What is Science Fiction, Fantasy, Science Fantasy and Speculative Fiction

Okay: I’ve sent the following off to Sci-Fi weekly’s letters section because people get really caught up in the physical attributes of a story and not what the story is about. (a serious case of being unable to see the forest for the trees). I post it here and on my never visited blog because:

1.) I felt a need to vent.

2.) I think the idea makes for interesting debate.

So, here goes:

Science Fiction, Fantasy, Science Fantasy, and Speculative Fiction

I’ve noticed a curious phenomena lately. There is a great cry about what is Science Fiction and what isn’t. For example, Star Wars and Star Trek have been referred to widely as Science Fiction. Firefly/Serenity and Cowboy Bebop have been decried as “NOT!” Science Fiction. Some people call “John Carter Warlord of Mars” Science Fiction, but I don’t think anyone can make a serious case for that. So, where does this leave us in the world of SF, Fantasy, and Speculative Fiction in general?

I guess my first question is, “When did the definition of Science Fiction narrow to that which is speculatively possible in light of current given facts about the universe?” “We can’t include ESP in a Science Fiction work – that’s not SF!” goes the cry. But then that eliminates Asimov’s wonderful and groundbreaking Foundation Trilogy–which has at it’s heart a pseudo-math that can predict future developments and a mind controlling mutant–from our works of classic Science Fiction. So, is it SF or is it Speculative Fiction? More accurately, is it Science Fantasy?

My second question is, “Why does it matter what you call it as long as it is good entertainment?” All entertainment begs you to suspend belief to some degree. You have to accept that everyone agrees it is a good idea to split up and explore the house wherein individuals are being picked off while alone. We accept that a creature can survive in normal earth atmosphere and lives off human flesh even though it has acidic blood. There are probably no end to scientific arguments that the latter is silly and the former is foolish, but each advances the plot and deepens mood, and helps tell a (hopefully) compelling story about the people in that situation.

If you don’t like something because it offends your highly discerning scientific knowledge base, and it disgusts you that others are too stupid to realize the inherent fallacies of the fiction’s premise, then please, don’t feel a need to educate us on how stupid we are for enjoying it anyway. Being bitten by a radioactive/genetically modified spider isn’t going to result in cool powers and the ability to do neat things like swing through the skyscrapers of New York on a thin web, but it doesn’t make the idea any less fun for a great number of us.

Recently a group of scientists managed to put a group of atoms into a “Cat State” the state of being two diametrically opposed things at one time–in this case spinning clockwise and counter-clockwise simultaneously. This is very cool, very edgy science that has gone from theory to fact. However, it is important to remember that not all theory goes on to become fact. In this way ERB’s Mars series (based on some scientific thinking at the time) was “Science Fiction” now it is Science Fantasy. Nearly every novel and movie depicting space travel has large spacious rooms with “Earth normal” gravity as they tool through space at speeds we can’t approach now (and have many differing theories on how that can or can’t be accomplished). This is the equivalent of a New York coffee house waiter living in a 3,000 sq. ft. loft. All of our current ideas on creating portable gravity fields are rooted in theory that requires impractical, at best, and likely impossibly scaled equipment to make it feasible. In short, it is fantasy to imagine a ship with normal gravity in which to walk. Does knowing this “ruin” the story? I somehow doubt it.

Ultimately Science Fiction can’t be about gadgets and hard core science, it must be about people. Fantasy can’t be about dragons and magic, it must be about people. We write fiction not about things, but about that which makes us human. I so often feel I’m beating this horse to death, but no matter how many times I say it, there’s always someone caught up in the stuff and not the people in a story. Sometimes examining things in an impossible venue can help us see more clearly that which is “real” and “human” and to some extent engage and enlighten us about ourselves as a culture and a people.

What is Science Fiction? What is Fantasy? What is Science Fantasy and Speculative Fiction? They are attempts to examine the human race from a unique and hopefully visionary perspective. They are NOT any attempt to create a world that might one day be possible to experience or where we might go technologically as a culture (though some are more probable and possible than others). They are about who we are as a culture and a as a people. They are about being human in extraordinary circumstances, (even if we are aliens, elves, or sentient robots).

Well, people have been thinking “What is science fiction?” is an interesting debate for decades now, so it just isn’t interesting any more.

Ultimately, there is no definition anyone that comes up with that will include everything the person considers science fiction and will exclude everything that does not. Therefore, Damon Knight’s definition is the best: “Science fiction is anything I point at when I say ‘This is science fiction’.”

Ultimately, science fiction is a form of fantasy (i.e., it does not portray real-world events) that assumes that all the fantastic elements have a “scientific” explanation. Fantasy assumes the fantastic elements don’t have a “scientific” explanation. Note that the definition of “scientific” is left to the individual.

As a recent example in my case, I just sold a story to Realms of Fantasy – a fantasy magazine – that doesn’t have the slightest fantasy element in it (other than a paranoid fantasy). You could look at the story and say it’s really science fiction, or even mainstream, and I wouldn’t disagree.

The difference between SF and fantasy is meaningless trivia.

“There’s only one God, everything else is politics.” Queen Elizabeth I

I agree it is meaningless trivia in terms of focusing on the physical elements of the story. If all you take away from Star Trek is, “Wow, phasers are cool, I wonder how that would work.” then you are indeed missing the intent of the story. It wasn’t, in Roddenberry’s mind, about nifty technology, it was about us–people. There’s nothing wrong with saying “wow, phasers are cool,” but it focuses on the shallow end of the pool (not that there’s a lot of deep end of the pool in Trek, but work with me here).

My rant was sparked by someone railing about impossible technology and a writer who wouldn’t be pinned down on what type of engines are used in a particular story. The writer wasn’t interested in the science, he was interested in the people. But for the outraged non-fan of his work, that was ALL wrong for SF. Cries of unworthy and burn the heretic can be inserted here.

The acceptance of your story gives me great hope that the vision of the editors are miles beyond that of the fan base, and in that there is hope that they can be made to focus on the life within the forest, not that great bunch of trees over there.

You’re right: science fiction and fantasy (and all literature worth a damn) is about people, and those who write in the genre don’t think either SF or fantasy is “better” overall.

Many readers, however, think that hard sf is the only form of sf, and nothing else is quite up to that level. You also see it in fans of filmed SF: everything has to be based on hard SF facts and any deviation from that is something to be sneered at.

But science fiction predated “hard” sf by some time, and there were many great practitioners of sf who jettisoned the science if it got in the way of the story (Robert Heinlein, for instance: some of his work directly contradicted what had been known by scientists for years. Heinlein knew it, but didn’t care). There’s nothing wrong with SF that doesn’t hew to the facts, as long as the story is a good one.

I’ll have to look up what Heinlein said on this very topic over 50 years ago. I believe his conclusion was to call it all speculative fiction and the hell with it. :slight_smile:

One thing I do believe - whether something is science fiction depends on the state of science at the time it was written, not now. If a writer could dig up a reference to a tropical Venus in the '40s, stories set on that Venus are sf. Today they would be fantasy, unless the author came up with a plausible justification (like terraforming) for his Venus.

Fantasy is deliberately ignoring the current state of science.

Firefly/Serenity is most definitely science fiction. In f act, it’s the most science fiction of any of the ‘science fiction’ on TV.

Science Fiction

Firefly
The New Battlestar Galactica
Titan A.E.

Science Fantasy

Star Wars
The Fantastic Four
Star Trek (later incarnations)

Star Trek is interesting in that it pretty much started out as straight science fiction, but over the years and series it really became a fantasy show with science trappings. With plot devices like Q and the Holodeck and the total gibberish the trek-speak technobabble turned into.

Science fiction is the exploration of what the future might look like given a plausible extrapolation of where our civilization is going or what we might find. The science in it has to be plausible and not violate fundamental laws of physics. Science Fantasy is basically just futuristic worlds put together willy-nilly with no thought for adhering to a consistent scientific framework. You have The Force, intergalactic energy beings that are omniscient, etc. Spider-Man is science fantasy, even though they try to lay a thin veneer of a scientific explanation on his super-powers. Robo-Cop is science fiction.

Posted by RealityChuck:

Congrats! I’m glad to find that Realms of Fantasy is still around; maybe I should renew my subscription. Too bad its sister magazine, Science Fiction Age, didn’t last.

I remember that The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, with a great record of publishing some of the best of both (as well as all those great science columns by Isaac Asimov, and cartoons by Gahan Wilson) went through a bad period in (I think) the early 90’s, when it would apparently publish any story with a theme of “women’s empowerment”, even if it was neither science fiction nor fantasy.

I think **Space Opera ** is a better label than ‘science fantasy’, since there is very little science in space opera.
All of these are subsets of the **Fantasy ** genre. I remember when what is now called pure Fantasy (Tolkien and followers) was called **Swords and Sorcery ** which I think is another good label.
Fantasy are fairy tales, things that are made up and could never be true in the real world as we know it. Some of these fairy tales have robots in them and are thus labeled SciFi, a label some think carry a certain stigmata, thinking that the label will conjure up ideas about BEMs and scalar weapons. Thus, even if what they engage in is Fantasy, they come up with labels like **Speculative Fiction ** or Magic Realism. Thus, Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse 5 is never labeled SciFi and Love in the time of Cholera is never labeled Fantasy.

So if we break down the genres, it be something like this:

**Fairy Tale ** (told to children, the ur-story)
Legend (tales about heros and Gods, told to grown ups who actually believed in the stories)
Fantasy (Fairy Tale and Legend type stories told for value of entertainment: Early examples being The Iliad, Tempest and Divina Comedia)
**Horror ** (subset of Fantasy with monsters)
SciFi (Subset of Fantasy with robots)
**Sword and Sorcery ** (subset of Fantasy with trolls, dwarfs and elfs, normally found on the Fantasy shelf in the bookstore)
Space Opera (Sword and Sorcery in space, i.e. Star Wars)

Star Trek is just a soap opera in space, as are all the incarnations of the franchise. B5 is *West Wing * in Space (and BTW, West Wing is just a soap in the White House). Firefly is not SciFi, it’s just another soap in space ( a good one, but still). True SciFi sets out to extrapolate an answer to “what if…?” type of questions. Philip K. Dick was a master, Heinlein another.

There is no such thing as science fiction, fantasy, science fantasy or speculative fiction.

There is only SCI-FI.

Praise Forrest Ackerman! Copulating crickets rule!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-fi

Fantasy has breasts on the cover.

Sci-fi has breasts and a raygun on the cover.

What could be simpler? :wink:

I did a long involved post to this thread yesterday, which got eaten when the Board crapped out. I’m not going to try to replicate it. It was a goodie, though!

The definition of science fiction vs. fantasy has been argued to the point of nausea in the field over the last several decades. Probably the last time any writers cared was in the 1950s, when a few science fiction purists resented the incursion of fantasy into their boy’s world of the future. Even then, most writers had no problem going back and forth between science fiction and fantasy, or playing around in the boundaries, or slipping it in sideways, or writing science fantasy. A few, who could actually write (Heinlein not among them, even though he coined the term) produced speculative fiction, emphasis on the fiction.

Today almost everyone in the field agrees that the terms are no more than marketing labels. Fish may or not be being facetious, but is absolutely correct. The public buys books by what’s on the covers. Science fiction is a person in armor wielding a giant Jack-Kirby-ized weapon in front of a spaceship. Fantasy is a person wielding a giant sword in front of a castle. (Speculative fiction is whatever doesn’t sell, because nobody knows what the hell kind of weapon to put on the cover.) If you think I’m kidding or oversimplifying, go to a big chain bookstore and start looking closely at covers.

So. Writers don’t care about these labels. Readers do. Not fans, readers. There are an order of magnitude more readers than fans; otherwise every firm would go out of business. Writers are in business. They give the public what they want. (Movie and tv and game adaptations, mostly.) Which is which? Look at the illustrations, not the content.

SF Age went under even though it was making money. It just didn’t make sufficient money. That’s the state of the field these days.

The late, unlamented era when Kristine Rusch became its editor.

I don’t care about the label, but I’m not a writer. Writers need to consider a label when they’re submitting something to a particular market, but readers don’t care. Do they? Maybe they do, I dunno.

What ticks me off is when there’s a good discussion going about a book or a movie, and someone takes it off track by listing all the reasons why the book or movie is or isn’t science fiction, fantasy, or speculative fiction.

Labels are useless when writers blend the elements anyway. What’s the power behind Anomander Rake and Moon’s Spawn (in Erikson’s Malazan books)? Is it magic or technology or a bit of both? Not explained (yet) but if Erikson felt he had to go one way or the other to make his story fit a category, readers would be losing out.

I’m just so tired of this topic. Categorization is done by publishers for marketing purposes, not for the benefit of readers. Reader categorization is fluid, evolves as the material does. There is much, much cross-genre stuff recently that isn’t easily categorized. I don’t care what it is called, but if it’s full of imagination, wonder, quirks, characters, ideas, and what-if’s, then I’ll be interested.

AuntiePam, I had no idea what you were talking about, so I plugged the name into Amazon.

Here’s the cover I saw:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0765348780/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-6107702-1931264#reader-link

Giant sword. Check. Castle. Check.

It’s fantasy. Doesn’t matter how the technology is powered. It’s fantasy.

I agree. But I’ll bet that if it turns out that Moon’s Spawn (a floating mountain fortress) has a nuclear power plant, somebody, sometime, somewhere will argue that the power plant makes it science fiction.

I don’t see any value in the distinction, is all I’m sayin’.

(The cover doesn’t do the book any justice.) :slight_smile:

Yeah, but F&SF is back to publishing good fantasy and science fiction and I don’t remember any “women’s empowerment” stories lately, especially not anything that can’t be argued as at least some sort of fantasy.

I’ve always thought fantasy is a harder genre to pin down than science fiction. In both cases, though, I think it’s really a “I know it when I see it” definition, especially with some of the stuff published in F&SF that clearly isn’t science fiction and isn’t really fantasy in the cliched way a lot of people think about fantasy, but things like what RealityChuck was talking about.

Otherwise, though, I don’t really care about the labels. I’ll read some authors and not others. One of my favorite authors did both what is fairly clearly science fiction but also lots of light fantasy. Then there are some authors that I just can’t stand, no matter what they’re writing about.

You may have a point there. I haven’t kept up with all the later Trek incarnations, and this, now that I think of it, may be part of the reason I didn’t. I do recall reading a Kirk/Spock/McCoy Trek book and being disgusted by the mystical crap the author threw in that made it, I thought, not true to the Star Trek universe.

And that touches on why I think it does matter how we classify something: because, whatever genre a book or TV show or whatever is, it needs to be internally consistent, to be true to itself and play by its own rules. It’s cheating (and a big disappointment to the discerning reader) for the author to resolve a situation or give the plot a twist by having something happen that goes against the rules of the story’s world—for example, if something happens that goes against the known laws of physics in a work of hard science fiction.