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

[smerwin29]

This discussion comes up every semester with the students in my fiction-writing classes. Those who say that SF/Fantasy differs from other forms of fiction in that SF/Fantasy takes place in a make-believe setting while other fiction takes place in "the real world" don't really understand fiction. Whenever you create a work of fiction, regardless of genre, you are creating a new world--or at least a portion of a new world. Writers of genre fiction can fall back on various tropes that readers are comfortable with. With this in mind, it is often the case that writers of certain genres can actually get away with being less imaginative than writers of contemporary literature--certain assumptions (tropes, if you will) are utilized that allow the writer to take shortcuts.

Let's take D&D-based books as an example. Certain races tend to stand for certain things. Rather than create a fully realized character in certain situations, the writer can fall back on the stereotype of a race and expect that the reader is going to identify that race with that character. Of course, the writer can create a well-rounded character that breaks the racial stereotype, but even that tends to be just a drastic reversal of the stereotype, which becomes a stereotype in itself.

If a writer of fiction that takes place in a world resembling the one in which we live, she would get blasted if she tried to rely on stereotypes--and rightfully so. Anyone who thinks that it takes any more imagination to write SF or Fantasy than it does to write contemporary or literary fiction hasn't read much (or much well-written) literature recently. Pick up "The Hours" or "Ahab's Wife" or "The Night Inspector" or "100 Years of Solitude" or hundreds of other incredibly rich and evocative works of fiction and tell me that those works are not as imaginative as any work of fantasy or sci-fi.

When you write well, especially something as expansive as a novel, you are creating a world with words. In fantasy/SF you might be creating new races and laws of physics, but in contemporary fiction you are creating people in unique and unusual situations and settings as well. No one genre has a monopoly on imagination.

Shawn

 

[GSHamster]

My definition of fantasy and sci-fi is a story where part of the setting differs from reality, and that difference is a key part of the story. Often the entire point of the story is to explore that difference.

The bigger or more implausible the difference, the more likely the story is fantasy. Small differences are more likely to be science fiction.

Sherwood Smith has an interesting essay on why some people read fantasy.

She also cites a quote by Jane Yolen (in a different essay) on the difference between fantasy and other forms of literature. The quote isn't always true, but I find that it is true more often than not:

And for adults, the world of fantasy books returns to us the great words of power which, in order to be tamed, have been excised from our adult vocabularies. These words are the pornography of innocence, words which adults no longer dare to use with other adults, and so we laugh at them and consign them to the nursery, fear masking as cynicism. These are the words that were forged in the earth, air, fire, and water of human existence, and the words are:

Love. Hate. Good. Evil. Courage. Honor. Truth.

 

[Nisarg]

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?

The lack of critical quality standards in the former, and the existence of "fanboys" (again in the former) intent on creating a commercial and cultural environment where said standards cannot occur.

This has now evolved to the extent that an author can create a book with all the elements nescessary for science fiction or fantasy and yet not be classified in that genre by the mere virtue of being written to a higher literary standard. For example, Margaret Atwood's novels. They are taken seriously by literary critics: some like them, some don't, but they are considered. They are classified as a "fantastic story" or an "allegory using a future dystopia"; anything but actually calling them fantasy or sci fi.
Why? Because real fantasy is Robert Jordan and real sci-fi are the star trek books. They aren't real literature and cannot be taken seriously by any serious critic.

Is this because sci-fi or fantasy are inherently inferior genres? Not at all. Like I said, some of Atwood's novels ARE sci-fi or fantasy (they just don't tend to be called that). In other cultures, Russia for example, science fiction was taken seriously since day 1, and writers like Stanislaus Lem were seen as masters of literature.
There were (and even still are some) writers of sci-fi or fantasy that had all the talent and skill that, if life was fair, would have made them highly appreciated as writers, and not "just sci-fi writers". Roger Zelazny being a foremost example. Same with Philip K. Dick and many of the other "new wave" movement in sci-fi, which was really a desperate effort to make sci-fi legitimate as a genre. It failed, because just when it looked like it might succeed the fanboyism of sci-fi and fantasy exploded in the late 70s, ruining any hope that sci-fi or fantasy would be seen as serious writing for at least a generation.

The problem is that publishers will publish just about any piece of garbage as a science fiction or fantasy novel. The standards are about zero, because the "fans", the readers, make no intellectual demands on the publishers. They'll buy anything.
The other phenomenon in modern books that has this same demented attitude is Harlequin Romances. You can write following the same tired old formulas and will absolutely no concern for quality, and you will still sell. Because there is a huge base of fanboy..erm, fanwomen who will buy anything as long as it has a picture of Fabio in a pirate suit on the cover.

Science Fiction and Fantasy have degenerated to the level of being seen intellectually in the same field as the Harlequin Romance. And those authors that wish to be taken more seriously than that have to either have been survivors of the "new wave" movement in the 70s (Most of whom are by now dead and dying), or you have to go out of your way to try to explain away all the fantasy or sci-fi elements in your novel to try to argue why your novel should be taken as real literature, and NOT fantasy/scifi.

This is the fault of the fans. The guy who posted on this very thread saying that real literature is "boring" and that he doesn't read books (other than sci-fi) or even the news, is a perfect example of the disgrace that has brought down the legitimacy of this style of writing, and will continue to do so in the western world for at least a generation.

Pathetic.

Nisarg

 

[Faraer]

First, fantasy is absolutely the norm, historically and logically, and realist fiction or mimetic literature is the exception. Its difference is that it constructs a versisimilitudinous surface that we can easily imagine might exist in the world as we imagine it to be.

But this difference is not deep enough, I think, to base a taxonomy on. It's superficial: all fiction is fundamentally imaginary, however 'realistic' it looks to the naive eye, and works by means of mythic chord progression -- the same fundamental unconscious dream stuff is going on or we wouldn't recognize it as fiction worth caring about at all, but mere fake-documentary recounting of events. In terms of authors' concerns, you can draw correlations with realist and non-realist works, but few hard lines: SF has sociological themes, but so does non-SF satire; the mimetic novel often imagines humans to be as defined by modern psychology, but so do some secondary-world fantasies. In general, the fantastic mode is towards the archetypal while the realist is towards the manifest, but it also uses poetic devices similar to those of fantasy.

My only disagreement with smerwin29 and Nisarg's posts is that 'literary fiction' is no less or more genre-bound than any other genre. The readership of middlebrow realist novels is no more discriminating and demanding, on average, than the fantasy readership, and neither are publishers (speaking from first-hand knowledge, here) more or less discriminating. This despite the rhetoric fans of 'mainstream' fiction use to insinuate to the contrary. Which includes the very term 'mainstream' -- you only need to look at what the 30 all-time highest-grossing films are, however measured, to see what's mainstream in reality.

SF written by non-SF authors is not filed as literary fiction because of 'higher literary standards' but because the author is socially and commercially not classified as an SF writer and their readership will look in the 'mainstream' shelves. SF written by non-SF writers is often just incompetent (and vice versa, of course).

 

[Erithtotl]

While I agree with most of Nisarg's points, I do think he's not giving some contemporary genre fiction enough credit. There are some excellent, literary writers working in the prime in the Fantasy and Sci-fi fields and to ignore them wouldn't be doing the genre question. Three that come to mind who have all put out world-class novels in the last year or two are Dan Simmons (Illium), China Meiville (Iron Council) and Neal Stephenson (The System of the World).

It is also incorrect to single out sci-fi and fantasy readers as being non-critical. Look at any top-20 list and its filled with Grisham, Dan Brown and Deen Koontz and other 'novelists' who churn out recycled crap every year to give people something to read on their flight from Boston to Miami. Anyone who disparages fantasy or sci-fi just because its more 'made up' than the Grisham novel they are reading is a bigger idiot.

The real gap is between %90 of the reading public and those that have bothered to spend time learning and understanding what makes some books 'literarture'. What is good writing, and what is just escapism. Until you do that, you'll never realize how much common writing is garbage. Personally, I no longer have time to read indescriminately.

 

[Wombat]

The dividing line between what is fantasy/sci fi and what isn't is incredibly tenuous.

Consider these examples from a local Borders Books store:

One Hundred Years of Solitude and Dictionary of the Khazars are both in General Fiction. Now both of these books are highly fantastical in their style, yet they are considered "normal fiction". On the other hand there is Bernard Cornwell's Arthurian trilogy, starting with The Winter King, which is in Sci-Fi/Fantasy. Oddly, no magic actually takes place in these books, although many characters believe it does. Even more oddly all the rest of Cornwell's books are in General Fiction, including his new series which involves, amongst other things, looking for the Holy Grail. At the same time Rosalind Miles' Guenivere & Isolde series are over in General Fiction, even though they are slightly more "magical" than Cornwell's. And T.H. White's The Once & Future King, despite magic, spells, unicorns, and the rest, is again in General Fiction. (Yeah, I have an Arthurian hang-up -- I trace down those books in Children's Lit, Mythology & Folklore, History, Philosophy/Religion, Romance, as well as the General Fiction and Sci-Fi/Fantasy.)

Other examples include Dracula being found both in General Fiction and in Horror, Frankenstein being in General Fiction, a collection of Ray Bradbury short stories (many taken from R is for Rocket and The Martian Chronicles, etc.) showing up General Fiction, while a book about Tolkein's experiences during WWI being in Sci-Fi/Fantasy.

Personally, I am not sure I could give an actual definition of what makes a book Sci-Fi/Fantasy as opposed to General Fiction. Any more I tend to prefer to the term "Speculative Fiction", mainly because there is an even hazier dividing line between Sci-Fi and Fantasy. Ultimately, I just read what I enjoy (or try to) and don't worry overly about labels.

 

[Faraer]

'Genre fiction' is of course another example of the cant I mentioned, insinuating (without having to demonstrate anything) that certain kinds of books are terribly genre-bound while the kind you like are marvelously free of any such constraints. The idea of books 'transcending their genre', similarly, is just a way of putting particular kinds of book down. (Caitlin Kiernan has objected to her books being so 'praised'.)

The publisher/bookseller categories owe more to established perception of authors and genres, and the social circles that the author runs in, than any deliberate analysis of what's in the books or how they work in readers' experience. These are all different groupings that shouldn't be conflated, even though they often overlap.

Unfortunately, many people enjoy classifying themselves, for instance as a particular kind of reader. Compartmentalization and niche marketing works from a short-term sales perspective, but artistically such segregation encourages tribalism, insular perspectives, and literary ghettoization.

 

[Desdichado]

I largely agree with Nisarg, although I do wonder if it really matters if getting the attention of the literary "intelligensia" is important or not. Who cares if certain novels are reviewed and discussed in academic journels or not?

I once heard (second hand) a buyer for a publisher explaining his buying habits by saying that only fantasy/scifi is truly mass market, all other genres or cult fiction, including mainstream. I'm sure that's hyperbole, but it's an interesting statement nonetheless.

 

[frankthedm]

Some qualties of fiction genres, parroted from a textbook i had.

Romance: Happy ending, Easily identifiable characters, Evocative, emotional language.

Adventure: Story focuses on action, Hero is a skilled and competent male, Quick pacing.

Fantasy: Magic is prominent, Often Good Vs. Evil, Stories often continue book to book.

Gentle Reads: Relaxed pacing, Takes place somewhere comfortable, Characters can be a source of humor.

Women’s lives and relationships: Contemporary setting, Female lead, Issues that face women’s lives.

Historical fiction: Accurate history, Fictional characters still “fit in”. Often big books.

Horror: Dark tone, Supernatural monsters, Unexpected happenings jolt the reader.

Literary fiction : Elegant language, Slow pacing, Provocative stories.

Mysteries: A crime has happened, The protagonist(s) follow clues, Secondary characters have vital information.

Psychological Suspense: Elaborate plots, Misfit protagonists, Elegantly written.

Science Fiction: Setting evokes otherness, Explores moral questions, Characters often are secondary to the setting.

Westerns: Likable protagonist, Landscape is well described, low placing.

Suspense: Reader feels for Main character, Present day, Dark menacing atmosphere.

Thrillers Extensive details on the subgenre’s focus, Fast paced yet dense, Frightening perils

 

[Zappo]

I think that fantasy and sci-fi are defined by having a completely or mostly invented setting. Other genres are set at some temporal and spatial point of Earth, sometimes with some differences but still recognizable.

Since inventing a good setting is a lot of work for the author and understanding it is a lot of work for the reader, writers generally make it central to the plot. Since the easy way to do so is to make the plot change the setting, lots of fantasy/sci-fi books are epic save-the-world stuff. Since the easy way to show the setting to the reader is to use a character who himself doesn't know much about the setting, lots of fantasy/sci-fi books (more fantasy than sci-fi actually) feature a main character who is largely naive and clueless but has to tour the whole world for some reason and eventually gets experienced enough to complete the quest.

Of course, that's the easy way. Joshua Dyal is right. Since many other genres have their characteristics in the plot or characters but not in the setting, you can have plenty of fantasy/sci-fi that isn't epic. The only problem lies in making the setting important; otherwise, you could as well set the story on Earth instead of wasting your and the reader's time in explaining the setting.

Fantasy/sci-fi being considered as 2nd class literature is a true disgrace. Unfortunately, the publishers keep putting out the same naive-hero-goes-on-epic-quest over and over again. Dudes, when Tolkien did it, it was still original. Now it isn't by any definition, and having a really weird setting or an antihero instead of a hero isn't original either. Stop buying it, and maybe we'll see something new sooner or later.