The REAL difference between Sci Fi and Fantasy

[Rosalee]

I hope I'm not out of line in starting a new topic--tell me if I am. :)

Science Fiction and Fantasy are very often lumped together, but as many readers will tell you, they're not really the same thing. Or are they? They often have many of the same plot elements--saving the planet/world/country, the hero and his group of loyal helpers/sidekicks, many follow the archetypal hero's journey... what other similarities can you think of?

But what are the differences? Is there one underlying difference that separates the one from the other? If so, is it that fantasy is usually set in a world of the past, while science fiction typically in a futuristic setting? Or is it magic vs. technology? Improbability vs. impossibility? Is it something else entirely?

I'm interested to hear your thoughts :)

[Hywela]

As a writer of 'romantic science fantasy' I define what I write as a mixture of both science fiction and fantasy. It's neither hard core science fiction nor pure fantasy, but most of my futuristic worlds have a 'fantasy' feel to them in that they're ususally sparcely populated and for the most part use little if any technology, but any 'miracles' or 'magic' have scientific explanations.

I think that may be the difference between the two genres: Science Fiction needs to be logical and plausible and have a basis of physics for extraordinary 'powers' or happenings, and usually a man-made device to facilitate these. Fantasy uses 'magic', although I think fantasy worlds should still have rules and limitations. But a mage can wave his hand and disappear to reappear elsewhere, with nothing more than a 'spell' or the power of his mind, whereas a space traveller would have to us a teleportation device to achieve the same effect.

[David]

I think one of the best working definitions of science fiction I've heard for science fiction came from Isaac Asimov. He defined science fiction as that branch of literature that postulates a change in the level of science or technology and tells a story in that same world. Put another way, you can see how your children, grandchildren, or great grandchildren, might live in a science fictional world. That's not necessarily true of a fantasy world that can be completely detached from the world of reality.

A good fantasy story still has rules that the characters must obey, but it's not bound by science and technology the same way that science fiction is.

[Mark]

I agree with all the distinctions set out above. I would just add a personal pet peeve, as a fantasy (but not SF) author.

To me, the genres are different enough that when fantasy books are lumped together in stores or competitions under the sci-fi label, I get quite annoyed! I don't necessarily mind the two genres being filed/judged together. I'd just prefer to see "fantasy" as part of the heading/category.

[Michele]

I think that F and SF are lumped together because they fall into the realm of "Speculative fiction". However so do horror, westerns and many romance books. Only people on the outside of those genres lump them together like that. I often see people who love fantasy but can't stand SF, which I find amusing.

[Hywela]

You have some good points there Michele. As I stated above I actually write 'science fantasy' which is not the same as pure fantasy and is a recognised genre. I read both pure Science Fiction and High Fantasy though and you're right no-one who was actually knew anything about either genre would just lump the two together.

[Toni]

What I find amusing are especially the movies which try to combine elements of two genres, such as SF and horror (Vampire Wars: Battle for the Universe or Planet of the Vampires or Robo-Vampire.)
I guess fantasy can be defined as using more magic than real devices to get things done, while sf uses science and technobabble to reach the same conclusion. Star Trek is probably the epitome of this genre--Wagon Train to the Stars is how it was touted but it made the use of technobabble (using scientific sounding terms which generally meant nothing to sound as if they meant something) into an art. Star Wars was more of a fantasy because it made the relationships, the quest and its outcome more important than the X-wings and Death Star and all the other spatial components.
My books have been classed as "science fiction" but I prefer to call them "adventures" because they're really low in the "science" department. My people get into spaceships, yes, they might even be put into stasis for a long voyage--but that's the extent of it. The ship takes off, they get where they're going, they hop into a sleep-tank, things get blurry, they wake up and it's years later--without any of the technical NASA-sounding details that hard science fiction revels in. (I did have one person worry about waking up and how she was going to breathe in all the carbon dioxide trapped inside her "pod" and had someone assure her there were exhaust tubes to carry it out and others to pump fresh oxygen in, but that was as technical as I got.)
World of the past versus the future? I'd call Jim Butcher's Harry Dresden books fantasy and they're set in contemporary Chicago. Improbability versus impossibility? Take away the magic in Harry's stories and you have only a police procedural/PI story left. Of course, having the reanimated fossilized body of Sue the T-Rex lumbering down the street is definitely impossible. Isn't it? I think in fantasy, it's magic versus technology (personal opinion), but in another age, they would've been considered the same thing. Perhaps it's simply in the eye of the beholder, or the amount of the magic or technology the story holds.
Does this help or simply further confound the issue? :)

[David]

Going back to the Isaac Asimov interview where he gave his working definition that I paraphrased earlier, he noted that science fiction doesn't necessarily have to be about science at all or even use it. What makes good science fiction is that the writer respects science and technology enough that the world they build has a certain plausibility. If the world isn't plausible, it's crossed the line to fantasy. Also, of course, keep in mind that "respect" doesn't necessarily mean "love." You can respect something and still be wary of it.

I've always understood "technobabble" to refer to those places in (usually poor) science fiction where the writer has gotten their characters into a bad situation, has no idea how to get them out of the situation, and they just pull some technical-sounding nonsense out of thin air to explain how the characters survived. It's poor writing in exactly the same way that it would be for a wizard in a fantasy story to suddenly invoke magic of a scale that's never been hinted at to get the characters out of a bad situation.

Stepping back just a bit, a writer should always write what they know. That includes science fiction and fantasy writers! A science fiction or fantasy writer should know their world well enough that they can write about it in depth. If you get backed into a corner, it's time to rethink the story, not resort to technobabble.

[Pamela]

I totally agree. I understand that both Fantasy and SF (as well as paranormal and according to many horror) are all spec fic, BUT when I enter a discussion or go to a bookstore I want them to have separate venues so I can easily access what I am looking for without digging through a hundred other novels related only by the vague 'familial' designation of spec fic.

That was my original objection for this group only having SF as a 'choice' when we said HI and not having anywhere for those of us who prefer fantasy.