How literary genres resemble light cones: a followup to my last post

My theories about literary genre have run into opposition, on Facebook in other places. The big question people are challenging me with is: how can science fiction and fantasy be the same thing? While most of this opposition comes in pedantic forms (along the lines of "science is science, magic is magic"), I realize this is something I didn't explain completely in my last post; in addition, my understanding of exactly how fantasy and science fiction are the same thing has evolved.

Here's what I think now.

The difference between the chart I posted before and the one I'm about to show you works something like this picture on the right. This is a standard diagram of a light cone, something very important to relativistic physics. That's not the important part. What matters is that this diagram shows only one dimension of space and one of time. It simplifies a four-dimensional problem into a two-dimensional one.

That's what I did with my alignment chart: I simplified a three-dimensional arrangement into one dimension to make a point. Now I'm going to look at all three dimensions of genre/space, and disregard the dimension of narrative type/time, and give you a little more information that will--hopefully--clarify things.

Here's my new diagram. The genres in my last post (nonfiction, realistic, and fantastic) are areas on the Realism axis (left to right). The farther you get from the dot marked "Earth", the less like our reality it is. (Assuming the existence of an objective reality, of course). Once you leave the dot, you immediately start running into author bias, which is why history textbooks don't coincide with actual reality. Also notice that I've added a section on the chart for alternate history and future fiction, and that stories in this reality-genre can vary widely along the magic/science axis.

The magic/science axis (front to back) is what causes the apparent difference between fantasy and science fiction. This whole three-dimensional model came from my trying to construct a spectrum with "hard" science fiction at one end and "pure" fantasy at the other. Then I realized it would work better if I bent it into a U shape, with "hard" at one end and "soft" at the other. That's the up-and-down axis, and the towers at the fantastic end of the Realism axis are the ends of the U. At the top of the towers are books like The Silmarillion and The Star Wars Guide to Planets and Moons, which are essentially the nonfiction of a fantastic world, and thus as hard as you can get.

There's a sort of bridge connecting the towers; I've marked that and the "ground" between them Science Fantasy. This is the subgenre that leads me most definitely to the conclusion that science fiction and fantasy are alike if not the same; Diane Duane and other authors have combined the two so effortlessly that there has to be something there.

But that's just what I think. "And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now...you tell me what you know."

We Need New Genres: an alignment chart for literature

This semester I took a class called "Physics of Science Fiction." The professor is a science fiction writer...sort of. She tends to refer to science fiction, fantasy, and horror writing together in one breath. This got me thinking: how much difference is there between science fiction and fantasy?

The answer: not all that much. Don't believe me? Look at Eragon. Set aside the fact that it sucks and take a good long look at that winding derivative plot. What's it derivative of? What's it a direct copy of, besides having dragons instead of robots and spaceships, and magic instead of energy weapons? That's right.

I always knew Eragon was a ripoff of Star Wars, but suddenly that's a good thing. It proves that a story can be shifted from a science-fiction setting to a fantasy setting (and vice versa!) with nothing more than a redefinition of terms. If (to use a higher-quality example) the One Ring were a microcircuit cloaking device that leaked radioactivity, and Gollum paddled his little boat out between star systems, the Quest can end with both of them falling into a black hole just as easily as a pit of lava. I make no apologies to fans of Lord of the Rings. I consider myself one of you, and that makes the correspondence no less valid.

So we've established that science fiction and fantasy are allomorphs (allonarrative?), if not the same thing. This led me to the conclusion that genres as we define them today are at once fuzzy and nondescriptive, and too narrow. Here's what I want to do about it.

Three major genres of story exist: Nonfiction, Realistic Fiction, and Science Fantasy. Of course, I ran into a problem right here: where does alternate history go? After a long and edifying conversation with an interested friend (I'll call him HCE for the sake of the argument), I decided that depends on what causes the divergence from actual history. If it's something plausible, it's Realistic; if it's caused by time travel or aliens (Harry Turtledove, take note), it's Science Fantasy.

Of course, plausibility is more of a continuum (as HCE pointed out); however, genres are supposed to be definite categories, and so I will continue to work with this concept as if it did in fact have clearly defined categories.

Now we have three major genres; put those on the top of the alignment chart. Along the sides, put various types of narrative, and fill in the boxes with stories or types of stories that fit the combination. You get something that looks like this picture on the right.

Yes, I realize the only thing I could come up with for "Realistic Western" was Little House on the Prairie.

 I'd like suggestions for other narrative types to add to the chart, if you can come up with some, and stories that better fit each category.

A caveat: remember that it's more of a continuum than a set of boxes; you can still mix and match, but I encourage you to use these as starting points for writing your own stories. Hopefully this makes genres make more sense to you. DFTBA all!

Random things related to Doctor Who

I'm going to start by mentioning the erotic dream I had the other night involving David Tennant. All I remember at this point is that he was there, and probably naked, and definitely clean-shaven. Which he only seems to be IRL when he's playing a character. On talk shows and whatever he always has stubble. Which I don't find especially attractive; but it's still DAVID KRUTZING TENNANT. And I'm sure his wife likes it.

Something to speculate on: Why is it acceptable to fantasize about married celebrities, but not married people who aren't famous?

That, I may tackle some other time (or not at all). For now, I shall move on to music in Doctor Who.The Classic eras all seem to have distinctive music. I don't really pay attention to it, but there are some things I have noticed; for example, the Seventh Doctor serial "Remembrance of the Daleks" (best known for being the one where Ace beats up a Dalek with a baseball bat) has a soundtrack that would not be out of place in a discotheque.

As for the new series, I found nothing particularly distinctive in the Nine and Ten eras, besides the cool rock-ish sound to the second version of the opening theme, but Eleven's music has caught my attention. You know his action theme, I think it's called "I Am the Doctor." The one that plays in every single episode, yet never seems to get old. It's in 7/4 time, and I think that's what keeps it exciting. 7/4 is not quite two measures of common time per measure, and that difference is enough to keep it interesting, and rather light on its feet, which is good because the theme usually plays while people are running. "Mungojerrie and Rumpleteazer" from the musical Cats has 7/4 sections which have a similar (but more comic) effect.

And speaking of the Eleventh Doctor, I want to know who in Belgium wrote that Wild West episode that's all over the Series 7 trailer! Amy seems so poorly written that I'm a little worried. "You've obviously been taking stupid lessons," she says to the Doctor while wildly waving a pistol around. Surely ordinary life hasn't changed her that much? There's no point in diminishing the character right before her heartbreaking exit. Whatever that's going to be.

Anyway, I shall move on for now, but before I do, here are two funny things I found this morning. One is someone's top 20 Classic Series quotes. I shall call your attention to number 6, which is the funniest thing I've ever heard Four say.

The other is this webcomic, The Daily Dalek. It isn't consistently funny, in my opinion, but it's fun.

Have a great day, and don't forget to be awesome!