The difference between Science-Fiction and Fantasy

[Mortis]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Write me a story with a spaceship, a undiscovered planet and unicorns and I'll agree.

Try Jack L Chalker's Well World Series, it checks all your requested boxes

[screwballl]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

I like labels and tags as much as anyone but it does get tricky.

Where do you put 'alternate history' novels? I usually say fantasy but sometimes it gets all steampunky. China Mieville tends to ride that edge of definition.

How about John Ringo's 'Council Wars' series? Pure intended fantasy world (elves and dragons too!) all created & driven by advanced technology. The curtain gets pulled back to show the tech but very rarely. Most of the story could have been a modern man's time-travel into a Tolkien novel.

Thats where modern technological "tags" and genres come into play, a single story can follow multiple or combination of tags or genres. Alternate history can also follow into the fantasy category, depending on how far off it goes. If it is something like including items that never were real like dragons controlled by modern computer chips, then yes it is "fantasy alternate history", otherwise it is just primarily alternate history using items and beings that were possible to exist in the real world, with a different timeline.
I do not read many of these, but one that stands out to me as just an "alternate history only" type book was CSA by Howard Means (and before someone tries to politicize this, it is NOT a racist book).

[mikegetz]

I have been reading SciFi and Fantasy for over 34 years now ... actually taught myself to read (with mom's help) on the old Heinlien juvies ...

and never once did I consider arguing the difference between them. i have never felt the need to segregate them as such ...

[saoir]

Originally Posted by mikegetz

I have been reading SciFi and Fantasy for over 34 years now ... actually taught myself to read (with mom's help) on the old Heinlien juvies ...

and never once did I consider arguing the difference between them. i have never felt the need to segregate them as such ...

I congratulate you Mike. Personally I have been reading SF for about 30 years and I would never ever even consider reading a Fantasy title. I hate them

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by screwballl

Alternate history can also follow into the fantasy category, depending on how far off it goes. If it is something like including items that never were real like dragons controlled by modern computer chips, then yes it is "fantasy alternate history", otherwise it is just primarily alternate history using items and beings that were possible to exist in the real world, with a different timeline.

I think that "alternate history" is its own genre; while I think it usually does have a sf framing device, it doesn't have to, and the book doesn't necessarily have to have any science-fiction-y or fantastic elements.

Although I think it practice the books are more similar to SF. A lot (but not all) of SF is really about the present, but extrapolated out into the future where certain technological or sociological changes have occurred, and part of the work looks at how these changes have or haven't transformed society.

Alternate history is like this, except instead of looking forward to a society transformed by technology or social change, it (sometimes) looks at how a society might be transformed by a different outcome to a historical event (i.e., Man in the High Castle). On other occasions, it will look to see how a past society might be changed by the introduction of modern technology or knowledge into the past). Those strike me as being more like sf than fantasy.

[screwballl]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I think that "alternate history" is its own genre; while I think it usually does have a sf framing device, it doesn't have to, and the book doesn't necessarily have to have any science-fiction-y or fantastic elements.

Although I think it practice the books are more similar to SF. A lot (but not all) of SF is really about the present, but extrapolated out into the future where certain technological or sociological changes have occurred, and part of the work looks at how these changes have or haven't transformed society.

Alternate history is like this, except instead of looking forward to a society transformed by technology or social change, it (sometimes) looks at how a society might be transformed by a different outcome to a historical event (i.e., Man in the High Castle). On other occasions, it will look to see how a past society might be changed by the introduction of modern technology or knowledge into the past). Those strike me as being more like sf than fantasy.

Example: Back to the Future movie
It is alternate history/future AND scifi.

It all depends on the story itself. I have read various combinations of these genres, and although I dislike pure fantasy, I do not mind one that is a sci-fi/fantasy combo. I tend to dislike alternate history books with a few exceptions, but alternate history/future with a sci-fi twist to it does interest me. For me it has to have a sort of scifi basis before I really put much time into reading those types of stories.

[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by starrigger

If you really want to start an argument, ask for a definition of hard SF.

Please don't - we'd have to move the thread to the Politics & Religion section . Talk about flameworthy topics .

One thing about hard SF though - the degree of hardness is sorta relative. When a person works in the field, it's a little difficult to take the usual buzzwords from string theory or even regular ol' quantum theory too seriously in the context of SF . For instance, Baxter's Manifold Space was the first SF book that I (reluctantly) had to put away half-read (too many pop-sci buzzwords for my taste).

As a result, I've found that I've gravitated farther and farther away from "hard SF" as I learned more and more physics over the years - with the result that I'm almost thoroughly trapped in Baen's catalog now (great SF, just not what would traditionally be called "hard"). I cut my teeth on Asimov and Clarke and the early Crichton (The Andromeda Strain is probably the "hardest" hard SF I've read to this day. ditto Sphere). I'm trying to get back in the hard SF game - starting anew with Greg Bear, some indie authors and ... surprise surprise ... our very own Starrigger (specifically - The Chaos Chronicles, which I picked up recently).

I think this extends naturally to other fields (except perhaps romance because nobody knows what the hell they're doing when it comes to that field - so anything's believable - ain't no romance experts around). Again, just another rambling thought - YMMV .

[Fastolfe]

Originally Posted by unboggling

@Fastolfe, lol.
If one must differentiate, that seems practical as a most-likely rule of thumb. But there is also fantasy that rationally and scientifically explicates a complex world with complex technology

Well, the examples I posted were exaggerations to illustrate what I think the main difference is. In reality, there's a whole range of genres and styles, ranging from pure hard SF in which the author is very VERY concerned about the precise science, or the plausability thereof, behind whatever they're describing, and pure fantasy where silly dragons pop out of thin air, and unlikely dudes with magical swords slay them to rid the world of them for no particular reason.

There's no clear line between science fiction and fantasy, but there needs to be a rough way of categorizing books so libraries know where to put them on the shelf. Just like John Coltrane and Pat Metheny fall under the "jazz" category, they're actually completely different styles of jazz but they're sold in the same aisle at the record store.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by screwballl

Example: Back to the Future movie
It is alternate history/future AND scifi.

Hmmm...I guess that raises the question of what "alternate history" is, and where you draw the line between time travel and alternate history.

I would call BttF a sci-fi movie about time travel; for me, alternate history is about larger historical processes - Napoleon wins the Battle of Leipzig; the Nazis win WWII; Charlegmagne's son Charles doesn't die...or even the CSA gets AK-47's. Enjoyment of these kinds of stories are enhanced is you know something about the history in question so you can see how, say, the Viking raids are handled if Chas. Jr. lived, etc.

Also, this thread will never die.

Unless a moderator travels back in time and deletes it..

[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

[snip] ...
Also, this thread will never die.

Unless a moderator travels back in time and deletes it..

If the mods are anything like this, I think our continuum remains safe

[Freeshadow]

while I'm still @page 2 of the thread I HAVE to object to some things:

Jelby: the SF=explained; Fantasy=just because doesn't fit.
There ARE enough Examples in fantasy giving you backgrounded in it self logical explanations for e.g. their magic systems (my fav. eddings belgariad & malloreon saga) so saying Fantasy is because of handwaveium is wrong.

Andrew H. no wizards in space but Zen-trained-warrior monks
(there are enough clues to zen buddhism and meditative practics in there)
so what now is it SF or Fantasy?

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

while I'm still @page 2 of the thread I HAVE to object to some things:

Jelby: the SF=explained; Fantasy=just because doesn't fit.
There ARE enough Examples in fantasy giving you backgrounded in it self logical explanations for e.g. their magic systems (my fav. eddings belgariad & malloreon saga) so saying Fantasy is because of handwaveium is wrong.

Andrew H. no wizards in space but Zen-trained-warrior monks
(there are enough clues to zen buddhism and meditative practics in there)
so what now is it SF or Fantasy?

In the Belgariad the actual power may have been "the will and the word" but most of the practitioners still did a lot of hand-waving. The books still offered no real explanation for magic in any terms that anyone here on Earth are likely to find as logical and believable - which is, I imagine, what Jelby meant by "science-fiction tends to explain things". Fantasy often "explains things" too, but only within context, not as something externally believable.

I don't think we should start the subject of whether zen buddhism is fantasy or not - that's what the Politics and Religion forum is for.

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by gmw

In the Belgariad the actual power may have been "the will and the word" but most of the practitioners still did a lot of hand-waving. The books still offered no real explanation for magic in any terms that anyone here on Earth are likely to find as logical and believable - which is, I imagine, what Jelby meant by "science-fiction tends to explain things". Fantasy often "explains things" too, but only within context, not as something externally believable.

Explaining things can be a mistake, too. Midichlorians, for example. But then again, Star Wars has always really been space fantasy.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

Explaining things can be a mistake, too. Midichlorians, for example. But then again, Star Wars has always really been space fantasy.

Too much explanation can spoil fantasy stories by drawing attention to the bits that don't actually make any sense. I'm quite happy for fantasy stories to have quite glaring holes, as long as no one in the story itself makes the mistake of being aware of them. Such details can be fine when ignored but stand-out like proverbial sore-thumbs when ill-conceived explanations attempt to explain them away. Sometimes it's best to let the reader make up their own explanation, if they notice or care, and just ignore the critics: finding holes in things makes them feel good about themselves, makes them feel that they are doing their job, so let's humour them.

[hal2814]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I think that "alternate history" is its own genre; while I think it usually does have a sf framing device, it doesn't have to, and the book doesn't necessarily have to have any science-fiction-y or fantastic elements.

Although I think it practice the books are more similar to SF. A lot (but not all) of SF is really about the present, but extrapolated out into the future where certain technological or sociological changes have occurred, and part of the work looks at how these changes have or haven't transformed society.

Alternate history is like this, except instead of looking forward to a society transformed by technology or social change, it (sometimes) looks at how a society might be transformed by a different outcome to a historical event (i.e., Man in the High Castle). On other occasions, it will look to see how a past society might be changed by the introduction of modern technology or knowledge into the past). Those strike me as being more like sf than fantasy.

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.