Slashdot Mirror
What is Science Fiction?
ParadoXIII asks: "I would like to know what the /. community defines as science fiction. What separates it from fantasy or from regular stories? Where and when did the genre originate? What are the goals and purposes of its writers (if any)?" We've probably gone over this in several scattered articles from Star Wars to The Matrix, but I think it still deserves a dedicated discussion. In short, I define Science Fiction as: "fiction in which the characters react to fictional developments of science". But maybe you all think that's too generic. Thoughts?
I have never thought about it too much, as there can be a lot of bleed over. I just enjoyed it. Oh god I sound ignorant.
I guess that I should say that I liked reading a great deal and for quite a few years (until the late '80s return of real horror), sci fi was the last refuge of the American Short Story and it was one of the last places for good writing that would sell. I think that sci fi just had an element of science in the fiction as a major plot element, not just window dressing, and/or a setting in a future materially different than our own time (an element of futurism, perhaps).
If you like sci fi, like I like sci fi:
1. How would you break up the genre?
2. Favorites?
I have no clear idea of the first (I skipped lit crit when I could have taken it, and at the time sci fi was not considered "real literature"), but I would have to say that the Ringworld books (Niven) and earlier Spider Robinson stuff is definitely up there. I gotta say that I miss the old Analog far more than I miss the old Byte, but then again I was a liberal arts guy, after all.
I'd have to agree. Fiction (at the time) that has a scientific twist to it.
Asimov was great at stretching these limits (see Asimov's mysteries for a nice collection of sci-fi mystery stories).
Though where would one fit Turtledove's Guns of the South, or Stephenson's Zodiac? Hrm.
-- Ever notice that fast-burning fuse looks exactly the same as slow-burning fuse? I didn't... (Edgar Montrose)
the term science fiction was coined by Hugo Gernsback, publisher of a few pulp magazines in the golden age of Sci-Fi, and the man the the Hugo Award for outstanding Science Fiction is named after. his original term for the genre was "Scientific Fiction", but was later shortened to Science Fiction.
the first american/modern Sci-Fi novel is considered to be Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (if you've only seen the movies, read the book, it is so much better, and deeper), although Shelley wasn't the first (Jules Vern, to name the most famous out of a large crowd) her novel was the first to take modern science (the animation of dead frog legs with electricity) an make the fantastic jump to animated flesh from death.
I personally think Science Fiction can be any type of story, any genre, but they are all stories that use a scientific discover/occurance as a backdrop.
I post links to stuff here
According to my professor in the Science Fiction class I took last year, science fiction became recognizably popular with Gulliver's Travels and Frankenstein (I would argue that many of the epic poems are in fact sci-fi, because at the time they were written it was science, although to write it now would be fantasy, and that is where they meet).
It is indeed dificult to really determine the difference sometimes. Noted sci-fi author Heinlein wrote a novella called Magic, Inc. that mainly dealt with the occult and magic, but I would label it "speculative fiction" as opposed to fantasy because it is about the real world and real people, but with the addition of magic in everyday life and business. When delineating fantasy and sci-fi, you have to be careful; where exactly is the difference between magic and science? When you're dealing with science that the protagonist can't explain, is that magic? Or when casting a magic spell against an enemy is explained as using a portion of the brain only active in a fraction of the population to control the matter surrounding the enemy in such a way that it damages the target, does the magic spell become science?
In that same vein, what about science fiction that deals with god? God reaches down and squashes a sinner. Is that fantasy or science fiction? It's not an easy question to answer. Or how about some modern science fiction which deals much more heavily with the characters than the "hard" science. Card doesn't explain how his warp drive works, he just mentions its effects on the story. Are explainations of magic any different? If warp drive and the theory of relativity weren't widely accepted conventions of science fiction, would his stories be fantasy? It's food for thought.
That said, my opinion is that the two genres can be best told apart by looking at the conventions used. For instance, in science fiction, traditionally when a technology is presented to the reader there is an explanation as to how it works, or it is a similar technology to ones commonly found in other science fiction. Fantasy often follows the conventions set in place by Tolkien (but doesn't always). Now, just because a story has elements of fantasy, that doesn't mean that it is a fantasy story. Crossovers are extremely common. In that case, look to two other places: first, which category seems more prevalent.
For instance, in the Witchworld series, the hero comes to the fantasy planet where they fight robots with great technology, they have what are quite obviously telekinetic powers, but the series is without a doubt fantasy, because it is written as one. Writing style has as much to do with categorization as anything else, so you have to look at the book as a whole.
The second, easier place to look is the other books the author has written. It may be cheesy, but if you have a noted fantasy author and the book in question is particularly androgynous, throw it in with the fantasy. And vice versa.
This seems to have become an off-topic essay rather than a carefully crafted response, but I'm sure you don't mind reading my ranting.
Buddha_1382
I believe Isaac Asimov one said, "Science Fiction is not about Technology, it is stories about people involving Technology." Or at least something along those lines.
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
I've been through 101 arguments on this subject from film reviewers to philosophy professors.
/. readers would agree that you cannot simply define sci fi as anything containing advanced hardware. A genre is not defined by its props but by its themes. Take for example the classic film "Outland" - don't let the fact that it is set on an outer-space mining colony fool you, it's a western. Connery is the "new sheriff" in town waiting for the high-noon showdown with the bad dudes in black hats.
;)
In my opinion one of the most defining features of the genre of science fiction is the exploration of everyday themes by placing them in the context of the extraordinary. To take an every day theme and exagerrate it with the use of a (usually) futuristic millieu to really force the reader/viewer to examine those themes in their most extreme form.
This sounds a little off-beat so I'll attempt to explain.
First of all, I think most
Similarly, traditional "Space Opera" fare bears little similarity to sci fi other than the technology. Star Wars is more of a fantasy sword and sorcery adventure epic than Sci Fi - drawing as it did on Roman and Greek history, mythology and the odd Kurasawa film.
Some of the more landmark Sci Fi works can be seen in their attempt to use extraordinary circumstances to highlight contemporary themes - in doing so the most commonly used tool is science.
Examples to illustrate:
Phillip K Dick - to my mind the finest sci fi writer ever - often used the example of bizarre alien races, strange psychotropic drugs, android technology etc, to highlight human philosophical themes of perception, identity and reality.
A classic example is Blade Runner/Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Putting it simply this story (in both its forms) uses the concept of artificial intelligence to examine human themes of identity. The theme has been with us in philosphy for years but Dick uses science to craft it into a story and really make us think about it. There is a similar Dick short story which runs along the same theme; the name eludes me but it was based around an android who's entire experience of life was simply input from a tape in his chest. This is less a story about robots than it is a story about Cartesean themes of identity and perception.
Another example - the "Hive mind" sci fi themes of the 50's and 60's (Invasion of the Body Snatchers et al). Sci Fi in their own right but drawing on the paranoid McCarthyist politics of the time and echoing (or enhancing) fear of Communist takeover by extrapolating Communism from a differing political ideology to a race of aliens. (Side note - did anyone else find it amusing when Picard tried to destroy the Borg with Peace, Freedom and Individuality?
On the subject of Star Trek, this mentality has been at the heart of Star Trek since the beginning, Star Trek (often quite blatantly) uses extraordinary settings in order to address contemporary themes. It is arguably one of the reasons it has been so successful while Space Rangers and its ilk has faded into obscurity....
I've probably rambled on long enough. In closing I'd just like to reiterate that the important distinction in examining any genre is to look at the themes it tries to deal with, not the props it uses.
If science fiction is fiction about science, would Connie Willis' book Bellwether
count as science fiction? It is a very funny novel about the chaos (pun intended) of performing science in a business environment, but I do not think I can call it science fiction.
I've always defined science fiction as writing that used science/technology to make "what if?" questions possible, but not emphasizing the tech just for the sake of the tech. Frank Herbert being a good example. Most of the time, he avoids tech as much as possible, just adding it in where he needs it.
Fantasy, OTOH, tends to involve elements that are just plain impossible in the "real world", such as dragons, magic, gods, etc., though the line between fantasy and sci-fi can get quite thin at times. For instance, Paul Atriedies (sp?) in Dune is condsidered as a god throughout the universe, and those sandworms would kick Smaug's ass anyday, I'd bet.
Other authors, like Clarke, tend to steer clear of such things for the most part. Been a while seen I've read much sci-fi, so I'm being deliberatly vauge here.
Science Fiction: A genre based upon exploring ideas through fiction, whether these ideas be about science, technology or social issues.
Examples: Farenheight 454, The Positronic Man, The Original Star Trek, 20000 Leagues Under the Sea.
Fantasy: A genre that uses elements that exist entirely in the imagination to tell a story, normally focusing on characters or epic events.
Examples: The Hobbit, Star Wars, Interview with a Vampire, Frankenstein.
See above.
PS.->For a better answer, try asking Harlan Ellison what he thinks about Sci-Fi....or have your friend ask him....
I spoke to Connie Willis in Calgary at a ConVersion the year she was TM and Kim Stanley Robinson was GoH - I think it was 1997 and the paperback was just available.
She frequently uses mathematical or scientific themes to humourous effects. My favourite is probability theory played as Preston Sturgis styled screwball romantic comedy in her "Blued Moon". It's SF because her choice of theme is clear without detracting from her delightful characterizations.
And I'm a pretty hardboiled trial lawyer (my first degree was in Anatomy and I had 3 1/2 years of medical school before I switched to law because I wanted to prevent rather than cure the results of stupidity), but the only story that ever got me to cry since grade three was her award-winning story "Fire Watch".
She's served as TM at several WorldCons, and she's worth the trip. Take her for coffee and ask her about her forthcoming horror novels. Pretty together lady.
If something is not yet possible but is thought at the time it is written to perhaps become possible, *and requires a new development in our understanding of the universe or an extremely unusual event*, it is SF. Hence, Star Trek, The Stars My Destination, Armageddon, The Guns of the South and any seriously proposed campaign finance reform bill are all SF.
If something is considered impossible as at the time it is written, regardless of whether it subsequently becomes possible, it is fantasy. Hence, Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings, Nixon's secret plan to get out of Vietnam and any recently proposed campaign finance reform bill are all Fantasy.
OK, you can all go home now. There's nothing more to see here.
So, back to alternate histories, I always considered them sci fi (along with the folks who put together the anthologies I've read) because they answer questions like "what if Kennedy hadn't been shot?", "What if John Lennon had been kicked out of the beatles", ...etc.
Davo -- Free speech, free software, AND free beer.
Sorry to mess up my favorite quote from Apocalypse Now... but it had to be done! (originally "Charlie don't Surf!)
Honestly, Smaug had guts, brains, flight and a useful breath weapon. Sandworms are just bulky. The "Achilies heel" thing Tolkine tossed in about Smaug was so lame ass that it drives me nuts. Don't get me started!
My Science Fiction professor at Rutgers included Frankenstien on our required reading list, even though he rejected anything which he didn't concieve of as Science Fiction. His reasoning is that Frankenstien was scientific as far as people in the early 19th century knew, and therefore was about the possibility. (Mary Shelley came up with her ideas about raising a person from the dead with electricity because of the discovery that it could be used to stimulate muscular movement in the limbs of dead animals. In fact, this is why electricity is used today to restart the hearts of people who would have been considered dead in Shelley's time, so there is even some sustained science in the idea.)
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)