quote:

---

On the contrary, a woman could want to sleep with him, enjoy sleeping with him, and talk about sleeping with him and still be a fine, upstanding woman. Sure, they tended to die and stuff, but they weren't vilified. For the 1960s, this was a pretty revolutionary idea.

---

quote:

---

Evidently Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell is science fiction, at least according to the shelves at Borders. Barnes and Noble just had it in New Fiction hardcover section.

---

Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell is indeed sci-fi. Or fantasy, which is the same thing.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
It's worth point out that for video sci-fi (movies and television) some of todays standards have to be imposed on the cultures in the story for simple rating reasons. It's possible to push the boundries a little with creative shoting, but there are limits to how far it can go.

Of course this doesn't quite apply to books, but then again if there's too much explicit sexuality in a book it begins to become erotic literature in a sci-fi setting.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
How are you classifying sci-fi, Tom?

:curious:
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

By contrast, and despite initial signs that sexuality would play a greater role on the show than it did in VOY, DS9, and TNG, Enterprise has given us little but "giggle and jiggle" sex meant to make us smirk at skin and laugh at sex for being so "ooky."

---

That does fit in with OSC's contention that Star Trek is for teenagers .
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"How are you classifying sci-fi, Tom?"

Fiction that relies on technological or mystical abilities not available to humans at any time in history, or is set in a world where these things are present. Basically, any story which involves ahistorical speculation in setting and world creation.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I don't see fantasy and sci-fi as that close usually. I do see that a lot of the stories have things in common, and there are some stories that are hard to classify as one or another, but there is a reason why I prefer fantasy to sci-fi....


It isn't all about the locale, you know.


Kwea
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
As far as I'm concerned, fantasy is just a sub-set of science fiction.
 

---

Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
 

quote:

---

fantasy is just a sub-set of science fiction.

---

With both you have to pay a price to get supernatural powers. The connection between the price and the power is either explained through scientific reasoning or through mysticism. After that, the story and the basic truths behind the story are the same.

I don't think sci-fi/fantasy writers are telling the truth about sex. Sex in a story should be like eating a meal, sleeping, or going to the john; everybody does it; nobody cares; if you want to deal with, touch on it lightly, and then get on with the story.

Of course if you want to get your reader's hormones in an uproar everytime he buys your books...but that's not writing; that's prostitution.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Sex in a story should be like eating a meal, sleeping, or going to the john; everybody does it; nobody cares."

Well, in all fairness, there have been times that I've had sex to which I would devote three or four pages of purple prose in the unwritten autobiography of my life.

But, yeah, other times it's like a decent lunch.
 

---

Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
 
It's the other way around - sci-fi is a subset of fantasy:

Fiction that is contrary to reality in its milieu, as well as the specific events pertaining to the character, is "fantastic literature." Within that, the definition of sci-fi as having technological differences with the present but otherwise following the natural laws, while fantasy can violate natural laws, is a fair definition.

The working definition, when creating book covers, is: Fantasy has trees, sci-fi has sheet metal and rivets.
 

---

Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
 
That sounds like as good a definition as anybody is likely to get.

The thing about Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell that made it seem out-of-place in the SciFi section was that it's set in the 1800s, with that level of technological development. It's not exactly 1800s England, but only because there is magic and a corresponding history of English magic that doesn't really exist.

I think it also gets shelved under the generic New Fiction heading because of its nearly perfect immitation of Victorian prose. So it must be literature. *snort*

That drives me crazy, because there really is a lott of mainstream 'literature' that could easily fit into anyone's definition of scifi, fantasy or 'spec fic'. :eyeroll: Like, say, several works by Margaret Attwood. But, even though she writes about post-apocalyptic or future social orders, she's literary. Beloved is a freakin' ghost story, but you won't find Morrison in some Dark Fantasy/Horror ghetto.

I think, and I know I could be wrong, that it has more to do with the publisher (and the audience the publisher perceives for a particular book) than the actual content that determines 'genre'.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Ooo..thanks for the reminder. I keep meaning to read Beloved, but I never remember while I'm near a computer.
 

---

Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
 
I like Inara. Maybe Serentiy will touch on the subject in more detail.
 

---

Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
 
kat- It's a great book, but tough to read. It definitely deals with some unpleasant aspects of the human condition in a necessarily raw way. But it IS a book that deals with love, cruelty and sexuality in mature and realistic ways.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I just ordered a paperback copy from half.com, so I'll report back in a week.

I don't think anything will horrify me as much as Arslan did, which I also a recomendation for here. I finished that book, though, and it is certainly memorable. I doubt I'll ever reread it and I know I'll never loan it out, but for some reason, I still hold on to it.
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
Tom, that's a decent try at defining sci-fi, but any sci-fi definition will have holes in it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olivetta:
I had no idea there was a lot of sex in SciFi books. I suppose there usually aren't in the ones I read.

---

I thought of this today, Olivia, and decided you read too much touchy-feely sci-fi... or not enough.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Katie, it's a general rule that women who write science fiction get put in the "literature" section unless they ask nicely.
 

---

Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olivetta:
Beloved is a freakin' ghost story, but you won't find Morrison in some Dark Fantasy/Horror ghetto.

---

Heh. You should have heard me and my 11th grade English teacher go at it when we read Beloved. She insisted that it was not fantasy, it was magic realism. Man, I hated that book.
 

---

Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
 
Arslan ::shudders::

Didn't care about any of the people, was not attracted to nor repelled by the anti-hero, nor the 'eyes' of the story (the principle and the boy). Could have done without a couple of scenes as well (you know what I'm talking about. Hart's Hope was much better done, both in that respect- hint- and with as comprehesible a villainess as you could ever see). I found the reasoning for what Arslan decided to do to the human race absolutely idiotic. The only thing I liked was the way Arslan made the Principle partly responsible for all his actions afterward simply by giving him the power to kill him which he refused to do. That was well done.

My opinion, of course.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Where does magical realism fit? I don't see it as being the same genre as fantasy, cause it has different intent. But wow I just don't know. And maybe it doesn't matter. But Jorge Luis Borges, whom I think is the granddaddy of magical realism, is really awesome.

Maybe because he's so convincing.

I don't really understand why, actually. But he just is.

I liked Beloved, but didn't see it as a fantasy. I saw it as someone with a very different worldview from mine writing a story from within her worldview which was not particularly translated to cater to my worldview, but left me to think what I would about it. I thought it was a really good story. I enjoyed it a lot. But it didn't change my worldview or anything. So I guess in some ways that's exactly like fantasy. I dunno. It was good, though.
 

---

Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
 

quote:

---

Sex in a story should be like eating a meal, sleeping, or going to the john; everybody does it; nobody cares; if you want to deal with, touch on it lightly, and then get on with the story.

---

Except that I can think of circumstances under which any one of those activities could be an actual important part of the plot which could not just be skipped.

And a talented writer could think of better circumstances.
 

---

Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
 
Tatiana - People don't think of Beloved as a 'Fantasy' at all. I was just saying that by our esteemed host's (and others who have tried to define the genres) guidlines, it could fit.
 

---

Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
 
I certainly think of Beloved as fantasy. Like you said, it's a ghost story. That sounds fantastical to me.
 

---

Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
 
I agree that it fits. I think 'magical realism' is what the elite like to call it when they want to make sure we understand that they don't read that genre trash.
 

---