Distinction between s.f. and fantasy?

[aliantha]

To support Lucimay's Wiki quote. Let me offer an [url=www.sff.net/people/doylemacdonald/genre2.htp]essay by Debra Doyle (writer and instructor for Viable Paradise workshop) on SF/F as a classification[url]. Ms Doyle's premise is that comparing genre (SF and F) to other fiction (Hemingway, fiction of Tom Wolfe and Thomas Wolfe) is unfair and unrealistic, since the models and precedens for genre lit are the romances of medieval and early modern period.

INterestingly, when I first read the Doyle essay, I instantly saw her arguments and discussions extended past the world of SF and F, and easily extended to most crime fiction, many adventure stories (Talbot Mundy, H. Rider Haggard, Michener), horror fiction, some Twain, and alot of Dickensian works. AS another corollary, does anyone here know that H.G. Wells self identified his fictional works as 'scientific romances'.

A few years ago, before I read the Doyle essay. I read an essay online written by UK LeGuin that restates many of these same ideas.

I agree with you, taraswizard. The romances of medieval and early modern period are the predecessors for *all* popular fiction.

[taraswizard]

Aliantha wrote a few days ago

I agree with you, taraswizard. The romances of medieval and early modern period are the predecessors for *all* popular fiction.

And why through four years of secondary education and 5+ yrs of post secondary education did I never learn this seemingly well known fact?

Coincidentally (it was around the time I first read the Doyle essay), through my seeming, ATT, obssession with BtVS fanfiction a few years ago, I actually figured this out on my own. I made the logical link between the Gothic lit of the 18th Century, to the pop fiction of the 19th cent (Dickens, Hawthorne, etc.) and that leads to the most genres and sub genres of current pop ficition.

[Zahir]

Personal opinion...

Science fiction deals with things that the audience associates with science and technology.

Fantasy deals with things that the audience associates with magic.

Thus telekinesis, FTL, time travel, teleportation, force fields etc. are all viewed as science fiction even though science tells us they are all impossible. Yet stick in a castle, some armored knights and a prophecy or two (whether they come true or not) and we call it fantasy, making the non-humans in the story "demons" or "monsters" instead of "aliens."

[Rocksister]

Yea, what Zahir said. Good answer.

[The Dreaming]

I oppose the third option for a fairly simple reason. I do not believe that the writers intent really has much importance in fiction. It is entirely up to the reader to interpret the story as he chooses. This does not make the writer's intent meaningless, or even uninteresting. In fact, it can be enlightening to see the perspective of others. But in the end I think that the reader is the ultimate arbiter of meaning. What does the distinction mean to you? is the more important question. I think Donaldson raises a good point, and an enlightening one, in the context of his work.

[Holsety]

As I see it, genre distinctions are not rules for authors to follow, but rather generalizations which follow from what authors within a genre do. An author begins by establishing himself within a particular genre by following the rules. If a large number of fantasy writers produce works w/ elements of sci fi, mystery, or whatever, it is either a crossover or an expansion of the genre.

The distinctions are less important in what an author does/should write, and more important in terms of determining the audience. The deeper and more unique aspects of Donaldson's work are not going to be discovered simply by being told "he writes fantasy." If you look at most books which are called " Basically, someone will buy a fantasy book looking for magic and the supernatural. Now,

For instance, Margaret Atwood claims to write speculative fiction, not science fiction. Well, she's a great author but she's wrong, the two aren't mutually exclusive and a spec. fiction book which extrapolates primarily about scientific advancements and how they effect humanity is a science fiction book. If you look at other successful scifi books which are widely read in public schools etc (mostly dystopian stuff) they are often sold in bookstores in the "literature" section rather than the "science fiction" section. Again, the term "sci fi" is appended based on size of the reader base rather than its content.

I think the genre distinction is a surface level one. A fantasy book can still be deeply meticulous and scientific in exploring something which isn't technological: GRRM is way more focused on social structure and history in my mind, not magic. Of course you could argue that GRRM is historical fiction wearing the mask of fantasy; but that's just the point, everyone calls it FANTASY because the importance is the motifs and the surface level stuff, not because of the "deep" stuff.

I think the distinctions Donaldson makes are VERY important and interesting, but I would use a different set of terminology to identify them (not sure what).

Additionally, being part of a genre is also about what authors you are grouped with, inspired you, etc. Genres are, to some extent, movements; many epic fantasy writers (brooks, jordan) are in my mind following the legacy of tolkien whether they say so or not. They're published by the same companies, they meet at the same conventions, they publish anthologies together. Authors which write using the same themes (for instance the two Shelleys writing their two works inspired by Prometheus - BTW fantasy - with the latter speculating about the advancement of technology and its effects) but preceded the popular success of the genre and are considered "ancestors" and not neccessarily sci fi authors themselves.

[MsMary]

I don't know if this has been mentioned. Most of us, I think, would consider Ray Bradbury to be a scifi writer. However, I read an interview with him, a number of years back, in which he classified himself as a fantasy writer.

[Holsety]

I don't know if this has been mentioned. Most of us, I think, would consider Ray Bradbury to be a scifi writer. However, I read an interview with him, a number of years back, in which he classified himself as a fantasy writer.

Interesting! But ya, I usually think of Bradbury as sci-fi, then again 451 is the only book I've read by him. I'm not really sure about Thomas Huxley but I've noticed that 1984 is often not considered sci-fi (I actually agree with this).

[Zarathustra]

I oppose the third option for a fairly simple reason. I do not believe that the writers intent really has much importance in fiction. It is entirely up to the reader to interpret the story as he chooses. This does not make the writer's intent meaningless, or even uninteresting. In fact, it can be enlightening to see the perspective of others. But in the end I think that the reader is the ultimate arbiter of meaning. What does the distinction mean to you? is the more important question. I think Donaldson raises a good point, and an enlightening one, in the context of his work.

There is a sense in which this is true. After all, we are subjective beings, so personal interpretation is built into the nature of our reality. And if we're comfortable forgetting about the needs, wants, and intentions of others--basically slipping into solipsism or narcissism--then this starting point would be fine. However, part of our being in this world is being with others, and communication with others. And art, specifically story-telling, is a form of communication. Therefore, there is a sense in which art as communication can succeed, or fail.

If a story can mean anything, then it really means nothing. There must be a sense in which we can say a reader has missed the author's point. For instance, if we read the Chronicles and come away with the message that we should all be shitty to each other because TC is a rapist jerk at the beginning, then we have failed to see the meaning of his entire story arc. Or, if we read Toni Morrison and come away with the "message" that racism is perfectly fine and legitimate, then we've certainly misinterpreted one of the elements of her stories.

So if there are senses in which stories can be misinterpreted, then it follows that there are senses in which stories should be interpreted correctly--and in order for that to be true, the reader cannot be the final arbiter of meaning, as you say, because it must ultimately be compared against the author's intentions.

Personally, I think that readers are not automatically right. We don't have absolute power as readers to imbue our own interpretations of someone else's creative work with our own personal meanings (if our goal is to understand the author's story). While reading for oneself can be a legitimate and rewarding exercise, it is quite different from reading to understand or appreciate what the author was trying to accomplish. If you don't like what the author tried to accomplish, you have the right to judge it in those terms. But you don't have the "right" to claim that your own personal interpretation or understanding is in any sense equal to the person who created it, no more than you have the right to claim that a person means "x" when they actually mean "y." While you can disagree with a person's opinion, you must first understand it in order to do so.

If you (incorrectly) see a meaning in a story which the author didn't intend, and that meaning has value to you in terms of applying it to your life, then that act of creating meaning is indeed valid for you and your life. But this is something entirely separate from the author's intentions and goals, and is merely a fortuitous misunderstanding. That might have personal worth to you, but it is not a successful act of communication between author and reader.

I've never understood authors who give their readers such leeway. If my own books ever get published, I will have no problem telling someone else that they are wrong or they have misunderstood me. After all, the alternative is to admit that I was wrong and they were right--which is ridiculous. No one can understand my story better than me, because the unarticulated thoughts which I'm struggling to express are mine. It's possible that I can articulate them poorly--and that's my fault--but no one is in a position to tell me what I meant better than myself. And no one is in a position to tell me that my story could mean something which contradicts what I intended to say without accusing me of making a mistake in execution.

[wayfriend]

If my own books ever get published, I will have no problem telling someone else that they are wrong or they have misunderstood me. After all, the alternative is to admit that I was wrong and they were right--which is ridiculous.

One of you must be wrong?!?!

Haven't we argued before about intention vs effect, or intention vs interpretation? Would not this fall into the same argument?

I think there's a problem when you talk about intented meaning and resultant meaning as if they MUST be the same thing. I think Donaldson is as guilty of this as anyone, in that he discusses only resultant meaning, as if he never intended one.

[Zarathustra]

One of you must be wrong?!?!

Yes, in a sense. If we're talking about "what the story is supposed to mean or convey," then there's only one right answer (unless the author intended to be ambiguous). If we're talking about "how the story affects the reader," then you're right: there are a multitude of possible reactions. I'm just saying that those reactions aren't a valid measure of the author's intentions, especially when they evoke reactions that run counter to his designs. And not only do they fail to be a valid measure of author intentions, but they are less valuable and informative, in my opinion, rather than the "final word," as Dreaming suggested.

If we were all sitting together giving our opinions of the the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, and Donaldson happened to be there participating in the discussion giving his opinions as well, who in their right mind would consider their opinion the "ultimate arbiter of meaning???"

I think there's a problem when you talk about intented meaning and resultant meaning as if they MUST be the same thing. I think Donaldson is as guilty of this as anyone, in that he discusses only resultant meaning, as if he never intended one.

Hmm. . . I thought I clearly distinguished between the two. I spent several paragraphs drawing that distinction (my paragraphs 4 and 5). I don't think they are the same thing at all. I just think that the intended meaning of the author is much, much more important than the resultant meaning the readers derives--if for nothing else than because the resultant meaning can be wrong when measured against the author's intention; whereas if you reversed this and measured the author's intention against the resultant meaning, we certainly couldn't say that the author was wrong. However, the issue of right and wrong can only be ignored (a situation you seem to advocate when you ask if one "MUST be wrong") by avoiding any comparison between the two. And it seems to me that the MOST valuable information we can glean from a story derives from such a comparison.

Donaldson does give the (false, imo) impression that he puts just as much stock in the resultant interpretation as his intended meaning. But this is countered by the things like the afterward in The Real Story. Why go to such length showing readers the underlying structure of your story if the story can speak for itself, and any interpretation is just as valid? I could claim that the Gap is follows Rush's rock opera Hemispheres more closely than Wagner's Ring cycle . . . but I'd be wrong. And Donaldson made sure we knew that.

[The Dreaming]

One of you must be wrong?!?!

Yes, in a sense. If we're talking about "what the story is supposed to mean or convey," then there's only one right answer (unless the author intended to be ambiguous). If we're talking about "how the story affects the reader," then you're right: there are a multitude of possible reactions. I'm just saying that those reactions aren't a valid measure of the author's intentions, especially when they evoke reactions that run counter to his designs. And not only do they fail to be a valid measure of author intentions, but they are less valuable and informative, in my opinion, rather than the "final word," as Dreaming suggested.

If we were all sitting together giving our opinions of the the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, and Donaldson happened to be there participating in the discussion giving his opinions as well, who in their right mind would consider their opinion the "ultimate arbiter of meaning???"

I think there's a problem when you talk about intented meaning and resultant meaning as if they MUST be the same thing. I think Donaldson is as guilty of this as anyone, in that he discusses only resultant meaning, as if he never intended one.

Hmm. . . I thought I clearly distinguished between the two. I spent several paragraphs drawing that distinction (my paragraphs 4 and 5). I don't think they are the same thing at all. I just think that the intended meaning of the author is much, much more important than the resultant meaning the readers derives--if for nothing else than because the resultant meaning can be wrong when measured against the author's intention; whereas if you reversed this and measured the author's intention against the resultant meaning, we certainly couldn't say that the author was wrong. However, the issue of right and wrong can only be ignored (a situation you seem to advocate when you ask if one "MUST be wrong") by avoiding any comparison between the two. And it seems to me that the MOST valuable information we can glean from a story derives from such a comparison.

Donaldson does give the (false, imo) impression that he puts just as much stock in the resultant interpretation as his intended meaning. But this is countered by the things like the afterward in The Real Story. Why go to such length showing readers the underlying structure of your story if the story can speak for itself, and any interpretation is just as valid? I could claim that the Gap is follows Rush's rock opera Hemispheres more closely than Wagner's Ring cycle . . . but I'd be wrong. And Donaldson made sure we knew that.

There are a large number of important authors (Donaldson included) who believe that a story simply exists. Much like history, or life, there are a number of correct interpretations for any story. Certainly, there are things that the author thinks are important, but it is certainly possible and common for a reader to interpret the story differently. I sincerely doubt that you could get that interpretation out of a Toni Morrison story and defend it with any level of depth. Life is too complex for any one person to see every side of it, the side the reader is looking from is easily as important as the side the author is looking from.

However why does art exist? I firmly believe that art exists to bring joy to those who participate in it. Reading a book is an entirely singular activity. There are certainly those of us who seek to squeeze more meaning out of art than we can by ourselves, and we seek to share the experience. (Anyone reading this knows exactly what I am talking about) Knowing the author's intent is certainly enlightening in this regard but ultimately it is unnecessary. If an author disagrees with your interpretation, that doesn't make it wrong, it's just not one you share with him. If you make an interpretation inconsistent with the work itself you are wrong, but that is the only way.

Hell, there are plenty of artists out there who dislike certain parts of their work. Alec Guinness hated Star Wars. Are we wrong to enjoy his performance in it? Pink Floyd hates Atom Heart Mother, that doesn't mean it's wrong to like it. (I know there are more examples, those are just the ones on top of my head)

All a person can really do is try to assign a meaning to life that is consistent with their own assignations. Reading a piece of fiction, or any good piece of art, is obtaining an experience that never happened, or is impossible, but contains truth. There are lots of reasons to do this, but most people do it because it's fun. Sometimes, you have fun *and* you learn something. Some of us think it's more enjoyable to do the latter. Some people can even get off on just the learning. (In my case only for things that are interesting )

This does not mean I don't think there are absolutes, I just think that some things are logically interpreted the same way from every perspective. There is no correct perspective from which Light doesn't move at ~300 million meters per second.

The search for meaning is one of the things that unites all humanity, and is *I believe* a mark of consciousness. I also believe that no one person has a monopoly on truth, even an author

[ninjaboy]

Firstly I gotta disagree with ANYONE who says "Fantasy does not describe or comment upon rational or tangible observations of the external world; the world of science and technology. Nor does it describe or comment upon verifiable observations of the human condition, in general or in particular" despite whether he's my fave fantasy author.

Any book can be a social/political or even technological commentary/portrayal of society whether it's set in a fantasy world or not. I know that sciFi usually holds that mantle, but saying a Fantasy book cannot do the same is just ludicrous. Look at Earthsea by Ursula LeGuin. Look at Eddings' Tamuli series.. And usually I's advise you to stay well clear of Eddings.

But I digress. There's a argument that the Star Wars series isn't Sci-Fi, just Fantasy in the future.. Or Fantasy with lightsabres. Of course technology as we know it and 'magic' can coexist in the one medium.

There IS a difference, of course. SciFi is the one with spaceships and interplanetary (at least) travel, Fantasy involves strange beings (like wookies) and talismans of great power.. And generally not so much interplanetary travel.

Most of my favourite authors can weild both pens.

[The Dreaming]

The difference is mostly cosmetic in my opinion, with the exception being that hard sci-fi deals with some things that *might* be, rather than things that aren't and never will be. There is virtually no distinction between soft sci-fi and fantasy.

[Zarathustra]

There are a large number of important authors (Donaldson included) who believe that a story simply exists. Much like history, or life, there are a number of correct interpretations for any story. Certainly, there are things that the author thinks are important, but it is certainly possible and common for a reader to interpret the story differently. I sincerely doubt that you could get that interpretation out of a Toni Morrison story and defend it with any level of depth. Life is too complex for any one person to see every side of it, the side the reader is looking from is easily as important as the side the author is looking from.

However why does art exist? I firmly believe that art exists to bring joy to those who participate in it. Reading a book is an entirely singular activity. There are certainly those of us who seek to squeeze more meaning out of art than we can by ourselves, and we seek to share the experience. (Anyone reading this knows exactly what I am talking about) Knowing the author's intent is certainly enlightening in this regard but ultimately it is unnecessary. If an author disagrees with your interpretation, that doesn't make it wrong, it's just not one you share with him. If you make an interpretation inconsistent with the work itself you are wrong, but that is the only way.

Hell, there are plenty of artists out there who dislike certain parts of their work. Alec Guinness hated Star Wars. Are we wrong to enjoy his performance in it? Pink Floyd hates Atom Heart Mother, that doesn't mean it's wrong to like it. (I know there are more examples, those are just the ones on top of my head)

All a person can really do is try to assign a meaning to life that is consistent with their own assignations. Reading a piece of fiction, or any good piece of art, is obtaining an experience that never happened, or is impossible, but contains truth. There are lots of reasons to do this, but most people do it because it's fun. Sometimes, you have fun *and* you learn something. Some of us think it's more enjoyable to do the latter. Some people can even get off on just the learning. (In my case only for things that are interesting )

This does not mean I don't think there are absolutes, I just think that some things are logically interpreted the same way from every perspective. There is no correct perspective from which Light doesn't move at ~300 million meters per second.

The search for meaning is one of the things that unites all humanity, and is *I believe* a mark of consciousness. I also believe that no one person has a monopoly on truth, even an author

Donaldson has many entries on the GI about this subject. Here's one right from the beginning:

Michael Rowlands: Mr Donaldson,
What do you think of the PostModern movement to 'reject the author's message'? I read that alot of writers now expect the readers to read their own interpretation into a text. Is this necessarily a bad thing, that the message can be ignored or missed?
Regards,

Michael

Here's what I think: there's less to this than meets the eye. Reading is an interactive process. Readers have always supplied their own interpretations of what they read. In my case, the issue is simple: I've never had a "message" I wanted to communicate (impose on the reader), so rejecting my message should be effortless. (I'm a storyteller, not a polemicist. As such, my only mission is to help my readers understand my characters and appreciate what those poor sods are going through.) In general, however, one might say that the task of any writer is to communicate his/her intentions so clearly that the reader will--as it were spontaneously--arrive at the appropriate interpretation. And if that task has been accomplished, what would be the point of rejecting the author's message?

(02/23/2004)

[Lord Mhoram]

Donaldson and postmodernism. Interesting.

[aTOMiC]

In general terms my initial reaction to this question is "Of course there is."
In my mind SCI-FI stories often attempt to portray their environments in such a way that there is some flavoring of technical logic or futuristic reality.
While Fantasy, generally speaking, tends to exist in environments that are far less interested in striving to be perceived as realistic.

This whole notion can be synthesized down to one helpful phrase.

Robots and Dragons.

IMHO of course.

[Avatar]

Go LoreMaster.

Meh...I think that people tend to read more into the story than the author ever intended. I also think that the author's intention cannot be divorced from the story, although it can be completely missed. Or invented in the over-analytic mind of the reader.

--A

[Menolly]

Robots and Dragons.

Until the publication of McCaffrey's Dragonsdawn [1988], I agreed with you. Dragonsdawn was the 9th Pern book published, but if the stories are read chronologically, it is the first book in the series (I prefer published order, personally). Prior to Dragonsdawn, I placed Pern squarely in the fantasy realm.

Dragonsdawn put that placement all to hell, with planetary colonization and artificial intelligence an integral part of the story.

...not to mention bio-genetic engineering...

[aTOMiC]

Robots and Dragons.

Until the publication of McCaffrey's Dragonsdawn [1988], I agreed with you. Dragonsdawn was the 9th Pern book published, but if the stories are read chronologically, it is the first book in the series (I prefer published order, personally). Prior to Dragonsdawn, I placed Pern squarely in the fantasy realm.

Dragonsdawn put that placement all to hell, with planetary colonization and artificial intelligence an integral part of the story.

...not to mention bio-genetic engineering...

Nothing at all wrong with a few books or series of books messing around with the conventions. I'm just saying in general. The movie Reign of Fire really messes up the fantasy/dragon stereotype but you don't see that happen very often. More often than not if you gots you some dragons you gots you some sorcerers and so on and so forth. And if you gots you some robots you gots you some Outer Limits/Isaac Azimov type stuff going on.