Splitting hairs, science fiction vs fantasy.

[sashamerideth]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

I'm not sure most of us understand science.

 

[Voldermort]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?