Worlds of Design: Fantasy vs. Sci-Fi Part 2

Yaarel · Nov 14, 2018

The distinction between ‘science fiction’ and ‘fantasy’ is today obsolete.

Now there is only one ‘speculative’ genre, where a monster might come from folklore or aliens or both, and marvels might be magic or advanced technology or both.

I call it all ‘scifi’. And done.

Hussar · Nov 15, 2018

Yaarel said:
The distinction between ‘science fiction’ and ‘fantasy’ is today obsolete.

Now there is only one ‘speculative’ genre, where a monster might come from folklore or aliens or both, and marvels might be magic or advanced technology or both.

I call it all ‘scifi’. And done.

But, there are very good critical reasons for genre specification. If a genre is so broad that it just becomes Spec Fiction, then, well, it encompasses just about anything. I mean, the latest Sherlock Holmes movie with Robert Downey Jr had steam punk elements in it that were obviously anachronistic. Does that make it spec fiction? Not really. It's still a mystery movie with a bit more action than perhaps the books had.

Without genre categorization, every conversation we start having about any book has to start with a lengthy conversation just nailing down the language that we would use to critique the work. Having genre categories allows us to have a common framework to start from. It allows us to have the right questions to ask.

IOW, we don't go down a totally pointless road of trying to analyze how magic functions in Tolkien because it's fantasy - we're not really supposed to worry about how magic functions in fantasy, that's not the point. Also, because Tolkien is fantasy, we generally don't worry about certain aspects - we probably shouldn't critique the work from the point of view of what does it mean to be a human or an elf in the work. That's not the point of Lord of the Rings. We should approach it from a more moral discussion of good and evil.

Sorry to beat that dead horse again. But, it still holds true. In a fantasy story, we generally aren't concerned with certain questions. The fact that orcs are made from mutated elves isn't really a commentary on 20th century capitalism (despite the fact that there probably are numerous papers written on this), or, if it is, it's still not really a central theme of the story. The central theme is about why someone would choose to be evil - Saruman's betrayal for example. So on and so forth.

Without first nailing down at least a working definition of a given genre, it's very, very difficult to have any conversation about works within that genre because you wind up rehashing the same discussion over and over and over again.

Jhaelen · Nov 15, 2018

I've read quite a few novels that are clearly 'just' Fantasy. In these novels the authors made no attempt to explain supernatural events in any way and sometimes didn't even bother to put down some rules applying to 'magical' effects or abilities.

It's often harder to tell if a novel firmly belongs into the Sci-Fi genre. It's quite easy if the novel belongs in the sub-genre of 'Hard Sci-Fi', but if it doesn't, you have to come up with some rules for yourself. How do you feel about Nanotech, FTL-drives, alien beings from other dimensions or alternate universes?

Sometimes there are only subtle hints that the novel actually belong in the sci-fi genre, e.g. in Iain M. Banks' novel 'Inversions' is set entirely on a planet in a society that resembles Earth's middle-ages. There's only one inexplicable event late in the novel where a reader who's familiar with his other 'Culture' novels realizes what's been 'really' going on.

Orson Scott Card did something similar in his 'Worthing Saga': What to the inhabitants of the world where the story is set feel like miracles or acts of god are actually caused by the technically much more advanced beings that are secretly monitoring the world.

Yaarel · Nov 15, 2018

Hussar said:
But, there are very good critical reasons for genre specification. If a genre is so broad that it just becomes Spec Fiction, then, well, it encompasses just about anything. I mean, the latest Sherlock Holmes movie with Robert Downey Jr had steam punk elements in it that were obviously anachronistic. Does that make it spec fiction? Not really. It's still a mystery movie with a bit more action than perhaps the books had.

I would describe that particular Sherlock Holmes movie as ‘steampunk’ scifi in a Victorian ‘gaslight’ setting.

It seems useful to say that the ‘scifi’ genre includes subgenres, such as ‘cyberpunk’, ‘technotopia’, ‘space opera’, ‘urban fantasy’, ‘high fantasy’, and ‘superhero’.

Hussar · Nov 16, 2018

Yaarel said:
I would describe that particular Sherlock Holmes movie as ‘steampunk’ scifi in a Victorian ‘gaslight’ setting.

It seems useful to say that the ‘scifi’ genre includes subgenres, such as ‘cyberpunk’, ‘technotopia’, ‘space opera’, ‘urban fantasy’, ‘high fantasy’, and ‘superhero’.

Those would all be subgenres of Speculative Fiction actually. And, no, that Sherlock Holmes was not steampunk since it doesn't include any of the steampunk themes, particularly the inversion of Victorian values. If Sherlock was a woman, then, you might have a Steampunk story. Maybe. But, there's a good example of trope not making genre. Just having clockwork stuff in a story doesn't make it Steampunk any more than having a Colt revolver makes a story a Western.

Yaarel · Nov 16, 2018

@Hussar

I use ‘scifi’ and ‘speculative fiction’ as synonyms ... because scifi has fewer syllables ... and enjoys an official sticker on the spines of many library books ... and is the kind of thing that shows up on the Syfy channel.

In other words, the obsolete distinction between ‘science fiction’ and ‘fantasy’ seems nonuseful.

But the broad category of scifi (aka speculative fiction) along with a multitude of distinctive subgenres seems useful.

Jay Verkuilen · Nov 16, 2018

Hussar said:
But, there are very good critical reasons for genre specification. If a genre is so broad that it just becomes Spec Fiction, then, well, it encompasses just about anything.

Indeed, alternative history is a good example. It's speculative fiction but often doesn't have any notable fantastic elements to it at all, just a notion that "things went differently."

Without genre categorization, every conversation we start having about any book has to start with a lengthy conversation just nailing down the language that we would use to critique the work. Having genre categories allows us to have a common framework to start from. It allows us to have the right questions to ask.

Absolutely, as long as it doesn't become a straight jacket.

IOW, we don't go down a totally pointless road of trying to analyze how magic functions in Tolkien because it's fantasy - we're not really supposed to worry about how magic functions in fantasy, that's not the point. Also, because Tolkien is fantasy, we generally don't worry about certain aspects - we probably shouldn't critique the work from the point of view of what does it mean to be a human or an elf in the work. That's not the point of Lord of the Rings. We should approach it from a more moral discussion of good and evil.

Interestingly enough one way to view a good bit of Tolkien's work is as a piece of speculative comparative theology. Humans are, well, humans, and are supposed to be us in a long ago time. Elves experience God (er... Eru) in a very different way. In a sense, he engaged in a lot of the general logic of science fiction as compared to, say, a pulp adventure story, only focused on a rather non-traditional topic.

Hussar · Nov 16, 2018

Yaarel said:
@Hussar

I use ‘scifi’ and ‘speculative fiction’ as synonyms ... because scifi has fewer syllables ... and enjoys an official sticker on the spines of many library books ... and is the kind of thing that shows up on the Syfy channel.

In other words, the obsolete distinction between ‘science fiction’ and ‘fantasy’ seems nonuseful.

But the broad category of scifi (aka speculative fiction) along with a multitude of distinctive subgenres seems useful.

Well, except that fantasy predates SF by several centuries. You've got it rather backward. SF is an outgrowth of Fantasy, not the other way around. Grimm Fairy Tales (just to pick one example) are a lot older than any SF story.

And, frankly, I don't find the distinction obsolete in the slightest. Nor do most libraries that I've seen that distinguish SF from Fantasy - our libraries certainly have different stickers for the two. The issue I have with subgenres, is it becomes the tail wagging the dog. You wind up with this explosion of sub-genres that become more and more hair splittingly different that they become meaningless. Is it "slipstream" or "science fantasy" or ....

Jhaelen · Nov 16, 2018

Hussar said:
Well, except that fantasy predates SF by several centuries. You've got it rather backward. SF is an outgrowth of Fantasy, not the other way around. Grimm Fairy Tales (just to pick one example) are a lot older than any SF story.

Uh,oh. Now we're entering tricky territory.

I wouldn't really consider Faerie Tales, Fables, or Myths part of the Fantasy genre. I've seen people call the 'Gilgamech' epos either the first Fantasy or Sci-Fi story interchangeably. I'm not sure I agree with either idea. Imho, Fantasy and Sci-Fi as a literary genre are a more modern invention. I'm much more comfortable with Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein' as the first sci-fi novel.

Yaarel · Nov 16, 2018

Hussar said:
Well, except that fantasy predates SF by several centuries. You've got it rather backward. SF is an outgrowth of Fantasy, not the other way around. Grimm Fairy Tales (just to pick one example) are a lot older than any SF story.

And, frankly, I don't find the distinction obsolete in the slightest. Nor do most libraries that I've seen that distinguish SF from Fantasy - our libraries certainly have different stickers for the two. The issue I have with subgenres, is it becomes the tail wagging the dog. You wind up with this explosion of sub-genres that become more and more hair splittingly different that they become meaningless. Is it "slipstream" or "science fantasy" or ....

Folkbelief was perceived as fact, according to how the universe works within their worldview.

For example, when they talk about ghosts or goblins or witches or shapeshifters or power animals or dragons, these were plausible possibilities.

Only today do we think of it as ‘metaphor’ or ‘archetypes’ or ‘fantasy’.

And perhaps our own worldview has become too mechanical.