Is science fiction really more fantastical than science fantasy?

[DaveC426913]

I strongly disagree. I would rather say that scientific sounding jargon is one of standard ingredients of science fiction. And I also claim that the difference between fantasy and science fiction is mainly a difference in *style*.

In order to be considered SF, a story does not need to be scientifically accurate. It just needs to *sound* as if it was based on science.

And I strongly disagree with your disagreement.

I am firmly in the camp of those who insist that Star Wars is not science fiction - despite it's spaceships and light sabers. In my books, it is Space Fantasy, or Space Opera.

Of course, there is no definitive definition - it is a matter of opinion. There are generally two viewpoints - that of the purists and that of the popularists.

 

[meBigGuy]

to me (and many others http://www.goodreads.com/genres/science-fiction) Science Fiction is an a broad genre of fiction, and has sub genres such as Hard Science Fiction, Space Opera, and even Streampunk. For you to say Space Opera is not science fiction is just destroying any meaningful use of the words.

 

[DaveC426913]

to me (and many others http://www.goodreads.com/genres/science-fiction) Science Fiction is an a broad genre of fiction, and has sub genres such as Hard Science Fiction, Space Opera, and even Streampunk. For you to say Space Opera is not science fiction is just destroying any meaningful use of the words.

Don't you see how that's kind of strange? Suggesting that throwing a bunch of discrete things into a generalized melting pot is somehow improving meaning, whereas fine-tuning the categories is somehow destroying meaning?

Would you go on suggest that the categories 'mystery and 'action' have little meaning, and instead should be lumped under the undifferentiated title of, say 'fiction', and that will provide a similar clarity of meaning you seek?

 

[meBigGuy]

mystery and action are broad genres of fiction, just as science fiction is, and have definitions understood by all (with the usual fuzziness).
Its more like you would arbitrarily declare the action genre to only include car chases.

You are not fine tuning the meaning, you are stealing a phrase with an existing meaning to define a narrow sub genre.

Did you read the full definition at goodreads? (did you click on "more"). While no definition is perfect, that captures the essence of the issue.

So what words should one use to describe the genre of fiction that contains the sub genres "hard science fiction", "space opera", "steampunk", and "cyberpunk"?
If you steal "science fiction", we now need a new phrase. What broad genre contains Star Wars and The Martian, Snow Crash, and The Lensman series?

With your definition, I have to say "science fiction, cyberpunk, steampunk, space opera, military science fiction, hard science fiction, time travel ..;. " rather the words "science fiction" (which, to most, encompass them all). What you specifically try to define as science fiction is but a small subset of what the world calls "science fiction". You could call your sub genre "pure science fiction" or "Dave's science fiction" or "acceptable science fiction" or "real science fiction". But to usurp words that are already defined and limit them to a subset of the genre is not good.

Now, don't get me wrong. There is a place for the genre you are referring to. It is a significant sub genre of Science Fiction.

Examples that illustrate the breath of the genre of fiction that is science fiction:

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663397/infographic-of-the-day-a-mind-blowing-history-of-sci-fi <--- wish I could find the full size graphic. I've used it to find good reads.
http://i2.wp.com/www.box.net/shared/static/a6omcl2la0ivlxsn3o8m.jpg

 

[Smattering]

I am firmly in the camp of those who insist that Star Wars is not science fiction - despite it's spaceships and light sabers. In my books, it is Space Fantasy, or Space Opera.

I agree that Star Wars is not SF. But the main reason is not the lack of scientific accuracy, but rather the non-scientific *style*.

For example, Star Trek TNG can be considered (soft) SF although it is not scientifically accurate either. But it does have the right style.

 

[Smattering]

to me (and many others http://www.goodreads.com/genres/science-fiction) Science Fiction is an a broad genre of fiction, and has sub genres such as Hard Science Fiction, Space Opera, and even Streampunk. For you to say Space Opera is not science fiction is just destroying any meaningful use of the words.

Space Opera and Steampunk are clearly cross-over genres and *not* pure SF subgenres.

 

[meBigGuy]

IMO, star Wars is in the "Space Fantasy or Space Opera" (your words) sub genres of science fiction.
Works can easily belong to multiple sub-genres.

You can't just disappear a whole recognized genre of fiction (science fiction) and replace it with an ill defined sub genre of your choice.

This wikipedia article considers science fiction as a genre of "speculative fiction". (whereas goodreads considers it a genre of fiction)
Wikipedia lists Science Fictions subgenres:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction#Subgenres

Space Opera and Steampunk are clearly cross-over genres and *not* pure SF subgenres.

You are welcome to define a "pure science fiction" subgenre of science fiction if you want. Take the word Pure out of the above quote and it doesn't make sense. So, the word pure is narrowing the definition. "Pure science fiction", and "Science Fiction" are two different things.

You say this list of books are not science fiction?
http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/82803.Epic_Space_Opera
And that this "defintion" is not a good one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_opera

Again, you cannot usurp the words "Science Fiction" to mean something different than it does. Well, you can, but it is futile.

 

[Khatti]

I am firmly in the camp of those who insist that Star Wars is not science fiction - despite it's spaceships and light sabers. In my books, it is Space Fantasy, or Space Opera.

And in my own Star Wars--which includes psionic abilities, multi-universal technology and travel, and reincarnation as a technology--I'm quite comfortable with the Space Opera or Space Fantasy label. I do feel a need to separate what I do from what, say, Hal Clement did. However, my main thing is getting it written and out there, I don't care if you call it a ham-and-swiss-on-rye when I'm done.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Genres seem unnecessarily restrictive to me, especially given that most stories cross multiple genres (romance, mystery, fantasy etc). As different as it may be I think it makes more sense to describe stories in a sort of tagging system, prioritising what is more relevant to the story.

As for what science fiction is its of course going to be vague, after all it changes over time! In the 50s psychic powers were a strong feature of SF, now that's shifted into fantasy.

 

[DaveC426913]

All of this is simply a preference. There are many in both camps. And my view is not my invention, I simply adhere to a different, popular standard than you.

It is implicit in all your posts that you mean "in my view". You did not state it explicitly, so I am.

To suggest that you are entitled to the "true" definition of words is silly. Below is a short list of the most egregious entitlements in your argument.

... definitions understood by all...
...stealing a phrase with an existing meaning...
...what words should one use...
...usurp words that are already defined...

... you cannot usurp the words "Science Fiction" to mean something different than it does...

You do not get to lay claim to the "true" definition.
Your entire stance is guilty of the foregone conclusion fallacy.

 

[Smattering]

Genres seem unnecessarily restrictive to me, especially given that most stories cross multiple genres (romance, mystery, fantasy etc). As different as it may be I think it makes more sense to describe stories in a sort of tagging system, prioritising what is more relevant to the story.

Yes, but then Star Wars ends at SF/Fantasy which is exactly where it belongs.

 

[Hornbein]

I have a policy not to argue about definitions. State your definition and get on with it.

As an artist I can tell you that the whole genre thing is a joke. It is a structure imposed on art, which doesn't really have any rules. Art critics take this genre stuff seriously. You don't have to.

Nevertheless the genre thing can be useful. If I experience some award-winning work from some genre and it's trash, then I know not to waste my time on that genre. The great majority of works fall into such categories.

I find it much more useful to sample a work. Read a few random lines, watch a few random scenes...

 

[Smattering]

As an artist I can tell you that the whole genre thing is a joke. It is a structure imposed on art, which doesn't really have any rules. Art critics take this genre stuff seriously. You don't have to.

As a reader I do take it seriously, because I am one of those who do not like fantasy at all--at least not when it comes to reading. I can watch something like Star Wars as a movie, but I would not be able to finish a book written in the same style.

Thus, SF/fantasy is a warning for me not to buy that book.

 

[DaveC426913]

As a reader I do take it seriously, because I am one of those who do not like fantasy at all--at least not when it comes to reading. I can watch something like Star Wars as a movie, but I would not be able to finish a book written in the same style.

Thus, SF/fantasy is a warning for me not to buy that book.

Yes, but this results in false positives and false negatives.

I too dislike fantasy, but I'll read Larry Niven's magic books (The Magic Goes Away, The Flying Sorcerers) because they (mostly) adhere to science fiction principles.

I wonder if you would enjoy them if you could drop your label criterion.

 

[meBigGuy]

Well, I'll stick with my definition of Science Fiction as fiction containing concepts at least presented as having been developed by science, however "impossible", and Fantasy as not invoking science. Trying to draw a line regarding your feelings about the supposed plausibility of the science seems to be the dividing line for Hard Science Fiction.

Trying to find a logic to your point of view, I tried searching "is space opera science fiction" and "space opera is not science fiction". I found nothing defending the view that space opera was not science fiction. I mention this because I think there is some value (called communication) in adopting definitions that match the common view, unless there is good reason not to. (I'd be interested in your rationale, beyond being contrary).

Of course, defining space opera becomes its own chore. Check out this:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=space+opera
"Excession' (Iain M Banks), 'A Fire Upon The Deep' (Vernor Vinge) and 'Second Foundation' (Isaac Asimov) are instantly recognisable as space operas."
Do you consider those as not science fiction? Or, not space opera?

You are welcome to your own personal definitions of words but it will cause communication difficulties.

As for the value of genres and subgenres, its just a tool to aid in communication. And, as is always the case with language, words can be limiting and misused.
I expect all artists are especially offended by being categorized as X or Y, when what they really are is creative.

 

[Khatti]

If we are going to obsess with the definition of Science Fiction I would be remiss if I didn't add Damion Knight's definition to the mix: "Whatever I'm pointing at when I say Science Fiction."

 

[DaveC426913]

You are welcome to your own personal definitions of words but it will cause communication difficulties.

You keep saying this. That doesn't make it any less wrong. You do not lay claim to The One True Definition - any more than I purport my 'own personal definition'.

I tried searching "is space opera science fiction" and "space opera is not science fiction". I found nothing defending the view that space opera was not science fiction.

Ohh, you Googled it. And did not find anything that countered your own viewpoint.
You win sir.

...there is some value (called communication) in adopting definitions that match the common view, unless there is good reason not to.

Methinks you must have enjoyed Orwell's '1984':

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? ... Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten."

You see that you are not the first one to make such a mistake. (It's a classic for good reason.)

(I'd be interested in your rationale, beyond being contrary).

I am astonished that you think that there being more than one way to look at something is the contrary stance. No, thinking that there is only One Correct way to look at something is the contrary stance.

Thought, expression and communication is a lot more subtle and varied in the wider world than in your experience. That's how (and why) we tell so many stories.

 

[meBigGuy]

You keep saying this. That doesn't make it any less wrong. You do not lay claim to The One True Definition - any more than I purport my 'own personal definition'.

I'm not laying claim to anything other than what those words invoke for me. They seem to have a similar effect on many others. You seem especially offended by that? You seem unwilling to defend your rationale and too eager to deflect and go on the attack.

Methinks you must have enjoyed Orwell's '1984':

WOW, you are really reaching. Yeah, you are right. Let's ban all definitions and re-establish all communications from linguistic basics for every conversation. - sheesh - 1984? talk about a stretch!

Thought, expression and communication is a lot more subtle and varied in the wider world than in your experience.

Not sure how you mean that (are you claiming to know the extent of my wider world experience?), but subtle and varied is the reason you don't arbitrarily create new definitions when an adjective will do the job. It's not just confusing, but unnecessary in many cases.

I am astonished that you think that there being more than one way to look at something is the contrary stance. No, thinking that there is only One Correct way to look at something is the contrary stance.

Again, no answer, just another attack. Makes you feel better? One thing I will grant you is that you are good at twisting people words and ignoring their intent. You seem unwilling to defend (or even present) your rationale. I see your deflections as a typical intellectually rigid reaction. That's par for the course when one has no good answer.

Go ahead and attack me again for the above if you feel the need, but I think the conversation (such as it was) is over.

 

[Smattering]

Well, I'll stick with my definition of Science Fiction as fiction containing concepts at least presented as having been developed by science, however "impossible", and Fantasy as not invoking science. Trying to draw a line regarding your feelings about the supposed plausibility of the science seems to be the dividing line for Hard Science Fiction.

And how does Star Wars fit in here?

 

[meBigGuy]

And how does Star Wars fit in here?

Well, it ain't hard science fiction. I'm not skilled at assigning subgenres, but space opera, space fantasy, or whatever works for you.
The only thing I'm adamant about is that it is science fiction. "The Force" is a bit much, but the technology is portrayed as science based.

http://scifi.about.com/od/starwarsglossaryandfaq/a/Star-Wars-Faq-Is-Star-Wars-Sci-Fi-Or-Fantasy.htm works for me.

EDIT: Others adhere to http://io9.com/5799837/10-works-of-science-fiction-that-are-really-fantasy

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Well, I'll stick with my definition of Science Fiction as fiction containing concepts at least presented as having been developed by science, however "impossible", and Fantasy as not invoking science. Trying to draw a line regarding your feelings about the supposed plausibility of the science seems to be the dividing line for Hard Science Fiction.

I have an issue with definitions like this in that whilst they are deceptively simple and clean they only really work for a narrow scope of SF or F. It's fine if the only SF you consider is that which contains spaceships and the only F you consider is a medieval setting with elves and dwarves. But both genres are far more than just that and the really interesting fiction makes things complicated.

Take Steampunk for example, sometimes considered a sub-genre of SF but many book stores stock it under fantasy. Look online and you'll find plenty of discussions about where it fits. Afterall the underpinning of Steampunk is presented as a science, it's just a science that we know to be wrong. Sometimes Steampunk also includes some magic but if Star Wars is allowed to have the force and hyperdrive yet be considered SF then why is magic and overly-capable-steam-engines not?

Going from another angle the "presented as science" gets a bit weak if you look at SF in which there is absolutely no in-universe explanation, or indeed consistency, to the technobabble, yet there are fantasy worlds with meticulously crafted magic systems with well defined rules that are studied and developed scientifically. As an example of the former consider Star Trek, a show that's massively inconsistent. From one episode to the next the characters will use their ship to do wildly different and novel things, many of which are never touched on again despite the world shattering implications. Like the episode where Reg reworks the deflector shield to instantly transport the Enterprise tens of thousands of lightyears, or the one in which a tractor beam is modified to push a sun, or any situation in which the holodeck is used to create intelligent avatars. Really this style is so much more similar to fantasy worlds like Harry Potter in which there's no clear rules to magic and any challenge can be fixed by using your wand in a different way.

Conversely Fantasy like the KingKiller Chronicles features a magic system that has meticulous rules (based on fundamental units of energy), is studied and practiced in a university setting and has "artificers" producing magical items in workshops to sell. The entire set up exactly mimics science and engineering development, just with a novel alteration to how the universe works. Star Trek on the other hand is soft fantasy with a technological skin. The problem with describing it by the skin is that you could class two works together that have absolutely nothing to do with each other and separate works that are closely linked. At that point the category is pointless, time wasting even.

I'm not saying that we should rebrand Star Trek fantasy and move a bunch of Fantasy books to the Science Fiction section. But I do think that strongly defining genres (or trying to) is a fools errand. There will always be something new or some examples that don't fit and the definition breaks. I think it's easier to describe a list of features and, if you want to, argue that the more things on the list a work ticks off the more SF-like it is.

 

[Khatti]

Take Steampunk for example, sometimes considered a sub-genre of SF but many book stores stock it under fantasy. Look online and you'll find plenty of discussions about where it fits. Afterall the underpinning of Steampunk is presented as a science, it's just a science that we know to be wrong. Sometimes Steampunk also includes some magic but if Star Wars is allowed to have the force and hyperdrive yet be considered SF then why is magic and overly-capable-steam-engines not?

From a purely mercenary standpoint I'm concerned that potential customers know where to look for my books in a bookstore. Beyond that I can see your point.

As an example of the former consider Star Trek, a show that's massively inconsistent. From one episode to the next the characters will use their ship to do wildly different and novel things, many of which are never touched on again despite the world shattering implications. Like the episode where Reg reworks the deflector shield to instantly transport the Enterprise tens of thousands of lightyears, or the one in which a tractor beam is modified to push a sun, or any situation in which the holodeck is used to create intelligent avatars. Really this style is so much more similar to fantasy worlds like Harry Potter in which there's no clear rules to magic and any challenge can be fixed by using your wand in a different way.

Star Trek suffered the problem of having multiple writers and a production schedule; both of these things are not going to loan themselves to consistency. When it's time to shoot what is important is that the script is done, not that it's consistent with everything else done in the series.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

From a purely mercenary standpoint I'm concerned that potential customers know where to look for my books in a bookstore. Beyond that I can see your point.

I'm half convinced that genres only exist as they do today because of brick and mortar shops. You can't use any sort of complicated meta-data, you have to clump books together. Moreover you have to clump books together in a way that means that a person who would enjoy book X because they enjoy book Y will find X near Y. If you take away the need to group books together so crudely and focus on how to categorise books in a digital library you get something like Goodreads which assigns multiple very specific tags to each book.

It's interesting to note though that even book stores don't adhere to such strict rules. Plenty of times you can find books that are not in the SF&F section that you could make a good case for being there. Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro is a story featuring clones but most often I find it under non-specific fiction A-Z. I'm sure the reason for this is that whilst most people enjoy science fiction they wouldn't say they do, or even necessarily think they do. Because of that they're not likely to go to the SF&F section so books that should be there but would sell better without the association are moved out.

Star Trek suffered the problem of having multiple writers and a production schedule; both of these things are not going to loan themselves to consistency. When it's time to shoot what is important is that the script is done, not that it's consistent with everything else done in the series.

That's a perfectly reasonable justification that I think is quite fair, but I believe my point still stands. Star Trek treats its plot devices the same way as Harry Potter, it just gives them sciency names and looks. Conversely there's fantasy that treats its magic a lot more scientifically, particularly in its investigation, development and use. If all you're interested in is sciency names and looks then the definition @meBigGuy provided is fine. If the reason you like some science fiction, some fantasy, some genre X is more specific and it's the scientific rigour applied to the fantastic you're looking for then the definition is useless.

 

[DaveC426913]

Again, no answer, just another attack. Makes you feel better? One thing I will grant you is that you are good at twisting people words and ignoring their intent.

You state a presumption of authority over the definition and usage of words that you have no business presuming. Here is an example:

Again, you cannot usurp the words "Science Fiction" to mean something different than it does. Well, you can, but it is futile.

This is called begging the question: presuming the conclusion in the assertion. Your statement presumes I am attempting to modify something that you think is already established as fact.

That assertion is not granted. Your argument is flawed. If you need to frame that in terms of personal attacks and feelings, that's on you.

 

[DaveC426913]

Just happened to go shopping on Kobo.

https://store.kobobooks.com/en-CA/ebooks/categories
Under SCI FI & FANTASY they list Science Fiction and Space Opera as side-by-side categories.
As they are on Amazon.
Boom.

 

[Stephanus]

You state a presumption of authority over the definition and usage of words that you have no business presuming. Here is an example:

This is called begging the question: presuming the conclusion in the assertion. Your statement presumes I am attempting to modify something that you think is already established as fact.

That assertion is not granted. Your argument is flawed. If you need to frame that in terms of personal attacks and feelings, that's on you.

I believe there is "SPACE OPERA" and "SCIENCE FICTION" in this post before

 

[Stephanus]

And how does Star Wars fit in here?

As someone said before in this forum. Star Wars is Science Fantasy, while Star Trek is science fiction.
Roddenberry did put some scientist before he wrote Star Trek. I don't know about George Lucas. Btw, have you watched the new Star Wars movie. Harisson Ford plays (older) Han Solo again, I think. Just saw the poster, haven't got time to watch. Too busy with Christmas.

 

[Khatti]

Under SCI FI & FANTASY they list Science Fiction and Space Opera as side-by-side categories.
As they are on Amazon.
Boom.

Works for me.

 

[_PJ_]

I think the problem is, ultimately, that science fiction grounded fully in known, accepted science, and not violating anything and only allowing what is reasonably possible is so restrictive for any exciting fiction for the masses.
Stross and Egan are perhaps two that really are capable here, but unfortunately, the concepts presented require some level of complexity. Otherwise, the only options are then to:
a) "Magically" circumvent the inihibting factor (warp drives, teleporters, light sabres etc.) due to advanced technology based on misinterpretations due to bad popular science - EvE Online videogame suggests that the multiplayer 'lag' due to numerous connections is a result of Lorenz time Dilation. It also claims that superluminal communication is possible due to quantum entanglement.
b) The same as the above, but the technology is from a different source that is not bound by our human issues with laws of physics. i.e. the TARDIS of Doctor Who, the Navigators of Dune etc.

Personally, I am not too bothered about such magic when it's purpose is part of the setting, not part of the plotline. By which I mean that it is established and can be taken as given , something I can put in my 'suåpension of disbelief' box from the start - and it is not later relied on or forms a Deus ExMachina escape route. he magic must be self-consistent too.

__________

The idea that Star Wars is Science Fantasy and Star Trek is Science Fiction is a common misconception.
Science Fiction is typically described as that whereby a principle is extrapolated to an extreme and the effects or results on society or humanity explored.
Star Was has no scientific postulation whatsoever, it is pure fantasy. It's set in space or on other planets, yes, with technologies like laser guns and such all of which is irrelevant. The story is a clich€ fairy tale. Antihero comes across cryptic message in a bottle, seeks help from wise old wizard who then gives him magic sword and teaches him some magic. They rescue a princess with the less altruistic, but ultimately on-the side of good swashbuckler - the wizrd is defeated by the Dark Knight who, it transpires, is the father of the princess and the antihero (whom the wizard raised in secrecy) blah blah blah. It even begins "Once upon a time, in a kingdom far, far away" just slightly reworded as a "galaxy".
Star Trek was a little more in the science fiction vein, but purists may still disagree. It was an idealistic social commentary that required a far future because otherwise it would have been rubbished and potentially even considered offensive to some extreme rightwingers). The precept here was simply parables but with the variety of different planets or alien cultures to provide the versatility in telling again, clich€d story motifs.

Of course all TV shows and movies ultimately are, despite how much care and creative process goes in, still products of their individual eras. Depsite Star Trek's multicultural and humanitarian ideology, Yeoman Rand must still provide the Captain with COffee and all female unifromrs entailed ridiculously short skirts, whilst the men watched from their elevated authoritative positions. The inconsistent Star Fleet only seemed to be concerned with Kirk's irresponsibility on occasion, and the threat he posed to his crew was always brushed aside because he ultimately saved them all from the danger he largely participated in creating. Helped by the wise, pointy-eared elf, now no longer a subhuman outcast creature from folklore, but an alien being with 'human rights' and much wisdom through their purely logical expressionism, Spock personified the antithesis to Doctor McCoy, the superstitious and conservative shoulder angel.