Help define sci-fi and fantasy

Due to recent debates, we’ve decided to put out a
call to our readers to help us define science fiction
and fantasy so that we can agree on which materials
are Bureau 42 content, and which ones aren’t. Full
details and a public apology are below.

In a recent article, debate grew in the comments
about whether or not certain titles were Bureau 42
content. Due in part to the job stress that led to
the review, I posted
a reply
in that thread which was a bit snarkier
than necessary. I want to publically apologize for
that. GusherJizmac was one of our earliest posters,
and despite our disagreements, I respect him for
supporting his opinions instead of simply posting a
“no, you’re wrong” type of message. We want to breed
intelligent discussion here, and that’s what he does.
I should have stayed more polite in my response to
him, and I apologize for not doing so.

On to the point of this column. If we could agree on
what elements define science fiction and fantasy,
then we could eliminate (or at least give an
appropriate home to) much of the discussion we had
the other day. We’re looking for science fiction and
fantasy for sure. After some discussion with other
authors, it looks like the science-based textbook
reviews are staying too, since they generate a lot of
page views (if not a lot of hits.) In that area,
expect a review of Suppes’ Axiomatic Set
Theory
in a week or so.

As for the main subjects of the site, we’re looking
at science fiction and fantasy, with television,
movies, novels, comic books, and video games being
the media in the order of reader interest (again,
gauged by page views of each article.) I propose
that we use the aforementioned GusherJizmac’s idea of
defining common elements, and decide both on how many
such elements should be present, and which other
elements we should include. We already have:

  • futuristic settings
  • laser blasters
  • aliens
  • mythical settings
  • magic use, often in swords and sorcery settings

I propose adding the following to the list:

  • significantly advanced technology (ie. flying
    cars, not better mileage)
  • time travel
  • alternate histories
  • mythical creatures (dragons, vampires,
    werewolves, etc. regardless of other setting
    elements)
  • severe social differences (ie. 1984, We,
    Clockwork Orange, etc.)

The two questions we need to ask: 1) what should be
added and/or stricken from the lists? and 2) how many
elements need to appear for something to be
considered genre? (For this, I’ll use the mode
average from the responses given by different
posters.)

19 replies on “Help define sci-fi and fantasy”

  1. Asimov’s definition

    I remember a very good essay by Asimov on the subject, which was republished in the book “Magic”. Basically Asimov’s argument is that sci-fi is stories on plausible scenarios that could occur if we extrapolate what we know about science. Of course, some extrapolations are more based in reality than others, but all sci-fi stories are based on that technique. Therefore even though we know time-travel is near-impossible, or that FTL travel is near-impossible, we can ask ourselves “what if there’s some unknown facet of science that we haven’t discovered yet that makes it possible?”.

    Compare with fantasy, where we don’t really think about how or why something might work, we just accept it for what it is, like a myths and legends. We don’t question the physics behind Gandalf’s staff when it discharges lightning bolts*, nor do we question how the One Ring works. Of course, there are stories that sort of blur the two, and by some stretch of the imagination you can explain away things in fantasy with pseudoscience like they do in Star Trek. However, a fantasy story does not attempt to do any explanation on why the fantastic happens, it just does.
    Therefore, the old Star Wars trilogy was fantasy, but Lucas spoiled that with the midichlorians in the prequels (which brought it into the realm of really bad sci-fi, which perhaps contributes to why fans hate it so much).

    *He does it in the books, even if we don’t see it in the movies

    • Re: Asimov’s definition
      First off, no apology necessary. It is your site and you can post whatever reviews you wish:)

      It can be very hard sometimes to distinguish Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Fiction, etc. I love Asimov’s definition. For me though, I find I am more interested in a story if it is heavy on the “extrapolation”. For example, although I enjoyed Quantum Leap well enough, I really didn’t consider it very Sci-Fi since it mostly took place in the past and even the future was pretty near-future. I’m currently reading “Pattern Recognition” by William Gibson but am having trouble classifying it as Sci-Fi since it takes place in a more or less present time. To me, it is just Fiction.

      For me Star Wars (original trilogy) fit somewhere just past Fantasy but not entirely Sci-Fi due to the mystical powers and lack of any scientific basis for the science. In fact, I was thinking the other day that I’m not enjoying the Science Fiction novels like I used to. I don’t know if it is perhaps just my current selection of books or that I have gotten older. I’m finding some of them lacking more and more in scientific theory.

      Getting back to Disney… talking animals turn me off. Fantasy creatures or aliens, if you will I can deal with ok, but if you take a mouse and make it talk, well I start to classify that primarily in the childrens category and secondly in Fantasy or Sci-Fi.

      So to continue with the “GusherJizmac’s Common Elements” theory. I have broken the list down a little differently and added some modifiers.

      * futuristic settings (Sci-Fi +3)
      * significantly advanced technology (Sci-Fi +2)

      * magic use (Fantasy +3)
      * mythical settings (Fantasy +1)
      * mythical creatures (Fantasy +2)
      * Telepathy/Psionics (Fantasy +1)
      * aliens (Sci-Fi +1; Fantasy +1)
      * time travel (Sci-Fi +1; Fantasy +1))

      * alternate histories (Fiction +1)
      * severe social differences (Fiction +1)
      * Credibility/Accountability in technological use (Science +2)

      I would stricken “Laser Blasters” since that should fall under “Significantly Advanced Technology” although you could argue that “Time Travel” does as well except it leans somewhat towards Fantasy. We could go into detail and expand that category in more detail… but this list would need to change as technology advances enough to bring the ideas into reality. For example, robots are a reality, but self-aware robots are not (yet).

      * Laser Blasters
      * Interstellar Space Travel
      * Steller Space Travel
      * Faster Than Light
      * Flying Cars
      * Nanotechnology
      * Lazarus effect (i.e. extended life)
      * Biotech (Body manipulation and consciousness tailoring)
      * Anodroids
      * Robots
      * Cyborgs
      * Artificial Inteligence
      * Artificial Gravity

      The list goes on. I could write a lot more on the subject. There is no need though since the question of “What is Science Fiction” has been asked many times before…

      http://www.panix.com/%7egokce/sf_defn.html

      http://home.austarnet.com.au/petersykes/topscifi/features_definitions.html

      http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?IncidentalScienceFiction

    • Re: Asimov’s definition

      I remember a very good essay by Asimov on the subject, which was republished in the book “Magic”. Basically Asimov’s argument is that sci-fi is stories on plausible scenarios that could occur if we extrapolate what we know about science. [much good stuff snipped]

      I definitely agree with the directions that these definitions are taking. Where, however, would you place scenario-based uses of existing technology, such as a dystopian “a government uses all the tools at its disposal to crush citizens’ freedoms” that don’t involve scenarios of the distant future? In other words, “alternate present” rather than “alternative future,” a bit as though Orwell had titled 1984 as 1949?

      Would that be a thriller or would it count as science fiction? My instinct is to call it science fiction, but by these definitions, it would be more of a thriller.

  2. Some of those could be consolidated
    Laser Blaster = significantly advanced technology
    Don’t forget PPGs – a more plausable form of laser blaster
    Telepathy/Psionic Powers

  3. Forgetting an option…
    There are really three options: 1) science fiction, 2) fantasy, and 3) “sci-fi”.

    Science fiction, as previously mentioned, is the idea of saying “what if” and looking at the consequences. I would classify “The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” as science fiction — it looks at the possible issues that come up if there was a process that could selectively erase memories. Science fiction is essentially a way to examine human behavior by using technology as the lens.

    Fantasy is the idea of looking not as a “what if”, but creating that which is unreal. Fantasy typically depends on devising a fictitious history or mythology and telling stories within that creation (e.g., “Lord of the Rings” or “Harry Potter”). Other forms of fantasy involve the idea of imagining a person or people doing things which would normally be impossible for them (such as giving an child the abilities of an adult, as in “Big” or “Little Big League”).

    Sci-fi is the relatively common blending of the previous two types. Some tend more toward science fiction — the premise behind “Stargate” is very science fiction, but the show contains many fantasy elements in the fight against the Go’auld. Others are more fantasy based — “Star Wars” is very much a fantasy set in a technologically advanced frame of reference. On the whole, I’d say that Sci-Fi is generally typified as a fantasy with science-fiction elements. As such, it would be very hard to create a “bright line” distinction between fanatsy and sci-fi.

    • Re: Forgetting an option…
        I vote for kevkrom’s definitions. The two generas do seem to have blended quite a bit lately, so the argument for a middle ground definition seems to work.

        Maybe Sci-Fy might work better to prevent confusion between Science Fiction and Sci-Fi.

  4. speculative fiction
    I recently had an email argument with a friend where I took the position that both Star Wars and Star Trek are fantasy.

    To me, the distinction is that science fiction puts the accent on the science – this is about things that don’t happen, but could, for sound reasons.

    Fantasy is more open – this is about things that don’t happen, but wouldn’t it be cool if they did?

    The third branch of speculative fiction, horror, has been left out of the discussion so far – this is about things that don’t happen, and aren’t we glad they don’t?

    • Re: speculative fiction
      I’ve always felt that star wars is fantasy, star trek is science fiction.

      i feel that way mainly because Star Trek at least tries to explain how things do what they do. Star Wars just ‘did it’ and their guns never ran out of ammo, etc.

  5. silly
    i, for one, think that the boundaries are a little grey, and i like it that way. why do we really need strict definitions? if someone thinks something is off-topic for this site, they don’t have to read it.

    • Re: silly

      i, for one, think that the boundaries are a little grey, and i like it that way. why do we really need strict definitions? if someone thinks something is off-topic for this site, they don’t have to read it.

      I haven’t had the balls to speak up myself, because I agree with you but it tends to come out like “I don’t care” instead of “I’ll pick and choose what to read as I always have.” I do care, or I’d have a lot more bookmarks. :)

      When I come to a website of this sort, with reviews, discussion and the rest, I prefer that the subjects discussed/reviewed/etc. be those that the creator(s) of the website care about. The baseline for most stories might be scifi/fantasy, but a contributor might find him- or herself watching a bunch of cartoons and wanting to talk about them with those who are interested. That kind of decision shouldn’t (and IMO doesn’t) take away from the overall nature of the site, but instead can give it more texture.

      I’m rambling, so I’ll try to make clear my opinion on the matter of what subjects should be covered on Bureau 42: Mostly science fiction and fantasy stories (in the various media), with a smattering of whatever other subjects (again, it should be primarily fiction – I’d rather not see an article about something the RIAA is doing, for example) strike the fancy of the contributors.

      To get even more detailed, I’d say 8/10 stories should fit the genre descriptions detailed above, and the other two should be whatever the heck Dave, fiziko, theangrymob, et. al. want to put up. If there are folks who can’t handle that, then I question their state of mind in terms of stability and would seriously recommend a pill of the “chill” variety.

      • Redundant at this point

        I agree, that genres blend and strict definitions are not really possible, but my inclination has always been:

        Science-fiction: more-or-less what’s been said. Stories which take scientific concepts and extrapolate.

        Fantasy: stories which introduce any fantastic element, from magic to Gregor Samsa turning into a gigantic insect.

        Science-fantasy: like classic Star Wars, stories which put fantasy elements into a science-fiction setting. George Lucas so identified the original Star Wars, a long time ago.

        Space Opera: swashbuckling stories in an SF setting, more like SF than Science-fantasy, but with the speculative elements largely present as background to adventures, rather than to seriously extrapolate on the implications of science.

        Sci-Fi: cut-rate SF, of the “Attack of the Giant Killer Ferret from Space” variety.

        Speculative Fiction: what academics and magazine editors call any of the above to avoid the whole argument, whilst simultaneously sounding impressive.

        Uh… What were we talking about again?

  6. Some quick thoughts

    If the major focus is to be on fantasy, science fiction, and general-interest satellite topics, then the following seem like core topics:

    • Science fiction – narratives set in the future or in futuristic settings, borrowing from and extrapolating on known scientific or historical knowledge or established genre conventions (e. g. extraterrestrial beings, hyperspace, et cetera). Sub-genres probably include:
      • Alternate history – Speculation on existing historical knowledge)
      • Hard science fiction – Firm grounding in existing scientific knowledge and theory, often as an exploration of possible future technology or a society impacted by same)
      • Soft science fiction – Some basis in actual scientific knowledge or theory, but usually with hand-waving over scientifically improbable or impossible bits to make way for the story)
      • Sci-fi – Typically retains the trappings and conventions of the genre, but ignores or grossly distorts the scientific basis, if any, for the events and plot of the story — not necessarily a bad story, but rarely is there any good science to be found here)
      • Space opera – Basically epic (melo)drama set against the background of space and a far-flung futuristic civilisation which may or may not have a good scientific basis)
      • Cyberpunk – Almost exclusively near-future fiction with a lightweight science-fiction or sci-fi setting extrapolated from current social or technological, especially computer and information technology, typically with an emphasis on the devolution of society [see All Tomorrow’s Parties, Snow Crash, Distraction] as a result of technological advancement)

      Sometimes known as speculative fiction (antiquated term, probably applies esp. to hard science fiction), sci-fi (applies especially to soft science fiction and sci-fi, but really almost anything set in a future or futuristic period)

    • Fantasy – Fantasy typically predicates itself on ideas like magic and mythology. Fantasy’s almost a super-genre, as most science fiction (and especially sub-genres like sci-fi and steampunk) can classified this way, so it strikes me as a bit nebulous. Fantasy as distinguished from science fiction usually uses mystical, mythical or religious explanations for plot or setting, often using known myths in the construction of the setting.

    while the following are probably satellite topics or genres:

    • Modern science and technology – especially when topics touch on the above: quantum physics, astrophysics, genetics, artificial intelligence, robotics, cloning, etc. as long as this doesn’t become a news site. Might be a good idea to set ground rules for discussion in terms of the societal/ethical implications of new discoveries if those come up.
    • Cartoons/animation – especially animation of a science fiction or fantasy bent, but not necessarily cartoons in general, if only due to the vast amount of material in the medium which really has no particular other relation to the above genres except a common overlap in audience. Neither am I really suggesting this should become a site for discussing every science-fiction or fantasy animation, even.
    • Comic books – especially comic books with a science fiction or fantasy setting or subtext. American comics tend towards superhero plots, which are pretty much always sci-fi, very soft science fiction, or outright fantasy in their formulation.
  7. Disney, sci-fi and fantasy
    Disney Fantasy:

    • Snow White and the seven dwarves.
    • Sleeping Beauty.
    • The little mermaid.
    • etc.

    Disney sci-fi:

    • Treasure Planet.
    • Lilo and Stich.
    • etc.

    Its that easy : )

  8. my 2 cents
    Sci-fi *must* make an extrapolation of current data to predict or recreate something unknown. This differs from science in that hypothesis must be proven to become useful, here we can just take a hypothesis on the vision of the author. This can take the form of a story with a moral for humans exposed to this extrapolation (ST:TOS)

    Just because a work of art has an aspect that has been used by sci-fi before, does not make it sci-fi. i.e. On a starship in the future – ST Voyager. A bunch of “writers” picking and choosing bits of other episodes and sticking them in a blender is not sci-fi – it makes no extrapolation because the writer neither comprehends what is going on or has a vision of how they fit. The “advanced technology” is nothing more than a literary device to be copy and pasted.

    Perhaps now is a good time the air my contempt of people who go through life faking their understanding of the world, yet to others of their kind appear to achieve high things. The end result of their work however is the most uninspired wishy-washy crap I could imagine. (and prepare to be offended -> this includes almost all liberal arts majors. Skill everywhere – but not an original thought or inspiration to be found, yeah keep wearing black, I’m sure it will hit you.)

    Unfortunately I (or we) are in a very small minority, which you can directly attribute to the death of sci-fi. Reality TV is the pied piper.

    GATTACA = Sci-fi
    ST:TOS = Sci-fi
    Odyssey 5 = Sci-fi

    • Re: my 2 cents

      Unfortunately I (or we) are in a very small minority, which you can directly attribute to the death of sci-fi. Reality TV is the pied piper.

      I think that should read “…to the death of televised sci-fi.”

      Honestly, will you mourn it when it’s gone? I’m starting to wonder myself – the only things that are still on the air that I’m going to go out of my way to watch are Smallville and ER and unless Manny Coto pulls some sort of interstellar rabbit out of his *ahem* black hole I doubt I’ll continue watching Enterprise after that bird they flipped me at the end of the season finale. Being in Canada, I’m going to have to wait for Space to pick up Battlestar Galactica when that show hits, meaning it’ll be faster for me to download it, and the same goes for the Farscape miniseries/TV Movie/whatever the heck they’re doing.

      I think it’s time that we (and by ‘we’ I mean fans of SF) head to the local bookstore, start raiding the SF & Fantasy sections and buy as much as we can, loan the good stuff out to those still watching TV and wait for the lights to turn on behind their eyes. We live in an era of high literacy and low readership, and if TV continues to go down the drain that might just change.

      For those of us who still need that TV-type fix, well, there are always DVDs – and after what happened with Family Guy we can all dream a little.

  9. gosh…
    All this time I thought the list of stuff we reviewed was basically "stuff we think is cool."

    If there’s something out there we should be reviewing and aren’t, drop a line in the "submit article" box, or send one of us an email. Or write up something and let us know and we’ll probably post it.

    • Re: gosh…

      All this time I thought the list of stuff we reviewed was basically “stuff we think is cool.”

      If there’s something out there we should be reviewing and aren’t, drop a line in the “submit article” box, or send one of us an email. Or write up something and let us know and we’ll probably post it.

      That Was Always My Take On It, Too. Harry Potter, Buffy, Firefly, Enterprise, Some Random Show About A Pagan Household… It’s Whatever Us Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Geeky People Like. I Don’t Read The Reviews On The Items I’m not Interested In, Like Enterprise, But I Like The fact That they’re There.

      • Re: gosh…

        It’s Whatever Us Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Geeky People Like. I Don’t Read The Reviews On The Items I’m not Interested In, Like Enterprise, But I Like The fact That they’re There.

        Ditto.

Comments are closed.