> >>Well, he (she?) must be, since whatever he (?) is saying in that
> >>sentence is entirely beyond me, but I'll see your "ages" and raise
> >>you one <Views from the Oldest House>, thank you.
> >
> >
> Keith Laumer, _A Trace of Memory_.
And no one's mentioned anything published in the last ten years yet,
which was sorta my point...
--
Andrew Wheeler
"Mens' souls are crooked and unsound things, not good materials out of
which to build friendships. families, households, cities, civilizations.
But good or no, these things must be built, and we must craft them with
the materials at hand, and make as strong and stubborn redoubt as we can
make, lest the horrors of the Night should triumph over us, not in some
distant age to come, but now."
- John C. Wright, "Awake in the Night"
David Johnston
<acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > And for Arthurian ScF, I give you Cherryh's "Port Eternity".
>> >
>> Keith Laumer, _A Trace of Memory_.
>
>And no one's mentioned anything published in the last ten years yet,
>which was sorta my point...
If so, then your point is an exceeding weak and paltry one.
how...@brazee.net
On 20-Feb-2004, "Jamie Hart" <theodor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Why was "Speculative fiction" chosen? I can see Sci-Fi fitting into that,
> but what is more speculative about fantasy novels than about westerns?
Because it fits, retroactively into the initials "SF".
Leroy F. Berven
> We've got cameras in cell phones. Dick Tracy 2-way TV watches probably aren't
> far off, if we want them.
We do, and they are heavily advertised in today's local newspapers, at
attractive discounts, to new subscribers for the cell phone services
those same gadgets _also_ provide.
Leroy Berven
Gene Ward Smith
>You really ought to read the FAQ -- findable at http://www.faqs.org.
>
>newsgroups, "sf" DOES NOT STAND FOR "SCIENCE FICTION" but rather for
>"speculative fiction".
>
>precise, and inarguable criteria by which science fiction and fantasy can
>be accurately divided. No one has yet managed that to the general
>satisfaction of this newsgroup; you have the chance to be the first.
He could start by explaining why Hitchhiker's Guide isn't fantasy.
A.C.
> In article <2015f42e.04021...@posting.google.com>,
> M. Tettnanger <marktet...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Why can't we have two distinct and
> >independent genres?
>
> Because there is no dividing line between them that anyone can
> get anyone else to agree to.
>
> Where do you put McCaffrey's Pern? Bradley's Darkover? Brust's
> Dragaera?
Back on the bookstore shelf, generally...
Justin Bacon
>But since both he and I had been predicting a higher number, and
>since people who, uh, agree with you I think, had been predicting
>lower (without giving specific quantities, admittedly), there was
>ample egg to go on everyone's faces.
I was quite content with the results of 97% of the people responding agreeing
on 97% of the listed books. Sure, I had predicted that the actual results would
be 99% of the people would agree on 99% of the books out there, but that's
close enough for me (especially considering the small, heavily biased sample
size).
JB
"I like the Orcs... They're my kind of people." -Mark Hughes
SpaceGirl
Justin Bacon
> The roles that science and technology plays in most ScF are also pretty
> much null and irrelevant. I've said before that a lot of LM Bujold's ScF
> would transpose very neatly into any other setting with minimal plot and
> character changes.
And has been pointed out many, many times, you can say this all you
want, but it doesn't make it true.
Shards of Honor? You could transpose the outback survival session at
the beginning of the book fairly easily, but the circumstances which
lead to Cordelia and Aral getting stranded would need to be completely
rewritten. You would also need to completely reconceive the reasons
for Barrayar
Warrior's Apprentice? This would involve rewriting the entire book and
rewriting massive amounts of character background. You could
definitely end up with some analagous story about a young kid running
a mercenary company, but it would hardly be the result of minimal
changes.
"Mountains of Mourning"? This would require a substantial rewriting of
backstory, all of which is currently dependent on science fiction. In
many ways this would seem to have a minimal impact on the story, but
one of the *key* themes in the story is about the technological
revolution taking place on Barrayar. Remove that element and you've
fundamentally altered the nature of the story.
Ethan of Athos? C'mon. Do I have to explain this one to you?
Freefall? Ditto.
"Borders of Infinity"? You could probably keep the characters fairly
intact, but the entire plot would have to be ripped out and replaced
with some only vaguely similar.
If you don't think that Bujold's science fiction stories are dependent
on their science fiction, then you simply aren't paying attention.
> Honor Harrington is just Hornblower with spaceships.
There's a little more truth here. But even here you run into some
fairly significant problems, particularly when you start looking at
things like Grayson.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.ocm
Justin Bacon
>Technically, SF is a sub-genre of fantasy, so far as I can see.
>Fantasy is the broad class of fiction that's at least a step away from
>the "real world". SF is the sub-set of that which...well, we know it
>when we see it.
If you were living in the 19th century, then the term "fantasy" would have had
the broad meaning you ascribe to it. For the past 100 years, or so, common
understanding has narrowed the definition of "fantasy" down to a much narrower
slice of "speculative fiction" (which is the term that has appeared to cover
the broad spectrum of fiction that the term "fantasy" once encompassed).
Language evolution in action.
It's probably about time to post Justin Bacon's Speculative Fiction Definitions
again:
Speculative Fiction: A form of fiction in which the story takes place in an
imaginary world which exists as a result of one or more "what if?" questions.
Science Fiction: A form of speculative fiction in which the "what ifs" which
define the imaginary world are based on science and/or technology. Usually this
setting is an imagined future, but this is not always the case.
Fantasy: A form of speculative fiction in which the "what ifs" which define the
imaginary world are based on the existence of magic. Usually this setting is an
alternate reality or an imaginary epoch in Earth's ancient past, but this is
not always the case.
Magic: The term "magic" can be applied to any ability, effect, phenomenon, or
creature which cannot be explained through the rules of science as they exist
in *this* universe. This does not include theoretical future revolutions in
scientific theory, the technology which those revolutions make possible, or
authorial mistakes.
Science Fantasy: A form of speculative fiction in which the "what ifs" which
define the imaginary world are based on magic, science, and/or technology. In
other words, any work which meets the definitions of both science fiction and
fantasy.
Alternate History: A form of speculative fiction in which the "what ifs" which
define the imaginary world are based on hypothetical changes in the way that
history actually played out.
And then there's the loophole: Certain "technologies" (like non-relativistic
FTL and most time travel) are grandfathered into the SF genre. IOW, those
technologies are not considered magic -- even though the authors usually know
that they're completely impossible, and frequently will not even bother with a
thin "hypothetical science" to justify their existence.
This, of course, is all my opinion. But, IMO, these definitions do a better job
of matching "science fiction" and "fantasy" to the stuff which is actually
labelled as such on the shelf than any other objective definition I've seen.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Orit
Ah, but which shelf, that is the question.
Orit
--
Life would be much easier if I had the source code.
Peter D. Tillman
rgorma...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
And your counterexample for recent Atrhurian SF is?
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
--
"Don't roach me, funker," she said. "And don't shirk off in your
electro-steamer. This mopsy wants to poke."
--Mack Reynolds, _Commune 2000 A.D._, 1974
David Johnston
Lose the loophole. It's unnecessary. You covered it under:
Andrew Wheeler
So, if my point is that there *isn't* any recent Arthurian SF, and
*nobody* comes up with any examples of recent Arthurian SF...what would
*you* consider good evidence? King Arthur returning from Avalon tomorrow
with a complaint that the last good book about him with rayguns in it
was _Camelot 3000_?
David Johnston
<acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
>David Johnston wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 01:59:41 GMT, Andrew Wheeler
>> <acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >
>> >> > And for Arthurian ScF, I give you Cherryh's "Port Eternity".
>> >> >
>> >> Keith Laumer, _A Trace of Memory_.
>> >
>> >And no one's mentioned anything published in the last ten years yet,
>> >which was sorta my point...
>>
>> If so, then your point is an exceeding weak and paltry one.
>
>So, if my point is that there *isn't* any recent Arthurian SF,
Then I say your point isn't worth making. Why would anyone care
that an idea which was used repeatedly hasn't been used recently?
J.B. Moreno
> So, if my point is that there *isn't* any recent Arthurian SF, and
> *nobody* comes up with any examples of recent Arthurian SF.
Well, some might consider _The Excalibur Alternative_ Arthurian SF, but
maybe not.
--
JBM
"Everything is futile." -- Marvin of Borg
Jo'Asia
> What stories are you talking about? I haven't seen anything even vaguely
> Arthurian in science fiction in ages. I think you may be speaking very
> loosely here.
What about "A Late Delivery From Avalon" by J. Michael Straczynski (the
script, of course)?
Jo'Asia
--
__.-=-. Joanna Slupek http://bujold.fantastyka.net/ .-=-.__
--<()> (Add one 'l' to 'hel' when replying by e-mail) <()>--
.__.'| ..................................................... |'.__.
Keep smiling......they'll think you're up to something
Joe Bernstein
Justin Bacon <tria...@aol.com> wrote:
> If you were living in the 19th century, then the term "fantasy" would
> have had the broad meaning you ascribe to it. For the past 100 years, or
> so, common understanding has narrowed the definition of "fantasy" down
> to a much narrower slice of "speculative fiction" (which is the term
> that has appeared to cover the broad spectrum of fiction that the term
> "fantasy" once encompassed).
>
> Language evolution in action.
True, except that I think you've unnecessarily lengthened the chronology.
I've seen what I consider a reasonable amount of evidence that "fantasy"
still meant spec-fic as late as the 1950s, at least some of the time. [1]
Do you have a significant number of cites for it in the narrower
meaning at that time? As early as the 1900s?
Joe Bernstein
[1] I really should go pin down more some time, but my 1950s magazines
are hard for me to reach right now. Anyway, the canonical example is
the Fantasy Award - was it the International FA or the British FA? -
that went 50% to science fiction books during its six-year run.
--
Joe Bernstein, bookseller and writer j...@sfbooks.com
<http://www.panix.com/~josephb/>
Martin Wisse
But that wasn't what the discussion was about now was it, sunshine?
Martin Wisse
--
There are no normal people--only people you don't know very much about.
-Nancy Lebovitz, rasfw
r.r...@thevine.net
<acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
>David Johnston wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 01:59:41 GMT, Andrew Wheeler
>> <acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >
>> >> > And for Arthurian ScF, I give you Cherryh's "Port Eternity".
>> >> >
>> >> Keith Laumer, _A Trace of Memory_.
>> >
>> >And no one's mentioned anything published in the last ten years yet,
>> >which was sorta my point...
>>
>> If so, then your point is an exceeding weak and paltry one.
>
>So, if my point is that there *isn't* any recent Arthurian SF, and
>*nobody* comes up with any examples of recent Arthurian SF...what would
>*you* consider good evidence? King Arthur returning from Avalon tomorrow
>with a complaint that the last good book about him with rayguns in it
>was _Camelot 3000_?
How recent does something need to be in order to be recent? Last
year, 3 years, 5, 10?
Rebecca
Justin Bacon
>In article <20040221125324...@mb-m01.aol.com>,
>Justin Bacon <tria...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> If you were living in the 19th century, then the term "fantasy" would
>> have had the broad meaning you ascribe to it. For the past 100 years, or
>> so, common understanding has narrowed the definition of "fantasy" down
>> to a much narrower slice of "speculative fiction" (which is the term
>> that has appeared to cover the broad spectrum of fiction that the term
>> "fantasy" once encompassed).
>>
>> Language evolution in action.
>
>True, except that I think you've unnecessarily lengthened the chronology.
>I've seen what I consider a reasonable amount of evidence that "fantasy"
>still meant spec-fic as late as the 1950s, at least some of the time. [1]
>Do you have a significant number of cites for it in the narrower
>meaning at that time? As early as the 1900s?
Not particularly. I just find it convenient to think of "fantasy" as possessing
its older, broader meaning at the beginning of the 20th century and having
essentially lost it completely by the end of the 20th century.
The part where the narrowing probably really began was with the pulps in the
'20s and '30s -- as popular, critical, and market interests began carving
pieces out of "fantasy" and then refining the remnant until the term had
reached its present sense. But, as you say, this was hardly an overnight
phenomenon.
The '60s always struck me as the time period when these definitions suddenly
became very important to people. (This seems to be the time period where
"sci-fi" suddenly became a pejorative in the minds of fans.) But I'm saying all
this from a POV well after the fact, and you've researched it far more
thoroughly than I have.
JB
David Johnston
<til...@aztec.asu.edu> wrote:
>In article <4036cde7...@news.telusplanet.net>,
> rgorma...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 01:59:41 GMT, Andrew Wheeler
>> <acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > And for Arthurian ScF, I give you Cherryh's "Port Eternity".
>> >> >
>> >> Keith Laumer, _A Trace of Memory_.
>> >
>> >And no one's mentioned anything published in the last ten years yet,
>> >which was sorta my point...
>>
>> If so, then your point is an exceeding weak and paltry one.
>>
>
>And your counterexample for recent Atrhurian SF is?
Unimportant. Oh sure I could bring up the subject of the
Once And Future King roleplaying game, but I don't see
a reason to. What does it matter whether the Arthurian
SF is recent? Just because nobody has used the
"And the two surviving refugees who arrived on the
empty planet were named Adam and Eve" climax in
the last 30 years doesn't make it not science fiction,
any more than it is important that last year someone
tried and failed to sell a pilot for a science fiction tv
series about a revolutionary named Arthur, who must
deal with having won his revolution and now must
build a new government, having torn down the old.
What does SF with Arthurian themes having gone
out of style have to do with anything? Doesn't it
just mean that that particular gold mine of inspiration
may be played out for the moment? I am not attempting
to refute the point. I'm just pointing out that the point was
never worth making. It's been a while since I've seen
SF inspired by the American Revolution, but does that
somehow make The Moon is a Harsh Mistress not
science fiction?
Captain Button
rgorma...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
[ snip ]
>What does SF with Arthurian themes having gone
>out of style have to do with anything? Doesn't it
>just mean that that particular gold mine of inspiration
>may be played out for the moment? I am not attempting
>to refute the point. I'm just pointing out that the point was
>never worth making. It's been a while since I've seen
>SF inspired by the American Revolution, but does that
>somehow make The Moon is a Harsh Mistress not
>science fiction?
Digressing, I have:
PATRIOTS by David Drake (Tor/1996)
<http://www.david-drake.com/patriots.html>
--
Once is happenstance.
Twice is coincidence.
Four times is enemy action.
BOMB MARS NOW! [ Captain Button - but...@io.com ]
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 02:11:51 GMT, rgorma...@telusplanet.net (David
>Johnston) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 01:27:45 GMT, Andrew Wheeler
>><acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
>>
>>>David Johnston wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 01:59:41 GMT, Andrew Wheeler
>>>> <acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > And for Arthurian ScF, I give you Cherryh's "Port Eternity".
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> Keith Laumer, _A Trace of Memory_.
>>>> >
>>>> >And no one's mentioned anything published in the last ten years yet,
>>>> >which was sorta my point...
>>>>
>>>> If so, then your point is an exceeding weak and paltry one.
>>>
>>>So, if my point is that there *isn't* any recent Arthurian SF,
>>
>>Then I say your point isn't worth making. Why would anyone care
>>that an idea which was used repeatedly hasn't been used recently?
>
>But that wasn't what the discussion was about now was it, sunshine?
What was it about, then?
how...@brazee.net
On 21-Feb-2004, Omixochitl <Omixoch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Do people believe in Gibson and Stephenson's future? Or even Red
> > Mars?
> Personally, I like reading the cyberpunk stuff more than reading the
> spaceships and aliens stuff. ;) But there's some good stuff with
> spaceships and aliens too. :)
Do you believe in those worlds?
Konrad Gaertner
>
> In article <40392bed...@news.telusplanet.net>,
> rgorma...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
>
> [ snip ]
>
> >What does SF with Arthurian themes having gone
> >out of style have to do with anything? Doesn't it
> >just mean that that particular gold mine of inspiration
> >may be played out for the moment? I am not attempting
> >to refute the point. I'm just pointing out that the point was
> >never worth making. It's been a while since I've seen
> >SF inspired by the American Revolution, but does that
> >somehow make The Moon is a Harsh Mistress not
> >science fiction?
>
> Digressing, I have:
>
> PATRIOTS by David Drake (Tor/1996)
>
> <http://www.david-drake.com/patriots.html>
Is Asprin's _For King and Country_ science fiction?
--KG
Leonard F. Wheat
[snip]
> It's probably about time to post Justin Bacon's Speculative Fiction
> Definitions again:
>
> Speculative Fiction: A form of fiction in which the story takes place in an
> imaginary world which exists as a result of one or more "what if?" questions.
>
> Science Fiction: A form of speculative fiction in which the "what ifs" which
> define the imaginary world are based on science and/or technology. Usually this
> setting is an imagined future, but this is not always the case.
This definition doesn't do the job. The presence of science in a plot
CAN identify a work as SF, but not all SF has science that is
sufficiently prominent or futuristic to support classifying the story
as SF. Elsewhere I use the example of Ursula K. Le Guin's first SF
novel, PLANET OF EXILE. The novel has no science. It is about an
abandoned colony of earthlings (or, I think, their descendents) on a
remote planet in another solar system. Their mission of observing
other races precludes their use of modern technology; they actually
use a medieval moat do defend themselves against attack by a barbarian
species. To be sure, space travel in the remote past and a spaceship
that returned to earth -- both are manifestations of science -- lurk
in the background. But this "science" is not part of the plot and is
so peripheral to the story that using it for classification purposes
would be wholly unwarranted. No, it isn't science or technology that
puts this novel in the SF category. It is two other criteria: (1) a
future setting and (2) an extraterrestrial setting.
Even where science is more evident in a SF novel, it might not be
important enough to the plot or futuristic enough to make the "SF"
label beyond dispute. Why uses a definition that forces us to argue
whether a certain novel's science qualifies the novel as SF when some
other criterion can do the job more objectively. Space travel, time
travel, artificial life (robots, androids, anthropopathic computers),
aliens -- these and other plot features can quickly and with certainty
identify a novel as SF where the science criterion might fail.
Science certainly belongs as a criterion, but it should be one
criterion among others.
Later in this post, I'll elaborate on the criteria I think should
supplement your science criterion.
> Fantasy: A form of speculative fiction in which the "what ifs" which define the
> imaginary world are based on the existence of magic. Usually this setting is an
> alternate reality or an imaginary epoch in Earth's ancient past, but this is
> not always the case.
I agree with the substance of your definition of fantasy but dislike
your terminology (so this comment is but a quibble). Your use of
"magic" is too loose, hence misleading; "magic" could be interpreted
as supporting a narrower definition of fantasy than you intend.
"Magic" should be replaced in your definition by "supernaturalism."
You are actually using "magic" as a synonym for "supernaturalism" –
that use is what makes your definition of fantasy correct – but the
two words are not really synonyms.
In my post that starts the "Criteria for Science Fiction & Fantasy"
thread, I define fantasy as "the presence [in a story] of
supernaturalism." I elaborate: "If the story features supernatural
elements it is always fantasy; otherwise it isn't. I would define the
supernatural as anything that violates the laws of nature as
recognized by the scientific community, provided that recognized
scientific laws can be violated if the story amends existing science
by pretending that additional scientific – really pseudoscientific –
laws exist (e.g., laws that allow STAR TREK transporter to operate)."
The word "magic" usually refers to the art or practice that uses
words, rituals, potions, devices (e.g., wands, amulets, crystal
balls, voodoo dolls), creatures (e.g., black cats), concentration (as
with The Force), and the like to invoke or control supernatural forces
so as to produce desired results (e.g., harm to someone, miraculous
cures, self-protection, strength, metamorphosis, levitation, knowledge
of the future).
"Magic" can also be used more broadly to include supernatural causal
forces that produce certain effects without being activated by an
intelligent being (e.g., the number 13 causing bad luck, astrological
alignments causing almost anything, a full moon causing a werewolf),
although this use is questionable.
But using "magic" to describe (1) supernatural beings (e.g., gods,
demons, vampires, fairies, fire-breathing dragons, Superman) or (2)
supernatural places (e.g., Oz, Middle Earth, Hades, Valhalla) is too
much of a stretch. I'll elaborate under your next paragraph.
> Magic: The term "magic" can be applied to any ability, effect, phenomenon, or
> creature which cannot be explained through the rules of science as they exist
> in *this* universe. This does not include theoretical future revolutions in
> scientific theory, the technology which those revolutions make possible, or
> authorial mistakes.
I question the use of "magic" to identify (1) a supernatural
"creature" or being or (2) a supernatural place. That is one reason I
prefer to define fantasy in terms of the presence of supernaturalism
rather than the presence of magic. My examples of the supernatural
fall into nine categories:
1. SUPERNATURAL BEINGS: Gods, goddesses, angels, demons, spirits,
ghosts, witches, sorcerers, fairies (e.g., Pinocchio's Blue Fairy and
Cinderella's Fairy Godmother), elves, trolls, goblins, valkyries,
vampires, werewolves, zombies, incubi, genies, resurrected mummies,
fire-breathing dragons, griffins, other winged animals, invisible
people, Santa Claus, and Superman.
2. METAPHYSICAL ENTITIES (impersonal, non-self-conscious forces):
Hegel's Spirit, the Greek Logos, and The Force from STAR WARS.
3. SUPERNATURAL PLACES: Heaven, Valhalla, Hell, Hades, Sheol,
Purgatory, Limbo, Oz, and Middle Earth.
4. SUPERNATURAL EVENTS: Resurrection of the dead, transmigration of
souls (as in Hinduism's reincarnation and in the film HEAVEN CAN
WAIT), spirit possession and demonic possession, results produced by
magic or sorcery, miracles, walking through solid walls, chariots
ascending to heaven, mountains opening in response to "Open Sesame,"
and God creating the world out of nothing.
5. NON-SCIENCE-BASED METAMORPHOSIS AND REVERSE METAMORPHOSIS (a
special subcategory of supernatural events): Vampire into bat, man
into werewolf, Dr. Jekyll into Mr. Hyde, Scarlet O'Neil into Invisible
Scarlet O'Neil, Billy Batson into Captain Marvel, Snow White's evil
stepmother into an old crone, men into pigs (in THE ODYSSEY), and
prince into frog. Supernatural metamorphosis generally leads to
reverse metamorphosis (e.g., frog back into prince).
6. SUPERNATURAL CAUSE-AND-EFFECT RELATIONSHIPS: Pain caused by pins
stuck in voodoo dolls, anything else caused by magic (wands, spells,
curses, incantations, rituals, potions, etc.), bad luck caused by
black cats or broken mirrors or the number 13, fates caused by
astrological signs or conditions (e.g., celestial alignments), cures
caused by the laying of hands, transmogrification caused by a full
moon, or any event caused by divine intervention (e.g., in response to
prayer or sacrifice).
7. SUPERNATURAL DEVICES: Amulets, talismans, rosaries, magic rings,
crystal balls, magic lamps, and flying carpets.
8. SUPERNATURAL COMMUNICATION WITH THE DEAD: Spiritualist seances.
9. SUPERNATURAL INSIGHT OR PREDICTION: Psychic powers, fortune
telling, and other forms of clairvoyance.
I'm sure I've overlooked other categories of supernaturalism, but
these should suffice to illustrate what violating the laws of nature
means. If a story involves any of these elements or similar elements,
it is fantasy; otherwise it is not fantasy (but not necessarily
science fiction either).
> Science Fantasy: A form of speculative fiction in which the "what ifs" which
> define the imaginary world are based on magic, science, and/or technology. In
> other words, any work which meets the definitions of both science fiction and
> fantasy.
No problem here. You correctly recognize that science fiction and
fantasy sometimes overlap (as do many other genres). Usually there is
no overlap.
> Alternate History: A form of speculative fiction in which the "what ifs" which
> define the imaginary world are based on hypothetical changes in the way that
> history actually played out.
I like the way you present "Alternate History" as a separate category,
apart from both science fiction and fantasy. You avoid the mistake of
confusing fantasy with that which is merely fantastic (unbelievable
but not involving supernaturalism). Science fiction and alternate
history can, of course, overlap, as in stories where (a) time travel
is used to go back in time to change the course of history or (b) the
alternate history involves faster technological progress that
introduces spaceships and ray guns.
> And then there's the loophole: Certain "technologies" (like non-relativistic
> FTL and most time travel) are grandfathered into the SF genre. IOW, those
> technologies are not considered magic -- even though the authors usually know
> that they're completely impossible, and frequently will not even bother with a
> thin "hypothetical science" to justify their existence.
You are certainly correct in grandfathering (1) faster-than-light
travel and (2) time travel into the SF genre, although FTL should be
construed more broadly as spaceships and space travel (not just the
FTL variety of space travel). I would prefer, though, that you didn't
treat these two criteria as second-class citizens, justified only by
tradition. They are fully justified as science fiction criteria. And
they should be granted full standing in the set of eight criteria for
identifying SF that I propose on the other thread. The eight SF
criteria are these:
1. A FUTURE SETTING: This criterion can't always do the job by
itself if the story takes place in the near future. I don't regard
Orwell's 1984 as science fiction, and the near-future setting of
Clarke's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY needs assistance from other criteria
(space travel, extraterrestrial setting, and hibernation science).
2. AN EXTRATERRESTRIAL SETTING: Science fiction often takes place on
another planet or some other extraterrestrial setting. Rather than
exclude JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH from the science fiction
category, I'd except an exotic locale inside the earth as
"extraterrestrial." Supernatural settings like Oz don't count.
3. SPACE TRAVEL: Ever since Jules Verne's FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON
(1866), space travel and its corollary – spaceships – have been
frequent attributes of science fiction.
4. INTELLIGENT ALIENS OR ALIEN ENTITIES: Alien encounters became a
feature of SF at least early as Edgar Rice Burroughs' JOHN CARTER OF
MARS series (begun in 1917). This criterion and the next are most
important when the aliens visit earth, since that is when aliens may
have to do the job of qualifying the story as SF all by themselves.
The aliens must be nonsupernatural.
5. ALIEN CREATURES AND RELATED ENTITIES: Extraterrestrial creatures
such as the sandworms from DUNE and the "alien" from the film ALIEN
are another mark of SF. In some cases the "creatures" are brainless
entities such as flesh-eating plants (THE DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS) or
matter that takes control of human bodies (THE INVASION OF THE BODY
SNATCHERS). Supernatural creatures such as those from LORD OF THE
RINGS don't count; they belong to fantasy. And I am reluctant to
accept alien viruses or bacteria like those in THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN as
meeting this criterion.
6. ARTIFICIAL LIFE: Robots, androids, humanoid computers, and the like
often populate SF stories. Commander Data from STAR TREK, Robbie the
Robot from FORBIDDEN PLANET, Hal from 2001, and the ever-popular
robots of pulp SF are examples. If these characters are present, you
have science fiction.
7. TIME TRAVEL: Time travel may be based on a machine (THE TIME
MACHINE) or Einsteinian time travel (PLANET OF THE APES). Either way
it can turn a story into science fiction all by itself (as in BACK TO
THE FUTURE), but time travel is usually present in combination with a
future setting for at least part of the story.
8. SCIENCE: The SF criterion that some people would put first –
science – I am putting last, because what constitutes SF type
"science" is a matter of opinion. If the science in the story is
highly imaginative or futuristic and is crucial to the story, it can
qualify a story for the SF genre. If the science is incidental or
quasi-jocular (as in the Bond movies) or if it is basically
contemporary (e.g., a new superplane or supersubmarine), it won't do
the job.
Sean O'Hara
declared:
>
> I've seen what I consider a reasonable amount of evidence that "fantasy"
> still meant spec-fic as late as the 1950s, at least some of the time. [1]
> Do you have a significant number of cites for it in the narrower
> meaning at that time? As early as the 1900s?
>
> are hard for me to reach right now.
The author would be sorry if any reader supposed he
was too stupid to have enjoyed Mr. H.G. Wells's
fantasies or too ungrateful to acknowledge his
debt to them.
--C.S. Lewis, /Out of the Silent Planet/
That puts the usage up to 1938, and my 1968 paperback edition still
uses blurbs referring to OotSP as fantasy rather than science fiction.
--
Sean O'Hara
Gibberish in Neutral: http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
Ace: Do you know any nice people? You know, ordinary people? Not
power-crazed nutters trying to take over the galaxy?
--Doctor Who
how...@brazee.net
King Arthur's Court_.
Andrew Wheeler
You must be reading a different thread than the rest of us. The original
assertion was that the purity of science fiction had been sullied
recently by fantasy, and the original poster specified Arthurian elements.
It is usual in debates to judge factual matters by actual facts; perhaps
your standards are different.
Wayne Throop
:: in an imaginary world which exists as a result of one or more "what
:: if?" questions.
:: Science Fiction: A form of speculative fiction in which the "what
:: ifs" which define the imaginary world are based on science and/or
:: technology. Usually this setting is an imagined future, but this is
:: not always the case.
: lenw...@earthlink.net (Leonard F. Wheat)
: This definition doesn't do the job. The presence of science in a plot
: CAN identify a work as SF, but not all SF has science that is
: sufficiently prominent or futuristic to support classifying the story
: as SF. Elsewhere I use the example of Ursula K. Le Guin's first SF
: novel, PLANET OF EXILE. The novel has no science. It is about an
: abandoned colony of earthlings (or, I think, their descendents) on a
: remote planet in another solar system.
Um. How did they get there without science or technology?
I'm just saying.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Joe Bernstein
<jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> >Andrew Wheeler wrote:
> >> What stories are you talking about? I haven't seen anything even
> >> vaguely Arthurian in science fiction in ages. I think you may be
> >> speaking very loosely here.
[snip]
> What about _The King's Peace_ by Jo Walton, which certainly seems
> to have significant affinities to Arthurian Fiction?
>
> I'm assuming Fisher King stuff is Right Out?
Well, um, is there any *science fiction* that used the Fisher King
theme within Andrew Wheeler's now-stated ten-year margin?
He wasn't writing in the sense "science fiction is just another name
for speculative fiction" there, he was writing in the sense "as
distinct from fantasy". The OP wrote something quite incoherent, that
Andrew Wheeler apparently read as a claim that Arthurian elements from
fantasy were ruining good science fiction, or something like that,
and so he questioned the OP as quoted above, in course of which
questioning he made the claim a bunch of us have had equal problems
either accepting or finding evidence against.
Joe Bernstein,
who had never before considered <The King's Peace> science fiction
and is wondering how you'd work that...
James Nicoll
Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>In article <c1adj8$rqm$1...@panix1.panix.com>, James Nicoll
><jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> >Andrew Wheeler wrote:
>
>> >> What stories are you talking about? I haven't seen anything even
>> >> vaguely Arthurian in science fiction in ages. I think you may be
>> >> speaking very loosely here.
>
>[snip]
>
>> What about _The King's Peace_ by Jo Walton, which certainly seems
>> to have significant affinities to Arthurian Fiction?
>>
>> I'm assuming Fisher King stuff is Right Out?
>
>Well, um, is there any *science fiction* that used the Fisher King
>theme within Andrew Wheeler's now-stated ten-year margin?
Hmmm. Is there any way to argue Powers is SF?
>He wasn't writing in the sense "science fiction is just another name
>for speculative fiction" there, he was writing in the sense "as
>distinct from fantasy".
May I insert a small "d'oh!" here? It was quite a weekend for
those, from the completely inedible oatmeal cookies to the charred
pancakes to the loss of the entire contents of my freezer because I
stacked my frozen groceries badly.
--
"Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture
and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure,
and demoralizing. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the
future of the world depends." -Oscar Wilde, "The Soul of Man Under Socialism"
Leonard F. Wheat
I answered that question in advance: "To be sure, space travel in the
remote past and a spaceship that returned to earth -- both are
manifestations of science -- lurk in the background. But this
"science" is not part of the plot and is so peripheral to the story
that using it for classification purposes
would be wholly unwarranted."
The question, in other words, is not whether science is implied or
even present in a story but whether that science is (a) prominent
enough and (b) futuristic enough to qualify the story as science
fiction. In the case of PLANET OF EXILE, the science is far from
prominent.
Brian Palmer
> Andrew Wheeler <acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
>
> > So, if my point is that there *isn't* any recent Arthurian SF, and
> > *nobody* comes up with any examples of recent Arthurian SF.
>
> Well, some might consider _The Excalibur Alternative_ Arthurian SF, but
> maybe not.
Hmm. It did have a King Arthur at the end make contact with Earth,
didn't it? But that was a bad book. Thanks a lot for reminding me of
it.
--
I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard.
Wayne Throop
: lenw...@earthlink.net (Leonard F. Wheat)
: I answered that question in advance: "To be sure, space travel in the
: remote past and a spaceship that returned to earth -- both are
: manifestations of science -- lurk in the background. But this
: "science" is not part of the plot and is so peripheral to the story
: that using it for classification purposes would be wholly
: unwarranted."
What I was trying to get at is, it's very odd to call something that
sets up the entire scenario "not part of the plot". And being
pervasively in the background to explain why we're talking humans
on a planet obviously not earth seems relevant.
But in that sense, you could take Creatures of Light and Darkness as
hard SF, since there's a (vague) implication that it's set far
futurewards of now, yet there's not much more fantasy-like than that.
Similarly for Lord of Light, but with more SFnal in-story undertones.
Those two sort of bracket the case you brought up. So I can see your
point. It's just that just where the line between them is is both fuzzy
and arguable, even when the general criteria are agreed on.
Johnny1A
> But the SF as I grew up loving, is fantasy.
>
> Do people really believe in SF anymore?
>
> Sure I believe in, and love the stories. But we know more about what is
> possible and the costs of achieving the common space travel future we love.
> Family space ships currently have moved from SF to fantasy. Maybe they
> will change back.
>
> Do people believe in Gibson and Stephenson's future? Or even Red Mars?
That depends on what you mean by 'believe in'. Literally, of course
not, they're fiction. Do I think that coming reality could
incorporate some of SF's visions, in an approximate form: very
likely.
Family spaceships? Probably, someday in the not-too-near future.
They violate no laws of physics, they simply require tremendously
larger energy budgets and engineering abilities than we can envision
now, which is no barrier long-term.
Cost? Irrelevant on the large scale, since it's an economic
consideration that changes with technology and values. Automobiles
are simply impossibly energetic, require magical levels of engineering
skill and technical prowess, and are clearly prohibitively dangerous,
and prohibitively expensive for individual possession, too, by the
standards of 1500 AD.
I don't believe in Red Mars' future, less for technological reasons
than because I don't believe the politics and the people. It's too
much of a projection of today.
Shermanlee
Johnny1A
I don't believe in Gibson's world, but again not because the
technology is fantastic (those 'cyberspace' and 'decking' _are_
fantastical) but because the people and institutions don't strike me
as believable. Cyberpunk was so fashionably nihilistic and 'realistic'
that it became fantastical in reverse.
Shermanlee
Justin Bacon
>> Science Fiction: A form of speculative fiction in which the "what ifs" which
>> define the imaginary world are based on science and/or technology. Usually
this
>> setting is an imagined future, but this is not always the case.
>
>This definition doesn't do the job. The presence of science in a plot
>CAN identify a work as SF, but not all SF has science that is
>sufficiently prominent or futuristic to support classifying the story
>as SF. Elsewhere I use the example of Ursula K. Le Guin's first SF
>novel, PLANET OF EXILE. The novel has no science. It is about an
>abandoned colony of earthlings (or, I think, their descendents) on a
>remote planet in another solar system.
How did they get there? Speculative technology, I'm assuming. Fits my
definition just fine.
>But this "science" is not part of the plot and is
>so peripheral to the story that using it for classification purposes
>would be wholly unwarranted.
This story CANNOT EXIST without speculative technology which gets our
protagonists from Earth to this alien world. Plus, studying alien species
sounds like speculative science to me. And, in fact, alien species are -- in
and of themselves -- speculative science.
>Space travel, time
>travel, artificial life (robots, androids, anthropopathic computers),
>aliens -- these and other plot features can quickly and with certainty
>identify a novel as SF where the science criterion might fail.
[Technology], [technology], [technology], and/or [science/probably technology]
can quickly and with certainty identify a novel as SF where my "science and/or
technology" criterion might fail?
You're kidding, right?
If you want to instantiate a whole bunch of specific examples of "speculative
science and/or technology" in your definition, that's fine. But I prefer the
clarity of first principles.
>"Magic" should be replaced in your definition by "supernaturalism."
>You are actually using "magic" as a synonym for "supernaturalism" –
>that use is what makes your definition of fantasy correct – but the
>two words are not really synonyms.
I prefer using dictionaries for this type of thing, rather some random and
arbitrary distinction. The only reason I proffer a specific definition of magic
at all is to *narrow* the definition to a greater degree of technical
precision.
You list of instantiations is interesting, but -- again -- I prefer my
definitions to rest on first principles. They're a lot easier to use that way.
>I like the way you present "Alternate History" as a separate category,
>apart from both science fiction and fantasy. You avoid the mistake of
>confusing fantasy with that which is merely fantastic (unbelievable
>but not involving supernaturalism). Science fiction and alternate
>history can, of course, overlap, as in stories where (a) time travel
>is used to go back in time to change the course of history or (b) the
>alternate history involves faster technological progress that
>introduces spaceships and ray guns.
And, of course, fantasy and alternate history can overlap as well. For example,
there's a roleplaying setting in which the first atomic bomb test shattered the
barrier between the natural and supernatural worlds -- unleashing magic. Or
there's the story of Atlantis resurfacing in 1962.
>You are certainly correct in grandfathering (1) faster-than-light
>travel and (2) time travel into the SF genre, although FTL should be
>construed more broadly as spaceships and space travel (not just the
>FTL variety of space travel). I would prefer, though, that you didn't
>treat these two criteria as second-class citizens, justified only by
>tradition.
The key to his loophole is not the two specific technologies involved, but
rather teh general principle that there are certain types of speculative
science and technology which have become so traditional within the genre that
it is no longer necessary to actually invoke the speculation.
Thus, if you have someone using a jumpgate, stepping through a time portal, or
using psionic powers it's not necessary to launch into an explanation of
speculative/pseudo-scientific revolution which made them possible: The reader
will simply assume that such an explanation is lurking under the covers.
On the other hand, if you throw in a staff which can hurl fireballs, then you
need to provide the speculative science which makes that possible -- because no
one will assume that such an explanation lurks under the covers (and your work
will be classified as fantasy).
Psionics are probably the single most difficult thing to handle in attempting
to come up with an objective definition of the science fiction/fantasy divide.
One is tempted to simply label them as "fantasy" and move on; but not only does
that contradict the actual history of the genre, it also creates some fairly
bizarre artifacts. (Hands up everybody who thinks that Asimov's Foundation
Trilogy or Niven's Ringworld should be classified as "fantasy"? Even
classifying these works as "science fantasy" is extremely misleading and
contrary to tradition, intention, and most perception.)
>1. A FUTURE SETTING: This criterion can't always do the job by
>itself if the story takes place in the near future.
Then it's not a criteria which can be applied objectively. And I definitely
agree with you on this one: Simply setting a story during "the next
Presidential election" doesn't get you science fiction. Or even speculative
fiction.
>I don't regard Orwell's 1984 as science fiction,
I would include Orwell's 1984 as science fiction. It's setting is clearly the
result of speculation based on science and technology.
>2. AN EXTRATERRESTRIAL SETTING: Science fiction often takes place on
>another planet or some other extraterrestrial setting.
Sure. This clearly falls within my definition already. Not only is speculative
technology required for getting to an extraterrestial setting, but the design
of that extraterrestial setting is usually based on speculative science.
> Rather than
>exclude JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH from the science fiction
>category, I'd except an exotic locale inside the earth as
>"extraterrestrial."
I've never actually read JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH, and I'm skeptical
of my ability to judge it based on the adaptations I've seen in other mediums.
From my best understanding, though, this looks like it was science fiction when
it was written, but if the same story were to be written today, it would
probably be fantasy.
>This criterion and the next are most
>important when the aliens visit earth, since that is when aliens may
>have to do the job of qualifying the story as SF all by themselves.
Unimportant. The aliens have to use speculative technology to get to Earth in
the first place.
There is, however, one related type of story which caused problems with my
original definition (which was 'a setting based on speculative science or
speculative technology'): Without any kind of technological advance, we could
begin communicating with an alien race in another solar system using radio
waves.
You'll notice I've side-stepped this with the current version of the
definition. (And it was never a big problem, anyway, because I've never seen a
story like that. Note that the story would also have had to stop before we
learned anything about the aliens physiology, and probably before much had been
discussed at all -- since the timelapse between messages would probably
necessitate technological change for the story to remain believable.)
>And I am reluctant to
>accept alien viruses or bacteria like those in THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN as
>meeting this criterion.
It's even possible that the virus in THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN wasn't alien at all,
but rather just an earth virus mutated by the hard radiation of the sun.
Crichton never really nails this down in the book, IIRC.
Either way, I would consider THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN to be science fiction. At the
time it was written, even the lab they were working in was a science fiction
concept.
>6. ARTIFICIAL LIFE: Robots, androids, humanoid computers, and the like
>often populate SF stories. Commander Data from STAR TREK, Robbie the
>Robot from FORBIDDEN PLANET, Hal from 2001, and the ever-popular
>robots of pulp SF are examples. If these characters are present, you
>have science fiction.
You need to include your "cannot be supernatural" disclaimer here -- otherwise
you seem to be including golems.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
David Johnston
<acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
>
>You must be reading a different thread than the rest of us. The original
>assertion was that the purity of science fiction had been sullied
>recently by fantasy, and the original poster specified Arthurian elements.
Except you are wrong. The original assertion was that fantasy did not
deserve to be grouped with science fiction as one genre and contained
a blanket description of fantasy stories as "Arthuresque tales". So
people started pointing out Arthuresque tales that were science
fiction. Then someone else made a big deal out of pointing out that
all their examples were at least ten years old.
To which my response was and is: "So?"
>
>It is usual in debates to judge factual matters by actual facts; perhaps
>your standards are different.
I believe you just bit yourself.
David Johnston
>Science was a very important element of the plot of _A Connecticut Yankee in
>King Arthur's Court_.
Not, however anything Mark Twain didn't already have.
Steve Coltrin
> In article <c1c2v9$6i4$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>>
>>Well, um, is there any *science fiction* that used the Fisher King
>>theme within Andrew Wheeler's now-stated ten-year margin?
>
> Hmmm. Is there any way to argue Powers is SF?
His first, obscure novel, published under multiple titles, which I've
not read. _Dinner at Deviant's Palace_, which is not very Fishy.
> the loss of the entire contents of my freezer because I
> stacked my frozen groceries badly.
Um. Blocked air flow?
--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org WWVBF?
Kill your gods.
Justin Bacon
>: lenw...@earthlink.net (Leonard F. Wheat)
>: I answered that question in advance: "To be sure, space travel in the
>: remote past and a spaceship that returned to earth -- both are
>: manifestations of science -- lurk in the background. But this
>: "science" is not part of the plot and is so peripheral to the story
>: that using it for classification purposes would be wholly
>: unwarranted."
>
>What I was trying to get at is, it's very odd to call something that
>sets up the entire scenario "not part of the plot".
And let's not forget that the definition under discussion doesn't deal with
plot at all. That was Leonard inaccurately conflating his definition with mine.
My definition of science fiction requires that the imaginary world in which the
story takes place be the result of speculative science and/or technology.
Claiming that an imaginary world which exists only because humans went there
with spaceships is *not* based on speculative technology was a particularly
strange claim for Leonard to make. (And if that wasn't the claim that Leonard
was making, then the only other possibility is that he was simply arguing in a
circle: "That definition doesn't because its wholly unwarranted to use it.")
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
John F. Eldredge
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:09:22 GMT, Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org>
wrote:
>begin jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>
>> In article <c1c2v9$6i4$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
>> Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Well, um, is there any *science fiction* that used the Fisher King
>>> theme within Andrew Wheeler's now-stated ten-year margin?
>>
>> Hmmm. Is there any way to argue Powers is SF?
>
>His first, obscure novel, published under multiple titles, which
>I've not read. _Dinner at Deviant's Palace_, which is not very
>Fishy.
I would class _Dinner at Deviant's Palace_ as science fiction.
Spoilers ROT13'd: gur ivyynva gheaf bhg gb or n fragvrag pelfgny gung
srrqf bss obgu enqvbnpgvivgl naq cflpuvp npgvivgl, naq juvpu vainqrf
naq "cbffrffrf" n ubfg hagvy vg vf ernql gb zbir ba, ng juvpu gvzr vg
npuvrirf rfpncr irybpvgl naq qevsgf guebhtu fcnpr hagvy vg rapbhagref
gur arkg fragvrag fcrpvrf.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBQDqDZjMYPge5L34aEQIxdACfU4QvTa2nBiFQ1pbtM+/ToHx3ZWsAn0n/
UIPtm59kVG8aC8jBiQR0fauq
=ILci
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
PGP key available from http://pgp.mit.edu
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
James Nicoll
five hours. Long enough to turn all the meat into not-food, since
I've had all the food poisoning I ever want, thanks to my mother's
faith that tinfoil would keep chicken fresh for a two day car ride.
OK, I grant that Josephsberg to Mulgrave in winter in a VW
Bug without any features (in particular only the regular "heater")
is a lot like riding in a very noisy fridge but the chicken still didn't
keep.
Richard Horton
wrote:
>begin jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>
>> In article <c1c2v9$6i4$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
>> Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Well, um, is there any *science fiction* that used the Fisher King
>>>theme within Andrew Wheeler's now-stated ten-year margin?
>>
>> Hmmm. Is there any way to argue Powers is SF?
>
>His first, obscure novel, published under multiple titles, which I've
>not read. _Dinner at Deviant's Palace_, which is not very Fishy.
>
_The Skies Discrowned_ aka _Forsake the Sky_. The different titles
also imply significant revisions.
His second novel, _Epitaph in Rust_, is also SF.
>> the loss of the entire contents of my freezer because I
>> stacked my frozen groceries badly.
>
>Um. Blocked air flow?
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)
Leonard F. Wheat
> Wayne Throop wrote:
> >: lenw...@earthlink.net (Leonard F. Wheat)
> >: I answered that question in advance: "To be sure, space travel in the
> >: remote past and a spaceship that returned to earth -- both are
> >: manifestations of science -- lurk in the background. But this
> >: "science" is not part of the plot and is so peripheral to the story
> >: that using it for classification purposes would be wholly
> >: unwarranted."
> >
> >What I was trying to get at is, it's very odd to call something that
> >sets up the entire scenario "not part of the plot".
>
> And let's not forget that the definition under discussion doesn't deal with
> plot at all. That was Leonard inaccurately conflating his definition with mine.
> My definition of science fiction requires that the imaginary world in which the
> story takes place be the result of speculative science and/or technology.
Whatever you were trying to say, you didn't manage to say it. You
surely didn't mean that a science fiction story's world is "the RESULT
of science and technology." I assume you refer to worlds that are
planets, moons, or other celestial bodies. These worlds aren't built
by ("the result of") science. They can be explained by science, but
they aren't created by science. They are created by the physical
conditions and forces that lead to star formation and to the creation
of related planets, moons, asteroids, comets, and the like. So what
is your real point? And where does it lead us?
If the story takes place in a spaceship or space station, you could
assert that this "world" is the result of technology. But man-made
worlds don't seem to be what you were referring to. The context is a
"planet of exile."
> Claiming that an imaginary world which exists only because humans went there
> with spaceships is *not* based on speculative technology was a particularly
> strange claim for Leonard to make.
I made no such claim. Le Guin's world didn't exist because humans
went there. The humans went there because the world existed. They
got there with the aid of technology, and I so indicated: "To be sure,
space travel in the
remote past and a spaceship that returned to earth -- both are
manifestations of science -- lurk in the background."
The point I made is that the space-travel technology was "peripheral"
to the story; the travel and the spaceship merely "lurk in the
background." The are not involved in the action. They are not part
of the plot. Instead, they are just mentioned in passing to establish
the SETTING. Is that so hard to comprehend?
My further point was (and is) that, because the technology is
peripheral and not involved in the plot, it cannot support my science
criterion. That criterion was stated as follows: "If the science in
the story is highly imaginative or futuristic and is crucial to the
story, it can qualify a story for the SF genre. If the science is
incidental or quasi-jocular (as in the Bond movies) or if it is
basically contemporary (e.g., a new superplane [FOXFIRE] or
supersubmarine [RED OCTOBER]), it won't do the job."
Let's apply that criterion to PLANET OF EXILE. The background science
isn't even described, so it can't be "highly imaginative." And it
certainly is not "crucial to the story." (You do know the distinction
between plot and setting, don't you?) Instead, the science is
"incidental," out of sight in the background. We never see the
spaceship; we never hear a description of the trip to the planet or
the spaceship's departure. PLANET OF EXILE does not meet my science
criterion.
Yet the book is science fiction. Why? Because two other criteria --
extraterrestrial setting and future setting -- qualify the book as SF.
> (And if that wasn't the claim that Leonard
> was making, then the only other possibility is that he was simply arguing in a
> circle: "That definition doesn't [MISSING WORDS HERE] because it's wholly
> unwarranted to use it.")
Such nonsense. I wasn't even talking about a "definition." I was
talking about my science criterion. And if we substitute "criterion"
for "definition" and guess that your missing words are "identify the
book as SF," your sentence begins, "That criterion doesn't identify
the book as SF . . ." That much is correct. But why did you have so
much trouble ("the only other possibility is") getting my point?
You drift back into nonsense when you go on to concoct a silly reason,
attributed to me, for the science criterion's failure to identify the
book as SF. You have me saying "it's wholly unwarranted to use [the
criterion I actually proposed for use in identifying science
fiction]." Show me where I said or implied that.
Damien R. Sullivan
>who had never before considered <The King's Peace> science fiction
>and is wondering how you'd work that...
The whole parallel universe thing -- with magic levels varying -- perhaps.
-xx- Damien X-)
Justin Bacon
>> My definition of science fiction requires that the imaginary world in which
>> the story takes place be the result of speculative science and/or
>> technology.
>
>Whatever you were trying to say, you didn't manage to say it. You
>surely didn't mean that a science fiction story's world is "the RESULT
>of science and technology."
No. I didn't mean that. Which is why I didn't say it.
>I assume you refer to worlds that are
>planets, moons, or other celestial bodies. These worlds aren't built
>by ("the result of") science. They can be explained by science, but
>they aren't created by science. They are created by the physical
>conditions and forces that lead to star formation and to the creation
>of related planets, moons, asteroids, comets, and the like. So what
>is your real point?
Fictional worlds are not created as a result of physical conditions and forces.
Fictional worlds are created in the imagination.
> But man-made
>worlds don't seem to be what you were referring to. The context is a
>"planet of exile."
You do understand that the seting of PLANET OF EXILE is fictional, right?
>The point I made is that the space-travel technology was "peripheral"
>to the story; the travel and the spaceship merely "lurk in the
>background." The are not involved in the action. They are not part
>of the plot. Instead, they are just mentioned in passing to establish
>the SETTING.
And since my definition deals entirely with SETTING, you're just babbling
nonsense.
>> (And if that wasn't the claim that Leonard
>> was making, then the only other possibility is that he was simply arguing in
a
>> circle: "That definition doesn't [do the job] because it's wholly
unwarranted to use it.")
>
>Such nonsense. I wasn't even talking about a "definition."
Uh-huh.
Leonard F. Wheat: "This definition doesn't do the job. The presence of science
in a plot CAN identify a work as SF, but not all SF has science that is
sufficiently prominent or futuristic to support classifying the story as SF.
Elsewhere I use the example of Ursula K. Le Guin's first SF novel, PLANET OF
EXILE."
So when you said, "This definition doesn't do the job." You were not, in fact,
talking about a definition? Then what the hell were you talking about?
At this point I'd just call you a blatant liar, but you've already demonstrated
a remarkable inability to *read* English, so I'm going to start by assuming
that you can't *write* English, either.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Leonard F. Wheat
> Leonard F. Wheat wrote:
> >> My definition of science fiction requires that the imaginary world in which
> >> the story takes place be the result of speculative science and/or
> >> technology.
> >
> >Whatever you were trying to say, you didn't manage to say it. You
> >surely didn't mean that a science fiction story's world is "the RESULT
> >of science and technology."
>
> No. I didn't mean that. Which is why I didn't say it.
You didn't say it? Here is what you said: "My definition of science
fiction requires that the imaginary world in which the story takes
place be the result of speculative science and/or technology." That
condenses to "my definition of science fiction requires that the
imaginary world . . . be the result of speculative science and/or
technology."
> >I assume you refer to worlds that are
> >planets, moons, or other celestial bodies. These worlds aren't built
> >by ("the result of") science. They can be explained by science, but
> >they aren't created by science. They are created by the physical
> >conditions and forces that lead to star formation and to the creation
> >of related planets, moons, asteroids, comets, and the like. So what
> >is your real point?
>
> Fictional worlds are not created as a result of physical conditions and
> forces. Fictional worlds are created in the imagination.
> >But man-made
> >worlds don't seem to be what you were referring to. The context is a
> >"planet of exile."
>
> You do understand that the seting of PLANET OF EXILE is fictional, right?
>
> >The point I made is that the space-travel technology was "peripheral"
> >to the story; the travel and the spaceship merely "lurk in the
> >background." The are not involved in the action. They are not part
> >of the plot. Instead, they are just mentioned in passing to establish
> >the SETTING.
>
> And since my definition deals entirely with SETTING, you're just babbling
> nonsense.
Justin, learn to take responsibility for what you say. Your
definition of science fiction does not even mention setting. Here is
your definition:
"Science Fiction: A form of speculative fiction in which the "what
ifs" which
define the imaginary world are based on science and/or technology."
"Imaginary world" is not an essential part of the definition, because
those words don't differentiate between science fiction and fantasy:
both involve imaginary worlds. "Imaginary world" is redundant, merely
restating the idea that science fiction is fiction. You apparently
intended that "imaginary" modify "science and technology." So your
definition seems intended to say that science fiction is fiction that
is "based on imaginary science and technology."
And where as you claim (above), "my definition deals entirely with
setting," the truth is it doesn't even mention setting. Your
definition deals entirely with imaginary science and technology.
Sure, you do mention "imaginary worlds," but fantasy also has
imaginary (fictional) worlds; hence if you construe "imaginary worlds"
as "setting," you haven't distinguished science fiction from fantasy.
> >> (And if that wasn't the claim that Leonard
> >> was making, then the only other possibility is that he was simply arguing
> >>in a circle: "That definition doesn't [do the job] because it's wholly
> unwarranted to use it.")
> >Such nonsense. I wasn't even talking about a "definition."
Oh, yes you were. My "that definition doesn't do the job" remark was
posted directly below your definition of science fiction and referred
to that definition. Here is the passage from your post:
> >It's probably about time to post Justin Bacon's Speculative Fiction
> >Definitions again:
> > Speculative Fiction: A form of fiction in which the story takes place in an
> > imaginary world which exists as a result of one or more "what if?"
> >questions.
> > Science Fiction: A form of speculative fiction in which the "what ifs"
> >which define the imaginary world are based on science and/or technology.
> >Usually this setting is an imagined future, but this is not always the
> >case.
My reply (below), in which the reference to "this definition" is to
your definition (above) correctly describes the definition. And now
you claim, "I wasn't even talking about a definition." Hang your head
in shame.
> Leonard F. Wheat: "This definition doesn't do the job. The presence of
> science
> in a plot CAN identify a work as SF, but not all SF has science that is
> sufficiently prominent or futuristic to support classifying the story as SF.
> Elsewhere I use the example of Ursula K. Le Guin's first SF novel, PLANET OF
> EXILE."
>
> So when you said, "This definition doesn't do the job." You were not, in fact,
> talking about a definition? Then what the hell were you talking about?
I was talking about your definition of science fiction. See above.
> At this point I'd just call you a blatant liar, but you've already
> demonstrated
> a remarkable inability to *read* English, so I'm going to start by assuming
> that you can't *write* English, either.
I won't call you a blatant liar. You're just a bad reader, a confused
thinker, a muddled definer, and someone unwilling to acknowledge what
he plainly said.
Justin Bacon
>> >Whatever you were trying to say, you didn't manage to say it. You
>> >surely didn't mean that a science fiction story's world is "the RESULT
>> >of science and technology."
>>
>> No. I didn't mean that. Which is why I didn't say it.
>
>You didn't say it? Here is what you said: "My definition of science
>fiction requires that the imaginary world in which the story takes
>place be the result of speculative science and/or technology." That
>condenses to "my definition of science fiction requires that the
>imaginary world . . . be the result of speculative science and/or
>technology."
(1) The complete phrase "imaginary world IN WHICH THE STORY TAKES PLACE" is
rather crucial. We'll get back to that in a minute.
(2) There is a difference between "the result of SPECULATIVE science and/or
technology" and "the result of science and/or technology". If I write a story
set around the construction zone of a fictional dam in 1945, the setting may be
the result of technology -- but it is not the result of *speculative*
technology, and the story is not science fiction.
>> >The point I made is that the space-travel technology was "peripheral"
>> >to the story; the travel and the spaceship merely "lurk in the
>> >background." The are not involved in the action. They are not part
>> >of the plot. Instead, they are just mentioned in passing to establish
>> >the SETTING.
>>
>> And since my definition deals entirely with SETTING, you're just babbling
>> nonsense.
>
>Justin, learn to take responsibility for what you say. Your
>definition of science fiction does not even mention setting. Here is
>your definition:
>
>"Science Fiction: A form of speculative fiction in which the "what
>ifs" which define the imaginary world are based on science and/or technology."
This is where the complete phrase, which you keep trying to edit out of
existence in various ways, becomes important. Because, of course, the
"imaginary world IN WHICH THE STORY TAKES PLACE" is, in fact, the setting of
the story. And that is, in fact, what my definition deals entirely with.
>"Imaginary world" is not an essential part of the definition,
Bullshit. The imaginary world in which the story takes place is *the* essential
part of my definitions. The only thing my definitions concern themselves with
is qualifying the type of imaginary world in which a story takes place.
>"Imaginary world" is redundant, merely
>restating the idea that science fiction is fiction.
No. It's stating (not restating) the fact that science fiction is *speculative*
fiction. Learn to read.
>You apparently
>intended that "imaginary" modify "science and technology."
No. I didn't. If I had intended for "imaginary" to modify "science and
technology" then I would have said "imaginary science and technology". I didn't
say that.
> So your
>definition seems intended to say that science fiction is fiction that
>is "based on imaginary science and technology."
No. That is explicitly *not* my definition. I have clarified this on *multiple*
occasions now. Please learn to read English.
>>>> (And if that wasn't the claim that Leonard
>>>> was making, then the only other possibility is that he was simply arguing
>>>>in a circle: "That definition doesn't [do the job] because it's wholly
>>>> unwarranted to use it.")
>>>
>>>Such nonsense. I wasn't even talking about a "definition."
>
>Oh, yes you were.
ROFL. You have to got to be kidding me!
Leonard, you poor deluded fool, you're talking to yourself. The words, "Such
nonsense. I wasn't even talking about a definition." Are *your* words. I didn't
say them. I was quoting *you* saying them.
There are three key give-aways:
(1) They are clearly written in response to me. (You notice how I mention you
by name in the section those words are written in response to?)
(2) We seem to have lost a set of quotes (which would be noted by '>>' in this
message).
(3) And, in fact, the text which you snipped from the message you're replying
to:
>>Uh-huh.
>>
>>Leonard F. Wheat: "This definition doesn't do the job. The presence of
science
>>in a plot CAN identify a work as SF, but not all SF has science that is
>>sufficiently prominent or futuristic to support classifying the story as SF.
>>Elsewhere I use the example of Ursula K. Le Guin's first SF novel, PLANET OF
>>EXILE."
>>
>> So when you said, "This definition doesn't do the job." You were not, in
fact,
>> talking about a definition? Then what the hell were you talking about?
This, of course, makes you look incredibly stupid.
The hilarious thing, of course, is that you then went on to quote that section
of the message and respond to it:
>> So when you said, "This definition doesn't do the job." You were not, in
fact,
>> talking about a definition? Then what the hell were you talking about?
>
>I was talking about your definition of science fiction. See above.
This, of course, is an admission that you were blatantly lying when you claimed
that you "weren't even talking about a 'definition'". It's also a further
demonstration of your *extreme* stupidity.
You can either apologize at this point, or you can keep digging this ridiculous
hole for yourself.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Samuel Lubell
Arthurian ScF, I give you Cherryh's "Port Eternity".
>> >> >
>> >> Keith Laumer, _A Trace of Memory_.
>> >
>> >And no one's mentioned anything published in the last ten years yet,
>> >which was sorta my point...
>>
>> If so, then your point is an exceeding weak and paltry one.
>>
>
>And your counterexample for recent Atrhurian SF is?
Stephen Baxter's Coalescent, published just this year, includes a
section involving war leader Artorius of Caml fort.
Justin Bacon
>> >Whatever you were trying to say, you didn't manage to say it. You
>> >surely didn't mean that a science fiction story's world is "the RESULT
>> >of science and technology."
>>
>> No. I didn't mean that. Which is why I didn't say it.
>
>You didn't say it? Here is what you said: "My definition of science
>fiction requires that the imaginary world in which the story takes
>place be the result of speculative science and/or technology." That
>condenses to "my definition of science fiction requires that the
>imaginary world . . . be the result of speculative science and/or
>technology."
(1) The complete phrase "imaginary world IN WHICH THE STORY TAKES PLACE" is
rather crucial. We'll get back to that in a minute.
(2) There is a difference between "the result of SPECULATIVE science and/or
technology" and "the result of science and/or technology". If I write a story
set around the construction zone of a fictional dam in 1945, the setting may be
the result of technology -- but it is not the result of *speculative*
technology, and the story is not science fiction.
>> >The point I made is that the space-travel technology was "peripheral"
>> >to the story; the travel and the spaceship merely "lurk in the
>> >background." The are not involved in the action. They are not part
>> >of the plot. Instead, they are just mentioned in passing to establish
>> >the SETTING.
>>
>> And since my definition deals entirely with SETTING, you're just babbling
>> nonsense.
>
>Justin, learn to take responsibility for what you say. Your
>definition of science fiction does not even mention setting. Here is
>your definition:
>
>"Science Fiction: A form of speculative fiction in which the "what
>ifs" which define the imaginary world are based on science and/or technology."
This is where the complete phrase, which you keep trying to edit out of
existence in various ways, becomes important. Because, of course, the
"imaginary world IN WHICH THE STORY TAKES PLACE" is, in fact, the setting of
the story. And that is, in fact, what my definition deals entirely with.
>"Imaginary world" is not an essential part of the definition,
Bullshit. The imaginary world in which the story takes place is *the* essential
part of my definitions. The only thing my definitions concern themselves with
is qualifying the type of imaginary world in which a story takes place.
>"Imaginary world" is redundant, merely
>restating the idea that science fiction is fiction.
No. It's stating (not restating) the fact that science fiction is *speculative*
fiction. Learn to read.
>You apparently
>intended that "imaginary" modify "science and technology."
No. I didn't. If I had intended for "imaginary" to modify "science and
technology" then I would have said "imaginary science and technology". I didn't
say that.
> So your
>definition seems intended to say that science fiction is fiction that
>is "based on imaginary science and technology."
No. That is explicitly *not* my definition. I have clarified this on *multiple*
occasions now. Please learn to read English.
>>>> (And if that wasn't the claim that Leonard
>>>> was making, then the only other possibility is that he was simply arguing
>>>>in a circle: "That definition doesn't [do the job] because it's wholly
>>>> unwarranted to use it.")
>>>
>>>Such nonsense. I wasn't even talking about a "definition."
>
>Oh, yes you were.
ROFL. You have to got to be kidding me!
Leonard, you poor deluded fool, you're talking to yourself. The words, "Such
nonsense. I wasn't even talking about a definition." Are *your* words. I didn't
say them. I was quoting *you* saying them.
There are three key give-aways:
(1) They are clearly written in response to me. (You notice how I mention you
by name in the section those words are written in response to?)
(2) We seem to have lost a set of quotes (which would be noted by '>>' in this
message).
(3) And, in fact, the text which you snipped from the message you're replying
to:
>>Uh-huh.
>>
>>Leonard F. Wheat: "This definition doesn't do the job. The presence of
science
>>in a plot CAN identify a work as SF, but not all SF has science that is
>>sufficiently prominent or futuristic to support classifying the story as SF.
>>Elsewhere I use the example of Ursula K. Le Guin's first SF novel, PLANET OF
>>EXILE."
>>
>> So when you said, "This definition doesn't do the job." You were not, in
fact,
>> talking about a definition? Then what the hell were you talking about?
This, of course, makes you look incredibly stupid.
The hilarious thing, of course, is that you then went on to quote that section
of the message and respond to it:
>> So when you said, "This definition doesn't do the job." You were not, in
>> fact, talking about a definition? Then what the hell were you talking about?
>
>I was talking about your definition of science fiction. See above.
This, of course, is an admission that you were blatantly lying when you claimed
Thomas Christensen
>>Speculative Fiction: A form of fiction in which the story takes place in an
>>imaginary world which exists as a result of one or more "what if?" questions.
>>Science Fiction: A form of speculative fiction in which the "what ifs" which
>>define the imaginary world are based on science and/or technology. Usually this
>>setting is an imagined future, but this is not always the case.
> This definition doesn't do the job. The presence of science in a plot
> CAN identify a work as SF, but not all SF has science that is
> sufficiently prominent or futuristic to support classifying the story
> as SF. Elsewhere I use the example of Ursula K. Le Guin's first SF
> novel, PLANET OF EXILE. The novel has no science. It is about an
But if you have to select between the different genres defined, the ScF
definition is the one that fits best.
It may not fit snugly, but it's the one that fits best. A set of
definitions where books doesn't exactly fall into the wrong bucket, is
better than most...
I'm not saying it's perfect, but I don't see a problem in this case.
You'll always be able to find exceptions to rules...
--
TC
http://sfbook.com - Science Fiction book database and review site
http://rejectionslip.com - (work in progress) Publish you unpublished
David Johnston
Wheat) wrote:
>tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) wrote in message news:<20040221125324...@mb-m01.aol.com>...
>
>[snip]
>
>> It's probably about time to post Justin Bacon's Speculative Fiction
>> Definitions again:
>
>>
>> Speculative Fiction: A form of fiction in which the story takes place in an
>> imaginary world which exists as a result of one or more "what if?" questions.
>
>>
>> Science Fiction: A form of speculative fiction in which the "what ifs" which
>> define the imaginary world are based on science and/or technology. Usually this
>> setting is an imagined future, but this is not always the case.
>
>This definition doesn't do the job. The presence of science in a plot
>CAN identify a work as SF, but not all SF has science that is
>sufficiently prominent or futuristic to support classifying the story
>as SF. Elsewhere I use the example of Ursula K. Le Guin's first SF
>novel, PLANET OF EXILE. The novel has no science. I
Hold on. You can't define another person's definition for him.
Planet of Exile is a premise that requires interstellar space travel
to happen. Period. It may not be prominent in the story itself,
but he said nothing about the science having to be "prominent".
You added that. His definition should be evaluated on its own
terms, not on terms you add.
Ken from Chicago
"Thomas Christensen" <t...@remove.sfbook.com> wrote in message
news:404c2f93$0$1668$edfa...@dread14.news.tele.dk...
EVERY world is based on "science".
Whether that "science" is similar to our own, or with explicit changes or
based on what we would label "magic" or what "desire" or "faith" is an
arbitrary semantic distinction without difference.
Besides, that's not how most people distinguish between sf and fantasy. Most
people use a "recipe" method:
1) Does it have space travel, time travel, aliens, robots, lasers, flying
cars, sentient computers, new inventions, new laws of science/physics, a
setting in the future, a setting in an alternate timeline, a setting on
another world? The more of these elements are in a story, the more likely
that most people would consider it "science fiction".
2) Does it have magic, witches, wizards, monsters, undead, curses,
talismans, ghosts, magical creatures (e.g., elves, dwarves, sprites, orcs,
goblins, trolls, centaurs, gryphons, etc.)? The more of these elements in a
story then the more likely that mostpeople would consider it "fantasy".
3) If it has elements of both (e.g., a spaceship going thru a wormhole into
a universe with magic), then most people would consider it a mix of both
science fiction and fantasy.
If the story has time travel, flying cars new inventions AND horses,
gunslingers, a setting in America in the Pacific or Mountain Time Zones (ala
BACK TO THE FUTURE III), then most people would consider it science fiction
western. A similar view was held for WILD WILD WEST.
Most people, even fans of literary sf, don't have a clear cut hardline
DEFINITION that distinguishes between sf and fantasy.
I however am not most people. My own personal definition of and distinction
between science fiction and fantasy is thus:
While both science fiction and fantasy deal with stories that bend if not
outright break the "laws" of science (at least as we currently understand
them)--
--science fiction focuses more on the HOW, the process, the exploration of
and extrapolation from breaking those laws. That's the "scientific" aspect
of it. That's why more time is spent on the setting, on explaining *how*
some gadget, ability or phenomenon works.
--fantasy focuses more on the WHY, the meanings, the symbolism contained
within the story. More time and focus is on examining what things stand for,
in the way someone might analyze a dream or fantasy. That's why something
like LORD OF RINGS focused more on Frodo and company being tempted by
Absolute Power as opposed to how the ring changes sizes or how Gandalf
survives a miles long fall as oppose to the journey and transformation he
made.
True, that would make stories like Star Trek science fiction with all its
technobabble explanations while something like Star Wars (at least the
movies) fantasy since it focuses more on the symbolism and doesn't sweat the
details of how stuff works.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Of course, that's my own *formula* definition (as opposed to *recipe*
definition). Feel free to disagree.
P.P.S. "That's just my opinion. I could be wrong."--Dennis Miller, DENNIS
MILLER LIVE.
Vince D.
"Thomas Christensen" <t...@remove.sfbook.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:404c2f93$0$1668$edfa...@dread14.news.tele.dk...
Hell! Even in here! We had this fight on foreign SF NGs. This is an
everlasting fight.
I won't explain my point on this, just give an example :
Michael Moorcock's Hawkmoon, where location is Europe in a distant future,
technology still exists but is considered as magic, so? F or SF? That is the
question!
Vince D.
Justin Bacon
>Leonard F. Wheat wrote:
>
>>>Speculative Fiction: A form of fiction in which the story takes place in an
>>>imaginary world which exists as a result of one or more "what if?"
>questions.
>
>>>Science Fiction: A form of speculative fiction in which the "what ifs" which
>>>define the imaginary world are based on science and/or technology. Usually
this
>>>setting is an imagined future, but this is not always the case.
>
>> This definition doesn't do the job. The presence of science in a plot
>> CAN identify a work as SF, but not all SF has science that is
>> sufficiently prominent or futuristic to support classifying the story
>> as SF. Elsewhere I use the example of Ursula K. Le Guin's first SF
>> novel, PLANET OF EXILE. The novel has no science. It is about an
>
>But if you have to select between the different genres defined, the ScF
>definition is the one that fits best.
>
>It may not fit snugly, but it's the one that fits best. A set of
>definitions where books doesn't exactly fall into the wrong bucket, is
>better than most...
And I would argue that the definition *does* fit snugly. You've got an alien
world with features and ecology based on speculative science. You've got an
alien species whose biology is based on speculative science. You've got a human
colony whose presence on the alien world is only made possibly through the use
of speculative science and technology.
That's an awful lot of speculative science and technology defining the
imaginary world the story takes place in.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>--science fiction focuses more on the HOW, the process, the exploration of
>and extrapolation from breaking those laws.
[snip]
>--fantasy focuses more on the WHY, the meanings, the symbolism contained
>within the story.
Using that distinction, Bujold's "Mountains of Mourning" and Banks' PLAYER OF
GAMES would both qualify as fantasy. I would suggest that the distinction needs
some serious work.
("Mountains of Mourning" is a story set on an alien world involving the
sociological effects that radiation and mutation have had on a colonial
population. But the story itself is entirely focused on meaning and symbolism
of a very personal nature.)
(PLAYER OF GAMES is set in an intricately detailed, galaxy-wide civilization.
But the story itself -- like most of Banks' Culture stories -- simply uses the
world without dwelling very much on the how of it all. The story itself is
entirely focused on meaning and symbolism, particularly as it is embodied in
the titular game and its players.)
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>I won't explain my point on this, just give an example :
>Michael Moorcock's Hawkmoon, where location is Europe in a distant future,
>technology still exists but is considered as magic, so? F or SF? That is the
>question!
I haven't read Moorcock's Hawkmoon, but if the "magic" in question is, in fact,
clearly a form of speculative technology, then the stories are science fiction.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
Leonard's good at that. Blithely replacing the concept of "setting" with "plot"
is really just minor league stuff for him, though. Somewhere either in this
thread or the "Criteria" thread, he goes through this elaborate process where:
(1) He starts with "the imaginary world in which the story takes place".
(2) He deletes half the clause and parses it as "the imaginary world".
(3) Proceeds to argue that "the imaginary world" in question is not the setting
in which the story takes place.
(4) Concludes that "the imaginary world" is totally inconsequential to my
definition.
(5) Further concludes that, since "the imaginary world" is meaningless in my
definition, I *really* meant to say "imaginary science and technology".
All in the course of one message. The same message where he started talking to
himself (by responding to his own words as if I had said them, while
inadvertently admitting that he was lying through his teeth).
It's highly amusing to watch. (From a safe distance, anyway.)
Shortly after being called on this BS, of course, Leonard stopped replying to
my messages. A week or so later he popped up with an elaborate critique of my
grammar, in a message which bore an uncanny resemblance to the whimpering of a
whipped dog. Unfortunately, he *has* continued using the same intellectual
dishonesty while discussing things with Wayne Throop and Sea Wasp.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Nigel Waite
> There is, however, one related type of story which caused problems with my
> original definition (which was 'a setting based on speculative science or
> speculative technology'): Without any kind of technological advance, we could
> begin communicating with an alien race in another solar system using radio
> waves.
>
> You'll notice I've side-stepped this with the current version of the
> definition. (And it was never a big problem, anyway, because I've never seen a
> story like that. Note that the story would also have had to stop before we
> learned anything about the aliens physiology, and probably before much had been
> discussed at all -- since the timelapse between messages would probably
> necessitate technological change for the story to remain believable.)
>
How about _The Listeners_ by James E. Gunn ? Apart from some computer
technology which is a bit beyond what we currently have (but not too
far beyond and incidental to the story anyway), the plot is based upon
a SETI project in Arecibo receiving a radio signal from Capella. The
signal is decoded into a Drake-style grid picture. Apart from some
speculation that the aliens might be avian (due to the content of the
picture), there is no information given about the alien physiology. A
radio message is sent to Capella, but Earth has to wait a further 90
years before receiving a reply.
Cheers,
Nigel.
Craig Richardson
>Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>--science fiction focuses more on the HOW, the process, the exploration of
>>and extrapolation from breaking those laws.
>
>[snip]
>
>>--fantasy focuses more on the WHY, the meanings, the symbolism contained
>>within the story.
>
>Using that distinction, Bujold's "Mountains of Mourning" and Banks' PLAYER OF
>GAMES would both qualify as fantasy. I would suggest that the distinction needs
>some serious work.
>
>("Mountains of Mourning" is a story set on an alien world involving the
>sociological effects that radiation and mutation have had on a colonial
>population. But the story itself is entirely focused on meaning and symbolism
>of a very personal nature.)
And within the framework of the story itself, the only really decisive
technology is fast-penta, which the likes of Croaker and Cerebus.
would recognize as a truth-spell, even down to its charming
idiosyncrasies. To me, it's clearly SciF given the background
universe, but it could have been F as a one-off or in a different
setting, with surprisingly few changes. And been no more or less
powerful a story for it.
--Craig
--
Craig Richardson (Homepage <http://crichard-tacoma.home.att.net>)
"Rapid prototyping has enormous, obvious advantages beyond destroying
humanity as we know it" -Michal Ash in rec.arts.sf.written [04/1/26]
Craig Richardson
>I won't explain my point on this, just give an example :
>Michael Moorcock's Hawkmoon, where location is Europe in a distant future,
>technology still exists but is considered as magic, so? F or SF? That is the
>question!
Or the likes of Gardner's _Trapped_, in which supernatural entities
and magical powers are a well-known and unremarkable part of the
landscape - the rules of psionics and sorcery are codified and
manipulated by their practitioners as in hundreds of mainstream
fantasy doorstops. Set among the decaying ruins of technic
civilization on Earth, clearly an after-the-disaster F, right?
Then we find out that (ROT13) gur havirefr vf gur fnzr bar gung
_Rkcraqnoyr_ rgp. ner frg va, naq gur rssrpgf ner nyy vzcyrzragrq
guebhtu gur rfgnoyvfurq nyvra-grpu anabgrpuabybtl. Jub'f qbvat vg?
Na nyvra cbjre cerivbhfyl rfgnoyvfurq gb unir n fbeg bs qbzvavba bire
Rnegu. Jul? Ab bar ng guvf cnl tenqr xabjf - lbh zrrg na nyvra, nfx
gurz...
It's pretty clear to me which bin it goes in, but that's not what one
would expect from a dogmatic implementation of the Duck Behavior
Test(tm).
Justin Bacon
>How about _The Listeners_ by James E. Gunn ?
[snip]
> Apart from some
>speculation that the aliens might be avian (due to the content of the
>picture),
Looks like speculative science to me. ;)
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com