Genre Conventions: What is fantasy?

[Wayside]

Wayside, you can't have it both ways

Which two ways am I trying to have it?

and I'm not confusing anything. I'm not asking for a pure SF/F story without narrative elements of other genres. I'm asking you (or anyone else) to find an SF/F story that has any narrative element ABSENT from other genres, in order to satisfy your argument.

This is where you're confused, although what I said originally was that you were making a mistake in your reading of my argument, not that you were confused about it. We don't need a narrative element ABSENT from other genres to define SF and F in their respective SFness and Fness. The mixedness of writing works both ways. Elements of SF and F can be present in other genres just as easily as elements of other genres can be present in SF and F. Argument by exclusion isn't necessary, or even desirable.

If, as you assert, "SF/F cannot be considered literature" if it has "no narrative of its own," then my critique of barsoomcore's working definition on the grounds that it is not a narrative unique to SF is valid.

I don't know whose posts you're referring to here, but they aren't mine. From my very first contribution to the discussion itself, I said "I almost want to say fantasy isn't necessarily anything to do with the narratives, styles or settings themselves, but with the conditions that make it possible, desirable or imperative that we invent such styles, settings and narratives"--in short, with the historical conditions that produce them (and I've reiterated this half a dozen times since that post). In considering the narrative approach I did say that SF should have some kind of narrative of its own (and when I say narrative I mean real content, not arbitrary aesthetic; bare plot, in my opinion, is mere imagery, not content--content is what Celebrim's arguments have tried to give us), but I wasn't talking plot points here, and I really don't agree with the narrative approach any more than I do the imagery one.

I will say on barsoomcore's behalf that I think you're confusing narrative and plot. Two books can have the exact same plot, while differing wildly in terms of their respective narratives. barsoomcore did say "type of story," but the way he subsequently approached the discussion was actually from the direction of larger narrative similarities and not mere plot points. And on behalf of everyone who rejects the approach from imagery or setting, let me reiterate: there have been two failures in this thread. The first was a failure to define SF and F in terms of plot or narrative, and the second was a failure to define them in terms of imagery.

You keep saying imagery, but there hasn't been any attempt to produce such a definition yet, I assume because you realize that as soon as the attempt is made it will be defeated in the same way barsoomcore's and Celebrim's attempts to isolate narrative elements have, in some measure, been defeated (but their arguments were only formulated in an ad hoc way, and have only been defeated in the same measure). At the same time, the counterarguments to their positions aren't as successful as you seem to think, especially Celebrim's more abstract formulations, because the former have failed to meet the latter in terms of sophistication. It's like comparing those Kushiel books to de Sade because of some basic similarities in plot and imagery, when they aren't comparable at all (you're assuming an imagery-derived genre in order to prove an imagery-derived genre; that doesn't work). The narrative analysis has to go up a few steps. I'm not saying that it will work ultimately, but in order to successfully argue against it, you have to go up those steps and meet it at that level. At the same time, I don't see how you can fail to see that the same arguments used against plot and theme on a basic level can be extended and turned against imagery on that same basic level; and further, if you were to posit a more sophisticated interpretation of imagery, I can actually see the argument from imagery coalescing with the argument from narrative.

In any case, this isn't a black and white argument with two sides and people choosing between them. Many of us have moved around a bit during the course of the discussion, and, at least in my case, I know that I can agree with a little bit of what everyone says, including you, without committing to any position, including yours. I've even found myself defending at one time or another something everyone else has said. But I remain committed to a historical analysis, one which I, because I've read so little genre fiction, cannot perform myself, not without putting some time into the literature and its historical determinations at any rate.

Ditto Zander & Andor's partial deliniations. By your own criterion- that any valid literary form requires a unique narrative- those working definitions cannot help to establish the unique nature of SF/F vis-a-vis other genres because they are not unique to SF/F. They may be popular themes found in Sci-Fi, they may be common features of Fantasy, but they cannot be the defining criteria because they are not SF/F's own narratives-they are shared.

This isn't my position, but it's a perfectly valid position in any case. If a SF work uses Tragedy, Tragedy is still Tragedy, it's only being used by the SF work. Similarly, if whatever is unique about SF pops up in Tragedy, SF is still SF, it's only being used by this work of Tragedy. Your dog example is invalid for a number of reasons. If "furry," "cute" and "animal" are genres, the dog narrative borrows from all three. But there is still something essential to the dog, a "dog" genre ("horseness is the whatness of allhorse"), which is more than the fact that it looks like a dog superficially. A hologram of a dog looks like a dog too, but it's a hologram, not a dog. "Furry," "cute" and "animal" are all still essential features of dogs, not things that can be changed out for other features. At least, I myself have never seen a "vegetable" dog. The concept of a Linnaen taxonomy of genres does strike me as a bit ridiculous.

I'm not conflating individual works with genres. I'm using individual works to refute assertions by noting that they are exceptions to proposed working definitions. In other words, an exception does not prove a rule, it is a refutation that something IS a rule.

SF may be worthless as a genre, but a particular work of SF can still be valuable. You seem to miss this when you say "accept that they are genres worthy of being considered literature DESPITE their chimeric natures." As genres they aren't worthy of being considered literature. As genres they are nothing whatever. As works, on the other hand, as mixed works containing a variety of other valuable literary material, they may be worthy of being considered literature. But in this case as SF and F they are still worthless--it is only their genre impurity that provides them with literary value.

If, on the other hand, we can/do find a unique narrative (and ANY single one will do) that nobody finds elsewhere, we will have found that core that distinguishes SF/F from other genres. As yet, we have failed in that particular endeavor.

Just as we have failed to find any image that is unique to SF and F and distinguishes them from other genres.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't know whose posts you're referring to here, but they aren't mine

I'm referring to:

Cut from Wayside's Post, #243 in this thread, emphasis mine:
To my post:
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 responded:
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.

Cut from Wayside's Post, #247 in this thread, emphasis mine:
I responded:
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.)

Wayside responded:
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.

Wayside
We don't need a narrative element ABSENT from other genres to define SF and F in their respective SFness and Fness. The mixedness of writing works both ways. Elements of SF and F can be present in other genres just as easily as elements of other genres can be present in SF and F. Argument by exclusion isn't necessary, or even desirable.

If we don't need a narrative element absent from other genres to define SF/F, then to what are you referring in post #243 when you say "They need to be able to do something other literary types cannot do"? Sounds like a narrative element to me.

You keep saying imagery, but there hasn't been any attempt to produce such a definition yet, I assume because you realize that as soon as the attempt is made it will be defeated in the same way

I myself said as much. I only claim that it has FEWER exceptions than other starting points as yet proposed, not that "settings/trappings" lacks exceptions. I explicitly noted that authors like Phillip K. Dick, Kurt Vonnegut and Piers Anthony have written fantasies set in otherwise typical SF surroundings. SF set in fantasy surroundings is a rarer bird- as of this writing, only David Drake's Northworld trilogy and Storm Constantine's Wraethu books spring to mind, and I'm not 100% on them.

Wayside
SF may be worthless as a genre, but a particular work of SF can still be valuable. You seem to miss this when you say "accept that they are genres worthy of being considered literature DESPITE their chimeric natures." As genres they aren't worthy of being considered literature. As genres they are nothing whatever.

No, I don't miss that point- it is irrelevant to mine. I personally feel that SF/F ARE valuable as genres, and do not feel that a lack of exclusivity robs them of merit. Both Sir Isaac Newton and Gottried Wilhelm von Leibnitz invented calculus independently. That Newton published first does not in any way diminish GWvL's impressive feat.

So SF/F don't have unique qualities (that we can uncover) but can mimic any other fictional genre? SO WHAT? Perhaps instead of destroying their literary value, maybe that flexibility is what defines them as genres. SF/F- the Jack of All Trades of the literary world? I'm not sure any other genre can make that claim.

That said...

Something else I have noticed in my ruminations on the nature of SF/F is this: Like the Court Jester calling the King an idiot to his face, both SF/F can tell fictionalized stories about real events, even inflammatory ones, without causing a stir in the culture at large. Unfortunately, I think that's more of a factor of the small pool of readership than any innate..."dogness"...of either genre. They can tell the truth because nobody's listening, at least, nobody that the culture at large cares to listen to in turn.

 

[Wayside]

I'm referring to
...
"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."
...
"it invalidates science fiction and fantasy as literature if science fiction and fantasy are nothing more than an aesthetic."

But what does this have to do with SF needing a narrative of its own? It seems to me that literature is about content, that is, about interpretation. At a basic level, even plot is nothing more than imagery, as is setting, or imagery in the sense of "technological" or "fantastic." It seems to me tautologically true that if SF and F are imagery, i.e. have no content, then they are not literature, i.e. have no content.

If we don't need a narrative element absent from other genres to define SF/F, then to what are you referring in post #243 when you say "They need to be able to do something other literary types cannot do"? Sounds like a narrative element to me.

Yes, the genre would need a narrative element absent from another genre. But as I've said, all writing is mixed, so the argument that narrative X is not inherent to SF because it is present in work Y fails; Y may simply incorporate elements of SF. That line of reasoning is rough terrain in that to define one genre, you have to define them all. And by narrative element, I never meant story. I hope that was clear when I disarticulated the idea of de casibus tragedy you posted a quote about. Plot, like imagery, is only a surface; both plot and imagery can also have actual content, which is narrative.

I myself said as much. I only claim that it has FEWER exceptions than other starting points as yet proposed, not that "settings/trappings" lacks exceptions. I explicitly noted that authors like Phillip K. Dick, Kurt Vonnegut and Piers Anthony have written fantasies set in otherwise typical SF surroundings. SF set in fantasy surroundings is a rarer bird- as of this writing, only David Drake's Northworld trilogy and Storm Constantine's Wraethu books spring to mind, and I'm not 100% on them.

I think the number of exceptions is identical, but also, as Celebrim noted much earlier, defining an exception is every bit as problematic as argument by exclusion based on particular works.

No, I don't miss that point- it is irrelevant to mine. I personally feel that SF/F ARE valuable as genres, and do not feel that a lack of exclusivity robs them of merit.

Err, in order to define them as genres, you have already defined them in their exclusivity. The question isn't one of whether or not there is something exclusive about them--everybody who's made an attempt to define them has made an attempt to define them in their exclusivity--but of the value of what is exclusive about them. If the only exclusive thing is their imagery, how are they, in their exclusivity, valuable as literature? They can't be. On the contrary, particular works become valuable as literature in their inclusivity. The work of SF or F may be valuable inasmuch as it is inclusive of material beyond the scope of the genre.

So SF/F don't have unique qualities (that we can uncover) but can mimic any other fictional genre? SO WHAT? Perhaps instead of destroying their literary value, maybe that flexibility is what defines them as genres. SF/F- the Jack of All Trades of the literary world? I'm not sure any other genre can make that claim.

If that flexibility is what defines them as genres, define them as genres in terms of that flexibility. Can any other genre make that claim though? Of course--any genre can. I can make a Tragedy mimic any bare plot; what defines it as tragedy goes deeper.

Something else I have noticed in my ruminations on the nature of SF/F is this: Like the Court Jester calling the King an idiot to his face, both SF/F can tell fictionalized stories about real events, even inflammatory ones, without causing a stir in the culture at large. Unfortunately, I think that's more of a factor of the small pool of readership than any innate..."dogness"...of either genre. They can tell the truth because nobody's listening, at least, nobody that the culture at large cares to listen to in turn.

You're definitely right about that. Look at the hubbub over the Star Wars prequels, everything from the accents of certain races to how Palpatine takes power.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If that flexibility is what defines them as genres, define them as genres in terms of that flexibility. Can any other genre make that claim though? Of course--any genre can. I can make a Tragedy mimic any bare plot; what defines it as tragedy goes deeper.

No, I don't think so. While I have seen dark comedies, I have yet to see a true Tragedy that falls equally into genre of Comedy. They are, in some sense, polar opposites.

But what does this have to do with SF needing a narrative of its own? It seems to me that literature is about content, that is, about interpretation. At a basic level, even plot is nothing more than imagery, as is setting, or imagery in the sense of "technological" or "fantastic." It seems to me tautologically true that if SF and F are imagery, i.e. have no content, then they are not literature, i.e. have no content.

and

Yes, the genre would need a narrative element absent from another genre. But as I've said, all writing is mixed, so the argument that narrative X is not inherent to SF because it is present in work Y fails; Y may simply incorporate elements of SF. That line of reasoning is rough terrain in that to define one genre, you have to define them all. And by narrative element, I never meant story. I hope that was clear when I disarticulated the idea of de casibus tragedy you posted a quote about. Plot, like imagery, is only a surface; both plot and imagery can also have actual content, which is narrative.

I would have thought it obvious by now: I am NOT trying to define SF/F by narrative- I'm refuting those that DO! When I restate the assertion that SF&F need unique narratives, it is that statment I'm trying to disprove.

On the one hand you say a lack of unique element destroys them as genres, then you critique me for pointing out that something is not unique to SF/F?

You also mis-state the argument form. The argument form wasn't "X is not inherent to SF because it is present in work Y." It was "No "X" can be "Y" without "Z," or to reformulate for clarity: "Only X containing Z can be Y," where X is genre, Z is something unique, and Y is literature. In other words, the only way a genre can be literature is if it has some unique element. It has nothing to do with mixed writing styles. I used "narrative element" because I thought that was what you meant by something unique.

I guess I'm puzzled by your distinction between narrative and content. What content defines a genre for you? What is "content?" What is it that you're trying to assert that other genres have that SF/F don't?

If the only exclusive thing is their imagery, how are they, in their exclusivity, valuable as literature? They can't be.

I beg to differ. Asimov's Nightfall could not be told in any genre except SF, Fantasy, or one of its precursors like mythology. Why? The setting- a 6 star solar system- contains within it the very reason why civilization keeps collapsing on Kalgash. Yes, you can tell the story of a natural disaster in another setting- but THIS one also requires a certain psychology, borne of 1000 years of evolutionary pressure. The Kalgashians aren't just hurt by the "disaster" that befalls them- society actually collapses and rational thought virtually dissapears. If an asteroid wiped out most of humanity (NOT what happens in Nightfall, BTW), a goodly number of the survivors would be trying to rebuild. The majority of Kalgashians, in contrast, completely lose their ability to cope rationally. Culture is gone, and the people have gone insane. Gotterdamerung. Ragnarok

I reiterate: If we don't need a narrative element absent from other genres to define SF/F, then to what are you referring in post #243 when you say "They need to be able to do something other literary types cannot do"? Sounds like a narrative element to me

+++

Another stab. More of a refinement to part of barsoomcore's definintion.

SF explores what it means to be a sentient being- it explores fundamental otherness.

How is this different? Because it assumes that one can be both sentient and also completely alien from humanity in thought process. Cherryh's Atevi look a little like us, but they don't think like us. Stephen R. Donaldson's Amnion, Rusch's Disty, Gibson's AI's, Niven's Outsiders, Heinlein's "Bugs," Bear's Jart, Asimov's Kalgashi...they're all sentient beings, but their psychologies are entirely non-human. Some of them don't even have self-preservation as a fundamental motivation.

 

[Wayside]

No, I don't think so. While I have seen dark comedies, I have yet to see a true Tragedy that falls equally into genre of Comedy. They are, in some sense, polar opposites.

You've never heard of tragicomedy?

I would have thought it obvious by now: I am NOT trying to define SF/F by narrative- I'm refuting those that DO! When I restate the assertion that SF&F need unique narratives, it is that statment I'm trying to disprove.

It is perfectly obvious. You've failed to prove the impossibility of SF and F having unique narratives. That's what I demonstrated.

On the one hand you say a lack of unique element destroys them as genres, then you critique me for pointing out that something is not unique to SF/F?

I criticized your belief that you could demonstrate that something is not unique to SF or F. By the method you have used so far, you can't.

You also mis-state the argument form. The argument form wasn't "X is not inherent to SF because it is present in work Y." It was "No "X" can be "Y" without "Z," or to reformulate for clarity: "Only X containing Z can be Y," where X is genre, Z is something unique, and Y is literature. In other words, the only way a genre can be literature is if it has some unique element. It has nothing to do with mixed writing styles. I used "narrative element" because I thought that was what you meant by something unique.

As you can see from the part of your post I quoted, I wasn't replying to this, so can't have mis-stated it. I was stating an altogether different argument of yours. To clarify the above, it's missing a piece. In order for X to exist at all, it needs Z. Your Z is imagery. It is a priori true that Z is the definition of X, so in your case imagery is the definition of SF. In order for X to have literary value in itself, Z must have literary value in itself. Imagery in itself has no literary value, so if Z is imagery then X has no literary value in itself.

A genre doesn't need a unique element to be literature; a genre is a unique element. If the unique element that a genre is has no literary value, then the genre has no literary value because it is nothing more or less than this element. Of course this has nothing to do with mixed writing styles--mixed writing is the reason you can't disprove the uniqueness of the element that a genre is, and thus cannot discredit the idea that, for example, narratives of power are unique to F, because non-F works also contain narratives of power. A perfectly legitimate response to this is that non-F works don't just contain narratives of power--they contain elements of fantasy!

I guess I'm puzzled by your distinction between narrative and content. What content defines a genre for you? What is "content?" What is it that you're trying to assert that other genres have that SF/F don't?

Content is the product of an interpretive process. A chair might be made of wood. That is its surface, but the wood does not define the chair. It is only a chair when I give it an end and a definition. Content is intepretive, can have functions, is directed and so on. If you try to define a chair by how it looks or its material, you'll fail. I can use all kinds of odd things for chairs, and your definition can't exhaust all my options. The content and narrative potential of the chair is deeper, and can even change over time. I'm distinguishing not between narrative and content but between plot and narrative. I used content to make the difference between the two more clear, since plot and narrative are easy to treat as synonyms.

I beg to differ. Asimov's Nightfall could not be told in any genre except SF, Fantasy, or one of its precursors like mythology. Why? The setting- a 6 star solar system- contains within it the very reason why civilization keeps collapsing on Kalgash. Yes, you can tell the story of a natural disaster in another setting- but THIS one also requires a certain psychology, borne of 1000 years of evolutionary pressure. The Kalgashians aren't just hurt by the "disaster" that befalls them- society actually collapses and rational thought virtually dissapears. If an asteroid wiped out most of humanity (NOT what happens in Nightfall, BTW), a goodly number of the survivors would be trying to rebuild. The majority of Kalgashians, in contrast, completely lose their ability to cope rationally. Culture is gone, and the people have gone insane. Gotterdamerung. Ragnarok

Although I disagree that this "Nightfall" story can only be told on an alien world with an alien race, I would rather pretend that it can. You say this story can only be told by SF (and its precursor mythology, which is the common precursor of all literature, so it's easy to assume most literature can already do much of what mythology can do--the fact that there's such a thing as Bloomsday bears this out), because of a number of narrative elements. So now SF can do anything other literature can do, in your opinion, and it can also do things no other literature can do? I find that a ridiculous thing to say, but we'll skip that and move on to the fact that you've just isolated narrative elements or themes unique to SF, in direct contrast to your belief that SF should be defined solely as imagery.

I reiterate: If we don't need a narrative element absent from other genres to define SF/F, then to what are you referring in post #243 when you say "They need to be able to do something other literary types cannot do"? Sounds like a narrative element to me

Again, all writing is mixed. The type is pure, if it is to be defined in the way most of this discussion has been aiming at (which is not my way; I am only defending the logic of the approach, I have nothing invested in it). All writing contains a multiplicity of types, so exclusion can never be proved according to writing because writing is never exclusive. If I define SF in terms of some narrative element present since Sumeria, the fact that it exists outside SF is not an argument for its not being the definition of SF, because I can simply say that elements of SF were present in Sumeria without that threatening my definition of SF in the least. Which is why I said "they need to be able to do something other literary types cannot do," which is a very different thing than if I had said "they need to be able to do something other literary works do not do."

How is this different? Because it assumes that one can be both sentient and also completely alien from humanity in thought process. Cherryh's Atevi look a little like us, but they don't think like us. Stephen R. Donaldson's Amnion, Rusch's Disty, Gibson's AI's, Niven's Outsiders, Heinlein's "Bugs," Bear's Jart, Asimov's Kalgashi...they're all sentient beings, but their psychologies are entirely non-human. Some of them don't even have self-preservation as a fundamental motivation.

Good luck defining human psychology. I know a number of "history of systems of thought" people who will effectively disagree with you no matter what position you take there. I will simply say that I can imagine otherness appearing plenty outside SF (not that that's an effective argument against it mind you, if you really want to stick to it), not that I have to, since the analysis of otherness is an enormously popular theme of contemporary literary theory, postcolonial studies, postmodern ethics and so on.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

1)

You've never heard of tragicomedy?

Yes, I have heard of tragicomedy- I don't see that as fully tragedy- I see that as a synonym for dark comedy.

2)

I criticized your belief that you could demonstrate that something is not unique to SF or F. By the method you have used so far, you can't.

Anytime I prove that something exists outside of SF/F by a counterexample in another literary form, I de facto prove that it is not unique to SF/F. Simple logic. If SF/F and another form both contain a particular element, its NOT unique to SF/F.

I'm trying to work with you here, and you're making it difficult. :\

3)

A genre doesn't need a unique element to be literature; a genre is a unique element.

That is pure nonsense, logically speaking. All you're doing here is making "genre" have 1:1 conceptual identity with "unique element." By defining something as a genre, then, you are taking for granted that it is unique. Since you've already claimed that for a genre to have literary significance, it must have a unique element, then by merely existing as a genre (which IS a unique element), the genre has literary significance.

Which contradicts your next sentence.

4)

If the unique element that a genre is has no literary value, then the genre has no literary value because it is nothing more or less than this element.

The XYZ formula works for ANY form of literature and for any ingredient. The Z is whatever makes that literature unique, thus giving a genre its literary value, by your standard.

5)

...mixed writing is the reason you can't disprove the uniqueness of the element that a genre is, and thus cannot discredit the idea that, for example, narratives of power are unique to F, because non-F works also contain narratives of power.

More logical nonsense. If something exists in more than one space, it is not unique. "Unigue" means sole, only...not rare. The mere fact that another work outside of genre "X" posesses "Z" quality means by force of logic that "Z" quality is not a unique quality of ANY genre. If it is not unique, then it fails to meet with your definition in quote #3), supra. If a non-F work contains a narrative of power, then by definition, narratives of power are not unique to F. "Mixed writing" destroys uniqueness.

6)

I'm distinguishing not between narrative and content but between plot and narrative. I used content to make the difference between the two more clear, since plot and narrative are easy to treat as synonyms.

So, "Plot" being the particular sequence of events over which a story develops, "narrative" being the theme and message of the story..."content" being?

7)

So now SF can do anything other literature can do, in your opinion, and it can also do things no other literature can do? I find that a ridiculous thing to say, but we'll skip that and move on to the fact that you've just isolated narrative elements or themes unique to SF, in direct contrast to your belief that SF should be defined solely as imagery.

I don't think SF/F should be defined solely as imagery. I just think that its as viable as any other definition we've found...which is to say not that viable...but it is also something that keeps cropping up. Barsoomcore's definition explicitly included it by saying that it explores 3 questions "in an unusual setting." When people assert that SF/F isn't just "setting/trappings" but then give me a definition that is different from another genre ONLY because of "setting/trappings," I have to point that out as a contradiction.

Simultaneously, like almost everyone on this thread, I am trying to find what it is that SF/F do that IS unique, so I occasionally take a stab at it.

8)

I know a number of "history of systems of thought" people who will effectively disagree with you no matter what position you take there. I will simply say that I can imagine otherness appearing plenty outside SF (not that that's an effective argument against it mind you, if you really want to stick to it), not that I have to, since the analysis of otherness is an enormously popular theme of contemporary literary theory, postcolonial studies, postmodern ethics and so on.

One crucial difference- those are all non-fiction disciplines. A working definition of "SF/F is the fiction of otherness (sentient beings outside of humanity)" still stands. They all deal with otherness within the confines of human psychology, wheras SF/F goes beyond. SF/F deal explicitly with minds that are not our own. A being that is effectively immortal, physically powerful, and blazingly intelligent (dragon, AI mechanical planet, demon, whatever) will act and react in ways that a puny mortal human being never would. Being beyond pain, injury or damage means you think differently. Existing in a time sequential reference frame opposite from all other beings (you live & travel backwards through time, ONLY) affects your actions- your cause is our effect.

BTW: Chair = any physical construct designed with the primary purpose of being sat upon- it is a tool for sitting. It may, like other tools, be pressed into service to perform other tasks. See also subcategory stool.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

Cushion?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Perhaps this will help-

Lets look at another human endeavor for comparison: cooking.

What makes a cuisine unique isn't any one ingredient, but the combination of ingredients and the ways in which they are used.

If someone were to say of Japanese cuisine that it was unique because it used raw seafood, a person countering that French cuisine ALSO makes use of raw seafood, then that it not something unique to Japanese cuisine.

HOWEVER, if someone said it was the ingredients, the preparation/cooking methods, and presentation methods & styles in combination that made Japanese cuisine unique, then the only way to refute that would be to find a cuisine that substantially uses all of the above and was still demonstrably not Japanese in some way.

Sure, there are still fusion dishes, but they are not destroying the uniqueness of the fused cuisines because they are substituting something from one cuisine with something from another, without affecting the overall designation.

This, in effect, REDEEMS barsoomcore's working definition quite a bit. SF can still be the combination of those 3 questions in a particular kind of setting (and possibly other factors), and the existence of an element of SF elsewhere doesn't destroy the aggregate that is SF. However, it still means that what distinguishes SF from another particular genre may simply be the setting...or one of the questions.

In other words, what defines genres is not a single unique atomizable element, but rather the combination of ingredients. What distinguishes them, however, may in fact be certain small differences.

Cushion : name for 1 of 2 types of physical objects. Either 1) a subcategory of chair that is soft or 2) the soft portion of the seating area of a chair. The second likely resulted when someone recognized the merits of the first kind, and incorporated its desirable features (softness) into the design of a non-cushion style chair by placing a small cushion on a chair. The name for the former remained the name of the latter.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

See. That's the problem. To define one thing...you have to define everything else...in context. But, I'm just being a nuisance. Please ignore me.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Not at all, WG.

Humanity always defines whatever as "this glob of attributes."

Look at the Linnean Taxinomic model of classifying flora and fauna and see how somthing is classifiied. You have to get through (roughly) Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, and Genus before you get to Species. Each step through the system you refine your definition. So a dog is Animalia Chordata Mammalia Carnivora Canidae Canis Familiaris, whereas a Grey/Timber Wolf is Animalia Chordata Mammalia Carnivora Canidae Canis Lupis. The differences between wolves and dogs are numerous and varied- skeletal/dental features, average size, etc.- but most are very subtle and not visible to the naked eye. "Dogness" (as opposed to "Wolfness) isn't one thing- its a group of characteristics.

So once we define SF/F as a "glob of attributes," we just need to be sure that no single other genre has ALL of those attributes.