I en tidigare postning skrev jag om hur somliga gör en stor sak av skillnaden mellan sf och fantasy, och hur det dessutom finns folk som tycker att sf är bättre och mer uppbyggligt. Nu har jag hittat en annan bloggpost om samma sak, men möjligen en smula mer välformulerat: Why Fantasy isn’t crap, and SF isn’t better, av Al Robertson.

In this context, the claim that SF is superior to Fantasy because it is a more accurate reflection of the potentials and realities of the world is meaningless. Science can seed fiction, but it can’t (by definition) be fiction.

Given this, how can one argue that a science fiction novel that explores the political and emotional ramifications of (say) a certain set of assumptions about the possibilities of science (as, for example, the Foundation series does) is superior to a fantasy novel that explores the political and emotional ramifications of a certain set of assumptions about political theory (as, for example, China Mieville’s Bas Lag novels do)?

Dessutom kan jag bjuda på ett relaterat citat ur förordet till Year’s Best SF 12 (som täcker 2006):

It is our opinion that it is a good thing to have genre boundaries. If we didn’t, young writers would have to find something else, perhaps less interesting, to transgress or attack to draw attention to themselves.