boyajian@akov68.DEC (05/02/84)
> TEA WITH THE BLACK DRAGON is emphatically NOT > science fiction -- I'm confused about why it is up for science fiction > awards. Of course I have been confused about this before (I like the > remark attributed to Alfred Bester which I read in Richard Lupoff's > WHAT IF? series -- 'The fans -- the wonderful, demented, fans...'). > LYONESSE by Jack Vance, equally non-science-fictional, is up for a > Nebula. Oh well. > Donn Seeley UCSD Chemistry Dept. ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdchema!donn Just what is this concern about whether something is sf or fantasy? Traditional- ly, the term "science fiction" is taken to include fantasy of various flavors as well. [Actually, traditionally, sf should be considered a subset of fantasy.] Until the last ten years or so, when fantasy *really* became a marketable prod- uct separate from sf, fans simply lumped the two into one genre. The Nebulas and Hugos have always considered stories in both fields; just because the Hugos are labelled "the Science Fiction Achievement Awards" and the Nebulas are awarded by the "Science Fiction Writers of America" doesn't mean that they should ignore fantasy. Some years back, Lin Carter tried to start a separate series of awards for fantasy (actually, only two per year were ever given out, for Best Novel and for Grand-Master) called the Gandalfs, but they eventually bit the dust. We also now have a series of World Fantasy Conventions with its own set of awards (the Howies -- after H. P. Lovecraft) which garner great prestige themselves, but this still hasn't deterred fans from nominating and voting fantasy stories for the Hugos. An interesting aside is that the World Fantasy Con members tend more to separationism than do sf fans. In general, the trend is toward, though by no means exclusively, "dark fantasy" (ie. horror). There tends to be few stories generally considered sf nominated for the Howies (a couple of Wolfe's New Sun novels are recent exceptions). As a matter of fact, Stephen King turned down a nomination for THE DEAD ZONE as Best Novel one year because he felt that the book was sf and not fantasy. I tend to prefer hard sf to fantasy, myself, but let's not start getting into a mindset that demands picky categorization. --- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC Maynard) UUCP: (decvax!decwrl!rhea!akov68!boyajian) ARPA: (decwrl!rhea!akov68!boyajian@Shasta)
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (05/03/84)
The biggest problem I have with trying to split SF and fantasy is how we
decide what is what. There are very few books that can be considered 'pure'
in either respect. 2001 is about as pure a SF book as you will find, and
'Wizard of Oz' (remember that one? Or am I the only person to have read it?
:->) is about as pure a fantasy as you will find. 'Tea with the Black
Dragon' may be mostly fantasy, but there are SF trappings. Of course it
could also be mainly SF with some fantastic trappings. It depends upon
whether you want to base your definitions on the society (highly
computerized, etc...) or the character of Oolong (the only thing that
doesn't fit the SF mold, but very important). I believe it was Ben Bova who
said that the only definition of SF that works is when you point at
something and say 'That is SF'. I think the same is true of fantasy (is
'Mists of Avalon' fantasy or historical fiction?). You have to realize that
in most cases we all point in different directions. Trying to separate SF
from fantasy is like trying to step on only dark grains of sand at the
beach. Not only do the grains keep moving, but it is very hard to tell the
difference between the dark grains and the light grains at any useful
distance.
chuq
--
From high above Benden weyr, Ch'qui, rider of the plaid dragon Plugh!
Chuq Von Rospach {amd70,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui (408) 733-2600 x242
ninety nine dead baboons, sitting in my living room...kcarroll@utzoo.UUCP (Kieran A. Carroll) (05/03/84)
* I beg your pardon, but it's not true that "until fantasy recently became a marketable product, people tended to lump SF and fantasy together into one category." SF was what John Campbell printed in Astounding, while fantasy was what he published in Unknown. Seriously, picky people have been trying to distinguish between SF and fantasy for quite a few years now, at least since the 1940's. By the '60's, the state of the controversy was that (a) an easy-going subset of sf fandom, including Judith Merrill, had decided that "sf" meant "speculative fabulation", or whatever; (b) another subset had decided that "even if I can't define it, I >know< what sf is, and it ain't fantasy!" As for myself, I don't really care; I'm willing to accept Campbell's definitions, although I can't really decide where "The Incompleat Enchanter" et seq lies. A common attitude seems to be "I like science fiction, and I like this book; therefore, this book is science fiction"; or, "...and I don't like this book, so it isn't science fiction." The arguments on the net so far seem to have a distinct flavor of this attitude. -Kieran A. Carroll ...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll