Seymour Hamilton's Blog - Posts Tagged "lotr"
Where does SF end and F begin?
The line between Science Fiction and Fantasy is blurry, so I'd like to offer my take on this somewhat subjective distinction. I think the distinction is in the works -- the way things get done.
If its works work by magic, it's Fantasy. Children get to Narnia by magic, pouf, that's it. When they arrive, they interact with characters who work magic by using words of power, and there are levels of magic that connect to good and evil, as in the "Deep Magic" that brings Aslan back to life. The Lord of the Rings is Fantasy, because both the One Ring and the Nine are magic that responds to their bearers’ unaided will. All those non-humans who try to love or kill Sookie Stackhouse are magical beings, as are all the other shape-shifters, were-wolves and the various fae who are imported directly from Europe and the Middle Ages.
If its works work by natural law (even if those laws are as yet undiscovered by our contemporary science) it's Science Fiction. People get to Darkover by spaceship. Once there, “matrix technology” allows those who have the talent and have learned the craft practice teleportation and telepathy. Heinlein’s Glory Road is unashamed fantasy, but he never made a hobbit of it. All his many earlier stories are anchored in scientific reality, although as he grew older and wrote Stranger in a Strange Land, he heads towards Fantasy by giving his hero inexplicable powers that operate outside both Newton’s and Einstein’s physics. So does Arthur C. Clarke in 2001 A Space Odyssey, when the story and its hero go beyond transportation to transubstantiation -- or something with a decidedly mystical overtone.
If the story ends with the intervention by some fresh outside force that has not featured in the story thus far, it’s Fantasy. Aristotle, who was a keen observer of story telling, called this kind of ending the “Deus ex Machina” or “God in a Machine” ending. He thought it inferior to stories that end by untying the knot (the denouement) made by the characters and their fate. He might have liked the way hard core Science Fiction remains consistent to what we know as, or can extrapolate from science.
If the story ends with its assumptions working, no matter how exotic they may be, then it’s Science Fiction. Asimov’s robots follow the robotic laws, and if there is a glitch or exception, it’s explained. Larry Niven’s Ringworld is self-consistent: even though his characters keep on finding more about how it works, the substrate logic is firmly scientific. Newton and Einstein might wince, but they would appreciate the inventiveness.
There is a grey area, to be sure. But the distinction is important to me, in that I claim that my story, The Astreya Trilogy, earmarked as Fantasy, is also Science Fiction, because it is at the border between the two genres. Astreya’s world is an alternate world similar to the 17th Century, (there’s no rule that SF has to be in the future) and its departures from what is known today and was known then are all self-consistent. Nobody waves a wand or mutters arcane words of power. The conclusion is inherent in the characters and the way their corner of the universe works.
On which quibble (incorporating a deftly hidden plug for my book), I rest my case.
If its works work by magic, it's Fantasy. Children get to Narnia by magic, pouf, that's it. When they arrive, they interact with characters who work magic by using words of power, and there are levels of magic that connect to good and evil, as in the "Deep Magic" that brings Aslan back to life. The Lord of the Rings is Fantasy, because both the One Ring and the Nine are magic that responds to their bearers’ unaided will. All those non-humans who try to love or kill Sookie Stackhouse are magical beings, as are all the other shape-shifters, were-wolves and the various fae who are imported directly from Europe and the Middle Ages.
If its works work by natural law (even if those laws are as yet undiscovered by our contemporary science) it's Science Fiction. People get to Darkover by spaceship. Once there, “matrix technology” allows those who have the talent and have learned the craft practice teleportation and telepathy. Heinlein’s Glory Road is unashamed fantasy, but he never made a hobbit of it. All his many earlier stories are anchored in scientific reality, although as he grew older and wrote Stranger in a Strange Land, he heads towards Fantasy by giving his hero inexplicable powers that operate outside both Newton’s and Einstein’s physics. So does Arthur C. Clarke in 2001 A Space Odyssey, when the story and its hero go beyond transportation to transubstantiation -- or something with a decidedly mystical overtone.
If the story ends with the intervention by some fresh outside force that has not featured in the story thus far, it’s Fantasy. Aristotle, who was a keen observer of story telling, called this kind of ending the “Deus ex Machina” or “God in a Machine” ending. He thought it inferior to stories that end by untying the knot (the denouement) made by the characters and their fate. He might have liked the way hard core Science Fiction remains consistent to what we know as, or can extrapolate from science.
If the story ends with its assumptions working, no matter how exotic they may be, then it’s Science Fiction. Asimov’s robots follow the robotic laws, and if there is a glitch or exception, it’s explained. Larry Niven’s Ringworld is self-consistent: even though his characters keep on finding more about how it works, the substrate logic is firmly scientific. Newton and Einstein might wince, but they would appreciate the inventiveness.
There is a grey area, to be sure. But the distinction is important to me, in that I claim that my story, The Astreya Trilogy, earmarked as Fantasy, is also Science Fiction, because it is at the border between the two genres. Astreya’s world is an alternate world similar to the 17th Century, (there’s no rule that SF has to be in the future) and its departures from what is known today and was known then are all self-consistent. Nobody waves a wand or mutters arcane words of power. The conclusion is inherent in the characters and the way their corner of the universe works.
On which quibble (incorporating a deftly hidden plug for my book), I rest my case.
