![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Tirelessly ranting
May. 22nd, 2004 04:30 pmI know I will never be able to win this battle, but I dearly, dearly wish people would recognize a distinction between science fiction and fantasy. Oh, they have a vague sort of idea...science fiction has spaceships, aliens, time travel....fantasy has unicorns, fairies and magic...but it's all really the same, isn't it? I mean, none of it's real. It's all just lumped together in the bookstores, in most categorizing systems, under the general "sci-fi" or "speculative fiction" label.
Ugh. Well, I've already discussed why "real" has nothing to do with art. No fiction is real, and just because one piece involves spaceships or magic wands doesn't mean it's less real than something involving cars and guns. But since for most people, anything that couldn't really happen in real life is basically all the same, they don't care about distinguishing between sci-fi and fantasy. But I do. Surprise, surprise. ;) Don't get me wrong. I am excessively fond of both genres (though fantasy is by far my preferred one). And I recognize that they bear similarities that other genres do not - and we might as well include horror as well, because they all sort of run along a continuum. Some works are not neatly placed into any of the three genres. But that doesn't meant there isn't a difference! And for me, if no one else, it's an important difference.
For science fiction, I generally go with the same definition my father gave me years and years ago. There is one basic element, such as the existence of aliens or time travel, that is accepted as true within the confines of the story. And going from that, everything else can be extrapolated. But it has to be consistent, and work in the confines of...get this...science! Nothing is taken for granted. Great care is taken with concerns such as gravity, genetics, or the theory of relativity. Now, depending on the author, it may or may not be solidly researched and believable, but there should at least be an attempt made. For example, in Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game, gravity is a real concern, not just ignored and treated as if it would work the same way on a spaceship as on Earth. The technology isn't the focus of the story, so it's not thoroughly explained (and doesn't need to be) but there's evidence of real science alongside the fiction.
By this definition, Star Trek (of which I am a moderate fan, by the way) is NOT true hard-core science fiction. It's light, social science fiction. What the heck is dilithium? It doesn't matter. There's no real attempt to have the techno-babble really based on fact, but that's all right - that's not the point. The point is the social commentary and examination of human nature and such. It's still science fiction largely because there's just one great big supposition - Earth technology has advanced hugely in space travel and in other sciences - but the details are left mostly untouched to pay more attention to non-science matters.
So what about fantasy? Fantasy doesn't concern itself with maintaining a scientific plausibility (though that does NOT mean it's haphazard; internal consistency is crucial for any kind of story). But if there's magic of any sort, it's not explained scientifically. Most fantasy elements like magic can serve as metaphors (with dozens of multiple interpretations), but they're not literally derived from reality. Thus, SW is pure fantasy. There isn't a bit of true science fiction in it. Sound in space, gravity on a spaceship behaving just like gravity on a planet, hopping across the galaxy without suffering any of the effects of plus-light speed travel, planets that are entirely of one climate and terrain - come on! Clearly, George Lucas is not the least interested in extrapolating anything scientific. The mystical Force alone is enough to indicate a fantasy (and midichlorians, little mysterious creatures that SPEAK in some sort of psychic manner to their hosts, can hardly be construed as a sort of scientific explanation for the Force!) but there are just so many other elements that indicate fantasy and completely ruin any sci-fi categorization. Spaceships do not make sci-fi.
So what? Most people don't care whether it's either sci-fi or fantasy; they either like the whole speculative fiction super-genre or leave it entirely. But I care, like I care about so many things that don't matter to many others. Because sci-fi, particularly of the sort that is meticulously researched, tends to have a more narrow, often social focus. And there's nothing wrong with that. But fantasy, with no true literal holds on the actual world at all, can be much more broadly and universally metaphorical. That's why I prefer SW over Star Trek, though I like both, and that's why I want to see fantasy get its own section in the bookstore, to be recognized as its own genre. Horror gets it, why not fantasy?
Ugh. Well, I've already discussed why "real" has nothing to do with art. No fiction is real, and just because one piece involves spaceships or magic wands doesn't mean it's less real than something involving cars and guns. But since for most people, anything that couldn't really happen in real life is basically all the same, they don't care about distinguishing between sci-fi and fantasy. But I do. Surprise, surprise. ;) Don't get me wrong. I am excessively fond of both genres (though fantasy is by far my preferred one). And I recognize that they bear similarities that other genres do not - and we might as well include horror as well, because they all sort of run along a continuum. Some works are not neatly placed into any of the three genres. But that doesn't meant there isn't a difference! And for me, if no one else, it's an important difference.
For science fiction, I generally go with the same definition my father gave me years and years ago. There is one basic element, such as the existence of aliens or time travel, that is accepted as true within the confines of the story. And going from that, everything else can be extrapolated. But it has to be consistent, and work in the confines of...get this...science! Nothing is taken for granted. Great care is taken with concerns such as gravity, genetics, or the theory of relativity. Now, depending on the author, it may or may not be solidly researched and believable, but there should at least be an attempt made. For example, in Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game, gravity is a real concern, not just ignored and treated as if it would work the same way on a spaceship as on Earth. The technology isn't the focus of the story, so it's not thoroughly explained (and doesn't need to be) but there's evidence of real science alongside the fiction.
By this definition, Star Trek (of which I am a moderate fan, by the way) is NOT true hard-core science fiction. It's light, social science fiction. What the heck is dilithium? It doesn't matter. There's no real attempt to have the techno-babble really based on fact, but that's all right - that's not the point. The point is the social commentary and examination of human nature and such. It's still science fiction largely because there's just one great big supposition - Earth technology has advanced hugely in space travel and in other sciences - but the details are left mostly untouched to pay more attention to non-science matters.
So what about fantasy? Fantasy doesn't concern itself with maintaining a scientific plausibility (though that does NOT mean it's haphazard; internal consistency is crucial for any kind of story). But if there's magic of any sort, it's not explained scientifically. Most fantasy elements like magic can serve as metaphors (with dozens of multiple interpretations), but they're not literally derived from reality. Thus, SW is pure fantasy. There isn't a bit of true science fiction in it. Sound in space, gravity on a spaceship behaving just like gravity on a planet, hopping across the galaxy without suffering any of the effects of plus-light speed travel, planets that are entirely of one climate and terrain - come on! Clearly, George Lucas is not the least interested in extrapolating anything scientific. The mystical Force alone is enough to indicate a fantasy (and midichlorians, little mysterious creatures that SPEAK in some sort of psychic manner to their hosts, can hardly be construed as a sort of scientific explanation for the Force!) but there are just so many other elements that indicate fantasy and completely ruin any sci-fi categorization. Spaceships do not make sci-fi.
So what? Most people don't care whether it's either sci-fi or fantasy; they either like the whole speculative fiction super-genre or leave it entirely. But I care, like I care about so many things that don't matter to many others. Because sci-fi, particularly of the sort that is meticulously researched, tends to have a more narrow, often social focus. And there's nothing wrong with that. But fantasy, with no true literal holds on the actual world at all, can be much more broadly and universally metaphorical. That's why I prefer SW over Star Trek, though I like both, and that's why I want to see fantasy get its own section in the bookstore, to be recognized as its own genre. Horror gets it, why not fantasy?
