Genre Conventions: What is fantasy?

[Mark]

My two favorite definitions:

"ScienceFiction is something that could happen - but usually you wouldn't want it to. Fantasy is something that couldn't happen - though often you only wish it could." - Arthur C. Clarke

"...[Science Fiction] means what we point to when we say it." - Damon Knight

A couple of broad, working definitions.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Merriam-Webster
Definition:
1 : an act of determining; specifically : the formal proclamation of a Roman Catholic dogma
2 a : a statement expressing the essential nature of something b : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol <dictionary definitions> c : a product of defining
3 : the action or process of defining
4 a : the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear <the definition of a telescope> <her comic genius is beyond definition> b (1) : clarity of visual presentation : distinctness of outline or detail <improve the definition of an image> (2) : clarity especially of musical sound in reproduction c : sharp demarcation of outlines or limits <a jacket with distinct waist definition>

This, I hope, helps. According to the above, posters on all sides of this discussion (myself included) have been guitly of violating the process of defining fantasy and sci-fi, both in defending their positions and attacking others.

Why? Because sci-fi and fantasy overlap, and they do it a lot.

You can't define the 2 genres by type of story- both can and have told any kind of story you'd care to mention.

For instance, I got up this morning thinking that the only storyline I have seen in sci-fi that I haven't seen in fantasy are stories dealing with what it means to be a sentient life form, the "Who am I""Who are we?", "What does it mean to be human?" set of questions Celebrim posted...then I remembered Pinnochio and all those stories about monsters trying to be accepted into human society. Some of them were hominid in form...others weren't.

And if stories dealing with time-travel (to assassinate Hitler, to change one thing about your own life, to hunt dinosaurs, etc.) with all their attendant issues about looking backwards, or about facing impossible odds and effecting change on a massive scale aren't STILL sci fi...

(Side note: I am unaware of any obvious fantasy story/series dealing with time travel- anyone know of any? The closest I can come are a series of short-stories from Fantasy & Science Fiction Magazine which is a clear hybrid.)

Barsoomcore
I believe that fantasy stories involve an element that serves no other purpose than as a metaphor for power. Fantasy stories are stories that deal primarily with power -- the acquisition of, the loss of, the wielding of, whatever -- through metaphor. Whether that metaphor be dragons, or sorcery or the Force, they represent power, and their interactions with the characters in the story displays some sort of thinking/assumption/understanding of the nature of the relationship between power and the individual.

That's an important point, but I'm not sure it's central. Fantasy stories tend to be about the individual, as opposed to society. I think that distinction is actually starting to break down with writers like Mieville and Erickson, but if properly motivated I might make a run at defending it.

SF stories, on the other hand, ARE about society. Specifically, SF stories are speculations on what society will look like if some aspect of our life/technology/worldview changes. Often that's a technological breakthrough or contact with some other society, but the focus of SF stories is on how society responds to such a transformation. Greg Bear, Arthur C. Clarke, David Brin, all fall very clearly into this camp. Likewise Jerry Pournelle, Larry Niven's SF stories (phew!) and Asimov.

I would counter that Lieber's Lannkhmar stories aren't about power- they're about 2 mercenary human beings getting through life in any way they see fit.

Jacqueline Carey's Kusheil books are about a powerful romance- not the kind of power you describe. Terry Pratchett's Discworld books are also seldom about power. They all tell stories about human relations and societal interactions...and jokes. Glenn Cook's Garret books are murder mysteries based on the "Nero Wolfe" books, and as such aren't directly about power as you describe, but rather about the inevitability of capture and how society enforces its laws- the struggle between good and evil (as opposed to Good and Evil) within each of us. Piers Anthony usually tells stories of personal discovery and self-realization.

And then there's Harry Turtledove's Darkness series, a re-imagining of WW2 as a fantasy world war. It is concerned in equal parts about power, society and individuals (a long, but good, read, btw).

On the sci-fi side, I need look no further than Ben Bova's Planetary series which strikes a similar balance.

And as to your second point, I would counter with the output of William Gibson, Bruce Sterling, and Neal Stephenson- all writers who focus a great deal on the individual.

Larry Niven has a host of stories in his Known Universe setting (home of Kzin, etc.) that are not about society. Gil "The Arm" Hamilton, Beowulf Schaeffer and many of his main human characters in that setting are used to tell HUMAN stories, not societal/reactionary ones. Ditto his Dream Park series with Pournelle. Ditto his Beowulf (the epic poem) based series with Barnes and Pournelle. As is Greg Bear's Forge of God/Anvil of Stars series.

So?

This is all a roundabout way of returning to a point I made earlier: The criteria for distinctions between sci-fi and fantasy with the fewest illustratable exceptions are the setting and the trappings.

 

[Wayside]

Why? Because sci-fi and fantasy overlap, and they do it a lot.

This is a silly argument against defining them. A bildungsroman and a tragedy can overlap as well, but that doesn't mean they aren't different kinds of narrative. I don't think any narrative can be pure, though we try to define it in its pureness to get a handle on it. (I'm not really disagreeing that the narrative approach won't work either, because I think the unity of science fiction and fantasy has to be more abstract and account for more diversity, like the unity of medical discourse.)

You can't define the 2 genres by type of story- both can and have told any kind of story you'd care to mention.

I admit that I don't have the background in genre fiction that you or the other posters in this thread have. It simply doesn't appeal to me. But even so, I'm fairly certain the second part of this claim is bogus. And I don't even mean that there aren't fantasy equivalents of Pynchon or de Sade, though that's true even if we look at the more cerebral folks writing fantasy, like Gaiman. But there are all kinds of narratives fantasy and science fiction haven't told, so it becomes an important question why they haven't entered into those narratives, because if you can answer that question, it might help to define them. Like why isn't there a science fiction equivalent of The Diary of Anne Frank?

(Side note: I am unaware of any obvious fantasy story/series dealing with time travel- anyone know of any? The closest I can come are a series of short-stories from Fantasy & Science Fiction Magazine which is a clear hybrid.)

The Dragonlance Legends trilogy deals extensively with time travel.

This is all a roundabout way of returning to a point I made earlier: The criteria for distinctions between sci-fi and fantasy with the fewest illustratable exceptions are the setting and the trappings.

And this definition is fine by me. But you understand, it invalidates science fiction and fantasy as literature. They need to be able to do something other literary types cannot do, otherwise there is no point. Exceptions are only a problem if you look for a timeless ideal of what science fiction and fantasy are--an approach that will always be a failure. There is nothing timless about them; they have their own historical determinations, appeared when they did for definite reasons we ought to be able to discover and think about. No doubt they will change a great deal as time goes on, as every other genre has changed and will continue to change, so that even the "setting" approach to defining them will lose all scope and become meaningless. In that way, I see the "setting" approach as a very temporary solution to the question before us.

 

[Celebrim]

Like why isn't there a science fiction equivalent of The Diary of Anne Frank?

I think an even better question would be, "If there was a science fiction equivalent of The Diary of Anne Frank, what would it be about that the original wasn't?" If you argue that science fiction is only setting, then arguably it isn't about anything that the original wasn't. But to me, that's an answer which rings false on some level. It seems to me that changing the setting of the story to a speculative one at the very least changes the story from being one about a specific person, to one that is about that idea in general. And I think that there is even more to it than that, because I think that the choice of a science fiction setting over say a fantasy setting is choice between choosing two different symbolic languages designed to express different things well. The villians in each story have a different character when are setting it in a magical world, and when we are setting into speculative history or a future place. And that is a clue to me that the settings themselves are about something, and that if we were to remove the normal trappings of the setting but retain that 'something' then we would have retained the 'fantasyness' or 'science fictionness' of the story. The question becomes how do we really recognize the fantasy setting for a fantasy setting, or the science fiction setting for a SF setting.

This is all a roundabout way of returning to a point I made earlier: The criteria for distinctions between sci-fi and fantasy with the fewest illustratable exceptions are the setting and the trappings.

Wayside made some good points about what was wrong with this, but he missed one that I thought was glaringly obvious. Which criteria for distinctions between sci-fi and fantasy has the fewest illustratable exceptions depends on what you consider to be an exception. It's a circular argument. You can't define what constitutes an exception until after you've made a definition, but the proof of your definition that you offer is that under your definition of an exception its produces the least exceptions. But of course, that only works if you accept your definition in the first place. By my definition, Star Wars is not an exception to the rule, and its departure from a traditional fantasy setting is irrelevant, and I can use it from my perspective to show an exception to your rule. But of course, that's only an exception if you accept that its not a science fiction work in the first place.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Reragnlance Novels- Thanks, I'll take your word for it- as a rule, I don't touch franchised fiction.

And this definition is fine by me. But you understand, it invalidates science fiction and fantasy as literature. They need to be able to do something other literary types cannot do, otherwise there is no point. Exceptions are only a problem if you look for a timeless ideal of what science fiction and fantasy are--an approach that will always be a failure.

It doesn't invalidate them as literature. It invalidates them as genres that are meaningfully distinct from each other. They both do things that other genres don't do regularly or do well: sci-fi routinely explores the normative (what OUGHT to be) rather than actual world (what is), whereas fantasy routinely illustrate morality lessons and heroic archetypes, in the same way old fables and legends used to do. (And, look hard enough, and you'll find normative fantasy and sci-fi morality tales.)

Like why isn't there a science fiction equivalent of The Diary of Anne Frank?

Well, the obvious and trite answer is that The Diary of Anne Frank is a work of non-fiction. It also covers a sensitive matter that, if fictionalized, might be offensive to some...BUT WAIT: Harry Turtledove's aforementioned Darkness books examine the very ground Ms. Frank lived upon in a fictionalized way. That's not the series' exclusive focus, but it is amply covered in the epic 6 book (3900+pgs) series.

And De Sade would be very intrigued by Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel series.

To try to answer your bigger question: I have not personally seen a type of fictional literature that either sci-fi or fantasy HAVEN'T ventured into. I'm not saying I've personally read everything, but within the scope of my own personal library of books and visual media, I have sci-fi or fantasy romances (Flatland, The Time Machine), action adventures (the Worldwar & Battlefield Earth series), political thrillers (CJ Cherrhy's Foreigner), murder mysteries (the Garret books), military fiction (Hammer's Slammers series), horror stories ("Sandkings"), slasher fiction (Alien), comedies (Pratchett), westerns (Valley of Gwangi), survivor fiction (Dawn of the Dead any other movie with a lot of zombies) and retelling of epics and classic literature (Niven and many more). This is especially true of the old stuff when the pioneers were trying new fictional paths by branching off from extant ones. IMHO, it might be easier to find a genre that DON"T have sci-fi or fantasy analogs than to define all the genres that have.

Where they differ from the archetypes of those ennumerated genres is in the number and nature of available solutions to the problems presented within the storylines. In a typical murder mystery, a locked door homicide has only a few solutions available, but if the murderer can teleport (via spell or Scotty) or walk through walls...

This is all a roundabout way of returning to a point I made earlier: The criteria for distinctions between sci-fi and fantasy with the fewest illustratable exceptions are the setting and the trappings..

Which criteria for distinctions between sci-fi and fantasy has the fewest illustratable exceptions depends on what you consider to be an exception. It's a circular argument. You can't define what constitutes an exception until after you've made a definition, but the proof of your definition that you offer is that under your definition of an exception its produces the least exceptions. But of course, that only works if you accept your definition in the first place. By my definition, Star Wars is not an exception to the rule, and its departure from a traditional fantasy setting is irrelevant, and I can use it from my perspective to show an exception to your rule. But of course, that's only an exception if you accept that its not a science fiction work in the first place.

And yet it is also possible to define Star Wars as Sci-F (in the Space Opera subgenre)i, as is routinely done (Again ), so I can consider it an exception. My favorite quote from that link, in terms of relevance is this: "Star Wars, with its Death Star and 'Force' lies close to the original pulp science fiction." Space Opera expressly includes the possibility of mystic abilities.

Using setting/trappings as a distinction is highly objective. We can all look at each peice of fiction see space-ships or dragons, chainmail or reflec-vacc enviro suits. Generally, if you just look at the surface, the differences are there. It is exceedingly rare to find something like a pure fantasy story that is set on another planet (like Elves vs Dwarves on Omicron-Ceti IV), slightly less so a sci-fi story in a fantasy setting (Terminators invade Underhill!).

But when you delve into narrative types, storytelling techniques, predominant tropes, etc. the waters get much muddier and subjective. Where you see pure fantasy in the Force, others see pure sci-fi Psi Powers (telekinesis, astral projection, electrokinesis, molecular agitation/disruption), or Shao-lin Chi. Where you saw the Emperor as the Dragon to be slain, someone familiar with Akira Kurosawa's body of work (from which Lucas derived his main plot) would see the powerful leader who has shown himself to be unworthy of his position, and who therefore must be overthrown- entirely an outgrowth of bushido, not mysticism, not dragonslaying. Yes, European fantasy and Japanese historical fiction both have swords, but there are fundamental differences- the latter is based entirely on the real world.

Its because of this muddiness that some have (unsuccessfully) tried to supplant the terms "Sci-fi" and "Fantasy" with the broader term "Speculative Fiction." It recognizes the commonality they share is greater than their respective differences.

Edited to add some stuff about Star Wars.

 

[Celebrim]

They both do things that other genres don't do regularly or do well: sci-fi routinely explores the normative (what OUGHT to be) rather than actual world (what is), whereas fantasy routinely illustrate morality lessons and heroic archetypes, in the same way old fables and legends used to do. (And, look hard enough, and you'll find normative fantasy and sci-fi morality tales.)

You know, I maybe just don't understand how you are using them, but I'm not sure I see a meaningful difference between normative stories and morality tales. Generally speaking, ethics and morality seem to me to be all about what is normative and what is normative behavior. Ask someone what is good, and generally they will reply with what they think is normative. In fact, CS Lewis builds his argument around the proof of the existance of good and evil on the concept that humans understand that there are things that people 'ought' to do. I don't see how you separate them.

Likewise, I don't see how sci-fi routinely deals in 'what ought to be'. I can think of a great many more sci-fi tales that are distinctively dystophian than I can think of that are utophian in outlook, and yet even amongst these few actually try to deal with what ought to be done to avoid these dismal fates and many seem uninterested even in what should be done to escape them. A good example might be 'Brave New World' by Aldous Huxley. He's less interested in showing the world as what it ought to be, as simply what the think it will be (the predictive, not the normative). He offers neither solice nor remedy. Most SF authors seem frankly uninterested in what ought to be to me, and certainly less interested in what ought to be than in other things like 'Is there something which is me?' (Silverburg) or 'What does it mean to feel pain?' (Banks) or 'What makes life worth living?' (Pohl). Read Brin's 'Glory Season' and try telling me that he's suggesting through his setting what ought to be. You can certainly find a few SF authors that are preachy, and are offering commentary on what they think ought to be - Heinlein comes to mind - but the fact that SF is occassionaly didactive is not what I think defines it.

A more interesting question to me is whether Heinlein remains Sci-Fi when he starts taking his preachiness to its logical extreme, in say 'Stranger in a Strange Land' or his other later works.

And yet it is also possible to define Star Wars as Sci-F (in the Space Opera subgenre)i, as is routinely done so I can consider it an exception.

Look at it this way. Under my definition, I've yet to see it demonstrated that there are exceptions to my definition. In fact, if I am only strict in the application of my definition, then it will follow that everything that you claim is an exception to my science fiction definition, I counter claim you are falsely classifying as science fiction for the purposes of creating a false exception. I do not accept that Star Wars is science fiction, and hense I have no exception under my definition. But these things should only be compelling to you if my classification system produces the results you expect. Apparantly it doesn't, since you expect a definition of SF for 'Star Wars'. But likewise, I expect a definition of fantasy for 'Star Wars' (or reason I consider highly reasonable and objective) and will tend to reject a classification scheme that puts it elsewhere.

My favorite quote from that link, in terms of relevance is this: "Star Wars, with its Death Star and 'Force' lies close to the original pulp science fiction." Space Opera expressly includes the possibility of mystic abilities.

Right, and I would expect the same thing under my definition, since 'mystic abilities' are just setting trappings and therefore produce no exception for you. Whereas, they produce exceptions to any strict definition revolving around fantastic settings, something you seem completely comfortable with. For my part, I won't be happy until I produce a definition which gives me no exceptions to my expectations as to where a particular work should be classified.

Using setting/trappings as a distinction is highly objective.

A statement which totally ignores both the previous statement you made which suggests that the settings/trapping distinction is arbitrarily ignored when convenient, and the extensive arguments I made to show that one man's magic is another man's science - and vica versa.

We can all look at each peice of fiction see space-ships or dragons, chainmail or reflec-vacc enviro suits. Generally, if you just look at the surface, the differences are there.

But I would argue that such superficial elements are merely trite conventionality, and did not circumscribe the limits of the genera. It would be like arguing that romantic fiction could be identified solely on the presense of torn bodices and strong willed women, and then when it was pointed out that there were exceptions to that rule glossing it over by assuring me that no other rule would produce fewer exceptions and abitrarily recognizing something without torn bodices as romantic fiction.

It is exceedingly rare to find something like a pure fantasy story that is set on another planet (like Elves vs Dwarves on Omicron-Ceti IV)...

Depends on what you mean by another planet. The vast majority of fantasy epics out there are explicitly set 'not on Earth'. What you mean is that its really unusual to see a fantasy epic out there set on another planet which happens to use the same astronomical naming conventions as the Earth. However, I could point you to several Burroughs style swords epics which feature essentially no science fiction trappings (no motors, plastics, rayguns, or any such) which are set on another planet in the galaxy - for example Lin Carter's "Under the Green Star's Glow".

But when you delve into narrative types, storytelling techniques, predominant tropes, etc. the waters get much muddier and subjective. Where you see pure fantasy in the Force, others see pure sci-fi Psi Powers (telekinesis, astral projection, electrokinesis, molecular agitation/disruption), or Shao-lin Chi.

There you go contridicting yourself again. Earlier, you said indentifying SF trappings from fantasy trappings was highly objective. Would you make up your mind?

Its because of this muddiness that some have (unsuccessfully) tried to supplant the terms "Sci-fi" and "Fantasy" with the broader term "Speculative Fiction." It recognizes the commonality they share is greater than their respective differences.

Several science fiction authors I've read have said that they see no meaningful distinction between them. I think that that is a stronger argument than most, but I'm not sure I completely buy it.

 

[Wayside]

I think an even better question would be, "If there was a science fiction equivalent of The Diary of Anne Frank, what would it be about that the original wasn't?" If you argue that science fiction is only setting, then arguably it isn't about anything that the original wasn't. But to me, that's an answer which rings false on some level.

I agree, in that we could rewrite the diary using the "imagery" of science fiction or fantasy, yet the product itself would not be science fiction or fantasy, however much of their imagery it may have. Conversely, I think there ought to be something about science fiction and fantasy that, if we were to take a story from either genre and rewrite it with different imagery, survives the translation.

Which criteria for distinctions between sci-fi and fantasy has the fewest illustratable exceptions depends on what you consider to be an exception. It's a circular argument. You can't define what constitutes an exception until after you've made a definition, but the proof of your definition that you offer is that under your definition of an exception its produces the least exceptions. But of course, that only works if you accept your definition in the first place. By my definition, Star Wars is not an exception to the rule, and its departure from a traditional fantasy setting is irrelevant, and I can use it from my perspective to show an exception to your rule. But of course, that's only an exception if you accept that its not a science fiction work in the first place.

This is true to a point, but I think it misses what Dannyalcatraz was getting at. Different definitions of a genre will provide for different exceptions from those rules--that much goes without saying. So you're right that under your definition, what he sees as an exception is easily handled; conversely, under his definition, what for you is an exception might be just as easily dealt with. His point, I think, was only that the "setting/imagery" approach can best account for genre because it excludes the least amount of material (or requires fewer exceptions to admit this material than another approach). I still think he's wrong, not least because any time you draw a hard line, you pave the way for someone to specifically contradict your definition, making all hard definitions inferior to loose ones; but I don't think the fact that two different definitions may exclude different material has anything to do with it.

edit: Ah, I see where you are coming from in your last post. I don't think there is any point arguing with someone who lays down a rule, then simply sticks to it when confronted with something most people agree ought to be an exception to the rule. So if I produce a story that most people agree is science fiction, but your definition labels it fantasy, and you simply insist that it's fantasy because according to your definition it is, then I think the conversation has basically failed, and we can't go any further. Anybody can hide behind a definition.

It doesn't invalidate them as literature. It invalidates them as genres that are meaningfully distinct from each other. They both do things that other genres don't do regularly or do well: sci-fi routinely explores the normative (what OUGHT to be) rather than actual world (what is), whereas fantasy routinely illustrate morality lessons and heroic archetypes, in the same way old fables and legends used to do. (And, look hard enough, and you'll find normative fantasy and sci-fi morality tales.)

Yes, it invalidates science fiction and fantasy as literature if science fiction and fantasy are nothing more than an aesthetic. That doesn't mean a particular science fiction book isn't valuable--it means that whatever is valuable about the book, it's not the fact that it's science fiction. The science fiction aspect of the book is disposable. Now, if you want to say that science fiction is legitimate because it explores what ought to be, and that fantasy is legitimate because it illustrates morality and archetypes, then great--you've just defined science fiction and fantasy in terms of something other than their imagery.

Well, the obvious and trite answer is that The Diary of Anne Frank is a work of non-fiction.

Not so obvious or trite as you might think, though I was expecting that answer. The difference between fiction and non-fiction is at least partially only a difference of expectation on the part of the reader. Once upon a time Homer was considered to be non-fiction, as was Virgil's 4th Eclogue. And contemporary writers are actively looking for ways to blur the line between the two, as in Pat Barker's Regeneration trilogy.

BUT WAIT: Harry Turtledove's aforementioned Darkness books examine the very ground Ms. Frank lived upon in a fictionalized way. That's not the series' exclusive focus, but it is amply covered in the epic 6 book (3900+pgs) series.

And this is fantasy simply because it has magic, not even as a central story element? Shouldn't this be one of your exceptions, if you're approaching fantasy as a set of imagery?

And De Sade would be very intrigued by Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel series.

How so? They don't really seem comparable to me, just from looking these Kushiel books up, reading a chapter and so on. I don't claim to know them well by any means, so is there something particuarly Sadistic (in the literary sense) about them?

To try to answer your bigger question: I have not personally seen a type of fictional literature that either sci-fi or fantasy HAVEN'T ventured into.

Thomas Mann's Faust, Joyce's Ulysses, Julian Barnes' Flaubert's Parrot, Maurice Blanchot's Thomas the Obscure, Rilke's Notebooks of Malte Laurids Brigge? It seems a little naive to say there's nothing genre fiction hasn't done. I don't need to be a big fan of the stuff to know it hasn't done what these books and many others have done. Or if you really believe there is some genre fiction that accomplishes what any of these books accomplish, I would be intensely interested in hearing about it. The only comparable example I have experience with is Dune, which is still a major cut down from the parody of Messianism in Ulysses, or the tragic elements of Faust.

Question: are Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-glass fantasy? Why?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You know, I maybe just don't understand how you are using them, but I'm not sure I see a meaningful difference between normative stories and morality tales.

A morality tale is usually presented as cause & effect: the one who does evil will have repercussions based upon the evil he does. The boy who cries wolf dies because no one believes his cry for help when he actually sees a wolf. They are personal to the character.

Normative stories are societal in scope. They show a drive towards a utopian or at least better existence than most currently have. Ben Bova's Planetary series & Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series both show groups overcoming those who would prevent the improvement of the human condition, at least in a scientific sense.

Likewise, I don't see how sci-fi routinely deals in 'what ought to be'. I can think of a great many more sci-fi tales that are distinctively dystophian than I can think of that are utophian in outlook, and yet even amongst these few actually try to deal with what ought to be done to avoid these dismal fates and many seem uninterested even in what should be done to escape them.

Currently, dystopias are common, but up until the rise of Cyberpunk, they were the exception. For every dystopian 1984, We, or Brave New World, I can point out 2 relatively positive futures. Larry Niven's Known Space books are generally positive- even when at war with the technologically more advanced Kzin, humans win the wars. Asimov's Robot books are generally positive, but for the murders that must be solved. Both Kieth Laumers Bolos and Fred Saberhagen's Berserkers revolve around superpowerful, artificially intelligent killing machines capable of destroying armies...and yet in both universes, they have largely been defeated. The ones in the stories are the last of their kinds. Robert Heinlein's societies are generally positive, although they may be unfamiliar in structure: Starship Troopers has been described as faschisistic- but then again, its because the only ones who get to vote in the system are those who have demonstrated the willingness to die to defend the system. Gordon R. Dickson's Dorsai series about genetically tweeked supermen is also positive overall. David Brin's Uplift cycle shows a future that has negative elements (humanity is weak relative to other alien races), but overall, it is a fairly free and open society. And , humanity has not only uplifted (become sentient) itself (as far as anyone can tell), but at least 2 other species on its planet before first contact- unheard of in millions of years of the Galactic civilization. In other words, we and our fellow terrestrian sapients (dolphins and chimpanzees) are the species to watch. Despite our low current status, we have demonstrated superiority to our superiors That, by the way, hearkens back to a common trope in early sci-fi: Humans #1- that you'd find in C.M Kornbluth, John Campbell, Eric Frank Russell, Ray Bradbury, Hal Clement, HG Wells, Jules Verne, Cordwainer Smith, Edmond Hamilton, James Blish, Raymond Z. Gallun, L. Sprague De Camp, and many, many others...who, of course, also wrote about dystopias, but not often.

Look at it this way. Under my definition, I've yet to see it demonstrated that there are exceptions to my definition. In fact, if I am only strict in the application of my definition, then it will follow that everything that you claim is an exception to my science fiction definition, I counter claim you are falsely classifying as science fiction for the purposes of creating a false exception. I do not accept that Star Wars is science fiction, and hense I have no exception under my definition.

First- for convenience sake, could you please restate your definition of the two genres or point us to the post with the most succinct or precise formulation of it? Thanks.

Second- I'm calling Star Wars sci-fi because it has starships in it. It has blasters in it. It has planet-sized vehicles in it. It has a multistellar galactic empire and hyperdrive in it. Roger Ebert calls it Space Opera. And, in a link you provided, it is cited as one of the best current examples of Space Opera- as does this one (a term it uses interchangibly with Science-Fantasy). Its not my classification- its the most common one, and one I happen to agree with. Because YOU insist it is fantasy-a position counter to the norm-it is incumbent upon you to overcome the presumption that its a Space Opera.

And if a Space Opera can meet your definition of fantasy to the point of excluding it from the realm of Sci-fi, that is a serious flaw.

Other online sources helping to define space opera :http://members.aol.com/ATOMX13/ , http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=space+opera&x=0&y=0

But when you delve into narrative types, storytelling techniques, predominant tropes, etc. the waters get much muddier and subjective. Where you see pure fantasy in the Force, others see pure sci-fi Psi Powers (telekinesis, astral projection, electrokinesis, molecular agitation/disruption), or Shao-lin Chi.

There you go contridicting yourself again. Earlier, you said indentifying SF trappings from fantasy trappings was highly objective. Would you make up your mind?

I'm not contradicting myself. "Highly objective" is not a synonym for "Completely objective." In my first formulation of this, I admitted that there were exceptions, and have admitted it every time.

Your original post Re: Star Wars cited the Force as magic. Some see it as Sci-fi (see the thread that inspired this thread's creation, about Psionics in D&D, and George Lucas (in "The Science of Star Wars") and others see it as an extrapolation of Shao-lin concepts of Chi (which allows the monks to do their stupendous feats). In other words, whatever the Force is, is entirely subjective. But the setting (a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away), and the majority of Star Wars' other trappings (blasters, starships, star-spanning governments & trade, hyperdrive) are pure sci-fi.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

My personal definitions work like this:

Speculative fiction is a genre of literature concerned with stories which take place in a world not "our own".

Fantasy is any work of speculative fiction which relies upon or partakes of mythic elements. Interestingly, a given work of fantasy can conceivably create its own mythology rather than rely upon reference to real-world legends, or can create myth from non-mythological elements of history and culture.

(For example, Animal Farm mythologises the history of the Soviet Union by casting it in the form of a fable. Note that the legendry in question need not form the backdrop - in this case, the fabulous allegory is the whole of the tale.)

Science fiction is any work of speculative fiction which explores (or at least portrays) the impact of "scientific" change on the human experience. This can be as perfunctory as a crappy military SF story about future "space navies" or as sophisticated as an epic story chronicling the impact of intelligent robots on society from their invention to millennia in the future.

(The "scientific" is in scare quotes because I mean not only the hard sciences but also the soft "social sciences" - because there's been some very good science fiction written about sociological changes, much more in the spirit of science fiction dealing with the harder sciences and thus more deserving to share a designation than yet another "Rourke's Drift with laser rifles and power armour" story. Yet the latter, even when written by the worst hack getting paid to vomit forth words onto the page, qualifies as a portrayal of scientific change and its impact on the world - it has to show you how Rourke's Drift is possible in a world with power armour and laser rifles, at least. Even technoporn works these things out.)

These are not mutually exclusive categories - for instance, Greg Egan has a story, "Oceanic", which falls into both categories. It draws upon mythological Christian motifs and portrays a very different kind of human society, with "hard biology" central to the story.

There are other forms of speculative fiction which fit loosely into these categories, if at all - you can argue that horror is a very specialised form of fantasy, and that alternate history is a form of science fiction in which the "scientific change" is a change in the "soft science" of history. I think there's a stronger case for the former than the latter - there's not much of the scientific method in history, and I should know, whereas it's hard to think of a horror story which doesn't partake of myths, legends, or folklore, and again . . . I should know.

(Are slasher movies, those in which the killer is nominally a normal human, thrillers because they take place in a world not identifiably dissimilar to our own, or are they horror because of the extent to which they possess an undercurrent of mythic motifs? I say the latter.)

 

[mhacdebhandia]

As an addendum, I disagree with Celebrim that the essential nature of mythology is moralistic. So while I agree with him that fantasy partakes of mythological motifs and that doing so is essential to fantasy, I don't believe that they're universally motifs of moral struggle.