Science Fantasy?

[Adam]

In your opinion, is there such a genre as "science fantasy?" IE, a mixture of science fiction and fantasy? I've heard people tell me that it doesn't matter how much science is in a story, the use of magic or other fantasy elements pins it directly under fantasy. Star Wars is a good example of this. What do you think?

[Jim]

Some might point out that 'science' which has no real scientific basis is fantasy. I think that your term Science-Fantasy means much the same as the term 'Space Opera'

[Kevis]

Yes. Science Fantasy is a real genre. I prefer to think of Star Wars as mythic Science Fiction and appropriately classified as Space Opera rather than Science Fantasy. But others might disagree. To me, the Amber series by Roger Zelazny is the best example of true Science Fantasy.

[Ken]

I think a lot of lines are blurry. To me science fantasy might describe a story where elements of both genres are present. However, I like Jim's definition.

[Wastrel]

I wouldn't really call Star Wars 'Science Fantasy', because it's all presented as SF, albeit SF with some mysticism in it. But I would use 'Science Fantasy' to describe, eg, some of the Pern novels, or the Shadowrun setting, and maybe the Book of the New Sun as well.

[Judy]

A perfect example of science fantasy is the Pern series by Anne McCafferey. The reason for this is the world appears to be pre-technology, but it is actually post-technology--they were brought to their world via spaceship, which later in the series they discover.

Plus there are both dragons and alien invaders.

[Steph]

Wastrel wrote: "I wouldn't really call Star Wars 'Science Fantasy', because it's all presented as SF, albeit SF with some mysticism in it..."

To me, Star Wars is fantasy: It may have a high-technology setting, but the storyline, tropes, characters, good-versus-evil theme and mystical force are all firmly in the fantasy camp.

I don't understand the concept of 'science fantasy'. Science-fiction is supposed to be about how technology or science/knowledge affects the human condition. The setting of the story is immaterial.
The story of Star Wars works equally well regardless of the technological gimmicks (e.g. Episodes I to III are pretty much the story of the fall of the Roman Republic and rise of the Empire) and as such fails the 'science-fiction' test.

[Adam]

Hmm, the Pern books sound like something i might enjoy. I'll have to look into them.

[Ken]

Just to play devil's advocate,

You could also argue that the technological superiority of the antagonist forces, first with an army of clones, and then with world-destroying energy cannons, could support the position that the story is SF. In I-III the heroes are largely up against superior firepower, and again in IV-VI though the foe has changed somewhat.

For sure though, Star Wars is classic Joseph Campbell hero journey stuff. He does receive a magical sword and inherit the mantle of his father, and there is a princess and some ghosts. There is a magical, mystical force that can be used for both evil and good.

I suppose it ultimately depends on the definition we assign to set the criteria for what is SF and what is Fantasy, and what might be both.

[Steph]

Kenneth wrote: "...You could also argue that the technological superiority of the antagonist forces..."

That works equally well with my Roman Empire comparison - the Romans happened to have far better armour, weapons and discipline than the people they subdued. That doesn't make Augustus a Sith Lord!

[Jim]

Steph wrote: "That works equally well with my Roman Empire comparison - the Romans happened to have far better armour, weapons and discipline than the people they subdued. That doesn't make Augustus a Sith Lord! ..."

But by the 3rd century (Aurelian onwards at least) the Emperors were trying to hold the Empire together through monotheism of some sort until Constantine converted to Christianity. So you might have your Roman Sith Lord after all :-)

[Judy]

Jim wrote: "Steph wrote: "That works equally well with my Roman Empire comparison - the Romans happened to have far better armour, weapons and discipline than the people they subdued. That doesn't make Augustu..."

One of the reasons Star Wars has done so well is because it crosses several genres, including science fiction (setting), fantasy (good vs. evil, magic, aka the Force, coming of age), westerns (the lone gunman against the bandits plus action and adventure), and possibly even allegory (the fall of Rome thing, mythology, etc.)

It's a good thing they lump sci fi and fantasy together in bookstores, because that way it fits either way.

[Wastrel]

Steph wrote: "Wastrel wrote: "I wouldn't really call Star Wars 'Science Fantasy', because it's all presented as SF, albeit SF with some mysticism in it..."

To me, Star Wars is fantasy: It may have a high-techno..."

Who says SF is "supposed" to be about how technology affects the human condition?

By coincidence, I've just posted a link elsewhere on Goodreads to a great speech Asimov once gave (which is irrelevant here except that...), and in it he gave three examples of the sort of SF that was around when he started writing.
One is a specific story from the early thirties where a man takes a magic potion that makes him fall asleep for 5000 years, and when he wakes up he finds he's living in a low-tech world and everyone is angry that 5000 years ago everybody used up all the fossil fuels.
Another is a generalised story, in which "the other way of handling space flight was to have the hero land on the Moon, or on some other place thereto akin, and then come back and receive a ticker tape parade with everyone being very pleased at this heroic action."

And Asimov's primary characterisation of SF in the thirties and forties: "the only way in which space travel was treated was... by having the hero go out to Deneb or someplace, and fight the oyster men there, and marry the beautiful princess who lays eggs."


That was SF in 1939. And then by the mid-fifties we've already arrived at classic SF novels like "The Stars My Destination" ('The Count of Monte Cristo' retold with magical teleportation-just-by-wanting-it, 1956), and Asimov's own second half of his Foundation Trilogy (mystery/adventure with magical mind-controlling mutant telepaths).

There's never been a golden age when 'Science Fiction' has just been about the effects of science upon society!


[Besides, that still wouldn't invalidate the 'science fantasy' genre - Pern, for instance, probably IS SF in the sense you describe, although it's as much about the technology they're lacking as about the technology they have. But it's also fantasy, since it's all about magical teleporting telepathic fire-breathing dragons in a pseudo-mediaeval world. So it's Science Fantasy]

[Wastrel]

Oh, and mentioning Pern reminds me of another classic example: Rokannon's World, by Le Guin. Though that falls more in the direction of fantasy-with-a-SF-conceit, as far as I can gather.

[Ken]

How about Lord of Light by Zelazny? Fantastic themes with a SF/Tech backbone.

[Steph]

Wastrel wrote: "...Who says SF is "supposed" to be about how technology affects the human condition?..."

Maybe I'm being overly generous, but it seems to me most the examples you mention fit the definition I gave.

[Charles]

Glad to see a couple mentions of Roger Zelazny, as many of his stories existed around the bounderies between these genres, adding to my fascination with his wonderful writing.

[Brenda ╰☆╮]

Charles wrote: "Glad to see a couple mentions of Roger Zelazny, as many of his stories existed around the bounderies between these genres, adding to my fascination with his wonderful writing."

Me too!

[[deleted user]]

I think a lot of modern (or even not so modern) science fiction could be classified in the science fantasy camp.

Science fiction should always be rooted in the possible though not necessarily probable. For example, in a recent movie a spaceship used a black hole to travel in time. Impossible.

What science knows about black holes says the spaceship would split apart atom by atom as it approached the event horizen. But English majors without a passing knowledge (or care) of science can make up stuff that takes away the im from possible, and that's fantasy.

I've never been keen on the science fantasy term. I've attempted to use sci-fi as my description of the in between, but that survives about as well as wet noodle in Death Valley midday.

[T.]

I don't really see where it's necessary to sub classify everything down to the letter. Star Wars is, purely speaking, fantasy. Yes, it has some threads of science fiction, but the root of the story is a wizard's quest. I don't think that takes away from the story, but it is more Lord of the Rings or even Harry Potter than Star Trek.
Also I understand that sci-fi was once about how science affects our society. But I also think it's an interesting study to see how little technology really changes humanity, even over the span of decades or centuries.
Look at Heinlein's Starship Troopers. Though it is set in the future and steeped in technology, the political and philosophical debates which make it a compelling read, are as timeless as death and taxes. These people could just as easily be Roman Centurions on the Gaulic Frontier as members of the mobile infantry fighting bugs.

[Andreas]

I recently read a few books by Myke Cole in his series called "Shadow Ops". I think they fit the bill of Science Fantasy very well and I would recommend them to everyone to read. They are simply great, fast paced and something you just wont be able to put down once you get started!

[[deleted user]]

Greg wrote: "Science fiction should always be rooted in the possible though not necessarily probable. "

There's no should in sf/f and that statement tends to ignore much of the history of the formation of science fiction as a distinct genre.

[Thomas]

I often differnetiate between Science Fiction and Space Opera in my reviews. I also review Star Wars and Star Trek in their own category. When I review a space opera, I rate it compared to other space operas, it would be unfair to rate it compared to straight up Science Fiction. The same goes for Fantasy and High Fantasy.

Sometimes that's harder than it seems. When you look at sub-genres of scifi, like cyber and steam punk. Are they scifi or something else. Then under steampunk, they have created several other sub-sub-genres like deiselpunk. In reality, they are still scifi. I would not include gaslight romances (romances stories with some steam tech, but no punk) in the scifi category. In the end, if we try to sub categorize everthing, we end up with lots of very small sub-sub-sub-genres.

Since most science fiction incorporates technology and/or events that have not occurred (hence the fiction), it for the most part is speculative in nature. i.e. what if we had cool ships that could travel very fast through space (hyper drive, warp drive, wormhole, warkoski sails), then we could meet and fight strange aliens and boldly go somewhere. Basically, all fiction is in some way speculative (what if).

Otherwise, we'd be reading non-fiction. Which in many cases is a fiction made up by the winners. There were 4 shooters on the grassy knoll or behind the library, 2 of them were definitely elves using a someone else's problem field to hide.

However, I shelve all scifi together and all fantasy together.

"Don't get to attached to things, man."
Ivan Venko

[T.C.]

Greg wrote: "What science knows about black holes says the spaceship would split apart atom by atom as it approached the event horizen. But English majors without a passing knowledge (or care) of science can make up stuff that takes away the im from possible, and that's fantasy. "
Yes and no. The reality is, although science has some pretty sound-seeming theoretical ideas, nobody's ever actually tried it! It would seem unlikely to be scientifically possible, but then again there are the theories about the way time is effectively bent in the region of a black hole and the event horizon, so can we actually say definitively that it would be 'impossible' to overcome the breaking up of a vessel for long enough to use the time effect, and somehow expand it beyond its currently understood (or suspected) properties?

It doesn't seem likely at all, of course, and was probably just dreamed up as a 'fantasy', but then how many SF ships travel 'faster than light'?! Every single one of them is 'fantasy' as far as current scientific understanding is concerned, because it is something currently considered as firmly 'impossible'.

That's the tricky little problem with science - it advances, through theory, and never reaches a definitive conclusion (and reaches many theories that are very difficult to test). What is 'fact' today was 'fantasy' only a few years ago. I remember a time when movies showed people walking around with little, wafer-thin electronic devices instead of having books, for example, and that certainly seemed like a 'fantasy' at the time. Go back a little further (pre-Faraday, for example), and most scientists would have called such a thing 'impossible', because it is so far in advance of what their theoretical and practical knowledge at the time told them might possible even in theory.

'Impossible' is a very, very big word in scientific terms, and its practical definition has changed many times with the advancement of scientific understanding. Having a 'faster than light' ship is no more or less a 'fantasy' than having magical powers - either would currently be considered 'impossible' by science. Very little 'Science Fiction' is entirely fixed in current theoretical understanding - if it were, it would mostly be pretty dull, because nobody would be able to get their spaceship to anywhere fast enough to do anything!

[Jim]

It's interesting reading the discussion. I thought I'd chuck in a few ideas. Is a fantasy novel that looks at the development of gunpowder and the effects that it has on the civilisation a 'Science Fantasy'?
Or take a book like Raising Steamwhere you have a fantasy world but into which the author introduces the railway, a science fantasy. It strikes me that people are looking only at the possibilities of the sort of science that we get in SF, but actually you can have a fascinating 'discussion' of the interplay of science on society at a far lower technical level :-)

[Charles]

Jim wrote: "...Or take a book like Raising Steamwhere you have a fantasy world but into which the author introduces the railway, a science fantasy...."

I'll have to take your word on that, SINCE IT'S NOT BEING RELEASED IN THE U.S. UNTIL MARCH 2014!!!

Sorry, just felt a need for an off-topic rant...back to your regularly scheduled debate.

[Jim]

Removes hat, looks apologetic. I apologise for trespassing on private grief :-(

It's a good book :-)

[T.C.]

Jim wrote: "Removes hat..."
That's a particularly fine hat....do keep it on! :-)

[Jim]

You're too kind :-)

[Micah]

Greg wrote: "For example, in a recent movie a spaceship used a black hole to travel in time. Impossible..."

Um...except it's not necessarily impossible:

http://www.wired.com/science/discover...

[Micah]

Back on topic, though, is Science Fantasy a genre? I don't think there's really anything gained by sub-genrefying.

Personal opinion: a story with fantastical elements is not by definition Fantasy anymore than a story with romantic elements is Romance.

Does insisting on having endless sub-genres help in anyway? I don't think so. What bookstores are left just lump all SF and Fantasy together anyway.

There is always an element of the reading public who prefer SF or Fantasy over the other. And there is a huge amount of bleed over between those populations.

I mean, I read Zelazny's Amber series (10 out of 10 for thinking, but 3 out of 10 for writing...it really is very sloppy and "un-edited" feeling)...Is it Fantasy? Is it SF? Is it Science Fantasy? Who cares. Read the jacket cover blurb and figure out if you want to read it.

I mean, what, do we have to invent a new genre for every mutant novel out there? Perdidio Street Station? Oh, that's Dark-Ambient-Science-Fiction-New-Weird-Fantasy-Horror-Stepcore. Definitely.

(Music subgenre joke thrown in there for free...any of you who frequent music forums should know the sub-sub-sub-genre definition argument has been going on there for freaking ever.)

[Feral]

"I don't think there's really anything gained by sub-genrefying."

Personally I find it more helpful to tag books with various descriptors in Calibre of some sort of digital database or index. That way I can sort for what I am in the mood for whether it's an epic dwarf heroic journey or vampires in space. Unfortunately its hard to find new books this way because even if publishers or sites like Goodreads use tags, they never seem to care about the same criteria I do. I suppose instead of lobbying for new sub-genres I would like it if I could get publishers to use more tags in describing books (maybe they should have a large selection of many categories that may apply and just check the boxes that work--like the GR shelves only with more details and choices). Of course that does mean to be really useful we'd have to get generally accepted definitions of major tags. That doesn't do away with sub-genres for purposes of discussion, but it does make them less important.

[Micah]

Feral wrote: "Personally I find it more helpful to tag books with various descriptors in Calibre of some sort of digital database or index..."

I can see it being useful on a personal level for your own purposes...kind of. But nowhere else. No one's criteria is the same, and I've never had any problem figuring out what kind of book I'm looking at by the cover, blurb and a quick pre-view of the book.

But maybe there should be like a Venn diagram classification where you can see the amount of different story elements in the book? ];D

[T.C.]

Micah wrote:
I can see it being useful on a personal level for you..."
Absolutely. I don't do it so much with books, but with music I always set my own 'genre' for everything, because I know what I describe something as, and what it means in terms of when I want to listen to it. I can see books working exactly the same way. I don't see the point in trying to define things to closely more generally, though, because the balances of such close definitions within a book can be so fine, and depend on the opinion of the individual reader anyway.

[Feral]

I suppose it is subjective. But I've also seen people argue about what is and isn't a cozy, or steampunk or what have you. I find book groups and fan discussions by genre, but even that is only useful up to a point. Many books do cross genres or stretch various definitions, but they would still go on the "Scifi Fantasy" shelves.

The blurb and cover somewhat help, but not always. Sometimes publishers want to market a book a certain way when it doesn't really fit. In those cases you see authors posting about how they have no control over the cover or blurb. This is especially true with lesser known authors who have some element in their work that could be close to something "hot". Every once in a while I run across a blub that seem to based solely on the cover and not the story. Luckily there are people who will make recommendations and online reviews to fix this.

The topic here seems to indicate what people consider "science fantasy" is somewhat subjective too--and yet I assume there is some reason to discuss what types of books people see a fitting in this category, even if there is some genre bending. I think people like t define and order things, and it isn't all so very subjective that we can't understand each other.

[Micah]

Feral wrote: "The blurb and cover somewhat help, but not always. Sometimes publishers want to market a book a certain way when it doesn't really fit. In those cases you see authors posting about how they have no control over the cover or blurb. This is especially true with lesser known authors who have some element in their work that could be close to something "hot". Every once in a while I run across a blub that seem to based solely on the cover and not the story. Luckily there are people who will make recommendations and online reviews to fix this..."

But in today's world we have so much more information to go on than just that. There's wikipedia and there's the Look Inside feature on amazon, etc.

My old way of buying books was to go to a bookstore and look at books, judging my interest on the cover, title, blurb and then my reading of the first page or so, along with 2 or 3 randomly selected pages in the book just to see if the author could write reasonably well.

Using that method, I've only landed on total unreadable books twice.

Today, as I said, it's easy to find whole sections of a book to sample. Supplementing that, go to an internet search engine and type in the book's name and/or author and the word "review" and boom, there you go. Or check wikipedia and don't read too much unless you don't mind spoilers.

I don't see sub-genres beyond "SF" or "Fantasy" as being all that helpful. Book manufacturers certainly aren't telling you the genre in their blurbs (most don't even say, "this is SF").

[Micah]

And yeah, people like to put things in categories. But a lot of time I think more thought goes into classifying things than goes into discussing and talking about what something actually is or does (or doesn't do) well.

In casual conversation saying "this book is set in a SF world but contains some elements of Fantasy" along with specifics of what you mean by "elements of Fantasy" is far more helpful than saying "this is a Science Fantasy novel." Which might actually spark this whole thread once again! ;)

[Jim]

I suspect that one reason for categories is to cut down the proportion of unreadable books. The fact that with ebooks we cannot use your (and my) method of actually handling it.
I suspect this is why some people get so determined to create tighter and tighter definitions of genres.
I also suspect that it's pretty meaningless because the definition is for them, so they don't get a book they don't want, it wouldn't stop me getting a book I didn't want :-)

[Micah]

Jim wrote: "The fact that with ebooks we cannot use your (and my) method of actually handling it..."

Not sure I know what you mean there. Are you referring to doing book purchase from an eReader? I've never done that, so I'm not aware what the experience is like.

[Jim]

I was meaning buying books on line really (I've not got an ereader) where you don't 'see' them and you cannot just browse along a shelf and find others

[Will]

It's a challenge. From a practical point of view, genres are very useful. It gives the reader a way of finding books that they like without having to wade through a ton of stuff that they don't like. Whether we like it or not, fitting into a genre is a way of getting in touch with readers.

But, genres can also be limiting. We want to write interesting stories which sometimes break new ground. But it is very hard to do that when our story doesn't fit neatly into a genre.

I suppose there's nothing new about this. The risk of doing something innovative has always been that people won't "get it". That problem has been with us from the very first time that one caveman managed to string a succession of ugs together to tell another caveman a story about the bison that he had just killed. And I suspect when the sun explodes in 5 billion years time and our descendants have colonised some other planet they will still be arguing about it.

[T.C.]

Jim wrote: "I suspect that one reason for categories is to cut down the proportion of unreadable books. "

I don't think it helps much, to be honest. You might, for example, think 'I've just read and enjoyed this book that called itself 'dystopian steampunk', and there's another that calls itself the same genre, so I'll read that'. It doesn't mean that the other book will be any good, though, or even just to your tastes (or even similar to the last one, since such definitions are going to be subjective).

Whether a book works for someone is at least as much about the writing itself as it is about the story, setting and precisely identified genre, obviously. It can have an influence, I guess - in a way you could say that 'taste' in genre terms (as with music) is partly about increased acceptance/enjoyment of the relatively mediocre. The best books by the best writers should be able to be 'appreciated', even if not actually liked, almost regardless of genre. On the other hand, the less great books can usually still be liked, with all of their flaws (within reason, obviously!) by fans of that particular genre even if others don't 'appreciate' them. Genre still doesn't indicate whether an individual will like it, though, not matter what the 'quality' of it.

Ultimately I think you have to look at blurb and vague genre definition and reviews (although they aren't always reliable, of course) to make a decision about what to buy. Of course, for established authors there are more sources available, but for unknown authors that's all you've got (at best). It doesn't mean that they aren't as good already established ones, of course, just that they aren't yet 'established'.

There is always going to be some risk in buying books, and I think readers have to accept that. It doesn't matter if your best mate who shares your general tastes think its the best book in the world - you still might not like it. There's no way of knowing until you read it, and the same goes for closely defined genre descriptions.

[Charles]

Micah wrote: "... I mean, I read Zelazny's Amber series (10 out of 10 for thinking, but 3 out of 10 for writing...it really is very sloppy and "un-edited" feeling) ..."

I'm speechless.

Guess it's just further proof that there's no accounting for taste. (I re-read the original 5 book series almost every year, in large part because I love the writing every bit as much as the story.)

[Jeannette]

Jim wrote: "I was meaning buying books on line really (I've not got an ereader) where you don't 'see' them and you cannot just browse along a shelf and find others"

On some retail sites, books will have related titles (or, at least, other titles frequently purchased by the people who bought the book) listed somewhere on the product page, so if you are looking for something that is similar to something else you've read, you can browse through the "also bought" or "related" lists for that book and have a better chance of finding similar things.

[Jim]

The problem I have with that is that I buy books for my wife, father in law and daughter on the same account :-)

[Thomas]

One thing I like about GR is the recommendations by shelf. If you mouse oner a book, a pop up shows what books you have that make it a recommend for you. While not perfect, it helps.

[Micah]

Charles wrote: "Micah wrote: "... I mean, I read Zelazny's Amber series (10 out of 10 for thinking, but 3 out of 10 for writing...it really is very sloppy and "un-edited" feeling) ..."

I'm speechless.

Guess it's just further proof that there's no accounting for taste. (I re-read the original 5 book series almost every year, in large part because I love the writing every bit as much as the story.) "

Let me clarify that just a bit...He can craft a sentence, I don't deny that. But what I found particularly inexcusable is things like his shadow walking descriptions. The first few times you come across it, he explains it in depth. That's cool, it's nice to see how it works. Then for quite a while he naturally cuts down on the shadow walking descriptions...then suddenly like 3 or 4 books into it, he goes off on a 5 or 6 page extended in-depth shadow walking description for no reason whatsoever. All that happens in it is the main character is riding a horse, riding for a long time, the horse is getting tired, boy this is a long ride...oh, they finally got somewhere. And that literally went on for pages.

It all felt as if it were a first draft that never got properly edited (or that he didn't have enough story to fill the number of pages he was obliged to write for whatever fee he was getting and needed to pad things out).

Tighter editing would have done wonders for him.

[Micah]

Will wrote: "It's a challenge. From a practical point of view, genres are very useful. It gives the reader a way of finding books that they like without having to wade through a ton of stuff that they don't like..."

I find that of very limited value, and only in the broadest take on genre.

Breaking things down into sub-categories beyond (picking SF as an example) Space Opera, Military, Action/Adventure, Post-Apocalyptic, Hard SF, Dystopian--the generally agreed upon broadly defined sub-genres--is kind of useless IMO because...who says what's what?

As we've seen here (and in numerous other threads like it), the general sense of what Space Fantasy is is pretty different across readers. It could be anything from fantasy with a loose SF justification (like Orson Scott Card's Wyrmns to SF with "fantastical" elements, ala Star Trek.

You start applying too finely parsed out genres and you end up ticking off people by not classifying books appropriately (in the minds of many, if not most of the readers).

[Micah]

Jim wrote: "I was meaning buying books on line really (I've not got an ereader) where you don't 'see' them and you cannot just browse along a shelf and find others"

See, I don't really have a problem online either. Browsing amazon, let's say, just with the search engine I can find stuff as easily as in a bookstore (easier perhaps because I tend to avoid all straight out fantasy, and I can filter that out more easily online than in a bookstore where SF/F are intermingled on the shelves).

And the Look Inside feature is available on practically all selections. That serves quite well as in indicator of the authors ability and style.

[T.C.]

Micah wrote: "And the Look Inside feature is available on practically all selections. That serves quite well as in indicator of the authors ability and style. "
That's a great feature, but I never know how many people actually use it.