Talk:Science fantasy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. Please feel free to add your name the project participation list and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. |
For an intro on the problem of SF classes, look at:
http://www.kheper.net/topics/scifi/grading.html
(there's also a "space fantasy" category at the bottom of the page) At18 15:29, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Science fantasy
Gentlemen; I would consider science fantasy stories such as Heinlein's
"Magic Inc.", L. Sprague De Camp's "Incomplete Enchanter", and some of Poul Anderson's stories in which magic works, but is subject to scien- tific laws. For example, if a 150 lb man changes into a were(dire)wolf, he must still mass 150 lbs. because of Conservation of Mass/Energy.
Robert A. Heinlein's Magic, Inc. is distinctly *not* Science Fantasy, it is Contemporary Fantasy. Star Wars is, however, definitely Science Fantasy.
Attention to and consistency of set laws in magic does not automatically make something scientific. Further, while the laws of magic descrihed in Magic, Inc. are self-consistent, they are not all based on any form of rational science (i.e. in the Half World, custom and tradition dictates natural law, rather than set physical laws).
Waldo, however, does fit the bill, barely.
[edit] WELL!
There is some question, given the above argument, whether Andre Norton's Witch World is science fantasy. Donald A. Wollheim specifically packaged it as such, which is something Mercedes Lackey dwells on at length in her introduction to the first three books (now in print but I don't have a copy handy so I can't give the information). I'm distinctly unhappy with this very restrictive definition of science fantasy given that in my baby boomer youth it would have been any fantasy which appealled primarily to someone with engineering training --like Kuttner and Moore, or DeCamp and any of his collaborators, or Heinlein in "Waldo", "Magic, Inc.", or Glory Road. Or Moorcock's Elric. As Lackey said many people were cynical then about how it was marketed. And I'm willing to argue that this article goes too far in the opposite direction. When I first started messing with this article, it seemed dismissive of all the stories which appeared in the pulps. I was careful to try to discuss Philip Gordon Wylie's The Disappearance outside of genre conventions and marketing ideas because it appeared outside these conventions and marketing tools, but the argument seems to be even though "Magic, Inc." appeared in a magazine which marketed itself as science fantasy, and was written by someone who certainly knew and probably accepted these conventions, it is too rationalistic to be science fantasy. Again, however flawed the older definition was, this is part of a bias which excludes it, and I don't think that's reasonable. The guy who replaced Alexander Cockburn on the "Press Clips" column in The Village Voice had this to say about objectivity in his first column: "A prosecutor's brief is truthful. It is never objective." I truly believe that this article is sometimes too close to advocacy. Jplatt39 10:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) Revised Jplatt39 12:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Two different definitions involved
There seem to be two different definitions of science fantasy, judging by the examples:
- Stories with magic that obeys more rational laws than "standard" fantasy magic (Magic, Inc.)
- Stories with more-conventional magical powers, but in a high-tech, futuristic setting that is not directly connected to the fantasy element (Star Wars)
Yet only the first is mentioned in the article as an actual definition. So either there is a broader meaning than the article says, or SW is something else. Any sources on which of these is the case?
Nickptar 23:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
What about stories like El Goonish Shive, that use magic AND science fiction, in modern settings? Also, what about using technology that combines magic and science in the one things, like was used in the Wotch by D.O.L.L.Y.? How would THEY fit those difinitions? Corrupt one 00:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- They are comic strips, and like most such do not bother to attempt to maintain consistency within a genre. These distinctions are most useful in actual printed text contexts. Applying serious analysis of this kind to comix is like dancing about architecture. --Orange Mike 01:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
They were just examples. I could mention shows like Buffy, Ah! My Goddess, and a few others. Then there are the comic books, the movies based on them, not to mention the fact that they ARE in the genre, unless you can think of a way of defining them. If they are NOT science fantasy, the ones I have mentioned, then what are they? If you want somthing that deals with printed books, then what about the Shadow Run series of books? If they are not science fantasy, please tell me WHAT they are?
At the very least, tell me what is wrong with saying that science fantasy can be anything that combines science fiction and fantasy. Please do not attack the examples, just the ideas behind them. Corrupt one 06:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not attacking, I'm just saying that it is a futile exercise in many cases to apply any kind of rigorous analysis to a field like comics or television or film where often "anything goes" and the explanations are mere token gestures in the direction of the ideas of logic, consistency, etc. Comic strips, in particular, are about the gag. For most of the things you describe, I gave up decades ago expecting anything serious from them. I enjoyed Buffy, for example, a great deal; but the science, magic and theology alike are all difficult to defend on any but a "I had fun with it" level. There have been a few television shows or films which bothered to pretend that they were creating serious science fiction; but for most of them, a little blend is just par for the course, because the creators don't know or care about the laws of physics or any other science: so spaceships "whoosh" and bank like WW I fighter planes and Lucas gets rich and gets away with it. And don't get me started on that monument to credulousness called X Files.... --Orange Mike 03:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Yes you're missing something
and I'll even cite my own biases in saying I don't think Star Wars needs to be discussed here because it is discussed in so many articles and at such length elsewhere. Even Princess Leia's slave girl costume is discussed in Planet Stories. Jack Gaughan, aside from being someone I knew personally, did many more things than the covers of the "pirated" Lord Of The Rings editions Ace put out in the sixties. I resent that that incident is discussed in four different articles here. He also designed the original editions of Andre Norton's Witch World. And for that matter Emil Petaja's Kalevala or Otava books which also use fantastic elements in an SF setting. For many of us older folks Gaughan's imagery inspired what we think of as science fiction and fantasy in any sense today. I'm not suggesting Star Wars is unimportant when I say enough already.
I think you are missing the polarity is between stuff which is defined by a mid-century engineering education an dstuff which is influenced by a much more romantic view of the world which owes a lot to H. Rider Haggard, Talbot Mundy and A. Merritt. Star Wars, like the Otava books and to a lesser extent writers like Leigh Brackett, C. L. Moore under her own name and Fritz Leiber, combine the rationalistic impulses of Space Opera and of your first definition with this more romantic approach. Often humorously. The people most closely identified with this romantic approach were Henry Kuttner and C. L. Moore in their official and unofficial collaborations. Be warned that even within the genre they both took many approaches to the traditions. Marion Zimmer Bradley is emphatically of the romantic tradition, to name only one (read the Brass Dragon. Carefully). Star Wars isn't a polarity. It's part of a larger group of works which are discussed in this place as well as anything can be. Jplatt39 12:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC) Revised: Jplatt39 07:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] RfC/poll – Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker: one article or two?
What do you think? E Pluribus Anthony 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 20,000 leages under the sea
The statement in this article may be incorrect, depending on whether you consider the book or the film. In the book, the power source for the Nautilus was electricity, as generated by chemical reaction. There are sections in the book describing the crew mining the chemicals from an underwater source, and describing the mechanical means used to spin the propellor shaft. In the film it was more or less implied that the power source was nuclear. Presumably the US navy named their first nuclear-powered submarine after the film rather than the book. Murray Langton 10:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite
I largely rewrote this article, partly to consider some other options in the definition of "science fantasy", partly to better organize the discussion of examples of science fantasy; hopefully the organization by subgenres will also lend some clarity to the question of definition. "Other genres" exists primarily because I'm not familiar with the books listed. I suspect a lot of them don't fit into any of the genres listed, however, but in something else which is perhaps "scientific magic".
[edit] Rewrite
I moved my paragraph above the sub-genres section, expanded it and gave it a title ("Historical View") I'm a little uncomfortable with, because I'm not comfortable with it being in the "other genres" section when the definition of science fantasy has changed so much over time. I don't see the modern view as making sense without context of the older ones. As Phoenix on the Sword lost its identification as SF while keeping its new title of Conan the Conqueror though both were the work of Donald A. Wollheim I do expect the view that these stories were not Science Fantasy to gain more currency, or for them to inspire differing sub-genres, as some of them, such as Magic, Inc. have.
[edit] Conan
It was Hour of the Dragon that became Conan the Conqueror. I don't think Wolheim had anything to do with the selection of the new name. The Gnome Press harcover appeared something like two years before DAW started wsork at Ace Books. Without definite proof, I should suspect the name chnage was done by David Kyle or Martin Greenberg at Gnome. They too marketed it as science fantasy. Cdixon 23:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] At the risk of seeming to horn in on an established conversation/building project--
Reading through the various definition articles in the fantastic-literature field, I am struck at the lack of coordination across them and the amounts of wheel-reinventing and POV writing I see. Some of the terms (science fiction, fantasy) denote reasonably stable genres; others (hard SF, space opera, high fantasy) rise out of particular historical moments and the assumptions and tastes of audience f(r)actions and have suffered from semantic drift; still others (soft SF, low fantasy) are back-formations that are inherently less useful than the terms from which they were formed. "Science fantasy" is a label that depends on notions of both SF and fantasy (and those terms we can see are hardly nailed down, despite the efforts of several generations of professional and amateur critics and scholars) and even more on the practice of writers (and editors) who are in the business of playing games with the expectations of their audiences and the "rules" of the categories they are supposed to be working within. Thanks to the need for novelty and the ingenuity of artists, genres always cross-breed--which is why it is now possible to buy a time-travel historical bodice-ripper at your local B&N.
Why not start with the well-established print authorities and spread out from there? Otherwise the article will become another battleground of POV positions.
BTW, shouldn't it be Robert E. Howard, not Don Wollheim as author of Phoenix on the Sword? And when was Conan considered SF? RLetson 06:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Oops
Bad phrasing and mistake: Don Wollheim published Hour of the Dragon back to back with Sword of Rhiannon as an Ace Double. In doing so he was presenting it to a Science Fiction Audience. He also retitled it Conan the Conqueror, which title Glen Lord and L. Sprague de Camp used as the basis for their Lancer publications of a Conan canon. I don't think it is arguable that Wollheim was presenting this as Science Fantasy (and I used to see both Science Fantasy and Science Fiction abbreviated as SF in the sixties). I meant Wollheim was the author of the title and of the argument it was Science Fantasy (deliberately or not). Not that he was the author of the story (he was David Grinnell and Donald A. Wollheim).
The second point is that while there are well-established print authorities, they disagree with each other as much as we do. I state in my User profile I don't believe in objectivity and I don't. In many topics, including some SF/Fantasy subgenres, a reasonably comprehensive discussion will be (IMHO) a battleground of POV opinions. Since I'm loud on this one, I'm hoping the various POVs allow for a fair discussion of all sides.
I started when I read this:
". One might claim that science fiction provides a scientific explanation for all phenomena, whereas fantasy mostly takes the supernatural for granted. However, the "science" behind these explanations is often no more than mumbo-jumbo, especially in the pulp magazines. Hence, it might be said that the difference is more one of stage props: on the one hand we have spacecraft and phasers, on the other hand magic carpets and wands of smiting."
I added the references to L. Ron Hubbard and Robert A. Heinlein, and near the top you can read a blatant denial that Heinlein's science fantasy is science fantasy (despite it being written for a market which was trying to change fantasy by infusing it with the rationalism and logic of so-called Hard Science Fiction).
All of these statements are true, in the sense that whoever succeeded Alexander Cockburn on Press Clips for the Village Voice said "A Prosecutor's brief is truthful. It is not objective."
At this point, I'll stick to citing authorities for certain facts AND for certain points of view which I will present openly, as points of view (educated opinions) because I've been in so many "My Authority is better than yours" games. On the other hand while I'll even admit to being rude here, I hope the other side doesn't shut up. Since I added that comment about the John W. Campbell Jr. writers, this article has gotten much richer and more informative. I don't care whether I convince anyone or not. I do care whether all the issues are touched on, and that's improving constantly. Jplatt39 15:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- OK--I guess my academic training kicks in when I see articles that are basically extended definitions, which means the job starts in lexicography, which in turn means examining the term's usage in a historical context. Thus the lead section would always take the form of a brief definition (or reasonably limited set of definitions), followed by an explanation (if needed) of origin and context and possible drift or shift or spread. The fact that authorities differ would be a signal that the range of possible meanings is one the issues the article needs to address. When you add to mix the fact that these terms are not just genre labels (and thus subject to shift as artists and markets do their work) but often nonce terms, back-formations, and other products of the popular imagination, you really need to stand back and account for the variations rather than argue a case that X or Y is the "true meaning" of the term. This is an urge I fight nearly every time I read a Wiki article that crosses into territory where I have strong professional expertise. So I've tried to internalize what I understand to be the Wiki approach and not impose my own POV (which after nearly 40 years of studying, teaching, and writing about fantastic literature is very well formed).
- As for the matter of which references to cite--there really are major authorities who ought to be consulted. I'd say that Gary Wolfe's Critical Terms for Science Fiction and Fantasy (which takes a solid lexicographical approach), the Clute/Nicholls/Grant Encyclopedias of SF and Fantasy, Anatomy of Wonder, and (for historical detail and context) the historical/critical work of Kingsley Amis, Brian Aldiss, Damon Knight, James Blish, Donald Wollheim, and so on. RLetson 16:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This Article is Irrelevant
This article is irrelevent for the simple reason that science fantasy has not been established as a true genre in literature or film, and given the fact that the definition of fiction and fantasy are both the same, dubbing a new genre "science fantasy" over science fiction is redundant. The contents of this article are based on the opinions of the editors and of certain literary elements, and fail to take into the account that "science fantasy" is being passed off as a genre, either for literature or film. Copious amounts of references are made to the blending of fantasy elements with scientific ones, yet such is the exact practice of science fiction.
It seems unconstructive and outright absurd to have an article devoted to a nomenclature devised to pass off as a specific genre; the point should be stressed, that in in real terms, science fiction and science fantasy are both the same thing. Fu2x89x
[edit] Science Fiction and Science Fantasy are not the same thing
I don't know what you mean by "true genre". Science fantasy is a sub-genre. The first use I've seen was when the circle around John W. Campbell, Jr. tried to apply the methods they used to science fiction to stories based on traditional folk beliefs and legends. There was an alternative market for this kind of story: if it was less rationalist (though it could still be pretty rationalist as witness Seabury Quinn's Jules de Grandin stories) it could appear in Weird Tales.
A Fan of Wollheim's generation told me the definition first broadened because most people thought of Wagner when they thought of Fantasy, and 1. a certain German of Austrian origin (we must not speak Voldemart's name) was a Wagner fan, and 2. most SF people (with prominent exceptions such as Asimov who would probably have denied it) weren't opera fans. Ace books packaged Conan the Conqueror and even Lord of the Rings (briefly and notoriously) the same way they published Leigh Brackett and Henry Kuttner. A further influence in its broadening was Michael Moorcock. Wollheim, among others (but Wollheim also published him) accused him of trying to ruin Science Fiction by publishing the New Wave. Moorcock's early Elric stories were first published in the magazine Science Fantasy but of course it was the introduction of "literary" writers like J. G. Ballard and Tom Disch which Wollheim et. al. objected to, and which provided new perspectives many people have used to say this or that which uses SF elements and fantasy elements equally, as opposed to using rationalist techniques on folklore, is science fantasy. Moorcock's final word on the subject was "it's all fun anyhow."
As far as the definitions of fiction and fantasy being the same, I don't know where you got your definitions from, but you're drawing the wrong conclusion. Algis Budrys, reviewing a Philip K. Dick book for the Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction said something to the effect that you could look at writing a story as the equivalent of building a mechanical mouse. A mimetic writer would try to make it look and behave mouse-like, making sure every hair was in place, and say, "Behold, a mouse". Someone like Dick would come along and give it five wheels and paint it multiple colors and let you see the springs... I forget which genre writer, it might have been Asimov, who said "All fiction is science fiction." Of course the truth is that SF and fantasy are both specific forms of fiction. And so are the books, or novels, of Leonora Carrington which contain few realistic elements but are openly surreallist--she was associated with the movement-- rather than related to this genre even as much as Thomas Pynchon is. Unless you are talking about daydreams a fantasy is a form of fiction because fiction is one incredibly broad umbrella under which many artistic gestures from many different cultures can be gathered. Even in today's terms, there is a lot of SF which should be excluded from Science Fantasy.
While I've had occasional problems with this article (and comments above like Magic, Inc. isn't science fantasy) I believe in its current form it reasonably reflects the various things people regard as science fantasy, discusses them in a way it is better to discuss here than elsewhere, and covers both sides of most controversies fairly (I don't believe in objectivity). As Moorcock said, "It's all fun anyhow." Jplatt39 12:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I THINK what Jplatt is trying to say is that Fantasy and Science Fiction are both types of Fiction. Fantasy is when you use magic, and Science Fiction is when you use fictional science. Science Fantasy is when you use magic AND science in the one story. Read a Shadow Run novel. They use both magic and high tech. Corrupt one 04:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Commercial
In the Sword and Planet section someone changed the words "his imitators" to "other works" citing the Wikipedia's No Point of View policy. I changed it back citing Lin Carter, Kenneth Bulmer (and I may be shaky on that one) and Michael Moorcock (referring to his own Edward P. Bradbury trilogy). The more I think about it the more I believe this is a philosophical question: the obvious rationale for the change is the idea that original is better. These books in particular were written to have fun and to make money, The whole subject seems to have more to do with commerce than with academics, and I worry that by imposing too strict a standard on the language we won't be removing too much relevent information. It seems to me the sort of language one might hear in a Hollywood Pitch session should be acceptable for a subject like this. In this case, No Point Of View has been used to exclude language at least some of the creators would have accepted, and as such it colors the history with a point of view. "A prosecutor's brief is truthful. It is not objective." Jplatt39 13:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Superheros?
I've heard superhero comics (at least the majority of them) been described as science fantasy, I can't say where exactly, but it makes sense. Jztinfinity 00:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Like Thor?
It certainly does in the case of someone like Thor. For the original Captain Marvel (shazam) it is well to remember that one of the other characters Fawcett had was Ibis the Invincible. Neither makes sense except as out and out fantasy. With Superman you have a different problem. Gladiator by Philip Wylie was incredibly influential on the character. It is also one of the most science-fictional of Wylie's SF and Fantasy books. Since comics were driven by the need to appeal to diverse audiences and their need to sell the whole product line (hence crossovers) you're probably going to run into a whole host of point of view problems if you bring that up here. Um. There were debates about Don Wollheim's politics and his propensity to change titles which were going on on his biography page. I found myself cautiously adding one statement which addressed both. The debate is gone but my statement is there. In other words, you can argue this or that character (Man-Wolf) may be Science Fantasy. Someone will disagree. The debate may bring out salient facts but it probably won't be appropriate for the Wikipedia and further may distract from informing people about what the salient facts are. If there is another page where you can insert things you know without appearing to pass judgement or at least making a judgement call, those are more appropriate places to do so. Jplatt39 01:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- I say that since those comics use fantasy (thor) and science Fiction (Captain America) in the very same groups, then YES, they can be science fantasy! I would like to know how they CAN'T be. Corrupt one 04:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Magic science
This appears to be a reference to dying Earth fiction, like Jack Vance. Especially since the only reference is a game. Does anyone have info that this term for the subgenre is widely used? Goldfritha 02:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] You seem to have nailed it.
Google and Altavista both list kits for teaching science under the name "magic science". The game's website specifies it's a "dying" world. Do what you think right to it. Jplatt39 10:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
There is Technomancy and magitech, each which is distinct from alchamy in that they consider magic and science to be seperate forces that can work together. I am interested in making an article on magitech mysel;f and would like any research you can send my way. Thanks, Corrupt one 06:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] impossible and implausible
“scientifically impossible features such as faster-than-light travel, time travel, and paranormal powers like telepathy.”
I change it from impossible to implausible on the grounds that saying they are outright impossible seem at little to sweeping
Joeyjojo 03:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
What is impossible when using science fiction, let alone fantasy, or science fantasy? Corrupt one 04:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- For SF: violations of the rules of math (2+2=5); violations of the known laws of science without credible introduction of new scientific principles which explain the apparent violation(s). And for fantasy: if the rules of the fantasy are not consistent within the narrative, then it becomes moronic and impossible to continue with (which may explain why so much television pseudo-SF is unbearable). --Orange Mike 04:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll give you the maths, but the topic here was that things were not possible at all in science fantasy. In science FICTION, all kinds of devises can be made, so as a whole almost everything can be done scientifically (Mad Science DOES count, even if it seems to look at the rules of physics as like a book written in another language in in the same colour of the page, thus making almost ANYTHING possible there). Fantasy uses magic, and while I agree magic most often DOES follow rules, almost anything is possible, expessy when Gods are involved (even more so if they are drunk, high, stones, and having moodswings as a result of madness [makes for some ammusing storylines, though]).
Besides, this is all besides the point. The point is that everthing can be explained away with science fantasy, and I was agreeing with the original comment. Corrupt one 00:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cannon-fired spacecraft
The article uses Jules Verne's story of a cannon-fired spacecraft as an example of an “impossible” device, saying ...the cannon that launched the Columbiad in Verne's From the Earth to the Moon is now known to be certainly unfeasible in theory as well as fact. This is incorrect; the concept has been researched recently and is considered plausible, using cannons with additional propellant chambers. See Project HARP, Supergun, Project Babylon, Gerald Bull. I suggest using a different example instead. Freederick 10:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
