It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
So, guys, since we've had like a thread rush, I've decided I'll share a thought that I thought about sharing some time ago and at the time seemed like I won't.
"Lem's Razor", presumably named after Stanisław Lem, is a little something that I've seen mentioned as a topic of a debate on some convention. I don't know where they found it, so, no quotes. In the form I've stumbled upon, it posits that "if a story can have all its fantastic elements removed without harm to the plot, it's never been all that 'fantastic' in the first place". Translation (mine) is not too strict, but you get the gist of it. I wonder what do you think of it. Do you approve of such a way of classifying speculative fiction? Does it even make sense.
Comments
This just sounds like something along the lines of the no-true-scotsman fallacy.
Especially since one could boil down almost every story to core elements that are really independent of setting and culture details.
So basically it's saying the setting is meaningless unless the core of the plot directly hinges on whatever elements set it apart from reality.
Yeah fuck that razor. Storytelling uses fantastic settings to draw attention to and focus on completely ordinary and deeply personal things all the time. See: Disney.
If the core of the plot directly hinges on whatever elements set it apart from reality, don't we call that...a tech demo?
If anything, I'd say that if your plot is all about "what would things be like if" it's spiritually closer to science fiction than fantasy.
Sci-fi and fantasy both count. In fact, if it's really Lem's, then more likely than not it was meant exclusively for SF. I wasn't on that lecture, but right now I'm reading an article on it (edit: that rule, I mean), and the story goes that Lem wanted to sieve "pure" SF from adventure stories that happened to be set in the future. The article then goes on to state it's a good tool for bashing space operas and other pulps against classic hard SF, but falters when taken beyond its era. Just so you know, I have my view on the issue but it's less interesting than discussion.
In that case I more or less agree, at when I'm having one of Those Days and have convinced myself that trying to define the difference between science fiction and fantasy is a useful thing to do. SF tells a story about magic, while fantasy merely tells a story with magic. Or something.