# Fantasy or Science Fiction?



## JustinDennis (Sep 6, 2011)

Where do you draw the line? Where does one become the other?

And, what are some good books that blur the line between Fantasy and Science Fiction?


----------



## TheSFReader (Jan 20, 2011)

The "latest" Pern books mixed some...


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

JustinDennis said:


> Where do you draw the line? Where does one become the other?
> 
> And, what are some good books that blur the line between Fantasy and Science Fiction?


A lot of the late, great Roger Zelazny's books tended to mix elements of SF and fantasy. _Lord of Light_, _Roadmarks_, or _Creatures of Light and Darkness_ would probably all be classified as SF, but have definite fantasy feelings to them; while his Amber series would be classified as fantasy, but has some sci-fi aspects to it.

Charles Stross's "Laundry" books blend sci-fi/techno-thriller with Lovecraftian horror/fantasy.


----------



## Kathelm (Sep 27, 2010)

> Where do you draw the line? Where does one become the other?


It's a fuzzy line. In my opinion, science fiction deals more with technology that is possible, or close to possible based on our current or projected understanding of natural law. Authors can tweak the rules a little bit and still call their work sci-fi, as long as it is understood that it's still physics at play (albeit alternate universe physics). Science fiction is more prone to deal with technology and its influence on the human condition. I can't remember who said it, but I'm pretty sure it's a saying: When you write science fiction, you pick one or two rules to break, and break them consistently.

Fantasy, then, breaks or disregards a lot of rules, and doesn't care much about which ones it breaks. It's more prone to deal with mysterious, poorly understood forces or entities that capriciously govern our world. Magic is used as a sort of technology that we cannot and will not ever have, and it may or may not be understood or follow rules.

So I guess you can say that science fiction is fantasy, but with added rigor.



> And, what are some good books that blur the line between Fantasy and Science Fiction?


It's not a book, but Star Wars is a great example of movie that could be called science fiction OR fantasy. In that case, technology has reached a ridiculous extreme, to the point where the universe has stagnated (stagnant technology is a common theme in fantasy), lightsabers are probably not physical possible, and The Force is clearly mysticism.

In books, Orson Scott Card comes to mind. "The Worthing Saga" is about a psuedo-immortality drug and its consequences on society, to the point where a new mythology is born. In the Ender series, "Speaker for the Dead" and beyond stray farther from science into fantasy as the series goes on. Also, the steampunk genre in general is more or less designed to straddle science fiction and fantasy.


----------



## sarahsbloke (Sep 24, 2011)

Science fiction is for men
Fantasy is for women

What really annoys me is bookshops mixing the two together on shelves, a bit like stacking 'Penthouse' and 'Romance' in the same section.
There are very few books that mix them together in any significant way and most of those books are trash IMHO.

And to answer the OPs question.
I don't think there are any good books that blur the line.

Hang on
Julian May - Saga of the Exiles, Many Coloured Land, The Golden Torc, The Non-born King, The adversary
Although one could argue that it is a purely Science Fiction story.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

sarahsbloke said:


> Science fiction is for men
> Fantasy is for women


 

While there is a fuzzy line, kind of, I think a lot depends on that bugbear called Marketing. What label can sell more?

That said, I think there is a plenty of science fiction that could be called fantasy, depending if you want an open or rigid definitions. Science Fiction should be based on scientific knowledge and premises (with some fudge factors allowed). For example, in a science fiction story a spaceship in a black hole will cease to exist under the extreme gravity, but as a fantasy story it could time travel to meet itself. Of course, most people will call just both science fiction. Caveat emptor.

As for books that mix the two China Mieville's _The City & The City_ is hard to define. A bend between Science Fiction\Noirand Fantasy\Noir.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

sarahsbloke said:


> Science fiction is for men
> Fantasy is for women


Seriously? *rolls eyes*

Betsy


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

i ignore lines (especially in my coloring books), so i honestly don't care about what anyone calls it. 

if the blurb looks interesting, i sample.


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

sarahsbloke said:


> Science fiction is for men
> Fantasy is for women


I read both - should I be worried?


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

sarahsbloke said:


> Science fiction is for men
> Fantasy is for women


I've heard this said but it doesn't seem true of the people I know. Among my RL friends, six of us read fantasy. Three guys, three girls. Us girls sometimes cross over to romance or other genres but the guys are very fantasy loyal. Lord of the Rings, DragonLance, Wheel of Time, Stephan Lawhead books, Robin Hobb, Sarah Douglas... Yeah, we're big nerds. 

As for Sci-Fi, again returning to my group of weird friends, we all prefer fantasy. Some of us used to read the Star Wars books but that's about as far as we strayed outside our favorite genre. Personally, I don't enjoy books that mix science/technology and magic but maybe I just haven't found the right one -probably because I've purposely avoided them. Afraid my head would explode.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

sarahsbloke said:


> Science fiction is for men
> Fantasy is for women
> 
> What really annoys me is bookshops mixing the two together on shelves, a bit like stacking 'Penthouse' and 'Romance' in the same section.
> There are very few books that mix them together in any significant way and most of those books are trash IMHO.


Fantasy is for women? I must have missed the legions of women reading Lord of the Rings. Yes, I know there are women who read Lord of the Rings, but the stereotype of a LotR fan being male is not totally baseless. Both science fiction and fantasy have a reputation as being male activities. There always are some works that are aimed at different audiences, but don't let that color the perception of the whole genre.

They are put on the same shelves because the people looking for one genre probably also read the other genre. Most science fiction conventions cover both fantasy and science fiction, and don't make a big distinction between them. And many romance novels are as raunchy as Penthouse letters...


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I, for one, don't much care for most Fantasy. . . and yes I am a woman.  I read a fair amount when I was younger and decided that it's pretty much all the same.  If it matters, I don't much like romance or chick-lit either -- whether it rises to the raunchiness of a Penthouse letter or not.  Again, I find it boringly predictable.

I have enjoyed some Sci-Fi, specifically the intelligent kind as opposed to the "let's go into space and blast everything that isn't human (or is a 'bad' human)" kind.   I quite enjoy Star Trek, Doctor Who, Babylon 5 and their ilk.  Loved Asimov's Foundation series.

Mostly, I find generalizations to be not very helpful. . .there are always exceptions.


----------



## JBarry22 (Dec 12, 2011)

For me, science fiction deals mostly with technology and almost anything that ends up in space. Fantasy is magic, myths, and legends. Interestingly enough, I find a lot of great science fiction is just futuristic retellings of fantasy stories.


----------



## Malweth (Oct 18, 2009)

I draw the line: if it seems like it could happen (whether or not it's actually scientifically possible), then it's sci-fi. If it clearly could not happen, it's fantasy.
It's always a judgement call, though. There are clear examples of both, but if it straddles the line, it's up to the reader to determine which it is.

Pragmatically, I just know what I like. I'm not interested in reading an engineering book about building planets, I get enough engineering in at work. If it's interesting to me, it doesn't matter if it's fantasy, sci-fi, or other. (For example, "Never Let Me Go" was labelled "sci-fi," as Aldous Huxley might have been, but neither book really fit that role, IMHO; both were firmly in the "other" category).


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

You simply can't have magic in proper SF ... it's contrary to the whole thinking behind the science fiction genre. That's where I believe the line is drawn.


----------



## John Blackport (Jul 18, 2011)

Tony Richards said:


> You simply can't have magic in proper SF ... it's contrary to the whole thinking behind the science fiction genre. That's where I believe the line is drawn.


And before someone digs up the old Arthur C. Clarke quote, in fiction there _is_ a quantifiable difference, in at least one aspect.

"Magic" allows for inherent universal forces that are inherently "good" or "evil" in an _objective_ way, dispensing with the premise that "good" and "evil" are _subjective_ constructs.

Harry Potter couldn't have decided to become a practitioner of the Deathly Arts and determine that he's going to use his magic only "for good", without a) ending in disaster, or b) pulling back before he reached that point.

The Dragonlance series had wizards categorized by morals, color-coded by robes for convenience. These were objective forces, as real to the fantasy world as gravity --- they arguably would have existed even if there were no creatuers at all in the fantasy world --- yet, they had attitudes.

In science fiction, "genetics" is neither good nor evil. It can be an instrument of medical treatment, or of tyranny. "Atomic power" is neither good nor evil. It can fuel cities, or blow them up.

In science fiction, there is no "Dark Side of the Force". The moral qualities of your actions depend entirely on the tried-and-true paradigms of examining your intent, and the consequences of your actions.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

I don't think that subjective or objective have any bearing on what is science fiction and what is fantasy, science fiction doesn't require that good and evil be subjective, and fantasy doesn't require that good and evil be objective. It is true that genetics themselves are neither good nor evil, but you could say the same thing about magic. In Harry Potter, magic itself isn't good or evil. Sure, they had some types of magic that were considered evil, such as spells that killed, tortured or violated the will of the target. Similarly, genetics isn't evil, but many people would consider eugenics to be evil.


----------



## Brad Murgen (Oct 17, 2011)

If the story is rooted in science, then I call it science fiction.  If it uses some magical or fantastical elements, I call it fantasy.  If it uses elements of both I generally call it fantasy.  These days authors mix so many elements of both that's it's really more science fantasy (like Star Wars).


----------



## tahliaN (Nov 6, 2011)

I like to coin the phrase 'contemporary sci fi' for stories that combine both elements. If it's set in space it's sci fi to me, but the old style sci fi often has technology overkill which I don't like. Contemporaray Sc fi - the form that in my opinion will see a resurgance of the genre - has more emphasis on character & relationships than trad sci fi which tends to be very action orientated. This emphasis is what will make it more widely popular. The most recent example I can think of for something that combines sci fi and fantasy is Jason Halsteads Voidhawk series. But Leanna Renee Heiber's lovely novella, Dark World illustrates more what I mean by contemporary sci fi.







[/url][/img] .







[/url][/img]


----------



## John Blackport (Jul 18, 2011)

QuantumIguana said:


> I don't think that subjective or objective have any bearing on what is science fiction and what is fantasy, science fiction doesn't require that good and evil be subjective, and fantasy doesn't require that good and evil be objective.


Here's how I reached that conclusion. I have three premises:

a) The status of a piece of fiction as "science fiction" requires it to contain science. 
b) A certain level of technology is not required for "science". The goal of science is the pursuit of new knowledge, and a man inventing the wheel is pursuing it just as surely as a woman who invents faster-than-light travel. 
c) The pursuit of knowledge conducted through the "scientific method" of testing hypotheses through experimentation --- depends on objectivity. When you alter your experimentation to get results you want, or avoid results you don't want, then you are no longer practicing "science" --- you are merely hiding your religious, business or political agenda under the banner of science.



QuantumIguana said:


> In Harry Potter, magic itself isn't good or evil. Sure, they had some types of magic that were considered evil, such as spells that killed, tortured or violated the will of the target.


Yes, and if I recall correctly the "type of magic that was considered evil" was distinct enough to be defined and compartmentalized (at least partially) under the heading of "Deathly Arts". It wasn't merely a matter of "don't use your magic to do bad things".

(I'm not trying to be snide here by saying "if I recall correctly" . . . I honestly don't remember those details of Harry Potter very well)

Lovecraft's horror stories may have space travel to far-off stars, but I'd always call them fantasy . . . there are certain things (i.e., worshipping Cthulhu) that simply always lead to disaster. No matter how good your intentions, as soon as you do it you're screwed, like Darth Vader following the Dark Side of the Force, or Frankenstein for inquiring into What Man Was Not Meant to Know.

Once a story takes the moral position that merely asking forbidden questions dooms you for moral reasons --- inherently, regardless of how benign your intentions are --- it's crossed into fantasy.



QuantumIguana said:


> Similarly, genetics isn't evil, but many people would consider eugenics to be evil.


I think you've nailed it here. Genetics is a science. Eugenics is merely an application of that science.

As a science, genetic is morally neutral --- its logical principles exist independently, whether anyone's aware of them or not. Eugenics can be evil, though, because it's an application of that science. Since it's an application, it requires specific acts and intentions. Those acts and intentions can be evil.

If our world were the setting for a novel, and the author decided "All genetics is evil" --- then it would have to be a fantasy novel . . . no manner how many spaceships were thrown in there.


----------



## flipside (Dec 7, 2011)

It's honestly subjective, and boils down to whether you believe that it's possible (Science Fiction) or not (Fantasy). (Not that either is superior, mind you, or that Science Fiction is actually in the realm of possiblity.)

Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Philip K. Dick: "Now to separate science fiction from fantasy. This is impossible to do, and a moment's thought will show why. Take psionics; take mutants such as we find in Ted Sturgeon's wonderful 'More Than Human'. If the reader believes that such mutants could exist, then he will view Sturgeon's novel as science fiction. If, however, he beleives that such mutants are, like wizards and dragons, not possible, nor will ever be possible, then he is reading a fantasy novel. Fantasy involves that which general opinion regards as impossible; science fiction involves that which general opinion regards as possible under the right circumstances. This is in essence a judgement-call, since what is possible and what is not possible is not objectively known but is, rather, a subjective belief on the part of the author and of the reader."

The question I want to ask readers (and the OP) is why they're asking the question. Should it matter?

As for a work that blurs the lines, what immediately comes to mind is Interfictions 2 (http://smallbeerpress.com/books/2009/11/03/interfictions-2/).


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

Agreed with Flipside 

These are categories that work well to describe some books, but others could be either one and it really doesnt matter which you fit them into.

Some things fit squarely into fantasy; Dragons, magical swords etc.  Some things are often in both genres: telepathy, mutants, alternate universes, ghosts.

Works that blur the line - anything by Tim Powers, who writes about occult forces, ghosts, vampires etc but roots them in scientific phenomena.    
Anne McCaffrey's  Pern books are fantasy in their mood and attitude, but there is no magic unless you consider telekinesis and telepathy to be magical and in her later books she goes out of her way to find scientific explanations for the dragons, thread and so on. Phillip Pullman's "Dark Materials" is fantasy in some ways, but he also roots his magical phenomena in science.  Terry Pratchett's Diskworld series - which is that?  Peter Dickinson tends to blur the line a lot, dealing with occult phenomena and science.   

The above books dont fit with the definition of good and evil being subjective and objective either. I suspect that is a circular argument - "It is subjective therefore it is science fiction".  There are many fantasy books that explore power as being neither inherently good nor evil, and many science fiction books that portray a universe where some are "for good" and others are "for evil" and never the twain shall meet.


----------



## JustinDennis (Sep 6, 2011)

flipside said:


> The question I want to ask readers (and the OP) is why they're asking the question. Should it matter?


Does it matter to me? No. I read both, and I do agree that it is subjective and that one person may label it sf why the other labels it fantasy. But, it matters in the sense that it is fun to discuss


----------



## sarahsbloke (Sep 24, 2011)

flipside said:


> It's honestly subjective, and boils down to whether you believe that it's possible (Science Fiction) or not (Fantasy). (Not that either is superior, mind you, or that Science Fiction is actually in the realm of possiblity.)
> 
> Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
> 
> ...


It matters because a real man knows the difference between SF and Fantasy.
I agree, he can enjoy both, but he still knows the difference.


----------



## flipside (Dec 7, 2011)

sarahsbloke said:


> It matters because a real man knows the difference between SF and Fantasy.
> I agree, he can enjoy both, but he still knows the difference.


LOL, this coming from the person claiming that:



> Fantasy is for Women
> Science Fiction is for Men


Which, as others have pointed out, is clearly absurd. (Both genres have readerships with both genders.)

And it's ironic that two of the most popular "Science Fiction", Star Wars and Dune, are really Fantasies. (And there is how some "Fantasies" are really Science Fiction, in the case of the Pern series by Anne McCaffrey, or The Dying Earth series by Jack Vance.)

Or that Science Fiction isn't really as plausible as some believe it to be. Faster Than Light (FTL) isn't realistic by any means, and no, you don't get transported elsewhere if you enter a Black Hole.

And some Fantasy reads more true than some Science Fiction. Just look at Lions of Al-Rassan by Guy Gavriel Kay.

And both genres borrow tropes from the other: dragons can be magical creatures or aliens; time travel will *often* have rules, but how it works can either be magical or scientific.


----------



## John Blackport (Jul 18, 2011)

flipside said:


> The question I want to ask readers (and the OP) is why they're asking the question. Should it matter?


It matters because this particular community sells fiction, and the industry of selling fiction currently treats "science fiction" and "fantasy" as two different genres, with different target audiences.

If it truly "didn't matter", Amazon (indeed, all booksellers) would have lots of customer requests to drop a silly, meaningless distinction that needlessly complicates their search for books. To my knowledge, such requests are rare enough to assume that most readers like having the distinction between these two genres, and wish it to remain in place.


----------



## John Blackport (Jul 18, 2011)

flipside said:


> It's honestly subjective, and boils down to whether you believe that it's possible (Science Fiction) or not (Fantasy).


Then how useful is the distinction?

All fiction requires some level of "suspension of disbelief", even cop stories set in Chicago.

In the case of "science fiction", the belief of "whether it's possible" should be reasonably connected to scientific reasoning. If it's not, you may as well call it "high-tech fiction". Actually, you might as well call it "marmalade fiction".

The distinctions have existed for over a century and are now embedded in the public's perception of fiction --- there's no point in crusading to end the distinction. There's no point in crusading to force everyone to "use the distinction properly" either, but there must be some convergence. Self-published writers already face significant flack when readers feel they've mislabelled their "erotica" as "romance"; agents are notoriously persnickety about the difference between "suspense" and "thriller". You will never have 100% agreement --- which is fine because you don't need it --- but the term has a use.

We are writers. Words are our business, our tools, and our product. We shouldn't hobble our readers and our industry with terms that have no common definition. If we abandon the "science" in defining what "science fiction", the term becomes useless as a tool to help readers find writers --- and stories --- they'll enjoy.

I think that's pretty important.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

John Blackport said:


> It matters because this particular community sells fiction, and the industry of selling fiction currently treats "science fiction" and "fantasy" as two different genres, with different target audiences.
> 
> If it truly "didn't matter", Amazon (indeed, all booksellers) would have lots of customer requests to drop a silly, meaningless distinction that complicates their search for books. To my knowledge, such requests are rare enough to assume that most readers like having the distinction between these two genres, and wish it to remain in place.


What "particular community"? If you mean KindleBoards, we're not selling anything!  This is simply an independent site for Kindle fans. Since MOST Kindle fans are readers, we set up the Book Corner so books could be discussed. But we're not selling anything!*

Really, the distinction doesn't _matter_ but it is useful to put labels on things so that they can be organized. If we just called everything "a book" it would be impossibly difficult for anyone to find the sort he or she most likes to read. 

*we do have some members who are also authors; they _are_ selling their books, over in the Book Bazaar. . . .they do generally try to give an indication of what sort of book it is so that people can tell if it might be of interest.


----------



## John Blackport (Jul 18, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> What "particular community"? If you mean KindleBoards, we're not selling anything!  This is simply an independent site for Kindle fans. Since MOST Kindle fans are readers, we set up the Book Corner so books could be discussed. But we're not selling anything!*


That was beautiful!

Ann, you just pointed out --- rightly --- that I've created an important misunderstanding through my misuse of the word "community" ! I didn't see it coming, I certainly wasn't planning to. But the misunderstanding was important enough that you needed to step in and clarify.

The distinction between "science fiction" and "fantasy" may not be important to most people, and that's fine. But writers have a special responsibility to communicate as effectively as they can when speaking to the general public. If the writers won't, who will?

Anyway, I'll be quiet on this subject from now on. Not because I feel put upon --- I've enjoyed this --- but simply because I think I've said enough. I want to thank everyone for being polite.


----------



## Mercius (Aug 28, 2010)

I think Robert Asprin's Myth Adventure Series sometimes blurred the line, although a majority of it was fantasy. I think the really good ones kind of hinted at a Sci-Fi link. Modesitt's Recluse series hints at it, with magic-induced steampunk fun in the Magic Engineer and Chaos Balance. Andre Norton's Moon Singer Series felt like it skirted the lines of Fantasy, but was mainly Sci-Fi, and it was really well-done, especially Flight of Yiktor. I guess in the end, I don't really care whether it calls itself Fantasy or Sci-Fi. A little of each isn't such a bad mixture.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

John Blackport said:


> Here's how I reached that conclusion. I have three premises:
> 
> a) The status of a piece of fiction as "science fiction" requires it to contain science.
> b) A certain level of technology is not required for "science". The goal of science is the pursuit of new knowledge, and a man inventing the wheel is pursuing it just as surely as a woman who invents faster-than-light travel.
> c) The pursuit of knowledge conducted through the "scientific method" of testing hypotheses through experimentation --- depends on objectivity. When you alter your experimentation to get results you want, or avoid results you don't want, then you are no longer practicing "science" --- you are merely hiding your religious, business or political agenda under the banner of science.


Science fiction doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the scientific method. If they were doing scientific research, then yes, the scientific method would come into play, but in both real life and in science fiction, people quite often use are using technology rather than doing research. In any case, the scientific method has nothing to do with what good and what is evil. Also, no one is talking about altering research.



> Yes, and if I recall correctly the "type of magic that was considered evil" was distinct enough to be defined and compartmentalized (at least partially) under the heading of "Deathly Arts". It wasn't merely a matter of "don't use your magic to do bad things".


It is exactly that, they simply simply categorize some things as the "Deathly Arts", just as we could categorize some things as violations of criminal law.



> Once a story takes the moral position that merely asking forbidden questions dooms you for moral reasons --- inherently, regardless of how benign your intentions are --- it's crossed into fantasy.


No, it doesn't. You can all it whatever you want, but that's just your own idiosyncratic definition.


> I think you've nailed it here. Genetics is a science. Eugenics is merely an application of that science.
> 
> As a science, genetic is morally neutral --- its logical principles exist independently, whether anyone's aware of them or not. Eugenics can be evil, though, because it's an application of that science. Since it's an application, it requires specific acts and intentions. Those acts and intentions can be evil.


Magic is to genetics as the Dark Arts are to eugenics.


----------



## Nicki Leigh (Aug 25, 2011)

I think science fiction needs to sound like it could possibly exist whereas fantasy is purely magic based. This isn't to say that there has to be someone casting magic or using wands in fantasy, but the creatures therein are fantastical or fantasy based (gryphon, dragons, elves..). For science fiction, if it doesn't take place on Earth, than it usually involves planet systems similar to our own, as well as some bipedal forms, be it human or otherwise.

I used to think science fiction meant something that involved aliens and spacecrafts or time travel, but after plotting my next novel, I've found this isn't always true.

Are there books out there that blue the line? I'm sure there are. Some of the books by piers Anthony seem to do it rather well, in my humble opinion. I guess it really comes down to how you feel as a reader.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

flipside said:


> The question I want to ask readers (and the OP) is why they're asking the question. Should it matter?


I think accurate labeling is important. If you buy a can of beans, you don't want to find beets inside and have someone console you with the knowledge it's all really just vegetables anyway. Now maybe some people will be happy with either beans or beets, but others may want one over the other, and I'd assert that the label should correctly tell you what you're getting as much as it's possible.

Now there will be some gray areas between science fiction and fantasy, but the similar diligence towards labeling should apply. Try to get it right. A story of a little boy flying on a broom and fighting evil wizards should not be called science fiction nor should realistic stories about the colonization of Mars be filed under fantasy.


----------



## J. Scott Tyler (Dec 7, 2011)

I prefer fantasy myself. I think the main difference is that science fiction deals more with outer-space and aliens, whereas fantasy usually deals with magic and mythology here on earth.

I think that "I am Number Four" and it's sequel "The Power of Six" come really close to blurring those lines. The main characters are aliens trapped on earth with magical like abilities, and it sort of gives me an overall sense of fantasy.


----------



## Robert S. Wilson (Jul 21, 2011)

I think a classic example of blurring the lines between SF and Fantasy would be Frank Herbert's Dune.


----------



## flipside (Dec 7, 2011)

John Blackport said:


> Then how useful is the distinction?
> 
> All fiction requires some level of "suspension of disbelief", even cop stories set in Chicago.
> 
> We are writers. Words are our business, our tools, and our product. We shouldn't hobble our readers and our industry with terms that have no common definition. If we abandon the "science" in defining what "science fiction", the term becomes useless as a tool to help readers find writers --- and stories --- they'll enjoy.


As a writer or publisher, you can intend whatever you want.

But at the end of the day, it's the reader who decides.

That's the wisdom of Arthur C. Clarke and Philip K. Dick. They're generally known as Science Fiction writers, but at the end of the day, who decides which is which (fantasy or science fiction) are the readers.

Who decides whether Anne McCaffrey's fiction is really science fiction or fantasy? The reader.

Margaret Atwood, in her book In Other Worlds: SF and the Human Imagination, explains why she perceives her work as speculative fiction (as opposed to science fiction), but again, the one who ultimately decides whether her novels are Fiction, Science Fiction, or Speculative Fiction is the reader.

Some terminologies are subjective. Take for example Urban Fantasy, which will mean different things to different people. In The Urban Fantasy Anthology (ed. by Peter S. Beagle and Joe R. Lansdale), they articulate the three eras/evolution of Urban Fantasy (Mythic Fiction, Paranormal Romance, and Noir Fantasy) but as a reader or consumer, I'm not necessarily aware of that and simply associate the term with what comes to mind (hence some people consider Urban Fantasy = Paranormal Romance while others a broader interpretation of the term). What's at play there is marketing/promotion (which can include cover art and genre labels) vs. reader expectation. For example, The Time Traveler's Wife was published as Fiction (instead of science fiction or fantasy) and if you read it, whether the story is Fiction, science fiction, or fantasy will depend on the reader (there is an attempt at explaining the condition that gives the main protagonist the ability to time travel but whether the reader interprets this as an actual scientific possibility or simply one of those laws of magic is best left to the reader to decide).

Other terminologies in publishing, on the other hand, can be quantified and is objective. For example, a collection (series of short stories from a single author) vs. an anthology (series of short stories from different authors); novella vs. novel. Not that this will always be true (some publications for example are hybrid anthologies/magazines).

The other problem is the assumption that genre labels are mutually exclusive. Which is a definite concern in terms of shelf space in a library or bookstore, but not so much in a virtual marketplace (or atmosphere) where a title can have several tags, meta-descriptions, labels, etc. A book can simultaneously Romance, Fantasy, and Paranormal Romance.

There's value in genre labels (helps sort things out) but I wouldn't be confined by them and again, at the end of the day, it's the reader who decides. Hence my question to readers, why does it matter to you? Are you looking for a story with characteristics you think is unique to the genre/sub-genre? Is it simply the label? Did the genre evoke nostalgic feelings in you? Something else? Or doesn't matter at all?

An interesting movement for me is Interstitial Fiction which is works that aren't easily categorizable in a single genre. And of course it's a moving target: what might have been unclassifiable five years ago might have a label now, so the standards for Interstitial Fiction have changed.

People also need to understand that books, while commodities, aren't really quantifiable in an objective manner. Every book is a unique product (it's art) and thus open to interpretation. Some books will rely on tried-and-tested formulas (just look at all the Tolkien clones) but a lot will also be do something that sets it apart (even when it might be a Tolkien clone itself). Fantasy and Science Fiction are very broad terms, and if you want accuracy in labeling (assuming that is possible), you have to rely on sub-sub genre labels: Space Opera, Mundane SF, Hard Science Fiction for example fall under the bracket of science fiction, yet each one is distinct from the other (Space Opera might even be misconstrued as Epic Fantasy).


----------



## Skate (Jan 23, 2011)

Orson Scott Card's "Songmaster" blurred the boundaries for me. I don't normally enjoy SF, but this was a beautiful mix of science and magic.


----------



## Steverino (Jan 5, 2011)

This is what we get for trying to categorize works of art. Bupkis.

Just the same, though, I've heard it said that _Dracula_ is fantasy and _Frankenstein_ is science fiction, and that somehow sounds right to me. I don't think the type of story you can tell is different between them, but as others have said, the nature of the suspension of disbelief is different.

I heard one SF writer (who? errr...) define the difference by saying the rule for fantasy is "you can't get there from here." In other words, SF falls on another planet or in the future, but no starship will take you to Middle Earth.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

At its most basic, overt  or common use of  magic.

I realize that some technologies/science in sci fi may seem like magic in some cases, but I prefer to have some realistic basis for things.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> I, for one, don't much care for most Fantasy. . . and yes I am a woman. I read a fair amount when I was younger and decided that it's pretty much all the same. If it matters, I don't much like romance or chick-lit either -- whether it rises to the raunchiness of a Penthouse letter or not. Again, I find it boringly predictable.
> 
> I have enjoyed some Sci-Fi, specifically the intelligent kind as opposed to the "let's go into space and blast everything that isn't human (or is a 'bad' human)" kind.  I quite enjoy Star Trek, Doctor Who, Babylon 5 and their ilk. Loved Asimov's Foundation series.


We are very much on the same page Ann!


----------



## michaelabayomi (Dec 13, 2011)

I enjoy reading both Science Fiction and Fantasy, and I think everyone else could, in spite of gender.

The key difference between both genres is that in Science Fiction, the author needs to give a scientific context to whatever worlds/beings/technologies they imagine/invent. In other words, they must explain these concepts using knowledge currently available to present day man. Fantasy on the other hand doesn't pose such a restriction. For example, in the Harry Potter books, the Hogwarts students would ride up to the castle (after coming back from the holidays) in carriages pulled by invisible horses. It wasn't until book 5 did we readers know those horses to be creatures called Thestrals. But between books 1 - 4, nobody questioned the logic behind such a means of transportation.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Steverino said:


> I heard one SF writer (who? errr...) define the difference by saying the rule for fantasy is "you can't get there from here." In other words, SF falls on another planet or in the future, but no starship will take you to Middle Earth.


Oddly enough, some of my favorite fantasy is when a character goes from here, to there.....


----------



## Darlene Jones (Nov 1, 2011)

I'm with Scarlet. If it sounds good, I'll try it - I don't consider genre per se.


----------



## Jontan (Nov 13, 2011)

I've been sitting on the fence myself, but lean towards the idea that in sci-fi supernatural phenomena needs to be explained whereas in fantasy it does not.

In some ways, then, fantasy is an easier genre for writers to delve into. You don't need to be familiar with scientific explanations for the things taking place or research the science involved. You do, however, need to be familiar with how such things are usually handled in that genre.

In science fiction, you _do_ need to research, and you _do_ need to make an effort to depict a particular phenomena as scientifically possible.

Just my take on it...


----------



## VolcanoShark (Dec 8, 2011)

Science Fiction is the literature of the Possible, Fantasy is the literature of the impossible.

Science fiction shouldn't break any known physical laws.  That's really not hard and fast though.  From what we know now, faster than light travel isn't possible.  Though future scientific discoveries might change our opinions on that.  Who knows.  But space ships traveling faster than light to get to other planets in days or hours is a common feature of science fiction.

Fantasy can make up it's own physical laws.  If in your book a wizard can use magic to create matter out of nothing (wave your wand and *poof* an object appears) that makes your book fantasy.  We KNOW that can't happen in real life.

Many books/movies/franchises are fantasy with scientific trappings.  Star Wars has The Force (which is a fantasy element no matter how Lucas tried to dress it up and make science fiction out of it with that midoclorians nonsense) and also lots of space ships and aliens.  That makes it science fantasy which combines both.

I love both scifi and fantasy and read (and view) both with equal pleasure.

But genres frequently mix.  Lately fantasy detective stories have been big with Butcher's Dresden Files novels.  Also many of the books of Barbara Hambly (a highly underrated author) mix magic and detectives, or rather, mysteries as many of her protagonists aren't professional detectives.


----------



## Nancy Fulda (Apr 24, 2011)

Arthur C. Clarke: _Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic._

On the most technical level, there is no distinction. Science Fiction and fantasy both presume that something normally considered impossible becomes commonplace. For that reason, it does not seem at all odd to me that bookstores shelve both genres together.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

VolcanoShark said:


> Science Fiction is the literature of the Possible, Fantasy is the literature of the impossible.


Hold it just a mo, there. We're not sure if ftl travel or cold fusion are possible yet, and a couple of centuries back, airplanes, space travel, and the Internet would have been considered utterly impossible.


----------



## VolcanoShark (Dec 8, 2011)

Tony Richards said:


> Hold it just a mo, there. We're not sure if ftl travel or cold fusion are possible yet, and a couple of centuries back, airplanes, space travel, and the Internet would have been considered utterly impossible.


We don't know that FTL travel or cold fusion are IMpossible. We do know that dragons don't exist and that you can't wave a magic wand and turn somebody into a frog.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

sarahsbloke said:


> Science fiction is for men
> Fantasy is for women
> 
> ...
> ...


Julian May is a woman.

You just argued against your own supposition without my pointing out Raymond E. Feist, Nancy Kress and hundreds of others who defy your gender roles.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

VolcanoShark said:


> We don't know that FTL travel or cold fusion are IMpossible. We do know that dragons don't exist and that you can't wave a magic wand and turn somebody into a frog.


Dragons don't exist HERE. But with all the exoplanets being found, I'm not taking bets. Regarding turning someone into a frog, once we perfect matter transmission and nanotech, who knows.....


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

VolcanoShark said:


> We don't know that FTL travel or cold fusion are IMpossible. We do know that dragons don't exist and that you can't wave a magic wand and turn somebody into a frog.


We know dragons don't exist here and now - not that they don't (or for that matter can't) exist. Also, using a wand to make things happen is alot like using a Wii - perhaps we just haven't sufficiently explored those facets of the physical world that would allow us to do things that resemble traditional magic.


----------



## Nancy Fulda (Apr 24, 2011)

Geoffrey said:


> We know dragons don't exist here and now - not that they don't (or for that matter can't) exist. Also, using a wand to make things happen is alot like using a Wii - perhaps we just haven't sufficiently explored those facets of the physical world that would allow us to do things that resemble traditional magic.


Touching on this theme, a good many books use science fictional methods to create a fantasy environment. Jane Yolen's pit dragons come to mind, as do Anne McCaffrey's Pern novels and James Maxey's Bitterwood trilogy. (Hm... all of those books have dragons in them. Sensing a pattern, here.)

To my way of thinking, both science fiction and fantasy require a certain amount of mental flexibility. The reader must be able to postulate a reality that differs significantly from everyday experience. That makes them two sides of the same coin in my book.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Nancy Fulda said:


> Touching on this theme, a good many books use science fictional methods to create a fantasy environment. Jane Yolen's pit dragons come to mind, as do Anne McCaffrey's Pern novels and James Maxey's Bitterwood trilogy. (Hm... all of those books have dragons in them. Sensing a pattern, here.)
> 
> To my way of thinking, both science fiction and fantasy require a certain amount of mental flexibility. The reader must be able to postulate a reality that differs significantly from everyday experience. That makes them two sides of the same coin in my book.


See, I don't think of Pern as fantasy. Well, not anymore. I probably did when we didn't know they were actually transplanted humans.


----------



## Nancy Fulda (Apr 24, 2011)

scarlet said:


> See, I don't think of Pern as fantasy. Well, not anymore. I probably did when we didn't know they were actually transplanted humans.


It's one of those series where the lines get badly blurred. We've got telepathic humans and sentient oversized flying beasts that are able to breathe fire teleport. It's all explained as the result of specialized genetic splicing, but where I come from we call that hand-wavium -- as in, the magician waves his hand around and _whooops!_ the audience doesn't realize that it's been hoodwinked.

Pern is, by no stretch of science or the imagination, based on extrapolations of the laws of our universe. But it's a rocking good set of books, and I don't really care what it's shelved next to as long as it's someplace where I can find it.


----------



## soofy (Nov 26, 2011)

I'm more of a fantasy reader but I'm slowly reading more science fiction as my parents are ardent science fiction readers. However I've got the Thomas Covenant books to read so it may be a while before I pick up another sci-fi. I recently finished the God Emperor; very good.

In trying to define fantasy and sci-fi, if we start with speculative fiction we can "define" it and say it is fiction that requires a suspension of disbelief to accept some or all of the plot or the world and the laws that govern that world.

Branching off into science fiction we have a suspension of disbelief but the world is held in some derivative of our scientific laws, such that it can be accepted as probable. So societies in orbit around our planet, interplanetary travel, advanced weaponry and technology etc. 

Fantasy requires the suspension of disbelief to accept a world that either goes beyond our understanding of the world with science or does not involve it. So for example warrens in Malazan Book of the Fallen has no bearing in our understanding of the world nor could we extrapolate to it to make it probable. 

If that is the case then books that include travelling faster than the speed of light, seeing into the future; elements that have no bearing in science, is where the line is blurry because these are fantastical elements of science theory and are not probable as a reality (yet). 

So books like the Dune series that involve prescience, immortality and seeing far into the past, time travel are fantasy elements even though Dune is rooted in some probable scientific derivatives like humans inhabiting other planets, engineering ecologies, genetics etc. I would also say films like Star Wars blur the line as the Force is a strongly fantastical element and the idea of light vs. dark is seen many times in fantasy yet it has the advanced technology, believable space travel that is seen in so called "hard sci-fi". So in the end I think there is a spectrum, you have those firmly rooted in fantasy or science fiction but in the middle there are fantasy books that contain probable elements and science fiction books that contain typically impossible elements. 

I don't think fantasy needs magic or dragons to be classed as such, which is why fantasy branches out into many sub-genres. 

edit: I'd recommend the Dune Series as although it is THE science fiction series, it has some fantasy elements (the Bene Gesserit are "witches").


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

Nancy Fulda said:


> It's one of those series where the lines get badly blurred. We've got telepathic humans


Is telepathy science fiction or is it fantasy? I'm not really sure. The more I look at this thread and read people's different arguments, the more blurred the lines get. And I started out with very definite ideas on this subject. This is what a really good discussion is _supposed_ to do -- make people examine their own attitudes. Keep it up, guys.


----------



## soofy (Nov 26, 2011)

Tony Richards said:


> Is telepathy science fiction or is it fantasy? I'm not really sure. The more I look at this thread and read people's different arguments, the more blurred the lines get. And I started out with very definite ideas on this subject. This is what a really good discussion is _supposed_ to do -- make people examine their own attitudes. Keep it up, guys.


I would say fantasy because it is not rooted in reality or a probable reality. ESP is seen as something outside of scientific understanding like clairvoyance.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

soofy said:


> I would say fantasy because it is not rooted in reality or a probable reality. ESP is seen as something outside of scientific understanding like clairvoyance.


And yet telepathy comes up pretty constantly in SF shows and novels. See what I mean?


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

Tony Richards said:


> Is telepathy science fiction or is it fantasy?


At one time, people believed (scientifically) in the power of the mind more than they do today. A forty year old novel with telepathy can have been in a science fiction mode with some tenuous link to science whereas a contemporary novel is on more shaky science ground with mind powers.


----------



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

The fact that people have been arguing over what is SF and what is Fantasy for many decades tells me it's a useless endeavor. There are just too many works that have varying degrees of elements of either or both. I think this is why they get lumped together at bookstores. No matter what section you put it in someone is going to complain that it belongs in the other.

I wish I could say that I know if it's SF or Fantasy when I see it, but I know better.  

I just use the labels as a preliminary filter, anyway. I'm not very worried about the label. I run into a similar situation with respect to Mysteries. Many books are labeled as Mysteries and I think they should more properly be called detective stories or police procedurals, or whatever.

Labels/categories are made up to allow us to talk about groups of objects: they don't define the objects. We assign things to categories by pulling out certain perceived characteristics, but these never completely define an object.

The important thing to remember is that placing something in a category does not change the object itself. And just because something has been assigned to a category does not mean that the characteristics have been exhausted.

Someone saying they like/read Fantasy may give you a very general idea of what their preferences, but it's not going to tell you anything useful about any given book.

Mike


----------



## sarahsbloke (Sep 24, 2011)

I just wish they would have different 'book shelves' advertising fantasy and science fiction.
Mainly because I don't want my choices cluttered up by all the fantasy, if the editors make a few mistakes or some books are a mixture, I'm happy with that, but please don't mix them together.

I would also like a different shelf for all the self published books, my life is too short to wade through all that rubbish material Amazon now sell.
I would also like to see a different forum section for the self published, at the moment book corner is completely overwhelmed by scads of it.


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

@jmiked: Yes! Exactly. I've seen so many discussions here that treat genres as though they are part of the natural world - you know, when a Fantasy mates with a Science Fiction, a Urban Fantasy is born. Or should there be a recessive Romance gene in there somewhere for that to happen?



> Labels/categories are made up to allow us to talk about groups of objects: they don't define the objects. We assign things to categories by pulling out certain perceived characteristics, but these never completely define an object.
> 
> The important thing to remember is that placing something in a category does not change the object itself. And just because something has been assigned to a category does not mean that the characteristics have been exhausted.


  Exactly.

It is still fun to talk about the way the categories and the objects interact though.

For myself, I tend to think of books as Fantasy or Science Fiction not so much because of magic/science or impossible/possible but because of the type of story it is. That classic "young person discovers unique power while struggling against overwhelming force" thing is very Fantasy, whether the hero is holding a laser gun or a magic wand. And "new development utterly changes status quo in scary and unexpected ways goody lets explore how that happens" is (for me) very Science Fiction, whether the development is time travel, telepathy or an invasion of elves.

Of course there are many other types of stories that fit comfortably in either genre - I'm not saying these examples define either one - but there does seem to be more of an attitude difference than anything else.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

sarahsbloke said:


> I just wish they would have different 'book shelves' advertising fantasy and science fiction.
> Mainly because I don't want my choices cluttered up by all the fantasy, if the editors make a few mistakes or some books are a mixture, I'm happy with that, but please don't mix them together.
> 
> I would also like a different shelf for all the self published books, my life is too short to wade through all that rubbish material Amazon now sell.
> I would also like to see a different forum section for the self published, at the moment book corner is completely overwhelmed by scads of it.


You seem to have quite a few opinions on how things should be.

Since I, like many others, read both Science Fiction an Fantasy, I don't mind that they're mixed. Before there was an SF/F page in the kindle store, Fantasy and Science Fiction were separate sub-genres of fiction in Amazon's menu tree and there was so much overlap that combining them is an improvement, IMO. And, there are quite a few people, including myself, who do read self-published and small press authors and therefore don't mind them included. From a purely marketing perspective, it's not in Amazon's interest to segregate indies into a separate section so I don't see that happening.

As for a different forum for the self-published, writers are also readers and as such are perfectly welcome in the Book Corner. They are not permitted to promote their books here beyond their signature line. For promotion, there is a separate area - the Book Bazaar. If you don't want to see their signature lines, feel free to turn them off. (go to your profile, and under "Look and Layout Preferences", it's the 4th checkbox) Then you might be surprised how difficult it is to tell an author from a normal person.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Geoffrey said:


> Then you might be surprised how difficult it is to tell an author from a normal person.


We have normal people here? *Looks around nervously*



Betsy


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> We have normal people here? *Looks around nervously*
> 
> 
> 
> Betsy


I'm quite sure I'm completely normal, Betsy. 

<twitch>


----------



## VolcanoShark (Dec 8, 2011)

scarlet said:


> Dragons don't exist HERE. But with all the exoplanets being found, I'm not taking bets. Regarding turning someone into a frog, once we perfect matter transmission and nanotech, who knows.....


We may find creatures which resemble dragons on other planets, we might even call them dragons, but they won't BE dragons in the magical sense. Because dragons are magical creatures which do not exist.

In the future humans might be able to rearrange matter from, say, a human to a frog. But that frog wouldn't BE that human any more than a house built of lumber is a tree.


----------



## VolcanoShark (Dec 8, 2011)

Geoffrey said:


> We know dragons don't exist here and now - not that they don't (or for that matter can't) exist. Also, using a wand to make things happen is alot like using a Wii - perhaps we just haven't sufficiently explored those facets of the physical world that would allow us to do things that resemble traditional magic.


Which is where Clarke's Law comes in. With a cell phone you can talk to somebody on the other side of the world, look up information on the internet, play music, take pictures and movies and do a trillion other things. A hundred years ago nobody would have believed such a device could exist and to include it in a novel would have been to write a fantasy. If Gandalf had packed such an object in his robe it would have been seen as too versitile a magical object to believe. Yet, it's not even science fiction. It's science fact.

Yet, there are still things which I'm sure are impossible and against physical laws.


----------



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

Geoffrey said:


> Then you might be surprised how difficult it is to tell an author from a normal person.


I think it's pretty easy. Authors seem* incapable of posting a message without using the words "in my books", "when I write", or the like.   

Mike

*Note the word "seem". I'm sure you could find an exception.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

VolcanoShark said:


> Which is where Clarke's Law comes in. With a cell phone you can talk to somebody on the other side of the world, look up information on the internet, play music, take pictures and movies and do a trillion other things. A hundred years ago nobody would have believed such a device could exist and to include it in a novel would have been to write a fantasy. If Gandalf had packed such an object in his robe it would have been seen as too versitile a magical object to believe. Yet, it's not even science fiction. It's science fact.
> 
> Yet, there are still things which I'm sure are impossible and against physical laws.


Following that logic a tricorder, a replicator and a warp core are all magic. I just don't buy that definition. I usually draw the line between a scientific explanation and a supernatural one - regardless of the plausibility. But even there I allow a large amount of leeway and then I just accept that something can be both at the same time.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

jmiked said:


> I think it's pretty easy. Authors seem* incapable of posting a message without using the words "in my books", "when I write", or the like.
> 
> Mike
> 
> *Note the word "seem". I'm sure you could find an exception.


Mike,

I've been meaning to tell you that your new avatar makes me laugh out loud. Literally. 

Betsy


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Wow, lively discussion.

I don't really have anything thoughtful to add concerning the whole sci fi versus fantasy debate, except that I generally read for character. If a character seems real to me, whether that character be a dragon, vampire, an evil computer named HAL, or some poor bloke trapped in a space suit, I keep reading. If a character doesn't seem real (and I've attempted to read many books set firmly in this reality with cardboard characters that seemed a lot less real to me than say, Frodo and Sam or Hazel and Fiver), then I quit reading. I think it takes a great deal of skill for an author to create a completely fantastical creature like a dragon and imbue it with so much life that I find myself believing in it more than I believe in the protrayal of so-called "reality" in some literary novels.

One series I haven't seen mentioned so far that's an interesting blend of sci fi and fantasy is Joan Vinge's series 

Wish I could find a link to the first book in this series (_The Snow Queen _) but I can't. At least the link I found shows Michael Whelan's beautiful cover art for that series.


----------



## GerrieFerrisFinger (Jun 1, 2011)

I prefer fantasy over sci-fi, although I love Star Trek and Asimov's work. As a general rule, fantasy explores human and inhuman interactions, so character is important. In sci-fi technology reigns. 

Gerrie


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

GerrieFerrisFinger said:


> I prefer fantasy over sci-fi, although I love Star Trek and Asimov's work. As a general rule, fantasy explores human and inhuman interactions, so character is important. In sci-fi technology reigns.
> 
> Gerrie


If you're talking about Forties/Fifties SF, that's probably true. But since the New Wave movement in the Sixties -- and yes, science fiction had one, if you didn't know -- an awful lot more emphasis gets put on character than used to be the case


----------



## sarahsbloke (Sep 24, 2011)

GerrieFerrisFinger said:


> I prefer fantasy over sci-fi, although I love Star Trek and Asimov's work. As a general rule, fantasy explores human and inhuman interactions, so character is important. In sci-fi technology reigns.
> Gerrie


You should try some more traditional Sci-Fi from a writer like John Wyndham.
Trouble with Lichen - no technology at all but definitely sci-fi
The Chrysalids - no technology at all, until the last chapter but again definitely sci-fi.

(Just noticed my post claims exactly the opposite to Tony)


----------



## flipside (Dec 7, 2011)

Geoffrey said:


> Following that logic a tricorder, a replicator and a warp core are all magic.


Well, probably two out of the three you mentioned can be classified as "handwavium," so yeah, it's magic to those who apply a strict measuring stick when it comes to Science Fiction.

But there are, of course, readers who believe it's sci-fi because it's associated with Star Trek, despite the implausibility of some of what it presents.


----------



## flipside (Dec 7, 2011)

Jontan said:


> In some ways, then, fantasy is an easier genre for writers to delve into. You don't need to be familiar with scientific explanations for the things taking place or research the science involved. You do, however, need to be familiar with how such things are usually handled in that genre.
> 
> In science fiction, you _do_ need to research, and you _do_ need to make an effort to depict a particular phenomena as scientifically possible.


Not necessarily.

These are all just methodology. A fantasy novel, for example, might do extensive research on the care and raising of horses, because it might feature them, just as a Connie Willis novel might do a lot of research on World War II.

It's also down to implementation. Star Wars and Star Trek tend to hand-wave a lot of elements and arguably doesn't think things through (why would you have space shuttles when you can simply teleport people to a reliable degree?) in the same way that Harry Potter might wave his wand and recite an incantation.

On the other hand, we have something as complex as Lord of the Rings wherein Tolkien invented his own language, which can be quite rigorous.


----------



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

flipside said:


> But there are, of course, readers who believe it's sci-fi because it's associated with Star Trek, despite the implausibility of some of what it presents.


There are many who believe that's what separates sci-fi from science fiction.  

Mike


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

jmiked said:


> There are many who believe that's what separates sci-fi from science fiction.
> 
> Mike


Yeah, I've known various and sundry people who separate the two and those are the ones that usually have a preference for the stricter 'science fiction'. The problem I see with only considering novels where the science is only 'plausible' is that these books tend to have a shelf date on them and after a period really become quaint. Now I like Hard Science novels - Kim Stanley Robinson, Greg Bear, Nancy Kress, etc. can turn out some fantastic, innovated novels. But then again I also like Space Opera and pretty much everything in between. Variety is the spice of life.

To my way of thinking, when one says:


Jontan said:


> In some ways, then, fantasy is an easier genre for writers to delve into. You don't need to be familiar with scientific explanations for the things taking place or research the science involved ... In science fiction, you _do_ *need* to research, and you _do_ *need* to make an effort to depict a particular phenomena as scientifically possible.


One is limiting oneself. Fantasy can be very detailed; look at Katherine Kurtz's Deryni novels to see how her magic is indelibly intertwined with Christianity. And in science fiction, do you do not *need* to do anything but keep the science in your universe consistent; the mathematics controlling the universe in Jack L. Chalker's Well World series are not necessarily plausible as we under understand science today, but they are consistent.

IMO, life's too short to be a purist.


----------



## VolcanoShark (Dec 8, 2011)

flipside said:


> It's also down to implementation. Star Wars and Star Trek tend to hand-wave a lot of elements and arguably doesn't think things through (why would you have space shuttles when you can simply teleport people to a reliable degree?) in the same way that Harry Potter might wave his wand and recite an incantation.


You have space shuttles because...

A) Transporters have a limited range. You can transport somebody to another ship or down to a planet but not to another solar system.

B) There are some atmospheric conditions where the transporter doesn't work and if you want to go to one of those planets you need to take a shuttle.

Actually, the transporter is one of those scifi devices which I don't think could possibly work as depicted. I expect you would need a sending device AND a recieving device. You could transport somebody to the transporter room in another ship or space station or well equiped planet. But transporting somebody to the middle of a forest on some strange planet you never visited before would be impossible. But you know, perhaps they will invent something which will do that job. I can't rule it out.


----------



## VolcanoShark (Dec 8, 2011)

VolcanoShark said:


> Which is where Clarke's Law comes in. With a cell phone you can talk to somebody on the other side of the world, look up information on the internet, play music, take pictures and movies and do a trillion other things. A hundred years ago nobody would have believed such a device could exist and to include it in a novel would have been to write a fantasy. If Gandalf had packed such an object in his robe it would have been seen as too versitile a magical object to believe. Yet, it's not even science fiction. It's science fact.
> 
> Yet, there are still things which I'm sure are impossible and against physical laws.





Geoffrey said:


> Following that logic a tricorder, a replicator and a warp core are all magic. I just don't buy that definition. I usually draw the line between a scientific explanation and a supernatural one - regardless of the plausibility. But even there I allow a large amount of leeway and then I just accept that something can be both at the same time.


No, the tricorder, replicator and warp core are NOT magic. My point is that they are science. Just because we currently don't have replicators or warp cores doesn't mean that such things are impossible, just that we currently don't have that technology.

Just because cell phones didn't exist 100 years ago didn't make them impossible. But with all the stuff a cell phone can do it would SEEM magical to somebody from 1911. The same way replicators and transporters might SEEM magical to us if we didn't understand how they worked.

Generally in a scifi book or movie (or TV show or whatever) I don't sweat future technological devices. The Federation invented warp cores and transporters. Lightsabers exist and make a formidible weapon. A sentient time machine shaped like a phone booth was invented by aliens from Gallifry. People who understand more science than I do invented them. Heck, I couldn't describe how a cell phone or an internal combustion engine work and I use them every day.

But magic wands don't exist, never did, never will. Assuming somebody invents a device that is wand shaped and can do magic like things with science, it STILL won't BE a magic wand. It will just look like one.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Don't make me come in here and post  



*mumbles about tricoders not being magic*


----------



## flipside (Dec 7, 2011)

VolcanoShark said:


> You have space shuttles because...
> 
> A) Transporters have a limited range. You can transport somebody to another ship or down to a planet but not to another solar system.


I said space shuttles, not star ships (which is used for the reasons you pointed out). They use transporters to teleport people from the starship to a planet (which would mean it's in range).



VolcanoShark said:


> B) There are some atmospheric conditions where the transporter doesn't work and if you want to go to one of those planets you need to take a shuttle.


This is more valid, but that's few and far in between.



VolcanoShark said:


> Actually, the transporter is one of those scifi devices which I don't think could possibly work as depicted. I expect you would need a sending device AND a recieving device. You could transport somebody to the transporter room in another ship or space station or well equiped planet. But transporting somebody to the middle of a forest on some strange planet you never visited before would be impossible. But you know, perhaps they will invent something which will do that job. I can't rule it out.


A lot in Star Trek can't work as depicted. Like universal translators.

Or replicators and warp cores.


----------



## JBarry22 (Dec 12, 2011)

flipside said:


> (why would you have space shuttles when you can simply teleport people to a reliable degree?)


Because a shuttlecraft in Star Trek isn't only used for transporting people from one place to another. That is only one of its functions. It can also be used for its sensor array, to transport cargo that can't be transported due to specific radiation elements, for its towing capacity, as an evacuation vehicle when the ship is disabled, for transportation to places where interference prevents beaming, and for missions where you don't need to send an entire starship with 1,000 people onboard when 2 people in a small craft will suffice.


----------



## VolcanoShark (Dec 8, 2011)

flipside said:


> I said space shuttles, not star ships (which is used for the reasons you pointed out). They use transporters to teleport people from the starship to a planet (which would mean it's in range).


The shuttles WERE small star ships and could go across the Federation if needed. In various ST episodes (such as The Galileo 7 in TOS) small parties of crew who had to be in one place while the Enterprise was in another used shuttles to get there. They were also used to get sensor readings of stellar phenomenon from different angles simultaneously.


----------



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

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Mike,
> 
> I've been meaning to tell you that your new avatar makes me laugh out loud. Literally.
> 
> Betsy


I got a big laugh out of it when I first saw it, also. My cat quit trying to out-stare it after a while.

Mike


----------



## DH_Sayer (Dec 20, 2011)

Basically the same but as soon as someone casts a spell, it becomes fantasy for me.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

VolcanoShark said:


> No, the tricorder, replicator and warp core are NOT magic. My point is that they are science. Just because we currently don't have replicators or warp cores doesn't mean that such things are impossible, just that we currently don't have that technology.


Well, yes, they are magic, in a sense, or, at the very least, bad science. You would never (or rarely) see a science fiction writer trained in science create those kind of things. These are just devices to move the plot along quickly: the author doesn't know or care how or why they work. The (bad science) author just makes stuff up out of thin air for the sake of action because it's cool and doesn't stopped to consider the ramifications or plausibly of such a device. In that sense, the author is writing about magic and calling it something else.


----------



## sarahsbloke (Sep 24, 2011)

Geemont said:


> Well, yes, they are magic, in a sense, or, at the very least, bad science. You would never (or rarely) see a science fiction writer trained in science create those kind of things. These are just devices to move the plot along quickly: the author doesn't know or care how or why they work. The (bad science) author just makes stuff up out of thin air for the sake of action because it's cool and doesn't stopped to consider the ramifications or plausibly of such a device. In that sense, the author is writing about magic and calling it something else.


I don't know or care how a car works either.
Seems like magic to me!

What about GPS on my mobile phone, someone tells me it's technology, but it could just as well be called magic.


----------



## John Blackport (Jul 18, 2011)

Wow, I left this thread ages ago and it's still going strong!

Everyone is oversimplifying it, by focusing on the _devices._ It doesn't matter what device you're talking about.

What matters is the thought process that leads to a device's creation, its maintenance, or its use.

If you're burning fuels that have mass, using energy that is detectable and measurable, etc., it's science.
If the method of creation was arrived at by a trial-and-error process of evaluating hypotheses through experimentation, it's science.

If you're depending on materials that are significant because of their emotional value or impact --- i.e., a tiger's whisker attained by an arduous quest will work, but a tiger's whisker grown by a geneticist in a Petri dish won't --- then it's not science.

If the process depends on unpredictable, subjective things like willpower, faith, or the current mood of disembodied spirits, it's not science.


----------



## John Blackport (Jul 18, 2011)

Geemont said:


> Well, yes, they are magic, in a sense, or, at the very least, bad science. You would never (or rarely) see a science fiction writer trained in science create those kind of things. These are just devices to move the plot along quickly: the author doesn't know or care how or why they work. The (bad science) author just makes stuff up out of thin air for the sake of action because it's cool and doesn't stopped to consider the ramifications or plausibly of such a device. In that sense, the author is writing about magic and calling it something else.


Maybe instead of "science fiction", that stuff is better termed "fictional science". I suppose you could do the same thing if you went back to the Victorian model of astronomy that outer space is filled with "ether" instead of a vaccuum, or postulated space travel in a geocentric universe where the sun revolves around the Earth


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

John Blackport said:


> Maybe instead of "science fiction", that stuff is better termed "fictional science". I suppose you could do the same thing if you went back to the Victorian model of astronomy that outer space is filled with "ether" instead of a vaccuum, or postulated space travel in a geocentric universe where the sun revolves around the Earth


you know, i like these ideas, John....

and regarding tricorders and replicators, I think those are gadgets that are possible. Someday.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

I certainly hope they are.  Anything to make the world more like Star Trek.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

notice that i have not mentioned warp speed.  i still don't have faith in that.


----------



## flipside (Dec 7, 2011)

John Blackport said:


> What matters is the thought process that leads to a device's creation, its maintenance, or its use.
> 
> If you're burning fuels that have mass, using energy that is detectable and measurable, etc., it's science.
> If the method of creation was arrived at by a trial-and-error process of evaluating hypotheses through experimentation, it's science.
> ...


The problem is that some magic systems would be classifiable as science under these constraints.

Even Harry Potter follows certain laws for magic:

a) requires a Wand
b) requires some materials and incantations (hence the need for the school... improper methodology leads to improper results, just like mixing arbitrary chemicals)

Not to mention that not everything in science is documented (i.e. what you think is the cause of an effect isn't necessarily the actual cause; it might be resulting from a different, undiscovered variable).


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

John Blackport said:


> Maybe instead of "science fiction", that stuff is better termed "fictional science". I suppose you could do the same thing if you went back to the Victorian model of astronomy that outer space is filled with "ether" instead of a vaccuum, or postulated space travel in a geocentric universe where the sun revolves around the Earth


Funny that you mention that. Recently I read some of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Professor Challenger stories, and re-read "The Poison Belt". Doyle was clearly trying to be as scientific as he possibly could, and there is extensive discussion of the Ether theory in the book!

Progress can change something arguably science fiction into pure fantasy, or vice versa. Of course, someone made a similar point about psionics early in the thread.


----------



## Biabeli (Dec 24, 2011)

I read both and love both. So does my wife.

To me scifi is about what's possible, fantasy is about what's not.


----------



## Ray Rhamey author (Jan 6, 2011)

Both. And it's possible to blend the two by providing the possibility of a "real" way to produce something that would seem like magic.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2011)

I never personally noticed a line between the two. Maybe because I love fantasy and hate sci-fi, so in my mind they are nothing like each other? (Then again, I like light fantasy, not "high-fantasy", which I guess is closer to sci-fi...)

Anyway, it's a good question. I guess I'd say sci-fi is more science-based than high-fantasy,and high-fantasy is more imagination/other-world based?


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

Geoffrey said:


> Anything to make the world more like Star Trek.


Not to be overtly pessimistic, but the world becoming more like Star Trek is less plausible than the Republican party doing the Can-can in congress.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Geemont said:


> Not to be overtly pessimistic, but the world becoming more like Star Trek is less plausible than the Republican party doing the Can-can in congress.


I duuno about that ... I had my flip phone communicator in the 90s and I'm replying on my new PADD now.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Geoffrey said:


> I duuno about that ... I had my flip phone communicator in the 90s and I'm replying on my new PADD now.


Bingo!

and we've actually gone to ST:NG with bluetooth.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

And then there's Siri. . . . or, as the Android version will be called. . . Majel -- which I think is BRILLLIANT as Majel Barrett-Rodenberry was the voice of the computer on Star Trek! It would be _too cool_ if they actually got permission to use _her voice_!


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Ann in Arlington said:


> And then there's Siri. . . . or, as the Android version will be called. . . Majel -- which I think is BRILLLIANT as Majel Barrett-Rodenberry was the voice of the computer on Star Trek! It would be _too cool_ if they actually got permission to use _her voice_!


I think I need a cigarette now ....


----------



## jumbojohnny (Dec 25, 2011)

All book forums around the globe have this topic, or something very similar. I suppose as it can never be truly answered / reconciled to the satisfaction of all, this means it will remain the eternal question.

For me, the idiomatic aspect has rather oddly over-ridden the literal. Science Fiction is no longer two words with very exact definitions coming together to form an expansion of the two, it simply means what it means because it has come to mean it, it is that frustratingly circular. On that basis, we have to sort of herd fantasy offerings into an ante-room, and while the shouts, yells, the heavy and rapid foot-falls of Star-Troopers and the heavy grumble of deep-space technology drifts through, those in the ante-room have to make do with dubiously edible spit-roasted fowl and a Nordic sing-song, bashing and sloshing beer tankards down on the rough wooden table, singing songs of such great Wolf-hide bound heroes as Nerdic the Nordic Nerd and such-like.

However, Fantasy buffs have (at least) one major ally, sadly in word only as he left us some time ago now, (off to Valhallah perhaps), and that is, rather ironically, Arthur C Clarke. He did not shut the gravity doors with a slidey whoosh on those from more earth-bound fantastic tales where 'Thou shalt not Pass' is so endemic that one time, Eric the Red got a right telling off from his Mum when he barred her way into the wattle and daub hut deep in the Carpathian Mountains. Old Arthur actually lumped it all in as one, and, humbly methinks, I agree with him. His logic was, the phrase Science Fiction _really_ means, things that are outside of the known laws of physics, and as a result, all such Nordic braggadocio as well as all the Transylvanian horror creatures can share the same stage as Spock and Marvin the Android and Robbie the Robot and so on. Most still do not agree and I suppose never will, but, that is why this question will go on and on on, and perhaps - go where no one has gone before. (Oh dear, going now . . .)

John


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> And then there's Siri. . . . or, as the Android version will be called. . . Majel -- which I think is BRILLLIANT as Majel Barrett-Rodenberry was the voice of the computer on Star Trek! It would be _too cool_ if they actually got permission to use _her voice_!


/random

I'm so happy I got to see Majel before she died.

/end random


----------



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

jumbojohnny said:


> All book forums around the globe have this topic, or something very similar. I suppose as it can never be truly answered / reconciled to the satisfaction of all, this means it will remain the eternal question.


I have been persuaded by the SF author John Scalzi that SF is a sub-genre of Fantasy, so there's no problem. Fantasy can be divided into many sub-genres, such as Sword & Sorcery, Urban Fantasy, Alternate Timelines, etc. And SF.

So I no longer worry about if something is classified as Fantasy or Science Fiction.

Mike

Mike


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

I like both. depends on my mood.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

jmiked said:


> I have been persuaded by the SF author John Scalzi that SF is a sub-genre of Fantasy, so there's no problem. Fantasy can be divided into many sub-genres, such as Sword & Sorcery, Urban Fantasy, Alternate Timelines, etc. And SF.
> 
> So I no longer worry about if something is classified as Fantasy or Science Fiction.
> 
> ...


Personally, I appreciate at least the attempts to categorize, even if for general direction.

There is an end of that spectrum that I really don't want to have to wade thru.


----------



## wdeen (Dec 29, 2011)

There's a fine line between the two. Once you cross over into advanced technology, space, the future, you're in the realm of SciFi. Fantasy lends itself to the magical, mystical, and settings within the present and past.


----------



## David Elham (Sep 29, 2011)

Again, mainly known as a TV series (though there are a great many spin-off novels), the BBC's *Doctor Who * is a good example of something starting out as science fiction and then descending into fantasy.

His time/space machine the TARDIS, for example, was originally (in the 1963-89 series) a machine that existed in two different dimensions, enabling the interior to be limitless in size and the exterior to change form (although it is stuck in the form of a police phone booth). There was real science theory in the fiction.

Nowadays, the TARDIS is treated more like a magic box. There is little attempt made by the Doctor to explain it to his companions, and thus to the audience.

I wish someone with a love for the original concepts would take over as head writer. I've lost patience with it.


----------



## Marty Longson (Dec 23, 2011)

I read and enjoy both but can see the lines blurring in some cases.  The perfect book would blend the two, example - Star Wars.

To me -
Science Fiction - Technology based
Fantasy - Imaginary / Magical based


----------

