the age-old battles between good and evil, sf and fantasy, Mac and IBM....

[lagilman]

Morning? Again? Already? *shuffles over to get the cafFiend stoked up and working*

A random dip into the LJ-verse gives us frankwu discussing "Wall-E," wherein he says:

The thing about fantasy and science fiction is that in fantasy stuff just happens - there are rules, but we never really know why the sword has the ability to sing, or how chanting particular words and sowing dragon's teeth into the ground raises up armies of living skeletons - but in science fiction, it's important to say HOW something happens.

Um. Am I alone I thinking that Frank, smart guy tho he is, is showing more his own bias than the reality of the fantasy genre? That a lot of fantasy is as well-grounded in the HOW of magic [not just the rules but who gets what abilities and why] as a lot of SF [since SF does not automatically and only mean Hard SF], is about the HOW of science? Because by his specific standards, the Cosa Nostradamus universe is one of SF, not fantasy. And while I'm all about ignoring genre limitations...

Or maybe I am writing SF. I mean, electricity? Bio-chemical reactions to magic-use? Magic-hackers? Artificially-created species and...hrm. And sentient curses, vengeful ghosts, loan-sharking dragons in the Appalachians, dryads and piskies in Central Park, and a bansidhe living in a stuffed horse?

Right. What the hell am I writing, anyway?*


Discuss. I'll be back later.




*first person to say "science fantasy" gets kicked in the shins. That's a cop-out, IMO, and you might as well admit that it's all speculative fiction and the 'rules' of each genre are bullshit. Which is actually what I think, but shhhh, this is about your arguments, not mine....

Comments

[handlebar605.livejournal.com]

Romantic Fiction??



* Running & Ducking *

[lagilman]

There are many many many romance readers who would ask what crack you're smoking....

[neutronjockey.livejournal.com]

Genre straddler!

[fakefrenchie.livejournal.com]

Well, some things are explained and other thigs are a given. For example, Misty Lackey's Oath series has a very detailed magic system, which is explained via her characters. It also has a singing sword that sings for the next ruler of Rethwellan. The whys and wherefores of the singing sword are never really explained, but the reader know the general philosophy of magic in her Valdemar books and I for one never cared that she didn't give a detailed explanations of how the singing sword came into being.

[handlebar605.livejournal.com]

well, I kinda figured to start the ball rolling with a completely outrageous sugggestion to get your ire focused on something else, so that later discussion can be done with less heat.


Personally, I would tend to agree with you, that Tom is looking at Hard Sci Fi like Catherine Asaro's Skolian Empire as scifi and everything else as fantasy (isn't that also an unofficial description of the Analog Mafia?)

NOTE: my use of the term Analog Mafia may be completely in error, it's a term I'd heard refered to many years ago.

[deza.livejournal.com]

When folks ask at the library, I generally classify you under "urban fantasy with a side of romance." A high magic content will generally push a work into either fantasy or horror, and there's really not enough dread in your writing to be horror. Urban is rather obvious--modern day, most of the action occurring in an urban environment. The side of romance is the over-arc of relational development between your characters. If you had gratuitous sex on every other page, I'd say a side of erotica instead.

IMO, fantasy indicates an influence outside the normal bounds of reality happen. S/f means that someone caused something outside of our normal perception to happen. I have a feeling I'm not explaining it very well, but I doubt you want a dissertation written here. ;)

[lagilman]

okay, a challenge for you: what's the difference between "the normal bounds of reality" and "our normal perception" [of reality]?

Who gets to define "reality?" Who gets to define "normal?"

(answer: the person making the rules, of course. that's where the line between spec fic and literary/realistic fic gets drawn, IMHO, with the acceptance of the validity of Other Reality, and why it's such an easy line to blur.)

Context?

[daecabhir]

Coming at it from the perspective of just a reader of speculative fiction, I guess my own categorization of fantasy vs. SF has more to do with the subject matter. The line between the two is not terribly distinct either, so anyone getting on their high horse about "THIS is fantasy, and THIS is SF" needs to focus more on whether it is a good story and whether they enjoyed it.

Generally speaking, if I differentiate, it is based on the context - usually the setting, certain plot elements, the characters, and the "problem" being addressed. Medieval setting, swords and sorcery, present day setting, faerie folk and personal magic? Mmmm, probably fantasy. Future setting, spacecraft, high technology, alien species from far away worlds, hard science? Quite likely SF.

Anne McCaffrey's "Pern" novels - SF or Fantasy? Feudalistic society and dragons, but the humans on the planet are colonists who came across the stars from Earth, and eventually they discover the AI that was in one of the ships that landed on the planet. Hmmm... not so clear now, is it?

So why worry about labeling it beyond speculative fiction, rather than wondering if it is a story with merit, that is worth reading?

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

Right. What the hell am I writing, anyway?

Stories.

[fiction-theory.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think he's forgetting that in a lot of fantasy novels, they *do* explain such things as why the sword sings.

I also wonder what he'd do with such books as "Swordspoint" and it's sequel "Privilege of the Sword" which are both fantasy but do not contain any magic (except the inherent magic of a well told story).

Not to mention books like Elizabeth Bear's "Dust" which is SF, but explains only a few basic scientific things, and doesn't really get into most of the details of the technological wonders aboard the ship came to be or how they function.

I'm really quite tired of people trying to come up with clean, clear-cut lines between SF/F using pithy little sayings they come up with - because honestly, it's like a political border on a map between two countries. Yes, it exists in people's minds and serves a function for them (or for the publishers), but it's not like there's a literal line running down the middle of the land. That line is imaginary, will change as the people on both sides change.

And, just like with SF/F, people are going to be getting into slapfights about it. :) Because that's what people do when we're taking the day off from being amazing.

[burger-eater.livejournal.com]

You write contemporary fantasy, imo.

And statements like Mr. Wu's are a little annoying. I'm reading a science fiction novel right now (a pretty good one so far) where none of the "Hows" are explained. It's still sf.

He's also wrong about salty and sweet. :)

[difrancis.livejournal.com]

The only time science fantasy works for me is when there's an actual mix of science and magic. The Liaden books jump to mind on that one.

And I'll echo: good stories. You defy categorization.

[vincam.livejournal.com]

I've noticed that guys who are into science also think that all things are knowable, and that science explains everything. But when you examine technology closely enough, you see that there's always a place where the explanations disintegrate into "...and here there be tygers." IMHO, the difference between science and magic is that science pretends to have all the answers, while magic acknowledges that some things are just a mystery.

[infiniteviking]

I think it's harder and harder to come up with anything that one can call "real" science fiction, what with the whole field coming to life around us all the time. I mean, genetically engineered microbes that excrete crude oil? A guy jumping out of a plane and cruising around the Alps with a real working rocket pack? Beaming atoms across a river via quantum entanglement, without having them cross the intervening space? A wireless chip implanted in the brain of a paralyzed man that allows him to surf the web with nothing but a screen and his mind? It's getting so the magic swords are the only things we don't have yet. Clarke's third law has never been more apt.

[butterflykiki.livejournal.com]

*points up at urban fantasy w/romance classification*

The big diff in SF and Fantasy, as far as I can tell, is a change in the laws of physics. Which, big deal. Most people don't understand the laws of physics of the world we have, much less why it's so different if you make them mutable or able to be directly effected by human agency. Clarke's Law applies at the upper end of both, in some ways; God knows Heroes and X-Men may look like SF, but their relationship to real-world biology is as tenuous as that of elves. Maybe SF just jumps in the parts we don't know for sure about science, while fantasy directly contradicts them and posits its own system of rules.

Frank is being simplistic, because there is SF out there without any relationship to reality which is much more unlikely than any magic a fantasy writer has thought up.

[windrose.livejournal.com]

Nah. Just because science hasn't figured something out doesn't mean the answer isn't out there. It just means we haven't found it yet. ;)

But this is getting off topic. Yes, there are some novels where the rules of magic are just a hand-wavy "it doesn't have to make sense, it's MAGIC." Most, however, have a grounding in some kind of system. What type of system--Western European folk tradition, Eastern philosophy, Native American shamanism, etc--depends on the individual book, but all of these systems have rules they follow, and some of them are very strict.

[lagilman]

So you support Frank's POV, that fantasy is fantasy because it doesn't explain (either have to or care to) the HOW of magic?

(just trying to clarify, off your post)

[lagilman]

I prefer to think of the various genres as equal parts of a horse. There's the right flank, the left flank, the head, and the horse's ass....

*haz innocence*

[lagilman]

Spoken like someone's who's heard the argument a few times before... *grin*

[supertailz.livejournal.com]

I....agree with what most people have said. But I wonder..and this isn't a fully formed thought yet, but what if SF is something that we could imagine coming to pass in reality and fantasy is more...wishful?

I mean, obviously, I'm still convinced I'm a witch and at some point someone's going to sit me down and tell me this. But realistically I think that rocket ships and interplanetary travel and maybemaybemaybe even aliens, but certainly books about technology are more likely to come to pass then books abouts magic, much as I might prefer the latter.

Of course this gets murky because I don't actually think that Vogon poetry readings are in humanity's future (and how I hope I'm right), but I think for me technology tends to be somewhere on the dividing line. If there's a lot of technology - if people rely on the technology to achieve things - I'll tend to slip it into SF, whereas if people use something inside themselves - will, magic, fighting ability, etc - I think it tends to be more fantasy. According to me.

...er. The problem with this is now I don't know what it is I'm writing. My current project falls right in the middle of that. Ah well.

[martianmooncrab.livejournal.com]

Like Library Cataloging, there is no One True subject/topic, there is Fiction and Non-Fiction, and then its up to the Cataloger to make it accessable to the patron. (we wont go into Dewey Vs OCLC)

And per Anne McCaffrey, its Science Fiction that she writes when its Pern. Her Dragons were bio-engineered.

The joy of reading surpasses which genre the book falls into, and I can be a bit snobbish (Lit'trah'ture? *sniff* ) when it comes to that, but, the Sword sings because it likes to sing and it can. I want to read about an Elvish scientist, or a shapeshifter with pet dander allergies, or generational starships, intelligent Motes, sentient cats, murders, ... its the story that sucks me in, not the cuteness or the cleverness of the characters. Wanting to know what happens next.

[lagilman]

Ah, but Frank did say that fantasy had rules. It was explanations of HOW that he claims is lacking.

[lagilman]

And this is why many adhere to the "it's ALL fantasy, SF is just a subset" theory....

[lagilman]

McCaffrey Pern books were all fantasy....until suddenly they were SF. I remember many many howls from readers when that happened. OMGWTFBBQ may, in fact, have first been uttered at that time. *grin*

[lagilman]

First person to bring up Chaos Theory and make it work to support both points of view gets a cookie....

[infiniteviking]

Or possibly the other way round? *grins*

[vincam.livejournal.com]

I didn't say the answers weren't out there. I said science doesn't have all of them. And probably never will, because there will always be more questions. My point is that many SF guys don't understand that there will always be more questions.

Yes, there are some novels where the rules of magic are just a hand-wavy "it doesn't have to make sense, it's MAGIC."

And those are generally not the best ones, often for that reason. It's bad world-building to not have a structure for that sort of thing.

What type of system--Western European folk tradition, Eastern philosophy, Native American shamanism, etc--depends on the individual book, but all of these systems have rules they follow, and some of them are very strict

Exactly. I thought we all knew that and didn't realize I needed to explain it. So, both science and magic have a point at which the explanations fade to black, but science pretends it doesn't while magic admits it does.

[controuble.livejournal.com]

And what would you call the books that came out of her Get Off the Unicorn? Telekinesis and telepathy were treated as measurable science - and who's to say they won't be in 50 years...

[butterflykiki.livejournal.com]

Oh, fine, dare me, will you? *g*

Chaos Theory for SF: that all systems and random events come together in what is overall a logical and detailed method of accounting for biology, physics, and the statistical probabilities which can create everything and anything in a predictable, reproducible fashion, even if the exact details may escape us on occasion. If we can predict the outcome, it's science, and if we can describe and implement a mechanism which follows mathematical rules to effect it, we're scientists.

Chaos Theory for Fantasy: we don't even know what dark matter is! We don't even know how the Relativity Theory comes together! Who's to say that human or sentient agency isn't a fundamental part of the whole shebang, on a level which we as mere humans may not be aware of, but which artistic/magic types with a tradition of working with emotions and images can effect something like stars blowing up? A tiny insignificant butterfly can create a hurricaine in Cairo, of course a human being, who merely is more *aware* of the universe, is perfectly capable of effecting the same changes!

There. Cookie? *looks hopeful*

[martianmooncrab.livejournal.com]

I call them pretty darn good books.. grin.

[controuble.livejournal.com]

I just noticed your wish for an elvish (elven?) scientist - try wen_spencer's Tinker The elves have magic, but they do bio-engineering with it!

[martianmooncrab.livejournal.com]

got them, plus Kim Harrison's Rachel Morgan books, she has her Trent.

[rwglaub.livejournal.com]

When I write SF and I want to get my characters from star to star, I use a stardrive. I don't explain how it works; it's just there and it does work. If I knew how a stardrive works, I'd be a quantum physicist and not a spook.

Now when it comes to the politics and the military aspects, I would go into vastly more detail...

[wyvernfriend.livejournal.com]

She has said herself a few times that she always regarded them as SF. In fact she can get quite ranty (or refuse to talk to you) if you try to say they're fantasy

[lagilman]

Oh, she can rant with the best of 'em, yeah, and with justification. Doesn't change the fact that at least the first trilogy (and the entire Harper Hall subseries) was published and promoted as fantasy,causing an uproar among readers who felt 'betrayed' by the seemingly mid-series switch to an SFnal trope.

So, does her example support or defy Frank's claim?

[wyvernfriend.livejournal.com]

I always felt that her books read more SF than Fantasy.

What I've found amusing recently is that Psionics has become more part of fantasy than SF. To me where books fall just depends on the book. SF relies on science as it's magic and fantasy relies on magic as it's science.

[badgermirlacca.livejournal.com]

I think the folks who advance the "fantasy is just made up" have never really tried it. There's such a thing, imho, as the science of fantasy, which exists because, as writers, we are driven to make sense of things (and also, because, boy does it help with internal consistency).

And you can go ahead and kick me in the shins, but "science fiction" is just daydreaming about things with technical-sounding words. To which fantasy answers, "We have technical-sounding words too! Chthulu! F'norag'ith! Wizards!"

Claiming that science fiction is fiction about the possible because it extrapolates from current knowledge is ridiculous. Alchemy was a perfectly reasonable extrapolation from current knowledge, too.

[badgermirlacca.livejournal.com]

Also, claiming that sf explains "why" doesn't work either. Asserting something is not explaining it. If they actually could explain it, it would be science, not science fiction.

[neutronjockey.livejournal.com]

*Authors,* always trying to reinvent the genre-wheelpony man...

[fakefrenchie.livejournal.com]

No, I'm saying that it's some of explanations and some of no explanations. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[fakefrenchie.livejournal.com]

In both SF and fantasy, that it.

[arouraleona.livejournal.com]

To come in extremely late:

Explaining how something works isn't necessarily better than leaving it to mystery. I've ready many SF books where they, to paraphrase a scene from "Thank you for Smoking," conveniently invent something so that whatever they want to do will work. Both genre's do this; one's generally technological the other usually less so. Some explain some don't, but I'd hardly consider SF=explain/F=no explain to be a hard and fast rule.

[ex-frankwu.livejournal.com]

Hey Laura - Arriving late to the party. I had no idea my little post would cause such a storm of commentary.

Perhaps some examples might help.

True, the spaceman doesn't stop to explain how the laser pistol works before he shoots the bad guy, any more than the magician stopping to explain why these words and not others work.

But... we often get a glimpse into how the writer sees the universe (or the lesson to be learned) when things break down - and we're told why.

The secret weapon only works in the hands of someone with a pure and noble spirit. The sword can only be pulled from the stone by one chosen by Providence. The knights all fail in their quest for the Holy Grail except Sir Galahad - because he's the only one that's pure. These are fantasy scenarios.

As opposed to science fiction - the laser will (or should) work, no matter who pulls the trigger - bad guy or good guy. If James Bond's gun jams, it's not because he's got an impure heart. It's just luck. (And, for my own taste, I find it satisfying as a reader/viewer when luck works for the bad guy but not for the hero - if a hero wins because of luck, that seems like a "cheap" victory - he should win because of wits, courage, etc.)

Of course, "fantasy" is a broad category and encompasses many newer stories and books where the how's are explored, and "science fiction" is a broad category where a lot of the how's are NOT explored anymore - just because we've seen nanobots used in so many stories, we don't really need them explained anymore. Of course, science fiction explanations don't always work. I just watched a bad movie called "The Indestructible Man" wherein a dead guy is revived with electricity (!) which makes his cells grow so fast and so dense (!) that he becomes impervious to bullets (!!!!). This - unlike, say, Nancy Kress' explanation for how people can go without sleep in "Beggars in Spain" - is science fiction (albeit bad science fiction) because there's at least an attempt at an explanation. Even if the attempted explanation is bad (this substance does this magical thing because it's an element not found on our periodic table!), I still say, because there is an attempted explanation, it's science fiction.

But...

Maybe my "fantasy = no explain how, science fiction = explain how" theory is a bit simplistic, but I think it works a lot of the time. I admit, though, that it does break down with more modern works, because we have more scientifically-literate writers writing for a more scientifically-literate audience. So we have people writing fantasy with a scientific mindset.

Today we have a lot more writers importing scientific thinking into fantasy, while at the same time we have writers leaving the science out of science fiction (the weird thing happened because of, oh, I don't know [waves hands], nanobots, I mean, um, a brand-new subatomic particle I discovered, or, uh, buckyballs - that's it!).