# Fantasy vs. Science Fiction vs. Sci Fi



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

OK, so my inner geek is fascinated now.  In the Book Reading Game Sign up thread, a tangent was started over whether Science Fiction and Fantasy were one or two genres.  (It's all DenverRalphy's fault)    

There are a million places lines can be drawn.  I usually think in terms of the brazillions of sub-genres since anymore 'Science Fiction' is about as broad a category as 'Contemporary Fiction'.  

So, time to geek out, over-analyze and maybe even dissect each others' words.  Here are a few questions to get us going:

Is Science Fiction and Fantasy one Genre?  
If they're different, where are the lines?  
Is there a gray area where something can be both or does it have to go one way or another?  
Can a sub-genre differentiate to the point that is stops being part of the overall genre?


Ready, Set .... Go!


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

I say two seperate genres.
Fantasy to me, involves worlds that deal with things I term mythological, magical or made up completely.
SCIFI may be made up, but has some basis in reality, and of course.. science.


----------



## Basilius (Feb 20, 2010)

Then, of course, there's Arthur C. Clarke's third law of prediction: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

"Teleportation" in the D&D sense is magic. Then, there's Star Trek's transporters. One man's fantastical creature is another man's alien.

So, while much of the difference between fantasy and science fiction is clear-cut, there's a pretty wide grey area.  And don't get me started on the "science fiction" vs. "sci-fi" bit that came up. It's from people who are over-sensitive to "sci-fi" being used as a derogatory term. Something like "science fiction is to sci-fi as literature is to fiction." Poppycock.

Answer your question?


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

When I meant magic, I was meaning things like vampires, or rainbow colored unicorns, etc. (not not rainbow colored vampirese or ones that sparkle.)


----------



## Basilius (Feb 20, 2010)

Are vampires magic? Other undead? Put's a different spin on zombie stuff than I'm used to. 

I think there's a MUCH fuzzier line between horror and a lot of things. There's also some fuzzy lines between fantasy and romance. And, looking at Diana Gabaldon in particular, there can be a fuzzy line between science fiction and romance as well.

What would be interesting is to compile a list of things that are considered "fantasy" and those considered "sci-fi" and see how many things are functionally equivalent.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Into the mix of Magic vs. science, should alternate history be mixed into one or the other or both? This is actually a question I've been asking myself for a while. Sometimes it's and alt history due to an event triggered by super-science or magic. Often, though, an alternate history has nothing to do with either directly.

I tend to think they belong in there somewhere. And you can find Turtledove or Stirling or other authors in the Science Fiction/Fantasy section in most brick and mortar stores.

as for lists between the genres, let me start:


*Science Fiction *
* [td] [/td] [td]Fantasy [/td] *
*
[tr][td]technology[/td] [td] [/td] [td]magic[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]spaceships [/td] [td] [/td] [td]rainbow colored unicorns[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]teleportation[/td] [td] [/td] [td]teleportation[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]AI Computers[/td] [td] [/td] [td]gods[/td][/tr]
[tr][td] [/td] [td] [/td] [td] [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] [/td] [td] [/td] [td] [/td][/tr]
*


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

I say it should be at least three major categories.

Science Fiction (Hard SF)
SciFi
Fantasy

Some people will like all three, but some will get fussy if their expectations aren't fulfilled.  

For example, let's say a Star Trek fan wants to read about starship commanders saving the humanity from dire alien threats with brave actions but pick up a book by Greg Egan and get, not daring adventure, but problems of transhumans traveling to different star systems at sublight speeds over 100s of years only to encounter aliens that only make sense if studied under different dimensional models.  The Star Trek fan would not be a happy camper.  They are two distinct genres. 

Again, some people will like both, but some readers will not.  I can certainly read and enjoy some scifi, but there have been a few novels that read just too much like Star Trek manqué, and there are other books I'd rather be reading.  

As for what to call them, I guess that is up in the air.  Way back when, at least in the late 70s and early 8os,  scifi was almost universally used as derogatory term, but as it's gaining wide use and acceptance, it should be applied to a certain type of sub-genre.


----------



## Michael R. Hicks (Oct 29, 2008)

I've always been a bit stumped about why science fiction (which I'll abbreviate sci-fi here) and fantasy have been lumped together. There are exceptions to every generalization, of course, but they definitely aren't the same thing, at least in my mind. I think you all have hit most of the high points between the two: mainly that fantasy deals with "things unnatural" in some way, ranging from the undead to Tolkienesque tales; while sci-fi deals with things that are generally...not, if you know what I mean! LOL!

I think both genres have a number of sub-genres, and can also blend in elements from what are generally considered independent genres (horror, romance, etc.)...


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

Basilius said:


> It's from people who are over-sensitive to "sci-fi" being used as a derogatory term. Something like "science fiction is to sci-fi as literature is to fiction." Poppycock.


Now, now.... there's no need to get personal so early in the thread. I'm sure we all have things we are sensitive about, and that one is fairly harmless, like wanting a submarine to be called a boat instead of a ship.  

As far as the SF vs. Fantasy question, classifications are tricky things. Is a tomato a fruit or vegetable? Depends on whether you are a botanist or a cook. Is Pluto a planet? Depends on your definition, just ask Neil deGrasse Tyson. 

I've been reading F&SF for over 50 years, and I've yet to come across a good definition of either; there always are things that seem to fall a bit into both categories. And in fact, this is what we should expect due to the nature of classifying things. Early on, I was sure I could tell whether something was either fantasy or science fiction, but I've seen the light and have given up that task.

When people pick out specifics to help in the labeling process, other specifics get left out that might be included in another's definition. Basically, the line gets drawn every time something is assigned a category. But really, shouldn't the line be something like this:

Science Fiction====================Fantasy
^
where the "^" is the book in question? Where would you put a book about time travel? I'd be inclined to put it more to the Fantasy side, although it might depend on how it was accomplished (hypnotism or lots of flashing lights).

Classifications are useful for dealing with aggregates, but they are less useful when dealing with individual things. We put things in categories and decide on the criteria. It's useful, for instance for publishers to label a book as another genre to attempt to get higher sales.

Is a thing classified as Science Fiction or Fantasy? Depends on you. Most things may actual fall in between. I see a lot of discussion on whether something is one or the other, and I think it a waste of time. Does Pluto care if it's a planet or not? It is what it is and our label won't affect its orbit.

On the other hand, I would defend the use of the term Sci-Fi as a derogatory label and apply it to almost every movie made for the SyFy channel.  

Mike


----------



## Steph H (Oct 28, 2008)

And then there are those who think of vampires and witches and werewolves as a different category than fantasy. I consider anything like that, but that takes place on an otherwise-'contemporary' Earth, to be 'paranormal' or what I call 'urban/paranormal' as a shorthand catch-all category. My version of fantasy is wizards or great quests or elves or basically anything fantastical that takes place entirely on another world. SciFi/Science Fiction is all the same (don't even get the distinction), and is something that gets more into spaceships and space opera and 'my' humans [Earth-type and from Earth at some point in their history if not recently] but just perhaps in future times.

And yeah, there still can be some gray area, and then I just make a judgment call.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

To me, sci-fi speculates on a plot/situation that is _natural_, but requires some amount of scientific knowledge and/or technology that does not yet exist (or exists somewhere else or some_when_ else).

Fantasy speculates on a plot/situation that is _unnatural_, depending on _supernatural_ forces/abilities (gods, "magic", the faerie world, etc.).

I think they tend to get grouped together for two main reasons. The first is that they both deal with things that could not (as far as we know) actually happen in the world today. The second is that both require a similar "willing suspension of disbelief" for the reader to enjoy them -- you can't enjoy them if you keep thinking all the time that such-and-such could not really happen.

And then you get to the stories that sit on the fence between the two genres, such as Roger Zelazny's "Amber" series, or Steven Brust's "Vlad Taltos" series, which in those examples have a fantasy feel, but distinct elements of sci-fi underlying them. This sort of confusion ultimately brings you to what any genre classification is: a convenient way to categorize something in order to gain the attention of potential customers. For instance, if I'm a publisher, should I market Vonnegut's _Slaughterhouse Five_ as sci-fi, fantasy, historical fiction, psychological drama, or literary fiction?


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Steph H said:


> And then there are those who think of vampires and witches and werewolves as a different category than fantasy....


Personally, I would consider vampire books to be fantasies when vampirism is treated as a supernatural thing, and science fiction for those that treat it as some sort of genetic condition (or a virus, etc.) where there is no association with an "afterlife", Hell, etc. and "impossible" physics. And then, of course, some could easily sit astride both sci-fi/fantasy (as well as mystery, detective, drama, romance, etc.  ).


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

Steph H said:


> And then there are those who think of vampires and witches and werewolves as a different category than fantasy. I consider anything like that, but that takes place on an otherwise-'contemporary' Earth, to be 'paranormal' or what I call 'urban/paranormal' as a shorthand catch-all category. My version of fantasy is wizards or great quests or elves or basically anything fantastical that takes place entirely on another world. SciFi/Science Fiction is all the same (don't even get the distinction), and is something that gets more into spaceships and space opera and 'my' humans [Earth-type and from Earth at some point in their history if not recently] but just perhaps in future times.
> 
> And yeah, there still can be some gray area, and then I just make a judgment call.


I agree with this 100%


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

_Slaughterhouse five_ is a great example of genre crossing. But then everything Kurt Vonnegut wrote could fall into many categories.

I just finished reading a book that was very steampunk - which is a sub-genre derived from cyberpunk - which is definitely science fiction. It was also a paranormal urban fantasy in that there were people who are descendants of devils .... it was a fun novel, but hardly readily classifiable. But, steampunk in and of itself is almost fantasy anyway ....


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Definitely two genres--with lots of subgenres (urban fantasy for example, versus medieval fantasy, versus paranormal fantasy).  To confuse things further you can have a cross of sci/fi with fantasy--elves in space, or traditional fantasy elements (magic) mixed with a science fiction setting/plot/theme.

All good.  Call it whatever, but it's all good!!!


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

Geoffrey said:


> as for lists between the genres, let me start:
> 
> 
> *Science Fiction *
> ...


*

I'd agree with your listing, though I'd say how you achieve the teleportation is more important than the fact of teleportation. If you do it by saying magic phrases (a la Gandalf), it's fantasy. If you so it with a sophisticated transporter machine (a la Lieutenant Commander Montgomery Scott) it is science fiction.

Of course, you might do it with a very advanced extradimensional machine which is invisible to our senses, and is accessed by saying your passwords and making a few key gestures. I don't know what that is! Similarly, teleportation using the powers of your mind could easily fall in hard science fiction as "psionics" with the telepathic navigator steering his starship between stellar systems by the power of his mind, or in equally hard-core fantasy as the mentalist pops away to avoid the dragon's breath.

The extreme cases, and even many of the not-so-extreme cases, are easy and nearly everyone will agree on them. The hard cases are impossible. And nobody can agree on how far to break it down.

See "lumpers and splitters"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters

So I classify it amongst the things that are occasionally fun to talk and argue about, but not really of much grand significance. My one unalterable rule is as follows:

"Science fiction is anything I point at when I say 'This is an example of science fiction.' and Fantasy is anything I point at when I say 'This is an example of fantasy.'"

Of course, if you get me on two different days, I may mess up and tag the same story in different genres on different days.

And I won't even talk about how the original Star Wars movie (aka episode IV) is basically a Western!*


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

The Hooded Claw said:


> ISimilarly, teleportation using the powers of your mind could easily fall in hard science fiction as "psionics" with the telepathic navigator steering his starship between stellar systems by the power of his mind, or in equally hard-core fantasy as the mentalist pops away to avoid the dragon's breath.


You just reminded me.

Have your read Julian May's Saga of the Pliocene Exile? It started in the future with a Galactic federation of psychic aliens - and continues in the Pliocene with other psychic aliens who are also elves and dwarves and all the high-tech contraband you can handle .... definitely both Space Opera and Faerieland Fantasy mixed together ....


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

Geoffrey said:


> You just reminded me.
> 
> Have your read Julian May's Saga of the Pliocene Exile? It started in the future with a Galactic federation of psychic aliens - and continues in the Pliocene with other psychic aliens who are also elves and dwarves and all the high-tech contraband you can handle .... definitely both Space Opera and Faerieland Fantasy mixed together ....


I haven't read that one, though I've seen it. Didn't know it went that way.


----------



## 1131 (Dec 18, 2008)

Geemont I respect your position but (you knew that was coming, right), my personal experience has been that SciFi has been used as a derogatory term - basically science fiction lite. Every genre I have read has a range of books from easy reads to (for lack of a better word) intense. I don't think science fiction is any different. So I use SciFi for convenience, not to denote a sub genre.

As for the science fiction/fantasy debate, I have never understood why they are lumped together. And I won't even get started on Horror which was probably lumped into SciFi/Fantasy for the convenience of some Romance reader (and in case you missed it, that was a slam on romance books). I have never been drawn to reading fantasy but I am drawn to SciFi. I go by feel - if it feels like fantasy, it's fantasy. If technology is prominently showcased, I consider it Science Fiction. Rule of thumb: If there is magic that technology is used to create (the technomages of Babylon 5 or the Dragons on Pern) I usually consider it Science Fiction. If the author does not offer a technology based explanation for magic, I usually consider it fantasy. And I reserve the right to change my classification at anytime, for any reason. And a friend who reads a lot of what I consider Fantasy frequently disagrees with my classifications.



The Hooded Claw said:


> And I won't even talk about how the original Star Wars movie (aka episode IV) is basically a Western!


As is Firefly


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

In my opinion, whether a book is science fiction or fantasy or whatever is a decision made by the author (if we're lucky) or the marketing people (if we're unlucky).  Science Fiction itself can be broken down into genres (space opera, hard science, etc), as can fantasy.  I agree with the poster that put it as a spectrum because that's what it is. At one end is "pure" science fiction, at the other end "pure" fantasy.  I put pure in quotes because everyone's definition of it will vary.  And the alternate history subgenre has come a long way also, from straight alteration of events (In the Presence of Mine Enemies) to worlds where not only events but some rules have been altered (Peshawar Lancers).  

I try not to get bogged down by the definitions, since I fortunately like a good cross section of the spectrum and care more about authors then what category someone is putting the book into.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

imallbs, perhaps I'm just splitting hairs, but for whatever it's worth, here a very brief history of "sci-fi":



> From Wikipedia: Science Fiction
> 
> Forrest J Ackerman used the term "sci-fi" at UCLA in 1954. As science fiction entered popular culture, writers and fans active in the field came to associate the term with low-budget, low-tech "B-movies" and with low-quality pulp science fiction. By the 1970s, critics within the field such as Terry Carr and Damon Knight were using "sci-fi" to distinguish hack-work from serious science fiction,and around 1978, Susan Wood and others introduced the pronunciation "skiffy". Peter Nicholls writes that "SF" (or "sf") is "the preferred abbreviation within the community of sf writers and readers". David Langford's monthly fanzine Ansible includes a regular section "As Others See Us" which offers numerous examples of "sci-fi" being used in a pejorative sense by people outside the genre.





> From Wikipedia: Skiffy
> 
> In the late 1960s, a new movement of science fiction writers, the "New Wave", arose. It tended to reject science fiction's pulpy background and to scorn the term "sci-fi" as being associated with bad monster movies. Even the term "science fiction" was seen by some in the New Wave as too limiting, and "speculative fiction" was introduced as an alternative. Some advocated the use of the initials "SF", as they could be taken to refer to either "science fiction" or "speculative fiction". Not everyone agreed with this new nomenclature, however, and while the term "sci-fi" continued to be widely used, and pronounced "sigh-fie", the pronunciation "skiffy" began to appear among science fiction insiders in the late 1970s.


How, or why, "sci-fi" gained traction in common usage or general acceptance, I'm not sure; but if the term must be used, why not use as way to distinguish modes of serious and lite SF works. There would probably be murky ground in between, of course, but as an overarching term of convenience, I think it lacks finesse.


----------



## DenverRalphy (Mar 24, 2010)

I myself recognize a relatively definitive difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy. And for the most part I define it by the basic setting of the story. Unfortunately there are way too many exceptions to the rule. Usually I interpret it as; the future with advanced technology is science fiction, alternate realities which resemble the middle ages where magic and fae are commonplace is fantasy.

However there are many books/stories which deter from that simple method. ie.. Star Wars is in the past, but technology reigns dominant with a splash of supernatural, but anybody would still maintain it's science fiction. Marion Zimmer Bradley's _Darkover _novels are set in a futuristic setting, however magic and the supernatural (albeit explained away with science) are dominant, as well as the feudal structure of society, clothing worn, living in castles, and habits/mannerisms of characters etc, all force me to think of them as fantasy novels.

And don't get me started on anything related to ShadowRun. I never did read through one book entirely (can't recall why, probably because I had many other books on my plate at the time), however it's a mish-mash of both fantasy and science. Similar to steampunk but more futuristic.

Very often though, when I recommend a book which happens to be unquestionably Fantasy, occasionally I'll receive a response similar to "I'm not into the Sci-Fi scene." Which is why I brought the question up in the April game thread. My selectee had listed Science Fiction as a deal breaker, so I thought it prudent to make sure.


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

so where does alternate history such as that by Turtledove fall?  Does it belong in either genre?  Why do SF/fantasy writers write so much of it?

come to think of it, why do so many writers freely move between science fiction and fantasy?  Seems much rarer to switch between other genres.


----------



## 1131 (Dec 18, 2008)

Geemont said:


> imallbs, perhaps I'm just splitting hairs, but for whatever it's worth, here a very brief history of "sci-fi":
> How, or why, "sci-fi" gained traction in common usage or general acceptance, I'm not sure; but if the term must be used, why not use as way to distinguish modes of serious and lite SF works. There would probably be murky ground in between, of course, but as an overarching term of convenience, I think it lacks finesse.


 I am aware of the history of the term Sci-fi but it has evolved since then and is often used, within my group of friends as well as with many others all over the world, to be a shorthand for Science Fiction. Most of the time, when I hear people making a distinction between Science Fiction and Sci-fi, they are putting down what they consider to be lite works. And who decides what goes into which catagory? There are already so many sub genres of that I don't think I need another one. If I want to know about the tone of a book, I can read reviews, listen to opinions and recommendations and/or read the 1st 3 chapters. I'm going to get a better idea from those sources about the tone of the book than from a term applied by someone with whom I may or may not agree. And there will be disagreement about what will be called Science Fiction and what will be called Sci-fi. I think this will only work if I get to be Lord High Decree-er of all Science Fiction catagorization - I will take bribes. As Lord High Decree-er, and as myself, I see your point but I think I'm going to keep using Sci-fi as another way to say Science Fiction. When I see you use the terms I will know that you do not mean the same thing.


----------



## Greenkeeper (Mar 16, 2010)

Fantasy = Elves, Sci-Fi = Vulcans, Science Fiction = Non-humanoid life that is silicon based and unable to communicate with humanity aside from pheremone clouds 

Hard science fiction is a genre all its own. It tends towards a realistic extrapolation of real science and technology, or at least sound scientific theories. This usually means sub-light speed spaceships, scientists taking the place of roguish daredevils, robots and computers that are functional but not your friend, and likely nothing that can be considered magical or paranormal (even if it is mistaken as paranormal by the characters there is a viable explanation). While there can be heroes and villians, they are not idealized.

However the lines between space opera sci-fi and fantasy are often blurred enough that they can be put together. Using magic as an example, sci-fi will often come up with a "scientific" answer for how magic works, whether it be the powers of the mind or midichlorians, but there is little to no real science behind it. It's still magic no matter what you call it. Or, if you want to add some technology to your fantasy the same applies: fantasy writers tend to be less concerned with their technology following the laws of physics if it gets in the way of the story. Sci-fi and fantasy also tend to trend to a more romanticized view of the world and how things work. Whether it is sci-fi or fantasy, the deperate gambit at the climatic moment tends to work out, whether it is Frodo tossing the Ring into the lava or Kirk trying out some kind of gravity slingshot manuver to save the Enterprise yet again.


----------



## William Woodall (Jun 8, 2009)

Geoffrey said:


> OK, so my inner geek is fascinated now. In the Book Reading Game Sign up thread, a tangent was started over whether Science Fiction and Fantasy were one or two genres. (It's all DenverRalphy's fault)
> 
> There are a million places lines can be drawn. I usually think in terms of the brazillions of sub-genres since anymore 'Science Fiction' is about as broad a category as 'Contemporary Fiction'.
> 
> ...


I think fantasy means a story about anything which could never really happen in the universe we live in. Science fiction explicitly deals with things which are put forward as being realistically possible, if not currently then at some time in the future. The two genres are quite different and for the most part pretty sharply distinct.

The gray area comes in when you consider such books as "War of the Worlds", or others like it. We know perfectly well that there are not and never could be any blood-sucking aliens on Mars, but we didn't always know that. When the book was written, that was still a distinct possibility. So even though the book is pure fantasy, it can still be considered science fiction.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

The Hooded Claw said:


> so where does alternate history such as that by Turtledove fall? Does it belong in either genre? Why do SF/fantasy writers write so much of it?
> 
> come to think of it, why do so many writers freely move between science fiction and fantasy? Seems much rarer to switch between other genres.


I think alternate history should be its own genre. And it has a few subgenres, the fantasical ones where it's our history but with magic as the change (Turtledove's Toxic Spell Dump), true alternate history (where only the pivotal event has been changed, i.e. Turtledove's Ruled Britania) or sci-fi alternate history which involves time travel changes (Guns of the South).


----------



## angelad (Jun 19, 2009)

William Woodall said:


> I think fantasy means a story about anything which could never really happen in the universe we live in. Science fiction explicitly deals with things which are put forward as being realistically possible, if not currently then at some time in the future. The two genres are quite different and for the most part pretty sharply distinct.
> 
> The gray area comes in when you consider such books as "War of the Worlds", or others like it. We know perfectly well that there are not and never could be any blood-sucking aliens on Mars, but we didn't always know that. When the book was written, that was still a distinct possibility. So even though the book is pure fantasy, it can still be considered science fiction.


I think the fine line is thinner than what you describe. Sci fi quite often borders on a fantastical side, and vice versa.


----------



## pawsplus (Mar 31, 2009)

Geemont said:


> I say it should be at least three major categories.
> 
> Science Fiction (Hard SF)
> SciFi
> ...


See, I just do NOT get that. I know of NO ONE who considers "sci fi" either a derogatory term OR a sub-genre of "science fiction." It's just an abbreviation of science fiction. Who wants to have to say "science fiction" all the time, when "sci fi" is so much faster??


----------



## Peter Salisbury (Mar 3, 2010)

I’ve been reading science fiction for forty-five years or more. When I started out, sci-fi was the same thing as SF/Science Fiction. In my opinion, SF has nothing to do with vampires, zombies, magic, pixies, fairies or wizards. Science Fiction should be exactly what it says in the title. OK, there I might make small exceptions for things like Richard Matheson’s ‘I am Legend’, where science causes the problem. Otherwise, touch that wand and you can take yourself off to a different shelf!

To give a couple of examples of ‘proper’ science fiction, I  would particularly include early Larry Niven (‘Ringworld’, the Gill Hamilton stories and the incredible ‘World Out Of Time’), also Jack Vance – ‘Slaves of the Klau’ (I have lost count of how many times I’ve read some of these over the years). If the SF is humorous or has some romance, it doesn’t take it out of the SF orbit, either: some of Harry Harrison’s work is very funny, very SF and very exciting; most good SF includes some sort of romantic or ‘human relations’ interaction because it is meant to be about the characters’ journey into the future. I read somewhere else that Terminator 1 wouldn’t have got far without the romantic element – quite! Much good SF also contains social comment (Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’ or Lem’s ‘Solaris’).

I don’t agree that saying something isn’t SF because the science hasn’t been invented yet. Why? Because half the stuff we’ve got today probably wouldn’t exist if it hadn’t been for SF: robot production lines, fly-by-wire aircraft, mobile phones, mp3/4, computers, non-stick pans. There may be some who say we’d be better off without all these things – but no ebooks, no Kindle?

I can see only one reason for putting SF and fantasy together (often with horror) - to make a nice, big shelf full of books in the store.

To finish on a more controversial note: science fiction should take the science of today and look at where it can take humankind in the future, hence the term ‘speculative fiction’. It is about ideas, imagination and science; fantasy is just... fantasy.


----------



## pawsplus (Mar 31, 2009)

Wow Peter -- I agree w/ you 125%! 

My one grey area is Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern books. Although I usually don't like pure fantasy, I actually loved them even before I knew they were REALLY SF! They seem like fantasy, and it's not until you get several books in that you learn that the dragons aren't magic, but genetically engineered, etc. I'll admit to feeling relieved when I got to that point (_Dragonsdawn_), and realized there was a logical (in the SF sense of the word) explanation.


----------



## jonconnington (Mar 20, 2010)

I’d say it really depends on the book and the author. “Hard” Science Fiction is definitely a separate genre, given that it attempts to be as rooted as possible in actual science (which also makes one of the more difficult genre’s to write in.) With soft scifi it’s a bit different…indeed a lot of it could be considered scifi-based with strong fantasy elements. Thing Star Wars…or the Dune series…

In the last decade or so, a lot of writers have been really blurring the lines, writing stuff with feet fully in both worlds. Elves and Orks in space (Warhammer 40K), genetic engineering in a steampunk setting, Steampunk as a whole…

I’d a good rule of thumb is as follows: If it’s grounded in solid scientific fact, without any hint of the supernatural, then it’s scifi. If its focus is on the mythical, the magical and the mystical, it’s fantasy. If it falls within the wide gray area in between, use your own judgment.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

The argument is very similar to that you see in Biology departments where zoologists tend to be "Lumpers" or "Splitters" 
Lumpers have fewer categories and speciations whereas splitters break them down more specifically. 
They both tend to have good arguments, its just a different way of looking at it. They never settle the argument of course.

Maybe its like porn:  "I know it when I see it"


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

Peter Salisbury said:


> I've been reading science fiction for forty-five years or more. When I started out, sci-fi was the same thing as SF/Science Fiction.





pawsplus said:


> I know of NO ONE who considers "sci fi" either a derogatory term OR a sub-genre of "science fiction." It's just an abbreviation of science fiction. Who wants to have to say "science fiction" all the time, when "sci fi" is so much faster??


I do understand where both of you are coming from, but the history of "sci-fi" as a one time derogatory term can be confirmed through the wikipedia links. Anecdotally, I remember reading an admonishment in a science fiction magazine from the early 80s, probably Omni or Asimov's, not to call to science fiction "sci-fi"; their correct term was "science fiction" or "SF" and that has stuck me after all these years. Maybe the usage has changed after so many years, but it still rings wrong in my ears.

When people say "sci-fi" I think of Star Trek, Star Wars, or other SF lite works that read like movies or TV shows, not for authors like Greg Egan or Verner Vinge, which is why I want to split it out.


----------



## pawsplus (Mar 31, 2009)

I don't have a problem w/ sub-genres, and agree that it helps one to know if one will like a book or not, but I think that it just makes no sense to have an abbreviation for the name of a type of lit be the name of a sub-genre of the same type of lit.

<shrug>


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

I guess I'm a "lumper". It's not important to me to split them up into precise categories and sub-categories, as I will neither automatically read a book that fits into one category or not read a book in another. Some general categorization helps me when searching for something new to read when I'm feeling the need for something of the SF/Fantasy sort, but beyond that, I'm in the "who cares" lump.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

I have to force myself not to overly sub-genralize  (does that count as a word?)  I could easily list a book as a post-apocalyptic socio-theological science fiction (A Canticle for Leibowitz) to distinguish it from an apocalyptic dystopian socio-theological fantasy (The Parable of the Sower) - but usually only inside the comfort of my own skull ....


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

I guess I'm a "lumper" too.. I just split it into scifi or scifan.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

BTackitt said:


> I guess I'm a "lumper" too.. I just split it into scifi or scifan.


"scifan"?


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

Science Fantasy...my abbreviation for it.. no one else's that I know of.


----------



## Malweth (Oct 18, 2009)

I don't understand the "Sci-Fi" vs. "Science Fiction" bit. Perhaps it's because I dislike hard sci-fi or "engineering" books (I get enough real engineering). It might be because I don't watch the Sci Fi channel. I find their new branding, pronounced "Siffy," to be appropriate.

Really... I've been reading various Sci-Fi and Fantasy books for years and find that the number of sub-genres and poorly-written novels make it _very_ hard to find new material that I like. Categorizing books into genres doesn't seem to help as there have been books I liked in most sub-genres. For example, take Charles de Lint's Urban Fantasies, I've liked some of the ones I've read.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

I said it in another thread... putting Fantasy in with SciFi is like putting Rap in with R&B.  Stores do it but it doesn't mean it's right.  You may as well call everything Fantasy if that's the case.  There are definitely some things that are going to really blur that line, but then you have even further divisions for those like Steampunk and such.  To me something like Terry Pratchett is Fantasy despite it being an alien world floating around on the backs of elephants riding a turtle through space.

I guess Science Fiction fits into Fantasy more than Fantasy fits into Science Fiction.  There's not a thing that is SciFi about The Redwall books by Brian Jacques for instance.  But many Science Fiction books could easily be considered Fantasy, but I'm sure there are others that are based on actual science which have no fantastic elements at all.

So I tend to draw the line at futuristic things lending themselves more to SciFi... laser guns, alien races, space and time travel, many different worlds.  Then Fantasy is more the mystical magical stuff, wizards and orcs, it can be another world but usually only involves one, swords instead of guns... that sort of thing.  World of Warcraft, though not a book per say even though several are based on the world, is a good example of something that is difficult to fit into a genre.  It's definitely fantasy, but then you have also have other world coming into play and machines and guns that have a sort of steampunk flare to them.  But overall I would call it Fantasy as well.

If I had to lump them all into one category then it would be Fantasy with Science Fiction, Steampunk, some Horror/Suspense as a sub genre.  It just fits better than Fantasy as a sub genre of Science Fiction.  I'm rambling and talking in circles now so I'm gonna stop ><


----------



## 1131 (Dec 18, 2008)

pawsplus said:


> My one grey area is Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern books. Although I usually don't like pure fantasy, I actually loved them even before I knew they were REALLY SF! They seem like fantasy, and it's not until you get several books in that you learn that the dragons aren't magic, but genetically engineered, etc. I'll admit to feeling relieved when I got to that point (_Dragonsdawn_), and realized there was a logical (in the SF sense of the word) explanation.


 
That series confused me until I read that Anne McCaffrey considered the books to be science fiction instead of fantasy. I remember being relieved because I have never been drawn to fantasy and this was throwing me.

It does raise the issue for me that some people consider things like psychic connections to be fantasy and others consider them real. I'm guessing that books that have those kinds of elements would be classified differently depending on the beliefs of the reader.


----------



## jonconnington (Mar 20, 2010)

"Science Fiction" versus "Sci Fi." Well, hopefully the publishers won't follow TV and try to rebrand the the genre as SyFy...

Still, the blurring betwen fantasy and science fiction has been going on for years. In fact, in the forward for the first book of Star of the Guardians series THE LOST KING, Margaret Weis makes this exact point and suggests that a better name for a lot of these stories would be Science Fantasy....


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

jonconnington said:


> "Science Fiction" versus "Sci Fi." Well, hopefully the publishers won't follow TV and try to rebrand the the genre as SyFy...


They'd have to pay Universal for the rights.  At least being able to trademark "SyFy" was the reason they gave.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Sorry. It just had to be done.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

*7 minute clip of Harlen Ellison et al on Science Fiction vs. Sci-Fi*:


----------



## pawsplus (Mar 31, 2009)

Well, just remember that when *I* say "Sci Fi" I mean "Science Fiction."


----------



## Michael R. Hicks (Oct 29, 2008)

Geoffrey said:


> Sorry. It just had to be done.


LOL! That's sweet!!


----------



## Peter Salisbury (Mar 3, 2010)

Thanks Pawsplus – your comment is most welcome! I agree with you, there is no *logical* sense in calling a ‘lesser’ subsection of SF/Science Fiction by what seems to be simply a different abbreviation (sci-fi vs SF).

However, I have done a bit of wiki-surfing. If I have read correctly, the creator of the magazine ‘Famous Monsters of Filmland’ adopted the term ‘sci-fi’ because it corresponded with the then very impressive ‘hi-fi’. It seems ‘proper’ SF fans didn’t approve of the monster movie associations and so ‘sci-fi’ was used to denote the less serious, non-literary end of the science fiction spectrum.

Until I alighted on this discussion, I had no idea that anyone who likes science fiction and SF might see sci-fi as something different. I suspect a large number of people will continue to call science fiction sci-fi, because it sounds like an abbreviation in the same way that SF does. It is also possible that here in the UK, fewer people have the negative association with sci-fi. (Any comments on that?)

The video clip seems to back up the wiki information above but I suspect that if you asked the people in the interview to choose from a stack of books/films what was SF and what was sci-fi, they would be unable to agree with each other.

In any type of fiction there will be that which is thought-provoking and a delight to read, as well as that which is less so. To use a separate term or abbreviation to refer to a ‘lesser’ or ‘lite’ variety is to me unnecessary. Are we now going to need Historical Fiction vs his-fi, Humour vs hum-fi, Romantic Fiction vs rom-fi? I hope not. Besides, I am quite happy to enjoy science fiction that is thoughtful, humorous, philosophical or even frivolous, depending on the occasion.

I am also willing to accept the situation as it exists: that when two different people say ‘sci-fi’ they may not mean the same thing.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

I will read pretty much anything as long as it is readable... and the nice thing about science fiction, grab the older works, and they are dirt cheap!


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

When I'm reading something, I don't worry about what category it should be in.  If it's good, I'll be too caught up to bother, and if it isn't good, I won't be sticking with it to bother.

When actually looking for something to read, rather than talking abstractly as we are doing here, I use the author as a category.  Spider Robinson used to say that the author's name was the most important thing on the cover of the book, and I agree with him.  If I was forced to choose, I'd be more likely to grab a bodice-ripper (which I ordinarily curl my lip and avert my eyes from) by Harry Turtledove or Robert Heinlein rather than a space opera (as an example of a category I really like) by an unknown author unless it has a very compelling blurb or I have reliable recommendations.


----------



## Annalog (Dec 28, 2008)

DH, a librarian, and I both consider science fiction and fantasy different genres. We both also read both genres (as well as other genres). A while ago DH was an influence for our local library using different stickers to identify the books in these genres so that people could easily find SF or Fantasy. He is usually the one who decides in that library how a new book in one of those genres is classified.  However in our personal library at home we do not label the fiction books by genre; instead we shelve them alphabetically by author or editor. (Currently we have more than 9 tall bookcases (plus books that won't fit) for fiction alone. We do separate the nonfiction by topic. We are both lumpers more than splitters. )


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

Peter Salisbury said:


> Thanks Pawsplus - your comment is most welcome! I agree with you, there is no *logical* sense in calling a 'lesser' subsection of SF/Science Fiction by what seems to be simply a different abbreviation (sci-fi vs SF).





Peter Salisbury said:


> I agree with you, there is no *logical* sense in calling a 'lesser' subsection of SF/Science Fiction by what seems to be simply a different abbreviation (sci-fi vs SF).


Well, I'll listen to other suggestions, but, at least to Harlen Ellison, the distinction already exists with "sci-fi" as the term for "lesser" works.

My wife doesn't read science fiction, so I threw out the discussion well talking over dinner on Friday night using movies as my examples:



> GM: I was discussing there dereferences between "science fiction" and "sci-fi" at Kindleboards this week.
> WIFE: Aren't they just two words for the same thing?
> GM: Some people think so. But consider two movies: _Gattaca_ and _Independence Day. _ Are both science fiction?
> WIFE: No, they're unalike. _Independence Day_ is Action & Adventure. _2001_ and _Gattaca_ would be examples of two science fiction films.
> ...


I'd like to challenge other readers here to query people they know to see if other non-science fiction readers would want to lump _Gattaca_ in with the likes of _Independence Day_. At some point, even lumpers will become splitters: few would probably lump _Terms of Endearment_ with _The Wild Bunch_. Most people would say they just don't belong together. So where is the line?

If there is some agreement of difference, then it is merely applying terms or descriptions to split them.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

@Geemont - I get what you're saying and the same holds true for all literary and film genres. Broadly speaking, Palahnuik's _Pygmy_, Fielding's _Bridget Jones' Diary_ and Stockett's _The Help_ are all examples of contemporary fiction. But, they're very different novels.

To my mind, 'Science Fiction' is like that. It includes both your examples as well as _Star Trek_ and Kim Stanley Robinson's _Mars_ trilogy. The rest is semantics. Since I read everything from near-time hard science to space opera to cyberpunk to apocalyptic fiction .... I tend to both lump it all into 'science fiction', but I also parse it into many sub-genres.

Over the years, I've listened to an read many discussions around 'Science Fiction vs. Sci-fi' and to my mind, it's just a distinction between higher-brow fiction and everything else. Some of which comes across as very elitist (example). I can take my Science Fiction seriously but I'm not going to go all Comic Book Guy about it.


----------



## pawsplus (Mar 31, 2009)

I don't think that Star Trek (esp. the most recent iterations) is any "less serious" than Robinson or Clarke.  It's a well-developed cosmology and some of its science has come to be in one way or another.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

pawsplus said:


> I don't think that Star Trek (esp. the most recent iterations) is any "less serious" than Robinson or Clarke. It's a well-developed cosmology and some of its science has come to be in one way or another.


One of my personal quotes is 'Anything to make the world more like Star Trek'. I do think it has influenced electronics design and function possibly more than any other single fiction universe ....


----------



## pawsplus (Mar 31, 2009)

Geoffrey said:


> One of my personal quotes is 'Anything to make the world more like Star Trek'. I do think it has influenced electronics design and function possibly more than any other single fiction universe ....


Yup. I would love to live in the ST:TNG universe (esp. if Patrick Stewart were my captain, LOL!).


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Sometimes I think these are differences without distinction.  Does it make the book any different to be in one category or another?  Mind you, I dislike putting things in little boxes anyway.  I see most of the world as a continuum.


Betsy


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

Geoffrey said:


> Some of which comes across as very elitist (example).


Well, I think this horse has been flogged to its knees. One person's elitism is another's criticism. But it does make me think that maybe science fiction and fantasy do belong together and maybe there shouldn't be a distinction, just one large genre, call it SF&F.

Looking at the larger scene, there are other cases when people don't agree with genre lumping. For example, Borders has a Horror section, but Barnes & Noble lumps it in with Fiction. (Horror readers like having a Horror section, BTW.) And Borders, for some strange reason, puts Anne Rice in Fiction, not Horror. I worked for Borders back in the early 90s, and suggested that Rice be moved into Horror, only to be told she wasn't a Horror author. Go figure.

So where do books belong? I guess everyone (or every business) gets to decide for themselves.



pawsplus said:


> I don't think that Star Trek (esp. the most recent iterations) is any "less serious" than Robinson or Clarke. It's a well-developed cosmology and some of its science has come to be in one way or another.


I think it is more ubiquitous than accurate. Little kids in the States will grow up Star Trek so it is part of their cultural mythos from early on. But it is mostly written by Hollywood writers (esp. the most recent iterations) with maybe a science adviser on staff for a for tidbits. There was a podcast that asked a real astrophysicist about the science in newest movie version and he said, roughly paraphrased, "It's a movie, you just have to go along with it, enjoy the ride, and hope one or two things are right." For me, the ride is old hat, it's been done ad nauseam, and I was ready for something else decades ago.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Ohh... I could not stand the science in the new movie. Excellent special effects, but the science fiction part was B movie at best. How does a supernova threaten to destroy a galaxy? How can the Romulans be caught by surprise when said supernova shockwave (apparently not from their own sun) reaches their planet sooner than expected? i could not wrap my head around it. I'm not even sure they had a science advisor!


----------



## pawsplus (Mar 31, 2009)

I agree re: the new movie.  I am more of a Next Gen/DS9/Voyager fan.


----------

