Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="D+1" data-source="post: 1885014" data-attributes="member: 13654">That's pretty much how to differentiate between fantasy and SF.&nbsp; There simply isn't a more precise definition than that which could be put forward and also be accepted by any kind of decisive majority of readers/writers/publishers.&nbsp; Fantasy in particular, which because of its very nature REQUIRES that it encompass myth, legend, science, and more, can't be contained by a narrow definition.&nbsp; SF you can get more anal about (and some do - but just because they're wankers who want to exalt themselves or certain works as superior), but ultimately it too encompasses more material than can be deliniated by a hard definiton.When you get picky about what you want to call &quot;Science Fiction&quot; you start to eliminate a LOT of writings.&nbsp; I've long accepted that the first science fiction book was Frankenstein.&nbsp; You postulate some scientific concepts (in the case of Frankenstein the reanimation of dead human tissue) and then use that as a hook for some means of telling your story.&nbsp; I think pulp fiction put that &quot;definition&quot; through the grinder because you had a lot of authors who wanted to take the trappings that &quot;science fiction&quot; had come to establish such as space flight, robots, computers, etc. and simply use them freely as if they were elements of fantasy.&nbsp; Of course, to a large extent they really WERE elements of fantasy.&nbsp; The fact that they later became reality is irrelevant.By the time we got Star Wars any and all hope of truly DEFINING &quot;science fiction&quot; was already utterly lost.&nbsp; Star Wars was in a sense a defining element, but only in that &quot;science fiction&quot; had long since come to include fiction that merely uses the TRAPPINGS established by earlier science fiction, regardless of HOW it used them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="D+1, post: 1885014, member: 13654"] That's pretty much how to differentiate between fantasy and SF. There simply isn't a more precise definition than that which could be put forward and also be accepted by any kind of decisive majority of readers/writers/publishers. Fantasy in particular, which because of its very nature REQUIRES that it encompass myth, legend, science, and more, can't be contained by a narrow definition. SF you can get more anal about (and some do - but just because they're wankers who want to exalt themselves or certain works as superior), but ultimately it too encompasses more material than can be deliniated by a hard definiton. When you get picky about what you want to call "Science Fiction" you start to eliminate a LOT of writings. I've long accepted that the first science fiction book was Frankenstein. You postulate some scientific concepts (in the case of Frankenstein the reanimation of dead human tissue) and then use that as a hook for some means of telling your story. I think pulp fiction put that "definition" through the grinder because you had a lot of authors who wanted to take the trappings that "science fiction" had come to establish such as space flight, robots, computers, etc. and simply use them freely as if they were elements of fantasy. Of course, to a large extent they really WERE elements of fantasy. The fact that they later became reality is irrelevant. By the time we got Star Wars any and all hope of truly DEFINING "science fiction" was already utterly lost. Star Wars was in a sense a defining element, but only in that "science fiction" had long since come to include fiction that merely uses the TRAPPINGS established by earlier science fiction, regardless of HOW it used them. [/QUOTE]

Verification