Discussing the Differences in Genre

[Skyhop Xigua]

Gaah. *gets run over*

I have said in every post that the two genres overlap. It's difficult to put lines because they do overlap. By "straight fantasy" and "straight sf" I was refering to novels(relatively rare) in which there is no question as to which genre it is, where there is no overlap. Ender's Game or The Handmaid's Tale as examples on the sf side, or Mercedes Lackey's Last Herald Mage Trilogy for fantasy.

As far as style goes, yes there's a difference in style. No, it's not essential to the genre. But it's not always just a question of word differences. There are common styles to each genre that may not always be used, but frequently are. Dune, as I said, is indeed written in a style that is common to fantasy novels, not to science fiction. It's not just plug-in-the -correct-vocabulary and therefore it's science fiction.

Fantasy isn't real. It is in no concievable way real. Not in this universe. If a fantasy novel talks about being on a planet somwhere with space flight etc. than those are elements of science fiction, not fantasy. Sf, on the other hand, could at some point, somewhere be real. That's the point of it.

[Melusina Undine]

Skyhop Shuiguo

Gaah. *gets run over*

Doubtless my debate style is more forthright than that to which you are accustomed. I've been doing this for a while.

Quote:

I have said in every post that the two genres overlap. It's difficult to put lines because they do overlap. By "straight fantasy" and "straight sf" I was refering to novels(relatively rare) in which there is no question as to which genre it is, where there is no overlap. Ender's Game or The Handmaid's Tale as examples on the sf side, or Mercedes Lackey's Last Herald Mage Trilogy for fantasy.

I never argued that you <i>didn't</i> say the two overlap. I simply wanted to know what you meant by "straight fantasy," and whether you had a corresponding definition of "straight sf." Now I see your definition is based on the vocabulary used in the books, the "sensibility," if you will. And I have to say that I disagree that it is as clear-cut as you are presenting it to be. I think C. J. Cherryh did a good job in <I>Cloud's Rider</i> of illustrating how Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar novels would look using a science fiction vocabulary. <I>Ender's Game</i> used one of the most classic of "fantasy" themes: the Child of Destiny is trained in warfare and leads his people in victory against the Big Bad. <I>The Handmaid's Tale</i> could as easily have been placed in a fantasy setting and still made its point. As these books exist, their vocabulary is indeed "straight fantasy" or "straight science fiction," but the concepts expressed therein belong to both genres.

Quote:

As far as style goes, yes there's a difference in style. No, it's not essential to the genre. But it's not always just a question of word differences. There are common styles to each genre that may not always be used, but frequently are. Dune, as I said, is indeed written in a style that is common to fantasy novels, not to science fiction. It's not just plug-in-the -correct-vocabulary and therefore it's science fiction.

Isn't it? I daresay it could be argued that it is. Herbert used planets instead of countries, spaceships instead of sailing ships, spice instead of--well, actually, both spice and Bene Gesserit could be placed in a fantasy novel pretty much as is. When I say vocabulary, I don't just mean words, I also mean images and sensibility. Everyone in the novel thinks in sf terms, the narrative expresses itself in sf terms, therefore the novel is sf. When you get down to the basic concepts, however, there's nothing intrinsic to them that identifies them as singularly sf and singularly <i>not</I> fantasy.

Quote:

Fantasy isn't real. It is in no concievable way real. Not in this universe. If a fantasy novel talks about being on a planet somwhere with space flight etc. than those are elements of science fiction, not fantasy. Sf, on the other hand, could at some point, somewhere be real. That's the point of it.

That's taking your own views of magic and science and imposing them on the whole of each genre. Quite frankly, that's as unsound a basis for arguing genre definitions as I've ever seen. Not only is it entirely based on your own opinion of what is and is not possible, but it also discludes any number of science fiction books wherein the point is that something is <i>not</I> possible, and any number of fantasy books wherein the point is to question people's <i>assumptions</I> that something is not possible.

[Skyhop Xigua]

Quote:

Skyhop Shuiguo

Gaah. *gets run over*

Doubtless my debate style is more forthright than that to which you are accustomed. I've been doing this for a while.

It's fun. Just give me a minute to regroup. *chuckles*

[Okiimiru]

Wow, this has turned into a really good debate! I think I'll introduce some new questions, and let you all talk about them. biggrin

All right, as to the differences between age groups:

What is the difference, in your opinion, between a book that was intended for younger audiences and a book that was intended for the mature reader? One could argue hidden meaning, but in that case, C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia would count as both for children and adults, especially considering his attempt to hide Christianity in the seemingly straight forward tale of children and teenagers swept into another world.

As to the differences between books by the same author:

What books have you read or written where you or the author attempted to change genre either between books or between chapters? Did it work? (Here's the part where I mention the same characters, different stories of Madeline L'Engle. Charles Wallace was an interesting character because in each of the different books he appeared in, he played a different type of protagonist. He aged dramatically, also.)(I think the reason that I'm bringing this one up again is because it worked so well. She won many, many awards for her books, and she's got this huge fan group.)

As to the differences between what makes a book a classic and what just makes a book very good:

What is the difference between a 'classic' and a regular book? I mean, if it's the number of copies of that book in print, wouldn't the Harry Potter books have to be 'classics'? It can't just be limited to what is inside the book, because Moby d**k is a little bit different from The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Does age or the author's death have anything to do with a book being termed a 'classic'? Now I'm seriously confused. *sigh*


As you might be able to tell from the color scheme, I'm not willing to let go of Christmas until I actually walk through the doors of my school. xd

[Melusina Undine]

Okiimiru

What is the difference, in your opinion, between a book that was intended for younger audiences and a book that was intended for the mature reader? One could argue hidden meaning, but in that case, C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia would count as both for children and adults, especially considering his attempt to hide Christianity in the seemingly straight forward tale of children and teenagers swept into another world.

Hidden meaning is certainly one factor, but there has to be a subtlety to it that Lewis' work lacks, hence the reason <I>The Chronicles of Narnia</I> are generally considered children's literature. Complexity in terms of plot, theme, and character plays a role, as does ambiguity. Most children's books, for good or ill, present a much more black and white, cut and dried worldview than is common to literature for a more mature audience. Even when children's literature is not perfectly happy in tone, it generally remains less messy than life tends to be.

Quote:

What books have you read or written where you or the author attempted to change genre either between books or between chapters? Did it work?

Personally, I think that for such a change to count as successful, your audience shouldn't notice it until after several re-readings. I personally read a lot of interstitial work, which means it hovers on the boundaries of various genre definitions. As for when I write, I never write <i>to</i> a genre. I write the story that needs to be told, then try to determine which genre(s) it might fall under, in order to submit the manuscript to the proper markets.

Quote:

What is the difference between a 'classic' and a regular book?

I've seen endless variations of this debate, and have yet to encounter a satisfactory answer. Age may have something to do with it, but there are "new classics," including the Harry Potter books you mention. Enduring themes are part of the equation, but they are the only part I've heard consistently supported. Universal appeal comes up on occasion, but there are any number of "classics" that have never really enjoyed any kind of popularity. Originality has also been mentioned and disproved as a component in many debates. A certain quintessence could well be a factor, but that again goes back to the idea of enduring themes and the idea of a "collective subconscious." The so-called "human condition," if you will. Which, as a concept, has come more and more under attack in literary circles in the past few decades, because what it usually means is "the experience of the white male," which hardly counts as universal.

[Skyhop Xigua]

Melusina Undine

I simply wanted to know what you meant by "straight fantasy," and whether you had a corresponding definition of "straight sf." Now I see your definition is based on the vocabulary used in the books, the "sensibility," if you will. And I have to say that I disagree that it is as clear-cut as you are presenting it to be. <I>Ender's Game</i> used one of the most classic of "fantasy" themes: the Child of Destiny is trained in warfare and leads his people in victory against the Big Bad.

This is also a theme in many other genres, not only fantasy. Perhaps not the "of destiny" part, but this is something that comes up in other types of fiction. One could argue that Henry V is a variation on that plot.

<I>The Handmaid's Tale</i> could as easily have been placed in a fantasy setting and still made its point. As these books exist, their vocabulary is indeed "straight fantasy" or "straight science fiction," but the concepts expressed therein belong to both genres.

The point about The Handmaid's Tale is that it isn't set in a fantasy world. The point about it was that it was set in a world we know, it happen to a society that actually was. It was speculation about this world. This is what makes it science fiction, not fantasy. As you just implied.

I would also argue your claim that fantasy is merely magic and science fiction is merely science. To use Handmaid's Tale again, there is no magic or science in this book, and yet it is sf. How do you make the distinction then? If that is what makes up the two genres, how do you know that it is sf? Nineteen Eighty-four is another example of sf without science. If one were to add magic to it, it would become more fantasy, yes. Magic is an element of fantasy, just as science is an element of sf. But it is not the only element, so not the only thing that makes a story fantasy.

Must go eat dinner now, back later.

[Melusina Undine]

Skyhop Shuiguo

This is also a theme in many other genres, not only fantasy. Perhaps not the "of destiny" part, but this is something that comes up in other types of fiction. One could argue that Henry V is a variation on that plot.

Yes, but what one <i>couldn't</i> argue is that it is a theme specific to sf. As your assertion was that science fiction is fundamentally different from fantasy in theme, I was simply illustrating that this is not the case.

Quote:

The point about The Handmaid's Tale is that it isn't set in a fantasy world. The point about it was that it was set in a world we know, it happen to a society that actually was. It was speculation about this world. This is what makes it science fiction, not fantasy. As you just implied.

I never implied anything. I said outright that what makes <i>The Handmaid's Tale</i> science fiction is the vocabulary, the...<I>ambience</i>, if you will. The theme of the story is not unique to science fiction, nor is all speculation about this world science fiction (hence the subgenre of historical fantasy).

Quote:

I would also argue your claim that fantasy is merely magic and science fiction is merely science. To use Handmaid's Tale again, there is no magic or science in this book, and yet it is sf. How do you make the distinction then? If that is what makes up the two genres, how do you know that it is sf? Nineteen Eighty-four is another example of sf without science. If one were to add magic to it, it would become more fantasy, yes. Magic is an element of fantasy, just as science is an element of sf. But it is not the only element, so not the only thing that makes a story fantasy.

Forgive me, but you don't appear to have actually read what I wrote. Or if you did, you severely misunderstood it. What I claimed, and what I supported with examples, is that science fiction uses a vocabulary and a sensibility founded on science (also, both <I>The Handmaid's Tale</I> and <i>1984</i> do indeed use science in the basic set-up of the societies they present, which is precisely what makes them science fiction) and fantasy uses a vocabulary and a sensibility founded on magic (be that magic the supernatural, wizardry, magecraft, shapechanging, etc.). Both approach universal themes and topics, both ask "What if" questions, both examine various ideas of "the Other." It is your claims that fantasy does not do these things that I have refuted, not your claims that science fiction <i>does</i> do these things.

[Okiimiru]

Well, that certainly answers a lot of questions that I had. Thank you, everyone, for collaborating in this discussion. smile I'm going to let it be now.