Defining Science Fiction

An interesting discussion started up in the FantasyFans group, and since it does loosely relate to here (and a lot of those who are subjected to one tend to get told they'd love the other), I figured I'd bring some of it over here.

How does one define Science Fiction?
Where exactly is the line between Science Fiction, Speculative Fiction, and Fantasy?

One I read a few days ago. SF is looking at society where one or more things are changed and writing about it from there.

I'm going by a description I read in John Wyndham's book Out of the Deeps:

"Science fiction can painlessly and unobtrusively introduce the reader to the recent discoveries and frontier theories of some specific science." Good SF contains at least three elements: the science, the fiction, and the assumptions on which the story is based.

The question is - what is "science", in this regard?

I'd say the ansible of Le Guin is a tech product, hence comes from science, and it has a major part in the holding together of the hainish worlds, but her Hain novels are non the less considered fantasy by many a SF fan... Even though they combine fiction with technology in the "any technology advanced enough wold seem like magic to the unknowing"-way with a good story, often with soceietal or sociological undertones.

?

Strange how we have different circles. Certainly all the SF fans I know consider the Hainish novels to be obviously SF.

I sometimes have difficulty drawing distinct lines between science fiction and fantasy. For instance, you can't simply throw in a couple gadgets or a wormhole into a world with maidens and dragons and call it great SF. For me it all depends upon the implementation of the science or technology. If the development of the characters depends on their relation to these things then I'd call it SF. However, if someone just tosses in an ansible for kicks, then I'd say it's fantasy and make note that the author attempted to include sf.

I find this discussion particularly interesting in how it relates to the Hugo and Nebula awards. I always saw the Hugo as hard SF and the Nebula as hard Fantasy. But with the mix of the genres in the last decade or so both awards have seemed to pick up books from either genre. They've also changed their mission statements to include these titles. I'm not sure I agree with that implementation. Of course, I have yet to find a book on either list I dislike.

Any more thoughts?

Re: #6
OK, so it's SF only if science/technology is a major plot device?
*Not trying to push you into a corner here, only trying to understand your definition!*

Strange, only a very few of the Nebula winners could be considered fantasy in my view.

For me SF is not necessarily defined by what it is about, but also about a particular style of story-telling.

An interesting study would be Mary Gentle's Ash : A Secret History. One begins and once past the framing device it reads very much as a medieval swash-buckling fantasy. As we realise it is an alternate history and the past begins to intersect with the present day it starts to swing back to being SF. Then Gentle pulls the rug from beneath us and we realise that even in the medieval sections of the book there is plenty of SF. Quite simply it is a tour-de-force and the only reason (I think) that it didn't get nominated for the major SF awards was the way it was published in the US.

However it seems that LT disagrees with me - the book is tagged Fantasy more than twice as much as it is "Science Fiction" (or its alternates).

I am suprised anyone would catergorise the Hainish Novels as Fantasy. I thin I will check a few tags.

You only need to go as far as to Worlds of Exile and Illusion where, yes, the majority has tagged it SF in some way or other, but a great deal have it tagged as fantasy as well...

When it comes to the fantasy/sci-fi distinction, it's like that old saw about good art: "I know when I see it"!

>7 Busifer:
The best way I've been able to discerne sf from fantasy in a pinch is to look at the way technology/science is implemented. For instance A Fire Upon The Deep could very well be described as fantasy, but the implementation of technology is incredibly relevant to the story line so I call it sf. To juxtapose this I present The Morgaine Saga. I consider it to be fantasy even though it implements wormholes and bits of other technology. I think I note that it's sf, but I'd only ever recommend it as fantasy. Again, the lines here might be really fuzzy.

>8 andyl:
I think I was being too general about the Nebula. I think it contains more fantasy than the Hugo and so I tend to use the Hugo for hard SF and the Nebula for Fantasy when searching for suggestions.

I really would like to see where all this discussion leads:)

How about alternate history works? I'm in the middle of Harry Turtledove's WorldWar series. The presence of aliens automatically boosts it into SF, IMHO. But take Turtledove's How Few Remain (which I have to admit that I have not read, but a scan of the Amazon.com review gives enough info for me). Is that a kind of SF, or is Alternate History something else entirely?

One definition of SF: Any literature in which technology which has not yet been invented (or refined) plays an important role in the story. Hence properly presented aliens are always SF, because either humans need new technology to get to them, or they need to introduce new technology to get to us.

So Tom Clancy is ruled out. He sorta seems to be almost an AH kind of guy, to me.

At the risk of overkill:

>6 natantus: For instance, you can't simply throw in a couple gadgets or a wormhole into a world with maidens and dragons and call it great SF.

Which is what we all thought when we first read The Dragonriders of Pern, except that there weren't any gadgets evident until later in the series. SF or Fantasy?

Dragonflight That was the first IIRC was SF by virtue of its framing mechanism.

There are works that I am more doubtfull about but apart from traditional SF conventions (Telepathy, Teleportation , FTL) that I may have doubts about it dinnae break the laws of physics.

Simon

Alternate history, yes... I've always wondered how to tag J C Grimwoods Arabesque-suite... and some of his other work, too, like Stamping of Butterflies and maybe End of the world blues. Not much to make it proper SF; only small amounts of tech. Fantastic things happen; but this is markedly NOT fantasy.
What would yous say?
*any "you" would do :-) *

I think they are all firmly SF. The Arabesk stuff is also alternate history.

Personally for me alternate history is SF (and also traditionally this has been so for most of SF fandom).

Both Stamping Butterflies and End Of The World Blues have whole chunks set far in the future. The Arabesk series has cyberpunk elements - AIs, genetic modification, brain-augmentation.

Of course Grimwood isn't happy just writing simlpe stories - all of the above can also be classed as crime/mystery novels.

A far more difficult book to categorise is his 9Tail Fox

Yes, some kind of crime story, but also with fantastic elements to it. And even if I've tagged it as SF it really is not... but neither do I feel it's fantasy.

I think it got tagged that way in the same way I tagged the Baroque-suite (Quicksilver et al) from Neal Stephenson SF - because that's what he have written before. Even if it was a while since, as Cryptonomicon hardly reads as SF either.

As to the others I am not sure I think a setting in the future/alternate history is enough for a work being SF, even if most people think so. Also, genetic modification is a reality now, and brain augmentation is not that far away, depending on how you define it. Leaves AI's which I definitely believes are true SF stuff (partly because I've worked with people trying to implement AI systems...)

But maybe this is how SF evolved in the aftermath of the cyberpunk revolution. If so, I'm all for it. But I think that with this the genre is closing in on mainstream fiction.

Who said SF should not try to predict the future but try to prevent it?

Message 17: IMHO, the Baroque cycle has a fair number of "steampunk" elements in it, so I could definitely see the argument for a sci-fi tag.

19> Also the Baroque cycle is far more about science and rationalism than nearly all those books with whizzy spacecraft and intergalactic war.

As do I, but I wonder if this is a way to "assimilate" the suite in the meaning make it valid reading for a SF fan ;-)

Historical fiction is a genre of it's own, but if the suite is something else/more than historical fiction, then I am starting to think it's fantasy rather than SF. I'm thinking of Enoch Root/The Red, and his seemingly eternal lifespan here...

There are plenty of predecessors in SF who have extended (in some cases extremely extended) lifetimes - Lazarus Long for example. Just because we do not see an explanation of his longevity doesn't mean the novel becomes fantasy.

what about the maggot the size of a mans thigh? was that an SF element?

It was a dream ;-)

*in a hurry, can't write more right now...*

While this doesn't directly answer the original question, it an interesting, related note. In one of Joanna Russ's essay she argued that Star Wars was fantasy and Star Trek was science fiction. I thought the argument pretty good. If you're interested I'd be willing to paraphrase but I'd have to reread it...(she does have to define both to make the argument).

Got me intrigued there - is there some way to get hold of the essay? Any idea of where it is published?

natantus: this is why more and more, SF writers and readers tend to use Speculative Fiction rather than Science Fiction. There are so many different types of SF nowadays, from the "weird" fiction of the likes of China Mieville to Charles de Lint's urban fantasy, with mixed genre (e.g., SF Mystery, Romantic SF, space operas, military SF) and many unclassifiable such as Anne Rice's books, that science fiction is losing ground, as a term. Spin, for instance, which won the 2006 Hugo Award, is more character-driven than science-driven, and is a mix of real science with completely made-up technology that would probably never be possible.

I think what is important in SF is that it speculates on alternate realities. More and more, the excellent SF is based of the big life questions, in the same way as lit fiction does.

My 2 cents, anyway

Busifer#26, I must apologize, upon rereading (once I found it), it seems that I have merged two of her essays together (or just plain confused the two) in my head. Both essays appear in To Write Like a Woman: Essays in Feminism and Science Fiction, 1995 collection of her critical essays from the previous three decades.

The essay which discusses the differences between SF & fantasy is entitled, "Speculations: The Subjunctivity of Science Fiction", published in 1973 in Extrapolation (a journal) which has several parts. Part II, as an example, begins with, "What is science fiction? Common answers are: 1. Prophecy or Extrapolation. 2. Allegory. 3. Satire and Utopian Fiction. Unfortunately, none of these labels will identify more than a small minority of the stories in the field." and she goes on to talk about each one...

The essay that includes a great deal of comparison between Star Wars and Star Trek immediately follows and is entitled "SF and Technology as Mystification" and first appeared in Science Fiction Studies, Volume 5, 1978. The essay discusses cultural and cognitive addiction, among other things.

Both essays are fascinating and gets one thinking, whether one agrees with her or not. Again, I apologize for the mistatement.

Does anyone else recall a short story about a time traveler who injects Robert Heinlein with a tuberculosis vaccine, causing him to continue his naval career, thus never take up writing, thus never become a key player in the burgeoning Science Fiction movement, thus causing Science Fiction as a sub-genre of general fiction to never come about?

In this alternate world, stories which we would label "SF" are just mixed in with the other traditional genres--mystery, love, adventure, war, etc.

Sometimes I wish we were living in that timeline, though the world would be a lesser place without Lazarus Long.

#27

This is why it's good for me to talk with other people that read in the same genre as me. As I've read through the Hugo list, moving from the 50's to the present, I've generally noted a shift in the way the award was given. Also, the fiction does tend to focus more on the "big questions" in more recent literature. But I also would point out that, however subtle, this was also the case with the best SF in the 50's. I guess I'm saying not much has changed if you pay attention to the details. But for my tastes I'd prefer SF that has more technology than magic. But then again, anyone remember that famous quote about the limit of SF being where technology isn't recognizable as anything other than magic? Man this whole thing is confusing, but a wonderful question to ponder.

Avaland, #28, thanks! And no worries about not remembering accurately enough - I think I'll try to find that collection, as it sounds interesting!

I agree no shortage of big questions in the 50's and sixties.

I think the growth of fandom interested in non-book media has had the biggest. influence on SF culture and hence the Hugo awards. Over the last several decades.

Speaking of fandom, I read an essay a few years ago --can't find it, unfortunately-- that stated that Star Wars essentially killed the science fiction genre. People began associating sci-fi with special effects and visuals (and geeky fans dressing as their favorite movie character), rather than story. It's really hard to do s/fx in a book. They saw the SF readership drastically decline after Star Wars (and others, such as Blade Runner) came out.

As for addressing big issues, it's what makes any book interesting and valuable, regardless of genre. Not to say it's not fun to read a book for the entertainment value alone (sometimes you need that), but a book that makes you think... those are worthwhile.

>29 robsack:

The story about a time traveller injecting Robert Heinlein with a TB vaccine was "The Revenge of William Proxmire," by Larry Niven. I think it was either in N-Space or Playgrounds of the Mind, and probably in other places, too.

I have some problems pulling the to, science and fantasy, apart.
But for starters I would say it´s SF if the ways to solve problems or the hooks of the story are based on science rooted in the storys universe.
And it´s Fantasy if its done by some esoteric force, some may call magic.
OK Ok its not verry accurat, in the end it´s all Phantastic Literature.

for me:

when I think of Sci-fi I think of star ships, aliens, far off planets, inter stella travel, space, Star Trek, Keith Laumer, The Crystal Egg, Retief, Dangerous Vegetables, Dr. Who, X-Files, Star Wars and the like.

when I think of Science-Fiction I think of science, time travel, alternate histories, mad scientists, explorers, inventors, The Island of Dr. Moreau, Frankenstein, The Time Machine, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, H. G. Wells, and the like.

When I think of Fantasy I think of wizards, dragons, fairies, Merlin, magic, swords, Labyrinth, Brian Froud, Faeries, Lythande, Dragonriders of Pern, Conan, Harry Potter, Xena, J. R. R. Tolkein, and the like.

To me the three are totaly differant genres, I do not see the confusion.

~~EK

It never would have occurred to me to say that "Science fiction" and "sci-fi" are different things. To me, they're simply the different ways of saying the same thing.

actually, if you go on eBay's disscusion boards, you'll find aguments over why sci-fi and science fiction should never be classified as the same thing... these same debates are common on comic book forums too

it's the publishing houses that seem to be behind the seperation of sci-fi from science fiction, I've run into quite a few that say they will not accept one but do accept the other.... weird I know, but go figure

when I first was confronted with the sci-fi science fiction thing (about 10 years ago) I had a hard time wrapping my mind around it, but than after I got to reading the debates, they finally won me over cause they made some really good arguments that I just couldn't disagree with... I've seperated the two as seperat gernes ever since

~~EK

Great discussion about science fiction and fantasy. Obviously there are books that fall into both categories just as historical novels have elements of history and fiction. I personally like what I call "Hard" Science Fiction. I define this as stories in which the logical extension of current science into science that is beyond that which we currently know is an integral part of the story or has a major impact on the story, the characters or the setting. This is opposed to my view of Fantasy in which an alternate setting or time is not a logical outgrowth of advancing science, but is a mere invention of the author. This is not intended to be an all-inclusive definition, just one reader's take on the subject.

for an interesting take on Science Fiction Versus Fantasy check out this site http://www.treitel.org/Richard/sf/fantasy.html

RE: EelKat (Messages 36 + 38)

This separation actually is not that new, from what I know, but the terms used for the separation are new.

Rhulcher reminded me of that in message 39.

They used to say "Hard Science Fiction" was anything tightly based around the science of the time. Jules Vern was considered "Hard" back in his day.

"Soft science fiction" was more things that were extrapolations of future races and societies. While they were still futuristic and dealt with science, not all of what they extrapolated would be probably, if possible. Star Trek, Star Wars, and those style books were considered soft.

Thirty-some years ago, in a college far, far away, we looked at the idea that SF tries to give you a rational explanation for the things that are different (or "how we got from here to there"), whereas fantasy ignores the question or presents an answer that can't be considered rational/scientific. I think we ended up modifying this to say that SF tries to pretend to understand the magic involved, while fantasy just accepts it as magic.

A long time ago (when I first started looking for the answer to this question) it seemed obvious to me that Fantasy was a sub-category of Science Fiction. Because Fantasy books were sold in Science Fiction book stores and Fantasy movies and shows were shown on the Sci-Fi Channel.

But when I began looking at other ways to see the question it became obvious to me that Science Fiction is a sub-category of Fantasy. Fantasy fiction is fiction in which things happen (or exist) that are not generally accepted to happen (or exist) in reality as we know it.

That is a complicated definition because all fiction is a type of fantasy. Basically the difference between nonfiction and fiction is that nonfiction is about things that are believed to have actually occurred and fiction is about things that are believe not to have actually occurred.

Fantasy fiction speculates about the existence of things that are outside of our current experience of reality and presents them as real. From that it becomes obvious the Science Fiction is a sub-category of the larger Fantasy category. Science Fiction is Fantasy that extrapolates from our beliefs about science. Fantasy that is not Science fiction bases it's speculations on something other than science, usually magic or the "supernatural".

If you were asking about genre, I like Orson Scott Card's definition of Science Fiction. "Science Fiction is what science fiction writers write, science fiction publishers publish, and science fiction readers read."

And here are more than fifty definitions of science fiction from authors.
http://www.panix.com/~gokce/sf_defn.html

If somehow all the citizens of earth united and came up with a one-size-fits-all single specific definition of SF then Cons and SF/F discussion boards would be kinda boring.

I can't remember who this one belongs to but it's stuck in my mind. SF is a way to play in the future without actually living through the consequences, either good or bad.

My definition goes in the same direction as EelKat's (Message 36).

If a story has orcs, elves, dragons and wizards, it is Fantasy. Otherwise it is Science-Fiction.

Fantasy is the true descendant of the ancient classics, myths that were created to help humans understand the world and useful truths about it. All that realism stuff is a recent invention, just a couple of hundred years old. SF can be seen as a blend of the two, being realistic in trying to start from the current understanding of the physical world, and achieving fantastic elements by extrapolating from that understanding rather than by inventing willy-nilly.

Without pretending to answer the question I just want to throw out a few thoughts.

Steve White had the definition that science fiction assumed that our knowledge of the laws of nature were incomplete while fantasy assumed that the laws of nature were wrong.

Less snarkily, you then have the question of what to do with a book such as Justina Robson's "Keeping it Real," which is a mash-up of SF, fantasy, thriller, and romance. Books like this I tend to call manga without pictures, but this one starts with as hard an SF premise as you could want and the atmosphere is very cyberpunk/thriller, even if you do have lots of magic.

At Balticon last weekend there was a panel called "Is Hard SF still the Core of the Field?" (or something close to that). The first bad sign was that the room arrangement was a hollow square; there's an inauspicious metaphor if you ever saw it. Then the discussion rapidly degenerated into sterile attempts to define hard SF; one wishes that Dave Hartwell (who was present) had tried to take over the debate. The better question is whether this is all mostly just an issue of marketing and how precisely taste can be broken down.

I suppose my point then becomes that while there are stories that are obviously SF and those that are obviously fantasy, there is a widening array of hybrid story types out there; maybe the term "science fantasy" is now really going to come into its own.

I don't know how to answer the original question, but in reference to #37 - I always view "science fiction/sf" and "sci-fi" as different things. When someone asks if I read "sci-fi", I tell them that I read "science fiction" and then attempt to explain the difference. Lester del rey, when he was book reviewer for Analog, had an excellent description of the difference between sci-fi and sf. Someday, I should dig though my issues and find it.

Of couse the simplest answer is that SF, Sci-Fi, Science Fiction is what I point to as SF. Though the definition might change over time. John Carter of Mars was fairly hard SF when published, but now has to be classified as fantasy.

I suppose the distinction is that it's SF if it might be possible in this universe, and fantasy if it would have to be in another universe where the rule we know don't apply.

I try not to categorise authors too much so whereas I consider Asimov and Clark to be Science Fiction and Tolkien, Jordan, Kerr, Wurts as Fantasy, I use SF for anything that shares nuances of both, for instance Zimmer Bradley anf McCaffrey.