In our Mind Meld posts, we pose a single question to a slice of the sf/f community and, depending on the question, other folks as well.
This week, we asked a seemingly simple question about the definition of science fiction.
Note: Thanks to my poorly worded question, the answers received varied a bit. I meant to ask for personal definitions of science fiction but instead tripped up relating it back to an already-existing set of definitions. Thus my unfortunate use of "New Guard" became the focus of some responses from folks. Nevertheless, I promise the responses make for good reading. ![]()
Also: The turn-out for this question was higher than expected, so expect a Part 2 in the very near future. (UPDATE: Part 2 has been posted.)
I hate this question...
Nobody feels the need to define something if they're secure about it: do you see mainstream authors sitting around struggling to define mainstream literature? Merely asking this question betrays insecurity, and the most honest answer I can give to it is that SF is a marketing category.
However, that's not very satisfying, is it? -- And really, the actual question you're asking isn't about SF. What you've just asked us is, in a roundabout way, "what defines SF's new guard?" I can't speak for anybody else. I do know that I see the world entirely differently than I was taught to, by my schools, my culture and by the science fiction I grew up reading.
Science? To me is science is a class of distributed cognition in which the act of cognition is performed by a combination of human beings, instruments, books, and computers. Science is fully embodied, and has no transcendent elements; there is, for instance, no realm of 'mathematical truth' separate from the world of flatbed trucks, stubbed toes and divorce courts. Having this view makes it utterly impossible for me to define myself as a 'hard SF' writer in the classic sense because I see no distinction between the 'hard' and 'soft' sciences.
Fiction? A highly conventionalized, mannered commercial category largely built around an obsolete, nineteenth-century model of human consciousness. The whole idea of "character change" is suspect, for instance, granted what we now know about how the human mind really works. Fiction is a tiny corner of a larger phenomenon called narrative; even your tax form is a narrative, it has an introduction, development and a climax and resolution (that final slot where the last number goes). Fans worry that SF is dying, but it's literature itself that's being exploded by the broader phenomenon of new narrative forms (MMORPGS, for instance, but also increasingly your life itself as technology intervenes to help you make sense of it).
So, granted this science, and this fiction, how can I answer your question in any way that makes sense in 'old guard' terms?
I can't. So I won't.
(Of course, there's always the cool stuff with death rays and zeppelins and zombie goats paratrooping into Nero's Rome, but that's what we get up to when the respectable world isn't glaring at us over the top of the New York Times Book Review.)
The science fiction writer takes you outside yourself. Science fiction takes some aspect of humanity, either the people themselves or the world they have built around themselves, and peels it away, or amplifies it, or warps it. This lets the reader see how the different aspects of our world make us the way we are.
If you want to know what it's like to be an oppressed woman in Afghanistan under the Taliban, you can read a piece of quotidian (and I mean that in the nicest way) literature like "A Thousand Splendid Suns," by Khaled Hosseini. But if you want to know what part of our world makes men behave like that toward women, you'd be better off with Ursula K. LeGuin's Left Hand of Darkness. Science fiction helps you see the world you live in now in a new light, and the best science fiction can help you understand yourself and how you fit in the world, and how the world has shaped you.
There are a lot of different kinds of science fiction, but I think this definition grabs them all and picks up a bunch of Fantasy in the bargain. If the world described in the story is not different than ours, it's quotidian. If there aren't any people, it's not a story. And if the difference has no effect on the people and how they act, what's the point?
But seriously...
I self-identify as a "science fiction writer," and even though I've written things that fall into the genres of fantasy and horror, in my head I know that they're really just science fiction in other genre drag. But when I try to pin down just why I'm a science fiction writer, as opposed to some other variety, or just what science fiction is, things get a little slippery.
See, I know that there are people who don't consider alternate history to be science fiction, since a story set in a world where China rose to world domination in the 16th century, for example, simply couldn't happen. (Well, it could, and if you don't believe me you should check with Hugh Everett, but that's a debate for another time.) And there are those cheerful types who insist that no story that features aliens, or alternate dimensions, or time travel, or Faster-than-light drives categorically can possibly be science fiction, since we don't have time travel, or FTL, or aliens. This kind of prescriptivist stance says that science fiction should only be the kind of thing Heinlein meant when he described sf as "realistic speculation about possible future events" (but he had aliens, the mundanistas will say, so what did he know...).
But see, the problem is that I like the alternate histories, and the time travel, and the FTL and the aliens. When I think about science fiction, that's the kind of thing I'm often thinking about. Sure, sober and well-considered speculations about the near-term ramifications of the latest computing technology in a world impacted by global climate change is important, but is it really that much fun? And at the end of the day, as writer and reader, it's the fun that really keeps me coming back.
So what is science fiction, then? Well, I've just about given up on the question entirely. Lately I've trended more and more to something that might well be called Anti-Mundane-SF (hey, should I start a movement?), in which everything I like is science fiction. Why not? I like Lost, is it science fiction? Sure, you can make a strong case. And Pushing Daisies? Absolutely. Hell, James Bond does all kinds of stuff that isn't possible in the real world, so we'll call that sf as well, and if we have Bond we'll take Superman and Batman as well. And we'll claim as sf The Venture Bros and Avatar the Last Airbender and Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. What the hell, toss in Flight of the Conchords too, I'm sure they did something sfnal at some point (for all I know New Zealand could be imaginary...).
As for the printed word, just about everything I read already is science fiction anyway, so that's not much of a stretch. The story has magic in it? No problem, just reverse Arthur C. Clarke's famous dictum about magic and technology and we're home free. Fairies? They're just ultraterrestrials from another spacetime continuum. Magic swords? Easy, it's artificial intelligence and nanotechnology, something like that.
My friend Hal Duncan has been laboring (with a series of lengthy and well-considered blog posts on the subject) to convince the world that it's all just really fantasy, after all. That science fiction is just that variety of fantasy in which the deviation from reality is rationalized rather than mythologized, or something like that. More power to him. But he's a fantasy writer, so what does he know, anyway? Me, I'm a science fiction writer, aren't I? It says so right on my website. So who are you going to believe?
So to answer your question, What is science fiction? Brother, it's all science fiction, all the way down.
There are lots of folks who will include puffery about how SF is a true literature of ideas, etc., but it's fairly obvious there's a goodly amount of brainless science fiction about, so let's not pretend science fiction is somehow privileged in this regard. On a practical level, what defines SF are the three elements above; what makes SF good or bad or a literature of ideas is the intent and skill of the writer him or herself.
My hope for the future of SF is that it continues its current ascent as the dominant mode of fiction until it reaches the point where THE DEFINITION OF SF IS IDENTICAL TO THE DEFINITION OF FICTION--whatever that might be. Thus, if we choose to define fiction very broadly, say, as "A creative response to the exigencies of existence," the literate person who hears that definition will be primed to immediately think of, say, Steve Aylett rather than Danielle Steele. Writers like Steele and a host of bland mimetic wankers will be consigned to some bin not even labeled "fiction."
[Stay tuned for Part 2!]
Share:
| Posted by John on Wednesday January 09, 2008 - 12:23 AM
| Category: Mind Meld
| © 2008 SF Signal
Science fiction is an oxymoron. And so is Babe in those tales about Paul Bunyon.
Posted by Michael Bishop on Wednesday January 09, 2008 at 9:39 AM
What about fiction that takes place thousands or even millions of years before humanity, with aliens in spaceships? Is that considered "alternate history" too?
Posted by JD Kolassa on Wednesday January 09, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Somehow, I doubt that we'd get this range of responses if you asked publishing execs to define the genre.
Posted by JohnR on Wednesday January 09, 2008 at 3:55 PM
I love the range and variety of responses. I'm glad to see as many viewpoints and approaches as there are writers - it means we'll get a great collection of unique stories from them in the future and that's what I love.
Posted by Scottsh on Wednesday January 09, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Most people can agree science fiction is about speculation - about imagined futures, imagined worlds, imagined societies, imagined technologies -- the "what if?" theme is foremost.
It's harder to agree on the difference between science fiction and fantasy. The question of definition keeps popping up year after year because one can split hairs endlessly about what is realistic vs. what is magical. In the end it comes down to the author's intentions -- the agreement the author seeks to make with reader about the fictional world that is co-created. Science fiction seeks the experience of being extrapolated scientifically from the natural world, even when the fictional, extrapolated world is entirely supernatural.
Posted by Matte Lozenge on Wednesday January 09, 2008 at 8:53 PM
Shorter version: Science fiction suspends disbelief, fantasy embroiders disbelief.
Posted by Matte Lozenge on Wednesday January 09, 2008 at 9:00 PM
Ask a 1,000 people and you'd get 2,000 responses.
I don't think science fiction needs to be set in the future anymore then I think it Fantasy needs to be set in the past.
2001![]()
Posted by Jim Shannon on Wednesday January 09, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Nice definitions (Nick Mamatas' is especially to the point)... but sometimes I wonder if the best thing wouldn't be to get rid of the label "science fiction" (and all the negative baggage it has been dragging around), and use something else -- say, "Speculative Lit" or "Fantastika"...
Posted by A.R.Yngve on Thursday January 10, 2008 at 4:58 AM
This is a fascinating topic and the source of debate at every convention I've attended. My own definition:
Science fiction describes any story in which the characters face believable challenges in a setting or circumstance that the writer convinces the reader is possible, but not in our present-day real world.
What irritates me more is the "Mainstream" or literary works that deny the Science Fiction moniker.
Last year I read The Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey Niffenegger about a man and woman who are in love but moving in opposite directions in the time stream. It was sold as mainstream. This year I read The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell, a story about a Jesuit priest who leads a doomed mission to a newly discovered planet where they discover a completely different by equally intelligent alien species. It was touted as a beautiful human story, but mainstream. Margaret Atwood hates to be labeled a science fiction writer, but her Handmaid's Tale was about a future culture which uses strict biblical standards to oppress women and control the rest of the population and her Oryx and Crake was a dystopian story about the virus that destroys humanity and the one person who survives it. Mainstream? No.
Posted by CV Rick on Thursday January 10, 2008 at 9:45 PM
CV Rick : "This year I read The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell, a story about a Jesuit priest who leads a doomed mission to a newly discovered planet where they discover a completely different by equally intelligent alien species. It was touted as a beautiful human story, but mainstream."
Mary Doria Russell says _The Sparrow_ and its sequel are science fiction books, and that she wanted the original marketed as science fiction, but that her publisher obviously had the right way of it because of how successful her numbers have been. She has a huge audience, and she says her worry was not grounded since the sf folks found her anyway.
Atwood admits her books are SF and then denies it, depending on the audience. It's ridiculous.
----
I actually have lots of fun in defining science fiction and watching people try to define it, but I don't get UPSET at about the definitions or really care in in the end--as long as I get to read it!
Posted by E Thomas on Friday January 18, 2008 at 8:50 PM
Science fiction is stuff set away from Earth or in the future and/or uses technology that does not exist now.
Also it does not involve fantasy (i.e. no magic soul stuff). I typically define stuff involving futuristic settings and tech and huge amounts of supernatural stuff as "science fantasy". And if it does involve supernatural stuff, there should be at least some attempt at describing it in scientific terms.
To clarify: stuff like Revelation Space is science fiction; stuff like star wars and the night's dawn is science fantasy. Pure Fantasy is any fiction that has supernatural stuff, but no technology beyond our own level. (Or whatever the level was when it was written). Adding "science fantasy" as a category makes it a lot simpler to define.
Shortened version:
Science Fiction: Advanced tech, no supernatural.
Science Fantasy: Advanced tech and supernatural
Fantasy: Supernatural, no advacned tech.
And no, I didn't invent the term science fantasy. Put it into wikipedia.
Posted by Bob on Tuesday January 22, 2008 at 12:59 AM
If you were to invent a story in the way you would create a new tool, entirely built with realism, and you would observed it grow beyond all that you took for granted before, I guess you would be entitled to call it "science fiction", then.
Posted by Luis' Parenthesis on Sunday February 24, 2008 at 8:31 PM