COMMENT: AUTHOR: Jill Williamson DATE: 11/23/2008 7:19:42 AM Yay Christian fantasy!
Book of Names is on my to-read list. I’m excited to hear about Stephen Lawhead, too.
Cool. Cool. Cool.
Jill

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: Robert Treskillard DATE: 11/23/2008 1:26:40 PM Thanks, Becky, for taking the nugget I found and and putting it together with all the other cool stuff going on. This is all great news!

Also, I put the link to my blog in this comment, so if you click my name, you’ll drop over to the announcement. I tried to use the link to the direct post, but it wouldn’t take it. HTML!!

-Robert

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: Rebecca LuElla Miller DATE: 11/24/2008 9:43:15 PM Thanks, Robert. I don’t know what’s up with GoDaddy.

I was so happy to hear about Lawhead’s series because I think high fantasy has been receiving some snubs, especially the Christian variety.

Jill, you’ll have to do a guest blog here sometime and tell everyone about your book.

Becky

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: stevent DATE: 11/25/2008 6:55:19 PM I hope to see a continued rise in the genre of Christian fantasy. This is a positive trend, and let’s hope it grows. I’m not sure how many people realize Stephen Lawhead is a Christian writer. I didn’t find that out until a couple of years ago. Exciting to see he’s putting out a new series.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: Rebecca LuElla Miller DATE: 11/26/2008 9:50:09 PM Steve, thanks for your comment. It always is a pleasant surprise to discover that an author we’ve enjoyed is a believer. Lawhead writes the way I think Christians should. He doesn’t announce his faith but infuses his story with it. To be honest, I think that approach is necessary if a work is to have a literary impact in society.

Sure, some books are written to and for Christians as a way to strengthen and encourage us in our walk, but another whole category of Christian fiction is that which does what Tolkien did.

Becky

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: Brandon Barr DATE: 11/29/2008 4:54:25 PM I agree, Tolkien set the standard.

This was great post above…that’s good news about Lawheads book deal. It’s amazing how long it can take a book to come out though 🙂

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: DB Ellis DATE: 11/29/2008 5:31:48 PM Hi, I thought you might be interested in a recent post at the blog THE WORLD IN THE SATIN BAG:

http://wisb.blogspot.com/2008/11/werewolves-and-misconceptions-about.html

In it the blogger argues that genuinely supernatural entities cannot appear in a science fiction story—if they do, its fantasy, not SF.

In the comments section I’ve had a long and interesting discussion disagreeing with him and pointing out that this excludes the possibility of christian (or other religious) SF and that it, in essence, makes “genuine” SF hostile to religion.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: SMD DATE: 11/30/2008 10:56:29 PM I don’t know where you got that from. I never said that religion can’t be in SF or that SF is hostile towards religion. Plenty of great science fiction novels have had religion be a part of it, both negatively and positively.

Thanks for the link though.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: DB Ellis DATE: 11/30/2008 11:46:43 PM
I don’t know where you got that from. I never said that religion can’t be in SF or that SF is hostile towards religion.

I didn’t say you claimed religion can’t be in science fiction (in the sense that people who believe in religion appear in SF, of course they do, the very idea that they couldn’t is absurd).

I said you claimed that science fiction can’t depict the supernatural things (like angels) that religions believe in as actual realities—that if they do they are fantasy (or, at best, after further discussion, science fantasy—which I think most religious SF fans would find no better).

You specifically relegated OUT OF THE SILENT PLANET to, at best, science fantasy, because it depicts angels as real and assumes christianity to be true.

In other words, you have, throughout our discussion, assumed that a story which contradicts a naturalistic worldview is disqualified as science fiction.

And no, you didn’t say SF is hostile to religion. That was my term for your position based on the SF Signal article on that specific question (link below, for anyone interested):

http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/006457.html

I mean in saying that your definition of SF is hostile to religion that it rejects the idea that a story that contradicts a naturalistic worldview can be legitimately called SF—not that you have a personal animosity to religion. I can call your definition of SF antithetical to religion if you dislike the overtones of referring to it as hostile to religion—which I can understand—it can be taken as implying more than I meant.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: SMD DATE: 12/1/2008 12:06:15 AM “You specifically relegated OUT OF THE SILENT PLANET to, at best, science fantasy, because it depicts angels as real and assumes christianity to be true.”

No, I said based on the information you provided I was considering it at best to be science fantasy, but that to take my judgment as my final judgment would be improper because I hadn’t read the book. This would be like me asking you to tell me if a book is good based on my description. If you haven’t read that book, how can you make an accurate judgment on its quality/goodness?

“In other words, you have, throughout our discussion, assumed that a story which contradicts a naturalistic worldview is disqualified as science fiction.”

With rare exception, yes. To open the door too far would basically make the category pointless. If that’s what we want to do, then okay (I’m against that, but so be it), but if we’re to maintain a loose separation between fantasy and science fiction there have to be some ground rules. There’s a very specific reason why SF was called SF in the first place, and that reason is just as important today as it was then.

And thank you for clarifying the “hostile to religion” bit.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: Rebecca LuElla Miller DATE: 12/1/2008 8:58:44 PM Interesting discussion. I wonder what Austin Boyd’s Mars Classified books would be considered then, because he definitely is writing a story predicated by the science, but his characters are Christians and consequently believe in supernatural involvement in their world.

I wonder, though, if the dividing line might be that supernatural beings don’t take on a presence other than what is common in our contemporary world.

I tend to believe in a third category—supernatural suspense. Miles Owens wrote Daughter of Prophecy which, in my view was not pure fantasy but a supernatural fantasy.

Sharon Hinck’s Sword of Lyric series, however, was traditional fantasy, though overtly religious.

The difference here is that fantasy symbolizes. Supernatural suspense embodies. Is that a fair distinction?

So with science fiction, if the story embodies the supernatural maybe it should be called supernatural science fiction. Hmmm. A whole new sub-genre! 😉

Becky

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: DB Ellis DATE: 12/1/2008 9:51:09 PM
So with science fiction, if the story embodies the supernatural maybe it should be called supernatural science fiction.

That’s precisely the term I used for it in my discussion with SMD at his blog. He preferred to call it science fantasy. But fantasy implies the author considers the supernatural entities to be imaginary—something that doesn’t apply to christian SF authors like CS Lewis writing about, for example, a human explorer’s encounter with an archangel on a Mars where the Fall had not occurred.

I wonder what Austin Boyd’s Mars Classified books would be considered then, because he definitely is writing a story predicated by the science, but his characters are Christians and consequently believe in supernatural involvement in their world.

SMD’s definition of science fiction doesn’t exclude the depiction of people who believe in religion—it excludes, though, that they be demonstrated be correct in their supernatural beliefs (no actually supernatural entities get to show up in the story). His definition assumes a naturalistic worldview be correct (or, at least, never proven to be wrong in the course of the story)—not that the characters in that universe hold a naturalistic worldview themselves.

There was a bit of confusion on that score. SMD seemed, at first, to take my characterization of his position on SF as assuming a naturalistic worldview to mean that the characters had to hold such a worldview when, in fact, I meant that, by his definition, the SF AUTHOR must assume such a worldview (or at least not contradict such a worldview) in his depiction of how his fictional setting operates.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: SMD DATE: 12/2/2008 6:42:27 PM There are two really big things that I see going on here:

1. The fear to label something that people actually believe in as fantasy.
2. The implication that something that relies entirely upon faith to exist can be presented in the same fashion as something that relies entirely upon empirical evidence.

To the first point: why is there this upset over labeling something believed brought to life in a futuristic landscape as fantasy? Why is there a negative connotation created out of that word when a belief system is brought into play? I don’t see the term as being negative when it’s used to reflect upon a religion. So perhaps someone can explain that to me.

To the second: This is like the argument between Creationism/Intelligent Design and evolution. I won’t get into that argument except to point out the one overriding issues of it. One theory relies upon the belief in a supernatural being while the other relies upon physical evidence and scientific inquiry. There’s no reason why they can’t both exist, but one must remain firmly in the world of science, while the other belongs to the religious. God cannot be proven. That’s part of what makes religion so powerful for people–the belief and faith that something exists without proof.
Science fiction is much the same. The word “science” is in the term. And it’s important. Even early science fiction writers were throwing out new technologies and ideas (most of them were wrong, but a few have actually shaped science as we know it today).
With that in mind, perhaps what we need is a category that encompasses futuristic and supernatural fiction. Perhaps just labeling such things as speculative fiction, giving it no root within fantasy or science fiction, would be appropriate. Or calling it supernatural futuristic fiction…or something.
The more we argue about this the more I find myself resisting the notion of the supernatural as being supernatural being placed within the context of science fiction.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: Rebecca LuElla Miller DATE: 12/2/2008 8:54:50 PM SMD, your conclusion surprises me. I see no reason, given what you said at the beginning of your last comment, why supernatural and science cannot both be in the same story. After all, as you say, one is based on theories rooted in empirical evidence and the other in the philosophical. The two are not trying to do the same things, so what’s to say the two can’t co-exist within the same story?

As to the use of “fantasy” in the term, that has a specific literary connotation. Fantasy implies that which we experience in the story does not, cannot, will not exist. It is imagined, pretend, made up in the mind of the author without grounding in truth. There are no hobbits or talking rabbits or wardrobes into other worlds. There are no wizard schools arrived at by running through a brick column to platform 9 1/2.

To suggest that a story about supernatural events set within a science fiction must be called a fantasy is to miss the point. An author can speculate on the what if of science and at the same time the what if in the supernatural. The marriage of the two ought to create a fresh, unique story.

You also said: God cannot be proven. That’s part of what makes religion so powerful for people–the belief and faith that something exists without proof. Two things here. First, God cannot be disproved either. To say that you (or anyone) know there is no such being as an infinite, omniscient, eternal, pre-existent creator implies that you (or whoever) have all knowledge about that which occurs beyond time.

The second point is that those of us who believe in God do not believe absent of evidence. Granted, it is not the kind of scientific proof that a rationalist wants, but there is a preponderance of evidence that is hard to ignore. This is why many people who began as atheists have come to believe in God.

Becky

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: DB Ellis DATE: 12/2/2008 9:12:11 PM
The fear to label something that people actually believe in as fantasy.

I’m not trying to be polite to religious people. I think their supernatural beliefs are unfounded and irrational and don’t hesitate to say so. I just think supernaturalist science fiction and christian science fiction is the most sensible label for novels like OUT OF THE SILENT PLANET.

Science fantasy certainly doesn’t work. There’s a big difference in authorial intent in a work of fantasy fiction and a work of explicitly supernatural religious fiction (whatever the genre) and I think that intent needs to be reflected in the terms we use for them.

The implication that something that relies entirely upon faith to exist can be presented in the same fashion as something that relies entirely upon empirical evidence.

My approach is simply pragmatic. When a work of fiction has both strong elements of speculative science and strong religious/supernaturalist elements there is just no other label so far proposed that is a good fit.

Why is there a negative connotation created out of that word when a belief system is brought into play?

As stated above, authorial intent is relevent in the definition of a genre of fiction. It makes no sense to stick THE LORD OF THE RINGS and the Bible into the same genre—and that’s what the definition of fantasy you’ve proposeed would do.

I don’t see the term as being negative when it’s used to reflect upon a religion.

My concern isn’t with the term being negative. As a nonreligious person I don’t particularly care if the term is negative or not. I just don’t think its a useful definition.

With that in mind, perhaps what we need is a category that encompasses futuristic and supernatural fiction.

The term christian science fiction has been in use at least since the publication of OUT OF THE SILENT PLANET. I see no need to invent a new word for a work of fiction combining christian supernaturalism with speculative science just because it doesn’t reflect my own naturalistic view on the nature of the world.

And, for a broader term, encompassing other varieties of supernaturalism, supernaturalist SF seems best. I’ve yet to hear a better one.

If you suggest one I might change my mind but science fantasy I don’t consider adequate (for reasons outlined above).

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: SMD DATE: 12/2/2008 9:16:00 PM I didn’t say that they can’t exist in the same story. You can’t have the two exist in the same story and call it science fiction. Putting them together removes them from the science fiction category unless there is some sort of “science” basis for those supernatural elements (i.e. the naturalistic view of it, or some such).
Science fiction isn’t about the what if of the unprovable. The word science removes the component of the unprovable from the equation. Science fiction may be wrong, at some future point when we find out that the extrapolations of the author were generally incorrect or based on faulty knowledge or a number of factors (such as technology going in a different direction than the author speculated).
I didn’t say they must be called fantasy either. I suggested in that post just above that you could give it another term. I simply stated that I didn’t understand the aversion to the term “fantasy” for religious people. I don’t see it as inherently negative.

“Two things here. First, God cannot be disproved either. To say that you (or anyone) know there is no such being as an infinite, omniscient, eternal, pre-existent creator implies that you (or whoever) have all knowledge about that which occurs beyond time.”

God’s disprovability is precisely why he/she/it is removed from scientific inquiry and placed firmly within faith/belief/religion/etc. Something that is neither provable or improvable is not something that can be accounted for by science. Science deals in proofs and negations. Science deals in what we actually know based on what we see and understand of the world around us (observation, experimentation, etc.). God is based on an entirely different understanding of the world, less based in the improvements and advancements of human knowledge and science, and more based in the human necessity and desire for belief in something that provides meaning to the nature of life. The two are separate in how they are dealt with for this very reason.

“The second point is that those of us who believe in God do not believe absent of evidence. Granted, it is not the kind of scientific proof that a rationalist wants, but there is a preponderance of evidence that is hard to ignore. This is why many people who began as atheists have come to believe in God.”

It works both ways as well. People who were believers turn into atheists. This is less about who is right than the complexities of the human mind and how humans apply and assimilate knowledge and understanding. But when we’re talking about something rooted in science and something rooted in faith, we’re not talking about the same things. Science fiction is something rooted in science. So, for supernatural fictions to be accounted for in futuristic settings it needs its own category (or placement in fantasy, whichever works best).

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: DB Ellis DATE: 12/2/2008 9:21:24 PM
Granted, it is not the kind of scientific proof that a rationalist wants, but there is a preponderance of evidence that is hard to ignore. This is why many people who began as atheists have come to believe in God.

I’d be willing to bet that vastly more people go from belief in God to nonbelief (as I did) than the other way around. It would be interesting to look into the statistics on the issue (and whether there ARE any solid statistical evidence on that question).

But that’s another discussion.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: SMD DATE: 12/2/2008 9:23:21 PM “I think that intent needs to be reflected in the terms we use for them.”

But where are the limits of authorial intent? If the author intends to write a fantasy with absolutely no fantasy elemtns, does that mean we have to automatically assume the work is fantasy? Or vice versa? I think the problem is we’re granting too much authority to the author and not enough authority to the reader. The author is almost entirely useless once a work is read by a third party. What the author intended isn’t necessarily what a reader will pick up. And these labels (science fiction, fantasy, etc.) are created almost exclusively for readers, not authors. The problem here is we have a lot of readers of varying positions arguing about how those labels should be used, when in reality our opinions don’t really matter either, because we don’t comprise a majority or a minority or anything for that matter.

“My approach is simply pragmatic. When a work of fiction has both strong elements of speculative science and strong religious/supernaturalist elements there is just no other label so far proposed that is a good fit.”

Agreed, and “Christian Science Fiction” or “Supernatural Science Fiction” are equally poor fits for what we’re talking about.

”
As stated above, authorial intent is relevent in the definition of a genre of fiction. It makes no sense to stick THE LORD OF THE RINGS and the Bible into the same genre—and that’s what the definition of fantasy you’ve proposeed would do.”

The problem with that analogy is that the Bible is not considered a fiction text, but a religious text. LOTR is considered a fiction text and there has never been any argument over that.

“And, for a broader term, encompassing other varieties of supernaturalism, supernaturalist SF seems best. I’ve yet to hear a better one.”

And that term, unfortunately, contradicts itself in much the same way that “science fantasy” does. It would be like saying “true fiction.”

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: SMD DATE: 12/2/2008 9:27:50 PM “Granted, it is not the kind of scientific proof that a rationalist wants, but there is a preponderance of evidence that is hard to ignore. This is why many people who began as atheists have come to believe in God.”

I think this drastically differs based on locale. People in Europe are far more likely to reject religious thought or grow up without it than people in the United States. That’s primarily because while the United States has been actively enhancing and expanding its religious influence, European nations have been taking steps in the opposite direction to allow for a more secular and generally more “accepting” (entirely depending on your perspective on this) world. This has benefits and problems, obviously. Probably the biggest problem is Europe’s difficulty with addressing foreign ideologies, which has led to a lot of violence amongst strict Muslim groups and extremists. The benefit, however, is that more viewpoints are generally allowed and people aren’t left out of the equation, in general, if they happen to believe (or not believe) in something different.

But, I guess perhaps I shouldn’t babble about this :P.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: DB Ellis DATE: 12/2/2008 9:37:15 PM
Science fiction isn’t about the what if of the unprovable.

God, angels, werewolves, vampires and other supernatural entities are not, in principle, unproveable. After all, what OUT OF THE SILENT PLANET is all about is a man encountering hard empirical evidence for the existence of angels while visiting another planet whose inhabitants did not experience the Fall. If such a thing actually happened it would constitute empirical evidence of the truth of Christianity. A thing cannot be legitimately called inherently unproveable when one can describe empirical observations that would serve to verify it.

Of course, if you and I are right in there being no such thing as the supernatural it will be effectively impossible to prove they DON’T exist.

But that’s true of nearly all nonexistent things, supernatural or not.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: SMD DATE: 12/2/2008 9:43:51 PM Well, firstly, I’m not an atheist :P. I’m agnostic and do believe there are unexplained, unimaginable strange things about this world. I just don’t believe in a specific religious ideal. I simply think that in the end, when I’m dead, it’s not going to matter if I was Christian, Muslim, Agnostic, Atheist, Buddhist, or whatever, because what matters for me is trying to lead a good life and not hurt people if at all possible.

The problem I have with your description of “Out of the Silent Planet” is that it, again, relies on belief, not on speculations on science. It sounds more and more like a fantasy to me than a science fiction story.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: DB Ellis DATE: 12/2/2008 10:18:49 PM I don’t think I ever referred to you as an atheist (though Rebecca may have used that term, I don’t recall). I said you have a naturalistic worldview (which is to say you aren’t a believer in the supernatural).

The problem I have with your description of “Out of the Silent Planet” is that it, again, relies on belief, not on speculations on science.

It involves, in equal measure, speculations on future technological advances (particularly in space travel), on the scientific question of whether Mars was inhabited (still an open question at the time the book was written) and speculations on metaphysics (in particular, the discovery of empirical evidence for angels and christian supernaturalism).

And that term (supernaturalist SF), unfortunately, contradicts itself in much the same way that “science fantasy” does.

It contradicts your narrow definition of SF as involving speculative science but not the supernatural.

It does not contradict my definition—a story involving speculative science.

Ultimately, of course, there is no strictly “correct” answer to the question “what is SF”. It is, after all, simply a term people invented and use in the ways they find most practical.

I’m not arguing for a “correct” usage of the term science fiction but an explanation of the usage I consider most useful and why.

I don’t consider anyone else obligated to agree.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: DB Ellis DATE: 12/2/2008 10:25:54 PM
The problem with that analogy is that the Bible is not considered a fiction text, but a religious text. LOTR is considered a fiction text and there has never been any argument over that.

Valid point, the intent of the author’s of Bible was to write what they believed to be historical reality—not fiction.

So instead let’s use LOTR and the example you gave of the LEFT BEHIND series. The latter is a work of fiction which the author’s believe to plausibly describe future events. By your definition its fantasy but I don’t think its useful to use a definition that puts LOTR and LEFT BEHIND into the same genre. It seems far more sensible to me to use the term fantasy fiction for the first and supernatural/religious fiction (or something similar) for the second.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: SMD DATE: 12/2/2008 11:59:56 PM “I don’t think I ever referred to you as an atheist”

Oh, no, I was just clarifying the point that I actually do believe in the supernatural, whereas you said you didn’t.

“speculations on metaphysics (in particular, the discovery of empirical evidence for angels and christian supernaturalism).”

This last part, unfortunately, is what removes it from being a true science fiction tale. There’s no scientific basis for angels or Christian supernaturalism. That’s rooted almost exclusively within belief and Biblical textual evidence. While there’s no problem with that, you can’t say that the Bible is a scientific text, because it’s not, nor is seeing angels an example of a scientific experiment. That’s my problem with that example. It presumes a scientific basis for something that has no scientific basis. It doesn’t fit within the framework of science fiction. Those other elements do, but not the exposure of the truth of supernaturalism and Christian faith. If it’s truly trying to make the connection between the angels the character has found and the Bible, then it’s not a connection founded on scientific principle, but on a faith principle. It would be like writing a story about people who pray for things and have them happen and calling that science fiction just because they’re on Mars. But this is all based entirely upon what information you have provided me. If I have time at some point I will make a note to read Lewis’ SF work, since I do own the trilogy you’re speaking of. Then I might be able to make a better judgment.

“It contradicts your narrow definition of SF as involving speculative science but not the supernatural.”

When you deconstruct the term “science fiction” you find that it doesn’t lend itself to the supernatural in the way you want it to. At the very heart of science fiction is the basic truth of its interpretation: science and fiction put together.

“So instead let’s use LOTR and the example you gave of the LEFT BEHIND series. The latter is a work of fiction which the author’s believe to plausibly describe future events. By your definition its fantasy but I don’t think its useful to use a definition that puts LOTR and LEFT BEHIND into the same genre. It seems far more sensible to me to use the term fantasy fiction for the first and supernatural/religious fiction (or something similar) for the second.”

I don’t mind making a distinction between fantasy and religious fiction. Add a new category if you must. I just have a problem with saying that a story where God comes down and visits people on a spaceship is science fiction. There’s far more to science fiction than its tropes.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: DB Ellis DATE: 12/3/2008 12:40:48 AM
There’s no scientific basis for angels or Christian supernaturalism.

We have no current evidence for any of those things—that’s why its called speculative.

The same goes for aliens, FTL, and a lot of other things SF deals with. I seem no reason to exclude speculations on metaphysics from SF.

….I was just clarifying the point that I actually do believe in the supernatural…..

And when you say you believe in the supernatural are you still using your very broad definition of the supernatural as whatever is currently unknown? Its something you should specify since anyone reading that sentence and not knowing your rather nonstandard definition of the term will likely misunderstand what you mean.

If I have time at some point I will make a note to read Lewis’ SF work, since I do own the trilogy you’re speaking of. Then I might be able to make a better judgment.

Don’t expect too much. The first book was decent but far from impressive. Rather thin characterization (especially the nonbelievers—something I find a lot of in christian fiction). Lewis’s knowledge of science seemed pretty slim. Fairly interesting aliens though.

I couldn’t even get halfway through the second book.

Those other elements do, but not the exposure of the truth of supernaturalism and Christian faith. If it’s truly trying to make the connection between the angels the character has found and the Bible, then it’s not a connection founded on scientific principle, but on a faith principle.

If an archangel appears and states that the basic doctrines of christianity are true and this is further confirmed by your empirical observations of any unFallen alien species the view in question is not simply an unfounded article of blind faith.

Though Lewis does take at least one liberty with conventional christian theology. In the story every inhabited planet is governed by an archangel. Earth’s archangel was Lucifer—who rebelled against God and tempted humanity into the Fall.

When you deconstruct the term “science fiction” you find that it doesn’t lend itself to the supernatural in the way you want it to. At the very heart of science fiction is the basic truth of its interpretation: science and fiction put together.

Science and the supernatural are not, as you seem to assume, intrinsically incompatible. If the supernatural (in the conventional sense of the term) were to exist (something I consider incredibly unlikely), this doesn’t make science any less a reality.

Science and supernaturalism and fiction put together equals supernaturalist SF.

The supernatural is not like some kind of metaphysical antimatter that negates science.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: DB Ellis DATE: 12/3/2008 12:42:12 AM Why is everything suddenly appearing in bold?

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: SMD DATE: 12/3/2008 12:57:44 AM “The same goes for aliens, FTL, and a lot of other things SF deals with. I seem no reason to exclude speculations on metaphysics from SF.”

Right, but speculations on aliens, FTL, and other SF tropes are based on the scientific knowledge of the time. Today we’re actually finding a lot of bizarre things in the universe, which will in turn affect how aliens are created.
Metaphysics/supernatural, however, are not operate via the laws and practices of science.

“And when you say you believe in the supernatural are you still using your very broad definition of the supernatural as whatever is currently unknown? Its something you should specify since anyone reading that sentence and not knowing your rather nonstandard definition of the term will likely misunderstand what you mean.”

By supernatural I mean things that happens that cannot be explained at this current moment, whether they be ghosts or one of my dinner plates randomly explodes for absolutely no logical reason. So yes, my broad definition.

“If an archangel appears and states that the basic doctrines of christianity are true and this is further confirmed by your empirical observations of any unFallen alien species the view in question is not simply an unfounded article of blind faith.”

If that happens in REAL life, then we have no argument, but because science fiction speculates upon the future through the view of science, or with the aid of science, it doesn’t leave the genre open to speculations on the truth of the supernatural. The genre is not about who is right or wrong, it’s about how and what we have in our knowledge bank (science, technology, etc.) influences and affects the future, whether that be a distint future where mankind has colonized the stars, or a near future where genetic manipulation is common place.

“Science and the supernatural are not, as you seem to assume, intrinsically incompatible. If the supernatural (in the conventional sense of the term) were to exist (something I consider incredibly unlikely), this doesn’t make science any less a reality.”

Except they are, otherwise we would have legit studies of the supernatural that attempts to look at those things as if they are real. What we have are studies that seek to discount supernatural principles, and in a lot of cases science does just that.

“The supernatural is not like some kind of metaphysical antimatter that negates science.”

Technically, it is. Because the supernatural implies that science cannot explain it because it lies outside of natural law. To write a story that assumes that the supernatural is true is not at all the same or compatible with a story that assumes science is true and will be advanced in the future. They are stepping in opposite directions much in the same way that fantasy and SF step in opposite directions.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: SMD DATE: 12/3/2008 12:59:24 AM “Why is everything suddenly appearing in bold?”

The bogey man did it. 😛

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: DB Ellis DATE: 12/3/2008 1:29:50 AM “Because the supernatural implies that science cannot explain it because it lies outside of natural law.”

A common error made by many fellow naturalists—confusing scientific with naturalistic as if they meant the same thing. They don’t.

Let’s take, as an example, a scenario described by a an excellent vampire novel I read not long again—13 BULLETS by David Wellington.

They are fairly typical supernatural vampires (with a few deviations from the Dracula prototype which make them interesting but aren’t relevent to the discussion).

Scientists have a captured vampire. For decades they have studied it and have, through experiment and empirical observation, discovered many things about the way this supernatural entity works.

If the supernatural existed in any way we could make observations of science could be applied to it just as much as any other phenomena.

Science doesn’t simply because it has found no such phenomena. Probably because the supernatural doesn’t exist.

But we could be wrong.

Of course, then why not call 13 BULLETS science fiction?

Because we’re all pretty convinced vampires are imaginary. There is neither an authorial intent to speculate on a serious possibility nor an audience expectation that the story describes anything that could conceivably happen in the real world. And there is no speculation on scientific matters author or general readership take to be actual possibilities.

So its fantasy rather than SF.

At least that’s my reason for classifying it under that label.

Other than the tropes themselves—which I take to be more relevent to our characterization than SMD seems to—though far from the only criteria.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: SMD DATE: 12/3/2008 1:51:01 AM Again, another book I haven’t read. This time I won’t both making a judgment :P.

“A common error made by many fellow naturalists—confusing scientific with naturalistic as if they meant the same thing. They don’t.”

Science seeks to explain the natural laws of the universe. And it is through science that we have come to know and understand the natural processes on this planet.

“Because we’re all pretty convinced vampires are imaginary. There is neither an authorial intent to speculate on a serious possibility nor an audience expectation that the story describes anything that could conceivably happen in the real world. And there is no speculation on scientific matters author or general readership take to be actual possibilities.

So its fantasy rather than SF.

At least that’s my reason for classifying it under that label.”

You put far too much power in the hands of people trying to interpret what it is the author is trying to do. Too many people claim that Tolkein was writing allegory, but he refuted that claim numerous times. Authorial intent is a purely imaginary and pointless criterian for reflecting upon literature, because how individuals receive a book when they read it is not contingent on what the author intended to do. We see this all the time: an author intends for one thing, but people react in a different way. So, for all intensive purposes, to use the author to establish genre is wholly insufficient.

And, the problem here is that you’re assuming that speculation and scientific inquiry are the same thing, when they aren’t. They may share certain principles, but scientific inquiry, which is the root of science fiction, does more than simply speculate on a idea or concept.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: Robert Treskillard DATE: 12/3/2008 2:31:00 AM I haven’t had time to read the voluminous comments here, but I’ve followed it enough to drop my 2 cents in.

To me, if God exists, then God is the ultimate reality, the author of science, and the reason I have the hope of discovering laws and order in the universe. God is the very reason the scientific method works.

To me, to say that “Science Fiction” should not have supernatural (unexplainable) elements in it (and be so called) is to pretend we know or can know everything.

To me, the word “Fiction” gives free reign to the author to include what they want to include, be that spiritual, supernatural, etc.

And I do like the “intent of the author” argument. What does the author intend the book to be? If the publisher agrees, then that’s how it will be shelved. If it doesn’t sell in that spot of the bookstore, then everyone will learn to get it right.

Anyway, in my local Borders, Sci-Fi and Fantasy are both shelved together under “Science Fiction” … if the bookstore doesn’t care, why are we arguing this fine point?

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: Robert Treskillard DATE: 12/3/2008 2:33:05 AM Oh, and here,

let me turn off the bold….

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: Robert Treskillard DATE: 12/3/2008 2:34:24 AM One more try…

Hopefully that worked.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: SMD DATE: 12/3/2008 2:41:35 AM If the word “fiction” gives free reign to the author to do whatever they want, then the modifier “science” doesn’t belong at all. The reason that modifier is there is to classify a very specific group of texts. If fiction means anything to you, then all modifiers must be equally as meaningless as you are suggesting the “science” in SF is. Then you would, by default, suggest that no modifiers be given at all and that all works just be known as “fiction.”

The point of all of this is that there is a separation between science and religion. They can co-exist, but, again, your belief in God is not predicated on a scientific principle. Belief is, to the individual, infallible so long as belief is there, and is part of what makes God infallible. God is absolute, but science is not. Science is a shifting, changing mass of information based not on an understanding of God or belief or religion, but on how humans and only humans interpret knowledge. God may, in your view, have a hand in this interpretation, but that again relies on belief, not on a tangible entity.

The problem with the “intent of the author” argument is that publishers rarely agree with the author at all. Authorial intent is literally useless and valueless. If publishers, by and large, cared about what the author thought or intended to do, then we would see books labeled differently with far different covers than we currently get.

The reason bookstores such as Borders tend to lump the two together is because:
a) They or they’re employees don’t know enough about the genre to be able to make appropriate distinctions between either, so placing them in the same location is easier, since nobody would really argue about which books fit under “speculative fiction.”
b) Lack of space and limited selection.
c) Some other reason that is beyond me, likely produced from a part of the human brain that lacks intelligent thought.
d) The publishers are responsible primarily because they don’t care too much about the distinction in a bookstore as on the cover or in the description. Science fiction doesn’t sell as well as fantasy, so sticking them together can help improve sales.

Publishers are crazy beasts.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: DB Ellis DATE: 12/3/2008 3:18:23 AM “Science seeks to explain the natural laws of the universe. ”

Science is capable of seeking to explain and understand anything we can make observations about. There is no necessity to insert a metaphysical assumption (that naturalism is true) into the definition of science. We have, throughout the history of science, found no reason to think supernaturalism true and frequently found naturalistic explanation for phenomena mistakenly thought to be supernatural.

So the mistake is understandable—but its a mistake none the less.

“You put far too much power in the hands of people trying to interpret what it is the author is trying to do.”

Actually, I see the primary criteria as the authorial intent.

Readership is really a criteria, to my mind, only in the sense that the author usually understands the views of his expected audience.

“Authorial intent is a purely imaginary and pointless criterian for reflecting upon literature, because how individuals receive a book when they read it is not contingent on what the author intended to do.”

That readers may misunderstand an author’s intent is irrelevent in my opinion.

Remember here that I am talking about definitions being useful and explaining in what sense I find them useful. Authorial intent seems a relevent issue to me regarding the categorization of a work which they are, after all, the creator of.

Remember that I am not claiming there is a “correct” definition. My criticism of your definitions lies not in finding them incorrect but in finding them to be less generally useful.

And, of course, reasonable people can disagree about what is or isn’t useful in regard to what are the best definitions of SF and fantasy.

“And, the problem here is that you’re assuming that speculation and scientific inquiry are the same thing, when they aren’t.”

I am assuming nothing of the sort. I’m simply pointing out that metaphysical speculations are not incompatible nor contrary to scientific speculations. Though they can, frequently, be wilder.

One thing I think bears further discussion. In your original blog post you stated that SF dealt with the possible and fantasy with the impossible.

In saying SF that includes speculation on the truth of religious ideas (like angels, reincarnation, God, demons, etc) should be called fantasy you seem to be claiming such things lie in the realm of the impossible.

A strange thing to do for one who calls himself an agnostic.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: SMD DATE: 12/3/2008 4:29:25 AM I was working earlier. I don’t know what happened though.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: SMD DATE: 12/3/2008 4:39:14 AM “Science is capable of seeking to explain and understand anything we can make observations about. There is no necessity to insert a metaphysical assumption (that naturalism is true) into the definition of science. We have, throughout the history of science, found no reason to think supernaturalism true and frequently found naturalistic explanation for phenomena mistakenly thought to be supernatural.”

Which is exactly what I have said before. So, no mistake was made. You just said it yourself: our history in science has allowed for no presumption of truth in the supernatural. If that’s the case, then what I’ve been saying has been correct and we’re not disagreeing.

“Science is capable of seeking to explain and understand anything we can make observations about.”

Yes, and since there are things in this world that we cannot observe or test, those things are not accounted for in science and are separate from it.

“Remember that I am not claiming there is a “correct” definition. My criticism of your definitions lies not in finding them incorrect but in finding them to be less generally useful.”

This is the problem, though. Science fiction is not a “general” category. Fiction is a general category (or non-fiction is). The reason for the existence of categories is to isolate and make easier for the buyer to find what it is they want. If you want a mystery, you go to a section labeled “mystery” where you will find, presumably, nothing but mystery books. And there are set parameters for what constitutes a mystery, I imagine.
Science fiction likewise, lacks use as a general category because it is already a subgenre of a subgenre. It’s doubly non-generalized because of that.

“I am assuming nothing of the sort. I’m simply pointing out that metaphysical speculations are not incompatible nor contrary to scientific speculations. Though they can, frequently, be wilder.”

Which sort of contradicts what you said earlier in this same response regarding no assumption of truth to the supernatural.

”
In saying SF that includes speculation on the truth of religious ideas (like angels, reincarnation, God, demons, etc) should be called fantasy you seem to be claiming such things lie in the realm of the impossible.

A strange thing to do for one who calls himself an agnostic.”

Not really all that strange. My beliefs are based on the negation of an improper assumption that everything can be explained in the universe. So, like the people hundreds of years ago, I am more than willing to admit something is supernatural provided I can at least see it or have some proof of its existence. I don’t believe in God or Allah or anything of that sort because I don’t see the markers of that beings’ existence. What I do see are traces in the universe that defy what we understand, and those are the markers I see as examples of something that is beyond human. I don’t know if it’s simply an energy source, or something more, but it’s something I believe is there.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: SMD DATE: 12/3/2008 4:46:30 AM “Actually, I see the primary criteria as the authorial intent.

Readership is really a criteria, to my mind, only in the sense that the author usually understands the views of his expected audience.

That readers may misunderstand an author’s intent is irrelevent in my opinion.”

Right but authorship is not determined by the author. It’s determined by the reader. Almost all forms of literary interpretation are determined by the reader rather than the author. What the author actually intends to do is not determined by the author, but by readers, as a direct result of that. People are not generally conscious of the author’s actual intent, hence why there are constant “misinterpretations” of authorial intent by readers/critics/scholars. We read into a novel what we want to read into it in a lot of ways.

And whatever the author meant to do with the novel they wrote in our modern society is literally irrelevant because the author does not choose those determining characteristics that embody their work in the printed form (with rare exception).

“One thing I think bears further discussion. In your original blog post you stated that SF dealt with the possible and fantasy with the impossible.”

I also left my interpretations of the genre open to exception. Fantasy doesn’t ALWAYS have to be about the impossible. It just almost always is. There are exceptions to every rule, but those exceptions have to be logical ones.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: DB Ellis DATE: 12/3/2008 5:44:36 AM
Which is exactly what I have said before. So, no mistake was made. You just said it yourself: our history in science has allowed for no presumption of truth in the supernatural.

Having no presumption of the truth of the supernatural is a very different thing from having a presumption of the truth of naturalism (and, therefore, of the untruth of supernaturalism).

Yes, and since there are things in this world that we cannot observe or test, those things are not accounted for in science and are separate from it.

I am not referring to the supernatural in your personal sense of the unknown. I’m referring to it as commonly used in the sense of something which is, for want of a better word, magical.

The reason for the existence of categories is to isolate and make easier for the buyer to find what it is they want.

I think its clear they have other purposes than that. I suspect you think so too since if there weren’t there would be little purpose in objecting to calling something supernatural SF—after all, there can be no better term to allow people who want supernaturalism mixed with scientific speculation in fiction to find what they’re after…..and yet you still object to the term.

Which sort of contradicts what you said earlier in this same response regarding no assumption of truth to the supernatural.

I don’t know what you’re referring to in that comment. Could you be more specific?

Which sort of contradicts what you said earlier in this same response regarding no assumption of truth to the supernatural.

Your idiosyncratic definition of the supernatural as the unknowable, while interesting, has nothing to do whether supernaturalism in fiction, as it is commonly used regarding such things as the traditional vampire, werewolves or angel can appear in a work that is legitimately described as science fiction.

To put it more bluntly:

The existence of the “unknowable” doesn’t have an iota of relevence to the question of whether a story with a scientist werewolf (a conventional magical werewolf) making first contact with aliens during an interstellar voyage to a new planet is science fiction or not.

People are not generally conscious of the author’s actual intent, hence why there are constant “misinterpretations” of authorial intent by readers/critics/scholars.

There is little doubt that the intent of the authors of, for example, the LEFT BEHIND books is to portray what the authors consider a plausible depiction of the future. Nor that the intent of David Wellington in 13 BULLETS is to portray things that can’t actually happen in the real world. Whatever differences of interpretation may exist we can usually tell enough to tell that LEFT BEHIND is intended as realist religious literature and 13 BULLETS is intended to be sheer horror fantasy. This is not an issue of subtle interpretive nuances that are open to vastly different interpretat

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: DB Ellis DATE: 12/3/2008 5:55:28 AM
Science fiction likewise, lacks use as a general category because it is already a subgenre of a subgenre.

Science fiction is a subgenre of _______ which is itself a subgenre of ________?

What goes in those blanks?

I use the word science fiction to refer to a genre. Period.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: SMD DATE: 12/4/2008 7:05:54 AM ”

I am not referring to the “supernatural in your personal sense of the unknown. I’m referring to it as commonly used in the sense of something which is, for want of a better word, magical.”

So are you using the traditional definition of supernatural or your own definition?

“What goes in those blanks?”

Science fictin is a subgenre of speculative fiction, which is a subgenre of fiction.

“Your idiosyncratic definition of the supernatural as the unknowable, while interesting, has nothing to do whether supernaturalism in fiction, as it is commonly used regarding such things as the traditional vampire, werewolves or angel can appear in a work that is legitimately described as science fiction.”

If they are described that way then they are intentionally misconstrued, because the supernatural has very little, if anything, to do with science. And since science fiction is a literature of science drawn out to an assume inevitable conclusion, the supernatural has no home.

“The existence of the “unknowable” doesn’t have an iota of relevence to the question of whether a story with a scientist werewolf (a conventional magical werewolf) making first contact with aliens during an interstellar voyage to a new planet is science fiction or not.”

Except it does, because science fiction is not determined entirely by tropes. If that were the case then you could literally do anything you wanted to, throw a spaceship in there and just say “that’s scifi.”

“This is not an issue of subtle interpretive nuances that are open to vastly different interpretation.”

Except it is, since we’re talking about literature, one of the few forms of human thought that seems to almost require vast quantities of varied interpretations on the same thing. Otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about literature much at all.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: Rebecca LuElla Miller DATE: 12/4/2008 10:01:52 PM Wow, this discussion mushroomed and left me far behind. I won’t try to jump in where I left off, but the basic issue still seems unresolved: Is fiction based on an extrapolation of science and also containing supernatural elements actually science fiction?

SMD, I just don’t understand why not. Not long ago, I reviewed a dystopian science fiction. The premise was, genetic engineering had made it possible for one to be born with wings.

But why couldn’t that story have the genetically altered human then encounter an angel, a supernatural being people, down through time, have encountered?

This is not at all the same as a story that would have a basis in science but have the character encounter hobbits or some other fanciful character.

For someone who thinks all supernatural beings are fanciful, I can see why you would think science fantasy works. For those of us who delineate between supernatural beings who are real and ones made up, it’s a big difference.

BTW, I think I was the one who said fantasy has purely imaginative elements. The thing is, fantasy probably tells more truth than any of the other genres. The vehicle is the part that is imaginative.

OK, carry on. Interesting discussion! 😉

Becky

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: DB Ellis DATE: 12/4/2008 10:52:21 PM
Science fictin is a subgenre of speculative fiction, which is a subgenre of fiction.

I think you’re misusing the word a bit. There are genres of fiction but fiction is not itself, a genre. Not in the sense I’ve ever seen the word used.

More interesting to me, though, is your characterization of science fiction as a subgenre of speculative fiction (and, if I recall correctly, you referred to fantasy as a subgenre of speculative fiction as well).

I’ve never used the terms that way. I use the terms speculative fiction as simply another, slightly more pretentious, term for science fiction. I’ve never considered fantasy a subgenre of speculative fiction (that would be, in the sense I use the term, the same as calling fantasy a subgenre of science fiction—precisely the misconception that inspired your article).

So, since you appear to be using the word differently from the way I do, what’s your definition of speculative fiction?

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: SMD DATE: 12/4/2008 11:20:35 PM “I think you’re misusing the word a bit. There are genres of fiction but fiction is not itself, a genre. Not in the sense I’ve ever seen the word used.”

You can change fiction to “prose” if it makes you feel better about it. But then that makes it a subgenre of a subgenre of a subgenre of a genre…so…

“More interesting to me, though, is your characterization of science fiction as a subgenre of speculative fiction (and, if I recall correctly, you referred to fantasy as a subgenre of speculative fiction as well).”

Look it up. It’s pretty common these days.

“I’ve never used the terms that way. I use the terms speculative fiction as simply another, slightly more pretentious, term for science fiction. I’ve never considered fantasy a subgenre of speculative fiction (that would be, in the sense I use the term, the same as calling fantasy a subgenre of science fiction—precisely the misconception that inspired your article).”

Ah, but that’s not what my article was about. Speculating on what is possible and what is impossible are two different things covered under the same word. SpecFic is just the overarching genre the encompasses everything below it.

“So, since you appear to be using the word differently from the way I do, what’s your definition of speculative fiction?”

Again, look it up. I’m surprised you’ve never heard of it. It’s been around for a while now and has been pretty regularly used by genre folks.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: SMD DATE: 12/4/2008 11:23:26 PM “SMD, I just don’t understand why not. Not long ago, I reviewed a dystopian science fiction. The premise was, genetic engineering had made it possible for one to be born with wings.

But why couldn’t that story have the genetically altered human then encounter an angel, a supernatural being people, down through time, have encountered?”

Genetically altered humans meeting people who have grown to be winged beings doesn’t exclude it from being SF. If those beings are actually angels, though, it does. The supernatural is not a part of science fiction precisely because science fiction is the merger of fiction and science, not fiction and the supernatural. As I’ve said before, that darned word “science” is there for a very good reason.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: DB Ellis DATE: 12/4/2008 11:48:57 PM Its not the term fiction that I find problematic. Its referring to fiction as a genre. A genre is, by definition (at least the one I’ve always used) a variety of subject matter for a work of fiction. So fiction is not itself a genre. That would make fiction a variety of fiction. An absurd concept.

But, really, that’s just a minor semantic issue of little importance here and not something I consider worth debating. Science fiction is a form of fiction among many others and can itself be divided into more several categories. The same can be said for most varieties of fiction. That’s the essential idea and not one I dispute.

I’m surprised you’ve never heard of it.

I’ve heard it used that way. I just don’t think its a useful to consider science fiction and fantasy subdivisions (subgenres)within the same genre.

The term is generally thought to have been coined by Heinlein in his essay “On The Writing Of Speculative Fiction” where he uses it, as I do, as just another word for science fiction.

That usage makes more sense to me.

Anyway, its of little importance to me, really, because I’ve never cared for the term speculative fiction anyway.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: SMD DATE: 12/4/2008 11:57:54 PM “Its not the term fiction that I find problematic. Its referring to fiction as a genre. A genre is, by definition (at least the one I’ve always used) a variety of subject matter for a work of fiction. So fiction is not itself a genre. That would make fiction a variety of fiction. An absurd concept.”

Actually, using genre in this way is a new invention. Genre is technically an academic term used to separate artistic forms. You have genres of art and genres of literature. Those genres for lit are prose and poetry.

“Anyway, its of little importance to me, really, because I’ve never cared for the term speculative fiction anyway.”

Then we’re at a standstill. Because I refuse to classify the supernatural as science fiction, and you don’t want to call supernatural stories set in the future something else (whether that be speculative fiction, science fantasy, supernatural futuristic fiction, SuFu fiction, or whatever)…

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: DB Ellis DATE: 12/5/2008 12:57:55 AM We disagree. No problem there.

I’m still curious as to your definition of speculative fiction though.

Judging by your comment:

Speculating on what is possible and what is impossible are two different things covered under the same word.

I would conclude you’re defining speculative fiction as:

The genre of fiction that speculates on either the possible or impossible.

Is that how you’d define it?

If so, it just seems strange—including opposite things within the same genre. I just don’t see what purpose it serves.

Though I suspect I understand the motive. The people who like one more often than not are also fans of the other (so much so that most books mix them together in the same section: fantasy & science fiction). That being the case it may be natural, even if ill-advised, for some people to try to fit them under the same conceptual umbrella. I think its a bad idea though. They’re popular with the same readers, I think, because the serve the same emotional need: transporting the imagination to something far removed from the mundane world of everyday experience.

Despite that, though, they are still essentially opposite forms of story and I don’t think it makes sense to consider them subdivisions of the same genre. Better, I think, to just recognize that two very different genres can serve the same basic need and leave it at that.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: DB Ellis DATE: 12/5/2008 1:02:33 AM I meant to say “bookstores mix them together”.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: SMD DATE: 12/5/2008 1:08:21 AM “Is that how you’d define it?

If so, it just seems strange—including opposite things within the same genre. I just don’t see what purpose it serves.”

That’s how people are defining it. It’s not about what is opposite, it’s about what they have in common: speculation on something. When you break the genre down is when you see differences arise.

“That being the case it may be natural, even if ill-advised, for some people to try to fit them under the same conceptual umbrella. I think its a bad idea though.”

That’s basically what has already happened. Even more so in the literary academia, who make it a habit to properly place things in appropriate categories.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: DB Ellis DATE: 12/5/2008 4:01:52 AM It seems a stretch to call fantasy speculation on something. You don’t need to speculate on what’s purely imaginary….you just imagine it.

You speculate about the future and possible scientific truths not currently know and technological developments we dont now have because we don’t actually know what they are or will be. With fantasy there is no actuality (future or present or anything else) to speculate about. You just make it up however you like.

That’s basically what has already happened. Even more so in the literary academia….

I still haven’t heard a rationale for doing so that I think makes sense.

—–

COMMENT: AUTHOR: Rebecca LuElla MillerDATE: 12/5/2008 6:52:06 PM The supernatural is not a part of science fiction precisely because science fiction is the merger of fiction and science, not fiction and the supernatural. As I’ve said b