# Difference between Fantasy and Science Fiction



## LeoCrow (Jun 6, 2006)

Delete this is it has been discussed already (i didn't find any such discussion).
What do u think is the exact difference between Fantasy and Science Fiction? Some people say that the difference between them that s.f. talks about the "how" (using technology), while fantasy talks about they "why's" of those stories. however that way we could say that star wars is fantasy,not science fiction. others say that sf is all about technology and things like soul,spirit,magic etc do not belong in such a story. what do u think?


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 6, 2006)

Essentially, I think that's the general idea. Science fiction is more about the effects of technological changes within a society; now that can mean "nuts-n-bolts" sf a la George O. Smith and others, or sociological sf as with LeGuin, Silverberg, etc. Science fiction is more geared toward something based on a scientific premise, or at least pseudoscientific (time travel, for instance, or psi-powers); fantasy does not have to pay attention to the laws of physics, necessarily; though that can mean out-and-out magical worlds (Tolkien, Vance's Dying Earth, Earthsea, etc.), or "magical realism" as in Borges, Marquez, or O'Connor. They do sometimes blend, but to me that's the distinction; a blurry boundary line at best, as witness C. M. Kornbluth's "The Little Black Bag" or Moorcock's Dancers at the End of Time books.


----------



## Snowdog (Jun 6, 2006)

My take on it is that if it is possible now or might reasonably expected to be possible in the future, using laws and principles that we currently know and understand, or even unproven theories that have been put forward, then it's science fiction. Anything that's completely made up and not based on any known or theorised underlying principle, is fantasy.

Thus, for instance, Lord of Light by Roger Zelazny, which has god-like beings (in fact they're equated with Hindu deities) is science fiction because they became god-like through technology, rather than magic or anything like that.

Star Wars is really SF not fantasy, because it's based on science, even if some of it is bad science. But I'm thinking of the film, which is a bit unfair. The books might be much better in that regard.


----------



## BookStop (Jun 6, 2006)

A friend of mine on another forum wrote, "According to _Webster's Universal College Dictionary_ science fiction is defined as "a form of fiction that draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge and speculation". 

But in that case, we were discussing the differnece between medical thrillers, with present day unkown technology ala Robin Cook, to sci-fi.  Notice I said Robin Cook wrote med thrillers, not sci-fi.  

I almost always associate fantasy with some sort of magic or dragons (which seem magical).


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 7, 2006)

I think the key phrase in that definition is "and speculation" -- that opens the doors to future exploration of ideas virtually without limit.

As for fantasy ... well, actually, all fiction is fantasy, if you wish to be dogmatic about it. However, even without being that broad, fantasy can cover anything from the contemporary (think of Twilight Zone, for instance) to the faux-medieval fantasy that most people think of (which really came into play with William Morris in the late 1800s), to anything with a supernatural tinge where the laws of the physical universe are set aside. Narrowing it down to such specifics is a sure way to make any branch of literature wither; look what happened (as I've said elsewhere) to the Gothic of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (the history of which uncannily resembles what's happening to fantasy right now). They became thus limited, and began to be parodied, and finally got so ridiculous that no one could take them seriously. We don't want that to happen to fantasy; it needs to cross-fertilize to stay vital. That's something they learned with science fiction long ago; for a good while people like Hugo Gernsback saw it as centering wholly on technological advances and purely science driven; it became poorer and poorer as literature (with some sterling exceptions) until it became a laughingstock; it took a long time to climb out of that gutter, and an awful lot of excellent writers had to live in it meanwhile (Kornbluth, Brown, Moore, Kuttner, Simak, the list goes on and on). That's why I strongly oppose the idea of limiting these too much. We're in a market-driven publishing phase, where publishers have higher-ups that follow market trends, not necessarily what breathes life into a field. Market trends change; tastes change. Good literature lasts beyond such things, even with flaws. I'd hate to see fantasy go the way of the Gothics; but as things are going, I expect to see that in my lifetime.


----------



## Asmer20 (Jun 7, 2006)

I don't mean to be bland, but I think science fiction deals with natural or discovered laws of science that can be used to create imaginary advances or alternatives to what is real.....

Fantasy on the other hand in a way uses the myths of so-called realities like witchcraft that change everything.  Like they use bodiy power to save lives or whatever they do in the story


----------



## chrispenycate (Jun 7, 2006)

I think it all comes down to how it's written, which market it's aimed for. I've read about dragons, werewolves, vampires, unicorns, griffins, psionics (nifty name for personalised magic) wish fulfilment and curses in works which were  definitely science fiction (no, I'm not giving a lollipop to anyone who can work out which stories I'm talking about) and matter transferrence, time travel, robots, starships anddimensional gates, even magical research programs using scientific method in works that are indisputably fantasy. I can't, off the top of my head, think of a science fiction demon raising (although a number of alien beings have been revived by similar techniques) or a magic operated computer, but I bet they exist somewhere. Down in the "sufficiently advanced technology" region, no laws are immutable save that of Murphy; and when magic's done building palaces overnight, or building hypersonic carpets, it can do the ironing, 'cause that's what it's audience can most appreciate (I imagine a parent in pre-washing-machine days looking at huge pile of dirty linen and newly grubby offspring and seriously considering a little blood magic)
There's even Piers Anthony's "Split Infinity" expanded trilogy, that oscillates, thus annoying both ends of his prospective audience and pleasing only the central, crossover region (which I own up to being;  found the first trilogy amoungst his better works) Or Stasheff's "Warlock" books, which, despite starships, robots and interstellar empire is solidly fantasy.
But, give a book to a dedicated fantasy fan, within a chapter he'll tell you "this is definitely Sci-Fi, or this is definitely fantasy (in which case you might have to wait a while before getting it back)" The same goes for a dedicated sci-fi fan.
Not a very *scientific* test, agreed, but *fantastically* effective.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 7, 2006)

As always, Chris, your points are inarguable. But might I point out....


----------



## Thadlerian (Jun 7, 2006)

I made a reply to this question last year, when it came up in a thread. It went like this:


			
				me said:
			
		

> Science Fiction:
> Settings that may possibly evolve out of the present (of course the present at the time when the book is written) without violating the general sense of reality (too much).
> Fantasy:
> Settings that require completely different timelines or universes than our own to be able to work.
> ...


----------



## steve12553 (Jun 7, 2006)

I do think this has been here before because I think I've posted on it, but I wouldn't know where. Science Fiction is fiction dealing with or set in the the extrapolation or interpolation of existing science. In other words, it might be, somehow, somewhere or somewhen. Fantasy is fiction dealing with things we know can not be true, but we don't care. Science Fiction can be stretched to the point of bending but it might be possible, Fantasy can't be true, but we know it and we're good with that.


Note: AS usual, I was in so big a hurry to answer that I didn't notice the last post above mine. I think we are in agreement.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jun 7, 2006)

j. d. worthington said:
			
		

> As always, Chris, your points are inarguable. But might I point out....


Of course you might, and quite probably will. 
I only _write _ in third person infallible; I'm actually insecure, timid, introspective, ignorant of all but surface appearances; how come no-one else notices this? 
And, continuing with fantasy, what genre does the growing "Alternate History" block fit into? Or does it depend on the particular work within the subcategory?

Besides, like at least one other here, I came here for an argu… Hmm, a "heated discussion" What use is omniscience if somebody else doesn't know "Absolute Truth" too, and that it's different from yours?


----------



## Thadlerian (Jun 7, 2006)

chrispenycate said:
			
		

> And, continuing with fantasy, what genre does the growing "Alternate History" block fit into? Or does it depend on the particular work within the subcategory?


I like to see Alternate History as one of many primary subcategories of Fantasy, along with Magical Realism and Imaginary Eastern/Central/Alpine European Countries 


> Besides, like at least one other here, I came here for an argu… Hmm, a "heated discussion" What use is omniscience if somebody else doesn't know "Absolute Truth" too, and that it's different from yours?


See my previous post. I consider the typologies absolute, omnirelevant and universal, spoken with a clear and unwavering voice. A work of speculative fiction belongs in one or the other. There can be no hybrids: A work of Science Fiction containing elements of Fantasy, is automatically Fantasy.


----------



## BookStop (Jun 7, 2006)

What about Time Travel?   Most would say it's Sci-Fi, but why?  Is there scientific evidence to support a future zipping through time?

Star Wars?  Some folks say sci-fi, but some are saying fantasy?

Me?  I say both are fantasy.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 7, 2006)

chrispenycate said:
			
		

> I only _write _in third person infallible; I'm actually insecure, timid, introspective, ignorant of all but surface appearances; how come no-one else notices this?




You're shaking up my world, again, Chris. Got to stop doing that, man, got to stop doing that.... 




			
				chrispenycate said:
			
		

> And, continuing with fantasy, what genre does the growing "Alternate History" block fit into? Or does it depend on the particular work within the subcategory?


 
I'd have to say (contrary to some) that it does depend on the entry in the subcategory. And long ago Asimov declared that time travel was essentially fantasy, but had an honored place in sf because of Wells if nothing else, so there it would probably stay, but the science is tenuous at best. And hybrids, kids, are all over the place. It's what keeps literature healthy, like any living, growing thing. Otherwise you end up with stultification and sterility of imagination, and -- _zut! _-- there goes what was once a flourishing branch of storytelling/writing.

But, if you're looking for rigid categorization (something which has proven remarkably slippery with any art form): yes, the above definitions are essentially correct. As long as you don't tend to apply them in reality.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jun 7, 2006)

Have to keep up shaking peoples worlds - it's what I'm _here  _for (and, to a large extent, what Sci-fi's here for) Since I'm not allowed to drop asteroids on Australia, I just drop occasional rocks into the forum.  

Oh, and time travel has a good, solid mathematical basis (doesn't mean it's got anything to do with reality, any mathematician who cared about _that _ would be excommunicated) related to that wormhole question (I started rereading Baxter's "Timelike infinity" after the wormhole thread, but he visualises it quite differently from me) Counter intuitive, but I find so much of modern physics counter intuitive; it must be my intuition that's seized up. So causality is perhaps not the all end and all be, all after.


----------



## steve12553 (Jun 7, 2006)

BookStop said:
			
		

> What about Time Travel? Most would say it's Sci-Fi, but why? Is there scientific evidence to support a future zipping through time?
> 
> Star Wars? Some folks say sci-fi, but some are saying fantasy?
> 
> Me? I say both are fantasy.


 
Time travel depends on the method. If I step into my time machine which is flooded by inverse tachyons causing me to travel faster than the speed of light through another quantum possibility, that's Science Fiction. If a wizard casts a spell which causes me to be transported through time, that's Fantasy. Neither one may be good Science Fiction or good Fantasy but the intention is obvious. 

The first 3 Star Wars movies (parts IV though VI) were Fantasy because of the way they treated the Force. It was mystical and unexplainable. In the latter three (Parts I through III) The Force was treated like a component in the blood that could be explained. Not only did that take away the Fantasy element but it ruined the stories. The Cosmos would have been a better place without the explanations forced on us in those movies.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 7, 2006)

For my money, the cosmos would have been better off without the last three movies, period.


----------



## Alan (Jun 8, 2006)

Hey, what's with the desire to drop asteroids on Australia?

I'm new here, so thought I might jump into this thread for starters. I think what you guys are discussing is (should be) a moot point. There's too much crossover. For example, Star Wars definitely has elements of both Fantasy and Science Fiction, by any of the definitions given so far.

Those terms should be done away with altogether and we should call anything that fits into these categories 'Speculative Fiction'. You can still abbreviate that to SF if you like, so it's like nicotine patches for category addiction - ease yourself down gently.

If there is any element of magic, paranormal, science beyond our capability or just plain weird, then it's speculative.

That's my two cents, anyway!


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 8, 2006)

An argument with no small merit, as far as reading goes. However, for those on the forums who are trying to write first novels, etc., and aiming at particular markets, the differences come in handy for researching what to do and what to avoid in order to have a better chance of publication. For those who are writing because they have stories to tell, or to suit their own inclinations, not so important, if at all. But for those trying to break in with the increasingly difficult job of selling mss., it helps.

(Of course, some of us -- me, for instance -- also tend to be pedants, and _like_ arguing about this sort of thing.)


----------



## steve12553 (Jun 8, 2006)

j. d. worthington said:
			
		

> An argument with no small merit, as far as reading goes. However, for those on the forums who are trying to write first novels, etc., and aiming at particular markets, the differences come in handy for researching what to do and what to avoid in order to have a better chance of publication. For those who are writing because they have stories to tell, or to suit their own inclinations, not so important, if at all. But for those trying to break in with the increasingly difficult job of selling mss., it helps.
> 
> (Of course, some of us -- me, for instance -- also tend to be pedants, and _like_ arguing about this sort of thing.)


 
And there are many very good novels and stories that are definitely Science Fiction or definitely Fantasy and don't cross over.


----------



## creslin_black (Jun 9, 2006)

To me the differences between sic-fi and fantasy literature are at this point almost undistinguishable beyond the generalization that fantasy tends to lend itself well to more traditional settings, i.e. medieval or sometimes even classical, in other words a setting which precedes our own time.  Sci-Fi, in comparison, deals with possibilities in the future.  Of course, such things are extremely mutable.


----------



## Alan (Jun 9, 2006)

The problem is that everything that is argued can be disputed. I guess it's a conundrum without a definitive answer. I call my work Dark Fantasy and people can like it or lump it. But bookshops get stressed if they don't have a dark fantasy section. Then it just ends up in Fantasy or, sometimes, horror. Fantasy I don't mind, but when it ends up in horror, that irks me. It just shows a fundamental lack of understanding.

So what about, for things like Star Wars, Science Fantasy?


----------



## Prefx (Jun 9, 2006)

I think the difference is whatever the website or publisher choses it to be.  I've seen Lord of the Rings and other "duh, fantasies" listed as science fiction on certain websites.

Of course, that's probably not the answer you're probing for.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 9, 2006)

For all intents and purposes, I tend to use "imaginative" or "speculative" fiction in my own descriptions. I've seen too many crossovers, and fantasy actually has a much longer history than what we tend to think of as science fiction; and the two once more seem to be getting closer together in many people's minds. But -- as said before, for the writers who are trying to get published, with the markets as they are, most professional publishers tend to have a certain idea of what one or the other is, and if you try to get it published as one and they perceive it as the other, it's likely to get bounced; and if you have bleedover that confuses (or that they think will confuse) people, then it makes it much harder to find a market, as they don't know how to advertise, which is, realistically, a very big part of professional publication and the sales based on that are a very big part of getting anything else you write accepted. Self-publication doesn't quite have that to contend with (thank goodness), but there's still overcoming readers' perceptions if you want to succeed as a professional writer.

So, for those trying to find where their work fits, the division between science (or at least pseudo-science based), or, in the case of time-travel, things that have a long history of being accepted as sf ideas, have a better chance of flying; fantasy seems to be becoming more and more insular and into the "faux-medieval world" mindset (not for the first time), and if you buck that, you're likely to have trouble selling your work.

Frankly, I dislike the entire division. If it's well-written, I don't care what sort of literature it's called. I've become more and more of the opinion that when we started creating genres in publishing a little over a century ago, we made a huge mistake. Remember, until at least the late 'teens, general fiction magazines would accept stories that we would now consider science fiction, fantasy, horror, supernatural, mystery, etc.; it was only with the creation of the specialized pulps that the true ghettoization of genre literature began and, due to the frequently appalling writing standards -- what professional writer was going to put in a lot of skull-sweat for 1/4-cent a word? -- the majority of genre fiction quickly earned a not-wholly-unmerited disdain; then came the marketing to specific readers, which cut down on the chance of some of the well-written genre fiction making it into the mainstream market even more, and an even further marginalization of such fiction. And it's a simple fact that that marketing strategy is at present the only way for a writer of genre fiction to make it out there save for the odd chance. I don't like it (in fact, I hate it), but it's a brutal fact.

So, unfortunately, the need for some sort of distinction is still very much a realistic fact of our times.


----------



## Frozeninja (Jun 10, 2006)

creslin_black said:
			
		

> To me the differences between sic-fi and fantasy literature are at this point almost undistinguishable beyond the generalization that fantasy tends to lend itself well to more traditional settings, i.e. medieval or sometimes even classical, in other words a setting which precedes our own time.  Sci-Fi, in comparison, deals with possibilities in the future.  Of course, such things are extremely mutable.



That's kind of how I had thought of the divide as well. But there were a few examples (Gene Wolfe's "Book of the New Sun" springs to mind) where I wasn't sure whether I was reading Fantasy or Science Fiction. Though i'm not usually all that bothered which of the two categories (or both) a book falls into as long as I like it.


----------



## creslin_black (Jun 10, 2006)

I have also heard that John C. Wright's new books, i.e. _The Last Guardian of Everness_, etc... are also somewhat hard to distinguish since they deal with mythology _and _alternate dimensions.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Jun 10, 2006)

j. d. worthington said:
			
		

> And it's a simple fact that that marketing strategy is at present the only way for a writer of genre fiction to make it out there save for the odd chance. I don't like it (in fact, I hate it), but it's a brutal fact.
> 
> So, unfortunately, the need for some sort of distinction is still very much a realistic fact of our times.



And, see, that's just exactly what drives me up a wall about the whole thing.  There is this perception that unless a novel is either one thing or another thing, wholly and without question, it can't be successfully marketed and sold.  But, look at _The Time Traveler's Wife_.  Very much fantasy.  But maybe also science fiction, due to the reason why the time traveler can actually time-travel.  But also, at least to me, it felt very much like mainstream, literary fiction.

Also, because I took the time to ask a library cataloguer once, I know that at libraries it is not so much the nature of the book but the disposition of the individual who catalogues books at individual library branches who decides whether a work of fiction gets put in the general collection or in a separate genre section of the shelves.



			
				j. d. worthington said:
			
		

> ...most professional publishers tend to have a certain idea of what one or the other is, and if you try to get it published as one and they perceive it as the other, it's likely to get bounced; and if you have bleedover that confuses (or that they think will confuse) people, then it makes it much harder to find a market, as they don't know how to advertise, which is, realistically, a very big part of professional publication and the sales based on that are a very big part of getting anything else you write accepted.



Since it doesn't seem to bother libraries, I just don't understand why publishers (or at least their marketing departments) are so convinced that people are so stupid as to be easily confused.  I say, advertise fiction as just that.  Fiction.  Period.  I think if they did that, people might actually find their way to a wider diversity of styles and subject matter.

Oh, I know...a lot of people insist that they "only like" science fiction, or fantasy, or mysteries, or westerns, or whatever.  I see it as like vegetables...kids always say, "Well, I don't like broccoli" or "I don't like brussels sprouts" or whatever.  But, often if they just will try them, they'll find out they aren't so bad.  Might not become their favorite, but they won't automatically turn their noses up at them, either.

I also know that it is human nature to classify things, to put them in categories, and sometimes that is a helpful thing.  Makes life easier.  But it also makes life much more dull if it is taken too far, and one of the places where I think it is taken too far is in the publishing dictum that a novel must be this or that and can never be both.

Then again, I've always liked the idea of blurring and blending boundaries, so you can take all this for what it is worth, which likely isn't much.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 10, 2006)

littlemissattitude said:
			
		

> Then again, I've always liked the idea of blurring and blending boundaries, so you can take all this for what it is worth, which likely isn't much.


 
Actually, I think if we heard enough voices on this at the publishing industry offices, they _might_ rethink things. Maybe. (I'm counting you as one of the discontents, Little Miss -- so am I.)

I agree. When I was very young, I was about as close to a sf snob as you could find; but the more I became exposed to other branches on the tree of fiction, the more I found how they're all related. Good storytelling, good writing, etc., aren't restricted to any one or even one set of genres. I've come more and more to feel that the invention of genres has led to stultification in more than one area of fiction over the years, and at times has meant its death.

So, while I recognize the current necessity for such a distinction and urge it here for new writers who are interested in commercial success, as a writer myself I abhor it and would (idealistically) say -- write the stories that are in you and to hell with publishing categories. That way we're likely to get better books with longer lives. (Has anyone noticed that a great number of books in this area have had a short but bright career only to be found in massive numbers on the shelves of secondhand shops, while works in this "genre" published 40, 50, 100 years ago still remain cherished and periodically see reprint? And this was when, at most, these were called "different" stories or "fantastic romances", and the distinction between sf, fantasy, supernatural, etc., simply wasn't even there? Asimov writing a ghost story with Fred Pohl, for instance; and where the heck would an editor of today put Ellison, who certainly doesn't fit any particular category, were he to begin his career now? Maybe this should tell them something.)

(Okay, so I'm a rabble rouser. At least I didn't bring pitchforks and torches.)

Point being, until we can change the publishing industry's mind, for beginning writers who wish to make it commercially, the distinction is unfortunately a necessary one. If we can get them to rethink this, maybe we can do away with the whole bloody mess and simply enjoy some well-written fiction. Period.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 10, 2006)

littlemissattitude said:
			
		

> Then again, I've always liked the idea of blurring and blending boundaries, so you can take all this for what it is worth, which likely isn't much.


 
Actually, I think if we heard enough voices on this at the publishing industry offices, they _might_ rethink things. Maybe. (I'm counting you as one of the discontents, Little Miss -- so am I.)

I agree. When I was very young, I was about as close to a sf snob as you could find; but the more I became exposed to other branches on the tree of fiction, the more I found how they're all related. Good storytelling, good writing, etc., aren't restricted to any one or even one set of genres. I've come more and more to feel that the invention of genres has led to stultification in more than one area of fiction over the years, and at times has meant its death.

So, while I recognize the current necessity for such a distinction and urge it here for new writers who are interested in commercial success, as a writer myself I abhor it and would (idealistically) say -- write the stories that are in you and to hell with publishing categories. That way we're likely to get better books with longer lives. (Has anyone noticed that a great number of books in this area have had a short but bright career only to be found in massive numbers on the shelves of secondhand shops, while works in this "genre" published 40, 50, 100 years ago still remain cherished and periodically see reprint? And this was when, at most, these were called "different" stories or "fantastic romances", and the distinction between sf, fantasy, supernatural, etc., simply wasn't even there? Asimov writing a ghost story with Fred Pohl, for instance; and where the heck would an editor of today put Ellison, who certainly doesn't fit any particular category, were he to begin his career now? Maybe this should tell them something.)

(Okay, so I'm a rabble rouser. At least I didn't bring pitchforks and torches.)

Point being, until we can change the publishing industry's mind, for beginning writers who wish to make it commercially, the distinction is unfortunately a necessary one. If we can get them to rethink this, maybe we can do away with the whole bloody mess and simply enjoy some well-written fiction. Period.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 10, 2006)

littlemissattitude said:
			
		

> Then again, I've always liked the idea of blurring and blending boundaries, so you can take all this for what it is worth, which likely isn't much.


 
Actually, I think if we heard enough voices on this at the publishing industry offices, they _might_ rethink things. Maybe. (I'm counting you as one of the discontents, Little Miss -- so am I.)

I agree. When I was very young, I was about as close to a sf snob as you could find; but the more I became exposed to other branches on the tree of fiction, the more I found how they're all related. Good storytelling, good writing, etc., aren't restricted to any one or even one set of genres. I've come more and more to feel that the invention of genres has led to stultification in more than one area of fiction over the years, and at times has meant its death.

So, while I recognize the current necessity for such a distinction and urge it here for new writers who are interested in commercial success, as a writer myself I abhor it and would (idealistically) say -- write the stories that are in you and to hell with publishing categories. That way we're likely to get better books with longer lives. (Has anyone noticed that a great number of books in this area have had a short but bright career only to be found in massive numbers on the shelves of secondhand shops, while works in this "genre" published 40, 50, 100 years ago still remain cherished and periodically see reprint? And this was when, at most, these were called "different" stories or "fantastic romances", and the distinction between sf, fantasy, supernatural, etc., simply wasn't even there? Asimov writing a ghost story with Fred Pohl, for instance; and where the heck would an editor of today put Ellison, who certainly doesn't fit any particular category, were he to begin his career now? Maybe this should tell them something.)

(Okay, so I'm a rabble rouser. At least I didn't bring pitchforks and torches.)

Point being, until we can change the publishing industry's mind, for beginning writers who wish to make it commercially, the distinction is unfortunately a necessary one. If we can get them to rethink this, maybe we can do away with the whole bloody mess and simply enjoy some well-written fiction. Period.


----------



## tiny99 (Jun 17, 2006)

Science fiction = spaceships
Fantasy = monsters


----------



## tiny99 (Jun 17, 2006)

Science fiction = spaceships

Fantasy = monsters


----------



## steve12553 (Jun 17, 2006)

Marketing aside, sometimes I like fried chicken. Sometimes I like to have cherry pie for desert. But if you serve me a chicken pot pie, that doesn't make the fried chicken or the cherry pie cease to exist. There are clear definitions for the two genre. There are also a lot of novels and stories that blur the boundries. And yes, there are many people and websites and marketing people who try to redefine genre.  I personally prefer to speak English rather some sort of advertising pop slang that changes at somebody's whim.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 17, 2006)

Hmmm. This is strange. I see the repeated posts from when we went into a timeslip last week; but when I look on the listing of new posts, I see one from Steve, which is why I dropped in here -- yet nothing comes up after my entry in triplicate (as if the first one wasn't long enough...) What happened to Steve's? I'd like to hear what he had to say.....

Okay, now it's giving me the following posts. Here we go again....

As for Tiny's precis definition, I like; but I've seen plenty of crossover there, as well. And just to complicate matters, there's always Brian Aldiss' definition of sf: Hubris clobbered by Nemesis....


----------

