Fantasy and Sci-Fi Cross Boundaries

[Mythopoet]

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]

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]

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]

or even care

Ah… so ^THAT'S what threw me.

 

[Mindfire]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.