# Fantasy and Sci-Fi Cross Boundaries



## WogglebugLove Productions (Jul 31, 2015)

I love it when Sc-Fi and Fantasy can cross each other's boundaries sometimes in awesome and right ways.

Such as for stories of:

Beings from another world coming to ours, or humans entering portals to other worlds.

Time travelling.

Obtaining supernatural powers for good or for evil purposes from either sources.

Human and other creature hybrids.

Is there any I am missing?


----------



## A'elie (Aug 1, 2015)

Indeed. Sci-Fi and Fantasy do make nice bedfellows. I do occasionally enjoy a hard sci-fi tale but those stories are too scientific for my taste.


----------



## Reaver (Aug 1, 2015)

Let's not forget that science fiction is a sub-genre of fantasy.


----------



## stephenspower (Aug 1, 2015)

I like a little bit of sf in my fantasy, such as in the first Mark Lawrence book when they find the secret door into the enemy keep or the origin of McCaffrey's dragons in genetic engineering, but I think fantasy can muck up sf unless given a "scientific" basis. 

Yes, time travel is fantasy, but there's always a gesture as to how it could be pulled off (with the exception of Bruce Willis's line as Old Joe in _Looper_ (bleached to prevent spoilers): "I don't want to talk about time travel because if we start talking about it then we're going to be here all day talking about it, making diagrams with straws." Without that gesture, it disrupts the science and, thus, the reader's ability to suspend disbelief. 

That was one of the MANY MANY reasons the end of _Lost_ sucked so bad: the stupid golden fountain. While I'm figuring out that the oft-repeated numbers are actually the latitude and longitude coordinates of a place in the South Pacific where the plane could have gone down, they throw in the fountain of youth or some crap? Ugh. Yea, if you haven't seen the finale, let me spoil it for you and keep you from wasting your time.


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 2, 2015)

Reaver said:


> Let's not forget that science fiction is a sub-genre of fantasy.


Really? I've read Internet articles that assert not only that sci-fi and fantasy completely are divergent genres, but that they are completely opposed to each other on a philosophical level. I'm not saying this theory is The Right One, per se, but it made sense to me and even explained why I like Star Wars more than Star Trek.


----------



## Mythopoet (Aug 2, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> Really? I've read Internet articles that assert not only that sci-fi and fantasy completely are divergent genres, but that* they are completely opposed to each other on a philosophical level.* I'm not saying this theory is The Right One, per se, but it made sense to me and even explained why I like Star Wars more than Star Trek.



I think, in particular, that part that I put in bold is such a ridiculous conclusion I can't think where it could have come from. One merely has to take a look around at the SFF readership and how much overlap there is among the majority of SFF readers to see that this couldn't possibly be true.


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 2, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> I think, in particular, that part that I put in bold is such a ridiculous conclusion I can't think where it could have come from. One merely has to take a look around at the SFF readership and how much overlap there is among the majority of SFF readers to see that this couldn't possibly be true.


As I understand it, the idea is not that you can't enjoy both, but that the two genres have different focuses and opposite themes. To give a vastly oversimplified summation: sci-fi is about change and "progress" with a skeptical and materialistic bent, while fantasy is about restoring/preserving a Good established order and often involves Powers That Be or some form of spirituality. It's not about the setting, per se, but the the intent. 

By this metric, Avatar: The Last Airbender is indisputably fantasy: The protagonists seek to *restore balance* to the world- a common fantasy theme- and are fighting against an evil force that distupted the status quo. (Star Wars and Lord of the Rings also fit the bill, more or less.) However, The Legend of Korra took the series in a slightly more sci-fi direction by introducing challenges to the status quo. After season 1, the United Republic got a democratically elected, non-bender president. After season 2, the spirit portals were left open. After season 3 the New Air Nation left their seclusion and became earth-roaming peacekeepers. After season 4 the Earth Kingdom monarchy was ended. In a wholly fantasy-aligned series, so the reasoning goes, none of these changes would have happened or they would have been much less dramatic. In fact the United Republic would not have existed at all. Instead the world would have gone back to the way it was: four separate nations retaining their traditional governments. So here we have a slight genre shift even though the two series are set in the same world. Think of it as a sliding scale between two extremes.

Prototypical fantasy: "restore the balance"
Prototypical sci-fi: "go where no man has gone before"


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 2, 2015)

The interesting thing is that in this schema, genre is determined by ethos, not setting. So you could have a medieval sci-fi or a space fantasy. *cough*Star Wars*cough* This framework also explains why I tend to lean fantasy. Sci-fi's baked-in skepticism and materialism makes it harder for me to map my Christian values onto it.

Now I'm not saying this classification system is perfect, there will be outliers and anomalies. For example, I'm not sure where to put C.S. Lewis's Space Trilogy on this scale.


----------



## psychotick (Aug 2, 2015)

Hi Mindfire,

_"...and even explained why I like Star Wars more than Star Trek." _

For shame I say! For shame! I'm sending a squad of klingons to your door as we speak to explain the error of your ways!


As to sci fi and fantasy having different philosophical focus' - yes. Sci fi is speculative fiction. It comes at it's stories always from the perspective of "what if." It takes the possible no matter how unlikely as it's starting point and goes from there. Fantay has no such precept. Tolkein etc was never suggesting what if there were elves and orcs and magic rings. He just flat out put them in his world and moved from there.

And Woggle, yes there is one genre which si fi and fantasy both constantly seem to be intertwined in - steampunk.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 2, 2015)

psychotick said:


> Hi Mindfire,
> 
> _"...and even explained why I like Star Wars more than Star Trek." _
> 
> For shame I say! For shame! I'm sending a squad of klingons to your door as we speak to explain the error of your ways!



Ha! I see your squad of Klingons, and raise you a squad of Krogan. [emoji14]


----------



## Mythopoet (Aug 2, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> As I understand it, the idea is not that you can't enjoy both, but that the two genres have different focuses and opposite themes. To give a vastly oversimplified summation: sci-fi is about change and "progress" with a skeptical and materialistic bent, while fantasy is about restoring/preserving a Good established order and often involves Powers That Be or some form of spirituality. It's not about the setting, per se, but the the intent.



The problem with this metric though is that it is defining fantasy much, much too narrowly. There is a subset of fantasy stories that are about "restoring balance", but by no means all of them. I'm guessing this metric has primarily been proposed by sci fi authors, based on this mistaken idea of fantasy. 

And actually, the flaw in this metric makes Reaver's proposal, that sci fi is a sub genre of fantasy (an idea I've considered before but not come to a conclusion on) seem more plausible to me. Because fantasy is vast and wide and has almost no criteria except that it should include aspects that are not currently possible in this world. Sci fi likes to make a big deal of its scientific basis, but how much sci fi really abides entirely by established science or proposes entirely plausible scientific discoveries? A very small percentage. It seems more plausible to me that sci fi is really just the portion of fantasy that focuses on technological change and progress.


----------



## WogglebugLove Productions (Aug 2, 2015)

I agree with most of the points that have been brought up. It's true that fantasy (most of the time) is just set in a "just believe" while sci-fi (most of the time) is more focused on a "what if?" basis that has a thorough reasoning behind it. This was especially the differences from before. 

Nowadays, the gaps in the genres sometimes are able to overlap or connect through either electric sparks or magical star beams. The differences can be reconciled when two things that go in either genre can come together and have a profound reason for being so, and also are set in a state of "just believe" but in a more easier way by just looking at things.

This is why I love the fantasy that is out nowadays and why I love family-friendly sci-fi movies with fantasy based themes to them. Just examine E.T. as it is the best example among others.


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 2, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> I'm guessing this metric has primarily been proposed by sci fi authors, based on this mistaken idea of fantasy.



Well... you're not wrong. And most of them go on from this to conclude that sci-fi is the superior genre. A conclusion with which I disagree, strenuously.


----------



## Reaver (Aug 2, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> Prototypical fantasy: "restore the balance"
> Prototypical sci-fi: "go where no man has gone before"



I wonder... if this is definitive...where does this leave James Cameron's Avatar?


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 2, 2015)

Reaver said:


> I wonder... if this is definitive...where does this leave James Cameron's Avatar?


My guess? Fantasy in space, like Star Wars. But it's not a perfect classification system I admit.


----------



## Reaver (Aug 2, 2015)

I'm not disputing that you have valid points because you most certainly do. To be honest, my earlier post was what I learned from my English Lit 101 professor many years ago. I guess it stuck in my mind that sci-fi is a type of fantasy.

My class was debating the difference between sci-fi and fantasy. I argued that Dune is a science fantasy like Star Wars because of things like the Weirding Way and the Bene Gesserit Witches. Some in my class agreed, most didn't.

My wizened professor (he probably wasn't that old, but I'm using artistic license) was vehement that movies like Star Wars and Dune are either one or the other, not both.

I still disagree with that crotchety old bastard.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Aug 2, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> Ha! I see your squad of Klingons, and raise you a squad of Krogan. [emoji14]



I see your Krogan and raise you two daleks.


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 3, 2015)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> I see your Krogan and raise you two daleks.


I see your daleks and raise you a Geth Legion.


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 3, 2015)

Reaver said:


> I'm not disputing that you have valid points because you most certainly do. To be honest, my earlier post was what I learned from my English Lit 101 professor many years ago. I guess it stuck in my mind that sci-fi is a type of fantasy.
> 
> My class was debating the difference between sci-fi and fantasy. I argued that Dune is a science fantasy like Star Wars because of things like the Weirding Way and the Bene Gesserit Witches. Some in my class agreed, most didn't.
> 
> ...


I'd put Dune and Star Wars both firmly on the fantasy side of things. The Chosen One plot is a dead giveaway. Sci-fi doesn't really have Chosen Ones.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 3, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> I'd put Dune and Star Wars both firmly on the fantasy side of things. The Chosen One plot is a dead giveaway. Sci-fi doesn't really have Chosen Ones.


Neo...The Matrix.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Aug 3, 2015)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Neo...The Matrix.


What a crappy Chosen One he turned out to be. Trinity dies then everybody gets wiped out in the reset. What was the point of the whole trilogy?

Sci-Fi Chosen Ones _suck_.


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 3, 2015)

Legendary Sidekick said:


> What a crappy Chosen One he turned out to be. Trinity dies then everybody gets wiped out in the reset. What was the point of the whole trilogy?
> 
> Sci-Fi Chosen Ones _suck_.


Really? I thought he broke the cycle and the humans and machines coexistence peacefully afterwards? But to know for sure I'd have to watch the Matrix sequels and I'm not interested in that. 

The Matrix is an odd case though because it's sci-fi on paper, it's fantasy thematically, but it feels like neither of those. It's... weird. Like everything the Wachowskis do. Everything they touch turns to weird.


----------



## L M Rush (Aug 3, 2015)

I don't think I could voluntarily re-watch the sequels to the Matrix. Hell, they put me off so much I've not even re-watched the Matrix since those two were vomited out. I don't think it helped that the first movie was so awesome. Meh, maybe it's because I'm not naturally drawn to Sci-fi that I couldn't appreciate the sequels.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Aug 3, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> I see your daleks and raise you a Geth Legion.



And I will raise you:


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Aug 3, 2015)

@LM Rush, I'm the exact same way. The first was awesome, then the way the third ended ruined the whole trilogy for me including the first one.

I don't have a problem with a tragic ending, but there's a difference between a tragic end and one so tragic it renders the whole story meaningless.



Spoiler: endings of Cowboy Bebop, Akira, and Matrix III



In the anime world, two well-known tragic endings from the 90s are those of _Cowboy Bebop_ and _Akira_. _Cowboy Bebop_ was tragic, but I still felt like Spike accomplished something which is why he died with a smile on his face. Maybe more like a smirk.

In _Akira_, the main character and a couple friends lived, but I just didn't care. So they were spared by an overpowered demon who killed millions of people. I just wanted those two hours of my life back. It was a meaningless story to me… oh, how do they stop this seemingly unstoppable monstrosity? Oh, they don't. So I guess the monstrosity seemed unstoppable because it was. Huh.

Same with the _Matrix_. Neo stopped the suits. Yay! Trinity died! Nooooo! But not for nothing, right, movie? So what to do about the depressing world that creates humans and uses them as a power source? Oh. Nothing. So the world remains a metaphorical toilet. People dream in pink goo and are really a lot better off if no one wakes up and rebels and forces the system to kill everyone and replace them with a new batch of clones. Well, you could've told me that two movies ago. _Akira_ owes me two hours and _Matrix_ owes me six.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Aug 3, 2015)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> And I will raise you:


----------



## Reaver (Aug 3, 2015)

I win.


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 3, 2015)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> And I will raise you:



I see your deflector shields, and raise you *Marauder Shields*









...leading an unstoppable Reaper invasion backed by heartbreaking emotional music.







EDIT: Wait what did I get ninja'd by I don't even


----------



## Gryphos (Aug 3, 2015)

Mindfire said:
			
		

> I see your deflector shields, and raise you Marauder Shields



Ah yes, the true hero of Mass Effect. He died trying to save us from the shitty ending.


----------



## A'elie (Aug 3, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> The interesting thing is that in this schema, genre is determined by ethos, not setting. So you could have a medieval sci-fi or a space fantasy. *cough*Star Wars*cough* This framework also explains why I tend to lean fantasy. Sci-fi's baked-in skepticism and materialism makes it harder for me to map my Christian values onto it.
> 
> Now I'm not saying this classification system is perfect, there will be outliers and anomalies. For example, I'm not sure where to put C.S. Lewis's Space Trilogy on this scale.



Star Trek is a nice series but its materialistic and humanist propaganda annoys me.


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 3, 2015)

A'elie said:


> Star Trek is a nice series but its materialistic and humanist propaganda annoys me.


TRUTH. That's part of why I like the NuTrek films more than what came before. There's none of that, but they kept the space adventure. 

And since I've brought up Mass Effect, it's an interesting example. Because while it has all the trappings and feel of a sci-fi story, it's humanistic without any heavy-handed materialism. It even includes positive examples of spirituality (something that you either don't see or is outright mocked in most sci-fi), and I find it far more enjoyable than most sci-fi because of it.


----------



## A'elie (Aug 3, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> TRUTH. That's part of why I like the NuTrek films more than what came before. There's none of that, but they kept the space adventure.
> 
> And since I've brought up Mass Effect, it's an interesting example. Because while it has all the trappings and feel of a sci-fi story, it's humanistic without any heavy-handed materialism. It even includes positive examples of spirituality (something that you either don't see or is outright mocked in most sci-fi), and I find it far more enjoyable than most sci-fi because of it.



 The problem is a lot of writers don't want to have spirituality in the Sci-Fi because the genre is generally seen as a means to rail against Protestant America culture. A lot of sci-fi books in the 50s for example, hold science in high regard. After the 70s, science fiction became more cynical but it still believed strongly in scientism. 

ME is probably the result of a Science-Fiction that has being more influenced by SW than by the older styles of Sci-Fi. Making the two genres cross boundaries is very important, I think, in order to keep both genres interesting and give them the ability to talk about new ideas from different angles.

I don't why people say that Sci-Fi heroes have to suck(not really a right the word to use).


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Aug 3, 2015)

A'elie said:


> I don't why people say that Sci-Fi heroes have to suck(not really a right the word to use).


I have nothing against sci-fi heroes. Neo was used as an example of a sci-fi Chosen One, and he's awesome if you've only seen the first Matrix. If you've seen the whole trilogy, he's less awesome due to his epic failure—which isn't actually Neo's fault so much as he faced an enemy that was unaffected by his awesomeness.

It would be like if Frodo used the ring to become an invisible orc-slayer, not realizing that by using the fullness of the ring's power he allows the evil force behind the ring to use him as a vessel. This ultimately results in his own demise along with the annihilation of every other hobbit, every human, every elf, every dwarf, and every dues ex eagle in the world. This failure Frodo wouldn't make me think all fantasy heroes are bad… just that he's a lousy Chosen One for doing something that ultimately kills everyone he meant to save plus billions of total strangers.


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 3, 2015)

A'elie said:


> The problem is a lot of writers don't want to have spirituality in the Sci-Fi because the genre is generally seen as a means to rail against Protestant American culture. A lot of sci-fi books in the 50s for example, hold science in high regard. After the 70s, science fiction became more cynical but it still believed strongly in scientism.
> 
> ME is probably the result of a Science-Fiction that has being more influenced by SW than by the older styles of Sci-Fi. Making the two genres cross boundaries is very important, I think, in order to keep both genres interesting and give them the ability to talk about new ideas from different angles.
> 
> I don't why people say that Sci-Fi heroes have to suck(not really a right the word to use).



Good points. Incidentally, I think the themes of Mass Effect are also (intentionally or not) a giant middle finger to (virulent racist and uber-atheist) H.P. Lovecraft. "Not only can we beat Cthulhu, but we're gonna do it through the power of racial diversity and cooperation, dammit!"

As for sci-fi heroes, an interesting trend is that they're usually not as "special" as fantasy heroes are. Fantasy heroes are (stereo)typically extraordinary people of great power and destiny who only _appear_ to be average joes, whereas sci-fi heroes will _actually be_ average joes. Or, failing that, they'll be people made special through training, education, or technology that could just as easily have been attained by someone else rather than any inherent qualities or powers that only they can access. Only Luke can bring balance to the Force, but anybody can join Starfleet. Just don't become a redshirt.


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 3, 2015)

Legendary Sidekick said:


> I have nothing against sci-fi heroes. Neo was used as an example of a sci-fi Chosen One, and he's awesome if you've only seen the first Matrix. If you've seen the whole trilogy, he's less awesome due to his epic failure—which isn't actually Neo's fault so much as he faced an enemy that was unaffected by his awesomeness.
> 
> It would be like if Frodo used the ring to become an invisible orc-slayer, not realizing that by using the fullness of the ring's power he allows the evil force behind the ring to use him as a vessel. This ultimately results in his own demise along with the annihilation of every other hobbit, every human, every elf, every dwarf, and every dues ex eagle in the world. This failure Frodo wouldn't make me think all fantasy heroes are bad… just that he's a lousy Chosen One for doing something that ultimately kills everyone he meant to save plus billions of total strangers.



Still gnawing away at that bone, are we? xD


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Aug 3, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> As for sci-fi heroes, an interesting trend is that they're usually not as "special" as fantasy heroes are. Fantasy heroes are (stereo)typically extraordinary people of great power and destiny who only _appear_ to be average joes, whereas sci-fi heroes will _actually be_ average joes. Or, failing that, they'll be people made special through training, education, or technology that could just as easily have been attained by someone else rather than any inherent qualities or powers that only they can access.


Interesting… and also odd that I never thought of this considering that, in my WIP, I'm sort of poking fun at the cliche that fantasy heroes are so much more extraordinary than 99+% of the population.

I loved Ripley in _Aliens_, and who was she? An ordinary woman suffering from PTSD (they didn't call it that because 80s) due to her past encounter with the aliens. She didn't want to go back but stay at the space station and try to pay her debt leading an ordinary life, and when she did decide to go, she didn't expect to be in the fray with space marines. A very ordinary character, and a relatable one. I believe you're right that this is typical of a sci-fi hero.

(But by this definition, Neo is a _fantasy_ hero… sort of.)


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Aug 3, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> Still gnawing away at that bone, are we? xD


I was called out on saying sci-fi heroes suck. I just needed to clarify my comment was aimed at Neo's chosen-one-ness, not all heroes from an entire genre.

I think my comments on Ripley do a better job of that, since I am clearly under the opinion that Ripley rocks.

EDIT - Also, that Frodo analogy is pretty accurate. I was going to have him become a Peeping Tom with the ring, then I thought, "no… Neo didn't do anything stupid. He just used his powers as any butt-kicking hero would've if in his position." I would totally be a cheap invisible killer if I were Frodo. And boy would I have made a crappy Chosen One in Middle Earth!

EDIT 2 - Oh, uh………… spoiler alert?


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 3, 2015)

Legendary Sidekick said:


> I loved Ripley in _Aliens_, and who was she? An ordinary woman suffering from PTSD (they didn't call it that because 80s) due to her past encounter with the aliens. She didn't want to go back but stay at the space station and try to pay her debt leading an ordinary life, and when she did decide to go, she didn't expect to be in the fray with space marines. A very ordinary character, and a relatable one. I believe you're right that this is typical of a sci-fi hero.


Sarah Connor, Alex Murphy, and Katniss Everdeen also fit this pattern, along with many others. In fact, Katniss is _the_ preeminent modern incarnation of this type of hero. There's nothing particularly special about her, she has strong emotional reactions to trauma and loss, and yet by chance she's become the super-important figurehead of a rebellion and is trying to do the best she can. A fantasy-style Chosen One would've taken it all in stride, stormed the gates of the Capitol with a small squad of elite sidekicks, and shot President Snow in the face by now.



Legendary Sidekick said:


> (But by this definition, Neo is a _fantasy_ hero… sort of.)


Yeah... Like I said, Neo is weird. Just like everything the Wachowskis do.



Legendary Sidekick said:


> I was called out on saying sci-fi heroes suck. I just needed to clarify my comment was aimed at Neo's chosen-one-ness, not all heroes from an entire genre.


I just think it's funny that the end of the Matrix Trilogy made you hate Neo so much. xD


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 3, 2015)

Oh, and going back to Mass Effect, this means that Commander Shepard straddles the line between fantasy and sci-fi hero. Shepard doesn't have any particularly extraordinary powers in the context of his/her universe. There are plenty of other biotics, soldiers, and techies, and the specialists on Shepard's squad are more often than not better than Shepard is at their chosen fields. But the game still portrays Shepard as exceptional and Shepard's feats as things that only Shepard could have done. Though in this case the inherent traits Shepard possesses are ingenuity, leadership, inspirational ability, and determination rather than magic or destiny. Just about anybody in the wrong place at the right time could have done what Katniss has done, but only Shepard could be Shepard.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Aug 3, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> I just think it's funny that the end of the Matrix Trilogy made you hate Neo so much. xD


I don't hate him. It's just that, y'know, he got everybody in the world killed by being so awesome the whole system needed to be reset. If he had just taken the blue pill, the rebellion would've quietly died off and everyone else would go on living a comfortable lie. I'm just saying that Chosen Ones aren't supposed to get everybody killed. He's just not a good Chosen One.

If Neo had a resume, he'd probably put "Chosen One" on his resume and—like a CEO who ran a company into bankruptcy—he'd hope the interviewer would just base his salary and position on his impressive title and not ask him to specify his accomplishments. It would be hard for him not to get defensive when pressed. "My greatest weakness, huh? Mine's that system reset itself because it was the only way to beat me! Is that really a weakness? Being too strong? That's like turning off your Nintendo when you're up against Mike Tyson and declaring victory. My greatest weakness. Pfft. There is no weakness."


----------



## Mythopoet (Aug 3, 2015)

I don't remember Neo getting everyone killed. I thought he made a deal with the machines. Zion is saved and after the Matrix is rebooted all the humans will be given a choice of whether to leave or stay. Neo achieved peace for a time at least.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Aug 3, 2015)

Oh… so either I misunderstood or forgot. For some reason, the victory felt empty to me when I watched it. But I only watched it once, whenever it was in theaters.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 3, 2015)

Legendary Sidekick said:


> Oh... so either I misunderstood or forgot. For some reason, the victory felt empty to me when I watched it. But I only watched it once, whenever it was in theaters.


Don't be hard on yourself. It's difficult to pay attention or even care during #2 & #3.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Aug 3, 2015)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> or even care


Ah… so ^THAT'S what threw me.


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 3, 2015)

So here's a straight-up inversion of the genre trends we've identified thus far, two Nickelodeon cartoons. Timmy Turner of the fantastical _Fairly Oddparents_ is just some shmuck with no special qualities or discernible talents of any kind who just happened to get fairy godparents, and it's made clear that he isn't even unique in that regard. Meanwhile on _The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron_, which is clearly meant to be sci-fi, the eponymous protagonist's loosely defined "genius" is portrayed as an inherent special quality, a superpower that endows him with plot-convenient knowledge, rather than a result of education, study, or even real problem solving skills.

The obvious caveat being, of course, that the "science" on display in _The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron_ is even more dubious than the of science of _Doctor Who_, so it might as well be magic. Yet, the show pays lip service at least to skepticism and materialism.


----------



## Mythopoet (Aug 4, 2015)

Guys, it's only a subset of fantasy that uses a "Chosen One". I could rattle off a long list of fantasy masterpieces that doesn't. "Chosen Ones" are NOT synonymous with fantasy.


----------



## Russ (Aug 4, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> The obvious caveat being, of course, that the "science" on display in _The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron_ is even more dubious than the of science of _Doctor Who_, so it might as well be magic. Yet, the show pays lip service at least to skepticism and materialism.



There remains a qualitative difference between at least suggesting that an effect is produced by technology based on science, and an effect is based on magic, even if the science is as "soft" as possible  (ie Asimov's foundation).  It is simply a different mindset behind the two.  They can get pretty close at the extremes in terms of function, but at the core there is a importnat philosophical difference.

My friend Robert Sawyer made these brief comments on this issue (and longer ones elsewhere) and if you ever get a chance to chat with him (he is very approachable) can expand on this quite convincingly:

Robert J. Sawyer

Here are also some comments on the subject he made that might be of interest to people here:



> I'm doing only science fiction. I think science fiction has lost too much ground in publishing to fantasy. And even in the awards. You know, they just gave out the Hugo Award for this year, and it went to a fantasy novel. They gave out the Hugo Award last year, and it went to a fantasy novel. It may only mean something to me in my mind, but I'm the most recent winner of a Hugo Award for best novel for science fiction, because it's been three years now since it went to a science fiction novel. And we're just losing any distinction. Science fiction doesn't have an award for itself anymore, there's no publisher that just does science fiction, and for most of the publishers that do both science fiction and fantasy, the tail is wagging the dog.
> Fantasy has become the big part of it. At Tor, Tor lives on the proceeds of Robert Jordan and Terry Goodkind, and everything they do in science fiction is funded by the great success of their huge fantasy superstars




I also think that modern fantasy looks more like science fiction because of a) science literacy is increasing and b) the influence of RPGs.

People who read alot and who are well educated tend to accept a great deal of science and learn to think in those rational, materialist ways, so fantasy readers are more comfortable with "magic systems" that have rules and approaches that sound a lot like science.  Rockfuss is a great example of this.  I think this drive towards "systems" also partially orginates with RPGs that obviously have a need for reproducible and quanifiable magic that conforms to "rules."

The modern mind is more likely to enjoy and accept "hard" rules based magic, than unrestrained eldritch wizardry.  

Whether this is good or bad I leave to others to figure out.


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 4, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> Guys, it's only a subset of fantasy that uses a "Chosen One". I could rattle off a long list of fantasy masterpieces that doesn't. "Chosen Ones" are NOT synonymous with fantasy.



We were discussing trends and what is widely considered typical of the genre. That doesn't mean all fantasy or sci-fi works use the exact same model.


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 4, 2015)

Russ said:


> I also think that modern fantasy looks more like science fiction because of a) science literacy is increasing and b) the influence of RPGs.
> 
> People who read alot and who are well educated tend to accept a great deal of science and learn to think in those rational, materialist ways, so fantasy readers are more comfortable with "magic systems" that have rules and approaches that sound a lot like science.  Rockfuss is a great example of this.  I think this drive towards "systems" also partially orginates with RPGs that obviously have a need for reproducible and quanifiable magic that conforms to "rules."
> 
> ...



I think you're overstating the effect of scientific literacy, which is typically middling in the US, and understating the effect of RPGs. As I see it, the move toward magic "systems" with clear methods and reproducible results was driven almost entirely by the advent of RPGs*, Dungeons and Dragons being the preeminent example, and RPGs developed in this way because the games needed rules in order to work. Almost by definition, non-systematic magic can't really be simulated in a game setting. Even if you tried the players would likely wind up frustrated and confused. Authors were no doubt either directly influenced by this system or absorbed it through cultural osmosis. Although it is interesting to note that this rise of system-based magic happened around the time that sci-fi was in vogue and overshadowed its estranged sister genre.

It's also interesting to note that the trend seems to be reversing. Sci-Fi's main representatives in pop culture are now superheroes, space opera, and YA dystopia. "Serious" sci-fi has fallen out of favor while fantasy has gained mainstream status. And along with this has come the return of non-systemized magic. Game of Thrones, for example, with its red priestesses and ice zombies, has brought "eldritch" magic back to the fore. Avatar: The Last Airbender and its sequel have supernatural martial arts, more spiritual than systematic, and even outright spirit magic. James Cameron's Avatar has some kind of shamanism. Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit were brought back into the public consciousness through film adaptations. But really I'd say this change in popular taste began with Harry Potter, whose magic has the appearance of rules, but is never really explained at all in any detail. 


*Not to say that RPGs _invented_ systemized magic. As I understand it, they adopted it from the works of Jack Vance, whose approach to magic was pretty unique at the time because everyone else was doing the more mysterious variety of magic.


----------



## Russ (Aug 4, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> I think you're overstating the effect of scientific literacy, which is typically middling in the US, and understating the effect of RPGs. As I see it, the move toward magic "systems" with clear methods and reproducible results was driven almost entirely by the advent of RPGs*, Dungeons and Dragons being the preeminent example, and RPGs developed in this way because the games needed rules in order to work. Almost by definition, non-systematic magic can't really be simulated in a game setting. Even if you tried the players would likely wind up frustrated and confused. Authors were no doubt either directly influenced by this system or absorbed it through cultural osmosis. Although it is interesting to note that this rise of system-based magic happened around the time that sci-fi was in vogue and overshadowed its estranged sister genre.
> 
> It's also interesting to note that the trend seems to be reversing. Sci-Fi's main representatives in pop culture are now superheroes, space opera, and YA dystopia. "Serious" sci-fi has fallen out of favor while fantasy has gained mainstream status. And along with this has come the return of non-systemized magic. Game of Thrones, for example, with its red priestesses and ice zombies, has brought "eldritch" magic back to the fore. Avatar: The Last Airbender and its sequel have supernatural martial arts, more spiritual than systematic, and even outright spirit magic. James Cameron's Avatar has some kind of shamanism. Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit were brought back into the public consciousness through film adaptations. But really I'd say this change in popular taste began with Harry Potter, whose magic has the appearance of rules, but is never really explained at all in any detail.
> 
> ...



I agree with you to a significant degree but on at least one level we might well be talking about different things.

I think the Spec Fic reader tends to be well educated and more accepting of a mechanistic world view than the general US public.  However it is very hard, if not impossible to determine what role RPG's play versus scientific literacy and the rational approach to problems.  We are both kind of speculating once you hit that level.

I was speaking of fantasy and sci fi in their written from only.  I don't think "hard" SF has ever made it over to the pop culture in the sense of movies etc since Star Trek and Planet of the Apes, and a few other notable exceptions.  If there was success for "hard" SF in pop culture it was a very brief flourishing.  In movies etc, there is no time or real need for "systems" for magic and don't think it has ever flourished there.  I certainly don't recall Gandolf being constrained by a perceptable "system" per se.

Personally I am not sure where superheroes fit within the whole structure.  They used to be ghettoized in comic books but with their break out to the big screen I think their place in how we think about spec fic calls for a rethinking.


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 4, 2015)

Russ said:


> I agree with you to a significant degree but on at least one level we might well be talking about different things.
> 
> I think the Spec Fic reader tends to be well educated and more accepting of a mechanistic world view than the general US public.  However it is very hard, if not impossible to determine what role RPG's play versus scientific literacy and the rational approach to problems.  We are both kind of speculating once you hit that level.
> 
> I was speaking of fantasy and sci fi in their written from only.  I don't think "hard" SF has ever made it over to the pop culture in the sense of movies etc since Star Trek and Planet of the Apes, and a few other notable exceptions.  If there was success for "hard" SF in pop culture it was a very brief flourishing.  In movies etc, there is no time or real need for "systems" for magic and don't think it has ever flourished there.  I certainly don't recall Gandolf being constrained by a perceptable "system" per se.


While you do have a point, I think you're not giving Star Trek quite enough credit. It was hugely popular for a pretty lengthy period and was very influential. And there were lots of other sci-fi shows out at around the same time, though they're more obscure now. As for written fiction, I think the trend there mirrors the trend in films and TV. Or maybe it's the other way around. Either way, I think pop culture at large is a good barometer of the trends in written fiction, in part because of adaptations and such. Sci-Fi's biggest sellers in the written world are YA dystopia, like the Hunger Games, as is the case in film. Likewise Harry Potter dominated the 90s and early 2000s in terms of book sales, and A Song of Ice and Fire is popular now.



Russ said:


> Personally I am not sure where superheroes fit within the whole structure.  They used to be ghettoized in comic books but with their break out to the big screen I think their place in how we think about spec fic calls for a rethinking.


Superheroes are a curious case. If I had to classify them, I'd say they represent as close to a perfect fusion of fantasy and sci-fi as you're ever likely to get, since they borrow liberally from the aesthetics and philosophies of both sides. Individual stories and creators will often lean to one side or the other, but the milieu as a whole seems to straddle the fence. In terms of approach to characters, DC historically takes a more fantasy-aligned approach with its larger-than-life heroes (and I think it's at its best when it does this), while Marvel is closer to the sci-fi side of things and portrays its characters as decidedly less mythical. Consider the huge tonal difference between the trailer for Batman v. Superman (God versus man! Day versus night! Homerian drama!) and the more down-to-earth trailer for Ant-Man, for instance.


----------



## arbiter117 (Aug 4, 2015)

Everybody loves the crossed genres. Just think of the most popular fantasy universes: Warcraft, a universe that had a humble beginning as orcs crossing through a portal from their world to the human world, now it has active planet hopping, steampunk tech and swords and sorcery. Similar stuff found in DnD, Elder Scrolls etc...

Sci fis that restore balance or about good vs evil? Star Wars is the prime example. Microsoft's Halo could also be considered this: evil aliens, good humans (its evolved to be more 3dimensional in recent years).

Fantasies that overthrow the established order? How about The Hobbit? Smaug is an established order. Smaug overthrew the previous established order, and all for the love of gold! Hobbits not adventuring is an established order.

Sci Fi and Fantasy are essentially the same, just put in different clothes and spun in circles a few times

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Russ (Aug 4, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> While you do have a point, I think you're not giving Star Trek quite enough credit. It was hugely popular for a pretty lengthy period and was very influential. And there were lots of other sci-fi shows out at around the same time, though they're more obscure now. As for written fiction, I think the trend there mirrors the trend in films and TV. Or maybe it's the other way around. Either way, I think pop culture at large is a good barometer of the trends in written fiction, in part because of adaptations and such. Sci-Fi's biggest sellers in the written world are YA dystopia, like the Hunger Games, as is the case in film. Likewise Harry Potter dominated the 90s and early 2000s in terms of book sales, and A Song of Ice and Fire is popular now.



 I have a deep abiding love for Star Trek, having grown up with it, but I would not really call it "hard" SF.  There were all sorts of things going on that they did not even attempt to explain with science or was any extrapolation of real science.  It was much more a series of morality tales with a lot of scientific window dressing added on.  And TOS lasted what, three seasons?   

Interestingly someone up thread suggested that Star Trek was preaching materialism too hard.  I thought that TOS was actually fairly Christian and American for an SF show.


----------



## Russ (Aug 4, 2015)

arbiter117 said:


> Everybody loves the crossed genres. Just think of the most popular fantasy universes: Warcraft, a universe that had a humble beginning as orcs crossing through a portal from their world to the human world, now it has active planet hopping, steampunk tech and swords and sorcery. Similar stuff found in DnD, Elder Scrolls etc...
> 
> Sci fis that restore balance or about good vs evil? Star Wars is the prime example. Microsoft's Halo could also be considered this: evil aliens, good humans (its evolved to be more 3dimensional in recent years).
> 
> ...



Interesting perspective.  

Many scholars suggest that all of Tolkien's works are very much about supporting "the established order", both literally and figuratively.  In fact one of the most controversial essays in the field of all time argues this point and has a great deal of traction.

I think there are fundamental differences between Sci Fi and Fantasy.  I think Sci Fi is about extrapolating from what we know can be done through scientific or materialistic means.  To be a Fantasy tale I think the tale must go beyond the scientific or materialistic in its approach, or at least "not care" if their features can be reasonably be extrapolated from known science.


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 4, 2015)

Russ said:


> I have a deep abiding love for Star Trek, having grown up with it, but I would not really call it "hard" SF.  There were all sorts of things going on that they did not even attempt to explain with science or was any extrapolation of real science.  It was much more a series of morality tales with a lot of scientific window dressing added on.  And TOS lasted what, three seasons?
> 
> Interestingly someone up thread suggested that Star Trek was preaching materialism too hard.  I thought that TOS was actually fairly Christian and American for an SF show.



I think there was some materialism in Star Trek, but there was much more humanism. I haven't seen anything particularly Christian in it, or at least nothing comes to mind.


----------



## Russ (Aug 4, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> I think there was some materialism in Star Trek, but there was much more humanism. I haven't seen anything particularly Christian in it, or at least nothing comes to mind.



How about in that episode where the world is Roman and Uhuru talks about how the rebels talk about Sun worship being really the "Son of God"?

Or in the episode with the greek gods (who mourns for Adonis?) where Kirk says  "Man has no need for gods. *We find the one quite sufficient*"?

Yup, I am a TOS geek of the worst order ;-)


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 4, 2015)

Russ said:


> How about in that episode where the world is Roman and Uhuru talks about how the rebels talk about Sun worship being really the "Son of God"?
> 
> Or in the episode with the greek gods (who mourns for Adonis?) where Kirk says  "Man has no need for gods. *We find the one quite sufficient*"?
> 
> Yup, I am a TOS geek of the worst order ;-)



 Huh. Those completely evaded my notice. 

You didn't give an opinion RE: superheroes however.


----------



## Russ (Aug 4, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> Huh. Those completely evaded my notice.
> 
> You didn't give an opinion RE: superheroes however.



I am still pondering the superheroes issue.  They may well be indeed the perfect fusion as you suggest.  I am caught between three possibilities each of which  I think has merit.  They could be the perfect fusion.  They could be a "genre" of their own and not fall into either camp, or it might be more fruitful to look at each comic, or series and then decide where they fall.  For instance Punisher, or other "superheroes" that basically have no special abilities or no "advanced science" may be part of the thriller genre rather than Spec Fic.  While say "Magnus Robot Fighter" might well be hard SF, or close to it, while say "Dr. Strange" is clearly Fantasy.


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 4, 2015)

Russ said:


> I am still pondering the superheroes issue.  They may well be indeed the perfect fusion as you suggest.  I am caught between three possibilities each of which  I think has merit.  They could be the perfect fusion.  They could be a "genre" of their own and not fall into either camp, or it might be more fruitful to look at each comic, or series and then decide where they fall.  For instance Punisher, or other "superheroes" that basically have no special abilities or no "advanced science" may be part of the thriller genre rather than Spec Fic.  While say "Magnus Robot Fighter" might well be hard SF, or close to it, while say "Dr. Strange" is clearly Fantasy.



Good points. My fusion idea was directed at the superhero story on the macro-level. On the micro-level it's clear that many of them take inspiration from outside the fantasy/sci-fi dichotomy. Batman was originally modeled on pulp detectives and heroes like the Shadow after all. And while elements of fantasy and sci-fi were present in the early stories, they didn't really become prominent until later, starting in the Silver Age I'd say.


----------



## Mizore (Oct 31, 2015)

There are two fields in literature: fiction and nonfiction. Nonfiction is about what happened or about general statements of reality. The fiction is divided into what did not happen but could happen, as James Bond, for example, and what did not happen and it seems that it could not happen, that is fantasy. If fantasy is based on real scientific knowledge, then it is science-fiction. If not, it's just fantasy. So science-fiction is part of the fantasy.


----------

