# Splitting hairs, science fiction vs fantasy.



## sashamerideth (Jan 31, 2012)

I have been reading he Perm series, getting a lot of ideas and enjoying the writing. I wassirprised to find what I considered to be fantasy, classed as science fiction. Maybe her later books become more science fiction-y, haven't hit them yet.

Seems to me that the line between soft fantasy and soft science fiction is a bit fuzzy. My main current work that I consider to be fantasy may well be classed as science fiction by other people. I am fine with this. I also think by some of the rules for defining genre, Flank Hawk crosses those borders as well.

How do you draw the line between the two?

Sent from my NOVO7PALADIN using Forum Runner


----------



## grahamguitarman (Jan 31, 2012)

I've read pretty much all the Pern novels and it does become more sci-fi further into the series as they discover the original mothership that brought their ancestors to Pern.  I agree though that especailly in the first seven or so novels it was much more fantasy than sci fi!  

Other examples that come to mind are the Flight of the Jerle Shannarra, which is full of overt sci-fi as well as fantasy, and it works just fine (unlike Sword of Shannarra it isn't just a rippoff either)  and a lot of moorcocks end of time stories ect.

So yes the dividing line between fantasy and sci-fi can be very thin indeed, and very fuzzy.

Its wierd really, I was approached to publish my short story Tenara, and the editor asked me to make it less sci-fi!  I hadn't considered it to be sci-fi related at all, but when he pointed out what he meant I could see his point.  I alterd the story a little to make it less sciency without destroying the story, but to be honest, for myself it wasn't such a big deal.  I'm quite happy to wander into Soft sci-fi if its makes for an interesting story, its just a matter of how you do it so it doesn't jar.


----------



## JCFarnham (Jan 31, 2012)

In my perfect world, you don't. 

Pern particularly is a famous example of this blurred line. A full on fantasy (the way the story sounds, works, feels... no doubt about that), in a science fiction setting (the _history_ of the setting).

I'm fond of the term Speculative Fiction for this very reason. 

It is far less divisive than that of the seperate genre labels, but still includes everything one might want to find in a book. There _shouldn't_ be anything to say that you can't play a fantasy setting like a "future after the apocalypse" world (again we're talking about Terry's work here  haha). 

In the real, "splitting hairs" world however... Nuts, Bolts, Science = Science Fiction. Magical, Often historically set (but not always), swords, etc = Fantasy. Generalisations I know. I've also heard the adage "Fantasy does the exact same thing as Science Fiction, but replaces science with magic, and aliens with elves."


----------



## grahamguitarman (Jan 31, 2012)

I like that term 'Speculative Fiction'   comes across soo much more relaxed about boundaries / acceptable concepts!

I think I'm going to start describing my work as Speculative Fiction now


----------



## JCFarnham (Jan 31, 2012)

Some people will always disagree with others about genre.

There was a person in a similar discussion some where else who was adament that if it wasn't a classical homer-esque genre then it had no merit being called one and in fact what we call genre is merely setting and nothing more. It's an intriguing view at the very least. 

What I'm trying to say is that, like language, genre's change, get new names, become something else entirely, etc. What was once speculative fiction, became increasingly labeled fantasy, then split to include science fiction _and_ fantasy (don't quote me on that progression, I'm sure I read it somewhere but have forgotten the exact citation). 

I just think speculative fiction is a far neater term anyway. Then only problem is that Joe Public doesn't really understand the term and is far more comfortable seeing Sf & F on shelfs. In private (and probably in print eventually) I will call myself a Speculative Fiction writer but if I'm labeled Science Fiction or Fantasy or both or neither, I won't mind too much.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jan 31, 2012)

"Speculative fiction" covers more than SF and fantasy, though. Wikipedia already says it well:



> *Speculative fiction* is an umbrella term encompassing the more fantastical fiction genres, specifically science fiction, fantasy, horror, supernatural fiction, superhero fiction, utopian and dystopian fiction, apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, and alternate history in literature as well as related static, motion, and virtual arts.



It's a more formal distinction that is probably lost on (and irrelevant to) most people anyway, but spec fic isn't really a synonym for SF&F.


----------



## JCFarnham (Jan 31, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> "Speculative fiction" covers more than SF and fantasy, though. Wikipedia already says it well:
> 
> It's a more formal distinction that is probably lost on (and irrelevant to) most people anyway, but spec fic isn't really a synonym for SF&F.



You're right it does encompass more, but in a world that seems to thrive on the clear deliniation of creativity into genres, I fear that some (not all, oh no, I would never suggest that  ) writers seems trapped be definitions. As I said: "In my perfect world..."

What I'm try to do by describing my writing as Spec Fic is saying that "I don't mind what _you_ wish to call my writing, I only wish for you to try the story first and make your _own_ decisions without imposing any prejudices upon you." 

I always talk about the merits of experimentation and this topic can probably be added to the list, but this isn't me being a dreamer, despite what people think. For example, while I've never writen a "true" piece of experimental fiction, I refuse to limit myself because something is _unrealistic_. The same can be said for my use of speculative fiction. I merely want to free people of preconceptions. 

Whether people do leave these at the door or not, I don't mind. People reading my fiction is good enough. As I said, if I have to be labeled as Science Fiction or Fantasy or both or neither thats cool.

^_^


----------



## Telcontar (Jan 31, 2012)

I was never much one for having to define genre too tightly. There is a reason those two are usually grouped together: Sci-Fi/Fantasy - they represent much the same elements until you get into hard (heavily supported) Science Fiction. 

I began with the intent of saying a simple summary of "Magic = Fantasy and Science = Sci Fi" but of course that doesn't work very well when you think about it. Magic and Science can coexist in some worlds. In others the magic _is_ the science. In some fantasy (For instance my novella, The Swordsman of Carn Nebeth  ) there is no overt magic but there is still a fantasy feel.

I suppose that's what it all comes down to: the feel. Most people probably lump anything that 'feels' futuristic into Sci Fi, such as Star Wars (even though it's supposedly a long time ago...) and vice versa for fantasy. Really, I'd say that they are more or less indistinguishable without long, complicated explanations, and those don't interest me. 

There is one exception: Hard Science Fiction, being grounded in current and projected (or expected) scientific knowledge should not be grouped together with either fantasy or soft sci fi. The _feel_ is far too different.


----------



## Chilari (Jan 31, 2012)

It seems to me that fantasy and sci fi, as they were first conceieved, were very different - compare Lord of the Rings, on the fantasy side of things, to Star Trek on the other (yes I know Star Trek isn't the earliest science fiction ever, but I'm using it as an example because it's well known and I can't think of a better one off the top of my head). There are very different focuses when it comes to setting, structure and approach. But as time has passed, people who like both have drawn elements from each (and from other genres) when writing their own works. Now, while certain aesthetic factors, some archetypes and some approaches are still considered one side of the fence or the other, a lot now sits firmly on top of the fence. It's like a spectrum, with extremes at both ends but an increasingly busy middle section.

Interestingly, there's a parallel with archaeology and ancient history, where most academic works now use both written and archaeological evidence in fairly equal measure to draw conclusions about the ancient past; academically speaking, I consider myself the ancient history side of the line, because I dislike digging, but equally use excavation reports and ancient written sources. The problem with that is that there's no phrase like "speculative fiction" which can be considered to draw both together more seamlessly. Then again, the term "speculative fiction" always seemed more like an umbrella term than a boundary one.


----------



## JCFarnham (Jan 31, 2012)

On the contrary I remember reading that everything alternative was called either speculative or fantasy, until verne and the like started creating things that weren't magic so much as speculation based on thought of science-at-the-time.

Honestly, I've never looked that far into the sources for that thought. It's just one of those bits of knowledge you hear somewhere and acrue liiiiiiike, whats the best part of the sleep cycle, or Henry ford quotes


----------



## Voldermort (Jan 31, 2012)

Same thing.

In fantasy, you'll have an evil wizard waving a wand.

In scifi you'll have an evil scientist waving a raygun.

We can't understand magic but we can understand science.

Somebody once said that science so far ahead seems like magic.


----------



## Devor (Jan 31, 2012)

Voldermort said:


> Same thing.
> 
> In fantasy, you'll have an evil wizard waving a wand.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure most of us understand science.


----------



## Voldermort (Jan 31, 2012)

Devor said:


> I'm not sure most of us understand science.



Well, how about this: some degree of rationality. 

If Spock transports to a planet, we see how that it rationally possible, almost. From a scifi POV. How it may be literally possible in a few hundred years.

If Voldermort disappears in a puff of smoke to another planet, that seems like fantasy.

But really, it's the same thing.

The border between the two is simply the limitations of our knowledge.


----------



## Chilari (Feb 1, 2012)

Voldermort said:


> Somebody once said that science so far ahead seems like magic.



Arthur C Clarke: "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - is that what you meant? And while on the face of it, yes, but as far as applies to science fiction and fantasy fiction, aside from the mid in the middle of the spectrum, there is more different to them than whether they use science or magic to explain things which are impossible in the real world at the time of writing. They have different approaches, different archetypes, different accepted styles of writing and structures and plot types. They'll both speculative fiction, but they're not identical. You might as well claim that there should be no genres at all, because all stories ever written have the same elements. But you'd be missing the point. For a start, genres are a way of categorising types of story, setting, and approach to enable readers to better judge what they might like based on what they have enjoyed reading previously, and for writers with a similar experience in reading and similar approaches and requirements in writing to know who to ask about particular issues - crime writers, for example, don't need to worry too much about worldbuilding when they're setting their stories in modern day New York or whatever. The differences between genres are more than superficial.

There is a distinction, and it's more than just terminology.


----------



## Neurosis (Feb 1, 2012)

I've heard the term "Science-fantasy" used for this.

For me the difference between sci-fi and fantasy is arbitrary. Its all on a continuous spectrum of speculative fiction.

If I had to differentiate: fantasy is "what could never be" and sci-fi is "what might be". But such definitions are impossible, since it infers we know everything that could, and could not be. Any fiction that explores that idea, is what I call Speculative Fiction.


----------



## myrddin173 (Feb 1, 2012)

Chilari said:
			
		

> Arthur C Clarke: "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - is that what you meant?



Don't forget Niven's Corollary "Any magic sufficiently described is indistinguishable from science.". Take Allomancy from the Mistborn series, it's almost a science despite being "magic." 

As for the difference between science fiction and fantasy has to do with whether or not it could conceivably happen in our universe.  Of course it's good to keep in mind genres are just labels used by people to market things.  Not everything is going to fit perfectly in one of those labels (then they get the label "interstitial").


----------



## myrddin173 (Feb 1, 2012)

Neurosis said:
			
		

> I've heard the term "Science-fantasy" used for this.
> 
> For me the difference between sci-fi and fantasy is arbitrary. Its all on a continuous spectrum of speculative fiction.
> 
> If I had to differentiate: fantasy is "what could never be" and sci-fi is "what might be".



I don't think science-fantasy is a combination of sci-fi and fantasy, it's a sub-genre of fantasy that has science in it.  Not very common but it exists.  I agree with those definitions.


----------



## sashamerideth (Feb 1, 2012)

myrddin173 said:


> Don't forget Niven's Corollary "Any magic sufficiently described is indistinguishable from science.". Take Allomancy from the Mistborn series, it's almost a science despite being "magic."



Thanks for reminding me of the corollary. I knew there was something like it, I've recently added Niven to my reading list, having finished books 1 and 2 of his Ringworld quadrology. Started on 3, but it was terrible, and heard 4 is even worse. 

I am not a big fan of the Science Fantasy moniker for my Refugees WIP, it starts out Sci-fi, but moves to more traditional fantasy realms, even if I am using steam and coal. I thought that Science Fantasy was where the fantasy elements were well-understood, as if it were a science, heavily explained magic a la Niven's Corollary.  Speculative Fiction fits better, but it's more a sci-fi fantasy crossover, with a few fun things, like a character that thinks he knows how the fantasy world he's now in is supposed to work.


----------



## Voldermort (Feb 1, 2012)

Chilari said:


> They have different approaches, different archetypes, different accepted styles of writing and structures and plot types. They'll both speculative fiction, but they're not identical. You might as well claim that there should be no genres at all, because all stories ever written have the same elements. But you'd be missing the point. For a start, genres are a way of categorising types of story, setting, and approach to enable readers to better judge what they might like based on what they have enjoyed reading previously, and for writers with a similar experience in reading and similar approaches and requirements in writing to know who to ask about particular issues - crime writers, for example, don't need to worry too much about worldbuilding when they're setting their stories in modern day New York or whatever. The differences between genres are more than superficial.
> 
> There is a distinction, and it's more than just terminology.



I don't think the differences between them are as deep as you think.

They more or less just tell you that world to expect (western, scifi, fantasy, romcom).

They certainly don't have "different approaches, different archetypes, different accepted styles of writing and structures and plot types." 

You could take each genre and find that they each have no more than one or more of Christopher Booker's plots, for instance.


----------



## Chilari (Feb 1, 2012)

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?


----------



## grahamguitarman (Feb 1, 2012)

pretty much anything by Anne McCaffrey is practically indistinguishable from fantasy


----------



## Dark Huntress (Feb 1, 2012)

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 (Feb 1, 2012)

Dark Huntress said:


> 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 (Feb 1, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> 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 (Feb 2, 2012)

grahamguitarman said:


> pretty much anything by Anne McCaffrey is practically indistinguishable from fantasy





Dark Huntress said:


> 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 (Feb 2, 2012)

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 Ã„mting (Feb 2, 2012)

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.



Dark Huntress said:


> 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 (Feb 2, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> 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 (Feb 2, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> "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 Ã„mting (Feb 2, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> "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 (Feb 2, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> 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 (Feb 2, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> 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 Ã„mting (Feb 3, 2012)

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 (Feb 5, 2012)

Chilari said:


> 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 (Feb 5, 2012)

Dark Huntress said:


> 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 (Feb 5, 2012)

Voldermort said:


> 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 (Feb 5, 2012)

Chilari said:


> 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 (Feb 5, 2012)

Voldermort said:


> 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 (Feb 5, 2012)

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 (Feb 5, 2012)

Dark Huntress said:


> 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).


----------



## sashamerideth (Feb 5, 2012)

I think the idea of science fiction's life on other planets can have a good scientific basis. We have a good idea how evolution has worked on this planet. Evolution is a fact, and alternative evolution on a different planet is not just a possibility, but an expectation. There are scintific principles that can be applied to creating new species.


----------



## Black Dragon (Feb 5, 2012)

*Disciplinary Action*










Voldermort has been banished.


----------



## grahamguitarman (Feb 5, 2012)

sashamerideth said:


> I think the idea of science fiction's life on other planets can have a good scientific basis. We have a good idea how evolution has worked on this planet. Evolution is a fact, and alternative evolution on a different planet is not just a possibility, but an expectation. There are scintific principles that can be applied to creating new species.



Those same principles are often used by fantasy authors to make their creatures more realistic too these days!  

You could come up with a speculative scientific theory for vampires, complete with evidence and comparative examples of real world creatures - it doesn't actually make vampires stories any less of a fantasy!

Faster than light travel, wormholes and alien cultures are just wishful thinking, painting pseudo science over them doesn't make them any more real.  

I'm not criticising Science Fiction for this, at the end of the day they are in the same business as us - writing fantastic stories, its just that they use the veneer of science to make their fantasies seem more acceptable.


----------



## JCFarnham (Feb 5, 2012)

grahamguitarman said:


> Those same principles are often used by fantasy authors to make their creatures more realistic too these days!
> 
> You could come up with a speculative scientific theory for vampires, complete with evidence and comparative examples of real world creatures - it doesn't actually make vampires stories any less of a fantasy!
> 
> ...



Hence my love of the term Speculative Fiction


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Feb 5, 2012)

I will say this, anyway: My approach to fantasy races is way closer to sci-fi then common fantasy. These days I find stuff like elves and orcs and dragons to be a bit uncreative, so I tend to treat my non-humans as if they were alien creatures instead.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 12, 2012)

I think Star Wars is fantasy set in space. It is not science fiction, in my opinion. There is not even an attempt, at least in the films, to provide a scientific underpinning for anything. Sure, they retconned the mitichlorians, but even that is very thin. Some of the novels do a better job of bringing in science fiction elements, but I view the films, particularly the three original ones, more as fantasy than anything. Fantasy does not have to be set in a medieval world.


----------



## JCFarnham (Feb 12, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Fantasy does not have to be set in a medieval world.



Quite right!


----------



## SeverinR (Feb 13, 2012)

Imo the basis for how something works makes the difference between Sci-fi and Fantasy.

Dragon breaths a ball of fire into a building it explodes vs Space craft fires glowing missles into building it explodes.
Twisting of nature(dragon) fires an element of distruction vs engineering feat(ship) firing a technological missle of destruction.

Science is sci-fi, nature/magic made is fantasy.
Some sci-fi does have fantasy, the "force" of Star wars is magical based(psi magic). I believe fantasy can have science in it also.(Steampunk)

If magic battles science in a story, I would think it would be depending on what the current norm is.  If magic is reality and science is trying to take over, it would be fantasy.  If Science is the normal and magic is trying to break out, then it might be Sci fi.
Sci fi tends to be in the future and fantasy the past, but that is not even set in stone.

Pern that I have read so far is Fantasy, they mention the ships but life is pretty much blades and fantasy beasts.


----------



## grahamguitarman (Feb 13, 2012)

Trying to erect a fence between fantasy and sci-fi by saying one is about magic and one is about spaceships and lasers is ignoring the reality of the fiction that is out there.

  The early Pern novels came across as fantasy, but were actually sci fi because the story arc of the series as as a whole examined how cultures can devolve away from the influence of technology.  this becomes more clear in the later novels, when they start to rediscover old documents, and to harness the machines left behind on the old spaceships, and the reader discovers the genetic engineering that created the dragons.  

  There are many other sci-fi stories that don't involve spaceships and lasers, in fact for every sci-fi story about space travel there is one about animals being mutated into monsters by nuclear experiments or mad scientists.  There are stories  about people jacking into computers,  stories purely about robots - even ones set in a contemporary world.  There are stories about people being supplemented by organic implants to give them enhanced powers, stories about time travel, and so on.

  On our side of the fence, published writers are also more adventurous in their scope.  I've read fantasy novels with lasers and robots, time travel, mad scientists and intelligent computers, and novels where magic is explained in a scientific way with the laws of physics governing what is or isn't possible.  Even back in the sixties/seventies Moorcock was writing fantasy novels with time travel, multiverses and many types of modern vehicles such as steam trains, aeroplanes ect.  In fact most of his career has been spent challenging the stereotypes of fantasy writing.

 The most creative artists are the ones who don't accept barriers and aren't afraid to look at things from a new angle - this applies to writers, musicians and painters/sculptors.  The minute you say you won't do something because it is too much like sci-fi or fantasy or whatever, you hamstring yourself as an artist!

So I ask, where is this imaginary fence and why do we even need it? 

BTW Steam punk isn't fantasy with science added in. Steampunk is specifically set in a Victorian setting with mad scientists and steam propelled inventions.  There are some occasional fantasy elements to it, but mostly it's inspired by the science fiction of Jules Verne, HG Wells and the horror of HP Lovecraft, but written from a modern writers perspective.  I'm writing a Steampunk/Fantasy novel, but it is very much a fusion, and not true Steampunk at all - but then maybe I'll redefine what Steampunk is .


----------



## JCFarnham (Feb 13, 2012)

Steampunk is traditionally victorian era. The main reason so much of it is victorian is that the forefathers of the genre living in the era were actually trying to write _contemporary_ fantasy fiction, just so happens that people were so taken by the aesthetics that they carried on the victorian theme. Ive seen western steampunk, fantastical steampunk, steampunk with a very magical realism twist.. well the list goes on.

So yeah, Steampunk isn't mutually exclusive to a Victorian aesthetic, but that's its origins. 

Anywho, just wanted to see that clarified


----------



## grahamguitarman (Feb 13, 2012)

JCFarnham said:


> Steampunk is traditionally victorian era. The main reason so much of it is victorian is that the forefathers of the genre living in the era were actually trying to write _contemporary_ fantasy fiction, just so happens that people were so taken by the aesthetics that they carried on the victorian theme. Ive seen western steampunk, fantastical steampunk, steampunk with a very magical realism twist.. well the list goes on.
> 
> So yeah, Steampunk isn't mutually exclusive to a Victorian aesthetic, but that's its origins.
> 
> Anywho, just wanted to see that clarified



No its not exclusive to a Victorian Aesthetic but it is mainly Victorian era (even the western stuff is largely victorian era) ie early industrial age.

My point was that to describe steampunk as fantasy with some science is wide of the mark - Steampunk is primarily sci-fi not fantasy, albeit a very rose tinted sci fi based on steam and difference engines.


----------



## sashamerideth (Feb 13, 2012)

grahamguitarman said:
			
		

> No its not exclusive to a Victorian Aesthetic but it is mainly Victorian era (even the western stuff is largely victorian era) ie early industrial age.
> 
> My point was that to describe steampunk as fantasy with some science is wide of the mark - Steampunk is primarily sci-fi not fantasy, albeit a very rose tinted sci fi based on steam and difference engines.



Sorry, my current favorite video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFCuE5rHbPA

Retro-futuristic is one way to think about it, alternate pasts not future predictions.


----------



## grahamguitarman (Feb 13, 2012)

sashamerideth said:


> Sorry, my current favorite video. Just Glue Some Gears On It (And Call It Steampunk) - YouTube
> 
> Retro-futuristic is one way to think about it, alternate pasts not future predictions.



Yeah the Gentleman rhymer is fun


----------



## JCFarnham (Feb 13, 2012)

Retro-futuristic! Nice term


----------



## grahamguitarman (Feb 13, 2012)

yeah pretty much sums it up


----------



## myrddin173 (Feb 14, 2012)

My favorite definition of "steampunk" is Victorian Era-esque science fiction written by people not from the Victorian Era.


----------



## SeverinR (Feb 14, 2012)

The only thing close to steampunk I read was fantasy that had it in it, my mistake.
But it does show that there is no definitive line between sci-fi and fantasy.

Draw a line and there is something that crosses the line.


----------



## grahamguitarman (Feb 14, 2012)

myrddin173 said:


> My favorite definition of "steampunk" is Victorian Era-esque science fiction written by people not from the Victorian Era.



only problem with that definition is that you could say exactly the same about fantasy, eg:

fantasy = medieval fiction written by people not from the medieval era

or even, sci-fi = futuristic fiction by people not from the future LOL


----------



## grahamguitarman (Feb 14, 2012)

SeverinR said:


> The only thing close to steampunk I read was fantasy that had it in it, my mistake.
> But it does show that there is no definitive line between sci-fi and fantasy.
> 
> Draw a line and there is something that crosses the line.



absolutely!  lines are there to be crossed


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Feb 14, 2012)

grahamguitarman said:


> only problem with that definition is that you could say exactly the same about fantasy, eg:
> 
> fantasy = medieval fiction written by people not from the medieval era



Speak for thyself!


----------



## grahamguitarman (Feb 15, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Speak for thyself!



Ha and I thought I was an ancient bugger


----------

