Why is it that SF&F came to be categorized together?

SF partakes of mysteries as much as fantasy. Fantasy partakes of romance more than science.

Why isn't there a SF/thriller section and a fantasy/folklore/historicals section in bookstores, instead of a SF&F section?

Why are HG Wells and JRR Tolkien classed together? Why Arthur C. Clarke and Robert Jordan? Why is William Gibson lumped with David Eddings?

-Andy

:) I actually dislike the term "speculative fiction" because it tends to dismiss both SF and Fantasy rather than really lending anything to either. I was more than a bit irked (heh:p) when the local writer's group decided to fold their SF section of a contest that they are having into speculative fiction and then proceeded to lump the "speculative fiction" into "genre fiction". Lumping them both into the same category tends to do things like that--it makes it a whole lot easier to dismiss them both because without their individual history they are *really* tough to define.

Really I suspect that the joining of the two in many peoples' minds probably happened in the pulp period when much of the SF was pretty similar to Fantasy anyhow but... *shrug* I think it kinda depends on how things are used.

:) On the flip side though, you are kinda lumping mismatched pairs together. I mean Asimov's Foundation *might* be a better match with Tolkein's LotR where Wells might match up with someone like Dunsany or Alice in Wonderland. :) ...or Howard or someone along those lines. Same sort of thing goes with the Jordan/Clarke comparison--ummmmmmmmm... Kurtz might be a better comparison:) One of the more technical Fantasy authors.

:) On the other flip side though, you could put forward that both Fantasy and SF are more metagenres than genres (my own arguement) so pairing them up makes some sense from that point.

Not sure about the SF-Mystery, Fantasy-Romance sort of thign though. My take on it is that SF is essentially descended from non-fiction sources (with story wrapped around it) while fantasy kinda has an oddball, jaggedy-jagged entomology, part of which comes from the old Gothic genre but most of which is based on oral tales/legends/myths. This means that at it's core the purer SF is pretty technical (Hard SF) while Fantasy is pretty lyrical (Tolkein, Dunsany, Beagle...). The line does blur somewhere in the middle but a lot of that is crossover stuff or people treating either as a genre which doesn't really do justice to either (but can be fun).

On the other other other hand, you might put forward a claim that SF becomes fantasy once its expiration date comes up. I wouldn't though;)

Ander

Perhaps if I was older I'd have the answer myself. But I wonder. Originally H.G. Wells and Lord Dunsany were, I assume, just shelved with the rest of the popular literature.

Hugo Gernsback is generally credited with turning SF into a genre. That was 1920s. So I suppose the question for me is why, when the Tolkien imitators of the 70s made fantasy a genre, why was it combined with SF instead of given its own section on the bookshelves?

Was it because crossover authors were already at work (Ursula K. Le Guin)? Was it because the two genres held the same place of disdain in the mainstream mind (just below romance, which was a good bit lower than mystery, which was a bit lower than thriller)?

Or is it because the audience for the two was pretty much the same? Why is the audience the same?

-Andy

While there is a body of work that is "hard" SF and some "pure" fantasy, there are a lot of authors who blur the lines. Are Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern, Marion Zimmer Bradley's Cottman IV/Darkover series, and Andre Norton's Witch World novels fantasy or science fiction? If the genres were separated, where would you put those books on the shelf? How about all of the Star Wars novels? Fantasy or science fiction?

Wherever you decided to house those books, you would get grief from the science fiction fans, and the fantasy fans, who would be sure that you put some of the books in the wrong place.

I'm a fan of both fantasy and SF, but really prefer my genres unmixed. I admit that the "soft science fiction/sorta fantasyish" stuff bothers me. I like vegetable soup and cherry pie, but I don't like cherries in my soup or celery in my pie.

I've heard this discussion a lot. I think Andy got it mostly right - the reason SF and Fantasy get lumped together is that they have much the same audience, and the same detractors. To this day, my parents wonder why I bother reading SF/F when I could spend my time reading 'real' literature.

Another thought is that both Fantasy and Sci-Fi generally take place in settings that don't exist and never will. While 'regular' fiction takes place in real locations or possibly made-up towns based on real locations, both Science Fiction and Fantasy tend to do things like invent whole planets. Or they alter reality to the point that even known locations are unrecognizable (London in Gaiman's Neverwhere for example.

Obviously that's not always the case - Flowers For Algernon, for example, is clearly science fiction. But since it's really mostly about the characters and less about the science there's an argument that it's really just 'literature' with a single fantastical element added. Readers who say they don't like SF/F often like books like this one or (gah) The Notebook or other books about 'real' people that have SF/F elements added as a plot device.

Hey, now. The Pern books got me through at least one summer living with my grandparents, working the cherry harvest. I even started a club the next year in school based on the Pern Weyr structure, and . . . I'm not making a good case, am I?

Still, I look back on my having read them as part of what eventually led me to my love of good SF&F, whereas something like Piers Anthony's Xanth is something I look back on as time better spent mowing the lawn.

-Andy