Yash Thacker: "The Tightrope of Speculative Fiction Classification"
The Tightrope of
Speculative Fiction Classification
By
Yash Thacker
Orson Scott Card, the author of Enders Game, has had experience with writing
in both, fantasy
and science fiction genres once said, “Science Fiction has rivets, fantasy has
trees. That’s it, that's all the difference there is, the difference of feel,
perception.” This is a clear depiction of the difference between Science
Fiction and Fantasy. While fantasy tends to ignore scientific basis of things
that occur in the story, and just state a broad topic, where as in science
fiction authors tend provide significant scientific details as to why something
can occur. However, there are still times where fantasy may use scientific
theories, and some parts of science fiction stories may seem fantastical, this is
where Orson’s point about perspective comes into play. The perspective in which
the story takes place, and looking at how the author presents the story. They
may present it in a scientific manner or in a vague manner where the reader
just accepts whatever is occurring using this you can determine if the story is
a fantasy or a science fiction.
Looking at The Last
Unicorn for
example, the perspective in which this story is told is very fantasy like. The
unicorn is introduced as majestic and magical creature, “Unicorns are immortal…
knowing themselves to be the most beautiful creatures in all the world, and
magic besides.” However, other than this we get no explanation as to where this
unicorn comes from or how she came to be there, later in the story *SPOILER
ALERT* she is turned into a human and we get no sense behind the logic of how
this occurs, it just happens. This is a characteristic of fantasy, where there
is no logical perspective taken, the author just has the reader entrust that
this magical world exists and magicians, unicorns, harpies have supernatural
powers that others in the world also accept.
In contrast, when we read stories
such as, Rossum's
Universal Robots (R.U.R) we use “scientific” words and descriptions
about the creation of the humanoid robots. When Domin explains how the humanoid
robots are made he says, “Then? Then it was a question of taking life out of
the test tube, speeding up its development, shaping some of the organs, bones,
nerves, and whatnot, and finding certain substances, catalysts, enzymes,
hormones, etcetera; in short, do you understand?” Then he goes on to talk about
the processes that lead them to the achievement of recreating emotionless
robots. Here we see how the author takes time to develop a background for the
reader so that they are able to understand what is occurring in the story as
well as, get a logical basis of how this could actually occur if the technology
was feasible.
In some cases, where alien or
foreign (out of this world) objects/organisms interact with humans; this is
where you tread the line between fantasy and science fiction. This can be seen
in the short story The Colour
Out of Space. In this story, the author’s presentation of the
“alien” could have led to the story to be classified differently than it was.
In the actual story, the author provides a bit of scientific background on the
“alien” and therefore this is classified as science fiction. However, if he had
taken a different approach and hadn’t provided a scientific background behind
an “alien” and just said it had supernatural powers then this would be
classified as fantasy.
As you can see, classifying a
story either in the genre of fantasy or science fiction requires you to not only
look at the prominence of science within a story, but it also requires looking
at the way the author has presented the information to the reader.
Yash:
ReplyDeleteThere's no denying your posit that the sf or f label changes how information is presented to a reader. That said, I tend to think it's more complicated than just "fantasy just [states] a broad topic" (note: I'm not entirely sure what that means -- a broad topic of what? how do stories "state a topic"?). While fantasy doesn't always or even often provide the logic behind HOW something happens - ie., there's this spell which breaks into the essences of X, changing it into Y, thus reformulating Z, or whatnot - I think it's fair and important to note that fantasy always has a WHY. That is, in _The Last Unicorn_ we may not learn how the magic that makes a unicorn what it is works, or how Schmendrick's spell transforms her, exactly, but the story indicates WHY this is so, at least implicitly: the Unicorn has a nature which resists interacting with the world, and that must change. The only way this can be achieved is by making her susceptible to human frailties, like emotions. Once she gets in touch with herself and others in this way, she's truly able to face Haggard and the power of the Red Bull. Is it, then, not that fantasy doesn't care about "how" things happen, so much as it cares a great deal more about "why" things happen?
Best,
TT