ADWD Release Date Part 2

[Ran]

Ahhh, of course. All right, that makes sense. Heh.

Did Haldeman, Kress, or Williams provide any counter-examples to GRRM's assertion, namely stories that actually _needed_ to be part of the genre they were in, because they couldn't be done in any other genre?

[dingosatemybaby]

Ahhh, of course. All right, that makes sense. Heh.

Did Haldeman, Kress, or Williams provide any counter-examples to GRRM's assertion, namely stories that actually _needed_ to be part of the genre they were in, because they couldn't be done in any other genre?

As I said, unfortunately Haldeman barely got two more words in for the rest of the night. Kress was mostly being moderator, interjecting little of her own opinions, and Williams was the quietest of the lot. Like I said, Modessit blabbed on and on - clearly the guy loved the sound of his own voice so I tuned him out, sorry.

I don't recall any of the other panelists effectively countering Martin's premise, but that might just be because GRRM could fart in a bag and I'd be all like "Yeah, dig it."

[Maester Cressan]

I went to the panel. When Fantasy Becomes Science Fiction, and Science Fiction Becomes Fantasy.

Panelists: Joe Haldeman, Nancy Kress, George RR Martin, L.E. Modessit, Walter John Williams.

This was easily the best panel I attended all weekend. The discussion opened with Nancy Kress (moderating) posing a question to the panelists about what the differences are between the genres of science fiction and fantasy and how they blend. Martin set the tone for the evening by jumping right in and saying that there is no distinction between Science Fiction and Fantasy, that a story is just a story and that only the "furniture", or trappings of the story differentiate it. Many of the other panelists seemed to disagree with him, but Martin defended his assertion well, being frank and outspoken about his opinions as always.

Nancy Kress asked GRRM if he could take Game of Thrones and rewrite it as space opera, and she barely got the question out before he said emphatically, "Yes!"

Of the authors there, I believe only Martin has written in science fiction, fantasy and horror genres with great success his entire career. His statement about "a story is a story" remained throughout the panel as a theme, with the other writers bouncing ideas off that and (mostly) disagreeing.

Hmm.... well, GRRM has a point. We are attracted to stories because the story strikes a cord in us, not because of the genre. Genre is a way of organizing things, and it is no surprise that Fantasy and SciFi are grouped together in bookstores. Both deal with fantastical settings.

However, GRRM is overstating the case I think, probably because he is not recognizing the divisions within SciFi and Fantasy.

There is a big difference between Hard SciFi and Soft SciFi. A big difference between Historic-like Fantasy, and Fantasia.

Game of Thrones is definitely within the Historic-like Fantasy and therefor I could easily see it written as a Space Opera (Dune anyone?)

I haven't read all of GRRM's SciFi, but much of if seems to be "soft" (e.g. the development of psychic powered humans. Granted, Tuf Voyaging is more towards "Hard")

Soft SciFi can fit the Fantasy theme more easily. (McCaffrey's Pern series for example. At the start you think it's fantasy- then it becomes SciFi).

It might also be easier to transfer SciFi into fantasy themes than vice versa though.

For example, can anyone conceive of Anthony's Xanth series as a SciFi series? Or Immortals of Eternity?

Even some historical fantasy (like Lord of the Rings) I think would have difficulty passing as SciFi. True I have seen a (pretty good) SciFi adaptation of the Hobbit- and while I expect the same could be done to LofR it would lose the... "this is old" element that makes LofR moving to many people.

Some of the older, more... "hard" SciFi would also not pass as Fantasy. I have a hard time imagining I, Robot or Caves of Steel or most of Asimov's short robot stories be told in the Fantasy genre. You could probably do it, but it would be rather stilted

The real classics, like From the Earth to the Moon wouldn't make any sense at all as Fantasy.

Nor for that matter would Star Trek- although Star Wars could be (and has been) easily retold in Fantasy settings.

I'm trying to think of other transfers.... obviously the whole Warlock in Spite of Himself series directly challenges the division. I'm not sure whether Split Infinity series should be seen as a challenge to the division or an expression of support.

Of course this misses what I think is the most importance difference between SciFi and Fantasy.

SciFi expresses our visions of our Future. Whether that vision is optimistic or pessimistic, idealistic or cynical- Science Fiction expresses the belief that our own future is the direction our thoughts are cast in.

Fantasy on the other hand can go in two directions. Either it can serve as a way of re-expressing our past histories and myths (like LofR), or it can serve as simple escapism from reality.

Thus the modern turn towards Fantasy instead of SciFi could be interpreted as either an abandonment of concern for the future in favor of degenerate escapism while the world burns around us, or more favorably as the symptom of a society that has lost connection with it's roots as so is searching hungrily for any kind of mythology to provide some kind of pattern for a new social order.

Plenty of food for thought on this subject.

[Aryeztur]

The future isn't coming as fast enough as it should. In the 50s, Asimov and company would have us believe that there would be robots all over the place now and moon-bases. None of that has happened yet. Although on the other hand, he didn't forsee computers, the microprocessor, and wireless technology.

A well balanced society needs to be in touch with its root as well as forwards looking. Both the future and past are important, as is the present. This balance is clearly lacking in Western society which is totally out of touch with its roots. The opposite case is Islamic society today, which is totally obsessed with its roots and not very progressive. Asian societies seem to have the best balance, for now.

[Jonah Spark]

I'm bummed that Walter Jon didn't get to speak out more in the panel the poster was mentioning above. The times that I've gotten to talk with WJW I've been blown away by his mind. *Really* facinating guy... I'm glad that some of his early books have recently gotten reprinted. His 'Metropolitan' and 'City on Fire' are genius. I would have loved to hear his take on the SciFi / Fantasy rift.

[fionwe1987]

Hmm.... well, GRRM has a point. We are attracted to stories because the story strikes a cord in us, not because of the genre. Genre is a way of organizing things, and it is no surprise that Fantasy and SciFi are grouped together in bookstores. Both deal with fantastical settings.

However, GRRM is overstating the case I think, probably because he is not recognizing the divisions within SciFi and Fantasy.

There is a big difference between Hard SciFi and Soft SciFi. A big difference between Historic-like Fantasy, and Fantasia.

Game of Thrones is definitely within the Historic-like Fantasy and therefor I could easily see it written as a Space Opera (Dune anyone?)

I haven't read all of GRRM's SciFi, but much of if seems to be "soft" (e.g. the development of psychic powered humans. Granted, Tuf Voyaging is more towards "Hard")

Soft SciFi can fit the Fantasy theme more easily. (McCaffrey's Pern series for example. At the start you think it's fantasy- then it becomes SciFi).

It might also be easier to transfer SciFi into fantasy themes than vice versa though.

For example, can anyone conceive of Anthony's Xanth series as a SciFi series? Or Immortals of Eternity?

Even some historical fantasy (like Lord of the Rings) I think would have difficulty passing as SciFi. True I have seen a (pretty good) SciFi adaptation of the Hobbit- and while I expect the same could be done to LofR it would lose the... "this is old" element that makes LofR moving to many people.

Some of the older, more... "hard" SciFi would also not pass as Fantasy. I have a hard time imagining I, Robot or Caves of Steel or most of Asimov's short robot stories be told in the Fantasy genre. You could probably do it, but it would be rather stilted

The real classics, like From the Earth to the Moon wouldn't make any sense at all as Fantasy.

Nor for that matter would Star Trek- although Star Wars could be (and has been) easily retold in Fantasy settings.

I'm trying to think of other transfers.... obviously the whole Warlock in Spite of Himself series directly challenges the division. I'm not sure whether Split Infinity series should be seen as a challenge to the division or an expression of support.

Of course this misses what I think is the most importance difference between SciFi and Fantasy.

SciFi expresses our visions of our Future. Whether that vision is optimistic or pessimistic, idealistic or cynical- Science Fiction expresses the belief that our own future is the direction our thoughts are cast in.

Fantasy on the other hand can go in two directions. Either it can serve as a way of re-expressing our past histories and myths (like LofR), or it can serve as simple escapism from reality.

Thus the modern turn towards Fantasy instead of SciFi could be interpreted as either an abandonment of concern for the future in favor of degenerate escapism while the world burns around us, or more favorably as the symptom of a society that has lost connection with it's roots as so is searching hungrily for any kind of mythology to provide some kind of pattern for a new social order.

Plenty of food for thought on this subject.

But this arguement is flawed. You're using the presence of divisons in speculative fiction to justify the divisions.

What Martin is saying is that the essential difference between SF and Fantasy is the setting (furniture). Now, I haven't read I Robot, and I've only the vaguest idea about it, but I would say it is certainly possible to write a fantasy version of it. Substitute Robots with magically constructed creatures that obey commands, have three rules that they must obey, create a world where this makes sense, and you can have a story that is essentially the same.

As an example of a heavily magic based book that can becaome SF, look at WoT. The One Power has been developed into something of a pseudo science in the series, and while at its source, it is a mystical power, its working and use in the series is not. This is because Jordan tries to explain magic, makes laws, and sticks to them.

Ultimately. what all this shows is that you can view magic/fantasy and science as two sides of the same coin. How you present the "system" is what defines it as magic or science.

As for your statement that fantasy is concerned with the past and SF is concerned with the future, I disagree. Certainly, this is the case in most books written today. But there is nothing to impede the writing of a Fantasy set in the future or Science Fiction set in the past.

[dingosatemybaby]

Check out GRRM's Dreamsongs stories. After nearly finishing the entire collection, you can see how his arguments make sense, at least for his own writing. Certainly all the stories in there are all about character and plot/story. The trappings surrounding each individual story vary by whatever compartment you put them in, but the stories are about people and could hold up if the 'furniture' were changed around.

[Werthead]

I have a hard time imagining I, Robot or Caves of Steel or most of Asimov's short robot stories be told in the Fantasy genre.

Already have been. Terry Pratchett's Feet of Clay substitutes golems for robots but otherwise the similarities are striking.

I'm bummed that Walter Jon didn't get to speak out more in the panel the poster was mentioning above. The times that I've gotten to talk with WJW I've been blown away by his mind. *Really* facinating guy... I'm glad that some of his early books have recently gotten reprinted. His 'Metropolitan' and 'City on Fire' are genius. I would have loved to hear his take on the SciFi / Fantasy rift.

Williams and GRRM are friends and collaborators from waaay back (pre-Wild Cards, IIRC), so I wouldn't be surprised if they'd discussed this before. In GRRM's essay on the 'Furniture Rule' ('The Heart in Conflict', in Dreamsongs) he even uses Metropolitan and City on Fire as examples of stories that aren't SF or Fantasy but somewhere between, and how they could be altered to become truly SF or truly Fantasy. GRRM then points out that although you can classify ASoIaF itself as Fantasy (albeit low-magic Fantasy), The Hedge Knight is a different story, as there are no magical elements in it at all (save a second-hand recollection of someone seeing a dragon once). Is The Hedge Knight SF, Fantasy, pseudo-historical, or just a damn good story?

[Maester Cressan]

But this arguement is flawed. You're using the presence of divisons in speculative fiction to justify the divisions.

What Martin is saying is that the essential difference between SF and Fantasy is the setting (furniture). Now, I haven't read I Robot, and I've only the vaguest idea about it, but I would say it is certainly possible to write a fantasy version of it. Substitute Robots with magically constructed creatures that obey commands, have three rules that they must obey, create a world where this makes sense, and you can have a story that is essentially the same.

As an example of a heavily magic based book that can becaome SF, look at WoT. The One Power has been developed into something of a pseudo science in the series, and while at its source, it is a mystical power, its working and use in the series is not. This is because Jordan tries to explain magic, makes laws, and sticks to them.

Ultimately. what all this shows is that you can view magic/fantasy and science as two sides of the same coin. How you present the "system" is what defines it as magic or science.

As for your statement that fantasy is concerned with the past and SF is concerned with the future, I disagree. Certainly, this is the case in most books written today. But there is nothing to impede the writing of a Fantasy set in the future or Science Fiction set in the past.

Ummmm..... that is not a logical flaw.

The thesis Martin presented was that SciFi and Fantasy are the same only with different furniture. That a story can be told either as SciFi, or as Fantasy.

I present counter examples. The logic goes like this:

One SciFi story that can not be told as Fantasy => Not all SciFi stories can be told as Fantasy.

As for WoT being SciFi- apparently you missed the "hints" that it is set in our future. WoT is certainly much more amenable to SciFi than some other fantasy. Although I'd point out that WoT could not be written as "hard" SciFi. I recognized that some stories could be told either way- recognizing the Dune and Song of Fire and Ice could be view as similar stories told in different motifs.

However, I would actually argue that WoT would not be the same story if told as SciFi. Nor would Lord of the Rings. They just wouldn't have the same meaning.

Stories are more than just character relationships/development. Just because some stories could be told either way does not mean that all could.

Sure you could tell I, Robot as a story of magically crafted Golems- but it would not be the same story.

Modern and Gothic Architecture tell a different story- even if they are both churches on the inside.

Similarly SciFi and Fantasy can communicate something different. Not all SciFi or Fantasy stories hang on this difference, and so could be told either way- but some stories wouldn't have the same meaning.

Robots and Golems communicate different ideas- they are not the same, despite being scifi and magic analogs.

[fionwe1987]

Ummmm..... that is not a logical flaw.

The thesis Martin presented was that SciFi and Fantasy are the same only with different furniture. That a story can be told either as SciFi, or as Fantasy.

I present counter examples. The logic goes like this:

One SciFi story that can not be told as Fantasy => Not all SciFi stories can be told as Fantasy.

As for WoT being SciFi- apparently you missed the "hints" that it is set in our future. WoT is certainly much more amenable to SciFi than some other fantasy. Although I'd point out that WoT could not be written as "hard" SciFi. I recognized that some stories could be told either way- recognizing the Dune and Song of Fire and Ice could be view as similar stories told in different motifs.

However, I would actually argue that WoT would not be the same story if told as SciFi. Nor would Lord of the Rings. They just wouldn't have the same meaning.

Stories are more than just character relationships/development. Just because some stories could be told either way does not mean that all could.

Sure you could tell I, Robot as a story of magically crafted Golems- but it would not be the same story.

Modern and Gothic Architecture tell a different story- even if they are both churches on the inside.

Similarly SciFi and Fantasy can communicate something different. Not all SciFi or Fantasy stories hang on this difference, and so could be told either way- but some stories wouldn't have the same meaning.

Robots and Golems communicate different ideas- they are not the same, despite being scifi and magic analogs.

Well, I think you've misunderstood GRRM. He's not saying that SF and Fantasy are exactly the same, he's saying they are essentially the same. There is a major difference between the two. At their hearts, Martin says, SF and Fantasy are stories about people. The setting varies, and that variation is very pronounced in some cases, but the central stories and people are the same.

Both SF and Fantasy are about exploring the extraordinary and the different. The limitations that are usually placed, say, fantasy is in the past and SF is in the future, are artificial. Things have been like that in the past. But that does not mean that there are any actual boundaries.

As for WoT, I disagree that it wouldn't have been the same story in an SF setting. Just like the similarity between Dune and Song, one can notice a similarity between WoT and Star Wars. The settings are vastly different, but many of the the themes explored are close, and had Jordan wanted to, he could have set his story in a futuristic setting with no problems. People have also noticed similarities between WoT and Dune. In a setting like Dune, WoT would have worked very well.

All this isn't to say, of course, that Jordan copies from these authors. The homology is a result of similar sources of inspirations.

What you take away from the story (the "meaning" you mentioned) is scarcely dependent on the setting! It depends on the characters and the themes developed in the story. And the same characters and themes can be developed in SF and Fantasy.

Incidentally, could you define what you mean by Hard SF?

[the silent speaker]

Clarke's Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

This is true both in itself and in the inverse (any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology).

[Prince of the North]

Well, I think you've misunderstood GRRM. He's not saying that SF and Fantasy are exactly the same, he's saying they are essentially the same. There is a major difference between the two. At their hearts, Martin says, SF and Fantasy are stories about people. The setting varies, and that variation is very pronounced in some cases, but the central stories and people are the same.

Both SF and Fantasy are about exploring the extraordinary and the different. The limitations that are usually placed, say, fantasy is in the past and SF is in the future, are artificial. Things have been like that in the past. But that does not mean that there are any actual boundaries.

What you take away from the story (the "meaning" you mentioned) is scarcely dependent on the setting! It depends on the characters and the themes developed in the story. And the same characters and themes can be developed in SF and Fantasy.

I completely agree with Martin when he says, essentially, that a story is a story and I agree with what Fionwe says above. And, just to try to add to this a bit, I have a question for everyone that may shed some light on the "differences" between fantasy and sci-fi: would you classify McCaffrey's "Dragonriders of Pern" series as fantasy or sci-fi?

[Artas]

Fantasy on the other hand can go in two directions. Either it can serve as a way of re-expressing our past histories and myths (like LofR), or it can serve as simple escapism from reality.

Or as satire, like Discworld.

[thomaswhigham]

Or as satire, like Discworld.

yea because hitch hiker's guide didn't make good satire.

[Petyr Petyr Pumpkin Eatyr]

Already have been. Terry Pratchett's Feet of Clay substitutes golems for robots but otherwise the similarities are striking.

I have not read Terry Pratchett's Feet of Clay, however I have read some of Terry Pratchett's work, and it is a fundamentally different message from Asimov. I doubt that Terry Pratchett is attempting to make the same message in a different medium.

I think that there have been a lot of good points made about how characters and relationships can occur in both sci-fi and fantasy, however I think that this is not the only thing that goes into a story. While many works could be in either genre Asimov's work is a good example of what must be sci-fi and cannot be fantasy. I cannot think of an example of the opposite being true, but there are quite a few examples of sci-fi and cannot be fantasy. Off the top of my head, there is the Ender's Game universe, and distopian tales such as the works of Orwell, Huxley, Bradbury, and others. The reason that these cannot be fantasy is that they explore possible futures of our worlds due to our own actions. This lesson cannot be taught in reverse. Although one could create a fantasy tale with parallels to current politics and the near future, it is not as effective a medium, and I believe it would bring in elements which would be unnecessarily complicated, and bring in elements which would be simpler in a sci-fi setting.

Edit: This is my first post, although I have been lurking the board for some time. I think the ideas that have been come up with here are really interesting and thought provoking.

[MTGAP]

i think we should use pure willpower to inspire GRRM so that he finishes ADWD quickly, and it's the best book yet.

[Aryeztur]

By the way, have y'all ever read GRRM's "Sandkings." It is the best sci-fi story ever. I read it a long time ago, before I even knew about ASOIAF, but after I read ASOIAF, I made the connection, and I was like no wonder why both of these are so good, the same guy wrote them.

[Maester Cressan]

What is "Hard" SciFi?

Hard SciFi usually refers to science fiction in which the science is "hard"

There are the following criteria:

1. The science is consistent with current basic understanding of how things work

Examples of this being violated are things like Superman picking up buildings by the corner and flying with them, or stopping a speeding train. These actions not only have the obvious problems that flight requires some kind of force to counter gravity, or that normal humans get squashed by trains- but also regularly ignores the issues of leverage, friction, momentum, torque, ect. So even if Superman could fly and pick up buildings holding it by the corner should result in the building rotating around Superman's man which would act as a fulcrum. Things like this are ignored in very "soft" Science Fiction.

2: The science can be reasonably extrapolated from currently accepted science

For example: Psychic Humans who can control other peoples minds/bodies due to genetic mutation would not meet this restriction as that is not a reasonable extrapolation from current science. Something that would be considered reasonable would be the development of a water and air recyclers that allow people to live in scape stations/ships without constant resupply. Obviously this criteria lends itself to measurement of different degrees of reasonableness.

3: The science is the currently accepted science.

Science Fiction would become more "hard" as it comes closer to the third criteria. Of course, often Science Fiction has variable levels of how "hard" the science with in is. For example: From the Earth to the Moon by Verne

The casting of the Cannon- the amount of material, alloy composition, Gunpowder requirements are all very "hard" and meets Criteria level 3 or 2. However, the "cushioning" mechanism that keeps the men inside from being squished is not a reasonable solution to the problem- however, the fact that this problem is recognized and dealt with (however inadequately) passes Criteria level 1.

Because most of the science contained is level 3 or 2, and all of it meets level 1- most people would label From the Earth to the Moon as "hard" Science Fiction- not only today, but also at the time it was written.

Other Science fiction- such as terraforming Mars or what not are also usually "hard" Science Fiction. "Soft" SciFi is usually more focused on the story and characters, with the science serving as backdrop- or maybe a Dues Ex Machine. In "Hard": SciFi, the technology and science are often at the heart of the story- not just that these things are being done in the story- but the idea that we could do them in real life is an essential part of the message and communication.

I completely agree with Martin when he says, essentially, that a story is a story and I agree with what Fionwe says above. And, just to try to add to this a bit, I have a question for everyone that may shed some light on the "differences" between fantasy and sci-fi: would you classify McCaffrey's "Dragonriders of Pern" series as fantasy or sci-fi?

I actually mentioned Pern earlier as a series that tended to confirm Martin's position.

My answer? It depends. If you only read the first book I'd say Fantasy, but if you read all of the books it's clearly "Soft" Science Fiction.

Understand, I think Martin is saying something that is often true- I mean, it's no accident that SciFi and Fantasy are often all shelved together without any division- I'm just saying I think Martin is overstating the case.

[Maester Cressan]

Or as satire, like Discworld.

Hmm.... often SciFi is a better medium for satire because it can be closer to our own world.... although Gulliver's Travels certainly stands out as great fantasy satire.

[Maester Cressan]

I think that there have been a lot of good points made about how characters and relationships can occur in both sci-fi and fantasy, however I think that this is not the only thing that goes into a story. While many works could be in either genre Asimov's work is a good example of what must be sci-fi and cannot be fantasy...

...Off the top of my head, there is the Ender's Game universe, and distopian tales such as the works of Orwell, Huxley, Bradbury, and others. The reason that these cannot be fantasy is that they explore possible futures of our worlds due to our own actions. This lesson cannot be taught in reverse. Although one could create a fantasy tale with parallels to current politics and the near future, it is not as effective a medium, and I believe it would bring in elements which would be unnecessarily complicated, and bring in elements which would be simpler in a sci-fi setting.

QFT, emphasis is mine