From: John Robinson Newsgroups: alt.humor.best-of-usenet Subject: [rec.arts.sf.written] Re: Why Sci-Fi and Fantasy? Date: 25 Nov 1999 00:59:15 GMT Subject: Re: Why Sci-Fi and Fantasy? From: pound@is.rice.edu (Christopher Pound) Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written In article <81c95o$grs$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, wrote: >I think that the heart of the question that you >(garfanglez) are asking that needs to be answered >before any real progress can be made on this topic >is "What is the essential difference between >Science Fiction and Fantasy?" Here's an idle thought. It's been a loooong time since I read a Xanth novel, but I hear there are a lot of them. When I told my wife there were now maybe 24 of them, she said, "So, number 25 will be ... _Xercise in Xcess_? _Beating a Dead Xebra_? _Way, Way, Way Past the Xpiration Date_? _That's Xenough, Already_?" You can see one reason why I love her so much. But here's a real dystopia for you. Imagine Xanth novels becoming ever more popular. Piers Anthony cranks 'em out, but not fast enough. Xanth readers want more. Anthony licenses the Xanth property to other fine authors like Kevin J. Anderson and William Barton, and they all start cranking out Xanth novels too. Xanth fans just can't get enough of it. Fans start writing their own Xanth homages in new settings. They start to think puns and unique character-defining powers are what really make a good solid novel. Other authors get wise and make puns-and-powers part of their work too. Bad Ursula breaks new (?) ground with heavy-handed homilies shaped in the Xanth mold. Robert Forward starts telling xanthic stories, but they're set in outer space and involve an alien race with scientifically- rationalized powers that define each individual uniquely. (Fans reject Forward's xanthic novels, because the puns are dry and technical.) Harry Turtledove starts writing xanthic books that involve historical figures and peoples; he works the puns deeply into the settings, and it's not clear whether the historical figures *really* have powers or whether the omniscient narration is just describing their actions *metaphorically* as character-defining powers. Some people say this isn't really xanthic in spirit. Xanthic, a perfectly good English word that Anthony lacks the foresight to trademark, becomes the standard label for the budding genre. Publishers take note. They start putting Fantasy/Xanthic or SF/Xanthic on the spines of their xanthic books, but xanthic readers find this irritating. They've got their own finely tuned vocabulary for talking about the xanthic genre. There are "xanthanum" books, which are kind of padded and superficial compared to the work of the genre's master: Piers Anthony. There's "high xanthic" and "low xanthic," of course, depending on how true a book is to the original Xanth setting. Bad Ursula is regarded as the founder of the "xanthippic" novel, named for Xanthippe -- the epitome of the quarrelsome and moody wife. You'd think she'd hate that, but she wears the label with pride and offers up several interesting essays in defense of Xanthippe. Harlan Ellison writes a few stories that are kind of xanthic, but smacks down all the fanboys who say so: "I'm an Oulipian, you pimple-faced twit," says Ellison. "Xanthic writers are all hacks." A hundred years from now, the xanthic novel has displaced the genres we know of as fantasy and science fiction. Well, some obscure publishing houses keep up the tradition, and there are a few strident voices out there arguing that the xanthic novel is just a species of sf or fantasy -- fantasy, mostly. But by now the puns-and-powers formula has become a standard restriction. People won't buy what we think of as science fiction unless it has those elements too, and no one particularly *cares* whether the powers are scientifically rationalized or not. As it happens, some authors continue to add that touch of mere realism, which is all they and most critics acknowledge it as being. No one thinks the puns detract from realism any more than third person omniscient narration or any other literary device. The xanthic genre is shelved one aisle over from masochistic fiction, though there is conflict here too: many people argue that xanthic fiction is indistinguishable from masochistic fiction when you get right down to it. Ah, but to the marketing folks, the difference matters a lot. They advertise masochistic fiction in one venue and xanthic fiction in another. It's almost that simple, but it matters to readers for some reason too. "I don't like masochistic fiction!" they say. "Xanthic fiction is the only fiction for people with any sense of humor! That other stuff won't age well." Of course, lots of xanthic fiction is lacking in puns, lacking in powers, or both. These "anomalous" works may or may not be clearly inspired by high xanthic novels. Maybe they just have a few puns, so they're being marketed as xanthic fiction. Anyway, no one cares because the lines have been drawn. They're xanthic, because someone says so, and everybody knows that books with puns in them must be kind of xanthic anyway. In the year 2150, a new giant enters the field of xanthic fiction: Heliodorus Sidney. Although his characters are "too flat" and his puns "too overwrought" according to the old guard, his book _The Countess of Pembroke's Aethiopica_ sells like hotcakes. Critics point out that this isn't really a novel, by modern standards. It's a return to the romance. No, not the kind of romance fiction that had co-evolved with crime fiction into masochistic fiction, but the kind of romance that was written before people wrote novels much at all. And so, things go on from there ... Like I said, it's just an idle thought.