h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Classification of Science Fiction - A1011213
Author: R. Daneel Olivaw (User 201118) (I'm apparently the second person to use this name.) - U201118

I think this is a good article and fills an important niche--I'm pretty sure that noone else has written an article trying to classify creative fiction.

An excellent start, I think. I see that you don't have many examples in the "tech fantasy" and "speculative fiction" sections, so the following provides a few.

Isn't the class you've described as "technological fantasy" generally described as "space opera"? Frank Herbert's "Dune" is an example: prescience violates acccepted laws of physics, but is an interesting plot device. And, of course, "Star Trek" largely ignores the inevitable problems of communication with aliens by creating an implausible "universal translator". The term "science fiction" seems to be interpreted by Hollywood as "futuristic action thriller", which, while it counts as SF, is a small subset of it, and is not representative of the genre. "Star Wars" is the classic example - in style it is reminiscent of stories from the Golden Age of SF.

In speculative fiction, a concrete example would be "1632" by Eric Flint, in which an irresponsible solipsist alien race transposes spheres of Germany during the Thirty Years War (1631, in fact) and 1990s West Virginia. The author does not invent much. He invents typical characters from each culture, throws one group in at the deep end, and sees what happens. This doesn't really fall under either of the categories you have described (though it does create an alternate timeline, but not a strictly counterfactual one).

On the same subject, not all counterfactuals are fiction. My brother (now a history graduate) has a book called "Virtual History", which is a collection of essays on political events which might have happened but didn't; it is not written in a "fictional" style. (Yes, I know you don't suggest all counterfactuals are fiction, but it might be a good idea to mention it.)

"Madness Has Its Place", a short story by Larry Niven, is an odd synthesis of hard and soft SF... it's a long time since I read it, but it's something to do with people having (controllable) organic brain disorders being very useful in law enforcement.

With the comment on Mercury: Larry Niven's first story in his "Known Space" future history, "The Coldest Place" was set on the dark side of Mercury. The discovery that there is no "dark side" came just before it was published. So, in Known Space, Mercury has a dark side, even though Niven knows it doesn't in real life.

Finally, Anne McCaffrey's "Pern" series is (reportedly; I haven't read any myself) both fantasy (with dragons, etc.) and SF.

Good luck with your article - it looks promising.

I would disagree with some of your definitions, as would several SF authors I know. Many professionals in the field consider "speculative fiction" to be a broader definition than "science fiction", with speculative fiction including both science fiction and fantasy. Many fantasy writers and fans would object to having fanstasy classified as a subtype of science fiction, while it does belong in the broader category of speculative fiction. Some will consider horror to fall under speculative fiction as well, although not everyone agrees on that. I've actually never seen speculative fiction defined as "future fiction and alternative history fiction", so I'm not really sure where this definition came from -- do you have a reference for this?

Mikey

your split into soft and hard sf is also contentious.

a lot of people say that something is hard sf if the author makes a good attempt at having it conform with the current knowl laws of science, whereas in soft sf, the science is more of an afterthought.

McCaffrey is an odd case, as she doesn't believe in magic, but achieves the same results with technology.

My basic complaint about this entry is that it's an opinion piece, and as such not suited for EG. It's an interesting topic, and if you had some 'authoritative' source it would be EG material. But as it is it's you personal opinion and peer review so far has been mostly 'I disagree'.
Actually I do as well. My division would likely be much different.

While I like the work I agree a little with NAITA in that the work seems to lack actual research.

Maybe it's my lack of experience in the topic, but the explanations sound improvised rather than explained.

That being said, the entry does a good job of dividing fiction and is written in EG syle.

I guess I'm just wondering if the terms and categories used are industry-wide categories, or simply casual divisions. If they are casual divisions then the work is really more opinion that fact.

Friar

I remember a definition of Science Fiction ( I think it might have been John W. Campbell's) that may apply to all of the classifications you offer and to the debate which is shaping up on this thread: Science Fiction is what I mean when I point at it.

Here's something you might like to look at:

http://www.skotos.net/articles/BSTG_28.shtml

The divisions are generally agreed on to exist, but I may have goon out on a limb a bit with my catagoriization. What I really need to do is to reasearch more. I is a bit of an opinon and I probably shouldn't have put it in the EG so suoon. I'm going to try to reasearch it more. I may take it out and make sure its better reasearched first. And thanks for the advice on examples. I think it could be a good EG piece if I reasearch it more.

I think that's a good plan -- let us know if you have any questions or want any more feedback as you progress.

Mikey

I'll do that in a day r two. I'm doing to leave it here for a little while because I don't know if this thread will vanish when I take it off and if it will, I want to give anyone else who's read it a chance to comment.

Will the thread vanish?

Threads here never vanish. And if you're working on it, there's no need to take it off -- you just revise the current entry, and then let us know on this thread when it's revised, and then we come back and give more comments. It's a very cyclical process around here.

Sometimes, people decide that it's going to be a long time before they're going to have a chance to work on an entry, and then they decide to remove an entry from PR. The thread still doesn't vanish, though -- it just gets moved from PR to the bottom of the entry. Then when the person has had a chance to work on the entry, they can resubmit the entry to PR, and that starts a new thread.

Hope this helps 'splain things some.


Mikey

Thanks. I'll leave it in, although I may not be able to edit it for a little while.

i think that with a little more research, this would make a good article. i do, however, beg to differ and say that fantasy belongs in a class of its own. i know that at times the line between science fiction and fantasy is blurred, but we would usually think of science fiction (in any form) as fiction that deals with speculations of technology, no matter how silly/inappropriate/improbable/impossible, and deals with alien species more as evolved, technological, sentient creatures that made contact with humankind, and subsequently had some kind of relationship (good or bad) with them, rather than as mythical creatures - usually portrayed only as semi-sentient or non-sentient life forms - capable of magical powers (also, you have intelligent aliens rather than unicorns). or, in other words, most science fiction deals with technology that *might* come to be (matter transference devices etc), whereas fantasy stories deal with a world that we think *should* be, that we wish to be (good triumphing over evil, good sorcerors destroying evil ones with their magical powers, creatures with the ability to heal etc). and as john campbell put it,

"The major distinction between fantasy and science fiction is, simply, that science fiction uses one, or a very, very few new postulates, and develops the rigidly consistent logical consequences of these limited postulates. Fantasy makes its rules as it goes along...The basic nature of fantasy is 'The only rule is, make up a new rule any time you need one!' The basic rule of science fiction is 'Set up a basic proposition--then develop its consistent, logical consequences.'"

also, miriam allen deFord is quoted (by aldiss and wingrove) as saying, roughly, "science fiction consists of improbable possibilities, fantasy of plausible impossibilities."

(although i suppose one would do well to remember clarke's law: 'any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic'.. or something like that)

i suppose that science fiction-fantasy can still come under the heading 'science fiction', as it negates *both* the technological and magical world (in which case, i suppose that michael moorcock's 'dancers at the end of time' would qualify as science fiction-fantasy, since it deals with popular science fiction issues such as time travel and aliens, but other aspects of the story are so 'fantastical' - well, in the clarke law sense, anyway - that they tug it in the general direction of 'fantasy').

there are some really good definitions of science fiction by the masters of science fiction at:
http://www.mtsu.edu/~english/305/Accessories/305OnlineSFDefinitions.html
http://www.panix.com/~gokce/sf_defn.html

you might also want to check out
http://alcor.concordia.ca/~talfred/sf-def.htm
http://www.treitel.org/Richard/sf/sfdefs.html
http://www.treitel.org/Richard/sf/hard.html
and see what other people have to say about science fiction.

i beseech you not to give up on this project! it's a good subject to discuss, and i expect to see it on the front page one day...

I though I made it clear that I consider SF to be different from Fantasy. I put them in the Genra of creative fiction merely to seperate them from contemperary and historical fiction. Oyther than that, they are very different, I agree.

I won't give up, but I may wait till my school term ends soo I have more time.

er, yes, i know you said the bit about sf and fantasy being different things. my point is: i think that rather than wasting the fantasy bit in a science fiction article, you could maybe devote one article to fantasy itself - it deserves a bit of attention of its own, i think (and you'd have more space to discuss the really interesting aspects of fantasy - like magic and mythical beasts - instead of having to limit your words for the sake of having it in the sf article), and you would also get credit for two articles rather than one. something i picked up from some scouts some time ago .

on the whole, i would say this article is highly useful. most people i know think (to my chagrin) that sf and sci-fi are the same thing. cripes.

I might take the fantasy bit out,but I won't write an article on it because I no nothing on the subject. THe only fantasy I've read or plan to erad is the Hobit and the Narnia books.

Most people think that, and don't really know what either is, anyway. Doin't worry. I'll get the article fixed up for peer review.

I've decided to take this article out of peer review and leave it as an opinion piece. I'll write a new article for peer review on the subject, but as fact, not opinion. I'll let you know the A number after I start it.

I put it in the Alternative Writing Workshop. I'll try to start the new version soon.

okay, sounds like a good deal to me.