Books
Group avatar

Science Fiction

Science fiction includes such a wide range of themes and sub-genres that it is notoriously difficult to define. This is a list of definitions that have been offered by authors, editors, critics and fans over the years since science fiction became clearly separate from other genres. Definitions of related terms such as "science fantasy",...more »
  • Category: Genres | Started February 2007

« more discussions

  • Penpal Andrew

    The definition of science fiction is arbitrary.

    Ellison refused to be called a science fiction writer.

    Vonnegut refused to be called a science fiction writer.
    Penpal Andrew started this discussion 1 month ago. ( reply )

149

replies
expand replies 
Sign in to participate in this discussion.
  • Nee

    Nee 

    Any distinction could be argued an arbitrary one.

    posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
  • Michelle Frost

    Michelle Frost 

    I do think the title is becoming dated. So many books seem to fall into a category which no longer fits pure "Science" fiction yet does not fit Fantasy either.

    I've always thought of so-called science fiction and Fantasy as being more... "What if?" fiction. Each and every writer in these genres starts by posing a What if... question to themselves... or their readers. But it's not exactly a label you could use!

    posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    show 3 replies
    • Penpal Andrew

      Penpal Andrew 

      I like this reply. The term often used is 'speculative fiction'. I like those books where the history has been changed. For example, lets say that Hitler decided to invade England in 1941 instead of throwing everything against Russia. If Hitler was not an idiot repeating Napoleon's mistake. How would have history played out. And then the story takes place in modern times.

      There are several forms of science fiction and fantasy. Science fiction which deals with civilizations on other planets, is like Star Wars. Or science fiction could be our modern world, or the near future, with some scientific issue. For example, The Andromeda Strain. Fantasy is a matter of degree. Fantasy takes more liberties than pure science fiction does. And there have been novels which cleverly combine science and fantasy. Dune is the best example of this.

      Alternative consciousness and time travel are also interesting. These are more involved in making the reader think, then in telling an entertainment story.

      And science fiction is often used to teach a moral lesson about society. For example, H.G. Wells The Time Machine.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Michelle Frost

      Michelle Frost 

      Thanks. :-)

      Speculative fiction is a pretty good term. I hadn't thought of Dune being a Fantasy. It is a book that blurs the lines. Another one I find very hard to label is Ray Bradbury... is he SF or Fantasy or...?

      Talking of moral lessons... I came across a discussion on spiritual fiction (here? Can't remember now) that led me to thinking about Star Wars and Dune. Although I'm sure some SF authors would baulk at being considered spiritual writers I do find it interesting how many stories have that connection to the mystical and/or moral - Ray Bradbury's Christus Apollo being my all time favourite in managing to blend extremely beautiful spiritual prose into a Science Fiction.

      I think any truly good story has to fit more than one genre, because any good story has depth beyond a simple single label.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Penpal Andrew

      Penpal Andrew 

      I think that bringing in the spiritual is the key to making something worth my time. This may be my personal preference. In Non fiction, I have been looking for ways for science and spirituality to come together. I think the quantum physics hype has gone too far, but I like that emphasis.

      Now here is an example. There has never been a more down to earth scientific person and an atheist than Carl Sagan. And yet, in his book Contact, the final trip to visit the aliens is left unsupported by science. Space travel is like a mystical experience.

      Ray Bradbury has always been difficult to pin down as to genre. And he is such an unusual easy going guy for a writer, that he is never bothered where his books were placed.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
  • mark s

    mark s 

    Science fiction contains elements of science that isn't around yet...I thought that made it science fiction...and if it gets invented later...the work is still grandfathered in...otherwise its no hold barred.

    posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
  • Shakatany

    Shakatany 

    I always liked what Rod Serling said in one of his "Twilight Zone" openings: "Fantasy is the impossible made probable; science fiction is the improbable made possible."

    posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    show 5 replies
    • Penpal Andrew

      Penpal Andrew 

      I miss good quality TV. Twilight Zone brought a very broad range of speculative fiction short stories into drama. And The Outer Limits was the only REAL science fiction show ever on TV. I mean there were entertainment shows like Dr. Who and Star Trek and Battlestar Gallatica and Babylon Five. But as readers of books, we know the difference. I could never bring myself to read a Star Trek novel.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Shakatany

      Shakatany 

      Oh yes. I miss the the days of serious science fiction on TV. In many ways I think CGI has ruined sf on TV and in the movies as the producers rely on flashy sfx instead of original plots and vivid characterizations.

      I liked some of the early Star Trek novels published in the mid-80s before TNG appeared and Paramount realized what a money earner they had on their hands and began controlling content with an iron fist. My favorites (in case you ever want to indulge) are "Ishmael" by Barbara Hambly (a fascinating and funny crossover with "Here Come the Brides"!!!), "The Wounded Sky" and "My Enemy, My Ally" by Diane Duane (after watching the dreadful "The Final Frontier" I thought if they were so at a loss for a good concept they should've used MEMA), "The Entropy Effect" by Vonda McIntyre and "The Final Reflection" by John M. Ford (he created a highly original Klingon culture that, of course, has now been negated). These are all established science fiction/fantasy writers who wrote for love of TOS.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      "If it's on the Screen it happened, if it's in a book it didn't"- Gene Roddenberry

      How can you not call Star Trek, BSG, Bab5 and other shows "real Science Fiction"? I mean Trek TOS had episodes written and adapted from short stories I read in "The Science Fiction Masterworks treasure" for goodness Sakes. Unless you don;t think Ted Sturdgeon is a real science fiction writer.

      As for Vonnegut and Ellison not wanting to be called Science fiction, that's fine. I think it's cause Ellison thinks he's better than the Genre quite frankly, and Vonnegut probably thought he didn't want to be in a Kids genre.

      Hienlein never had a problem with it, nor did Assimov or Herbert as far as I know.

      As for DUNE.... it is pure science fiction...not to spoil anything but Spice is Worm Poop, has clearly defined properties, and only does what it supposed to do. As is the Water of Life. Prescience, and Telepathy are not outside the realm of Science fiction as long as they are explained by Science, which in DUNE they are.

      As for tech in a story...remember Clarke's third law...anything sufficiently removed in time would seem as magic.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Michelle Frost

      Michelle Frost 

      I've never read a Star Trek novel, but I must confess to a secret stash of comics I've saved since I was a kid.

      At the moment I'm watching Stargate Universe on TV. So far (only 3 episodes) it has been better than I expected. Less silliness and more substance. Hope it continues that way!

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      SG*U is interesting...I am not sure if I like it or not yet, but it is certainly interesting.... a powerless ship slipping through the upper atmosphere of a gas Giant though I assume "Refuling."

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
  • Jonas D

    Jonas D 

    Actually, most SF doesn't imagine any really new science, but new engineering applications of existing scientific knowledge. When someone actually imagine something that is conflict with current scientific theories (that is, something that would really be a scientific breakthrough) it is dismissed as fantasy.

    posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    show 14 replies
    • mark s

      mark s 

      well to split hairs...;)

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Penpal Andrew

      Penpal Andrew 

      The transporter on Star Trek violates science as we now understand it. But most people consider Star Trek to be Science Fiction rather than Fantasy, because to be labeled as Fantasy is a whole different sort of genre or atmosphere.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      The Transporter did NOT violate physics when it was written however, since Hisenberg and Quantum Physics didn't really exist.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Shakatany

      Shakatany 

      Excuse me? Heisenberg formulated his uncertainty principle in the 20s when Quantum physics was already in existence. Star Trek's transporter was "invented" in the 60's some 40 years later.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Nee

      Nee 

      Yes, you are right Shakatany...but, according to Quantum Mechanics all of this may not actually be happening at all, so…

      *sits beside a box on the floor wondering what is in it.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Nee

      Nee 

      Andy wrote: "But most people consider Star Trek to be Science Fiction rather than Fantasy."

      There is no confusion within the writing or science community, Star-Trek is Fantasy. This has been agrued here at least three times. Although, I am glad to see that someone of authority has finally stepped up to deliver the definitive answer on this travesty of popular entertainment.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Crosis

      Crosis (edited)

      And what were they teaching in High School at the time? I am pretty sure they were still teaching the Nucleous, electron model that has nothing to do with Orbitals, so in the public's consiousness did it exsist?:-]


      @Nee.... wait...Star TREK is fantasy? Umm Star Trek is Science fiction. Star WARS is fantasy :-]

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Penpal Andrew

      Penpal Andrew 

      Nee is trying to mess with my head about Star Trek.

      Crosis was wrong about the timing of Quantum mechanics. Shakatany corrected him before I could.

      I just joined this group and I have not read the past discussions. But I am pretty sure it would be Star Wars (those cool movies which raised the bar unfortunately for making science fiction for the big screen and for TV) which leans towards Fantasy, rather than science fiction. I say leans towards, since it has alot of technological aspects to it.

      I would be curious what high school does teach Quantum physics.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      Mine did in the 90's... at least there was mention of it.

      Technology does not make science fiction. Star Wars is about Wizards flying spaceships it is fantasy.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Shakatany

      Shakatany 

      I definitely think that Star Trek should be considered science fiction or at least the watered-down media version sci-fi. I consider Star Wars, though lumped in with science fiction by mundanes, to be fantasy with skiffy trappings. A young man raised unknowing of his true heritage, watched over by a wise old man who makes it possible for him to acquire his father's sword - am I talking about Star Wars or the legend of King Arthur?

      Shakatany

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Nee

      Nee 

      Sorry Crosis...it's true.
      But you are right about Star Wars though.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Nee

      Nee 

      Andy wrote: "I'd be curious what high school does teach Quantum physics."

      Mine did. Boy the repubs sure scewed up the schools didn't they?

      Dilithium Crystals –what are they and how are they used exactly to power the engines?

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      they don't power the engines they are a crytal resistant to anti-matter, their latice crystiline structure is used to focus the beam of anti-mater injected into the warp core.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • mark s

      mark s 

      Nah, it has AI in it. Star Wars must be Science fiction:P And Jumps to light speed, we don't have that technology either. Don't be snobs, I accept all the "Attack of the Saucermen" and "The Blob" as science fiction as well. Theoretical considerations of alternate biological life....aliens and how their organic systems might operate.
      hahahaha

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
  • Crosis

    Crosis 

    Many authors have written on the subject, and I would wish to share my personal feelings.


    Science Fiction is an interesting proposition. It is a hard genre to master and many people are often confused by what is and is not science fiction. Surely Anne Rice's "Vampire Chronicles" are not science fiction. They are fantasy. While no one would debate that Arthur C. Clarke's "2001 a Space Odyssey" is Firmly rooted in the realm of Science Fiction. So it would seem that one the surface that Spaceships and astronauts ostensibly make a Science Fiction Story, while Vampires, Werewolves, and Ghosts are firmly planted in the realm of Fantasy, but is this really the case.

    Let us look at the Vampires in Anne Rice's Novels. These are truly Fantasy Creatures. They reproduce by magical means, there is no scientific explanation for them, nor is there a call for science to explain them. It is enough that they are damned, and forces to be undead. However, there are Vampires in fiction that start to blur the lines. In White Wolf Fiction, Vampires, or Kindred, as they are called, do have magical roots, but there are entities that strive to define their condition through scientific means, and locate the source of their "Curse". While the fictions of Palladium's "RIFTS" Universe states that Vampires have no connection to the magical at all, they are actually extradimentional parasites, Aliens on Earth. Even in the Blade universe set up through the films Vampirism can be inoculated against, and even reversed through scientific means. So clearly just being a Vampire does not mean the story is not Science Fiction.

    But then there is the flip side of this argument. If Vampires cannot always be trusted to be the denizens of Fantasy Stories, and sometimes wind up in Science Fiction, can all Science Fiction Props always be counted on to stay firmly in the Science Fiction genre? Consider the Space Ship. Surely any time you see a space ship it MUST be a Science Fiction Story. I mean 2001; arguably the best science fiction film of all time has space ships, Alien, Star Trek. Starship Troopers even has a space ship in its name! Nothing could be more venerable in the science fiction genre than the space ship, except of course, perhaps, the robot. Or course there are space ships in fantasy stories. The Star Wars universe uses space ships yet the core of its story has always been a story about heroic magical knights sent to protect the galaxy from the ravages of evil wizards. Almost sounds like the Hobbit in Space doesn't it? So we have seen that Fantasy Characters cannot always be trusted to stay in their fantasy stories, and sometimes wizards fly starfighters, so if we can't trust the characters or the props to tell us what kind of story it is, what can we trust?

    And there in lies the heart of science fiction, the question. What if? What if robots ran the world? What if you could travel through time? What if Humans discovered and Alien Artifact on the moon and it sent a screeching radio signal towards Jupiter ((Saturn)), and then on the way there the Computer went crazy and killed everyone? What if? This is the key question in any science fiction story. This is motivation behind which the story is driven. What if, the question that the story must answer by the end. That is what tells you that a story is Science Fiction. It is integral to the story. If the question is removed there is no story. Would there be a story to Close Encounters if the question "What if Aliens are real, and they have decided to make contact with Earth?" was removed? No. So the question is at the center of science fiction.

    Now I know some will say that there are fantasy stories that ask what if as well, such as "What if Vampires were real?” Surely this is a what if question, and we must go back to the heart of science fiction, the science. What if Vampires are Real is a valid enough question, but unless their existence is explained by science there are in the realm of fantasy. So you could write a story that was science fiction with a question of "What if Vampires are real, and they are Aliens from Another Dimension?" and that would be science fiction. Where as "what if Vampires are the Descendants of the Biblical Cain whom God Cursed?" There is no Science in that and no Science fiction.

    Now from this definition that Science Fiction must have at it's core a "What If?" question, and all things must be defined by Science, strange things begin to happen. If you accept this definition, things that seemed to be Science Fiction become fantasy, such as the Case with Star Wars, and things that seemed to be Fantasy become Science Fiction, such as RIFTS Vampires. But the Strangest thing of all is that stories that seem to be Science Fiction become nothing at all other than Dramatic Fiction. So perhaps there is a bit more to the story.

    Take for instance the film Wing Commander, perhaps not a great work of Science Fiction but surely it is Science Fiction nonetheless, right? It has a what if question, what if Aliens exist and we are at war with them. Everything is explained with science, they are aliens and not mythical magical creatures, and special abilities in humans are passed by genetics, but do the Aliens have to be aliens? Could the same story be told if the characters were one a World War 2 Aircraft Carrier, or Submarine, and the Aliens were Germans or Japanese? I believe so. As a matter of fact it did seem that some of the scenes in Wing Commander were lifted straight from Das Boot or Run Silent Run Deep ((such as the sitting in the crater scene as the Kilrathi drop Space Depth Charges on the TCS Tiger Claw)). And there in lies the secret of good science fiction. It must be a question that can only be answered by the genre.

    So I believe that to be Science Fiction, you must have at the core, a question, a what if question. All the Answers must be from Science, and you should not be able to tell the story without the genre.

    posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    show 4 replies
    • Michelle Frost

      Michelle Frost 

      "And there in lies the heart of science fiction, the question. What if?"

      :-) Exactly.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      but it needs the science because without it it is just literary fiction or fanatasy.

      What if Vampires are real? That isn't science fiction.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • mark s

      mark s (edited)

      Ah but vampires formed by a virus....like in I am Legend? Zombies by a virus?

      Ghosts being a person trapped into another dimension?

      all possibly sci fi...there are plenty of works that mix the genres...in fact the genre used to be one.
      24 views of MT. Fuji by Zelanzy...the entire Proton-Phase series by Peirs Anthony....

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      hence the explained by science, not by magic bit :-]

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
  • Michelle Frost

    Michelle Frost 

    Ok, true. I hadn't thought of that.

    posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
  • Penpal Andrew

    Penpal Andrew 

    Vampires is based on true stories, as are werewolves and Frankenstein types. They all come from true events which took place either in the middle ages, or way before that. So anything that is real IS something which can be explained by science, so it can be used in science fiction.

    One bit of extreme irony. Robots or any manufactured intelligence has turned out to be elusive to science. I view this as the biggest surprise to science fiction. So much 20th century science fiction of the future has not only been invented, but has been exceeded. But we are no where near making robots with intelligence. The assumption was that if nature and biology can do it, it could be done with machines. But I believe that biology is THE mechanism for intelligence. So, could not then artificial intelligence be moved to the fantasy genre?

    posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    show 8 replies
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      Vampires are based on the fact that science could not tell you when someone was dead, so when caskets where exhumed they would find scratches on the inside of the coffin lids. It was such an issue that the tradition of the "Wake" was born. You waited three days for the person to "wake up" and if they didn't they were really dead. In the Victorian era they actually sold grave bells so you could ring it and be dug up.

      In romania the Vampire store was also a warning to not let strangers in to your house since in the begining they could only get into someone's house when they were invited.

      As for Werewolves and Prometheans. Are these ared on real events? Do you seriously think that lycanthrope exsists? The inspiration for Frankenstien was the assumption that you could "recharge" dead flesh after the author saw an experiment in which a frog was zapped and it's leg muscles contracted. No one actually reconstructed a human being and reanimated it.

      And I don;t really care if you write about Vampires and whatnot, but if their origin isn't explained by science in your story, then it isn't science fiction.

      As for computing making it to humanity's level of consciousness...well Clarke predicted that Holographic computing would happen in the 80's and it didn't. The AI issue is one of linking information dynamically and through multiple channels. but as it is computing is single threading. so that isn't the way your brain works.

      And you believing something personally doesn't mean you move something into another genre. Unless you say again that the AI was created because it was imbued with the Machine Spirit and that's what controls the mind. AI is not explained by anything outside of science usually. It isn't mystical in origin, so it's still science fiction. And the current reigning theory is still that Intellegence that can pass aturning test, and several other tests for sentients will still happen within our lifetimes, and will happen through science not mystisism.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Michelle Frost

      Michelle Frost 

      Just curious... where would you place Mary Shelley's Frankenstein? I'm not sure myself, but it always seemed very wrong to be listed under horror.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Penpal Andrew

      Penpal Andrew 

      This is most definitely one of the first science fiction books. It is considered one that defined the genre even before Jules Verne.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      Horror and Science Fiction are lovers in the same bed. Think about Aliens, The Terminator, Predator, Rossum's Universal Robots. They are cautionary tales that science will bring us in contact with things we don't understand. Even Battlestar Galactica could be Horror, and certainly some elements of Star Trek are horror, the Borg for example.

      So Horror and Science Fiction live in the same house and make babies together.:-]

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Penpal Andrew

      Penpal Andrew 

      I consider horror to be a very specific FILM genre, with the best of that being Psycho. Specifically, horror is a form of emotionally heightened suspense using sound and images. Horror movies may also be science fiction, but they do not have to be.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      but horror isn't just a film genre, since Stephen King and others write novels in the horror genre that are then are converted to movies. Unless you think Stephen King writes in a genre other than horror. I mean what is Lovecraft then? and the people who followed him?

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Michelle Frost

      Michelle Frost 

      The Borg definitely fit horror-Science fiction, perhaps even more than Frankenstein's Monster. I always found the story more tragic than scary.

      Have you read "The Legacy of Heorot" (by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle and Steven Barnes)? For some reason that story really scared me. THe whole concept of being a settler on a seemingly perfect new world and then slowly discovering you are not alone... :-S

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • mark s

      mark s 

      ask the author of "I Robot" who did more theory on AI than anyone else. Never forget that many sci fi writers in the old days like DeCamp were also engineers, scientists, etc in their own right.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
  • Nee

    Nee 

    Actually, the internet is now of sufficient complexity that scientist believe that it has already achieved some degree of consciousness.

    Sure it’s cognizance must be very limited: perhaps only that of a flat worm or maybe it’s as keen as an insect, but still that is something to think about. I have incorporated this theme into one of my science fiction stories.

    posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    show 3 replies
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      but it isn't it has no way to reconfigure itself. And yeah when I saw a map of the internet and thought it looked like a brain.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Nee

      Nee 

      It would be nice if people would constrained their argument to what the other is/was actually saying instead of leaping to another (although, I concede, a related) subject. I was talking about awareness not a life form: which clearly your reply was addressing.

      But, to that I say…not yet.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      you said it is conscious. To be conscious it must be self aware, and respond to stimuli. This isn't jumping off topic it is discussion the definition of life, consciousness, and weather the internet as it is now is capable of achieving said mileposts

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
  • Penpal Andrew

    Penpal Andrew 

    The Internet is not complex. The power of the internet is its speed. And because it operates at such a high speed and bandwidth, it has allowed HUMAN BEINGS to connect with one another in new ways. This site and this discussion here are the results of this. So, if the Internet is used in science fiction, which I cannot see how it can be ignored, except in stores about the collapse of civilization, it would bring in more possibilities for the characters to interact with one another. If and when I become an author, I will want to write this way.

    posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    show 4 replies
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      write however you want to. :-] But thee is a certain charm in a story about the internet waking up at some point. In fact their was a new outer limits about it.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Shakatany

      Shakatany 

      In a way Arthur C. Clarke was prescient when in 1964 (!!) he wrote a variation of that in his short story "Dial F for Frankenstein" detailing how the world's inter-connected telephone system become a conscious entity that took over the world.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Nee

      Nee 

      Andy wrote: "The Internet is not complex."

      :D

      Here I believe, the phrase “Cognitive Disconnect” might be employed to great effect.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Penpal Andrew

      Penpal Andrew 

      Is this a personal insult, Nee?

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
  • Lizzie N

    Lizzie N 

    Oh this is an interesting issue having to do with the nature of consiousness and thought. Yeah! I'm writting about it as well.

    I believe the internet is not at this time conscious because it lacks a definable physical body. A flatworm and insect, even a carrot has this. I think I'd put it's intelligence on the level of slime mold. Slime mold usually has each cell acting individually but then when ready to reproduce these cells gather together in a body.

    I think that conscousness at the very basic level is a self-organizing system. Self organizing systems for the most part are not conscous. River beds, crystal growth, and galaxies are examples of such self-organizing non-conscous systems (Some argue that these systems are conscious, but then so is everything)
    The Internet seems to be somewhat self-organizing. but this is really tricky to figure out because the whole erffect may merely be the result of our brains which are self-organizing systems. Our brains also produce the stock markets and poems. Both appear to be self-organizing systems but they're dependent on the minds that produce them.
    How do we know how much of the effect results from our own brains and how much results independently from the Internet? There is no way to distinguish between the two, mostly because the internet lacks that most basic necessity, a definable body. The Internet has no way of controlling it's own physicality. It can't produce it's own servers, but can only act as a human parasite. It can take over servers(as a virus) but it can't produce them.
    I think small robot acting socially to solve problems is much closer to intelligence. Such robots are being made on an experimental level and are being developed to monitor water quality in harbors.
    Ah! now I've gottein into themes in my stories. I'm interested in the boundry of identity, how an individual distinguishes between self and not-self. The boundry is actuall quite flexible.
    I suppose if the Internet could reproduce itself or if such robots could reproduce themselves, we could get robot infestations that are even worse than spam, worse than cockroaches. I haven't written about that idea, but someone might run with it. I think such creatures wouldn't be considered robots. They would be artificial life-forms.

    posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    show 15 replies
    • Crosis

      Crosis (edited)

      well robots don't have to be anthropomorphic to be robots. Robot is derived from the Polish word 'robota' which merely means 'slave' or 'servant'.

      The were bipedial, cause it's easier to put a human in a robot suit if the robot is roughly man shaped and bipedal.:-]

      As for the boundary of self and not self, in humans we start forming the concepts of self, and object permanence at 6 mos. The internet has no object permanence, it doesn't think I will be back if I log off...if it thinks at all :-]

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Penpal Andrew

      Penpal Andrew 

      The best way to think of the Internet is as a very fancy pen and paper. It is a medium of expression. Mediums do not become self aware.

      But I like thinking about stock market and weather as chaotic systems with a structure, but created by human beings in the case of the stock market.

      The self organizing aspect of the Internet is really the same exact study of fashion and marketing. For example, why is Facebook so popular, and yet "better" social networking sites are barely known.

      Bodies are not needed to be conscious. However, the process of natural law works best with physical bodies in a physical universe.

      I am going to look into your stories, since you and I are interested in the same stuff, Lizzie.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Nee

      Nee 

      Lizzie wrote: "I think that conscousness at the very basic level is a self-organizing system."

      As far as we know, yes. But we do not know what exactly is or is not needed to have consciousness—we do know that for it (whatever) to communicate that it has Cognitive capabilities it would need a body or some physical something but, other than that we just don’t know. Which is why this is such a great theme for writing about. :D

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      actually the internet is built on a suite of protocols made to make sure if one part of the network is knocked out the whole thing is not knocked out. In this sense it is patterned after organic brains since a single neuron may connect to many other neurons using that old scifi chestnut the "neural-net". If that is what we are talking about then the underlying protocols, and the basic structure of a "Map" of the internet very much looks like a map of neurons in the human brain. It isn't just pen and paper, it is more complex than that. Infact when you click on the link a stream of packets is sent requesting the information, the packets don't know how to get where they are going, they just know the end point. i really is fascinating.
      '

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Lizzie N

      Lizzie N (edited)

      Penpal Andrew,

      I define consciousness as self-awareness. It's difficult to be aware of self if there is no self. So I'm interested in what you mean by consciousness.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Lizzie N

      Lizzie N 

      As I see it conscousness is made up of nested self-organizing systems. I've been to some lectures on the subject and how I see it seems to be fitting with current thinking on philosophy, neurology, and computer programing.

      The outermost system is similar to a river bed. It's mearly a self organizing system. Living things such as fungus or yeast impose a second system on top of this. The environment and the organizm are involved in a dynamic process where each is affecting the other in an innerative loop. There are a bunch more boxes to go. With a plant the cells have banded together and are in dynamic interaction with each other as well as with there environment. Then lets go to an animal such as a starfish that has nerves the nervious system is now another box in dyanamic interaction with the other cellls which are interacting with each other and with their environment. And on it goes until we get to the human brain which has a whole bunch of neurological systems knit together and in dynamic interaction along with a conscousness, the intermost box monitoring the 1000 ring circus and missing about 99% of what is going on in the related systems.
      The internet in comparison is almost the simplest of dynamic systems.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Lizzie N

      Lizzie N 

      Hi Crosis

      Our identification of self is rather plastic. I think of my hair as self but when I cut it off it's no longer self. And sometimes my sense of self expands to include my car and my house. People in times of great stress disassociate so that a person's body no longer is included as self.
      I've been writing about robotic devices that people operate via wireless brain implant. These devices become part of self. It's been a challenge to make this expansion of self clear to readers.
      These devices are not human shaped, which is part of what makes it interesting. They are shaped like spiders, boats, fish, birds, and bodies of water. I've even to an internet encloseing the entire planet allows the entire planet to be a prosthetic. I've been calling these devices robots or prosthetics. If anyone else has ideas on what to call these things, let me know.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Nee

      Nee 

      Personal Actuators…?

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Penpal Andrew

      Penpal Andrew 

      I agree. Consciousness is self awareness. But this is a very delicate concept. More needs to be mentioned. There must be a WILL, meaning desire. Which implies an awareness of ones environment, which is also implied by self, since for there to be self, there must be other than self. And for there to be a will, there needs to be levels of good and bad, because choices are made for good. I do not like the distinction between instinct and will, since I see it all as will. So an animal is fully conscious. Not only this, but consciousness means feelings of love. And what that means is to want to be close to some others. Much of science fiction thinks that intellect develops first, and then emotions. But it is the other way around. Data on Star Trek DOES have emotions. And of course Spock does, but he comes from a culture where it is unseemly to show emotions [like our far East].

      I also believe that there are levels to consciousness. This is what makes humans different from animals. Humans can enter different inner realms. I would write more, but public forums are not my thing.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Lizzie N

      Lizzie N 

      Thanks. I'll see if it works.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Lizzie N

      Lizzie N 

      I recently attended a lecture on the role of emotion in learning. The lecturer was a professor of neurology who amoung other things was looking at what parts of the brain light up when a person experiences empathy along

      Learning doesn't happen without emotional motivation. She said that emotions instead of being like the bull in the china shop of reason is more the the shelfs holding up the shelves of china.

      I understand that emotions come largely from the limibic system, which is the same neurolocal structures shared by mammals and reptiles. I'm with you that we shouldn't be calling limibic functions instinct. Our cognative functions are just as driven by instinct. We can't use the cognitive functions without the underlying limbic functions.

      We kind of like the idea of a completely rational being who struggles to learn emotion, but I think if we actually produce an artificial being, it will have to be emtional first.

      So the conditions needed for self awareness are: a definable self, interaction with the environment, emotions, and cognition. I
      don't know if self-awareness develops in conjunciton with these other aspects or developes after the others. I'm not sure how much cognition is essential to self-awareness.

      My cat seems to be self-aware, yet I doubt she gives much thought to the experience of being a cat.

      I think we'll have to look to neurological research for better understands of what the brain does and how. Mostly likely this will not result in the development of artificial beings, but it will help with education and with treatment of brain injury and neurological disorders.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Penpal Andrew

      Penpal Andrew 

      I like everything you wrote Lizzy. However, I think that self awareness is a very delicate subject. I think one can have too much self awareness. I have had times, when I felt that everyone was looking at me, like I was naked, when in fact it was not true. But on the other side of it, people can get so absorbed in a task, that they shut out the world. I realize we are getting into psychology now. But I think that a cat is a good example of a man who you talk to and does not pay attention. So that is definitely self centered, but I would say it is low on the self awareness level.

      Basically, we are discussing what makes a human a human. And I think that it is the ability to use language. In other words, symbolic thought. Higher primates have a rudimentary ability, but they have to be trained. I am not sure about Dolphins. And we are discussing if it is possible to make an artificial sentient life form which is not based on biology. And we are also discussing if such self awareness can arise spontaneously from neural networks.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      well the problem is that animal species cannot make new though from constiuent parts. Most trained Apes will never make a new sentance from what they have previously learned. If they want a Banana they will say "I want banana", but if you teach them the word for ball there is no logical leap that lets them say "I know how to ask for a banana, and I want a ball so... 'I want a ball'" There is no syntheses, and Apes try as we might cannot count past ten. The concept of an abstract place holder like a 0 is beyond them.



      One the concept of emotion and memeroy. Well you do infact need emotion to form memory. You have to first pay attention to the stimuli, and then you give it some form of emotional context. So the more powerful the emotion the stronger the memory is. It's why some doctors have worked with emotion deadening drugs to help stem the onset of PTSD in rape victims.

      So no emotion means easily forgotten.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Lizzie N

      Lizzie N 

      Humans have a specific part of the brain dedicated to grammar. Other animal species such as chimpanzees and gorillas don't have this development, but it doesn't mean they can't think. Thought happens in many parts of the brain, not just in the part that handles syntax. Chimpanzees and gorillas are quite adept at problem solving if they have a task that makes sense to them.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      well but the need is the first thing we learn. The ID as Freud put it. The only knowledge of desire, and figuring out how to get what we desire. But the issue is still that with even the greater apes they will see their reflection in a mirror and attack it, never comprehending that the mirror is not another ape but themselves. Humans gain this ability at 6 mos. old.

      There are some very important cognitive faculties that humans have that other orders of life do not.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
  • nina d

    nina d 

    I think for awhile they were calling them assistants.

    For a number of decades I've been thinking about these issues. I've attended AI conferences and used
    software for expert systems, neaural nets, genetic algorithms, etc.

    The issues I think about are

    1. why do we judge AI in regards to how well it duplicates us. We are limited. Take our sense of smell
    versus a dogs. A dog does s lot with the data it collects via smell which we can't. So we limit AI by
    steering it too close to ourselves.

    2. Our systems are very complex. We have auto-systems like breathing, etc which are on auto pilot, yet
    that system can interrupt, or a chain reaction set off --- take choking for instance which is caused by a relex
    to save the entire system...or better yet...pain...which is really bad considering it is just a warning system
    yet can immobilize you.

    We exist with these multi layer systems, some of which we know about, some we don't. Any they all interact.
    The AI systems we develop...because of costs, etc...are very limited in their focus/objectives and the underlying
    systems that use constructed to bring about the result. In many reagrds we use differents systems in different
    ways at different times for different purposes. We can use simple lists yet also use neural nets to evaluate the lists.

    3. The objectives and focus of these projects are very different from the onjectives of life forms. At the basic level
    is the need to reproduce, have self-sustaining mechanisms, self-protection. Most of the systems being created
    are limited as to what the objective is...say steering a car down a highway, whereas real life forms are created to
    deal to a large extent with anything thrown its way.

    Thats not all...just off the top of my head.

    One of the ways I always thought to judge real AI is its ability to get a joke. Humor is very intellectual (except
    for things like slap stick) because the joke often involves a jump from one context to another. The higher level to
    me though is...can it think abstractly. Can it develop its own abstract ideas, on its own. Thrown into a totally
    unknown environment could it discover, create its own goals, survive, etc.

    The internet is nothing but a collection of information. Ready and available to use...but would you let it
    do a medical procedure on you? Whats out there are tools, thats all right now. Even the systems that are
    created like neural nets only function in a limited capacity and do not encompass all the ways we can deal
    with "input".

    I often think how small a fly is yet all the things it can do...it often occurred to me
    to take a fly's brain and put it at the center of some larger mechanism. I understand now they are toying
    with real live organisms put together to manufacture products. Cyber TVs and Microwaves....
    like the ad is it real or is it memorex....I think this is where we are headed....who will determine what is LIFE
    and is it free or owned? scary ideas.

    posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    show 5 replies
    • Penpal Andrew

      Penpal Andrew 

      Thank you for defending my assertion that the Internet is not complex. All of technology is simpler than the simplest biology. And the Internet is one of our simplest technologies. It is a tool like a pen and paper, and it allows sharing in a faster and more efficient manner. There is a tendency of some people here to grossly inflate the wonders of technology, while minimizing the complexity of biological systems.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • nina d

      nina d 

      yes...many think more is better ..lots of data doesnt mean its utilized properly

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Lizzie N

      Lizzie N 

      Here here! It's a mistake to try judge AI by those features that are the forte of humans. We make a mistake in thinking that our langauge processing abilitly makes us more intelligent than other animals. Tests of humor are basically tests of langauge processing ability only. And this is a trivial part of intelligence.

      We are more similar to dogs than we are different. This commonalities with other mammals may be more important to definitions of intelligence than are tests of grammar and word recall. the important and most important thing is if an entity can survive and make good decissions in novel situations. This can be useful for space exploration and for oceanographic research. Self repair ability would be quite important along the the ability to charge itself or whatever the entity needs for energy/food.
      We already buy and sell living things and used living organizms to produce products. Just look in the grocery store. It's the traditional way to make things. Only in the last few hundred years have we replaced living organisms with machines for manufacturing. And we still can't produce artificial silk that's as good as what silkworms produce.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • nina d

      nina d 

      What I meant by the joke is...AI hasn't even got that far yet.

      My comments about surviving, goals, abstract thought is what I believe constitute AI

      Also, my comments on AI being to centered on being like us...I think that is aiming low.
      Why not shoot for the best.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      Well this issue is that no one really knows what gave rise to consiousness. As far as we know it just merely happened. As for the interent giving rise to consiouness...saying that the Interent is not complex is like saying you memory is not complex. I mean the mechnaisms them selve3s are not all that complicated. Several different chemicals cause structuiral changes when issued into or deprive in the space betwen a neuron.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
  • Penpal Andrew

    Penpal Andrew 

    Artificial intelligence means it is not really intelligence. As far as science fiction is concerned, it is easier postulate different natural intelligences.

    posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    show 8 replies
    • Nee

      Nee (edited)

      *Massive eye roll.


      artificial intelligence
      • noun, the performance by computer systems of tasks normally requiring human intelligence. --Compact Oxford Dictionary

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence

      Artificial intelligence (AI) is the intelligence of machines and the branch of computer science which aims to create it. Textbooks define the field as "the study and design of intelligent agents,"[1] where an intelligent agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions which maximize its chances of success.[2] John McCarthy, who coined the term in 1956,[3] defines it as "the science and engineering of making intelligent machines."[4]
      The field was founded on the claim that a central property of humans, intelligence—the sapience of Homo sapiens—can be so precisely described that it can be simulated by a machine.[5] This raises philosophical issues about the nature of the mind and limits of scientific hubris, issues which have been addressed by myth, fiction and philosophy since antiquity.[6] Artificial intelligence has been the subject of breathtaking optimism,[7] has suffered stunning setbacks[8] and, today, has become an essential part of the technology industry, providing the heavy lifting for many of the most difficult problems in computer science.[9]
      AI research is highly technical and specialized, deeply divided into subfields that often fail to communicate with each other.[10] Subfields have grown up around particular institutions, the work of individual researchers, the solution of specific problems, longstanding differences of opinion about how AI should be done and the application of widely differing tools. The central problems of AI include such traits as reasoning, knowledge, planning, learning, communication, perception and the ability to move and manipulate objects.[11] General intelligence (or "strong AI") is still a long-term goal of (some) research.[12]

      ///////////////////

      WHAT IS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE?
      John McCarthy
      Stanford University


      Basic Questions
      Q. What is artificial intelligence?

      A. It is the science and engineering of making intelligent machines, especially intelligent computer programs. It is related to the similar task of using computers to understand human intelligence, but AI does not have to confine itself to methods that are biologically observable.

      Q. Yes, but what is intelligence?

      A. Intelligence is the computational part of the ability to achieve goals in the world. Varying kinds and degrees of intelligence occur in people, many animals and some machines.

      Q. Isn't there a solid definition of intelligence that doesn't depend on relating it to human intelligence?

      A. Not yet. The problem is that we cannot yet characterize in general what kinds of computational procedures we want to call intelligent. We understand some of the mechanisms of intelligence and not others.

      More at
      http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/whatisai/whatisai.html

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Penpal Andrew

      Penpal Andrew 

      Your details support what I wrote above. Thank you.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      AI means that it is not from the natural world but created from nothing. That deffinition does nothing to support your wild assertion that it is easier to descrip "Other natural intellegences" like what? The mating habits and mental patterns for Squirles?

      There is no reason to move your deffinition into the realm of unrelatablility because you feel like it. On the subject of Science fiction under the heading of AI there talk is almost exclusively in the realm of machine intellengnce which may or may not have sentience.

      No reason to be obtuse.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Lizzie N

      Lizzie N 

      I don't like using the terms "AI" or "artificial intelligence" in my wriitting because to most people intelligence equates to IQ testing. I'm more interested in systems that mimic neurological processes than in systems that can do well on standardized tests of IQ.
      I'm always on the lookout for better vocabular to use for these systems.

      Crosis,
      I think you are disagreeing with Penpal Andrew, but I think it's over semantics. Penpal Andrew dislikes the term "artificial intelligence" because he understands "artificial" to mean fake. I believe "artificial" means made by humans rather than fake. From an archeologist's perspective anything made or modified by humans in an artifact. That something is artificial(assembled by humans) does not take it out of the natural world or mean that it's fake. And I think the "A" in AI is an archeologist's definition of the word.

      And I think non-human intelligence quite interesting and relivant. One of my favorite university level classes was on animal behavior, and it did get into the mating habits of rodents. I think we discussed prairie dogs rather than squirels though. I loved learning about such things as how bats perceive insects and how insects percieve bats. One type of moth goes into convulsions on hearing the frequency used in bat "sonar." The moth can't control or predict where its going and neither can the bat. I wouldn't call this intelligence or even learning but it's relivant to studying the wikipedia definiton of artificial intelligence.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Penpal Andrew

      Penpal Andrew 

      I have been thinking more about AI in science fiction. And I think it all has the same theme. Humans can create intelligent tools. And the key here is that it is a tool. But in the fictional part, the tool suddenly has a will of its own. And this is where I have a problem. Such fiction bothers me. One of the first influences on me in this area was the story (movie) Colossus the Forbin Project. That is when the USA and USSR have supercomputers who find one another, and then take over the world, to force world peace. This is a fundamental spiritual problem. Where does 'will' come from? This is often called 'free will', and it is specifically given by God to Human beings. But I have noticed that Science fiction has been careful to avoid God. And this reminds me of a story written by Asimov that I once saw dramatized at a Planetarium show. And I do not remember the title. But the idea was that a super computer in hyperspace which started off as AI made by humans, became God for the next cycle of creation. The implication is that Man creates God, in like a cycle. This is surely quite disturbing.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Shakatany

      Shakatany 

      That story was "The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov which can be found at http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

      We are part of an evolving universe but with our short lifespan we'll never know what the universe will evolve into.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • mark s

      mark s 

      It is not so hard a leap to think that it is possible to create a computer that can learn( movie reference: Wargames).
      Learning would be the first step toward AI, but it requires that certain things are programmed in. Survival will probably be one of the foundational things it must learn...on its own...without someone to "teach it."
      I think your big hang up Andrew is the fear that machines would have souls, that they would advance beyond humanity, and that humanity would look at them like they were gods.
      You fail to realise that if mankind did create AI it would only be with God's blessing. It is called pro-creation. You have children, your kids have children. Not the same thing, but similar.
      Science is mostly the act of finding the how-to when building something. And certainly you must realise that in the scientific community there is a tendency towards athiesm. Despite Mendal being a monk, Newton a Minister, Einstein's pandiesm...etc...most scientists are of the opinion that what cannot be prooved doesn't exist. Not all scientists are athiests, but it is a tendency. They spout galilelo (ignorant of the fact that his real persecution had to do for political reasons...don't make fun of the pope even if he is your friend) and Darwin (who lost faith when his daughter died) and make it sound as if religion always attacked "scientists."
      Ray Bradbury and many of the more famous science fiction writers are athiests. Here is the point, a writer tends to write their beliefs. If you do not like a writer, then read something else or write it yourself.
      I believe every living thing has free will, not just mankind. My dog has free will. She might not be as smart as my children, but she decides at times to raid the garbage or chase the cat.
      If I may ask, how do you view religions other than your own? Non christians and what they worship? Do hindus worship Christ? Did the Romans and Egyptians? Where did these beliefs come from? Did they invent them? Did they have misinformation? Did they see part of God?

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      @ Andrew...

      Obviously you have never read "The Nine Billion Names of God" or "Childhood's End" by Arthur C. Clarke, or "God-Emperor of DUNE" by Frank herbert. Science Fiction does not always leave out the will or existence of God. You are merely arguing that you cannot fathom a system when god does not imbue all things with a prim motivating factor. Except the issue is, while I would not call it intelligence even on the level of a fly I have built roots that have a rudimentary perception of the world. Heck my Roomba has several sensors to allow it to navigate our bedroom. God does not have to turn on the Roomba...I do.

      But do i need God to give the machine will? I mean I have worked with many machines that can take data make a decision and then act. They aren't robots in the traditional sense, and they only know the data I give them, but they are still checking against a table and deciding what to do. So with that why does God have to help? and what does exactly make you so uncomfortable about Robots in the first place, and here we are talking about robots that clearly think for themselves and do what they want when they want. The sentients of Star Wars and Assimov Fame. Heck the USS Discovery XD-1 with HAL is a huge sentient robot.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
  • mark s

    mark s 

    I disagree. Artificial intelligence, as defined by use, generally refers to a thinking computer. One that can learn and be self-aware. Cogito Ergo Sum.
    Replication of such intelligence and "pro-creation" of similar ones would only be a sidenote. It does not have to be human level or dog level or supra genious level. Level of intellect is not important.
    Learning and self-awareness....that is the true dream of A.I.

    posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
  • Nee

    Nee 

    Word Salad.

    posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    show 4 replies
    • Penpal Andrew

      Penpal Andrew 

      Why do you bother commenting if you think people do not know what they are saying?

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Nee

      Nee 

      Why would you think just because your lips are moving that you are actually saying something of consequence?

      By the way, you invited discussion then acted all butt-sore because someone disagrees with your opinion: next time you start a thread, to avoid hurt feelings, perhaps you might want to add that you only want agreeable postings from people. Maybe you just weren’t very clear about your needs.

      Oh and, when you posted: “There is a tendency of some people here to grossly inflate the wonders of technology, while minimizing the complexity of biological systems.”

      My I say, that No ONE in this thread has show contempt for the wonders of the natural world—not like you certainly did for the craft of science fiction writing that is.

      I was doing A little research on an unrelated matter when I came across this: ( funny how things manifest themselves isn’t it? )

      http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pseudo-intellectual

      pseudo-intellectual

      1. One who attempts to flex intellect that does not exist within his or her own mind.

      2. Can probably be found with a thesaurus in hand, while in a chat room, looking up new insults that are synonymous with "stupid" in order to boost his or her own undeserved ego.

      3. Typical cases of pseudo-intellectualism involve pre-pubescent 15 year olds that think they have everything figured out, including, but not limited to: life, religion, politics, education, and sex. Ironically, they have never quite experienced either of the aforementioned.

      4. Pretends he or she has an opinion.

      5. Possesses a severe tendency to blindly and wholeheartedly believe any bullshit they hear, only to subsequently regurgitate the misinformation to anyone they see in an asinine attempt to appear more intelligent than a used condom.

      6. Should the victim of the verbal onslaught happen to have a differing opinion, the pseudo-intellectual will revert to his or her thesaurus and insult the opposition with words he or she never knew existed, and probably cannot even pronounce.

      7. Annoyingly and constantly refers to the word antidisestablishmentarianism, as if knowledge of said word defined his or her illegitimately high intelligence quotient.

      8. Typically a hypocrite; creates many, many contradictions. Most online grammar/spelling Nazis can relate.

      9. Always ends a bullshit "argument" with, "I win, so stfu." Win what, dipshits? Your opinions weren't fact in the first place.

      .................................

      :D he he he...

      And in conclusion if anyone needs any more proof of Andy’s ill will toward his fellow man, click over to my profile and read his message to me.

      Peace love and-- 'Where have all the flowers gone...?'
      EVERYBODY SING...! "Andrew's picked them every one...

      When will he ever learn...?

      When will he e v e r learn?

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Penpal Andrew

      Penpal Andrew 

      People disagree with me all of the time, and it does not bother me. Crosis seems to have a life mission to correct me. But I am very sensitive about the difference between a difference of opinion or a correction, and someone attacking me. And it is only Nee, who is attacking me. I do not sense that Crosis is attacking me.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Lizzie N

      Lizzie N 

      Oh dear me!

      I've been enjoying read the opinions of both Nee and Andrew. I'm distressed that the discussion seems to have degraded into tossing insults back and forth.
      Artificial intellegence is a complex issue so the issues are hard to articulate clearly. It's easy to missunderstand. Can we of forget the insults happened and get on with the interesting stuff?

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
  • Lizzie N

    Lizzie N 

    That is disturbing.

    I think science-fiction is primarily about tool usage. It can warn of the consequences of tool use, explore ways that tools could be used, or show what happens to people as a result of tool use. I like the word "tools" rather than "technology" because we tend to use the word only for our most recently invented tools. The consequences of simple tools can be as profound or more profound than the consequences of complex tools.
    The Internet may be amazing but it's only an extension of human langauge. The development of langauge may be more profound than is the developement of the Internet. Much of the technology of the Internet is quite simple and old. Use of relay (both optical telegraph and runner relay) have been around since the time of the anchient Greeks. The use of pixels to create a picture has been around longer than anyone can remember. It's used to produce images and patterns on textiles
    Maybe within my writing I'm trying to de-mystify technology and mystify what we consider ordinary tools.
    We tend to think of robotic as wow-wee and overlook the amazing ability of the human/animal brain.
    But by wriiting about AI I can show the nature of the human/animal brain.
    Both science fiction and fantasy have the ability to take something ordinary and make it larger than life.
    I'm working on a novel about a teenage girl who's consciousness center is connected by wireless implant to a network that encompasses a planet. This allows her to percieve of herself as the planet. A girl who is a planet is larger than life. But the issues of identity and power are common to all teenage girls. The story needs AI technology to make the connection between girl and planet believable. Human conscoiusness wouldn't be able to handle the raw data from a planet wide sensory network, so AI must do the preliminary processing with human consciousness checking in from time to time, the same way our consciousness checks in from time to time on operation of our physical bodies.

    I could do this within fantasy, but by I like sticking to as closely as I can to a scientific understanding of how the universe works. This decision makes my writing science fiction rather than fantasy.

    Even though I believe in God, I'm careful about how I show God in my writing because belief in a diety isn't part of the scientific paradigm. It violated Ockham's razor, the requirement to use the simplest available explainations for phenomena. God or gods as characters with motivation would take the story in the direction of fantasy.

    posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    show 4 replies
    • mark s

      mark s 

      Not neccessarily. It depends on your definition of simplest;P

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • nina d

      nina d 

      Sounds like the episode "Spock's Brain" in the original Star Trek episodes.
      They steal his brain to control the underworld complex they live in.

      AI...in regards to too much data
      They already have "bots" that control the data on the internet...so many
      that they had to install those tedious characters security features to hinder them

      These bots sift through the data on the internet, surfing for all kinds of things, but
      some are their to sniff out security breaches, etc. These exists now.

      If you look at what I wrote earlier about layers of intelligence...I think that is what your looking
      for...when I say automatic systems like breathing, etc this frees the higher level of tedious monitoring
      So in your book, I suggest you imply the same. Layers of AI, with the highest doing to most
      abstract, more human like thought, and the lower are like Roomba, dumb bots with simple sensors
      dealing with simple tasks...and of course you needs other layers between.

      Good luck with the book.
      Nina

      PS I was really enjoying this thread....can we keep it clean ?? Thanks so much :-D

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Lizzie N

      Lizzie N 

      Oh yes :-) the definition of simplest makes things fun. I play around with that little problem in my writing. Scientists are looking for the theory that accounts for the most data and produces interesting predictions which can be subjected to proof. That might not be what the rest of us think is simplest.
      My protagonist thinks simplest means the most conventient. Ha!

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Lizzie N

      Lizzie N 

      Your right on it Nina.
      I've got multiple levels. I even have Roomba equivalents in the story. My highest level however is human conscousness. These AI system are interdependent with humans.
      My network does primarily weather observation. It has such things as underwater hydrophones and robotic fish that monitor ocean ph, salinity, pressure, and vibrations. These devices are arranged in cells that are about 50km-100km in diameter they send their data into a central processing unit that is teamed with a human brain. The data is used weather prediction, monitoring water quality, and tracking shipping. The person in charge of each cell is conscous of him/herself as the water.
      Some of the ships and boats are using similar set ups. The cells clustered together all report to the queen's consciousness. I might put in a few more layers of human consciousness. So that something like the northern half of the Pacific ocean reports to someone's consciousness.
      Oh yes. This is giving me good ideas.
      I've got layers of both human and AI. I try to show that the humans involved have a difficult time distinguising between themselves, their AI systems, and the water that they monitor.

      Thanks for the luck. I've got one book out to an agent. I've got three written and will soon start on the fourth. Looks like it will be about Chester who startes off as an insurance claims adjuster and ends up taking charge(having conscousness) of an entire ocean. I'm getting excited about the story.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
  • Travis C

    Travis C 

    The entire point is that genres are clouds - some books are on the edge of two or three or four different clouds. So, there are lots of romance stories in a mystery, western, sci-fi or fantasy setting. What are they? What about a western fantasy? There are no hard edges.

    Vonnegut and someone like Margaret Atwood don't want to be known as science fiction writers for a few reasons - they think that science fiction is just adolescent boy fantasy, or just bug-eyed aliens with no literary value, ignoring that they have been writing in the middle of the science fiction genre's cloud for decades ("A Handmaid's Tale" - set in a future dystopia, "Oryx and Crake" another dystopian science fiction novel - Atwood has quite a few of them).

    I don't think that the genre is any more arbitrary than any other genre. If science fiction is an arbitrary definition, then so is every other genre.

    Travis

    posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    show 27 replies
    • Archmage

      Archmage 

      Well said. Remember also, genres are mainly used by publishers to market books. They are not meant to be a definitive description of content for a story.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • nina d

      nina d 

      Labels are a drag. It goes to my point that humans aren't that far advanced. We like convenient labels to compartmentalize and simplify. Since we aren't able to handle vast quantities of data we generalize and label until finally people complain that they themselves are labeled ( actors, singers, writers etc )

      Often things that are too hard too put a label on are overlooked, ridiculed, or ostracized...
      that goes for books as well. Recently I was reading a thread about romance novels and the
      stringent rules to be considered in the category (one of the biggest sellers ). So if you can't fit
      your book in their cubby, you're left out in the cold.

      Its not easy to be a rebel or go against convention. Its probably a lot easier for writers who stick to one
      genre...they don't have to fight to break out...or create another pen name to strike out in a different
      direction and have to build that name up from scratch.

      Nina

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      We learn by putting things in boxes. We evolved that way or were created that way take your pick. It cuts down on Processing time. think about it, early man says to himself "Orange with Black Stripes, Large teeth, WILL KILL YOU!" And he runs, he doesn't have to think about it, or wonder if this is the "Big Kitty I should pet" he knows without a moment's hesitation that he should run.

      And we are the descendants of those who put the best labels on the biggest boxes, and ran the fastest. Is it any wonder we are so good at it?

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Travis C

      Travis C 

      I'm with Crosis, being able to categorize things is one of the huge evolutionary advantages, and a necessary thing. It is hard wired into our heads. So, if a little kid sees that a hen lays an egg, they generalize so that all hens lay eggs. That is a categorization. How many people have you met who said "I don't like science fiction"? I know a few.

      Of course, the human brain, with all its complexities sometimes gets things wrong, mostly because they see a pattern that actually isn't there or is wrong in most cases, or even just one, really important case. That's where "Labels suck" comes from I think - and they do sometimes. Overall, I'm glad we have them though - they've contributed more good than bad over our history.

      And yes, I forgot to say another reason that Vonnegut and Atwood don't want their work labeled as sci-fi is not just because of their distaste, but they have a huge market of mainstream fiction readers who have no idea they are reading science fiction and would probably say "science fiction? I don't like science fiction!", so they try their best to market themselves otherwise. I don't actually know if they believe it or not. Atwood comes across as quite condescending to science fiction in interviews.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Lizzie N

      Lizzie N 

      I've been playing around with romance/SF cross. It's been interesting. It's a fairly small subgenre and much of it is more romance than science-fiction. Catherine Asaro, Lois McMaster Bujold, Linnea Sinclair, Anna Aguarre, and S L Viel fit in this niche. It's fun discovering the minute hidden conventions of each genre. Those of us who like a genre tend to accept its conventions without question. Often romance readers and science-fiction readers have almost diametrically opposed ideas of what makes good fiction.
      The boundry between literary fiction and science-fiction also gets interesting. This is where Atwood, Vonnegut and Micheal Chaybon fit in. The two genres can get rather acramonious toward each other. Proponents of both genres tend to put down the other genre. It's like any other pair of tribes defending their own and going after the outsiders.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      well when I was in college I actually got bad grades if I turned in Science fiction stories in my literary fiction classes. I mean I followed the assignment, and wrote well, it just seemed that people don;t think that a Robot/Human love affair is a valid way to talk about race relations or current trends in marriage law. And then I wrote about the same concepts in my science fiction classes and got fantastic grades. So...no people don;t like to mix their genres.

      But then again on an interesting Note Science Fiction is the only genre out there where you can write and sell unsollicited, and the Editor in Chief of Playboy even said "I'll always buy science fiction stories.. Science Fiction authors at least know how to write plot."

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Penpal Andrew

      Penpal Andrew 

      This is the best sub thread yet!

      I like the idea of clouds. Thank you for that.

      The debate about labels is an interesting one. But people and the creations of people do not like to be labeled. And I admire Crosis for having integrity to not follow labels to get the best grades.

      Finally, I can see a whole other discussion coming out of what you quoted from Playboy. I have heard that characterizations sometimes suffer in Science Fiction. And for me, that is a bigger writing challenge than plot. But maybe for other writers, it is the plot which is harder.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Dog Lover

      Dog Lover 

      Penpal Andrew,

      The whole thread is great - good job on getting it going.



      Ok - it has to be said...

      Re the Playboy comment: Ahem. The Editor in Chief of Playboy prefers the articles in that magazine too, right?

      LOL!

      DL

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • mark s

      mark s 

      Its ironic that someone who taught Faulkner would balk at Vonnegut or taught Dickens would balk at the social commentay of writers like Bradbury and Orwell...

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      Well as to the labels Literary Fiction folks have even made up labels for themselves....say it is a story about a boy who can fly, and everyone behaves as that is natural. I asked my professor "why is this not a fantasy story?" And the professor replied "Because it's Magic Realism", "But their are fantasy elements and we already have fantasy as a genre...why invent a new one if it fits in the old?" "They just did OK?"

      @ Dog Lover..... Seriously? Go research the book series "The Science Fiction of Playboy" :-]

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Travis C

      Travis C (edited)

      I haven't read a lot of playboy fantasy/sci-fi, but Omni (by the creators of Penthouse) had lots of excellent sci-fi. I remember a science fiction writer on-line saying how they paid a LOT for the stories they bought - I think it was Robert Sawyer on his "how to write" web pages. I had a subscription back in university, as well as one to Isaac Azimov magazine.

      I can't take credit for the "clouds" idea. That came from one of my co-workers when I was discussing what is sci-fi and what isn't.

      There was someone at my work who was trying to insist that "Firefly" wasn't science-fiction. Sure, it is a drama of sorts, and had western elements, but I think it's pretty solidly in the middle of the science-fiction cloud. :)

      She tried to get me to define what science fiction was and what made "Firefly" science-fiction. I had to say, "it's set in space in the future on spaceships, that's got to be science fiction"

      She managed to find examples of movies set in the future, one even on spaceships that were marginally NOT science fiction:

      "The Day After Tomorrow" - set in the future
      "Armageddon" - set in the future, has space ships
      "Deep Impact" - set in the future, has space ships

      I am willing to argue that those movies may not be science fiction, but, I would see how they might be as well. None of them has technology that we don't have today - or if they do, they are hidden in the plot (getting onto the surface of a planet with a shuttle would require a navigation system that doesn't exist for example, but that can just be glossed over for plot).

      Ah... amusing the discussion of genres when it's pretty much impossible to define one. There is no adequate definition of sci-fi that you can't break by the right setting or the right plot or characters. I think the same is probably true of all the other genres as well.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      Firefly is marginally Science Fiction because of River Tam and the Blue Hand. The rest of the show is a Post Civil War John Wayne movie set in space. If it wasn't for River it WOULDN'T Be science fiction ;-]

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Travis C

      Travis C 

      Hmmm... I don't think River Tam makes it MORE sci-fi. I would say she may make it less because really, psychic powers are pretty fantastical, almost magic.

      But - set in the future, in space and on a space ship? How is that NOT sci-fi?

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      Because it isn't a Science Fiction Story. You could tell the exact same story if it was set in the Wild West. That makes it not Science Fiction. If you remove the genre does it change the story. For Firefly the mechanics of the story don't change one iota.

      In iRobot the robots are essential. in DUNE, remove the spice, or try to set it in any other non-science fiction time frame and you cannot tell the same story. Honor Harrington? Napoleonic Ship battles in Space. Wing Commander the movie? Run Silent Run Deep and Das Boot in Space.

      As for Telekinesis and Telepathy being fantasy, telepaths have been mainstays of Science Fiction for decades, and more and more scientific evidence is piling up for how it works( most involves the electric field of one brain being able to sense or effect another.)

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Nee

      Nee 

      It is Science Fiction IF it is placed in the future. Or in space.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Penpal Andrew

      Penpal Andrew 

      I think there is some truth to what Nee says here. Because what makes something Fantasy, is that the time and place are NOT specified. For example, in the Lord of the Rings, Middle Earth is not given a past or future designation. And it is not said if this is on our Earth or some other Earth. That is the most well known Fantasy genre. So, if a story is clearly placed in the future or in outer space (which has to be future since we are not there now), it cannot be Fantasy.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Archmage

      Archmage 

      Science Fiction and Fantasy have long been used for allegory and social commentary. The fictional setting allows more freedom to highlight and satirize particular aspects of society. The fact that the actual intent of a work is to look at current issues does not exclude it from particular genres any more than retelling the "Seven Samurai" as "The Magnificent Seven" or "Battle Beyond the Stars" makes them any less a Western or a Science Fiction film respectively.

      Genres are fuzzy. Very few works fit nicely into just one catagory and there will always be some contention as to which genre they "belong" in, as every one has a slightly different opinion of what defines a genre for them and which elements they deem more important. Focus on one element and the work is Fantasy, focus on another and it's Science Fiction, yet the work still contains elements of both.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Lizzie N

      Lizzie N 

      I believe the magical realism lable predates the fantasy lable so the making up new lables may be the other way around:-)

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Lizzie N

      Lizzie N 

      Or if it's about the relationship between humanity and technology. Take your pick. Science fiction doesn't have to be set in the future or in space. it can be set in the past or in an alternative present.
      I think the difficulty come from reconciling definition by setting with definition by theme.
      If the setting determines the genre then Star Wars is science fiction and Eaters of the Dead (13th Warrior) is not. I appologize I've read the book without seeing the movies so I'm judging only by the book. If themes determine the genre, then Eaters of the Dead is science fiction and Star Wars is not.
      Eaters of the Dead speculates about Neanderthals surviving into medieval times. By setting(medieval scandanavia) it's fantasy. By theme it's science fiction.
      I go for the theme based definition because this type of science fiction tends to get eclipsed by space opera and thematic exploration of science is so interesting and valuable.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • mark s

      mark s 

      So magical spaceflight? not sci fi or sci fi?

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      ----------It is Science Fiction IF it is placed in the future. Or in space.------------

      A LONG TIME AGO IN A GALAXY FAR FAR AWAY...

      So says the opening words of Star Wars. It is removed in time and space because that is the hallmark of Epic Storytelling. Quite Frankly Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope is pattern after the "Hero's Journey" story. The story that is the format for the King Arthur Myth, Amaterasu, Gilgamesh, and LotR. George Lucas was so enmeshed he would call Joseph Campbell once a week to make sure his story would fit. it is set in space but is supposed to be Epic, Hero with a thousand faces storytelling.


      As per how and what I believe what is an is not science fiction I would urge you to read what I have written on the subject up-thread. That is how I judge science fiction being science fiction. I will do my appeal to authority and say that this opinion came from college level courses in science fiction and advanced science fiction writing as taught by Phyllis Eisenstien.


      --------------------Because what makes something Fantasy, is that the time and place are NOT specified. For example, in the Lord of the Rings, Middle Earth is not given a past or future designation. And it is not said if this is on our Earth or some other Earth. That is the most well known Fantasy genre. So, if a story is clearly placed in the future or in outer space (which has to be future since we are not there now), it cannot be Fantasy-----------------

      I submit to you:
      Honor Harrington: Years After Diaspora
      RIFTS: After the Cataclysm
      Heavy Gear: Years TerraNova
      Robotech: Aeon Lenak
      Gundam: Universal Century, After Colony and a host of other dates and time.
      Big O: Date Unspecified, supposedly the future but not body knows. And the mixture of technology is an issue.
      THX 1138: Unspecified Date apparently the future
      The Matrix: has issues with Dates.
      The Difference Engine: Set in Victorian England
      Cryptonomicon: set in World War Two and the world of next tuedsday.
      Guns of the South, or anything that Harry Turtledove does: all set in the past.
      Chung the Unavoidable: set so far in the future they might as well be using magic.

      Simply saying "If it's the future it's scifi" is problematic because all of RIFTS is set in the future except they have magic. And not beat around the bush maybe it is maybe it isn't magic, honest to God spell casters and Ley lines and rituals. Shadowrun also has Yakuza, and Netrunning mixed with Dragons and Shamans, but is set in the world of next tuesday ((actually starts in 2012 when the volcanoes erupt and Dukelzhan a dragon and others return.)


      --------------- Focus on one element and the work is Fantasy, focus on another and it's Science Fiction, yet the work still contains elements of both.------------

      ehhh I would say that if it has Fanatasy Elements it is fantasy regardless if they person using the "Rod of All seeing Power" rides a horse or a hover bike.


      -------------------I believe the magical realism lable predates the fantasy lable so the making up new lables may be the other way around-------------

      From the Wiki:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_realism
      The term magic realism was first used in 1925 by the German art critic Franz Roh to refer to a painterly style also known as Neue Sachlichkeit (the New Objectivity)[2]. It was later used to describe the unusual realism by American painters such as Ivan Albright, Paul Cadmus, George Tooker and other artists during the 1940s and 1950s. However, in contrast to its use in literature, when used to describe visual art, the term refers to paintings that do not include anything fantastic or magical, but are rather extremely realistic and often mundane
      :-]

      -----------------If themes determine the genre, then Eaters of the Dead is science fiction and Star Wars is not--------------

      And I would agree with this. This is the heart of the "Can it be told in any other genre" piece of my theory of Science fiction.

      --------------So magical spaceflight? not sci fi or sci fi?-------

      If it's magical? Fantasy. The Stars My Destination is Science Fiction however because "Jaunting" is seen as a biological extension of Human Evolution. The X-Men are science fiction because they each have " an X-Gene"

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Penpal Andrew

      Penpal Andrew 

      The technology used for spaceflight is not important, unless that is a main part of the story.

      Sci Fi or not Sci Fi is not a good way to divide up stories or books.

      I think in terms of adventure stories, stories of personal reflection, news type stories, stories about interpersonal relationships (which may include AI), and perhaps more.

      An adventure story is Indiana Jones and the ..., my favorite sci fi news type book is Darwins Radio. And some novels can contain parts of each of these themes, but there is almost always one dominant. My personal preference is to avoid adventure stories, since I grew up with those, and most movies are of that type.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Archmage

      Archmage 

      It's hard to market and sell a book in the personal reflection or interpersonal relationships genre though...

      To classify by theme is also suspect, as the same themes crop up over and over again across all stories of any genre. Sure Star Wars uses mythic structures and archtypes for the characters, but I would still expect to find it in the Sci Fi section of a DVD store.

      I agree that setting alone can also not determine the genre. Terry Brooks' Genisis of Shannara Trilogy is set in a not too distant future earth, deals with people surviving after a nuclear apocolypse and has some futuristic hardware on display, but the focus of the story on faire creatures, demons and magic flying around all over the place plant it firmly in the Fantasy genre. But it still creeps a little toe into the Sci Fi realm.

      Crosis, your definition fits perfectly for the core examples of Science Fiction, but I would not exclude Space Opera, Steampunk, Alternate History, and other fringe examples as not being Science Fiction because they do not fit right in the centre of your genre definition. If I picked up an Honor Harrington novel with a Fantasy label on it, I would be a bit put out when I read about massive space ship battles with no dragons to be seen anywhere. You earlier claimed Alien as a Science Fiction film when even the writers freely admitted it was a haunted house story in space. How is this different? The story can be easily transplanted to another genre, but the alien and the technology on show (although not explained in any scientific detail on screen) certainly place it in the Science Fiction Genre. Horror too.

      Genres are human constructed boxes and we try to squash and shove our stories into them to give them a quick label so we can make a quick choice from among the many, many options available. The goalposts keep moving as the definitions change over the years, as people try to accomodate new ambiguous stories into the genre structure, old ones pop out. But most writers tend to write stories first, and if it doesn't fit cleanly into one genre or another then it does not matter much (except to the publishers and marketers), as long as it is a good STORY.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      Honor Harrington would best be put in to the Historical Fiction section ;-] It's Napoleonics in space :-]

      --------------You earlier claimed Alien as a Science Fiction film when even the writers freely admitted it was a haunted house story in space. How is this different?------------ historical the Horrors for the universe are considered Science fiction. But then again if you count the first science fiction story as Frankenstein then Horror and Scifi have been sleeping together since the beginning.

      ----------------The story can be easily transplanted to another genre, but the alien and the technology on show (although not explained in any scientific detail on screen) certainly place it in the Science Fiction Genre. Horror too.------------------

      I think with Alien what keeps it from living in pure horror is the monster is an Alien. I mean not to be trite, but you find the alien on a planet. You need Science to tell the story. this isn't a mystical creature, it responds to fire as other creatures do...has a weird lifecycle that is important for the story and heck is based off of ((unoffically of course)) A.E. Van Voght's "Who Goes There?"

      ----------------------rosis, your definition fits perfectly for the core examples of Science Fiction, but I would not exclude Space Opera, Steampunk, Alternate History, and other fringe examples as not being Science Fiction because they do not fit right in the centre of your genre definition. -----------------------

      Alternate history is what if, should have science at its core and need to be told in Science fiction or it wouldn't make sense.

      I find Steampunk to be fun ((heck I am part of a steam punk society)) but I also find it to be kind of lazy where it is " I don;t know how it works it just does OK?" I mean the difference engine is an example of Rigorous Science fiction, and I would still call it so. It has the What if...

      Space Opera...well who doesn't like Buck Rogers, but if they include that Buck is from a culture 500 years in the past, what's it like being in the new society? You know those questions help it be science fiction.


      -----------------------Seriously, how do you decide whether Lovecraft is sci fi or fantasy or horror? Its like asking if Poe was a poet or a horror write-------------------

      Lovecraft? of Cthulu fame? Dark Fantasy..... 1D6 investigators a round. Cthulu has D&D stats for goodness sakes. It is fantasy through and through...no evedince exsists for the Dunwhich Horror, nor the necronomicon. so it isn't science fiction.

      -------------------------I say a good story is a good story. Don't be snobbish about the space ships and laser beams because those are what sucked so many kids into reading Sci fi in the first place. Realise that the labels are as concrete as room temperature water and that people have been fighting over them even in Dunsany's time.
      The same snobbery is what kept Wells and Verne in the "classic" section of literature and not a single copy in the "science fiction" part if the library.-----------------

      Actually I view the genre snobbery, as what keeps Dick, Heinlein, Assimov, Clarke, and a host of others OUT of the classics section.

      posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
    • Archmage

      Archmage 

      Crosis, the only real problem I have with what you are saying is the "You could tell the exact same story if it was set in the Wild West. That makes it not Science Fiction" bit.

      Napoleonics in space? War stories have been around longer than Napoleon and yet setting them in a future, with a future history, with technology not invented yet, with or without aliens, doesn't qualify? Lets get rid of the WW2 genre as well, its only Napoleonics with tanks :-]
      Battlestar Galactica is Sci Fi and Firefly is not? Alien is Sci Fi because it has an alien in it and is set on another planet and a spaceship, but Space opera is not dispite having aliens in it and being set on other planets and spaceships?
      I really do not follow your logic for excluding them.

      My point with Alien (and the Seven Samurai and most Space Opera) was that the "story" itself was not Science Fiction, it could be (and had been) told easily in other genres, but the new retelling of the same story in a Sci Fi setting makes it a work of Science Fiction. The fact that the makers of Alien put a lot of thought and creativity into their creation doesn't change the bare bones story from being a haunted house tale.
      Just because something CAN be retold without the spaceships or aliens (such as Wing Commander), it does not follow that it should be excluded from the Sci Fi genre on that basis alone. If a work IS retold without the Sci Fi related bits, then label it accordingly, but the Sci Fi version should still be in the Sci Fi section.
      If these works start getting filed under Fantasy or Historical Fiction (yes, i know you were joking :-) or other genres where they don't entirely fit either, then no one will be able to find them. (Admittedly, in some cases, this would not be a bad thing :-) The Fantasy section will soon become overflowing with displaced spaceships.

      There are certainly any number of examples of lazy Sci Fi, filled with bad science and with all the trappings but none of the substance, but does this really make them any less Sci Fi? Lesser Sci Fi sure, but surely still Sci Fi.

      posted 3 weeks ago. ( reply )
    • Crosis

      Crosis (edited)

      All I know is I got my knuckles rapped if I didn't follow the rules I have put forth. And I mean I understand what you are saying. But heck i like arguing Hard and fast rules...it makes for interesting discussions, and My definition is arbitrary which was the main thrust of the Thread. ;-]

      posted 3 weeks ago. ( reply )
    • Archmage

      Archmage 

      Fair enough, mine is pretty arbitrary too; so from what everyone has been saying, I guess we are all in agreement there. It is difficult to be otherwise when books (and film, etc.) are assigned a place in a genre (or two, or three...) after they are written. On one hand we need the strict rules so we know what everyone means by a genre, but on the other there are works that can only be assigned by a "best fit" approach (or endless hybrid subgenre catagories filled with two books each. *shudder* ). That and everyone has a different opinion and gets different things out of the same book.

      posted 3 weeks ago. ( reply )
  • Penpal Andrew removed this reply 1 month ago.
  • Archmage removed this reply 1 month ago.
  • mark s

    mark s 

    I second Archmage. Fantasy and sci fi have crossed each other so many times there are a myriad ways to divide them up by. Not to mention everything else science fiction mixes with. Wherever and whenever they occur. Its like an arguement over which is better Star Wars or Star Trek...its tailored to a particular taste or line of reasoning that is subjective to say the least. Science is not all machinery, so I could even see some of the horror works like Hurwitz's "The Program" or Dean Koontz's Watchers/Twilight/Night Chills, etc even falling into the Sci fi category. Seriously, how do you decide whether Lovecraft is sci fi or fantasy or horror? Its like asking if Poe was a poet or a horror writer...
    I say a good story is a good story. Don't be snobbish about the space ships and laser beams because those are what sucked so many kids into reading Sci fi in the first place. Realise that the labels are as concrete as room temperature water and that people have been fighting over them even in Dunsany's time.
    The same snobbery is what kept Wells and Verne in the "classic" section of literature and not a single copy in the "science fiction" part if the library.

    posted 1 month ago. ( reply )
  • nina d

    nina d 

    I say a good story is a good story. Amen !!

    Remember even within Star Trek there were episodes that focused on themes other than science

    The one with Capt. Dunsil where computers replacing humans very much science vs human

    The one with the woman from iman or somewhere....very much Taming of the Shrew

    The episode where the "superior race" were black on the right side (or vice versa )
    obviously showing how ridiculous racism is.

    There was even a very Holloween like episode with Aliens acting like witches. Only
    at the very end do you see the aliens appearance is a very different form.

    I think its more where the focus of the story lies that determines if its sci-fi.

    Aliens...definitely on horror/sci-fii line. The intricate detailing of the alien life cycle had the feel
    of science ( in the book it came across a lot more like a spider-like creature ). Also the whole
    government/corporate conspiracy is less fantasy.

    Recently I was reading a book, and for a few chapters I thought I was reading about a serial killer.
    only later do you find out she is an alien and they are here operating a slaughterhouse to ship
    food packets back home. Its a shame to put the book in the sci-fi section and give away a
    major plot point.

    Nina

    posted 4 weeks ago. ( reply )
    show 3 replies
    • Jonas D

      Jonas D (edited)

      I think i know the book (3 words, 5,3 and 4 letters) - it's a good one. In Sweden it was under general fiction, so I was pretty surprised, but Science Fiction could be a lot, so they were not really giving away anything that you did not already guess within the first 30 pages or so.

      posted 3 weeks ago. ( reply )
    • nina d

      nina d 

      thats the one ;D

      posted 3 weeks ago. ( reply )
    • Crosis

      Crosis 

      Jabba The Hutt?

      posted 3 weeks ago. ( reply )
  • Mark W. Tiedemann

    Mark W. Tiedemann 

    Both Ellison and Vonnegut rejected the label because of the reality of categorizing tends to cut sections of potential audiences off. There are people who refuse to read "Sci-Fi" but rave about Vonnegut. It's silly, but that's the reality. Rather than limit their potential sales---or their artistic reach, since both have written material which cannot be reasonably categorized in any genre---they adamantly refused to be labeled.

    There are a variety of definitions of SF which are sound and useful, but most published SF only barely qualifies in any respect other than the tropes. And for the most part such definitions have nothing to do with how a given book is marketed.

    posted 12 days ago. ( reply )
  • Penpal Andrew

    Penpal Andrew 

    This thread was not used in 11 days, until now. So, I will update people on my thoughts.

    Science fiction is stories where there are scientists doing science. I am reading "www:wake" by Robert J. Sawyer. And this is most definitely science fiction. It is not perfect science of course. But one sees powers of reason being used by characters who are clearly labeled as scientists.

    My point is, that this certainly takes some pressure off of Ellison and Vonnegut, since they never set out to write science fiction, so why should they be stuck with that label.

    posted 12 days ago. ( reply )
    show 16 replies
    • Mark W. Tiedemann

      Mark W. Tiedemann 

      That's a rather narrow defintion, especially since a lot of first rate SF has no scientists in it at all.

      posted 6 days ago. ( reply )
    • Penpal Andrew

      Penpal Andrew 

      Many first rare stories and novels do not mention scientists, but I am providing other labels for those books. Space opera, fantasy, speculative fiction, alternative history, and others. For example, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is a great series.

      posted 6 days ago. ( reply )
    • Travis C

      Travis C 

      Yeah - I have to say, there is lots of science fiction with no scientists at all.

      The thing is, space opera is a type of science fiction, as are alternate history, alien invasion etc.. etc... In fact, I read an alternate history the other day with a scientist in it - is that science fiction?
      Are you counting Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as science fiction or not? I didn't get your last line.

      However, Ellison and Vonnegut don't have any choice about their genre, if they are in the science fiction cloud, then they are writing science fiction - both of them have written squarely in the centre of the cloud and still tried to say they weren't writing sci-fi. Similarly with Margaret Atwood. They can market it however they like, but marketing doesn't have anything to do with truth, it's just about selling. The certainly don't determine genre, since that's done by the writer, sometimes unintentionally.

      If you think of these things as clouds, and make it very easy for a book to land in a cloud, that's no big deal. So you have elements of science fiction in your story? So what? It doesn't mean it isn't good, no matter what Atwood or Vonnegut think about it.

      posted 5 days ago. ( reply )
    • Mark W. Tiedemann

      Mark W. Tiedemann 

      What Ellison and Vonnegut---and even someone like Atwood, who annoys me because she doesn't seem to know what she's talking about half the time---were asserting is perhaps a finer line. They don't claim they've never written science fiction, they claimed that Science Fiction did not define them. Their claim is---was---that they are writers who happen occasionally to write SF, but that's not all they write.

      It matters because of the marketing you mention, because publishers want to know exactly what they're packaging and with few exceptions don't allow writers to step outside a playground---or a cloud---they've already been selling in. It limits what the writer can do.

      Ellison and Vonnegut never had a gripe about SF per se, only about the genre marketing system that does, in fact, dictate what a writer will be, as Ellison puts it, "for the rest of your natural life."

      posted 5 days ago. ( reply )
    • Nee

      Nee 

      Andy wrote: "Many first rare stories and novels do not mention scientists, but I am providing other labels for those books."

      Oh...so it's you that defines the categories of literature…?

      posted 5 days ago. ( reply )
    • Travis C

      Travis C 

      Mark,

      I am on board with Ellison - he is a sci-fi writer from way back and isn't scared of calling any science fiction he writes as science-fiction. I am ok with that. IF he writes non-science fiction, I'm also ok with that. He can do whatever he likes.

      The problem I have with Atwood, and to a lesser degree Vonnegut is that they write science fiction and then try to say that it isn't.

      I have seen interviews with Atwood that basically says, "Science fiction has monsters and spaceships; speculative fiction could really happen", which shows, as you say, that she has no idea what she is talking about and has no clue what science fiction actually is. There is lots more of her trying to distance herself from sci-fi, ie. "Oryx and Crake is a speculative fiction, not a science fiction proper. It contains no intergalactic space travel, no teleportation, no Martians." and "talking squids in outer space."

      Apparently, she has since softened and has called some of her stuff science fiction, but I haven't read any of these newer intervals. From what I've read about it, it's more like she is saying: "Well, some people use science fiction to refer to speculative fiction, so in the sense, what I write can be science-fiction, but I don't consider it that way"

      Vonnegut has also been quoted saying something along the lines of science fiction is "school boy fantasy", although in many of the interviews I've read on line, he freely admits to writing science fiction.

      I can easily understand marketers saying that it's main stream fiction as to no lose any fans, and not putting these completely into the science fiction section where many fans would avoid like poison ivy. That is different and nowhere near as insulting as a science fiction writer saying that what they are writing isn't really science fiction, because if it was, it would be bad.

      posted 4 days ago. ( reply )
    • Nee

      Nee 

      Travis C wrote: "Vonnegut has also been quoted saying something along the lines of science fiction is "school boy fantasy", although in many of the interviews I've read on line, he freely admits to writing science fiction."

      I seem to remember that he said "MOST" of science fiction is school boy fantasies.

      Travis C wrote: From what I've read about it, it's more like she is saying: "Well, some people use science fiction to refer to speculative fiction, so in the sense, what I write can be science-fiction, but I don't consider it that way"

      Are you saying that this is what she actually said or this is what you feel she was trying to say? You weren’t being very clear with that paragraph.

      posted 4 days ago. ( reply )
    • Travis C

      Travis C 

      Yeah - sorry, I was saying this is what I felt she was trying to say.

      If that is what Vonnegut was saying, then I agree, but then most of popular culture is some kind of school person's fantasy.

      posted 4 days ago. ( reply )
    • Mark W. Tiedemann

      Mark W. Tiedemann 

      Atwood is a special case in this. Both Ellison and Vonnegut---and for a short while Ursula LeGuin---knew exactly what science fiction was when they distanced themselves from it. But it's been clear for a long time that Atwood hasn't got a clue. She did not, it would seem, grow up reading SF but something else and came to SF only as an interesting set of tropes for making sociopolitical commentary, without understanding that it has a philosophical and artistic rigor underlying the tropes she quoted to identify it.

      In this she's much like the late Susan Sontag, who penned a famously inaccurate and wrongheaded essay about SF back in the 70s, and seemed not to understand its driving concerns. But basically she's been taking advice from her publisher, which is why she waffles----they can't seem to decide whether it would be better for her to admit to writing SF or not.

      posted 4 days ago. ( reply )
    • Travis C

      Travis C 

      I agree - Atwood is special. I agree with your comments.

      The fact is that science fiction is a smaller market than everything else (i.e. general fiction). So marketing wise, it means potentially more money to market yourself as general fiction. I don't care if Atwood (or any of the others) are sold in general fiction. I don't care if all of science fiction is sold in general fiction. I just get annoyed when authors write science fiction and then say, "Oh no! I don't write science fiction!"

      I don't know Susan Sontag and haven't read her essays. She isn't waffling any more though: Susan Sontag b1933-01-16 – d2004-12-28

      posted 4 days ago. ( reply )
    • Mark W. Tiedemann

      Mark W. Tiedemann 

      Sontag is worth checking out. She always had something interesting to say about any topic with which she grappled---even if she was in some ways wrong, she was never dull, and usually advanced thinking on the subject. But the SF piece was just...no one can be brilliant all the time.

      posted 3 days ago. ( reply )
    • Travis C

      Travis C 

      Thanks Mark - she goes into my list of authors I will look up.

      posted 3 days ago. ( reply )
    • Nee

      Nee 

      Atwood grow up reading plup SF and comic books.

      And Travis, you don't use quotes when you are saying what you think someone might have said.

      posted 3 days ago. ( reply )
    • Travis C

      Travis C 

      Nee - I did say, "From what I've read about it, it's more like she is saying:", so I don't feel like I mis-lead.

      I agree though - shouldn't have used the quotes.

      posted 3 days ago. ( reply )
    • Nee

      Nee 

      Travis wrote: "Nee - I did say, "From what I've read about it, it's more like she is saying:", so I don't feel like I mis-lead.

      I agree though - shouldn't have used the quotes."

      The general standard is that the writer is responsible for any ambiguities.

      posted 3 days ago. ( reply )
    • Travis C

      Travis C 

      You do seem awfully insistent on this. I don't know why. Anyway, I've apologized and explained. I am dropping it now.

      posted 2 days ago. ( reply )
  • mark s

    mark s 

    labels are like socks, they get put on in one generation and changed the next....

    posted 11 days ago. ( reply )
    show 3 replies
    • Archmage

      Archmage 

      ...and you can wear different ones at the same time :)

      posted 11 days ago. ( reply )
    • mark s

      mark s 

      and they don't always match:P

      posted 10 days ago. ( reply )
    • Jonas D

      Jonas D 

      And if you wear the same too long they start to become a problem ...

      posted 8 days ago. ( reply )
  • mark s

    mark s 

    they get holes and hard to take off;P

    posted 8 days ago. ( reply )
  • To reply to this discussion, please sign in or join now.

Return to top