And the dam bursts.

[mrissa]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!

People. If the honest expression of your difference between fantasy and SF is "I don't read one of these genres, so anything I say about it is orating out an orifice," keep your mouth shut.

Other than admiring scott_lynch's takedown of Greg Benford's idiocy (oooh, the shiny!), I have been staying out of anything resembling a fantasy vs. SF debate, because 1) I don't care, and 2) they are clearly talking about the fantasy and the SF written by someone else, because even the people who are using the correct orifice for their oration seem to be saying that Thermionic Night is SF. (It has witches casting spells. There will be no later-series plot twist where it turns out that it was all nanotech, alien intervention, mass hallucination, virtual reality, or Magnetism Gone Awry. Witches. Casting spells, people. Fantasy.) But when I read the IROSF interview with Robert Sawyer where he claims that the difference is that SF has incluing whereas fantasy has infodump --

JUST STOP IT, PEOPLE. I met Robert Sawyer once. He was very kind to me, and he seemed to have an IQ that was normal or above. So it must have been extremely painful for him to say something that MASSIVELY, BLATANTLY, IREDEEMABLY STUPID. I didn't think he had it in him, so possibly he took lessons.

You are allowed to prefer one genre to another. You are allowed to dislike fantasy. You are allowed to dislike SF. You are allowed, in fact, to dislike any genre you please -- and, in fact, you are allowed to dislike whatever genres you please on the flimsiest and most incoherent of pretexts. "I don't like mysteries because they make my ears feel funny." Fine, go for it, whatever. But what you are not allowed to do is state things as fact that are verifiably counterfactual. "I don't like mysteries because they all have fluffy bunnies in them, and I don't like rabbits," for example, would be easily disproven. And would make you look ill-read and very, very stupid, even to someone who didn't care about rabbits one way or the other.

This is all for your protection. Me, I have low blood pressure. It is a healthy thing for me when people run around being that dumb. It helps me stay upright. But come on. A point that stupid goes around tainting the entire rest of your argument. As in Sawyer's case: sure, I think a strong case can be made for Star Wars being fantasy, not SF. But if the scroll of text at the beginning means that it's fantasy, then several of Isaac Asimov's books are fantasy, too, because of the encyclopedia entries, and at that point, essentially everything is fantasy. Which some of you believe, and that's fine if it works for your purposes, but I don't really think it's where Sawyer was going.

I'm not sure where Sawyer was going. Because to characterize SF and fantasy that way requires not only being completely unread in the fantasy genre but also being completely unread in the science fiction genre, inlcuding Sawyer's own novels. And I don't for a second believe that he hasn't read his own books. So...I don't know. Momentary loss of coherence? I just can't explain this one. Perhaps he was speaking off the cuff and had not taken the five seconds necessary to see the gaping holes in this idea? I really do believe this man is smarter than this, but honestly, you wouldn't even have to leave the S section of my bookshelves to find counterexamples on both sides for this.

(Every time someone in the genre is mean or dumb or just plain wrong or something like that, I have the feeling I'm going to have people popping out of the woodwork going, "This person is my friend and you shouldn't have said they were being [unpleasant judgment here]." So I want to reiterate: my brief experience of Robert Sawyer was very positive. I liked the guy. I think he is or at least ought to be a brighter guy than that interview section would indicate. I wish it had been someone else who topped the "dumbest distinction between SF and fantasy" charts this week. But it wasn't. Sorry.)

(Yarg.)

Comments

[ellameena.livejournal.com]

*laugh* I keep seeing this argument popping up on my friendslist and going, "WTF? Who cares?" Of course, if the alternative is arguing about whether Target should hang banners that say "Merry Christmas" or if they should stick with "Happy Holidays," I'm all there.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

"How dare you not know that I am a Christian on sight? How dare you not see the love of Jesus in my heart? SEE THE LOVE OF JESUS IN MY HEART, SCUM! SEE THE LOVE OF JESUS, YOU MISERABLE BASTARD!"

Ahem. Yah, that debate leaves me cold as well.

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

I hate Westerns because of all the obtuse hip-hop lingo and references to my mama.

Peace out, yo.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I didn't realize my grandfather used to be fond of reading people dissing your mama, Nick. I didn't think he even knew your mama. This is a great insight into his character.

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

I think Scalzi may have something, where he spends time talking not about the fine differences between SF and fantasy along the border between them, but about the difference between what most new SF is doing now vs. what most new fantasy is doing now.

At least, I think it may explain why I find myself reading not too much hard SF lately, and that little being mostly by authors I'm already familiar with either through previous books or through their online writing.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

The thing is, scalzi is very clearly not speaking in absolutes, because he is deliberately a counterexample, has deliberately set out to be one, for the trends he's discussing. Also, he knows when to use words like "most" and "some" that change utter raving bullshit into fairly reasonable opinions.

[matociquala.livejournal.com]

I love you.

I also love Scalzi.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

*hugses*

[ckd]

I have no reason to doubt that Robert Sawyer is a nice guy. I do have reason to doubt that he can do arithmetic.

(2**31 seconds from January 1, 1970 is not 2027.)

[bneuensc.livejournal.com]

My understanding, from those who know him better (i.e. those who know him as more than a name they've seen on the internet and some book covers), is that Sawyer is a perfectly intelligent man with a blind spot the size of Greenland. As far as he's concerned, fantasy is crap, and you won't convince him otherwise.

I'm building my own theory, not on the differences between SF and fantasy, but on the reasons why some SF people feel the need to bash fantasy. It's only half-baked at the moment, but I think I might have something (beyond the obvious speculation of "hmmm, maybe your books aren't selling and you need someone to blame?).

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I look forward to hearing it, then.

[dolphin--girl.livejournal.com]

Yup, that's pretty much it exactly. Lovely man, extremely kind and generous. No point in trying to convince him you write anything worthwhile if it's not SF.

[redbird]

I got the term "incluing" from papersky, who talks a lot about doing it in her books. Her fantasy books.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Yah, Sawyer didn't use that word, but as I was typing it, I did think of that.

[aimeempayne.livejournal.com]

People. If the honest expression of your difference between fantasy and SF is "I don't read one of these genres, so anything I say about it is orating out an orifice," keep your mouth shut.

*standing ovation*

I think publishers of Fantasy have discovered a new paper that renders readers malleable to suggestion. They have embedded messages in the text commanding them to scorn Science Fiction. Mwahahahahaha!

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

And those publishers who publish both (i.e. most of them) are secretly sick of SF and don't want any more, which is why they do this! Yes! It all makes sense now!

[callunav.livejournal.com]

Although there are many variations in the realm of speculative literature, some of which can be tentatively categorized and named (with the reservation that no such categorization will be universal or durable), as far as I can tell the main distinction between Science Fiction and Fantasy is that some people like to consider what they write or read one or the other. And I think it's only courteous to let them do so.

I'm not one of them. I think it's only courteous of them to let me not do so.

I like reading (some) stories in which things which are not, as far as I know, currently common or possible are represented as being either or both. I like them especially when they describe ways in which people and societies are different from what I would usually expect, as a result of this change in what is considered common or possible.

That's all. Anything else is semantics. Semantics are useful at times, but rarely make a very enjoyable topic for extended on-line debate.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

There are only two conditions under which I'm likely to take someone by the shoulders and shout, "It is, too, [genre]! Is too is too is too!"

One of them is if I have the impression that the person is saying something doesn't belong in a genre because they don't like that genre. "It's not X because it's good" or "It's not X because I like it" is just not acceptable.

The other is if I wrote the book or story in question. And there, I'm willing to admit that one oughtn't always listen to the author, because authors don't always know what they're doing. (That doesn't mean the author can't speak, though.)

Roger Zelazny

[mackatlaw.livejournal.com]

Zelazny is my favorite example for confounding people who insist in hardline distinctions between the two genres. He often seemed to write fantasy and science-fiction at the same time. _Lord of Light_, for example (which won the Hugo) drew on Hinduism and Buddhism. It can be read two ways and both are equally valid in my eyes. On one level, it's a tale of psychic powers and colonization; on the other level, it's about myth and archetypes embodied by humans.

(If you haven't read it, look at it sometime. There's a new edition out.)

[marksiegal.livejournal.com]

Great rant.

The funny thing is, I actually like Sawyer's line about science fiction being "the mainstream literature of an alternative reality." I just think it applies equally to fantasy.

With mainstream lit, you need incluing and other exposition for unfamiliar territory, like the relevant details of beekeeping or orchid hunting. They're the same basic techniques of storytelling, regardless of genre.

[orbitalmechanic.livejournal.com]

In fact, sometimes that's the appeal of the book. Mystery novels, for instance, tend to hand out a whole lot of information about beekeeping or whatever. I assume it's because the mystery genre as a whole requires a lot of information and it's important that the reader not know which parts are essential to the mystery. Dramatic examples would be, say, Dorothy Sayers's Murder Must Advertise or Connie Willis's Doomsday Book.

Wait, which genre are we defining here?

[Oops--moved to properly be a response.]

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Hell, sometimes you even need infodump as well as incluing. I am not opposed to a nice concise infodump from time to time. But yes, in mainstream lit, too.

This has been something of a problem with how I read mainstream lit, though: I'm more likely to take something as a subtle bit of worldbuilding that is a mistake or irrelevant or etc. etc. etc.

[nycshelly.livejournal.com]

SF vs Fantasy has been a sporting event. It's not what I consider worthy of intellectual discourse because basically, folks are just arguing one set of standards re: labeling vs another set. Every SF vs F discussion I've ever been in (and it's been years since I bothered) always devolved into childish "because I said so" type of arguments.

If some folks enjoy that kind of sport, I'm happy to let them have at it. I just don't choose to participate, or to watch.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Actually, many of the people in this particular round of discussions were very clear on "this is what makes something [genre] to me," and were also civil and respectful to both (all) genres. Unfortunately, more people have entered the ring very recently who aren't playing by those rules.

[dsgood.livejournal.com]

I would say that discussion of sf vs. fantasy also needs to take account of the following genres and subgenres which 1) use some of the same furniture as sf, fantasy, or both and 2) have different (though sometimes overlapping) readerships from either sf or fantasy:

Utopian fiction, dystopian fiction, survivalist fiction, the Left Behind series and its imitators, mysteries with vampires, werewolves, or both as characters, supernatural horror, pseudoscientific horror, woo woo mysteries, paranormal romances, time travel romances, mysteries with cats as detectives, New Age fiction, futurist scenarios.

Also: fiction of other genres which contain small amounts of sf and/or fantasy furniture. For example, Lawrence Block's Tanner on Ice, which begins with Evan Tanner coming out of coldsleep. This is used only as a way of getting around the problem that the last book in that series was written long enough ago that in the normal course of events Tanner would be too old to do the things he used to.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I don't think it needs to, no. scalzi's latest thing that talked about recent trends, for example, would not have been improved by a consideration of the Left Behind books.

[voidmonster.livejournal.com]

Why should I have to choose between fantasy and science fiction? Especially when they taste so great after I've tossed them both in the blender and hit puree?

But I've never really understood genre loyalty. Affinity, sure. Loyalty makes no sense though. I mean really, did Fantasy once push your mother out of the path of an oncoming car? Was science fiction the kid in school who helped you catch that frog in the pond and then told the teacher that it was his frog when you got yelled at for having it?

Genre is a marketing division. But then, some people will only wear designer clothes.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Yes, and also no.

When I put "jeans" on my Christmas wish list, I don't just write "jeans." I write, "J. Jill tried-and-true fit boot cut size 4 jeans." Because they are the only jeans that will get me in with the in crowd? No. Because they consistently fit me, and many (most) other jeans do not.

People who are easy to fit do not always understand this. "It's just a pair of jeans," they say. "Blue pants, two legs, one zipper, one button, four to five pockets. Just buy a pair, and let's go."

Yes, genre is in part a marketing division. But it's not a stupid marketing division. It wouldn't work as a marketing division if it didn't reflect how many people read or what they read for. (This is why "science-fiction-and-fantasy" works pretty well as a marketing division: many of us do enjoy both, or at least some of both.) So when some people are sensibly genre-loyal, just like when they're sensibly brand-loyal, it's because that genre is the one -- sometimes the only one -- that's given them the reading experience they want.

Still doesn't mean they should go on the offensive against what works for other people, of course.