I hate it when I go back and read what I wrote and it makes no sense.
I even reread that several times before posting it. :(
Ill try this: Please stop making up words that seem to be just a different way of saying a word to nearly everyone, then giving the made up words different meanings.
And Stingray don't forget Si Fi light and si fi lite.
One of the few spelling jokes I can make. I worked in the beer department for a wile.
[QUOTE=Biggles;168914] I call conversational terrorism![/QUOTE]
Come on, Biggles, it's all in good fun. ;)
You know this board is missing a smiley: [IMG]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y79/stingray_b5/swordfight.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Chaosed;168934]And Stingray don't forget Si Fi light and si fi lite.[/QUOTE]
And now introducing the all-new Sci-Fi... ZERO!! :D
I just saw "The Chronicles of Riddick" with Vin Diesel and Karl Urban. The movie reminded me of "Dune," it's just as big an epic IMHO. I don't know why I skipped it at first when it came out?! It's actually quite good, they went quite overboard in the art and effects department.
That Karl Urban fellow is stacking up some great movies, he seems innocent enough, I mean, he's been in two of the LoTR movies, and before that he had quite a list of other projects under his belt in the fantasy genre. One to watch out for, he'll be in the new Star Trek Movie too, playing the young Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy. Not sure about that casting choice but we'll just have to see.
Anyway, sci-fi is good, whatever category it belongs to. :)
I heard a term used the other day to refer to the movie [i]2001[/i]: "pure science fiction"
Jake
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
I personally consider sci-fi to be anything that involves science and it's impact on society, be it space adventure, science investigation, effects of some invention, etc. It would also include future worlds that can reasonable be seen as a continued evolution of our own world. Thus Dune and the Foundation series are science fiction, even though they are about a fantasy based world. Similarly present-day situations that involve either science, aliens, or the paranormal, such as seen in X-Files episodes, is sci-fi.
Fantasy is anything that creates an artificial world near-future, present day, or past. Technically, that would mean that V for Vendetta should actually be fantasy, not sci-fi, as it is near future in a altered world. It also would include any world wherein there is magic, creatures on Earth that don't really exist, or a general "past" feel to the culture and technology (such as medieval culture and technology). It can also include present-day situations where the realism is altered in a way that changes the world, such as Harry Potter.
There is definately some overlap and subjectivity in definitions. For instance, as Freejack stated, 2001 is, since it is now well past 2001, a mix of sci-fi and fantasy. It is sci-fi because it involves space and other planets. It is fantasy because it is creating an alternate world that has the ability to reach Jupiter in the year 2001. Of course, when it was written it would have been only sci-fi because such ability was expected to exist by 2001. Thus, the exact definitions can change with time as the culture changes and invalidates some aspect of the reality of the novel/script.
Thus one could reasonably distill the definitions to:
- Fantasy: anything that requires a world state that did/does not existed at the cultural and technological time (or dependent time) being written about.
- Science Fiction: anything that involves science; or anything that involves a future (or plausibly futuristic) cultural or technological state.
The crossover occurs when the future technological or cultural state requires a past technological and cultural state that did not occur.
The trick comes with movies such as Men in Black where we have a 2ndary society running beneath our own dealing with aliens. This would have to, in some ways, be a mix of both scifi and fantasy. Clearly aliens are considered futuristic while since it is existing in the present in a society that (we assume) doesn't exist, it must therefore also be fantasy.
The problem with that definition of fantasy is that it is inclusive of things that really shouldn't belong. Men in Black? V? Alternate History? Much of sci fi would be included under fantasy. Would Vampire Hunter D be fantasy, sci fi, or both? It takes place in the future so it must be science fiction, but it involves world states which don't exist. Also any science fiction which takes places in the time in which it is written would be considered Fantasy under your definition. Cosm, what I would consider some darn hard sci-fi, would be fantasy as well. There is an Asimov story whos title escapes me (inolves a world with 6 suns that all go eclips and everyone goes crazy) which doesn't involve humans at all so it doesn't even have a world state which doesn't even exist. It has some science discussion. Fantasy? Science Fiction?
What good are categories if there is too much overlap?
I think a better approch is to view fantasy and sci fi as almost parallel. What makes something science fiction is when science is used in story telling mechanisms and fantacy uses (to steal from wikipedia) impossible situations but consistent internal logic. Under this there will still be some grey areas. One could still consider Men in Black fantasy (but it is pulp sci-fi just because it has bug eyed aliens =P), but V would no longer be considered fantasy.
One good question: Does the use of deus ex plot mechanisms in science fiction, which are usually considered impossible, throw it into the fantasy realm? Star Trek, you listening?
[QUOTE=croxis;168975]There is an Asimov story whos title escapes me (inolves a world with 6 suns that all go eclips and everyone goes crazy) which doesn't involve humans at all so it doesn't even have a world state which doesn't even exist. It has some science discussion. Fantasy? Science Fiction?[/QUOTE]
[b]Nightfall[/b].
Not only it [i]is[/i] SF, it was named to the Science Fiction Hall of Fame by the members of the SFWA, the Science Fiction Writers of America association (*)... and if you can't trust the writers of SF to define if a story is not only SF, but great SF, who can you trust?
In fact that's why I introduced to this discussion the concept that Sci-Fi and SF (Science Fiction, or Speculative Fiction in Harlan Ellison's preferred designation) can be taken to mean different subsets of fantastic writing. Some SF writers have made that distinction, sometime quite passionately, (but I can't remember in which books or websites).
My approach to SF has been mostly from reading (hundreds of books, many of them anthologies), with a preference for Hard SF works, so that colors my views on what is Science Fiction.
[quote=Random Chaos]Thus Dune and the Foundation series are science fiction, even though they are about a fantasy based world.[/quote] A fantasy world, but not a Fantasy world, if you get my meaning.
Dune is not Fantasy, not at all, it is SF, especially if you consider that Frank Herbert went to great pains to create a scientifically plausible ecology for Arrakis, he did it so masterfully, and blended it so well in the background, that you don't notice, but there was much effort behind imagining Dune with a basis on science (what has been name "worldbuilding").
BTW, McCaffrey's "Fantasy" world of Pern was also built according to science speculation (reference: introductory notes in The Ascent of Wonder: The Evolution of Hard SF, by the editors David G. Hartwell and Kathryn Crammer, [url=http://ebbs.english.vt.edu/exper/kcramer/anth/Weyr.html]available online[/url]). It reads like Fantasy, but it has a pedigree of Science Fiction, Hard SF, even, if you accept Hartwell and Cramer's argument.
In any event, I think that the main distinction between Fantasy and Science Fiction is that the former uses Magic, the latter uses Technology (and/or Science).
(*) It is the Science Fiction [i]and Fantasy[/i] Writers of America association now, but it's still the SFWA.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
Could one claim that in 500 years, when we see that 2001: A Space Odyssey was never realistically possible, that one could consider it fantasy? If a compatriot of Leonardo DiVinci wrote about helicopters, a clearly science fiction concept in his time, what would it be considered today? Certainly not science fiction.
Science fiction is entirely dependent on the temporal position of both the writer and the reader.
[QUOTE=Random Chaos;169039]If a compatriot of Leonardo DiVinci wrote about helicopters, a clearly science fiction concept in his time, what would it be considered today? Certainly not science fiction.[/QUOTE]
False dilemma. It surely would be science fiction. Witness the works of Jules Verne.
The critical point is that Verne, 2001, and DiVinci were mostly attempts at science. It may be that the principles they were following were shown to be more incorrect models of the universe. Even the ancient theory that the world was the center of the solarsystem was indeed science based upon the observable evidence of the time.
Speculative Fiction. What a silly term. Fiction is just a story that didn't happen. Speculative is just theoretical. That term could cover stories as old as well, anything. About nearly anything.
If people are to make up new terms don't allow them to be lazy about it. It just makes easier to twist the meanings of words for corrupt intentions.
When you get old, hopefully it will be then, and it gets difficult to follow what people are talking about remember that.
By the way, if all stories but horror were Science Fiction and the not fiction ones also, well why not? Were made science stories the world would be a better place.
By the way I went back in time and killed the guy who said call us Jews.
So the religion is Jewish the people are Hebrew. As god intended.
Got sick of saying non Jewish Jews.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
If a science based science fiction story is written, only for us to find out later that the science of the story is correct, is it still science fiction or does it become just general fiction?
It is still science fiction due to cultural/temporal context. Also, society and individuals may react different in the story to what actually happened.
Comments
I even reread that several times before posting it. :(
Ill try this: Please stop making up words that seem to be just a different way of saying a word to nearly everyone, then giving the made up words different meanings.
And Stingray don't forget Si Fi light and si fi lite.
One of the few spelling jokes I can make. I worked in the beer department for a wile.
Come on, Biggles, it's all in good fun. ;)
You know this board is missing a smiley: [IMG]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y79/stingray_b5/swordfight.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Chaosed;168934]And Stingray don't forget Si Fi light and si fi lite.[/QUOTE]
And now introducing the all-new Sci-Fi... ZERO!! :D
I just saw "The Chronicles of Riddick" with Vin Diesel and Karl Urban. The movie reminded me of "Dune," it's just as big an epic IMHO. I don't know why I skipped it at first when it came out?! It's actually quite good, they went quite overboard in the art and effects department.
That Karl Urban fellow is stacking up some great movies, he seems innocent enough, I mean, he's been in two of the LoTR movies, and before that he had quite a list of other projects under his belt in the fantasy genre. One to watch out for, he'll be in the new Star Trek Movie too, playing the young Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy. Not sure about that casting choice but we'll just have to see.
Anyway, sci-fi is good, whatever category it belongs to. :)
Jake
Fantasy is anything that creates an artificial world near-future, present day, or past. Technically, that would mean that V for Vendetta should actually be fantasy, not sci-fi, as it is near future in a altered world. It also would include any world wherein there is magic, creatures on Earth that don't really exist, or a general "past" feel to the culture and technology (such as medieval culture and technology). It can also include present-day situations where the realism is altered in a way that changes the world, such as Harry Potter.
There is definately some overlap and subjectivity in definitions. For instance, as Freejack stated, 2001 is, since it is now well past 2001, a mix of sci-fi and fantasy. It is sci-fi because it involves space and other planets. It is fantasy because it is creating an alternate world that has the ability to reach Jupiter in the year 2001. Of course, when it was written it would have been only sci-fi because such ability was expected to exist by 2001. Thus, the exact definitions can change with time as the culture changes and invalidates some aspect of the reality of the novel/script.
Thus one could reasonably distill the definitions to:
- Fantasy: anything that requires a world state that did/does not existed at the cultural and technological time (or dependent time) being written about.
- Science Fiction: anything that involves science; or anything that involves a future (or plausibly futuristic) cultural or technological state.
The crossover occurs when the future technological or cultural state requires a past technological and cultural state that did not occur.
The trick comes with movies such as Men in Black where we have a 2ndary society running beneath our own dealing with aliens. This would have to, in some ways, be a mix of both scifi and fantasy. Clearly aliens are considered futuristic while since it is existing in the present in a society that (we assume) doesn't exist, it must therefore also be fantasy.
What good are categories if there is too much overlap?
I think a better approch is to view fantasy and sci fi as almost parallel. What makes something science fiction is when science is used in story telling mechanisms and fantacy uses (to steal from wikipedia) impossible situations but consistent internal logic. Under this there will still be some grey areas. One could still consider Men in Black fantasy (but it is pulp sci-fi just because it has bug eyed aliens =P), but V would no longer be considered fantasy.
One good question: Does the use of deus ex plot mechanisms in science fiction, which are usually considered impossible, throw it into the fantasy realm? Star Trek, you listening?
Worf
[b]Nightfall[/b].
Not only it [i]is[/i] SF, it was named to the Science Fiction Hall of Fame by the members of the SFWA, the Science Fiction Writers of America association (*)... and if you can't trust the writers of SF to define if a story is not only SF, but great SF, who can you trust?
In fact that's why I introduced to this discussion the concept that Sci-Fi and SF (Science Fiction, or Speculative Fiction in Harlan Ellison's preferred designation) can be taken to mean different subsets of fantastic writing. Some SF writers have made that distinction, sometime quite passionately, (but I can't remember in which books or websites).
My approach to SF has been mostly from reading (hundreds of books, many of them anthologies), with a preference for Hard SF works, so that colors my views on what is Science Fiction.
[quote=Random Chaos]Thus Dune and the Foundation series are science fiction, even though they are about a fantasy based world.[/quote] A fantasy world, but not a Fantasy world, if you get my meaning.
Dune is not Fantasy, not at all, it is SF, especially if you consider that Frank Herbert went to great pains to create a scientifically plausible ecology for Arrakis, he did it so masterfully, and blended it so well in the background, that you don't notice, but there was much effort behind imagining Dune with a basis on science (what has been name "worldbuilding").
BTW, McCaffrey's "Fantasy" world of Pern was also built according to science speculation (reference: introductory notes in The Ascent of Wonder: The Evolution of Hard SF, by the editors David G. Hartwell and Kathryn Crammer, [url=http://ebbs.english.vt.edu/exper/kcramer/anth/Weyr.html]available online[/url]). It reads like Fantasy, but it has a pedigree of Science Fiction, Hard SF, even, if you accept Hartwell and Cramer's argument.
In any event, I think that the main distinction between Fantasy and Science Fiction is that the former uses Magic, the latter uses Technology (and/or Science).
(*) It is the Science Fiction [i]and Fantasy[/i] Writers of America association now, but it's still the SFWA.
Science fiction is entirely dependent on the temporal position of both the writer and the reader.
And I never said that Dune was Fantasy.
False dilemma. It surely would be science fiction. Witness the works of Jules Verne.
If people are to make up new terms don't allow them to be lazy about it. It just makes easier to twist the meanings of words for corrupt intentions.
If you want to be so uptight about it then most stories would be mysteries as well because you never know what happens next *rolls eyes*
By the way, if all stories but horror were Science Fiction and the not fiction ones also, well why not? Were made science stories the world would be a better place.
By the way I went back in time and killed the guy who said call us Jews.
So the religion is Jewish the people are Hebrew. As god intended.
Got sick of saying non Jewish Jews.