The difference between Science-Fiction and Fantasy

[gmw]

Originally Posted by thrawn_aj

I used to be quite militant about this distinction . Then, I read this little ditty* that brought me down several notches and made me see the light . (*specifically, pages 21-23 (especially 23) of the link I provided. Very eye-opening).

I realized that the only times I felt compelled to make that distinction was when confronted with bad science fiction or bad fantasy. That is not to say that there are no differences at all, just that the differences do not relate to the quality of the book in any way.

Just a thought

Thank you for that link. I was very interested to see how he continued to make strong distinctions between science fiction and fantasy right up to "bunk" (that science fiction can define it's own magic). It seemed that in the final analysis his position is: "If you have people do some magic impossible thing by stroking a talisman or praying to a tree, it's fantasy, if they do same thing by pressing a button or climbing inside a machine, it's science fiction." Of course that still leaves books like his own Songmaster, where they do impossible things through song.

[Jellby]

If the little green men are from Mars, it's science-fiction, if they are goblins, it's fantasy.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Jellby

If the little green men are from Mars, it's science-fiction, if they are goblins, it's fantasy.

Are Edgar Rice Burroughs' "Barsoom" novels SF or Fantasy? I'd put them very much in the "Fantasy" category, myself!

[daus]

A simple definition from Wikipedia maybe can be a reference:
[...] Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with the impact of imagined innovations in science or technology, often in a futuristic setting.

It differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation). Exploring the consequences of such differences is the traditional purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas". Science fiction is largely based on writing rationally about alternative possibilities.[...]

more complete definition can be read here

[Dopedangel]

Why is a man drinking blood fantasy and a cockroach flying space ships Scifi.
I think Scifi is a subgenre of fantasy.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are Edgar Rice Burroughs' "Barsoom" novels SF or Fantasy? I'd put them very much in the "Fantasy" category, myself!

I haven't read them (yet), but there are undoubtedly books that fall in the middle of both extremes. Another simplistic difference would be that science-fiction tends to explain things, while in fantasy they are "just because".

Terry Pratchett's Discworld is mainly fantasy, but has some traits of science fiction too, although a very particular "science"

[OtterBooks]

Paraphrasing a bit from the wikipedia definition, I think it's scifi if the consequences of science and technology are a major theme. But there's always gonna be fuzzy lines with genre and I don't concern myself with labels when deciding what to enjoy.

I do allow myself a bit of snobbery when people refer to Star Wars as sci-fi. It is not. It's Fantasy. Knights and wizards in space.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by gmw

I've rambled long enough (at least ). What do you think?

I believe that imposing unnecessary boundaries on genres has very little benefit.

Now, perhaps to you this may be useful, as you may prefer sci-fi that is more about "scientific plausibility" than about "technology as magic," and that's fine.

But stating what is "true" sci-fi or "true" fantasy just imposes artificial restrictions on what the authors "should" do. This is art and/or entertainment; and ultimately the overriding rules -- entertain and/or enlighten and/or amuse and/or provoke the audience -- are far more important than a series of unnecessary restraints on the author.

We could also get into the idea of definitions as dynamic and constantly evolving, and thus how generating static definitions is nearly impossible, but I'm not sure web forums are particularly efficient at displaying Venn diagrams, so...

[Richey79]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

I do allow myself a bit of snobbery when people refer to Star Wars as sci-fi. It is not. It's Fantasy. Knights and wizards in space.

George Lucas himself said that Star Wars was a classical saga, but set in a futuristic environment. That sounds like a pretty good classification to me.

I started to write a long response to the issue along the lines that this terminology only exists to discredit novels by pigeon holing them and stripping them of authority by saying they're only 'science fiction' or 'fantasy'. In the process of writing it, I realised that they do exist, it's just that there are many, many sub-genres of these types of fiction. Unlike music, it seems that noone has tried to force names and popular definitions on this multitude of sub-genres.

I think it's a shame that the term 'literary fiction' isn't challenged a bit more often. It's as though as soon as something is generally classified as literature, people respect it, even if they personally find it uninteresting or badly written. 'Genre fiction' is such a thinly-veiled insult. There are really only so many story-arcs available and of interest to us, and all of them have been used before.

Look at 'His Dark Materials': it's story-line includes talking animals, witches and fictional creatures, but those fictional creatures are another race, there are parallel dimensions and there are steam-punk type technologies in one of the novel's worlds. Thank-goodness, for the sake of ease, that we can take the easy way out and merely call it 'YA' fiction, rather than worrying ourselves about how to classify the novels.

[DixieGal]

I like my scifi like I like my men.

I consider Vinge's A Fire Upon the Deep and A Deepness In the Sky to be the epitome of hard scifi. It is a complete universe based on fictional physics. That sort of thing doesn't write itself. It takes thought, planning, and a basis in real physics.

But it has talking puppies and an immortal space pirate.

That doesnt, to me, make it fantasy. The science overwhelms the fantasy.

Thoughts?

[OtterBooks]

I think it's a shame that the term 'literary fiction' isn't challenged a bit more often. It's as though as soon as something is generally classified as literature, people respect it [snip]

I worked in a used-book store for a while, and the employees would put sci-fi they found literary into 'Fiction Literature.' One example was The Sparrow, by Mary Doria Russell.

[DixieGal]

The Sparrow is one freaky-a$$Ed book. It was one of the last pbooks I was able to read a few years ago. I still get the willies when I remember it. It would have also fit well into the horror section.

[FF2]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

I worked in a used-book store for a while, and the employees would put sci-fi they found literary into 'Fiction Literature.' One example was The Sparrow, by Mary Doria Russell.

That's one of the first books I looked for as an ebook. That and its sequel.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

I do allow myself a bit of snobbery when people refer to Star Wars as sci-fi. It is not. It's Fantasy. Knights and wizards in space.

No it isn't. If there is a rule that sf can't have wizards and knights, then there is surely also a rule that fantasy can't have spaceships, blasters, and hovercars.

To make things more complicated, until the 60's thing were broken up into science fiction and science fantasy, with science fiction being the more technologically focused extrapolation of technology, and science fantasy was less tech dependent and more focused on other issues. "I, Robot" vs. "The Left Hand of Darkness." The "fantasy" in the title of "The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction" was science fantasy. Tolkienesque fantasy didn't develop as a literary genre until later.

But, as many people have pointed out, there are difficulties with this kind of line drawing because it's an attempt to classify forms of art that aren't required to neatly fall within a class. (This is generally true: finding the dividing line between baroque and rococo architecture or rock and r&b music is also difficult at the margins). So it's important to keep in mind that these are invented categories, and there's no rule that something will neatly fit into one or the other.

And to some extent the classification will depend on why you are interested in it. In one sense, "The Dragonriders of Pern" is science fiction - the people who live on the planet are the descendants of colonists who crossed space in spaceships; the "dragons" are alien creatures; the "threads" are the result of astronomical processes; and the society was originally set up to rationally use the one alien lifeform to combat the danger from space. So from that perspective, science fiction.

However, from a reader's perspective (and probably from a publisher's perspective), the best classification is probably fantasy. If you like stories about knights and dragons and kings and castles and magic, set in a vaguely medieval era, you will probably like Dragonriders. If you only like stories about spaceships and blasters and scientists and science and technology, set in a future-y era, you probably won't like Dragonriders, as there are only maybe two pages of the science-y backstory.

I think maybe the best way to think of these categories is to consider each to consist of a bundle of elements. Sci-fi elements would include scientists, technology, aliens, alien planets, space exploration, future setting, etc. Note that no sci-fi story will have all of these elements (and there are probably dozens of them). Fantasy elements would include creatures from folklore, magic, wizards, medieval setting (with kings/castles/knights), medieval technology (swords and bows and horses and ships), etc. Again, there are probably dozens of elements.

In a lot of cases, especially older cases, there is no overlap. Lord of the Rings doesn't have any sci-fi elements; the Moon is a Harsh Mistress doesn't have any fantasy elements.

But often there is overlap, as authors are free to pick and chose from the elements to create a future-y world with scientists and technology, but to also include magic, wizards, and creatures from folklore. In which case you have to make a judgment call as to how you would classify it. (IMO, these cases usually end up as fantasy, as (like in Dragonriders), the main characters and plot elements usually revolve around the fantasy elements, with the technological society being mostly backdrop and background.) This is because someone may want to write a fantasy story with a non-medieval background. I think it's less common for someone to want to write a hard sf novel with magic in the background. But if they did, I'd call it science fiction.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

I worked in a used-book store for a while, and the employees would put sci-fi they found literary into 'Fiction Literature.' One example was The Sparrow, by Mary Doria Russell.

FWIW, I think that "The Sparrow" is better categorized as literary fiction than as SF. It's not about genre being insulting; it's about who would enjoy it.