Differences Between Fantasy and Science Fiction

[Steerpike]

Interesting thoughts, from David Brin. Not sure I entirely agree, but it provides a good starting place for discussion:

Contrary Brin: The Difference Between Science Fiction and Fantasy?

 

[JCFarnham]

Okay.. for a while I wasn't even sure what his point was, but the way I see it he's saying something along the lines of;

Science Fiction is the best because it's good for our children and Fantasy is the worst because it promotes a backward thinking, leave it to fate and everything will be okay mentality.

That's odd. Right? The kind of fiction David is talking about here is stuff at least decades old. I'm not even sure its an argument that needs to be made. The two genres do esentially the same job. They're both speculative fantasies. What if the world was like this? How would I deal with that? (and a good helping of...) dragons, elves, space ships, women, Cool!

To me it matters not what the individual aesthetics of a book are. A story is a story and its made to entertain. If it does that then it's done it's job. If it did matter in any significant way then how would the Pern series work?

In my opinion (feel free to disagree with me) the different between the genres are aesthetics alone, not some deep moral misunderstanding between the two. At the core of it both fictions are escapist fictions.

Maybe this is why I write a bit of both...

 

[Amanita]

I dislike the parts of many fantasy stories the author of this article dislikes as well. I don't believe that they're the defining feature of fantasy though. (Or else, I'd be writing science fiction too. I don't think I do though.)
For me the difference between science fiction and fantasy is that science fiction is set in the future of our own world while fantasy is set in alternate worlds or our present or past one with the addition of supernatural aspects. Besides that, fantasy can contain aspects that are scientifically impossible while science fiction should not.

 

[Devor]

Science Fiction is the best because it's good for our children and Fantasy is the worst because it promotes a backward thinking, leave it to fate and everything will be okay mentality.

When you consider how much of the "science" employed in the Science Fiction genre is downright impossible, or at best, extremely unlikely to ever be achieved, I'm not sure it is better, even within that narrow line of reasoning. Insomuch as fantasy teaches you to cling to a glorified vision of the past, it's equally true - or untrue - that science fiction gives you a false vision of the future.

There are science fiction stories in which government has devolved back into tyranny, or where the many goods of technology are deprived from people. And they teach us to want those freedoms and an equal share of those goods. But they don't teach us the real lesson in life:

Find happiness by making reasonable progress towards a better life and world, whatever your starting point.

I'm all for freedom and a reasonable allotment of goods and whatever else people want to force on me as the "dream," but let's be realistic. We have goods and freedoms readily available which were denied to the world just a few hundred years ago, but we don't usually identify ourselves as "happier" because of it. I'm not sure a science fiction dream of an egalitarian future is really going to help with that. Even if the future can be reached, I'm a big believer that happiness doesn't have to wait for it.

Which brings things around - the point of the Lord of the Rings wasn't to dream of being "King Aragorn," like Brin writes in the article. It was returning to life as a gardener of the Shire. The conflict reminds us how much we want the good things which already exist in our own life. I believe that's much closer to a real lesson in happiness.

But I reject his reasoning anyways. Science Fiction and Fantasy don't have to have these differences or ideals at all. Be rid of the point.

 

[JCFarnham]

More or less The "past stuff and magic" description of fantasy breaks down when you start considering crossovers, urban fantasy, and alternative historical fantasies of course.

But for David Brin to say that there is anything deeply morally different about the two is looking far too into it for me haha

 

[Queshire]

Yeah, I read that article and though "This is BULL!" The difference between science fiction and fantasy is largely a matter of thematics. Replace magic with psychics, elves with aliens, swords with light sabers, etc, and bam! You have sci fi. I really hate it when people try to find some deep underlining meanings to everything. SOMETIMES AN APPLE IS A BLOODY APPLE! It's a fruit, a tasty and nutritous fruit, but still a fruit, not representing temptation or what not, just bloody fruit!

 

[gavintonks]

it started with book sellers separating elves from aliens, so anything with a planet moved to science and anything with creatures other than alien ones stayed under Fantasy, it became more of a label when gaming became popular and has become a convenient home for anything that does not fit the normal book classification system

 

[Lord Darkstorm]

The difference between fantasy and scifi is simply the difference in an explanation. Magic can just be, without needing to actually have a realistic means for it to work. Casting a spell, or using an object powered by magic can be used and because it's fantasy does not require an 'how it works'.

What's funny, is that in science fiction, the 'how it works', can be almost as glossed over as magic. The main difference between the two is that in scifi there is the implication that the cause of anything magical has some form of science driving it.

So, I guess the real difference between the two is the implied understanding of how something unexplained works. If I have some device that will invert or create gravity and I slap the label 'artificial gravity' on it, it becomes scifi, even without an explanation of how it works. If I create a magic item that will toss a person in the air, or let them walk on the ceiling...it's magic. The end result is the same, it's just how we use and word it.

To say one is better than the other...well, that's a bit arrogant I think.

 

[Devor]

The difference between fantasy and scifi is simply the difference in an explanation. Magic can just be, without needing to actually have a realistic means for it to work. Casting a spell, or using an object powered by magic can be used and because it's fantasy does not require an 'how it works'.

We're all kind of saying that, and it's mostly true. But magic as an explanation does tend to favor certain kinds of events, and science as an explanation does lend itself towards other kinds of events. There's almost complete overlap in what the genres are capable of, but in practice there are distinct differences in what kind of story ends up being told.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't think science fiction can be outright impossible. I think it has to comport with laws of science, or extrapolations of those laws. If it deviates from them, it has to provide an explanation based in extrapolations from known laws as to why the deviation works. Fantasy can operate in the realm of the impossible. You set up the rules for your magic, for your world, and you work within them, but those rules do not have to be even remotely within the realm of possibility. For science fiction it is different.

 

[Lord Darkstorm]

You set up the rules for your magic, for your world, and you work within them, but those rules do not have to be even remotely within the realm of possibility. For science fiction it is different.

I'm not so sure about that. When you transcend from physical matter to pure energy a brand new set of capabilities becomes possible, things that would very much seem like magic. They did such things in stargate, although I thought it a bit too high minded, still, creatures made up of energy and will make for a very powerful combination.

Where the differences usually become clear is the environment they are in. Magic inhibits (not stops) the progress of the mechanical for standard fantasy. Why create a car when you can have a magic carpet to fly on? Where in scifi, you don't have a magic carpet, but create a car, or other form of transportation.

There are differences, but overall, both require the mind to reach outside the norm to accept it as possible.

 

[ThinkerX]

If I remember right, it was Niven who made a comment many years ago about magic: '...as long as it follows consistent rules, I don't see any problem with it...' (more or less).

Regarding the 'science' in science fiction. First off, while some SF authors do call things right about future inventions and technologies - or at least lay out a good understanding of the problems - the majority don't do so well. Jules Verne is an example of an author who called some things right - he actually laid out the math and problems with getting a spacecraft to the moon, and later on wrote a book predicting some present day technological trinkets - like cell phones, if I remember right.

Another 'big fudge' to 'outright impossibility' with SF is faster-than-light interstellar travel. The reason for this is simple enough - space is *really* big, and without a fudge of some sort...well many of the characters would be decades older or dead from old age before reaching their new world. So the choice is made to fudge for story purposes or not write the story at all.

That said, both SF and Fantasy have their place. Some stories require an SF type environment; others work best in a fantasy setting.

I do find Brins definition to be...highly unusual....to say the least, though.

 

[Shockley]

It's a false dichotomy, I think. My company groups them together as 'Sci Fi' and, while I'd use a different term (Speculative Fiction), I think that's basically correct.

There's a reason why if you walked up to any person on the street and asked them what their favorite sci-fi movie is there's a good chance they'll say 'Star Wars.' That answer despite the fact that Star Wars is nothing more than fantasy in space. 99% of people don't see a real difference between the genres (they're both dealing with things that are seemingly impossible), and that's a good rule of thumb.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't think it is a false dichotomy. I think there are real differences in how stories in the two genres should operate. The word "science" in science fiction shouldn't be a meaningless term. It is an academic issue, though. The fact that your average reader doesn't know the distinction doesn't bother me any more than the fact that the average person turning on a light doesn't know the theory behind what they're just done. Makes for an interesting discussion, regardless.

But I'll stick with the idea that science has to follow known scientific laws, extrapolations from them, or deviate from the same with explanation. Fantasy can outright contradict the laws of the universe, and you never need an explanation as to why.