Fantasy and Science Fiction ~ What separates them from 'normal' literature?

[Roman]

A few weeks ago I asked what is the separating line between fantasy and science fiction and the consensus seemed to be that the two form a greater category of literature. Now I would like to ask what separates (defining features) this category from other literature?

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

"Normal" literature: Things happen in the plot that you might believe could happen or have happened in the "Real World" (as long as you don't know much about the subject, in some cases).

SF & Fantasy: Things happen in the plot that can't happen in the real world (though in the case of SF, they might happen in the future. Or not.).

 

[Arkhandus]

Fantasy and Science Fiction literature are actually interesting and imaginative, and stir the dreamer in us. Other fiction, and much nonfiction, is just plain boring or stupefying (characters do some pretty stupid things in other fiction.....more often than in fantasy/sci-fi......). I don't want to read about someone making a stupid mistake and having rather uninteresting misadventures (or an untimely demise) because of it. At least on the occasions where characters make stupid mistakes in fantasy/sci-fi, the resulting misadventures or consequences are typically more interesting and imaginative, right? Other fiction is generally mundane and deals with things we already see/hear/do on a regular basis in real life, so it's not really interesting. To me anyway, YMMV.

Then again, for similar reasons, I don't bother watching the news very often because I have no desire to see/hear/read about real people and their stupid mistakes, horrible parenting, random idiocy, psychotic urges, and whatnot.

 

[Berandor]

Fantasy and Science Fiction literature are actually interesting and imaginative, and stir the dreamer in us. Other fiction, and much nonfiction, is just plain boring or stupefying (characters do some pretty stupid things in other fiction.....more often than in fantasy/sci-fi......). I don't want to read about someone making a stupid mistake and having rather uninteresting misadventures (or an untimely demise) because of it. At least on the occasions where characters make stupid mistakes in fantasy/sci-fi, the resulting misadventures or consequences are typically more interesting and imaginative, right? Other fiction is generally mundane and deals with things we already see/hear/do on a regular basis in real life, so it's not really interesting. To me anyway, YMMV.

Then again, for similar reasons, I don't bother watching the news very often because I have no desire to see/hear/read about real people and their stupid mistakes, horrible parenting, random idiocy, psychotic urges, and whatnot.

Whoa, stereotype much?

 

[Tonguez]

Fantasy and Science Fiction literature are actually interesting and imaginative, and stir the dreamer in us. Other fiction, and much nonfiction, is just plain boring or stupefying.

Um no this is entirely incorrect. Personally I prefer 'Historic Fiction' and 'Low Fantasy/Legendary history'* to Fantasy and don't really get into Sci-Fi at all.

Personally I'd guess that fantasy stirs the imagination and as Jürgen Hubert suggests lets as imagine things that could never happen in our current world.

Now historic fiction also stirs the imagination by allowing us an insight into the lifestyle of peoples in unfamiliar times and places. Just to the left of reality and not quite as far as fantasy.

 

[Jonny Nexus]

A few weeks ago I asked what is the separating line between fantasy and science fiction and the consensus seemed to be that the two form a greater category of literature. Now I would like to ask what separates (defining features) this category from other literature?

I'd say that it's a two-fold explanation:

a) SF/fantasy stories are fictionary stories set in fictional settings, whilst non-SF/fastasy stories are fictional stories set in real-world settings.

b) Generally, the plots of SF/fantasy stories are strongly rooted in the story's setting, with either the setting being created to fit the storyline or the storyline being created to fit the setting. (i.e. if the setting has anti-gravity backpacks then the plot will be built around the existance of anti-gravity backpacks). By contrast, with non-SF/fantasy novels, the setting is often largely incidental to the plot, with an obvious exception being historical epics set in a culture other than that of the reader - James Clavell's Shogun for example. (And these can often real like some kind of historical SF, full of exposition and setting related plots).

Point b explains why many non-SF people complain that SF stories have weak characterisations and plot. The point they are missing is that the purpose of SF stories is often to explore the setting that the author has created, with the characters and plot merely being vehicles to achieve this.

 

[Roman]

I must say that my preferences are somewhat in line with Arkhandus's preferences. I definitely prefer fantasy and science fiction to 'normal' literature. That said I love the news and non-fiction and read far more of that than any fiction including science fiction and fantasy. Perhaps I just like my fiction to be so fictional as to be unbelievable?

 

[Scarbonac]

"Normal literature"? Is there any such thing?

Jaws is different from Red Dragon is different from The Sacketts is different from A Generation Of Vipers is different from A Whale For The Killing is different from Shogun is different from Huckleberry Finn is different from Pride and Prejudice is different from The Man Who Would Be King is different from Hamlet, Romeo & Juliet, Richard III and Henry V.


Non-fiction covers studies of language, history (a gamer geek who doesn't have a dash of the history buff in him seems incomprehensible to me), science (wikkid cool stuff like The Dinosaur Heresies, Cosmos, The Body In Question and Connections come to mind), biographies (too many interesting personalities to mention), ethnographies...and that's barely scratching the surface.


I will say that I'm not big on some "bestsellers" -- techno-thrillers, self-help, trashy novels of crime, sex and greed -- cos IME they're junk written for sheep and monkeys.

Like D&D and Star Trek novels..

Wanna see my extensive collection of both?

 

[JDJarvis]

Hmm.. sci-fi/fantasy may generally take place in entirely fabricated universes and "normal literature" doesn't.

Otherwise I'm with the "what is normal literature?" set really. Are authors like Ayn Rand, Hunter S. Thompson, Tom Robbins and Paul Theroux folks that write "normal" literature?

 

[Desdichado]

This is actually an interesting topic that I've given some thought to, based in part on someone's complaints on one of the other sub-forums about romance novels disguised as fantasy novels.

Most genres of fiction are defined by the type of plot they have, or the types of characters, or both. For fantasy that's not really true; its defined by the setting more than anything. Anything else goes in fantasy. There are some common themes, such as going on quests, good vs. evil, etc. but they aren't mandatory for the genre. Therefore, fantasy can effectively be combined with almost any other genre; fantasy romance, fantasy horror, fantasy hard-boiled detective mysteries, etc. without making it not fantasy.

Science fiction is sorta in the same boat. Technically, most authors of science fiction, at least in the past, would tell you that it doesn't truly qualify unless some form of interpretive or speculative science is used to literally resolve the plot. (I've never heard anyone try to make a similar case with something magical or supernatural crucial to plot resolution in fantasy.) However, in all practical terms, today science fiction is pretty much also defined more by setting conventions than anything else.

For those of you who disparage non-fantasy literature, you're really missing out. There's some really good stuff out there, and conversely, most of the fantasy I've read has been pretty mediocre at best. Of course, YMMV.