Question from a not-quite-newbie-to-sci-fi (but slightly confused) :)

I usually prefer fantasy to sci-fi, but that's only because I've been reading fantasy since I was ... *thinks* ... about 7 or 8? I guess my parents thought I'd grow out of it. Ah, well.

So, anyway: about 7-8 years ago, I realised there were all kinds of categories under the general 'fantasy' umbrella that the mainstream press loves to use.

I suppose, in a strict sense, any fiction could be labelled as 'fantasy' -- after all, fiction clearly didn't happen in real life. But that's obviously not going to happen.

Mythology obviously contains, at least, some elements of fantasy -- for instance, otherworldly magic, fantastical monsters, uncaring gods, and heroes saving the day (usually with a big club, a big sword, or (more rarely) a bow and arrow). But mythology isn't fantasy. Having said that, it often reminds me of sword-and-sorcery fantasy.

So, here's my question: how do you define 'science fiction'? Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein and their generation defined 'science fiction' as something that could scientifically happen. For instance, Asimov once wrote a 'locked-room mystery' set on the moon, and (IIRC) depended on anti-gravity for the solution.

Yet today, just about anything set in space is described as 'science fiction', even things that are clearly (for now) impossible, like Star Wars and Star Trek. I've heard Star Wars being described as 'space opera'; I suppose the original Star Trek was sometimes 'serious' sci-fi and sometimes veered into 'space opera' territory. Many of the Star Trek follow-ups were also in the 'space opera' territory, i.e. they emphasize space warfare, with use of melodramatic, risk-taking space adventures, relationships, and chivalric romance.

Come to think of it, Many of the things in The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy parody the more clearly impossible things that people were trying with sci-fi in the 1970s. But now, some people consider The Hitch-hiker's Guide to be sci-fi too.

So ... how broad is this umbrella? What is sci-fi, and what isn't?

 

Um ... then I have to wonder: Asimov defined science-fiction as "fiction set in space, but which could scientifically happen" -- after all, that's what the 'science' part is all about. So, if we use that definition, all the 'alien' stuff is out the window, since we've never met aliens and don't know what they're like. (If/once we do, of course, sci-fi would have to be re-written).

If we don't use Asimov's definition, then sure -- anything goes. But 'anything goes' can lead to a hell of a lot of rubbish, which is a pity.

I'm not sure if "run-of-the-mill romance with nothing space-y in it but the setting" is sci-fi. If it was, then even Romeo & Juliet becomes sci-fi, as long as you put them ... *drumroll* ... IN SPAAAAAACE! </echo> And that's kind of silly.

As for LOTR in space ... gee, I don't know. Somehow I can't see Gandalf urging Shadowfax on, if Shadowfax was merely an escape pod and could answer back. "I'm afraid I can't do that, Gandalf."

Of course, we couldn't call them Gandalf and Shadowfax. Even if we called them Randolph and Penumbra-email, the Tolkien Estate would eat us alive. Especially if it went something like this:

Think it'd work? Nope, me neither

 

I think what throws people off in this discussion that pops up from time to time is the science part. If we just used speculative fiction for all sci-fi that had a bit of other elements in it then we'd be set. And for science fiction would be all the "hard" science fiction stories.

Right now that is not the case and things get thrown into one category. Probably to save time and resources for libraries and all.

I'd love Romeo and Juliette in space. Don't think it would be silly at all.
Then again I write melee stories in space so I may not be the best judge.

 

All right, let's give it a shot. But if sci-fi means "romance, with nothing space-y about it except the setting" ... then R&J simply doesn't work.

The setting might be a spaceship (for the Montagues) at war with a planet (to stand in for the Capulets).

The Apothecary (who gives them Juliet the 'poison' to put her to sleep) could possibly be ... the spaceship's sympathetic doctor? *shrug*

How would we fit Juliet's Nurse? And Tybalt (who Romeo slays with his rapier)? Come to think of it, why the heck does anyone have rapiers in space? Yes, we could use light-sabers, but George Lucas would probably sue. Even if he didn't, someone mortally wounded with a light-saber probably wouldn't survive so long as to deliver Tybalt's death speech.

Coming back to the Apothecary and his 'poison' for Juliet ... pharmacology has advanced in huge leaps since the late 1590s. People will want to know which poison. Romeo also drinks a little from the 'poison', and remarks: "Thy drugs are quick". But viewers will say: "Which one?!"

I won't even mention a line from Romeo's earlier speech: "It is the East, and Juliet is the sun!" ... What's wrong with that, you may ask? All right. On the Earth, the sun indeed rises in the East, so the metaphor makes sense. But in space, the sun is always shining, so it doesn't need to rise ...

All right, all right. "Romeo & Juliet in Space" doesn't have to be astronomically accurate (though some sci-fi fans will probably quibble). But trying to convert 16th-century Verona into 25th-century outer space presents a fair few problems, wouldn't you agree?

 

Minor problems I would say. That a bit of imagination could fix.

 

To quote Gene Roddenberry pitching Star Trek to the studios. "Cowboys in space" Firefly was the same, it was modeled on the west just after the American Civil War.

Space opera, is a SciFi subgenre, which is as much soap opera as SciFi. Babylon five bordered that territory through much of its run. Though I think that walking of the line was more about the exploration of the character's, than melodrama. It is the only series, to my knowledge, that was canceled and then resurrected by its fans.

For SciFi parody, look at "Redshirts" by John Scalizi. He went below decks with his characters to poke fun at Star Trek. Great read.

 

Keep in mind, this was well before the first moon landing, and we knew little about our own solar system. It seemed quite likely in that time that we might have neighbors living nearby. It wasn't really until we got some good data from the Voyager space probe that we learned all the planets in the solar system besides ours are barren. Plus as a species we had a much more robust imagination in those days. We hadn't yet totally fixated on rational materialism as our new religion, and speculation abounded about intelligent aliens living on other worlds. Space opera didn't seem as unlikely then as it does now.

In fact science in general has made huge strides since then, and reshaped our understanding of many things, especially the universe. Hence why science fiction of the time had a much wider berth than it does now, and was far more speculative in a broad sense. Plus, with the later advent of television, Carl Sagan, the internet, and Neil Degrasse Tyson, the general public has become far more educated in matters of science. Remember pulp was the dominant form of fiction in those days. We had a certain naive sense of wonder that allowed for shows like the original Star Trek and The Twilight Zone. Those shows would never go now, we demand a much stricter sense of realism, which in many ways is a shame. Now it's mostly just in children's stories, comedy, or what's often considered very low-grade fiction that so much latitude is allowed in speculation.

 

I have to disagree here. There is a stricter sense of realism that is required yes. But our advances in planetology, Physics and other sciences have raised the bar for authors in this genre. Look at the best selling Honor Harrington series by David Weber for example. While it was also subgenre military fiction, it dealt with a large amount of science in the creation of the series. The series touched on the concepts of wormholes, the physics of FTL travel, and Terra forming, with the environmental hazards that could come with it. Several of the newer books in this genre are using ideas and theories from current science as part of the story.

 

That's not disagreeing, that's what's called agreeing. More realism, less room for imagination. Now it all needs to be strictly in line with realism, rather than wild, fun space opera or Star Trek type low-budget television with fun characters and highly imaginative storylines that violate laws of physics and realism all over the place. Imagination and fun were leeched out of Star Trek beginning with The Next Generation.

 

And that is were I was disagreeing. I think there can be realism in the world building that doesn't prevent room for imagination and fun. I have to wonder if the glut of self published works currently is affecting the quality of offerings in this and other markets. From the number of remakes coming from Hollywood I would almost say that is where imagination goes to die.

 

Isn't there still a room for letting your imagination run wild, though? If you're not writing (say) historical fiction like me, where anachronisms are strictly forbidden, then isn't it possible to still say "Damn the torpedoes anachronisms! Full speed ahead!" ?

Sure, the original Star Trek etc. got away with a lot more than what we can get away with now. The same thing happened with comedy, for instance -- comedy shows in the 60s and 70s (e.g. The Two Ronnies, 'Allo! 'Allo!, Fawlty Towers or Are You Being Served? etc.) got away with A LOT of things that you could never do nowadays. (I won't even mention Benny Hill).

So, if you'd like to be deliberately silly (and if your audience understands and accepts this), isn't it still possible?

That's funny; I've read some of Raymond Chandler's letters in the 1940s (when he was hired by Hollywood to write a script when one of his books (I forget which) was being filmed). He hated the experience, because he found the people generally shallow and the producers over-restrictive and unimaginative.

He later mocked Hollywood (and especially Hollywood starlets) in his books.

 

Well, you're talking about something else now. To keep it about imagination unbouded by concerns of realism, yes, it can still happen, and does now and then, even outside of the realms of children's books and comedy, but now it's an extreme rarity. In the 60's and early 70's it was very common. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is one example I can think of in the 90's, very similar to the original Star Trek or Twilight Zone, where they didn't worry about realism much, largely because the world of vampires, demons and monsters was symbolic, with the various creatures standing-in for the hurdles in her arc of growing up toward adulthood. So they went ahead and let it be silly or just outlandish at times, to pretty near the level of children's shows (but usually with more adult themes). And I'm sure we can think of some more if we try, but the pickin's get a lot more slim once you're past the 70's or so. I don't know what age you guys are, maybe if you didn't live through it you don't understand what I'm talking about.

 

Can't you just slap speculative fiction on your work and then get away with anything? That is where real imaginative freedom lies.

Sure, it's a genre still in its infancy and isn't used as much as it should be. Maybe?

As far as I understand, speculative fiction is an umbrella term that can contain most genres, such as science fiction, fantasy, romance, horror, etc.

 

Speculative is interesting in that it doesn't kick the story out of 'literary' territory. Take the MaddAddam Trilogy for instance: you could just as well call it sci fi, but that's not the label it got.

Sci fi being equated with space above all else is a shame, but if you zoom out then genre boxes are all a bit of a shame anyway.

 

It's going to take a lot of writing if I want to properly explain what I'm yammering on about, and I don't want to derail Rath's thread (any more than I already have), so I'm going to move to my blog with this. After I start the blog thread I'll change that link to go directly to it for any future visitors, but I'll probably take a few days developing ideas in Evernote before I start posting.

 

I will say this much here though—

Now I see where the disconnect is between what I'm talking about and how I think most people here are interpreting it. The majority of speculative fiction. (by no means all of it) is what I would call mainly a realistic framework with a little imagination allowed in here and there. Some of my favorite authors and filmmakers flipped that, so the story world itself is highly imaginative. No, that still doesn't really get it across. People will think "But the Raiders of Zebulon Thirty-Seven is a highly imaginative story world—it takes place in a different galaxy, and the starships use a quasar drive system." This is still a very ordinary and realistic story setting—basically it's ocean travel with the ocean replaced by outer space and seagoing vessels replaced with starships. Just a few simple substitutions. What I'm talking about is a complete flipping of the script, at least at its most extreme (it doesn't have to be that extreme). But I'll save the rest for my blog, except to say yes, you can do what I'm talking about in speculative fiction, but I don't think many people are doing it anymore.

 

Also (final post on the subject here, promise!) I'm not saying that an individual can't write whatever they want and publish it, especially through self-publishing. But the kind of stuff I'm talking about would probably be a hard sell in today's market when it comes to traditional publishers. As a society we've moved largely away from it. It's no longer very viable in the modern industries of publishing, movies or television (though again, I do think a few examples creep through now and then—I'm talking about the larger trend, which has moved to gritty realism for just about everything).

 

Genre boxes are there for a reason, they help readers find what they like to read. As a reader, I would be upset to pick up a book based on the expectation it is one thing, only to find it is something entirely different. It would be like going through the science section at the library, and getting what I thought was a book on physics, only to find it was a geology text.

I can almost think of writing like a highway, with the different genres being different lanes on the road. it isn't difficult to change lanes when you want. You can even change lanes and return to your previous lane, which to me is the mixing in of other genres to your story. While others are much happier taking their writing off roading. If that works for them, great.

 

I remember some of what you are talking about, Star Crash, Battle Beyond the Stars, etc. Very imaginative in the Roger Corman tradition. I think it is a deeper issue than just realism, though. Consider for a moment what the average education level was pre 70s, and what it is now. How does that effect the reader/viewer's willing suspension of disbelief? Joss Whedon captured much of what you are talking about in Serenity and Firefly, but I credit that more to his talent as a story teller than anything else. The rise of self publishing is a double edged sword. On one hand, it removes many of the traditional quality controls, while on the other it creates a more competitive market place, and a greater return on investment for authors.

 

Some of those low-budget movies were imaginative, some were just low budget. But this is making me realize I'm actually lumping a few different ideas together here. I'll go into more detail on the blog.

As far as I can tell, it's decreased quite a bit. Schools now are turning out students who can't read or do simple math, who don't know the difference between a country and a continent (or in some cases a city), and similar unbelievable things. I'm sure you've seen the videos. Education in the 50's was far better than it was in the 60's when I came along. And I remember seeing test questions from 19th century grade schools that stunned me after a few years of college. But apparently during the pulp days a large part of the popultion was practically illiterate, or very under-educated, which is why the pulps were generally written in very simple language. But then, I was quite stunned one day in high school when a teacher asked students to stand up and read aloud from a book. Quite a few of them had the reading level of a three-year old. But of course we get a lot of education these days from the internet and movies and documentaries etc. I think a large part of what's changed is that media (TV and movies anyway) was very young and sort of naive before say the 80's, and so was our society. But I think a bigger influence is cultural acclimatization (is that a word?). We were used to low budget shows that made us use our imagination, things like Sesame Street, The Electric Company, and a lot of other kid's shows. There are still kid's shows of course, and I haven't seen any of the newer ones, but I doubt they're as well made or imaginative as they were then. My generation had a lot of shows and movies that allowed us to use our imagination. I think the rise of CG effects has a lot to do with the decay of that (strangely enough, when you'd think it should allow unfettered creativity).

I watched the first episode of Firefly and it just didn't draw me in at all. And I wanted very much to like it. I think Buffy was his home run, with Angel as a pretty decent spinoff that just didn't hit quite as well. And I agree, Joss is an incredible and highly imaginative storyteller. That alone doesn't make his shows about the imagination though—that has to be designed in or it doesn't happen. Highly intelligent and creative writers/directors can create shows that don't have a lick of imagination to them. Joss, especially with Buffy, very deliberately decided to use a great deal of symbolism to represent her Other World (the world of vampires and demons), which was a reflection of what she was going through in the more ordinary world of high-school dating drama. That's a good setup for a show that really taps into the imagination.

 

I don't deny those expectations are there, and the highway isn't a bad analogy except it's grounded in that same box rationale. As far as your example of the upset incipient reader goes, I have three thoughts:

1. The difference between a physics and geology textbook might as well be the difference between a rapid-chapter romantic space opera and a procedural meditation on robot/AI logic with stakes. Both are in the sci fi section. Science fiction == the setting of space-faring civilizations. Feels like a misnomer, accidental association now ironclad. Discerning readers will scour communities/curators to get what they really want anyway, though, so maybe the whole thing is moot.

2. More broadly, that example is rooted in the existence of definitive genre lines in the first place. i.e my disfavour of them is only a problem because they exist the way they do, or deviation is only a problem because of the status quo. While consumer demographics inform genre to an extent, genre also informs future expectations. Every surprise also need not be disappointing. I know romance readers are pretty hardcore, but there ought to still be a sense of discovery with a new book, genre or not.

3. Genres have also become more like one another as the denominator has been mapped, arguably losing distinction (other than setting) at the parent level anyway.