Ahira's Hangar

I hoping others will comment in on this topic. What's fantasy? What's science fiction? What's mainstream literature?

Is science fiction really as Margaret Atwood described in a recent interview, "stories with talking purple squids" in them. Her comment was made due to the need among some to insure that Ms. Atwood's last book, Oryx and Crake, would not be called science fiction.

Is the difference between fantasy and science fiction really a pertinent one?

Mainstream literature, currently is obssessed with characters at the expense of all other elements. That's why sometimes when asked what a modern novel is about, one is often at a loss to describe anything since, there is often little or no plot. Example, Remembrance of things past by Marcel Proust, has almost no plot whatever. In contrast, genre (mystery, sf, fantasy, romance, for example), are almost all plot driven stories. Critically that may be called formula driven, but maybe not. (This comment is not been made hastily or uninformedly, since I am currently in a beginning fiction class at my local community college and our leader has never mentioned plot once as an element of a story.)

I hope I am not to inflamatory here. But I would like to here some other comments, especially the divide between sf and fantasy.

taraswizard
Allan Rosewarne N9SQT/WDX6HQV
Chicago area
W/T forever, always
Plan C - http://planc.bravepages.com/main.html<i></i>

My dividing line starts with the question "Are electrons (or other subatomic particles existant or otherwise) obviously involved?" Yes = Sci-Fi. ________________
I wanna feel the metamorphosis and cleansing I've endured within my shadow. Change is coming. Now is my time. Listen to my muscle memory. Contemplate what I've been clinging to. -Tool, "Forty-Six & Two" <i></i>

To me the line is a very difficult one to draw sometimes. To me the three original Star Wars movies, while set on spaceships are more like fantasy with their nods to knights and heros and myths...but episodes 1 and 2 seem more like science fiction with their greater emphasis on tech toys...

Zelazny is another one hard to figure out. Some of his works like The Chronicles of Amber are clearly fantasy. But what about Lord of Light which is based on the myths of the Indian subcontinent but also involves high tech? I can see very valid judgements going either way on that one.

And what do you do with someone Dan Simmons? His science fiction books are clearly well researched when it comes to the science, and have all sorts of high tech wizardry in them. But he hearkens back to The Canterbury Tales, the English Romantic poets, The Aeneid, and The Iliad in them. So there are fantasy elements there, in what is clearly science fiction...

Our lives are the songs that sing the universe into existence.~David Zindell
****Tavern Wench of DOGMA, the Defenders of George Martin's Art****<i></i>

Interesting question, the further we move into the future the more the demarcation line between Fantasy and Sci-Fi seems to get blured. Authors, such as; Gene Wolfe, Anne McCaffrey, David Brin and (from what I hear) David Zindell appear to be combining the two genres to some degree. With Wolfe's New Sun books we see an almost Medievil society set way out in the future with space travel occuring simutaneously. Apparently, in the Pern series McCaffrey has space-travelers dismantel their ships to create a, somewhat, anti-tech society. Like Wolfe, in Brin's Glory Season the sway of the adventure and presentation of the story reads like Fantasy-but it's clearly Sci-Fi. And, from what I hear, Zindell throws a few Sci-Fi devices into the, mainly Fantasy-based, Ea Cycle (The Lightstone, Lord of Lies...)

The difference between the two genres is basically what Syl said: If it doesn't involve physics, space travel, genetic engineering, computers or advanced weapons of mass destruction it's probably Fantasy. If it involves magic, dragons, elf-like, or made up, creatures or talking animals it's probably Fantasy. However, as I indicated above, the skills of certian, newer, writers are beginning to cross that line--Zelazny is another one of these "tricky" examples... And now Danlo looked in that direction, too. He remembered that snowy owls mate in the darkest part of deep winter, and so along with this beautiful white bird perched in a tree a hundred feet away, he turned to face the sea as he watched and waited.

Ahira, Ahira, he called out silently to the sky. Ahira, Ahira<i>Edited by: danlo60 at: 10/19/03 1:44 pm
</i>

I agree with the comments so far. Anymore it's almost impossible to disentangle SF from Fantasy from Horror where their edges overlap. Also, as the real world becomes more science fictional, mainstream thrillers necessarily take on more SF qualities.

And of course there's overlap between SF/F and Literary fiction: authors with wide appeal like Vonnegut and Le Guin move from the "genre" to the "literary", some Li-Fi authors like Atwood fight tooth and nail to avoid the SF label, while others, the so-called Slipstream writers (Don DeLillo etc.), flirt enthusiastically with the genre.

I always end up defaulting to a maxim quoted by Norman Spinrad: "Science Fiction is whatever gets marketed as Science Fiction".

I also agree with taraswizard's assessment of the literary mainstream. There's something to be said for the discipline of the genre writers - their craft demands that they study aspects of the world outside the inner emotional landscape.

For my money, the very best writers are those who start within a genre field, but then tear up the formula and stand tradition on it's head: Wolfe's and Gibson's SF, James Ellroy's crime fiction, Cormac McCarthy's westerns, Jim Blaylock's fantasies, Le Carre's spy novels ...

My old roommate, who would only read Pullitzer or Nobel award winning novels, use to always refer to my reading list as "trashy". I would just shake my head and say, "Man, you don't know what you're missing." <i></i>

This has been very interesting reading everyones comments and I am glad that board interest has been generated. I will add some more of my own thoughts, plus some other stuff. So this might get kinda long.
taraswizard typed the following drivel Quote:insure that Ms. Atwood's last book, Oryx and Crake, would not be called science fiction. The origin of some of this 'controversy' regarding Oryx and Crake, according to some other stuff I read on the net, was a recent comment by a critic with the NY Times Review of Books who said 'we will not be reviewing Margaret Atwood's new book because it's Science Fiction, and we do not waste our time on that stuff'.
Alph seeker wrote: Quote:I always end up defaulting to a maxim quoted by Norman Spinrad: "Science Fiction is whatever gets marketed as Science Fiction". Well that's an interesting POV, but does that mean Kurt Vonnegut, Stephen King and Anne Rice are not SciFi/Fantasy writers, cause in my local Barnes and Noble none of those three authors are located in the SF/F section. Now I have my own opinion on all three authors and it does not agree with most peoples opinions (one is and two are not, not saying more) Does it even matter if they are or are not? Regardless, those three authors have undoubtedly influenced many writers who works are in the Barnes and Noble SF/F section.

My latest thoughts on the issue, please let the discussion continue. Hope to hear from more of you. taraswizard
Allan Rosewarne N9SQT/WDX6HQV
Chicago area
W/T forever, always
Plan C - http://planc.bravepages.com/main.html<i></i>

Well, I always took the Spinrad quote (can't recall who actually said it first) not as a serious attempt at categorical literary definition, but rather tongue-in-cheek admission that all previous attempts to define "science fiction" have failed miserably - a sort of throwing up of the hands, if you will.

[Uh, okay nevermind the stuff I edited here. After reading it again, I have no idea what I was talking about. ] <i>Edited by: AlphSeeker at: 10/18/03 6:08 pm
</i>

Some funny items from David Langford's Ansible website ( www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/SF-Archives/Ansible/ ) regarding Atwood's stance on sci fi:

Quote:Patrick Gale's review of the new Margaret Atwood novel admires her `gleeful inventiveness' in imagining unheard-of wonders like `rats genetically spliced to snakes' or `pain-free chickens developed to produce only multiple breasts', yet deftly avoids calling this sc**nce f*ct**n: `In Oryx And Crake she makes a welcome return to fantasy. She would probably chuckle at that and murmur "if only" for, like The Handmaid's Tale, it is less a fantasy than an imaginative projection with a rational foundation in current facts.' Gale's other acceptable code phrase for the genre that dares not speak its name is `dystopian myth'. (Waterstone's Books Quarterly)

Margaret Atwood explains the vast gulf between our world and hers: `Science fiction has monsters and spaceships; speculative fiction could really happen.' (Guardian interview, 26 April)

SF authors may be storytellers, but don't count as novelists: `Contemporary novelists rarely write about science or technology. Margaret Atwood tackles both -- and more -- in one of the year's most surprising novels.' (The Economist, 3-9 May)

As a service to the editor's sanity, further outbreaks of Margaret Atwood have been censored. Oh, all right, just the one. Science fiction, as opposed to what she writes, is distinguished by `talking squids in outer space.' (BBC1 Breakfast News)

Stephen Baxter on Margaret Atwood's latest dismissive definition of sf, `talking squids in outer space': `Yikes, it's all my fault then; I did have talking squids in outer space, in my novel Time. Get a life, woman!' Jeff VanderMeer adds: `I do agree that the disreputable "talking squid in outer space" subgenre is giving sf a bad name. On the other hand, talking squid in a fantasy or postmodern fantasy story are not only acceptable -- they're expected! At least, by me.'

Max (Jennifer Government) Barry is yet another author who defines sf by futuristic gadgetry and regards this with Atwood-like alarm: `I had the idea for a story set in an ultra-capitalist world for a long time. But I didn't want to write a science-fiction book with laser guns and flying cars. I was more interested in writing a social fiction: taking the world we live in now and tweaking it a bit.' (Orbit Ezine 60) [DH] Of course no sf author could create that kind of thing. The Observer's reviewer agreed: `The point of the dystopian satire, of course -- as opposed to pure science-fiction -- is that its imagined world is both recognisable and chillingly possible ...' (27 July)

Margaret Atwood's careful rejection of the sf label was rewarded on 15 Aug, when Oryx and Crake made the Booker Prize longlist.

Joe J. of Waterstone's in Edinburgh took wicked liberties with Oryx and Crake: `Guess who sold a pile of them from his sf table? Interestingly, several of our regulars picked up Atwood and Gibson's Pattern Recognition at the same time. So a "literary" author who, of course, doesn't write sf and an sf author who has just turned out a book which is not actually sf.... God moves in mysterious ways, but books move at right angles to god. Next month we had Jennifer Government on our front shelves ... not treated or categorized as sf, despite being The Space Merchants for the No Logo generation. Sold a few, but not many. I read it, put a capsule review on it and displayed it on our SF Recommends stand. Well, golly, it went and sold far more than it did when it was at the front of the store, prominently displayed in new fiction. Know your audience as a bookseller, even when the publisher doesn't.'

Margaret Atwood reached the six-strong Booker Prize shortlist with her undeniably (except by her) sf novel Oryx and Crake. She has been nominated five times and won the 2000 prize for The Blind Assassin. One major firm of UK bookies listed her as favourite, with odds of 2-1.

<i>Edited by: AlphSeeker at: 10/20/03 9:28 am
</i>

This is an interesting topic. Now, I don't classify an author as sci-fi or fantasy. With some like Le Guin or Zelazny it's hard to do. So I classify the work. As technology gets more advanced, and the setting gets placed farther and farther into the future, here is where I determine it as science fiction. Fantasy is generaly in an existence that never did or never will exist. In sci fi, sometimes it's the same way, but with technology, etc., but other times it's in the future of Earth, or mankind. That, to me, is science fiction. Further up, and further in!

I'm from Boston. I dont pronounce my R's. I call a garbage can a barrel, a liquor store a packie, a water fountain a bubbla, a milkshake a frappe. I root for a team who has not won a World Series since 1918. To me Cape Cod is a little piece of Heaven down here on Earth. The best place to be on a summer night is Fenway. I ride on the T. I know better than to swim in the Charles River. I yell YANKEES SUCK! when the Red Sox are playing the Tigers. I am a Bostonian and I'm wicked proud of it.<i></i>

AlphSeeker thanks for the extensive background from David Langford's Ansible. Some of my information came from the same source.

Interestingly, given some of that information, Margaret Atwood recently chaired some of the panels at Torcon III WorldCon and other assorted panels which were in conjunction with WorldCon. taraswizard
Allan Rosewarne N9SQT/WDX6HQV
Chicago area
W/T forever, always
Plan C - http://planc.bravepages.com/main.html<i></i>

Interesting. I've always secretly regarded Moby Dick as science fiction. Or "literature of the fantastic" at the very least. <i></i>

This will not be particularly short. I recently dug up, a print out from the Web of any essay by Ursula LeGuin, regarding this topic. On Despising Genres is the title, the essay was on www.ursulakleguin.com site in May 2002.

Her basic points are that the genre classifications (sf, fantasy, Young Adult, KidLit, mystery, romance) have been created by librarians and the book business as classification and marketing tools. But should never be used as value categorizations. She continues saying that literary and academic reviewers are appallingly ignorant of genre literature and actually take some pride in their narrowness. And how was it decided that realism, i.e. the lack of speculation and/or imaginative elements, was a criteria of "good" literature? She continues by saying would Moby Dick or Gulliver's Travels be better books if they were more realistic. Going back to reviewers and critics ignorance, she says one can not obviously read Gulliver's Travels the same one reads War and Peace, so why do those same reviewers expect to read Tolkien the same way one might read Michener. No wonder they do not get it!!

Further comments. taraswizard
Allan Rosewarne N9SQT/WDX6HQV
Chicago area
W/T forever, always
Plan C - http://planc.bravepages.com/main.html<i>Edited by: taraswizard at: 11/11/03 1:34 pm
</i>

Interesting point about Moby Dick, and that leads to another of Ms. LeGuin's points from the same essay. Up until very recent times (she dates it in the 19 century) all fiction would be what we now classify as fantastical. Since it was only with the ascendency of the 19th century bourgeosie that what now would be called mainstream literature came about. This class developed a self centered obssession with their own lives and then wanted to see it written about in fiction!

I happened across another essay, that IMO links to this, topic, and it links genre fiction (crime, scifi and fantasy, mystery, etc) to the tradition of romances (not romantic fiction) www.sff.net/people/doylem...genre2.htp taraswizard
Allan Rosewarne N9SQT/WDX6HQV
Chicago area
W/T forever, always
Plan C - http://planc.bravepages.com/main.html<i>Edited by: taraswizard at: 12/6/03 5:28 pm
</i>

Orson Scott Card once said (or maybe quoted someone else who said) that the difference between fantasy and sci-fi is that fantasy has trees and sci-fi has rivets.

But really, it's not that simple. And sometimes it's hard to classify something as one or the other. In that case, I usually just define it as "sci-fi/fantasy," which covers all the bases. <i></i>

OSC's comments very good. Want to add that in regard to more traditionally known authors the line is very clear. For example, UKL's Earthsea books are fantasy, Tolkien is fantasy, UKL's Hainish novels and books derived in that universe (eg. LHoD, Dispossed) are scifi, Asimov is scifi. And to add to the general confusion, Ray Bradbury's comments that he never considered himself a SF author, but a writer of fantasy. An author of my somewhat curosry knowledge, Maryanne Mohanraj www.mamohanraj.com, has started a new serious and academic institute, for the futherance of all speculative literature, www.speculativeliterature.org/. BTW, her credentials include editing the Strange Horizon online e-zine, several anthologies and authoring a Sri Lankan cookbook. And does grouping everything under the generic heading speculative fiction satisfy everyone

Still enjoying the discussion, please feel free to comment at your leisure taraswizard
Allan Rosewarne N9SQT/WDX6HQV
Chicago area
W/T forever, always
Plan C - http://planc.bravepages.com/main.html<i>Edited by: taraswizard at: 12/30/03 2:22 am
</i>