While reading the differing definitions of what Science Fiction is, I was most struck by the varying opinions of both what Science Fiction can be and what it cannot be. I completely agree with Everett K. Bleiler's statement that "science fiction is not a unitary genre or form, hence cannot be encompassed in a single definition." Now that we have so many different types of movies to choose from, it is almost necessary that we categorize them in some way, the easiest way being by genre. But in the science fiction movement, there are so many different subjects and types of conflict that it is impossible to lump them together as one genre. There are of course recognizable characteristics of Science Fiction--personification of machines or other inanimate phenomena, changes in humanity that result from future times, scientific or technological advance and its impact on humanity--but these characteristics are not enough to confine these types of films in one restrictive genre.
In my opinion, the difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy is as vague as the definition of Science Fiction itself. Both attempt to explain the inexplicable, both often revolve around man's struggle to understand the universe he lives in, and both feature the same actors and actresses, creating actors that are often typecast as only being able to shoot robots or fly. Larry Niven believes that what distinguishes Science Fiction from Fantasy is that "science fiction stories are given as possible, not necessarily here and now, but somewhere, sometime." I do not think that this is a horrible way of distinguishing the two, but it definitely has its limitations. Who is to say that in 200 years wizards will not establish their own school and train to fight the Dark Lord? Who is to say that they don't do that now and we are just clueless? There is no way to know that a fantasy film like Harry Potter will one-hundred percent never come true, pushing it into the category of Science Fiction and blurring the line dividing Science Fiction from Fantasy.
Interesting point about wizards and what's possible. I think the who's to say that there wont' be a Hogwarts in 200 years is the greater scientific community. While some scientists might hold stock in ESP and telekinesis and that sort of thing, there aren't many because there's not enough of a scientific basis in those fields. But no scientist will go on record saying that if you say some Latin words, you can turn people into frogs. Present science doesn't support it, it's fantasy. There's nothing wrong with fantasy, but the whole point of it seems to be to say "science be damned".
ReplyDelete