What is your Definition of Science Fiction Literature?

[McMurphy]

Experts, critics, writers, and readers alike have debated endlessly over the definition of science fiction, so it only makes sense that the debate should start an endless thread here.

Let me go first as something to build on. Personally, I feel the "keep it simple, stupid" motto applies; at least, for common day purposes. When one starts to hone in on specific criteria, it is normally associated with an essay or a book of agenda. For example, one of my first posts on this site was a fictional required-reading list for a fantasy class. In it, due to its purpose, I gave a definition as to what constitutes as fantasy literature.

For here, I am starting my formation of a science fiction definition as my main criteria as to what divides science fiction from fantasy. The essential difference between the two genres of fiction is where either roots its fantastic natured story. While fantasy stems from magic/folklore/mythology, science fiction stems from science.

That is not to say that the author must go to great pains to provide to the reader an Imperial test as to why they are basing the fiction on sound science. Instead, science fiction uses science related themes and elements, such as ---yet not limited to---domestic and alien variations of wild life and human races, fabricated extensions of scientific theory from the writer's contemporarily time period, the exploration of the unknown within manifestations of fictional/real science and landscapes (rather than myths or folklore), and/or even the roles of fantasy-related creatures and concepts told or discovered through a science-based viewpoint and literary vehicle.

There are going to be plenty who disagree with that stab at a science fiction definition. Good! Let's jump in that proverbial space shuttle (rather than wave the wand) toward the exploration together.

 

[The Ace]

To me, science-fiction just is. I tend to prefer stories where our heroes race around the stars, but a good Utopian story is just as interesting, I find dystopic writing generally too depressing. As for literature, I'll stick with reading books I enjoy.

 

[BookStop]

I think Rod Serling said, "Fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science Fiction if the improbable made possible."

I see what he was saying with that. Science Fiction is an extension of known 'science' priniciples and ideas, whether that be nanotechnology, space travel, dinosaur cloning, time travel (although I'm not sure of what scientifc principles this is an extension of - faster than light??), etc.

 

[williamjm]

I think Rod Serling said, "Fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science Fiction if the improbable made possible."

I don't like that definition, primarily because it actually excludes most Science Fiction from being Science Fiction. It sometimes seems like a majority of the Science Fiction stories include at least some things impossible (rather than merely improbable) according to our current understanding of physics. It would rule out most time travel stories or stories with faster-than-light travel, for example, there may be some arguable examples where authors have managed to use them in an improbable but not impossible way, but in most I think they are just impossible.

I think McMurphy's definition works quite well.

 

[iansales]

While fantasy stems from magic/folklore/mythology, science fiction stems from science.

Not necessarily. A "scientific" device in a story could be no more than a literary device -- such as FTL, or the eponymous time machine in Wells' novel.

 

[McMurphy]

Not necessarily. A "scientific" device in a story could be no more than a literary device -- such as FTL, or the eponymous time machine in Wells' novel.

Good point, but I do feel that Wells's Time Machine is a work of science fiction rather than fantasy.

 

[dustinzgirl]

I think the main difference between science fiction and fantasy is that science fiction has a logical basis in our reality that we can either understand or plausibly create---a time machine, for example, is science fiction because regardless of the impossible science, we can all read it and believe that if we were just that much smarter we could make it happen.

Fantasy, on the other hand, does not have a 'logical' or 'physical' explanation that makes sense in our physical world--for instance, we can not vision how to cast a spell to go back in time, we don't know the words---or why words would even make that possible----but we can think that one time, somewhere, someone knew those words.

Basically science fiction is logical beliefs, fantasy fiction is illogical beliefs (if we base logic on our current ideas of logic, that is)


(And so I'm going off on a tangent again)

Now, there is a lovely, lovely book that I suddenly can not remember the name of but it crossed the fantasy/science realms so well (the writing was ok but not hemmingway) that I totally loved it. It was written by a girl, and basically it was a far-future post apocolyptic america (the names of states were changed just a bit)---and science, rather, mathematics, created magic --- certain equations would destroy or create, and the opposite would also occur.....

Dang, now I have to try to remember the book.

 

[McMurphy]

I think the main difference between science fiction and fantasy is that science fiction has a logical basis in our reality that we can either understand or plausibly create---a time machine, for example, is science fiction because regardless of the impossible science, we can all read it and believe that if we were just that much smarter we could make it happen.

Fantasy, on the other hand, does not have a 'logical' or 'physical' explanation that makes sense in our physical world--for instance, we can not vision how to cast a spell to go back in time, we don't know the words---or why words would even make that possible----but we can think that one time, somewhere, someone knew those words.

Just to play devil's advocate, is a piece of literature that may have once been rooted in science or common beliefs of the author's day but now appear to us as illogical or without any scientific merit years later still be considered an example of science fiction?

 

[dustinzgirl]

Just to play devil's advocate, is a piece of literature that may have once been rooted in science or common beliefs of the author's day but now appear to us as illogical or without any scientific merit years later still be considered an example of science fiction?

That depends, do you mean deep space travel, time travel, mulitple universes or single universe, black holes? I mean, it really depends on what you are talking about, but even Hawking backtracked on what he thought was correct (matter in a black hole dissappears) to a new theory (matter in black holes is transfered to a new universe) both of which are logical and illogical and niether is founded on any law......

And now I'm rambling---

Short answer---I have no idea...i

 

[Dr. Atomic]

Actually, McMurphy, I rather like your definition. (And dustinzgirl's definition dovetales nicely with it.) I don't see why you were so hesitant to offer it up, before.

Originally Posted by iansales
Quote:
Originally Posted by McMurphy
While fantasy stems from magic/folklore/mythology, science fiction stems from science.

Not necessarily. A "scientific" device in a story could be no more than a literary device -- such as FTL, or the eponymous time machine in Wells' novel.

This is why I often disagree with some of the very early stories that are put forth as science fiction. The science fictional props they use are just literary devices being put towards a different end.

Originally Posted by McMurphy
Just to play devil's advocate, is a piece of literature that may have once been rooted in science or common beliefs of the author's day but now appear to us as illogical or without any scientific merit years later still be considered an example of science fiction?

I think so. When some classic author puts jungles on Venus -- as even Hal Clement has admitted to doing -- I tend to just let it slide, because usually, the concepts behind the story are still science fictional enough that the detail doesn't get in the way. I'll ask myself, If that detail were corrected, would the story still work? Often the answer is yes. And if the answer's no... well, why ruin an otherwise good read?

On a related note: I recently read a comment somewhere (on these boards? some essay? if anyone knows, please tell me...) pointing out that many vintage science fiction books almost have to be viewed today as alternate histories. (Moon bases in the 1970s, A.C. Clarke's 2001, etc.) Kind of an interesting way to look at things.

 

[j d worthington]

Briefly put, I think it may have to do with a rationalist, more-or-less materialist, approach to fantastic happenings rather than a supernatural approach. And yes, I think if it was grounded in the scientific understanding of the time, then it applies. It's more the approach behind it rather than the nuts-'n'-bolts of the story for me, I think.

Therefore, you can have a third division as well: science fantasy, which I'd define as something that deals with a "futuristic" technological milieu (including space travel, etc.) but is basically non-rationalist or supernatural in approach (such as Vance's original Dying Earth stories, much of Moorcock's work, etc.).

And pure fantasy (whether it be heroic fantasy, urban fantasy, what-have-you) simply posits a universe where violations of commonly-accepted physical law are inherent, whether it be a purely magical story like much of Dunsany, or a setting in contemporary times where "reality" as we know it is slightly bent (much of Rod Serling's work, nearly all of Ellison's, Charles Beaumont's weird fiction, etc.)

Note: Though I quite like Aldiss' definition of sf as "Hubris clobbered by Nemesis" for its pungent pithyness, I'm afraid it's really too broad in application to be of much good for most purposes....

 

[iansales]

Now, there is a lovely, lovely book that I suddenly can not remember the name of but it crossed the fantasy/science realms so well (the writing was ok but not hemmingway) that I totally loved it. It was written by a girl, and basically it was a far-future post apocolyptic america (the names of states were changed just a bit)---and science, rather, mathematics, created magic --- certain equations would destroy or create, and the opposite would also occur.....

Dang, now I have to try to remember the book.

That sounds a little like Ann Halam's Inland trilogy of The Daymaker, Transformations and The Skybreaker.

 

[iansales]

Many have tried to define science fiction, but the only definition that appears to have stood the test of time is Damon Knight's "science fiction is what we mean when we point to it". Which is pretty useless.

Too many people try to lump science fiction and fantasy together, when they're quite clearly different. If sf contains invented or derived elements presented in a realist mode, then fantasy does the same in a non-realist mode. Of course, pretty much everything in a work of fiction, irrespective of genre, is invented or derived: there is no country called Ruritania; there never was a person called Major Major... But (some of) the inventions in sf (or fantasy) do not map onto the real world.

So, calling both (or either) "speculative fiction" strikes me as meaningless -- all fiction is essentially speculative: what if... Holden Caulfield was expelled from college? what if... Darley had an affair with Nessim Hosnani's wife? what if... Toomey was caught in bed with a catamite? (smug points to anyone who can identify the novels alluded to )

Incidentally, I'm with Gary Westfahl in believing that science fiction was created in 1926 with the publication of the first issue Amazing Stories. It not only created an identity for the genre, but also the support community (which still exists, of course). While earlier works -- Wells, Verne, Shelley, even Thomas More -- share characteristics with science fiction works, they don't share that identity...

 

[iansales]

Just had a thought: I wrote above that "(some of) the inventions in sf (or fantasy) do not map onto the real world", but it occurred to me that it's more fundamental than that. I was thinking of Korzybski's "the map is not the territory, the word is not the thing itself", and then I remembered Samuel Delany's point that in science fiction the sentence "her world exploded" is as likely to be literal as it is metaphorical...

... Which led me to "consensual meaning". In science fiction, the meanings of some of the words used only hold true within the context of the work. In mainstream fiction, meanings generally hold true for all mainstream fictions. There are some terms which are in common parlance in science fiction -- "faster-than-light", or "robot", for example. But even then, the specifics of their meanings only hold true within the individual work -- one sf novel uses wormholes, another has some variation on the Alcubierre drive...

 

[manephelien]

Briefly put, I think it may have to do with a rationalist, more-or-less materialist, approach to fantastic happenings rather than a supernatural approach. And yes, I think if it was grounded in the scientific understanding of the time, then it applies. It's more the approach behind it rather than the nuts-'n'-bolts of the story for me, I think.

Therefore, you can have a third division as well: science fantasy, which I'd define as something that deals with a "futuristic" technological milieu (including space travel, etc.) but is basically non-rationalist or supernatural in approach (such as Vance's original Dying Earth stories, much of Moorcock's work, etc.).

And pure fantasy (whether it be heroic fantasy, urban fantasy, what-have-you) simply posits a universe where violations of commonly-accepted physical law are inherent, whether it be a purely magical story like much of Dunsany, or a setting in contemporary times where "reality" as we know it is slightly bent (much of Rod Serling's work, nearly all of Ellison's, Charles Beaumont's weird fiction, etc.)

I quite like jd's definitions, and I'd definitely include Star Wars in the science fantasy category.

 

[iansales]

Except... "violations of commonly-accepted physical law are inherent", well, that could just as easily describe faster-than-light travel. Which means all science fiction is actually fantasy.

And that's not the case.

 

[Dr. Atomic]

Actually, I'd say that science fiction is fantasy -- or, rather, fantastical -- in that it's still a function of our imaginations, whether the stories are drawn from the extrapolation of real concepts, or whether they're dreamed up wholesale.

Otherwise, wouldn't it be "science fact"?

Until FTL or alien life or any of sf's other tropes and props are demonstrated to exist outside of a writer's noggin, I'm sticking by this one. Even if it means I'm about to get jumped by a million CN members...

To paraphrase Clarke, any sufficiently advanced technology might as well be magic...

Now I'm going to run and hide.

 

[williamjm]

Except... "violations of commonly-accepted physical law are inherent", well, that could just as easily describe faster-than-light travel. Which means all science fiction is actually fantasy.

And that's not the case.

Not all Science Fiction has faster-than-light travel (although if it does that doesn't stop it being Science Fiction). It is possible to write a science fiction novel without violating the current understanding of science, Ben Bova's Mars for example, seemed fairly plausible scientifically.

 

[j d worthington]

Except... "violations of commonly-accepted physical law are inherent", well, that could just as easily describe faster-than-light travel. Which means all science fiction is actually fantasy.

And that's not the case.

Ah, yes, that was a lapsus calami, that. (What the devil would "slip of the keyboard" be in Latin? ) Ahem. What I intended to get across is that it is mystical rather than rational in intent, to go along with what I'd said earlier. Though, to be honest, there are still quite a few who are still arguing the possibility of FTL travel to this day; and I'd be reluctant to go so far as to say "It's impossible"... though I'm heavily inclined to say the possibility is incredibly minute (far enough down the scale where I could probably fill up a page with the zeros after the decimal....)

On the subject of the relationship between sf and fantasy... SF really did come out of the fantasy field originally, but took a sharp left turn around the 1920s... but not entirely. Throughout the bulk of the twentieth century plenty of what would now be called fantasy was published in sf magazines as sf; only later was there a need felt to differentiate so strongly between the two. If you look at a huge number of anthologies even from as late as the 1950s, you'll find sf editors referring to it as a branch of fantasy; and these were some of the people who defined the genre, like Groff Conklin, August Derleth, Anthony Boucher, etc. So the distinction isn't quite as hard-and-fast as we sometimes like to think; and that opinion is of considerably more recent coinage -- largely, I think, because the word "fantasy" has come to conjure up (almost exclusively) the Tolkienesque or Howardian sort of thing in people's minds these days, rather than its true breadth -- a state I deplore as both incredibly insular and injurious to both branches of the literary tree.

(Just to go on the record -- I know I've said it elsewhere, but it may be as well to repeat it: I love Fantasy, I really do. But this restriction of the genre to this one minute area is inbreeding to the point of sterility. Any healthy of literature cross-pollinates with other aspects of literature, renewing and regenerating itself over and over. This is one of the reasons why the "New Wave" was so important -- it brought in fresh perspectives, fresh techniques, and opened up new areas that sf had traditionally shied away from, just as Modernism had bequeathed new versions of these things to twentieth-century literature in general. In its purest form it was perhaps too extreme to have a long run, but it did help to rejuvenate a literature that was becoming increasingly encysted and rigidified. The same thing needs to happen to Fantasy, I feel. We need a revolution in fantasy that once again reestablishes this portion of fantasy as simply that: a portion, not the whole. We're seeing a bit of that with China Mieville and a few others, but we need a genuine "kicking-over-the-traces" revolution in the genre if we don't wish to see Fantasy go the way of the early Gothic novel (which would be a loss), and I don't see that happening any time soon.)

 

[Dr. Atomic]

Not all Science Fiction has faster-than-light travel (although if it does that doesn't stop it being Science Fiction). It is possible to write a science fiction novel without violating the current understanding of science, Ben Bova's Mars for example, seemed fairly plausible scientifically.

Of course not (I was just using FTL as an example... but it could be time travel, humanoid robots, advanced artificial intelligence, aliens, moon colonies, or any number of other sf faves). Regardless, you're still sort of proving my point: "Ben Bova's Mars, for example, seemed fairly plausible scientifically."

It's still the product of his imagination, since we've not put people on mars (unless I've missed something -- entirely possible, given how much work I've had recently). And besides, he has his characters find the remains of an alien civilization. As of right now, that's a complete fantasy.

I think, as J.D. pointed out, the problem comes from the use of the word "fantasy," and all it implies. What I really mean is that science fiction is a form of fantastic literature, one that relies on a certain degree of fanciful imagination, albeit fanciful imagination that's grown from at least a nugget of rational thought.