Generic Considerations

James Jordan · 22 Apr 2003, 23:44 · from urth-v0304.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: James Jordan <jbjordan4 at cox.net>
Subject: Re: (urth) Generic Considerations
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:44:49 -0500
Message-ID: <urth-v0304-3289 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0304/3289.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Cool, blattid.
         My working definition has been: Science fiction is fantasy=20
literature that uses the beliefs of then-present establishment science and=20
technology to accomplish its fantasy elements.
         Explication: It's fantasy literature because it is not OUR world,=20
whether in the future or in a parallel world or an alternate history. It=20
uses the (changeable and changing) beliefs/models/paradigms of current=20
establishment science, such as "you can't go faster than the speed of=20
light." (Of course, there are exceptions; one might right a story in a=20
non-Einsteinian universe building on alternate non-establishment science,=20
or in a creationist universe; and there was that excellent novel a few=20
years back, *Celestial Matters* by Richard Garfinkle -- a Lupine treat --=20
that was set in a Ptolemaic/Platonic universe.) In traditional fantasy, the=20
other-worldly aspects are justified in terms of some kind of magic --=20
though in SF magical elements are sometimes introduced in terms of=20
"psionic" powers, an aspect of SF devoid of establishment-science hypothese=
s.
         From there I think your other points follow. Traditional "magical"=20
fantasy will tend to generate a certain kind of writing, and so does SF.
         The more interesting question, in some ways, is why writers like=20
Michael Crichton, and some of Walker Percy's novels, are considered=20
mainstream and not SF. I think it has to do mainly with who publishes them=20
and how they are marketed.
         FWIW. But how does this strike you?

Nutria


--=20

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net