Conference noted::sf

	There is no more clear distinction than there is in what defines 
Science Fiction.  As was pointed out, Sinclair Lewis' _Arrowsmith_ was
by many definitions "science fiction"; i.e., the medical/technical 
aspect was central to the story, yet people clearly ... instinctively? ...
classify it as Mainstream.  Likewise, the Lord D'Arcy stories clearly
straddle the fence: if you accept the thaumaturgy as a science, it's
clearly Science Fiction (and please to note: the stories were published
in Astounding/Analog when under the editorship of John W. Campbell, the 
hardest-nosed hard-science science fiction editor in the history of the
genre); otherwise, it's fantasy.  A. Mwrritt's books occasionally tried
to put a veneer of rationalism on their premeses -- _The Face in the 
Abyss_, for instance, treats the elements in a 1930s-level discussion of
nuclear physics and genetic engineering -- but they're considered fantas-
ies (Merritt is occasionally referred to as "The Lord of Fantasy").
Even in _Conan the Conqueror_ he has the sorcerer explain a demon as
"a child of outer space" or some such, and when Conan couldn't grasp
that, say to him, "Well, consider it magic, then."  But that definitely
is a fantasy to all who read it.  Ray Bradbury's clear fantasies (e.g.,
"Mars is Heaven") are considered Science Fiction.  Jack Vance's _Dying 
Earth_ stories clearly try to be both.
	Science Fiction, therefore, is what readers of the genre >consider<
Science Fiction, and Fantasy is what readers of Fantasy >consider< fantasy.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

         So a western could be considered science fiction? I don't think
 so. Clearly, there is no 100% accurate definition. However there must
 be guidelines which lean a story to one of the categories. These 
 criteria for classifying the story are present throughout the story,
 not as just isolated passages as you have pointed out. 
         The instinctive idea is undoubtedly correct, but that just
 puts the question off, for there must be certain characteristics in
 a story which trigger the instinct. Those are the characteristics that
 I am attepting to define.

      -- Andy

One of the main criteria for science fiction, in my opinion, is the
presence of some technology that is more advanced than that of the time
period of the story, but is still recognizable as technology. (How's
that?) So, a Western that included gunfighters with ray-guns might be
science fiction (how about the movie "Time Rider"?). Old science fiction
films dealt with things like space travel, that are not impossible but
were not possible at the time.

I guess the second group of science fiction type works are those dealing
with societies on other worlds that are at least as technologically advanced
as modern-day Earth. Another group might be those that are about any kind
of space travel, although I've read some that are a lot closer in feel
to fantasy.

Try to categorize "The Witches of Karres"; there's magic, or is it psi-power?
There are spaceships, but they aren't the main point of the story.

"The Ship Who Sang" is obviously science fiction, but it feels more like
fantasy because the emphasis isn't on the technical whiz-bangery, although
that is a major element of the plot.

Well, I'm just rambling, so I'd better quit for now. I guess I don't really
mind that there going to be stories that defy classification; it makes things
so much more interesting!

-b

	Could the attitude expressed by the author and/or characters have 
anything to do with it?  Could a story be science fiction if 1) it is fiction 
and 2) technical problem solving behavior is viewed positively?  (I am not 
saying that the problems get solved.  Stand on Zanzabar ends up on a pretty 
hopeless note but is still science fiction.)  This would let out the western 
with ray gun type stories since the behavior is "might makes right" rather 
than "lets fix this".

	Now, can something similar be used to set off "Fantasy"?

	Hum.  Maybe the author's handling of the thing -- the style, the
tone, etc. -- might play a part.  A good Grimm Bros. fairy tale such as "the
glass mountain" had a technical problem that was "solved" by the knight put-
ting spikes horseshoes on his mount -- byt c'mon: it was clearly a fantasy.
The difficulty here is that -MANY- science fiction authors have tried to
put a clear definition on the subject, but with middling to less-than-that
success.  See essays on this in Sprague de Camp's _Science Fiction Handbook_
and Isaac's _Asimov On Science Fiction_ as well as Esbach's _Of Worlds Beyond_
Davenport'd _Inquiry Into Science Fiction_ ... and all of them come up with
one or more approximations -- no more.
	Is _1984_ Science Fiction?  It doesn't fit the definition in .-1.  Is
_The Long Loud Silence?_ _Ot of the Silent Planet_?  How about shorts like
"Seeds of the Dusk?" "With Folded Hands?" "Solution Unsatisfactory?"  None
with a "Let's fix it" theme (more like "don't let it happen!!"), but recog-
nizably Science Fiction.

Steve

	For what another two cents is worth, I disagree with the western
	Science Fiction exclusion... how about WESTWORLD, the movie?

	To me, the difference is whether the plot pivots around the use
	of technology (SF) or pivots around people and their abilities (F).
	Interesting people using fancy gadgets strattles the fence and
	will usually appeal to both types of readers.

	Also, you may be able to use straight fiction to help in
	differentiating.  If it could not or can not be happening then
	we are SF/F.  If the reason the story is not possible but
	could happen someday, we have SF.  Given that the story could never
	happen (according to the `known' laws of nature) you have Fantasy.
	Stories can move from F to SF because our knowledge of the laws
	of nature are always being expanded.


		Bob L.

      I agree with the point that something recognizable as technology must
be present in a science fiction story. However, I believe there is a broader
sense to this. In science fition, the technology, setting, and such can be
seen as hving some relation to the present, be it futuristic advancement or
degeneration. However, in fantasy, the background can not be derived from
present day earth. Advancement and degeneration are jumbled in fantasy stories.
I KNOW THERE MUST BE EXCEPTIONS TO THIS, however as a general guideline,it
works. 
          
     -- Andy

Some interesting points are made here. Here's something else to chew on:

(1) Richard McKenna always felt that his rather famous novel, THE SAND
PEBBLES, was science fiction. Why? Because it was fiction about science,
in this case, sociology. I'm not sure I buy that, but it's an interesting
point of view.

(2) Is SPACE by James Michener sf? It's really nothing more than a fictional-
ization of events that have actually happened.

(3) There are some instances in which how something is categorized might
depend on the beliefs of the categorizer. Stories dealing with some sort of
psychic powers? SF or fantasy? Stephen King had his THE DEAD ZONE removed
from consideration for the World Fantasy Award one year claiming that it was
sf, not fantasy. The way I see it, it depends on how the concept is treated.
In THE DEAD ZONE, as well as CARRIE and FIRESTARTER, King treats the psi-
powers as being of a physiological basis, rather than a supernatural one.
In my estimation, this makes them sf.

When it comes right down to it, I'm not sure that I *care* to distinguish
sf from fantasy. Other than there being certain types of fantasy that I don't
care for, I don't feel any great need to differentiate them to any degree
greater than "sf is what I point to and say, `That's sf'; fantasy is what I
point to and say, `That's fantasy'."

--- jerry

Maybe this might make sense of a mishmash (or vice versa):

	Rather than thinking in terms of a binary state (flip:SF/flop:fantasy),
we might more constructively think in terms of a continuous spectrum rang-
ing from **hard** Science Fiction on one end (e.g., _Mission of Gravity_ or
any of the early Gernsbackian stories rife with footnotes) to total Fantasy
on the other (e.g., "The Seven-League Boots," "The Happy Prince," or other
unabashed fairy tale), and admit that in between lie things with some wle-
ments of both.  For those who consider parapsychology a legitimate science,
a story like _Jack Of Eagles_ is solid SF; for those who don't, it's Fantasy.
Some would argue heatedly that all of Doc Smith's novels except _Spacehounds
of IPC_ are fantasy since all involve superluminal transportation; some would
say that the Lensman stories are Science Fiction since the neutralization of
inertia gets around restrictions of relativity, but that the Skylark stories
clearly are Fantasy (Doc himself prefaced _The Skylark Of Space_ by saying
the whole story was based on an "indefensible assumption"; however, there
are even those who would claim that the Skylark series really should be
classified as Science Fiction.
	The Lord D'Arcy stories are predicated upon the assumption that the
Laws of Magic "exist," and that in a parallel continuum they are exploited.
Fantasy?  Science Fiction?  Both? 
	Eric Frank Russell, in a not-too-well-known but pleasant novel, _Sen-
tinels of Space_, had his hero reflect, "There are no supernatural powers.
There are just natural powers that people haven't recognized yet."  An
interesting concept (used effectively in a highly multi-psi-powered society)
that would imply that there are no fantasies .... at least no Fantasy as
a separate category.  I don't buy that, but it's an interesting perspective.
	To the Outside World, there's little differentiation; "insiders" might
best resolve where they draw the line bwtween the two subgenres.

Steve

I don't consider myself a "science fiction" fan any more.
I've gone back to a phrase that has come and gone in acceptability
over the years "speculative fiction."
Certainly, all fiction is "speculative" in some sense, or else it would
be non-fiction, but I like the term because it invokes a "what if"
frame of mind that is not limited to technological capability.
One of the most impressive novels of the last few years is Kingsbury's
"Courtship Rite."  It is clear from the story that the civilization portrayed
came to its present position by interstellar travel, but the focus of the
story is the extrapolations from the basic "speculation" of what a
civilization would come to if organic resources were severely limited
in variety (most of the native plant life is poisonous, and there are
no animals).  Cannibalism results.  This speculation is treated in a very
matter-of-fact way, forcing the reader to participate in the speculation.

Of course, there is still "scientific speculation" vs. "supernatural
speculation," which reopens the fundamental discussion,
but I find that considering the attractive element of the genre to be
"speculation" reduces these distinctions to points of personal
preference of the same order that one might love lobster boiled or steamed,
but hate it baked and stuffed.

- tom powers]

re .2:

Have you ever seen the series in the Heavy Metal Magazine that takes place in 
a town in Texas?  I still haven't figured out if it SF, F, or a western.

Beth

        1. My point about the westerns has been misinterpreted. I meant to say
that a pure western, such as "High Noon", or "Gunsmoke" could be considered
science fiction by the completely subjective attitude suggested in .1

        2. Re .9:  Although the scale idea is an interesting conception, it
still does nothing more than put the question off. What are the characteristics
of a story (in general, not just in specific examples) that place the story
somewhere on the scale?

        3. "Space" would probabally be best considered as historical fiction, asthe events in the series have already happened.
 With today's space travel
advancements, simply setting a stroy in space does not necessarily make it
science fiction.

         -- Andy

Here I go again ..

re .-1, it's not that I'm trying to put the question off as to try to de-
velop a little order in what professionals don't agree on.  Sprague de Camp
once wrote an admitted fantasy where a problem (in this case fire-elemental
Salamanders) are defeated by a >technological< solution (thermite -- because
they couldn't stand >>real<< heat).  A fantasy that wouldn't work without
the technological content.  See also *Three Hearts and Three Lions* (which
I didn't particularly care for -- sorry, Poul --)  where fairy gold was
dangerous because it was radioactive ....  Is the intelligent whirlwind
in Heinlein's "Our Fair City" >impossible<?  Probably, but can it be 
proven?  the point is that if you ask a dozen different professional authors
for their definitions of SF and F, you'll probably get thirteen or fourteen
different answers!  *The Witches of Karres* is [nominally] SF, but only if
you accept Klatha.  Further, if you accept that something not-technologic-
ally-impossible-at-the-time-of-writing as something that differentiates SF
from F, you run into a lot of trouble with works like Lucian's *Historia
Verum* or Ariosto's *Orlando Furioso* both of which involved trips to the
Moon by means that were not known to be impossible when written.  Yet one
could easily argue that, say, Weinbaum's "Parasite Planet" or "A Martian
Odyssey" qualify as SF.  Yet at the time Verne wrote *From Earth to the 
Moon* and the lesser-known (but more entertaining) *Hector Servadac*
Newtonian physics was firmly enough established to show the impossibility
of the premeses -- and they're considered SF.
	the point is, by loosening up the definition, we let in more works
(Verne derided Welles' lunar trip story because the latter used Cavorite),
but fuzz the "science" aspect.
	As Ken Olsen said about minicomputers, "They are like miniskirts. 
It's hard to define exactly what one is, but you know what it is when
you see it."  The same would hold true with SF -- and F, for that matter.

Steve

   Here I come again....

          I never intended to find a harline absolute defintion of both
genres. However, I was also not looking for total futility or total 
subjectivity on the subject. Instead of making a list of all the exceptions
to the rule, there must be some general but distinct differences between
the two classifications. i.e. a twelve foot long skirt can not be classified
as a miniskirt.

     -- Andy

	Okay, on that basis, let's try to synthesize in a nice, Hegelian mish-
mash.  If we take the idea of a story that could not be possible without
its "technological" content, without delving too deeply into the technology
involved, then the idea of "feeling" or "sense" can come into play.  Let's
take, as example, _Conan the Conqueror_ and _Too Many Magicians_.  In the
former, there was magic, enchantments, spells, Deadly Implements ... the
works.  But deadly as they were, they were not >inhherently< essential
ingredients (one equally strange menace could be interchanged for another).
By contrast, in _Too Many Magicians_, while the technology was subordinated,
it was critical.  Nearly a third of the book was devoted to defining the
limitations of magical functions rather than just throwing them into the 
pot: and that's why a murder mystery in a world of sorcerers could be 
legitimately solved by a reader of TMM, whereas the only way you'd find
out a magical killer in a Conan story would be circumstantially rather than
by deduction and induction.
	With that perspective, SF could be classified as a story that uses
a "technology" with finite and understandable limits (even if not under-
stood limits: we can postulate a mind like that of an Arisian's, but that
doesn't mean we have such a mind ourselves), whereas F uses mechanisms without
clearly defined or understandable limits.
	When I was in kneepants, I heard radio dramas about a kid with a genie
and a bad witch, and the witch threw boots at the kid, the genie then threw
stronger bolts at the witch, etc.....  Fantasy.

Steve

        I like it, I like it....

Who cares whether it is SF or F? The only important distinction to me
is:
		Do I like it? or not?


MartyJ

re: .17

"I don't know much about art, but I know what I like."
The arguments of categorization often seem trivial, but we generally find
that we have to pigeon hole our world to continue making sense in it.
Marty, how do you decide whether to begin reading a work unless you
know within some bounds what genre it fits?  Surely there must be some
classification of literature you dislike, or prefer less than others.
What lines do you draw?

- tom]

	Re .17:  Frankly, I'm surprised that someone would slog through
>>>sixteen<< replies just to say, "Why cares?"  Or, for that matter,
would bother to read .0.  The probkem is, the question was asked, and
several of us tried to provide an answer.  In so doing, I, at least, had
my perceptivities sharpened, which is why I'm now writing .19!
	The crux of the question is how you can draw a line if you wish to:
as shoulkd be obvious from the discusson so far, it isn't the extremes
(e.g., _Mission Of Gravity_ on one end and _Cinderella_ on the other), it's
the middle of the spectrum that raises the interesting questions.
	This is not *exactly* to dismiss out of hand the person who says,
"Who cares?"; but it's to say the discussions above are for those who
_do_ care.

Steve

      Finally, it appears that I agree with Steve Kallis' first reply.
Whether you care or not, there is some sort of objective difference between
the two genres. Whether that difference affects your tastes or not is not
the subject of this note series.

        -- Andy

re:.18

How do I choose? First, I check if the book is by an author I like. If 
not, I read the back cover, and the first few pages. If they interest me 
I will buy the book. If not, I'll get a friend's opinion (or check this 
file) to decide if I will buy the book.


MartyJ

P.S. Why are people amazed that I would go through a mere 18 replies 
just to remark "who cares"? I am a frequent reader of SOAPBOX. Replies 
there average in the 60s with a couple of notes approaching 600 replies!

      When you read the back cover of a book in order to choose, aren't
there ceratain things about it which turn you off or on?  Or are you a
completely random person with no specific likes and dislikes? Are not
there certain concepts which you think are to unbelieveable (perhaps in
a fantasy story) or perhaps you feel that stories are too self-confining
(perhaps in a science fiction story). If you read read the back covers
too choose your books, then you classify whether you are conscious of it
or not.

      -- Andy

Of course I classify! Whether I think I would like to read that 
particular book or not - which is the only *really* important 
classification.


MartyJ

Well, alright, it looks like we could be chasing ourselves in a circle in
the last exchanges.  I really think that the *theme* of thids file was
"how do you tell the difference between a SF story and a fantasy?"  this
has NOTHING to do with personal tastes (aesthetics), but rather classifi-
cation.  If someone plays some music on a phonograph and asks me whether
I like it, I'll be honest and say what I feel.  If someone plays a piece
of music and asks me how I would classify it, that's something else.
	From our notes above, the real question was "is such-and-such a
SF story?"  Let's take a good middleground story: _The Witches of Karres_.
It was *sold* as SF, and it certainly had SF elements in it.  But ig you
cannot accept Klatha (Hal Clement, who likes the stories, for instance, 
doesn't), it has to be classified as Fantasy.
	_the Incomplete Enchanter_, for instance, *could* be classified as
SF if you take the premesis: different continuua, different laws.  this
was accwptable in the Lensmen stories for n-space (though the laws weren't
as different as in Harold Shea's worlds), though few people , including
Sprague deCamp, would yake that seriously.
	In the late 1940s through mid 1950s, some tried to define the
middle ground as "Science Fantasy, an awkward solution at best.
	I stand by my previous synthesis (above); but if someone wishes to
start a notesfile on "what stories I like/dislike," more power to him
or her.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    You were just waiting to accuse me of avoiding the question, weren't you!

    Two very good points were made in the last response, however. The first
is that this is a objective classification note, not a note on subjective
tastes.

    The second point made concerns laws in a science fiction story. Perhaps
another difference between the two genres is that in science fiction, physical
laws are eitheir the laws of "our" universe, or as yet undiscovered laws. In
fantasy, the natural laws can be defined as anything by the author.

    By the way, have we come to any concise consensus about what the difference
is yet?

      -- Andy (ERIE::MORSE)

	Since near books have been written on the topic, I don't know how con-
cise a definition can be, however, after about 20 mastications, how does 
this sound?:

	Science fiction is a discipline wherein the technological content
of the story is pivotal and is not in known violation of natural laws or
relies on rules technologically acceptable to the reader; fantasy is a
discipline wherein the technology is not restricted nor is not necessarily
pivotal to the story, but retains a major influence.  "Technology," in
this definition includes physical, biological, and other sciences, in-
cluding mental (psychology), generally extended beyond today's applications.

	Interestingly, though this is still a *broad* definition, some good
SF stories fall outside it, like "The Day Is Done," the story of the last
Neanderthal.  But in terms of Venn diagrams, it creates the largest domain
for the class.

The ***real*** problem: how can we determine whether we have a concensus
on this?

Regards

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Sorry, I can not agree that science fiction requires technology to be not in
conflict with natural laws.  Any story involving hyperspace would be fantasy. 
Here is my definition: 

Science fiction is either:

	a)	stories in which science or technology is a significant part
		and the laws are the same as ours or
	b)	stories in which the natural laws are different from our own
		but are self-consistent.

Science fiction can be sub-divided:

	Hard science fiction is science fiction in which science or technology
	is a significant part of the plot -- e.g., the protagonist designs
	spaceships.

	Soft science fiction is science fiction in which science or technology
	is a part of the background.

Fantasy is:

	stories in which the natural laws are not self-consistent.

This is a pretty broad definition in some areas.  Stories involving magic can
be assumed to be usually inconsistent, since if magic worked in our world, it
would violate laws such as conservation of energy.  But it is possible for an
author make an otherwise fantasy story into science fiction by stating that
the law of conservation of energy does not exist (or that there is some other
reason for the non-conflict).  That is, you assume that our laws hold in
addition to the extra laws, unless a directly contradictory law appears to be
intended to replace a law (such as is evidenced by the introduction of
hyperspace) or it is stated in some other way that the law should not hold.


				-- edp (WHOAREYOU note 329)

	... A few points:

1)	To some people, hyperspace *is* fantasy.  However, we cannot (yet)
     prove that hyperspace doesn't or can't exist, which is why it can
     still fit as SF.

2)   "Natural law" can be pretty broad.  In the aforementioned _Too Many
     Magicians_ the "natural laws" were *not* in conflict with the "magic."
     (As an aside, most current schools of magical theory [see, for instance,
     P. E. I. Bonewits' _Real Magic_] assume their fouces are in accord
     with natural law (e.g., conservation of mass/energy), but that those 
     forces tap external energies.  If we accept this definition, do all
     (or even most) stories involving magic become SF?  Not hardly!

3)   There is a time element here.  Most of Verne's technology was faulty
     *when he wrote his atories* but everybody to this day considers them
     SF.

4)   Time even claims "hard SF" stories.  Take _Sands of Mars_ or any 
     Panthallasic Venus story.

5)   As I noted earlier, some stories we accept as SF are outside even these
     definitions (such as "the Day Is Done," above).

6)   Some stories/themes would stub on these restrictions.  Any time travel
     story (_Time Machine_, "By His Bootstraps"), for instance.

7)   Some use technology as a peg, and nothing more;  Taine's _Before the
     Dawn_ is a perfect example: the "time viewing" chamber was only a way
     of rationalizing the adventure of the dinosaurs.  It was, if you will,
     necessary to the story without solving anything.

	I'd say is was more a matter of establishing limits than anything.
But even so, some stories we "know" are SF won't fit the definitions.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Re .128:

1)	If some people believe hyperspace is fantasy, and some believe it is
	not, then we will obviously never agree upon a definition of the
	distinction between science fiction and fantasy.  As for not being
	able to prove that hyperspace does not exist, physicists currently
	believe it is impossible because there is no way to transmit
	information from one point to another faster than the speed of light.
	Hyperspace violates this restriction, since ships can carry messages.
	This is an integral part of the currently conjectured structure of
	space-time.  (Except for something which I believe is called the
	Bell Effect.  Oh, well, nothing's perfect.)

2)	Too Many Magicians is science fiction.  But many magic stories do not
	sufficiently explain the magic, which allows it to contradict the
	physical laws as we know them.  They are fantasy.

3, 4)	Yes, the distinction should be made at the time of writing.

5)	Please describe The Day is Done.

6)	A number of time travel stories are just plain silly.  This is part
	of the problem of time travel stories.  Such stories are fantasy,
	although a number of others are science fiction.

7)	Please describe Before the Dawn.

Of course, I am pretty harsh in saying that certain things are science fiction
and certain things are fantasy.  Many people will not agree with me; they see
a "flavor" to the story, and this is what tells them whether it is sf or f.  I
read the story and say either "Okay, I'll go along with that" if it is sf or
"Well, that won't work, but let's pretend anyway" if it is fantasy or
"This is ridiculous" if it is intended to be science fiction but has been
bungled into fantasy.  Perhaps I should restate my definitions:

	In science fiction stories, the laws of logic as we believe them hold.
	(Thus, the physical laws must be consistent.)

	In fantasy, the laws of logic as we believe them do not hold.  (Thus,
	what would be a contradiction to us is not a contradiction in the
	fantasy world.)


				-- edp

Re: .29:

>1)	 If some people believe hyperspace is fantasy, and some believe it is

>	   not, then we will obviously never agree upon a definition of the

>	   distinction between science fiction and fantasy.  As for not being

>	   able to prove that hyperspace does not exist, physicists currently

>	   believe it is impossible because there is no way to transmit

>	   information from one point to another faster than the speed of 

>	   light.



The belief of today's physicists in no way determines whether a thing is 

necessarily possible (just as 19th-Century physicists' belief that matter 

and energy were separate and noninterchangable would have made them say 

the concept of nuclear fission or fusion would be sheer fantasy.

>	   Hyperspace violates this restriction, since ships can carry 

>messages.



Yes, but they are outside the restricting continuum.  



>	   This is an integral part of the currently conjectured structure of

>	   space-time.  (Except for something which I believe is called the

>	   Bell Effect.  Oh, well, nothing's perfect.)



Well, that's why hyperspace was postulated -- it's outside the local 

effects.



>2)	 Too Many Magicians is science fiction.  But many magic stories do 

>	   not sufficiently explain the magic, which allows it to contradict 

>	   the physical laws as we know them.  They are fantasy.



I believe my definition takes care of that, too.



>3, 4)	    Yes, the distinction should be made at the time of writing.



>5)	 Please describe The Day is Done.



"The Day Is Done" was a "mood piece" story about the last remaining 

Neanderthal Man in a world that the Cro-Magnon Men were taking over.  He 

was alone and dying.  I forget which SF magazine it appeared in, but it's 

been anthologized several times since, and rightly so.





>6)	 A number of time travel stories are just plain silly.  This is part

>	   of the problem of time travel stories.  Such stories are fantasy,

>	   although a number of others are science fiction.



Agreed, most are silly.  But saying some are SF and others not doesn't 

clarify the definition.



>7)	 Please describe Before the Dawn.



Scientists and industrialists develop a machine that maked the equivalent 

of a holographic presentation of eons ago on the basis of reconstructing 

"trapped light."  The basic story is of a few dinosaurs, the "hero" being 

a sort of Tyrannosaur. 



>Of course, I am pretty harsh in saying that certain things are science 

>fiction and certain things are fantasy.  Many people will not agree with 

>me; they see a "flavor" to the story, and this is what tells them 

>whether it is sf or f.  I read the story and say either "Okay, I'll go 

>along with that" if it is sf or "Well, that won't work, but let's 

>pretend anyway" if it is fantasy or "This is ridiculous" if it is 

>intended to be science fiction but has been bungled into fantasy.  

>Perhaps I should restate my definitions:



>	   In science fiction stories, the laws of logic as we believe them 

>	   hold.

>	   (Thus, the physical laws must be consistent.)

>	   In fantasy, the laws of logic as we believe them do not hold.  

>	   (Thus, what would be a contradiction to us is not a contradiction in 

>	   the fantasy world.)





>	   	     	                                	                      -- edp

Logic can hold in a fantasy (e.g., _Conjure Wife_).



Physical laws need not be consistent in Science Fiction ("The Fairy 

Chessmen").



Steve Kallis, Jr.

Re .30:

Why is everything double-spaced?

Stories involving hyperspace are science fiction, by my definition, because
it is conceivable that the physical laws could be such that hyperspace could
exist without causing a contradiction, and hyperspace stories usually make
some sort of explanation for these laws or a statement that there are such
laws with an apology for not being able to explain them.

As for whether or not hyperspace exists, hyperspace would definitely violate
the currently conjectured laws of physics.  It does not matter if ships are
"outside the restricting continuum".  All that matters is that they are here
one second and somewhere else the next.  If the distance from the starting
point of a ship's journey to its end point is more than light could travel in
the same amount of time, the ship has violated the laws currently conjectured
by physicists, no matter how it got from one point to the other.  (Ask any
physicist, unless they have changed things again.)  There is no way to "prove"
any natural law, but I think it is reasonable to state that almost any story
involving hyperspace is altering our laws.  This makes them fantasy by your
definition, but permits them to be science fiction by mine.  How would you
classify stories that definitely break the natural laws:

	Self-consistent time-travel.
	Flatland or the more recent Planiverse.
	Isaac Asimov's Marooned Off Vesta (with the gravity lens -- I am not
		sure of the exact wording of the title).

If "The Day is Done" does not involve technology or natural laws, it would seem
to be neither science fiction nor fantasy.  It is historical fiction.  I seem
to have a vague memory of it, but I do not recall the story very well.  If
you will explain more about it and your point about it, perhaps I could
better describe the application of my definition to it.

By "silly" time-travel stories, I mean the ones that present clear
contradictions -- events that are simply unacceptable to most people, because
they just do not make sense.  Simon Hawke's Pimpernel Plot is an example; he
allows his explanations to become ludicrous near the end of the book.  These
stories are fantasy.  Some time-travel stories are science fiction, such as
James Hogan's Thrice Tomorrow, which is reasonable in its explanation of the
nature of time. 

"Before the Dawn" sounds like science fiction.  The invention of a machine
that does not exist is sufficient to put it in the sf or f category, and the
story does not sound like it involves a contradiction, so it is on the sf
side.

In Conjure Wife, does logic hold in that all physical laws are self-consistent?
If the physical laws are not consistent in "The Fairy Chessmen", then it is
fantasy.  Please describe these stories. 


				-- edp

Concerning this business about laws of logic being consistent or not -
please note that the laws of logic have nothing to do with the physical
laws. It is quite logical to state as a premise that the physical laws
are *not* consistent, and proceed from there.

I find that flaws in logic - obvious ones, anyway - will tend to remove
me from any book, be it fantasy, SF, just-plain-fiction, or non-fiction.
Inconsistencies in physical laws, however, can often be explained, either
by assuming there are other physical laws that haven't been expressed yet,
(SF) or that there is magic/divine intervention at work (fantasy). I don't
believe that either SF or fantasy works should have to explain in detail
how everything functions, but the implication in SF is that, no matter
how weird it may look, there is a real, verifiable reason why things
happened that way.

No matter what we say about the differences, most people will always assume
SF if they see rocket ships or BEMs on the cover, or if the swords and things
have little blinking lights on the handles; and if there aren't any lights
or buttons, but there are lots of blades, and bulging muscles and/or heaving
bosoms, then it's fantasy. (One of the flaws in this quick-and-easy theory
is that books without illustrations on the cover cannot be codified at all...
Back to the drawing board.)

-b 

I think the separation of SF vs. F is not as distinct as it used to be. 
The standard difference between the two is explainability: SF can be explained
by "extrapolating our current technology."  Zoots!

Many of our so-called SF novels using blasters, rocket sleds, and BEMs could
just have easily been F novels using demon crystals, magic carpets, and Orcs
with no other change is the story line.  In fact, there are so many of these
novels that the distinction of hard science vs. soft science has appeared
-- will hard SF in the minority.  Pity.

RE .30 & .31:  Read Hogan's "Genesis Machine" for a 'scientific explanation' of
hyperspace.  


John B.

re .31:

Actually, "The Day Is Done" is (pre)historical fiction.  The point is it 
was written by a science fiction author, published in a science fiction 
magazine, and later anthologized in several science fiction collections.
By your definition, none of these appearances should have taken place.

On hyperspace: the disappearance of something in one location and its
reappoearance somewhere else does not necessarily violate known laws, no
matter how it was translated there.  Gunther did some work on this that
(in part) became the basis for one of Doc Smith's last (and far from his
best) books, _The Galaxy Primes_.  It can be taken as an extension of
quantum physics.

On _Before The Dawn_:  the *viewer* was an invention that made the story
happen, but the story stands if one cuts out the scenes with it in.  In
the old television series, _Captain Video_, the heroes had a "remote
carrier beam" viewer that let them watch old Western monies (as if they
were a time-prbe view.  Does that make the westerns SF?  Not hardly!

Point here is that the definitions spelled out are yours, and you judge 
the basis of _whether_ a story's F or SF on that basis.  That's certainly
okay, but it's one thing to say, "That's Fantasy," and quite another to
say, "In my book, that's Fantasy."  Using "The Day Is Done" (again) as
the example, if a magazine editor and several anthologists *all* consider-
ed it SF, in their professional judgement is probably *is* SF.  What we're
trying to do with this notefile is to determine whether there is a concen-
sus agreement as to what constitutes the genre.  At lrast half the notes
have cited stories and have tried to measure them against whatever criteria
seem appropriate.  Arthur C. Clarke, certainly one of the "harder" SF au-
thors, pointed out that a Cavorite antigravity story would be fantasy (i.e.,
outside technology-as-we-know-it), but a *powered* antigravity device
coukd be SF.  Likewise, anything that doesn't flatly contradict known laws
of science (not theoretical constructs) can legitimately be called SF.
Please note that we all are aware, like Copernicus, that the planets orbit
the sun; however, if you're trying to do some celestial navigation -- par-
tucularly aboard a ship -- you have to assume that Ptolemy was correct and
the Earth is the center with everything going around it.  Using that model,
navigation is easy.  Similarly, some models prove useful: the early "plat-
inum-iridium sponge" used as the logic unit of robots in some 1930-1940
stories authored by one I Asimov, never materialized, but silicon chips do
very well in their place.  Similarly, where "hyperspace" may have no
meaning in reality, something equivalent might be "developed."  It's
hard to prove a negative.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

P.S.:  The double spaces were accoidental, since I did my reply offline.

SK

Re .33:

Not all science fiction can not be explained by extrapolating our current
technology.  Some science fiction contradicts the natural laws.  No
extrapolation can correct this. 

Imagine a story in which classical mechanics holds.  Will you agree that
classical mechanics is false?  For example, when an object's speed increases,
its mass increases (in reality), but this does not happen in classical
mechanics.  But a story involving classical mechanics could still be science
fiction, could it not? 

What is the explanation for hyperspace in Genesis Machine?  (You can be brief,
I am sure I will recall the book with a little prodding.  I relocated
recently, but most of my books are still at "home".)


				-- edp

Re .32:

	If the natural laws are not consistent, then the laws of
	logic do not hold.

Proof:

By "natural laws are not consistent", it is meant that there exists a situation
in which the natural laws state that X will happen and that Y will happen,
where X and Y are events that cannot happen at the same time.  Since Y happens
and X and Y are mutually exclusive, then X does not happen.  But the laws say
X does happen.  Therefore, X does happen and X does not happen.  But logic
states that a statement cannot be true and false, therefore the laws of logic
do not hold.

> Inconsistencies in physical laws, however, can often be explained, either
> by assuming there are other physical laws that haven't been expressed yet,
> (SF) or that there is magic/divine intervention at work (fantasy). I don't
> believe that either SF or fantasy works should have to explain in detail
> how everything functions, but the implication in SF is that, no matter
> how weird it may look, there is a real, verifiable reason why things
> happened that way.

If there is an inconsistency in natural laws, it is not possible to add more
laws and resolve the inconsistency (unless the laws of logic do not hold).
Perhaps you mean inadequacies or incomplete areas can be explained by other
laws.  This is perfectly acceptable.

I agree, the author does not need to write a science textbook.  I have stated
before that the laws can be implicit -- you believe that they exist, even
though the author has not explained them.  If a set of consistent natural
laws exists, whether presented explicitly or implicitly, a story is science
fiction.


				-- edp

Re .34:

The fact that a story has appeared in a science fiction magazine does not
mean that it is science fiction.  Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine
has proved this.

In regard to the disappearance/reappearance, I agree, such a thing does not
necessarily violate known laws.  But:

	a) The duration of the absence must not exceed a very small constant
	   divided by the total energy of the object and

	b) The distance between the disappearance and the reappearance must
	   not exceed the distance light can travel in the same time.

The quantities of time and distance allowed for any everyday-sized object are
so small as to be useless.

From your description of Before the Dawn, it would seem that the story is
science fiction.  The fact that the story within the story is not science
fiction is irrelevant.  If you ask me "Is Before the Dawn science fiction?",
the answer is yes.  If you ask me "Is Before the Dawn with the viewer scenes
removed science fiction?", the answer is no.  This is as it should be.

My definitions have been selected to agree with my considerations of what is
science fiction and what is fantasy, not the other way around.  Perhaps we
should make a list of stories.  Then we would each state whether each story is
science fiction, fantasy, or something else (according to our impressions),
whether it is sf, f, or something else (according to our definitions), and why
our definitions put it in that category.  If our results agree, the only
problem is in applying the definitions, because your definition contradicts
mine.  If we disagree, then there is no basis to compare the definitions,
since they are defining different things.

Please answer my questions about stories that contradict natural laws.  Is the
Planiverse science fiction?  Is Asimov's Marooned Off Vesta?  What about a
story set in a universe where classical mechanics hold?  These stories violate
known laws, so your definition would make them fantasy, would it not?  They are
consistent, so my definition would make them science fiction.


				-- edp

A story *written today* in which classical mechanics holds, even in relativ-
istic situations, would be a fantasy.  That is why Doc Smith didn't really
consider his _Skylark_ books SF, though his Lensman series was (it doesn't
violate the relativistic equations since neurtalization of inertia makes
m=0).  A story written today *of another space/time continuum* in which
classical physics holds would be SF, however.

Although the relativistic model is good in the macrocosmic sense, it doesn't
fully mesh with quantum physics.  Please note both are models, not Blueprints
Of The Universe, and each has validity.  Tachyon theory, for instance, is
not at variance with relativity, but hints at effectively infinite velocities
when a particle is superluminal.  If the theory is "correct," and if someone
finds the equivalent of a "tunneling" mechanim that transforms sub- to super-
luminal velocities without going through -c- itself, the result would be
very like entering (later exiting) hyperspace.

Again ana again: the point here is attempting concensus ...  Look at what
Hollywood calls "science fiction" and see how close (most of the time) it
strays from what we, er, instinctively, "know" SF is.  Is there a definition
we all can live with, or is it hopeless?  I really begin to think the latter.

_Melancholy Elephants_ aside, there have been published tens to hundreds
of thousands of "SF" stories in magazines since the 1930s.  I've cited in
notws several stories that apparently several readers are unfamiliar with;
I've been asked to digest them.  Well, okay -- but if we're going to make
a list to see if we can agree which is what, well....

Here's the problem --

STARS MY DESTINATION -- Fantasy (not for the psi, but the physics/chemistry)
Sail 25 (Vance) -- Near SF (fantasy because he goofed on momentum transfer,
                   but otherwise one of his "hardest science" SF story)
Flatland -- Unclassifiable (Can't know about the physics; probably fantasy)
QUALE'S INVENTION -- SF, but who's read it?

I could go on, but I hope this illustrates the problem.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Re .38:

You are apparently making some distinction between a story in which classical
mechanics holds and a story "of another space-time continuum" in which
classical mechanics holds.  There should be no distinction:  If an author
indicates that classical mechanics holds, I am going to assume that
relativity does not, so the story is automatically set in another universe.

I infer that you are postulating by this distinction that there is a
possibility there exists another "space-time continuum" within our universe
in which the physical laws are different from our "space-time continuum".
Is this correct?  This would seem, to me, to me consistent with what you
have been saying earlier, about various stories being consistent with our
laws -- you are imagining another "place" in our universe where the laws are
different.

When I speak of a story being science fiction, but with different laws than
ours, I am speaking of an entirely different universe, one that does not
exist "anywhere".

Thus, a story involving classical mechanics which takes place on Earth, in
the Solar System, in the Milky Way, in the Universe, is science fiction to
me, because this imaginary universe is self-consistent, but it is fantasy to
you, because it is right here in our real universe, but the laws are wrong.

Consider this story:

	The universe is three-dimensional, infinite, and featureless.  There
	are two spheres of equal, non-zero mass in it.  They are separated
	by a distance of 10 times their radii.  They do not move.  This
	universe is not a part of anything else; there is no way for anything
	to get in or out of this universe.

(It's a rather boring story, but that does not matter.)  Note that the law of
gravity does not hold.  But there is no inconsistency, so I consider this to
be science fiction.  But it is not a part of our universe, so it can not
really exist.  Do you consider it to be fantasy?

The intersection of relativity and quantum physics is indeed a gray area,
but the time and distance limitations on the disappearance of an object still
hold.  If the laws are wrong, they will only be very slightly inaccurate in
"normal" situations, as classical mechanics is still very accurate in
everyday life.  Since people are normal-sized, they can not disappear for
very long or go very far.

Tachyon theory is fine.  The tunneling mechanism you suggest violates the
currently conjectured laws.  No matter what method you propose of traveling
faster than light, something about it will violate the currently conjectured
laws.


				-- edp

Re .35:

Please do not mistake me: I will try to make myself clearer.  I said the
standard distinction between SF and F is extrapolation, but many authors mis-use
gadgets for props and call it SF.  Mr. Clarke's quote about sufficiently 
advanced technology seeming like magic is very true.  Light switchs can be
explained; magic lanterns can't.  

There are a few stories in which 'magic' is explained in reasonable terms,
such as Randell Garrett's (sp?) assistant to Lord Darcy (Master O'<mumble>)
explaining the Law of Similarity.  I would consider that more like SF than
some hypothetical universe in which the law of gravity is out to lunch.

Perhaps the distinction between SF and F actually lies in how much the
individual reader is willing to believe is possible.  In the 30's and 40's,
it was possible to believe Man might one day fly to the moon, but in the
1890's it was ridiculous.

It's been some time since I read "Genesis Machine" but the hyperspace theory 
goes something like this...  There's a portion of the space-time continuum 
that can be measured and a part that up until then can't be measured.  
Hogan backs this up with references to 'appearent' destruction and creation 
of matter at the sub-atomic level (science fact: some sub-atomic particals 
have been shown to simply disappear and others simply appear from nowhere).  
The theory says that conservation of matter really does hold, but the matter 
actually exists all in measurable space-time, all in non-measurable 
space/non-time, or maybe a little of both.  But it is possible to move from 
one space to the other... and the story goes on from there.

An early attempt at explaining hyperspace appeared in a childrens SF novel
called "A Wrinkle in Time" (by Engle???) where they illustrate a bug walking
from on end of a piece of cloth to the other by winkling the cloth until
the two ends touched.


John B.  

Re .40:

You mention the Law of Similarity, which is used in several of Garrett's Lord
Darcy stories.  But there is no such thing.  Of course, there is an extremely
remote possibility that it exists, but I think we can dismiss this possibility;
we would almost certainly have discovered such a law by now.  Garrett makes it
clear that these stories are taking place in a universe which is not our own. 
The stories claim the only difference between their universe and ours is that a
change in history caused people to develop skills of magic rather than skills
of technology.  But we know that this is not possible in our universe. 

The point is that many science fiction stories are impossible in our
universe.  I believe, and I believe the authors believe, that the stories are
taking place in a "pretend" universe.  Very few stories possess the
possibility of taking place in our universe.  (Charles Sheffield's McAndrew
Chronicles and Robert Forward's Dragon's Egg are such stories.)

This is important:  Many science fictions are not true and never can be
true.  The author is saying "What if this law were changed, and . . . .".  The
author is making a change to our universe, not an extension.

By the way, I retract my earlier acceptance of the statement that the time at
which the story is written should be taken into consideration.  A set of
self-consistent laws remains self-consistent, no matter what changes take
place in people's beliefs.

If I recall correctly, the hyperspace of Hogan's Genesis Machine was not used
to travel from one place to another faster than light could travel the same
distance.  It was primarily used for observation, and possibly some
manipulation.  If this is the case, it does not violate the speed of light
restriction.  The hyperspace being discussed earlier was the spaceship-type
of hyperspace, which could be used to travel faster than light.


				-- edp

Re .41:

By saying "This is an alternate universe where the impossible is possible"
aren't you into the realm of fantasy?

Yes, it is stated up front that the Lord Darcy series takes place in an
alternate universe where magic works and science is a stunted field.  
But the scientific method has been applied -- observation, categorization,
experimentation, documentaion, and symbolic manipulation. The premise is
fantasy; the way the premise is handled is scientific.  That makes it more
like SF than some science fiction that arbitrarily suspends a law or two 
here and there.  

When the hero gets in a jam, how does the author get him out?  Does he come
up with a novel (no pun intended) solution that makes me say "I wish I thought
of that!" or does he invent another spell or bend a few more rules of physics.

Science fiction started out with "someday in the future, this MAY happen."  
In Jules Verne's day, it wasn't known what was at the earth's core, and 
there were some serious theories that it was indeed hollow, so an expedition
was mounted in the same manner that all expeditions of that day were mounted.
Later, Asimov's robots were an extention of the automatic electronic devices 
of the day.  Heinlein's rockets were extentions of existing airplanes, ships,
and rockets.  Still later, Niven's Ringworld was an engineering miracle,
but engineering none the less.  

Maybe there are some physical laws that we haven't discovered yet, much like
relativity at the turn of the century.  But if the author wants to use 
such an as-yet-undiscovered law and call it SF, let him prove that it MIGHT 
be discovered, as Hogan did so well.  (I still haven't figured where the 
facts stopped and the fiction started...)  

Shades of grey and room for opinion...

I'm going to have to re-read (happily) "Genesis Machine" but I think it did
move something because they set up some sort of missile defense system in
the final pages, but I could be mistaken.  But even if not, what "moves"
information from point A to point B?  Sure, you can pick up the phone and
talk to Tokyo or bounce radar off the face of Mars, but that is no faster 
than the speed of light because electrons and radio waves move move no faster
than the speed of light.  So if the Genesis Machine can move even only
information, that's as significant as moving a whole planet.


John B. 

re .39
Ah.  The problem here, I think, is on the definition of what comprises
"our universe."  If by "our universe" you mean "all everything no matter
where/when," then definitionally, the entire (potential) metacosmos, which
might consist of multiple continuua, follows precisely the same "laws"
(i.e., world-model approximations) as we're familiar with.  In that case,
virtually 99 percent of what's been called SF isn't, and is fantasy.

The problem here is twofold: 1) we're making an Hell of a humungous extra-
polation.  we don't even know if (whether) other continnua exist, and al-
ready we're *certain* that there are no diffrences in structure; and 2) we're
certain that new discoveries will have no impact on current world models
(as indeed relativity had on classical physics).  Some physicists (publish-
ing in _Analog_, among others) are a bit more broadminded on that.

Yes, to me, Fantasy is involved with using "technical" data that are in-
accurate in terms of what is provably known (**not** what is not fashion-
able) in our real universe and not located in a continuum where such things
might work.  The Edgar Rice Burroughs Pellucidar series is one such (it was
known by Gauss' time that the gravitational potential within a hollow sphere
is zero); his _Pirates of Venus_ (and successors) was more nearly SF since
at the time of writing Venus wasn't observed enough to determine what was 
really on its surface, and the orbital mechanics were vague enough in the
story for someone to pull that dumb a stunt.

On the Lord D'Arcy series -- well, perhaps fantasy, though in this
history, what's being thrown out the front door as magic is neaking in
the back as Parapsychology.  the Law of Similarity, by the way, is just
a loosening up of the Law of Identity, which says Identical Actions
Produce Identical result -- the basis of *all* hard science and technology.
_Can_ things be "loosened up" any?  Doubtful, but not out of the question:
there are certainly honest scholars (SRI, Duke) who are investigating these
possibilities.

Roger Bacon, friar and controversial figure for his time, predicted self-
propelled land vehicles and aircraft used as bombers sheerly on faith: the
technology of the time wasn't up to either.  A scholar and student of 
Aristotle (the closest thing to a scientist of his day) would have called
Bacon's predictions rubbish  -- it was, for instance, the nature of things
to cease moving.  Only animals (and Man) could move: and that was estab-
lished fact, according to Aristotle (rivers and sailboats nonwithstand-
ing).  Yet, over the long run, Bacon proved right -- even if any guesses
he might have made would have been far off the mark of what actuallly hap-
pened.

Arthur Clarke wrote a couple of "What's Wrong With Science Fiction" essays,
one of which concerned "failure of nerve," (i.e., extrapolating the known
out to the logical conclusions as fylly as possible), and the other, which
fits here, was "failure of imagination."  And he was speaking of *hard*
SF.

I don't take so parochial an approach as to beliebe that there mightn't be
yet undiscovered "laws" that can be used to help circumvent seeming re-
strictions.  I believe it was Eddington who said, "the universe is not
only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we *can* imagine."
Clarke quoted that, too.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Re .43:

Yes, I think you are correct when you say we need to define "universe."
I don't think this is a case in which we can consult Webster's because then
"alternate universe" would be a contridiction in terms.  So perhaps we should
use the terms "continuum" and "alternate continuum" instead of universe to
avoid semantic problems.  In that case, let me restate an earlier question:
When the story involves a continuum in which the impossible is possible,
isn't that fantasy?  If so, then doesn't it follow that if the premise is
not obviously possible, then someone needs to show that it MIGHT be possible?

A turn-of-the-century might have written a story of twins who appearently
aged differently because one took a ride on a spaceship which managed to
reach .99C, but he would have to 'invent' relativity and explain that it
might be possible if someone took the time to do the necessary research.  
If the author said "Well, there's this yet-undiscovered-principle called 
relativity", the story would be fantasy.  

Let's apply reductio ad absurdum:  This is a mighty big universe, so big
that it is very unlikely that only one planet developed life.  Since it is
very likely that more than one planet developed life, then it is possible
that anyone's daydream about some mythical society may in fact be true.
So, it is possible that some of the 'Sword and Sorcery Fantasy' may not be 
fantasy at all!


John B.

Who says the universe is self-consistant and logical in its entirety?

Stephen Hawking, very possibly the greatest mind since Einstein (and there are 
those who would even concede greater) and the man who developed black hole 
theory to its present understanding, first postulated micro-black holes from 
the Big Bang, and then described how black holes can evaporate, has the 
following theory:

A spinning black hole of sufficient mass with no charge (I think) can throw 
off its event horizon creating something called a "naked singularity."  This 
has been a popular item in recent "hard" SF.

Given a naked singularity, known laws permit (and demand) that the black hole 
will radiate "something" (my memory is somewhat faulty, I don't remember the 
exact cause or nature of the radiation).

Given that the singularity radiates, quantum mechanics as understood today 
demands that the radiation be infinitely randomized with probability 
determining its form.

Probability theory permits a remote chance of *any* form of matter or energy 
to be emmitted by the singularity, including toaster ovens, you, me, CONAN, or 
Godzilla for at least the infinitesimal time it takes for that emission to 
interact with the remainder of the universe and its laws.

Frankly, I find this gives me a terrible headache trying to understand it, as 
it did to Niven and Pournelle who wrote about it in _A Step Further Out_ or 
something similar in title to that.

		 [} Mike {] 

We are wandering a bit afield here.  Again, the problem is to determine
whether we can come up with a definition of SF that will stand concensus.
The answers here, by the way, are interesting in that they range from
"If it isn't covered by current theory, it isn't," to "anything can be
SF if it's looked at in the right way." [Shades of Tom Lehrer on that
last!]  

A problem here is that we've sort of said, "Science Fiction is a story
in which scientific truths are adhered to and that the science/technology
is central to the story."  then we've started to ask "What is a valid
scientific truth?"

There are enough doubts (e.g., .45) about aspects of the continuum's laws
so that things not definitely disprovable (e.g., hyperspace, psi powers,
even Garrett [D'Arcy] -style magic) could fit within the definition of
SF (as opposed to Conan and Mary Poppins [what a pair *that* would make!]).
_Mission Of Gravity_ was hard SF as written; a computer simulation run a
few years ago, however, indicated that the shape of the planet would be
different (the equator would come to a point); written today, it'd be a 
fantasy.

I once was accosted by some religious zealots who showed me their version
of the Bible and said, "if it isn't in here, it isn't true."  They meant
that in a literal sense; I spoke gently with them.

So now do I speak gently here: if we want to start a notefile on The
Limits of Technical Knowledge, or even "that's Impossible," why not:
In my definitions earlier, I made a Herculean effort to differentiate
between conforming to a technology (or not knowingly violating that
technology) and as to what that technology was.  A fantasy can be logically
self-consistent, in my opinion, and still be a fantasy.

We come again to the problem: any *concise* definition we can all agree on?
I've made my feelings clear earlier; how about anyone else?

Regards,

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Re Definitions of Steve Kallis and myself:

I will follow with more on this, sometime, but, for now, I have just noticed
what may be some common ground between us:

	If a postulated set of laws (such as those in a story) are
	self-consistent, there is a possibility that they may be correct
	(ignoring for the moment whether they are correct here or somewhere
	else).

	If a set of laws is inconsistent, they cannot be correct, anywhere,
	which must include our universe.

This brings a question to mind.  If a science fiction story is a story in which
the laws could be the laws of our universe (or some part of it), how do you
determine whether or not the laws could be ours?  (Is inconsistency a
disqualifying factor?)


				-- edp

Re .42:

When considering an alternate universe, I am not saying the impossible is
possible; I am saying what is possible is different from what is possible in
our universe.  This is not necessarily fantasy.

The method of introduction of new laws is irrelevant to whether a story is
science fiction or fantasy; indiscriminate introduction of such things makes
a story poorly written, but does not affect its category, unless the laws
themselves do that.

I very much doubt that many authors consider their stories to be of the
"someday in the future, this may happen" type.  Isaac Asimov has said a number
of times that he has not intended to be describing the future.  Most authors
write stories, not speculation.

If Hogan's hyperspace were not used for faster-than-light travel or
communication, it does not violate the speed-of-light restriction. 


Re .43:

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1976, has two definitions for universe
that may be appropriate:

	the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated or

	the entire celestial cosmos.

You have apparently been using the second definition, while I have been using
the first.  I propose that we use "universe" for the first and "cosmos" for
the second.  Thus, there may be several cosmos in our universe.

The word "continuum" might not be appropriate, since it is defined as:

	something absolutely continuous and homogeneous of which no distinction
	of content can be affirmed except by reference to something else (as
	duration and extension).

Well, I can find may way to work every day without using a ruler or a watch,
so our cosmos is not a continuum.  Have scientists given this word another
meaning, or is it just something that was appropriated by science fiction?

What do you mean, "we are certain that there are no differences in
structure", and "we're certain that new discoveries will have no impact on
current world models".  I would be rather surprised if both of these were
not false.


Re .44:

How do you show that something might be possible?  Here is a quick lesson
on the philosophy of science:

	Make a law, any law you want.

	Think up an experiment, and figure out what the law will say about
	the outcome of the experiment.

	Do the experiment.

(For the sake of argument, I will assume you have done the prediction and the
experiment without error.)  Suppose the experiment turns out as you have
predicted.  What does that prove?  Nothing.  It does not prove the law.  It
does not even prove that if you do the experiment again, it will work again.
You could perform the experiment a trillion times, and it would still not
prove the law.  Most people would believe a law to be true, especially if the
trillion experiments were different in various ways, but this is an act of
faith, not logic.

Suppose the experiment fails.  What does that prove?  It proves the law is
false.

Thus, you can not prove any natural law to be true.  There is no burden of
proof to show that something might be possible.

Consider a story with some law in it.  Suppose the law predicts than when X
happens, Y will happen.  For example, X could be "an apple is released from
six feet above the floor".  Then Y might be "the apple falls".  A story
might have some such law in it.  If you can find an instance where you can
perform X in our universe, but Y does not happen after X, then you know that
law is false, so the story can not be taking place in our universe.  For
example, the Y mentioned above does not always follow that X in our universe. 
Ask any member of the space-shuttle crew. 

Thus, the fact that a story uses hyperspace does not prove that it is not
part of our universe (although it is unlikely; a hyperspace story does violate
currently believed laws).  Suppose Mission of Gravity were written today.
Would it be science fiction or fantasy?  I say it would be science fiction,
because I can imagine a universe very like ours but different enough so that
the planet would have the shape given it in the story.  Such a universe would
not need to have contradictory laws.

There is another way to prove that a law is false (or, rather, to prove that
a set of laws is false).  This is to show that they give rise to a
contradiction.  That is, there is some situation in which the laws predict
two different things will happen.  How can a universe exist in which
something does happen and does not happen?

When physicists are considering new laws, they should not ever think of how
silly they sound.  First, they are interested in consistency.  If a law is
consistent, it has a possibility of being true.  If it is inconsistent, it
can be discarded immediately.  Having discarded inconsistent theories, they
imagine a universe with some set of laws.  There is nothing wrong with
considering such a universe; it might exist.  The only way to show that such
a universe does not exist is to test its laws in our universe, by
experimentation.

Does anyone claim that every author of science fiction asserts that each
science fiction story has the possibility of being true?  On the other hand,
does anyone believe that the author is playing "let's pretend" and is imagining
a universe which is not believed to exist?  (Please answer these questions.)

The argument presented about the possibility of a fantasy being true is silly.
If I consider the statement "p and not p" a trillion times, is it likely to
be true at least one of those times?


Re .45:

The universe must be logical (although it is not necessarily true that our
believed laws of logic are the true laws of logic).  Logic is merely a way
of talking about things, and it is intended to reflect truth.  If there is
every a discrepancy between events in the universe and logic, the logic we
are using must be incorrect.

I am well aware of the possibility of things emerging from a singularity.
In what way does that contradict logic?


Re .46:

It irritates me when someone says "we" to refer to me (among others), and
then goes on to say something that does not apply to me.  I can speak for
myself.  Please do not do this.  I have never "sort of said" "science
fiction is a story in which scientific truths are adhered to . . .".  In
fact, I have flatly contradicted this.  A story does not have to be true to
be science fiction.

If a fantasy is logically self-consistent, isn't there a slight possibility
(very slight), that it might actually be true in some cosmos in our
universe?  Wouldn't that make it science fiction, by your definition?

I am going to try to find a story which states a law which is not true, but
which we can all (almost) agree is science fiction.  I should have realized
this earlier, you can not prove the events in a story to be impossible; to
prove it to be impossible, you must prove the laws to be wrong.


				-- edp

Wow... do you guys ever get writer's cramp?  (i.e. a sharp pain in the hands
for writing/typing long replies...)

Without beating this to death, let's clarify something:  "laws," as it's
been used here, actually refers to "logical or mathematical model"; thus,
Newton's Three Laws of Motion and his Law of Gravitation *aen't* "laws"
as are, say, The Ten Commandments (leaving the validity of such to 
notes:religion) or the Espoinage Laws.  Thus, the "laws" of a cosmos are
those perceived models that enable us to predict with some confidence the 
outcome of a given set of conditions.  Some of these "laws" seem fairly
established (Chemistry and Physics, for instance), others are more nearly
approximations (psychology, sociology).  A mathematical construct of a cos-
mos (e.g., Flatland) will have its own "laws" (e.g., gravitational attrac-
tion will fall off inversely proportional to the distance separating masses,
not the square of the distance as in our cosmos) that can differ significant-
ly from those with which we are familiar.  That *can* be SF with internally
consistent "laws."

The problem is that if the author makes it clear that the story is taking
place in another cosmos, a story whose "laws" violate the familiar ones
*may* be SF; but one has to be careful lest an author say "In my 'universe,'
magic works -- therefore this is science fiction," and try to foist off a
latter-day _Cinderella_, _Glass Mountain_, or _Jack and the Beanstalk_.

I have a sneaking feeling that we're about to fall into the trap of a
loop, since we now are creeping back into a discussion of what makes the
differentiation, but if so, and if we're still confused, at least it
will be at a higher level.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE .48

> When considering an alternate universe, I am not saying the impossible is
> possible; I am saying what is possible is different from what is possible in
> our universe.                             
  
"Different from what is possible in our universe" sounds like "impossible
in our universe" to me.

> The method of introduction of new laws is irrelevant to whether a story is
> science fiction or fantasy.
  
Sufficiently advanced technology seems like magic.  Conversely, a good stage
magician checks his tricks secret because once explained, they lose their
magic.

> I very much doubt that many authors consider their stories to be of the
> "someday in the future, this may happen" type. 

I wouldn't know; that is merely MY yard stick for judging SF vs. F.  I am
willing to modify it if someone comes up with one I consider better.  
By the way, I emphised MAY.

> If Hogan's hyperspace were not used for faster-than-light travel or
> communication, it does not violate the speed-of-light restriction. 

Huh?  I thought it was used for both...  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

> Well, I can find may (sic) way to work every day without using a ruler or a watch,
> so our cosmos is not a continuum.

Oh, but you do use your senses for measuring every waking minute of your
life.  It would be impossible to stand up and walk across the room without
a very sophisticated system of spacial and temporal measurements.

> How do you show that something might be possible?  Here is a quick lesson
> on the philosophy of science...
> Suppose the experiment turns out as you have predicted.  What does 
> that prove?   

I am not asking the author to PROVE anything, or to do any experimentation,
just to show that it is possible.

> Thus, you can not prove any natural law to be true.  There is no burden of
> proof to show that something might be possible.

I agree with and defer to the note concerning laws being a model of reality.  
I disagree with (or perhaps misunderstand) the above.  Experimentation is
an attempt at proving an hypothesis and must be independently verified before
the hypothesis is accepted.  

> Does anyone claim that every author of science fiction asserts that each
> science fiction story has the possibility of being true?  On the other hand,
> does anyone believe that the author is playing "let's pretend" and is imagining
> a universe which is not believed to exist?  (Please answer these questions.)

To the first question: isn't that what we are discussing -- is it indeed
SF?  To the second: sometimes the author/publisher/etc. asks "What if..." 
I happen to read that "Let's pretend that ..."

> The argument presented about the possibility of a fantasy being true is silly.
  . 
  .
  .
> If a fantasy is logically self-consistent, isn't there a slight possibility
> (very slight), that it might actually be true in some cosmos in our
> universe?  Wouldn't that make it science fiction, by your definition?

Of course it's silly -- that's what "absurdum" in "reductio ad absurdum" means.
That is why I wish to put the burden of proof on the author to show that
it is possible.  Without the burden of proof, everything is SF.  From your
later comment, you seem to agree, but from your earlier comments, you disagree.

> I have never "sort of said" "science fiction is a story in which scientific 
> truths are adhered to . . .".  In fact, I have flatly contradicted this. 
> A story does not have to be true to be science fiction.

No, if it were true, it wouldn't be fiction.  But "MAY someday be true" is
a different matter. 

There have been at least two definitions proposed.  Do you have one that
I missed? 


John B.

Going over the last 20 or so replies, it seems to me that much of the discussion
deals with "what's wrong with your last message."  I am one of the most guilty.
So, let me atone for my sins and propose a method for identitying areas of
agreement or disagreement.  When I classify a story SF or F, I have a private,
perhaps unrealized list of criteria by which I make that judgement.  

I propose that we collectively publish and refine a list of questions in the 
form of "Does SF (or F) have this quality?"  For example, "Does SF have to be 
about the future?"  

Each contibutor should start by copying the latest list, adding new questions
as needed.  Then the contributor should answer each question with ONE WORD 
such as Yes, No, Maybe, N/A.  Then the cotributor should support that answer, 
ideally with a story reference.

Finally, it would be nice if each contributor would provide a short 
definition of his or her personal distinction between SF and F.  

If you read one of these lists and you disagree with one or more of the answers,
simply copy the questions and re-answer them your own way with your own
supporting evidence.  Think of it as voting and re-voting for your favorite
answer.  If you think another question is in order, by all means ask it (and
answer it) so that others can also respond.  If you think the question is
worded wrong, re-ask it.


Here's a sample list:

Does a SF story have to have a scientific principle as its central theme?

???.  The more it centers around the principle, the "harder" it is (Ref: any
Hogan novel) but it may be simply set in a futuristic place or have lots
of gadgetry as props.  (Although, I might be persuaded to support a position 
that says "fiction with scientific props is just fiction with scientific props.)
Further, many SF novels involves the theme of what happens to civilization
after they drop the bomb or some other disaster. 
Ref: Niven's _Lucifer's_Hammer_.  (I can be convinced that is future history.)


Does a SF story have to be about the future?

YES (at first).  If the story is about time travel to the past, the traveller
had to start in the future.  Ref: Star Trek's voyages to the 1970's.


Does a SF story have to be internally consistent?  

N/A.  Even fantasy should be internally consistent.  Ref: Garrett's Lord
D'Arcy series.

  
Does a SF story have to be externally consistent?

YES.  The problem is: what's "externally consistent"?  My personal opinion
is that it is not contradictory or wildly improbable (or can be shown not
to be wildly improbable) considering what is known about our present state 
of existence.  Ref: I think Hogan in _Genesis_Machine_ did a marvelous job of 
"explaining" why hyperspace was not improbable.


Does a SF story become F if research proves it couldn't happen?

N/A.  Jules Verne's _Journey to the Center of the Earth_ *was* SF; 
I think it still is, but I also think it doesn't matter.  Well, not much.


Finally, I think SF is an extrapolation of our current state.  If the situation
is not apparently possible, it is up to the author to show how it is possible.


John B.

re:.25

You obviously missed my point.

The point I was making is that one needs to look at the *PURPOSE* of 
cataloging. In most cases, it is to make finding a book you would enjoy 
reading easier to find. (Maybe you catalog just for the sake of 
cataloging.)

The problem with coming up with a rigid definition of Science Fiction is 
that many books that a person may enjoy may fall just outside the 
definition and would be missed if the person only looked at "Science 
Fiction". If the definition is to be kept nebulous to include these 
borderline works, why go to all the trouble of making an ironclad 
definition?

Another point - maybe *you* can come up with a definition which will 
allow you to choose the books you want to read by category, but such a 
definition will not work for everyone. It would be different if the 
people in this note were saying, "This is how I define Science Fiction" 
rather than "This is the definition of Science Fiction".


MartyJ

re .52

I don't know whether it will *solve* anything, yet I'm willing
to go along with it:

1) Does an SF story have to have a scientific principle as its central
   theme?

YES, otherwise the S of SF is removed.  However, the principle can be
out front or inthe background.  "The Day is Done," a prehistoric story
that most people consider SF was pivotally on Darwinian evolution as
the scientific principle.

2) Does an SF story have to be about the futore?

No.  There have been plenty of good SF stories about the past.  Besides
the overworked "The Day is Done," there's the "Atlantis" sequence in
_Triplanetary_, the book, _Before The Dawn_ concerned dinosaurs (the 
superhologram device was supposed to have been invented in the present),
there are a few stories whose titles elude me that were set in the past,
including one about invading ETs who were driven off by questioning a
knight who told them stories of dragons, basilisks, etc., which so scared
them they put Earth Off Limits.  I *think* Manly Wade Wellman wrote it,
but I'm not sure.

3) Does an SF story have to be internally consistent?

Well, yeah, as indeed other stories ought to be.  But some authors sometimes
make my hackles rise  The "distorter" in World of Null-A' suddenly changed
from a sort of EMI generator to a transporter.  In _Phoenix Prime_ the hero
was blasted to flinders and reassembled himself psionically in the first
chapter, but forgot how to do it the next time he lost his body so that his
mind had to cohabit with his girlfriend's in her brain, arriving there just
before she was about to be raped (nice touch): if he could do it the first
time, he ought to have been able to do it the second.  Comicbook stuu.

4) Does an SF story have to be externally consistent?

With what?  "Laws of the Universe?"  Of course.

5) Does an SF story become F if research proves it couldn't happen?

No, but ....  When Verne wrote, say, _Hector Servadac_, it was known that
a cometary collision would kill the people who went off on the comet in
the story.  It was known when _From Earth to the Moon_ was written that
a) the _bouleversement_ phenomenon was spurious, b) there was no means to
protect the passengers from the acceleration at ignition.  However, today
_both_ are still considered SF.  However, modern SF didn't get off the 
ground until Hugo Gernsback, so anything ahead of it should be grandfathered.

and my new one,

6) Does a Science Fiction story require a solution to a problem?

NO.  Wandrei's "The Mad Brain," Gallun's "Seeds of the Dusk," Orwell's
_1984_, Godwin's "The Cold Equations," aming others, give us problems
in a way where there *is* no solution, just resolution.  Greek tragedies
often did the same thing.  The problem, as in Heinlein's "Solution Un-
satisfactory," may *be* the story.

Does this give us a definition of SF?  No, but it sure gives us an
appreciation of the gnre.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Re .49:

I'm afraid not; I worked as a typesetter for my college's magazine.  A
conservative estimate would be that each of my fingers has typed one million
keystrokes.


Re .50:

Laws are absolute.  Models, conjectured laws, or hypotheses are not.
Although our "Law of Gravitation" may not be a law, there is probably something
similar which is.  These absolute laws are what I refer to when I say the
laws of some universe are different.  It is not just the people's model that
is different; the universe actually works in a different way.

If you agree Flatland can be science fiction, doesn't this violate your
definition?  Flatland cannot take place in our universe, can it?

> The problem is that if the author makes it clear that the story is taking
> place in another cosmos, a story whose "laws" violate the familiar ones
> *may* be SF; but one has to be careful lest an author say "In my 'universe,'
> magic works -- therefore this is science fiction," and try to foist off a
> latter-day _Cinderella_, _Glass Mountain_, or _Jack and the Beanstalk_.

This is why I introduced the consistency qualification.  If the laws are
inconsistent, I do not care if the author says "thus and such works here".


Re .51:

>> When considering an alternate universe, I am not saying the impossible is
>> possible; I am saying what is possible is different from what is possible in
>> our universe.

> "Different from what is possible in our universe" sounds like "impossible
> in our universe" to me.

Yes, I just wanted to clarify the expression, in case someone was thinking
"impossible and possible in the same place".

>> The method of introduction of new laws is irrelevant to whether a story is
>> science fiction or fantasy.

> Sufficiently advanced technology seems like magic.  Conversely, a good stage
> magician checks his tricks secret because once explained, they lose their
> magic.

Huh?  What is the point?

>> If Hogan's hyperspace were not used for faster-than-light travel or
>> communication, it does not violate the speed-of-light restriction.

> Huh?  I thought it was used for both...  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Doesn't Genesis Machine take place entirely on Earth?  Maybe I'll dig the story
up again, but I have vague memories of uses as a super-duper radar-like thingy.

>> Well, I can find my way to work every day without using a ruler or a watch,
>> so our cosmos is not a continuum.

> Oh, but you do use your senses for measuring every waking minute of your
> life.  It would be impossible to stand up and walk across the room without
> a very sophisticated system of spatial and temporal measurements.

The point is that our cosmos as stars, planets, trees, roads, signs, and other
things that can be used as landmarks.  Thus, it is not homogeneous, so it does
not meet the dictionary's definition of a continuum.

> I agree with and defer to the note concerning laws being a model of reality.
> I disagree with (or perhaps misunderstand) the above.  Experimentation is
> an attempt at proving an hypothesis and must be independently verified before
> the hypothesis is accepted.

Whoa, hang on.  Experimentation is not an attempt at proving a hypothesis.  It
is an attempt to disprove a hypothesis.  This is a crucial point.  A good
scientist does not claim a law is true because a great many experiments have
followed the law's predictions; a scientists accepts a law, on a conditional
basis, because he/she has been unable to prove it to be false.

>> Does anyone claim that every author of science fiction asserts that each
>> science fiction story has the possibility of being true?  On the other hand,
>> does anyone believe that the author is playing "let's pretend" and is imagining
>> a universe which is not believed to exist?  (Please answer these questions.)

> To the first question: isn't that what we are discussing -- is it indeed
> SF?  To the second: sometimes the author/publisher/etc. asks "What if..."
> I happen to read that "Let's pretend that ..."

I agree, "what if" and "let's pretend" are the same, for our purposes.  The
reason for the first question is that it is the complement if the second.  If
a story is/is not a "what if" then it is not/is a "could be" story.

>> I have never "sort of said" "science fiction is a story in which scientific
>> truths are adhered to . . .".  In fact, I have flatly contradicted this.
>> A story does not have to be true to be science fiction.

> No, if it were true, it wouldn't be fiction.  But "MAY someday be true" is
> a different matter.

This is a nit.  For "does not have to be true", read "does not have to possess
the possibility of being true" in my original statement.

> There have been at least two definitions proposed.  Do you have one that
> I missed?

Please compare my node::user and signature to those of the note containing the
consistency definition.


				-- edp

Re .52:

Does an SF story have to have a scientific principle as its central theme?

No.  I agree with the reply given in .52; the story can either have a
scientific/technology principle as its theme, or it can simply be set in
a different scientific/technological environment from what we have or have had
on Earth.


Does an SF story have to be about the future?

No.  Star Wars takes place a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.


Does a SF story have to be internally consistent?

Yes.  Otherwise it is not possible.


Does a SF story have to be externally consistent?

No, if you mean consistent with the laws/events of our universe.


Does a SF story become F if research proves it couldn't happen?

N/A.  It is not possible for a consistent story to become inconsistent.


Finally, I think SF is an extrapolation of our current state.  If the situation
is not apparently possible, it is up to the author to show how it is possible.

Well, that's not a question, but I'd like to respond anyway.  It is incorrect;
a story can just say "let's suppose this law were different and see what
would happen".


re .52:

> 1) Does an SF story have to have a scientific principle as its central
>   theme?

> YES, otherwise the S of SF is removed.  However, the principle can be
> out front or in the background.

"In the background"?  Then it's not the central theme, is it?


> 4) Does an SF story have to be externally consistent?

> With what?  "Laws of the Universe?"  Of course.

This is the primary point of our disagreement.  You're wrong; you're wrong;
you're wrong; you're wrong.  So there.  :-).  Many science fiction stories
are "let's pretend", not "maybe it could be so".


And my new question:

Does a fantasy story have to be internally inconsistent?

Yes, otherwise I can imagine a universe in which it can really happen.


				-- edp

RE .56: (Minor quibble.) It is my belief that "Star Wars" is much more
fantasy than science fiction. Unless we want to assume that having
spaceships and robots automatically puts something in the SF category...

With its emphasis on arcane lore, the Great Quest, the motley assortment
of companions, the "wizard" figures of Ben and Yoda - and, more to the
point, with its relative disregard of even the most common physical
laws - "Star Wars" is definitely fantasy, and an archetype of the genre
at that.

-b

Re .57:

You're right; I forgot about the Force, which puts Star Wars in the fantasy
category.

Oh, well, I was just trying for something everyone would be familiar with.
In any case, being in the past is not what disqualifies it from being science
fiction.


				-- edp

Does an SF story have to have a scientific principle as its central theme?

No.  Not unless you are willing to say many of the stories commonly published
as SF are simply fiction with scientific props.


Does a SF story have to be externally consistent?

> No, if you mean consistent with the laws/events of our universe.

Oops... Yes, that is exactly what I mean.  "Let's pretend" automatically
qualifies as fantasy.  On the other hand, speculation about what happened to 
the dinosaurs is a little different: we are working from facts, but this
time we are extrapolating backwards.


Does an SF story have to be about the future?

No.  (I am allowed to change my mind, aren't I?)  I might consider a story 
which speculates about the demise of the dinos as being SF.


Does a fantasy story have to be internally inconsistent?

No.  To me, internally inconsistent makes me think of being permanately trapped
in Doug Adam's Improbability Drive or in an LSD induced daydream.  Fantasy 
usually has internal rules. (Ho boy! Dungeons and Dragons has uncounted rules!)


John B.

re .49: No.

re .55: _Flatland_, as I noted earlier, is extremely difficult to classify;
there isn't really enough known about it to fetermine whether it could have
"workable laws."  However, per previous discussions, I believe it's possible
to postulate a different cosmos [if you will] where a _Flatland_ -type 
arrangement might be possible: *if so*, it would be SF to me.  But I'd hate
to try to derive all the laws of such a place.

On the "Let's Pretend" business:

	We [editorial or rhetoric] could take that two ways.  "Pretend there
was no ice age" is feasible without violating the laws of this cosmos.  In
one sense, that would be a fantasy since there *was* one, but the story could
otherwise be as "hard" SF as one would like.  "What if there were no more
ice ages?" would certainly be a premise for a (perhaps boring) SF story.
"Let's pretend"'s semantic sense is "we all know better, but for the sake
of the story, suppose. ..."  "What if" can be hardheaded, such as "What if
you tried to set up a large-scale manufacturing facility in geosynchronous
orbit?"  That could be unyieldingly rigid SF to nearly everybody's taste.
The problem's this is a two-edged sword.  To *me*, "What if" implies SF;
"let's pretend" implies F (well, there _was_ a radio show for kiddies on 
Saturday morning in the mid 1940s called _Let's Pretend_, so maybe I'm pre-
judiced [Sponsored by Cream of Wheat]).Or
  _Let's Pretend_ was a fantasy.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Re .53

You are absolutely right: the purpose of the SF classification is to make it 
easier to find a book I might enjoy reading.  I'm sorry to say, the 
classification has, in my humble opinion, been misused so much that it doesn't 
serve any purpose anymore.  In fact, many have taken up the cry, "Put the 
Science back into Science Fiction!"  In the past, SF has served as an 
inspiration.  I'd like to think that writers like Heinlein, et al. help spur 
us on to put a man on the moon.  

Regardless of that, it bothers me to shell out dollars on a so-called SF novel 
only to find out that the only thing it has to do with SF is it's sort of 
futuristic, but its really a western, or a fantasy, or whatever.  If I
wanted a western, I'd have bought a western.  Let's have a little truth in 
advertising.  Otherwise, the classification is useless or worse.

Sure, there's going to be disagreement over the grey-zones.  Is Star Wars
SF, F, or futuristic adventure?  Even if most everyone agreed to a
class definition today, the language changes.  5 years from now, we would
have to do it all over again.  Well, busy hands are happy hands...


Re .49 (I think that's the one)

No, but I type slow and rest a great deal...


John B.

Re .60:

> re .55: _Flatland_, as I noted earlier, is extremely difficult to classify;
> there isn't really enough known about it to determine whether it could have
> "workable laws."

The less you know about a postulated universe, the greater the chance that it
could have workable laws -- you can fill in the things you do not know with
anything that would allow laws to work.  The real question is "Has enough
been said about it to disqualify it?"  A book I mentioned previously,
Planiverse, goes into more detail about how things may work in a two-dimensional
universe.  It discusses (in the process of telling a simple story) how
living beings might be constructed, how buildings could be built, and even
how computers can work.  An appendix to the book states that there are people
working on such things as two-dimensional physics and chemistry.

>	We [editorial or rhetoric] could take that two ways.  "Pretend there
> was no ice age" is feasible without violating the laws of this cosmos.

It sounds to me like you are suggesting that I, as well as you, could "take
that two ways".  Thus, it is not an editorial or rhetorical "we".  Unless
you are going to sign your notes with more than one person's name, what
is wrong with "I":

	I could take that two ways.

I believe I have said this in another notes file, but it bears repeating:

	Only four types of people should use "we" to refer to themselves:

		A pope, a king, an editor, and a person with tapeworm.


				-- edp

     1. "What if" and "Let's pretend" are the concepts that all fiction
is based on. Without those concepts, fiction would not exist.

      2. Is the force a fantasy concept. It was explained (the energy field
which surrounds all living organisms) and it was limited in its power.
It could even be considered part of the science of para-psycology.

      3. Does Flatland belong in either the science fiction or fantasy
category? (I have only a limited knowledge of the novel). Perhaps we can
confuse things some more by creating another category for mathmatical
based books.

      -- Andy who asked for consensus and got 40 replies

re .62, .63:

0: I have acted in editorial capacity before, so I probably don't have to
acquire a tapeworm.  However, the rhetoric "we" means "others than I without
necessarily including you."  That's why I used it.

1.  True, but in an SF/F context, "What if" is used to imply extrapolation of
phenomena, "Let's pretend" generally is used in a less restrained context.  Fun-damentally, you're correct.

2.  The Force could be considered a parapsychological phenomenon.  However [Lord
help me], some consider the whole study of parapsychology as studying fantasy.
The problem is that parapsychology (let's call it "psi" for the sake of my
typing fingers) lies in that "gray area" of investigation where few hard-and-
fast principles have been established.  Every "mind-related" phenomenon is
lumped together, including telepathy, telekinesis, precognition, claorvouy-
ance, clairaudience, radiathesia, dowsing, automatic writing, pyroticism,
et. al.  Whether all (or any) of these has validity has ywt to be determined.
If any are, however, they would have to work without violating any known
principles (e.g., energy would have to be conserved, somehow, in a telekin-
etic situation, perhaps by tapping an energy field like The Force, prhaps
by some as-yet unknown method of controlled subnuclear interaction); inter-
estingly, serious students of "magic" have come to similar conclusions (the
ceremonialists, for instance, "personify" the "forces" they believe they
tap as "gods," "demons," "loas," or whatever).  A problem with parapsychology
is that (like Garretts thoughts on sorcerers) it may be genetic (i.e., not
everybody can handle it); if so, it's going to be even harder to pin down
scientifically (if most people were colorblind, those few that weren't could
make distinctions most people can't, for instance).  Time may tell.

3.  On _Flatland_: it's a short book that's reasonably enjoyable, though
it's as much a sugar-coated way of explaining higher geometric concepts
as a story for entertainment.  If you haven't read it, do so: it can be 
knocked off in less  than an hour.  

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Re .63:

There's "what if" and then there's "What If":  


What if NASA established a manned station on the Moon.  (Possible)

What if Congess repealed the Law of Gravity and floated home to get re-elected.
(Well, I could accept the voting part, but not the floating part.)


John B.

Re .63:

1.  "What if" and "let's pretend" are, indeed, basic to fiction.  That is not
the issue.  The question is, are any science fiction stories the "let's
pretend" type rather than the "what if" type.

2. The Force was not explained.  Saying the Force is "the energy field which
surrounds all living organisms" is not an explanation. 


				-- edp

re .65

>What if congress repealed the Law of Gravity and floated home to get re-
>-elected.
>(Well, I could accept the voting part, but not the floating part.)

Obviously, you haven't attended any Washington cocktail parties. :-)

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Re .64:

The Force can be considered as any kind of phenomenon you wish.  But Star Wars
did not explain it, nor did it suggest there was any more of an explanation
than "just accept it, please".  Star Wars could have put the Force into a
science fiction category by providing some such explanation, but it did not, so
it is fantasy, because we continue to assume the laws of our universe prohibit
a thing such as the force.

By the way, the descriptions commonly given in physics courses of electricity
and magnetism are fantasy.  They contradict reality and other laws:

	Consider the model of an atom where electrons circle a nucleus.  But
	you are taught that an accelerating electric charge (the electron)
	creates electromagnetic waves, which contain energy.  Therefore, the
	electron radiates energy as it circles the nucleus.  So it loses
	energy, which means it must spiral in to the nucleus.  Thus, atoms
	are not stable; they must collapse.

	You are also taught that static magnetic fields cannot do work.
	Consider this experiment:  Hold a paper clip on a table.  Place a
	magnet over the clip.  Keep everything still, so that the magnetic
	field from the magnet is static.  Release the clip.  It will jump up
	to the magnet.  Clearly, its gravitational potential has been
	increased, thus the magnet has done work on the clip.

I guess there is no science fiction; everything must be fantasy, especially
if it agrees with our laws.


Re .65:

I think we are using "what if" to say "suppose our laws are like this" and
"let's pretend" to say "suppose the laws are different".  That is, the
"what if" case is intended to have the possibility of truth, while the
"let's pretend" case does not necessarily have this possibility.


				-- edp

Re .68

> I think we are using "what if" to say "suppose our laws are like this" and
> "let's pretend" to say "suppose the laws are different".  That is, the
> "what if" case is intended to have the possibility of truth, while the
> "let's pretend" case does not necessarily have this possibility.

I agree.  Most of the last NN messages were trying to map out what has 
"the possibility of truth" I think.  I just happen to the the extrapolation
definition to determine if such-n-such is possible.  That is: if the reader
can easily extrapolate it or the author can show how it can be extrapolated,
then it is possible.  Without extrapolation as a tool, anything is possible.


John B.

re:.68

let's not confuse "laws" with reality. Reality is what we observe. A 
"Law" is a theory used to help us "understand" the phenomena we observe. 
By "understand" I mean to be able us to predict and/or control.

A theory becomes a Law when a large number of predictions from the 
theory are observed to be correct.


MartyJ

      We must accept that we do not know/understand all scientific laws, and
thus we cannot define science fiction in terms of only what we can currently
understand. One of the aspects of science fiction is its postulation of new
scientific laws, theories, phenomena, and hypothesis. (Did I get everything?)
The new laws are acceptable as long as they do not blatantly contradict our
own laws. If they do, the story is fantasy. If a law seems to contradict a
scientific law that we know, but a plausable is given, the story will tend to
be SF. If we are forced to simply accept a contradictoy law, the story is 
fantasy.

      -- Andy

Re .70:

1)	What makes you think reality is what we observe?

2)	I have stated before that I am using the term "law" to denote a true
	rule of how our universe works.  That is, a law is a statement of an
	order or relation of phenomena that is invariable under given
	conditions.

3)	I have used "conjectured law", "hypothesis", or "theory" to denote
	statements that are invariable as far as is known.

4)	The term "Law" is proper only in a religious sense.

5)	If a majority of people wishes to change the definitions to something
	reasonable, that is fine with me.  But please do not take it upon
	yourself to change terms that others have seemingly accepted.  And if
	you do, do not leave us without a complete terminology.  While you
	redefine "law", you omit to give us a term which will represent a true
	statement of how our universe works.

6)	A statement (your "theory") is a theory provided it does not conflict
	with observed phenomena.  It needs no testing.  It becomes an
	accepted theory (your "Law") after experimentation has failed to prove
	it false.


Re .71:

You statements seem to agree with me to some degree.  The self-consistency of
a particular set of rules does not depend on the current state of human
knowledge, thus my classification of a story should not change when theories
are accepted or rejected.

You state "If a law seems to contradict a scientific law that we know, but a
plausible is given, the story will tend to be science fiction.".  First,
plausible is an adjective, not a noun, so I assume you meant "plausible
explanation".  However, how can you have a plausible explanation for a
contradiction?  A contradiction remains a contradiction, no matter how much
explaning you do.  Thus, to accept such a story as science fiction, we accept
the new law as true and pretend the real law be false.  The only time this
is not possible is when the laws of the story contradict themselves.


				-- edp

re:.72

re: 1) Nothing. However, one must start with some basic assumptions.

re: 2) A "true rule" can never be known, because one cannot test all 
cases (which are infinite) to find out if a rule, or Law, is holds true 
in all cases. The human mind may not be able understand a "true rule".

You object to my terminology. It is based on the Scientific Principle, 
that has been accepted by the scientific community for at least two 
hundred years. The problem is that most people go off half cocked 
believing that their theorems and laws are reality, not what has been 
observed. The observed data are the foundation of scientific research, 
not the theories.



MartyJ

Re last 4 or 5 replies:

My poor (as in "to be pitied", not "bad") math and science teachers tried
to convince me that there were four levels in "our understanding of the
world around us:"

Level	Math term	Science Term    Comment

 1 	Obverved Data	Observed Data	Can be ignored, but not changed

 2 	Axiom		Law		Basic, fundumental principle

 3 	Theorum		Theory		Accepted extention of Level 2
	or Proof			based "sufficient proof" 
					(independently verified collection
					of data -- Level 1)

 4 	Argument	Hypothesis	A proposed extention of Level 2
					based on limited data (Level 1)
                                        to be proven


At the base is Observed Data.  For example, non-euclidian geometery is a
system of axioms which is similar to euclidian with one exception: parallel
lines CAN converge.  What good is it?  Well, try this experiment: stand on
a straight section of railroad track (preferable when a train is not coming)
and see if the rails look like they meet or not.  Now measure the width beteen
the rails at several points.  The rails are equi-distant (so they are parallel)
yet they seem to converge.  Which set of axioms fit the data?

Point 1:  The terms "law," "theory," etc. have been previously defined.

Point 2:  Laws and Axioms are attempts to create a description of Observed
Data which we can manipulate symbolically and then collect supporting
Observed Data based on those manipulations.

Point 3:  We can never completely define the Observed Data.  Godel's Proof
says (very briefly) that there will be un-provable arguments in ANY 
system of axioms.  [Of course, that is a proof, not an axiom...]


Ah, but what has this got to do with the SF/F distinction?  Well, I suppose
I could use the definition "SF cannot contridict Observable Data"  but I
think it would be a little too restrictive.   Perhaps this should be stated
as a question and added to that list of SF quality questions:


Can SF contridict observations of the here and now?
(This is probably a re-asking of "Does SF have to be externally consistent?")

Only with extreme prejudice.  This is usally how SF storys "grow old."  
It is accepted now that the earth is more or less solid and the Martian 
"canals" aren't canals at all.


I never saw more than two opinions on:

Does Fantasy have to be internally consistent?

My opinion: No.  In fact fantasy should be at least internally consistent
unless it is a drug-induced nightmare.

Does anyone else want to "voice" an opinion?


John B.

Re .73:

2)	I have never stated that a law can be known; all I have stated is that
	a law is a true rule.  This does not prohibit us from discussing such
	laws.

The scientific principle is a principle, not a manual of style.  There is no
problem here about the difference between theorems (models) and laws (reality).
We have defined our terms and are using them properly; why are you interfering?


Re .74:

I have to disagree with your math and science teachers.  Why does math have
observed data?  Mathematical systems can be valid without any observed data.

A mathematical axiom may, in some sense, correspond to a natural law, but the
correspondence between theorem or proof and theory is incorrect.  A
mathematical theorem is derived deductively, so its validity is not based on
speculation, while a scientific theory is derived inductively and always has
questionable validity. 

> Does Fantasy have to be internally consistent?
>
> My opinion: No.  In fact fantasy should be at least internally consistent
> unless it is a drug-induced nightmare.

Since you seem to contradict yourself, I believe you have left out a word or
two, somewhere.


Re English:

What is with everyone and the capital letters?  "Law" should be capitalized
in only three situations:  Religious laws, occurrence at the beginning of a
sentence (or book title, or similar occurrence), or when it is part of a proper
noun, such as "Law of Gravity" (which is a theory, not a law).  "Science
fiction" should be capitalized only at the beginning of a sentence (or
whatever), and then only "science" should be capitalized.  "Observed data" and
"fantasy" follow similar rules.

If you wish to use these words with capital letters, please make a statement
such as "I am making up a new word, it is 'Whatever' and it means . . . .".
But be aware that when you do this, you are making up new words, not using
English as it is already defined.


				-- edp

     Re:72

         You have just dismissed any story where faster-than-light travel
as fantasy, as if violates the theory of relativity. Is Larry Niven's 
"Neutron Star" fantasy, or is a plausable explanation given?

       -- Andy

Re .75:

Yes, I goofed.  The question was supposed to read:

> Does Fantasy have to be internally INconsistent?
>
> My opinion: No.  In fact fantasy should be at least internally consistent
> unless it is a drug-induced nightmare.

My apologies.


As far as caps goes, since we are "talking" using the written word, we lose
inter- and non-verbal cues such as inflection.  In an attempt to replace
that loss, caps, quotes, and double quotes are COMMONLY used for emphisis,
doubt, sarcasm, excitement, etc.  In the strictest sense, you are correct 
about the caps.  However, I wasn't aware this was a formal forum nor that
my responses were going to be graded against the Chicago Manual of Style.


John B.

Re .76:

I don't suppose you read my definition of science fiction?

My point is that any story which includes faster-than-light travel violates
our theories and probably violates our laws, as well.  But this does not make
it fantasy.  If the laws in the story are consistent with themselves, it is
still science fiction by my definition.  It does not matter if the story's laws
disagree with ours.


				-- edp

Re .76:

(I didn't write .72, but I agree with him, I think.)

Well, yes and no.  Yes, FTL violates the theory of relativity. (Note that's
"theory" and that the theory of relativity violates Newtonian physics.)
No, I don't think THAT author gave an explanation for FTL in THAT book.

But -- will you accept a genre-wide explanation?   In other words, several 
authors in several books have given plausable explanations over a period of many
years; will that satisfy the need?

On the other hand, does FTL really violate the theory of relativity?  What
does the theory actually say?  As far as I can tell, it says that as an object
approaches speed-of-light, it takes more and more force to accelerate it
still further until it takes and infinite amount or force to accelerate it
at all.  That may be the absolute truth, BUT ONLY IN THE SENSE OF
CLASSICAL ACCELERATION.  What if the object doesn't accelerate?  What if
one instant it is floating at one point, and the next it is floating 
1 light-year away but still at rest relative to the first point.  Classical
velocity and acceleration assumes the object must pass through all intervening
points.  (You know what "assume" means...)

How it it possible to go from point A to point B without going through the
points in between?  If I knew that, do you think I would be working?  But
there is a hole in the theory of relativity...


John B.

Re .77:

If story which is alleged to be fantasy is self-consistent, I can imagine a
universe in which it takes place.  Perhaps it even takes place in our
universe, where the laws seem different from ours because the environment is
different -- this might allow Steve Kallis to see such a story as science
fiction.  By "environment is different" I am referring to things such as:

	On Earth, the law of gravity seemed to be:

		Things fall at the same acceleration, regardless of mass.

	But this is incorrect.  Over the entire universe, the law now
	seems to be (disregarding general relativity):

		Two objects attract each other proportional to the product
		of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of
		their distance.

Thus, maybe the story takes place somewhere in our universe, and the only
reason the laws seem different is because of the local environment, here and
there.  This reasoning is intended to appeal to the purists, who claim science
fiction must have the possibility of taking place in our universe.  Personally,
I will just accept another universe where the story's laws hold.

Skip the rest of this note if you do not want an English lesson.

In regard to style, we are indeed losing such things as inflection.  This makes
it important to be careful to convey our meaning more clearly.  The English
language is quite capable of handling this task; it is not necessary to create
new things willy-nilly.

Capitals, apostrophes, and quotes are not commonly used for emphasis.  They
are used by a few people, and the manner in which they do so usually detracts
from clarity.  If you wish to convey meaning accurately, try this:

	Use quotes for titles of parts of works (such as magazine articles),
	or when referring to a word or phrase itself, rather than referring
	to the word's or phrase's meaning.

Because we are using terminals instead of typewriters, we have lost the ability
to underline (which is the equivalent of italics).  It does seem to be common
to use an underline or asterisk before and after a word or phrase to denote
underlining.  Thus,

> As far as caps goes, since we are "talking" using the written word, we lose

should be

> As far as caps goes, since we are _talking_ using the written word, we lose

	Italics/underlining is used to denote titles of complete works or
	emphasis.

There are, of course, more rules to using these and other constructs of
English.  While it is acceptable to occasionally create new uses for various
things, it is almost always better to use the current denotations.  Instead
of capitalizing terms, just use them properly.  Spell things correctly.  Do
not just decided to use a word (such as "continuum") to represent something;
if you want to discuss some concept but are not sure of your words, use a
dictionary and a thesaurus to find the proper words.  People reading your
messages should not be expected to guess at new meanings when you could use
words they will be able to look up in their own dictionaries.

The purpose of following the rules is not to learn discipline; it is because
meaning can be conveyed more accurately by following a determined set of rules.



				-- edp

Re .79:

In regard to a genre-wide explanation, yes, things such as faster-than-light
travel have been discussed so often that it can be accepted immediately in any
new story that there is some self-consistent set of laws that permits
faster-than-light travel.  I stated this a number of replies previously. 

As for violating the theory of relativity, faster-than-light travel definitely
does violate it.  The special theory says all motion is relative -- that is,
there is no way to determine if a given object is stopped in any absolute
sense.  The rest of the statements about special relativity are conclusions
drawn from this.  In particular, the statement imposes a certain structure
on space-time.  This structure means that if an object gets from one point to
another in less time (to an observer) than light takes, it has basically
traveled into the past, which violates a number of other theories (such as
the widely held belief that cause precedes effect).  How the object got from
one point to another is irrelevant.

> How it it possible to go from point A to point B without going through the
> points in between?

What do you think quantum physics is about?


				-- edp

One more point about clarity:

	Capitalizing a word in the manner shown indicates a change in meaning,
	rather than emphasis.  Thus, "Law" does not mean the same thing as
	"law", but "_law_" does mean the same thing as "law", except that
	attention is being called to it.  So if you wish to emphasize that you
	are speaking of a law rather than a theory, you would use "_law_".


				-- edp

Re .80:

It seems you and I are at least identifying our disagreement:  

    1.  Does SF have to be internally consistent?

	Both - Yes.

    2.  Does SF have to be externally consistent?

	Me  - Yes, it has to be an extrapolation of the here and now.
	You - External to what?  What does "external" mean?

    3.  Does Fantasy have to be internally inconsistent?

	Me  - No, unless it is a drug induced nightmare.
	You - Yes, otherwise such a universe can be imaged, 
	      thus the story would be SF.

Is that a fair statement?  If so, please explain "internally inconsistent."
Perhaps you could illustrate the internal inconsistency of a few fantasies.


John B.                           

	We are now approaching the Naughty Nineties and we've really had a
sort of Brownian-movement progress in the direction of differentiating
SF from F.  Apparently, there are now two discussions going on: what's
"scientifically" acceptable as a premise in a story (if things are, there
seems to be no objections to calling the story SF) and whether stories
where things aren't "scientifically acceptable in this cosmos but would
follow consistent rules in another might also be considered SF [there should
be a closed quote after "scientifically"]; and a second discussion as to 
what's scientfically acceptable, period.  I tried to split this second
off by opening "possibilities" at/about 213,OM
 but it seems to have taken
hold here anyway.
	As noted earlier, I think the problem's in the "gray areas."  A story
about a manned space station built around off-the-shelf components would
unquestionably be SF.  Alladin and his Magic Lamp definitely would be F.
To a certain extent, the gray area *is* subjective: parapsychology ("psi")
stories being a case in point.  Psi powers have been "demonstrated" mostly
on a statistical basis, but not clearly enough for everyone to accept the
figures.  Some personalities like Uri Geller have had their apparent powers
successfully challenged by stage illusionists like James "The Amazing" Randi,
whose books on the subjects of psi and Geller (_Flim-Flam!_ and _The_Magic_
of_Uri_Geller_ respectively) should be read at least once.  There simply
isn't enough evidence yet to make a determination *scientifically* about
the validity of psi.  Blish's _Jack_of_Eagles_ festoons some aspects of
psi with the trappings of science (including the Blackett Transformation,
if memory serves), others, like _Sentinels_of_Space_ by Eric Frank Russell,
take psi powers to almost absurd lengths.  Are they SF?  Depends to whom
you speak.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

re .83:

>2. Does SF have to be externally consistent?
>
>   Me  - Yes, it has to be an extrapolation of here and now.
>   You - External to what?  What does "external" mean?

this is *a* crux: A better question would be "How do you mean "consistent"?
Any story about a black hole would be hard to extrapolate to so that it
would be consistent with "here and now."  What about The Follower in
van Vogt's _Players_Of_Null-A_?  Is he "consistent" with a here-and-now
extrapolation?

>3. Does fantasy have to be internally inconsistent?
    Me - No, unless it's a drug-induced nightmare.
    You -Yes, otherwise such a universe could be imaged, thus
         a story would be SF.

Well, that's a poser:  I'd say this -- a fantasy *can* be internally incon-
sistent, but need not be.  "A drug-induced nightmare" isn't intrinsically
a fantasy, unless you're willing to say "all dreams are Fantasy."  A fairy
tale may be internally consistent, yet I hope that we'd all agree that it
would be a fantasy.  In the Lord D'Arcy stories, Master Sorcerer Sean 
O'Laughlin [spelling?] says, "Black Magic is a question of symbolism and
intent.  As indeed is White Magic ...."  Without discussing the validity
of "magic" as a science, I propose that SF, too, is a matter of symbolism
and intent: symbolism in degree-of-acceptability of technical prenise; in-
tent in how the story's presented.

Does this help?

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Re .83:

Sounds pretty good, except my answer to number 2 is no.  Let me recap the
questions and clarify external consistency:

Does science fiction have to be internally consistent?

	John	-- Yes.
	Eric	-- Yes.
	Steve	-- Yes?

Does science fiction have to possess weak external consistency?

	John	-- Yes?
	Eric	-- No.
	Steve	-- Yes?

Does science fiction have to possess strong external consistency?

	John	-- No?
	Eric	-- No.
	Steve	-- No?

Does science fiction have to possess world consistency?

	John	-- No?
	Eric	-- No.
	Steve	-- No?

Does fantasy have to be internally inconsistent?

	John	-- No.
	Eric	-- Yes.
	Steve	-- No?



Definitions:

	assert -- to claim to be true by explicit statement, allusion, or
		implication

	internal consistency -- the property that no two statements asserted
		by a story contradict each other

	weak external consistency -- the property that no statement asserted
		by a story contradicts accepted scientific theories at the
		time of writing

	strong external consistency -- the property that no statement asserted
		by a story contradicts natural law

	world consistency -- the property that no statement asserted by a
		story contradicts known events in our universe

Examples:

	A story which obeys all laws and theories, but in which the United
	States never formed, possesses internal and weak and strong external
	consistency, but not world consistency.

	A story written in Newton's time but set in the future and which
	postulated relativity would have internal consistency, strong
	external consistency, and world consistency, but not weak external
	consistency.

	A story in which magic worked might have internal consistency but
	would not have strong external consistency (we think), weak
	external consistency, or world consistency.


				-- edp

I would like to amend a statement I made about special relativity.  I got out
my physics textbook and checked; special relativity consists of two postulates,
rather than one:

	The laws of physics are identical in every inertial frame of reference.

	The speed of light is the same in every inertial frame of reference.

All other statements associated with special relativity (such as change of
mass from frame to frame) are consequences of these two statements.


			-- edp

re .86:

>Does science fiction have to be internally consistent?
> 
> John -- Yes.
> Eric -- Yes.
> Steve -- Yes?

Steve says -- Yes!

>Does science fiction have to possess weak external consistency?
>
> John -- Yes?
> Eric -- No.
> Steve -- Yes?

Steve says "qualified yes."  By that I mean that it should not contradict
accepted scientific theories at the time of writing *taken in aggregate*.
Thus, if theory A can be somehow modified or gotten around by theory B,
then it's SF; however, both theories A and B must be recognized and legiti-
mate theories.

>Does science fiction have to posess strong external consistency?
>
> John -- No?
> Eric -- No.
> Steve -- No?

{I'll quit saying "Steve says"; you know who I am by this time}
er, I think we stumbled all around the "natural law" thing.  If we stipulate
that we don't know exactly what the natural laws are, I'd say "yes," but that's
part of the problem.  "Natural law at time of writing" is meaningless.

(No, I didn't say that that's what Eric said -- I'm just making sure there
are no misunderstandings.)

>Does science fiction have to posess world consistency?
>
> John -- No.
> Eric -- Yes.
> Steve -- No?

No, if by "events" in your definition you mean "historical events."

>Does fantasy have to be internally inconsistent?
>
> John -- No.
> Eric -- Yes.
> Steve -- No?

No.  A beautiful fantasy like Fletcher Pratt's _Blue Star_ is perfectly
internally consistent, yet is a fantasy (in my eyes, anyway).  _Conan
The Conqueror_ seems internally consistent, but in my eyes is definitely
a fantasy.

To recap my thoughts on fantasy, its elements aren't defined and don't
have to have any outside limits (cf. _Conan_, for instance), whereas
*one aspect* of SF is that it must have well-defined limits that it
works within.

Example from real life:

	African native a century ago crossed the local witch doctor."  The
witch doctor made a doll image of the native, sticks pins in it.  Native
finds out about doll, sickens, dies.  [Sorry for sense shift: should all
be past tense.]  There have been authenticated cases of such happenings.

	1)  Story can be considered mainstream fiction.
	2)  Story can be considered SF (from "power of suggestion"
          placebo phenomenon).
     3)  Story can be fantasy (if evil fairies are added).

	Let's not get stuck in worring whether any "magic works" for purposes
of this discussion: the difference between _Too Many Magicians_ and, say,
_The Mislaid Charm_ should be clear to even the casual reader.

Symbolism and intent ....

Regards,

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Re .88:

> Steve says "qualified yes."  By that I mean that it should not contradict
> accepted scientific theories at the time of writing *taken in aggregate*.
> Thus, if theory A can be somehow modified or gotten around by theory B,
> then it's SF; however, both theories A and B must be recognized and legiti-
> mate theories.

I do not understand.  Are theories A and B contradictory?  If so, then only
one can be currently accepted, which is part of my definition of weak external
consistency.

>> Does science fiction have to possess strong external consistency?
>>
>> John -- No?
>> Eric -- No.
>> Steve -- No?

> {I'll quit saying "Steve says"; you know who I am by this time}
> er, I think we stumbled all around the "natural law" thing.  If we stipulate
> that we don't know exactly what the natural laws are, I'd say "yes," but
> that's part of the problem.  "Natural law at time of writing" is meaningless.

"Natural law at time of writing" is not meaningless.  It means the same thing
as "natural law" or "natural law in 3000 B.C.".  That is, the "at time of
writing" part is unnecessary.  The idea here is that we will forgive the
author if we later discover the story's laws to be wrong, so a story does not
have to possess strong external consistency.

>> Does science fiction have to possess world consistency?

>> Eric -- Yes.

> No, if by "events" in your definition you mean "historical events."

I said "no", not "yes".  And yes, I do mean (essentially) "historical events".

> No.  A beautiful fantasy like Fletcher Pratt's _Blue Star_ is perfectly
> internally consistent, yet is a fantasy (in my eyes, anyway).  _Conan
> The Conqueror_ seems internally consistent, but in my eyes is definitely
> a fantasy.

But if the story is consistent, couldn't it take place somewhere?


				-- edp

I think everyone agrees that science fiction has to be internally consistent.  

I think there are two questions open at this point:

1.  Does science fiction have to possess accepted science theory,	
					 natural law, or
					 historical,		consistency?

	(As an aside, I'd like to scratch "natural law."  It seems to me 
	someone made a big argument that theories cannot be proven, only 
	disproven.  OK, I'll buy that.  How does one distinguish between 
	theories and laws?)

2.  Does fantasy have to be internally inconsistent?


"SF is a matter of symbolism and intent," is a marvelous statement of our
predicament (the reading population at large, not the tapeworm's;  I don't 
think tapeworms read SF).  It is short, sweet, to the point, and impossible 
to quantify.

It seems to me that we have collectively identified the subject disagreement:
does SF have to be consistent with the here-and-now?  And we provided a
range of answers:  I think SF should be an extrapolation of the here-and-now 
(very consistent),  Steve thinks it may ponder "What if the here-and-now
happened a little differently" (moderarately consistent),  and Eric thinks it 
doesn't even have to acknowledge the here-and-now as long as it agrees with 
itself (little or no here-and-now consistent).  

Is that a fair statement?

If a vote were taken, I would expect Steve's viewpoint to win the majority,
but a sizable percentage would side with me and Eric.  Further, I don't expect
I will ever bring Eric over to my side, nor will Eric ever bring me to his.
(I'm sorry, but you are crazy if you think the Conan series is SF!)

Fair enough?


John B.

re: "How does one distinguish between theories and laws?"


A law is a theory that has been repeatedly tested and has been found to 
hold true in all (or almost all) cases. 

For example, Newton started out with three theories about Gravity. After 
much testing (making predictions based on the theory, and testing if the 
observations match the predictions), the theories were considered laws.

Newton's Laws of Gravity have been tested for hundreds of years. They
have been found to hold true under most conditions. It was assumed that
they held true under all conditions until Einstein proved otherwise. 
Since the laws are still very useful (Neptune and Pluto were discovered 
because the observations didn't match the predictions) and Einstein's 
work basically builds upon the laws, they remain laws.


MartyJ

Re .91:

> A law is a theory that has been repeatedly tested and has been found to 
> hold true in all (or almost all) cases. 

I think the argument was something like: if you test a theory thousands of
times and it appears to be true, then all you have proven is that you didn't
test for the case in which it isn't true.

Newtonian physics vs. relativity is a great example.  The Copernican revolution
is another.

BUT, before this note gets us into another quagmire, do you agree with the
rest of the statement?


John B.

Re .90:

We should not scratch the strong external consistency question unless we all
agree.  Steve said "yes", but I said "no".

> range of answers:  I think SF should be an extrapolation of the here-and-now
> (very consistent),  Steve thinks it may ponder "What if the here-and-now
> happened a little differently" (moderately consistent),  and Eric thinks it
> doesn't even have to acknowledge the here-and-now as long as it agrees with
> itself (little or no here-and-now consistent).

> Is that a fair statement?

Fine by me.

> If a vote were taken, I would expect Steve's viewpoint to win the majority,
> but a sizable percentage would side with me and Eric.  Further, I don't expect
> I will ever bring Eric over to my side, nor will Eric ever bring me to his.
> (I'm sorry, but you are crazy if you think the Conan series is SF!)

I haven't said anything about the Conan series yet, probably because I haven't
read it.  I think I saw part of a movie, on television.  Isn't there magic in
it, which is not explained?  That's enough to put it in the fantasy category.

Re .91:

> A law is a theory that has been repeatedly tested and has been found to
> hold true in all (or almost all) cases.

Didn't we discuss that already?

> Newton's Laws of Gravity have been tested for hundreds of years. They
> have been found to hold true under most conditions. It was assumed that
> they held true under all conditions until Einstein proved otherwise.
> Since the laws are still very useful (Neptune and Pluto were discovered
> because the observations didn't match the predictions) and Einstein's
> work basically builds upon the laws, they remain laws.

Newton's theories are not laws.  They are not even accepted theories.  However,
they are useful approximations.


				-- edp

      One of the hidden assumptions that this entire note is based on is
that there is some characteristic common to both SF and F that is not
present in other forms of fiction. Internal, external, and world consistency
can be present or not present in other forms of fiction in the same pattern
that they appear in SF or F. Thus the blanket term "consistency" must be 
either modified or scrapped.

      -- Andy

Re .94:

Currently, we are only trying to distinguish between science fiction and
fantasy.  We appear to have agreed that science fiction is separated from other
fiction by the inclusion of speculative science or technology.  If you wish to
pin down this characteristic with more detail, feel free to do so.

In my book, fantasy is distinguished from other fiction by inconsistency.


				-- edp

re .89
>I do not understand.  Are theories A and B contradictory?  If so, then
>only one can be currently accepted, which is part of my definition of
>weak consistency.

O consistency!  Thou art weak!

:-)

Seriously, folks -- Theory A might be something like the 19th Century
"law" of the Conservation of Matter.  If "-Energy" isn't added into
the "law of conservation," there might appear to be holes.  Also, the
"laws" of thermodynamics indicate that heat can't flow away from a colder
area to a hotter one, yet Carnot showed a way that  this xan be accomplished
locally: i.e., fiddling with aspects of a theory can cause all sorts of
side effects that *at first blush* seem incompatible.  Some theories (models)
have totally different bases, but these work well enough.  In subnuclear
physics, the P. A. M. Dirac model of "space"  postulates total saturation of
space with all fundamental particles, with the ones we know either surpluses
or deficiencies over and above the background (rather like P- and N-materials
in semiconductors).  An artificial construct, but it worked well enough to
enable the production of antiparticles, yet at wide variance with other
theories of space at the time of its formulation (Relativity, for instance,
had just gotten rid of the concept of lumeniferous ether)



[Sorry; glitch there]

The point is that there has yet been a universal theory of space/time that
doesn't have anomalies in the real world (see what I'm attempting to
address at note 213).

>But if the story is consistent, couldn't it take place somewhere?

There's our "consistency" bugaboo.  My view is that something that's
externally "consistent" with the world-as-we-know-it is mainstraem
and/or very-hard science fiction.  Something that's not at variance
with the world-as-we-know-it but that uses principles (hypotheses)
that modify (or do not conflict with) "laws" as we understand them
is mainstream science fiction.  Something that's internally "consistent"
but that has little relation to the world-as-we-know-it could be
borderline science fiction or outright fantasy.  Something where
consistency is no factor (e.g., the story where the powerful genie's
killed by some random and unpredictable factor like breaking the roc's 
egg where his heart is hidden) is, in my term, definitely fantasy, even
though it might not show inconsistency *or* consistency.

re .90:

The most fascinating things about "natural laws" or principles is that
we take on faith that just because they worked before, they'll work
again.  This is something that cannot be *proved*; however, experience
suggests this is the way things work.

Of course, common-day experience doesn't help with Relativity, either.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

re .95

	In my view, a story that's internally inconsistent isn't fantasy;
it's surrealism.  Surrealism may be very effecive, but its lack of 
internal structure makes it like a hallucenogen: exciting, but no more.
In as blatant a fantasy as "Jack and the Branstalk," the story had enough
internal consistency so that Jack had to climb the beanstanl to reach the
giant's cloudland, and he had to chop it down to kill the giant in a fall.
The point is that once you postulate a magic beanstalk and a castle in
the clouds, the rest of the story has internal consistency, but most would
term it a fantasy, not science fiction becauae of a remote possibility that
there's a cosmos in which it might have happened.

	Most dream sequences are surreal: things meld and shift from one
thing to another and there may be no orderly reason for the shifts or
points of consistency between different elements of the dream.  "Fantasy"
in the sense that it's unreal, but not (ordinarily) Fantasy as the genre
(interesting exception: L. Ron Hubbard's _Fear_, which is presented as
a fantasy, has been termed science fiction, but which is really mainstream.
That was written before he went to Dianetics and Scientology).

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Re .96:

It sounds as if you are talking about areas not covered by theories A and B,
or simply semantic qualifications.

>>But if the story is consistent, couldn't it take place somewhere?
>
> There's our "consistency" bugaboo.  My view is that something that's
> externally "consistent" with the world-as-we-know-it is mainstream
> and/or very-hard science fiction.

A story which is self-consistent and which does not mention Earth history, or
any other empirical knowledge possessed by us, does not contradict the world
as we know it.  Even if it has totally different laws, we cannot prove that
they are not true, somewhere else in our universe.  There are only three ways
to prove a story to be impossible:

	An internally inconsistent story is impossible.

	A story in which an event does not occur which we know did occur
	(such as formation of the United States) is impossible.

	A story which has a law which implies that some event we know did
	occur must not occur is impossible.

Just because the story's laws appear to be totally different from ours does not
make it impossible, because we have no proof that what we believe to be laws
are laws or that they hold over the entire universe.


				-- edp

Re .97:

Something is surreal if it has "the irrational reality of a dream", according
to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1976.  Surrealism is a subset of
fantasy.  Besides implying an inconsistency ("irrational"), surrealism implies
some appearance of reality, which is not necessary in a fantasy. 

In _Jack and the Beanstalk_, there is an inconsistency, because the story
apparently takes place in a normal world, where our laws of physics hold, but
such a plant could not grow, due to the strength of the materials involved, nor
could another world exist above the clouds.  Since these events contradict our
(and the story's) laws, the story is not self-consistent. 


				-- edp

			This is the centennial reply!

				HAPPY 100th!!!


Congratulations are in order.  Its not every note that gets this kind of
responce.  Everyone deserves a pat on the back.  Just don't break your arm,
else you won't be able to contribute to the second 100.


John B.

Wow!  I hit the "big 100"!

	Now I'm confused.  In .99, Eric indicated that "Jack and the Beanstalk"
[I loved my "Branstalk" typo: but that story was a "cereal" :-) ] had an 
"inconstancy" since the story "apparently takes place in a normal world
where our laws of physics hold ...."  Sorry: i it followed *our* laws of 
physics, the >giant< couldn't exist, so "obviously" it must take place in
a different environment where only some of the physical laws we know work
as they do here.
	And I think that's the crux of our definitional problem.  We can't
prove that there isn't a world/cosmos in which Jack's beanstalk couldn't
grow, a harp couldn't sing by itself, or giants couldn't exist in cloud-
castles somehow: it wouldn't be *our* world with its winds and ways, to
be sure ....
	If we accept that such a world might exist, then virtually every
fantasy becomes science fiction.  On the other hand, since most of us
find it difficult to suspend our disbelief that far, the story cries
out "fantasy" to us, loud and clear.
	But given a world where there are giants, giant beanstalks, and
cloudcookooland castles, the rest of the story was "consistent" to the
extent that nothing extraneous was brought into the story to solve the
problem (Jack didn't suddenly disable the giant through voodoo or a 
lucky charm nobody mentioned before); he merely dodged the giant, slid 
or climbed down the stalk, and chopped it down with a household axe.
What *in my terms* made it fantasy is that the setup was wrong: Jack
trades the cow for "magic beans" from a swindler, yet they actually
turn out to be magic (i mean -- a giant beanstalk overnight!), the
action wasn't very limited (fee-fi-fo-fum I smell the blood of an 
Englishman is rather, er, extrasensory), a singing harp and gold-laying
hen .... these all add up, in my book, to something non-SF.
	So in my terms, "internally inconsistent" stories may be a subset
of fantasy (which is how you defined surreal stories), but they're not
the whole ball of wax.
	I hope this perspective will help us all agree on the definitions of
the categories we'e using to determine the definition of SF and fantasy,
which will help us categorize individual stories ..... [pant, pant ...]

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Re .101: 

In _Jack and the Beanstalk_, the author does not say, or imply, "Here is
another universe" or "What if the laws were like this".  It is simply "Let's
make up a fun story."  When reading the story, we have to do some work to try
to figure out the author's intentions. 

Jack is an ordinary child, in an ordinary world, which seems just like ours.
This setting tells us the story is set in our universe.  The intent of the
author is to say, playfully, "Hey, this could happen to you.".  The story is set
in our universe, but it cannot take place in our universe, and the author has
not pretended that our laws are different, so it is inconsistent.


				-- edp 

      Re:95
   
          You obviuosly missed the point of my responce. If science fiction 
shared nothing in common, then why ask about the SF-F distinction as opposed
to the SF-Historical fiction distinction or the SF-Romance novel distinction?
To decide upon the unique SF-F distinction, it is just as important to set SF
and F off apart from other forms of fiction, than it is to differentiate 
between them, or else you define such books as "Of Mice and Men" and {"To
Kill a Mockingbird" as SF (they are internally, externally, and worldly 
consistent).

         Unless you want to say that you can just "know" science fiction,
which defeats the entire purpose of this note.

    -- Andy

Re .103: 

The reason we are trying to distinguish between science fiction and fantasy is
that some people have trouble making this distinction (such as bookstores,
which almost invariably put them both in one section).  People do not seem to
have as great a problem separating these categories from others, so there is no
need to examine that distinction. 

If you do wish to examine the distinction, for whatever reason, we have stated
it already.  Please reread the reply in which I present my definition of
science fiction and fantasy.  I state in what way science fiction must include
science or technology.  If such an inclusion is not present, a work is not
science fiction.  And fantasy is separated from other categories by its lack of
self-consistency. 


				-- edp

>          Please reread the reply in which I present my definition of
>science fiction and fantasy.  I state in what way science fiction must include
>science or technology.  If such an inclusion is not present, a work is not
>science fiction.  And fantasy is separated from other categories by its lack of
>self-consistency. 
[.104]

Here's the crux again.  Where I think in terms of limitations versus lack
thereof, eric thinks in terms of "consistency."  A fantasy world can be
internally "consistent," if by that one means once certain rules are in place
nothing necessarily violates or contradicts what's been said previously.
Thus, there's nothing *contradictory* in, say, _Conan the Conqueror_, even
though there's no limit to the powers introduced throughout the story.
No character says of a vampire, priest, or wizard, "Hey!  That's impossible!
We all know that without the touch of the wand of Set [or whatever] you
can't turn gold into diamonds," or anything of that order.

_Alice in Wonderland_'s a fantasy (and a good one for adults: if you haven't
read it since childhood, do so again; you'll be in for a pleasant surprise).
It's internal "consistency" is shaky.  _The Blue Star_'s a fantasy, but its
internal structure and rules are a lot tighter (that one's very good, too;
even though Pratt invented a writing style for it).

	ALL THE ABOVE JUDGEMENTS ARE ***MY PERSPECTIVE***: we're trying to 
see whether there's anything we can all agree on it.

	IS there a point of consensus?

Regards,

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Re .105:

> Thus, there's nothing *contradictory* in, say, _Conan the Conqueror_, even
> though there's no limit to the powers introduced throughout the story.

The fact that the events of the story are not contradictory is insufficient.
I have explained several times that our laws hold implicitly.  It is up to the
author either to present an environment so different from ours that we know
our laws do not hold or to explicitly state that some or all of our laws do
not hold.

Judging by the movie, Conan's world is much like ours.  If no explanation is
presented for the magic, we may assume our laws hold, and they do not permit
magic.  Thus, _Conan_ would be fantasy.


				-- edp

Re: .106:

>Judging by the movie, Conan's world is much like ours.  If no explanation is
>presented for the maic, we may assume our laws hold, and they do not permit
>magic.  Thus, _Conan_ ould be fantasy.

Several things here -- 1) a world might be "much like ours" without being ours;
2) we don't *know* that our laws "do not permit magic," nor can we know until
and unless we're able to define "magic" and its limitations; and 3) since I've
been criticized for the indiscriminate use of the "we," I've the right to re-
iterate that *in my perspective* the difference between fantasy and science
fiction is that one has limitatations that the other one doesn't.  An inter-
esting case in point is Jack Vance's _the Dying Earth_, wherein there are all
sorts of magics that in some casesthe author leaves strong hints are degener-
ated form of technology (e.g., the demon Blikdak in the last story was un-
ravelled at the molecular level by a mechanism).  SF?  Fantasy?  Both?  A
point here is that one could make a good case for either (it's "internally
consistent" in that whenever it's really *necessary* a technique is explain-
ed, even though usually what's done is no more explained than a telephone
is explained in a mainstream story; possibly SF thereby, but it cries out
"Fantasy!").  

Also, saying "Judging by the movie" implies that you've not read the (mar-
velous) _Conan the Conqueror_.  Do read it; the movie's not shadow to
substance of that book, no more than Johnny Weismuller's 1940s movies of
Tarzan have anything but the most tenuous relationship to the complkex
character penned by Edgar Rice Burroughs.  Anyone who has read Howard's
original stories would unquestioningly label them fantasy.  Grand fantsasy,
by which all the follow-on Swords&Sorcery "epics" look pale, at best.

Lest anybody flame on the "magic" business, please recall that in Gar-
rett's series, "magic" worked on the basis of symbol theory and other
(somewhat unspecified) resources that were devloped arund the time of
Richard cour de Leon.  Whether there's anything we know of (an aspect of
psi, perhaps?) *or could find* that fills the bill we can't rule out.
If some aspect of "magic" works, though, it would have to work in concert
with (as opposed to "in conflict with") the rest of the "laws" we're
familiar with.  *I'm not saying "magic" works* (or doesn't work, for
that matter): I'm saying that the science fictional treatment of it, 
as per the Lord D'Arcy stories, as opposed to the fantasy treatment, such
as the Conan sagas, is somewhat a reflection of what makes the overall
difference between the two closely related genres.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Re .107:

> Several things here -- 1) a world might be "much like ours" without being ours

This is possible.  If this is what the author intends, the author should make
it clear.  A simple reference to "the laws of magic" would be enough to
eliminate our assumption that it is our universe.  This assumption is just a
sort of default -- it is there unless overridden by intention.

> 2) we don't *know* that our laws "do not permit magic,"

Another default assumption is that our theories are laws.  (This may sound like
I'm just adding these things at will, but they really are present when I start
reading a book; I have just not been able to communicate them all to you.) 

Again, such default assumptions can be overridden at the slightest indication
that the author wants them to be overridden.

> 3) since I've been criticized for the indiscriminate use of the "we," I've the
> right to re- iterate that *in my perspective* the difference between fantasy
> and science fiction is that one has limitations that the other one doesn't.

You can't catch me that easily.  My objection to the term "we" had two parts:

	the term is used in a way that appears to refer to me and

	the statement made does not apply to me.

The case I objected to was:

	A problem here is that we've sort of said, "Science Fiction is a
	story in which scientific truths are adhered to and that the
	science/technology is central to the story."  Then we've started
	to ask "What is a valid scientific truth?"

First, the "we" has no antecedent and thus appears to refer to participants
in this note, which includes me.  Second, I have never sort of said "Science
fiction is a story in which . . . .".

The only "we" I can find that you may be objecting to is in:

	Judging by the movie, Conan's world is much like ours.  If no
	explanation is presented for the magic, we may assume our laws
	hold, and they do not permit magic.  Thus, _Conan_ would be
	fantasy.

Although this can be interpreted to include you, it says "may assume", not
"must assume" or "have assumed", so the statement does apply to you, since you
may make the stated assumption, if you wish.

About _The Dying Earth_, you have left us with "maybe".  To determine whether
it is science fiction or fantasy, one would have to examine the book more
closely.  Is Vance really trying to explain things, or is he just pretending
that there is an explanation?  The latter seems appropriate to me; he does not
really explain the apparent magic, so the book is fantasy.  Since you say "It
cries out 'Fantasy!'", we seem to agree.

> Also, saying "Judging by the movie" implies that you've not read the (mar-
> velous) _Conan the Conqueror_.

I do not know why you need to examine the phrase "Judging by the movie".  In
a previous reply I said "I have not read the book".  It seems to me that this
would be a better indicator of whether or not I have read the book.  :-).

Anyway, you go on to say the stories are fantasy.  Okay, I agree.


				-- edp

Re .108:

>I do not know why you need to examine the phrase "Judging by the movie".  In
>a previous reply I said "I have not read the book".  It seems to me that this
>would be a better indicator of whether or not I have read the book.  :-).

Yeah, but that was some time ago.  Since then, you've had *time* to read
the book! :-)

[Try it: you'll like it.]

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Re .109: 

I think my comment about the book was only a few notes/days ago. 

Please don't let me know about books to read.  After I started working, my
reading rate dropped from about 130 books a year to maybe 50, if I'm lucky. 
And I already have more than 50 books waiting to be read.  It will be a year
before I can read anything you recommend. 


				-- edp 

Andy,

For your consensus, I agree with your statement that SF says "here is a 
difference with an explanation(whether implicit or explicit)", while fantasy 
says "accept this no matter how absurd you think it is".


And I also agree with Steve's statement of symbology and intent.  I do not 
think that either of these opinions contradict each other (they may even be 
the same).


As for "Jack and the Beanstalk", recall that it and most faerie tales were 
written (or more likely conceived and told) in a time when such things were 
_not_ considered fantasy.  Given that, the story is not saying "this happens 
in our world but we all know it can't".  It has become fantasy with age.  Will 
some of our outdated science fiction stories be faerie tales to future 
generations?  Very possible.


NOTE:  I have paraphrased other people's opinions in order to show my 
understanding of them.  If I have misunderstood something, please inform me so 
that I may revise my perceptions.


Beth

Re .111:

> As for "Jack and the Beanstalk", recall that it and most faerie tales were
> written (or more likely conceived and told) in a time when such things were
> _not_ considered fantasy.

I might agree that there are some things which we would find preposterous
today which were not some time ago, however I am not sure _Jack and the
Beanstalk_ is such a story.  Can you support this claim?

_Jack and the Beanstalk_ seems to be directed toward children, which may
indicate it is intended to be make-believe.


				-- edp

No, I can't support it.  But to the best of my knowledge, faerie tales 
(although meant for children) have a basis in a time when man believed in 
magic and faeries and other such creatures.  The stories have probably been 
altered to fit each generation.  From what I can see, fantasy stories have 
their basis in these faerie tales (potential writer's hearing Cinderella or 
Snow White and Rose Red with their witches and princes and monsters to be 
overcome as children). (BTW [showing my ignorance], when did the Brothers 
Grimm write their stories and were they _their_ stories or folk tales finally 
put into writing?)


NOTE: If I really wanted to be controversial, I could say that even our known 
science is a fantasy.  Depending on your point of view, either God created our 
"natural laws" and we must accept that they are so because He said so, or 
these laws just came to be with the start of our universe.  Has anyone yet 
found an explanation for why or do we just _accept_ that they are true because 
they are true? 

(Reality is as we perceive it, hence scientists refer to "observed data", not 
reality.)

Beth

Re .113:

Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm lived from 1785-1863 and 1786-1859, respectively.
My source, Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1976, says they were
philologists (low-tech JOYOFLEX.NOT and BOOKS.NOT participants) and fairy
tale collaborators.  That's not as explicit as it should be, but it seems to
say they wrote the stories themselves.  I would imagine the tales were written
between 1786 and 1859.  This is recent enough to suggest the Grimm brothers
did not believe the fantasy stories could be true.

Older stories might be different.  However, if a story be inconsistent [sic], I
would classify it as fantasy, even if the author considered it to be possible. 
To me, it is the same as if an insane person wrote an inconsistent story but
believed it to be possible (or even true).  It be still fantasy, regardless of
the author's beliefs.  (Please excuse the correct usage of the present tense,
subjunctive mood.  Being a radical [see SOAPBOX], I am non-conforming by
conforming.  I think.)

> NOTE: If I really wanted to be controversial, I could say that even our known
> science is a fantasy.  Depending on your point of view, either God created our
> "natural laws" and we must accept that they are so because He said so, or
> these laws just came to be with the start of our universe.

This is the advantage of my definition; our laws seem to be science fiction
because they seem to be self-consistent.

By the way, do not get locked into thinking there are just two views of
nature, the Western religion view and the Western science view.

> Has anyone yet found an explanation for why or do we just _accept_ that they
> are true because they are true?

See TRIVIA""::SYS$NOTES:LIFE.NOT, notes 43 and 45.  My view is that our
scientific theories are probably false, but they make nice rules of thumb.

> (Reality is as we perceive it, hence scientists refer to "observed data", not
> reality.)

You can't prove that.  What we observe might be really real, as opposed to
apparently real.


				-- edp

I didn't say it couldn't be real, just that what we perceive as real may not 
be, no matter what it is.

And, yes, I know there are other viewpoints on our origin, but I am sticking to 
the ones I am most familiar with.

Thank you for the info on the Brother's Grimm.  But even in their time, some 
of those things were believed real.  I even know of extremely intelligent, 
well educated people today who believe that magic works (apparently the 
wielder has to believe in it to make it work, though.  Sounds fishy to me).  
Some have even "studied" it, and claim to have "cast spells".  Should this 
reclassify stories with magic as SF (I doubt it but it's a good question)?

Beth

Re .115:

> I didn't say it couldn't be real, just that what we perceive as real may not
> be, no matter what it is.

You said:

	Reality is as we perceive it . . . .

Is this not what you meant to say?

> And, yes, I know there are other viewpoints on our origin, but I am sticking
> to the ones I am most familiar with. 

You said:

	Depending on your point of view, either God created our "natural
	laws" and we must accept that they are so because He said so, or
	these laws just came to be with the start of our universe.

Then you used this as a premise to an argument (a logical argument, not a
fighting argument).  Since there are more views, your premise is false and the
conclusion of the argument is not true necessarily.

> I even know of extremely intelligent, well educated people today who believe
> that magic works (apparently the wielder has to believe in it to make it work,
> though.  Sounds fishy to me). Some have even "studied" it, and claim to have
> "cast spells". Should this reclassify stories with magic as SF (I doubt it but
> it's a good question)?

The author's beliefs do not determine whether or not a story is logically
self-consistent.  The only way I have claimed the author's intentions should
be used is to interpret the setting of the story.  For example, I have stated
that the setting of _Jack and the Beanstalk_ seems to be intended to be the
real world.  With this in mind, the story is inconsistent and is therefore
fantasy, even if the author believed it could be true.


				-- edp

Re: "reality" and perception

We have no way of perceiving/knowing reality. Our senses only give a 
limited view of reality (only what our ancestors needed to know in order 
to survive). Our machines and instruments can enhance this limited view,
but will probably never give us a complete view of Reality. Personally,
I don't think our brains could handle all the information. 

To give an example of what I am talking about. If I hold out my hand in 
front of me, I can see my hand. My perception of my hand does not 
constitute the Reality of my hand. If my eyes were sensitive to 
infrared, my hand would appear glowing from radiated heat. There are 
also minute magnetic fields create by the electro-chemical reactions in 
my hand. The infrared radiation and magnetic fields, very much a part 
of the Reality of my hand, are known to us by our instruments. How much 
is there to the Reality of my hand that our instruments have NOT 
recorded?



MartyJ

Re .117:

It seems more appropriate to discuss reality in the LIFE file.  My response is
in TRIVIA""::SYS$NOTES:LIFE.NOT, note #53.0.


				-- edp

Re edp:

It seems you still cling to you definition of SF as being "internally 
consistent."  And once more I ask: would you supply me with examples of 
the internal inconsistency of a few acknowleged Fantasy stories?  In the
last 100 or so notes, many have agreed that an author doesn't have to explain
everything as long as the genre has supplied an explanation.  Magic has been
_explained_ a number of times as a sufficiently advanced or currently unknown
technology.  So, what do you mean by internally inconsistent???


John B.

What _do_ dragons do with all that gold they accumulate?

What makes the evil wizards so evil?

Would you jump into the middle of danger every five minutes?

Ah... FANTASY

Pat Sweeney

Whhhhew!  I put off tackling this note for quite a while, but the time came to
sit down and wade through it.  I have two points to discuss here.  First, the
SF/F distinction, two parts.  (1) possible reasons a working distinction has yet
to arise, and (2) my personal way of classifying the two.  Second, this running
discussion on internal inconsistencies, also two parts. (1) What I mean when I
use the phrase, and (2) what I interpret "edp" to mean when he uses the phrase.
   

 Warning!  On reading through, I seem to have taken on a "lecturey" tone
   and style.  Please don't read it as attacking!  Give me the benefit of the
   doubt and recognize that I've just taken great pains to be precise, to define
   my terms carefully, etc.  I really can be a friendly and conversational
   sort.  Perhaps just not at this time of night.  Or morning....


SF/F distinction.  Part of the problem seems to be that we (and here I do
think I mean all taking part in this discussion) have different ways of viewing
and approaching science.  We also have quite varying degrees of knowledge
of scientific advances and theory.  I come from mathematics and Kuhn's
_Scientific Revolutions_.  And the "soft sciences", by which I mean the social
sciences.  My knowledge of such things as relativity and electromagnetism
come as much from fiction as from non-fiction.  Probably more from fiction.
Perhaps part of what we're seeing in this discussion is the difficulty
distinguishing between science and fantasy.

My definitions.  I define the genres by how I react to each point at which
I'm asked to "suspend my disbelief".  I should point out that for me the
category separation is discrete.  That is, there are only two categories
at any given moment (plus an N/A category for other fiction and non-fiction)
and no element belongs to both categories.  However, on different readings,
I may place the book in different categories.  I like to think that this
is because my knowledge changes, and not because I'm inconsistent...
   Anyway.  My definitions.  A book is science fiction if my reactions are
"Hey wait a minute -- No one's shown that to be possible."  OR  " -- That's
not possible yet."
   A book is fantasy if my reaction is "Hey wait a minute --  That  *can't*
be right!"
   If both reactions occur, then fantasy takes precedence.  Thus it is science
fiction if my background and the author's presentation lead me to believe
that what I don't recognize as currently accepted theory is still possible.
That these elements aren't in obvious direct variance with accepted theory
without that variance being convincingly explained.
   

Topic Two.  Internal inconsistencies.  (I'm going to call this an I.I. to
save my writing it out over and over.)  For me, an I.I. occurs if something
which was impossible earlier in the work suddenly becomes possible without
this change being explained.  Similarly, if something possible becomes
impossible without an explanation given.  I don't think this definition refers
to "natural laws" in any way.  Only to mathematical logic.  (~A becomes A
without explanation.  Suitable explanations include changing axiom systems.)
Nothing leaves me as quickly disatisfied with a book or story as an I.I.
problem.  
   Unless I've misunderstood your argument, "edp", you are using the term
in a way far different from this.  Please correct me on any point where I've
mistaken your position.  My interpretation comes mostly from your explanation
of the I.I. in _Jack and the Beanstalk_.  For you, I.I. seems to mean that
the author, without explicitly showing that his setting is not our condition
(that is, our world and laws) has deviated from and contradicted our "natural
laws".  You've stated that Jack's world appears to be ours, and yet a giant
lives in a castle on a cloud...  an I.I. since a cloud here on earth can't
support a structure such as a castle.
   Thus, if you and I are to each answer the question "Is fantasy necessarily
internally inconsistent?", we are, in actuality, answering two very different
questions.  Am I right in my interpretation that the others of you who have
attempted to answer this question were using a definition closer to mine?
                                               

                                                Kathy

Re .120:

> It seems you still cling to you definition of SF as being "internally
> consistent."  And once more I ask: would you supply me with examples of
> the internal inconsistency of a few acknowledged Fantasy stories?

I do not read much fantasy, and most of my collection of books has not
relocated yet.  If _Jack and the Beanstalk_ does not satisfy you, perhaps you
could suggest a few _prominent_ fantasy stories.

Do you consider any of Chalker's work to be fantasy?  How about recent works
in Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine?  Or I could buy the current issue of
Fantasy and Science Fiction.

> In the last 100 or so notes, many have agreed that an author doesn't have to
> explain everything as long as the genre has supplied an explanation.  Magic
> has been _explained_ a number of times as a sufficiently advanced or currently
> unknown technology.  So, what do you mean by internally inconsistent???

Hyperspace or subspace or similar things have been explained so many times that
the author needs merely to give a brief mention to one of them.  Magic has much
more variety; the author will often need to explain more.  But since magic has
been explained a number of times, the author can also simply refer to a
previous explanation; this will be sufficient.  Many authors do not do this. 

Further, some explanations, whether given by the author or only alluded to, do
not sufficiently explain.


				-- edp

Re .121

> Topic Two.  Internal inconsistencies.  (I'm going to call this an I.I. to
> save my writing it out over and over.)  For me, an I.I. occurs if something
> which was impossible earlier in the work suddenly becomes possible without
> this change being explained.  Similarly, if something possible becomes
> impossible without an explanation given.  I don't think this definition refers
> to "natural laws" in any way.  Only to mathematical logic.

But the natural laws determine what can and cannot happen.  Logic is used to
determine if the laws are saying something can and cannot happen.  In what
sense could "logic not be true" unless the "real" events of the story did not
obey logic?

I think your statement of the meaning of inconsistency is essentially mine.
Because something was possible earlier, and nothing has changed to affect that,
it should still be impossible now -- therefore, there is an inconsistency.
This is simply an abbreviation for:

	Something was possible earlier.
	Therefore the laws say it is possible.
	Something is not possible now.
	Therefore the laws say it is not possible.
	Therefore the laws contradict themselves.

> For you, I.I. seems to mean that the author, without explicitly showing that
< his setting is not our condition (that is, our world and laws) has deviated
> from and contradicted our "natural laws".  You've stated that Jack's world
> appears to be ours, and yet a giant lives in a castle on a cloud...  an I.I.
> since a cloud here on earth can't support a structure such as a castle.

This is correct, except that the base setting does not need to be our world.
It just happens to be, in this case.


				-- edp

And after you got the gold, everyone wants to take it from you.  So, you gotta
build a castle, etc. 

These societies are wonderful... There's never any "surplus value", hence the
only redistribution of wealth is by conquest.  Did anyone ever drop a
economist, political scientist, or sociologist into one of these fantasy
worlds, and turn him or her loose and make the world "right". 

If I don't get a reply in week or so, I think I'll write my first novel on this
theme. 

Pat Sweeney 

Well, the Connecticut Yankee wasn't exactly an economist (what *was* he,
anyway?), but as I recall he began to institute some modern capitalist
practices that did wreak havoc with Camelot!

-b

Re .121:

Hear, hear!  Anyone who stays up until 2:47 in the morning is either crazy
or has something to say.  I think you had a great deal to say.

On the other hand, I wouldn't discount the crazy hypothesis...  :-)



Re .122 & .123:

Unfortunely for this discussion, I do not read fantasy either (unless it
comes packaged as SF).  I stick to hard SF and spy novels; fantasy is too,
er um, fantastic.  But, I did read _The Hobbit_ and _The Sword of Shanara_.  
I'd like to see an I.I. explanation of any of the sword and sorcery genre.  
_Jack and the Beanstalk_ almost qualifies in my mind, but that's another 
discussion...

The problem I have with your Internal Inconsistency is your statement (here
I paraphase, please correct me) If I can image a consistent universe then
it is SF.  So I can image a universe where a beanstalk can grow overnight to
a castle on a cloud that is inhabited by a giant who owns a goose who lays
funny looking eggs.  Simply: the cloud is made of cohesive particles; the
giant and the stalk both benefit from low gravity, high growth potential,
clean living, and so on; the square-cube law is suspended for the duration
(remember that story in which gravity took it on the chin?); and so on down
the list of special effects.

No, the author did not explain any of this.  You didn't say he had to in the
I.I. definition; the burden of proof (so far) is on the reader, not the author.
Further, the "A = ~A" princple was not broken internally, only externally
(with the here and now).  That's why I asked for further explanation.  Did
I miss some vital scene where one minute the hero cannot fly and the next
he can?


John B.

Re .126:

> But, I did read _The Hobbit_ and _The Sword of Shanara_. I'd like to see an
> I.I. explanation of any of the sword and sorcery genre.

Sword and sorcery is exactly the type of fantasy I avoid most, but I did read
_The Hobbit_, many years ago.  But I do not recall that any explanation was
attempted for any of the things in it.  Although the setting is not Earth as
we know it, no rules for the universe are given (I may be wrong), so the
default rules apply:  our theories.  These present obvious contradictions.

> The problem I have with your Internal Inconsistency is your statement (here
> I paraphrase, please correct me) If I can image a consistent universe then
> it is SF.  So I can image a universe where a beanstalk can grow overnight to
> a castle on a cloud that is inhabited by a giant who owns a goose who lays
> funny looking eggs.  Simply: the cloud is made of cohesive particles; the
> giant and the stalk both benefit from low gravity, high growth potential,
> clean living, and so on; the square-cube law is suspended for the duration
> (remember that story in which gravity took it on the chin?); and so on down
> the list of special effects.

The law of gravity is physics; the square-cube law is mathematics.  Mathematics
is logic.  Suspending logic permits contradictions.  Contradictions are
inconsistent.

If it were not for this problem, and one could conceivably specify a set of
physical laws which permitted the above items and in which no inconsistency
could be found, then nobody could prove (by logic or exploration) that such
a world did not exist somewhere.

> No, the author did not explain any of this.  You didn't say he had to in the
> I.I. definition; the burden of proof (so far) is on the reader, not the
> author.

The author must provide the setting.  Once this is done, the internal
inconsistency rule is applied.

> Further, the "A = ~A" principle was not broken internally, only externally
> (with the here and now).

My contention was that the author made the "here and now" a part of the story
by apparently setting it on Earth.  Since the "here and now" was made a part
of the story, an inconsistency of another part of the story with this part
is an internal inconsistency.


				-- edp

to edp:

I am sorry if my statements are not precise enough for you.  I do not like to 
type in that much information (I do not own a terminal at home and do this 
after hours at my desk, so time is handled carefully).  I would rather just 
get my point across in as few words as possible (and explain further as 
necessary).  Note, I did say "depending on your point of view".  I did not 
mean to implicitly exclude other viewpoints, you interpreted it that way.
There may be steps skipped (either deliberately or due to ignorance), but that 
does not mean the logic is invalid, nor the premise (just the result).

And I still do not understand how _Jack and the Beanstalk_ is internally 
inconsistent.

As for the magic being classified as SF:  I was referring to the reader's 
beliefs, not the author's.  If everyone took magic for granted as real, then 
stories concerning magic would NOT be fantasy.  That was the nature of my 
question.  Are there enough people today who believe in magic to say that it 
should be reclassified as SF?



to Pat Sweeney:  Yeah, go for it.  Should be an interesting novel.

Re .128:

> NOTE: If I really wanted to be controversial, I could say that even our known
> science is a fantasy.  Depending on your point of view, either God created our
> "natural laws" and we must accept that they are so because He said so, or
> these laws just came to be with the start of our universe.

Could you explain what you meant by this?

About _Jack and the Beanstalk_, what part of my argument do you not understand?

	_Jack and the Beanstalk_ is set on Earth.
	Our theories hold as laws in the story.
	Such laws conflict with events in the story.

About magic:  logic is objective, not subjective (or is intended to be).  My
classification of stories does not depend upon the reader's beliefs. 

In effect, if we could agree upon what we meant by the terms "fantasy" and
"science fiction", stories using magic in certain ways would fall into one or
none of these categories.  After the categories had been established, it would
not matter what authors' or readers' beliefs were.

Similarly, if the terms "world" and "flat" are defined, the true/false value of
the statement "The world is flat." is not changed by anyone's beliefs.

It would be a great help if you would prefix your notes with something of the
sort "Re .nnn:", to help readers locate what you are responding to.  In this
note alone, there are several discussions which I follow, let alone the rest
of this file or other notes files which I read.


				-- edp

Re .127:                                  

> Although the setting is not Earth as we know it, no rules for the universe are
> given (I may be wrong), so the default rules apply:  our theories. 

You said earlier that SF does NOT have to be consistent with the here and now.
You also said that F has to be internally inconsistent.  Now it sounds like your
definition of internally inconsistent is (paraphrased) "not consistent with the
here and now (unless the author states otherwise)."  How do you reconcile that
position with your earlier position, (paraphrased) "If I can image a universe
with consistent rules, then it's SF"?  That sounds like you are putting the
burden of proof on the reader. 

> The law of gravity is physics; the square-cube law is mathematics.
> Mathematics is logic.  Suspending logic permits contradictions.

Not necessarily.  As I pointed out earlier, mathematics is *merely* a model.
The difference between Euclidian and Non-euclidian geometry is one axiom: 
whether or not parallel lines converge.  Both models are equally useful.
Suspending one in favor of the other does not necessarily permit contradictions.
Again, stand on a straight section of railroad track, look down the rails,
and tell me which model best fits the observation.

BUT if you truly feel this way, then why do you object to the Extrapolation
definition?  It maintains the laws, mathematics, and logic you speak of.


John B.

Re .130:

>> Although the setting is not Earth as we know it, no rules for the universe
>> are given (I may be wrong), so the default rules apply:  our theories.

> You said earlier that SF does NOT have to be consistent with the here and now.
> You also said that F has to be internally inconsistent.  Now it sounds like
> your definition of internally inconsistent is (paraphrased) "not consistent
> with the here and now (unless the author states otherwise)."  How do you
> reconcile that position with your earlier position, (paraphrased) "If I can
> image a universe with consistent rules, then it's SF"?  That sounds like you
> are putting the burden of proof on the reader.

Perhaps my earlier statement should not have read "If I can imagine . . . ."
but, more precisely, "If the author indicates another set of rules is desired
and I can imagine . . . .".  For example, in _The Hobbit_, no explanation or
hint that an explanation is desired is given.  But in a "spaceship" type story,
consider some unusual phenomenon, perhaps a new type of drive.  The author
had better give some explanation of this or make some excuse for not doing so,
otherwise the story is fantasy.  But if the author says there is an explanation
and consistent explanation can be imagined, then the setting of that story is
a universe in which that explanation holds.  All we need to change the setting
to a universe where the story is possible is:

	An indication that the author desires this.
	The logical possibility of such a universe.

>> The law of gravity is physics; the square-cube law is mathematics.
>> Mathematics is logic.  Suspending logic permits contradictions.

> Not necessarily.

Once a given "type" of space is determined, the square-cube law either follows
logically/mathematically from this or it does not.  With Euclidean three-space
or space that is nearly so (as ours is in most regions), the square-cube law
necessarily follows.

I take it your story would have mentioned a difference as significant as a
different form of space.  Since it did not, the story is apparently set in a
reasonably normal type of space.  In such spaces, the square-cube law must
hold.

> As I pointed out earlier, mathematics is *merely* a model.

This is not true.  If it were known that certain premises held in the
universe, mathematics could determine, absolutely, consequences of these
premises.  In the real universe, we do not have any such premises.  In a story
universe, we can make premises at whim.  Mathematical structures that follow
from these premises would then be exact representations of the imagined
universe, not models.

> The difference between Euclidean and Non-Euclidean geometry is one axiom:
> whether or not parallel lines converge.  Both models are equally useful.

This is not true.  The usefulness of models depends upon what they are being
used to model.

> Suspending one in favor of the other does not necessarily permit
> contradictions. Again, stand on a straight section of railroad track, look
> down the rails, and tell me which model best fits the observation.

Whatever model you choose must accurately depict the situation being
modeled.

> BUT if you truly feel this way, then why do you object to the Extrapolation
> definition?  It maintains the laws, mathematics, and logic you speak of.

I do not want to maintain the laws, just mathematics/logic.


				-- edp

RE: .129

(science as fantasy)

Part of the discussions here have suggested as a distinction between SF and F 
that (paraphrased) 1) SF authors say suppose this, with allusions to an 
explanation, and 2) F authors want you to believe something because it is true 
for his story.  I realize not everyone agrees with this.  But using the 
opinion, I presented a statement.  I will clarify it below:

	Mankind believes many physical laws are true (after verification).  He 
uses "objective data" to do this.  What makes this objective data true - God 
or what?  If it is God, then we are told to accept something as true because 
"its his story" (making a comparison to the F authors).  As for other 
explanations, the explain how things reached this point after initial 
existence, but what explains initial existence (of any thing or phenomenon)?  
By definition of SF above (accepted for this supposition only), this is 
fantasy, for there is no offer of an explanation.  So as food for thought, I 
proposed that our sciences are a fantasy.

(internal inconsistency)

_Jack and the Beanstalk_ has (to the best of my knowledge) not recently been 
told or read as other than a faerie tale.  Part of the premises of faerie 
tales is that they take place on Earth, BUT for the story, magic (and its 
associates - monsters) is real.  Already this becomes Earth other than we know 
it.  So it is not stating that it is OUR Earth ("Once upon a time" does not 
state location, so how does one know where it took place).  I can see no 
internal inconsistency in this technique of story telling.

(magic)

Your method of classifying SF and F IS based upon a reader's beliefs - yours. 
Which are based upon the things you learned and experienced.  If magic was 
accepted as real, your basis for belief (or non-belief) would vary accordingly.
Magic could be viewed as a science and stories with magic would be SF.


RE: .130,.131

Mathematics is a tool by which we build models.  Our mathematics may not be as 
perfect as we feel it to be.  I would not freely state that mathematics can be 
used to produce "exact representations" of anything.

re: 129 (or there about) _Jack and the Beanstalk_

One of the assumptions being made (besides the story taking place on 
Earth, using Earth's Laws) that was not mentioned is that our Laws 
remain constant over time.

re:-1 mathematics

True, I wouldn't either, but many people tend to confuse the 
mathematical model with what the model is trying to describe.


MartyJ

Re .132:

> 	Mankind believes many physical laws are true (after verification).  He
> uses "objective data" to do this.  What makes this objective data true - God
> or what?  If it is God, then we are told to accept something as true because
> "its his story" (making a comparison to the F authors).  As for other
> explanations, the explain how things reached this point after initial
> existence, but what explains initial existence (of any thing or phenomenon)?

You seem to be saying explanations that do not give a god as a cause fail
because they do not explain initial existence.  What is your response to the
classic point that explanations with a god do not explain the initial existence
of that god?

> By definition of SF above (accepted for this supposition only), this is
> fantasy, for there is no offer of an explanation.  So as food for thought, I
> proposed that our sciences are a fantasy.

I do not require that the author explain everything, just that everything be
self-consistent.  Since are universe almost undeniably exists, its existence
is self-consistent (otherwise it would be logically impossible for the
universe to exist), therefore the initial existence of the universe may be
assumed as a premise.  It is not necessary to explain this existence.

A restatement of this is:  The universe obviously exists, so there must be
some explanation.  It is not necessary for scientists to actually give us the
explanation for us to know there is one.

> _Jack and the Beanstalk_ has (to the best of my knowledge) not recently been
> told or read as other than a faerie tale.  Part of the premises of faerie
> tales is that they take place on Earth, BUT for the story, magic (and its
> associates - monsters) is real.  Already this becomes Earth other than we know
> it.  So it is not stating that it is OUR Earth ("Once upon a time" does not
> state location, so how does one know where it took place).  I can see no
> internal inconsistency in this technique of story telling.

I explained that the author does not need to explicitly state where the story
is taking place.  If a story begins "The gunfighters faced each other . . . .",
you have a fairly good indication that the story takes place in the
semi-mythical Wild West.  Further text can better illuminate the setting
without explicitly saying "This story is in the Wild West.".

I claim that since _Jack and the Beanstalk_ starts off normally, with ordinary
people doing ordinary things, the author is establishing a setting on Earth.
Further, the laws of Earth come along with this setting -- you can't have an
Earth without gravity; it would fly apart.  Using magic in this setting is
inconsistent.

> I can see no internal inconsistency in this technique of story telling.

I am not referring to inconsistency in technique, but inconsistency in the
rules of the world in which the story is set.

> Your method of classifying SF and F IS based upon a reader's beliefs - yours.
> Which are based upon the things you learned and experienced.  If magic was
> accepted as real, your basis for belief (or non-belief) would vary
> accordingly. Magic could be viewed as a science and stories with magic would
> be SF.

This is absolutely wrong.  While I must use my experience to determine such
things as the setting of the story, ideally, I determine exactly what the story
is before I apply my rules.  For example, I should look at _Jack and the
Beanstalk_ and say, okay, this story is taking place on Earth and it has
giants and magic harps and such things.  After I have done this, I should
examine the story logically.  This final step is objective.  Two people will
get different results from this step only if at least one of them makes an
error. 

If magic were accepted as real, there could be only two reasons for this.  The
first might be that it is real.  If so, then it must be self-consistent, so
it is perfectly acceptable for me to classify stories using magic as science
fiction, if they meet the definition in all other ways.  The second is that
people are erroneous in the belief that magic is real.  In this case, it is
my responsibility when classifying the story to determine that magic is
consistent with itself and other items of the story.  If I classify the story
as science fiction when magic is not consistent, I have made a mistake.  The
error is mine, not the definitions I have given.

> Mathematics is a tool by which we build models.  Our mathematics may not be as
> perfect as we feel it to be.  I would not freely state that mathematics can be
> used to produce "exact representations" of anything.

Mathematics is an entity that exists independently of its use in building
models.  Building models is applied mathematics.  Mathematics is perfect,
although our statements of it may be wrong.  Imperfection arises because of
human error or because a model has assumed premises that are not true and are
not sufficiently good approximations in the scenario being modeled.

When I state mathematics can be used to create exact representations, I am
talking about an imaginary universe, which we can examine as closely as we
wish, because we are designing it.  In such a case, mathematics is a perfect
representation.

Re .133:

> One of the assumptions being made (besides the story taking place on
> Earth, using Earth's Laws) that was not mentioned is that our Laws
> remain constant over time.

If a "law" were to vary over time, it is merely necessary to consider a
statement with the form "Thus-and-such will happen at some time, and thus-and-
such will happen at another time.".  This new statement can be a law that
does not vary over time.  For example, d = 32 feet per second per second * t^2
tells approximately how many feet an object has fallen after release in a one
gravity field, even though this distance changes with time.

Perhaps a more accurate statement would have been there is an assumption that
our theories are laws that remain constant over time.  But by assuming our
theories are laws, this assumption is included.  The term "laws" denotes
absolute entities.  Any apparent ambiguity in what have been called laws is
due to failure on our part.


				-- edp

re: .134

Then even God is a fantasy.

As for J&B - since we do think (hope) there are other earthlike worlds, it 
might take place on one of them.  Do you read a SF story set on an earthlike 
world and assume it is earth until told otherwise?  Or do you think it _might_ 
be earth until more information is given?

Beth

Re .135:

> Then even God is a fantasy.

I have no idea where you pulled this statement from.

> As for J&B - since we do think (hope) there are other earthlike worlds, it
> might take place on one of them.  Do you read a SF story set on an earthlike
> world and assume it is earth until told otherwise?  Or do you think it _might_
> be earth until more information is given?

Personally, I will read the story as if the planet were Earth, keeping in mind
that it might not be Earth.  If, after some time, no indication arises to show
it is not Earth, I will assume it is Earth.  If this turns out to be incorrect,
it is an error on my part.

When I have finished the story, I will presumably know whether the planet was
intended to be Earth.  In the case of _Jack and the Beanstalk_, it seems the
planet was intended to be Earth.


				-- edp

Re .136

It is beginning to sound like you would accept _Jack and the Bean Stalk_
as SF if the author merely said "In a land far, far away, not like our own,
there lived a boy named Jack..."  Frankly, I find that hard to swallow.

Also, I think it would be a good idea to show how your proposed definition
quantifies the statement "SF is a matter of symbology and intent."  That is
the only statement I've seen that no one has thrown rocks at (so I assume
we, the readers of this notes file like it or didn't see it).  


Re "God is a fantasy":  

Easy there!  I strongly suggest everyone stay away from statements such
as this that might accidentally insult anothers beliefs.  I realize you were
just making a point, but I think that was a dagerous way of doing so.  Next
time try, "then even Congress is a fantasy..." which is probably true anyway.


Finally (perhaps):  

Do we need to take this discussion any further?  This is the most active
note, but it has the fewest participants.  Are you other noters interested
or bored?


John B.   

Bored.  

But who cares about that?  Notes files don't yet have to cater to the masses. 
Talk away!  If it gets too offensive that I can't even SINCE past it, I'll
suggest you take it to the network NL: device - that is, SOAPBOX... 

- Chris

Re "Magic" versus Magic (several of the recent filesnotes):

Beth notes that she knows educated, intelligent people who believe magic
works and who have "cast spells."  I also know such people.  But these
people treat magic as a *discipline*, and whether you share their beliefs,
you'd have to view a story written in that light far differently than a
story like a _Bewitched_ or _I Dream of Jeannie_ TV show.

A fairy tale was just that:  "Once upon a time ..." immediately (if infer-
entially) signals to the listener or reader "Disable disbelief."  That
sort of magic includes genies, fairy godmothers, wishing stones, and the
like, that are used without specific restrictions (e.g., the "magic" beans
in _Jack and the Beanstalk_, perhaps the most talked-about fantasy in
this filesnote, which did their thing totally without explanation, or
even a spell).  Virtually all classic fairy tales were fantasies of
this variety, even though some may have come from folk traditions.

Magic-as-a-iscipline is clear in one series, the Lord Darcy stories.  Here
magic is treated as a science (sort of what some modern-day practitioners
are attempting to do), and, like many stories of new-space-drive stories
in "standard" SF, an appreciable part of the story was devoted to dis-
cussing the principles.

Now, an interesting question:  The late Gerald Gardner, who was a scholar
who became a practicing (non-Satanic) witch, wrote a novel, _High Magic's
Aid_, about witchcraft and sorcery in Medieval England from the standpoint
of one wh believed in the ability of witchcraft and magic to work (he even
gave excerpts of the rituals and initiations).  Given this, would this be
classified as SF or F to the readers of this filesnote assembled?

Another borderline case (though more arguably fantasy) is the Harold Shea
stories (_Incomplete Enchanter_, _Castle of Iron_, and _Wall of Serpents_)
in which Pratt & DeCamp show that there are some structural elements to 
the multocontinuual worlds' magic workings, but have the hero trying to
figure them out enough to help him out.

Modern fantasies, as I noted nearly 100 entries ago, don't try to define
limits, and don't care to, for that matter....

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    	You can a have an SF story with a technology that is so 
    advanced it SEEMS like magic, but the moment it BECOMES magic, then
    it is fantasy.
    
    	Larry
    

        But how do you define "magic" -- and *who's* definition counts?
        If you want to call it fantasy just because someone says
        they're "doing magic" in the book, fine.  But don't expect
        others to necessarily agree with you.
        
        I don't even care what that "magic" does, or how impossible
        it sounds by our current science.  I judge it by how it's
        used in the story.  If the magic is just used to round off
        a rough spot in the plot, or if it's not used consistently,
        then it's fantasy.  If "magic" is used as rigorously and
        consistently as "science" is used in "SF", then I fail to
        see much difference.
        
        	/dave

    	Magic originates from the supernatural, which is not "acceptable"
  in science fiction because it does not originate from this reality,
    our Cosmos.  One can argue that the supernatural is just another
    reality where physical laws differ from ours, just as they do in
    many SF alternate dimensions; but SF "tradition" does not "allow"
    such beings as ghosts, wizards, demons, angels, withces, goblins,
    elves, and the like to belong - SF is much like realism writing
    in that way - Heaven, Hell, God, and Satan do not officially exist
    in the real world, just our cold hard reality which can be known
    definetly by the senses and reason.
    	
    	Larry
      

        To put it in the simplest and most pragmatic terms, it's
        acceptable to put *anything* in science fiction which people
        will *buy* (both with cash and with acceptance) as science
        fiction.
        
        You can put whatever narrow limits you care to on your
        imagination and that of the authors.  For at least the second
        time, just don't imagine that your limits are universal.
        They're not.
        
        "Heaven, Hell, God, and Satan" exist in the real world for those
        who believe in them.  And I think even you might agree that
        several churches have made this existance *quite* "official".
        While I think it highly unlikely that any of these exist in the
        form specified by those churches, I'm quite willing to read a
        good story which postulates them in some form, nor am I willing
        to arbitrarily claim that the story can't be "science fiction"
        merely for using those words.  For example, read Asimov's "The
        Last Question" some time.  That's genuine *classic* SF, and it's
        basically a story about god.
        
        And the statement that "SF 'tradition' does not 'allow' such
        beings as ghosts..." etc. isn't at all true.  A number of
        good SF stories have been written postulating "scientific"
        explanations for "supernatural" phenomena.  When it comes
        right down to basics, those "scientific" explanations are
        no more scientific than the common supernatural explanations.
        
        	/dave

    	These rules "against" such supernatural beings in SF is essentially
    in regards to them as leading characters and plots.  Would you
    really call a story about, say, elves and demons battling each other
    for some magic power under the control of a group of wizards an
    SF story?  You could have the power battle, but not with those 
    kinds of beings to be regarded SF.
    	Incidentally, I did not make these rules up.  When I was more
    active in writing short SF stories to several SF magazines, they
    sent me lists of "rules" distinguishing the characteristics between
    SF and fantasy.
               
    	Larry
    

        They may have been "rules" of some publisher, maybe even
        more than one.  That doesn't make them rules of SF.  It
        certainly doesn't make them right.
        
        As for your opening description... that would depend a lot
        on what the words you use meant within the story.  With a
        few simple substitutions---which could very easily be justified
        within a legitimate SF story---your plot synopsis could very
        easily be SF.  For example, if "elves" and "demons" are
        primative alien species battling for the "magic" {weapons,
        tools, power plants, space ships, whatever} of the visiting
        "wizard" humans.  If the story was from the viewpoint of
        one of the aliens, the use of such "supernatural" terminology
        would be perfectly justifiable, although probably unnecessary.
        Lest you argue that my translation is contrived, I might
        point out that it's no more so than your original example.
        
        The basic fact of the matter is that we don't agree.  I suspect
        that continuing this argument isn't going to do anyone any
        good, so I, for one, intend to drop it.  See you in another
        note.
        
        	/dave

    re:.144
    
    Actually, the plot description you give there is not too far
    removed from Larry Niven's "Not Long Before the End", which
    *I* (and Niven too, I believe) consider to be sf and not
    fantasy.
    
    --- jerry

    	In the terms I used for my example in 194.144, when I called
    my characters demons and wizards, I MEANT them as DEMONS, WIZARDS,
    MAGIC, etc., with NO hidden, underlying meanings (NO nuclear wars
    and mutants!) and NOTHING else - that was the point I was trying
    to prove:  that demons, witches, wizards, angels and the like in
    the SUPERNATURAL sense are FANTASY.  Of course a story with creatures
    called demons but are really mutants in a post-holocaust Earth is
    SCIENCE FICTION.
    	
    	Larry
    

    Re .147:
    
    What makes demons and wizards DEMONS and WIZARDS?  What makes them
    fantasy and not science fiction?  What is the supernatural?
    
    
    				-- edp

    supernatural: adj. 1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond
    the visible observable universe; esp: of or relating to God or a
    god, demigod, spirit, or devil  2 a: departing from what is usual
    or normal esp. so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature 
    b: attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
    
    				-- Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary
    
    There is a hypothesis implied in the term "supernatural," just as
    there is in "natural," "scientific," "mental," "physical," and a
    number of other abstract words.  The hypothesis is that the "visible
    observable universe" is part of a distinct system, nature, capable
    of producing some kinds of events but incapable of producing others.
    
    In science fiction, the author frequently hypothesizes, "Suppose
    nature were capable of producing the following surprizing events"
    and then supposes time-travel, FTL travel, ESP, artificial life,
    or what have you.  (Of course, sometimes the author doesn't hypothesize
    anything beyond the presently known limits of the natural.)
    
    In fantasy (or in that kind of fantasy which is not science fiction),
    the author hypothesizes, "Suppose something from outside nature
    showed up and produced the following surprizing events" and then
    supposes demonic possession, haunting, spells, ESP, or what have
    you.  (Often, the author supposes a world where the supernatural
    shows up more often than in our own.)
    
    You may not think that "nature" can be well-defined as a distinct
    system, or you may think there is nothing beyond nature, but that
    does not stop the fantasy author from making this distinction.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Re .149:
    
    > You may not think that "nature" can be well-defined as a distinct
    > system, or you may think there is nothing beyond nature, but that
    > does not stop the fantasy author from making this distinction.
    
    The basic problem is that nature is everything.  If ghosts really
    did exist, they would be natural.  The laws of nature would have
    to permit them to exist, because otherwise the laws would be wrong
    and they wouldn't be laws.
    
    
    				-- edp

    "The basic problem is that nature is everything."  You are entitled
    to your opinion.  Likewise, the fantasy author is entitled to his.
    It need not even be an opinion; just a literary conceit.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    re .150, .151:
    
    This is a rathole we went through about 50 responses back.  You
    can have a story that most readers will suppose is based on something
    so highly improbable as to be impossible for all practical purposes
    (e.g., Cinderella).  You don't _have_ to believe in pumpkins-turned-
    into coackes, or even fairy godmothers, to enjoy the story; most
    people would call it a fantasy.
    
    Now you could rewrite it as a science-fiction story by assuming
    that the fairy godmother is really an advanced extraterrestrial
    whose "wand" is really a subatomic transmorgifier, whicvh could
    _then_ transmute it into a science-=fiction environment.
    
    But to a certain extent, we have to go with consensus.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Re .151:
    
    The meaning of "nature" is something that is defined, not something
    that is deduced or partially unknown.  It's "the external world in its
    entirety".  It's not just an opinion, and fantasy authors are not
    entitled to say the definition means something different, because the
    word as used to discuss fantasy and science fiction exists outside of
    their stories.  It makes no more sense to say they can hold a different
    opinion than to say they can assert 2+2=5 and use the assertion to
    prove their books are Westerns.  They'd be wrong.  Of course, if
    they wanted to use 2+2=5 or a different use for "nature" IN the
    story, that would be a different matter, and it would not change
    the meaning of "nature" outside the story.
    
    If demons or other creatures existed in REALITY, they would be natural,
    by definition.  The supernatural (in the meaning of transcending
    nature) does not exist, by definition.  Any person saying a
    supernatural thing exists should really be saying a previously-unknown
    natural thing exists.  That is what the words mean.
    
    If an author accepts demons in a story as part of nature, obeying some
    sort of natural laws, everything is fine, and the story could be
    science-fiction.  If an author says demons are supernatural, they have
    violated laws of logic in the story, and the story must be fantasy. 
                                      
    
    				-- edp

    The basic difference is how impossible occurrences are explained.
    If they say "by magic", or "supernatural beings did it", it is fantasy.
    If they say "by the xxxx law of physics..." or that extraterrestrials
    are doing it, it is SF.  To make a long story short, SF makes some
    sort of (however implausible) attempt to explain the mechanism behind
    these occurrences.  Fantasy just accepts that they happen, and continues
    with the rest of the story line.  Doesn't everyone agree, that SF and 
    fantasy have different 'feels' to them?
    
    Kathleen

    Re .154
    
    I agree that *typical* fantasy and *typical* science fiction have
    very different moods and atmospheres.  However there are plenty
    of intermediate and off-axis stories, and trying to classify them makes
    an amusing game.
                                                                
    Re .153
    
    I gather you are using the "Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary"
    provided by DEC, out of which I defined "supernatural."  Please
    note that "nature" defined as "the external world in its entirety"
    is definition 6 out of 8.  (And "natural," over in the other column,
    is worse.)  Another definition is "2a: a creative and controlling
    force in the universe," in which case "supernatural" would apply
    to things not subject to or produced by that particular force.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Re .155:
    
    Playing with the meanings of the words does not change anything;
    if the author specifies that something is supernatural in the sense
    of being beyond laws of nature of any sort, the story is fantasy.
    
    Specifically, if the author uses supernatural things only as things
    which were previously unknown, they are falling in a less restrictive
    meaning of "supernatural" and they are really a part of nature as
    a whole.  If the author uses supernatural things as something beyond
    that, the story is fantasy.
    
    
    				-- edp

    There must be some terrible accident here:  I agree with you. Stories
    about the supernatural are fantasy.  I've been saying that all along.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    re .155, earlier:
    
    I agree that if the author says the story's a fantasy, it's probably
    a fantasy.  Yet this isn't even clearcut.  In _Conan the Conqueror_,
    the evil, ressurected sorcerer (whose name for the moment escapes
    me) confronted Conan early in the novel and turned a Thing on him
    that kept the Cimmerian from offing the sorcerer.  Conan said it
    was magic; the sorcerer said [approximately, I don't have the book
    in front of me], "What would you say if I told you the being was
    a child of outer space whose cold touch numbs you?"
    
    Conan said something like "Witchcraft!"
    
    The sorcerer shrugged and said, "Well, call it magic, then."
    
    Here, Howard is implying _strongly_ that the "magic" of his story
    is a form of (forgotten) science.  The Heart of Ahriman [(?) Anyway,
    I think that was the name of the Magic Gem that Saved the Day] was
    inferentially some sort of meteorite; however, the rest of the story
    was written without anything close to these pretentions of rational
    explanation (or rationalization) and the whole thing is presented
    as a fantasy.
    
    What was it?
    
    Worse, how about the _real_ fringeborderland books like )_The Witches
    of Karres_, which can be read as either SF or F, depending on your
    perception of Klatha?
    
    We're dangerously close to recursion (some of this was covered about
    40 replies back or so).
    
    Triple worse, sometimes a publisher or seller will call one the
    other and vice versa.  I believe better than 50% nof the books offered
    by the Science Fiction Book Club are fantasies by everybody's opinion
    (well, _nearly_ everybody's [:-)]); logically, they should be pushing
    only SF (it's be like the Doubleday Mystery Book Club selling more
    than half its choices being nurse stories rather than mysteries).
    
    To some SF="sci-fi"=fantasy="anything those types will buy."  If
    _we_ want to make a distinction, let's be clearer than that.
    
    Are elves science fiction?  Brownies [not the cookies ;-)]?
    
    Oh well ...
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    	I blame STAR WARS for diluting the boundaries between SF and
    F, causing the subsequent avalanche of "science fantasy" books and
    debates like this notes section.
    
    	Larry
    

        Garbage.  The Star Wars type of story has been around far longer
        than what we like to call "science fiction".  Lucas did nothing
        other than make a movie in this style which was not only well
        enough done to appeal to F/SF fans, but approachable enough to
        appeal to non-fans. 
        
        Besides, while "pure fantasy", Star Wars is not at all
        "supernatural".  The Force is a purely natural phenomenon well
        understood by those who study it (such as Yoda).  The fact that
        those ignorant of the nature of The Force (such as the Imperial
        officers) choose to refer to it as "a religion" is irrelevant.
        It is used consistently and with well-defined limits (for
        example, for all their great command of The Force, neither Yoda,
        the Emperor, nor Vader can win the war solo... their abilities
        fight small battles while their fleets determine the outcome of
        the war). 
        
        Star Wars is fantasy simply because, like most "SF", it uses
        the postulated science and technology merely as a backdrop,
        as props for a good old-fashioned action-adventure yarn;
        rather than to study the science, technology, and their effect
        on society.  Lucas was just a little more honest in his
        labelling than most.
        
        To blame Lucas for the "avalanche of 'science fantasy' books" is
        like blaming Shelley and Stoker for the continuing avalanche of
        horror movies and stories. The fact that artistry often inspires
        schlockery is in no way the fault of the artist.  And in
        any case, the schlocks were really there all along...
        
        Finally, by your own definitions, Star Wars must be SF...
        it never even uses the words Magic or Supernatural, as far
        as I can recall... and certainly never authoritatively applies
        them to anything done in the movie.
        
        	/dave

    Star Wars may not be the purest form of science fiction, but I'd
    definitely put it closer to the science pole than to the fantasy
    one.  The Force certainly looks a whole lot like magical mana, but
    then interplanetary gravitic and electromagnetic fields look a whole
    lot like astrological influences.  (Many people complained of this
    when Newton first put forward his theory of universal gravitation.)
    
    Star Wars gets closest to fantasy when we see various defunct Jedi
    surviving ghost-fashion.  But it is the matter of a short paragraph
    to cobble up a pseudo-scientific explanation that is at least as
    water-tight as the hyperdrives used in the same picture.
    
    I'd classify Star Wars as a good solid space opera, exactly because
    all the science and pseudo-science and disguised magic is just backdrop
    to an action-adventure plot.  The "science" in the science fiction
    just provides background color.  This, to me, is the hallmark of space
    opera.
    
    I don't mean to denigrate Star Wars with that label, either.  I
    regard space opera as a respectable sub-genre within SF, although
    it is not as purely science-fictional as other sub-genres and
    individual works.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    re .161
    
    	I concur; cf., "Lensman Series" by E. E. "Doc" Smith.

    This note seems to have sort of died out with several discussions left
    hanging. I will not attempt to try an summarize my understanding of
    what has been discussed, but some of the discussion certainly made me
    check my premises.

    I think this [note] started out as a sort of complaint (paraphrased):

    "Bookshops tend to lump SF and fantasy together. Is there a
    distinguising feature so we can choose without picking up a book which
    we are not looking for"

    I side most with something said earlier in this note saying something
    like:

    "Show me a story and I will tell if it's SF or not"

    Another point I like to make is the fact that I am not a universal
    scientist and so somebody an write a story with a lot of (pseudo-)
    science in it, which will go completely over my head while an informed
    person might dismiss the thing out of hand. According to what I have
    read in this note the story might appear as SF to me but as fantasy to
    the other person.

    The point I am making is that SF is much attitude as anything else.

    Please do not criticize me on my choice of words, I am not a native
    speaker of English and try to do the best with the vocabulary at hand.

    So, the final conclusion can be that SF is in the eye of the beholder
    8-).

    Thanks again for a stimulating if somewhat lengthy read.

    Wildrik.

    I think in genre fiction, something other than the PEOPLE in the story
    has center stage. In sci-fi, it's the scientific laws of the natural
    world, and how they can be stretched/used/misused to affect human
    life. In fantasy, it's the laws of the magical world.
    
    Ken

    The quickest test for a fantasy novel is if the publisher has put
    a mythological creature or a medieval scene on the cover.  Those are
    the code symbols. If you see a dragon, a dwarf, or a sword, it's
    a pretty good bet it's fantasy.  There are exceptions like the
    Pern novels, but some would argue that they are fantasy anyway.
    /jlr

    As I've said elsewhere in this conference (years ago, though), I think
    the deciding factor is the presence of the supernatural.  Now, you may
    accomplish exactly the same things by (say) psi and magic, and even
    accompany them with much the same special effects, but if the
    characters, or more importantly the narrator, treat the exotic thing as
    supernatural, then you have a fantasy.
    
    It does not matter, by the way, if you believe this exotic fantasy-thing 
    to be real, and thus not a "fantasy" in its own right; the *story* is 
    still a fantasy.
    
    It does not matter if you believe the category "supernatural" to be a 
    nonsensical or empty term; the narrator disagrees with you.  
    
    It does not matter if you think the exotic SF-thing utterly
    preposterous and impossible (e.g. a time machine or a hyperdrive, for
    many people).  It is treated as something un-supernatural (natural or
    artificial), so the story is not a fantasy.
    
    What makes something supernatural?  In large measure, the answer is
    traditional -- elves and spirits are supernatural beings; aliens and
    energy-beings are not.  To wax a bit more philosophical, it's a matter
    of availability.  If it's SF, then the psi powers are theoretically
    explainable in terms of neural activity and (as-yet-unknown) physical
    effects that derive from the properties of matter and energy
    everywhere.  If it's fantasy, then the magic powers are explainable (if
    at all) only in terms of metaphysics, not physics.
    
    Of course, this still leaves gray areas.  Take "Witches of Karres" by
    James Schmidt, with both witches and spaceships; there's a little
    effort to rationalize the witch-powers, but it's very feeble, and the
    "klatha energy" behind it all is called "metaphysical" at one point and
    looks a lot like mana/numen.  Take Mary Renault's Theseus stories or
    Mary Stewart's Merlin stories, where there are occasional touches of,
    uh, psi or magic.  The characters, including the first person
    narrators, regard the effects a plain magic, but you feel yourself that
    it might "just" but psi.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    And then there's the old adage about any technology sufficiently
    advanced will appear to be magic to a less developed culture.
    
    There are more than a few books that ride the fine line between fantasy
    and SF.  Some others that spring to mind that haven't been mentioned
    are Herbert's Dune, and Wolfe's Shadow of the Torturer, and their
    sequels.

    re .167 - Earl's proposed distinction is attractive, but I wonder how
    in a world where the "supernatural" or "metaphysical" exists, is
    repeatable, has an internal logic, etc., such can be usefully distinguished
    from the "natural" or "physical".  Sounds to me like a world with a
    *different* set of natural laws...
    
    len.
    

re: .169

Metaphysical = New set of Natural Laws 

"The Practice Effect"  by  (I forget who)  (Brin, or Brust maby)

Brian.

    
    	"The Practice Effect" was by Brin, I wish he would continue the
    uplift series. 
    
    				jim

    re: "supernatural"
    
    i think one distinction is that supernatural powers can only be
    used by "adepts", people somehow born with the power; whereas
    technology can be used by anybody.
    
    ken

    re .172 - technology can be used by anybody?  How many people do you
    know who can set the clock on their VCR?  To an awful lot of people,
    technology can only be used by "adepts".
    
    len.
    

    In support of .167 and .168's replies there is the "Flux and Anchor"
    series.  In these books the characters appear to be able to alter the
    form of anyone who has less "power" than they do as well as other
    magical feats.  I won't reveal the details but it turns out all the
    "magic" used in the books is really a subconscious control of high
    technology unknown to the "magic" users.
    
    Rod.
    

    Re .169
    
    First, I did say that the category "supernatural" was largely
    traditional.  Use traditional fairy-tale beings, props, and special
    effects, and you are doing fantasy, even if your story is
    magic-saturated, like Xanth, so that, philosophically, you could
    justify saying the "supernatural" is quite "natural" in this world. 
    Such traditionally supernatural things become SF only if, like Toto, 
    you pull back the curtain and reveal the humbug who fakes the magic 
    with technology.
    
    Second, if you have a whole world with different natural laws, I could
    argue that this world is, in a significant if unfamiliar sense,
    "supernatural," or perhaps "extra-natural" -- anyway, no part of our
    nature.
    
    Take Flatland, by Elwin Abbott.  It's very physics is alien, and even 
    when a 3-D being appears in the story, it is an animated Sphere, not 
    a human being or (so far as the author tells) a being a human could 
    encounter.  Flatland is a fantasy world, even though there is not a
    breath of magic in it.
    
    Now take the Planiverse, by A. K. Dewdney.  It, too, is a 2-D world,
    and its local physics is different from our local physics.  But the
    story concerns human beings discovering it through a piece of human-
    built technology.  The 2-D world is even stranger than the neutron-star
    world of Forward's "Dragon's Egg," but like Dragon's Egg, it is reached
    through technology based on (fictitious) science.  The Planiverse is, 
    at least marginally, a science-fiction world.
    
    The only things that would tend to push the Planiverse over into
    fantasy are the unexplained nature of the breakthrough or glitch that
    gives the humans access, and the possibly supernatural powers of one
    minor character -- Toto pulling back the curtain to expose the wizard
    who props up the technology with magic.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    re: .175
    
    I still don't think you're defining "supernatural" adequately. You say
    elves, dwarves, etc. But what's an elf? How would we recognize one
    if we saw it, so we didn't call it simply a very small person?
    
    In other words, how would our current society have to be different,
    if at all, so that we would choose to say that there is "magic" in it?
    
    Ken

Re .176
    
       "I still don't think you're defining "supernatural" adequately."
    
    Adequately for what?  For a philosophical discussion or a literary one?
    So as not to repeat myself too much, see .149, where I talked about
    "nature" and the contrast to "supernature."
    
    Whether or not "nature" is a distinct enough system to define a
    contrasting category of "supernatural" is an empirical question.  Our
    society rather assumes that it is (or we wouldn't bother to have the
    word "supernatural").
    
    If writers work on that assumption and describe things of fictional 
    categories that are supposed to be part of nature (as ETs are), or 
    developed from nature (as machines are), then they are writing SF.  
    If writers work on that assumption and describe things of fictional 
    categories that are supposed to exceed nature, then they are writing 
    fantasy.
    
    If they do not work on that assumption, they may be writing fantastic
    fiction that can not be placed certainly in either category.  The elves
    you mention make an interesting test case.  In "Lord of the Rings,"
    Tolkien deliberately clouds the natural/supernatural border in Lorien.
    When Galadriel shows Frodo and Sam her Mirror and Sam asks, "Is this
    magic?" she (even she, wise as she is) answers that she does not
    clearly understand what Sam means by "magic," since his folk would use
    the same word for "the decites of the Enemy."   Galadriel can make
    water reflect distant times and places; that power lies within her
    character, her nature.  The most exotic thing Sam can do with water is
    make tea; the visions are beyond his nature, supernatural *to* *him.*
    
    Later, when the elves give the travelers cloaks that change color to
    camouflage them, Pippin asks if they are "magic cloaks" and again the
    elves are uncertain what he means.  "We put the thought of all that 
    we love into all that we make," one says, and you can almost see them 
    shrug.
    
    In his Space Trilogy, C. S. Lewis shatters this barrier even more
    deliberately.  He describes "eldila" which at one time are clearly
    SFish "energy beings" and at another time are clearly Judeo-Christian
    angels.  Both narrator and protagonist reflect that, off Earth and so
    largely beyond the geographical borders of "nature" as we know it, the
    distinction between natural and supernatural may vanish.
    
    Or it may not.  It depends on the kind of story the author wants to
    write, and the premises stated or assumed in the background.  If
    everything in the story, however bizarre, is supposed to be a
    development or variation on the matter, life, and mind we encounter in
    the everyday concensus-reality world, then I wouldn't call the story
    fantasy.
       
    Earl Wajenberg

    re: .177
    
    thanks for the reference to .149; i just picked this up recently
    and hadn't had time to look back over it.
    
    i'd just like to add the case of something like the Ursula LeGuin
    magic series - I forget the name.
    
    In any event, magic in these books is very COMMON; magicians are
    all over, performing all kinds of mundane services for ordinary
    farmers, fishermen, etc. They even get paid for it; they can
    even be 'retained' by a village.
    
    Yet there is a very clear sense of distinction between magic
    and the nature that would be described by science. This even tho
    magic, or its laws, is actually a layer of the reality of which
    science can describe part.
    
    Again, she makes the point that only a few people can control
    this magical world - everyone can be affected by it, but only a few
    people can effect actions in it.
    
    To me, that seems essential to magic - sort of makes it magical.
    If everyone can do it, then it is just a law of ordinary nature,
    even if not everyone knows they can do it. So psi, in those stories
    where it is a power that we all have, even tho we don't know it,
    is not magical, its just hidden.
    
    Or, like in the Telzey Amberdon psi series, where i think most people
    have psi powers, but some have it a lot more, it's not magical, its
    just hidden.
    
    maybe part of it is danger; magic seems to need to be dangerous, in
    a way that, e.g., playing with guns, however dangerous THAT is, is not;
    maybe part of it is that playing with magic is playing with the
    better-hidden foundations of reality. And it's not like those hidden
    foundations of reality that science is constantly unveiling; these
    are BELOW anything science can discover. Magical laws cannot be
    discovered by scientific experiment (unless a magician participates).
    
    Ken

Maybe the categories would be better off called "Technology Fantasy" and
"Anti-Technology Fantasy", since that seems to be the main difference in
attitude between most specimens of either genre.

Someone (;-)) once defined magic as the process of effecting change in
accordance with the will.  That covers a lot of ground, but the fantasy
of Anti-Technology Fantasy usually implies a process of effecting change
in accordance with the will WITHOUT the use of intermediary physical
tools.  Occasionally physical objects are used to focus the will (as
with crystals, etc.) or to even store "will power" (magical power) that
can be tapped later on.  Thus we have magical talismans, power places,
etc.  But often the climax to an Anti-Technology Fantasy comes down to
a pure (psychic) battle of wills between the protagonist and antagonist.

In Technology Fantasy physical tools are always the intermediary between
the protagonist's will and the accomplisment of his or her goals.  In a
sense, the tools ARE the hero in Technology Fantasy.

I'm not sure that there aren't other types of fantasy that fall outside
these categories also (for instance, where do people like J. G. Ballard,
Gabriel Garcia Marquez or Jorge Luis Borges fit in?).
								paul

    In the fuzzy area of "psi", I tend, like Earl, to decide whether
    it's sf of fantasy depending on how the author treats it. Stephen
    King's CARRIE, THE DEAD ZONE, and FIRESTARTER, for instance, all
    bring psi powers into the story, but they all treat those powers
    as having some scientific or physiological basis. Whether one
    considers the "science" of psi powers bogus or not is irrelevant,
    as far as I'm concerned. It would be no different than Niven deciding
    that all time travel stories are fantasy and not sf because time
    travel is impossible.
    
    --- jerry

    re: .179 (are Borges and Ballard fantasy or SF writers?)
    
    These authors fall into another category that Bruce Sterling
    calls Slipstream.  They're not mainstream and they're not genre;
    they're something off to one side, where reality has slipped in
    some key way.  
    
    SF doesn't really postulate changes in reality.  Its strength (to
    me anyway) is that its material is in some way plausible.   We
    really can travel to the stars and we really might meet aliens
    some day.  I think that one reason for the present exhaustion of
    SF is that it has lost touch with real science.  Instead it keeps
    working changes on old ideas such as space war or time travel.
    Real science has found, for instance, that the Earth is already
    covered with a super-organism comprised of instantly evolving
    microbes, and that the diversity of the universe
    derives from deep breaks in the fundamental symmetries of
    physics.  Who talks about this in SF?
    
    Fantasy likewise doesn't postulate changes in reality.  As
    Wajenburg notes, it relies on traditional views of the
    supernatural.  As others have also noted, the whole concept of
    'supernatural' has logical flaws, but it is a traditional term
    that has meaning in the context of a lot of literature.
    
    Ballard's stories don't have traditional supernatural elements,
    and don't attempt to be plausible.  He wrote a whole series of
    novels, for instance, where the world was destroyed by
    inexplicable natural disasters, E.g. "The Crystal World", where
    every object in central Africa suddenly grows a crystal coating,
    and "The Wind From Nowhere", where all over the Earth the wind
    starts increasing at five miles per hour per day.
    
    The goal here is alienation and dissociation.  He takes the
    modernist view that some things just cannot be comprehended, and
    then examines people's reactions to them.
    
    This approach has a lot of appeal to modern literati, and so
    Ballard and similar authors such as Dick have much higher
    reputations in the mainstream than any genre author.  I personally
    don't like the fatalist philosophy behind these books, but have
    to admit that they're a lot more sophisticated than the standard
    SF line.
    
    /jlr

    re: .178 (magic as adepts, magic as dangerous)
    
    I think the books you're referring to are the Earthsea series by Le
    Guin.  Magic in these has a particularly nice basis; it's
    linguistic.   An adept acquires power over something by knowing
    its true name.  All the world, in fact, is a single enormously
    long sentence being pronounced by God.  Most of the training of
    an adept is in learning the true names of plants, animals, rocks,
    etc.  It's true, though, that a person needs a certain extra
    talent to be a magician; it's not enough to, say, have a good
    memory and be a quick study.
    
    Magic in Le Guin's world IS dangerous, dangerous because it can
    upset the balance of the world.  That's not so different from
    science in our world.  We sometimes forget how philosophically
    revolutionary science can be, perhaps because we live in its
    philosophy like fish in the sea.  The main revolution was to
    steadily deflate our vanity, our view that we were a special
    people in a special place under the particular protection of
    God.  Science even deflated itself by finding limits on what
    could be known.    This is wrenching stuff,  and I don't think
    we've seen the end of the philosophical battering that science
    can give to our world-view.  That battering is as bad as what
    magic could do to you in Earthsea.
    
    /jlr

    
    Just read through most of the replies here, skipping here and there
    -Whew-.  Just to add my 2 cents to a discussion dead for the last year
    and a half . . .
    
    	It seems the main reason for classifying fiction as Science of
    Fantasy of Speculative is so that you can stick to buying what you
    enjoy reading.  ( and where to find it in the book store ).  This, it
    seems is more than adequately handled by this conference already -
    there's always SOMEONE who's probably already bought it and read it and
    can post a review/description -
    
    	usually a book can be described well enough so you can get the gist
    of what it's about, with out spoilers, of course.  ie - hard science,
    horror, pure fantasy, alternate realities, combinations therein, etc.
    Occasionally, I'm sure there will be a book that 'you just have to read
    to understand', but you can usually get opinions as to whether it'll be
    worth your while . . .
    
    	IS there another reason to classify?  I don't buy classifying just
    for the sake of trying to put the square peg into the square hole ( but
    the round one fits too!! ).  That strikes me as just too
    anal-retentive.
    	                     
    					$.02 - Jimbo

    I had this question come up this weekend - I was helping with the PBS
    pledge drive during "Red Dwarf". A lady called in her pledge and asked
    me to "please tell that guy [the anouncer] that this stuff is NOT SF! 
    It's Science Fantasy - just like Dr. Who, and most Star Trek! They're 
    good shows, but they're not SF!" 
    
    I agreed with her and thanked her for watching, but I got to thinking -
    why do we insist on labeling everything to suit us? In a room full of
    100 fans you could pose the question is this book/movie/TV SF or
    something else, and get 100 different answers.
    
    Does it really matter? There are so many books I would consider to
    have elements of SF/Fantasy/Cyberpunk/Mystery/etc. that I've really
    stopped counting. I just know what I like. 
    
    I suppose if you are comparing SF/Fantasy to all other media, most
    mundane folks would lump it all into "Sci-Fi", which they tend to do.
    The announcer guy was a non-fan, it all seems the same to him. 
    This was the mistake of my caller, who wants EVERYONE to abide by her
    definitions. 
    
    Maybe we should call it all "Speculative Fiction" and be done with it.
    That should cover just about everything. 8^)
    
    SET RAMBLE OFF
    
    - Russ 
    

    Don't know where to draw a hard line, but I see a distinct 
    difference between 'science fiction' and 'fantasy.' And I
    find it distracting when I'm shopping for SF and every third
    book on the shelf is something like 'Dragonquest in Elfland - 
    The Third book of the Dragonquest Saga,' or some such. You
    know the type. I'd say segregate the two.

    re: .185
    
    Good point. That frustrates me too. 

re: .185

I'd settle for a separate section for all books that advertise themselves
as 'Book __ in the ______ Saga', maybe with an allowance for books written
before this became a Marketing Concept.  Then whatever SF + F is left can
be browsed through without having to worry about sequelitis (or prequelitis)
striking.
								paul

    I could live with that. ;-)
    
    

    
    Another vote FOR.
    
    Now how can we convince the bookstores? 
    
    - russ

    Does that mean that we can kick Piers Anthony out of the SF 
    section 8-) 8-) 8-)?"
    
    Sounds like a good idea, but bookstore keepers are not necessarily
    readers who might know the difference. Even now I am astounded at what
    they DO stuff into the "speculative fiction section".
    
	Monica

    Re .190:
    
    > Sounds like a good idea, but bookstore keepers are not necessarily
    > readers who might know the difference.
    
    The publisher can easily categorize each book.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Oh, but the publishers often seem to prefer to categorize the book by
    what's selling now more than by what the book really is. 
    
    And, of course, this whole categorization discussion neatly overlooks
    the cross-genre stuff. (Though I've seen a few bookstores that just put
    a few copies of such hard-to-categorize books in every section they
    _might_ fit in. I like this - it improves the odds of my stumbling
    across something interesting - but it does require more stock on hand
    than some stores can support.)
    
    Since nobody, neither publishers nor store owners nor critics nor the
    authors, can categorize books such that I'd (a) agree with them, and
    [more to the point] (b) find large numbers of books in that section
    that I liked, I figure they might as well just arrange them all by the
    author's name, using some sort of label on the spine to suggest the
    genre. That way, if I find an author I like, I can look for other works
    without having to guess whether they've been filed in fiction, mystery,
    horror, or fantasy. [Maybe we could add light-pens or programmable
    hand-held scanners, so that people who really only wanted certain
    genres could wave a wand at the book racks and have target books glow
    blue or something. Takes some of the fun out of browsing, but there
    _is_ only so much time in the day... ;-)]
    
    -b

    
    re: .190
    
    let's just kick him out of all bookstores.  i couldn't believe what i
    saw yesterday. book *15* of the xanth series.  and it was called:  the
    color of her panties?!?!?!?!?!?  right......
    

    I stopped worrying about the Fantasy/SF split in bookstores a long time
    ago.  I decided that, since I'm literate, I can determine whether each
    book is Fantasy, Sf, or something else, and choose accordingly.
    
    Besides, I don't distinguish between the genres in my home bookshelves.
    
    					andrew

    >Besides, i don't distinguish between the genres in my home
    bookshelves.
    
    -right!  Myself, I arrange them like my CD's - by color.  More
    aesthetically pleasing.  "_Earth_ by Brin - let's see - that's a blue
    one, right."  
    
    				Smiles, Jimbo
    PS - not kidding . . .

    But, Jimbo, do you arrange the colors in their proper spectral order? 
    i.e. Black, violet, blue, green, etc.?
    
    Jest wunderin.
    
    -Russ   8^) 8^)

    red - orange - yellow - green - blue - purple - brown - black - greyish
    - white
    
    just like they taught be in grade school :-) :-)
    
    						-Jimbo

    Gee, the NESFA Librarians flipped when Mark suggested that sorting
    scheme.
    
    What do you do with your old DAWs?
    
    						Ann B.

Well, last time i checked at the Toadstool Bookshop they had three 6' high
bookcases of F + SF, about 7 shelves each.  There was one whole shelf of
Piers Anthony, another whole shelf of "ElfQuest", another whole shelf of
"Dragon Lance", and another whole shelf of "Star Trek" books.  Plus almost
full shelves of Anne McCaffrey series, "Wild Cards", David Eddings,
Mercedes Lackey, and one of those militaristic SF series that i don't
remember the name of.

Enuff awready!!
								paul

    Hey, I know an easier way for bookstores to categorize their science
    fiction/fantasy literature:
    
    + The well-written Science Fiction/Fantasy section
    + The make-a-buck Science Fiction/Fantasy section 
      (a.k.a. shortstories-turned-into-1000+-page-series section)
    
    -Randy

    Re -.1
    
    OK - as long as _I_ get to pick what's what :-)
    
    						-Jimbo
    

    Remember when guys like Zelazny and Anthony could actualy WRITE?
    
    \dave

    Yup.  It wasn't so long ago that a trilogy was very rare and those
    stories that did end up as several books only did so out of necessity:
    no one even considered dragging a story out longer than 3 books.
    Heck, the only trilogy I owned for years was the Lord of the Rings.
    
    Here's a trivia question for you folks out there (I don't know the
    answer but I'm curious):
    
    What set of Science Fiction or Fantasy books first expanded into
    more than a 3 book set for a more or less single story (Like the LoTR
    or the first 3 Foundation books).
    
    I'm guessing that it would be Piers Anthony with his Xanth-forever
    series, but don't really know...
    
    -Randy
    
    

I would have guessed "Riverworld".

			/Brad

    Dune et seq. preceded both...
    
    					andrew

    
    chronicles of narnia??
    

    Ah, a chance to expound on my latest theory.

    It isn't just Zelazny; SF seems to be going downhill.  Unlike
    mainstream and fantasy, the basic appeal of this form of fiction
    is the extrapolation of scientific *facts* -- ideally the reader learns
    something new.  Gravity and Newton's laws and time travel can be
    harped on only so much; very few advances in space research have been
    made over the last decade; science has become computers and networks
    and they gave that a shot but cyberpunk is boring nonsense.
    If I were you, I'd treat all good unread SF like fossil fuel,
    and recycle good read SF!

    would Zelany's Amber series qualify?
                  Jeff Peters 

    Sounds like Narnia would be the earliest fantasy 3+ book set.
    As to the SF, I dunno--I think the 4th book of Dune (God-Emperor I
    think) came out in the late-70s--Did the 4th book of Riverworld 
    or Amber come out before that?
    
    Geez, reminiscing about these old favorites is going to have me
    rereading my old stuff rather than the new stuff that I have piled
    up...
    
    _Randy

    
    What about the Lensmen series? That was four books (Galactic Patrol,
    Gray Lensman, Second-Stage Lensmen, Children of the Lens) even if you
    don't count Triplanetary and it's "bridge" book, First Lensman.
    
    I'm pretty sure they were all out well before Dune...
    
    JP

re: .203 and last few

>    Here's a trivia question for you folks out there (I don't know the
>    answer but I'm curious):
>    
>    What set of Science Fiction or Fantasy books first expanded into
>    more than a 3 book set for a more or less single story (Like the LoTR
>    or the first 3 Foundation books).
    
I'm not sure if all of the answers given for this fit the criteria (a more
or less single story)...but then i'm not sure Foundation does either.  If
you can stop at the end of the first book with some sense of resolution, as
in _Dune_ but not in _LOTR_, then i'd say the test fails.  The first set of
(5?) Amber books have to all be read to get to a resolution of Corwin's
initial situation, as an example of a case where the test passes.

								- paul

    Well, if you want to go back that far, how about ERB's Mars series.  I
    seem to remember this sucker lasting some 11 books.

I think these last few miss the point.  A book what was not intended to have
any sequels (but did).

				/Brad

    If you want to include the Narnia books, then the OZ books should be
    included as well.  But since the books from both of these series stand
    on their own, I'm not sure they'd count for the answer of the original
    question...

    L. Ron Hubbards monster epic (Battlefield Earth?) was, I believe,
    written before either Amber of Dune even though it was published some
    time later.
    
    \dave

    When Hubbard's "epic" was typed (I would not descibe it was writing)
    is unclear.  I found it interesting that ten volumes of Hubbard-stuff
    was published posthumously.
                    
    					andrew

    Is this Hubbard-stuff any good?  Any time I've tried to dip into it, in
    bookshops or libraries (there's a difference?), it's come across as
    totally dire, like Doc Smith without the humility...  I must admit that
    I tend to prejudge people who churn it out by the cubic yard.
    
    I have this slightly Lovecraftian picture of wires leading out of the
    crypt to a teleprinter....
    
    Richard
    

    
    It's still not as bad as V.C. Andrews.  Has she not been dead a while
    and not only are they still publishing her, they're still using her
    name in blurbs for books by other authors.
    
    DFW

    I was once told by an employee of Waldenbooks that Hubbards estate/the
    Church of Scientology have the legal right to use his name. All of the
    posthumously published books have been written by a team of writers
    employed by this group. Don't know how true that is. 
    
    I have also heard from a second source
    that the reason these Mission Earth books are always on the bestseller
    list is because they somehow get sold more than once.  A particluar
    bookstore opened what they thought was a NEW box of these books from
    the publisher, and there on the books were price stickers from THEIR
    OWN STORE - they'd put them on last week!  Somehow these are being
    circulated and sold several times in order to make them best sellers. 
    
    Hmmmmm.....
    
    - Russ.

    Newsweek's Sharon Begley put it so nicely I had to enter it in here:

    "All great science fiction must be science first and fiction second.
    Even more, it must tap into the reigning scientific paradigm of
    its era.  For Mary's Shelley's "Frankenstein," that paradigm was
    electricity, the sizzling lightning bolts and arcing volts that were
    powering the nascent Industrial Revolution.  For Godzilla, it was
    radioactivity and the Bomb. For "Jurassic Park," it is biotechnology.

    Science fiction must have a core of plausibility.  This movie does."

>    "All great science fiction must be science first and fiction second.

This statement is either conscious hyperbole or just plain stupid.
If it's second at all, the 'fiction' aspect must be a really close second 
to the science.
Otherwise, you'll have the germ of a possibly very good idea that is 
muted by its execution, and could not be considered "great" in any context.

>    Even more, it must tap into the reigning scientific paradigm of
>    its era. ... Science fiction must have a core of plausibility.  

That's what makes it "speculative" - the character of being able 
to extrapolate from the familiar to the uncharacterized but plausible.

- tom]

    Perhaps it is just badly expressed.  Basically, I think it means that
    you cannot sacrifice science in order to make the standard fiction
    elements easier or more satisfying.  (Which, not to start a great
    religious war or anything, is something that happens with some
    frequency in the Star Trek universe.)

    Just to follow on to Chelsea's digression about Star Trek, I just
    recently saw a new newsgroup created out on the usenet,
    wesley.crusher.die.die.die.   Seems he has his own non-fan club...
    
    _Randy

>>    "All great science fiction must be science first and fiction second.

    >Perhaps it is just badly expressed.  Basically, I think it means that
    >you cannot sacrifice science in order to make the standard fiction
    >elements easier or more satisfying.  
    
    I'm sorry, but the first statement is utter nonsense.  The very
    best SF is good fiction, first last, and always.  If it happens
    to also have good science, then that's an added benefit, but science
    is never a prerequisite for good SF.
    
    Pick you five favorite SF stories.  How accurate is the science?
    How important is the science to the story?  
    
    I'm not saying that science isn't important -- it's part of the milieu,
    just as the accoutrements of the West are part of the milieu of a
    western novel.  But: the details (and their accuracy) are not the most
    important factor in making a great story.

I agree Andrew. The story is what makes a good book. The science needs to be
believable within the parameters of the story but not within reality. As long
as an author does not break her own rules I can live with whatever science is
presented. I hate it though when a character seems phoney or acts "wrong" or the
plot dies away. liesl

    I consider the Crystalsinger stories to be SF, though the science is
    poor. I do like the stories, but I find that I have to make an effort
    to avoid thinking about the science, and I could enjoy them more if the
    science was better.
    
    Peter

    Re: .224
    
    >The very best SF is good fiction, first last, and always.  
    
    But not only.
    
    >If it happens to also have good science, then that's an added benefit, 
    >but science is never a prerequisite for good SF.
    
    So what value does the "S" in "SF" have?
    
    >the details (and their accuracy) are not the most important factor in 
    >making a great story.
    
    True, but we're not talking about just great stories.  We're talking
    about great SF.  Let's say we have an SF story that is based on flimsy
    science.  How does that differ from fantasy, then?  To me, SF requires
    plausibility -- according to the scientific standards of the time it
    was written.
    
    What you seem to be saying is that any great story that gets tossed
    into the SF category is great SF.  My position is that you can have a
    great story in the SF genre which is nonetheless not great SF.  Great
    fiction, sure, but not great SF.  Because SF is not a separate class
    from fiction, but a subset of fiction.  Therefore, SF has additional
    criteria above the generic class fiction.  Therefore, great SF has
    additional criteria above great fiction.

    re: -227.
    I'll buy that as the best comment. (and I agree with it too 8-) )
    
    Monica

    >To me, SF requires plausibility -- according to the scientific
    >standards of the time it was written.   
    
    Plausibility is not the same as good science.  "Dune" is plausible;
    it is also intrenally consistent.  Its science is farfetched. 
    
    Nevertheless, "Dune" is great SF.
    
    					andrew

    Re .230
    
    One problem I see with Dune is that if spice is essential for space
    travel, how did men reach the planet in the first place? Crystalsinger
    has a similar problem. Of course there are possible explanations, but
    they would affect the history of the worlds involved, and though both
    books do concern themselves with that history, I don't remember an
    explanation in either.
    
    Peter

    re .231
    
    Spice is needed for FTL flight.  Non-FTL flight is possible without it,
    and slower versions of FTL might still be possible without spice as
    well.
    
    Once spice was discovered, the spice version of FTL replaced any
    previous FTL and non-FTL techniques of space travel.  I'd even argue 
    that the _Dune_ universe is one which has lost many technical
    ablities (as a result of the Butlerian Jihad, we are told), and thus
    that spice-FTL might be slower and less efficient than what it
    replaced.
    
    (Your question is parallel to "If gas is made from oil, and cars run on
    gas, how did anyone ever drive to where the oil wells are?")
    
    		-John Bishop

>    (Your question is parallel to "If gas is made from oil, and cars run on
>    gas, how did anyone ever drive to where the oil wells are?")
    
    No, it isn't, and the difference is important to the point I wanted to
    make. I can't think of a simple way to explain it, but I'll give it a
    try.
    
    The book makes a big point of spice being essential to space travel,
    and does not in anyway discuss any alternatives. As I remember it is
    not a character that says this, so the normal assumption is that the
    information is meant to be accurate, within the world of the book. I
    can think of possible explanations, but since this point is vital to
    the book, then there should be some explanation, however brief, in the
    book. I find the lack to be a flaw in the book. It does not spoil the
    story, but does spoil the science.
    
    Another reason I find the dependence on spice implausible, is that I
    don't believe that it could not be synthesised, or bioengineered.
    However, since this would not have been so obvious at the time the book
    was written, I can accept this, though I would not in a more recent
    book.
    
    I understand why no alternative method of interstellar travel is
    presented in the book. It makes the importance of the planet greater if
    there is no alternative, but the same importance implies that great
    effort will be put into finding alternative methods, in order to break
    the monopoly. Since it obvious that there must have been an alternative
    at one time, a reason why it is no longer usuable is needed, if the
    science is to be taken seriously.
    
    Peter                            

RE:33

There are many examples of things being done one way at one time that now
would be completely impossible.  Consider the banking industry.  At one time,
all banking transactions were handled manually.  Now we have computers.  If
something should happen to eliminate all computers, the world's economic
structure would completely collapse.

In the Dune universe, perhaps they used relatavistic STL and FTL
transportation in the past.  Folding space by means of the spice seems to
have eliminated all of the relativistic disadvantages of "conventional" space
travel.  In this "real-time" planet hopping environment, there can exist the
possibility of influencing another planet in one's own lifetime.  If, on the
other hand, you sent an STL fleet to conquer another planet, you would most
likely be dead before the fleet reached its target.

Just some thoughts.

-Patrick

    Re .233:
    
    As I recall, in the second book of the series, someone *did* take a
    work off planet with the aim of breaking the Arakkis monopoly on spice.
    
    Concerning how you get to the planet that has what you need to get to
    planets, I don't recall the wording or who said it, but if the
    alternative is near-light travel, this might be so drastic a
    curtailment to a culture used to FTL, that going back to near-light
    would be essentially doing without "real" starflight.  Pursued hard
    enough, this turns into something like Biblical criticism...
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Re .234 & .235
    
    Sorry, it seems I have still not made my point clear. It is not that an
    explanation can not be invented, it is that the book does not provide
    one, even though this is the most important piece of 'science' to the
    story. 
    
    The monopoly on interstellar travel is so important, that it is ovious
    that a great deal of thought will have been put into ways of breaking
    it. Thus the knowledge of why the alternatives are impractical would
    exist. There is no indication of this.
    
    If sub-light travel was the only alternative, then Dune must have been
    colonised before FTL travel was developed. Furthermore, it would almost
    certainly have been the first planet to have FTL travel. This would
    have given it a history that would be difficult to reconcile with the
    book.
    
    Peter

    Re .236:
    
    At one point, I too thought that it was implausible to leave Dune as
    the only planet producing the spice.  Then I realized it was no more
    implausible than, say, allowing hostile or unstable governments in the 
    countries that produce most of the petroleum, titanium, chromium, etc.
    It may not make sense, but it happens.
    
    For that matter, the Dune situation makes excellent political sense as 
    long as Dune is firmly under the thumb of CHOAM.  The Baron, remember, 
    did not intend for the Atreides family to survive more than a few weeks 
    after taking possession of Dune.
    
    As to the history of FTL and the colonization of Dune, I don't recall
    anything in the story that says much about it one way or another.  I
    thought it was clear from the basic social set-up that the Fremen were
    the descendants of an older culture, which had been shoved out into the
    desert centuries ago by the empire.  The townsfolk were other
    descendants of the same culture, living a more urban and subjugated
    life.  What's to show these folk didn't arrive on Dune by STL and thus
    become the "natives"?
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Re .236 again:
    
    By the way, I'm not sure that the use of the spice by the Guildsmen was
    the most obviously crucial use of it.  It was also used to extend
    lifespan and to give Reverend Mothers (both on and off Arrakis) their
    paranormal powers.  Of course, this just makes it an even more crucial
    resource.  (Similarly, without petroleum, we'd not only be without
    fuel, but without plastics.  Or very nearly without.)
    
    ESW

    There are hints in the books about the "Butlerian Jihad", which
    imply that there was a massive social upheaval in the past.  It
    may have been a reaction to artificial intelligences (robots?
    AI computers?), as there are lines about not making imitations
    of man.   We are to believe that this Jihad pretty much wiped 
    out the old machine-based technology (one that was like ours),
    and replaced it with a spice/psychology-based system.
    
    One of the obscure little groups (Tliexau?) has some machine-based
    technology left, we are told, and shown that this is considered
    to be in bad taste or even obscene.
    
    Of course this doesn't make sense--there are still ships and
    force-fields and so on--masses of machines.  But Herbert wanted
    to set up a society in which people fight with knives, take drugs
    to do FTL, use mental training instead of computers and so on--he
    wanted warring aristocrats, not cyberpunk.  So he got rid of the
    stuff he didn't want and waved the "religious war" excuse at it.
    
    So in his world, spice is not duplicated via technology because
    the technology is forbidden.  (See Nabokov's _Ada_, where the (very 
    deeply buried) cause of the differences between the book's world
    and our own is that electricity is forbidden.)
    
    Personally, I doubt that you can forbid technology if there are more
    than a few competing political units (e.g. contraception has been
    outlawed in various places, but never everywhere at once).  It's
    even less likely that you can forbid technology which gives the wielder
    massive military power, no matter how strong the "religious"
    prohibition.
    
    To be fair, there have been similiar events in the past: 
    
    o	The post-WWII attempts to restrict nuclear bomb technology;
    
    o	Japan giving up guns in the 1600 or 1700's;
    
    o	The loss of high technology in the Middle East and
    	North Africa after the Islamic conquest.
    
    The best alternate history I can give to explain Dune is the following:
    
    1.	Our technology grows, adds STL travel, begins to settle local
    	area;
    
    2.	Robots are invented, and lead to massive unemployment and unrest
    	co-inciding with a religious revival;
    
    3.	Riots and wars destroy old system to the point that much of the
    	old technology is lost, resulting in a no-space-flight Dark Age,
    	possibly Earth is destroyed or at least damaged enough that it 
    	no longer figures in history;
    
    4.	A new system arises slowly based on other techniques and proudly
    	ignorant of its own past (explicitly parallel with the Islamic
    	conquest of the Middle East and Egypt, note names and semi-Arabic
    	terminology), for a while it may use surviving STL or V1 FTl ships
    	but cannot maintain them or build new ones;
    
    5.	Precursor to CHOAM discovers how to use spice for FTL, and sets
    	up monopoly.  For reasons of easy control, they choose not to
    	settle Arrakis, but leave it at its old "primitive" level.  I think
    	there's a clear parallel to oil here in Herbert's mind.  Any
    	surviving STL or V1 FTL ships are outclassed and abandoned.
    
    6.	As religious feeling fades, we are left with warring aristocrats
    	and various semi-hidden cult groups who are now more willing to be
    	open, and the plot starts.
    
    		-John Bishop

>    Of course this doesn't make sense--there are still ships and
>    force-fields and so on--masses of machines.  But Herbert wanted
>    to set up a society in which people fight with knives, take drugs
>    to do FTL, use mental training instead of computers and so on--he
>    wanted warring aristocrats, not cyberpunk.  So he got rid of the
>    stuff he didn't want and waved the "religious war" excuse at it.
    
    This is what I wanted to say.
    
>    Personally, I doubt that you can forbid technology if there are more
>    than a few competing political units (e.g. contraception has been
>    outlawed in various places, but never everywhere at once).  It's
>    even less likely that you can forbid technology which gives the wielder
>    massive military power, no matter how strong the "religious"
>    prohibition.
    
    I agree.
    
    Peter
    
    

    Following .239, I think the core of Herbert's world-design is that the
    "special effects" are all human-based, or at least as much as possible.
    Even if he can't dispense with starships and forcefields, the narration
    never lingers on them, the way it does on Mentats, the Bene Gesserit,
    mental disciplines, religious psychology, and ecology.  Probably, if 
    Herbert had thought he could suspend the readers' disbelief with a 
    world of nothing but bio-tech and mental discipline, with a touch of 
    psi, he'd have done it.
    
    He clearly wanted the focus *off* "hard science" (an innovation for the 
    SF of the period) and *on* "soft science."  The Butlerian Jihad was
    simply the most obvious move in his effort to shuffle the gadgets off
    stage.  (E.g. "I am NOT letting gadgets be characters.")
    
    This fits nicely, of course, with his plot goal of writing a heroic
    cycle.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    I remember is short passages them say spice was neccessary for safe
    passage. Implying that ships used to be very chancy proposition maybe every
    third trip a ship was lost. In those days it was the way things were.
    For exploration and one way transport this may be acceptable but for 
    comerce and trade such a hazard would make almost any route not 
    profitable. 
                        Jeff Peters

    No, a sufficiently profitiable route would be travelled even if
    there were high losses.
    
    Consider the old Silk Road, or pre-modern oceanic trade and
    fishing or whaling.  Losses of one-third are high but not
    unsupportable.
    
    Example: cost of trip = C; profit = P; chance of success = S.
    
    If  P*S > C  then it's worth doing.  You probably have to
    add a bit to motivate the sailors, etc. who are risking their
    lives, call that E and get  P*S > C+E.
    
    Would you go on _one_ year-long intrastellar voyage if you had
    two chances in three of being a millionaire afterwards and one
    chance in three of dying?  I wouldn't, but I bet there are enough
    adventurous young men and woman who would.
    
    		-John Bishop

    Re .242 & .243:
    
    Yes, as I recall, the Guild navigators used spice to gain the short-
    term precognition that allowed them to do FTL navigation.  We never
    learned what the navgation hazards were or how chancy it was without
    spice, but even a fall from nearly-100%-safe to 90% would be enough to
    wreak havoc with a sufficiently conservative and rigid economic system.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Regarding spacetravel etc.

    In the DUNE appendix dealing with religious issues spaceflight is
    discussed as to is influence on religion. It goes on to state that
    mankind has had spaceflight (I'm assuming intersteller) for 110 centuries
    with seems to be consistent with some of the dates (10,950) presented 
    in the book.  

    Further, somewhere in the text of one of the books there is an explanation
    of Navigators and their use of the spice. I believe, its stated that 
    Navigators had used other drugs but that none compared with spice and
    were no longer effective after a Navigtor had used the spice. Its not
    clear that spaceflight was not machine(intelligence)-assisted prior
    to the Butlerian Jihad. The DUNE society seems to have no problems
    with machines in general but with machine intelligence. 
    
							Dennis 

    Re .236 & .241:
    
    I just made a small "ah-ha" connection between these two notes.  In
    .236, it says, "It is not that an explanation can not be invented, it 
    is that the book does not provide one, even though this is the most 
    important piece of 'science' to the story."
    
    But, as I remarked in .241, details about physics and engineering are
    *not* important to the story.  Even more, it is important that they not
    be important, so that the focus can be on the sciences of mind and
    life.  As a result, details of technology are arranged to accomodate
    the plot and the setting.  Explanations of those technical details are
    even more marginal and so not given.  Any explanation you want to make
    up is fine, so long as it is compatible with the text, so far as
    herbert was concerned, I would guess.
    
    In short, to demand explanations of the technology is to divert
    attention from where Herbert wanted to focus it, I think.
    
    Earl Wajenberg
    

    Re: .230
    
    >Plausibility is not the same as good science.
    
    Good science cannot be implausible.
    
    >Its science is farfetched. 
    
    Then does it, in fact, have science, or does it have scientific-sounding
    justifications of phenomena the author wanted to use?
    
    >Nevertheless, "Dune" is great SF.
    
    Ah, proof by assertion....  It is great, but is it SF?  You claim it
    is, but then you also claim it has science, albeit far-fetched.  I'm
    wondering how internally consistent your definitions are.
    
    I'm also wondering whether it is really useful to make distinctions
    between SF and fantasy.  _Crystal Singer_ is more like fantasy to my
    mind.  Sure, it has space travel and other "hallmarks" of SF, but this
    business of singing crystal is basically a fantasy.  It didn't arise
    out of scientific speculation, after all.  It's a fantasy story with an
    SF setting.  Contrast that to the Dragonriders books.  They look like
    fantasy, but they have a much stronger scientic basis.  It's more of an
    SF story (colonization, developing solutions to problems through
    technology) with a fantasy setting.  Or consider the episode "The
    Perfect Mate" in ST:TNG.  What's the scientific basis for an empathic
    mesomorph?  None whatsoever.  But since the show is considered SF,
    every episode is lumped into the SF category.
    
    Basically, we've reached the point where we adhere to various
    stereotypes about the genres.  Space flight must be SF; dragons must be
    fantasy.  Paranormal powers go either way, depending one whether the
    author tries to justify them in scientific terms.  Using these
    stereotypes as a means of classification strikes me as not very useful. 
    It's like saying that if someone is blond, he is sociable but not very
    bright.  So what do you do with someone who has dyed his hair?
    
    Perhaps a more useful criterion is whether the story derived from or
    was driven by the science, or the science (if any exists) was derived
    from or driven by the story elements.  By that standard, _Dune_ is
    probably not SF, while _Alas, Babylon_ is.

As someone pointed out, there was no prohibition of machines (think of the
ornithopters, the hunter-seekers, the "family atomics", etc.), just of
machines that simulated human intelligence in some vaguely defined way.

The reason for the knife fighting and Dr. Yueh's dart gun were that normal
projectile weapons could be repelled by the force shields that all the
important people seemed to use as armor.

The Fremen ancestors were clearly described as having been shipped to
Arrakis from another planet (exiled during some religious or civil war,
perhaps?).

The single source of spice on Arrakis was what gave the CHOAM Company its
monopoly.  There was an attempt in one of the later books to smuggle a
sandworm off-planet.  The difficulty in synthesizing the active principle
of melange is not so far-fetched.  There are many botanical pharmaceuticals
now that are very difficult to synthesize in the lab in quantity.

If any part of the book was implausible, it was the notion that any drug
can allow people to accurately foresee the future in detail.  The rest
was no more implausible than most science fiction about interstellar societies.

								- paul

    "Science" covers a lot of things.  What science are we talking about -
    rocketry?  Interstellar navigation?  Or is it softer, "social"
    sciences, or pharmacology, or even dry-land ecology?  FTL is pretty
    implausible.  There's nothing on Arrakis apart from shields, suspensor
    chairs and sandworms that couldn't be faked up pretty reasonably with
    current technology...
    
    As for the paranormal stuff, swap peyote for melange and the can of
    worms goes fractal....
    
    At one point in the book (I've just re-read it), Paul is mulling over
    his prospects.  One of his possible futures is a life as a Guild
    steersman...
    
    And finally:  Someone recently (past year or so) demonstrated the first
    working model of an ornithopter.  Now there's real leading-edge SF...
    
    Richard
    

    Re .246
    
    Dune is a great story, and I agree an explanation of the technology is
    largly irrevelant to the story. However, it looks like SF, so I judged
    it on that basis, and I found the 'science' implausible, which was my
    original point. I agree that it seems that the technology was made up
    to fit the story, and thus I would class the book as fantasy rather
    than science fiction.
    
    I read the two styles in different ways. If I like the 'world' of the
    book I like to take wahat is in the book and expand on it in my mind.
    For a fantasy I only expect it to be consistent with itself, but for
    science fiction I expecty it to be consistent with the scientific
    picture of the world at the time the book was written.
    
    Peter
    
    

>The single source of spice on Arrakis was what gave the CHOAM Company its
>monopoly.  There was an attempt in one of the later books to smuggle a
>sandworm off-planet.  The difficulty in synthesizing the active principle
>of melange is not so far-fetched.  There are many botanical pharmaceuticals
>now that are very difficult to synthesize in the lab in quantity.
    
    I do consider it far-fetched, given the advances made recently in
    organic chemistry and biotechnology, though I do not critize the book
    much on this point as it was written before biotechnology really
    existed. It might be difficult to manufacture spice, but given its
    importance and value it would be done.
    
    	Peter

> >Nevertheless, "Dune" is great SF.
>    
>    Ah, proof by assertion....  It is great, but is it SF?  You claim it
>    is, but then you also claim it has science, albeit far-fetched.  I'm
>    wondering how internally consistent your definitions are.
>    
>    I'm also wondering whether it is really useful to make distinctions
>    between SF and fantasy.
    
    The dividing line between fantasy and science fiction is 
    broad enough and blurred enough to allow arguments like this
    string.  I place "Dune" on the SF side; others may place it on
    the fantasy side.  It's really not important enough for me
    to care -- it's like trying to argue about where blue ends
    and indigo begins in a spectrum.  Like you, I doubt that it's 
    useful to make what can only be arbitrary distinctions.
                                                           

    
    Re: .247
    
    My two penn'orth (Brit, you see!)
    
    > Space flight must be SF; dragons must be fantasy.
    
    In a recent(ish) book Anne McCaffrey laid out the beginnings of the
    colonisation of Pern. This goes into some detail on the genetic
    engineering process involved in turning a native lizard into the
    "Dragons" of Pern. So why must dragons be fantasy?
    
    Nigel.
      

    
    Normally I find Chelsea's writings to be the very soul of
    reasonableness but I must take issue with .247:
    
    >Good science cannot be implausible.
    
    I contend that relativity is implausible, as is Heisenberg's
    uncertainty principle, as is quantum electrodynamics (and QCD as well).
    Just because we're familiar with the concepts and the math works out
    doesn't mean your average citizen would believe it all makes sense.
    
    Or did you mean that good science has to be plausible to a scientist?
    
    On the subject of spaceflight risk... I don't consider myself to be all
    that adventurous but I would be willing to chance a shuttle flight if
    there was even a 50% chance of getting back -- as long as all the risk
    was on the return flight.
    
    JP

    Re .247 & .254
    
    I would say that the science in good science fiction must seem
    plausible.
    
    Peter

Yup, like FTL and time travel 8^)

    re .256
    
    That depends on how it is explained. PTj

    Re: .253
    
    >So why must dragons be fantasy?
    
    I thought that was my point.
    
    
    Re: .254
    
    >Or did you mean that good science has to be plausible to a scientist?
    
    Not to a scientist, but to someone who is reasonably conversant with
    general science -- which would describe people who tend to be
    interested in science fiction.

>    Not to a scientist, but to someone who is reasonably conversant with
>    general science -- which would describe people who tend to be
>    interested in science fiction.

But isn't that the general definition for any fiction? It has to be found 
plausible by the readership?

If I don't believe the premise, I generally don't finish/enjoy/recommend 
the book.

    re .254:
    
    Someone suggested today a potential problem on a Digital product
    that could occur only as a result of a sequence of events that was
    quite implausible -- yet it could be envisioned only by someone
    intimately familiar with the "science" that made the product work.
    This was not to be confused with a suggestion that a customer might
    drop some spice on the product that might send it into the distant
    future, thus causing practical problems for the customer.

    Be not trammelled by the meshes of verbal logic..

re: .251

>    I do consider it far-fetched, given the advances made recently in
>    organic chemistry and biotechnology, though I do not critize the book
>    much on this point as it was written before biotechnology really
>    existed. It might be difficult to manufacture spice, but given its
>    importance and value it would be done.
    
I must not be that familiar with recent developments in organic chemistry
and biotechnology then.  I thought we still could not synthesize taxol in
vitro in any appreciable quantities.  I thought a lot of our advances were
less in synthesis than in hooking chemical X (easily synthesizable or widely
available in nature) to protein Y to get it across a cell membrane or
activate an appropriate antibody.  That's delivery of an existing agent (or
the active fragment of one), not synthesis of the agent de novo.

The other point is that all the research needed to do this takes money.  If
CHOAM holds most of the pursestrings, they're sure as hell not going to fund
research to break their own monopoly.  So, again, it's more the supposed
effects of melange that seem implausible to me, not the spice economy.

								- paul

>I must not be that familiar with recent developments in organic chemistry
>and biotechnology then.  I thought we still could not synthesize taxol in
>vitro in any appreciable quantities.
    
    What is an appreciable quantity depends on how valuable the substance
    is - spice seems very valuable so even an inefficient process could be
    economical. I was thinking mainly of taking the genes for spice and
    implanting them in other creatures that can survive on another planet.
    
    CHOAM gets its wealth from the people who pay for its services.
    Obviously its prices are high, yet they must be able to afford them, so
    they could also afford to research a way to break the monopoly,
    probably with the purpose of getting some of the wealth for themselves.
    The situation does not seem stable to me, but the impression from the
    book is that it has existing for some time.
    
    Precognition and FTL travel seem improbable to me, but the book does
    make an effort to justify them, in a way that is sufficiently plausible
    for me to suspend my disbelief.
    
    Peter

    This endless debate about SF vs Fantasy truly seems to be a case of
    flogging a dead horse.  The reality is that stories lie along a
    continuum;  at one end, tales of magic and witchcraft and, at the
    other, "hard" SF.  At various points along the continuum we have the
    dragons of Pern , the less-than-plausible high tech of Ballybran
    crystals, the universe of Dune, Shannara and Middle Earth.

    One question that has always seemed critical to me in separating the
    Fantasy end from the SF end is how the internal logic of the story
    treats "exotic" phenomena - are they explained in terms of magic,
    spirits and the occult or are they explained as physical
    manifestations.

    The plausibility of the explanations is really a separate issue. 
    Fantasy must also be plausible.  It must have internal consistency. 
    Authors who make up their magic and monsters on the fly are as
    implausible as those who make up their science on an "as needed" basis.
    
    
    \dave

    Re .263:
    
    Hear, hear.
    
    The remarks about plausibility in fantasy remind me of a distinction I
    read in a literary essay, between "realism of content" and "realism of
    presentation."  A story has more realism of content the more the
    objects in it are real ones.  A story has more realism of presentation
    the more it gives you immediacy, vividity, or a feeling of knowing what
    it would have been like to be there.
    
    Fantasy and SF are almost definable (together) as literature that
    ignore realism of content, at least sometimes.  Historical novels,
    romances, mysteries, and the like *do* stick to realistic content, in
    intention, anyway.  Realism of content, according to the author of the
    essay, is neither a virtue nor a vice, just a descriptive features.
    
    Realism of presentation dwells in the details.  It's things like
    mentioning the little swarm of night bugs swirling around a unicorn's
    luminous horn, or mentioning the way Arthur turns alternately white and
    red as he sits thinking, after learning his real identity.  Its part of
    the style.  When it's done successfully, it's a literary virtue, but it
    can be absent without any harm to the story.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

This debate has certainly gotten me to thinking about why I read SF and fantasy.
I find two reasons. I want to escape and a good read provides that. I also seem
to need the feeling that there is still a frontier. Space, both inner and outer,
provides that. 

To me then, a story is SF if it relies on technology, and fantasy if it relies
on magic. I don't require the science to be real, only believable in the story.
I've seen that my science knowledge is considerably less than that of many other
conference members. I won't be found discussing the inner workings of a Bussard
Ram jet because I haven't a clue how one might or might not work. So if an
author says the BRJ gets you FTL travel, I accept it. I tend to skip over the
hard science details even when they are provided. I'm interested in the
characters and how they react in a strange and unusual (to me) world. liesl

    Re .263
    
    For me there is a discontinuity. Often when I read I try to connect what
    I read to what I know. When I read a Historical novel I connect it my
    knowledge of the period. When I read 'science fiction' I connect to my
    knowledge of science, but a 'fantasy' need only be self consistent.
    
    Peter

    
    re .265 - then what's the difference between "magic" and "technology"?
    My impression is that the difference has more to do with the materials
    and techniques than the concepts.  The scientific method seems to me
    to be completely appropriate as a way of learning and doing "magic".
    Magic and technology share one crucial element - repeatability.  Magic
    wouldn't be very useful to magicians if they never got what the
    expected or intended.  This idea was developed by Larry Niven in a
    series of stories (something like "The Magic Goes Away"?)
    
    "Any sufficently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".
    
    len.
    

    Re .267:
    
    I've discussed the *conceptual* difference between magic and science/
    technology in some of my earlier entries under this topic.  But of
    course a conceptual difference may not come into the story much.
    
    The *dramatic* difference between technology and magic, I think, is
    that magic is done by special people, while technology is not.  The
    background premise for the bulk of SF-tech is that anyone who can pass
    the engineering courses can understand, repair, or build a hyperdrive/
    teleport/time-machine/android/Dyson-sphere/etc.
    
    Of course, wizards and witches must also learn their (arcane) lore. 
    But in fantasy, there is usually something more.  Copying real or
    supposed magic in the real world, mages may also need to be initiated,
    or to sign a pact with a demon, or be dedicated to a god.  Even more
    commonly, they must have "the gift."  Magic is an energy that only a
    few people can sense, control, or create, in these systems. 
    Transposing this to SF, it's as if an electrician needed to be an
    electrical generator or conductor as well as needed to know electrical
    engineering.
    
    There are still intermediate cases.  There are a few SF stories in which 
    only certain people with certain gifts can, say, pilot a star-ship,
    and of course there's psi.  On the fantasy side, there are a few
    stories in which anyone can do magic if you only know how -- but very
    few; the only ones tht come to my mind at the moment are the
    "Incompleat Enchanter" stories of L. Sprague deCamp and Fletcher Pratt.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Re: .268
    
    >On the fantasy side, there are a few stories in which anyone can do
    >magic if you only know how -- but very few
    
    In Steven Brust's Vlad Taltos stories, anyone with a connection to the
    Orb can do sorcery, once taught.  The connection comes with noble
    status, which can be bought, so it's not an innate ability.  Brust
    doesn't make it clear if anyone can do witchcraft once taught, although
    you certainly can't buy it like sorcery.

    Re .268
    
    In many cases it seems any one with the appropriate dedication and
    intellect can learn to be a magician, but these people are as rare as
    those with the dedication and intellect to learn to be a hyperdrive
    designer. Of course, operating and maintaining technology is generally
    easier, but there is a large amount of science fiction dealing with the
    invention of new technology.
    
    'Mutants' with special abilities are also part of science fiction,
    though their abilities are not normally technological (or magical).
    
    Peter

    In Simon Hawks books almost everyone can learn some magic. In his new
    book "Merlin Wizard of Camolot" they have a lenghty discussion on the
    diffences between magic and technology and in his books there is very
    little. Producing magic and especially new magic spells takes abilitys
    not everyone has but most people have and a lot a training. Anyone can
    use magic items once they are made. In his series he freely mixes
    magic and technology. 
                          Jeff Peters

    Okay, I have a few more to add to the list of exceptions.  
    
    Re .269:
    
    Brust's sorcerors of the Orb do not apparently need a Gift, but they do
    appear to need an initiation of some sort, the "connection" mentioned.
    
    Re .271:
    
    Hawke's stories would seem to be another exception to the rule that you
    need qualitatively different people to be mages (whether the difference
    is innate or acquired).  Yes, there need be very little difference
    between magic and technology.  If technology can be viewed as applied
    science, magic can probably be viewed as applied mythology.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    For an interesting and humorous inversion, in the Lawrence Watt-Evens
    fantasy world, there are a number of different kinds of magic, all of
    which involve a gift.
    
    Way down the list, past the biggies like wizards, sorcerers, witches,
    and demonologists, in the small fry like herbalists and stage
    magicians, he lists the "scientists".  Off-hand comments in the books
    imply that the scientists also have a gift, but their "magic" isn't
    worth much.
    
    		-John Bishop