What is the difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy

[J.D.]

Weenie wrote: "Nice interesting read, thanks for posting the link."

I'm glad you enjoyed it.

[Patgolfneb]

It seems to me the definition I heard in a class on Science Fiction years ago, extrapolated from known science with no more than one major advance assumed, is outdated. In a sense readers decide. There is also much more genre mixing now. Readers seem to placing stories with a reliance on physical properties

[Patgolfneb]

Oops, accidental submit.
And technological advances in the future, except alternative to universes.
Stories without a technological or biological advances, relying on magic and paranormal powers, unseen or hidden talents seem to be viewed as fantasy. Those that mix genre's, star wars, darkover series etc seem to be regarded as part of whatever genre the reader considers their primary interest.
I wonder if classification changes with time. Books from the past considered science fiction when publishers John Carter of Mars stories for example, fit better as fantasy now in my opinion.

[Brenda]

These categorizations are a marketing thing. In other words, what makes it SF versus Fantasy? It's the cover. By and large, everything with a space ship on it, or planets, starfields, or outer space, is SF. Everything with swords, horses, unicorns or dragons is fantasy. Even if the book itself has no space ship, or dragon, or unicorn, in the story, the art department will frequently slap one on. The image is a signal to the buyer: this is fantasy, come and buy! Look, here's the SF you're looking for!
You can see this, even more broadly, in other genres. What do mysteries have on the cover? If they are cozies, there is always a couple of clue items. Hard-boiled nearly always have a weapon. Romances go in fashions; for a long time they always had him and her, suitably costumed, in a clinch on the cover; you could rank how racy they were by how much cleavage you got. Then a trend kicked in for Fabio or some equivalent, without a shirt on; sometimes they didn't even bother to show his head. The more high-end ones have flowers. But the dead giveaway for romance is the cover font -- always curvy italic lettering.

[Trike]

Brenda wrote: "These categorizations are a marketing thing. In other words, what makes it SF versus Fantasy? It's the cover."

Brenda, I'm >this< close to going back in time 16 years and paddling you on rec.arts.sf.written. :p

[Jaime]

Well, what I've always considered the ur-steampunk novels, Gibson & Sterling's THE DIFFERENCE ENGINE and Stephen Baxter's ANTI-ICE and THE TIME SHIPS, are without a doubt science fiction.

[Marjorie]

Trike wrote: "Brenda wrote: "These categorizations are a marketing thing. In other words, what makes it SF versus Fantasy? It's the cover."

Brenda, I'm >this< close to going back in time 16 years and paddling..."

Thanks, Trike because that utter marlarkey Brenda wrote just demonstrates her cluelessness but I can't find my cluegun to hit her with it right now :) Appreciate the team work!

Personally, I think Orson Scott Card defined the distinction (and both of the separate genres) better than anyone else in the years since. He wrote of it in his Writers' Digest book (in its 3rd or 4th printing now which speaks "volumes" - excuse the pun - for its relevance, eh?) How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy That book won the Hugo Award for Best Non-Fiction Book (1991). I think he also weighed in on Stanley Schmidt's book for Analog Magazine Writing Science Fiction and Fantasy

And if you don't know who Stanley Schmidt is, I'll have to go get the 80mm cluegun - he's second only to John Campbell in my mind for SF/F Editors who helped define the field ;-)

-Friday
@phoenicianbooks

[Marjorie]

Jaq wrote: "Want to confuse the issue further?

Is Steampunk Fantasy, or science fiction?"

Totally depends on what "science" is purported to have been put into the period-fixed world. Steampunk is simply a specific style of world building where "ancient" and "futuristic" are blended together - steam engines powering laser rifles, forex. That specific example is absurd (according to the laws of physics as Conservation of Energy defies the ability of steam to excite light particles to a sufficient level to make them weaponized) but along those lines. If there was a steam-powered laser? That's a fantasy steampunk ;-)

Oh, and there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with steampunk being fantasy genre, but most ardent steampunk readers prefer to think of it as science fiction....they want to believe the "clean pre-industrialized science" is possible without sacrificing their iPhones (haha)

-Friday
@phoenicianbooks

[Jonathan]

Being engaged in studying literature at the moment I'm looking at the idea of genre. Two ways my lecturers looked at genre is that genre can be viewed as a taxonomy or it can be viewed as citation. The idea of genre as taxonomy means that in reference to the science fiction and fantasy genres we define and therefore read books according to how they are classed. I think therefore that the way we classify books as fantasy or science fiction alters our perception of them. Star Wars has more often been called science fiction but it exhibits many fantasy elements for example. However as mentioned genre can also be looked at as a citation in which books in that genre reference other books. John Frow wrote something along the lines of that no text was truly unique because then would not be able to recognise it. From this perspective each book in the fantasy genre references others and each book in the science fiction genre also references others so that combined they make a part of the genre.

[Jonathan]

Of course I do think we have to look at these genres as naming systems. They would have begun that way as such. And yes the truth is that all books have elements of other genres within them. You will find elements of romance, action, crime or historical novels within many sci-fi or fantasy novels for instance. Which leads to another idea: that books are classified according to which genre they most represent.

The genres we now understand can be seen to have many semantic and syntactic features. Semantic features being the particular language and conventions of a genre.

For instance in sci-fi some semantic features may include:
Location (strange planets, the future earth, sometimes our own world)
Icons (lasers, spaceships and other high-tech gadgets)
Characters (aliens, scientists, cyborgs, mutants and so forth)
Plots (saving the universe or planet, scientific missions on strange worlds, apocalypses)

The syntactic features being the recurring themes and ideas. In sci-fi many themes revolve around what it is to be human or the very idea of the 'other'.

The semantic features of fantasy could be for example:
Location (mythological worlds/pseudo-medieval lands, other words bordering ours)
Icons: (magic and magical artefacts, sword type weapons are more common)
Characters: (elves and other mythical creatures, warriors, wizards/magic users, wandering characters)
Plots: (monomythical plots, the coming-of-age story or saving the world from dark powers)

Syntactic features might also be seen to be looking at the human condition but often in a different way. Fantasy more often seems to examine the darkness of people and the way in which people rise to challenges.

My personal summary would be that to class a book as fantasy or sci-fi it tends to depend on what genre that book appears to have more in common with. If more features match the sci-fi genre then it will be called a sci-fi novel whereas if more features match fantasy then it will be called a fantasy novel. Much of the definition is left to marketing executives these days after examining the novel and sometimes you can find that the elements of fantasy and sci-fi within a book are very much 50/50 and the marketers decided to go one side over the other.

[Trike]

Jaq wrote: "Want to confuse the issue further?

Is Steampunk Fantasy, or science fiction?"

That doesn't confuse the issue at all. Science Fiction has a different mindset from Fantasy. Is the world knowable or not? Are the things described in the story possible or impossible?

If the former, it's SF. The latter is Fantasy.

You can have a unicorn and a dragon in your story and it can be totally science fictional. Invoke genetic engineering -- a horse with a horn gene grafted into its genome and a monitor lizard given the ability to become 20 feet long via gengineering -- and boom, sci-fi. But if you try the same thing to make a spider the size of a car, then you've crossed the line into fantasy, because bugs have size limits imposed upon them by biology and physics.

Same thing with superheroes. You can go either way. Iron Man is science fiction, Dr. Strange is Fantasy. They're both superheroes.

Back to the Future III, Timerider and Cowboys & Aliens are all Westerns but also science fiction. High Plains Drifter, Jonah Hex and Purgatory are all Westerns but also Fantasy.

[Trike]

Jonathan wrote: "My personal summary would be that to class a book as fantasy or sci-fi it tends to depend on what genre that book appears to have more in common with. If more features match the sci-fi genre then it will be called a sci-fi novel whereas if more features match fantasy then it will be called a fantasy novel."

I'm a taxonomist. (My PhD thesis was going to be on film genres, hence my use of movies as examples over books in many of these cases.) Once I started looking at genre definitions, I realized that simply focusing on the iconography (or as George R.R. Martin inanely put it, defining science fiction by "focusing on the furniture") was completely unsatisfying, because it leads to confusion when you have works which straddle genres.

Instead, I think it's important to get at the heart of the story. What is the essence of it? Sometimes it's the milieu: Westerns take place in the American West. Roughly speaking, from southern Canada to northern Mexico, from California to the Mississippi River. The Searchers is a Western. The Man From Snowy River is not. The Electric Horseman is a Western. McCloud is not. That's not to say that if you like The Searchers you won't like Snowy River, but Snowy River takes place in Australia. They're both Cowboy Movies, they're both related to Horse Opera (yes, it's a real subgenre), but they aren't both Westerns.

It's the same deal with SF and Fantasy: it isn't the icnonography which sets them apart, it's the intent. Urban Fantasy has cars and computers and lasers and spaceships in it. But the "stuff" doesn't make it Science Fiction. I've gone on at length about the difference between the two, but the props, location, characters, even the era they're set it don't weigh as heavily as their underlying intent.

And it's the philosophical underpinning of both Science Fiction and Fantasy which make them different from nearly every other genre. Film Noir examines the dark underbelly of human behavior; it has cynicism at its heart, and menace is around every corner. That's an attitude thing. SF and Fantasy have that same thing going for them: a specific attitude. Possible, impossible.

Jonathan wrote: "Much of the definition is left to marketing executives these days after examining the novel and sometimes you can find that the elements of fantasy and sci-fi within a book are very much 50/50 and the marketers decided to go one side over the other."

I find it best to simply ignore marketing when discussing genre. Marketers are just as likely to say, "Books with red covers sell better to men, so let's have a Red Section." Eventually it becomes codified that certain books belong in the Red Section because they want to make money. Content doesn't drive it at all.

Which is why you have publishers specifically NOT labeling books as SF or Fantasy.

[Brenda]

But what do the buyers look for? Gentlemen, would you buy a book with a soft pink cover, displaying an image of a young lady in a long fluffy white gown clutching a rosebud? Above her head, in swishing italic letters of deep indigo, the title is someting like "Love's Tender Bud."
The genres are signals, like the tail of a peacock.

[Jonathan]

I still think marketing comes into it although in a small degree. The reason being when trying to sell a book you must look for a target audience and as such there are many people who will read only fantasy or only sci-fi so they would have to try and sell the book as that type of novel.

To be honest many novels fit into both genres and all types of genres nearly as equally in my experience. I think that were Lord of the Rings set on another planet many of us would find that it felt more like a science fiction (with the elves and dwarves being like alien races rather than mythic beings). Magic is, it has been said, very much like science that we don't understand. So perhaps (and I apologise for rambling here) I guess I could say that I see that it is the feel or style of a novel which causes us to class it in a particular genre. Fantasy has that feel of the unexplained magic that needs no explanation while sci-fi feels more rule governed and structured. It needs to have some sort of semi-explanation to its 'science'.

I do very much think that a lot of genre is used nowadays to provide the sense of what is familiar. This book feels sci-fi and reminds me of other sci-fi novels therefore it is sci-fi. Or even simply to put a label on a book.

[Shomeret]

The best fantasy also has rules. Magic should have rules and limitations that are internally consistent to make for a well constructed fantasy. Vampires,shifters and other paranormal entities also need to have limitations that are internally consistent.

[Brad]

Trike, I like most everything you've posted so far, (There's always a but, isn't there?) but there's one thing I don't like. Say we throw all of the Foundation series in as one big book. In however many thousands of pages, the book remains sci-fi. If I add one line in those thousands of pages where a guy snaps his fingers and fire magically appears at the tip of them, suddenly that one line turns all those thousands of pages of sci-fi into thousands of pages of fantasy.

[B]

Rambling ahead!

Paul wrote: "Not an easy question...things get murky quickly. I would argue that the difference (if there is one) lies in the degree of control in the hands of the characters. Fantasy usually involves fate, a g..."

I think this is the closest this thread has come to hitting the nail on the head so far. In my opinion, it seems only reasonable to go with the common assignations and go backwards from there (excluding murky waters like Pern for now). For instance, almost no one on the street would call Star Wars or Star Trek fantasy except those who have thought about this before, I'm pretty sure. What makes them sci-fi? It seems to me that the best explanation is that sci-fi makes use of certain themes that fantasy does not: man vs. machine, the march of progress, control in a broad sense, etc.

However, I disagree that control is fundamental to the distinction: there's a short story (The Cold Equations) that immediately came to mind. It's fairly hard sci-fi, so it's difficult to call it fantasy, but it also places essentially no control in the main character's hands. It does, however, have themes such as those of man vs machine and human error.

I'm sure you could write a science-fiction story about non-sapient genius inventors (see the Jokaero from Warhammer 40,000), but I don't think it would really feel very sci-fi unless the themes are correct.

Meanwhile, fantasy certainly does seem, to me, to be more like Paul said: often there are circumstances beyond one's control involved (the chosen one trope, etc) -- sci-fi stories will often have these elements as well, such as the Star Wars movies. Much of the Star Wars extended universe does not, however, but it makes little sense to segregate it by sci-fi or fantasy, I think.

Shomeret wrote: "The self-published have the same percentage of original fiction as the traditionally published. Few authors have the requisite imagination to be original. Sturgeon's Law applies."

Well, it is very difficult -- some would say impossible -- to be truly original these days. Or any time since that of the Greeks. Who, incidentally, blended sci-fi and fantasy in at least one work.

[Brenda]

Now that we have e books, it should be actually possible to test this. Imagine a work sold under the same title and author, but with different covers, maybe even with a different description. This would have been impossibly costly if you had to do separate print runs, but should theoretically be easy with an electronic work.
Did anybody see BEND IT LIKE BECKHAM? I coerced both kids into going to this movie. I told my son it was about youth soccer (true!), and I told my daugther it was about female athletes (also true). So you could imagine STAR WARS packaged the same way. The fantasy cover has tauntauns on it, of course. The SF edition has the Millennium Falcon. And the romance edition has Leia and Han, gazing deeply into each others' eyes.

[J.D.]

Henry wrote: "However, I disagree that control is fundamental to the distinction: there's a short story (The Cold Equations) that immediately came to mind. It's fairly hard sci-fi, so it's difficult to call it fantasy, but it also places essentially no control in the main character's hands. It does, however, have themes such as those of man vs machine and human error...."

I would agree with you that control is not a defining feature of Science Fiction, particularly hard SF. The Cold Equations is one of my favorite stories, and I'd argue that the primary theme is not Man v. Machine or even human error. Physical laws trump all of our fantasies, wishes, and desires: I've always thought that The Cold Equations is about what it means to try to be good and just and moral and human in the face of that. The main character has control, but only over how he will respond to the very limited choices that are available due to physical constraints. The story in The Cold Equations is a profoundly human one, but one that is only possible because the laws of physics are as they are.

[J.D.]

Brenda wrote: "Now that we have e books, it should be actually possible to test this. Imagine a work sold under the same title and author, but with different covers, maybe even with a different description. Thi..."

I'd love to see this kind of experiment.

[Brian]

I have a little different take on this question than some. My thought is that you can have fantasy with a science-fictiony surface look (Star Wars being a good example), and that the biggest difference between the two is the prevailing theme or sub-theme. Science fiction tends to have a political theme or sub-theme: it's about how possible technological developments, encounters with aliens, etc. impact the way human society is organized. Fantasy tends to have a religious theme or sub-theme and to be about personal morality and ethics, personal transformation/spiritual development, and so on -- more timeless stuff. Which is one of two reasons why I would classify Star Wars as fantasy instead of SF, in that it's all about the spiritual theme of fall and redemption. (The other reason is that the science in it is really, really bad.

I've had a lot of thoughts on what constitutes fantasy and blogged about them. Haven't done the same with SF; maybe I will in the future.

[Brenda]

There are so many counter-examples to this that I cannot list them all. Just take the word of this fantasy author: I write about people.

[Brian]

All fiction is about people. If it's about fairies, the fairies are people. (And of course, most fantasy isn't about fairies.)

[Jenelle]

The trouble with classifying the differences between sci-fi and fantasy, I think, are all the sub-genres.

Fantasy in its strictest form takes place in a medieval-esque type setting, usually on a single planet. Instead of technology, there is magic (and if technology does exist, it is powered by magic, or is viewed as semi-magical by the characters in the books). The focus is on the characters and their story - be it a quest, a battle, etc. Setting is important, but is not all-encompasing and plays second fiddle to the characters.

Sci-fi in its strictest form takes place in space. There is no "magic" per se. There is often a lot of travel between worlds. There are a lot of futuristic (or wildly improbable) technologies. The focus is shared by the characters and the setting more than in fantasy. The characters and their story is still the most important thing, but setting gets more of the focus.

However, there are a lot of mixtures and sub-genres in these two overarching genres.

Star Wars - (already pointed out) is what I consider a "Space Opera" - a fantasy story set in space.

Another example of a "space opera" would be the "Star of the Guardians" trilogy by Weis and Hickman.

The you have your fantasy settings with sci-fi mixed in: examples would include the newer Shannara trilogies by Terry Brooks. I could go on, but my 5-month old just woke up so now I'm typing one-handed.

The point is: there is a difference IMHO between fantasy and sci-fi. But there's a lot of cross-over between the two genres as well.

[Deedee]

There's a continuum from pure science fiction to pure fantasy. Most SF/F books are somewhere in the continuum. Pure science fiction: based on what is currently known in the science community, plus reasonable, possible extrapolations (Islands in the Sky by Arthur C. Clarke is one example -- it's a 1960 novel about life in a Space Station which orbits Earth). Pure fantasy: the "rules" of the land are impossible under any scenario (magic rings, 3-headed fire-breathing dragons, Tinkerbell, werewolves).

Most novels fall between the two extremes.

Alot of "space opera" novels will have fantastical elements like faster-than-light travel or humaniod aliens, but will otherwise follow that which is scientifically possible. I group these with the "science fiction" section. I'll put time travel in science fiction, too, provided that the only fantastical element is that a mechanical means of affecting time travel exists (example: To Say Nothing of the Dog).

I group all dragons in fantasy. Time travel that occurs because you "will" it is fantasy (example: A Traveller In Time). Books with faeries, elves, virgin-loving unicorns and other impossible (but fun!) creatures are fantasy.

[Stevie]

I know this may be overly simplistic, but in my mind the difference has always come down to the simple question "Does it have magic?", magic being defined as some force or power that is essentially unexplained but gives people special abilities. If the answer is yes, it is Fantasy. If the answer is no, it may be SciFi, although not necessarily.

This is why despite the trappings of SciFi, I've always considered Star Wars to be Fantasy. Steampunk - I haven't actually read any, but unless the steam is magical, it isn't Fantasy. Whether it is SciFi or not is another question.

[Stuart]

Steve wrote: "I know this may be overly simplistic, but in my mind the difference has always come down to the simple question "Does it have magic?", magic being defined as some force or power that is essentially..."

I think I tend to back you on this one. Though I think some steampunk is definitely sci fi if the prevailing technology is steam over electricity.

[Brenda]

Yes, some of the mechanisms in steampunk do things that are not consonant with the laws of physics. If you're waving a pipe wrench or waving a wand, and magic results, it's probably fantasy.

OTOH there are certain SF tropes which, however unreasonable, get a bye. FTL is the classic example.

[Trike]

Shomeret wrote: "The best fantasy also has rules. Magic should have rules and limitations that are internally consistent to make for a well constructed fantasy. Vampires,shifters and other paranormal entities als..."

That's a fairly recent phenomenon in publishing, though. The sub-genre "Hard Magic" has only existed for about 30 or 40 years. before that Fantasy had no systems. If an author wanted something to happen, they just said, "Because magic." In some of the older stories by the same authors in the same worlds they created, animals could talk sometimes but not in others. Why? Because he wanted it that way.

But I think that because science so obviously works and people are slowly coming around to the realization that natural laws do exist, authors are reacting to that and trying to make their fantasies have a bit more internal consistency.

Some of it probably has to do with various role-playing games like Dungeons & Dragons as well as MMORPGs -- in order to work, these have to be rules-based, so you have define the limits of what characters can do.

But we still see authors (and filmmakers) employing authorial fiat in their magic systems. Even the rigid ones have the authors adding to the rules or changing them as they go along.

[Trike]

Brad wrote: "Trike, I like most everything you've posted so far, (There's always a but, isn't there?) but there's one thing I don't like. Say we throw all of the Foundation series in as one big book. In however many thousands of pages, the book remains sci-fi. If I add one line in those thousands of pages where a guy snaps his fingers and fire magically appears at the tip of them, suddenly that one line turns all those thousands of pages of sci-fi into thousands of pages of fantasy."

I'm aware that stance is far more hardcore than most people tend to be, but it's something you have to do if you want to draw boundary lines. It's like the old joke: "You can't be a little bit pregnant. You're either pregnant or you aren't."

If you let a single thing into your genre which usually belongs to another genre -- in this case, the impossibility of Fantasy into the possibility of Science Fiction -- where do you draw the line?

"Snapping his finger to create fire is okay, but twitching his nose and freezing water is too much." So to avoid things like that, I simply made the threshold the most logical: at one thing.

I read a mystery years ago (whose name I've forgotten) that was your basic private eye mystery... except the Macguffin was a lost laser pistol. Everything else was our world. It just had this one piece of science fiction in it. Joe Haldeman has a similar book (Tool of the Trade) that's a Cold War thriller, but the Macguffin there is a watch that can emit a frequency which makes people do what they're told. Tom Clancy's The Hunt for Red October has only one science fictional element: the submarine The Red October. Those are perfect examples of what I mean.

[Trike]

Brenda wrote: "Now that we have e books, it should be actually possible to test this. Imagine a work sold under the same title and author, but with different covers, maybe even with a different description. This would have been impossibly costly if you had to do separate print runs, but should theoretically be easy with an electronic work."

Doesn't this happen all the time with US v. British publishers, and with reprints?

[Trike]

Jenelle wrote: "Fantasy in its strictest form takes place in a medieval-esque type setting, usually on a single planet. Instead of technology, there is magic (and if technology does exist, it is powered by magic, or is viewed as semi-magical by the characters in the books). The focus is on the characters and their story - be it a quest, a battle, etc. Setting is important, but is not all-encompasing and plays second fiddle to the characters.

Sci-fi in its strictest form takes place in space. There is no "magic" per se. There is often a lot of travel between worlds. There are a lot of futuristic (or wildly improbable) technologies. The focus is shared by the characters and the setting more than in fantasy. The characters and their story is still the most important thing, but setting gets more of the focus."

I'm sure most of us could come up with a couple dozen examples in each genre to refute those definitions.

Milieu/setting, iconography, plot, characters, etc., are entirely secondary to the underlying philosophies of Fantasy and Science Fiction.

[Jonathan]

Trike wrote: "Jenelle wrote: "Fantasy in its strictest form takes place in a medieval-esque type setting, usually on a single planet. Instead of technology, there is magic (and if technology does exist, it is po..."

Which is why some theorists question whether there are main genres such as fantasy, sci-fi with sub genres under them containing books which have elements associated with other genres. For example take the Dresden Files with their crime fiction elements and fantasy elements. Of interest to me is that genres aren't static things but rather provide reference points for understanding what we intend to get out of books. Personally when I read a sci-fi I expect gadgetry and technology. With fantasies I expect some kind of magic as was mentioned earlier or strong overriding fairytale ideas. However I think this whole question may appear differently to different individuals. There are many who because of the overall presence of technology and ideas in Star Wars (like myself think of it as mainly sci-fi but with fantasy elements) while others think of it as fantasy. Which genre they belong to depends on your perspective and your way of classing.

[Mike]

I think of Dune as science fiction and of Lord of the Rings as Fantasy. Yet, the main charcaters, Frodo and Paul, find out that they have a destiny to fulfill, which requires them to go on a quest, and find magic items or abilities which assist them in shaping their true identities and saving the universe. They are archetypes of Greek mythological heroes like Theseus and Hercules... as are Luke Skywalker and Harry Potter. The same story is told over and over.

For me, the difference between science fiction and fantasy is the context: space travel, lasers and robots versus magic, elves and dwarves and dragons.

[Brenda]

You see? It is the cover, after all.

[Mike]

Brenda wrote: "You see? It is the cover, after all."

I agree :)

[Brenda]

And what that shows you is that it is possible to MOVE a work from one category to the other, by tinkering with the cover. Consider 1984, obviously a dystopian SF novel. It is usually marketed with a 'literary' kind of cover, with the author's name prominently placed. You could imagin a quite SFnal cover, something very Philip K. Dick, with gloomy mech and people in shiny jumpsuits.

[Jenelle]

Deedee wrote: "There's a continuum from pure science fiction to pure fantasy. Most SF/F books are somewhere in the continuum. Pure science fiction: based on what is currently known in the science community, plu..."

Totally agree. And, Trike, I acknowledged that there are a lot of examples where the two genres mix - which is why my definitions only work for fantasy or sci-fi in their strictest forms.

Ender's Game, Icarus Hunt, Night Train to Rigel, Dune, Princess of Mars, a lot of H.G. Wells stuff = examples that pretty much are strictly sci-fi

Lord of the Rings, Chronicles of Narnia, Magic Kingdom of Landover, Deverry Series = are all examples of pretty much fantasy only

Crossovers occur in many many books to some extent or another, which is why sci-fi/fantasy are often linked as a genre. It's a continuum, like Deedee said, but I personally do think Fantasy and Sci-Fi exist as main genres, because readers (in my few encounters with other sci-fi/fantasy fans) tend to gravitate towards one end of the continuum or the other. I prefer the fantasy end of the spectrum. My husband, on the other hand, prefers the sci-fi side of things.

[Sysilouhi]

I think one sci-fi writer (well, most people categorize her work as "literature" but she herself talks about it as sci-fi), Johanna Sinisalo, explained the difference quite well:

"There can be dragons in both sci-fi and fantasy, but whereas in fantasy you can just say they exist, in sci-fi you need to figure out their evolution history, what they eat and how overall they can exist in the world."

(Please note that this was written from my memory and then translated from Finnish to English.)

[Trike]

Brenda wrote: "You see? It is the cover, after all."

Also whether it's written by a man or woman. All sci-fi is written by men and all fantasy is written by women.

[Trike]

Brenda wrote: "And what that shows you is that it is possible to MOVE a work from one category to the other, by tinkering with the cover. Consider 1984, obviously a dystopian SF novel. It is usually marketed wit..."

People call spiders insects, too, but they aren't.

Marketing and what "just folks" call something has zero bearing on what that thing actually is. Calling a hat a brooch doesn't make it one.

[Trike]

Jenelle wrote: "Totally agree. And, Trike, I acknowledged that there are a lot of examples where the two genres mix - which is why my definitions only work for fantasy or sci-fi in their strictest forms."

My entire thesis is that is NO mixing. Fantasy is on one side of the line while Science Fiction is on the other, and never the two shall meet.

As I mentioned earlier, it's like being "a little bit pregnant." That can't be. Either you are or you aren't. If you put a single drop of the impossible into your Science Fiction, then by definition you've changed it into Fantasy.

And I can't stress enough that this in no way alters the quality of the work or whatever enjoyment you might derive from it. It's simply putting things in their proper place, and that's it.

[Trike]

SSirppi wrote: "SSirppi | 4 comments I think one sci-fi writer (well, most people categorize her work as "literature" but she herself talks about it as sci-fi), Johanna Sinisalo, explained the difference quite well:

"There can be dragons in both sci-fi and fantasy, but whereas in fantasy you can just say they exist, in sci-fi you need to figure out their evolution history, what they eat and how overall they can exist in the world.""

Exactly so. (I mentioned something similar upthread.) And it boils down to a difference in philosophy rather than iconography, which is why I maintain that the essential difference between Fantasy and Science Fiction is one of worldview, not the "stuff" that's in the books.

[Jenelle]

Trike wrote: "My entire thesis is that is NO mixing. Fantasy is on one side of the line while Science Fiction is on the other, and never the two shall meet...

Interesting thought. I have a hypothesis that is very similar about sports (it gets me in trouble, because lots of people think I'm being snobbish, when really I'm just trying to use great clarity of language). I don't necessarily agree with your "never the two shall meet" thesis on fantasy and sci-fi, but I can definitely respect it.

[Jenelle]

Apparently I'm rubbish at html... that was not all supposed to be in italics...

[Jonathan]

Trike wrote: "Jenelle wrote: "Totally agree. And, Trike, I acknowledged that there are a lot of examples where the two genres mix - which is why my definitions only work for fantasy or sci-fi in their strictest ..."

The theorist John Frow would disagree with you in his book Genre. He argues for main genres and sub genres under them wherein the so called mixing can be found. Romantic elements in sci-fi are found in such sub genres.

Trike wrote: "Brenda wrote: "You see? It is the cover, after all."

Also whether it's written by a man or woman. All sci-fi is written by men and all fantasy is written by women."

So Tolkien was writing sci-fi. *facepalm* I've been wrong all along. Either that or he and C.S.Lewis were women...

[Brenda]

If you really want to be pedantic, remember that all fiction is truly fantasy. Even in the most historical, fanatically-researched and accurate novel, nobody was there listening to Richard Nixon talking to John Dean, or inside George Patton's head as he worries about a battle. The world of books breaks at the top into nonfiction/fantasy. Under fantasy then you have realistic fiction, historical fiction, sea adveventure, high fantasy, mysteries, and so on.
And as Jonathan notes there is considerable bleed-over between genres; a detective SF novel (CAVES OF STEEL, or MEMORY) is not uncommmon, and romantic SF (Catherine Asaro's books) are easily found. The more creative hybrids are quite attractive: the Temeraire books are a cross between Hornblower novels and the works of Anne McCaffrey, for instance.

[Trike]

Jonathan wrote: "Trike wrote: "Brenda wrote: "You see? It is the cover, after all."

Also whether it's written by a man or woman. All sci-fi is written by men and all fantasy is written by women."

So Tolkien was writing sci-fi. *facepalm* I've been wrong all along. Either that or he and C.S.Lewis were women... "

It's almost as if I were being sarcastic on purpose, isn't it?

sar·casm [sahr-kaz-uhm]
noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark.

[Trike]

Brenda wrote: "If you really want to be pedantic, remember that all fiction is truly fantasy."

I addressed that earlier: yes, all literature is fantasy. While true, it's useless. And when on a topic such as this, it's no fun at all.

I just snipped a huge response, because it's way too much. People keep resorting to the "appealing to authority" gambit by throwing books at me, so I should just find my notes, finish my thesis and publish my book on this subject so *I* can be an authority on the matter, too.

Basically i just want to reiterate my earlier point that parsing the minute differences between genres is something that I find tremendous entertaining, so I reject any statement that lumps everything together.

Also: LET ME HAVE MY FUN, DANGIT.

[Jenelle]

Trike wrote: "I addressed that earlier: yes, all literature is fantasy. While true, it's useless. And when on a top..."

grin