Editor’s Notes: Volume 8 (2025)

Editor’s Notes: Volume 8 (2025)

(1) Defining Science Fiction and Fantasy

In this mid-length essay, I tackle two problems that seem to trip a number of authors (not so much in article-length writings, but in some of the books we have reviewed). Can we define in a meaningful way “science fiction” as a genre? Is it not too Promethean a beast, shape-shifting every time we try to corner it? And is there a way of distinguishing it from the Fantasy genre? I argue that both things can be done. Science fiction introduces fictional elements of science and technology, but intentionally in continuity with science as presently understood, while Fantasy purposefully ruptures that continuity, even to the metaphysical level.

These distinctions do not imply the impossibility of mixing or blurriness between genres. The distinctions are helpful in that each genre may have advantages when addressing specific philosophical themes. I warn also against attempting to define the genres according to the potential goals of authors.

(2) New Section: Charting the Stars. A home for your groundwork research.

Early in the Journal’s short history, two standards were settled for its General and Yearly Theme articles. These standards developed partly from the Journal’s Scope & Aim, “to foster the appreciation of science fiction as a medium for philosophical reflection,” and partly through our Reviewers’ interpretation of this aim. First, an article must advance an original philosophical thesis (thus, not simply “illustrate” a philosophical point, but actually develop a point), and second, the thesis must involve into its argument insights drawn from science fiction narratives – not simply as decoration, but as an integral part of the argument. To these two “intrinsic” standards, of course, one must add the supervening standards of the discipline: clarity, nuance, thoroughness (including an adequate grasp of the current state of the discussion), respect for opposing views, proper citations, and so forth.

But the two standards left something out, though, as now and then I would receive some very interesting articles gathering a wealth of research – on an author, a tradition, a body of work – yet missing the first standard, an original thesis. In some cases it became possible to rework the article, so that the research would now be at the service of a thesis; in other cases that felt like too much work, or like the thesis would be just “forced” into the manuscript, just to check a requirement when the article was clearly about something else.

Thus the need for a new section, housing a different type of article, an article focusing on groundwork research, which, while still providing an orientation towards its philosophical possibilities, would focus on gathering and organizing useful data, providing prospective authors (and of course, curious, inquiring readers) with a panoramic view of a tradition, a biographical look at an author, or an in-depth exploration of a body of work.

We have called it Charting the Stars. It does not aim at the systematic work of the encyclopedist (which can only be planned once the world has been charted), but at the piecemeal work of the explorer, the mapmaker, who take a region of the world and try to make it intelligible. The stars here are the brightest spots in an endless firmament, countless, of course and each one a world; they help us navigate by their light. They represent influential authors with a substantial body of work; series or individual works of particular depth and importance, indicated by copious philosophical literature in their trail; they can represent historical movements or national traditions, so that without being there we can still expand our horizons, learn how big is the world.

(3) New Section: Letters to the Editor: A Proposal. Let’s make it a philosophical conversation!

Can we bring back the good times of Epistolary Philosophy? Here is a proposal: Send me
your letters, send me your responses! I will post them in a public forum, with a reference to
the article (or previous letter) it is responding to.

---

Published: 2025 – 07 – 01