# speculative fiction and science fantasy



## SirRob (Jan 7, 2003)

Two words that really don't float my boat. Speculative fiction is far too general a word, and as Survivor said in another topic, it can be used to describe just about anything. It really irks me when people stick that label on quite normal fantasy(its more appropriate on SF). I've seen a number of posts saying Perdido Street Station and other less mainstream fantasy novels are 'science fantasy'. I do not see the reasoning behind this label, as Perdido is nothign to do with science or the real world than say Martin is. It just seems the 'in' way to describe anything a little weirder. Godamnit just call it weird fiction! or fantasy. Just because it has a broader name isn't insulting it.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 9, 2003)

I noted a while back some debate on the issue of sci-fi and it's sub-genres. My impression was it appeared that at some point groups or individuals tried to add respectability to what they read  - and to elevate their reading to something approaching "literature" so as to distinguish from "lesser" (or "less intelligent") works. cf how "Flash Gordon" compares to, say, Arthur C Clarke. Since then, a noticeable subgenre structure has come into general acceptance, which genrealises the theme of a work into various categories.

It was a pain researching the issue, but I've got a decent looking link here from SF Site which develops the subgenre distinctions better.


----------



## nemesis (Jan 10, 2003)

Pigeon holes rarely accomodate properly. These are generalisations.


----------



## Persephone (Jan 11, 2003)

I've seen a lot of fragile male egos so I figure that's behind a lot of these titles. My ex was always trying to make SFF and F sound grown and mature but I say hey whatever blows your fancy! It's all fun so why make it sound like its not?


----------



## SirRob (Jan 12, 2003)

LOL, you are funny. How on earth are we making it sound not fun and could you please spare us your silly male bashing.


----------



## Survivor (Jan 14, 2003)

I don't mind the male bashing, but _phuleese!_, enough about the ex already.  I mean, you're the one that risked allowing his genes to propogate and all (don't feel too bad, my sister made a similar mistake once before we got rid of the guy).

Uh, Sir...it's "your" not "you're" in this context.

See, now _that's_ male bashing.


----------



## SirRob (Jan 19, 2003)

woops

I don't see any mistake now...


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 21, 2003)

I think I'm leaning very very much towards speculative fiction. I need something to mentally chew on. Escapism in itself is too easy. Just me, tho'.


----------



## cyborg_cinema (Aug 10, 2005)

Persephone said:
			
		

> ...trying to make SFF and F sound grown and mature...


SF&F appeals to all ages, and so do Frisbees. Fritz Lang's _Metropolis_—from 1927—remains a well-known classic.


----------



## ajdecon (Aug 11, 2005)

Haven't read Perdido; but the term "science fantasy" does make some sense in terms of stories which feature scientific concepts (space travel, lasers, robots, etc) but make no attempt to make them seem real.  

For example: calling "Star Wars" science fiction just because it has spaceships and lasers doesn't make sense, when the story is otherwise so much like a fantasy.  (Princesses, mysterious powers, swordfights and clear-cut moral lines.)  It's really more of a fantasy set in a "futuristic" setting "a long time ago."  Hence "science fantasy."


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Aug 11, 2005)

I think speculative fiction is a very good term when used inclusively for science fiction, fantasy, science-fantasy, alternate history, and anything and everything that has the same flavor but doesn't exactly fit into any of these categories.  Don't know how people are using the term these days, but that's what it meant fifteen or twenty years ago.

Science fantasy is an even more venerable term.  People were discussing which books fell into that category when I went to my first SFF convention more than thirty years ago.


----------



## cyborg_cinema (Aug 11, 2005)

ajdecon said:
			
		

> Hence "science fantasy."





> ...when H.G. Wells wrote _World Set Free_ in 1913, the atomic bomb he described was impossible under the widely accepted Newtonian physics of the day, but was completely plausible under the new theory of physics proposed by Einstein. So under Newtonian cosmology Wells was writing Science Fantasy but under Einstein's cosmology he was writing Science Fiction.


—http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fantasy


----------



## cyborg_cinema (Aug 11, 2005)

cyborg_cinema said:
			
		

> —http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fantasy


I consider *science fiction* as a sub-genre of *fantasy* along with *science fantasy*. But Wiki refers to *science fantasy* as "...a subclass of science fiction sometimes with some fantasy elements thrown in..." which does not make sense.


----------



## Rosemary (Aug 11, 2005)

I agree with Kelpie on this one. Speculative fiction as I have understood it (for far too long!) was meant to cover a wide range of categories. There are so many books written which makes it hard to interpret if they are fantasy or science fiction.


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 11, 2005)

I like my life to be simple - if it's got guns-n-spaceships-n-planets it's Science Fiction

If it's got Dragons-n-magic-n-swords it's Fantasy (and if it's really really long, it's probably Tolkien)


----------



## cyborg_cinema (Aug 11, 2005)

*science fantasy* has a way of telling us that *science fiction* and *fantasy* are not tight-laced categories.


----------



## GOLLUM (Aug 11, 2005)

Sci fi and fantasy are 2 seperate Genres in their own right although there's some obvious overlap.

I'm with Kelpie on the term speculative fiction , has always been the generic term I've used to include Fantasy, Sci-Fi, Horror, Supernatural etc...


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Aug 11, 2005)

The overlap is particularly obvious with older stories written before SF existed as a genre.  For instance some of Hawthorne's stuff like _Rapaccini's Daughter_ where the scientist might just as well be a magician.

Or _Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde_, or _The Invisible Man_ where the stories would not have proceeded one bit differently if the characters had been using magical potions instead of doing scientific experiments.


----------



## cyborg_cinema (Aug 11, 2005)

Kelpie said:
			
		

> ...before SF existed as a genre.


Do you think technology needed to reach a certain point before science fiction could be considered a genre?


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Aug 11, 2005)

Well, the whole idea of genres according to content (romance, mystery, science fiction) rather than form (novel, poetry, short story, etc.) is relatively new, and has more to do with marketing and reader expectations than anything else.  So in that sense, SF couldn't become a genre until there were enough people reading and writing it to form some sort of group identity or marketing niche.

But in terms of when SF and fantasy began to take different paths stylistically and thematically, I think it was more of a cultural shift that a technological one.  In previous centuries, science/magic/philosophy/mathematics were blended together in such a way that it would have been difficult for anyone living in those times and raised to those ideas to seperate them into different categories.  By the nineteenth century that had changed, but while the divisions had been established they weren't so firm in most people's minds as they are now.


----------



## cyborg_cinema (Aug 11, 2005)

Kelpie said:
			
		

> ...SF couldn't become a genre until there were enough people reading and writing it to form some sort of group identity or marketing niche.


Do you consider the arrival of Frankenstein as the starting point of the science fiction genre?


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Aug 11, 2005)

No, because "genres" in the sense that we use the word today didn't exist until about a century later.  I would say that _Frankenstein_ was science-fictional in ways that nothing earlier (that I can think of at the moment) had been before, and that it may be the first known example of a certain _type_ of SF.

But Mary Shelley was doing the same thing that Hawthorne and Stevenson and Wells would do later, in making her story mostly about the consequences of the experiment _to the experimenter_, rather than, say, writing a story about the long term effects on society if such experiments became common place -- or if Frankenstein had gone ahead with the plan to make a mate for the monster and the male and female had gone on to become the mother and father of a new race.  It's really more of a morality tale, when all is said and done.


----------



## cyborg_cinema (Aug 11, 2005)

Kelpie said:
			
		

> No, because "genres" in the sense that we use the word today didn't exist until about a century later.  I would say that _Frankenstein_ was science-fictional in ways that nothing earlier (that I can think of at the moment) had been before, and that it may be the first known example of a certain _type_ of SF.


Shelley was inspired by Galvani's experients in stimulating frog legs with electricity which led to Volta's invention of the battery. So I thought that qualified Frankenstein as science fiction—the speculation that zapping dead human flesh with electricity brought it back to life. 

Nathan Shumate sees Frankenstein as "...the parent of the modern genre of science fiction." To him, Frankenstein is an athiestic challenge to Milton's epic poem _Paradise Lost_ which tells the biblical story of the fall of man.





> ...the most important element which establishes Frankenstein as the first science fiction
> novel is the characteristic attitude of the age toward religion to be found in it.—Nathan Shumate





> Remember that I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed"—Frankenstein





> Many of these historical difficulties can be resolved if one uses the standard distinction between the terms form and genre....A form, by definition, would consist of the totality of stories that share major characteristics distinguishing them from other fiction, no matter where or when these stories were written. A genre would be a group of such stories that are connected with one another in development, time, and place and perhaps were written with a consciousness of these connections....And, of one is concerned with the genre of modern science fiction, one may, under some circumstances, be completely justified in disregarding earlier material that chances to be present in the form.—E.F. Bleiler


I found all this after asking my previous, now rhetorical, question. Sorry about that.

But this is interesting: www.nathanshumate.com/Frankenstein as Lucy.pdf


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Aug 12, 2005)

People always bring up Galvani's experiments when they are talking about _Frankenstein_ and certainly Mary Shelley had to be aware of them, but I've never seen any evidence that she was directly influenced. It's much easier to trace some of the bits and pieces of folklore she picked up during her travels through Europe, and incorporated into her story.  

When all is said and done, Victor Frankenstein is more of an alchemist than a modern scientist, and the monster is more like an oversized homunculus than the result of any experiments going on during Shelley's lifetime.

Galvani and his frogs seem to have had more influence on dramatizations of _Frankenstein_ than on the actual book.


----------



## lazygun (Aug 12, 2005)

On drawing lines,..'personally think we all have enough lines/divisions without seeking more?.....


----------



## cyborg_cinema (Aug 12, 2005)

Kelpie said:
			
		

> ...I've never seen any evidence that she was directly influenced.


Electrified frog legs may have nothing to do with Shelley’s inspiration. But I am more familiar with dissected frogs in science class than I am with a homunculus, and "from frog legs to Frankenstein" seems interesting.


----------



## cyborg_cinema (Aug 12, 2005)

lazygun said:
			
		

> On drawing lines,..'personally think we all have enough lines/divisions without seeking more?.....


yea, three labels are enough.

Fantasy is like an earth with two moons. One moon is less like her, and one moon is more like her. She will never be able to shake the moons out of their orbits.





> Science fiction is what I point at when I say science fiction—Damon Knight


----------



## GOLLUM (Aug 13, 2005)

Kelpie said:
			
		

> People always bring up Galvani's experiments when they are talking about _Frankenstein_ and certainly Mary Shelley had to be aware of them, but I've never seen any evidence that she was directly influenced. It's much easier to trace some of the bits and pieces of folklore she picked up during her travels through Europe, and incorporated into her story.


Hi there I'm enjoying reading about this discussion on Shelley's Frankenstein and YES I'm not sure if the Galvani experiments were a major factor in Shelley's creation of Frankenstein but Mary does make references to her discussions about the Luigi Galvani’s experiments between Percy Shelly, Byron and herself at the 1816 talks in Geneva, which first gave rise to the Frankenstien idea in her Introduction to the 1831 edition. Interestingly enough Galvanism and the effects of electricity is mentioned once in the story by Victor Frankenstein, creator of the so-called monster so there does apper to have been some influence here.

A popular misconception I've noticed is that the "The Monster" or "The Fiend" is never referred to as Frankenstein in the story, although the monster is obviously "Frankenstein's Monster" and yet the recent Van Helsing film I saw explicitly referred to the monster as Frankenstein. Holywood at it again it would seem...


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Aug 13, 2005)

But there is no real attempt in the story to explain Frankenstein's theories or his experiments in scientific terms; Shelley keeps the whole thing mysterious and, dare I say it, occult.  It's not really a story about science at all, or about the method Victor Frankenstein uses to animate his creation, but about a man who commits a spiritual transgression.


----------



## GOLLUM (Aug 13, 2005)

I agree with you 100% on that statement Kelpie!

I was merely pointing out that Cyborg's comments on Galvanism had some merit in terms of them being a part of the Frankenstein story as I noted you posted that you'ld not seen any *direct evidence * that Shelley had been influenced by Galvani and that perhaps she was re: my above post......


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Aug 13, 2005)

I said "evidence that she was directly influenced," not "direct evidence of influence."   The evidence is direct enough, but I don't believe that the conversation (between Byron and the Shelleys) that brought on the dream (Mary's) that inspired the story (Frankenstein) had any influence on the direction that story took.  It was like the proverbial apple falling on Isaac Newton's head -- merely the agent that set off a train of thought. On the other hand, the folklore elements and the moral questions are far more integral to the shape of the story.  

Or think of it this way: if you go back and read the first message in this thread, it certainly started a conversation that led up to our discussion of Mary Shelley, but we've long since shaken off any direct influence and moved on to a substantially different topic.


----------



## cyborg_cinema (Aug 13, 2005)

The Frankenstein story has a strong moral message. 

But I can see speculative science in the story also. I see the creature as the outcome of scientific experimentation; a creature with supernatural strength. The twitching frog leg experimentation is scaled up.


----------



## GOLLUM (Aug 13, 2005)

OK Kelpie now that you've clarified the point for me I agree with what you're saying as far as influence on the *direction * the story took.

Having said that the discussions and dream Mary had certainly contributed partly towards inspiring the story itself in so far as a starting point went which YES then took a specific moral direction which for me was what made this story an interesting one.

I note the way you use the term "our discussion", I''d be tempted to describe them more as "robust debates".... 

Over and out...


----------



## SciFi_Short_Story (Aug 13, 2005)

ajdecon said:
			
		

> For example: calling "Star Wars" science fiction just because it has spaceships and lasers doesn't make sense, when the story is otherwise so much like a fantasy. (Princesses, mysterious powers, swordfights and clear-cut moral lines.) It's really more of a fantasy set in a "futuristic" setting "a long time ago." Hence "science fantasy."


 
I think "Space Opera" is quite the perfect description of the Star Wars set. At least, the original trilogy (fleshed out rather like a poor version of Wagner's cycle in the I-III episodes). Having studied opera rather deeply in attaining my bachelor's, I see many similarities between the two, and while I know this theory has already been suggested, I also believe this to be the most realistic examination.


----------



## cyborg_cinema (Aug 13, 2005)

"But I forget that I am moralizing in the most interesting part of my tale....My father made no reproach in his letters and only took notice of my science by inquiring into my occupations more particularly than before."

The father seems more concerned with the morality than the amazing scientific feat. 

Frankenstein - chapter 4 - last paragraph 

A ground breaking science fiction genre story would not have been able to click into science fiction mode back then—as we recognize the science fiction genre today. The style of Frankenstein was easier to digest by readers of the 1800s. 

Victor refers to chambers and body parts, and there is an obvious lack of detail considering the pure science of his "occupations". But how much research data would Shelley have had to refer to in the first place? At a time when a glass jar with eyeballs floating in it was probably considered "scientific".


----------



## cyborg_cinema (Aug 13, 2005)

SciFi_Short_Story said:
			
		

> ..."Space Opera"...








Princess Leia Organa 
She certainly does look like an opera singer.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Aug 15, 2005)

_A ground breaking science fiction genre story would not have been able to click into science fiction mode back then—as we recognize the science fiction genre today._

Considering there was no science fiction mode to click into, it would naturally be impossible.  But that's not my point.  _Frankenstein_ *is* science fiction as far as its original point of departure, but from that point on it's simply a nineteenth century Gothic novel.  The story would have been no different if Victor had created the monster using a magic spell.  To say that Shelley gave the monster superhuman strength as some sort of extension of the effects of electricity on the frog legs is sheer speculation.  Folklore was already full of stories of magicians who gave life to statues or figures made out of clay, many of them with more than human strength.

So I am back to what I said before -- yes, _Frankenstein_ is the forerunner of a certain type of science fiction.  On balance, however, it has much more in common with other fiction of its time. 


_The style of Frankenstein was easier to digest by readers of the 1800s._

 Let's not forget that it was the style most natural to Mary Shelley herself as a product of the early nineteenth century.  It's unlikely that she would ever have thought about writing it some other way.


----------



## cyborg_cinema (Aug 15, 2005)

Shelley gets credit for coming up with something new for a change.


----------



## oliverez (Aug 26, 2005)

Isn't ALL fiction 'speculative'?


----------

