Splitting hairs, science fiction vs fantasy.

[grahamguitarman]

pretty much anything by Anne McCaffrey is practically indistinguishable from fantasy

 

[Dark Huntress]

Science fiction is based on facts even though the story may be unlikely. Fantasy, on the other hand, Is based on things scientifically impossible. I read that somewhere.

I don't see why they both can't coexist peacefully. They seem like two sides of the same coin. My personal definition is ...if it has spaceships it's SciFi, if magic its fantasy.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

Science fiction is based on facts even though the story may be unlikely. Fantasy, on the other hand, Is based on things scientifically impossible. I read that somewhere.

I don't see why they both can't coexist peacefully. They seem like two sides of the same coin. My personal definition is ...if it has spaceships it's SciFi, if magic its fantasy.

But then you get stories like The Time Machine, which had no space ships but was quite clearly science fiction. Actually, there's loads of SF with no space ships; Greg Egan's Quarantine, for example, and Permutation City. Charles Stross's Halting State and Rule 34. Etc.

 

[Dark Huntress]

But then you get stories like The Time Machine, which had no space ships but was quite clearly science fiction. Actually, there's loads of SF with no space ships; Greg Egan's Quarantine, for example, and Permutation City. Charles Stross's Halting State and Rule 34. Etc.

Good point. So I guess I'll stick with the first one:

Science fiction is based on facts even though the story may be unlikely. Fantasy, on the other hand, Is based on things scientifically impossible. I read that somewhere.

 

[Drakhov]

pretty much anything by Anne McCaffrey is practically indistinguishable from fantasy

Good point. So I guess I'll stick with the first one:

Science fiction is based on facts even though the story may be unlikely. Fantasy, on the other hand, Is based on things scientifically impossible. I read that somewhere.

Arthur C Clarke's Three Laws

1.When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2.The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3.Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

A British author, Robert Rankin, said ironically he wanted his stories to be classified as Far Fetched Fiction so he could have his own section in W H Smith's

 

[grahamguitarman]

I met Robert Rankin last year, I can well believe that he would say something like that - he's the most eccentric character possible LOL. He's also one of the lovliest people

 

[Anders Ämting]

I'm actually kinda contradictory on this issue, because on one hand I like my genres separate a clearly defined - it's an "either or" kind of deal for me and categories like "science fantasy" just muddles the issue unecessarily. But on the other hand I believe defining fantasy and sci-fi -at least the soft variety- is more complex then just looking at the stuff that goes into it. I think it has more to do with your general approach.

Here's an example: I'm a big Star Wars fan, and no matter what anyone else says, I consider Star Wars to be science fiction. Science fiction built on an obviously fantasy-flavored narrative, yes, but still science fiction. It's still about spaceships and planets and people firing rayguns at each other. There's the Force, but if you take a step back and think about it, the Force is just psychic powers that have a religion built around them, and the Jedi and Sith are basically just psychics with laser swords.

Now, the current Clone Wars CGI cartoon series is, at least in my opinion, very good. For the most part, they've done a very good job capturing the mood and style of Star Wars. But there was one storyline I really didn't like: The Mortis arc in season 3. The reason I didn't like it is because it kinda crosses the line and becomes actual fantasy. It takes place on a planet literally divided into a Dark and Light side, ruled by these demigod-like Force users who pull off blatantly magical feats like transforming into monsterous birds and stuff, and there is this enchanted sword-thingy that is the only thing that can kill them. Normally that never happens in Star Wars, you know? You never hear someone go: "This ancient lightsaber is the only weapon the can slay Darth Evilface!" I thought the whole storyline felt totally wrong, because I was now watching fantasy pretending to be science fiction, rather then science fiction pretending to be fantasy.

So, it's really a very fine line with me.

Science fiction is based on facts even though the story may be unlikely. Fantasy, on the other hand, Is based on things scientifically impossible. I read that somewhere.

Well, not quite. Sci-fi based only on things that are scientifically possible or plausible is usually called "hard" science fiction. Now, some people argue that hard sci-fi is the only real sci-fi, and that soft sci-fi isn't sci-fi at all. But I personally think that's taking it a bit far.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

Here's an example: I'm a big Star Wars fan, and no matter what anyone else says, I consider Star Wars to be science fiction.

"Space opera" is actually the term I've heard used (by literary types, e.g. my mother, who has likely read more SF books than everyone here combined).

 

[JCFarnham]

"Space opera" is actually the term I've heard used (by literary types, e.g. my mother, who has likely read more SF books than everyone here combined).

Quite right indeed! (and I should know I'm writing one )

 

[Anders Ämting]

"Space opera" is actually the term I've heard used (by literary types, e.g. my mother, who has likely read more SF books than everyone here combined).

Yes, but that's not too far from calling it science fantasy. People who use that term tend to be the same kind of people who consider hard science fiction the only "real" kind of science fiction. (No offense to Mrs Clayborne.)

Me, I'm okay with calling Star Wars space opera, but you'll have to offer considerable bribes before I aknowledge that space opera isn't science fiction.

 

[JCFarnham]

Yes, but that's not too far from calling it science fantasy. People who use that term tend to be the same kind of people who consider hard science fiction the only "real" kind of science fiction. (No offense to Mrs Clayborne.)

Me, I'm okay with calling Star Wars space opera, but you'll have to offer considerable bribes before I aknowledge that space opera isn't science fiction.

I've never considered it seperate from Science Fiction, but it's definitely a subset of it. Science Fantasy.. I'm not so sure about that term myself, but then I've never really noticed a significant number of works calling themselves that. Find me a number of books/show/other that could be considered science fantasy and not much else then I'm happy with that hehe.

Haha the title of the thread hits it on the head. "splitting hairs"

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

Yes, but that's not too far from calling it science fantasy. People who use that term tend to be the same kind of people who consider hard science fiction the only "real" kind of science fiction. (No offense to Mrs Clayborne.)

Me, I'm okay with calling Star Wars space opera, but you'll have to offer considerable bribes before I aknowledge that space opera isn't science fiction.

Wikipedia to the rescue once again ;-) :

Space opera is a subgenre of science fiction that emphasizes romantic, often melodramatic adventure, set mainly or entirely in outer space, generally involving conflict between opponents possessing advanced technologies and abilities. The term has no relation to music and it is analogous to "soap opera" (see below). Perhaps the most significant trait of space opera is that settings, characters, battles, powers, and themes tend to be very large-scale.

So, yes, space opera is definitely a subgenre of science fiction. (Don't worry, my mom likes space opera too. )

 

[Anders Ämting]

So, I'd say the conclusion here is that Star Wars definitely isn't fantasy at any rate.

At least not so long... *checks* ...Christian Taylor isn't the one writing it.

 

[Voldermort]

Perhaps you would care to give an example of books from very different genres which have similar approaches to structure, tone, characterisation, and so on to illustrate your argument?

All my points and arguments stand on their own.

I don't need to write PhD theses everytime.

 

[Voldermort]

Science fiction is based on facts even though the story may be unlikely. Fantasy, on the other hand, Is based on things scientifically impossible.

Reasonable. The boundary is the limitations of our knowledge.

 

[Chilari]

All my points and arguments stand on their own.

I don't need to write PhD theses everytime.

I'm not asking for a PhD thesis. I'm asking for you to logically justify your arguments. Evidently they do not stand up on their own and I for one cannot see how you have reached the conclusions you have reached. Stating opinion is fine, but doing so without explaining your reasoning behind that opinion is not conducive to discussion and debate.

 

[Voldermort]

I'm not asking for a PhD thesis. I'm asking for you to logically justify your arguments. Evidently they do not stand up on their own and I for one cannot see how you have reached the conclusions you have reached. Stating opinion is fine, but doing so without explaining your reasoning behind that opinion is not conducive to discussion and debate.

If you can't see the points being made without explanation, then you really shouldn't be a moderator.

 

[Kelise]

If you can't see the points being made without explanation, then you really shouldn't be a moderator.

I suggest that it would be in your best interests to apologise, Voldermort.

 

[sashamerideth]

I've got Voldie on my ignore list, but it seems he's successfully hijacked this thread.

I like my Science Fiction. For me Science Fiction is really more about exploring the human condition, our highs and lows, as a result of exposure to technology. How technology improves us, changes us, and makes us worse. It's more serious and more cerebral. In the same vein, Fantasy is more escapist, more fun.

Sure, there are notable exceptions and entirely different thoughts about both. For me though, that is what I get from each genre.

 

[grahamguitarman]

Science fiction is based on facts even though the story may be unlikely. Fantasy, on the other hand, Is based on things scientifically impossible. I read that somewhere.

I don't know who wrote that, but I disagree with them.

Faster than light travel is an impossibility according to the laws of physics. And wormholes are nothing more than an exotic theory proposed by people fustrated by the fact that travel beyond our solar system is an impossibility. In order for something to be a fact then it has to be proven beyond all doubt to be true, this discounts exotic theories. So any book describing anything further than interstellar travel is quite frankly a fantasy - no matter how much pseudo science you veneer it with.

Traditional fantasy deals with the supernatural, (elves and dwarves are traditionally supernatural beings) without any attempt at explanation, so is for many the opposite of science. Personally I have no problem with that, I'd like to see more fantastical and supernatural fantasy. But it is a fact that this kind of fantasy is too far removed from the underlying principles of sci-fi to be comparable to it. One of the biggest divides being the belief in the supernatural - scientists will give absolutely no credence to the supernatural at all. I live in a haunted house and have seen stuff that would baffle any scientist, but even though I take that as hard proof of the supernatural, it can never be classed as scientific proof.

But traditional supernatural fantasy apart, a lot of modern fantasy has evolved beyond that tradition. Many of the worlds/situations described in modern fantasy are no less scientifically explainable than many of the science fiction novels out there. Is there really that much difference between the strange creatures of fantasy and the strange creatures of sci-fi? Is an insect like alien with psionic powers any more realistic than an elf with mind reading magic? absolutely not!

Once a sci fi writer begins to speculate about the nature of life in other worlds they wander into the realms of fantasy.

Once a fantasy writer begins to worry about the physics and mechanics of magic they begin to wander into sci-fi territory.

So yes, the divide between Traditional fantasy and hard science fiction is huge. But the middle ground is so grey that the differences between soft sci-fi and modern fantasy is actually a lot more vague.

Personally I hate 'hard' science fiction because its so damn boring, Arthur C Clarke being one of the most terminally boring writers of all. but I do like a good soft sci-fi novel that 'invents' new species and amazing worlds. And I can see very little difference between the two Genres in this grey zone, other than the weapons and mode of transport (though to be honest some science fiction is more related to cowboy westerns than fantasy).