The Line Between Sci-Fi and Fantasy

[[deleted user]]

I was browsing the internet today when I saw two people debating over whether Star Wars is sci-fi or fantasy. That got me thinking; At what point does fantasy become sci-fi? Is it just the futuristic setting or having scientific elements? Would it be fantasy if there was magic in an otherwise science based book? If something has light speed travel, is it still science fiction (G-force, hydrogen atoms, etc)? Is "soft sci-fi" doing the genre any justice? Seeing the discussion really got me thinking and I wanna hear your thoughts about it.

[Brendan]

I really dislike the (thankfully rare) view that "hard" science fiction is the only valid science fiction. This means you can stuff your book with any amount of implausible silliness and as long as your physics checks out your book is hailed as great science fiction (looking at you Peter Watts!)

[[deleted user]]

I mostly agree with you, but one thing that REALLY irks me about "soft sci-fi", particularly space opera, is that ships are unnecessarily aerodynamic and/or pretty. There is no need for floating and glowing parts or even a paint job. If humanity is at a point where they are colonizing the solar system, they would be pretty efficient with resources. Also, the lack of null G in space. *grumble grumble grumble*.

[Brendan]

Counterpoint: people have always made things aesthetically pleasing beyond pure functionality, but if the ships are prototypes or experimental I will agree with you. Alternatively, artistic license can be granted because cool ships look cool, and some inaccuracies to the cause of looking awesome seem like worthy sacrifices.

EDIT: Also to answer your initial question, Star Wars is probably science fantasy? Its pretty pulpy.

[[deleted user]]

I'd understand if it was a civilian ship, especially that of a wealthy person, but I'm always seeing aesthetically pleasing military ships. At most they'd have a paint job and nothing more. For example, the ships from Jupiter Ascending. Why are there those things on the side? If it was made for atmosphere, why does it have that shape? "Soft Sci-Fi" is fine if they at least consider little things like that.

[Sarah]

I'm not sure about that because humans do tend to like nice aesthetics. It's pleasing even if it's unnecessary. Although, by separating Space Opera out from the sci-fi genre that problem is somewhat resolved. As I understand it - didn't they both evolve from speculative fiction? I can see where separating one genre into two or more would be messy. This is sort of like thinking out loud, I don't have an opinion right off the top of my head.

[[deleted user]]

While science fiction and fantasy are both speculative fiction, it's split into two so that somebody looking for a book about dragons and nights doesn't find books about alien invasions.

[Sarah]

Zapjohnny wrote: "I'd understand if it was a civilian ship, especially that of a wealthy person, but I'm always seeing aesthetically pleasing military ships. At most they'd have a paint job and nothing more. For exa..."

That's a good point about military ships. Having things stripped down would be normal to the military.

[Brendan]

Zap actually those kind of objections are kind of what I'm complaining about, heh. You *know* that a ship with things sticking out in the side fails physics terribly, so its soft sci-fi to you. But if a writer that knows his physics makes just as terrible a mistake in anthropology or evolutionary biology you might not notice and so still call it hard sci-fi.

[Sarah]

Zapjohnny wrote: "While science fiction and fantasy are both speculative fiction, it's split into two so that somebody looking for a book about dragons and nights doesn't find books about alien invasions."

There is an amazing amount of overlap at times. There are perfect examples of each but there are a lot of areas where it's much more uncertain. I tend to call things with advanced tech or set in the future sci-fi. I don't usually call Space Opera sci-fi.

[[deleted user]]

Brendan wrote: "Zap actually those kind of objections are kind of what I'm complaining about, heh. You *know* that a ship with things sticking out in the side fails physics terribly, so its soft sci-fi to you. But..."

I do agree with you about other fields of science. Cibola Burn handled biology, evolution, and medicine just as well as it handled physics. It bugs me just as much to see an orbital mechanics error as it does a skeletal system error.

[Sarah]

Brendan, I couldn't agree more about the anthropology and evolutionary biology aspects.

[[deleted user]]

Sarah wrote: "Zapjohnny wrote: "While science fiction and fantasy are both speculative fiction, it's split into two so that somebody looking for a book about dragons and nights doesn't find books about alien inv..."

I agree with you on a book needing to be in the future as well as following scientific principles to be considered sci-fi. A mystery set in a suburban area today that is based off science would be realistic fiction rather than science fiction.

[[deleted user]]

Sarah wrote: "Brendan, I couldn't agree more about the anthropology and evolutionary biology aspects."
I'm currently reading The Martian and it has SO MUCH SCIENCE. Everything is scientifically accurate, from the botany to the physics.

[Brendan]

Sarah wrote: "Brendan, I couldn't agree more about the anthropology and evolutionary biology aspects."

Even though my own education is in one of the "hard" sciences, its so much more interesting when science fiction dips into fields like sociology and political science and does it really well. Getting the physics right is boring, anyone can use a calculator :P

[Brendan]

The Martian is on my to-read list, mainly because i heard it was also quite funny.

[[deleted user]]

Brendan wrote: "Sarah wrote: "Brendan, I couldn't agree more about the anthropology and evolutionary biology aspects."

Even though my own education is in one of the "hard" sciences, its so much more interesting w..."

Ancillary Justice and Abaddon's Gate will be perfect for you then. I'm not too far into Ancillary Justice, but it does have themes involving those. There is a discussion going on in the dedicated thread about that right now, actually.

[[deleted user]]

Brendan wrote: "The Martian is on my to-read list, mainly because I heard it was also quite funny."

It is hilarious at times, but I did have to re listen to a few parts because of the way the science is explained.
EDIT: People will see the amount of notifications they have tomorrow and think something crazy happened.

[Sarah]

I was really impressed by The Sparrow

[Brendan]

Already read AJ! Thought it was fantastic, and a great example of not letting slavish devotion to physics (are warp gates hard sci fi?) get in the way of getting across some really great science fictional ideas.

EDIT: Have not read The Sparrow yet. Its on my list, though.

[[deleted user]]

Brendan wrote: "Already read AJ! Thought it was fantastic, and a great example of not letting slavish devotion to physics (are warp gates hard sci fi?) get in the way of getting across some really great science fi..."

The warp gates are based off of theoretical science, but if it weren't for all the other scientific elements, I wouldn't count it as "hard sci-fi".

[[deleted user]]

Sarah wrote: "I was really impressed by The Sparrow"
That actually looks really interesting! Adding to my to-read list.

[Anna]

Actually ... 'future' is not necessarily a condition of science fiction or space opera. I write in 3,500 BC about fallen angels, but they're genetically engineered super-soldiers who crash-landed here from a galactic empire whose opposing empire is in the process of annexing Earth for its resources. Likewise, Jupiter Ascending (Movie) is based on the myth of the Annunaki, who originate from around 2,700 B.C. ... yes ... even back then we had science fiction writers postulating people visiting from outer space ... there's this really fascinating clay seal that depicts a sky-ship and our sun surrounded by 10 planets. Food for thought...

[Brendan]

Anna wrote: "Actually ... 'future' is not necessarily a condition of science fiction or space opera. I write in 3,500 BC about fallen angels, but they're genetically engineered super-soldiers who crash-landed ..."

I sort of feel like Terry Pratchett is secretly writing science fiction as well, he's just been mislabeled for all these years.

[[deleted user]]

Anna wrote: "Actually ... 'future' is not necessarily a condition of science fiction or space opera. I write in 3,500 BC about fallen angels, but they're genetically engineered super-soldiers who crash-landed ..."

Perhaps we can narrow it down to anything with more advanced tech than what we have now. Then it will apply from ancient aliens to the furthest reaches of humanity.

[Steph]

I like this definition of sci-fi from TV Tropes:

"...Science Fiction is about the social consequences of improbable events or technologies, whereas Fantasy is just about telling a good story. (David Eddings summed it up best: "They get all bogged down in telling you how the watch works; we just tell you what time it is and go on with the story.")..."

It goes on to suggest that Star Wars is therefore actually fantasy (I tend to agree). The best thing about this defnition is that classics like The War of the Worlds, despite being set in our past and having science now proven to be wrong, still stand up as being proper sci-fi.

[[deleted user]]

Steph wrote: "I like this definition of sci-fi from TV Tropes:

"...Science Fiction is about the social consequences of improbable events or technologies, whereas Fantasy is just about telling a good story. (Dav..."
/thread

[Anna]

I like David Eddings explanation :-)

[*and I'm also a long-time fan of his books*]

[Conal]

I personally don't worry much about definitions... Sci-Fi or fantasy are both fine as long as it a story that spurs the imagination (and both are capable of it)...

[Aaron]

There is no line, sci-fi and fantasy are not opposites they are independent story telling genre's. In general SF is scientific explanation, fantasy is the magic explanation for things...accuracy of science does not matter...if it's explained in detail does not matter it's the feel of the world. It's very possible to be both but in general if something could classify as either it is called fantasy.

[Rion]

Star Wars is soft Sci-fi to me. I wouldn't go as far as to say it was all fantasy. The story involves space and theorized technologies. The force is explained to some extent and is another theological aspect that sci/fi often attempts to explain. It also tackles the cybernetic life and how humans might interact with intelligent machines. I do agree that in Star Wars and many space opera, these elements are all background in the story telling. It's just good entertainment. Do some people, like kim stanley robinson, do years of research in order to be as accurate as possible in then their foretelling of future space travel? Yes. It's the focus of the research that makes a difference in the hard/soft categories. Soft science fiction does not require anything other than a good imagination, as does fantasy. I didn't see anyone here mention art yet. Bla bla. I'm gonna continue riding my dragon through space.

[Anna]

Rion wrote: "Bla bla. I'm gonna continue riding my dragon through space..."

In FARSCAPE they actually had a big (dead) space-dragon they mined for some kind of mineral, and then another time they almost got eaten by a live one. And Moya was a biomechanical ship that could go through space. So ... sci-fantasy ... it's all good :-)

[Packi]

This is a really good treatise of the subject. I agree with Robert J. Sawyer that continuity is the most important aspect. If we are able to rationally connect the fiction with reality we call it science fiction. If we can't do that we call it fantasy.

[Rion]

Farscape is awesome my Borg Queen. I also enjoyed the organic engineering. Why not? And thanks for sharing that article Packi, it pretty much hit's all the major distinguishing factors between the two genres. However, I still have a feeling that there will be those like George RR Martin who will continue to state that their differences are negligible. In his case he is obviously talking about the softer sci/fi that purposely focus's on the art of good story telling vs. grounding the narrative in applied theory and ideas originating from the use of scientific method. We have to acknowledge at some point that writing is an art form. And as such the imagination is integral to the creativity that we as humans use to help drive us forward in the creation of new ideas.

[Anna]

Great article, Packi! Although I am friends with some professional psychics, so I am not so quick to say 'telepathy and precognition is fantasy.' I like the way the author of the article is respectful of both genres (for the most part).

I like my shapeshifters and magical abilities just as much as I like my spaceships and smart-dude-in-the-lab-who-saves-the-day, but I like them to have rules and a remote plasibility of being 'science we don't understand yet.' Which is why, I suppose, I like Space Opera so much better than either straight fantasy or straight hard science fiction. It's the only sub-genre where you can mash the two together and just go on a wild ride through the universe :-)

[Packi]

Imo it’s all about the art of how you write it. Although I would count myself as a hard scifi fan, I also enjoy other books if they are well written. For example The Lathe of Heaven is about someone who dreams things and then they become reality. So this wouldn’t even count as scifi because we know there is no such thing. What makes this book great is that it analyses human behavior in unusual circumstances. Another one is Way Station where only a special girl from earth can handle a magical artefact to bring peace to the galaxy.

I get really annoyed when the writing is bad. After all writing is an art. I want to read about adventures and sacrifices, love and war, guilt and redemption. If I want to read a scientific manual (I'm looking at you Rendezvous with Rama and The Martian) I will read that and not a fiction novel. So I guess what I'm saying is, there is more to a scifi novel than can be measured and categorized. A pleasant writing and a smart story can go a long way even if the science isn't waterproof.

[Brendan]

The Lathe of Heaven (one of my favourite books by the way) is a great example of the flaw with requiring science fiction be "scientifically plausible". As you correctly say, under this definition it fails to be science fiction. But almost everybody refers to it as science fiction and when we discuss the novel it makes much more sense to talk about it as it relates to science fiction rather than fantasy. So instead of looking at whether the speculative elements (anything that is different from our universe) are scientifically plausible or not, we should look at what those elements are in service of.

We can start from the same premise "a man can change the world with his dreams" and either write a fantasy or a science fiction story. The fantasy version would use the dream power to create drama and enhance the narrative of a story, the science fiction story would use it as a tool to critique society.

Also I disagree that Rendezvous with Rama is bad writing! It is very direct and unostentatious, sure, but it does a fantastic job of making you feel what he wants us to feel: that space and everything is in it is really big and we are really tiny. The total lack of characterization of the humans allows the focus to be fully on the main character: the giant fricking spaceship. Of the handful of "big dumb object" science fiction books that I've read Clarke does the best job at conveying a sense of wonder and massive scale because he describes it all so dryly and lets the readers make the leap themselves.

[Chuck]

Hi Packi. You should finish the Rama series with the Gentry Lee co-write books. It is everything you say you love about good writing.

[Steph]

Packi wrote: "This is a really good treatise of the subject..."

Good article! I've read one of D.L.'s books and although I frowned upon the cliff-hanger ending, he's a good writer and knows his stuff.

The key seems to be whether there's a link to reality. I see 'fantasy' as being the creation of new mythologies, in that you can lose yourself in the world whilst reading but you know it could never exist for real; e.g. you know Middle Earth isn't a real place. Science-fiction, however outlandish, has the capacity to convince readers that on a fundamental level the setting is entirely plausible; e.g. The Culture could one day exist for real.

I find 'science fantasy' an odd term. To me, it doesn't provide any clue as to what makes it different to books labelled science fiction or fantasy.

[Brendan]

Science fantasy usually refers to pretty specific stories that are basically "swords and sorcery" fantasy except they are specified to take place in either a post-apocalyptic earth or on another planet. I don't think anything made since the 70's really qualifies.

EDIT: One thing to really like about space opera, it can go all the way from the hardest of hard sci-fi to the totally fantastical, and that is pretty cool. There's such a wide range out there!

[[deleted user]]

Brendan wrote: "Science fantasy usually refers to pretty specific stories that are basically "swords and sorcery" fantasy except they are specified to take place in either a post-apocalyptic earth or on another pl..."
Usually I think of science fantasy as something like Starbound. There is space travel and advanced technology, yet people still use spells and swords due to it being superior to tech (ex: piercing bulletproof shields) or because somebody is keeping the tech away from them.

[Packi]

There are also some concepts in scifi that are commonly accepted to be elements of scifi, when in fact they really aren't. I'm thinking about telepathy and telekinesis. There is no scientific evidence for either of those, yet they are part of many scifi classics. For example telepathy shows up in The Demolished Man and Star Trek and Star Wars, where The Force is pretty much telekinesis. So the line is blured even further. :)

[Anna]

Packi wrote: "There are also some concepts in scifi that are commonly accepted to be elements of scifi, when in fact they really aren't. I'm thinking about telepathy and telekinesis. There is no scientific evide..."

I don't know about telekinesis as I've never seen nor experienced it personally, but varying degrees of connectedness (call it telepathy for want of a better term) do exist. I know because I have friends who have special gifts, and the 'gift' itself runs rampant in one side of my family. As me how I can dream of where somebody is and explain it in intricate detail to them ... even though I had no idea where they were nor ever been there myself. Or how I can 'see' a heart attack happening or feel somebody else's ailment? I don't know how because it doesn't happen all that often, but sometimes I can do it.

So I find a gift such as Deanna Troy's to be credible and believable because it fits into my experience of how that ability is used (I like how it is depicted as an empathetic edge ... but not magic). But I don't find a character who purportedly has the ability to mind-read to be very credible because the best a psychic can do is 'capture' random impressions, usually wrapped in emotion.

As for telekenisis ... I have never seen it first-hand ... so while I like to write and daydream about such powers ... I have never experienced it myself ... nor have I ever witnessed somebody use such an ability first-hand ... so I am skeptical. Prove it :-)

[Packi]

What you describe isn't really telepathy. It’s probably a mix of empathy and imagination. Our brain works in funny ways sometimes, and it remembers things you think you never knew, when in fact 20 years ago you saw a picture of the place or read about it. I wonder how often you're wrong about these things. For it’s really only a skill if you're right about it most of the time. Else it’s good guessing and imagining.

So as skeptical you are about telekinesis, as skeptical I am about telepathy. For if it where true studies would've shown it, the military would be all over it, which they were but found it to be unreliable.

I may add that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For when a car salesman tells you he just fixed the breaks you may believe him, but if he tells you the engine runs on the mind force of four deranged siblings living in his basement you may want more than just his word.

[Anna]

Packi wrote: "What you describe isn't really telepathy. It’s probably a mix of empathy and imagination. Our brain works in funny ways sometimes, and it remembers things you think you never knew, when in fact 20 ..."

The in-person stuff I could pass off on non-verbal clues and maybe biochemical markers, such as pheremones. But remote viewing far-away people in settings I've never been to and being able to describe them doing a task without any prior knowledge, other than the fact they were doing that thing that instant? Yeah ... there's some sort of something else going on there between people. Not sure what it is, but it's SOMETHING.

I liked Deana Troy because she had that 'something' but it wasn't weird or hocus-pocus ... it was just a small 'edge' that helped her deal more effectively with other people, all paired in with some genuine interpersonal skills. Whatever that 'something' is, that's how I view it ... a little extra evolutionary something we haven't developed a way to scientifically measure.

[Rion]

In regards to telepathy, In not very long we will be translating brain waves into binary efficiently. Once that happens then we become borg and part of the collective hive mind. :) As for whether or not human evolution will eventually biologically leap the gap of wifi communication between humans? I'm sure if geneticists/biologists began creating biological computers then that gap might close real quick.

[Anna]

Rion wrote: "In regards to telepathy, In not very long we will be translating brain waves into binary efficiently. Once that happens then we become borg and part of the collective hive mind. :) ..."

I think humans have -already- breached some kind of primitive wifi link. :-) The day we figure out how to measure it, the day AFTER that we will build a machine to replicate it, boost the signal, and then ... assimilation. Ahhhh.... 3:-)

[Rion]

I notice that some people, even myself are very empathic. I think this is mostly done through careful observation of body language and voice inflection. I have no idea if peoples bodies also give off different pheromones when communicating, or how smell could help empathic people who are actually aware of it consciously.

[Anna]

Rion wrote: "I notice that some people, even myself are very empathic. I think this is mostly done through careful observation of body language and voice inflection. I have no idea if peoples bodies also give o..."

Most of us can scent pheremones even if we aren't consciously aware of what it means. It's a valuable gift, one most animals have.

What I'm speaking of is the ability to 'see' things that are happening in real-time even though you are dozens, or even hundreds, of miles away. There are no pheremones there unless there's one whopper of a wind blowing from very far away :-)

[Aaron]

Rion wrote: "I notice that some people, even myself are very empathic. I think this is mostly done through careful observation of body language and voice inflection."

It's this, I struggle a lot with text based communication at times because I'm so used to having the voice inflection and even better body language to read off of.