What is Science Fiction - and what isn't?

[Madeleine]

To me, SF is anything where currently impossible things happen and the explanation is a scientific one. Asimovs thinking and feeling robots are no different from Pinocchio in some respects - but one is explained with an Enchantment, the other with Positrons.

Fantasy is anything where the impossible happens and Magic or some similar thing is how it happens.

Is that a reasonable definition? Agree, disagree? Is there an 'Official' definition?

~~~~~~

Some people are very picky about what is SF and what isn't. I've heard it said by some afficionados that Stargate isn't 'proper' SF cos its science is so flawed and it relies on too many fantasy staples. Ditto Star Wars. I don't feel that way myself, but I'd be interested if anyone here feels that.

Then when Star Wars is mentioned it brings to mind the fact that the creator of the franchise himself doesn't consider it SF. It's a 'fairy tale set in space'. Oh. Likewise people like Margaret Atwood, a 'proper' author, will claim that she doesn't write SF, she writes "Speculative Fiction". Right. Is this snobbery, or have I put the boundaries of what is and isn't SF in the wrong place?

[Mio]

I agree. If it uses science to explain something, It's Sci-Fi.

[Whitster]

I agree. If it uses science to explain something, It's Sci-Fi.

Which is exactly why i didn't see Firefly as a sci-fi.

[Madeleine]

Okay, in another thread you typed

<<Because the plots never seemed to focus around any sort of science, just the crews missions and relationships, sorry if I expect science fiction to feature some fiction involving science, I just found it more of a drama/soap. Also what was with the lack of aliens?>>

So basically if the plot revolves around something other than science it isn't SF? Most SF shows or books are either drama/soap in space, detective story in space, horror in space, futuristic mystery - there's no such thing as SF that doesn't draw from other genres too. It may be SF diluted with other stuff, but it's still SF, isn't it? What about the one where blue-gloved weirdies walked around a hospital doing something SFish that killed people, in order to capture a SFishly 'altered' girl with some sort of rather SFish prescience? would that be SF, or does it count as Not SF due to the lack of sciencey stuff in other eps? I'm really trying to understand.

What's with the lack of aliens? Okay, I'm not going to try arguing that there's even the possibility of us being alone in the universe, cos the people who disagree include a lot of vociferous and very bad mannered folk . But there's certainly the possibility of us being alone in the *galaxy*, especially in this little corner of the galaxy. I think it extremely original of Firefly not to fall back on the staple of Aliens, who are invariably not particularly alien at all anyway (B5's Shadows are a rare honourable exception). Lack of Aliens didn't stop Asimov's Foundation series becoming popular.

[Slainey]

I think of SF as a speculative future and Fantasy as a spectulative past. For SF I think the social ramifcations of technology are an essential part. Whether in illustrating how an entire society reacts or just a couple of people.

Trying to identify the basic definition of a genre is a useful acedemic exercise but my favorite books and stores are the ones that cross over.

[keshou]

I certainly thought of Firefly as science fiction - but I generally think of most shows set in the future, in space, as science fiction. I've heard people praise Firefly for some of its accurate scientific concepts - i.e. can't hear an explosion in space, etc.

Stargate is a little different in that it's set in present-day and yet explores classic science fiction elements. Aliens, other planets, wormholes, alternate realities, space travel, etc. I think it has elements of both science fiction and a little fantasy at times.

Here's an interesting link that has definitions of science fiction from some well-known authors, etc.
http://www.panix.com/~gokce/sf_defn.html

I rather like these two -

John W. Campbell, Jr. - The major distinction between fantasy and science fiction is, simply, that science fiction uses one, or a very, very few new postulates, and develops the rigidly consistent logical consequences of these limited postulates. Fantasy makes its rules as it goes along...The basic nature of fantasy is "The only rule is, make up a new rule any time you need one!" The basic rule of science fiction is "Set up a basic proposition--then develop its consistent, logical consequences."
Introduction, Analog 6, Garden City, New York, 1966Top

Terry Carr - Science Fiction is literature about the future, telling stories of the marvels we hope to see--or for our descendants to see--tomorrow, in the next century, or in the limitless duration of time.
Introduction, Dream's Edge, Sierre Club Books, San Fransisco, 1980

[ibwolf]

Which is exactly why i didn't see Firefly as a sci-fi.

When you get right down to not even Stargate, Star Trek or even Babylon 5 is actually a Science Fiction series in the 'hard' sense.

Hard science fiction requires that you do not contradict anything in established science. You extrapolate based on it, sometimes maybe making some assumptions we hold today be false, but you do not go against any established fact (i.e. some phenomena that has been confirmed via multiple experiments). The truth is that every SciFi show that has ever aired on TV has made at least some comprimises. Sometimes it's a matter of ignoring things which would just bog the story down (everyone speaks english on Stargate), sometimes it's just the writers being lazy. Sometimes (like with Farscape and Firefly) the science isn't at the heart of the series.

Is it really any better to be inundated with technobabble? Is that what makes a series 'SciFi'? Farscape and Firefly are both (generally) considered SciFi, if for no other reason than that they take place in space. Firefly is set in the future, Farscape has aliens. This is generally considered enough.

Of course they are also fantasy. Any science fiction that is not 'hard' SciFi is by definition also fantasy. The two are most certainly not mutually exclusive.

[Slainey]

Thank you for the link Kes. I especially like Frederick Pohl's definition.

(It just occured to me that the "science" part of SF isn't in danger so much as a the "fiction" part. Hey, Sci-Fi Network - no more "reality" programing please.)

I don't need my definition of SF to denigate fantasy. The world is big enough for both. I find Campbell's definition above a little mean. A fantasy novel can have lots of internally logical and consistant rules.


edited to fix a spelling error so that it wouldn't turn into stars.

[Tok'Ra Hostess]

Isaac Asimov:

Modern science fiction is the only form of literature that consistently considers the nature of the changes that face us, the possible consequences, and the possible solutions.

Asimov's definitions of SF are closest to my own; that's why, his writing style aside, I consider Asimov's books to be about the best SF ever written.

What many in the industry would stick in the SF bookshelves, I would place in the Historical Romance sections of a bookstore. Just because a story is set in the future, on a different planet or in an alien's skin doesn't automatically make it SF. Not to me, at any rate.

Then when Star Wars is mentioned it brings to mind the fact that the creator of the franchise himself doesn't consider it SF. It's a 'fairy tale set in space'. Oh. Likewise people like Margaret Atwood, a 'proper' author, will claim that she doesn't write SF, she writes "Speculative Fiction". Right. Is this snobbery, or have I put the boundaries of what is and isn't SF in the wrong place?

I have never been able to consider SW as SF. The whole midiclorian(sp?) thing, whether or not it was part of the original plot, always felt like a total cheat. There's no science, there.

I like Atwood's work but I don't really see much of a SF connection. I'd say Atwood writes Historical Romance, set in the future, so, speculative fiction.

Babylon 5 was(IMO) a SF/Historical Romance set in the future and involving aliens. Though there was very little technobabble,the science was there in solid, everyday form(the way humans created artificial gravity, the green spaces, the fact that JMS relied heavily on NASA consultants) and played too large a part for me to not consider it SF.

[ibwolf]

Isaac Asimov:

Asimov's definitions of SF are closest to my own; that's why, his writing style aside, I consider Asimov's books to be about the best SF ever written.

What many in the industry would stick in the SF bookshelves, I would place in the Historical Romance sections of a bookstore. Just because a story is set in the future, on a different planet or in an alien's skin doesn't automatically make it SF. Not to me, at any rate.

Unfortunately the 'general public' (whatever that is) would disagree with you. And when it comes to labels (and that is what this is all about; labels) what is in general use is 'right' (whatever that means).

I too love the 'hard' SF books. Asimov in particular could be a delight. Yet if you read his books with a critical mind you realize that the science aside, most of his stories are quite weak. I don't mind because the science aspect carries the story.

Sadily such hard core science fiction is not likely to gain widespread appeal. Much as that saddens me. We are generally lucky is some element of it manages to come through. Usually though it is the social sciences that have the most luck in those matters. Star Trek is full of interesting (and of course not so interesting) stories that examine the rammifications of certain social aspects. Physics tend to degenerate into technobabble.

I have never been able to consider SW as SF. The whole midiclorian(sp?) thing, whether or not it was part of the original plot, always felt like a total cheat. There's no science, there.

I like Atwood's work but I don't really see much of a SF connection. I'd say Atwood writes Historical Romance, set in the future, so, speculative fiction.

Babylon 5 was(IMO) a SF/Historical Romance set in the future and involving aliens. Though there was very little technobabble,the science was there in solid, everyday form(the way humans created artificial gravity, the green spaces, the fact that JMS relied heavily on NASA consultants) and played too large a part for me to not consider it SF.

And yet Babylon 5 had telepaths (there is no scientific basis for telepathy), it had beings with almost godlike powers, hyperspace, souls (maybe) and interspecies breeding !!! None of that would be considered 'hard' science.

Don't get me wrong. I LOVED Babylon 5. It is the best SF series yet (no disrespect to SG meant, but B5 is better). Yet it wasn't a hard science fiction show, despite all the hard work JMS put into getting it as right as possible.

[Slainey]

What many in the industry would stick in the SF bookshelves, I would place in the Historical Romance sections of a bookstore. Just because a story is set in the future, on a different planet or in an alien's skin doesn't automatically make it SF. Not to me, at any rate.

So where would you put Stranger in a Strange Land.

Have you seen the historical romance section lately? They are really strict about what defines their genre. While they do occasionally have a story set in the future there's little variance in the plot. Yet this is the best selling genre in the world. Half of all mass market paperbacks are romances. Don't throw anything else in that market? lol

[Jprime]

I personally think that Star Wars shouldn't be considered SF because science pays no significant part, it does not carry the story, nor act as a plot device, or anything.

[Whitster]

I personally think that Star Wars shouldn't be considered SF because science pays no significant part, it does not carry the story, nor act as a plot device, or anything.

SW is a sci-fantasy, same with Farscape that people have been mentioning but whoever it was who said Farscape had no science involved obviously missed the whole wormhole research and theory and all the technobabble that went with it. The whole idea of a living ship is very sci-fi too. Infac tare you sure you've actually seen Farscape.

[crazylinguist]

I personally think that Star Wars shouldn't be considered SF because science pays no significant part, it does not carry the story, nor act as a plot device, or anything.

Science plays NO part in Star wars??? What?? The technology in Star Wars is a big part of the movies. Just because they don't focus on it doesn't mean it plays no part. The ability to travel in space (thanks to science) has caused the whole chain of events that takes place in the movies.

If science doesn't carry the plot...why are we so concerned about the Death Star?? (It was certainly devised through science).

[Lugal]

The general definition of Science Fiction (if you were to ask someone off the street) they would probably say anything set in the future, with aliens, ray guns, rockets, space etc. This is a catch-all term, which is why there are so many subdivisions: hard, soft, time-travel, sociological, planetary romance, and so on.

I personally consider science fiction as anything where science (whether real or imagined) is the explanation of how the universe works.

Fantasy would be anything where there is no explanaition at all, or it is explained as magic, gods, fate, etc or anything we don't understand.

Of course there can be a lot of overlap between scifi and fantasy, and there's a lot out there that's hard to classify, (which is some of my favorite stuff)