Defining SF & Fantasy

[Fried Egg]

After reading Ian's blog (Toward working definitions of science fiction and fantasy) it got me thinking about this subject again.

I feel quite strongly that the genres of SF & Fantasy, whilst being fairly distinct, do share something in common that distinguishes them from the other genres. I know that Ian doesn't like the term "Speculative Fiction" but I think it fits rather well.

Some people say that all fiction is speculative therefore it is inadequate. Whilst this is true in the strictest sense, it isn't in the general sense. Other types of fiction hold the general facts of reality to be strictly in accordance with our common understand of them. SF&F vary the general facts of reality in some way in order to tell their story. Given this change in the fact/facts of reality, what might life be like/what might be the implications?

In general fiction, it is permissible to invent a character, a situation, a sequence of events, etc. but this invention must lie firmly within our common understanding of reality. In order to conceive of the events in the story happening, one does not need to vary one's general understand of the general facts of reality. That is not the cast with SF&F. It might involve something happening that is currently not possible, changing some public historical fact, inventing new places, etc.

In short, general fiction allows for a variation of private facts, speculative fiction public facts. No doubt there will be exceptions and grey areas as with all such attempts at defining such things, but I think it's a fairly good guide rule.

 

[Extollager]

I hope we can have this discussion without someone commenting that "Every reader has their [sic] definition and therefore it's pointless to discuss" etc.

A good way to get into the topic might be to begin with what readers feel when they feel they are in the mood to read sf or are in the mood to read fantasy. I think many of us enjoy both, but when, in the mood for fantasy, find sf unappealing, and when in the mood for sf, are put off by fantasy. I know that I have read a great deal of both. I even know that writing by authors who write in both genres and who write huge series with characteristics of both are generally authors whom I never read. Conversely, it seems to me that when Ursula Le Guin writes sf, it is sf, and when she writes fantasy it is fantasy, and I can read her work in both genres.

 

[Nerds_feather]

an interesting blog post, but i'm of the mind that we don't really need stiff definitions. what purpose do they serve, really?

 

[Montero]

A few more thoughts on this, some connected, some not entirely:

1. I prefer magic systems which have underlying consistency. I do not necessarily want the rules to be firmly laid out, but I like the way in which it is applied, and its limitations, to have been well thought out by the author and for it to be possible for the reader to reverse engineer the rules if they were so inclined (not that I ever do, but I do notice consistency). This to me seems indistinguishable from very futuristic science and the rules invented/extrapolated for that. As far as I am concerned, one of the differences between what is usually labelled as Science fiction, and what is usually labelled as fantasy, doesn't have to be having rules or not having rules.

2. I don't like the dividing line. I like a good story and if it mixes things together, fine by me.

3. Having said the first two, to some extent having labels can help the reader speed up finding what they want to read. But it is a great shame if labelling then limits what is written.

4. Some low tech sf (e.g. The Steerswoman series, or the earlier books of Anne McCaffrey's Pern) might not have much appeal to those who like their sf to be high tech and in space, but might appeal to people who mostly like medieval fantasy.

So - main conclusion. I know what I like and I wish the labelling reflected that (if only I could think of some better labels).

(Crossed in the post with what Nerd's Feather had to say).

 

[Nerds_feather]

also, i posted this on ian's blog, but really the only thing all SF has in common, and which related genres like steampunk or fantasy don't, is that it takes place "in the future." maybe we should call it "futurist fiction?"

or just keep calling it "science fiction" and not worry so much about the boundaries

 

[Abernovo]

I like the term speculative fiction. It's perhaps not perfect, but in that awful expression, 'it does what it says on the tin' - it speculates on the what-ifs. My two caveats on definitions are that they shouldn't be defined too rigidly, as that mindset can too easily lea to ghettoisation of a genre, or sub-genre; and that the boundaries of a definition can change.

Having said that, a little definition can be a good thing, as it's akin to saying 'this is similar to X, which you read and enjoyed', or vice versa.

But at its broadest, I would say that science fiction deals with the what-ifs of the results from scientific investigation. Spaceships, interstellar travel, time travel and future zombie apocalypse from mutated genes all depend upon a scientific rationale, of varying plausibility.

Fantasy, on the other hand, deals with just that, the fantastic and the supernatural, whether it be magic, mythologically influenced worlds or ancient gods walking through a world very like our own.

So far, so stating the blinking obvious. If someone, smarter than me, could just boil them down to single sentences.... Of course, then somebody will start on the sub-genres and that discussion could go on for years, as new ones are described.

 

[iansales]

also, i posted this on ian's blog, but really the only thing all SF has in common, and which related genres like steampunk or fantasy don't, is that it takes place "in the future." maybe we should call it "futurist fiction?"

or just keep calling it "science fiction" and not worry so much about the boundaries

Except my Adrift on the Sea of Rains takes place in an alternate 1980s and is science fiction

 

[Fried Egg]

My particularly interest in starting this thread is not to focus on what differentiates SF from fantasy but rather to look at what aspects they share, yet also distinguishes them from other types of fiction.

I don't think SF has to be set in the future but being set in the future immediately (in my mind) classifies it as speculative and is therefore SF or fantasy.

 

[Abernovo]

In that case, Fried Egg, perhaps one thing that they share is that they examine beyond the boundaries of our visible world, whether that be to look at scientific possibilities or at mythology, or whatever. General fiction (I'm never happy about that distinction) tends to accept as a central tenet the 'norms' of our existence as a framework for the story.

I accept that there are some very good exceptions to that last sentence.

 

[iansales]

My particularly interest in starting this thread is not to focus on what differentiates SF from fantasy but rather to look at what aspects they share, yet also distinguishes them from other types of fiction.

My idea of wonder and agency works quite well in that regard.

 

[Montero]

Also looks beyond the boundaries of our current or past society.

For example, in historical fiction women tend to have more socially restricted roles. (If you read a lot of history, you find this is actually not quite as rigid as we think today, but you are still talking a minority.) Point being, that to have an active, modern type woman in a historical setting, you then tend to get into girls dressed as boys quite a bit. (Not always, but quite common.)

If you have fantasy in a historical setting, you can just tweak the rules of society, so people can be allowed to do whatever it is that you want them to do in the story (ideally within the economic and technical limits). So you can have your cake and eat it, so to speak - and there doesn't have to be all the dancing around the subject you get in historical novels.
Some fantasy sticks to strict historical analogue, some doesn't.
(BTW, Hambly's Ladies of Madrigyn manages to do both - as in has women mercenaries plus respectable women who do not respectable things as the plot develops - also covers some of the consequences.)

 

[Clansman]

The use of the word "fantasy" is difficult in any form. In fact, historically, SF was considered a genre of fantasy generally, though SF readers today would likely reject that, believing "fantasy" to be about magic, swords, etc.

In reality, SF and F are both fully "fantasy" as they are imagined realities. Under the general heading of "FANTASY", you'd have "SF", medieval fanasty, urban fantasy (which may have SF cross-overs), ancient fantasy, epic fantasy (which has a whole bunch of cross-overs), SF with fantasy elements (Dune), high fantasy (elves and dwarves and dragons, or similar "fantastic" creatures), plus all the other combinations of fantasy that might exist.

Having got this far, I'm not sure that the labels really matter, because, unfortunately, they really do take the shape that appears in an individual's perspective. Sorry Extollager, but it is the inevitable result, as so much of today's writing defies classification, except of course my personal one: is it good or crappy (which defines all of my reading choices).

What can I say. I am a relativist.

 

[Dante DiBenedetto]

I'd be akin to go along with how most short story anthology submission guidelines describe the two genres when classifying a piece. I'll paraphrase common descriptions I've run across.

Fantasy and Science fiction stories are when a story takes place in an environment that requires the fantastical or science fiction oriented elements of the story to progress the plot. If the story can be told without them, then it's not proper SF&F -- it's simply a story taking place in a different time/world.

Character Studies are increasingly popular styles of storytelling, but often times an author can get so caught up in the introspection/personal journey of their characters, their theme/plot takes a backseat to character development. This is not always a bad thing, but it makes it less SF&F, especially if the SF&F setting and plot appears to be completely unnecessary for the main story being told.

2c.

 

[iansales]

In fact, historically, SF was considered a genre of fantasy generally, though SF readers today would likely reject that, believing "fantasy" to be about magic, swords, etc.

Er, no. It wasn't.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Personally I have a difficult time with the concept that a term can be defined so loosely that any person's opinion on that definition is viable.

Definitions, to be useful should have a core that is relatively firm. Without a core definition as a starting off point, I do not see how we are able to communicate intelligently about it.

I also acknowledge that definitions are indeed affected by an individual's point of view.

My solution, Ergo, Ipso Facto, Columbo, Orio, is that there should be room for different people's interpretation, but all interpretation should be an outgrowth of the core. These personal interpretations I would define as sub-definitions.

For instance, I believe a relatively good core definition for both Science Fiction AND Fantasy is the following:

a broad literary genre encompassing any fiction with supernatural, fantastical, or alternate reality elements.

From that core, one can expand into sub-definitions ad infinitum.

 

[Gabe.]

Science Fiction and Fantasy are terms that can be applied wherever the author sees fit. I don't think that it makes sense that one should label a book 'fantasy' if it is not what the author believes it is, and by that same token, if an author claims to have written a science-fiction novel, it achieves very little to claim that he is wrong because he doesn't fit a set of criteria. Obviously, there is a reality check inherent in this i.e. an author cannot just claim his magical and fantastical world is not a work of speculative fiction. I think that is the order of the day: common sense. If it walks like a SF/F book, talks like a SF/F book, then it probably is one, even if real and specific criteria don't exist.

 

[steve12553]

Going back to the original topic of what commonality Fantasy and Science Fiction have that while different sets them apart from other genre. My best word would be "impossibility". Really that's what draws us together as a community. We read or watch books, stories, films and programs that are impossible. My engineering background and really my nature require definitions. You can rarely solve a problem without defining it. Occasionally, you luck into a solution without knowing what you solved or why. But generally you have to define.
So, impossible fiction starts with two branches: 1)Absolutely Impossible fiction or the fiction of our fantasies.
2)Impossible fiction using today's defined rules of Science.
The first might have magic or it might have dragons but it certainly will have elements in the story that can never happen. We do, of course, like it that way. We like being transported into a world that can never happen, a world of Fantasy. There are branches of this genre and it can be done very well or not.
The other genre requires that we start with the known science of the day (the author's day) and we stretch it. We can stretch it into space, into the future or we can merely stetch the concepts of Science as we know them into a fictional setting. This can also be good or bad.
So if the concept is a dinosaur in modern day San Diego I'd have to say that was impossible. But my next question would be "Is it the product of genetic engineering or did a wizard conjure it up?" One requires a stretch of the current concept of Science and the other requires a visit to world strictly imaginative.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Except my Adrift on the Sea of Rains takes place in an alternate 1980s and is science fiction

That's a good point, though you could be technical and parse-y and say something like "gee, Ian, I guess that means it's really "alternate history." (Joke!)

I'm mostly of the mind that being loose with definitions is the better route to go. I did appreciate the well-thought-out and intellectual approach you took to finding the border between SF and F, but in the end there will always be stuff that bleeds across the borders, and I think being less definitional helps writers be more freely creative, and readers less box-oriented.

 

[iansales]

Science Fiction and Fantasy are terms that can be applied wherever the author sees fit. I don't think that it makes sense that one should label a book 'fantasy' if it is not what the author believes it is, and by that same token, if an author claims to have written a science-fiction novel, it achieves very little to claim that he is wrong because he doesn't fit a set of criteria. Obviously, there is a reality check inherent in this i.e. an author cannot just claim his magical and fantastical world is not a work of speculative fiction. I think that is the order of the day: common sense. If it walks like a SF/F book, talks like a SF/F book, then it probably is one, even if real and specific criteria don't exist.

It doesn't really matter what the author thinks. They might insist it's not sf, even though it has spaceships in it and is set in the 25th century. It doesn't even matter if it was published as literary fiction and not sf. People are going to read it as sf. (Although literary fiction readers may choose not to, in order not to have to read sf.)

 

[Gabe.]

That is totally correct. I just meant to say that in most instances, the author, the readers and the general consensus will align under the banner of common sense. Most authors that write novels in the 25th century with spaceships are going to acknowledge that their work is a work of SF.

I'm talking about at the margins, it is silly to say that a book is science fiction just because it fills a set of criteria: the author/the readers may actually believe it fits better in another genre, such as romance or thriller or whatever, and so such hard and fast rules become a bit unwieldly.