Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:54 am
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.
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.
There are no such thing as dead issues here...jump in wherever you like. 
I like it too. Pretty sure it's not a circular room though.