Most people are incapable of separating setting and other surface level elements from actual plot structure. It's the same thing we always talk about with games. People can't separate the plots and artwork from the underlying game.
Think of works of art like magic items in D&D. They are not identified, you have no clue what they are. You have to identify them by looking under the hood.
Games, books, movies, their underlying structure determines the category, not the veneer.
Wrong. They are using selective breeding, but with a goal in mind. Medieval "science" would result in nothing more than bigger cattle, or more abundant yield with a crop. They take the best stock and breed it together. In absolutely no way can you call a thousand generation guided experiment medieval.
I think you're being too narrow with your thoughts here. It is not beyond anyone in a story to say that a thousand generations ago a group of people started using their influence to selectively breed their better into the supreme being. To limit your self and say medieval science couldn't do that isn't correct. You have an ideal goal and implement a breeding program. It's not that hard, you just extend the goal from "Bigger Cattle" to "Supreme Being". All you need then is to stagnate the society at that tech level for a thousand generations.
I am not saying that this was possible with in human history as we know it, we are discussing a work of fiction, not something that is historically accurate.
Second, mentats replaced computers. Society is very, very advanced in Dune, and to get to that point would require computers. When the computers are taken away, special humans had to fill the job. Without first having the complexity of advanced computers, mentats would not be needed, nor might they be possible.
I recall the part where Mentats are human computers. My point is that what they replace does not necessarily need be a computer, it could be any labor saving device, say demons/golems/imps that were created/enslaved to save humanity from work/thought/effort. The replacement need not be a absolutely the same. Otherwise Scott would be off base saying that Starwars was Fantasy Adventure what with all the Starships and forcefields and flying cars and androids and blaster rifles there are strewn about in Starwars. But all of those things can be replaced with boats, wooden shields, flying carpets, mythical creatures and wizards fire.
Also, that thinking machines once ruled over humanity is more than just a legend from long ago in Dune. It informs almost every aspect of society. Humans overthrowing demons is a lot different than humans overthrowing something that they created, and that also overthrew them. Look at my original post in this thread. Humanity KNEW computers, UNDERSTOOD them, CREATED them, etc. If it entailed magic, especially demons, we are dealing with entities outside of human understanding, and maybe out of their control.
The demons ruling over these humans in this fantasy analogue of Dune could be more than a legend as well, it could be historical fact in that world. Humanity KNEW the demons, UNDERSTOOD them, CREATED them, et cetera. You could replace demons with golems if it pleases you. The specifics are immaterial, what is material is that humanities creation which they sought to utilize as tools turned the tables upon humanity and that humanity then fought their creations off and found with in themselves the abilities they handed off to their creations.
Third, nuclear weapons are nuclear weapons. They have lots of properties, and all of those properties together, without any other properties, make them what they are. Many of those properties are exploited in Dune. Black powder wouldn't cut it. The only kind of magical device that would do the same job and play the same role in Dune as the family nuclears would be indistinguishable from nuclear weapons.
I agree that any magic that does the same job as nuclears in Dune would be (nearly) indistinguishable from the nuclear weapons. But thats the point isn't it? If the story can contain [Techno Babble] and you can swap a term in and out and it really doesn't change the story then we fall out of Heinlein's definition that Scott pointed out above.
*I just noticed that the arrows I used for the [techno babble] got eaten
I'm really curious. Have you ever read Dune? The same story could not be told if the setting were different. This is what makes the novel so good (best selling science fiction novel ever) and also what makes it endure (as it is set "post-technology" it doesn't date in terms of scientific and technology prediction, like so many other science fiction novels). But it's not just a question of quality.
The reason it engages so many people is exactly BECAUSE it deals with computers, and with nuclear weapons. It addresses these things directly. It isn't looking at them analogously. When it says "thinking machine" it means "a machine that humans made that thinks". The characters in the story know about it. The readers of the story know about it. The setting of the story relies on it. The theme of the story relies on it. The structure of the plot relies on it.
If, on the other hand, the rules are changed, and the past threat, or the current threat, or the current solution to the threat, or the response to the defeat of the past threat... if any of those things are no longer based on scientific principles, known in both our world AND in the world of the book, the story changes entirely.
Now, if the rules of the universe in a novel are different to the rules of our universe, the author will convey that point in some way. If the people in the universe can understand those rules, the book could be construed as science fiction. In fact, much science fiction is like this. Some fantasy is like this.
Most fantasy is set in a secondary world with different rules than our own, or in our world with the rules changed. However, in most cases the new or different rules are not understood, and the only way to exploit them is through ritual, runes, rights, spelling, etc. They know that these things work, but not how. More to the point, the reader has no way to know how either, except that the magic works. This is the key difference.
Games, books, movies, their underlying structure determines the category, not the veneer.
The veneer is often derived from certain components of the structure, and is used to call attention to very particular elements of that structure. The veneer is used to obtain greater specificity in categorizing.
The veneer is used to obtain greater specificity in categorizing.
Of course, but it matters far far less than the underlying meats. Many people value only the veneer, and do not even realize there is meats underneath. They think the veneer is the whole thing, and they are shallow/shortsighted people. Sadly, that is most people.
More than a few times, I had to buy a second copy of the first book because the binding broke. The following books I have only gone through once, way too many Duncan Idahos running around for my tastes. I haven't stand any of the stuff Herbert's kid has done so I gave up on it.
I am beginning to really believe Scott here
Most people are incapable of separating setting and other surface level elements from actual plot structure.
Did Philip K. Dick write science fiction? Or Alfred Bester? Because they both generally wrote narratives that used technological or quasi-technological mechanisms to accomplish allegory and psychological speculation; but at the same time, neither let themselves be bound by plausible (read: non-magical) technology or events. Neither of them was particularly big on exploring the how or why of their particular technological or alien happenings, either. If you remove plausibility and explanation, it's no longer really scientific; so is it science fiction? I would argue that it is. I may explain later.
Anyway, part of the problem here is ambiguity in asking what is or isn't science fiction. Take, if you will, Star Wars. Casual consumers of pop culture would probably label it sci-fi. Many nerds would affrontedly retort that it is not, and that it is instead merely a fantasy epic in space. I think that both of these things are true. It is a fantasy epic in a science-fiction setting. Event Horizon? Horror story in a science-fiction setting. True science fiction stories are relatively rare - Clarke wrote them, Dick and Bester wrote them, Alistair Reynolds is writing them now. The thing about sci-fi stories is that they're about ideas. Like Scott said, and to paraphrase Heinlein, without the science, there's no story.
And yes, Dune is science fiction, you pedants.
And I too would eat up non-Victorian steampunk. I hate that steampunk has just become an extension of goth.
So far I agree with everyone a little bit but Zehaeva is doing a pretty good job of conveying my line of argument towards the Scott argument and the Luke agrument.
I agree that any magic that does the same job as nuclears in Dune would be (nearly) indistinguishable from the nuclear weapons. But thats the point isn't it? If the story can containand you can swap a term in and out and it really doesn't change the story then we fall out of Heinlein's definition that Scott pointed out above.
Once again, the difference comes down to the ability of the setting to explain the forces within it.
Dune is science fiction because it explains all of its elements in a systematic manner, and those rules are applied consistently and understood well throughout the book.
Yes, a mage who throw a massive fireball == a nuke, but if you don't have a systematic explanation of the fireball that is on par with the science behind the nuke, you have added unexplained mystery to the story.
Unexplained mystery = possibility for which we cannot account, which is not science. It reduces our total understanding of the world that we are presented, and allows for great and sweeping things which would otherwise pierce our suspension of disbelief.
It is not the veneer, to use Scott's words, but rather the way in which the underlying elements present the veneer that make speculative fiction what it is. Dune has very explicit mechanics for everything in its setting, and if you replace any of those things with elements that are less well explained, you will get a fundamentally different story.
You can replace the Force with unexplained magic, because the Force is not discreetly explained. You cannot replace the Spice with unexplained magic, because the Spice obeys a comparatively robust set of rules. If you replace the Spice with magic which is explained just as well, you've effectively replaced it with science. Ergo, Dune is science fiction.
Most people are incapable of separating setting and other surface level elements from actual plot structure.
I am not incapable. Really not. I really do get it. I'm just not sure that the scientific elements in Dune are merely setting or surface elements. They are part of, and inform, the plot and structure of the novel a great deal. By changing them to something magical or non-scientific would change the plot and the structure.
I am not incapable. Really not. I really do get it. I'm just not sure that the scientific elements in Dune are merely setting or surface elements. They are part of, and inform, the plot and structure of the novel a great deal. By changing them to something magical or non-scientific would change the plot and the structure.
See I think you could, granted it would take a good deal of work but while I believe that Dune is a great work of science fiction, but when I think about it and about the statement from Heinlein, in that context I can't help but think maybe you could rewrite Dune as a fantasy novel and not have it be different.
For this particular work of Fiction I think we both shall have to agree to disagree.
I do have an itch to see if it can be done.
Onto maybe something slightly different. I saw someone mention The Prince of Nothing series? I'm not familiar with it but I am quite familar with The Wheel of Time series. The magic in there is detailed quite well, so is the history as well as the mechanics of the world, should we call this too Sci-Fi?
I've not read The Wheel of Time, but from my cursory understanding, it's not quite as appropriate to call it sci-fi as it would be to call The Prince of Nothing sci-fi. There is a figure in PoN who is effectively a godling, but his powers are completely explained by rational mechanics, to a frightening extent. It is completely demystified.
All the magic in WoT is explained as to where it comes from, how its wielded to get different effects, why some people are better at one kind of spell verses others, to the point where they had a society prior to the current story that was more akin to modern day just run with this magic.
There are certain aspects which are not explained like where this crazy powerful Shai'tan* came from as well as how time seems to cycle**. But given that we don't know what happened before the big bang I could be willing to forgive the lack of explanation there.
*(I cring every time I think of the naming scheme in the WoT, really a melovolent being that no one comes into direct contact with that wants to destroy the world is named Shai'tan? and the coming apocalypse is called Tarmon Gai'don /sigh, its as bad as every name is the Potter Books being completely descriptive of who they are, maddening really)
**it's explained by "This is how the created created the world, Time moves like a wheel, and if you keep going long enough along time you come back to the place where you started, which is a internally consistent rule to the world)
I've not readThe Wheel of Time, but from my cursory understanding, it's not quite as appropriate to call it sci-fi as it would be to callThe Prince of Nothingsci-fi. There is a figure in PoN who is effectively a godling, but his powers are completely explained by rational mechanics, to a frightening extent. It is completely demystified.
Also, if you read the encyclopedic glossary at the end of the first trilogy (don't, because it actually spoils some of the cooler mysteries and legends) you find out that the basis of the world is far more scientific than one might expect. I've never read the Wheel of Time, so I can't comment.
However, just detailing magic isn't enough. Read my other posts again to get my point. "Demystified" is a good starting point.
Re: Pete's discussion of The Prince of Nothing as sci-fi - that argument doesn't sit so well with me. I can certainly agree that the story has some science fiction elements, and the abilities of the Dunyain in particular are well-grounded scientifically. But that isn't the case with the other systems of magic in that world. To crudely summarize the explanations in the book (from an admittedly less-than-fresh memory,) Gnostic magic is powered by language, linguistic structure, and knowledge, and Cishuarim magic comes from emotions. But those explanations alone, no matter how eloquently articulated by Bakker, aren't enough to give us thorough understanding of how it works.
That's the real problem for me, and what makes magic in fantasy stories magic - there is no complete "how." Nothing in the books tells me exactly how human thought, or processes in the human brain, or the flapping of meat (human speech) actually acts upon the physical world to move atoms, cause chemical reactions, or what have you, such that fireballs are conjured out of air. If the abilities of the Dunyain are demystified, the other systems are much less so.
Like some people in the thread have puzzled out, however, magic in fantasy books is a weird beast. Anthropologically speaking, magic is the performance of certain rituals that you believe invoke supernatural powers or laws, in an attempt to compel the physical world to behave in a way you desire. Belief in the power of these rituals often comes from incorrectly perceiving causal relations between an action and a reaction; e.g. "I was dancing when it began to rain, hence that dance must cause the rain." But in fantasy works, there's no incorrect perception. You wave your arms and say some certain words and fireballs come out. It's an observable, repeatable, consistent, and testable phenomenon. Something about the way the universe works allows this process to happen. The sorcerous schools in TPoN are devoted to studying that. Isn't that "science," then, in the context of that world? I suppose so. But does that make the books science fiction?
I'd say no, because it isn't understandable or explainable by the laws of our universe. To me, one of the basic assumptions in a science fiction setting should be that it shares the same rules and physical properties as the real world. The book can then speculate from there. But if you make up your own setting where the rules are fundamentally changed, (like where people can conjure fireballs out of air, or gods are real and knowable by the body's senses,) then that's fantasy, even if those changes are discussed in a systematic, rational, or internally consistent way.
Of course, there's the question of what "real" is, so let's just say "our body of collected assumptions and tentative explanations of how things work," for all you anal sons of bitches.
tl;dr version: Earwa's universe has rules, and many of them are the same as ours, but not all. Hence The Prince of Nothing is fantasy with some sci-fi elements.
Comments
Think of works of art like magic items in D&D. They are not identified, you have no clue what they are. You have to identify them by looking under the hood.
Games, books, movies, their underlying structure determines the category, not the veneer.
I am not saying that this was possible with in human history as we know it, we are discussing a work of fiction, not something that is historically accurate. I recall the part where Mentats are human computers. My point is that what they replace does not necessarily need be a computer, it could be any labor saving device, say demons/golems/imps that were created/enslaved to save humanity from work/thought/effort. The replacement need not be a absolutely the same. Otherwise Scott would be off base saying that Starwars was Fantasy Adventure what with all the Starships and forcefields and flying cars and androids and blaster rifles there are strewn about in Starwars. But all of those things can be replaced with boats, wooden shields, flying carpets, mythical creatures and wizards fire. The demons ruling over these humans in this fantasy analogue of Dune could be more than a legend as well, it could be historical fact in that world. Humanity KNEW the demons, UNDERSTOOD them, CREATED them, et cetera. You could replace demons with golems if it pleases you. The specifics are immaterial, what is material is that humanities creation which they sought to utilize as tools turned the tables upon humanity and that humanity then fought their creations off and found with in themselves the abilities they handed off to their creations. I agree that any magic that does the same job as nuclears in Dune would be (nearly) indistinguishable from the nuclear weapons. But thats the point isn't it? If the story can contain [Techno Babble] and you can swap a term in and out and it really doesn't change the story then we fall out of Heinlein's definition that Scott pointed out above.
*I just noticed that the arrows I used for the [techno babble] got eaten
The reason it engages so many people is exactly BECAUSE it deals with computers, and with nuclear weapons. It addresses these things directly. It isn't looking at them analogously. When it says "thinking machine" it means "a machine that humans made that thinks". The characters in the story know about it. The readers of the story know about it. The setting of the story relies on it. The theme of the story relies on it. The structure of the plot relies on it.
If, on the other hand, the rules are changed, and the past threat, or the current threat, or the current solution to the threat, or the response to the defeat of the past threat... if any of those things are no longer based on scientific principles, known in both our world AND in the world of the book, the story changes entirely.
Now, if the rules of the universe in a novel are different to the rules of our universe, the author will convey that point in some way. If the people in the universe can understand those rules, the book could be construed as science fiction. In fact, much science fiction is like this. Some fantasy is like this.
Most fantasy is set in a secondary world with different rules than our own, or in our world with the rules changed. However, in most cases the new or different rules are not understood, and the only way to exploit them is through ritual, runes, rights, spelling, etc. They know that these things work, but not how. More to the point, the reader has no way to know how either, except that the magic works. This is the key difference.
I am beginning to really believe Scott here
Anyway, part of the problem here is ambiguity in asking what is or isn't science fiction. Take, if you will, Star Wars. Casual consumers of pop culture would probably label it sci-fi. Many nerds would affrontedly retort that it is not, and that it is instead merely a fantasy epic in space. I think that both of these things are true. It is a fantasy epic in a science-fiction setting. Event Horizon? Horror story in a science-fiction setting. True science fiction stories are relatively rare - Clarke wrote them, Dick and Bester wrote them, Alistair Reynolds is writing them now. The thing about sci-fi stories is that they're about ideas. Like Scott said, and to paraphrase Heinlein, without the science, there's no story.
And yes, Dune is science fiction, you pedants.
And I too would eat up non-Victorian steampunk. I hate that steampunk has just become an extension of goth.
Dune is science fiction because it explains all of its elements in a systematic manner, and those rules are applied consistently and understood well throughout the book.
Yes, a mage who throw a massive fireball == a nuke, but if you don't have a systematic explanation of the fireball that is on par with the science behind the nuke, you have added unexplained mystery to the story.
Unexplained mystery = possibility for which we cannot account, which is not science. It reduces our total understanding of the world that we are presented, and allows for great and sweeping things which would otherwise pierce our suspension of disbelief.
It is not the veneer, to use Scott's words, but rather the way in which the underlying elements present the veneer that make speculative fiction what it is. Dune has very explicit mechanics for everything in its setting, and if you replace any of those things with elements that are less well explained, you will get a fundamentally different story.
You can replace the Force with unexplained magic, because the Force is not discreetly explained. You cannot replace the Spice with unexplained magic, because the Spice obeys a comparatively robust set of rules. If you replace the Spice with magic which is explained just as well, you've effectively replaced it with science. Ergo, Dune is science fiction.
For this particular work of Fiction I think we both shall have to agree to disagree.
I do have an itch to see if it can be done.
Onto maybe something slightly different. I saw someone mention The Prince of Nothing series? I'm not familiar with it but I am quite familar with The Wheel of Time series. The magic in there is detailed quite well, so is the history as well as the mechanics of the world, should we call this too Sci-Fi?
There are certain aspects which are not explained like where this crazy powerful Shai'tan* came from as well as how time seems to cycle**. But given that we don't know what happened before the big bang I could be willing to forgive the lack of explanation there.
*(I cring every time I think of the naming scheme in the WoT, really a melovolent being that no one comes into direct contact with that wants to destroy the world is named Shai'tan? and the coming apocalypse is called Tarmon Gai'don /sigh, its as bad as every name is the Potter Books being completely descriptive of who they are, maddening really)
**it's explained by "This is how the created created the world, Time moves like a wheel, and if you keep going long enough along time you come back to the place where you started, which is a internally consistent rule to the world)
However, just detailing magic isn't enough. Read my other posts again to get my point. "Demystified" is a good starting point.
That's the real problem for me, and what makes magic in fantasy stories magic - there is no complete "how." Nothing in the books tells me exactly how human thought, or processes in the human brain, or the flapping of meat (human speech) actually acts upon the physical world to move atoms, cause chemical reactions, or what have you, such that fireballs are conjured out of air. If the abilities of the Dunyain are demystified, the other systems are much less so.
Like some people in the thread have puzzled out, however, magic in fantasy books is a weird beast. Anthropologically speaking, magic is the performance of certain rituals that you believe invoke supernatural powers or laws, in an attempt to compel the physical world to behave in a way you desire. Belief in the power of these rituals often comes from incorrectly perceiving causal relations between an action and a reaction; e.g. "I was dancing when it began to rain, hence that dance must cause the rain." But in fantasy works, there's no incorrect perception. You wave your arms and say some certain words and fireballs come out. It's an observable, repeatable, consistent, and testable phenomenon. Something about the way the universe works allows this process to happen. The sorcerous schools in TPoN are devoted to studying that. Isn't that "science," then, in the context of that world? I suppose so. But does that make the books science fiction?
I'd say no, because it isn't understandable or explainable by the laws of our universe. To me, one of the basic assumptions in a science fiction setting should be that it shares the same rules and physical properties as the real world. The book can then speculate from there. But if you make up your own setting where the rules are fundamentally changed, (like where people can conjure fireballs out of air, or gods are real and knowable by the body's senses,) then that's fantasy, even if those changes are discussed in a systematic, rational, or internally consistent way.
Of course, there's the question of what "real" is, so let's just say "our body of collected assumptions and tentative explanations of how things work," for all you anal sons of bitches.
tl;dr version: Earwa's universe has rules, and many of them are the same as ours, but not all. Hence The Prince of Nothing is fantasy with some sci-fi elements.