Printable View
What exactly is sceince fiction? I have read many so called sceince fiction novels and short stories but they all seem so different. Does it have to take place in the future? Does the plot have to be based on a scientific phenomenon like Jurassic Park or can it merely include sceintific technology that does not yet exisit like 1984? And is there realy a difference between hard and regular science fiction?
I hope someone can shed some light on this topic.
I t doesn't have to happen in the future (K. Dick's "The Man In The High Castle") and it doesn't have to be based on a scientific phenomenon though it usually is full of them.
Wiki :
Science fiction is a popular genre of fiction in which the narrative world differs from our own present or historical reality in at least one significant way.
from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fictionQuote:
Definition
Science fiction includes such a wide range of themes and subgenres that it can be difficult to define. Author and editor Damon Knight has summed up the difficulty of defining science fiction by stating that "Science fiction is what we point to when we say it".[3] Similarly, critic Bonnie Kunzel: "Science fiction has been called the books that science fiction writers write! In other words, it can be about anything in or out of this world."[4]
Vladimir Nabokov argues that if we were rigorous with our definitions, Shakespeare's play The Tempest would have to be termed science fiction.[5]
Science Fiction didn't exist as a defined subgenre until the 1950's. Into the 1950's much SF was sold alongside ordinary "mainstream" fiction (whatever that means). A distinction was made between "pulp" and ordinary fiction. Some people insist that to be Science Fiction, scientific innovation must play an important part in the writing. While others say that there need simply be something that doesn't exist at present. The setting can be any where at any time. A reasonable distinction is made between "hard" SF, which must be scientifically oriented and other SF that has a setting that is not the present reality.
The first definite example of SF was Cyrano de Bergerac's Autre Mondes written in the 1620's. The presently available version was bowlderized.
I could go into greater length, but the question has been discussed for decades without being answered.
There simply needs to be something in the story that doesn't exist at present? So fantasy stories with dragons and magic wands and re-arranging staircases are actually science fiction too?
I'm not trying to challenge anyone here, I just found that funny. It seems like literary critics have issues with any fiction that isn't written with a real-life setting of today or the past. That annoys me...
I'm sorry that I can't help add to the definition of science fiction, though I will at least toss in that when I think science fiction I immediately think "Ray Bradbury." Perhaps I only consider "hard" science fiction to be real science fiction...? Any science fiction fans here? I didn't find the wikipedia info to be that helpful, and now I'm all curious...:p
Yes, dragons, magic wands, fairies, etc. can be included in science fiction. The Dragon Riders of Pern is definitely SF.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shannanigan
That annoys me greatly. I like SF very much, and from pre-SF times the literature that I most like could be called SF, Poe for example.Quote:
I'm not trying to challenge anyone here, I just found that funny. It seems like literary critics have issues with any fiction that isn't written with a real-life setting of today or the past. That annoys me...
The distinction is artificial. 1984 is definitely SF, but it is not marketed as such. Not This August by C. M. Kornbluth is SF, and it is marketed as such. Fail Safe and Dr Stranglove are SF, but they are not marketed as such. The distinction often seems to be a matter of who wrote it and who published it. Some authors are Science Fiction writers, while others are not. Some publishing houses publish SF, while others do not. If The Boat of a Million Years had been written by Michner instead of by Poul Anderson, it probably would not be called Science Fiction, but Poul Anderson is a Science Fiction writer.Quote:
I'm sorry that I can't help add to the definition of science fiction, though I will at least toss in that when I think science fiction I immediately think "Ray Bradbury." Perhaps I only consider "hard" science fiction to be real science fiction...? Any science fiction fans here? I didn't find the wikipedia info to be that helpful, and now I'm all curious...:p
The only sure sign that something is SF is that it contains an anachronistic element from the future; if something that does (did) not exist at the time of the writing but was (will be) made at some later time is included as an important part of the writing. In Autre Monde the narrator traveled to the Moon and to the Sun; that was not possible in 1620, so it is Science Fiction. Some people insist that the anachronistic element must be possible, but that isn't reasonable, because no one knows everything that is possible.
Ah, the wonderful slipperiness of definition in literature. Now I remember why I chose to be an English major and not a math major...things are too easy when they all have one answer or one distinct set of answers :pQuote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
Thank you, Peter. I really should read some more science fiction. I'm not surprised now to hear that 1984 could be considered science fiction at all, I definitely wouldn't argue the designation.
We have heard a story that whenever Roger Zelazny heard of a new and fitting definition of speculative fiction (that is sci-fi+fantasy+horror+cyberpunk+steampunk+alternative history+science fantasy+urban fantasy+...) he wrote a story that was very much speculative fiction, but according to the new definition of speculative fiction, it wasn't.
We guess that it was a literary anecdote, because the creation of Zelazny isn't thatbig, you know.
Of course, that was on the definition of speculative fiction, so it is slightly offtopic.
Same here. Math and the hard sciences are too easy, cookbook stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shannanigan
It isn't a matter of "that 1984 could be considered science fiction." 1984 is Science Fiction by all definitions of Science Fiction that I know of.Quote:
Thank you, Peter. I really should read some more science fiction. I'm not surprised now to hear that 1984 could be considered science fiction at all, I definitely wouldn't argue the designation.
If you don't read Science Fiction, then you should. Some SF is truly excellent, but there has been a great deal of trash written in that sub-genre. I mentioned The Boat of a Million Years as an example is that it is great literature. Most of the well known SF authors are good writers. You might look at www.sfwa.org awards winners for some good novels and stories. People don't win the top awards for writing trash.
So as with anything else is literature it appears definition of science fiction is all very subjective. It depends on who wrote it, piblished it, reviewed it and sold it.
Ahh the joys of analyzing literature...
Yes, it is a joy.Quote:
Originally Posted by CatherineH/L/E
I like science fiction as well as (as long as we are going with categories) fantasy. Yes, analyzing literature can be a great joy as well as a pain in the erm...neck. There are many books that are considered fine literature that I think of as dreck and many very fine literature books in the sci/fi genre that "critics" dismiss as fluff. I tend to be a person who likes to decide for myself what I like about a book, rather than leave it to a third party, even if they have a PhD in literature.
Yes, there are all sorts. Great, isn't it? :) Personally, I tend to favour the writers that have a solid scientific base combined with a vivid imagination. They often produce works that gives you the feeling that it really could happen. Quite a few of them have also come up with ideas that lated turned from fiction to fact. A couple of examples come to mind:Quote:
Originally Posted by CatherineH/L/E
- Jules Verne - U-boats and visiting the moon
- Arthur C Clarke - the communications satelite
As has been said already: No, not at all. It can be (and usually is) set in the future, but it works just as fine in the past or present.Quote:
Originally Posted by CatherineH/L/E
I would say that it is all in the eye of the beholder. To me, the important thing is that I enjoy reading it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CatherineH/L/E
/Claes
Quite true. Many SF writers began in the old Pulp Magazines, Robert Heinlien, and L. Ron Hubbard to name two. Many of the things we have today came from ideas introduced in the pulps. Doc Savage had an answering machine on his telephone. The Shadow had a small, portable television camera. Both had weapons that were safe to carry in separate containers, but mixed would explode. And so on. As has been pointed out, many SF writers' ideas became fact. I did my research paper on this back in high school. It is truly amazing what you can find by digging in to Sci-Fi and comparing it to our ever-changing world!Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
Before someone makes something, someone has to think of the thing. Geosynchronous satelites _ Arthur C. Clarke, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon