From: MarkLFischer at aol.com
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 14:07:54 EST
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Who said: SF is fantasy with nuts and bolts painted on?
To: WSFAlist at WSFA.org
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

In a message dated 4/1/2005 10:56:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
omni at omniphile.com writes:

>This is my best attempt to define the differences without just  resorting to
>the old, "I know it when I see it" definition.  I'm  well aware that not
>everyone will agree with me about it.  Feel free  to attempt your own
>definitions!  :-)

Most of it IS fantasy, if you look at it from a standpoint of  reality.  In
the example of Niven, teleportation does not exist, hyperspace  travel does not
exist, General Products #2 hulls do not exist.  None of  these things may
EVER exist, and yet they are essential elements to some of the  stories.  That's
fantasy, regardless of window-dressing.

All stories, regardless of genre, are interesting and worthwhile to the
extent that they are about humans dealing with human problems.  We have  real
difficulty identifying with anything else.  Even the  old-fashioned vacuum-tube
stuff that George O. Smith and Ralph Farley wrote is  still Human Overcoming
Obstacles, even though you had to be something of a geek  to understand the
urgency sometimes.  SF and Fantasy still have to follow  dramatic rules, however
experimental and cutting-edge the work may otherwise  be.  The four types of
conflict are universal: Man vs. Man, Man vs. Nature,  Man vs. God, Man vs.
Himself.  Man is the common element, even if the "Man"  in question doesn't look
like one.

C.J. Cherryh's protagonists in some of her novels aren't human, but they
think like we do, once certain postulates are accepted, and we can identify with
them.  A story about Mxptlk the dexitroboper, who will makplak if the
fovoosh doesn't plang, is less readable unless the nonsense words equate to real
human concepts.

SF and Fantasy deal with the same kind of problem-solving, as well.   It's
not all wish-fulfillment, everything's-handed-to-you, that's crummy writing  no
matter what you call it.  Well-written fantasy sets the characters in a
ruleset as immutable and internally consistent as any in the hardest SF, it's  just
has different postulates. "Lord of the Rings" is, in my opinion, is a  story
of self-discovery and heroism, painted with a broader brush than may  appeal
to the jaded and cynical, but no different from "On Basilisk  Station."

If Pratchett or Person X made a comment like that, well, it's essentially
true, although somewhat snobby.  SF folks, to be honest, do the same to  them.

Mark