The difference between Science-Fiction and Fantasy

[2dark4light]

science fiction is written within the realms of possible reality, and usually carries such qualities as inspiration for science and scientific research. fantasy is absolutely undefined and unqualified by the above. fantasy has no bounds, no agreed upon rules.

science-fiction is not always "in the future", and fantasy is not always "magic" or "in the past", for instance. I'd say the above outline and define these genre.

[Freeshadow]

on belgariad yes it's basically will and word , but there are clearly stated rules what does NOT work and explained WHY.

on midichlorians methinks this new and ugly addon was made on purpose to break the existing paralells with Zen (or the fact that som people IRL declare Jedi as their religion. Why do you think so much fans reject it? (including me)

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by gmw

Good point ... although I do find travel back in time a little harder to swallow, even/especially as a laymen. To me it always feels like fantasy.

There's also stories like Hal Clement's "A Question of Guilt" - an ancient Roman trying to give his son a blood transfusion. No time travel, no alternate history, no future technology. Just a man trying to grasp the physics of a problem, and save his son's life.

By most any definition, it's a hard science fiction story despite all the devices it doesn't have.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by hal2814

A fun discussion on the topic of how to classify alternate history stories actually happens in the alternate history novel "The Man in the High Castle." That book is about society in a world where the Axis won World War II. In that novel, there is a novel called "The Grasshopper Lies Heavy" that is about society in a world where the Allies won World War II. At a dinner party in "The Man in the High Castle" the guests discuss "The Grasshopper Lies Heavy" and argue over whether or not it's science fiction. It's certainly worth a read.

If you look at the third line in the third paragraph of the part of my post you quoted, you'll notice I mentioned "The Man in the High Castle."

But it should be mentioned more often...

[DJHARKAVY]

Back in the days when D and D was a new idea, Dragon magazine's feature "What's New with Phil and Dixie" addressed this question...

http://www.airshipentertainment.com/...?date=20070617

[gmw]

Originally Posted by DJHARKAVY

Back in the days when D and D was a new idea, Dragon magazine's feature "What's New with Phil and Dixie" addressed this question...

http://www.airshipentertainment.com/...?date=20070617

Thank you very much for sharing that.

[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by DJHARKAVY

Back in the days when D and D was a new idea, Dragon magazine's feature "What's New with Phil and Dixie" addressed this question...

http://www.airshipentertainment.com/...?date=20070617

"Portal spell?" ------ "Windows"
Nifty little comic - thread over methinks

[bthrowsnaill]

Science Fiction has its roots in science. Fantasy has its roots in mysticism. Lately, science and mysticism seem to be coming closer together (Buddhism, quantum mechanics, etc).

[whitearrow]

C.S. Friedman's Coldfire Trilogy is my favorite example of a story that really walks the line. I'd say more, but it would be a spoiler!

[unboggling]

Originally Posted by bthrowsnaill

Science Fiction has its roots in science. Fantasy has its roots in mysticism. Lately, science and mysticism seem to be coming closer together (Buddhism, quantum mechanics, etc).

Yes, that's a point that needed to be made here.

And genres gradually evolve over time, like people and societies, reflecting current (at that time) zeitgeist and values. Though there are exceptions, the SF and the F of the mid-20th century, as opposed to now, was younger, more naive, less cynical, more idealistic, even during and just after the difficult WWII war years.

Which makes static definitions somewhat ridiculous.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by bthrowsnaill

Science Fiction has its roots in science. Fantasy has its roots in mysticism. Lately, science and mysticism seem to be coming closer together (Buddhism, quantum mechanics, etc).

I think science might argue the point on that last sentence. But yes, I have certainly seen a lot of mysticism trying to claim the credibility of science. As science delves into deeper, more esoteric and less easily comprehensible areas, so it is easier for mystics to reinterpret/misinterpret science to their own ends - whether you think such interpretations are genuine misunderstandings or deliberate misinformation ... I leave for a separate forum.

[DJHARKAVY]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

But even if we reformulate it to say something like "A really really advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," it's still not true. It's not true because rationalist, technological societies fundamentally understand how technology works and will consider very advanced technology to be...very advanced technology. Something that can be explained by science, not by magic, even though they might not understand the science.

Of course, if you show a more superstitious society a piece of advanced technology, they may well believe that it is magic. Although they may also believe that magic makes the rain come, or keeps a dragon from eating the sun during a total eclipse, since they don't understand those mechanisms, either.

I use this as a distinction.

What is the difference between technology and magic? Magic is beyond our ability to explain. We say the right words, we make the right gestures and and the thing happens. But we can't explain it.

We can explain technology. We know what happens with it, and why the gestures do what they do.

For many people computers are essentially magic. They have no idea how they work, beyond the question of plugging it into the wall, pushing the power button and clicking the right icons.

For some people electricity is magic. For others, both are clearly technology.

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

So maybe it should be rewritten as "People who are inclined to explain things that they don't understand as magic will explain tech that they don't understand as magic." Not as exciting a quote, of course.

Or perhaps it should be written to state that 'that which we cannot explain is magic.'

[gmw]

Originally Posted by DJHARKAVY

... Or perhaps it should be written to state that 'that which we cannot explain is magic.'

I think that works quite well. If a modern human saw another modern human muttering a few words and waving a stick and something appeared out of nowhere as a result, we'd probably be inclined to check the stick for evidence of a power-source etc ... but if we found the stick to be simply wood then we'd be scratching our heads. Now certainly scientists would continue to look for explanations, they're like that, but I suspect most of the rest of the population would be content to call it magic - at least until it was reduced to something as common place as the mobile phone. (Is magic only magic if it is limited to just a few people? Is anything ubiquitous, however amazing, always given some less fanciful name, like eyesight, smell and hearing. Could it be that Harry Potter's magic is only called magic because there are muggles and squibs?)

Now wind forward some thousands of years and go the planet Solaria (see Isaac Asimov's The Naked Sun) and we see humans with "transducer lobes" in their head that collects energy from their surroundings - so giving them the power they need to do what otherwise might appear to be magic. They don't call it magic, they have an explanation for their ability.

[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by gmw

I think that works quite well. If a modern human saw another modern human muttering a few words and waving a stick and something appeared out of nowhere as a result, we'd probably be inclined to check the stick for evidence of a power-source etc ... but if we found the stick to be simply wood then we'd be scratching our heads. Now certainly scientists would continue to look for explanations, they're like that, but I suspect most of the rest of the population would be content to call it magic - at least until it was reduced to something as common place as the mobile phone. (Is magic only magic if it is limited to just a few people? Is anything ubiquitous, however amazing, always given some less fanciful name, like eyesight, smell and hearing. Could it be that Harry Potter's magic is only called magic because there are muggles and squibs?)

That's a very interesting idea - I like it! An example that came to mind is the group of people called the Technomages in Babylon 5. They were up-front "non-magic" but behaved like mages. I rather wish they had delved deeper into the Technomage mythos in that show .

On topic though, I would agree with that definition of magic. Exclusivity to a select group of people is a necessary (but insufficient) condition. Heck, why look to SF/Fantasy for that? Most stage magicians today are the same. We call it stage magic (as opposed to ... ah ... real magic *snicker*) only because we assume that someone knows how the trick is really done. I've always thought it a bit strange that that assumption comes so easily to ... well ... to most people .

Originally Posted by gmw

Now wind forward some thousands of years and go the planet Solaria (see Isaac Asimov's The Naked Sun) and we see humans with "transducer lobes" in their head that collects energy from their surroundings - so giving them the power they need to do what otherwise might appear to be magic. They don't call it magic, they have an explanation for their ability.

*Sigh* thank you for that blast from the past . Been a while since I read those books. Minor correction though - we did see the planet Solaria for the first time in The Naked Sun, but they didn't develop transducer lobes until much much later (probably sometime long after the establishment of the First Empire). We get reintroduced to the (transducer-lobed) Solarians only at the very end of Asimov's career - in Foundation and Earth . (I nitpick, therefore I'm an SF geek ).

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by bthrowsnaill

Science Fiction has its roots in science. Fantasy has its roots in mysticism.

I'd say that science fiction tends to have its roots in a scientific world-view, while fantasy has its roots in myth.

Fantasy often emphasizes humanity's connection to nature, to the earth, to the elements--and tends to regard humanity as just one power in a world of many powers. Science fiction is more likely to emphasize humanity's mastery over nature through technology. (I mean humanity is the broadest possible sense, including other sentient races.)

Fantasy looks to the past, SF to the future. (With many exceptions, obviously.)