SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

People so often link these together, but except for imagining something that isn't real, I find them very different genres. While I adore fantasy, I'm not at all fond of Science Fictrion. I was wondering how many people truly like both, or are you drawn to one of the other?

You will find that it is a spectrum. Over on the far fantasy end are folkore-mythic masters like JRR Tolkien and J.K. Rowling. Over on the other side is Hal Clement and Robert L. Forward, the scientist-fictioneers. In between is a long long string of books; nobody can precisely say where the line is, where it changes from fantasy to SF.

This might be considered heretic, and there are exceptions. But although I do love both fantasy and science fiction I tend to like them for different reasons. In fantasy I'm more drawn to story and characters. In science fiction I'm more drawn to ideas. In both I love world building. It depends on what my mood is. And there are books that mix the two. Like Dune. For me that series is as much fantasy as it is science fiction.

By-and-large I tend to prefer fantasy, at least in my reading material.

I'm pretty open to either when it comes to TV or movies, though.

I like both, within limits. The first bedtime stories I remember being read to me included the Greek and Roman mythologies ... I discovered Jules Verne and H. G. Wells in grade school.

I am a character driven reader, so in either genre the characterization has to be good. Too much 'tech' in sci-fi will lose me, as will too much 'on and on' quest that never seems to get anywhere in fantasy will put me off as well.

Otherwise, I have favorites in both fantasy and sci-fi that I own and re-read often although dark/grim and unpleasant isn't something I read in anything. For entertainment I want happy endings, especially after watching the evening news!

Well, it is an old connection. The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction was founded in 1949. Since I was only two at the time and not a reader (yet:) I can only guess that genre fiction was a small market so combining two types that were considered at the TIME to be similar made good business sense. In 1949 space travel was almost as much a fantasy as dragons to the general public. Times are different now, but it's a habit:)

I think sometimes the line between what is Fantasy and what is Sci-fi can get blurry... I look at it this way... It's all about perspective.

Two hundred years ago what we now call science was then magic. When you read a fantasy novel how much is magic and how much is undiscovered science? How about when we look at fantasy races... magic or genetics? Star Wars... what is the force? Is it religion and magic or science?

And then we have all those novels/movies/shows/what have you that mix the two together and have elements of both, I'm thinking Dan Simmons. Or so much new urban fantasy or steampunk that mixes both sci-fi and fantasy in truly wonderful ways.

I think Anne McCaffrey's Pern series is a good example of where the two intersect. It's clearly Sci-Fi with spaceships, an alien planet, genetic engineering, and colonization without access to a lot of heavy metals. But then it also has dragons and some classic good vs. evil themes.

I agree with others though, that I like Sci-Fi for the big ideas and I like fantasy for the exploration of good vs. evil and heroic characters. I'm comfortable with the categories being lumped together because I'm happy reading either or both.

I definitely enjoy both ... no real preference. They each scratch a different itch.

Dorothy clicking her heels together to travel from some planet out there back to Kansas is fantasy. But if it turns out that her heels have some nano-technology that rip open the time-space fabric, then the same act is science fiction.

Not that much difference, other than that science fiction has scientifically plausible elements in the crucial action.

To me both genres are sub-genres of speculative fiction, which is a huge broad term that covers more than just fantasy and science fiction. If we look at these two specifically it's hard to say which I prefer most. Some books I enjoy and some I enjoy less, as with any other genre.

As other have pointed out, the genres almost always intermix, so a clear distinction is almost impossible to make. Another great example of the fluent intermix of these two sub-genres is Peter F. Hamilton's Night's Dawn series (The Reality Dysfunction, The Neutronium Alchemist, The Naked God & A Second Chance At Eden), which in addition to fantasy and science fiction also throws in some horror for good measure.

Jamie wrote: "People so often link these together, but except for imagining something that isn't real, I find them very different genres. While I adore fantasy, I'm not at all fond of Science Fictrion. I was won..."

I prefer Science Fiction over Fantasy, although I've read my share of both. If it weren't for the recent uptick in Superhero fiction, my Fantasy reading would be a fraction of what it is now.

Rita wrote: " To me both genres are sub-genres of speculative fiction, which is a huge broad term that covers more than just fantasy and science fiction. If we look at these two specifically it's hard to say which I prefer most. Some books I enjoy and some I enjoy less, as with any other genre.

As other have pointed out, the genres almost always intermix, so a clear distinction is almost impossible to make. Another great example of the fluent intermix of these two sub-genres is Peter F. Hamilton's Night's Dawn series (The Reality Dysfunction, The Neutronium Alchemist, The Naked God & A Second Chance At Eden), which in addition to fantasy and science fiction also throws in some horror for good measure. ..."

I hate -- with a capital HATE -- the phrase "speculative fiction." It's a wishy-washy nonsense term that hipsters use to justify their guilty pleasures.

It's really simple to define the line between Science Fiction and Fantasy: if it's impossible, then it's Fantasy; if it's possible, no matter how seemingly preposterous, then it's Science Fiction. If you have 99% of your content be possible yet add in a single, solitary bit that is utterly impossible, then you have crossed the line into Fantasy. Star Trek is mostly sci-fi, but once you have Mr. Spock walking around, a character that we know for a fact is biologically impossible, then you've switched genres. That doesn't make the thing any less enjoyable or worthy, it simply puts it in different box.

Lol @ Trike - by your very definition science fiction IS fantasy: warp 9? FTL space travel? Time travel? Methane breathers? Cross-alien species breeding? Seriously, what part of actual sf is possible?

Trike wrote: "Rita wrote: " To me both genres are sub-genres of speculative fiction, which is a huge broad term that covers more than just fantasy and science fiction. If we look at these two specifically it's h..."

Trike, Wikipedia claims that "speculative fiction" was first used by Heinlein. I'm not sure why he invented it. I find it too nebulous. Any piece of fiction involves some degree of speculation. The first time I recall seeing the term was in an essay by Harlan Ellison in which he said that he preferred it because he thought he'd get more respect for his work. I guess he wanted to be included with all the dead literature that gets dissected in classrooms. So it looks like authors are the ones who have perpetuated "speculative fiction", not readers.

Just so you know - as former President of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_... - I can tell you that most science fiction and fantasy writer like to called science fiction and/or fantasy writers. I agree completely with Shomeret that "speculative fiction" is far too nebulous. Science fiction and fantasy writers don't need the respect of the establishment - we make our own establishment.

Shomeret wrote: "Trike, Wikipedia claims that "speculative fiction" was first used by Heinlein. I'm not sure why he invented it. I find it too nebulous. Any piece of fiction involves some degree of speculation. The first time I recall seeing the term was in an essay by Harlan Ellison in which he said that he preferred it because he thought he'd get more respect for his work. I guess he wanted to be included with all the dead literature that gets dissected in classrooms. So it looks like authors are the ones who have perpetuated "speculative fiction", not readers."

If Moses Jr. came down from the mount with clay tablets which said Speculative Fiction Comes Straight From Heaven, I'd still hold the same opinion.

It's wishy-washy bullshit. Be who you are, like what you like and, most importantly, do not apologize for it.

Rita wrote: "Lol @ Trike - by your very definition science fiction IS fantasy: warp 9? FTL space travel? Time travel? Methane breathers? Cross-alien species breeding? Seriously, what part of actual sf is possible?"

Do you read about physics? Here are a couple things that actual physicists think are possible: FTL and time travel. Even invisibility.

Do you read about biology? Here are some things biologists think are possible: breathing methane, human hibernation and life extension.

What isn't possible? Warp 9. Cross-species breeding. The Force.

I take my cue from science. If those guys, who are smarter than me, think that something is possible, then I say we let it into the genre. Until we know that FTL, time travel, cryosleep, invisibility cloaks and a whole host of other things are impossible, then they are open for speculation and postulation.

Trike wrote: "What isn't possible? Cross-species breeding."

Since when? There's a lot of examples of cross-species breeding.

Chris wrote: "Rita actually wrote 'cross-alien species breeding', not just 'cross-species breeding'. I don't think we know of any real-life examples of cross-alien species breeding!"

I know but it's not so far-fetched, and I would definitely say science fiction not fantasy.

Chris wrote: "It isn't enough to say that science fiction includes anything that's possible: by that definition, the whole of mainstream fiction is science fiction. We need an umbrella term that covers sci-fi, fantasy, horror and other types of fiction that clearly aren't mainstream, and that's what the term 'speculative fiction' is for"

Yeah, I use speculative fiction because I'm too damned lazy to say I mostly read fantasy/SF/horror/magical realism. If someone has a better umbrella term for it I'll be happy to use that too. ;)

Chris wrote: "Evilynn wrote: If someone has a better umbrella term for it I'll be happy to use that too. ;)

I suppose we could just say 'the good stuff'! :)"

lol! I hear you!

Kim wrote: "Trike wrote: "What isn't possible? Cross-species breeding."

Since when? There's a lot of examples of cross-species breeding."

Don't be That Guy. You know full well we're talking copper-based-blood Vulcans and iron-based-blood Humans and not yellow finches and black finches or skinny supermodels and fat nerds.

Chris wrote: "It isn't enough to say that science fiction includes anything that's possible: by that definition, the whole of mainstream fiction is science fiction. We need an umbrella term that covers sci-fi, fantasy, horror and other types of fiction that clearly aren't mainstream, and that's what the term 'speculative fiction' is for. ns..."

This is why I dislike discussing things with nerds, always with the semantic arguments when we all know -- or should know -- that within the boundaries of a "Fantasy or Science Fiction" discussion topic there are certain givens. For SF it's the part about speculation based on science, postulation based on reality, taken to its logical conclusion, no matter how outlandish it may seem at first.

I really didn't think I needed to spell that out yet again amongst people I assumed would know better. My bad. Hell is other people, indeed.

I usually include the line that goes something like, "And anyone who claims that 'all fiction is really Fantasy' needs a punch in the face and then shown the door." Maybe I should just leave that bit in every time. No, you do not get bonus points for saying "all fiction is really Science Fiction."

Am I the only one who gets tired of the "let's define our terms yet again" aspect of these discussions?

Someone build me a laser gun and gengineer a dinosaur for me to ride through town, please.

Somewhere, growing up, I came to the conclusion that Sci-Fi is possible futures and the interaction with species from other plaints. Fantasy was creature of your imagination, usually that did not engage in space travel. Not a strong definition, but one I sort of cling to yet.

B.J. Whittington
Website

Face it ... the moment you have your boundaries defined to your satisfaction, some smart-alec writer is going to come along and stretch them beyond all recognition. That's what creative people do. :)

I find myself really disliking the way that bookstores/libraries define genres. Too many times I see a book in one section and feel like it belongs in a different section.

Can anyone explain to me why Walter Moers' and Christopher Moore's novels are always in Literature/Fiction and not Fantasy? What is the line between literature and fantasy?

And then the horror section... So much of what is in horror is fantasy (ghost stories, zombies, apocalypse/post-apocalypse- or hey some of that is Sci-fi...)

And then all that Paranormal romance... Romance section or Fantasy section? And what about the good fantasy novels that happen to have a good romance. Do they get pigeonholed into romance or left in fantasy? So confusing! Should we have a smut meter to define the difference between romance and non-romance?

Why are so many great fantasy novels being shoved into YA now? Especially when their content is CLEARLY NOT YA! Don't get me wrong I love that the YA sections in stores have exploded since Twilight/Hunger Games but so many of those books are not YA, were not written to be YA and at the end of the day have no business being in the YA section. (When I was younger I always assumed that YA was akin to PG-13. Reading level was lower but also the content of the books should be on level with pre-teens/teens and that is so not the case now).

Genre labels suck. :-P

Remember that neither the publisher nor the author gets to decide where things are shelved. At the library you may have some effect, especially if you volunteer to help shelve. But at bookstores the books are shelved by minimum-wage employees who almost certainly have not read the works in question.

Why are works shoved into the YA category? Because there's gold in them thar hills, pardner. Blame Rowling and THE HUNGER GAMES, which has juiced the genre greatly. Everybody wants to get onto the gravy train.

Trike wrote: "Do you read about physics? Here are a couple things that actual physicists think are possible: FTL and time travel. Even invisibility.l..."

Actually yes, Quantum physics in particular. Remember earlier this year when CERN had some tests that indicated that neutrinos were able to travel faster than light? Turns out it was a computer glitch that gave that result. Based on what we know today faster than light travel is NOT possible. Doesn't mean that we cannot fantasize and postulate possibilities and plots around it. That's what we love about the genre anyway - it's the "what if" that makes SF/F awesome.

Trike wrote: "Do you read about biology? Here are some things biologists think are possible: breathing methane, human hibernation and life extension.
What isn't possible? Warp 9. Cross-species breeding. The Force."

I don't read about biology in particular. But I do know that different species cannot mix. Similarity and compatibility is required. Ever heard of an elephant and a cat mixing? I think not. I would really like to hear who claims that it might be possible!

Trike wrote: "I take my cue from science. If those guys, who are smarter than me, think that something is possible, then I say we let it into the genre. Until we know that FTL, time travel, cryosleep, invisibility cloaks and a whole host of other things are impossible, then they are open for speculation and postulation.

Of course, that's why we call it FICTION ;-)

Trike wrote: It's really simple to define the line between Science Fiction and Fantasy: if it's impossible, then it's Fantasy; if it's possible, no matter how seemingly preposterous, then it's Science Fiction.

Don't know if anyone's still thinking about this, but - no, Trike, no. If what happens in a story is presented as magic, then it's fantasy. If it's presented as science, then it's science fiction. If it's presented as science but is actually impossible, that doesn't make it fantasy: it just makes it science fiction using bad science (or perhaps different science, e.g. science in a different universe with different scientific laws.)

Chris wrote: " If what happens in a story is presented as magic, then it's fantasy. If it's presented as science, then it's science fiction. If it's presented as science but is actually impossible, that doesn't make it fantasy: it just makes it science fiction using bad science (or perhaps different science, e.g. science in a different universe with different scientific laws.) "

Not sure you can define the difference so easily; think of LE Modesitt Jrs 'Recluse' series which started with several books about 'magic' users who used either Order Magic or Chaos Magic then 'Fall Of Angels' came along which showed the magicians were descendants of two groups of space going soldiers stranded on the planet hundreds of years ago during a battle and the different types of magic correlate with the two types of psychic weaponry used in the war and now severely restricted by the planets unique field. It is impossible & bad science but the stories remain 'Fantasy'
Look also at Peter F Hamiltons Void Trilogy; it is very much SF with galactic empires and spaceships and advanced but plausible technology but it centres round attempts to get into a huge region of space that is inaccessible from outside but within which 'magic' is possible. The stories of the events inside that void are pure 'Fantasy' in content and style even if technically the magic is made possible by extremely advanced technology.

The word 'Style' is the key in my opinion; Fantasy stories and SF stories have a whole different feel and style to each other regardless of how many spaceships or dragons appear in the plot. Don't ask my to define exactly what those style differences are though :-)

If it's well written, I'll like it.

I don't tend to concern myself much about the difference between the genres. There obviously is a difference, and books at either end are easily classified, but things get fuzzy in the middle (like Pern, as previously discussed). What attracts me to both science fiction and fantasy, and what I think ties them together, is that they are about the (currently) impossible.

Rita wrote: "I don't read about biology in particular. But I do know that different species cannot mix. Similarity and compatibility is required. Ever heard of an elephant and a cat mixing? I think not. I would really like to hear who claims that it might be possible!"

I said "isn't possible."

Kim in message 20 said it was, pretending like he didn't understand what we were actually talking about. Or maybe he didn't actually get it. I don't know.

Chris wrote: "Trike wrote: It's really simple to define the line between Science Fiction and Fantasy: if it's impossible, then it's Fantasy; if it's possible, no matter how seemingly preposterous, then it's Science Fiction.

Don't know if anyone's still thinking about this, but - no, Trike, no. If what happens in a story is presented as magic, then it's fantasy. If it's presented as science, then it's science fiction. If it's presented as science but is actually impossible, that doesn't make it fantasy: it just makes it science fiction using bad science (or perhaps different science, e.g. science in a different universe with different scientific laws.) "

In Hardy's novel Master of the Five Magics, magic is presented as a science. I think it is likewise presented as such in a couple of Sanderson's books. There have been Science Fiction novels where the science has been presented as magic.

That's why you have to look beyond the props, the furniture and what the characters believe. Often an author will give you clues, as Wolfe does in Book of the New Sun, that what seems at first to be one thing is actually another. Sometimes, as with McCaffrey's Pern, the author will insist that they're writing SF but it's really Fantasy.

Again, this doesn't mean a work is better or worse than any other, it's just a method whereby we can classify it properly.

Don't get me wrong, I read about as much Fantasy as I do SF, but it is much easier to generalise about 'What is Fantasy' because 90% of it is derived from LOTR. Small guy from Farm/Kitchens with big heart is conscripted to defeat EvilWarlord/EvilGod against all odds because MagicSword/Prophesy/LatentMagicPowers makes him the only person with a chance.
Yes, there are notable and very good exceptions but the overwhelming majority of the bestselling series over the last 50 years fit that formula.

Science Fiction does not have that formulaic core so is much more varied. Some of it is just mainstream genres set in space or the future eg Detective, Military or even Fantasy (like Star Wars in which farmboy becomes Hero and defeats Evil Empire) but what I would term 'Real SF' shines a light on todays issues by extrapolating forward to see what effect Time or New Technology might have on human culture and society (think Brave New World, 1984, I Robot, Soylent Green). Sometimes it shines a light on us by comparing it to an alien perspective (think The Mote In Gods Eye or The Sparrow or the later Ender books). Fantasy says 'I wonder what it would be like to live in a low-tech world that has magic' while SF says 'I wonder what *this* world would look like if radical new technology or world changing event happened'

When I first started following this thread I thought it was a real tempest in a teakettle. Now I feel pretty nervous about weighing in, because there have been very interesting, compelling and intelligent commentaries made (I feel like I'm really jumping in to the deep end of the pool here). Isn't it all completely relative to the expectations and experiences of the reader? Just because one person says a book is Fantasy or SciFi doesn't make it so if another person who has read the same book feels differently. Do authors even consider or care about the possible classification when they set out to start writing?

Trike wrote: "Chris wrote: "Trike wrote: It's really simple to define the line between Science Fiction and Fantasy: if it's impossible, then it's Fantasy; if it's possible, no matter how seemingly preposterous, ..."

I've been reading SFF for 50+ years (yup, I'm THAT old) and this has always been a contention within the genre.

Back in the 1950's/60's Trike's definition would have stood the test; but by the late 60's early 70's Chris' "magic" inclusion altered everything - slightly! No-one agreed then, and it's unlikely now - NO definition will make ALL the people happy :)

In a similar fashion, how does one define 'Mythology'? There's a lot of 'fantasy' in there, but also kernels of truth (according to Joseph Campbell) :)

Creative Mythology: Masks of God 4 Occidental Mythology: The Masks of God 3 The Hero with a Thousand Faces: The Cosmogonic Cycle

to name a few! (And, incidentally, from where a great deal of SFF originates!!)

N wrote: "It does seem to be a spectrum between the two based on increasing technicality and decreasing inter-relationship drama as you move from fantasy towards science fiction. Thats why I tend to like science fiction more: it's a bit more of a mental workout. I actually learn something and there isn't much drama to deal with. Or if there is, it's presented in a complex way. I wish there was more high-tech and near future/politically charged sci-fi compared to what seems to be flooding the market: Series based fantasies with never-ending power plays/Good vs. Evil type plots just layered over eachother; much like soap operas in exotic settings."

Pre-internet fandom called those kinds of Fantasies "Extruded Fantasy Product" or EFP for short. Exemplified by Brooks' Sword of Shannara series and the like.

Good science fiction does have what I like to call an intellectual cover charge, although good fantasy does, too, to a certain extent. I did get The Unincorporated Man and The Unincorporated War last year because they seemed to be talking about modern politics and business practices in a Science Fictional way, but I haven't gotten to them yet. I am a wee bit concerned they might be libertarian screeds or some sort of update on the execrable Atlas Shrugged, but I'm reserving judgement until I read them.

Rich wrote: "When I first started following this thread I thought it was a real tempest in a teakettle. Now I feel pretty nervous about weighing in, because there have been very interesting, compelling and intelligent commentaries made (I feel like I'm really jumping in to the deep end of the pool here). Isn't it all completely relative to the expectations and experiences of the reader? Just because one person says a book is Fantasy or SciFi doesn't make it so if another person who has read the same book feels differently. Do authors even consider or care about the possible classification when they set out to start writing?"

There probably *are* authors who care a great deal about what genre they're working in, and on the flipside, authors who could not care less.

I think things can be classified. Classifying something is natural for humans. Mostly we don't get much beyond "good" and "bad", but there's a reason why we impose order on the world around us: it's inherent to who we are. Categorization is just part of that. Plus it's useful.

If you like one thing, you can more easily find similar things to try. But only if someone has sorted them for you. Otherwise you just have to sample things randomly.

China Mieville is the best example I know of an author saying "Yah boo sux" to classification.

Carole-Ann wrote: "In a similar fashion, how does one define 'Mythology'?"

Mythology is religion (or similar set of beliefs) the mainstream doesn't believe in, either any more or at all.

The beliefs of Christians or Muslims are no less fanciful than those of ancient Romans or ancient Mayans, but because so many people believe it currently, we don't label it mythology.

Carole-Ann wrote: "There's a lot of 'fantasy' in there, but also kernels of truth (according to Joseph Campbell) :)"

There are kernels of truth in every religion and most belief systems. That's what gives them their staying power. It's the story of the human condition, and we've been recycling those stories for thousands -- perhaps tens of thousands -- of years.

Stephen wrote: "China Mieville is the best example I know of an author saying "Yah boo sux" to classification."

China is part of a new wave of SF who say 'I don't care if it is plausible and I am not going to explain how this world came about' :-) but I would not classify any of his work as Fantasy (Though I will admit that Kraken is pushing the boundary). I get a monthly SF magazine called 'Interzone' and, although I don't think China has contributed, these are the sort of stories you will read there. The worlds just don't follow the laws of physics as we know them or are results of changes so extreme (through new tech, extreme time or intrusion of alternate dimensions) that they are unrecognisable.

Actually a good example of an author who did not care about classification is Ray Bradbury. 'Something Wicked This Way Comes' Is kind of about the supernatural but really is more about childhood wonder (as is 'Dandelion Wine') but some of his short stories are pure Horror and the Martian Chronicles and 'A Sound Of Thunder' are mainstream SF while 'Death Is A Lonely Business' is mostly a mystery with supernatural tones.

Iain Banks went to the extreme of using a different name for his SF though I am intrigued about his reasons for using the 'mainstream' name to publish 'Transitions'.

Isaac Asimov summed it up this way: “science fiction, given its grounding in science, is possible; fantasy, which has no grounding in reality, is not.”
The Canadian science fiction writer, Robert J. Sawyer, put it a bit differently. "Science fiction deals with things that might possibly happen (or, in the case of the subgenre of science fiction known as alternate history, things that possibly could have happened); fantasy deals with things that never could happen."
I also wrote a post on this subject last year, which provides a little more description and history. It is here if you'd like to see it. http://dlmorrese.wordpress.com/2012/0...
I read both science fiction and fantasy, but with one notable exception (Terry Pratchett's Discworld) I will admit a preference for science fiction. I'm a genre bender myself, but it's a matter of personal taste. No one can say that one is objectively better than the other.
I do see a fairly clear difference between them, at least theoretically. In actuality, many stories mix both science fiction and fantasy elements into 'science fantasy.' If I had to categorize stories like these as one genre or the other, I'd go with what the story emphasized or what the plot relied on the most. This would put Star Trek, for example, into Science Fiction, but it would put Star Wars into Fantasy because of its heavy reliance on the 'Force.'

D.L. wrote: "Isaac Asimov summed it up this way: “science fiction, given its grounding in science, is possible; fantasy, which has no grounding in reality, is not.”
The Canadian science fiction writer, Robert ..."

Well said!! Thank you!

Jamie wrote: "People so often link these together, but except for imagining something that isn't real, I find them very different genres. While I adore fantasy, I'm not at all fond of Science Fictrion. I was won..."

It’s intersting you would mention the difference between fantasy and science fiction, because the gender in my book have both. - and no this is not a plug!

Over one hundred years ago; flying to the moon was unreal - was it fantasy then?

Erik wrote: "Over one hundred years ago; flying to the moon was unreal - was it fantasy then?"

Depends on how it was handled. On the back of a luna moth as Doctor Dolittle did? Yes, Fantasy. Via Jules Verne's space capsule launched from Florida? No, Science Fiction.

See, that distinction is absolutely critical in drawing the line between the two genres: one is impossible, one might be possible.

Robinhj wrote: "China is part of a new wave of SF who say 'I don't care if it is plausible and I am not going to explain how this world came about' :-) but I would not classify any of his work as Fantasy"

Mieville's work is CLEARLY Fantasy. There's no argument at all. Nothing he writes is the least bit possible.

He's actually older school Fantasy, so I'd call his stuff Throwback Fantasy at this point. Fantasy used to not have rigid rules -- things happened because they either needed to happen via plot or simply because the author thought they were cool.

Contemporary Fantasy is being overtaken by Hard Fantasy, and one might argue Hard Fantasy is already the dominant form right now. Everyone from Brandon Sanderson to Patrick Rothfuss to Jim Butcher to Patricia Briggs to Peter Brett and a hundred more authors invest a lot of time explaining the rules of how their magic systems work. Something that wasn't done in earlier works.

Robinhj wrote: "Actually a good example of an author who did not care about classification is Ray Bradbury. 'Something Wicked This Way Comes' Is kind of about the supernatural but really is more about childhood wonder (as is 'Dandelion Wine') but some of his short stories are pure Horror and the Martian Chronicles and 'A Sound Of Thunder' are mainstream SF while 'Death Is A Lonely Business' is mostly a mystery with supernatural tones."

Not caring which genre he worked in is completely different from not being able to sort each of those stories into a genre. A bird doesn't care what species it is but we still categorize them.

Any “world” that fits into the constraints of a novel (or trilogy, or sequence) is going to be reductive; genre developed as a reductive shorthand. But we are drawn to proximal worlds that we can both more easily imagine, and find interesting. Sci-Fi is interesting for me in a way that fantasy and horror isn’t; urban fantasy is better than dragons and elfs. Of course, genre isn’t the only thing—isn’t even the most important thing. I read Earthsea because I love Le Guin’s Sci-Fi. I read Chandler because I find his language (in what to me is a linguistically impoverished genre) refreshing. I read Raymond Carver because I find it reassuring that his voice is still there. I read some books (Austen) over-and-over because they succeed on so many levels.