Damon Knight's quotes at the end of EP116: Ej-Es

[Dex]

I've given my definition of SF in a new thread.
http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=991.0
    
Sex, Damon Knight and the meaning of SF


Moderator:  Let's just keep it to one thread per topic.

[Dex]

Simon,
I feel your pain.

I think at it's hart good SF is about truth and it can be powerful.

The movie "Soylent Green" for example, while maybe not great cinema was good SF for it's time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green


The book was published in 1966 so it was written in about 1965.  The movie was issued in 1973 so it was filmed and edited in apx 1971/2.  The science it talked about was not well known to the general public at the time.

Just imagine if the issue of Global Warming was begun to be addressed 35 years ago!

[Chodon]

I do know that I have an itch in my mind that is satisfied when I think about some new, interesting idea, and its ramifications for human society.  Reading science fiction stories usually scratches this itch, so that's why I like them.  But a lot of science fiction stories are just tricking me into thinking about real world problems of the present ("Dynasties"), or age-old aspects of the human condition like love ("Impossible Dreams").  I feel ripped off when I hear these stories, because I invested my time with them, and I still itch.   Like ordering a beer and getting a non-alcoholic beer.  They may be great in every other way, but I find them unsatisfying and sometimes they actually piss me off.   In the end I don't actually care if they are science fiction or not, I just know that I don't like them. 

I empathize with you, wakela, but just because something doesn't satisfy your itch doesn't mean it's not sci-fi.  It might just mean it sucked.  Just like any other genre, there's good and bad.  For example, I consider "The Core" sci-fi, and I think it fits most people's definition of sci-fi (uses technology that could be possible at some point in the future).  However, it was so horrible I wanted to tear my own skin off.  Or Star Trek: Nemesis.  Ghastly, but I don't think anyone would doubt it was sci-fi.  Maybe you still had an itch not because the author didn't have a back-scratcher, but because he didn't know how to use it.

[Dex]

Please feel free to comment …
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Preface

Section I & II below is my attempt to objectively define Science Fiction (SF).

Below are my comments from a previous post regarding the basic question of defining SF.

If you do not want to define SF then you must answer the interesting question as to why you do not do not want to define Science Fiction.

Human beings define many things to facilitate communication, expand understanding and develop. One way we learn is by other discipline's example and precedent. Examples:
1. Dictionaries - we define words for clarity
2. Legal Contracts - define terms for agreement on obligations, consequences of actions
3. Philosophy defines ways of living to improve our existence.

So, in the face of the overwhelming precedents in various disciplines; those who do not want to define SF should be required to provide extraordinary proof that this is a good idea.  The concept of extraordinary proof is borrowed from science.  It is the concept that the more radical the theory the more proof is required to support it.

My theory of why people do not what to define SF is
1. Objective standards are difficult,  they have to be identified, disseminated administered and held to. It may be more difficult to find stories. - Subjective relativism is easy http://www.rit.edu/~692awww/resources/manuals/dgae1p4.html

2. It is difficult for authors - they would need to understand a scientific discipline (s), stay current with it; include it in a story and communicate it in an interesting and entertaining way to the reader. 

********************************************************************

Section I
General Definitions:  (Note – Unless noted; the definitions below my edited version of wikipedia entries.)

Science is a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method as well as the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

Science includes:
Natural – a rational approach is applied to the study of the universe, which is understood as obeying rules or laws of natural origin. E.g. Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, Physics

Social – the scientific method is applied to both the qualitative and quantitative study of humanity or an individual – e.g. Anthropology, Political Science, Psychology, Sociology, History

Formal Science – the academic study that is predominantly concerned with the abstract formal system – e.g. logic mathematics, computer science

Fiction is the genre of imaginative narrative.  Fiction need not be entirely imaginary, and may include real people, places, and events.

Plot or storyline – is the rendering and ordering of events and actions of a story particularly towards the achievement of some particular artistic or emotional effect.

Theme -  The theme is the story's central concept, or the controlling idea. Many times the theme will make a statement about life, or the human character-or it will make some other statement based on the views of the author. Not all stories have a theme, however- for example, mysteries usually don't make a statement, they just give you a good puzzle to figure out.
http://library.thinkquest.org/27864/data/cyoc/parts.html

Objectivity - expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

Subjectivity - peculiar to a particular individual; arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Section II
Science Fiction Defined:

Science fiction is that form of fiction in which the science included in the fiction is:
1.   based upon (or projected from) the Natural, Social and/or Formal Sciences
2.   and is (are) essential to the theme, plot development and/or plot resolution.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Section III
I believe with the above definition (and the general definitions) you can objectively determine what SF is and what is a story that put in some SF “window dressing”.  It does not address the quality issue.  Brining the question of “quality” into the discussion can open the door to subjective opinions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Explanation –
Positive – The simplest definition/explanation is usually the best.  The above definition attempts that. The science in good SF is based upon “the organized body of knowledge” and is instrumental to the story.
If you CAN NOT take out scientific elements of the story and still maintain the author’s theme, plot development and/or plot resolution - then you just might have a SF story!

Negative – Incorporating SF “window dressing” into a story that is not instrumental to a story is not SF.  A space ship, interstellar local, ray gun, and/or a universal translator that is not instrumental to the theme, plot development and/or plot resolution does not make it SF.
If you CAN take out the scientific elements of the story and still maintain the author’s theme, plot development and/or plot resolution – it is most likely not SF.

Section IV
Why is any of this important?  If we continue to watch, listen and pay for stories dressed up as SF that is what we will continue to get.

“We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be.”--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Just imagine if the issue of Global Warming was begun to be addressed 35 years ago!

*Snork!*

35 years ago the "scientists" were concerned about global cooling.  Quote from a 1975 Newsweek article: "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1975_Newsweek_article)  I expect they'll be saying the same thing again in 2025.


It does raise and interesting question, though: Does our categorization of SF change with time?  I.e. if I write about AI in 2007, that's science fiction.  If an actual AI reads my story in 2107, should the AI consider my story to be science fiction?

That's one reason I think the author's intention is of vital importance to a definition: Otherwise SF would expire as the time period it depicts rolls through into the present.

[Chodon]

It does raise and interesting question, though: Does our categorization of SF change with time?  I.e. if I write about AI in 2007, that's science fiction.  If an actual AI reads my story in 2107, should the AI consider my story to be science fiction?

I suppose we could look at history to answer this question.  Is Jules Verne science fiction?  I think so, even though most of the stuff he wrote is no longer fiction.  I don't think anyone would call it "science nonfiction". 

[Mr. Tweedy]

It does raise and interesting question, though: Does our categorization of SF change with time?  I.e. if I write about AI in 2007, that's science fiction.  If an actual AI reads my story in 2107, should the AI consider my story to be science fiction?

I suppose we could look at history to answer this question.  Is Jules Verne science fiction?  I think so, even though most of the stuff he wrote is no longer fiction.  I don't think anyone would call it "science nonfiction". 

And what if the writer gets it wrong?  In the Star Trek Episode "Space Seed" it is stated that the 1990s were torn by the Eugenics Wars.  This was certainly SF in 1967, but when the 90s rolled around, there was no Eugenics War.  So is it still SF?  Or did it suddenly become fantasy or alternate history when a certain date had passed.

What about stories written in the 20s that had Mars with an oxygen atmosphere?  They really didn't know any better back then.

I think these cases demonstrate that–although we can use the criteria to help judge whether a given piece is good SF or bad SF–the scientific accuracy of a depth of a story cannot be grounds for classifying it as SF or not.  I still think the deciding factor is the type of speculation in which the author intends to engage.

[Chodon]

In the Star Trek Episode "Space Seed" it is stated that the 1990s were torn by the Eugenics Wars.  This was certainly SF in 1967, but when the 90s rolled around, there was no Eugenics War. 

Good God, man.  Where were you during the 90's?  How could you forget the Eugenics Wars?!

I think it's still sci-fi.  Spaceships, remember?

Most people can understand a story in the context of when it was written.  I think most people would agree the original Star Trek was sci-fi....with sexy green alien women.

[Dex]

35 years ago the "scientists" were concerned about global cooling.  Quote from a 1975 Newsweek article: "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1975_Newsweek_article)  I expect they'll be saying the same thing again in 2025.

There can be apparently conflicting theories in vogue at different time.  There is a Berkley Podcast - rather thick - titled LS 70B Physical Science - Spring 2007 that states that the Global Warming theory was put forth in the 1920s.  It was a Scandivan scientist and at the time in that part of the world a warmer world was not looked upon as a bad thing.

It does raise and interesting question, though: Does our categorization of SF change with time?  I.e. if I write about AI in 2007, that's science fiction.  If an actual AI reads my story in 2107, should the AI consider my story to be science fiction?

That's one reason I think the author's intention is of vital importance to a definition: Otherwise SF would expire as the time period it depicts rolls through into the present.

Your example is applying a subjective perspective with the body of knowledge available at that time 2107.  An objective perspective is that he book was written in 2007 with the body of knowledge available at that time; so we have to use that as the point for evaluation.

I'm curious; how would you determine the author's intentions?

I can only think of reading what he/she wrote and evaluate it against the objective definition of SF.

[Dex]

In the Star Trek Episode "Space Seed" it is stated that the 1990s were torn by the Eugenics Wars.  This was certainly SF in 1967, but when the 90s rolled around, there was no Eugenics War. 

Good God, man.  Where were you during the 90's?  How could you forget the Eugenics Wars?!

I think it's still sci-fi.  Spaceships, remember?

Most people can understand a story in the context of when it was written.  I think most people would agree the original Star Trek was sci-fi....with sexy green alien women.

If you want to start another thread we can discuss Start Trek there.
Thanks

[ClintMemo]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Section II
Science Fiction Defined:

Science fiction is that form of fiction in which the science included in the fiction is:
1.   based upon (or projected from) the Natural, Social and/or Formal Sciences
2.   and is (are) essential to the theme, plot development and/or plot resolution.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

you left out the all-important "but does not currently exist" portion of your definition. 

[Dex]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Section II
Science Fiction Defined:

Science fiction is that form of fiction in which the science included in the fiction is:
1.   based upon (or projected from) the Natural, Social and/or Formal Sciences
2.   and is (are) essential to the theme, plot development and/or plot resolution.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

you left out the all-important "but does not currently exist" portion of your definition. 

I was thinking  "(or projected from)" took care of that - meaning the basis is from the "Natural, Social and/or Formal Sciences" and you can expand it from there.

Let me know if that is meets what you were saying.

[Chodon]

In the Star Trek Episode "Space Seed" it is stated that the 1990s were torn by the Eugenics Wars.  This was certainly SF in 1967, but when the 90s rolled around, there was no Eugenics War. 

Good God, man.  Where were you during the 90's?  How could you forget the Eugenics Wars?!

I think it's still sci-fi.  Spaceships, remember?

Most people can understand a story in the context of when it was written.  I think most people would agree the original Star Trek was sci-fi....with sexy green alien women.

If you want to start another thread we can discuss Start Trek there.
Thanks

When I think of what defines sci-fi I think Star Trek, that's why I brought it up.  I figure if we can get to the essence of Star Trek we can get to the essence of Science Fiction.  That's why I have to pull out the sexy green alien women.  They don't make it Sci-fi.

Overall, I think your sci-fi manifesto is WAY to broad to define a genre.  Under your definition ANY story is considered science fiction.  People need a basic understanding of the world to understand any story.  Gravity is required to keep people on the ground, social science is required to understand how people interact.  This defines every story ever written.

It seems like (and correct me if I'm wrong) you want to define sci-fi to limit your exposue to your definition of sci-fi only (or what you would call "good sci-fi").  The compelling reason I present for not drawing a box around certain stories and saying "this is sci-fi" is because I don't like to exclude stories I may enjoy.  I listen to escape pod and, for the most part, I like what I hear.  There is no correlation between what I like and what fits your definition of sci-fi.  The correlation is between what I like and what is on escape pod.  And sexy green alien women.  Yum...

[Simon]

Just imagine if the issue of Global Warming was begun to be addressed 35 years ago!

*Snork!*

35 years ago the "scientists" were concerned about global cooling.  Quote from a 1975 Newsweek article: "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1975_Newsweek_article)  I expect they'll be saying the same thing again in 2025.


It does raise and interesting question, though: Does our categorization of SF change with time?  I.e. if I write about AI in 2007, that's science fiction.  If an actual AI reads my story in 2107, should the AI consider my story to be science fiction?

That's one reason I think the author's intention is of vital importance to a definition: Otherwise SF would expire as the time period it depicts rolls through into the present.

Its always nice to bring up quite how long the history of SF predictions can be, and I'll take any opportunity to pimp the works of Stanley Weinbaum (the most important SF writer you've never heard of).  Back in 1934 he wrote the story Shifting Seas (available as Public Domain on Project Gutenberg here: http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0607511h.html, because he died in 1934) about what would happen to Global Climate if something were to interrupt The Gulf Stream...  Exactly what is discussed as the prime priority for us Northern Europeans in respect of global warming.  His vision of apocalyptic war triggered by climate problems is pretty fantastic, and I personally love the intricacies of dated science you see there (It was common at the time to regard The Pacific Ocean as the crater left by the birth of the moon).  The thing about Weinbaum is that its pure science fiction, but the stories are so old that none of the science gels any longer...

There is nothing new about climate worries...  And everyone should read Weinbaum.

[SFEley]

I'm pretty much staying out of this thread for various reasons.  However, there is one thing that caught my eye in this, and I want to comment on the metaissues it raises:

If you do not want to define SF then you must answer the interesting question as to why you do not do not want to define Science Fiction.

Leaving aside the (accidental?) double negative near the end:  I disagree.  No one has any responsibility to answer this question.

Some people find it valuable and rewarding to analyze their entertainment to this depth.  I think that's great; more power to you.  Some people do not.  They would rather simply be entertained, or provoked, or inspired without this level of reflection upon the medium.  The point I want to make here, and this is very important, is that the choice not to reflect is equally valid.

You may not agree.  That's fine.  You don't have to.  The only thing you can't do is give people a hard time about it.  At least not here.  All opinions on a work are welcome and valued equally, whether it's "This was fun, whoo, dolphins having sex!" or a fifteen-page deconstructionist thesis proving the fundamental thematic emptiness of the work.  The deconstructionist and Dolphin Boy may not like each other, but the position of this community is that neither can challenge the other's right to express their opinion as they see fit.

I'm also aware that I can be perceived, in some of my recent statements, to be giving a hard time to you and other "Does this fit under the definition of SF?" people.  So I want to make my own position clear: I'm not against the discussion itself.  I think it's a good discussion.  I'm glad it's happening in this thread.  I won't lie and say I dig it personally; after a certain threshold, much shallower than yours, this form of rhetoric is really not my cup of tea.  But as long as nobody's under compulsion to read it or participate, I don't have to dig it personally.  The community doesn't run on my personal tastes alone.  The reason I've gotten tetchy on it in recent weeks is that the question, once it surfaces, seems to break out into argument and take over any thread (particularly story feedback threads) it manifests in, suppressing feedback from people who'd rather not address it.  That concerns me.  That's what I want to keep an eye on.

And that's why language like "you must answer the question" makes me wary, Dex.  I really hope this discussion keeps going as long as people want to continue with it.  But understand that yours is one of many equal opinions -- and that, from the perspective of the community, opinions that you don't perceive to be nearly as thought-out as yours, or even opinions that are nothing but the lack of an opinion, are also equal in value. 

If this offends you, alas.  But it's the way it has to work.

[Dex]

I'm pretty much staying out of this thread for various reasons.  However, there is one thing that caught my eye in this, and I want to comment on the metaissues it raises:

If you do not want to define SF then you must answer the interesting question as to why you do not do not want to define Science Fiction.

Leaving aside the (accidental?) double negative near the end:  I disagree. No one has any responsibility to answer this question.

The double negative was accidental.

Some people find it valuable and rewarding to analyze their entertainment to this depth.  I think that's great; more power to you.  Some people do not.  They would rather simply be entertained, or provoked, or inspired without this level of reflection upon the medium.  The point I want to make here, and this is very important, is that the choice not to reflect is equally valid.

Agree - True

You may not agree.  That's fine.  You don't have to.  The only thing you can't do is give people a hard time about it.  At least not here.  All opinions on a work are welcome and valued equally, whether it's "This was fun, whoo, dolphins having sex!" or a fifteen-page deconstructionist thesis proving the fundamental thematic emptiness of the work.  The deconstructionist and Dolphin Boy may not like each other, but the position of this community is that neither can challenge the other's right to express their opinion as they see fit.

Agree. - I’m assuming the “you” in the third sentence is the plural.  If it refers to me personally send me a PM about it.

I'm also aware that I can be perceived, in some of my recent statements, to be giving a hard time to you and other "Does this fit under the definition of SF?" people.  So I want to make my own position clear: I'm not against the discussion itself.  I think it's a good discussion.  I'm glad it's happening in this thread.  I won't lie and say I dig it personally; after a certain threshold, much shallower than yours, this form of rhetoric is really not my cup of tea.  But as long as nobody's under compulsion to read it or participate, I don't have to dig it personally.  The community doesn't run on my personal tastes alone.  The reason I've gotten tetchy on it in recent weeks is that the question, once it surfaces, seems to break out into argument and take over any thread (particularly story feedback threads) it manifests in, suppressing feedback from people who'd rather not address it.  That concerns me.  That's what I want to keep an eye on.

OK

And that's why language like "you must answer the question" makes me wary, Dex.  I really hope this discussion keeps going as long as people want to continue with it.  But understand that yours is one of many equal opinions -- and that, from the perspective of the community, opinions that you don't perceive to be nearly as thought-out as yours, or even opinions that are nothing but the lack of an opinion, are also equal in value.

I agree with your comments about opinions.

One point - the first sentence quote is taken out of context.  (The relevant section is below.)
The statement “If you do not want to define SF then you must answer the interesting question as to why you do not do not want to define Science Fiction.”, is a rhetorical one that leads into the premise “Human beings…” and the thought exercise “So, in the face…

I do not believe you took it out of context intentionally.  I understand how it could happen considering the objectives and context of your post.

No one “must” do anything, nor can they be forced to on a discussion board.

This is a discussion board about SF.  SF at its hart is freedom, ideas, understanding and truth.

Please feel free to comment …
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Preface
Section I & II below is my attempt to objectively define Science Fiction (SF).
Below are my comments from a previous post regarding the basic question of defining SF.

If you do not want to define SF then you must answer the interesting question as to why you do not do not want to define Science Fiction.

Human beings define many things to facilitate communication, expand understanding and develop. One way we learn is by other discipline's example and precedent. Examples:
1. Dictionaries - we define words for clarity
2. Legal Contracts - define terms for agreement on obligations, consequences of actions
3. Philosophy defines ways of living to improve our existence.

So, in the face of the overwhelming precedents in various disciplines; those who do not want to define SF should be required to provide extraordinary proof that this is a good idea.  The concept of extraordinary proof is borrowed from science.  It is the concept that the more radical the theory the more proof is required to support it.

If this offends you, alas.  But it's the way it has to work.

I am never offended by respectful discourse.

[SFEley]

One point - the first sentence quote is taken out of context.  (The relevant section is below.)
The statement “If you do not want to define SF then you must answer the interesting question as to why you do not do not want to define Science Fiction.”, is a rhetorical one that leads into the premise “Human beings…” and the thought exercise “So, in the face…

I do not believe you took it out of context intentionally.  I understand how it could happen considering the objectives and context of your post.

I was aware of your context, Dex.  I think you were pretty consistent in adhering to that context, and I disagree with your conclusion, "Those who do not want to define SF should be required to provide extraordinary proof that this is a good idea," just as strongly for the exact same reason.

There is no such burden of proof.  I am not inclined to reward rhetorical strategies that presuppose such a burden with my engagement.  If you'd phrased things a little more gently, without phrasing it as some sort of requirement that they work harder than you have to validate their opinion, you might have gotten more people with other perspectives to weigh in.

[Dex]

One point - the first sentence quote is taken out of context.  (The relevant section is below.)
The statement “If you do not want to define SF then you must answer the interesting question as to why you do not do not want to define Science Fiction.”, is a rhetorical one that leads into the premise “Human beings…” and the thought exercise “So, in the face…

I do not believe you took it out of context intentionally.  I understand how it could happen considering the objectives and context of your post.

I was aware of your context, Dex.  I think you were pretty consistent in adhering to that context, and I disagree with your conclusion, "Those who do not want to define SF should be required to provide extraordinary proof that this is a good idea," just as strongly for the exact same reason.

There is no such burden of proof.  I am not inclined to reward rhetorical strategies that presuppose such a burden with my engagement.  If you'd phrased things a little more gently, without phrasing it as some sort of requirement that they work harder than you have to validate their opinion, you might have gotten more people with other perspectives to weigh in.

You know the readers of these post better than I do and I think I understand what you are saying about my phrasing in the post. It does raise interesting questions.

There are posters from around the world and from different parts of the USA.  With some people English might be a second or third language.  Writing styles are different and influenced by regional dialects.  We are all of different ages, education levels and life experiences.  And yet the reader of the posts does not know any of this about any poster or me in particular.  I could be a janitor in Israel with English as a second language and it is difficult for me to compose these posts.  Or I could be a computer programmer in India.  Is there no accepting of these differences by the reader?

In out multicultural world of the internet what does it say about a reader who rejects or is put off by a post (or part of it) because it is not phrased in the locally accepted style of that reader?

Must the poster know how each of the readers like posts composed and try to please them all?

My basic assumptions are that people are basically good and want to do good.  I keep this assumption until they show otherwise.  I look at the totality of their post to evaluate the person’s intentions; just as I would try to evaluate a person by their character and not by their style sense.

“Be gentle to all and stern with yourself.”--St. Teresa of Avila

[wherethewild]

At the risk of moving this thread into language/communication (which has been covered a lot in Gallimaufry).

In a forum which is English then it should be assumed a reasonable level of competence in the language. If the poster hasn´t, then they usually preface with "not my native language" or "I may not be clear here" etc etc. It is not reasonable to assume that everyone here speaks poor or unclear English and that we should be reading all posts assuming that what they say is not necessarily what they mean.

Dex, you wrote a post with "must" in it. Steve´s response was clearly about the "must" aspect of your post. If you did not mean to imply that other commenters "must" prove something, then you could have addressed that three posts ago with a "Excuse me, I didn´t mean to imply XYZ but was trying to say ABC" instead of still arguing that your use of "must" was appropriate.

We´ve had many discussions which have branched off/turned into arguments because of alternate definitions or poor choice of vocabulary. Most posters (now at least) seem to keep that in mind and pay attention that their points are correctly understood. It isn´t my responsibility to try and wrestle the implied meaning out of a comment, rather the authors responsibility to ensure his implied meaning is understood.

Now, back to SF.

[SFEley]

There are posters from around the world and from different parts of the USA.  With some people English might be a second or third language.  Writing styles are different and influenced by regional dialects.  We are all of different ages, education levels and life experiences.  And yet the reader of the posts does not know any of this about any poster or me in particular.  I could be a janitor in Israel with English as a second language and it is difficult for me to compose these posts.  Or I could be a computer programmer in India.  Is there no accepting of these differences by the reader?

I have no idea where you're going with this, Dex, or how it relates to the discussion.  I know you're not posting this from a foreign country.  I thought what you said was pretty clear.  I thought I was pretty clear in expressing my objections.

In any case, I'm done here.  I've said what I intended to say, and it was as much for everyone else's benefit as yours.  I wish you the best with this discussion, and I hope that everyone who wishes to learn from it learns plenty.

[Rachel Swirsky]

The problem with defining SF seems, to me, to be rooted in the fact that people are trying to do it from an exclusionary perspective.

If we're going to look at this linguistically,  you can't have a good and absolute definition for SF. You can have a working definition for SF, which is going to have weird boundary states. SF is an invented human concept. It is not reifiable.

Which takes me back to point one, about exclusion. If you're trying to write a defintion that will include A) work I like, but not B) work I don't like, then you're going to piss off fans of B, pretty much inherently.

I don't really understand this urge. As Simon says, argue against the stuff you don't like. Don't try to kick it out of the genre. I pretty much dislike all of the kind of hard SF y'all are rallying in favor of, but I wouldn't try to argue that it isn't SF. The mainstream lit people have been trying to argue idea-driven SF out of fiction altogether, and I don't much appreciate it when they do it. I don't know why I'd appreciate pressure from the other end of the spectrum either.

Defining SF as an exercise in investigating the genre, or one's own interaction with the genre, makes sense to me. I think that can be interesting. However, I still think it's problematic to reify it by implying that humans communicate by means of strict definitions (we don't) and that strict definitions therefore winz0r. There will always be weird exceptions that inhabit an indistinct space in regard to genre.

Interestingly, the people* who are guarding the borders of SF seem much more interested in their patrol than the working out of "what is fantasy?" I expect this has something to do with the varying amounts of prestige assigned to the genres, and especially to purity within the genres. Hard SF used to make the claim (and sometimes still does make the claim) of objectivity. Therefore, it's necessary to police who gets to make that claim. Fantasy, on the other hand, makes no equivalent prestige claim. This allows the genre to escape more of the definitional battles (although fantasy gets its share of negative definitions: "I don't like Star Wars, so it's fantasy"; "Fantasy is that fiction which upholds stasis"; etc.), but it also puts fantasy in the position of being dismissed as fluffy or easy or whatever, on account of its lack of claim to prestige.

*This is a general people, referring to what appears to be a cultural thing, not a reference to anyone in this thread. I see lots of discussions of "what is science fiction?" but very few "what is fantasy?" -- except when the latter is brought up by the former.

[eytanz]

palimpsest - I agree with what you are saying, but being exclusionary doesn't necessarily mean excluding what you don't like. I'm not particularly interested in defining SF, but if I were to give a working definition, I'd probably find it easiest to give one designed on excluding stuff based on subjective criteria (such as an impressionistic feeling of "this goes together with this"), but I'm pretty sure it would exclude a lot of literature I like and include a lot of literature I dislike.

[Dex]

[quote author=SFEley link=topic=978.msg14250#msg14250
In any case, I'm done here.  I've said what I intended to say, and it was as much for everyone else's benefit as yours.  I wish you the best with this discussion, and I hope that everyone who wishes to learn from it learns plenty.
[/quote]

I agree, it is time for me to go also.
Please delete my account.
+++

Dragons will wander about
the waste places,
and the phoenix will soar
from her nest of fire
into the air.
We shall lay our hands
upon the Basilisk,
and see the jewel
in the toad's head.
Champing his gilded oats,
the hippogriff will stand
in our stalls,
and over our heads
will float the bluebird,
singing of beautiful and
impossible things,
of things that are lovely
and that never happened,
of things that are not
and that should be.--Oscar Wilde

[Mr. Tweedy]

...That was weird.

[Russell Nash]

umm, OK.

Funny how the guy that needed SF to be so hard and have nothing to do with fantasy.  Left with a quote about mythological creatures.