What do you consider SF?

[Startrekwiki]

This is a question that has been lying around... Not really what is the best SF, but what is the real-thing? Personally I think that the line between SF and Fantasy has been a bit fuzzy. For example, I consider myself a Trekkie, yet I believe that Star Trek is in the no-man's land between SF and Fantasy, but Asimov, another favorite, is in the SF category. I consider things such as the storyline behind the vidiogame "Halo" to be SF because it's really based on a real theory: Aliens! Then theories are SF because they're stories based on another theory in science:

Every thought is a theory because there will always be someone somewhere who can prove you wrong.

So, in the end, what do you designate SF, and not?

[Heradel]

Science Fiction is an attempt to foresee a possible, if improbable, future and tell a story there.

Hard SF is more tightly based on what should/may happen, should progression go along that Path. Mainstream examples include a fair bit of Cyberpunk, 2001, and certain arguments could be made for certain parts of Star Trek, as they could be made that it belongs in Soft SF. You can also argue that Star Trek is just a morality play that got set in the 23rd century so it wouldn't cause an uproar that Uhura's fourth in command of the Enterprise.

Soft SF has taken the license to ignore what physical laws we think govern the universe. Star Wars and other space operas like Firefly go here, but don't take Soft SF to mean that it isn't deadly serious. The Foundation novels can go in here, Dune, any number of other genre-defining novels will also belong here, and it's definitely more of the genre than Hard SF.

Then again, this is all relative and some people will argue that the lines between Hard and Soft can never be fully drawn. Or that it's better that they're not. Maybe we should think of Hard and Soft SF and the border between them like we think of the border between Lichtenstein and Belgium (pardon my French). Sure, it's both real and important, but on the other hand who cares what it looks like exactly? (Well, except to the Belgians and Liechtensteiners.)

Honestly, what's good SF is good SF and what's bad SF is bad SF. Distinctions past that are usually boring and unnecessary.

After that it's just quibbling over if the walls should be Cerulean or Topaz.

[Russell Nash]

I don't like drawing the line. I'm just after the good story. I think the important part is that they let us know early what the rules are and they stick to them. No saying it's real hard SF and them having an alien levitate his lunch.

[Startrekwiki]

I was thinking this because of a poll I saw on the EP site. The one about "Making a Separate Fantasy Podcast". If EP was really going to do that, there needs to be some kind of distinction. I mean, wouldn't it be odd if what you thought was Fantasy appeared on EP, or SF on the other 'cast? If there is really going to be such a podcast, there needs to be distinction between the two genres.

[Thaurismunths]

For example, I consider myself a Trekkie, yet I believe that Star Trek is in the no-man's land between SF and Fantasy, but Asimov, another favorite, is in the SF category.

For those of us with a less involved perspective (I was raised on Star Trek: TNG, but am not quite a Trekkie), how do you qualify Star Trek as anything other than SF? It's based on "science" and set in this dimension's future, and it has the whole "if there's a rocket" trump card.
In genre classification I thought the lines were drawn by the mechanisms (“science” vs. “magic”) used to advance the plot, not the plot or the plot's intent?

[slic]

Have a look at http://www.escapepod.org/2006/11/30/ep082-travels-with-my-cats/#comments
Hugo award winner Mike Resnick puts his thoughts out there as to what constitutes sci-fi.

[fiveyearwinter]

Steve, didn't you say (or have a quote that said) "SF is whatever we point at when we say it?" or did I just mangle that quote beyond recognition?


Anyway I liked that idea. Some things are just too blurry.

[SFEley]

Steve, didn't you say (or have a quote that said) "SF is whatever we point at when we say it?" or did I just mangle that quote beyond recognition?

That's pretty much right.  The quote comes from Damon Knight.

Here's a long list of other people's definitions and characterizations of SF, if anyone is interested:

http://www.panix.com/~gokce/sf_defn.html

[Thaurismunths]

I guess I'm stuck on Science Fiction being based on Science and Fantasy Fiction being based on things that aren't Science.

[Startrekwiki]

I guess I'm stuck on Science Fiction being based on Science and Fantasy Fiction being based on things that aren't Science.

Frankly, I agree. Except for one thing: what is visual science fiction? I mean, is Battlestar Gallactica Sci-Fi? It's based on the scientific theory that there is life out there... And that it originated here. Or something like that.

[slic]

I mean, is Battlestar Gallactica Sci-Fi?

I would say it obviously is, but you are right - some people describe it as West Wing at war, in space.  But this simply goes back to the old point that "sci-fi is what we point at", which, frankly, I find absurd.  If you introduce
And for me the only difference between sci-fi and fantasy are the descriptors.  Star Wars, BG, Dr. Who, even hard sci-fi, in my opinion, could be done by changing the words from Spaceship to Dragon, from planet to city/continent, etc.  Both genres are intended to tell stories outside our current framework - whether the planet/city is only populated by women because of a disease/genetic weapon or a magician's curse is immaterial.  I think it is people's exposure and personal preferences that decide what they like better.

[wakela]

Author George Alec Effinger made a distinction between SF and Sci-Fi.  SF is a story where the science fictiony thing is necessary to the plot and the feeling of the story.  Battlestar Galactica would be SF, because the fact that the cylons are robots created by humans is necessary for the moral questions that the show raises.  A Sci-Fi story is one where the science-fictiony aspect is not necessary.  Star Wars is Sci-Fi because you could tell exactly the same story in a different setting.  In fact, many of you probably know that Star Wars is basically a rip-off of a Kurosawa samurai movie. 

[wakela]

How about this one.
I recently read a story where the narrator believed that a particular girl was a ghost.  It is revealed dramatically at the end whether the girl actually is a ghost or the narrator is crazy.  Nothing scary happens, so I wouldn't call it horror, which would make it modern-day fantasy.  But if it turns out that the narrator is crazy then you have a fantasy story in which nothing fantastic happens.  I think a story like this would disappoint readers hoping to read about magic and the supernatural, but at the same time the story would annoy fans of mainstream fiction because the reader has to deal with the supernatural for most of the story.    Would this story be on NPR or Escape Pod?

BTW, that is the point of defining SF,F,H as genres.  Some magazines publish them, some don't. 

[Rachel Swirsky]

But what Lady Churchill's Rosebud Wristlet considers fantasy is going to be radically different from what Realms of Fantasy does.

[stePH]

How about this one.
I recently read a story where the narrator believed that a particular girl was a ghost.  It is revealed dramatically at the end whether the girl actually is a ghost or the narrator is crazy.  Nothing scary happens, so I wouldn't call it horror, which would make it modern-day fantasy.  But if it turns out that the narrator is crazy then you have a fantasy story in which nothing fantastic happens.  I think a story like this would disappoint readers hoping to read about magic and the supernatural, but at the same time the story would annoy fans of mainstream fiction because the reader has to deal with the supernatural for most of the story.   

L. Ron Hubbard's novel Fear is very similar to the story you describe.  (I don't think that's much of a spoiler since in the author's own introduction it's stated that despite the fantastical events that occur, the story could actually happen.)

[wintermute]

Battlestar Galactica would be SF, because the fact that the cylons are robots created by humans is necessary for the moral questions that the show raises.

Real cylons are war machines made by now-extinct lizard-aliens with the explicit purpose of killing humans.

[jodymonster]

In one intro to a book of Phillip K. Dick stories he makes a distinction between fantasy and science fiction that I always liked.  I think it's Second Variety, but I loaned it and a few others to my dad, so I can't find the exact book or wording right now.  But anyway...

He said science fiction could happen, based on what was known at the time of the story writing.  It could grow out of our world as it is today (or, could have happened like that in the past).  Fantasy happens in a way that could never happen.  If that makes sense.

[Darwinist]

In one intro to a book of Phillip K. Dick stories he makes a distinction between fantasy and science fiction that I always liked.  I think it's Second Variety, but I loaned it and a few others to my dad, so I can't find the exact book or wording right now.  But anyway...

He said science fiction could happen, based on what was known at the time of the story writing.  It could grow out of our world as it is today (or, could have happened like that in the past).  Fantasy happens in a way that could never happen.  If that makes sense.

I like the way that sounds but I guess that means Land of the Lost wasn't sci-fi then.   I guess the Sleestacks are just a fantasy of mine.

[stePH]

In one intro to a book of Phillip K. Dick stories he makes a distinction between fantasy and science fiction that I always liked.  I think it's Second Variety, but I loaned it and a few others to my dad, so I can't find the exact book or wording right now.  But anyway...

He said science fiction could happen, based on what was known at the time of the story writing.  It could grow out of our world as it is today (or, could have happened like that in the past).  Fantasy happens in a way that could never happen.  If that makes sense.

Then wouldn't anything involving time travel or FTL be considered fantasy?  I believe that current science considers both of those things impossible.

[Windup]

In the audio outro to Ender's Game, Orson Scott Card says that when he was struggling with this question, an editor told him: "Scott, it's like this: science fiction has rivets, fantasy has trees. Just look at the cover art."

It's a remarkably good sorting device, but I don't know how well it works with short stories...

[wintermute]

In one intro to a book of Phillip K. Dick stories he makes a distinction between fantasy and science fiction that I always liked.  I think it's Second Variety, but I loaned it and a few others to my dad, so I can't find the exact book or wording right now.  But anyway...

He said science fiction could happen, based on what was known at the time of the story writing.  It could grow out of our world as it is today (or, could have happened like that in the past).  Fantasy happens in a way that could never happen.  If that makes sense.

Then wouldn't anything involving time travel or FTL be considered fantasy?  I believe that current science considers both of those things impossible.

Personally, I file such things under "science fantasy".

[Tango Alpha Delta]

I'm one of those (and I think this is basically what Russell said waaay back in the beginning of the thread) who just wants a good story.  I don't really care what you call it; the genre lines are necessarily blurry and definitions are squishy, because in the end ALL of the stories are about ourselves and how we see our world.

Trying to put everything in a box will always leave something out... and I only want to leave out "stuff that sucks".  (Good luck finding a universal definition for THAT!)

[wakela]

I'm one of those (and I think this is basically what Russell said waaay back in the beginning of the thread) who just wants a good story.  I don't really care what you call it; the genre lines are necessarily blurry and definitions are squishy, because in the end ALL of the stories are about ourselves and how we see our world.

Trying to put everything in a box will always leave something out... and I only want to leave out "stuff that sucks".  (Good luck finding a universal definition for THAT!)

So why do you read science fiction?

[birdless]

I know the question wasn't directed at me, but I agree with what Russell, TAD and a few others have said and I found your question to be an interesting one, so, for me, I think it's a little bit of escapism. And getting to experience an exotic life, albeit vicariously. I haven't thought long on the question, but I think that's one of the reasons I read/watch F/SF.

[DKT]

I've stopped trying to classify it, honestly.  There's been so much debate on the topic, I just don't know that there is an answer, or a way to classify/split the genres that would make me happy.  Ray Bradbury is to me SF, but he doesn't have serious science in a lot of his stuff.  Still, I can't imagine classifying him as anything else.  Ditto Star Wars.  I get the Science Fantasy thing -- it makes a lot of sense, but I just can't label it as such.

In the end, I think I just kind of end up tagging things with a bunch of different labels in my head instead of trying to boil it down to SF/F/H.