Distinction between s.f. and fantasy?

[Vraith]

Wish I'd gotten to this site years ago.
Simple answer: Categories (genres) don't exist in themselves, they're constructs created to (supposedly) enable analysis/distinction (and which publicists use/misuse in attempting to promote books) but they are just as much a fantasy as the work. Science itself is simply a convenient distinction, a collection of things that do x under y conditions. (and even that is unbelievably complicated, and uncertain)
The thing that allows us to draw the distinctions is, I THINK, if the story tend toward a rational (or at least potentially rational) explanation, it's sf, if the explanation (if there even is any) is ir-, non-, or a-rational, it's fantasy.
That in itself is a categorization, and therefore false, but (like science) useful in it's limited sense. (the same is true for religion, flip side). SRD made a useful distinction...but as other's have pointed out, many "genre" books cross the lines. (he also made a mistake saying science was based on conscensus..it is not. If it is REALLY science, then if I'm right, I'm right, no matter who says I'm wrong...think Galileo) And SRD has many time said his main concerns are (my paraphrasing) the internal integrity of the characters and stories.
Personal idea: science fiction (especially hard) is simply a sub-genre of fantasy...it pretends the universe is rational even if the people aren't. {sf is REductive, tending towards explanation, fantasy Constructive, tending towards multiplicity}...not criticism, I like both kinds (or, especially, a salad with both, and other ingredients, too)

Earlier people were debating meaning/readers interpretaion/authors intentions etc. My take...none is final arbiter, none is permanent. Depending on the work, some thing are (nearly) provably false (the opposite of science) but no one is true, because the meaning is a cooperative construction between readers and writer, and constantly evolving/changing/interacting {there are dozens, maybe hundreds of interesting, supportable interpretations of "Romeo and Juliet" but it is absolutely NOT about the French Revolution, or a billion other things.}
Am I babbling? Are these dead issues? Sorry...I just got excited. And this is all shorthand, leaves lots of things out. I really do wish I'd been here years ago.

[Avatar]

Wow, great first post Jeff, and welcome to the Watch. There are no such thing as dead issues here...jump in wherever you like.

--A

[Menolly]

Be welcome to the Watch, Jeff.
Be Well Come and True.

I agree with Avatar, terrific first post. I look forward to reading many more.

[Avatar]

Just re-read Gemmel's Dark Moon yesterday, and noticed something I never had before...3/4 of the way through, what had been standard fantasy fare, suddenly gave me a distinctive feel of sci-fi, without the slightest hint of science or technology.

One of the races are effectively immortal because of a symbiotic connection with the biological pod which every ten years produces a new body for the individuals consciousness.

Anyway, it immediately brought this thread to mind, with the question of whether you can have sci-fi even without any of the trappings thereof?

--A

[Vraith]

Anyway, it immediately brought this thread to mind, with the question of whether you can have sci-fi even without any of the trappings thereof?

--A

Most isn't, but you can...at least in short stories One example, years ago I read a short story...very briefly, someone snuck aboard a space transport. Unfortunately, the requirements for the journey were precisely calculated..the pilot had no choice but to chuck the stowaway into space or destroy himself, the ship, the stowaway, and the cargo. The damn thing was so sad [because well written] but every line and concept was precisely based in known science, if I recall correctly.

[Loredoctor]

Wish I'd gotten to this site years ago.
Simple answer: Categories (genres) don't exist in themselves, they're constructs created to (supposedly) enable analysis/distinction (and which publicists use/misuse in attempting to promote books) but they are just as much a fantasy as the work. Science itself is simply a convenient distinction, a collection of things that do x under y conditions. .

I absolutely agree with this.

[Avatar]

Most isn't, but you can...at least in short stories ...

Yeah...it certainly wasn't the intent in this novel, and it was just those couple of lines that made it temporarily sci-fi. But the realisation made an impact. Of course, after that I could draw a couple of other parallels...the ancient race of wise beings destroyed by the evil pod-people race, stuff like that.

I guess it goes to show that we recognise the...memes I guess, no matter what the setting is. And maybe that the sci-fi/fantasy memes are, at an underlying level, utterly interchangeable.

--A

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

"The last man on earth sits in a circular room...

...and there's a knock at the door."

Fav short story of all time...

Is it Sci-fi cause it deals with supposed future events, Fantasy, because it's a made up event, or Fanta-Sci, because it's not just simple fiction?

[Avatar]

"Hello George..." I like it too. Pretty sure it's not a circular room though.

Ah...found my copy...Knock by Frederic Brown. Nope...just

The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. There was a knock on the door...

Good story...haven't thought of it for years.

--A

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

My other fav is The Appointment In Samarra by W. Somerset Maugham

[Vraith]

My other fav is The Appointment In Samarra by W. Somerset Maugham

Is that the one about trying to avoid death? If it is...nice story, if not...the one I'm thinking of is a nice story...

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

My other fav is The Appointment In Samarra by W. Somerset Maugham

Is that the one about trying to avoid death? If it is...nice story, if not...the one I'm thinking of is a nice story...

Yepper, that's the one.