From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: SF or FF (Future Fantasy)?
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:57:45 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@pmax1.cis.pitt.edu

In article <13803@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>The problem is agreeing on terminology.  Does a romance novel become science
>fiction if you have the heroine drive off in a fusion-powered car?  Does an
>adventure novel become SF if you replace the hero's cutlass with a "light
>saber"?  Does a "spaghetti western" become a "Science Fiction Adventure" movie
>if you replace the revolvers with blasters?

	None of the above, ALONE, would qualify as true SF. The first would
be a futuristic romance. The second and third would probably be space opera.

>"Hard SF" and "soft SF" are too vague to be really useful.  Does anyone know of
>any better terms, or have some terms to propose?  Should Star Wars be listed as
>"Future Fantasy"?

	Star Wars fits squarely into the genre known as Space Opera --
and that is neither SF nor Fantasy, but on the borderline, where the
major point is a clash of good and evil of titanic proportions, the
good guys are GOOD, the bad guys are EEEEEVIL, and lone heroes can save
the universe by their dedication and courage, while the technology is
handwaving and there are also mystical elements often introduced. The
older examples are things like Doc Smith's LENSMAN series, a newer
example would be the Hobart Floyt/Alacrity Fitzhugh series by Daley.

	HARD SF can have varying definitions, but it requires that all
technology in it have a strong basis in know mechanics. OFTEN, but not
always, the technology in hard SF is the real star, overbearing the
characters. Hard SF of the strongest sort is generally embodied by
writers such as Sheffield and Forward.

	MEDIUM SF tries, mostly, to keep the technology either confined to
things on the fringest of known theory but rigorously thought out, or
to postulate only one or two REALLY far out things and work out their
effects on society and so on for the purposes of the story. You tend to
find more characters here, although the technological wizardry can still
easily take over. Most of Heinlein, much of Asimov, and lots of Niven
can fill this slot, as can a good deal of the modern SF (Ender's Game).

	SOFT SF either concentrates on the softer sciences, where
little is known and thus much can be assumed, or does lots of handwaving
to assume many different effects/inventions, but still works out the
effects on society and people of the new additions. Much of this sort 
concentrates on characters, with the SF elements a necessary background
but not central. SOME stories of this sort can, of course, still be 
overwhelmed by a gadget or effect. It is HERE that one finds the border
between SF and Fantasy, with Space Opera hovering in the cracks there.

>Does anyone feel that this is too rigid or limiting a definition of SF?

	VERY. Go ask that question on Rec.arts.sf.written.

	Remember also that the abbreviation SF, these days, is often used
not to mean SCIENCE fiction, but SPECULATIVE fiction.

	See above for my own definitions.

  Would
>Battletech gamers get upset if their game became labeled "Future Fantasy"
>instead of SF? 

	I dunno. Personally I put them either in the Soft-Medium SF border
or into Space Opera, depending on the kind of universe.

 Would editors, reviewers and librarians be able to agree on a
>particular book being SF or FF?  :)

	NOT   A   CHANCE   IN   HADES.


	They can't even agree on what's Fantasy and what's SF NOW.


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;