Fiction, Science Fiction and Fantasy

The separation of science fiction from both conventional “mainstream” fiction and pure fantasy involves a difficult, fine-lined process and, may even be impossible, if not totally fruitless when one attempts to fit particular works into the contrived pattern. In this paper, the various criteria that have been or could be used to distinguish science fiction from other forms of fiction will be discussed. Then, after briefly reviewing particular “pre-classified” readings, an attempt will be made to determine the most useful criteria. Finally, drawing upon previous discussion, a general definition will be made. The first and probably simplest criterion involves believability. In this classification scheme, mainstream fiction occupies one end of a triumvirate, being put in the “believable” category. This absolute believability arises from the obedience of contemporized psychological and social laws and/or from a present day scientific basis in this genre. Thus these stories contain people, places, things and ideas we can relate to out of our life’s experiences. Science fiction, however, enjoys a quasi-believable status in this system, conforming to sometimes foreign, but nevertheless consistent ideals. Technological advances, while sometimes sensational, must still be feasible according to our knowledge of science. Therefore, there is present in science fiction the element of potential future developments. At the other extreme lies pure fantasy, which is rendered unbelievable by the almost total absence of scientific facts, as we know them (often displaced by magic)? Thus, the reader very early learns that these works deal with an unreal world that never did, doesn’t and may never exist. Clearly, the above criterion is not objective enough for most purposes, nor does it necessarily endure with time. Individual insight and imagination determine how ‘believable’ a work is and, as science and technology advance, the science fiction of today may well become the mainstream fiction of tomorrow. To eliminate these drawbacks, one may want to use credibility (based on sound science), rather than believability as the deciding criterion. Thus, science fiction becomes more ‘credible’ than fantasy because it uses science, a familiar concept, as its basis, as opposed to magic. However, as we are dealing with fiction, we know that none of the genres represent truth. Consequently, we can not definitely say that one form is truer than any other. Thus, this criterion, too, fails to be satisfactory. Perhaps the most satisfactory conclusion of the previous discussion is that science fiction is essentially a transition stage. A more objective approach at classification is exemplified in the grid vs. story system. Here, science fiction occupies an extreme end emphasizing grid, that is, physical and time setting, etc. rather than being a transition state. Characters in science fiction are usually dimensionless and the story, itself, is not overly emphasized. Occupying a middle position is mainstream fiction, which stresses grid and story about equally and develops characters strongly. At the other end of the spectrum, again, lies fantasy, which exists chiefly to tell a story alone. A final classification scheme considers science fiction as a branch of fantasy, differing only in that it uses science as its motivation. It therefore becomes a piece of ‘believable’ fantasy. The sub-genre concept is intriguing in that it reminds us of one of the lower status sometimes accorded science fiction in literary circles. However, this criterion fails to consider the essential differences between science fiction and fantasy, outlined above. Having now discussed the main classification possibilities, let us now see how well they work, as applied to several sample readings. As far as science fiction is concerned, the believability system successfully absorbs the short stories, “The Little Black Bag” (Cyril M. Kornbluth) and “Mars is Heaven” (Ray Bradbury), which seem marginally possible and the grid vs. story system applied to “Childhood’s End” (Arthur C. Clarke) and “Dune” (Frank Herbert) and the short stories, “A Rose for Ecclesiastes” (Roger Zelazny) and “Nightfall” (Isaac Asimov), which largely depend on setting for their impact. “Arena” (Fredric Brown), with seemingly greater emphasis on story than grid, and with an unbelievable spherical creature, tends to defy classification into one of these groups, as does “The Nine Billion Names of God” (Arthur C. Clarke). “Surface Tension” (James Blish) would fit into the grid system but for its violation of the believability (the idea of microscopic humans is unphysical). It must therefore lie somewhere between science fiction and fantasy. “Microcosmic God” (Theodore Sturgeon), on the other hand, appears almost believable and therefore walks the boundary between science fiction and mainstream fiction. “The Left Hand of Darkness” (Ursula K. Le Guin) contains grid, strong character development and an emphasis on story (i.e. the ice sheet scenes) and thus defies classification in the above categories. “Flowers for Algernon” (Daniel Keyes) seems to contain elements of mainstream fiction (character development and story emphasis) and seems almost contemporary. For mainstream fiction, the believability criterion can be used with reservation for “Pnin” (Vladimir Nabokov) and “Mrs. Bridge” (Evan S. Connell). Although the characters in these two novels resemble real people, it is difficult to imagine anyone as naïve as they are. The grid-story system works well for “Deliverance” (James Dickey), with its adventure story nature and could roughly absorb the short stories. However, their weak character development and emphasis on ideals, rather than story, bring about a conflict of short story versus novel, which would require a whole new set of rules. The lone fantasy work to be considered, “The Hobbit”, fits well into either system. Thus, the realm of pure fantasy seems fairly well defined. It is only when one attempts to draw dividing lines between science fiction and fantasy that ambiguity in classification arises. About the most definitive statement that can be made in light of the above discussion is that there is no clear-cut, purely objective method of distinguishing one genre from another. Perhaps a general, but all-inclusive definition of science fiction would be, “any fiction that takes place (at the time it is written) in the future”. Fantasy, then would consist of fiction made unbelievable by the presence of magic or pure luck. Mainstrean fiction would then include all of the rest of fiction as we know it. Although these definitions still rely on individual interpretation, perhaps it is the reader’s privilege to do so. After all, as long as the author’s message is received by the reader, it scarcely matters what literary style is used to convey it.