![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
momebieOver on twitter ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
getyourguns was musing about how X-Men: First Class had been labeled as Fantasy at the Scream Awards, because she considered it to be more Science-Fiction instead. matthewbowers responded to her and said that Science-Fiction and Fantasy are rarely crossed together. He contends that each has a set of tropes and themes that you never (or hardly ever) find in another. Insinuating, I think, that if something is mostly fantasy in essence you would be remiss to call it science-fiction regardless of the extra trappings or themes that read that way. And then there was kind of a dog pile of people telling him how wrong he is, which I feel bad about, because I think we're all dealing in semantics.
Art, by its very nature, will be interpreted differently by everyone. What I see as fantasy or sci-fantasy another might call science-fiction and another yet still may just call speculative fiction. I think that there's always going to be a certain amount of subjectivity in any attempt to place a genre on something. What I do not think is possible to ignore though, is the fact that for better or worse science-fantasy has become an actual genre term that people use. In some ways it doesn't matter whether or not I AGREE that something is science-fantasy, just that someone else thinks it is and has named it so. After all, I cannot tell you how many times something vaguely Victorian has been labeled steampunk and I've wanted to throw up my hands and go home.
What I AM interested in, however, is where people draw those lines. For instance,getyourguns thinks space is one of the science-fiction shorthands, while I think that a focus on or use of technology would be a more concrete one. I know that pointing at an apple and saying it's a banana doesn't make it so, but if it came off an apple tree and was long and curved and yellow I'd be inclined to admit that it did share certain characteristics with a banana that made it a new breed. Because no matter how many times we go around about it, if I find a different collection of themes and tropes to be more one than the other, another person and I can argue till our faces turn blue that they actually aren't and no one will budge. So I thought I'd get a hive mind going about it and see where the discussion takes us. There is no right or wrong answer here, and I mean that. (Though, feel free to argue amongst yourselves.) You can tackle all of them, or cherry pick the thing(s) you find most interesting.
* How do you define straight up Science-Fiction (hard or soft)?'
* How do you define straight up Fantasy (urban or dark or high or anything)?
*What themes or tropes do you find common in Science-Fiction that you think never appear in Fantasy?
*What themes or tropes do you find common in Fantasy that you think never appear in Science-Fiction?
*What do you believe a successful blending of the two would be?
*Do you think it's possible to blend them at all?
*Are there any works of art (movies/books/tv shows/cartoons/oil paintings/sculptures/hair collections...) that you feel DO successfully blend the two? [Aka, show your work for extra points.]
If you think there are any other questions that would add another layer to the discussion let me know and I'll add them to my list. I'm leaving this post unlocked, because I think it would be interesting to get a larger sample. Send your friends over! Anonymous commenting is on until someone starts being a jerk.
getyourguns was musing about how X-Men: First Class had been labeled as Fantasy at the Scream Awards, because she considered it to be more Science-Fiction instead. matthewbowers responded to her and said that Science-Fiction and Fantasy are rarely crossed together. He contends that each has a set of tropes and themes that you never (or hardly ever) find in another. Insinuating, I think, that if something is mostly fantasy in essence you would be remiss to call it science-fiction regardless of the extra trappings or themes that read that way. And then there was kind of a dog pile of people telling him how wrong he is, which I feel bad about, because I think we're all dealing in semantics. Art, by its very nature, will be interpreted differently by everyone. What I see as fantasy or sci-fantasy another might call science-fiction and another yet still may just call speculative fiction. I think that there's always going to be a certain amount of subjectivity in any attempt to place a genre on something. What I do not think is possible to ignore though, is the fact that for better or worse science-fantasy has become an actual genre term that people use. In some ways it doesn't matter whether or not I AGREE that something is science-fantasy, just that someone else thinks it is and has named it so. After all, I cannot tell you how many times something vaguely Victorian has been labeled steampunk and I've wanted to throw up my hands and go home.
What I AM interested in, however, is where people draw those lines. For instance,
getyourguns thinks space is one of the science-fiction shorthands, while I think that a focus on or use of technology would be a more concrete one. I know that pointing at an apple and saying it's a banana doesn't make it so, but if it came off an apple tree and was long and curved and yellow I'd be inclined to admit that it did share certain characteristics with a banana that made it a new breed. Because no matter how many times we go around about it, if I find a different collection of themes and tropes to be more one than the other, another person and I can argue till our faces turn blue that they actually aren't and no one will budge. So I thought I'd get a hive mind going about it and see where the discussion takes us. There is no right or wrong answer here, and I mean that. (Though, feel free to argue amongst yourselves.) You can tackle all of them, or cherry pick the thing(s) you find most interesting. * How do you define straight up Science-Fiction (hard or soft)?'
* How do you define straight up Fantasy (urban or dark or high or anything)?
*What themes or tropes do you find common in Science-Fiction that you think never appear in Fantasy?
*What themes or tropes do you find common in Fantasy that you think never appear in Science-Fiction?
*What do you believe a successful blending of the two would be?
*Do you think it's possible to blend them at all?
*Are there any works of art (movies/books/tv shows/cartoons/oil paintings/sculptures/hair collections...) that you feel DO successfully blend the two? [Aka, show your work for extra points.]
If you think there are any other questions that would add another layer to the discussion let me know and I'll add them to my list. I'm leaving this post unlocked, because I think it would be interesting to get a larger sample. Send your friends over! Anonymous commenting is on until someone starts being a jerk.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-10-19 03:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-19 03:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-19 04:13 am (UTC)OK!
I do have many (conflicting) feelings on this very topic and have been known to get into heated debates with anyone stupid enough to go there with me. But I'll start with this:
I think if something is saying it is Sci-fi, then it needs to be Sci-fi. There must be some basis in science (actual science, futuristic science, whatever, SCIENCE! maybe even sKience!) with appropriate explanations for the ~stuff~ that happens within this universe. (I'm looking at you, Torchwood, and your confusion about what the hell you were.)
If it's fantasy, it doesn't have to work quite so hard to explain things. You can just go blah blah MAGIC! and Bob's yer uncle. Although, world-building for any type of fantasy universe should be pretty involved. I'm not a big fantasy fan b/c I genuinely hate it when there's MAGIC just for the sake of "ooh shiny" or what have you. Even in a magical world, things must make some sort of sense. (And this is why - do not stone me - I'm not a huge Harry Potter fan. Because so much of the flashy flashy magic crap was pointless and without reason.)
Blending the two successfully just sounds way too difficult for my feeble brain. There are so many things that MUST BE EXPLAINED!
Take the zombie genre, for example. You've got your old school rising from the grave voodoo zombies, and you new class "virus" zombies. The former, magical. The latter, science-y. With the former, you don't have to work so hard on explaining HOW dead bodies are walking around and eating live ones. IT IS MAGIC! But with the latter, suspension of disbelief is relied upon too much. All the science talk in the WORLD does not explain a virus that kills then reanimates the corpse, allows that corpse to walk and eat but does not slow/stop decay. Mr Zombie, how are your muscles working if your blood is not pumping? HOW? HOW?
...it's possible I've thought about this way too much.
As for your questions... I sincerely believe that a good writer can make any scenario work within any set of boundaries. It's just really fucking hard. And you should decide, before you set out, if you're going to be science or MAGIC.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-19 04:37 am (UTC)It doesn't do wood!There's an example I was going to use, but didn't because I didn't want to get too into the weeds on a thing I'm still hemming over. There's a certain Victorian era vampire novel that is being classified as steampunk by the publisher. (I say certain not because I'm being coy, but because I don't remember the title of the novel OR the publisher, just the reading from/discussion about it.) As far as I can tell, the novel is your average vampire fare set in the 1800s. I would not classify that as steampunk, since steampunk is a science-fiction genre. I would classify that as Victorian Fantasy. HOWEVER. I am currently working on a story where I send a group of volunteer vampires (it's science! they signed up for it! it's done in a lab!) into space on a Victorian space ship and play around with the tech of the period. I would consider that science-fantasy, because even though the vampires are created in a lab scientifically, they're still vampires, which aren't real and can't be, and the other tech is front and center in the story. Would you classify those things differently?
Randomly, it occurs to me that the many races of aliens found in science-fiction are also not plausible and therefore fantastic in nature. I think the reason I consider those two things different is because we don't know what form life could take outside of our galaxy and it's speculative in nature to give them whatever traits we do. Drastically altering the way the human body works so that it is vampiric, however, is not speculative in nature, but merely fantastic because the way we view vampires makes it impossible for one to actually survive that way.
I HAVE A FEELING THIS WHOLE POST IS GOING TO RIDE THE SEMANTICS TRAIN.
As a side note, I always tend to read virus zombies as not being dead at all, simply addled by the disease, so it doesn't bother me that their bodies function and it's not explained. After all, the 'zombies' in 28 Days Later (which I still consider to NOT be a zombie movie) starve to death after a certain period of time and then do not come back.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-19 05:10 am (UTC)My understanding of Steampunk is pretty limited. I understood it to focus on the Victorian time period, but strictly with the inclusion of advanced technology (that is still steam-powered?) like that awful remake of Wild Wild West with Will Smith... No?
Considering that your vampires are created in a lab, that is definitely basing it in science and not magic or mythology, so I think it could be sci-fi. All that depends on how much you want to explain about your vampires. Are they simply genetically altered humans, with superstrength and such, a thirst for blood, but not undead? I'd be willing to put that in the sci-fi pile. It's when you get into myth and magic that veers into fantasy territory.
I HAVE MANY THOUGHTS ON DIFFERENT ALIEN SPECIES' IN "SCI-FI" SHOWS AS WELL. (Surprised?) Like with fantasy and magic, I... disapprove of fancy aliens that have ~things~ that make no practical sense for a species to develop. I can get behind the theory that most evolved species from different planets might be "humanoid" (and not just b/c they are played by humans painted green and wearing funny hats and shit) if that's what evolution does on life-sustaining planets. But, still, your aliens need to make some fucking sense, yo!
The infected in 28 Days Later are not zombies - they are living, breathing humans with a virus. Not unlike the "Croats" in Supernatural (which... basically kinda stole that same idea, no?). The OTHER zombies in Supernatural were the rising from the grave voodoo kind. But the zombies in The Walking Dead are both dead bodies and infected with a virus (as explained in s1e06) and my suspension of disbelief is firmly in place b/c OMG THEY TRAVEL IN FUCKING HERDS NOW! WHYYYYYYYY?!
Ahem. Yeah. I, um, I could talk about this all night, man.