a sense of artistry

No difference. Typical cunty "I don't like sci Fi fantasy but I'm gonna wrote it anyway" bullshit

a difference in degree, and not one in kind; as such,w here you draw the line/if you should draw a line is hotly contested and nebulous

>>7680339
Fantasy is some shitty derivate of Tolkien.

Speculative fiction is more of a hard sci-fi, in the same wheelhouse as apocalyptic fiction. It may have elements of science fiction but it tries to keep itself grounded in contemporary "reality."

>>7680339
Why does it matter?

No, Margaret said as much after she had established that the series was, indeed, literature.

Plus she probably made more money that way.

Course, the question only matters if you sell books.

>>7680394
atwood is a well known hack, anything she says should be discounted

>>7680391

was trying to persuade a mate to read hyperion as he wouldn't stop going on about keats, problem is he won't touch anything associated with the sci-fi/fantasy section.

I trotted out atwood's argument without thinking and then realised that it didn't make much sense, did a bit of research later and seems like she was terrified of her work appearing in the "wrong" part of the bookshop.

>>7680339
How pretentious the author is about the fact she's writing science fiction.

Here, have this: http://www.rifters.com/real/shorts/PeterWatts_Atwood.pdf

The term "speculative fiction" is used by writers of genre fiction who wish to seem artistic. You've already furnished an example OP.

>>7680339
sci-fi vs. fantasy? One would suppose an aesthetic touch. One deals with tech, the other magic, both with something distinctly unreal. Although many books that are far future sci-fi take on a fantasy aesthetic. Speculative? In most cases a specific type of sci-fi; 1984, William Gibson, etc.

People won't read sci-fi because it's bracketed off from "real literature" and deemed a lower art form. But why isn't Infinite Jest considered a sci-fi book? It is very clearly a near future dystopia, speculative fiction, but is never referred to as such. Are magical realist books like One Hundred Years of Solitude fantasy? What about Borges or even Kafka? Why not? You could claim that these works are aiming at more than mere adventure or speculation and seek to make some statement about the human condition, but so do a lot of sci fi books.

The closest I could come to a definitive answer here is that maybe these distinctions have more to do with marketing than content. Or just the ease of swift categorization? Umberto Eco said on being referred to as a postmodernist that a label is always a punishment, not an endearment. Once placed within a genre or school, you're associated with the ideas and aesthetics of others who you not only might disagree with, but whom you might have nothing in common with. Once labeled your ideas are no longer taken as they come, but blended with all this other shit.

Atwood in particular probably did not want to be typecast into a genre that the critical establishment has difficulty taking seriously. Philip K. Dick, I think, had the same problem. I don't blame her. It's hard enough to get taken seriously and have people put real effort into looking at your work.