Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1.chuqui 4/7/84; site nsc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!nsc!chuqui
From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Sf or fantasy -- who cares??
Message-ID: <904@nsc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 3-May-84 12:32:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: nsc.904
Posted: Thu May  3 12:32:22 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 9-May-84 03:00:51 EDT
References: <7581@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: National Semiconductor, Sunnyvale
Lines: 26

The biggest problem I have with trying to split SF and fantasy is how we
decide what is what. There are very few books that can be considered 'pure'
in either respect. 2001 is about as pure a SF book as you will find, and
'Wizard of Oz' (remember that one? Or am I the only person to have read it?
:->) is about as pure a fantasy as you will find. 'Tea with the Black
Dragon' may be mostly fantasy, but there are SF trappings. Of course it
could also be mainly SF with some fantastic trappings. It depends upon
whether you want to base your definitions on the society (highly
computerized, etc...) or the character of Oolong (the only thing that
doesn't fit the SF mold, but very important). I believe it was Ben Bova who
said that the only definition of SF that works is when you point at
something and say 'That is SF'. I think the same is true of fantasy (is
'Mists of Avalon' fantasy or historical fiction?). You have to realize that
in most cases we all point in different directions. Trying to separate SF
from fantasy is like trying to step on only dark grains of sand at the
beach. Not only do the grains keep moving, but it is very hard to tell the
difference between the dark grains and the light grains at any useful
distance.

chuq

-- 
From high above Benden weyr, Ch'qui, rider of the plaid dragon Plugh!
Chuq Von Rospach  {amd70,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui  (408) 733-2600 x242

ninety nine dead baboons, sitting in my living room...