David Brin: The Difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy...

[Fishbowl Helmet]

I recently came across this article again and was wondering what Chrons thought of it.

EDIT: Wanted to add a link the the follow up article.

 

[Victoria Silverwolf]

This is very interesting. A lot of what is normally thought of as "science fiction" (Star Wars-style space opera) would be "fantasy" by this definition, I think. Certain kinds of "fantasy" (magic realism, slipstream, whatever you want to call it) would be "science fiction."

Many types of ghost stories and other horror stories can still be thought of as "fantasy," by this definition, as they seem to take as a basic premise that the past never goes away. (The dead aren't really dead.)

This might also explain why alternate history, although we should think of it as pure fantasy (because, after all, the Axis didn't win World War Two), is usually thought of as science fiction. Alternate history is about change, above everything else.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think it's dated. The genres are both about the what if...and many of us blend them. It disregards the whole science fantasy genre -- including the most successful space franchise of all time -- and puts it into two opposites in terms of what they achieve. When i write sci fi i pull on fantasy and when i write fantasy i apply the rigour of sci fi eg to any magic used etc.

Ps just since Victoria's: star wars was the franchise i was citing, in case there was any ambiguity.

 

[Brian G Turner]

When he says scifi is all about change, he seems to be implying that social changes define as to whether it is scifi or fantasy. Did I read that right? In which case, does science fiction really normally tackle social change?

 

[Abernovo]

I respect David Brin a great deal, but like springs, I think these definitions are outdated now. As he implies in the second article, it's more of a spectrum than strict boundary.

Science Fantasy? Which is how I would class Star Wars
Steampunk, Gaslight Fantasy, and all the other subgenres - I think there is a lot of crossover area in the space between Hard Science Fiction and High Fantasy.

 

[J-Sun]

It's an important component but, like any single-item definition, there are exceptions and it leaves out a whole lot of important stuff. If my story has the hero summon a demon to eat the king and declare a democracy, I'm not writing SF and if my story has genetically reprogrammed the race into Alphas and Gammas who are incapable of ever reprogramming themselves, I'm not writing fantasy. So Brin's point is really vulnerable to an easy reductio ad absurdum and focuses too narrowly on politics but I think he still isolates an important point in the differing sensibilities of "ideal" fantasy and "ideal" SF. But it's been said before and much more simply: SF is about change.

 

[JoanDrake]

I respect David Brin a great deal, but like springs, I think these definitions are outdated now. As he implies in the second article, it's more of a spectrum than strict boundary.

Science Fantasy? Which is how I would class Star Wars
Steampunk, Gaslight Fantasy, and all the other subgenres - I think there is a lot of crossover area in the space between Hard Science Fiction and High Fantasy.

"Genres' were invented by publishers so they could justify paying their top sellers rock bottom, and, since they controlled the printing, they were able to get away with it for a long time. Thankfully, some SFF/M writers became so rich even at minimum wage rates that they could buy their own print runs, and technology is now liberating us entirely from the tyranny of typesetting expenses and bookstore space.

All books are genres of one. All writers will soon be publishers and ouevres will be as obsolete as Borders. I note that even libraries are beginning to stop using the dreaded M,F, and SF stickers anymore. In a decade, I think the terms will begin to be listed as "archaic" in the dictionary

 

[steve12553]

I've gotta think that is is commenting on rather than defining. The terms have definitions based on the words they are derived from. Fantasy is by definition something that one does not believe is possible but very probably enjoys anyway. Most (and I stress most) Fantasy reader know there are no dragons and there probably never will be, but they enjoy a good dragon story anyway. Science Fiction (or Speculative Fiction as it was one referred to) is based on "maybe if things continue in this direction, this will happen". In other words and extrapolation or interpolation of the "known" science at the time of its writing. A whole lot more Science Fiction readers believe that some day a fair amount of this stuff may happen. Belief and disbelief. Also, since someone (or three) brought up Star Wars, Parts IV through VI are Fantasy based on the existance of the Force as a mysterious unknown (possibly religionous) force (for lack of a better word). Parts i, II, III define and measure the Force (in Midiclorians) and make Science Fiction (also taking all of the fun out of it).

(PS. If I sound like a pompous ass, I can't help it. It's the engineer in me. My mind can't allow vagueness and detests language rule changes.)

 

[J-Sun]

"Genres' were invented by publishers so they could justify paying their top sellers rock bottom

Yeah! Those miserly Athenians forcing Aeschylus and Sophocles to write satyr plays and tragedies so they could oppress them. And that dastardly Aristotle coming along and codifying it for his publishing empire.

All books are genres of one. All writers will soon be publishers and ouevres will be as obsolete as Borders. I note that even libraries are beginning to stop using the dreaded M,F, and SF stickers anymore. In a decade, I think the terms will begin to be listed as "archaic" in the dictionary

God I hope not - it's like you're custom-tailoring nightmares for me. That'd make it a lot harder for me to find the stuff I like out of all the crap I have no interest in and could lead to a lot of fuzzy thinking and fuzzy writing as people just write "stuff" that blurs past and present, science and magic, tone, topic, etc.

I mean, there's two kinds of people in this world - those who classify and those who don't - but this collapse of "genre" just seems like Hellenistic syncretism and is a sign of decline rather than progress. "Rage, rage against the dying of the light!" (Which is from the genre of verse, not prose.)

 

[j d worthington]

Genres were certainly not invented by publishers. as they date back to the hand-copied manuscript stage. Genre definition is a critical tool to discuss different types of writing, with different concerns and aims. As such, it can be very useful in discussion, analysis, and (as J-Sun points out) aiding a reader find a particular type of literature they especially favor.

On the other hand, a rigid standard of genre definition tends, as I've said many times before, to lead to an incestuous form of writing which breeds only with itself... ultimately a barren process. (Think of the eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century Gothic, for instance.) Cross-pollination between different types of writing is a healthy process which allows for growth and change, and opens up new techniques and areas to writers. And, as sf and fantasy have both cross-bred numerous times over the years, the definitions between them tend, at most, to be provisional when good, or flat-out stultifying when bad.

 

[Emphyricist]

I think that it's an interesting argument, but like many here I don't buy it. Under David Brin's definition Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar series and Tamora Pierce's Tortall books and yet those are very clearly fantasy to me. When I was reading her, I considered Anne McCaffrey "science fantasy," because she wrote a fantastic world with regular rules to it. However I've since discovered a number of writers who write regressed societies operating on the principle of Clarke's Third Law, and I would agree with McCaffrey herself that she writes SF and not fantasy.

I think that it's impossible to define SF and fantasy on any one criteria, because they're essentially prototypes. Fantasy tends to feature unchanging social orders, flexible rules, predestination, and a parochial scope. SF tends to feature the idea of progress (or regress), firmly established rules, human agency, and a universal scope. But I can find examples of SF and fantasy which violate any of these, and likely more besides.

 

[dask]

Do authors labor over these definitions as they write their stories? Aren't we as readers spending too much time pounding square pegs into round holes?