# Science Fiction vs. Fantasy. Again.



## Mindfire (Jun 20, 2012)

At first glance this might seem like that perennial argument raising its head again. But actually, I happen to think that this special brand of inter-genre conflict is, honestly, ridiculous. I'm _actually_ making this post because I think I've found something that points out just how ridiculous it is. Not sure if this has been posted somewhere before, but here goes:






Watch the rest of the episode to see even more sci-fi vs fantasy wackiness. So yeah. Maybe we can put this to rest now. But I doubt it.


----------



## BeigePalladin (Jun 20, 2012)

I honestly don't see the diference between them, espeically since Genres are just abstract concepts we've named ourselves and thus use as a tenative classifier to give a breif and possible synopsis of what elements may be in the plot/setting.

so, yeah, it's rediculous since we define the boundries ourselves, so I don't understand how people can find the conflict XD


----------



## Robert Donnell (Jun 20, 2012)

I have never seen a diferance between the two.


----------



## SlimShady (Jun 20, 2012)

Pretty funny.  For the record, I have a love for both genres.


----------



## Devor (Jun 20, 2012)

I think there is a difference, but it's on the fringes of the genre.  The overlap is tremendous.  Wars, adventures, exploration, "impossible" experiences - all there in both.  But it's hard to write, for instance, a science fiction story in which a kiss breaks a spell, or any piece of technology that can put restraints like that on a personal relationship.  It's also harder to do, I think, a real-world-image-of-the-future in fantasy.  Magic and Science just work a bit differently.

*Please note that "harder" is not to say "impossible"


----------



## Twook00 (Jun 20, 2012)

I agree with Devor on this.  There is certainly a distinction between the two in my mind, but with many shared characteristics.  I consider them two ends of a single spectrum, with some further to one side than others.  

In the middle you have books like The Coldfire Trilogy by C.S. Friedman.  This is a series set in our future, after we have colonized on a distant planet.  Upon landing we find ourselves facing the raw, natural magic of the world.  War sends us back to a more primitive state, technology is lost but not forgotten, and centuries later sorcerors wield the world's power much like those in Wheel of Time or any other sword and sorcery novel.

In the end, I love them both and find that separating them in a bookstore is unnessecary.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 20, 2012)

I find there to be a distinction. It doesn't make sense to have the terms if there is no distinction whatsoever. I think there is a definite distinction in the mind of the average reader, though there is overlap between the two and not everyone will adopt the same definitions.

In my view, science fiction has the word science in it for a reason. The story, to the extent it utilizes science (and it may do so a lot, or only a little) must conform to the laws of science known at the time the work was written, or to logical extrapolations therefrom (even if the extrapolations lead to a very unlikely end result, so long as they are logical they're OK). To the extent the story deviates from these, it should present a reasonable explanation for the deviation. 

One could view science fiction as a more defined subgenre of Fantasy, I suppose. I tend to look at them both as subgenres of speculative fiction.


----------



## Will (Jun 20, 2012)

Science was always a bit boring in my opinion. Why would anyone want a hovercraft and a light saber when you could have a horse and a morning star?! Some people...


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jun 20, 2012)

To me there's a striking difference between hard SF and fantasy. To me, fantasy has always been about characters interacting, and the furniture is swords and sorcery. Hard SF is about cultures, it's about the long term. I see nothing similar between _A Deepness in the Sky_ and _A Game of Thrones_.

When you get to, like, space opera or other less "serious" versions of SF, then yeah, the differences become cosmetic. But read anything by Greg Egan (e.g. _Diaspora_ or _Permutation City_) and then just try to demonstrate how there's "no difference" between that and a fantasy novel.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 20, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> To me there's a striking difference between hard SF and fantasy. To me, fantasy has always been about characters interacting, and the furniture is swords and sorcery. Hard SF is about cultures, it's about the long term. I see nothing similar between _A Deepness in the Sky_ and _A Game of Thrones_.
> 
> When you get to, like, space opera or other less "serious" versions of SF, then yeah, the differences become cosmetic. But read anything by Greg Egan (e.g. _Diaspora_ or _Permutation City_) and then just try to demonstrate how there's "no difference" between that and a fantasy novel.



Egan is a good example. Also, Robert Forward's "The Dragon's Egg," which despite the title is hard science fiction.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jun 21, 2012)

As sci-fi goes, _Pumpkin Scissors_ is pretty hard--the 901 troopers are kind of absurd, but everything else could be replicated with current technology. But the work it most closely resembles, and is often compared to, is _Fullmetal Alchemist_, a dieselpunk fantasy.


----------

