Why have Hard SciFi, Space Opera and Science Fantasy?

[soltakss]

I've already explained the term "anal" as being very mild English slang. Sorry if it caused offense.

[Atgxtg]

I've already explained the term "anal" as being very mild English slang. Sorry if it caused offense.

Simon, I for one am sorry things got so nasty on this thread. I just wanted to try and point out the differences between Science Fiction, Science Fantasy, and Space Opera. I'm both surprised and saddened by how hostile the thread became, as well as a "spin-off" thread.

You might have erred in your choice of word(s), but you certainly didn't do anything to warrant such hostility, especially after you apologized. If people can't let it go then perhaps your ill-chosen word might be accurate.

[dragonewt]

Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge.

-- Kahlil Gibran

[Lord Shag]

this has become an amazing thread! I wonder how all our american comrades will interpret my name. when i was about to post to this thread the other night it was quite small. And really the comment i was going to make the other night still stands though there are some interesting threads here that could be pursued further.

The other night i was going to say that I think Nick's observation is the most useful here regarding nomenclature. I'd like to add to that, in that when groups try and build a unique sense of value their motives are often diverse ranging from the aesthetic to the purely ideological. However, at times they can be patently absurd. Tracing the differentiation between hard sci-fi and science fantasy is i think is one of these cases where its actually hard to put a finger on. But as someone pointed out earlier all fiction is speculative so many of these so called genres or sub-genres are a little puerile. Really when we talk of hard sci-fi and space fantasy we are only really dealing with a question of emphasis not with any essential difference in essence.

The origins of term (hard sci-fi) i think came from an earlier literary critic whose name i have forgotten but the magazine he wrote for was I think as a matter of editorial policy (or in Nick's sense, "attempt to build unique value") trying to position it itself as being different to more fantastic types of sci-fi. Now this was nothing less than pure old fashioned marketing. Thats fine but it also should remind us that often genres exist to control and influence audience. The debate over whether your fiction is "hard" or "soft" is mirroring this control. Just look at the flame wars between trekkies and star wars fans. What is going on? Two sides fighting over the content of two frikkin corporations.

[rust]

As Wikipedia puts it:

Hard science fiction is a category of science fiction characterized by an emphasis on scientific or technical detail, or on scientific accuracy, or on both.[1][2] The term was first used in print in 1957 by P. Schuyler Miller in a review of John W. Campbell, Jr.'s Islands of Space in Astounding Science Fiction.[3][4][5] The complementary term soft science fiction (formed by analogy to "hard science fiction"[6]) first appeared in the late 1970s as a way of describing science fiction in which science is not featured, or violates the scientific understanding at the time of writing.

The term is formed by analogy to the popular distinction between the "hard" (natural) and "soft" (social) sciences. Neither term is part of a rigorous taxonomy—instead they are approximate ways of characterizing stories that reviewers and commentators have found useful. The categorization "hard SF" represents a position on a scale from "softer" to "harder", not a binary classification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_SF

[dragonewt]

I wonder how all our american comrades will interpret my name.

Shagadelic baby! Yeah!

[Lord Shag]

Thanks rust, my memory of 3rd year Lit is not that bad after all. Thats actually not a bad write up for wiki. Most serious academics tend to see genres for what they are; the tools of media critics, publishers and other marketeers. Don't get too carried away with the differences.

[dragonewt]

For perspective and comparison: See: Fantasy Genres.

[dragonewt]

Don't get too carried away with the differences.

Does Science Fantasy Fiction belong to the Fantasy Genre or the Science Fiction Genre?

If there are no differences, do they both belong to the one single category of Fiction?

Edit: If tone and theme can shift between Hard and Soft, then the same shift can be observed between Fantasy and Science, and old (Medieval) and new (Space).

Edited March 23, 2010 by dragonewt

[Lord Shag]

Heyyyy dragon. good question. My pompous ass Lit teacher would reply with someone like, "Ohhh its just a matter of emphasis Mr Appel, consider some examples...." Actually I think that can understate things a little. Really what is the sci-fi writer doing? Essentially using setting (or more correctly a setting element - technology) to shape the story. Some sci-fi writers don't even do that. The setting element (technology) often sits there passively whilst the plot intertwines itself into that fabric. Take Dick, (the writer, not an angry man-tool) he was quite good at setting up the conflict with the technology (Minority Report) it didn't just sit there as a backdrop.

[rust]

Over here the categories used to be somewhat different, although today most people use the

categories common in the English speaking world.

All literature that described something that does not exist in the real world was "Fiktion" ("fic-

tion").

If the laws of nature were different from those in the real world (e.g. magic existed), it was

"Phantastik" (roughly "fantasy", but also including parts of the horror genre like "gothic novels",

etc.).

If the novel was set in the future, it was a "Zukunftsroman" ("novel about the future", as all ear-

ly science fiction was called over here).

Most "Zukunftsromane" used extrapolated real world science, many were written by scientists

who speculated about the - in their view - foreseeable future developments of science and tech-

nology.

"Phantastik", on the other hand, usually avoided scientific themes and concentrated on human

experiences with the supernatural.

[Lord Shag]

Thats interesting Rust. Never had much of an insight into German Lit though I have read a bit of Hermann Hesse.

[dragonewt]

"Phantastik", on the other hand, usually avoided scientific themes and concentrated on human

experiences with the supernatural.

What would be the catagory used to define a story involving a Space Ranger Shaman (with lasers and spaceships traveling between the planets)?

[rust]

I think the two kinds of "Fiktion" were mostly a social phenomenon. Those educated in the "sci-

ences" preferred "Zukunftsromane" that discussed how their fields of interest might change and

develop in the future, those educated in the "arts" preferred "Phantastik" that discussed new or

different human experiences.

"Crossovers" between the two "cultures" were somewhat rare and appeared rather late, and

the term used for them was "Social Fiction", the description of the consequences future deve-

lopments in science and technology might have for individuals and society - Dick's novels would

fall into this category, I think.

Fantasy was almost nonexistent, the only examples were more like historical fiction, so there

was no category for Space Fantasy, and the Space Ranger Shaman would have caused heated

debates - if it would have been written at all.

When this kind of novels were translated into German, we also began to use the categories of

"fantasy" and "science fiction", probably because our own categories were unable to handle

this kind of literature well.

Edit.: My PC needs repair, so I will be offline for a couple of days.

Edited March 23, 2010 by rust

[dragonewt]

Let's expand on the Space Ranger Shaman (with lasers and spaceships traveling between the planets) by having it take place in a mythic universe with a backdrop of ancient-styled cultures blended with high science, with powerful spirits and gods. How would that be catagorised?

It sounds like a game I want to run; RunePunk - Glorantha 2021.

[Thalaba]

Just a thought...

[Lord Shag]

Getting back to your original question, Rust the problem with these genres is that outside of marketing and fanboys, they breakdown very easily under sustained analysis. As a mode of categorization they certainly can highlight choices for the consumer which is something Thallaba found of use but when you start to distill the differences they appear increasingly shallow and superficial. For example i mentioned earlier that what differentiates sci-fi from other genres is in the setting which is incidentally what it also shares with the fantasy genre. Its this similarity of story element (the so-called defining aspect of the genre) that is the reason for its proximity to fantasy in the first place. When the writer starts to develop a setting his main choices are time, place and nature. Those choices are the same for the so-called "rock hard" sci-fi author to the softest, most limp space fantasy writer. The difference is in the nature of the settings they describe. A much more useful way to categorize literature is to do so by the story elements. For example romance is mainly about plot, horror (or at least classic horror is) characterization and of course setting for fantasy and sci-fi. So to finally get to the answer there is a good argument that both fantasy and sci-fi are in fact the same thing albeit for minor adjustments to setting.

[dragonewt]

The other consideration that provides an illusion of difference is applied realism. For example, heroic vs gritty. Saving Private Ryan was based on real and modern technology with a gritty tone, however, other war movies with the same background technology and history can be more heroic, where heroes can succeed at otherwise statistically improbable feats.

I am sure many of you can think of examples of technologically realistic sci-fi with a heroic (unrealistic) tone, compared to examples of fantasy sci-fi with a gritty and realistic tone.

The combinations are many and varied. Which provides a variety of genres that require some form of unique identification (sub classification?) in order to be referenced and communicated.

On a related discussion, think of how the many anime conventions extend and modify the scope of both sci-fi and fantasy genres.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

-- Arthur C. Clarke

Edited March 23, 2010 by dragonewt

[Thalaba]

Hmm. Some genres seem to be defined by setting (time, place, and other setting elements such as the existence of magic): Hard SF, Fantasy, Western.

Other genres conventions are defined by mood: Horror, Gritty, Heroic.

Really, shouldn't a genre consist of both a setting and a mood? By labelling both settings and moods alone as genres, have we left ourselves open to a confusion of terms?

[Lord Shag]

"Some genres seem to be defined by setting". Yes thats correct and both sci-fi and fantasy are united by the same thing. But only if you accept that they (genres) exist from a literary point of view and are not some imagined category in the mind of the consumer

"Other genres conventions are defined by mood: Horror, Gritty, Heroic." Theres probably no such thing as a genre convention. Maybe from a fanboy or marketing point of view but most serious analysts would scoff at such a vague thing as a tool of literary analysis. Mood? Its not a story element. As an aspect of crafting scenes sure it has a role but if your trying to use it for something more your probably overstating its significance.

Really, shouldn't a genre consist of both a setting and a mood? All stories have settings but not all (so called genres) emphasize setting to the same degree. Mood has no part in any analysis of genre. All writers have to generate mood in whatever genre they write so your kinda stating the obvious. As a definitive aspect of a genre no serious analysis I've read would make the suggestion that mood defines any genre. Mood is an important part of writing but so are windscreen wipers for driving a car. We wouldn't say however that windscreen wipers define the car or driving.

[rust]

[Some good luck ... my PC had only a minor problem ... ]

In my view the categories are useful for people who talk about books, but mostly useless for

those who write and read the books.

If one wants to compare different books, it helps to have a terminology to describe their con-

tent in a simplified "short hand" way , because otherwise one would have to tell much of a

book's story to find out where the books are similar or completely different - categories save

time, although at the price that they rarely fit well.

In the end, each book - and especially each original book - is a unique creature, one of a kind.

If it could easily be pigeon holed, it would most probably only tell a story that has been told be-

fore, and used to define the "pigeon holes".

[Thalaba]

Your post prompts me to ask more questions and probably make wildly incorrect assertions, but what the hell! I don't have any background in the field literature at all, but I like to learn new things and share ideas.

I'm sure genres are imagined by the consumer. Consumers pick of things and try them. Some they like and some they don't. They try to classify things so that the next time they buy what they like and not what they don't like by accident. As a consumer myself who doesn't want to buy campy, comedy fantasy supplements (for instance) I'd like to know what kind of 'fantasy' is being presented in a new book. I really only care about what genres mean in the market place, because I don't buy my books or games from literature professors. Not to denegrate them at all, but if their opinions are not reflected in the packaging or shelving decisions of book marketers and book sellers, then they probably don't have much bearing on my purchasing decisions.

'Horror' is considered a genre by the marketplace, as is 'mystery' - neither of which is defined by setting. What makes 'horror' and 'mystery' what they are? I suggested the word 'mood' as an important aspect, but if that's not the right word, what is it? If there are no genre conventions, then how do we know when a story about murder is a 'mystery', a 'horror', or just a story that has a murder in it? What's the difference between 'gritty' fantasy and 'heroic' fantasy if not the mood portrayed by the setting? If the Investigators investigate a murder by deep ones it's horror, but if the keystone cops investigate the same murder at the same time and in the same place it's a comedy.

Are all these supposed genres just catch-phrases thrown out willy nilly by marketing people? Why do books stores put some books in the 'fiction' section and others in the 'literature' section? How do 'serious analysts' categorize things, and if their way is better why hasn't the market caught on?

If horror is about characterization and romance is about plot and fantasy is about setting, then what is a novel that has all three? Aren't good romances also about characterization in equal measure with plot? Stories that simply have plot with characterization are usually called 'one-dimensional'. If story elements define the genre, then how do you apply genre to RPGs, where the story is determined during play and not preconceived by the GM.

Good discussion by the way. Thanks Simon!

[rust]

Are all these supposed genres just catch-phrases thrown out willy nilly by marketing people? Why do books stores put some books in the 'fiction' section and others in the 'literature' section? How do 'serious analysts' categorize things, and if their way is better why hasn't the market caught on?

In my experience most terms for genres were created by critics who were looking for a word

to describe what certain books have in common, followed closely by publishers who wanted

to connect a newly published book to a previous bestseller by claiming that the new book was

"of the same kind". The academic discussion is lively, but has only minimal impact on the book

market, the few exceptions being academics who are also respected critics.

The "serious analysts" have failed to agree on any comprehensive system of literature catego-

ries / genres, mainly because the authors do not follow any easily recognized and described

pattern.

Quite the contrary, many authors intentionally try to write something fresh and original that

does not fit into any established category, forcing the "serious analysts" to return to the dra-

wing board and attempt to come up with a new system of genres.

[fmitchell]

Despite all the forgoing, I think the distinctions are useful to gamers in that they tell us what to expect.

Hard Science Fiction: The game emphasizes real science and realistic technologies, and how technology affects society. (e.g. Transhuman Space, Diaspora, Eclipse Phase)

Space Opera: Technology takes a back seat to tales of larger than life personalities and star-spanning civilizations. (e.g. Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica)

Science Fantasy: Fantasy with a thin veneer of scientific jargon, and as such centers on fantasy themes. (e.g. Doctor Who, Gamma World, Dying Earth)

Thalaba's graph, above, illustrates the differences perfectly. Genre labels aren't perfect ... but gamers (and others) can get annoyed when they buy "science fiction" that's simply fantasy with "quantum" pasted on.

BTW, horror isn't merely about characterization, but about mood. Thus a "fantasy horror romance" seems like an odd combination, although a gothic novel might count: heroine moves to a prospective fiancee's remote mansion where supernatural terrors abound. However, romances tend toward optimism and horror towards pessimism ... especially taking the original and wider meaning of romance, which meant fantastic adventures with chivalrous and/or virtuous protagonists (often knights).

Edited March 23, 2010 by fmitchell

[rust]

Thus a "fantasy horror romance" seems like an odd combination, although a gothic novel might count ...

I am not sure whether "romance" has exactly the same meaning in our languages, but as it is

used over here, Poe's "The Fall of the House of Usher" could come very close to a "fantasy hor-

ror romance".