Fantasy Aficionados discussion

Soo and I had a discussion today. Steampunk. Is it Science Fiction or Fantasy. Support your conclusion please.

:D

(cross posted in Girls, Guns, and Grimoires)

*puts on my genre anal retentive cap*

Fantasy.

For a book to be labeled Sci-Fi - to me - it has to have hard science. If there is no hard science that is important to the plot (not just a part of the plot)(with an attempt to explain how it works) then it's just Fantasy with a science veneer.

i consider Star Wars to be Fantasy. Space Opera/Science Fantasy.

I consider The Ship Who Sang and its series to be Sci-Fi.

Thanks MrsJ, I knew you could be counted upon.

(And please do not tell my mother I ended a sentence with a preposition . . .)

Steampunk--usually fantasy, at least the ones I've read lately, that either have fantasy worlds (The Tales of the Ketty Jay), or fantasy characters like vampires (Greyfriar), werewolves (Parasol Protectorate), and zombies (The Boneshaker).

I agree that The Ship Who Sang to be Sci-Fi but I don't agree that it fits under your requirements of hard science.

Science Fiction: Stories that have a strong science element to the story: medical science, futuristic science, space travel, technology, etc.

Fantasy: Stories that have elements of creative make belief that involves magic, legends, paranormal, supernatural, mythical and or other.

Steampunk: Innovative technology and use of speculative science as a major part of the story, plot or world building. Originally began with the idea of steam powered machinery in alternative history setting.

Steampunk is what it is because of the cool gadgets and use of technology. Not necessarily due to magic and tech being combined. Sure, the crazy and cool bits that make up Steampunk what it is can be very fanciful but it wouldn't be Steampunk without tech. For that reason, I put it under the Sci-Fi umbrella. I'm not saying that Steampunk books do not ever cross genres. I'm just saying that I believe the technical aspect of Steampunk makes it more science related than fantasy.

Magic is not the first thing that comes to mind when I think about Steampunk novels. I think about the cool machines, gadgets and innovative engineering.

Soo wrote: "I agree that The Ship Who Sang to be Sci-Fi but I don't agree that it fits under your requirements of hard science. "

It has some pretty hard science elements that are required for the series to function: the brainships themselves. Maybe her science is wrong...but that's cool w/me. I'm not a science person so I can't tell.

The thing with Fantasy - for me - is that magic is not really a requirement. Look at The Troll Hunter. There's not a lick of "magic" in it but it's Fantasy. It has - as Carol mentioned - a fantastic creature: a troll.

See, I would argue that it isn't *really* tech . . . tech - to me - futuristic technology that we are still dreaming of, or, at the very least, current technology gone awry.

All the books I have read, or looked into reading, that are considered steam punk, are around the time of the industrial revolutionish and the technology is nothing new or even current. I find that very hard to classify as science fiction.

It is the other stuff *around* the tech that puts it in the realm of even speculative fiction - otherwise it would simply be historical fiction.

Supplementary question: Can a book be both historical AND science fiction?

I think it can be either, or both*, depending on the story, but I would say the nuts and bolts of it is, as Soo says, about the tech and, thus, sci-fi.

That said, a lot of more recent books have added the whole vampire/were/zombie aspect to it, making it cross more into fantasy (though that's a bit ironic itself considering how many people complain about such things not being horror anymore).

Though I would say even then it depends on whether such things are considered supernatural or given a sort of scientific reasoning.

For instance, in God Save the Queen by Kate Locke, vampirism and werewolfism are mutations caused by the Bubonic plague, specifically the way that it interacted with certain genetics. Now, I tagged it as urban fantasy, but if someone labelled those aspects sci-fi - I wouldn't argue the point. I mean, it does give a scientific basis, albeit of a far-fetched sort.


As to the supplementary question - I would say that anyone who thinks steampunk is, or can be, sci-fi will obviously say that a book can be both historical and science fiction.

I think of it as the fact that the tech in most of these books would be futuristic from the perspective of real Victorians. I mean, properly sci-fi steampunk takes technology that could've been speculated at the time, based on what was there (i.e. steam-power, clockwork, etc), and extrapolates a situation in which the tech of the time was more advanced than they ever achieved.

Also, the granddaddy's of the genre were Victorian sci-fi stories - Jules Verne and H. G. Wells come to mind. The only difference is that modern steampunk writers writes from the perspective of nostaligia, but the stories come from the same sort of place - the what-if x tech existed, what would that mean?


* People are so dichotomous. Sheesh.

What Colleen said.

Seriously. That was great. I was actually thinking of Verne and Wells when I was reading this thread, then got to her post.

Well done, Coleen Colleen.

Thanks, Cris. ;)

I think I agree mostly with Colleen, if I understand her correctly--(edit) although actually I'm a bit confused. Colleen, do you think there exist steampunk written after the technology became outdated that counts as scifi?

I suppose I separate speculative fiction based on authorial intent. To me, science fiction is where the author believes (and the reader is intended to believe) that there is some small probability that the core "what-if" idea could actually happen. Fantasy is a "what-if" that can never become reality. That means that I'd stick all retro-futuristic steampunk in fantasy, but the industrial-revolution-era speculative fiction, like Verne, Wells, and Shelley, in science fiction. (Yep, I think Frankenstein is scifi.) Of course, the whole "core what-if" aspect makes this definition awfully fuzzy.

I think wires are getting crossed, 'cause I'm saying retro-futuristic steampunk can very well be sci-fi - especially the tech heavy, sans supernatural ones.

It never happened, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened if things hadn't've gone differently.

I see--yes, I realized I read it wrong the first time. I think my perspective is probably skewed because (a) I've never read steampunk that doesn't fall neatly into science fantasy based other paranormal aspects, and (b) I associate scifi with a certain earnestness--either a desire to warn us about potential future disasters, or a wish to paint a potential utopia--that most of the Golden Age (hard) scifi writers seem to share. I'm not really sure I can characterize the difference between soft scifi and science fantasy, actually.

This is my issue. Science Fiction to me must be futuristic - I prefer spaceships and flying cars, but I will take the whole the earth killed itself thing. Well, I will classify it as sci-fi, it is NOT my favorite form of reading.

And, to me, the futuristic aspect is totally dependent on when it was *written*. 1984 . . . sci-fi. Think of some of the sci-fi we are reading today - in 50 years, it will be past tense. This is why I *prefer* my sci-fi hundreds of years into the future. ;)

I don't even think of steampunk as "a thing." It's just not a category I've found very useful.

If there's magic involved: Fantasy

If the story is in the writer's past but involves alternate technology (say a working Babbage machine in the early 1800s) - Alternate History

If the story is in the writer's future even if it's in our past (A Logic named Joe by Murray Leinster published in 1946 but takes place in the far-off 1970s) - Science Fiction

I just don't see the need for a steampunk category.

Subgenres are bad, mm'kay.

As to the 'having to be future' thing... I kinda get that people expect xci-fi to be futuristic, 'cause it "always" was. But, to me, that's like saying that fantasy not set in a pseudo-medieval timeperiod isn't fantasy 'cause it goes against tradition.

ETA: Ultimately, it's no skin off my nose how other people want to label things. As long as ya don't go on some kind of crusade, or something, trying to convince people who do think of steampunk as sci-fi, then it's just a personal preference thing and to each their own an dall that rot.

If you're going to force my arm I'd say fantasy. Most steampunk (or at least most of the ones I've read/seen) have some form of magic or supernatural elements in there. IMO you can't have that and still be sci-fi.

Otherwise I'm tempted to say: neither. It often mixes conventions of both sci-fi and fantasy, while often being something different entirely. So I'd make it a separate subgenre under the speculative fiction umbrella. (Dieselpunk and tweedpunk and gearpunk and gaslamp fantasy and idk what else they come up with get lumped under the same header, they're basically the same thing with a different aesthetic.)

I see your point about sci-fi, Colleen.

I think where we diverge is how the tech is used. In all of the steampunk I've read (which isn't a great deal, tbh) the entire population had access to the tech. It wasn't new to them - just alternative to what *real life* timeline/tech use we have now.

For me that's not really science fiction it's more like science fact. Usually sci-fi has some tech that no one (or very few) have access to - and the rest of the population would liken it to aliens/magic - or its set in a futuristic time frame.

I find that Professor Elemental does a fine job of explaining Steampunk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgM4p...

I don't try to consider it either genre. It's a fusion of both, in my opinion.

MrsJoseph wrote: "I see your point about sci-fi, Colleen.

I think where we diverge is how the tech is used. In all of the steampunk I've read (which isn't a great deal, tbh) the entire population had access to t..."

But the stories set in the future often have tech which everyone uses, so I don't see a difference.

Also, there is some steampunk which is Bond-ish - in the sense that only the secret agent types really have the gadgets.

Except for zepplins. Zepplins are freaking ubiquitous in steampunk.

Steve wrote: "I find that Professor Elemental does a fine job of explaining Steampunk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgM4p...

I don't try to consider it either genre. It's a fusion of both, in my opinion."

That was fun, thanks.

I'm still partial to 'Just Glue Some Gears on (and call it Steampunk)'. Can't link to it, tho, 'cause this tablet sucks.

Ugh - this thread got lost in my update feed . . .


Personally, I find subgenres to only be helpful if one has a very limited purview in which they wish to read. Or, if they wish to totally rule out one such subgenre. (As in, me with vampires. :D) I am learning, albeit slowly, not to rule *any*thing out based on subgenre.

Must. become. more. open. minded.