# Science fiction vs. fantasy : which one requires more imagination?



## The_African

I've 'always' said that fantasy, in theory, requires more imagination than science fiction does since a world where things cannot make sense and events cannot be explained is more different from our own than a world where (currently) unlikely or even impossible events have a rational explanation. Now, I'm not as sure. Throughout most of history, humans have believed that the world is fundamentally unexplainable, rain might have been mundane but it was often considered supernatural or mysterious phenomenon. You could argue that science fiction actually requires more imagination than fantasy does because science-fiction writers have to imagine, not only worlds where unlikely or impossible things happen but the explanation for those things (even if those explanations are pseudo science).

What do you think?


----------



## Williamlk

hmmmm, I have to think about this. 

It's an interesting query. My first reaction is that fantasy does take more imagination. In my opinion, good science fiction should at least have a fundamental starting point with an idea that has already been explored in real science. Therefore, you already have an idea and you are simply taking it to the next level of thought. On the other hand, Fantasy is completely make believe.

But...that is only my initial reaction. Like I said, I have to think about this a bit. Good thread!


----------



## J Riff

Science Fiction evolved out of 'fantasy'... but not _Fantasy_,the genre we know it as today, a recent development spearheaded by JRT in the last 30 yrs. or so.
No, it was just getting a little too easy for authors to ....whiz off to the moon, or do ten impossible things before breakfast, in the face of advancing scientific/technological knowledge.
Everything speculative could laterally be deemed 'a fantasy.' Dracula is a fantasy, Gulliver's travels, etc.
Modern fantasy is, for the sake of argument. possibly easier to write, simply because the tech surrounding space travel and other related sciFi staples, has gotten so doggone complicated that more research is required than was previously. That's one side o' the coin.


----------



## Williamlk

I think part of the problem I'm having is in defining the modern day _Fantasy_ genre. I find the line between Fantasy and Science Fiction has gotten quite blurry.


----------



## J Riff

No kidding. It was already blurring around the time of Lovecraft, some of whose material is SciFi. 
The fantasy writers have to create a believable, logical world, so it's challenging. And, any SciFi in re: Time Travel for ex. may as well still be called fantasy... but LOTR really set the structure and tone of modern fantasy, though others will know more about that than I do.
But... we bought all the SciFi and 'fantasy' books... Ballantines etc. - as if it was all one genre.


----------



## Williamlk

We made need to come up with a new genre "sci-tasy" "fan-tion" lol, that's pretty bad. To me, LOTR is pure fantasy, anything written in that style has to be considered modern fantasy. SciFi should be reserved for books written with a proven scientific foundation. In my opinion, time travel is somewhat debatable for this reason; technically it can be done.


----------



## J Riff

Time travel. yea... well even many of the top sciFi writers avoided much 'scientific' expanation when they wrote time travel stories. 
Technically it can be done... how? At the atomic level?  Physically, mentally or otherwise it's still gotta be a bit of a trick.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

Tend to disagree. Credible alternate world building is the same in all genres - hard as hell. 

The advantage with SF is you can get away with everyday settings. SF can be done in a London street in 2011. No 'imagination' (pinch of salt) required all you need do is observe and describe.

Actually, 'Fantasy' can also use this dodge. 'Harry Potter' (that is, if we agree this falls on the fantasy side of the scales) being the perfect example.

As luck would have it I have just been exploring the possibility of a new genre in the Steven King threads.

The SFF bodice ripper.

OK the plot is a little formulaic but I think it will take off. 

All we need to do is, at some point, throw in the classic rugged hero breaks the young heroine's heart with a cruel evil grin. After which she ends her days in the slave brothels of Splogwind and we have suddenly attracted a whole new section of the reading public to our cause. In the mean time the heartless scoundrel goes on to win the day and defeat the Trolls, Ogres, Predators, Insects etc and 'voila'. A new genre is born.
'


----------



## Williamlk

J Riff said:


> Time travel. yea... well even many of the top sciFi writers avoided much 'scientific' expanation when they wrote time travel stories.
> Technically it can be done... how? At the atomic level? Physically, mentally or otherwise it's still gotta be a bit of a trick.


 
Well, in theory it's possible. If you travel at the speed of light and then return to the earth, you will have gone into the future.

I found this explanation on a forum:
_We already know a few interesting things about time.
1> The faster you move, the slower time is.
2> Time is a human construct.

If you take these two facts into consideration then time travel is entirely possible. Moving in space, far away from gravity, at speeds close to that of light would effectively equate to time travel for the person taking the trip. For you a day passes, for everything else a year._


Of course, time travel to the past is an entirely differant story.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

Williamlk said:


> Well, in theory it's possible. If you travel at the speed of light and then return to the earth, you will have gone into the future.
> 
> I found this explanation on a forum:
> _We already know a few interesting things about time._
> _1> The faster you move, the slower time is._
> _2> Time is a human construct._
> 
> _If you take these two facts into consideration then time travel is entirely possible. Moving in space, far away from gravity, at speeds close to that of light would effectively equate to time travel for the person taking the trip. For you a day passes, for everything else a year._
> 
> 
> Of course, time travel to the past is an entirely different story.


 
Er....

There seems to be a bit of a contradiction with those two facts. 

If <2>,  time is a human construct, then any supposed property like <1> 

is also a human construct and hence any resulting conclusions about time and speed and time travel are void.


----------



## clovis-man

TheEndIsNigh said:


> The advantage with SF is you can get away with everyday settings. SF can be done in a London street in 2011. No 'imagination' (pinch of salt) required all you need do is observe and describe.
> 
> Actually, 'Fantasy' can also use this dodge. 'Harry Potter' (that is, if we agree this falls on the fantasy side of the scales) being the perfect example.


 
In my usual simplistic manner I would say that today's fantasy requires more imagination. Today's SF requires more thought.


----------



## Rodders

Personally, i always felt that the imagination lies with the story and the ability to set it down on paper. I don't feel that a Thriller necessarily has less imagination just because it's set in the real world.


----------



## Fried Egg

It depends on the book more than the genre I would say. 

Fantasy may take place in a secondary world where everything is entirely invented but how much imagination required may depend on how much else the reader has read in a similar vein. On the other hand fantasy may be entirely set in the world we know with only a tiny element taking it into the realms of the fantastic. Sometimes this kind of fantasy can be more imaginative if the writer has avoided the well established tropes. The problem with much secondary world fantasy is that a lot of it is highly formulaic and disappointingly unimaginative.

SF as well can be envisaging entirely alien environments or set so far in the future that they have little resemblence to the world as we know it. Such SF can be just as imaginative as the most far fetched fantasy. Alternatively they can be well grounded in the very near future, or alternate present. 

Both genres of genres of the imagination which is why they are so often grouped together and why so many are fans of both.


----------



## planetocean

For me I would have to say both would have to require imagination. Especially like with sciece fiction with place yet undiscovered writers have to use their imagination to see what that world would be like or is like.


----------



## Tinsel

The_African said:


> I've 'always' said that fantasy, in theory, requires more imagination than science fiction does since a world where things cannot make sense and events cannot be explained is more different from our own than a world where (currently) unlikely or even impossible events have a rational explanation. Now, I'm not as sure. Throughout most of history, humans have believed that the world is fundamentally unexplainable, rain might have been mundane but it was often considered supernatural or mysterious phenomenon. You could argue that science fiction actually requires more imagination than fantasy does because science-fiction writers have to imagine, not only worlds where unlikely or impossible things happen but the explanation for those things (even if those explanations are pseudo science).
> 
> What do you think?



I read the OP and a few of the responses, which was enough for me to come to the conclusion that either one could require more imagination simply because within each genre you will find individual novels with more depth than others. What you might find is that the ones that contain more depth tend to lead the way for others (in imagination for that genre). Writing must meet certain requirements in order for it to have validity in terms of merit, or else it is difficult to understand what a story is. I wonder if the evolution of a genre can be compared with one another, and if so, which genre is better developed. Imagination would have at least some function in that overall purpose, if that can be identified. That might help in answering the question.


----------



## J Riff

Time dilation is not time travel, or is it?  2 objects moving away from each other at C, that sort of thing. 
 Even a camera on the past would do. Reflected light that struck the earth thousands of years ago is still out there, travelling away at C, no way to catch up with it.
Until, of course, someone invents the Fendenderson Ion-repulsor field, based on a short story they read on a SciFi site, and they start showing the Crusades on pay TV shortly after.


----------



## The_African

> Where science fiction is an exercise of speculation and problem  solving  by the right brain, fantasy is an exploration by the left brain  of the  implications of faith


The State of Fantasy | Put The Left Brain In | Pajiba: Scathing Reviews, Bitchy People

I wonder if there's any truth to this and if materialists are more  likely to be interested in science-fiction and religious/paranormal  believers in fantasy.


----------



## Vertigo

I think you could argue that SF requires more imagination as so many SF stories have new imagined aliens and alien worlds - typically bearing no resemblance to our own and often positively hostile. Most Fantasy tends to be set in a world not too dissimilar to our own (if a little less civilised - though that could be debated ) and their aliens tend to be dwarves, elves, trolls, dragons etc. that are pretty well established creatures within the genre. That said, then a book like Predido Street Station comes along and blows all thoise ideas out of the water! Then again no one seems too sure whether that particular one is SF or fantasy anyway!


----------



## Tinsel

As far as any right or left side of the brain thinking is concerned. I believe that it would be difficult to remain on just one side, but I mean you could try things, such as wearing only one color for example.

I would have thought that faith belonged on the right side. I don't try to read the Bible with my left hand anymore. I just keep it on the right side now, but quite honestly, it is fairly important to try to stay balanced rather than one one side or the other. If I feel that I am too far over on one side, than that usually means that I am struggling and I have to fight back by trying to get to the opposite side.

Now, I would more or less go with fantasy and sci fi, both being on the left, whereas religion is on the right side.

What about all of the colors in between?


----------



## ZombiezuRFER

I personally do not think that writing a scifi takes more imagination than a fantasy, or vice versa.  Its as easy to write about captain whatever fighting off the martian scourge with his trusty ray gun as it is to write about the farmboy fighting off the undead scourge with his trusty sword.  To be honest, the imagination requirements depend on the possibilities open to the genre.  Seemingly that makes fantasy the more imaginative, or is it?  They can perform impossible acts everyday, travel the world, and tame a dragon before lunch.  But Scifi, when given actual science, can have more possibilities.  You likely will have few scenarios in fantasy where you are travelling slower than light speeds, when you are hit by some object or weapon, and you have a maximum amount of time to fix the ship, and for flavor, find the saboteur.  Can be done on a boat, but to justify the sinking time would seem a bit out there.  

Imagination is truly all about the possibilities.  combine fantasy and scifi, and you have perhaps the most possibility.


----------



## Lucky_Lola

Interesting thread...

When I first started reading speculative fiction as a pre-teen, I read sci-fi and fantasy relatively evenly. As I got older my tastes directed me more toward the latter and naturally, when I started writing my WiP it fell into what I classify as fantasy. For a long time I adhered to the belief that fantasy required more imagination because sci-fi could simply fall back on established technologies or canon from other works, but now I realise that was only the narrow-minded fangirl in me talking 

I agree completely with previous posters that believable world building is equally difficult for both, and it all comes down to Newton. Every god-mode power/ability/weapon should have a cost, as every action has an equal and opposite reaction. When an author, regardless of the genre, introduces a fictional power without an appropriate cost to the user it interferes with the reader's suspension of disbelief. Mana, reagents, physical exhaustion or unobtanium, it doesn't really matter.

AFAIC this is the cornerstone of good (or bad) speculative fiction.

edit: ...and as I have recently discovered, both genres involve an awful amount of scientific research. I think I'm spending more time these days looking into the anatomy of horses, ancient Roman siege craft and Tudor-Stuart governance


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

I agree with those who say that it depends on the individual book.  I will go further.  Two different people could be handed the same plot synopsis and the same set of characters and each one told to go off by him or herself for a year or two and write a book using _that_ synopsis and _those_ characters, and one might return at the end of that time with something that was wildly imaginative and the other return with something dull and formulaic.


Many years ago, I attended a panel at an SFF convention, and I don't remember the topic, but some idiot in the audience stood up and proclaimed that writing fantasy was easy "because all you have to do is make everything up."

I've never read a book in any genre where the writer made _everything_ up.  If such a book were ever written it would probably be a chore to read rather than a pleasure, because if the characters did not conform to _some_ constants of human behavior it would be a) incomprehensible and b) not very engaging, nevertheless, it would be an incredible feat.  What a task it would be to discard every natural law, ignore every impulse of the human heart, and create a new world entirely from scratch — and without borrowing from any other work of imaginative fiction!

I fear that the gentleman, even while he was giving fantasy writers too little credit, was also giving them _far_ too much.


----------



## chrispenycate

I was interested in the concept of Newtonian narativics.

A story will remain at rest or continue at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external deadline.

The force required to get a story back on course is proportional to the momentum it has built up in the wrong direction multiplied by the square of the amount it has diverged from the original plot outline. Frequently this is greater than starting the story from zero, in which case it is more energy efficient merely to go on writing in the wrong direction and find out where you get to.

Reader reaction to your action is rarely equal, but often opposite.

Too much dialogue frequently stalls forward momentum leading to rotary statics; all torque and no action.


----------



## The_African

I no longer think that either is (necessarily) more or less imaginative than the other (although both 'soft' science fiction and fantasy authors have the freedom to let their imaginations run wild, 'hard' science fiction authors have to limit themselves to what's currently thought to be possible). I think the defining difference between science fiction and fantasy should be that science fiction has a naturalistic world view, fantasy has a supernatural world view. In science fiction ('hard' or 'soft') fantastical events are considered natural phenomenon governed by the same physical laws that govern the rest of nature, in fantasy, events are accepted as fundamentally unexplainable because they are not governed by the same physical laws of causality that govern the rest of nature.

To imagine something is to internally create an experience of something you aren't directly experiencing through any of the 5 senses. To read or write about something we have no practical, real life reference for requires more imagination because we have to draw it from scratch rather than rely on past, real life experience, the explanation for that thing (scientific/pseudo scientific or supernatural) makes no difference.


----------



## SFF Fan

High Fantasy frequently pilfers from real world cultures and relies on tropes, so I wouldn't say it is necessarily always imaginative (perhaps it "should" be).

In regards to hard SF, I'd say it often requires more imagination because you need to make something work within constraints. That leaves fewer plausible ideas, and so more brainstorming needed to find them. In the same way, science itself, while ultimately trying to discover something concrete (or at least regular like physical laws) requires tremendous imagination to come up with the hypotheses and ways to test them, as a lot of science is very far removed from everyday human experience or "common sense".


----------



## The_African

SFF Fan said:


> High Fantasy frequently pilfers from real world cultures and relies on tropes, so I wouldn't say it is necessarily always imaginative (perhaps it "should" be).
> 
> In regards to hard SF, I'd say it often requires more imagination because you need to make something work within constraints. That leaves fewer plausible ideas, and so more brainstorming needed to find them. In the same way, science itself, while ultimately trying to discover something concrete (or at least regular like physical laws) requires tremendous imagination to come up with the hypotheses and ways to test them, as a lot of science is very far removed from everyday human experience or "common sense".



Do you think hard sf requires more imagination for the author or for the reader. As a 'sub-genre' (I know that they aren't distinct sub-genres), soft sf can deal with more topics than hard sf can. Soft sf writers can let their imaginations run free, no matter how successful they are in fitting the fantastical into scientifically plausible constraints, hard sf authors can only let their imaginations run so far. I think there could theoretically come a day when hard sf can't produce anything else, that problem will never exist for fantasy or soft sf.


----------



## SFF Fan

The_African said:


> Do you think hard sf requires more imagination for the author or for the reader. As a 'sub-genre' (I know that they aren't distinct sub-genres), soft sf can deal with more topics than hard sf can. Soft sf writers can let their imaginations run free, no matter how successful they are in fitting the fantastical into scientifically plausible constraints, hard sf authors can only let their imaginations run so far. I think there could theoretically come a day when hard sf can't produce anything else, that problem will never exist for fantasy or soft sf.



It isn't really about letting your imagination "run free", but stretching it to the limit to find something that will work in a book. If you let your imagination run free you'd see a bunch of random ideas strung together on the page with no sense of meaning to them. SF may be less "out there" and so for that reason be more down to earth but it's more challenging to brainstorm ideas that would "work" within the constraints. You'd come up with an idea, and go "aw no, can't do that, doesn't work with the laws of science" and go onto another one. Just like coming up with a plot point that makes no sense in terms of character in any work of fiction...the plot and the characters should flow out of each other. Your imagination is NOT completely free. 

What do you mean by "imagination"? I was assuming you meant "what takes more imagination to write". In that case, sci fi. What can paint a more imaginative picture in your head? Fantasy, but remember imagination isn't just kooky creatures. Soft SF usually involves complicated governmental and societal structures that really are owed to some powerful speculation.

Just because there are limits to a genre doesn't mean it requires less imagination. It just points the imagination in a certain direction. The powers of creativity needed are just as great, in my opinion.


----------



## The_African

> If you let your imagination run free you'd see a bunch of random ideas  strung together on the page with no sense of meaning to them.





> Just like coming up with a plot point that makes no sense in terms of  character in any work of fiction...the plot and the characters should  flow out of each other. Your imagination is NOT completely free.


I strongly disagree with this. A 'free' imagination doesn't produce random, incoherent ideas with no meaning, it only means I can charter into territory that I could never consider in real life. 




> What do you mean by "imagination"?


By 'imagination' I mean to internally create an experience (ie. eating an apple, talking with someone, flying to the moon, ) that isn't being actually perceived through any of your 5 senses. I can imagine what it would be like to travel back in time to 1863, change the outcome of the civil war and thereby change the present but hard science fiction doesn't allow me to do this since, as far as I know, backwards time travel is logically and practically impossible. It might not work within the laws of science but I can _imagine_ it happening. A genre that doesn't allow me to pursue this is limiting, it's inhibiting my imagination. Soft science fiction is not limiting and, unlike fantasy, the fantastical just has to be considered natural phenomenon rather than some fundamentally unexplainable force beyond scientific scrutiny. It might involve pseudo science but it's still a naturalistic world view. 

The idea of experiencing many scientifically implausible scenarios is _fun_ but hard science fiction doesn't allow for it. For me, fiction is supposed to be fun, it's supposed to stimulate my imagination and an empathic response to the characters I read about. 


> Just because there are limits to a genre doesn't mean it requires less imagination.


You can write a hard science fiction story that deals with androids or aliens that requires as much, if not more, imagination than some soft science fiction stories but the 'sub-genre' as a whole has a smaller range of topics that it can deal with. I don't want to read/write and enjoy a story that I later have to throw out because it turns out some of the events are scientifically implausible.


----------



## SFF Fan

The_African said:


> I strongly disagree with this. A 'free' imagination doesn't produce random, incoherent ideas with no meaning, it only means I can charter into territory that I could never consider in real life.
> 
> 
> By 'imagination' I mean to internally create an experience (ie. eating an apple, talking with someone, flying to the moon, ) that isn't being actually perceived through any of your 5 senses. I can imagine what it would be like to travel back in time to 1863, change the outcome of the civil war and thereby change the present but hard science fiction doesn't allow me to do this since, as far as I know, backwards time travel is logically and practically impossible. It might not work within the laws of science but I can _imagine_ it happening. A genre that doesn't allow me to pursue this is limiting, it's inhibiting my imagination. Soft science fiction is not limiting and, unlike fantasy, the fantastical just has to be considered natural phenomenon rather than some fundamentally unexplainable force beyond scientific scrutiny. It might involve pseudo science but it's still a naturalistic world view.



Sorry; it has been a while since I have been to the forum.

I don't think this is about what has more imaginative creations in it, or what allows for the greater range of imaginative creations (as you say, soft SF allows for a greater range of possibilities), but which _required_ more imagination to write. What I mean to say is that people who are less imaginative would not have an easier time writing fantasy than sci fi. To write either SF or fantasy requires a great deal of imagination, no doubt, but I just don't think a less imaginative person would find it easier to write SF. Again, just because there are limits to a genre doesn't mean you can be a person of lesser imagination and pull it off.

I don't particularly like reading hard SF (or even science magazines) myself for the very reasons you mention. I find science interesting, but theories so often get trashed I don't want to get excited about something only to be let down.

In any case, I believe it's pretty clear your imagination sometimes needs to be refined and questioned to make sure your ideas are of quality and do the job well (though don't get me wrong, I'd rather have a naturally vivid imagination and come up with a lot of crap than a less fertile imagination but a more discriminating filter...the second is easier to develop than the first). At least the way my imagination works which is to generate lots of ideas in a massive brainstorm, some good, some bad...I have to sift through them. Maybe yours is different. Anyway, if you make a character do something against their character, or unsympathetic when that isn't desired, or contrived, it makes the story worse. I think some ideas are more interesting than others. Some lead to greater emotional responses. I think there is something to be said for care of craft.


----------

