Iblis
-
Posts
516 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Store
Raffles
Blog Comments posted by Iblis
-
-
Science Fantasy is not a genre under science fiction or fantasy categories. It is a completely different genre that takes elements from both.
That's my point.
& I would ([{sort of, mostly}]) agree with that.
Would you then agree that it is incorrect to call something that is Science Fantasy a Fantasy xor a Sci-Fi?
-
1
-
-
But it seems that the real question here (again, pardon me if I'm hopelessly going out on a limb) is "Can genres mix?".
My opinion is that some genres can mix; however to me the meaning of "Science Fiction" is that it is about possible 'future' (relative to RL, not to say that a Sci-Fi story can't be set in the past, or in an alternate universe) developments/discoveries/technologies (so something might be a natural phenomenon that hasn't been seen in RL, but wouldn't necessarily be impossible, so if that thing becomes a focus of the story), something that is at complete odds with present Science (breaks the 1st law of thermodynamics or some-such), is no longer Sci-Fi.
Thus whilst genres are to a great degree about elements, and genres certainly can overlap, not all can; or rather where Fantasy (at least Magic) & Sci-Fi overlap, there is "Science Fantasy"; except that because it's Science Fantasy, it can't be Sci-Fi; I could still call it Fantasy (although it has another set of elements not common to Fantasy).
In fact I call Star Wars "Science Fantasy, Space Opera", those are two different genres; & I think it is both. Genres commonly overlap; but to me Science Fiction is about Science; as such Magitech (or Magic & Technology) is well within the domain of Science Fantasy.
I view a genre as a bucket filled with certain elements, but that that bucket may have rules about what can be put in it; I'm 'strict' on Sci-Fi about thing being possible not impossible; because if I don't limit either Sci-Fi or Fantasy most elements of both could go in either bucket, & having the separate buckets would be pointless.
Where Sci-Fi & Fantasy mix, I pretty much know that it now has entirely impossible things ...which aren't what Sci-Fi is mostly about.
In saying all this, there is one error I need to go and fix in particular;
So whether Science Fantasy is viewed as a sub genre of both or either Fantasy & Sci-Fi, or as it's own thing (on a spectrum between the two) doesn't really matter
I agree -- just keep in mind you were the one that was making "sub-genre of only fantasy, not sci-fi" matter enough to write lots of posts and challenge me to answer the points in them, and made strong negative statements against the alternatives. But it seems you are now admitting that it actually doesn't matter if people were to call it a sub-genre of sci-fi too.
That's good. We done, then? 
I only say it doesn't matter, in the sense that as far as Bionicle goes, it's a Science Fantasy; so in the context of Bionicle it doesn't matter, because I would rarely call something by an umbrella genre when I'm specifically talking about a single work, I would use the most accurate term I had; & you seem to view Science Fantasy as a different genre (blurring into both) so I don't really see why you would call Bionicle Fantasy xor Sci-Fi when you can call it Science Fantasy.
I still strongly believe that Sci-Fi has a fairly strong line between it & Science Fantasy.
I feel the demarcation line is important, because otherwise Fantasy seems to be a synonym for Speculative Fiction.
So, you're the one that wanted to classify Sci-fant by the less accurate term Fantasy. You should answer why we should do that, but not also do the same for Science Fiction.
And while you can arbitrarily do that, somebody else could just as easily say Fantasy is the one that stays limited, and Sci-fi isn't. Either way, you're not actually changing the content of the mixture story! So I say it's all just semantics, and if you want to look at it as a subset, it goes both ways.
Of course it's all semantics; we're debating a categorisation/labeling system...
Science Fantasy should be seen as a sub-genre of Fantasy because it doesn't violate any definition of Fantasy, and ultimately 'technology' and 'scientific laws' exist in all stories but the most surreal; most stories with magic have a fundamentally RW-like physics (etc.) with magic added in; to try and then make Fantasy involve impossible things + some possible things but not other might-be-possible things would be more complex.
Having a genre which only includes possible & might-be-possible things is much more natural than that. It has the rule of no-impossible tacked on, where as the other way around would essentially be no futuristic technology (might-be-possible)? that seems a bit more flippant than a clear no 'proven'-to-be-impossible.
& it would be redundant; as I would call most things Science Fantasy anyway. So the distinction of calling it a sub-genre of Fantasy or a genre in itself doesn't really matter; because Fantasy is an umbrella term for a whole pile of genres; to me Urban Fantasy is a genre. It just happens to be a sub-genre of Fantasy, which in turn happens to be a sub-genre of Speculative Fiction. I try to operate on the lowest (most specific level), so I could add that Science-Fantasy is a direct sub-genre of Speculative Fiction & not Fantasy
Incidentally, you could also just as easily see both sci-fi and fantasy as the subsets of science fantasy, for stories that are sci-fant like Star Wars or Bionicle. In this sense, the spaceships and robots in both series are in a set of "things that are in this story" and they are sub-classified as "sci-fi things in this story", while the Jedi or Toa ("wizards" with their own special types of magics) powers are in the subset of "fantasy things in this story."
So, neither Fantasy nor Sci-Fi has to be seen as OVER Science Fantasy if you're going to work with subsets! They could both be under.
Although if Fantasy & Sci-Fi were both considered to be sub-genres of Science Fantasy; determining that something is Fantasy with Sci-Fi elements or Sci-Fi with Fantasy elements could be incredibly awkward; because how easily can I measure how many Fantasy elements there are opposed to Science Fiction elements?
What about something that almost everyone considers to be right in the middle? Just call them the now-less-specific genre that is Science Fantasy? Well that isn't very informative. So why bother with the label? Which also runs into:
Whilst in a bookstore for example, I might place Urban Fantasy in/near Fantasy; when someone is asking me about a given book why would I say something is a Fantasy when it's clearly an Urban Fantasy?
If you sensed they didn't care about the sub-genre; like if they asked, "I'm looking for a fantasy story. Not a sci-fi story, mind you. Hey, that book there... I see in the cover art there's real-world stuff... does that make that sci-fi?"
In that case they would already be aware it's "urban" so you might find it wasteful to spend words saying it, and just say, "No, it's fantasy!"
([{I've seen some horribly misleading cover art in my life, that is entirely unrelated to the story, but now that I've got that out, I'm going to ignore judging a book by its cover from here.}])
Exactly, you're being less specific, because the person you're taking to already knows that; however I thought it would have been clear that I was talking about situations where someone doesn't know about a story...
But back to;
Not saying I would put all Fantasy under Science Fantasy of course, but just within those stories you could do this. So, in addition to mixtures being able to be looked at as subsets, you can also look at mixtures as categories containing subsets!
My point being, it's all somewhat arbitrary, when you worry about making one thing or another subsets of each other, within spec. fic.
I think it's a fair goal to try and avoid arbitrary lines; because those are unnatural (although growing up with an arbitrary line makes it seem less unnatural); the Science Fantasy as an umbrella genre of Fantasy & Sci-Fi, runs into plenty of issues (see all those unanswered questions or with unsatisfying answers); so I'm glad you wouldn't put all Science Fantasy under Fantasy.
Not to mention that would be a complete overhaul of the system; me excluding what is patently unexplained magic from Sci-Fi doesn't require a huge re-categorisation, there are a few titles people occasionally call Sci-Fi which others call Science Fantasy (Star Wars is probably a good example), and firmly restating that it is Science Fantasy.
Or somebody else might make an argument, like the one in that question Greg was quoted as arguing in the topic. They might say, "I read this book, where they're in a normal city, and there's a mystery, but since there is technology like cars and stuff around, I assumed the answer to the mystery would be based in the real world, something you'd find in an Urban environment, but a few chapters in, magic started happening! This author took an Urban story and turned it into a fantasy story!"
The story so far was an Urban story, and then it became an Urban Fantasy; there isn't anything wrong with that, & certainly, just because it wasn't apparent doesn't mean that wasn't intended. If this happened in the second book; then the first book would have been an Urban story, & the second one an Urbane Fantasy; there isn't anything wrong with that;
although if they are strictly saying it is no longer an urbane story they are of course wrong, that is a false dichotomy.
This doesn't really compare well with Bionicle, because if I look at another Science Fantasy, namely Star Wars, when someone calls it Sci-Fi people correct them to it being a Science Fantasy; thus many already agree that Science Fantasy isn't (a sub genre) of Science Fiction.But if I call an Urban Fantasy just a Fantasy or Urban, I'm being less specific than I could beCalling a Science Fantasy a Sci-Fi is actually very misleading; magic can't exist in a Sci-Fi, mixing the elements of two genres spawns a new one, sometimes a genre carries more baggage than having certain elements, but of lacking other ones.Interestingly enough Urban Fantasy is typically listed as a sub-genre of Fantasy.I can't really think of many situations where I would call something that is Science Fantasy a Fantasy, because less accuracy ultimately could be misleading, as many people seem to think that Fantasy necessitates no electronics; for this reason Science Fantasy & Urban Fantasy might not be considered sub-genres of Fantasy, & Fantasy shall come to be a narrower category; I think the opposite is happening if anything, but words evolve in funny ways.In this case you have two routes to go -- you could point out (as I would in my style of more thorough answers, compared to Greg who prefers very short answers to be read in context of the tons of other answers he gives) that it's a false dichotomy that a story can only be one or the other, and that it's Urban Fantasy, but if you have already pointed this out in the past (as Greg has for Science Fantasy), there would be no need to repeat it.
And it doesn't address the main mistake being made by this person. (They already know, actually, that the Urban stuff was in the story. The issue is that they thought it was actually just an Urban story at first.) So you very well might point out "It was always a fantasy story, you just didn't know it at the start."
Greg opens himself up to be quote mined (although that can't easily be entirely avoided), If I go to a site with his account, and see in one thread him calling Bionicle Sci-Fi, & can't see him call it a Science Fantasy anywhere else in that thread I'm getting worried that he either isn't aware that Science Fantasy is a term, (I very much doubt he thinks a world akin to Bionicles exists somewhere out in a multiverse, at least one that isn't someones brain/computer simulation).
He could have easily said it was a Science Fantasy. Although considering that from the very beginning their were bio-mechanical beings using Elemental powers; I don't really see how someone could not be inclined to use the label of Science Fantasy.
I mean the reveal that Mata Nui was sitting on an enormousness robot didn't really change the genre that much; maybe revealed that it had space travel? But it hardly changed it being a Science Fantasy.
& in the case of someone ignoring previous elements in the story; well if they think that it having Fantasy themes means it can't be Urban (Fantasy) then yes that certainly looks like a false dichotomy.
But yeah; "It was always a fantasy story, you just didn't know it at the start." well there was a genre ; if that genre shift happened after a released piece, then that first piece wasn't the (exact) same genre as later pieces; if this happens in a single book (which is what i believe you imply), then yeah, the book as whole was that genre, it was just a twist of sorts.
I'm sure if we applied our brains with imagination we could think of other scenarios. Point being, "why would this happen" is never a solid argument to support a universal negative (or estimated negative, even
) conclusion of "there is no reason", since you could just be failing to think of one. (Although such things can work as evidential arguments with uncertainty being clarified.)I'm sure we can think of other scenarios; but 'impossible' is usually defined as things deemed significantly unlikely; hence Hard Sci-Fi & Soft Sci-Fi (debatably amongst other things?); but if a no explanations are ever really offered, only ever hand waved, then it looks very soft indeed;
If the typical way people come up to explain something apparently magical, are brain in a jar scenarios or an entirely alternate set of physics, the former isn't really meaningful; because everything could be Sci-Fi (if a given thing makes everything the same, & everything being the same isn't productive...) and alternate physics essentially means that that it isn't a speculative possibility; it's assuming what if everything went entirely differently on the (second, first being logic itself?) most fundamental level, it's no longer related to current known laws (science) & possibilities that have been considered from a scientific view (not so much a philosophical one, although that usually comes into play).
And as much as the various Elemental powers & other Powers where explained essentially as nanotechnology, Greg has insisted that Bionicle has it's own physics.
'T'is the most waviest of hand waves; Sci-Fi usually keeps it's hand waves to there is this substance which has this property & because of this property we can do this and this, or we worked out how to warp space so we can appear to go faster than the speed of light, but fundamentally we haven't gone faster than it, we've just made our trip 'shorter', the more fundamental the hand wave the less explanations, the softer, & eventually you have Magic, & thus a Fantasy element.
So Bionicle alternate physics kind of disqualifies it from Sci-Fi; but it's obviously a Science Fantasy... so thus something being a Science Fantasy doesn't automatically mean it's Sci-Fi.
I'm not relying on a universal negative; if it is something not yet proven (hmm hi Sci-Fi) then a creator won't be able to offer an entire explanation (or rather, if they do, they've just made a huge scientifc break through, & should be congratulated on [partially] defictionalising their story) but saying that the Great Beings have an explanation isn't giving us one; if he said that Energised Protodermis is a room temperature superconductor or some such, & from this they cna do X, Y, & Z et cetera might be enough to get it accepted as a Sci-Fi, but he didn't have that; it's just an entirely magical substance which inconsistently does things, but we are told that their is an internal consistency;
There is the creator stating things, but some things are just informed abilities which look more like a hallmark of trying to avoid the label of Fantasy ...for some reason.
-
Probably also out of order.
The contradiction is NOT between your chosen definition that adds a limit and the practice of categorizing that you use, but this is just circular reasoning. We could also define "flat" as "three-dimensional instead of twenty-dimensional" and then by that definition say that Earth is flat, and that would be self-consistent... but it also helps illustrate the obvious problem. Doing this doesn't help make things clear.
The contradiction that's most important for purposes of this project is that we aren't looking for overspecialized definitions outside the normal understanding in plain English. (And in plain English, science fiction is fiction about science. )
While it's true that a fallacy of limiting the sci-fi definition is out there, it's still arbitrary, even if it were to become the most popular, and a similar limiting of fantasy exists (and even if it didn't, could exist). Witness for example the reactions of many to mitocloriens on this basis.
There's also a contradiction as I mentioned between an implied, necessary premise in your approach of picking a specialized definition arbitrarily. If you get to do that, then logically others also get to pick their won specialized definitions, so your own logic actually implies justification for people defining sci-fi differently than you. So absolute negative claims like "'Bionicle is sci-fi' is patently false" do not work.It is self consistent, and whilst you claim that this is a fallacy (carried by others); that I use a narrower definition than others out there doesn't make this inconsistent with the rest of the world; those other definitions are merely less accurate & incomplete;
I'm struggling to think of any works that would have to have their genre — any that have been classified as Science Fiction that I would classify as Science Fantasy have already been called Science Fantasy;
I'm not trying to force something new upon the world I'm merely updating or extrapolating definitions in a way that better reflect the world; I'm prescribing how the definitions of Science Fiction should be read relative to other (definitions of) genres; as nothing exists in a void (they need to be externally consistent as well as internally consistent)
But even if "Bionicle is sci-fi' is patently false" do not work; why would anyone call something a less accurate term than they could otherwise use?
Whilst in a bookstore for example, I might place Urban Fantasy in/near Fantasy; when someone is asking me about a given book why would I say something is a Fantasy when it's clearly an Urban Fantasy? I wouldn't be wrong; but I give a better idea by being more specific;
So whether Science Fantasy is viewed as a sub genre of both or either Fantasy & Sci-Fi, or as it's own thing (on a spectrum between the two) doesn't really matter; by calling Bionicle Science Fantasy I'm being much more informative than calling it Fantasy xor Sci-Fi.
You're missing the simple way of limiting it with the already well known labels of "hard science fiction" (or pure science fiction as I've been saying) versus soft or mixed. Both are easy to understand in plain English, so there's no need for all your complexity and technicality to get across that simple concept!
...There isn't anything that difficult about the concept I've presented; I've gone it a ludicrous depth, because you where calling things fallacies without fully emulating on why it was wrong;
Furthermore I tried to present it in it's most basic components; as a whole it is much shorter & feels perfectly natural to me & others.
(I've seen other classify things as Sci-Fi versus Fantasy with the same conclusions as me, & you've apparently seen others using the same 'fallacies' as me.)
I reject the notion that I'm only classifying Hard Science Fiction as Science Fiction; I'm classifying Hard, Non-Hard, & Some Soft Sci-Fi. as Sci Fi; the softest of the softest of so called "Sci-Fi" is being 'eliminated' from Sci-Fi by me; & all that I can see included in that have already been called Science Fantasy.
You're also then classifying a lot of science content in a story as fantasy! So by that logic, if applied consistently, then your definition could also apply to anything, as the normal definition about magic for fantasy now doesn't apply anymore, since even science that characters DO understand could be seen as fantasy. The fact that this is not functional (or self-consistent as you're saying science content in a mix is still fantasy, but the exact same content in pure sci-fi wouldn't be... makes no sense) is precisely why I don't use it.
...The whole point of me having Sci-Fi exclude things that have elements that are patently fantastical & can not be explained by present Science or Speculative Sciences; that something can't technically ever be disproved is entirely pedantic; to be functional we exclude certain things as they are too unlikely. This is part of the reason presentation is important;
The Force in Star Wars, Elemental Powers in Bionicle, are both presented as if not mystical, merely a fundamental part of the universe (which is at odds with reality; because if it were that; why can't we use them or have observed...?).
However:
I would agree, but also wouldn't be dogmatic about it. If somebody also wants to just use sci-fi for the pure variety, the spectrum basic definition still works. There'd just be more in the middle category.
This is were I entirely disagree; by having such a relaxed interpretation of Sci-Fi as this; then Science Fantasy is just a sub genre (of both Fantasy & Sci-Fi); as this is the same action as calling an Urbane Fantasy a Fantasy.
This seems counter productive; because what is the point of a label offering variety? The purpose of the label is to give someone an idea of what to expect; we should remove all mystery labels as that would make it more of a mystery!
I struggle to see why one would feel the need to avoid the fine label of Science Fantasy in favour of Sci-Fi et cetera;
There is also the entirely acceptable umbrella category of Speculative Fiction.
As it is, some (not all), of the soft Sci-Fi are really a vain appropriation of the term Science;
Calling it science fantasy is accurate because there's some science in it. Thus, calling it loosely science fiction (in a mixture-subset sense) is ALSO accurate because there's science in it!
Well; if in real life I say I'm undergoing a scientific study, but I arbitrarily insert magical spells into it and violate a systematic (scientific) method, I'm no longer "performing science" (haha); it's Pseudo-Science; also known as not Science.
That the literary genre no longer encompasses Science & Speculative Science but also violations of known science without an explanation beyond magic in numerous places & without a focus on "a form of fiction that draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge and speculation in its plot, setting, theme, etc." is akin to calling an entire series a Murder Mystery because 1 unimportant background character was murdered & we don't know, & it wasn't used to drive character development or the plot.
It is at this point that the term "Science Fiction" hasn't so much evolved as grown to the point where it is no longer relevant to a particular style or category other than; electricity &/or robots &/or space &/or a focus on a speculative science/technology &/or someone explaining things in a 'systematic' manner.
It isn't just an umbrella category of (deep breath): Hard Sci-Fi, Space opera, Military, Punk (Cyberpunk, [biopunk, Nanopunk, Postcyberpunk], Steampunk [Clockpunk, Dieselpunk, Atompunk]), Dystopian, Alternative universe (Alternative history), Post-apocalyptic, Alien invasion, Scientific romance, & Soft Sci-Fi.
That last one has grown to mean anything that has almost any element of Fantasy; probably safe to say any of these: Comic fantasy, Dark fantasy, Contemporary fantasy, Heroic fantasy,
Magic realism, Fantasy of manners, Mythic, Paranormal fantasy, Superhero fantasy, Sword and sorcery, Low fantasy, Prehistoric fantasy, Medieval fantasy, Wuxia, & Paranormal romanceBut only so long as they then have an occurrence of electricity/robots/space.Basically if it is any of those + one to three of three things; it seems more accurate to say it that way rather than imply that it has anything to do with (Speculative) Science (Fiction); if they are dominant.After all;a non-specialized definition that says "science fiction is fiction about science", so a story that has both science and magic
It should be about Science. & because it's Science Fiction, a fairly intuitive, logical, and straight forward resolution is that it is about Speculative Science, which doesn't really imply magic, it can draw very imaginatively from it (which possibly correlates to softer Sci-Fi), but while an open reading of a variety of definitions could certainly allow various magical things, they aren't really implied or invited, & they merely inflate Sci Fi to overlap hugely with Fantasy & Science Fantasy;Which basically just means ones been able to appropriate one thing into another,(Which was possibly related to some people sadly feeling like their works-directed-at-adults would be taken more seriously if they were called Science Fiction, rather than Fantasy [or Science Fantasy] which is sometimes thought to be immature &/or 'for children' [which I think is inaccurate & unfair]... So I can see a reason for why this happened, although I don't think it was a good thing. & of course this may have played no part in it at all. People possibly just not being interested in meaningful labels in the first place.)& well, appropriation isn't useful; it's muddying waters, & makes it less clear what something is about.So I strongly stand that it isn't (typically) 'fair' to call something which is Science Fantasy Science Fiction. The presence of a given genres elements isn't enough for me to consider it part of that genre without taking other thing into account.Midi-chlorians Tangent?
(I'm not really sure how Midi-chlorians are that relevant here; they where a [faux-]science-y explanation for magic; saying that your variety of magic has a physical cause that assume-ably ties into actual 'physics' [of that universe] doesn't really present itself strongly as a Speculative (based off of real world {known}] Science [as apparently context didn't clear that up last time, so I hope that it's now clear that when I'm talking about Science {Fiction}, the word "Speculative" by itself refers to Speculative technologies {& theories}, not to the umbrella category that is "Speculative Fiction"];
Midi-chlorians were a less magical explanation; & would have debatably been able to change Star Wars [as a whole] from Science Fantasy[, Epic Space Opera] to Science Fiction[, Epic Space Opera] except that it never really explains how bodies disappear or a variety of other things; it's still very magical; hence it may be less fantastical it was still just Science Fantasy
[Although whilst some people didn't like say 'the giant robot reveal' there are similarities, but in neither case was this a genre changing moment.])
-
You've said "contradictorily banning" & frankly I still don't see the contradiction in it; unless that was about the quote (of a quote) from a since abandoned quote (by me), which ...you're formatting is somewhat confusing, although the n-built quoting system is cumbersome to say the least.
pointlessly requiring Science Fantasy to be a subset of fantasy (you CAN see it that way but it's more natural to see it as the middle of a spectrum, or basically its own category)
Well if you don't see Science Fantasy as a subset of Fantasy, then your Venn Diagram comparison doesn't work for you either.
I've said that Science Fantasy is more useful than simply saying Fantasy because why be less accurate than one can be (at the cost of a single word)?
the definitions you cited say nothing about one being limiting and the other not, whether in the sense of mixtures between the two being seen as subsets or not.
Indeed. I saw this as one of two internally-consistent interpretations, the other would be to not have one/either limiting the other; which would allow a lot of Science Fiction to be a subset of Fantasy; which seems to reminisce the unnaturalness of this;
If Science Fantasy shouldn't be required to be thought of as a subset of Fantasy, then nor should Science Fiction be thought of as a subset of Fantasy; this can be achieved one of two ways: one is to simply ignore it & pretend the distinction is explained, the other is to define the distinction by something along the lines of...
"That which can be classified as Science Fiction is no longer Fantasy (simply so as to make Fantasy a less broad term)."
Which lends itself to;
"That which can be classified as Science Fantasy is no longer Fantasy (simply so as to make Fantasy a less broad term)."
Although I would feel that people would not classify something under Fantasy if it could be adequately placed as a Science Fiction, (& so on, for Science Fantasy,)
As such my rule about something being Sci-Fi prohibiting Fantasy isn't much more than a formalisation of the convention of people trying to be accurate.
On a rather different note: for things that people aren't being imaginative enough to think of way for something to happen in a story that isn't magic; all Fantasy could be Science-Fiction by virtue that all things could be explained away by 'brain-in-a-jar'/'the matrix' scenarios.
[The work lends itself to the justification that it is in a world with a completely different set of things which underpin reality, & whilst various things in it could be put down to more intricate workings (Kanohi with complicated programming), it is an enormous stretch of the laws we know, that by the time it's all been fit together; so could essentially every other story.
If everything can be classified as something, then that particular classification is no longer that relevant. It might technically be a logical extreme, but it certainly isn't a functional one.]
However if this all still seems to be an illogical fallacy which can't be deduced, then:
I really can't see why you would want to do that except to create a way to cause really complex debates.
Maybe the simplicity of the more reasonable definition just bores you and you enjoy talking about genres too much to accept the simple, but the simple and accurate has value too. Especially for a project that is TRYING to keep the answers to these misconceptions simple and straightforward. Maybe, although not consciously.
For the record I wasn't trying to bring TV Tropes into this discussion, but the word "trope" did exist before that site. ...I think
Ultimately I'm content-happy if Bionicle is called a Science Fantasy (I strongly agree with this); whether they view that as a spectrum or something else. (I still see it as a spectrum of sorts, but to me Flowers for Algernon, Planet of the Apes, Star Trek are all examples of non-hard Sci-Fi, but still Sci-Fi)
As TV Tropes has been mentioned... To me, of Mohs Scale of Science Fiction Hardness: 4, 5, 6 are typically Sci-Fi; 3 certainly could be; 1 & 2 are Science Fantasy but probably with a focus on 'technology'.
My demarcation line may be too strict here, but this is an area where I feel it is advantageous to have a clear line; & it doesn't seem like it would shoehorn much at all (if anything), because the areas it would be cutting out could (& probably have already) be(en) called Science Fantasy.
Obviously my opinions differ to yours. I still don't really see how your interpretations invite these labels to be useful; as whilst they might avoid prescriptivism, they don't seem to be very descriptive ...so what is their use?
A general feel for something? 'My' system has that covered as well.
As it is, I'll be content-happy regardless of what people decide to call it
But frankly, I don't see why one would call Bionicle Fantasy xor Science Fiction; if nothing else but because Science Fantasy is somewhat more informative of this series.
Why say it's got, robots xor elemental powers, when I can say it's got robots with elemental powers et cetera; not a perfect example, but I think it illustrates this point.
Whether we agree or disagree that Bionicle could be Science Fiction, shouldn't really matter in the sense that to anyone putting a label on something, they might put: "Fantasy", "Science Fantasy", or "Science Fiction", but they are very unlikely to put more than one; barring that:
It isn't yet that uncommon to see see "Fantasy(,/&) Science Fiction" but this is often 'corrected' or read as Science Fantasy.
-
My thoughts are in essence:
Bionicle is Science Fantasy.
Science Fantasy is a sub-genre of Fantasy (but not a sub-genre of Science Fiction).
I don't understand what the fallacy is about calling something that takes elements of category A & category B, being a part of category B, but not category A if category A is defined in a way that elements of B don't fit in; category B in this case is in this case Sci-Fi.
As far as genres go;
The definition I use for Fantasy is: "imaginative fiction involving magic and adventure, especially in a setting other than the real world".
The definition I use for Science Fiction is: "fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets".
If one interprets that definition of Sci-Fi in a way that Sci-Fi doesn't prohibit Magic, then it's essentially on a lower hierarchical level than Fantasy, where the two sometimes overlaps, and ultimately any speculative technology isn't proven, and thus could be seen as magical; thus all Sci-Fi would technically be a sub-genre of Fantasy ...which doesn't seem very productive.
As that line of reasoning doesn't seem to be be common practice, and generally Sci-Fi & Fantasy seem to be viewed on the same level, then I think viewing Science Fiction as excluding the Supernatural is the logical conclusion (the alternative doesn't look productive).
As far as I'm concerned Magic isn't a speculative advancement; it is supernatural; & whilst things sometimes appear to be other than what they are; Bionicle contains things that really don't fit inside the realms of speculative possibilities; as such it no longer fits inside the bounds of Sci-Fi; but it does still fit inside the bounds of Fantasy; thus it is a Fantasy.
However Bionicle does contain many Sci-Fi elements so whilst it doesn't fit the definition of Sci-Fi, it certainly also fits the definition of Science Fantasy.
Thus "Bionicle is not Science Fiction", although "Bionicle is Fantasy", and more accurately (or rather, informative) "Bionicle is Science Fantasy" are all true (& "Bionicle is Science Fiction" is patently false).
Your comparison to Venn diagrams is to simple: both Fantasy & Science Fiction have a definition; the definition of one of them is more limiting than the other.
That Bionicle has contained robots is a Science Fiction element or trope; that Bionicle has magical things that can't be explained with anything speculative without completely rewriting physics (which isn't speculative physics in the sense that it isn't possible; it is essentially impossible).("If sci-fant can't be sub-sci-fi because it's not pure sci-fi, then logically sci-fant also can't be sub-fantasy because it's not pure fantasy either."
Wasn't the reasoning [i intended] to use. It isn't about 'purity' of tropes and elements used; it is whether any tropes or elements violate a definition. Robots are generally considered to be a Sci-Fi element, an element which isn't prohibited by the definition of fantasy, et cetera...)
That is all I think. Anything else I said before this post can be considered null & void ([{unless restated later}]).
Bionicle's Genre Discussion Continued...
in blogs_blog_39
A blog by bonesiii in General
Posted
All I particularly care about is that Science Fantasy is not a category under Sci-Fi;
I can see it as a category under Fantasy, but I can also see it just as its own thing;
I'm inclined to have it as a category beneath Fantasy, but I feel that is becoming less relevant to people today, so I'm open to simply having them as 3 separate categories entirely.
Frankly I don't really have any idea what bonesiii's actual opinion is; I know he considers Bionicle to be Science Fantasy (which pretty much everyone did), way back in another thread;
Boidoh dropped a quote that made it look like (to me) that Greg (one of the creators) thought Bionicle was Sci-Fi which looked utterly asinine to me, & bonesiii came in saying that I misunderstood Greg (which I did, his quote lacked proper context...)
But looking back over that I saw something relevant to you fishers64: "The method is fantastic, the idea scientific. Therefore there is both science and fantasy in here." which Mjolnitor actually came up with some good responses to (even if most aren't), because frankly that there is science in even Narnia (gravity works; implied that Science works in the real world because it's science & is otherwise RW physics + 'magic [on top]')
So if that's still your line of reasoning, it looks to be flawed because I don't see what explanation there is there, & I don't see how the idea is scientific in the slightest... essentially all Fantasy series have some science in them so why aren't they all Science Fantasy?
Robots and all the rest are certainly Sci-Fi elements; but I feel Sci-Fi is defined (by the way many people catergorise them, not just various dictionaries etc.) by something more; mainly that the series contains things that could be possible within known science (so if someone starts being telekinetic you better have a very good explanation);
If you have Magic (a Fantasy element, one that is more or less 'can not be explained by science or any current scientific speculation'), & Sci-Fi elements, it is Science Fantasy; but as that Magic is opposed to Sci-Fi, Science Fantasy can't be thought of a sub-genre of Sci-Fi, where as ...robots really aren't incompatible with Fantasy; they are (an extrapolation of) RW science, & there is already RW science in Fantasy.
Furthermore I see no reason why two different categories (which like all categories have some form of rules that tell you what can go in it) could have an asymmetric relationship in terms of what elements can go in them.
So for Science Fantasy to not be a sub-genre of Fantasy would either require an extra rule (either on it, or Fantasy), which I'm open to but I don't see much of a need for it, as we would be having the same results (although by different methods); me because I try to use the most specific genres I know.
Alternatively one wouldn't need an extra rule, but simply replace my rule (about Sci-Fi not containing Magic [the {essentially} 'impossible']), with one that states that Science Fantasy is not a sub-genre of Fantasy or Science Fiction.
Which I see as neither inherently better or worse than my proposition.
Or finally one could just define Sci-Fi as just (advanced)tech-ish stuff; but then why not just call it Tech..? etc. (Seems like one has managed to appropriate Sci-Fi into a synonym of pretty much just one word; tech-ish.)
Which does look bad to me; appropriation of words which doesn't even give them a different implication?
But going way back to
The first blog post is the size of a small novel, & the way he seemed to defend Greg calling Bionicle Science Fiction makes it look like Science Fantasy was just a more technical term...
Furthermore whilst he might not say it's a sub-genre of either of the others exactly, he does talk about it as a spectrum, & as he keeps on saying it could be viewed all these other ways (which he apparently doesn't himself) it could be viewed, that I don't agree with either, it leaves me little room other than to state my reasoning and offer a counterpoint to his counterpoints.
IF you both view them as three distinct genres on the same level; that is a rule you have added on, instead of that rule I just have a rule stating that Magic can't be in Sci-Fi (which logically follows on that Science Fantasy can't be a sub-genre of it, & it being a sub-genre was only relevant because I was contesting that something that was Science Fantasy could not be Science Fiction).
Both are rules that aren't explicitly found in any definitions; however the results of both aren't particularly alien to how people classify things presently.
Were very confusing; he accepted there someone calling it a Sci-Fi, so maybe I've quote mined him by accident (as he did to me a few posts up), it happens from time to time, but that sort of thing makes me inclined to try and deal with every side I can think of; because his stance seems to change very quickly.
My intention was to 'disprove' 1, I tried to invoke 2 just to show why there was a big wall between Science Fantasy & Science Fiction ; I'm open to a wall also existing in-between Fantasy & Science Fiction; but all I ever cared about was that something that is a Science Fantasy can not truly be called a Sci-Fi.
If everyone agrees that something which is Science Fantasy can not correctly be called Sci-Fi I am happy; the only other reason I have tried to follow the various other posts on all the related matters is to defend what I think on genre classification.