SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
Members' Chat
>
What is the difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy
date
newest »
newest »
Micah wrote: "Though conversations like this ultimately devolve into the equivalent of music fans squabbling over the definition of a musical sub-sub-sub genres...I'd like to take exception to some of what's bee..."I agree. Whether the explanation the author provides is reasonable or not, the underlying implication is that everything in the story COULD be explained scientifically in natural terms. This is not true of fantasy, which relies on supernatural explanations, or includes things that simply could not exist in our natural world. An example would be something like self-winding clockwork robots. You see them from time to time in steampunk, but even though there is no magic or other 'woo-woo' stuff, I'd call it fantasy because basic physics forbids a key component of the story. I can't say much about horror. I don't find it entertaining, so I don't read it.
Where were you guys a year and a half ago? (See page 1.)
Colleen wrote: "Magic = FantasyScience = Sci-fi
Magic & Science (or MagiTech) = Science Fantasy"
Agreed! Thank you
Jonathan wrote: "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 wi..."Excellent description.
Trike wrote: "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..."
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.
------------------------------------------------
I don't agree. We are not talking about non-fiction and technical journals, we are speaking about fiction. Jules Verne's SF seemed impossible in his time. Good fiction books make the reader believe that the story is possible, or at least have a suspension of reality, while immersed in the story. Science Fiction heavily relies on science and fantasy heavily relies on magic for creating their worlds and story.
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 ..."
Trike wrote: "Where were you guys a year and a half ago? (See page 1.)"Yeah, I'm a little late to the dance, LOL. I am new to Good Reads and just realized this is an old topic - sorry time travel really doesn't exist , LOL.
Jeff wrote: "Trike wrote: "As soon as you have someone like Spock walking around, a being that we know for a fact to be biologically impossible, you've switched genres."Wait ... what? Is there something I do..."
Actually, Spock is a genetically engineered hybrid so definitely Science Fiction. Also, the resemblance between humans and other aliens would be pure fantasy except for the premise that we are all actually related. This is Star Trek canon - a previous life intelligent life form seeded the galaxy with their DNA. If we do meet aliens they will be more bizarre than we CAN imagine.
MaryReads wrote: "I don't agree. We are not talking about non-fiction and technical journals, we are speaking about fiction. Jules Verne's SF seemed impossible in his time. Good fiction books make the reader believe that the story is possible, or at least have a suspension of reality, while immersed in the story. Science Fiction heavily relies on science and fantasy heavily relies on magic for creating their worlds and story."We're not using "impossible" the same way. I mean it as the literal definition: can not happen. Will not ever happen. Violates natural law. Supernatural. All of that.
Something like Verne's Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea was completely possible, because he was extrapolating into the future that had better technology. And we know that book was possible because we eventually did it. It's not a technical manual at all, but solid fiction with technology and science at its core.
I have never, ever once read any Fantasy novel and thought, "Someday this might be possible," because it never will be. Harry Dresden, Harry Potter, Harry and the Hendersons, none of these things will come true. Doesn't mean they're bad stories, they're just impossible worlds with impossible rules.
Elizabeth wrote: "JActually, Spock is a genetically engineered hybrid so definitely Science Fiction. Also, the resemblance between humans and other aliens would be pure fantasy except for the premise that we are all actually related. This is Star Trek canon - a previous life intelligent life form seeded the galaxy with their DNA. If we do meet aliens they will be more bizarre than we CAN imagine. "Yeah, it's fun handwaving, but it can't happen. Might as well claim Amanda allowed an octopus to gestate in her womb for nine months. That amount of iron would've killed the baby, and if it didn't, that amount of copper would've killed her. We're talking about fundamentally incompatible biological systems.
Works great as allegory, not so much as science. Since Trekkies tend to lose their minds when I say stuff like this, I'll reiterate that this doesn't make it a bad story.
I agree it is very irritating when a SF author breaks obvious natural laws and physics principles AND they are so ignorant of real current and theoretical science that they don't even realize they are doing it! Worse, due to their ignorance, they don't bother with any explanation or back story to make it even seem plausible - which makes for very poor sci. fi. If written as sci. fi. with would still be in the sci. genre but considered BAD or at least flawed if the story and writing ability is good..A good science fiction writer can make the theoretically impossible, impossible that is based upon what we know and think we know at the time, seem possible. There is many flavors of sci. fi. - some more technical in nature and others more dream based.
Jules Verne's stories did seem impossible at the time he wrote them and were viewed as pure fantasy adventure. Even Tesla just "dreamed" his ideas and much of what we have now in comp. sci. seemed impossible just in my Mother's life time...
Not sure what you mean about Tesla. He built most of the stuff he talked about. He demonstrated a radio-controlled torpedo to the Navy three full years before Marconi "invented" radio, for instance. Mark Twain wrote about the cordless electric lamps that Tesla had in his workshop that you could carry anywhere. Tesla actually took the first x-ray picture... and it was of Mark Twain! Every electrical device in your house uses Tesla's alternating current.I don't know how old your mom is, but I can't think of a time in my lifetime when the stuff we have today wasn't already imagined. Roger Zelazny had precursors to things like Siri and iPhones in one of his books. In 1971 Pete Townshend (yes, the lead guitarist of The Who) wrote of an interconnected system of communication he called "The Grid" that sounds a lot like the Web and in his story played out like The Matrix.
Bottom line, what I am objecting to is the statement that the difference between SF and Fantasy is one is possible and the other is impossible. I believe that both may attempt to make what is perceived as impossible seem possible. SF uses Science and Fantasy uses the supernatural/magic as that device.
I am well aware of Tesla's bringing many of his dreams to fruition. That is why I mention him! What some may not realize is how limited he was in being able to achieve or implement his dreams because he was told it was impossible by the scientists and "realists" of the day. Also many may not realize that he credited his ideas to angels that visited him in his sleep! He was a man of Science and Faith.
My Mother was over 40 when she had me and I am in my 40's, so yes 80+ years ago, some of what we are doing seemed impossible to the layman and even some scientists. It took Hubble and space probs to prove the existence of Black Holes. Our perception of Natural Law is always evolving and changing. A simplistic view of our Solar System would see gravity at work, while a more encompassing view would see warped space at work.
I am professionally trained in Science and in the Comp. Sci. field and having worked in the Industry, both theoretical and real world, I am personally disappointed in what we have been able to achieve so far. We still had to send live people into the malfunctioning reactors in Japan VS robots. This should have been a contingency planned for over 40 years ago...
And no matter our views as scientists, in the area of the "impossible", some would beg to differ on the impossibility of some fantasy supernatural. Some people actually believe in magic, ghosts, and the occult. Most people of any faith believe in the existence of good and evil as a force in the Universe.
A well written fiction book, can make what seems impossible to some believable for others.
Trike,I find your hard delimitation between possible (conceivably within the world as we COULD know it) and impossible very interesting. It rings true.
I see in this thread many who think it's "all about the furniture". The furniture theory is appealing because many of the well known SF works have spaceships, technology and all, while fantasy have wizards and elves and magic. It's a popular perception I guess.
A while ago, in a similar discussion, someone asked: if (insert here famous SF book) had been written in a fantasy setting, would it have lost something, would its message be distorted in an essential way?
I took the question as a challenge, and I worked to rewrite an Asimov Foundation book with fantasy elements (experimentally). That attempt is dusty in a drawer, though, and I don't have yet a good enough answer.
How would you answer it?
Do you folks think Operation Chaos is science fiction, or could it be, with less "werewolves just are"?
If you reduce almost any story to its basic elements you can easily shift genres. Someone once said that the only true science fiction is where if you take the scientific element out of it the story collapses. (It's in Analog's submissions guidelines, but I can't recall who first said it. Stanley Schmidt, maybe.) That's always struck me as a little hardcore, but also impractical to enforce on a storytelling level. The main problem being that crossing out "science" and writing in "magic" solves every story problem.For instance, in Foundation, psychohistory can be replaced with an oracle. Trantor could be any enormous city that fills an area, from a country to a planet. Mordor from LotR or the world-spanning city from Walter Jon Williams' Metropolitan. The Mule can stay the same.
There almost certainly are books that would suffer from genre-shifting, but none immediately come to mind. Mostly damage is done when translating a work from one medium to another. Watchmen is a prime example of losing a fundamental thematic level by being made into a movie.
MaryReads wrote: "Bottom line, what I am objecting to is the statement that the difference between SF and Fantasy is one is possible and the other is impossible."Perhaps we need different words. How about "potentially probable" and "can't never happen no way no how"?
Science Fiction's focus on extrapolation means that it might be possible one day, even if it's impossible today. Fantasy's version of impossible is a continual state: it was impossible yesterday, today and forever more.
Trike wrote: Perhaps we need different words. How about "potentially probable" and "can't never happen no way no how"?Potential, within the realm of science, not yet entirely falsified? And impossible, posited as just happens, in a story that doesn't care about the human knowledge reaching it.
If we accept some argument of authority, at least with indicative value, it probably stands that some scientists accept that science fictional devices or phenomena are not impossible. (some don't, but some do)
Trike wrote: "Someone once said that the only true science fiction is where if you take the scientific element out of it the story collapses."How about a story where science is not explicit, such as a novel no human presence? Although I can't point one atm, there are aliens stories with no devices and stuff... If they have no "impossible", it remains implicit that such civilization "could" exist.
"That's always struck me as a little hardcore, but also impractical to enforce on a storytelling level. The main problem being that crossing out "science" and writing in "magic" solves every story problem."
Actually, no... It can create problems. Lets take Asimov's robot, in robots stories. The concept of robot comes with a background, it means technology, inhumanity, logic - "cold" logic, algorithms. The human perception of these technology creations is part of the plot in some stories, and is grounded in what science and technology creations are sometimes perceived as, by the reader.
It's like the Samurai replacement problem, earlier in the thread: you can't just replace bushido code with personal interest. It means something essential to the story. (Although, I think we could replace it with a Dumas-esque code of honor... maybe.)
That said, I think a robot can still be replaced, with a golem and a backstory for its place in that world... But my point is: science/technology can come with a meaning that gives necessary context to the story. I'm not sure it can all be rewritten... to still make their intended message to the reader. Or, can they?
Alfaniel wrote: "Actually, no... It can create problems. Lets take Asimov's robot, in robots stories. The concept of robot comes with a background, it means technology, inhumanity, logic - "cold" logic, algorithms. The human perception of these technology creations is part of the plot in some stories, and is grounded in what science and technology creations are sometimes perceived as, by the reader."I agree that you would lose the urgency of how technology affects people, because magic is irrelevant to modern life.
On a story level, though, I think you could probably do it using Hard Fantasy. All of these books with well-defined magic rules would slot in any number of supernatural creatures for robots. Since it's not specifically cultural, you could spin the effects the non-human creatures have on people as revealing deeper truths of the human condition.
It would be especially easy with the robot stories that were basically just clever puzzles using the Three Laws Asimov set up. A direct analogy would be Niven's short story "Convergent Series." (view spoiler)
Some of the robot stories aren't really about the robots themselves but rather the reactions of people to them, so they are basically allegories for racism and equality. Those would be particularly easy to genre-shift, I think.
The ones which speak directly to technology changing culture could arguably resist the change, but someone smarter than me could probably find a storytelling analogue to make it work, possibly even keeping the technology aspect.
Interesting challenge, anyway.
Here is an answer from Orson Scott Card regarding the topic question.
http://scifi.about.com/od/scififantas...
http://scifi.about.com/od/scififantas...
I think that Scientific is a form of creative writing that contains relatable characters and scientific settings that brings the reader into an intriguing storyworld.
Kim wrote: "Some books will fall under both genres, plus other genres as well. Not many books are single-genre only..."The reality is that there is little consensus. People publish all kinds of things under the heading of sci-fi and there's no stopping them. The phrase "science fiction" is almost meaningless except as a marketing category used by bookshops.
For me, however, there is a hard-and-fast rule and it is to do with the position the author takes on the nature of the universe. If the book is written from the position that nothing is, in principle, beyond the capability of people to understand, it is science fiction. If the book is written from the position that there are supernatural forces at work in the universe (gods, magic, etc., but also forces that science has thoroughly discredited and are now, literally, fantasy, like psi powers) then the book is fantasy.
But that's just me.
Graham, I think you gave a perfect description of the difference between fantasy and sci-fi.I wish books would STOP being lumped together[except when the genres truly do overlap], when it should not be that hard to keep them categorized separately on book sites like goodreads/Amazon ect!
According to my definition, C, the genres will never overlap. As soon as you add fantasy elements to sci-fi, it becomes fantasy. Even in extreme cases, Like Star Wars, where the genre appears on the surface to be sci-fi, the mystical elements (the Force, life after death, and so on), clearly mark it as fantasy. The analogy I like to make is between clean (sci-fi) and dirty (fantasy). As soon as you add dirty to clean, it too becomes dirty. Adding clean to dirty, doesn't make it clean. Of course, I don't mean to denigrate fantasy by calling it dirty - I love Lord of the Rings and Star Wars as much as the next man - but the analogy doesn't work the other way around.
Graham wrote: "According to my definition, C, the genres will never overlap. As soon as you add fantasy elements to sci-fi, it becomes fantasy. Even in extreme cases, Like Star Wars, where the genre appears on th..."After that I still asked this question because in Artemis Fowel there is more sci fi than Fantasy. if Sci Fi turns into Fantasy so easily what about Fantasy? Like if you add too much clean stuff to a small amount of dirty things, the clean cloths absorb all the dirtiness,
Sean wrote: "if Sci Fi turns into Fantasy so easily what about Fantasy?"Sadly, it doesn't work the other way around, Sean. That's because the underlying universe in which the book is set, is either rational and potentially comprehensible by people, or it is magical and supernatural. Once you add fantasy elements, the universe switches from purely natural to supernatural. But you can start with a basically supernatural universe and add as much science and technology as you like and it will never stop being basically supernatural.
Graham wrote: "According to my definition, C, the genres will never overlap. As soon as you add fantasy elements to sci-fi, it becomes fantasy. Even in extreme cases, Like Star Wars, where the genre appears on th..."I see what you mean and I do agree. Unfortunately the book sites do not see it! :[
What about horror? In the book The Blood of Eden, the character turns into a vampire and gets magical powers. The magic is fantasy but the vampire part is horror. Also there are zombies in the book so that is horror. The ratio is leaning towards horror and not fantasy.
Sean wrote: "What about horror? In the book The Blood of Eden, the character turns into a vampire and gets magical powers. The magic is fantasy but the vampire part is horror. Also there are zombies in the book so that is horror. The ratio is leaning towards horror and not fantasy. "Horror is simply Scary Fantasy. Individual elements such as vampires or zombies are typically used as horror props, but they don't have to be. There are plenty of books, movies and TV shows that utilize vampires and zombies as Comedy and aren't scary at all.
If the vampires and zombies are supernatural, it's still Fantasy. It's in how the props are used which makes it Fantasy Horror or Fantasy Comedy.
Graham wrote: "The analogy I like to make is between clean (sci-fi) and dirty (fantasy). As soon as you add dirty to clean, it too becomes dirty. Adding clean to dirty, doesn't make it clean. Of course, I don't mean to denigrate fantasy by calling it dirty - I love Lord of the Rings and Star Wars as much as the next man - but the analogy doesn't work the other way around. "That's also been my opinion as well, but I do think "dirty" is a loaded word. Even when I add the disclaimer that categorizing a work in one genre or another does not, in any way, say anything about its quality, people still freak out when I say things like "The Man from Snowy River isn't a Western" or "Star Trek is a Fantasy."
I wish I could think of a similar analogy that didn't have negative connotations, but it's always eluded me.
fluid (boundaries, that is)I think there is a wide spectrum from what I'd clearly identify as Fantasy (Lord of the Rings) to clear SciFi (Ringworld) and a massive grey area.
The reason why this is so hard is best explained when looking at Charles Stross Laundry cycle: Here we are introduced to a government organisation that deals with magic. Clearly FF, no? But hang on, Stross explains that magic is nothing other than a certain type of mathematics that when calculated changes spacetime and allows access to other dimensions etc etc.
You get the point: suddently we are no longer in magic land, but technology.
On the other hand one could argue that Star Wars, though with spaceships, might very well be fantasy as there is very little underlying explanation from a technological perspective.
The way I see it is that we need to look at themes as well as the underlying premises used:
- themes like spaceships belong into SciFi. Dragons into Fantasy. Then again: Hyperion by Dan Simmons who most would classify as SciFi features flying carpets (ok they fly via quantum effects, but still) and M Z Bradley's Daugher of Night (which very much feels like Fantasy (it's a rewriting of Mozart's Magical flute) has all sorts of mythical creatures, but it turns out they are all genetically engineered.
- regarding the premise we thought for decades that SciFi is when things get logically explained, by making a realistic extrapolation from today (hard scifi) or by breaking with science in clearly defined areas and then building a well reasoned world on top of that; while Fantasy was allowed to be totally illogical. But that's no longer this clear as even Fantasy needs to be logical and any 'sufficiently advanced technology appears like magic'.
So coming back to my earlier point, I think there is no clear rule, but we are rather talking about a 'it depends' and we need to look at numerous factors. But anyway, does it matter?
I think we need to stop thinking of FF vs Fantasy but rather look at fiction that plays within the world we know it and fiction that doesn't. The latter then has many sub-genres, such as space opera, future war, hard scifi, and similar sub-genres in the 'fantasy' area...
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Watchmen (other topics)Metropolitan (other topics)
Operation Chaos (other topics)
Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea (other topics)
Perdido Street Station (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Lyndon Hardy (other topics)Arthur C. Clarke (other topics)
Orson Scott Card (other topics)
I set a much broader definition based on the intent of the author's world creation:
Fantasy – where the author's overt intent is to present a world that cannot be, or a world populated with things we are not expected to believe would ever be possible in the real world. So magic and magic items, creatures out of fairytales, supernatural beings and creatures out of mythology—when no attempt is made to explain their presence by scientific reasoning are all indicative of fantasy. And usually, but not always, fantasy utilizes medieval social structures and technology.
Science Fiction – where the author's overt intent is to present a world that is not, but could be, and where the world is populated with things that we are expected to believe could possibly exist in the real world. So no matter how flawed the attempt to explain parts of these worlds (Spock's impossible genetic heritage, Star Wars' impossible spaceship dog fights, hearing explosions in space, etc.), and no matter how much handwavium the author employs to explain them (force fields, ray guns, faster than light travel where the techniques to achieve such are never adequately described), as long as the world is presented in a way that we are expected to say, "Yeah, that might be possible with advanced enough technology), and the world is either an alternative history, a future society, or a technologically focused story—it's a SF work.
Horror (if you want to throw that into the mix), to me is often an extension of fantasy. If it's of the supernatural kind (ghosts, demons, vampires, zombies, werewolves, etc.), are we really expected to believe these things could be? No. But horror does often straddle both worlds (Alien and Aliens, for example, or video games like Dead Space where zombies are alien mutated humans)...Doesn't matter. What makes it horror is that the overarching intent of the story is to scare, frighten, gross out, etc.
Obviously there will always be genre benders. Perdido Street Station by China Miéville, for example: fantasy, horror or SF? My answer: weird fantasy with horror elements. Are we really expected to believe this world could ever exist? No. Is the main focus of the story to scare, frighten, gross out, etc.? Not really.
Anyway...in general the difference between the two genres are pretty large and obvious. I tend to stay away from fantasy altogether. I might be persuaded to read a genre bender every now and again, but I have a thing about mixing tech and magic. There's got to be a really good explanation for the two existing together for me to read it...and I'd still be a bit skeptical.