• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

What is the difference

We've argued about this many times...

For me the difference is magic. Fantasy has supernatural magic whereas sci-fi must be explicable through reference to science/technology even if never actually explained. Magic is just magic and doesn't need to be explained.

The question is complicated by shows like Star Wars which have some fantasy in a mainly sci-fi setting.
 

B Follins

Acolyte
We've argued about this many times...

For me the difference is magic. Fantasy has supernatural magic whereas sci-fi must be explicable through reference to science/technology even if never actually explained. Magic is just magic and doesn't need to be explained.

The question is complicated by shows like Star Wars which have some fantasy in a mainly sci-fi setting.
Thanks.
 

Insolent Lad

Maester
I do not think the two are mutually exclusive genres. Every work, in fact, pretty much falls into multiple genres. There is never going to be a clear line between s-f and fantasy, or between fantasy and surrealism, for that matter. If it's all wizards and unexplained magic, yeah, it's fantasy. If it's all scientifically accurate speculation, okay, that's science fiction. But 'A Princess of Mars' which mixes the two? I'm willing to call it both.
 

Penpilot

Staff
Article Team
This is how I tend to think of the two.

There are instances where the lines can be blurred between the two, like in Star Wars and Dune. That's where you get Science Fantasy. But if you step back from the gray area, fantasy tends to have magic, which can be left as a mystery or can be explained in great detail. Some call this soft and hard magic. But for the most part, the magic breaks the laws physics. You can literally summon something from nothing. Also fantasy tends to have some of these elements but not all, mythical creatures, folklore, a setting based on a past time period like medieval Europe.

Science fiction tends to involve technology and an extrapolated future based on the imagined advancement in technology. People tend to break it down into two parts soft and hard science. Soft science fiction tends involve technology that is impossible according to our current understanding of science. It tends to focus less on the technical execution of a technology and more on its impact on society.

Hard science fiction focuses on scientific accuracy and plausibility and is more grounded. It gets into the technical execution of things, and those things tend to be integral to the story itself. Though there may be big leaps in extrapolating out a technology, those extrapolations are based on more on scientific knowledge rather than pure imagination.

Soft science fiction is more likely to hand-wave away an issue with technology whereas hard science fiction will tend to address it using science.

Any ways, that's how I see it. I'm sure others would define them differently. But just to throw a monkey wrench into things. To quote Arthur C. Clarke. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
The talk of magic leaves out fantasy like that of Guy Gavriel Kay, KJ Parker, and Mervyn Peake, however. The boundaries are fuzzy, not just between SF and F but between those and other genres.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
Following up:

Although this may not be a popular view, to make definitions work the best and incorporate as much of what is out there as possible, I think it makes sense to think of SF as a sub-category of Fantasy (you could say that about all fiction, but that's so broad as to be unhelpful). I think "Fantasy" should be broad enough to cover any story that does not take place in the real world. That would cover Tolkien, as well as KJ Parker, who often doesn't have any magic or supernatural elements in his stories.

For SF, I think the word "science" in the name has to mean something, then. In SF, the technology should be important in some way. It doesn't have to be present or future tech--SF can be set in a world having any level of technology. But if the technology level or technology itself is irrelevant and has no bearing on the story, then I think you're moving back to the general "Fantasy" category.

The boundaries are still fuzzy. There will always be exceptions and hard to categorize works, but the above works best for me and manages to incorporate works that are clearly considered "Fantasy" by readers, publishers, sellers, etc., but that don't have magical or supernatural elements.
 

Insolent Lad

Maester
Following up:
I think it makes sense to think of SF as a sub-category of Fantasy (you could say that about all fiction, but that's so broad as to be unhelpful). I think "Fantasy" should be broad enough to cover any story that does not take place in the real world.
We do have the broad category of 'Speculative Fiction' to cover this.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
We do have the broad category of 'Speculative Fiction' to cover this.

Yes. However, the narrower definition of fantasy as having to include magic or supernatural elements doesn't reflect how the genre is used in practice, or how readers, publishers, or sellers categorize works. It would be interesting to come up with a definition that separates fantasy from speculative fiction, but they may be synonymous (or close to it).
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
Steerpike, I’ve more often seen it the other way, with fantasy being listed as a subcategory of sci fi.

Without disregarding the fuzziness and overlap and other disclaimers, sci fi often tries to look into the future, which lends itself to social commentary, while fantasy looks to evoke wonder, which I find to be a lot more personally inspiring.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
Steerpike, I’ve more often seen it the other way, with fantasy being listed as a subcategory of sci fi.

I've seen that too. But that would mean Dragonlance, for example, is science fiction, in the fantasy subgenre. That just doesn't make any sense to me personally, though the reverse does.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
To me, sci fi, fantasy, horror and superheroes are different parts of spec fic. Also there’s the modern story with just one piece of magic? i.e., Mary Poppins. Usually they go for the feels. I feel like those deserve their own title too.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
To me, sci fi, fantasy, horror and superheroes are different parts of spec fic. Also there’s the modern story with just one piece of magic? i.e., Mary Poppins. Usually they go for the feels. I feel like those deserve their own title too.

Yes, I think they can be different parts of spec. fic. I'm always interested in how to distinguish the SF and F from one another. Horror I feel is more susceptible to definition. SF/F has so much overlap on the edges it can be difficult. Unless, I suppose, you take works like Gormenghast out of Fantasy for lack of supernatural elements, and just say it's spec fic and leave it at that.
 
But just to throw a monkey wrench into things. To quote Arthur C. Clarke. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

I've never liked this quote. It may be indistinguishable from magic to the mind of a pre-scientific thinker, but not to a scientist. No scientist will see an amazing piece of far future technology and think: "Magic". They'll think: "I wonder how that works?"
 

Penpilot

Staff
Article Team
I've never liked this quote. It may be indistinguishable from magic to the mind of a pre-scientific thinker, but not to a scientist. No scientist will see an amazing piece of far future technology and think: "Magic". They'll think: "I wonder how that works?"

It doesn't say that a person will think it's magic. It's basically saying if the technology is so advanced that a person doesn't have an understanding of how it works, the process will appear as magic. It says nothing about the acceptance of magic as the answer or that someone will give up on inquiring about how it truly works.
 
I disagree. He uses the word indistinguishable - which can only mean indistinguishable from the perspective of a person. One type of person might think it looks like magic, another type of person (eg, a scientist) will know it can't be magic.
 

Penpilot

Staff
Article Team
I disagree. He uses the word indistinguishable - which can only mean indistinguishable from the perspective of a person. One type of person might think it looks like magic, another type of person (eg, a scientist) will know it can't be magic.

There are plenty things in our world which I don't understand. I press a button stuff happens, and I get an end result. I have no idea how it happens. I know there's science behind it, I know it's not magic, but the process is indistinguishable from magic because of my lack of understanding. And IMHO, that can apply to technology from the far future. I may understand there's science behind it, I know that it's not magic, but if I don't understand how it works, it's indistinguishable from magic in my eyes.
 
I may understand there's science behind it, I know that it's not magic, but if I don't understand how it works, it's indistinguishable from magic in my eyes.
And that's exactly where we disagree. If you know it can't BE magic then magic never comes into the equation. The only thing you would ever think is: I wonder how that works?
 

Penpilot

Staff
Article Team
And that's exactly where we disagree. If you know it can't BE magic then magic never comes into the equation. The only thing you would ever think is: I wonder how that works?

But the quote doesn't mention anything about what a person thinks. I just says it's indistinguishable from magic. Belief in magic or not doesn't play into this. And considering that Arthur C. Clarke was a science fiction writer who wrote about humans encountering technology from highly advanced aliens pushes me towards that interpretation.
 
Top