# Fantasy VS Sci-Fi



## nicholaslasalla (Mar 5, 2011)

Here's the question: what makes a science fiction novel science fiction instead of fantasy?

An old teacher of mine told me that to say a work is sci-fi means that everything in the book is credible, if only our technology was more advanced, or if some new discovery was made. _Neuromancer_ would then be sci-fi. As would _Arachnophobia_ -- remember that movie? -- because nothing onscreen is particularly unbelievable except for the fact that the spiders in the movie work together in a hive mentality. If we did discover a new species of spider -- highly possible -- and it happened to be constructed differently biologically (here's the science part) then a small town could be menaced by them (and there's your fiction).

Fantasy on the other hand is just the opposite. Things must happen that, based on our understanding of the way the world works, cannot happen. For instance, despite the fact that _Star Wars_ is set in the future and there is a stunning array of scientifically advanced technology on display, its entire story hinges on the idea of the Force, which, when channeled, looks an awful lot like magic. Therefore, _Star Wars_ is fantasy, not science fiction.

_Star Trek_ on the other hand would be science fiction, because technology is technology and there is no secret source of power with magical properties.

What are your thoughts? Are there any works out there that blend sci-fi and fantasy until they're indistinguishable from one another?


----------



## James Everington (Dec 25, 2010)

I'm not sure I'd get too hung up on what is scientifically possible or not... at the moment, faster than light travel is about as credible as 'the force'. To me, it's an emphasis - a pure science fiction book is _about_ science, albeit more advanced science now. Something like Neuromancer is 'about' the technological effects on people and society, and how it is all intertwined. 2001 is 'about' evolution.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

I tend to agree with James about Science Fiction in general.  It doesn't have to be possible based on extrapolations from today's technology, it just needs to be technology based.  So, FTL flight, Laser cannons, force fields, teleportation, time travel, etc. can all be used in science fiction.

Now, Hard Science Fiction should be based on rational extrapolations of current technology ... and sometimes I feel like reading some Greg Bear style science fiction and sometimes I want a space opera.

As for a blend of SF & F, I think Julian May's Saga of the Pliocene Exile is a great example.  Some of it feels like magic while other parts are technology based.


----------



## Marc Vun Kannon (Mar 6, 2011)

There's plenty of technologically-based fantasy out there, Star Wars is one example and many works by Heinlein certainly fall into this category. Several fantasy stories, such as the Master of the Five Magicks, or the Murder and Magic series of short stories, present magic in a very scientific light. To my way of thinking there are different levels to SF: does it make sense externally (according to our notions), does it make sense internally (it's science to the characters in the book but not necessarily to us), or is it all basically mysticism? I see all SF as a subset of fantasy, the only difference is to what extent the rules in the story match the 'rules' of our universe.


----------



## Rayo Azul (Mar 1, 2011)

Science Fiction, to me, would be a credible idea whih right now we can't do/manufacture but in say 20 or 100 years or more, we could. Look back at Arthur C Clarke and you get the drift. Now for example, Battletech Mecha would be SF, as it is plausible - we have most of the weapons and robots are coming on leaps and bounds. Now, Magic, broken futures, esoteric technology which mixes magic and machinery is definitely Fantasy.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Or just put it all under the umbrella of "speculative fiction"* and don't worry about it -- just read what you like.
___________
* "Speculative Fiction" == "what if fiction": What if magic worked? What if computers took over? What if faster-than-light travel _and_ telepathy were possible? What if parallel universes existed and certain people with some inherited genes could move among them and perform what looked like magic?**
** See Zelazny's "Amber" series


----------



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

NogDog said:


> Or just put it all under the umbrella of "speculative fiction"* and don't worry about it -- just read what you like.


Yes. The thing about classifications is that people pick a few characteristics of whatever it is and use those characteristics to label it. Five different people are likely to pick five sightly different sets of characteristics and thus end up with different labels. They then argue over what label is applied. The actual thing is still the same. They should be discussing the thing itself, not the label.

Mike


----------



## Anna_DeStefano (Feb 28, 2011)

I actually prefer the sci-fi/fantasy hybrid. 

I'm an outside-the-box reader and writer. I LOVE the idea of what would happen if we could break just one or two of the current physical laws that define our world and live in a world where the metaphysics behind dream theory, parapsychology, ESP, etc. controlled if not our reality, a parallel one occuring right beside ours.

I also love the imagery and imagination and limitless boundaries of fantasy. Though I don't read as much high fantasy now, The Once and Future King, for example, was one of my first book reports in middle school, all 1300+ pages of it (will have to get my copy down off the book shelf to check). The escape of Authur and Merlin's journey took me away to something that doesn't need to be explained, it just is, and it's marvelous. We all have our favorites that we never forget. Case and point, the success of the Lord of the Rings movies.

The hybrid form, what I look for in my quest for "contemporary fantasy," gives us the almost-probable of sci-fi in an alternate world of escape that marvels us, too. When I write/read about dream theory, for example, I want to be thrilled by the almost-there science of it, while at the same time be swept away by the images and fantastical journey into someone's dreaming mind. The geeky scientist in me wants the excitement of discoverying something new, while the kid in me craves the adventure of a completely new land.

I'm greedy. I want both.


----------



## Chris Northern (Jan 20, 2011)

I think that for the benefit of readers _more_ classifications are better than fewer. If you really like Arthurian Fantasy wouldn't it be cool to be able to punch that into a vendors search box and find them all together in the same place? Chucking everything into a pile and calling it all apples doesn't seem very helpful to me.

As a fan of both SF (when it's done well, which is rarely lately) and Fantasy, and as a writer of Fantasy, I do get irked when they are lumped together as though they were the same thing. Particularly when I see it in an awards genre catagory.

The basic difference is magic in one and technology in the other. A very fundamental difference, I think we can all agree.

True, SF can dress up as fantasy, and very effectively (Darkover, The Many Coloured Land) by using mind powers as magic in a primitive setting that is clearly in a future history setting (future and past in the case of TMCL). It has been don ennough that it should get it's own sub-genre, as should Arthurian fantasy, and Alternate History, and so on. The easier - I know I'm sloightly off subject here - it is for readers to find what they want the less time we spend looking the more we will buy. Vendors are taking the view that the more time we spend looking the more likely we are to buy _something_. Still treating books like comodities (I'll stay with the apples example). I think all would benefit if that changed.


----------



## Anna_DeStefano (Feb 28, 2011)

While I can see the value of classifying with an either/or approach, I'm not sure how blending scifi with fantasy confuses a potential reader. Not if an entertaining story transports the reader to a new world and a deeper excitement of the science behind that author's premise.

I've been reading a lot of Michio Kaku lately, and his theories on how particle physics and such (or deviations from our physical laws) could one day explain magical things such as parallel worlds and dimensions, teleporting, psychokinesis, and other mainstays of metaphysics. So much of what's gone into the magic we enjoy in our mythology as well as modern fantasy is based on expanding the boundaries of the physical science of the writer's time. Intentionally mixing fatasy with its more literal scientific origin follows the same path.

Authors taking a hybrid approach give readers the same chance of finding a book they'll love as a straight scifi or fantasy does. Searching for a must read has never been easier than in an age where you can digitally sample the beginning of stories before you download them--once you've found a new batch of Arthurian novels, or whatever you're looking for. 

Blending the genes can be creativity at its best, even if it makes classifying things harder.


----------



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

Maybe this is too simple an answer but I think of a sci-fi world as being run my technology and a fantasy world as revolving around magic.


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

Fantasy= you make it up.
Science fiction= you make it up, but have an explanation.

I say this as I'm smoothing out the wrinkles on my tin foil cap so I can drive down the Area 51 next week and do filming with the SyFy channel on one of their new shows.


----------



## Kathelm (Sep 27, 2010)

The only real difference is the answer to the question: How did [x crazy thing] happen.

Fantasy: A wizard did it.
Sci-Fi: An engineer did it.

In both fantasy and sci-fi, there are authors who like to make up new rules and ignore existing rules. Some sci-fi limits itself to extrapolation from known rules, but that's one of many sub-genres. The closest fantasy analog is steampunk.


----------



## Patrick Skelton (Jan 7, 2011)

I define it two ways:  Science fiction:  Love it.  
                              Fantasy: Hate it.

Cheers...


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

By the way, an awesome sci-fi/fantasy book: Roger Zelazny's _Lord of Light_. So awesome.

I like to think of the genres in inclusive terms. Yeah, _Star Wars_ has literal magic, but it's also got robots and spaceships and lasers and aliens. You can call it fantasy or science fantasy and be technically correct--the best kind of correct--but to most people, it looks and quacks like a sci-fi movie. It's not that far removed from the old pulps stuff like the Lensman series, which would definitely rally under the sci-fi banner.

Every time I see someone try to pin sci-fi down to a strict definition, it reminds me of judges trying to define obscenity.


----------



## R. H. Watson (Feb 2, 2011)

I tend to go along with George R.R. Martin. The differences aren't in the stories, they're in the production design. If the pointy eared humanoids are elves and the hero is swinging a battle ax, then it's fantasy. If they're aliens and it's a plasma beamer, then it's science-fiction.

That doesn't mean the production design is insignificant; it's the tastes and the smells that make it easy for us to slip into the imagined worlds. Given nearly identical stories the one a person reads may depend on whether it's a damsel, a dame, a dude, or a droid in distress. It's a question of taste. I don't care for high fantasy settings, but lately I've been warming to urban fantasy and losing interest in traditional science-fiction tropes.


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

I prefer the notion that science fiction is a sub-category of fantasy in which certain rules or restrictions apply. For example, an SF story must begin from known principles and only carry them in the direction of the fantastical to the point at which they are still believable or quasi-realistic. If you go beyond that point into the utterly fantastical, then you are in another fantasy genre of some sort, like space opera.


----------



## Tara Maya (Nov 4, 2010)

I think there is usually also a division of what kind of story is told, not just the props. SF stories are more likely to focus on ideas, strategies or technologies. It's the fiction equivilant of the hard sciences. Fantasy is more likely to focus on people, what they wear, where they live, who they marry, how they struggle for power. It's the fiction of equivilant of the social sciences. SF is physics, engineering and miliary science; fantasy is anthropology, psychology and literature. Space opera and paranormal romance are electives.


----------



## Maurice X. Alvarez (Feb 20, 2011)

To quote Rod Serling, "science fiction makes the implausible possible, while science fantasy makes the impossible plausible."

But what's implausible vs. what's impossible is a huge gray area.  Things that were believed to be impossible 200 years ago have certainly become possible.  We think we know what's impossible now, but so did the people of 200 years ago.

To me it's more about setting.  If your setting is sci-fi, that is, there is advanced technology, then it's sci-fi even if there is the appearance of magical elements.  There's no telling if said elements are just a very advanced level of tech.  However, if the setting does not have any advanced tech but there is magic, then I am more likely to categorize it as fantasy.


----------



## Erick Flaig (Oct 25, 2010)

MHO:
True science-fiction must be based in our current understanding of the laws of nature. Therefore, a work that is science-fiction today, may slip into fantasy tomorrow as our understanding of those laws develops. See Asimov's *Before the Golden Age* for some excellent examples of this taking place: http://www.amazon.com/Before-Golden-Age-Science-Anthology/dp/0449229130/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1299502215&sr=8-6

Jules Verne's work was in the (new) realm of science-fiction when written, as was H.G. Wells. It is only through later discoveries that their works now seem more fantastic than they were at the time.

Fantastic elements make science-fiction fantasy as well. *A Princess of Mars* is fantasy because of John Carter's transportation to Barsoom; if he had taken a rocket, I'd put the book in science-fiction. It can be a difficult distinction to make, especially now that to many readers, fantasy=Tolkienesque. Most days, I'm not sure how to classify my _own _book, so I just go with my mood that day.


----------



## Anna_DeStefano (Feb 28, 2011)

Maurice X. Alvarez said:


> To quote Rod Serling, "science fiction makes the implausible possible, while science fantasy makes the impossible plausible."
> 
> But what's implausible vs. what's impossible is a huge gray area. Things that were believed to be impossible 200 years ago have certainly become possible. We think we know what's impossible now, but so did the people of 200 years ago.


Exactly what Michio Kaku talks about in _Physics of the Impossible_. Am currently reading through his entire backlist...


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

I like these two definitions:


Bob Mayer said:


> Fantasy= you make it up.
> Science fiction= you make it up, but have an explanation.
> 
> I say this as I'm smoothing out the wrinkles on my tin foil cap so I can drive down the Area 51 next week and do filming with the SyFy channel on one of their new shows.





Kathelm said:


> The only real difference is the answer to the question: How did [x crazy thing] happen.
> 
> Fantasy: A wizard did it.
> Sci-Fi: An engineer did it.
> ...


I think the problem becomes when you start having alternate Earth or future Earth scenarios, it really muddies the waters in terms of what gets lumped into which categories. Not to mention how some authors grab for the deus ex machina in a standard book; great way to end up having people classify a book as sci-fi or fantasy whilst not being part of either genre.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

I really just can't sweat the differences, myself -- perhaps because many of my favorite books are those that blur the boundaries. If I limited myself to only browsing sci-fi or fantasy, I might miss books I would like because the publisher and/or retailer arbitrarily picked one category for it. Should Charles Stross's "Laundry" books be sci-fi, techno-thriller, horror, or fantasy? Should _The City & the City_ by China Miéville be sci-fi, fantasy, or "weird police procedural"? Steven Brust's "Dragaera" novels read like fantasy, yet there is an underlying sci-fi rationale or background that shows itself from time to time in varying degrees.

When I first read _Dune_ oh so many years ago, it was clearly sci-fi to me. When I read it again last year (maybe my 4th or 5th reading), it seemed to me to be almost more fantasy than sci-fi; so even what I think is an appropriate label is subject to change without notice.


----------



## Anna_DeStefano (Feb 28, 2011)

NogDog said:


> When I first read _Dune_ oh so many years ago, it was clearly sci-fi to me. When I read it again last year (maybe my 4th or 5th reading), it seemed to me to be almost more fantasy than sci-fi; so even what I think is an appropriate label is subject to change without notice.


I had the same reaction. When I first read the series, I was a sci-fi fanatic, and that's what I saw on every page. The second time, I was in more of a fantasy phase, and it was once more recommended to me as a classic in that genre. And my friend was right! It filled that role in just as satisfying a way.


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

Anna_DeStefano said:


> I had the same reaction. When I first read the series, I was a sci-fi fanatic, and that's what I saw on every page. The second time, I was in more of a fantasy phase, and it was once more recommended to me as a classic in that genre. And my friend was right! It filled that role in just as satisfying a way.


Dune shifts well from one point of view to another. It's got spaceships and laser guns, but also Great Houses and knife fights. It's well-positioned to appear like whatever you want it to be...or whatever you don't want it to be!


----------



## Rayo Azul (Mar 1, 2011)

Erick Flaig said:


> MHO:
> True science-fiction must be based in our current understanding of the laws of nature. Therefore, a work that is science-fiction today, may slip into fantasy tomorrow as our understanding of those laws develops. See Asimov's *Before the Golden Age* for some excellent examples of this taking place: http://www.amazon.com/Before-Golden-Age-Science-Anthology/dp/0449229130/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1299502215&sr=8-6
> 
> Jules Verne's work was in the (new) realm of science-fiction when written, as was H.G. Wells. It is only through later discoveries that their works now seem more fantastic than they were at the time.
> ...


Definitely agree. Mind you I think that some works, as have been mentioned here can be classified either way. ERB and his John Carter works also has Spaceships, Aliens Life Forms (wierd and wonderful plants and animals) Glow Globes, Futuristic pistols, Atmosphere Plants and as you say sword fights.

If it works...it works.


----------



## NapCat (retired) (Jan 17, 2011)

As a scientist, I have a built in (albiet, biased) barometer:

Good Science fiction will excite me and get my mind thinking of the technical possibilities of the author's premise.
Fantasy has me saying "Aw pshaw...."


----------



## D.R. Erickson (Mar 3, 2011)

I'd say SF emphasizes a technology advanced beyond our own. Even a fantasy storyline with advanced tech is to my way of thinking SF. 

Gandalf w/ a magic staff = fantasy. 

Gandalf w/ a ray gun = SF.


----------



## TheRiddler (Nov 11, 2010)

I think it's more like this.

Science Fiction is as others have said, things that could be possible, if only we had better technology. Star Trek is the usual example
Science Fantasy, is more 'unrealistic, but still to do with science' - think Star Wars (although this can also be described as Space Opera)
Then you have Fantasy, which has lots of sub-genres of its own - epic fantasy, urban fantasy, high fantasy etc


----------



## William BK. (Mar 8, 2011)

> Science Fiction is as others have said, things that could be possible, if only we had better technology. Star Trek is the usual example
> Science Fantasy, is more 'unrealistic, but still to do with science'


I like this distinction, and it is pretty close to my own understanding of the differences. I am primarily a fantasy reader and dislike "hard sci-fi." At the same time, I love the Star Wars universe precisely because its like Lord of the Rings in the future. That mix of magic and technology (rather than science) is something I find interesting. In the same way, sci-fi books that include a psionics mechanism stray more into the "science fantasy" sub-genre for me.


----------



## lee27 (Mar 3, 2011)

_--- edited... no self-promotion outside the Book Bazaar forum. please read our Forum Decorum thread._


----------



## Painter John (Mar 6, 2011)

Great topic, no question that whether fantasy or sci-fi both genres have great work and potential, and as people have said there is lots of room for scifi/fantasy hybrids.  Reminds me of steam punk genre like China Mieville, who writes in a complete fantasy world, that pushes the boundaries, but at the same time his fantasy has some scientific background i.e. logic engines (old school computers), steam power.  Like star wars is a fantasy, books that push old school technology to its limits could be seen as science fiction!

Science in scifi doesn't have to be possible does it?  Just extension of what we know is possible.

- Painter John


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

NogDog said:


> Or just put it all under the umbrella of "speculative fiction"* and don't worry about it -- just read what you like.
> ___________
> * "Speculative Fiction" == "what if fiction": What if magic worked? What if computers took over? What if faster-than-light travel _and_ telepathy were possible? What if parallel universes existed and certain people with some inherited genes could move among them and perform what looked like magic?**
> ** See Zelazny's "Amber" series


Ha. I like your solution.


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

I think a good follow-up question is: Is there some amount of fantasy that would ruin your science fiction, or an amount of science that would ruin your fantasy? Or would you be willing to let both interact however the author prefers?


----------



## Tara Maya (Nov 4, 2010)

I like sf, and I like fantasy, but I don't usually enjoy a mix. There are a few exceptions such as Piers Anthony's Blue Adept series.


----------



## Rayo Azul (Mar 1, 2011)

Joseph Robert Lewis said:


> I think a good follow-up question is: Is there some amount of fantasy that would ruin your science fiction, or an amount of science that would ruin your fantasy? Or would you be willing to let both interact however the author prefers?


Personally, I think that SF always needs a little bit of Fantasy, maybe not the other way round though. As a clarification, I am not necessarily advocating LOTR type novels in SF, rather using a similar framework as a means to expand on the SF back drop.

I also think that mixing genres is an interesting exercise and have had a lot of fun mixing Horror with SF and Fantasy.


----------



## zizekpress (Mar 9, 2011)

Not sure about this.

Remembering something from college about cognitive reality...where the characters don't talk about the science/technology but accept it the same way we do with the tv. Also, like Star Trek, where things happen that are loopy but they attempt to explain it through pseudo-science. This is sci-fi then.

But Star Trek did cheat sometimes...if something was beyond pseudo-science, then Bones would usually say, 'Jim, that's impossible', and Jim would say back, 'damnit, Bones, it's from another galaxy.' Or dimension. Technically, this should be fantasy then, shouldn't it?


----------



## Calla Knight (Mar 8, 2011)

Great discussion!  Being from a science fiction romance community, we discuss this topic a lot.
We're also asked about it a lot.

Basically, SF is based (the key word) on technology or a society in an apocalyptic, futuristic or alternate history world and can include alien characters.  Fantasy is based on a world with magic or superhuman powers, and can include fantasy characters (demons, werewolves, vampires, shapeshifters, fae, dragons, elves, mermaids, etc., etc.)  Except there are a lot of crossover and slipstream works (Dragonriders of Pern is one of the classics) and the gray areas keep getting grayer. (Like zombies?)

I have to disagree about SF being a subgenre of Fantasy.  In my mind they're separate.  They do both fall under the Paranormal fiction umbrella (or at least that's how most contests lump them).  Any then there's "speculative fiction."  It does get muddy.

I generally don't get that hung up on the label, except I do cringe when someone refers to Twilight as science fiction romance.  (We need an icon for *cringing*)


----------



## Stephen Prosapio (Jul 13, 2010)

As for the original poster....yep, as they are about most things involving the publishing industry, your professor was wrong!  LOL

Genre is a way publishing companies divide books in order to sell them. With the internet, it's my theory that genres will again blur a bit more and it won't make a difference as much if something is "Dark Urban Fantasy" or if it's "High Modern Fantasy" or if it's "Near Futuristic Sci Fi". It's Speculative Fiction.

For now though those who've said that the plot hinges on technilogical vs magical issues are correct IMO. I like some of the analogies already given, so here's mine:

Vampire Killer armed with a stake and mallet = Fantasy Genre
Vampire Killer designing a hemoglobin to wipe out all vampires = Science Fiction


----------



## R. H. Watson (Feb 2, 2011)

How about this?

Fantasy takes place in an alternate reality where the laws of nature have been shifted slightly from the ones we're used to.
In that reality, the scientists, philosophers, and engineers who struggle to understand and manipulate nature are called wizards.
For whatever reason, they call the resulting technology, magic.


----------



## nicholaslasalla (Mar 5, 2011)

NoBull_Steve said:


> Vampire Killer armed with a stake and mallet = Fantasy Genre
> Vampire Killer designing a hemoglobin to wipe out all vampires = Science Fiction


I think you bring up a good point, Steve. Another thing to think about: isn't horror, with the exception of the stalk and slash serial killer variety, also fantasy? The paranormal is not strictly speaking possible.

Take for instance the movie "Alien." It's definitely in a way horror, but the setting is genuinely science fiction.

So perhaps a work of fiction might have a setting of a certain genre, such as science fiction, but at heart be another genre entirely?

Food for thought, anyways...


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

(not to derail the discussion, but) on a related note, why is it that science fiction and fantasy have such passionate yet "small" fan bases, as opposed to "mainstream" entertainment? Or is genre storytelling just another version of professional sports, something that appeals strongly to a very specific sort of person?


----------



## lee27 (Mar 3, 2011)

Joseph Robert Lewis said:


> (not to derail the discussion, but) on a related note, why is it that science fiction and fantasy have such passionate yet "small" fan bases, as opposed to "mainstream" entertainment? Or is genre storytelling just another version of professional sports, something that appeals strongly to a very specific sort of person?


I've wondered about that myself. To me, a novel's genre is unimportant. An engaging story is an engaging story. Sci-Fi and Fantasy are different, but these differences are irrelevant as far as storytelling goes.


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

Genre labels are convenient for labeling, describing, or organizing books. And people love to categorize and label things. I guess categories are nice when you know you want a spaceship story, but otherwise aren't sure what to look for. But today in the world of intelligent search engines, genre categories seem unnecessary.


----------



## easyreader (Feb 20, 2011)

With science fiction I feel like there needs to be some attempt to explain how things work and science to support it.
With fantasy, everything is self-contained in the world the author invents.  As long as the author sticks to her own rules, it can work.


----------



## Malweth (Oct 18, 2009)

I see this in reviews a lot. I'm reading Charles Stross' "Accelerando" and one person's review complains about the impossibility of some science in the book. Does that make it fantasy? By some definitions here, it could.

I like what Michael Drout says about fantasy. It, with Science Fiction, is a form of escapism, but especially "This seriousness and confidence -- and in particular, fantasy's ability to engage with problems of death and immortality -- is in direct contradiction to much mainstream adult literature over the past century, in which relativism, lack of confidence, and confusion has reigned (for the most part) in matters moral and ethical."

In my opinion, Fantasy and Science Fiction are the same thing. Good examples of each ask questions (or force us to ask questions) about moral and ethical matters. Poor examples emulate good examples in setting but fail to have a point.

A detailed description of the terriforming of Mars (I'm sorry to pick on "Red Mars," but I could never get through the entire book, let alone the series) is a poor example of Fantasy or Science Fiction, but a good example of conceptual fiction. Something by Piers Anthony (who I pick on for owning a big YA humorous "fantasy" franchise) would also be a poor example of Fantasy, but might fit into Comedy or "Fairy Stories." One of my recent favorite books, "Never Let Me Go," was placed in the Science Fiction category, but it fits well into Drout's "Magical Realism" category, which he says "rather than providing escape, [magical realism] tries to show that there is no escape."

I'm not expecting anyone to agree (since I go against the mainstream), but to me the Theme(s) of a book (and how well that theme is conveyed) is most important.


----------



## James Everington (Dec 25, 2010)

nicholaslasalla said:


> I think you bring up a good point, Steve. Another thing to think about: isn't horror, with the exception of the stalk and slash serial killer variety, also fantasy? The paranormal is not strictly speaking possible.
> 
> Take for instance the movie "Alien." It's definitely in a way horror, but the setting is genuinely science fiction.
> 
> ...


I did hear an interesting distinction between fantasy and horror - in horror, you're allowed _one_ weird/unrealistic thing against a background of realism, whereas in fantasy you can have as many unrealistic things as you want...

Not sure how well that idea holds up in practice, but quite interesting. I think I think of genres more as flavours that you can mix and match, rather than anything more rigid though.


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

NapCat said:


> As a scientist, I have a built in (albiet, biased) barometer:
> 
> Good Science fiction will excite me and get my mind thinking of the technical possibilities of the author's premise.
> Fantasy has me saying "Aw pshaw...."


Strange I'm usually able to put my scientist hat to one side. I'll admit that glaringly improbable leaps of logic and deus ex machina have me reaching for the hat again to tear the book to pieces, but as long as it is all in fiction land I'm usually not worried - it is fiction after all.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

I usually stick to the "magic/low tech=fantasy" and Science/Hi tech=SciFi" classification.

On the other hand I remember the great bait and switch Anne Mccaffrey did with her Dragonriders series.



Spoiler



For the first 3 books it was classic fantasy with low tech dragonriders. Later books revealed that they were stranded colonists whose tech base was destroyed by Threadfall and they used the last of their tech to bioengineer dragons and carve out Holds. They also bioengineered things like glowbulbs that were used as light sources and always seemed magical. Otherwise their was no actual magic.


----------



## Mike Cooley (Mar 12, 2011)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> By the way, an awesome sci-fi/fantasy book: Roger Zelazny's _Lord of Light_. So awesome.
> 
> I like to think of the genres in inclusive terms. Yeah, _Star Wars_ has literal magic, but it's also got robots and spaceships and lasers and aliens. You can call it fantasy or science fantasy and be technically correct--the best kind of correct--but to most people, it looks and quacks like a sci-fi movie. It's not that far removed from the old pulps stuff like the Lensman series, which would definitely rally under the sci-fi banner.
> 
> Every time I see someone try to pin sci-fi down to a strict definition, it reminds me of judges trying to define obscenity.


Totally agree about _Lord of Light_!

It also illustrates something I love that usually happens more often in fantasy than science fiction:
it has a basis in mythology (vedic).

Mike


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

Malweth said:


> I see this in reviews a lot. I'm reading Charles Stross' "Accelerando" and one person's review complains about the impossibility of some science in the book. Does that make it fantasy? By some definitions here, it could.


Well, but everything is impossible until someone proves it can be done. Science is always proposing limits and impossibilities and then shifting them as more data becomes available. Science is the art of make the "impossible" possible...


----------



## Simon Haynes (Mar 14, 2011)

One author's mythical demon is another author's space alien, but if that demon spews fire it's more fantasy than SF even if you give it a spaceship and an intergalactic civilisation.

There are shades of believability, and there's definitely overlap between the two genres. I've hit this problem when I try to shelve a load of books by genre - there's always some annoying tome which has a foot in each camp, and the only solution is to give it away or sell it.


----------



## Malweth (Oct 18, 2009)

Joseph Robert Lewis said:


> Well, but everything is impossible until someone proves it can be done. Science is always proposing limits and impossibilities and then shifting them as more data becomes available. Science is the art of make the "impossible" possible...


If you perform some physical action, you expect some physical response. You are describing the case where you get a response you don't expect. This is sometimes valid, but in some cases is not supported or explained in the book. If something happens that isn't expected (within the bounds of current science) and it isn't explained (with some plausible deniability), it's fantasy.

By that definition, I don't like science fiction. I do like (some) "science fantasy."


----------



## Kathelm (Sep 27, 2010)

> If something happens that isn't expected (within the bounds of current science) and it isn't explained (with some plausible deniability), it's fantasy.


Even then, you're describing more of a fairy tale genre, which is just one subset of fantasy. Others do have regulated magic systems that, while they couldn't happen in the real world, do follow rules. Made-up rules occur in sci-fi all the time, such as Orson Scott Card's philotes or Star Trek's Warp Drives.

Example: In my books, I use a physics-influenced magic system. I realized at some point that magic is often little more than a violation of mass and energy. So instead, my world runs on Conservation of Mass, Energy, _and Magic_. Any of the three can be converted into the other two (obviously, conversions from magic to mass/energy are more common). Wizards get their magic from seithsand, which is just a natural resource that happens to store magic potential, and seithsand is sensitive to RF radiation (i.e. brainwaves). The RF interacts with the magic to convert it to mass/energy, and that's the mechanism for spell-casting. Wizard training is just learning how to think in a way that the sand responds to. I keep the interactions deliberately vague to spare myself from using terms like "RF" and "Joule" in a pre-industrial setting or shoving formulas into a novel.

But if I (or any other fantasy author) did explain the conversion factors and the equations, would my genre become sci-fi?

This is not a rhetorical question. I've toyed with the idea of using the stuff as rocket fuel in the far future of the setting.


----------



## SEAN H. ROBERTSON (Mar 14, 2011)

For me: 

Fantasy: That which is not easily explained, understood or believed. 
Sci-Fi: That which is easily explained, understood or believed through the lens of advanced technological breakthroughs.


----------



## Malweth (Oct 18, 2009)

Kathelm said:


> Even then, you're describing more of a fairy tale genre, which is just one subset of fantasy. Others do have regulated magic systems that, while they couldn't happen in the real world, do follow rules. Made-up rules occur in sci-fi all the time, such as Orson Scott Card's philotes or Star Trek's Warp Drives.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


How about.... the over analysis we're getting into now is to science fiction as my off the cuff analysis is to fantasy. I enjoy the latter.


----------

